Chariots of Fire

          Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and a refreshing religious perspective. Also, the two main characters, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams have opposite stances when it comes to their motivation, competitiveness, faith, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. This enhances the story and helps make the story world changing.

          Chariots of Fire is a movie with one of the most inspiring Christian world views. It won 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Writing, and was nominated for 3 more. In 2006, The American Film Institute placed Chariots of Fire in a list of the top 100 most inspiring films of all time called AFI’s 100 Years...100 Cheers. This goes to show that the film has had a major cultural impact and has received high praise. Very few movies that have strong Christian themes make such an impact on the world. Because of its strong Christian themes, Christian websites highly recommend Chariots of Fire to teens and adults.

          While the story of Chariots of Fire is incredibly inspirational, it also provides the audience with a healthy moral compass. Eric Liddell, a Scottish missionary and runner, receives one of the highest honors an athlete can achieve: a chance to participate in the Olympics. However, Eric finds out that he must race on a Sunday which contradicts his beliefs in keeping the Sabbath holy. Even though he may never get this chance again, Eric does not compromise his values for his personal desires. He chooses not to compete and receives a lot of criticism for it. Members of the English government try to persuade him otherwise, but Eric Liddell says, “God made countries, God makes kings, and the rules by which they govern. And those rules say that the Sabbath is His. And I for one intend to keep it that way.”

 Eric’s beliefs and motives are pure which makes him the perfect moral compass for the film. 

          Not only does Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire provide the audience with a healthy moral compass, but he also has a unique religious perspective. Eric is an extremely committed Christian. He served as a missionary in China but also serves God through his running. He doesn’t think that God will make him faster and be able to win, but wants to praise God through his actions. One of the best moments in the film is when Eric Liddell says, “I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure.” This shows that Eric runs for God because God is the one who gave him the gift of running fast. Eric’s dedication to his faith is tested when he has to compete on a Sunday. Instead of thinking of himself on the Sabbath, he honors God and does not compete.

          Liddell and Abrahams are both incredibly motivated individuals. However, they are motivated for different reasons. Liddell runs for God as an act of worship because God made him fast. Liddell feels that he would be wasting a gift that God has given him if he did not run. On the other hand, Abrahams runs to win and to fit into Anglo-Saxon society. As a Jew, Abrahams feels persecuted and shamed by the world. In order to fit in with society, he must win his races. This begins when he attempts to beat a sprinting record at Cambridge. After he succeeds, he feels like he fits into society. Winning becomes everything to Abrahams. Eventually he says, “If I can’t win, I won’t run,” which perfect shows the motivation of Abrahams.

          Along with their motivations, Liddell and Abrahams are competitive in different ways. Liddell is a good sport while Abrahams will do anything to win. Before each race, Eric Liddell walks up to each of his opponents and shakes their hands. He wants everyone to run their bests and to be fair. Later on, Eric is pushed down and out of the race. Instead of easily giving up, Liddell gets back up, perseveres and continues racing. A similar instance happens in the film Cool Runnings. In the end of Cool Runnings, the Jamaican bobsled team crashes at the bottom of the bobsled run. Slowly, the team crawls out of their bobsled and carries it across the finish line as an act of perseverance, determination, and good sportsmanship. While Abrahams is not a bad sport, he is not a good sport either. After Liddell beats him for the first time, Abrahams is terrified of losing. He focuses all of his energy on how he can beat Eric Liddell and fails to consider that maybe Liddell is a better athlete than him. 

          The faiths of the two main competitors are very interesting and unique. Abrahams is Jew who views running as a weapon against his past and his faith. He places his faith not within Judaism but within his own talents. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Eric Liddell. Liddell is a dedicated Christian who stands up for his beliefs, will not back down, and is not embarrassed of his views. Unlike Abrahams, Eric is at peace and in harmony with who he is. At one point in Chariots of Fire, the Prince of Wales tries to convince and reason with Eric to compete on a Sunday, but Eric refuses. A similar occurrence happens in the movie 300. In 300, King Leonidas is reasoned with by King Xerxes to stop fighting and pledge allegiance to Xerxes. Even when he is offered wealth and power beyond all measure, King Leonidas refuses and stands for his beliefs. The refusal of a higher authority proves that Eric Liddell’s faith means a lot to him and is extremely strong.

