Avatard

Anyone who is a fan of the 1992 cartoon movie "FernGully" should expect the same exciting and climactic plot in James Cameron's new release, "Avatar".

A paraplegic Marine named Jake Sully decides to honor his brother by taking his place in a mission on the distant world of Pandora. There he learns of a greedy corporate figurehead's intentions of driving off the native humanoid race, called Na'vi, in order to mine for the precious and very expensive material scattered throughout their rich forestland. Jake attempts to infiltrate the Na'vi people with the use of an "avatar" identity and gather information for the corporate and military unit. While Jake begins to bond with the native tribe and quickly falls in love with the beautiful Neytiri, the restless and ruthless military colonel moves forward with his malignant extermination tactics, compelling Jake to stand with the natives in an epic battle for the fate of Pandora.

After works such as The Terminator, Aliens, True Lies, and Titanic, Cameron comes back with another visually stunning masterpiece. Fans of his prior movies will not be disappointed. Having not seen it, this movie is open for all kinds of typical skepticism for an action fantasy film -- a movie with no plot that focuses only on the action and special effects, and uses the 3-D element simply to use it. Cameron, however, essentially dodges all of these negatives. Yes the movie has plenty of action, but it also captures the emotions of both the humans and the Na'vi, grasps the continuous beauty of the planet's environment, shows the greed and warfare of the human soldiers, and constantly but subtly brings in small, graceful details, such as the glowing, floating “seeds of Eywa”. As for the 3-D incorporation, while it has been a distraction for movies in the past (such as in 2007 with “Beowulf”, directed by Robert Zemeckis), Cameron really did deliver the next generation of 3-D. He avoids the expected blurring or dimming that usually comes when the glasses are put on, and carefully uses the 3-D element to capture the beauty and artistry of the movie rather than just having it for kicks.

Overall, while original, a fairly simple easy-to-follow storyline, but a visually surprising and stunning film throughout. Recommended in 3-D, and a good flick to see with family and/or friends.

The Pulp Non-fiction of Quentin Tarantino

The subject of humanities is interesting to me in that it looks at history through an art/music perspective. While I love music, I especially take interest in different forms of art. I don’t just consider art to be paintings or sketches, but more broadly classify art as “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance”. In this regard, I consider art to include a variety of media most notably including movies. Movies are a beautiful display of one’s creative and innovative abilities, and the form of movies itself fits into the definition of “production of what is beautiful, appealing, and of more than ordinary significance.” Behind every field of art lie the very artists who create such beauty. I believe that Quentin Tarantino is one of the greatest artists in his respective field of directing, producing, writing, and acting in movies. Throughout his career, even when he transitioned from an independent filmmaker into a major director, he has continually incorporated Italian, Mexican, and Dutch movie styles, has applied an aesthetic use of violence, and has effectively told his stories through nonlinear narrative, a technique introduced in ancient times and displayed in epic poetry, but more notably recognized in films throughout the 20^th and 21^st centuries. From Reservoir Dogs onward, Tarantino has made a name for himself from which his fans can easily recognize and appreciate any film he brings to the table.

Buscemi rehearsing for his future role as Crazy Eyes.

Although Reservoir Dogs was not Tarantino’s first film (that is credited to My Best Friend’s Birthday, which followed the same style of dialog and nonlinear storytelling as his other films, but lacked the proper editing, quality camera positioning, and overall plot to be considered one of his greater masterpieces by most fans, it is the film that launched his career as a revered director, producer, and writer. By not only incorporating an all-star cast of Dogs, including Steve Buscemi, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, and Tim Roth, but also stepping out of the boundaries of any typical crime drama the viewer might expect to watch, Reservoir Dogs shows its own level of raw power and breathtaking intensity. Right from the beginning, during the breakfast scene, there is a personal level of connection instilled in the conversation among the characters. Tarantino takes the typical criminal and gives him a personal connotation, as to say that he has just as normal of humanistic traits as anyone else. The plotline of the story might read something like, “after a simple jewelry heist goes terribly wrong, the surviving criminals begin to suspect that one of them is a police informant”, and the actual operation is no more significant than a 7/11 holdup (actually, the interesting approach is that he follows the events before and after the heist but not the heist itself), but when Tarantino uses his nonlinear technique to meet each criminal one-by-one, all the pieces of the puzzle come together to form a memorable tale of the hardships that even four “perfect criminals” can face. Realistically, this is a theme shown in all of his films, that is, taking a step into a thug-like, notorious character’s shoes to gain a whole new perspective of that character, whether it be Reservoir Dogs or Inglorious Basterds, for example. Aside from the use of nonlinear storyline, Tarantino also instilled pop culture references, memorable dialog, strong profanity, and of course violent crime, but wrapped it all up beautifully into a lasting, artistic expression of his recurring “more than ordinary” theme.

