Finding Meaning In Meaninglessness

I want to share something and say a few words about a moment from the TV show "Angel" that I thought was rather beautiful and really touched me. Even without knowing what the show was about or the context of the conversation, it's something I think people can appreciate. It goes as follows:

Angel: Well, I guess I kinda worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but I never got it.

Kate: And now you do?

Angel: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

As someone who struggles with, and often rejects, the idea that existence has an inherent meaning, this epiphany that Angel has is quite uplifting for me. The idea that just because it's all meaningless doesn't mean there can't be meaning is a bit of a revelation for me, and makes me a bit more optimistic about existence, even if that meaning is our own subjective meaning that we ourselves assign.

I love the idea that I can define my existence and give my own meaning to things rather than simply resigning myself to depressing nihilism. I like the fact that some sort of meaning can still exist, even though this doesn't change the fact that everything (including what I determine to have meaning) is still meaningless.

Also, I apologize for using the word "meaning" over and over and over and over and over again.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Why House Sucks Now

Remember when House was a good show? That was about four seasons ago, and unfortunately it's been going steadily down hill since then. The only reason I still tune in is because I've invested so much time in the show that I want to see how it ends. That, and Hugh Laurie (and Olivia Wilde). Will they do the show justice, or continue to stink it up until it mercifully dies?

The show's declined so much, I'd say the show's had two jump-the-shark moments: when they got rid of Cameron and when they killed Kutner off. Getting rid of Cameron was a bit more of a subtle shark-jumping moment, but nevertheless important. She was the moral center of the show, the one character who always challenged House's thinking and his methods, and it was great to see her grow into a strong character who eventually stopped letting House walk all over her.

Now we have Amber Tamblyn's character serving as a sort of fill-in for Cameron, and it's so blatantly obvious it's insulting to faithful viewers. And without Cameron, Chase's character has diminished as well. They were excellent foils for one another, given Cameron's unwavering morals and Chase's complete lack thereof. Their relationship was a key part of the soap opera that drove the show in its first few seasons. Now, Chase has nothing and no one to work off of, and as a result his place on the show feels forced, without any depth or meaning. He's there because he's always been there, not because there's a reason for him to be there.

Forman is basically in the same boat as Chase. He's outgrown his original role on the show, as he no longer is beneath House. Forman's matured to where he no longer cares about standing up to House or seeking his approval as a doctor. He's lost the edge that he started out with on the show, and now he too suffers from being there because he's been there from the beginning, not because there's a reason for him to be there from a storytelling standpoint.

Chase and Forman have essentially been replaced by Taub and Thirteen respectively, which is both good and bad. First the good: Thirteen and Taub are both interesting and complex characters and succeed at what Chase and Forman succeeded at doing early on. Now the bad: though it's not their fault, their characters leave Chase and Forman out to dry, basically replacing Chase and Forman while they're still there, and the writers have done nothing to resolve this.

The other major moment was Kutner's suicide towards the end of season five. His death was forced and unnecessary and Kal Penn's exit from the show could have been handled much better. Have House fire him or have Kutner take a job at another hospital and leave the door open for Penn to return. Instead, the writers went for a TV moment and tried to hype the episode as groundbreakingly significant. With Kutner gone, the show lost his optimism and his exuberance that brought energy to the show. Without him, the show has become stale and dull.

Both this season and the last one have have suffered from stagnant and redundant storytelling, character development and drama. Remember all those funny scenes in the clinic? That was one of the best aspects of the show. Remember when the medical mystery was just as significant as the soap opera and was  relevant to the plot not just of the episode but of the show? Now the medical mysteries take a back seat to the characters. Remember when it was never lupus? As dumb as that was, it was much better than what we have now. There were legitimate ethical and moral dilemmas that the show addressed in a smart, non-preaching manner.

Episodes now seem like excuses for the writers to explore various topics such as blogging and open marriages, with the characters speaking for the writers. The writers try to structure episodes as ways to comment and debate these issues, with the characters becoming caricatures of the different perspectives the writers include. This demeans the characters and devalues them, as they no longer fulfill their intended roles. I know it's the job of the writers to manipulate their characters as they see fit, but this format of writing betrays who those characters are.

