The Day Joey Potter Met Maverick

So I find out last night that the future Mrs. Victor (Katie Holmes to the rest of you) is now dating megastar Tom Cruise. My friend, a Tom Cruise worshiping disciple, called me last night very distressed about the news. Naturally, I have to be distressed too. I mean, even though I’m taller than Tom Cruise, what are the odds that Katie would date me once she’s been with him? Not good, obviously.

So now I have to find a way to steal Katie from Tom. I mean, sure, he’s one of the most bankable, powerful, talented actors in Hollywood–but I’m the lead singer of Lochner’s Ghost. And might I remind her that she’s about the same age as Kirsten Dunst. Think about how young Kirsten was in INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE and you realize what I’m getting at.

I realize how good this will be for Katie’s career (after all, look what it did for Nicole Kidman). I mean, just having her name attached to Cruise’s will make her more bankable. My parents (who I think do a fine job of representing the Average American) had no idea who Penelope Cruz was until she gave some ass to Tom. Suddenly, Katie Holmes will be a known name in middle America. I guarantee that if Katie Holmes is competing with Claire Danes for any roles, Katie gets the role now.

How will this affect Tom’s career? It won’t. He’s Teflon. He’s too big–nothing short of child molestation could derail his career (big shout out to Michael Jackson!). The more important question is how will this affect me?

Well, I’m taking it hard, but I’ll manage. The 8x10 of Katie no longer resides on my nightstand. I refuse to buy the Dawson’s Creek dvds (though I bet Tom’s kids have them... eeww). I will not see First Daughter. However, I still love you, Katie, and I’ll be there waiting with open arms when Tom dumps you for Dakota Fanning...

Snapple Expiration Date

Does anybody know if Snapple ever goes bad? I tried the new Snapple Banana flavoured drink (which leaves a lot to be desired, but I’m a sucker for banana-flavoured things so I had to try it), and after I finished it I noticed there was a contest on it that expired November 2004. That was like six months ago. Am I gonna die now, having drank old Snapple? What a stupid way to go...

It's 3 PM, I Must Be Crazy

How the hell does the new Rob Thomas cd sell out at Target? Who the hell besides me is buying this thing?

Happy Travels

Two good friends of mine, Jen and Ande, are going away to traipse around the world for several months, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves come July 4th. I’d like to bid them a fond farewell and a safe journey, and I look forward to their return.

I’ll also take this opportunity to pimp their blogs again, as they bear repeating:

http://soynoodles.blogspot.com/
and
http://thatssopads.blogspot.com

The Pads blog may not get a lot of updating for a while due to the trip, but the Soy Noodles site should get frequent new content, as the girls plan on using the blog to document their trip. They take great photos, so it’ll be a fun way for the rest of us travel-challenged folk to live vicariously through them.

Oh, and they encourage comments on their blog, too. Unless you’re a Republican.

Sideways

I watched Sideways with a couple of friends last night. I think it lived up to some of the hype, though not all of it, perhaps. I agree that Paul Giamatti was wrongly denied an Oscar nomination, and that Lowell (a.k.a. Thomas Hayden Church) rightfully deserved his. I feel that Virginia Madsen was overrated in the film–not that she was bad in the movie, but I didn’t feel she had all that much of a role. At the very least, I didn’t feel the role warranted Oscar recognition. Still, perhaps that’s just a comment on the sorry state of women’s roles in Hollywood right now...

We watched the film while drinking a cheap yet tasty pinot, which seemed quite appropriate. I know next to nothing about wine, and unlike many others, have not been inspired to learn about wine by this film. I am, however, inspired to keep writing after watching this film–partly because it’s a very well-written film, and partly because Giamatti’s character is a writer in the film. He’s not a successful writer, but his writing helps him get the chick, so...

Guess Who

So I had a few hours to kill after work and I went to the movies. Alas, the only thing playing at the time I got there was Guess Who, a modern-day take on the classic Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner. Let me just say this: Ashton Kutcher is no Sidney Poitier.

The highest compliment I can muster for this film is that I didn’t want to die while watching it. That said, it’s still predictable and often dull. A lot of the jokes fall flat, and there are no real surprises here (and that holds true regarding Ashton’s acting also). There are a couple of amusing moments–most notably the scene where Ashton’s character gets roped into telling black jokes at the dinner table (though a lot of the humour came from the actual jokes, most of which I’d actually never heard before–take that as you will). The ending, however, is unforgivably treacly.