After Reservoir Dogs came Pulp Fiction, the movie that Samuel L. Jackson essentially sprouted from. This movie looks at the same sharp-dressed, swagger-driven criminals as in Reservoir Dogs, but this time twists the fate of the characters, making the story more engaging or pulpy, hence the pulp in Pulp Fiction. Samuel L. Jackson and his wallet in this movie share the same iconic title. Jules Winnfield is a memorable Tarantino character, well incorporated into the story at hand. It’s almost as if the movie requires the vigilant Jules character to thrive and become a cult classic. Although Jackson’s character is both revered and memorable, however, the juice really pulps from Bruce Willis’s character, a boxer who must throw a fight for Marsellus Wallace, who happens to employ Vince Vega (Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Jackson). He kills Vince Vega, another seemingly essential character to the film. The greatest meaning comes from the sympathy and assistance of Butch Coolidge (Willis) towards his once enemy Marsellus Wallace.

err, I mean...

there, that's better.

In all three stories of Pulp Fiction, the “heroes” must go to extreme and absurd measures to gain their heroism. Vince Vega must rush the overdosing wife of his boss to urgent care. Butch Coolidge is compelled to assist Marsellus Wallace out of a gruesome rape situation. Jules Winnfield and Vince must quickly clean up the remains of an accidental shooting of a peon riding with them, and later Jules abruptly lays down the law to two amateur thieves in a diner. Point being, these three tales all correlate to each other while still having significance to the pulp of the story as a whole, and Tarantino always pushes his character to extreme levels to show their significance and importance. He always makes a clear reason why he is showing any said character. This trait, first expressed in Reservoir Dogs, has continued to last through all his films. Tarantino is original in following small details where they lead, whether they lead to a significant point or to a completely unrelated but still important subject in regards to the other characters. The black comedy style, an expression of satire, can be traced back to such icons as George Carlin, Monty Python, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park). Satire blossomed in Rome with the help of Horatius Quintus Flaccus, or Horace, around the turn of the A.D. era. In his Sermones, Horace describes a typical day in his simple yet contended life. Tarantino multiplies this satirical trait into three pivotal characters, whose lives are devious, private, and generally disregarded, but developed through black humor into exiting climactic endings. Pulp Fiction, and all of his movies, draws attention to human imperfection and imprudence to send a message of mockery and scorn, a trait also recognized in modern literary satire.

I will skip almost a decade to Tarantino’s next line of notable films, the Kill Bill saga (2003/2004). Originally supposed to be one film, it was split due to the four-hour length, where the second volume filled in a lot of unanswered questions raised in the more gore-driven Volume 1, but like Roger Ebert says, “…now that we see it whole, it is greater than its two parts”. This gruesome saga pays homage to several other popular movie styles of storytelling, including Hong Kong martial arts, Japanese Chanbara, and Italian spaghetti westerns, while Tarantino continues to push his technique of nonlinear perspective, integrating flashbacks of the main character, known as “The Bride” (Uma Thurman), at her deadly wedding scene, flashing back to training with legendary Asian martial arts master Pal Mei, a character displayed in several Shaw Bros Kung Fu films from the 70s and 80s, and typical flashbacks giving explanation behind major characters, like the Crazy 88 fighting team or O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), a former member of the Deadly Vipers employed by Bill to kill The Bride. Like in his other movies, Tarantino includes several pop culture references in Kill Bill.

After spending a few years teamed up with director Robert Rodriguez to make such cult classics as Sin City (based off Frank Miller’s graphic novel), Death Proof, and Planet Terror, Tarantino recently made Inglourious Basterds (2009), a farce look at Nazi-occupied France during World War II, where a group of Jewish-American soldiers are recruited to flank and brutally execute Nazi soldiers while simultaneously spreading fear through the Third Reich. Some say despite Tarantino’s thirst for blood as a general theme, that he has recently been somewhat a disappointment in his approach, but that Basterds brings back his unique touch that hasn’t been seen since Pulp Fiction – the pulp. He designs the film to lead the viewer on a trail of twists and turns, and through the ridiculous ending shows that he can get away with his own quirky perspective, even on a subject so concrete as WWII. Tarantino, as a natural entertainer, puts an original spin on the situation, making the war movie fun and exciting in its own way, as he once again intertwines a series of short stories (following the Basterds in their Nazi pursuit, Lt. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) in his ruthless role as the “Jew Hunter”, and Shoshanna Dreyfus, a young French Jewish refugee who is forced to show a German war movie exploiting the trials of a young German sniper at her private cinema), while as a movie continually following a dark comedy aspect.

