Book or Movie?

I just finished reading Steven King's On Writing and found this book extremely helpful with the craft of writing. It is a writers biography in the purest form. He discusses all sorts of helpful ideas to grow as a writer as well as elements of structure and style. But, one of the most glaring recommendations King gives in this book is to read. At the end of the book He lists about 200 books he has read to keep him sharp. Things from Dickens to whatever new hip author was out when he published On Writing.

After I finished reading that book, Roger Ebert tweeted an article that echoed King's sentiments. His conclusion is, Read...something, anything as long as you're reading.

I could not agree more!

At some point in my life I became really obsessed with the desire to read anything and everything. I will fully admit that it was more than likely a selfish desire to be the smartest guy in the room, but ego aside, I really did develop a liking to reading. At first it was books about Apologetics (boring), then it moved to theology and philosophy broadly (real boring) and then st some point I was introduced to the wonder that is literature. For dramatic effect you should pronounce this in your head, "lit-er-ah-toure." Let it roll of your tongue with pretension and you'll have it.

But, let me clear the air, this is not me patting myself on the back, I just want to ask a question. Well, 2 questions.

1. What have you been reading?

2. Do you prefer reading to film?

The second question I have been giving some serious thought to. Let me clarify. I don't mean would you rather read War and Peace than Watch Jurassic Park. I mean, do you prefer the film adaptation to the book?

I often leave the theatre of an adaptation desiring feeling let down and wanting something more or better. It is not often that people do what I feel like they should have done. But, that opens this discussion to a whole host of questions I am not prepared to deal with here (ex: creative license. Blah blah).

Two movies for your consideration.

True Grit and The Road I think are 2 good examples of adaptations, however the Coen brothers and the writer of The Road did not change much, if anything from the books. Both excellent books and films, but both can stand on their own 2 feet.

This really is just a bit of rambling, get some thoughts down. What do you think? Does it make sense?

Also, let me throw this move out for consideration. Adaptation starring Nicholas Cage, written by Charlie Kaufman based on a book. This move as far as I can tell resembled nothing of the book.

What do you think?

For Zachary Elvington

80's Slashers: A Cut Above

(Yes I know, clever title. Sometimes I surprise even myself.)

The 1980s were a very important time for horror films. After the extremely successful release of John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978, (a movie that was made with a budget of $300,000 and went on to make an estimated $60,000,000) everyone wanted to capitalize on it's success. So throughout the 80's pretty much all major and independent production companies started churning out these boogey man/crazed killer movies by the boat load, that affectionately came to be known as "slasher" films.

During this decade the world was blessed with not only many a delightful power ballad by Bon Jovi but also, 8 (count em, 8!) Friday the 13ths, 5 Nightmare on Elm Streets and 4 more installments to the Halloween series. But these are all movies everyone knows. Show a picture of Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger to anyone over the age 10 and they will without a doubt recognize these horror icons. I'd like to take this time to pick out and share with the public some of my personal favorites of the slasher genre that, more often then not get over looked.

Without further adieu here is a list of my favorite wonderfully terrible 80's horror flicks.

1. Sleepaway Camp - The ending of this movie is one of my favorite endings to a film of all time. If you thought Andy Dufrain tunneling through a wall and crawling through a "river of shit" was a surprise wait til you see what Angela has in store.

2. The Burning - Once again, nothing says slasher movie more then a summer camp. Keep an eye out for a young Jason Alexander (aka George Costanza).

3. The Mutilator - This movie proves just how easy it is to accidentally shoot your mother in the face.

4. Prom night - This one is a little more known, mainly due to the godawful 2008 remake. As is most often the case, the original is way better.

5. The Slumber Party Massacre - If you think slasher flicks are just another way for the media to exploit and degrade women, you're probably right. But this movie was written and directed by a woman, so how you like them apples!?

6. Night Warning - It may be a low budget, cheesy horror film but for a movie released in 1982 that tackles the issue of homophobia, I'd say it was pretty ahead of it's time. Fast forward 11 years and 'Philadelphia' is taking home academy awards for the same subject matter. who knew? Often times these "lowbrow", "distasteful" films tap into more under lying social issues then anyone wants to give them credit for. But that is a topic for another time...

If you care to watch any of these titles I'm sure they're pretty readily available on line. If you can't find them there I suggest checking the vhs section of your local thrift store.

Much ado about Libya

Muammar Gaddafi has ruled Libya for 41 years. Now, protesters want democracy and a new leader. The protests started small and later grew into an uprising. Gaddafi responded by using the military, censorship, and blotting out communications. What makes this interesting is that Gaddafi's own defense minister, including the majority of his generals, wouldn't follow through with what Gaddafi wanted them to do. As the protests went on, soldiers foreign to Libya were attacking the protesters. Huh? Gaddafi wanted to talk it out, but the rebels don't want to talk it out. They want Gaddafi to resign, period. And if he doesn't, then he has got to be removed by force.

After the protesters organized a bit, they formed the Transitional National Council (TNC). And then the International Criminal Court comes along and accuses Gaddafi of crimes against humanity. Gaddafi's assets are freezed and his ability to travel halted. Gaddafi fought back, taking back many of cities the protesters had temporarily conquered, and then set his eyes on Benghazi, TNC's headquarters. And when it looked like things couldn't get any worse for Gaddafi, there came a no-fly zone over Libya. After Gaddafi called a ceasefire in response, we later found he was bluffing. The no-fly zone enabled many of Goddafi's air defenses to be decimated.

How did this all come about? The head-honcho before Gaddafi took the helm was King Irdis I, who was ousted in 1969. Gaddafi became the ruler for the 41 years thereafter. Gaddafi did what probably a lot of people would do in his position. Only family and tribal loyalists need apply. The government became filled with those sympathetic to whatever Gaddafi wanted. So that none of his sons become too excited about getting the crown, Gaddafi confused them by loving one son more one day, and favoring another on another day. And the same with loyalists. It's actually a skillful strategy. Rivals, of course, are killed or shoved to the margins.

Much of Libya is almost devoid of a middle class, because they don't see a need for one. Usually, we have a middle class so we can tax their income and strengthen the economy. Not Libya. 58% of Libya's GDP is money made from petroleum, a natural resource over there. So, the money they make from trading those resources goes to fund whatever the government wants to do for its people. And effect of this is that the quality of living over there is very high, even though unemployment is at 21%. Yet everyone wonders why unemployment was so high if there are labor shortages? There are millions of capable workers who don't work. Many of the protesters are these workers.

Why is Gaddafi such a jerk? In his 41 year rule he got rich. Really rich. What did he spend his money on? Charity? Helping the kids? Funding science research? Nope. He decided to buy lots of guns and to sponsor terrorism. Great. He also made Libya the most censored state in the region. Talk about progress! Oh, and if you want to dissent, you can if like to be thrown in prison and beaten. Want to create a political party? Sure. Go ahead. Execution awaits you. Chances are you'll have your 5 minutes of fame on television too. I think executions are on channel 4. Maybe you think you can talk politics with foreigners. Nope. Unless you want 3 years in the slammer. Fun fact: there's a million dollar bounty on Ashur Shamis. His crime? Being a critic of the Libyan government.

Gaddafi has a pretty insightful explanation for the uprising: alcohol and hallucinogenic drugs. Yes, sir! They can be found in milk and coffee. But who is doing the distributing? Gaddafi says its Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, the favorite whipping boys. And lets not forget the whole Western conspiracy to subjugate the Libyans and get that precious oil!