I paid $8 to see this (assuming I’d also get to see another flick in a two-fer, but that didn’t work out...), and I’d implore you to wait until you catch this on cable (or until some unsuspecting friend of yours rents/buys the dvd).

Satan

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Kevin Spacey says this in The Usual Suspects. It got me thinking about the existence of the Devil. We live in a culture where the existence of God gets routinely questioned, and yet the existence of Satan becomes an afterthought. It’s widely assumed that if God exists, then naturally the Devil does too. I would contend that this isn’t so. Indeed, I propose to you that the Devil, as he’s commonly considered, does not really exist. The horned, demonic, pitchfork-wielding Satan isn’t real. Satan is merely an idea, a concept that represents the unknown or the forbidden.

I’ll show this to you in three ways. First, I’ll illustrate how the origin of Satan as told in the Bible (and Paradise Lost) doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Second, I’ll explain how Satan has been used for years as a religious scapegoat. Third, I’ll propose that Satan merely exists as a conceptual counterpoint to God, providing the foundation for Judeo-Christian religion.

In the beginning, Satan (then called Lucifer) was God’s favourite angel. He was the most high, the most beautiful, the most exalted of the heavenly host, but for Lucifer it wasn’t enough. He decided to attempt to overthrow God, and take over heaven for himself and his followers. As the story goes, Satan’s army was defeated and cast into hell. Satan became the fallen, the serpent, the father of lies, the prince of darkness. He became the Devil.

First, we are asked to accept that God can have a favourite angel, thus setting a precedent for jealousy and envy. This precedent gets confirmed when Lucifer is described as being envious of God’s authority. Then we are asked to believe that an angel actually believed he could overpower God, and that he had the gall to try. Naturally, God quashes the uprising—after all, God is described in the Bible as being all-knowing and all-powerful.

Couldn’t we assume that an angel would know this? Does it make any sense at all for an angel to think he could actually beat God? Why would Lucifer try to overtake God, if he knew he would lose?

I don’t know. The truth is, none of it makes any sense. If you accept the Bible’s explanation of God’s omnipotence, then the only reason Satan rebels is because it’s all part of God’s plan. The existence of hell, of evil, depends on the existence of a fallen angel, and Satan becomes that angel. The idea of the conniving, lying, treacherous Devil doesn’t hold up under this reasoning. Satan becomes merely a deluded pawn, believing he has real power, real will, when actually he’s doing exactly what’s expected of him.

Based on this idea, Satan isn’t really responsible for his actions. I find this ironic, since my second point is that Satan often gets used as the scapegoat for religious believers. Everything—all the evil, all the sin—gets blamed on Satan. It’s never simply the will of a human being to do wrong; Satan is always tempting him.

I discussed Satan’s fall from heaven. What follows next is the Garden of Eden. Satan, the tempter, convinces Eve to eat the apple, thereby initiating Original Sin. Think about that for a second: Satan is responsible for all sin. Naturally, what follows from this is that people are not responsible. Sure, churches will teach us to take responsibility for what we do, to confess our sins, to repent—but the idea is always that there is an external pressure forcing us to do evil, tempting us, and that we need the strength of the Church to ward off this pressure. Without the Church, we are vulnerable to Satan’s temptations, to his ability to lead us into evil.

Why would Satan try to tempt humanity to do evil? Why coax a person to sin? What does Satan have to gain from such attempts? What—he is so incensed over being expelled from heaven, and this is his only way to exact his revenge? Please. The truth is, Satan doesn’t make any of us do anything. We do it.

Satan has become this easy out, a way for people to shirk responsibility for their actions. The whole reason that humanity is supposed to be unique, to be special, is that we’re supposedly blessed with free will—the ability to choose to do right or wrong. The whole idea of free will is undermined by the idea of Satan causing us to sin.

This brings me to my third point—Satan is necessary as a counterpart to God. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in order for humanity to have free will, a bona fide choice must be offered. It must be God or something else. That something else is Satan. Without Satan, the choice becomes God or nothing, which is no choice at all. Satan is necessary to provide an alternative to God.

Think about it: If I ask you if you’re having a good day, you can say yes because you also have a concept of what a bad day is. Without a concept for bad, there is no concept for good. God wouldn’t be good without Satan. God would just be. The existence of Satan defines God as the good guy, by having Satan represent the bad.

