The Golden Compass

Well even after seeing the film, I am still left to wonder what the big controversy is all about.

I had never read the book series that New Line Cinema is hoping to be the next Harry Potter and if the film is an indication of what is to come. I am not even sure that i want to see part 2 nor 3, if they ever get made.

I could somewhat see why the Catholic League is protesting this film, but in the end its a lot to do about not a really good film.

For those who have no ideal about the film or anything about it please click on to this link for a better understanding, but please be wary this is a heavy spoiler preview also.

Now what I liked about the film, The casting of Sam Elliott as Lee Scoresby was exactly what the role required. When you see him in the film, you soon realize that he is a lot more that what he seems at first.

The casting of Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison, as an armored bear. Now I had no idea what a bear would do with some serious armor protection, but with the voice of Sir Ian, you believe that he will protect the hero of the film.

Now I realize that this film is part 1 of a 3 part film, but the first one should have been so much better that what we were given. I had said earlier that I had not read any of the books yet but even I could tell that something just was not right nor was it making sense in the way that it was told in the movie, it just seemed like way too many holes were in this film. It looks about 40-60 minutes too short.

From what I could tell if you are a huge fan of the book then do not see the film at all, you will leave the movie palace, very angry. If you have young children (10 years old and up) then this looks like it would be a good film for them to see.

For the parents, it will leave you frustrated. I can see a good film in this film, but all we get in another mess by the end of the day.

“V For Vendetta” The Movie And These Days.

I must confess that the day I watched the trailer of “V For Vendetta” at the movie theater I wasn't any close to be willing to pay a ticket for watching that guy with a funny mask on his face. It seemed to me it would be one more of those simple movies extracted from a not very known “comic” (at least for me) that are appearing in theaters quite often these days. But now that I watched it, I think I was judging this movie wrong and not being totally fair with the writer and director.

It was quite surprising to follow the story and its continuous resemblance to what is happening today in a not too far away country and not too strange neighborhoods. In the movie is England that has been taken over by a group of fanatics that have concluded that their reason to live is power and the imposition of his world model and ideas over everyone and everywhere. There is a continuous war outside the borders and inside democracy is over; meanwhile fear is alive. People has lost the power of questioning reality and take conscience of the terrible consequences of living under such a decadent regime. It is a model based not in reason not in justice. Is the model “fascists” preach, where obedience and a “clock-like” functioning of the society in the interest of a few “chosen ones” is needed.

But suddenly there is a problem menacing the “status-quo”, they (without knowing) have created their own finisher. It is a figure that appears to us as a mix of revenge with a revolutionary mind, its name is “V”. Though the movie makes it closer to a simple vengeance thirst of this character, which is a bad point for the writer, but anyway; the film put us in front of tyranny being challenged by a single questioner, a single doubt of what has been happening to that society and his menace to multiply those doubts once the right time has come, this is…The 5th of November.

There is also the human side of “V”, he meets the girl in the movie thanks to his opportune showing while she is about to be raped by a group of secret agents of the “fascist” regime that have catch her walking at the wrong hours. You are not even the owner of your time as long as the preachers of “England Prevails” are in power. She escapes safe thanks to “V” but only to be initiated into the world of those who will change that world. She will be the guest and prisoner of “V” until she finally learns that there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

At the end there seems to be a split of the vengeance appetites of “V” and the revolutionary intentions that have been growing as the story develops. It becomes somewhat clear that everything coming from the old regime must die, including “V”, but he has left a final gift and maybe a lesson for those who want to learn it. Passions belong to individuals and can be very powerful forces; but revolutions can not be made by one or two individuals, revolutions are made by the conscience and willing of the people.

The DA VINCI CODE: a must see movie or an example of blasphemy?

The first time I heard of Da Vinci Code, I didn’t pay much attention. All I know is that it is a novel and that’s it. But when it made noise because of its controversial twists, mysteries, arguments, and why Catholics does condemn this book, I got so curious to the point of asking my parents (who are so religious) to buy me a copy of the book. Of course they didn’t buy me one but I made a way to have a copy. I didn’t have enough money to buy the book that time so I just asked my friend to lend me her book. She was so kind enough to entrust her copy to me. I read the book and finished it after two weeks (I’m not a book worm that’s why I’m kind slow in reading books). And yes, it is true and I can attest that the story is unbelievable. There are some parts in the story where it lets me think and analyze, and there are parts that makes me ask ‘what?’ and ‘how is that?’

Some of us think that this is a genius book. Some consider it as a typical novel. Others say that this is a story that must not be published. But let’s face it, Dan Brown can really write a book that makes noise and controversy. His other works like between angels and demons, and deception point also got the attention of many people. But now Da Vince Code has its own movie, this is now the new talk of the town.

It is now on almost all of the movie screens but it passed through many obstacles such as rejections, objections, and criticisms coming from different kinds of people, sectors, and religions. Up to now, it is still being turned down by the Catholics because they say that it is disrespecting God, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and many others whom they considered as holy.