There's also too much emphasis on the main characters now and very little on the patients. Before, the patients (and many cases, their families) were a vital part of the drama. They were well-written and we could emotionally invest in their struggle. Now? Patient is sick. Diagnosis one. See patient. Diagnosis two. Convince patient to stick with them. Diagnosis three. Apologize and try again. Diagnosis four. At this point the patient isn't anywhere near involved in the drama. Finally a cure.

Early on, the ailments the patients faced reflected the issues concerning the main characters. That was one of the elements that made the show great. Now they're there because it's a supposed to be a medical show and the writers used to have a formula that worked. As a result, there's very little character development among the main cast in what's supposed to be a character drama. Story structure has become unoriginal and much of the dialogue and decision-making by the characters is out of place and painful.

It's only through sheer talent and ability that Hugh Laurie and Robert Sean Leonard have been able to keep House and Wilson from eroding the same was as the other original characters have. They still remain somewhat fresh and interesting, but they too have lost a step, so to speak. Wilson is not as strong a character as he once was, not because he's weakened, but because he hasn't evolved in quite a while.

Wilson's role as House's conscious hasn't budged, and now he's being relegated to the babysitter who's helplessly trying to look out for an out of control kid, a real waste of Wilson's character. That's why the Amber arc was such a great plot development. She took him out of his shell and he began to step out of that role of babysitter. But now he's around because he has to be, because that's the winning formula. Whenever House does something House-like, Wilson has to be there.

Hugh Laurie's talents are also being wasted, as House's character also has declined. It's more evident this season with Thirteen's absence, as she is a good foil for House because she's an enigma for him, and there's nothing House loves more than a mystery. The House-Cuddy storyline hasn't worked for me because it's too unbelievable. Cuddy gave up on House a long time ago and it was clear from the start of the series that she knew it would never work. Yes, the sexual tension was great, but the idea of a lasting relationship was always preposterous.

This leads me to Cuddy, who's really lost her bite over the past few seasons. She no longer has any authority over House, something that was once critical to her character. Her role as Dean of Medicine at Princeton-Plainsboro has been diminished to the point where it's completely irrelevant. House used to either have to figure out ways around Cuddy's roadblocks or figure out how to convince her otherwise. Now, House has complete control over Cuddy and doesn't have to worry about her as an antagonist.

Is there hope for House? I'd like to think so, because it's sad to see what was once a great show go out in such a depressing state. I think there's still a chance it can go out in a blaze of glory, but only if it returns to its roots, and not just the structure. Characters need to be what they were meant to be, not what they've devolved to. The patients and their medical mysteries need to once again become the forefront of the show and mirror the real-life dilemmas of the main characters. And can we please start calling people by their first names? I'm getting sick of all the last names. It worked for a while, but now it's lost its charm.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Reviewing Peter Jackson's Films

Ever since seeing the Lord Of The Rings movies about a decade ago, I've become a huge Peter Jackson fan. I think he's a fantastic director and a wonderful moviemaker, and I made it a priory to see all the movies he's made. Now, with the exception of a made-for-TV movie that only aired in New Zealand, I have seen every movie Peter Jackson directed. So let's go over them, one at a time, from his first film to his latest one.

Bad Taste (1987): In his first full-length film, Jackson tells the story of aliens who invade New Zealand to harvest humans as food, only to come up against a group of men that try to defend the planet. Very low-budget and very campy with tons of ridiculous over-the-top violence and gore, but incredibly entertaining. It can be classified as a black comedy with an absurd sense of humor that is reminiscent of the British comedy style. Also present are directorial trademarks such as sweeping wide shots as well as fast-moving, handheld POV shots. If you like splatter comedies, this is a movie for you.

Meet The Feebles (1989): Think The Muppets, only much darker and perverse. In this movie, all the characters are Muppet-like puppets and are a part of a musical variety act. Another black comedy, there are several topics that are brought up throughout the movie, including sex, sexual perversion, drug dealing and use, the true nature of show business, and violence. On one level, the film is just a dark version of The Muppets, but on another level it critiques the ugliness of humanity, with the depiction of people as animals the most obvious allusion. Definitely not for kids.