Like with Jules and Vince in Pulp Fiction, the juiciness of the tale does not necessarily happen with the Basterds – their vigilante mission is a relatively blunt and simple concept, while showing the ups and downs of ruthless violence that any rational underdog Tarantino character must face. In other words, the Basterds scenes aren’t necessarily required to still effectively relay the overall theme, but definitely show Tarantino’s creativity and dark humor. The real pulp of his new movie is inspired by the fact that a young female Jewish refugee must go against her morals to show a Nazi war film in her own cinema, discreetly humiliating her after she witnessed her family slaughtered by Hans Landa some years before, from which she revengefully devises a plan with her fellow employee and long-time friend to blow up the cinema the night of the big premiere with a large quantity of highly flammable nitrate film. The Basterds, meanwhile, are intertwined with Shoshanna and her plot (although never in contact with her and unaware that she has made her own plans to blow up the cinema) through Operation Kino, a British-American operation devised to infiltrate and destroy the Nazi attendance. Just when the viewer expects the heroic plans to fall through, the story ends with the theatre’s destruction and vigilante slaughter by two Basterd members of the Nazi crowd, including Hitler. This shows Tarantino’s dark and creative twist and obvious but satirical inaccuracy with actual modern history. Overall, the story has many historical inaccuracies, but the film is not meant to be a documentary. Tarantino wanted to have fun with the movie, which he had been developing for over ten years, and he perfected the ultimate satirical war movie. Making a personal joke in the last line, Lt. Raine (Brad Pitt) says, “this just might be my masterpiece,” more broadly implying Inglourious Basterds as Tarantino’s masterpiece over his other movies.

Tarantino is known for several subtle trademarks recurring throughout all his films. Some familiar trademarks include: references to modern cult movies, television, and music; shots from inside a car trunk; unconventional storytelling techniques (e.g. nonlinear stories, chapter format); frequent use of melee weapons; abrupt interjection of characters’ backgrounds; frequent reference to his home state of Tennessee; comeback roles given to forgotten actors; strong use of alias names; consistent inclusion of Mexican stand-off scenes; frequent work with the same actors (e.g. Harvey Keitel, Samuel L. Jackson, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman); casting of comedians for small roles (e.g. Stephen Wright (Dogs), Kathy Griffin (Pulp Fiction), Mike Myers (Basterds)); continuing application of Dutch elements (e.g. opening tune in Reservoir Dogs, Tim Roth’s Dog character “Mr. Orange” (the royal color of Holland), the opening conversation about Amsterdam in Pulp Fiction, the bride’s real name in Kill Bill (a.k.a. Beatrix, the name of the royal Dutch Queen)).

Perhaps his most notable continuing trait is his nonlinear adaptation of each film. Somehow Tarantino incorporates one or more flashback stories into all his movies, meanwhile precisely following the roles of multiple characters. The nonlinear style can be traced back to the literary works of such epic poets as Homer. Homer, as a bard, sang of the tales before, during, and after the Trojan War in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, illustrating constant flashbacks by his main heroic characters, both humans and gods. Homer’s plots, like those of Tarantino today, were well crafted and filled with dramatic episodes and finely tuned characters. Homer’s poetic characters also broke the barriers of the stylized Greek language, while similarly Tarantino’s characters break the barriers of conventional, conservative, modern dialog.

note the mushroom cloud laying mother fucker, mother fucker.

Tarantino’s second main distinct quality is his aesthetic use of violence, that is, stylistically excessive and significant in connecting with artistic and cultural symbols and references. In Greek tragic theatre, the focus was not on realism but rather ideas, symbolism, and language. Among Greek tragedy was satyr-play, which displayed the indecent temptations of sexually driven satyrs. Positive response to satyr-play indicated the extent of Greek sensibility, as also noted with Tarantino fans at his dark humor and satirical styles. Perhaps the most important aspect of Greek tragedy was the deep implication that humans cannot escape pain and suffering. Terrible things happen in Tarantino’s films (e.g. the mutilation of a cop’s ear in Dogs, the rape of Marsellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, the murder attempt of The Bride in Kill Bill while she is pregnant, the unreasonable slaughter of Shoshanna’s family in Basterds), but all these events are morally justified in some way (namely a vigilante act bringing those guilty to an end), and this same moral implication on horrific incidents was a primary recognition in Greek tragedy. In Tarantino’s style and Greek tragic style alike, the concern is not merely centered on violence for its own sake, but rather fundamental human ordeals with no simple or quick solutions. Aestheticism was later recognized in Great Britain with Oscar Wilde, whose outrageous manner gained him renown as an aesthete, unusually sensitive to the beauty in art, music, and literature, a title that could similarly be given to Quentin Tarantino for his unique conceptualization and expressional stretch from reality.