Open-mindedness in things or movies such as this doesn’t mean that your faith in God is weak. Oftentimes you will learn many things and gain knowledge if you posses this quality. But many times, you will be misunderstood by the people. Here try to picture this, people are so intelligent that whatever you prohibits them to do, to say, or to watch will make them more curious leading them to do it, to say it, and to watch it. In simple terms, the more you ban the movie, the more they will watch it.

Now, it’s your time to decide. Are you confident with your faith in God that you think it can’t be destroyed by anyone or anything? Do you see that Da Vinci Code the movie is just purely fictional? Or you intend to believe in anything that you see and anything you watch? This is a matter of how shallow or how deep is your intelligence, analyzations, and belief in God.

Movie Buffs On The Internet

Films, film series and film stars all have warranted websites dedicated to them by fans. There seems to be a level of cooperation among film studios and fan sites - at least, the responsible ones. Movie companies recognize the value of Internet exposure and are eager to take advantage of it: that is as long as they feel that the Internet sites are not taking advantage of them.

There are two basic types of film related fan sites, those devoted to actors and those devoted to films. Film sites are generally run or commissioned by the studios as part of the film's marketing, whereas sites devoted to a particular actor may be more numerous and run the gamut between small, "one fan" operations to "official" sites set up by the actor or the actor's representation. This is not to say that all film sites are run by studios, as many very successful films or film series have fan sites devoted to them that are completely independent of the studios.

For example, a fan site on Johnny Depp has photos and screensavers along with the standard filmography and biography - and a fairly active fan forum; almost entirely worshipful. Alternately, the studio-run official film site for "Pirates of the Caribbean" is nicely laid out, featuring still photos, trailers and bios on all the actors along with an active - and moderated - forum. The rules for posting: no profanity, no double posting and no insults directed at other posters. In both cases, the movie and the star get excellent exposure, while negative commentary seems limited to "they could had made a great film better if..."

The Issue of Fair Use

Here it's worth exploring the notion of "fair use" as applied to film clips, audio bites and other representations taken from commercial movie fare. The law that applies to the use of copyrighted material by independent parties is guided by a principal called fair use. This principal holds that limited use of copyrighted material is permissible for the purposes of "commentary and criticism".

Fair Use is primarily the concern of the private, non-affiliated fan sites. Studio-run film sites use clips without concern, as the studio that owns the clips is running the site.

Fair Use and the Courts

There have been many lawsuits over this issue and many interpretations of the law. Generally, the less material you lift the less exposure you incur. It has also been held that if you are using copyrighted material without a license, you may not take the "heart" of the product you are lifting from. Neither may you compromise the financial rights of the copyright holder; reproducing content in such a way as the rights holder is denied future commercial gain.

Video Segments Online

That said, the Internet is jammed with video segments lifted from movies. Often, you will find a fan site with film excerpts on it that has an advertisement for an upcoming studio release displayed on the page. The studios understand that these fan pages are the best example of targeted advertising that can be found. While the fan page may be about an actor or actress that has no role in the advertised film, nonetheless people who visit the site are going to be reliable filmgoers.

General Fan Sites

One of the interesting sites dedicated to a film series is the Star Wars Library at http://takeoff.to/starwarslibrary. This site contains no film clips, but instead features fan fiction, parodies, photos, fan art, and articles. There's a fair amount of thoughtful material on the site, and some hilarious pictures as well: for example, the Krispy Kreme donut wedding cake with Luke Skywalker and the Princess on top, nested in satin hearts. The list of fan sites provided in the Library is broken into categories: movies; actors and actresses; rivalries and relationships; and groups and factions. That is a list of fan sites that should meet any need.

Some sites take a broader approach. A site like http://www.thefilmfrontier.com covers multiple franchises, including Star Trek, Star Wars, and the Superman films. The diversity in the site covers the owner's varying tastes, so it's not limited to a single film, actor, or even film franchise. The broad umbrella of sci-fi / fantasy applies, but it appeals to a wider cross-section of fans, providing something for anyone interested in the individual elements or all of them as a whole.

The Truman Show

"The Truman Show" is a profoundly disturbing movie. On the surface, it deals with the worn out issue of the intermingling of life and the media.

Examples for such incestuous relationships abound:

Ronald Reagan, the cinematic president was also a presidential movie star. In another movie ("The Philadelphia Experiment") a defrosted Rip Van Winkle exclaims upon seeing Reagan on television (40 years after his forced hibernation started): "I know this guy, he used to play Cowboys in the movies".

Candid cameras monitor the lives of webmasters (website owners) almost 24 hours a day. The resulting images are continuously posted on the Web and are available to anyone with a computer.

The last decade witnessed a spate of films, all concerned with the confusion between life and the imitations of life, the media. The ingenious "Capitan Fracasse", "Capricorn One", "Sliver", "Wag the Dog" and many lesser films have all tried to tackle this (un)fortunate state of things and its moral and practical implications.