Braindead (also known as Dead Alive) (1992): The very definition of splatter comedy. It's a zombie splatstick horror comedy with ludicrous amounts of blood and gore, but it's so campy, low-budget, and unrealistic that it's much funnier than it is gross or disturbing. After a monkey is brought back from Skull Island, it bites the protagonist's mother, turning her into a zombie and triggering a zombie outbreak that our hero Lionel must fight in order to protect his town. It's similar to Evil Dead, only set in (you guessed it) New Zealand and with a lot more zombies and gore (and sadly no Bruce Campbell). One of my favorite Peter Jackson films.

Heavenly Creatures (1994): In his first drama, Jackson does a great job telling the true story of a murder that happened in New Zealand by two teenage girls. The film follows these two girls as they develop a close friendship that eventually begins to worry their parents. The girls cope by creating a fantasy world that they delve further and further into, only making their relationships with their parents worse, until they eventually hatch a murder plot against their parents. It's well acted, well written, well directed and a big departure from the low budget, campy style of the previous films. The movie also features Kate Winslet in her first movie role.

The Frighteners (1996): Another horror comedy, only this time with Michael J. Fox and without the splatstick violence and gore. I think it's one of Jackson's weaker movies, though he's made so many good ones that it's not a great insult. I also only recently realized that it's pretty similar to Ghostbusters, as the movie follows Michael J. Fox as a professional ghosthunter who can see ghosts, only in this movie he has to take on a murderous ghost who is back on the rampage. While it's well made and Michael J. Fox does a great job, it's only ok. Fans of Jeffrey Combs (of Reanimator fame) might enjoy seeing him as one of the movie's antagonists, and R. Lee Ermey also has a cameo as a ghost drill sergeant.

The Lord Of The Rings (2001, 2002, 2003): What is there to say that hasn't already been said about these movies? They should really count as one film in three parts, considering they were filmed at once and put together over a multiyear process. LOTR highlights how well Peter Jackson can tell a story as well as his attention to detail and precision when it comes to putting out a high quality product. Yes, it's a bit dense and not for everyone, but it's a remarkable adaptation and flawless in almost every respect.

King Kong (2005): Jackson had big shoes to fill after completing LOTR, so naturally he decided to tackle King Kong, remaking a movie about a giant ape on a hidden island that is brought back to New York City. Parts of this movie worked, but others didn't. Jack Black's performance was a pleasant surprise, as he stayed serious and avoided the schtick he's known for. But at three hours in length, it was a little too long and indulged CGI a bit too much. Clearly Jackson is devoted to his craft, but King Kong just didn't meet the expectations that LOTR established. In his defense, it's a bit unfair to expect him to outdo LOTR.

The Lovely Bones (2009): This is another favorite of mine. When 14-year-old Susie is murdered by her neighbor, she watches over her family from Heaven as they try to move on from the tragedy while also searching for the killer. As you can imagine, it's not a very happy film, but I found it quite thought-provoking. It's well-acted and once again Jackson does a good job as a director and story teller. There is an emotional core to the movie that Jackson taps into, which is something that is not always present in Jackson's movies, but he does a good job of harnessing that emotion. I also liked how the film depicted the afterlife as a non-denominational, unspecific Heaven that avoids religious nonsense.

What's up next for Peter Jackson? He's supposed to film The Hobbit as a two-part project, and as a huge LOTR fan, I can't wait to see it.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Wisconsin

I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's been going on in Wisconsin these past few weeks, as I'm sure a lot of people are. On the one hand, the Republican-controlled state government wants to pass legislation, which it is perfectly allowed to do, and on the other hand you have really really really really really unhappy liberals.

There are a couple of different ways of looking at the situation, and what should or should not be done. First of all, it is critical to understand that the Wisconsin state government has the authority to create, pass, and sign into law legislation that takes away the collective bargaining rights of state employees. Other states have already done this without uproar that comes anywhere near as close as this.

By passing this legislation, Wisconsin Republicans say that it will help reduce their hundred-plus million dollar deficit. If that is indeed the case, then some praise should be made for the bill being fiscally-responsible. But there are bigger issues surrounding Wisconsin's deficit and the reasoning behind trying to pass this bill.