Tarantino wants to retire at age 60, and perhaps start a family by that time. As of now, like a priest, Tarantino is married to his profession. I think this is what makes him such a creative and respectable director. Right now, he is going alone (remaining unmarried), giving his time to his films, which I feel is a good way to bring out his full potential in creating a masterpiece like Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds. Through his unique nonlinear approach, aesthetic use of violence, personal application of hallmark traits and innuendos, and prolific style of dark comedy, Quentin Tarantino has gained legendary status while mastering his craft as a director, producer, writer, and actor. Movies are indeed his “masterpiece”.

This guy represents...

My boy St. Aquinas (on the left no doubt)

While there is no clear-cut definition of “the common good”, it can generally be assumed as a good designed for the benefit of all the members of the community. If anyone were left out of the realm of this common good, how could it, in fact, be common? To exclude anyone from the common good would take away from the entire meaning of the phrase. Even the weakest in a community must be included, because they still make up part of the community, and as the saying goes, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In theory, the system of laws that govern our society should constitute the common good, but laws are always flawed and are never perfect. Divine law should ultimately determine what is right and what is wrong, but not everyone chooses to follow divine law and therefore man-made laws must preside.

There is a difference, however, between the principles of common good and greater good. The concept of utilitarianism would suggest that the greatest happiness comes from what is good for the greatest number of people. This idea supports a complete democracy, where the will of the majority wins over the will of the minority. Two different groups of philosophers come to mind here. John Rawls would say that the common good arises from a veil of ignorance, that if we were all behind this veil we could not see or discover our situation in society and therefore could not initiate any principles to our advantage. No one could reign over anyone else, and no person or group would be favored. According to him, what is moral is what is fair for all, i.e. the common good. On the other hand, according to the British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, happiness is the greatest good, and it comes from pleasure and the lack of pain, moreover hedonism. Mill would say to seek happiness for the greatest number of people, which directly refers to utilitarianism. However, what the greater number of people want is not always what is best or most morally just.

For instance, in a hypothetical situation where a community of people suddenly ran out of basic necessities including food and water and had no way of getting these provisions, they would most likely panic. Say after things looked gloomiest for this community someone came along and said that they could be provided with free bountiful food and water for a lifetime if they agree to establish a factory. The only thing is that in this factory a small orphan child would be enslaved for the rest of his life and the energy created from his labor would produce all the food and water for this community. This is a clear example of utilitarianism, where the good of the individual conflicts with the good of the majority. Would it be right for the community of people to agree to put up the factory where the orphan boy would slave for the rest of his life? Everyone would be benefiting except the boy. The greater good is not always right. Democracy does not always define the common good. What if a community of atheists agrees to have a nun killed because they feel she jeopardizes the safety of their community? This sounds more like a common evil than a common good.

Utilitarianism can be directly correlated with slavery in this aspect, where the claims of the majority, whites, dominated over the claims of the weaker group, blacks. While St. Thomas Aquinas had an excellent opinion on many things, it is hard to agree with his claim that slavery does not violate the natural law. His claim is quite condescending, actually. If natural law is derived from determining what is common good, and common good is what is fair for all, than there is no way slavery can be included on the common good side. Clearly African Americans gained little if not nothing from a 500-year era of slavery. The only thing they might have benefited from slavery is unity with each other. In the film On The Downward Spiral slaves would unite in the beginning to try to convert to Christianity so the white Dutch Christian slave owners would treat them equally, even though this did not work. Later in the film slaves banding together to escape or overthrow their masters, as vividly displayed with the Stone Rebellion. Other than that slavery proved to be toilsome and cruel for any slave, or for blacks in general. Even if Rawls’ view on common good was a fallacy, though, and common good referred more to hedonism and utilitarianism, how would slavery fall under this common good category? According to Mill, happiness refers to pleasure and the absence of pain. However, no pain comes from not having slaves. No one has slaves today, and having no slaves has no negative effect on anyone.