In this way, Satan becomes merely a symbol of something greater, something less defined. It doesn’t matter if Satan is the physical embodiment of the angel Lucifer after his fall from heaven. It doesn’t matter if Satan is the anthropomorphic being with horns and a tail that so often gets portrayed by the Church or popular culture. All that matters is that Satan represents Not God. The Pagans would tell you that Satan is simply a bastardization of the their god by the Christians. Satanists would tell you that Satan is just a term for the dark forces of nature unexplained or unadopted by religion or science. I believe that Satan represents the Other, the unknown, mystery. He’s the boogeyman, the vague threat just outside the window, just around the corner, threatening us, forcing us to seek the solace and safety of faith. Satan, simply put, is Fear.

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” I propose to you that the greatest trick ever pulled by convincing you that he ever did.

Horoscope

Ever get the feeling that your horoscope is lying to you?

“Something you thought was a fantasy is suddenly real. This is what you've waited for.”

Bullshit. I happen to know for a fact this isn’t true.

Bad enough for friends to lie to you, but when your horoscope starts lying, who can you trust?

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

David Bowie once sang, “Time may change me, but I can’t trace time.” Well, time has definitely changed Dodger Stadium. We went there yesterday for the final exhibition game of spring training, against the “Los Angeles” Angeles of Anaheim. The changes to the renovated stadium are immediately noticeable. In fact, when I saw the stadium on television Saturday I didn’t even recognize it. It was even more interesting to go see the changes in person.

First, there are tons more ads. I thought there were too many ads last year. I guess I didn’t know what I was talking about. The place is littered with them. Gone are the cool images of Dodgers from the past on the outfield walls, replaced by ads for Ameriquest and Albertsons and others.

Then there are the new seats. They cut into the foul territory quite a bit, and seem really close to the actual playing field. If I had tickets in these seats I’d probably love them, but being one level above them I can’t say I have an opinion either way. However, they seem to be affecting the right fielder’s ability to field the ball (or maybe he just sucks).

The dugouts have been moved in to accommodate the new seats. They’ve also put safety railings in front of the dugouts, which is a very good thing (though it looks weird to me). The stupid rubber warning track from last year has been re-replaced with natural a dirt warning track, an aesthetically pleasing and practical decision.. Also, it looks like the field level seats have been upgraded, though they haven’t gotten to our seats in the loge level yet so I must reserve judgment.

The neatest renovation is the new electronic scoreboard/screen that runs along the edge of the first tier of the stadium. It’s very cool, though I don’t think they’re using it to its full potential yet (it mostly shows ads).

Overall, I give the new upgrades a B, maybe a B+ (we’ll see how those new seats affect play before we give our final grade).

Sin City

I saw Sin City yesterday, and it completely lived up to my expectations. I had high hopes, too, as I’m a big fan of the Frank Miller comics. As widely reported, Robert Rodriguez’s film stays incredibly true to the source material—not just in terms of plot and dialogue, but also in terms of look. The movie is virtually a shot-for-shot remake of the graphic novels, and the novels are quite graphic.

I think the film gets away with a lot of the violence because of the black-and-white (with occasional splashes of colour) look of the film and the cartoonish over-the-top scenarious in which the violence occurs. This film is easily as violent and hardcore as Pulp Fiction, but the violence in Pulp seemed so much more real. Still, this isn’t a movie for the faint of heart. With numerous decapitations and amputations (not to mention cannibalism), there’s plenty to keep the squeamish wriggling.

The performances were satisfactory across the board—it’s pulpy, hard-boiled noir dialogue, so it’s a feat merely to make it come off as natural and not corny. Bruce Willis shines as a wrongfully-disgraced cop trying to save a little girl from a violent pedophile. Clive Owen does cool aloofness to a tee. Most of the women aren’t given much more to do than look hot, but they do that well. I even liked Josh Hartnett in this film, and I hate Hartnett. But it’s Mickey Rourke who really shines, playing a homicidal-yet-noble brute named Marv. It’s Mickey’s best role in years by far, and anyone who knows me knows how thrilled I am to see Mickey return to form as a captivating, eminently watchable star (despite his grotesque visage in this film).

This film won’t be for everybody. The violence will make it hard to swallow for some, while others won’t buy into the neo-noir storylines and dialogue. My guess is that the wholly unique visual look will be a turnoff to many mainstream moviegoers. It’s something that can only be fully appreciated when having read the comics.