Scott Walker, the state's Republican governor, harbors a lot of responsibility for the state's financial crisis. He proposed $140 million in tax cuts be handed out and then swiftly turned around to claim that the state had a $140 million budget shortfall. Now we have an anti-union bill that has been grabbing headlines for weeks and protests that don't look like they're anywhere near to ending.

It also came to light that the major motivation behind this bill was not fiscal motivation, but political motivation. By passing this bill, it makes it harder for Wisconsin unions to organize and donate money to political candidates and campaigns, and because most unions donate to Democrats, it weakens the party's ability to raise political funds.

But here's the catch: it's part of the political process and there's nothing Democrats can do about it. Running away to Illinois only postponed the inevitable, and I hope this tactic doesn't become commonplace. Because guess what'll likely happen in the next election? Democrat support will probably rise and Wisconsin will find itself with a majority-Democrat government. Then the damage control can begin.

This is how politics works, and it's too bad that people in Wisconsin won't move on and accept that. When one side is in power it does everything it possibly can with the time it has to get the things it wants done. Then, inevitably, the other side winds up in power and the same thing happens. We saw with the first two years of Obama's presidency and we're seeing it now with Wisconsin.

It's a constant tug of war, and it's always been like that. Only now, thanks to growth in media coverage, widespread communication, and the Internet, we are seeing politics on a stage that it's never been on before. The highly-partisan nature of political discourse we now is merely a natural part of this evolution.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Oh Look, Another Music Post

I think it's funny how I can look back over the past few years and label periods of time by what specific music I was listening to. I can track the different phases I went through, the "evolution" of my music tastes, and what music I associate with certain periods of my life. It's like taking a trip down memory lane, except this trip is a musical journey.

Another beautiful thing about music is all the nostalgia that it can build. There's something about growing up listening to an album, then not hearing it for a good five to ten years, and then listening to it again. Memories and emotions from when I was a child all come rushing back in an experience that's hard to describe. It's almost as if I can recapture the moments from my youth I had while listening to the music getting to and relive them as I play the music again now.

There are a few albums like this that trigger a sort of transcendent listening experience for me. I'll stick to two right now. The first would be Greatest Hits by Bruce Springsteen, a compilation album that I can easily say is the album that defined my childhood. While I was too young to either discover or appreciate his studio albums, this album was a constant fixture growing up. I knew the track listing forwards and backwards and for the longest time the only Springsteen songs I knew were the ones on that CD, played in that specific order.

Now when I listen to the album, I'm brought back to all the times it was played while I was a kid. I remember my old apartment, long car rides while listening to it on tape, hating "The River" because it was slow and boring (except the "Daddy Don" line because it sounded like "Daddy John," and my father's name is John), loving "Brilliant Disguise" and about a billion other things. Also, I just can't explain the feeling I get when one song ends and the next one begins. The transition feels "right," as in that's the way things are supposed to be, all things are supposed to be.

Another album is With The Beatles. Surely one of my mother's favorites, when I listen to it now I'm brought back to an earlier time in my life. But there is a slight difference between this album and the one mentioned above. With The Beatles has a bit less of a hold on my past. It's not a slight against the album, it just was not as influential. I still get strong feelings of nostalgia when I play it, but the memories and emotions are a little fuzzier and harder to pinpoint specifics. But there is still that almost instinctive sense that the music is "right" in a way that words can't describe.

Fast forward a few years to high school and I've discovered the rest of Bruce Springsteen's repertoire, Warren Zevon, U2 and Metallica. Most of my high school musical timeline would be chunks of these four, shifting every so often between them. Maybe one month I was in a very Metallica-minded mood and the next month I had a craving for some Zevon. It was only after graduating high school did I start to expand my musical library.

The first few months of my freshman year in college were made up of a lot of metal: Metallica, Dragonforce, Rob Zombie, Disturbed and Motorhead. I was having a little trouble adjusting to college life so I guess leaning towards loud and aggressive music was a way to let my frustrations come out. By the time winter break rolled around I was so worn out with metal I reversed course and focus elsewhere.

It was also during spring that I started to listen to Led Zeppelin with earnest and discovered proto-punk bands MC5, The Stooges and the New York Dolls. I consider Led Zeppelin one of the greatest bands ever and I consider the proto-punk movement of the late '60s/early '70s one of the pinnacle movements in rock history. These bands would inevitably lead to discovering acts such as the Velvet Underground and Big Star. It was these classic rock bands from the late '60s and early '70s that have come to define my current taste in music.