The blurring line between life and its representation in the arts is arguably the main theme of "The Truman Show". The hero, Truman, lives in an artificial world, constructed especially for him. He was born and raised there. He knows no other place. The people around him - unbeknownst to him - are all actors. His life is monitored by 5000 cameras and broadcast live to the world, 24 hours a day, every day. He is spontaneous and funny because he is unaware of the monstrosity of which he is the main cogwheel.

But Peter Weir, the movie's director, takes this issue one step further by perpetrating a massive act of immorality on screen. Truman is lied to, cheated, deprived of his ability to make choices, controlled and manipulated by sinister, half-mad Shylocks. As I said, he is unwittingly the only spontaneous, non-scripted, "actor" in the on-going soaper of his own life. All the other figures in his life, including his parents, are actors. Hundreds of millions of viewers and voyeurs plug in to take a peep, to intrude upon what Truman innocently and honestly believes to be his privacy. They are shown responding to various dramatic or anti-climactic events in Truman's life. That we are the moral equivalent of these viewers-voyeurs, accomplices to the same crimes, comes as a shocking realization to us. We are (live) viewers and they are (celluloid) viewers. We both enjoy Truman's inadvertent, non-consenting, exhibitionism. We know the truth about Truman and so do they. Of course, we are in a privileged moral position because we know it is a movie and they know it is a piece of raw life that they are watching. But moviegoers throughout Hollywood's history have willingly and insatiably participated in numerous "Truman Shows". The lives (real or concocted) of the studio stars were brutally exploited and incorporated in their films. Jean Harlow, Barbara Stanwyck, James Cagney all were forced to spill their guts in cathartic acts of on camera repentance and not so symbolic humiliation. "Truman Shows" is the more common phenomenon in the movie industry.

Then there is the question of the director of the movie as God and of God as the director of a movie. The members of his team - technical and non-technical alike - obey Christoff, the director, almost blindly. They suspend their better moral judgement and succumb to his whims and to the brutal and vulgar aspects of his pervasive dishonesty and sadism. The torturer loves his victims. They define him and infuse his life with meaning. Caught in a narrative, the movie says, people act immorally.

(IN)famous psychological experiments support this assertion. Students were led to administer what they thought were "deadly" electric shocks to their colleagues or to treat them bestially in simulated prisons. They obeyed orders. So did all the hideous genocidal criminals in history. The Director Weir asks: should God be allowed to be immoral or should he be bound by morality and ethics? Should his decisions and actions be constrained by an over-riding code of right and wrong? Should we obey his commandments blindly or should we exercise judgement? If we do exercise judgement are we then being immoral because God (and the Director Christoff) know more (about the world, about us, the viewers and about Truman), know better, are omnipotent? Is the exercise of judgement the usurpation of divine powers and attributes? Isn't this act of rebelliousness bound to lead us down the path of apocalypse?

It all boils down to the question of free choice and free will versus the benevolent determinism imposed by an omniscient and omnipotent being. What is better: to have the choice and be damned (almost inevitably, as in the biblical narrative of the Garden of Eden) - or to succumb to the superior wisdom of a supreme being? A choice always involves a dilemma. It is the conflict between two equivalent states, two weighty decisions whose outcomes are equally desirable and two identically-preferable courses of action. Where there is no such equivalence - there is no choice, merely the pre-ordained (given full knowledge) exercise of a preference or inclination. Bees do not choose to make honey. A fan of football does not choose to watch a football game. He is motivated by a clear inequity between the choices that he faces. He can read a book or go to the game. His decision is clear and pre-determined by his predilection and by the inevitable and invariable implementation of the principle of pleasure. There is no choice here. It is all rather automatic. But compare this to the choice some victims had to make between two of their children in the face of Nazi brutality. Which child to sentence to death - which one to sentence to life? Now, this is a real choice. It involves conflicting emotions of equal strength. One must not confuse decisions, opportunities and choice. Decisions are the mere selection of courses of action. This selection can be the result of a choice or the result of a tendency (conscious, unconscious, or biological-genetic). Opportunities are current states of the world, which allow for a decision to be made and to affect the future state of the world. Choices are our conscious experience of moral or other dilemmas.

Christoff finds it strange that Truman - having discovered the truth - insists upon his right to make choices, i.e., upon his right to experience dilemmas. To the Director, dilemmas are painful, unnecessary, destructive, or at best disruptive. His utopian world - the one he constructed for Truman - is choice-free and dilemma-free. Truman is programmed not in the sense that his spontaneity is extinguished. Truman is wrong when, in one of the scenes, he keeps shouting: "Be careful, I am spontaneous". The Director and fat-cat capitalistic producers want him to be spontaneous, they want him to make decisions. But they do not want him to make choices. So they influence his preferences and predilections by providing him with an absolutely totalitarian, micro-controlled, repetitive environment. Such an environment reduces the set of possible decisions so that there is only one favourable or acceptable decision (outcome) at any junction. Truman does decide whether to walk down a certain path or not. But when he does decide to walk - only one path is available to him. His world is constrained and limited - not his actions.