          Eric “The Flying Scotsman” Liddell is very proud of is heritage. As an Olympic athlete and gold medal winner, Eric has a sense of pride for his country that few can relate to. While Olympians represent themselves, they also represent their country. Scotland chose both Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams to compete for them in the 1924 Olympics. After Liddell refused to race on a Sunday, the Prince of Wales questioned Liddell’s allegiances to England and Scotland. Liddell responded perfectly and said that God comes before his country and not the other way around. On the other hand, Harold Abrahams has very little racial pride. Abrahams is a Jew who wants to hide his heritage by competing and winning races in the Olympics. Embarrassed of who he is, Abrahams races to victory, hoping people will overlook his heritage and consider him normal. Because of this, Harold Abrahams is a very bad example of racial pride.

          When talking about guileless sincerity, Eric Liddell is the most genuine person in Chariots of Fire. Eric does not change anything about himself in order to fit in with society. He stands up for his beliefs and truly cares for others. This is also shown in the scene when he shakes his opponents hands. On the other hand, Abrahams is exactly opposite Liddell. Abrahams wants to change his heritage by winning medals and races. He is running in order to be someone else while Liddell runs in order to be himself.

          Chariots of Fire is one of the few Christian themed movies that has become a major success in the secular world. People everywhere know of Eric Liddell and his dedication to his beliefs. Chariots of Fire provides the world with an inspiring Christian world view, a healthy moral compass, and an amazing religious perspective. Furthermore, Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams are two characters worth examining because of their motivations, competitiveness, faiths, racial pride, and guileless sincerity. It is for these reasons that Chariots of Fire is one of the greatest and most inspiring movies of all time.

Casablanca

          Over the course of history, films have always had mixed reviews. However, I think I have found one movie that is the exception: Casablanca. I have scoured the internet for negative reviews of this movie and came up almost completely empty handed. Almost everyone views Casablanca as one of the best films of all time. After all, it is ranked #3 on AFI’s 100 Years... 100 Movies - 10th Anniversary Edition list. I am now taking on the impossible task of arguing why Casablanca should not be regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time.

          In summary, Casablanca is about a man named Rick (Humphrey Bogart) who runs a popular gin joint in Casablanca, Morocco during World War II. One day, a former lover of his, Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) shows up in his bar with her husband Victor (Paul Henreid). The couple asks Rick to provide them with safe passage from Nazi controlled Europe to America. Rick must decide if he wants to help the couple escape, attempt to rekindle his relationship with his old lover, or let the couple die in Casablanca.

          Overall, the plot of the film is mediocre. Because Casablanca was created in another era, the style of writing, acting, and directing was completely different from today. The writing is very dialogue heavy and very boring. Aaron Sorkin, writer of The Newsroom, Moneyball, The Social Network, The West Wing, and A Few Good Men, writes extremely dialogue heavy screenplays, but he manages to make them fast paced and interesting. 

          One of the most important features in creating a successful drama is making the audience care about the characters. Blake Snyder, author of the book “Save The Cat!,” says, “...liking the person we go on a journey with is the single most important element in drawing us into the story.” One way to do this is through a “save the cat” scene. Snyder says, “It’s the scene where we meet the hero and the hero does something -- like saving a cat -- that defines who he is and makes us, the audience, like him.”

          One of my biggest problems with Casablanca is that I feel absolutely no emotional connection to Rick. There is no moment in the film where I feel like rooting for him. Rick has a broken heart over a girl, but I am unable to sympathize with his emotions because the relationship between the character and the audience never began. Casablanca had the chance to fix this problem early on in the movie, but the “save the cat” scene happened about half way into the film. By not including a “save the cat” scene early on, the movie failed to emotionally connect the characters with the audience.

