One of the dumbest ideas ever

I can’t believe that someone posted this as an actual solution to the problem of violence in schools – here, take a gander at this: http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/564901/view. What’s even more unsettling is the number of people who are in agreement. The gist of the argument is this: we should give kids the “right” to drop out of school if they’re not interested or motivated or (as one of these dorks put it) “bookworm material”.

First off, let’s all remember how we felt about school when we were kids…we hated it. We hated having to get up early in the morning, we hated having to take the bus or walk or wait for our ride, we hated having to do homework…but most of all, we hated having to be there every frickin’ day from 8 until 3:30 when it was just so much more fun to go hang out with our friends and seeing what kinds of mischief we could get into.
And if any of you come back and say “well, I didn’t hate school” then you’re not being honest with yourself.

All of us know that if we give them the option, kids would rather sleep in late and screw around at home than go to school. Children do not have the maturity and discipline to do this voluntarily which is why school attendance is mandatory. They do not understand the importance of learning yet, learning which they will need later in life and will sorely miss if they drop out of school by the ninth grade. Can you imagine a United States of America where a generation of school children doesn’t understand basic geometry, can’t calculate a tip because they don’t understand percentages, can’t read the Constitution because they can’t read past the 9th grade level?

Our world and our civilization are going thru massive changes caused by the conflict between knowledge acquired thru scientific inquiry and traditional belief maintained thru religious fundamentalism. It’s the same conflict that men like Galileo and Copernicus went thru a few centuries ago, a conflict that most of us had considered over and done with…until you start talking to people who believe in ghosts or UFO’s or intelligent design or any number of similar fairy tales and realize that they’re not a small segment of the population.

How do we solve the problem of violence in schools? I don’t know, but I’m damn sure that giving kids the option to stay dumb should not be considered.

Argento is not Hitchcock

I’ve never agreed with calling Dario Argento “the new Hitchcock” or “the Italian Hitchcock”. He’s a brilliant director in his own right, and doesn’t need a “compliment” that feels more like a put-down. I am astonished at the lack of attention that so many posters at sites like imdb.com display when they talk about “Tenebre”. There’s a lot of moaning about “illogic”…like the killings starting BEFORE Peter Neal gets to Rome. But if you simply pay attention, Argento explains all of that with a neat twist. There’s a lot of complaining about the scene where the young girl is chased by the dobermann to the killer’s house and how illogical it is…ignoring the fact that it’s a coincidence, like in “Psycho”. You know, like the scene after Vivien Leigh steals the money and she’s sitting in her car at a light only to look up and see her boss staring at her from the crosswalk and visibly wondering what the hell she’s doing leaving town when she told him she was going home sick…one hell of a coincidence, don’t you think?

But let’s get to the plot: Peter Neal is a famous and successful mystery writer who is traveling to Rome to promote his new book and also to get away from his fiancée who is, apparently, an extremely clingy and dependent woman. She’s so clingy and dependent that she stages a phone call to him at the airport just so that she can distract him, open his overnight bag and destroy his toiletries because she’s jealous. When he arrives in Rome, his agent (played by John Saxon) takes him to a press conference where an old friend chides him for the sexism and misogynistic violence of his book. Peter also spots a tall, thin man who spends a lot of time looking at him and smiling. Later, his agent tells him that the man is a book critic for some television channel. Peter is then approached by the Rome police because a young shoplifter (who had just lifted a copy of Peter’s book) has been murdered with a straight razor…and had her mouth stuffed with pages from Peter’s book. Peter, a bit nonplussed, asks the cops if they call the president of Smith & Wesson when one of their guns is used to kill somebody! As the bodies start piling up, and the black-leather-gloved killer gets closer and closer to him, Peter decides that the only way the killings are going to stop is for him to do his own investigation. Of course, the killings don’t stop and all Peter accomplishes is to spiral ever closer into the clutches of the moralistically-deranged killer…who is not everything that he (or she) appears to be.

There’s a slightly futuristic sense to this movie, specifically in the way it presents events in spare, all-white settings or open, crowded public spaces. Houses and gardens share a geometrical aesthetic of square shapes and polygons, with a color palette of either concrete or white. But it’s a futurism that is rooted in a 1970’s conception of the future, of a place that is rigid and severe, with little or no place for warmth or sexuality. This ties in with the themes of Neals’ book (also titled “Tenebre”), where his main character rails and rants about “deviates” and “perverts” who must be cleansed from society. Is Argento saying that the only way to attain that clean, pure future where things line up neatly is to kill anyone who doesn’t fit the mold? Or is he saying that a future that is clean and pure is not worth the loss of human diversity? Or could I just be reading way too much into this?

Of course, I can’t forget the main reason why we like his movies so much: because Argento presents these outrageously bloody murder set-pieces in such artistic and strangely beautiful ways that he elevates what would just be blood and gore in the hands of a lesser director to what can only be called an art-horror film. That may seem like an exaggeration to some, but I don’t think so. Just look at the crane shot during the double-murder of the two women at their house: the camera prowls over, around, and thru the building in a faint echo of how the murderer is moving, building the suspense and unease until the screen explodes in murderous fury. To some viewers, raised on CGI and movies that have visual style to burn but use it to no discernible thematic purpose, it looks…old hat. But viewed in the context of its own time frame, it is a revolutionary shot and don’t even get me started on Goblin’s music. I’ve heard people describe is as “cheesy”…but just what the hell does that expression mean? Claudio Simonetti, guiding light of Goblin, created a prog-rock score that finally liberated horror and suspense directors from using the mock-classical music that was a staple of all movie scores. Some people complain that it telegraphs the action too much, but I don’t agree – when that emphatic rhythm kicks in, I cringe and grab the sides of my couch because I know that something horrific and bloody is about to happen.

Well, so much for that movie – now I’m in the mood for more Argento. Perhaps “Opera” or “Suspiria” tonight?

I decided to come back

I tried starting a blog a few years back - but I lost interest as the regular stress of life took up more and more of my time. Well, no more. I'm back. I don't how frequently I'll be posting, but I'll be posting. Remember, these are my opinions so read them at your own risk! If you're offended, don't like it, or whatever - well, too bad. You've only yourself to blame.

Bye for now - I may be back later...