Actually, Truman's only choice in the movie leads to an arguably immoral decision. He abandons ship. He walks out on the whole project. He destroys an investment of billions of dollars, people's lives and careers. He turns his back on some of the actors who seem to really be emotionally attached to him. He ignores the good and pleasure that the show has brought to the lives of millions of people (the viewers). He selfishly and vengefully goes away. He knows all this. By the time he makes his decision, he is fully informed. He knows that some people may commit suicide, go bankrupt, endure major depressive episodes, do drugs. But this massive landscape of resulting devastation does not deter him. He prefers his narrow, personal, interest. He walks.

But Truman did not ask or choose to be put in his position. He found himself responsible for all these people without being consulted. There was no consent or act of choice involved. How can anyone be responsible for the well-being and lives of other people - if he did not CHOOSE to be so responsible? Moreover, Truman had the perfect moral right to think that these people wronged him. Are we morally responsible and accountable for the well-being and lives of those who wrong us? True Christians are, for instance.

Moreover, most of us, most of the time, find ourselves in situations which we did not help mould by our decisions. We are unwillingly cast into the world. We do not provide prior consent to being born. This fundamental decision is made for us, forced upon us. This pattern persists throughout our childhood and adolescence: decisions are made elsewhere by others and influence our lives profoundly. As adults we are the objects - often the victims - of the decisions of corrupt politicians, mad scientists, megalomaniac media barons, gung-ho generals and demented artists. This world is not of our making and our ability to shape and influence it is very limited and rather illusory. We live in our own "Truman Show". Does this mean that we are not morally responsible for others?

We are morally responsible even if we did not choose the circumstances and the parameters and characteristics of the universe that we inhabit. The Swedish Count Wallenberg imperilled his life (and lost it) smuggling hunted Jews out of Nazi occupied Europe. He did not choose, or helped to shape Nazi Europe. It was the brainchild of the deranged Director Hitler. Having found himself an unwilling participant in Hitler's horror show, Wallenberg did not turn his back and opted out. He remained within the bloody and horrific set and did his best. Truman should have done the same. Jesus said that he should have loved his enemies. He should have felt and acted with responsibility towards his fellow human beings, even towards those who wronged him greatly.

But this may be an inhuman demand. Such forgiveness and magnanimity are the reserve of God. And the fact that Truman's tormentors did not see themselves as such and believed that they were acting in his best interests and that they were catering to his every need - does not absolve them from their crimes. Truman should have maintained a fine balance between his responsibility to the show, its creators and its viewers and his natural drive to get back at his tormentors. The source of the dilemma (which led to his act of choosing) is that the two groups overlap. Truman found himself in the impossible position of being the sole guarantor of the well-being and lives of his tormentors. To put the question in sharper relief: are we morally obliged to save the life and livelihood of someone who greatly wronged us? Or is vengeance justified in such a case?

A very problematic figure in this respect is that of Truman's best and childhood friend. They grew up together, shared secrets, emotions and adventures. Yet he lies to Truman constantly and under the Director's instructions. Everything he says is part of a script. It is this disinformation that convinces us that he is not Truman's true friend. A real friend is expected, above all, to provide us with full and true information and, thereby, to enhance our ability to choose. Truman's true love in the Show tried to do it. She paid the price: she was ousted from the show. But she tried to provide Truman with a choice. It is not sufficient to say the right things and make the right moves. Inner drive and motivation are required and the willingness to take risks (such as the risk of providing Truman with full information about his condition). All the actors who played Truman's parents, loving wife, friends and colleagues, miserably failed on this score.

It is in this mimicry that the philosophical key to the whole movie rests. A Utopia cannot be faked. Captain Nemo's utopian underwater city was a real Utopia because everyone knew everything about it. People were given a choice (though an irreversible and irrevocable one). They chose to become lifetime members of the reclusive Captain's colony and to abide by its (overly rational) rules. The Utopia came closest to extinction when a group of stray survivors of a maritime accident were imprisoned in it against their expressed will. In the absence of choice, no utopia can exist. In the absence of full, timely and accurate information, no choice can exist. Actually, the availability of choice is so crucial that even when it is prevented by nature itself - and not by the designs of more or less sinister or monomaniac people - there can be no Utopia. In H.G. Wells' book "The Time Machine", the hero wanders off to the third millennium only to come across a peaceful Utopia. Its members are immortal, don't have to work, or think in order to survive. Sophisticated machines take care of all their needs. No one forbids them to make choices. There simply is no need to make them. So the Utopia is fake and indeed ends badly.

Finally, the "Truman Show" encapsulates the most virulent attack on capitalism in a long time. Greedy, thoughtless money machines in the form of billionaire tycoon-producers exploit Truman's life shamelessly and remorselessly in the ugliest display of human vices possible. The Director indulges in his control-mania. The producers indulge in their monetary obsession. The viewers (on both sides of the silver screen) indulge in voyeurism. The actors vie and compete in the compulsive activity of furthering their petty careers. It is a repulsive canvas of a disintegrating world. Perhaps Christoff is right after al when he warns Truman about the true nature of the world. But Truman chooses. He chooses the exit door leading to the outer darkness over the false sunlight in the Utopia that he leaves behind.