          For example, a young couple is trying to acquire visa’s to leave Casablanca, but they have run out of money. They go to Rick for help who tells them to place all of their chips on the roulette table on 22 black. The croupier hears Rick say this, and lets the couple win twice in a row. This simple scene shows that Rick truly has compassion for others. If this scene happened within the first few minutes of Casablanca I may have felt more connected to Rick and thus enjoyed the movie more.

          Casablanca has been said to be perfectly cast, but I couldn’t disagree more. Bogart and Bergman play their parts adequately, but I find it hard to enjoy watching Bogart’s acting. Bogart felt stiff when playing Rick; his lines seemed a little forced, and his performance felt fake. Casting great actors such as Ronald Reagan (who was almost casted) or Jimmy Stewart could have fixed this problem.

          Along with mediocre acting comes mediocre directing. Casablanca’s director, Michael Curtiz has been criticized for only focusing on the visual aspect of a film, while overlooking the story and characters. Aljean Harmetz has quoted Curtiz saying, "Who cares about character? I make it go so fast nobody notices," in Harmetz’s book, Round Up The Usual Suspects: The Making of “Casablanca”. This clearly shows that Michael Curtiz was an ignorant, amateur director. On the other hand, director Howard Hawks perfectly described his job when he said, “I'm a storyteller, that's the chief function of a director. And they're moving pictures, let's make 'em move!”

          The only positive thing that Casablanca has, is its cultural relevance. Released in the middle of World War II, the film was able to connect with many audiences. If the film were released a few years earlier or later, I am certain that its overall success would have been poor. During this period of time, the German Expressionism Era, Siegfried Kracauer and mise-en-scene became more popular. Kracauer wrote the book, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, which helped create the foundation of modern film criticism. Also, Casablanca used many examples of film-noir which enhanced many of the emotions in the film, making it more popular. Mise-en-scene, or “what is in the frame,” became more popular with this film. The placement of the lights, actors, and objects in the film made it more dramatic along with creating more of an artistic atmosphere.

          For the most part, Casablanca is loved by everyone and is not criticized for any reason. However, the writing, acting, and directing are mediocre at best and the film is incredibly outdated. In the future, I hope I will learn to appreciate Casablanca, despite my grievances toward the film.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 2 "Sunshine & Frosty Swirl"

          Well episode two starts directly after the conclusion of episode one where Dexter tells Deb he is a serial killer. Dexter follows Deb after she runs from his apartment to vomit in the street. What a perfect reaction. I first noticed that once they started talking to each other, Deb was disgusted by Dexter. She was absolutely horrified that her father taught her adoptive brother how to kill people. This scene must have taken forever to write because it is absolutely flawless. Deb punching Dexter was the perfect reaction to Dexter’s sassy, “well what are you going to do now,” question. It was definitely something Deborah would do.

          I was pleasantly surprised when Deb brought up the topic of rehab. I didn’t expect the episode to head in this direction to happen which made it even more enjoyable. While Harry tried to channel Dexter’s killing toward evil people, Deb is trying to stop it all together. This is perfectly seen when Deb asks Dexter, “If you can channel your urges, why can’t you control them?” We have seen Dexter attempt to stop killing in the past, but he didn’t try hard enough. Now that he has Deb to keep him accountable, maybe he’ll succeed. However, forcing Dexter to enter Deb’s rehab could backfire. Addicts need to enter rehab for themselves otherwise its a lot harder to stay clean. 

          What probably stuck out to me the most was when Deb said she still loved Dexter. She is a Lieutenant at Miami Metro Homicide that loves her serial killer brother. Can you think of anything more genuine and ironic? Sibling love: nothing is better.

          LaGuerta is getting dangerously close to finding out that Travis was murdered. It seems like this happens almost every season. I’m starting to wish that LaGuerta was killed in season one like in the books.

          Deb seems to be replacing Harry and his teachings. The “Code of Deb” has already started with the first two rules: be honest and tell Deb when the Dark Passenger is tempting him.

          I’m not 100% sure what Louis’ role is in the show but he is definitely creepy. I’m pretty sure he knows Dexter’s secret and he’s not afraid of him. Maybe because he’s a serial killer too! Anyway, I hope that LaGuerta will catch onto Dexter but Louis will get caught instead. Its basically the exact same situation that Doakes was in.

          Dexter has taken it upon himself to stop Louis. Instead, he should be honest with Deb and Deb will stop him. Then all of his bases will be covered. However, this obviously wont happen because its the easy way out and it won’t thrilling.

          Well Dexter obviously didn’t choose to go that route after he drugged his sister. Not a smart move dude. Somehow, you managed to not kill Louis and called your drugged up sister for help. I’ve got to say I’m proud. I’m rarely (if ever) proud of Dexter but I am excited that I am. I would say that Dexter is changing but in reality, I highly doubt it. Throughout the whole show, Dexter has barely changed. The code is the same, his method and routines are the same, the only thing that changed was in season four when he realized he could have a family and be a serial killer. Well that ended well didn’t it? I thought Dexter might become religious in season six, but Brother Sam was killed off halfway into the season and things went back to normal. It is a little late to see a radical change in Dexter, but I am completely open to the idea.

          For the first time, we see Ray Stevenson as the main antagonist. He’s charming, business oriented, charismatic, a great actor (unlike Colin Hanks), and a brutal killer. I can’t wait to see where his character goes and how he becomes more evil.

          Overall, Randall the prisoner seemed to hold a lot of the core beliefs and values of this episode. Dexter thought Randall was able to change from being a killer to a normal human being. However, we learned that he just wanted to have a few days of happiness before he killed himself. This could be foreshadowing the ending of Dexter, but it could also be a false ending. Either way, I am excited for this season and what it will bring.

Looper

          When it comes to time travel movies, Looper was one of best. The film had a fantastic plot with solid writing. Overall, it was an entertaining film that I would watch again. 
          Like most movies, I have a few problems and critiques. The concept of Loopers was extraordinary, but I felt that this main aspect of the movie dropped off within the second act. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) went from being an active character to a reactive character. In the first act, he failed to “close the loop” by killing his future self and began to hunt his future self down. When the second act rolls around, Joe sits around at a farmhouse and waits for Old Joe (Bruce Willis) to come to him. While it made sense for Joe to do this, it wasn’t entertaining to watch.
          I have got to say, the first act was phenomenal. There was so much information given and the movie was done so well that I believed all of it. This can be really hard to do with science fiction, things happening in the future, or using time travel.
          In the second act, a lot of the focus is taken away from Old Joe and directed toward Sara and Cid. While these characters are important, Old Joe holds a higher rank in important characters and deserves more screen time. Because Bruce Willis’ character was not focused on enough, I began to not care what happened to him. Not caring about the characters is the biggest mistake a writer can make. 
          One thing that I found to be incredibly fascinating was the use of telekinesis. So many dots connected in my head when we found out that Cid could kill people with his telekinesis while the other 10% of the population could only lift quarters. I then realized how Cid became the one man army that the Rainman was said to be. 
          The fact that Joseph Gordon-Levitt figured out that letting Old Joe kill Sara would result in the eventual “closed loop,” was brilliant. It was so eloquently written and it made perfect sense that Joe had to kill himself. My first thought was, “couldn’t he just blow his (and Old Joe’s) gun holding arm off? That way he would survive and be able to live a happy life. 
          The ending was satisfying because Old Joe kept Cid from becoming the Rainmaker, Joe kept Old Joe from killing Cid, and Sara was able to teach Cid to use his powers for good. However, killing off the 2 main characters was kind of unsatisfying. I at least wanted to see one of them end up happy.
          Also, I realized that all of the sex, drugs, and nudity was absolutely unnecessary. The story could have functioned efficiently without any of those aspects. Also, if the blood and gore were edited out, Looper could have achieved a PG-13 rating, making it higher grossing and more viewable.

          Overall, Looper was entertaining, but I expected more character development and action. The acting, makeup, story, and dialogue were all great, but I expected there to be more interaction between Joe and Old Joe. Turning Looper into a ‘buddy movie’ probably wouldn’t have worked out too well, but I felt like they at least deserved more screen time together. I was so interested to see what they could talk about with each other. I would definitely recommend Looper to people and am interested in discussing similar or different opinions regarding the movie.

The "Classics"

I would like to start by defining the word “classic.” Using Dictionary.com, I received 20 different definitions. The first definition of the word “classic” said: “Of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.” This definition without a doubt applies to many films that are referred to as “classic” like 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho. Because these are some of the earliest films made, they are referred to as “the best.” While they were revolutionary for their time, they simply cannot compete with the most up to date films. 

  Imagine watching the news on a black and white television from the 1950’s. Now compare that to watching Avatar in 3D IMAX. Which one is better? Quality wise, IMAX is immensely better than a 1950’s black and white TV. Both forms of entertainment were incredibly revolutionary for their time. Mass producing TV’s and being able to put them in every home in the 1950‘s was amazing, but so is the 3D motion capture technology specifically created for Avatar. While our modern day technology beats the 1950’s in quality, both are examples of radical change within the entertainment industry. 

In 1895, the Lumiere brothers created one of the first films, which showed people exiting a factory at the end of the day. They showed the film, Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, to an audience and those who viewed it were absolutely amazed. If this same black and white film were shown to an audience today, they would say, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a bunch of people walking.” The difference between these two situations is exposure. In 1895 when the Lumiere Brothers created the first films, a person’s exposure to film was absolutely zero, but now, a person has seen dozens, if not hundreds, of movies. This principle of exposure shows that early films such as 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Psycho are partially thought of as “the best films ever” because there were very few films before then. 

  While this first definition of “classic” is good, I prefer to look at other definitions. These definitions include words such as “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard.” These “classic” movies are here to serve as a guide. They are important to the overall industry of filmmaking only because they represent the start of the industry. For example, I absolutely love Apple products. They are efficient, reliable, and high quality, but I wouldn’t say that the first Apple computer from 1976 is one of the best computers made.

  While some old films are good, I find that most of them are incredibly boring. They were experimenting with what audiences enjoyed watching, and that process took a long time. Movies like The Godfather are horribly painful to watch because of their incredible length and lack of compelling storytelling. Some of the few movies, at that length, that are worth watching are The Lord Of The Rings movies, The Green Mile, Titanic, and the Director’s Cut of Kingdom Of Heaven. While these are all incredibly long films, they actually have interesting stories unlike The Godfather.

  Are old films so great because the directors were brilliant, the first of their kind, or because they’re dead? Once a person dies, their art usually skyrockets in value. Maybe these directors weren’t actually all that good to begin with. Now that they are dead, nobody would be able to interview, scrutinize, or ridicule them. It’s a lot like the Founding Fathers. They were the catalyst of something great, which is the reason why they are so respected. If someone duplicated their work now, they probably wouldn’t amount to much. Some idiot directors have had decent careers copying other “classic” idiot directors.

One of my favorite series is the James Bond series. While I enjoy watching all of the films, I prefer to watch the more recent ones because they are higher in visual quality, they’re more relatable to me, and they (usually) have more entertaining stories. I understand that the old films were the beginning, but they simply do not compare to the more recent films.

  In almost every situation, the word “classic” should be avoided at all costs. If it needs to be used, it should only reference the “basic,” “fundamental,” “traditional,” “typical,” and “standard” definition. Most people would agree that the old films are important. They are a part of our history and should be respected. However, it is time to move on, look toward the future, and embrace the films that we have today.

Dexter Season 7 Episode 1 "Are You...?"

  Ok so I enjoyed the beginning but I figured that there would be a lot more screaming and confusion from Deb. Dexter did a really good job at playing the “I’ll lose my job, life, and Harrison” card in order to get Deb on his side. And just like Dexter always does, he wiggles his way out of impossible situations through lying and manipulation. 

   I’m so happy the writers included Dexter’s getaway pack. Every smart person in this situation has got to have one. The fact that he hid it in the drywall shows just how much he wanted to keep his apartment in season 4.
  I found it kind of strange that the writers killed off Mike Anderson. There was no emotional connection to the character and I don't understand why he was killed instead of a random cop. Maybe we will find out later.