For a saint to say slavery is fine is even more irrational. To be a slave owner is like playing their god. As a slave owner, one has complete control over all the actions of their slaves. Anything the master wants he or she can get via the slave, and if the slave fails to obey, he or she gets punished. In this aspect the slave has no control over his or her own life. The slave’s life is in the hands of the master, who, in this aspect, plays a god-like figure. However, according to the Christian belief, there is only one true God, and no other gods can replace Him. How is it feasible, then, that Aquinas, a prominent Catholic philosopher, would agree that slavery was fine in accordance with the common good?

However, his views on adultery and homosexuality do hold relevant in accordance to the violation of natural law. Adultery, at least in the Catholic tradition, is one of the worst forms of mortal sin. Even to think lustfully about a woman other than one’s spouse is adultery. Adultery fundamentally can lead to worse crimes, like rape. Adultery violates the deadly sins of lust, greed, and envy. By committing this act, one is obviously lusting over someone he or she should not be, but is also envious of whomever the other person is already in a relationship with and greedy because he or she wants what they do not have, in this case a stranger in which they want to commit sexual acts with. Even if drawn away from the religious aspect of it, adultery still violates the common good. Adultery cannot be said to be good for all, or anyone at all for that matter. This grave act can lead to worse things than just infidelity. A husband might go so far as to kill the man he caught his wife cheating with. Two married people might get divorced because of infidelity and cause a great turmoil in their children’s lives. Adultery could even lead to rape, if someone gets the mindset that they can constantly get what they want and start getting more aggressive about it. Even if adultery did not violate the standard principles of society, things like murder and rape do, and infidelity in most cases takes a major toll on the persons involved, and not everyone handles it in the best manner.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, does not always violate the common good. I can see why Aquinas would say it does, being a religious figure and everything, but it does not seem to have a great impact on an entire community, at least not in these modern times. Back in the days of Thomas Aquinas homosexuality probably caused major uproar among society. Even in the bible it refers to homosexuality as a sort of undeniable evil. Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Although I agree with this passage, I do not think gays are a burden on society. Certainly they can stir up some heat among a community, but so could anyone else. The only thing I do not think homosexuals should not indulge in is marriage. That to me violates the common good. As a Christian, that destroys the sanctity of marriage, which is a holy bond between a man and woman. Also, if children are involved, that creates another whole set of problems. Kids with gay parents take a lot more grief from their peers than normal kids. Even if gay marriage was totally accepted and children grew up learning that it is right to be gay, this would conflict with the natural law, because we can only continue the human race via the joining of a man and a woman, but if homosexual marriage becomes more and more accepted and popular, the human race will slowly become extinct, and God’s plan to continue the advancement of humans will be foiled. Even if God is taken out of the equation, humans cannot possibly consider it the common good to allow themselves to become extinct because they choose to avoid reproduction with the opposite sex. Thus, homosexuality, or at least gay marriage, violates the common good.

Even though his position on slavery can easily be argued against, I do not believe Aquinas’ theory of natural law is refuted. Part of his reasoning comes from the era from which he lived. In his time slavery was widely accepted, whereas today even the thought of slavery is greatly shunned. It is not so much about slavery as it is about the principle of natural law in general. Aquinas says that people can reason well enough to make good decisions, and that people should stick to customs, because to break customs could destroy a community. These are viewpoints that still hold true today. The thing is that modern times have significantly changed from Aquinas’ era. While he could have included slavery when preaching to his community, it is still broad enough of a view to apply to us today as well. Therefore, while Aquinas may have been wrong about slavery, he was right about his overall thesis of natural law and common good, and I don’t think one little flaw in his explanation of natural law would refute his entire argument. Besides, he explains that where we question natural law, we should refer to Scripture. He obviously knew that his natural law theory could never be perfect and that there would always be questions about it. I think it is more of a guide, not to be taken critically, because we must all still make our own decisions. Aquinas was just one man with his own point of view. What he explained as natural law could easily be bended to fit anyone’s personal ethics and morals. No theory is concrete, which is why they are theories. I do not believe Aquinas’ theory of natural law can be completely contested because it serves as a guide for which we can take ideas from for our own theories of common good. We cannot base our entire ethical faith on one individual or group of philosophers. Of course the theories of philosophers are going to make sense and sound practical to live by; they are philosophers after all. They spend time theorizing and making their own opinions about things. Aquinas formulated his own opinion about natural law, and that does not mean everyone has to take it to heart. Instead, his theory should be used as a tool for us to discover our own feelings about the common good, and no room is left to completely refute his arguments.