The Matrix

It is easy to confuse the concepts of "virtual reality" and a "computerized model of reality (simulation)". The former is a self-contained Universe, replete with its "laws of physics" and "logic". It can bear resemblance to the real world or not. It can be consistent or not. It can interact with the real world or not. In short, it is an arbitrary environment. In contrast, a model of reality must have a direct and strong relationship to the world. It must obey the rules of physics and of logic. The absence of such a relationship renders it meaningless. A flight simulator is not much good in a world without airplanes or if it ignores the laws of nature. A technical analysis program is useless without a stock exchange or if its mathematically erroneous.

Yet, the two concepts are often confused because they are both mediated by and reside on computers. The computer is a self-contained (though not closed) Universe. It incorporates the hardware, the data and the instructions for the manipulation of the data (software). It is, therefore, by definition, a virtual reality. It is versatile and can correlate its reality with the world outside. But it can also refrain from doing so. This is the ominous "what if" in artificial intelligence (AI). What if a computer were to refuse to correlate its internal (virtual) reality with the reality of its makers? What if it were to impose its own reality on us and make it the privileged one?

In the visually tantalizing movie, "The Matrix", a breed of AI computers takes over the world. It harvests human embryos in laboratories called "fields". It then feeds them through grim looking tubes and keeps them immersed in gelatinous liquid in cocoons. This new "machine species" derives its energy needs from the electricity produced by the billions of human bodies thus preserved. A sophisticated, all-pervasive, computer program called "The Matrix" generates a "world" inhabited by the consciousness of the unfortunate human batteries. Ensconced in their shells, they see themselves walking, talking, working and making love. This is a tangible and olfactory phantasm masterfully created by the Matrix. Its computing power is mind boggling. It generates the minutest details and reams of data in a spectacularly successful effort to maintain the illusion.

A group of human miscreants succeeds to learn the secret of the Matrix. They form an underground and live aboard a ship, loosely communicating with a halcyon city called "Zion", the last bastion of resistance. In one of the scenes, Cypher, one of the rebels defects. Over a glass of (illusory) rubicund wine and (spectral) juicy steak, he poses the main dilemma of the movie. Is it better to live happily in a perfectly detailed delusion - or to survive unhappily but free of its hold?

The Matrix controls the minds of all the humans in the world. It is a bridge between them, they inter-connected through it. It makes them share the same sights, smells and textures. They remember. They compete. They make decisions. The Matrix is sufficiently complex to allow for this apparent lack of determinism and ubiquity of free will. The root question is: is there any difference between making decisions and feeling certain of making them (not having made them)? If one is unaware of the existence of the Matrix, the answer is no. From the inside, as a part of the Matrix, making decisions and appearing to be making them are identical states. Only an outside observer - one who in possession of full information regarding both the Matrix and the humans - can tell the difference.

Moreover, if the Matrix were a computer program of infinite complexity, no observer (finite or infinite) would have been able to say with any certainty whose a decision was - the Matrix's or the human's. And because the Matrix, for all intents and purposes, is infinite compared to the mind of any single, tube-nourished, individual - it is safe to say that the states of "making a decision" and "appearing to be making a decision" are subjectively indistinguishable. No individual within the Matrix would be able to tell the difference. His or her life would seem to him or her as real as ours are to us. The Matrix may be deterministic - but this determinism is inaccessible to individual minds because of the complexity involved. When faced with a trillion deterministic paths, one would be justified to feel that he exercised free, unconstrained will in choosing one of them. Free will and determinism are indistinguishable at a certain level of complexity.

Yet, we KNOW that the Matrix is different to our world. It is NOT the same. This is an intuitive kind of knowledge, for sure, but this does not detract from its firmness. If there is no subjective difference between the Matrix and our Universe, there must be an objective one. Another key sentence is uttered by Morpheus, the leader of the rebels. He says to "The Chosen One" (the Messiah) that it is really the year 2199, though the Matrix gives the impression that it is 1999.

This is where the Matrix and reality diverge. Though a human who would experience both would find them indistinguishable - objectively they are different. In one of them (the Matrix), people have no objective TIME (though the Matrix might have it). The other (reality) is governed by it.

Under the spell of the Matrix, people feel as though time goes by. They have functioning watches. The sun rises and sets. Seasons change. They grow old and die. This is not entirely an illusion. Their bodies do decay and die, as ours do. They are not exempt from the laws of nature. But their AWARENESS of time is computer generated. The Matrix is sufficiently sophisticated and knowledgeable to maintain a close correlation between the physical state of the human (his health and age) and his consciousness of the passage of time. The basic rules of time - for instance, its asymmetry - are part of the program.

But this is precisely it. Time in the minds of these people is program-generated, not reality-induced. It is not the derivative of change and irreversible (thermodynamic and other) processes OUT THERE. Their minds are part of a computer program and the computer program is a part of their minds. Their bodies are static, degenerating in their protective nests. Nothing happens to them except in their minds. They have no physical effect on the world. They effect no change. These things set the Matrix and reality apart.

To "qualify" as reality a two-way interaction must occur. One flow of data is when reality influences the minds of people (as does the Matrix). The obverse, but equally necessary, type of data flow is when people know reality and influence it. The Matrix triggers a time sensation in people the same way that the Universe triggers a time sensation in us. Something does happen OUT THERE and it is called the Matrix. In this sense, the Matrix is real, it is the reality of these humans. It maintains the requirement of the first type of flow of data. But it fails the second test: people do not know that it exists or any of its attributes, nor do they affect it irreversibly. They do not change the Matrix. Paradoxically, the rebels do affect the Matrix (they almost destroy it). In doing so, they make it REAL. It is their REALITY because they KNOW it and they irreversibly CHANGE it.

Applying this dual-track test, "virtual" reality IS a reality, albeit, at this stage, of a deterministic type. It affects our minds, we know that it exists and we affect it in return. Our choices and actions irreversibly alter the state of the system. This altered state, in turn, affects our minds. This interaction IS what we call "reality". With the advent of stochastic and quantum virtual reality generators - the distinction between "real" and "virtual" will fade. The Matrix thus is not impossible. But that it is possible - does not make it real.

Appendix - God and Gödel

The second movie in the Matrix series - "The Matrix Reloaded" - culminates in an encounter between Neo ("The One") and the architect of the Matrix (a thinly disguised God, white beard and all). The architect informs Neo that he is the sixth reincarnation of The One and that Zion, a shelter for those decoupled from the Matrix, has been destroyed before and is about to be demolished again.

The architect goes on to reveal that his attempts to render the Matrix "harmonious" (perfect) failed. He was, thus, forced to introduce an element of intuition into the equations to reflect the unpredictability and "grotesqueries" of human nature. This in-built error tends to accumulate over time and to threaten the very existence of the Matrix - hence the need to obliterate Zion, the seat of malcontents and rebels, periodically.

God appears to be unaware of the work of an important, though eccentric, Czech-Austrian mathematical logician, Kurt Gödel (1906-1978). A passing acquaintance with his two theorems would have saved the architect a lot of time.

Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem states that every consistent axiomatic logical system, sufficient to express arithmetic, contains true but unprovable ("not decidable") sentences. In certain cases (when the system is omega-consistent), both said sentences and their negation are unprovable. The system is consistent and true - but not "complete" because not all its sentences can be decided as true or false by either being proved or by being refuted.

The Second Incompleteness Theorem is even more earth-shattering. It says that no consistent formal logical system can prove its own consistency. The system may be complete - but then we are unable to show, using its axioms and inference laws, that it is consistent

In other words, a computational system, like the Matrix, can either be complete and inconsistent - or consistent and incomplete. By trying to construct a system both complete and consistent, God has run afoul of Gödel's theorem and made possible the third sequel, "Matrix Revolutions".

Black Christmas movie review

This festive fright-fest was a nice surprise from what I was originally expecting. This is another horror remake (from the people behind ‘Final Destination’ – great film), but un-like so many others; it did manage to come up trumps; such as ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.’ This is a remake of Bob Clarke’s 1974 classic slasher movie, ‘Black Christmas’; which actually came four years before John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’. Some fans lay claim that it was the original slasher flick.

From the outside, this looks like just another of your basic ‘there’s a psycho hacking up a bunch of pretty girls, who are running up the stairs instead of out of the door,’ and to a certain extent that’s correct, it’s the way this is conveyed which is interesting and enticing to watch.

The story: crazed killer, Billy Lenz, escapes his psychiatric ward and is determined to make it to his childhood home, where he was abused, by Christmas. Problem is, it’s years later and the home is now a Sorority house. It’s Christmas Eve and a who’s who of teen/horror girl stars are there to welcome him, including Melissa (Michelle Trachtenberg , ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ fame), Heather (Mary Elizabeth Winstead, ‘Final Destination 3’), Dana (Lacey Chabert, ‘Mean Girls’) and Kelli (Katie Cassidy, ‘When a stranger calls’ remake.)

This movie is actually pretty good, it has a constant feeling of being watched that runs right through it and adds a sparkle to the scares, and the tension is kept high. The actresses, although spouting some awful lines at times, also say some good ones. The acting is good, and because most of the leading ladies are stars, and most of them horror stars, the audience doesn’t guess which one is going to make it to the rolling credits. The story-line builds well, and there is a mounting tension, as the killer first phones the girls, and then starts to do away with them.

A similar storyline to the original ‘Halloween’, with a killer coming home for the holidays, there are also many similar P.O.V shots of the killer, watching the girls throughout the house. The Christmas theme bleeds in nicely with the plot, and it comes across in places (especially, the flash-backs to Billy Lenz’s childhood) like something, director, Tim Burton, would dream up. The film gets darker and darker as we move through it, with some very violent scenes, and the music by Shirley Walker is great; capturing horror and Christmas all in one twisted melody. Also, the use of red and green lighting throughout (owed to Christmas) is very cool, and creates a great atmosphere.

Due to it being set in a Sorority house, and this no longer being 1974, some of the dialogue just doesn’t cut it. I can’t imagine many of these girls’ staying in the house with a crazed serial killer, just because they can’t find their ‘sorority sister,’ believable in 2007 – sad, but true. There is, unfortunately, the obligatory shower scene, but it’s used for scares, not thrills, and so works.

Right from the start you can tell, this isn’t your usual run of the mill slasher, it actually has a back story, and we do find ourselves caring for some of the characters, for example, Kelli, played by Katie Cassidy is great; plus if you hated ‘Dawn’ in ‘Buffy the vampire slayer’ – you are gonna love this movie.

Walk The Line Movie Review

A real legend is...well, the stuff of legends. But much harder to reproduce on film, because of the depths of human expression that tend to get lost in the business of making it on time, on budget, and on a subject the public will "buy". Which means 2005's "Walk The Line" is that rarest of movies, one that dug deep into the story, put it up as it really unfolded, and managed to bag actors that could carry it off.

"Walk The Line" is the hard fighting/drinking/loving story of country icon, Johnny Cash and his love affair with wife June Carter. It lays the foundation for the movie's focus, and Cash's real life, by detailing his boyhood in Arkansas, the early death of a brother, and impulsive first marriage that ended in disaster. All of that contributes to the way Cash's life was already drifting when he sang for Sam Phillips of Sun Records, where he brushed shoulders with another newcomer, Elvis Presley. Chastised for offering a hymn, Joaquin Phoenix rips off a version of Folsom Prison Blues that snags him the prized contract, and sets his foot on a path that will lead him to depths he never dreamed of, and the woman who would pull him out of then, June Carter.

Both Phoenix, and Reese Witherspoon who plays June Carter, did their own vocals, which added immeasurably to the reality of their performances. Witherspoon at times was perhaps a tad too ebullient, but also managed to reach inside herself to pull out both the feminine side of Carter, and her fury at Cash's moral and physical deterioration as their relationship progressed from an initial backstage meeting to the final, enduring chapter written at the Folsom Prison concert.

Not strictly a love story, "Walk the Line" is nonetheless a sometimes moving, infuriating, and emotionally charged tale of two people both struggling towards the same goal- to be with each other.

Director: James Mangold
Producers: Alan C. Blomquist, James Keach, Cathy Konrad
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin, Robert Patrick, Ginnifer Goodwina

Zeitgeist: A Movie For The Time

Since June 2007, the movie "ZEITGEIST" has been taking the internet by storm. As of December 2007, ZEITGEIST had already gathered more than 6 million hits, making it one of the most popular online videos of all time. In fact, on Google video, ZEITGEIST was the no. 1 video for the months of November and December 2007, and there doesn't seem to be any stopping it. The movie's creator, Peter Joseph, has reported some 40,000 to 60,000 hits to his website, ZEITGEISTmovie.com, per day! Also, in November 2007, ZEITGEIST was presented a "Best Feature" award at the prestigious Artivists Film Festival at the Egyptian theater in Hollywood. As one of the sources for Part 1 of ZEITGEIST, I was in attendance as a featured panel speaker addressing some 650 people, who shared a mind-blowing evening. Both Peter and I have also done several radio programs addressing the subjects raised in ZEITGEIST, with me specializing in Part 1. The movie's narration has also been translated into a number of languages, including German. Truly, ZEITGEIST is a global phenomenon!

What is so special about ZEITGEIST that it has attracted so much attention? First of all, the movie is done in a very powerful manner - and, secondly, its message is controversial, to say the least! Since my work inspired some of Part 1, I can only discuss as an expert that segment, which deals with religious conspiracy. Part 1, in fact, claims that our modern religions, including and especially Christianity, are not "original" or "new revelation" but remakes of ancient faiths, particularly that of the Egyptians. In my books, "The Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God," I have striven to demonstrate that fact, with a combined 1000+ pages of fascinating research as to the true meaning of religion. Because of the intense controversy surrounding ZEITGEIST, with forums all over the net engaged in heated debates over the movie, I have now completed an ebook specifically addressing some of the comparisons between the Egyptian religion and Christianity. This new ebook is called "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1," and it scientifically examines the purported parallels between the Egyptian god Horus and the Jewish godman Jesus, including whether or not Horus was born on December 25th of a "virgin," among other important assertions made in ZEITGEIST. The research on this subject was so abundant that I was unable to put it all into an ebook. In almost 50 pages, I did, however, manage to highlight these significant issues, including ancient resources in their original languages, with translations!

It is the fervent belief of both the creator of ZEITGEIST and me that this information is extremely important in this day and age, in order to further cultural understanding and bring greater peace to the planet, as well as to provide an insight into the working of society's elite, who may not have in mind the best interests of the common man. In this regard, we have taken the risk of bringing this controversial and often contentious material to the public eye, with the hopes of greater enlightenment worldwide.

Movie Review - Sweeney Todd

Having never seen the stage version of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, I can't speak to the fidelity the film shares with the play. That said, let there be no doubt that Tim Burton has crafted a true piece of musical cinema from Stephen Sondheim's bloody masterpiece. To their discredit, early previews have hedged a bit regarding the singing in the film. In them we only see Johnny Depp canting some recitative as he prowls the streets of London. While this scene is certainly in the movie, it's barely representative of the actual film which contains at least a dozen fully-staged numbers and only intermittent dialogue.

As the former Benjamin Barker, Depp is magnificent as Todd. His voice may lack the thunder that would be expected on stage, but on the big screen it's more than suitable. Purists may find it a little ragged and flat at times--Michael Crawford needn't worry about Depp--but it's an ideal manifestation of the corrupting anger and rotting vengeance that fill Todd's soul. The same can be said for Helena Bonham Carter as the fiendish Mrs. Lovett. Sure she will occasionally descend into something approaching a hectoring screech, but consider for a moment that she's a baker who grinds people into meat and serves them up in piping hot pies!

Voices aside, both actors deliver rich, complex performances. The focus and intensity that Depp brings to his role is riveting. Within minutes of the film's opening there is no doubt that Depp will have his revenge and have it with gusto. Taking a step back from the film, realize that Todd is a thoroughly despicable character. He often kills indiscriminately, but Depp is so powerful as Todd that you eventually begin to relish his countless murders. Carter's Mrs. Lovett is, perhaps, even more of a psychopath. Slicing a throat is one thing. Butchering a man and then serving him up for dinner is quite another. Nevertheless, you delight in her, too.

As for the killings, Burton stages them in spectacularly gory fashion. The phrase 'geysers of blood' is often used casually when describing a violent film. In Sweeney Todd the phrase is explicitly correct. Depp is often obscured under the high-powered jets of plasma that repeatedly erupt from his customer's necks. Amazingly, these scenes aren't even the most disturbing. Once Todd finishes giving a 'shave', he dumps the corpse down a hole where it cracks loudly at the bottom as the skull splinters and the neck breaks cleanly. It's all completely over the top and, of course, wonderful, hilarious, inspired.

The same can be said for the film as a whole. In Sweeney Todd, Tim Burton has found material that meshes perfectly with his artistic sense. You could call it a horror film or a screwball comedy and you'd be right both times. The design is, as would be expected from a Burton picture, lavish and spectacular. The supporting cast, especially Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall, are superb. Only the love story between Johanna and Anthony falls a little flat. It's a minor quibble, though, in an otherwise outstanding film. Sweeney Todd joins Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands as Burton's finest work. It may eventually even be considered his best.

The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival

Summary:

The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival is a mixture of events. And for the majority of that find digesting whole impression hard, it should be best to discuss each part by detail.

Fist subject matter is about The Brown Bunny. It is a film by the actor and director Vincent Gallo that had a world premiere at the 2003 celebration of the Cannes Film Festival. The plot was about a rambling cross country by a driver in search for the love of his life who was carrying his offspring. The movie begins with a motorcycle race which Bud (Vincent Gallo) participated. Then he must head to California for the next race. Along the way, the story unravels in some gas pump where he has to refill the vehicle without any association to the movie aside from realistically running out of fuel. Mostly, it’s all about road trip, an hour’s length of seldom broken road trip.

And that’s how The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival earned its heavy ridicule. For more than an hour’s length of unbroken windshield view, refueling, sleeping at some motels, waking in underwear, taking shower and drive again for most it is even tedious to keep their eyes on the screens, let alone close their mouths from constant yawning. And to massage aching jaws, one must boo and jeer. The audience of the Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival did just that. The road scenes especially receiving the most flaming as well as the sequence where Bud has to park and wash the van –in real time.

Vincent Gallo may be a recognized painter, male fashion model, alternative musician, motorcycle racer and break-dancer, but he did suffer a severe case of narcissism, as much as the movie tells anyway. And it is quite evident in The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival. All the scenes were about him, his habits and his manliness. No one needs to see Gallo in his underwear except if the script needs it. No one needs to see him drive on his motorcycle except if the script needs it. And no one especially needs to see him receiving an un-simulated fellatio from ex-lover Chloë Sevigny even if the script needs it.

The story might have aroused sympathy if the story was delivered correctly, but no, Gallo himself had to star in just everything: producer, director, writer, director of photography, camera man and of course lead actor. So the story flunked in a thousand possible ways, depending on the critic. And a war of words soon erupted between one acclaimed critic Roger Ebert and Vincent Gallo himself who staunchly defended the film. Ebert wrote that The Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival was the worst ever screening in film history and Gallo responded about cancer and colon.

At the end of the day, Brown Bunny in the Cannes Film Festival was still a serious flop. A reedited edition was screened again in the Toronto Festival, with Ebert giving a positive remark and Gallo making peace.