  So right in the heat of this episode, Dexter decides to go hunt for another victim. Really? Of all the times to hunt for another killer, its after your sister caught you murdering the last one? Its when your sister is constantly digging in your past and questioning you on how and why you killed him? Yes, I understand the need to kill is strong, but you’re going to need to hold off for a while.

  At first I thought Dexter was crazy to fly to Budapest to catch some random guy, but then I saw that he hadn’t even left the boarded the plane yet.  Also, I’m pretty sure that you can’t just walk through airport security with syringes. Well maybe you can considering a woman accidentally brought a concealed gun on a plane without the TSA noticing last week. For some crazy reason, Dexter decides to kill a man in one of the most watched public places in America. Either he’s insane or reckless.

  One of my biggest problems with seasons 5, 6, and now 7 is that Astor and Cody aren’t in the show. Two major supporting characters are poorly written off of the show and are never mentioned by their Aunt Deb or Step Father Dexter? Disappointing.

  While I have criticized and torn this episode apart, I believe that everyone deserves forgiveness and a second chance. This season is going to be amazing. The last scene of this episode has redeemed all of my hard feelings. Dexter. I’m sorry I doubted you. I was wrong and you were brilliantly right... Again.

The Newsroom "The Greater Fool"

          Filled to the brim with heartwarming scenes and emotional tension, episode 10 The Greater Fool, became one of the best episodes yet. I know I say this after every episode, but I promise I mean it this time. Beware, if you have not seen this episode, I will be spoiling everything. 

          Well to start off, Will mixed too many anti-depressants with bourbon which created an ulcer in his stomach. Last time Jeff Daniels and an ulcer appeared in the same room, he was in Dumb and Dumber. Amazing how time flies. Anyway, Will was admitted into the hospital and considered not coming back to ACN. Obviously, this didn’t turn out to be true because the editing of this episode was not chronological and showed Will a week later back at the news desk. So this turned out to be a devious ploy Aaron Sorkin (creator and writer) devised to raise my blood pressure.

          And the stress just kept piling on. Nina Howard (the tabloid reporter) somehow found out that Will high while reporting the death of Osama Bin Laden. Later, Will, Mackenzie, and Charlie Skinner all go to Leona Lancing’s office to discuss this matter. Will ends ups admitting to being high on the air and almost gets fired, Reece is found out for hacking Mackenzie’s phone, the two sides come to an agreement, and much of the tension is dissolved.

          I also think that the emotional tension in this episode trumped every previous episode for various reasons. First, Solomon Hancock provided a heartbreaking scene where he talked about how he has no friends and his family won’t talk to him. To make things worse, he ends up committing suicide and also provides “critical information” about the Reece Lancing ordering hacks on people’s phones. Later, Lisa and Maggie get into a fight over Jim which causes Maggie to run into the street and accidentally confess the crush she has on Jim. To make the cute moment even better, Jim chases Maggie around the city which ends with a passionate kiss between the two of them. The moment is precious, but is quickly destroyed when Maggie decides to move in with Don. To make this love triangle even more complicated, Jim lies to Lisa and says that she was the reason he came by that night, not Maggie. Also, we learn that Sloan is only single because Don never asked her out. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that Sloan and Don should be together, Jim and Maggie should start dating, and Lisa can find someone else.

          As always, Will and Mackenzie have their cute fights which only compile onto the emotional tension between them. I cannot wait for the day when they just forget about the past and get back together. Mackenzie finally tells Will that she actually did hold up the signs in the pilot episode. What could have been an emotional kiss, turned into a small little fight which added some needed comic relief. 

          Finally, Will recognized a girl in the newsroom who is applying for an internship. She turns out to be the sorority girl from the pilot episode who was the catalyst for all of Will’s problems. Will decides to hire her and one more intriguing cast member is now added to this already fantastic show. The Newsroom is easily one of my favorite shows and will be renewed for a second season which is scheduled to premiere in June 2013.