I remember listening to 10,000 Maniacs and Rage Against The Machine a lot over spring break, and as I had visited a friend via Greyhound bus over break, they still remind me a bit of the feelings one associates with traveling. Music and traveling have a unique connection with me. I don't know if it's the same with other people, but for me there are certain artists that I can't help but associate with the road. It's something with their music that connects it with long road trips and are meant to be played while traveling.

This past fall could be summed up with a handful of albums, as I have had a much better sophomore year. But I would have to go with A Good Day by Priscilla Ahn as the album to describe the past fall. It's a soft and quiet acoustic album that has elements of folk and singer/songwriter that I've come to enjoy for its calming effect it has on me. It's a nice, relaxing break from all the rock I listen to. A Good Day reminds me of walking through the Student Building after a long day of classes and walking outside knowing that the day was over and I managed to survive. That's the memory I get when I listen to it now, surviving the daily grind of life.

And this semester? Well this semester has been a lot of The Beatles, some Pink Floyd, Van Morrison, Styx and the Tron: Legacy soundtrack courtesy of Daft Punk. It'll be interesting to see what kind of mark all this music will make. Will one of these have the same hold on me that Springsteen's Greatest Hits album does? Will I still be able to pinpoint exactly what I was listening to, when, and why?

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

What Your Favorite Beatle Says About You

Earlier this week, I spent most of Monday and Tuesday listening to as much Beatles music as I possibly could in a 48 hour time span. Why? Because I was mentally exhausted from school and lost all will to care about anything at all, except for Beatles music. As it turns out, Beatles music is quite therapeutic. And as I was walking back to my dorm after running out to CVS to buy floss (I lead an exciting life, I had to battle dragons and rhinoceroses), I began thinking about what a person's favorite Beatle says about them. So without further adieu:

John Lennon – The obvious choice. If John is your favorite, it's probably because you realize he's a genius and extremely talented. Either that or you love drugs, like John did, and Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds has nothing to do with a Lucy in the sky with her diamonds. You're probably also a bit of a hippie and hate The Catcher In The Rye. John has that deep and profound quality to him where you know he's aware of his greatness but he's not going to rub it in and act pretentious because of it. He's just a dude who likes music, drugs and Yoko Ono. He's also got the rebellious nature that you can identify with, thanks to his anti-religious stances and his views on peace that scared the US government enough to look into deporting him. He's my favorite with George in a close second.

Paul McCartney – If Paul's your favorite Beatle, it's probably because you like love songs. Or the ending of Abbey Road. Or maybe you have a strange fascination with bass guitar. But it's probably the love songs. In my (relatively pointless) opinion, there's really no good reason to choose Paul over John. Paul's just a lesser John (let the flame wars commence!). The one exception, perhaps, is Let It Be. It's one of the best songs ever and one of my favorite songs by any artist. So he'll get a pass when it comes to that (and let's not forget George's guitar solo, a vital component of the song). Or maybe Paul's your favorite because you're too arrogant to pick John and want be different. Wrong, but different.

George Harrison – My mom's favorite. If you, like my mom (this is why punctuation is important), also consider George the number one Beatle, that shows you have good tastes. He only gets a couple opportunities per album to shine and if you're not careful you'll miss him. Putting him first also tells me you're not easily impressed by all those Lennon/McCartney credits on each album. You might appreciate George's guitar-playing as well. Dude knows how to make a guitar sing. Or you really love the underdog, because that's really what George is, the underdog. You have to really be devoted in order for him to be your favorite, considering he rarely has more than two of his own songs per album. So if you like George, you're probably also a stalker. But in your defense, there's something in the way he moves.

Ringo Starr – The lazy choice. Everyone who doesn't care enough to think critically about who their favorite Beatle is, or is too pretentious to pick either John, Paul or George, picks Ringo. Or maybe he's your favorite because he has a funny name. Ringo. Because the best way to measure a person is by their name. Perhaps you really really really like Yellow Submarine or Octopus's Garden. Or percussion. Or the Help! movie. Or maybe you just want to be different and pick the less appreciated one. Hipster.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy