Stage lighting is so important. Kinjaz‘s choreography and execution makes the dance look like animation. Almost like stop-motion.
When I was washing my hair tonight, my mind wandered to what-if scenarios involving gunshots and holy texts. Imagine, if you would, a group of friends (or strangers) traveling in one car on the way to an interfaith service. With their destination just around the bend, they get caught in a crossfire at an intersection between a band of thieves and a few off-duty police officers. Each of the five inhabitants of that car gets shot. Legs, arms, torsos, and abdomens get punctured.
Or do they?
Customers at a nearby gas station hear the gunshots and call the paramedics. After arriving at the emergency room and receiving treatment from the hospital staff, it becomes apparent that even though these individuals were each struck three times, none of the injuries were life-threatening. Major arteries missed by centimeters, ball-and-sockets missed cleanly, and no reproductive parts were put in disarray.
Imagine the look of disbelief or curiosity on the nurses and doctors’ faces when they summarize the condition of the patients to the patients. The Buddhist was saved by his Star Trek dvd box set that he clutched against his chest while driving. The Muslim, sitting shotgun, was saved by the Qur’an leaning against his chest. The non-denominational Christian was saved by the pocket NIV Bible he kept in his breast pocket. The Wiccan was saved by an Oxford Dictionary, you guessed it, leaning against her bosom. The football player was saved by his playbook and his 10,000 Youtube Subscriber award.
Would each person thank their god? Would each person feel that their surviving is proof that there is a god and that there is only their god? Or, would they be back to square one wondering that if they all lived, it’s impossible to know which god is “right” and if there really is a god at all? Which holy text is right? Moreover, the football player puts a variable on things. Either he made it because he was with deists or because it was a coincidence and his presence somehow negated the certainty that the rest of them had regarding the nature of the Divine. The Buddhist would probably be the most chill, right? He’d chalk everything up to the rhythm of life as would the Wiccan.
On the other hand, if this car were filled with atheists and one law-of-attraction practitioner and they were saved by various non-holy texts (a Bluray box set, a cookbook, an iPad, a giant stuffed bear), would they attribute their survival to coincidence? Dumb luck? Or look at the law-of-attractioner for an explanation?
I was reading about synchronicity the other night and The Enigma of the Search in liminal moments where I was getting ready to sleep or waiting for an hour to pass. I have experienced synchronicity in my life and have seen that extra dose of ain’t-this-cool that such events can bring. Earlier this week I had my mind set upon obtaining Criterion DVD box set but didn’t follow through with my intention because the price wasn’t right. I told a friend about it and minutes later, he told me that Criterion as having a 50% flash sale for twenty-four hours and the promo code was LOVE.
Fast-forward to today. I recounted what happened on my bookface and am copying and pasting it here:
There’s an adage about man making plans and transcendent entities just laughing. I made plans today to go to the Funwoody Barnes & Noble to get my morning caffeine fix and Mary Roach’s book Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War* followed by an oil change (and more). Well, I got to Barnes & Noble at 8:52 am, not realizing that they didn’t open until 9 am. Because I didn’t want to wait nine minutes for the doors to open, I went to a nearby Starbux for a soy latte. As I was headed back to my car, I heard a man’s voice coming from my left.
“Excuse me, ma’am. Do you have a dollar?”
I’d noticed this man earlier but didn’t think more if it. He wore all black and was bundled up like any cold temperature morning. I walked closer to him and asked if he wanted an almond croissant (which I got from Starbux in addition to the latte). He thanked me but declined as his hunger was focused on grits. I gave him a dollar, remarked that it was a good and sunny day not windy like yesterday, and told him to have a good day. He responded with appreciation and noted that I was a beautiful woman…presumably for not ignoring him and not giving him the stink-eye.
Normally, I ignore questions people ask me when I’m going back to my car (unless they’re about directions or the time). I didn’t ignore this question, though. Had my morning gone as I’d “planned,” I wouldn’t have had this experience.
Oh, and no oil change today because I have to get a timing cover oil leak fixed and there’s no sense and getting two oil changes in less than a week.
It occurred to me that there was an amount of “pre-production” that had to happen in order for me to have had that experience. The book I wanted was supposed to be available at the Buckhead B&N, which it wasn’t when I went there on Thursday. They told me the Perimeter and the Forum locations had it. Thus, my trip to the Perimeter this morning. And, I typically get Saturday soy lattes from a specific Starbux and I didn’t do it this morning because I figured, “going to B&N, might as well get it there.” I ended up getting the book at the Forum.
I also picked up Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016) on DVD. I’ve thought about my actions from this morning and have only come up with this “reason” for why I didn’t ignore the man. It would have been rude not to acknowledge him — practically, I was the only other person around at that moment. It would have been so obvious to him that I was choosing to pretend he wasn’t there. It would have made me feel bad and ashamed. I wasn’t “thinking” any of this stuff, but a part of me knew it.
Hearing that question, “Do you have a dollar?” was like being on a stage with a spotlight shining straight into my face. I’ve lived my entire life doing everything I can to be backstage or in the audience — never on the stage. I won’t shy away from other audience members or crew members off-stage, but I have tried to hide myself in other capacities. In that moment, the universe had seen me and I couldn’t make myself blend in with my surroundings or distract it with tales of absurdity or morbidness.
Instead of wondering if I’d passed the test, I’d like to know, well, what next?
*I saw the book mentioned on this Reddit thread.
It is a daunting endeavor to speak in depth about the brilliance of Jordan Peele‘s directorial debut Get Out (2017) without major spoilers, thus, this post will focus less on plot and more on mise-en-scene and tone. The trailer sets up the premise quite well, leaving no doubt as to the escalating tension that the audience can expect (but it also includes moments that didn’t make it to the final cut):
When I’d initially read about this film and watched a trailer, I thought it would be scary-and-funny the way the Scary Movies are scary and funny. I also anticipated a “final girl” motif … except that it would be “final black guy.” After watching the film today, I realized my assessment wasn’t inaccurate but needed some adjustment. The events in Get Out take place over a weekend where Rose (Allison Williams) takes her boyfriend Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) home to meet her family. It quickly becomes apparent that something is amiss with the atmosphere around the house and Chris is uncomfortable.
The film is both humorous and horrifying but not due to crude jokes, paranormal activity or extreme body trauma. The foreboding and psychological terror reminds me of Rosemary’s Baby (Roman Polanski, 1968) — things appear normal on the surface but something is clearly wrong.
Tragedy and comedy are frequently cited as two sides of the same coin, and as Get Out suggests, horror is a substantial player in that relationship. If you’ve seen any of Key and Peele‘s skits or Keanu (Peter Atencio, 2016), you’ll be familiar with the sinister-meets-silly quality of Jordan Peele’s humor. The laughs come because of genuine comedy as well as the dynamic between horror and comedy. Within the story world, the actions and beliefs of certain characters is the source of terror. If read ideologically, one can find a reflection or criticism of society. It’s not the monsters and the ghosts that are scary — real life is scary. Ostensibly normal situations with just the right amount of distortion or anachronism generates a sense of dread that no long-haired Asian girl or exploding light fixtures can.
As a cinematic experience, the music and sound design create a visceral reaction akin to watching a monster film or slasher film. Audible jump scares, dissonant juxtapositions between sight and sound.
Because I don’t want to get into even minor spoilers, I’ll leave you with a list of observations and miscellany:
~ Microsoft and Bing branding. We got lots of close-ups.
~ So, not all TSA agents are misguided?
~ Jordan Peele wrote the screenplay as well and there was only one close-up that made me think what we see would be important later on…and it wasn’t. Deleted scene maybe. Many other visual elements come back together for the big reveal.
~ The film shapes very specifically the viewer’s perception of the characters along the way until such time that the narrative unveils true motives. You don’t get to “figure things out” necessarily before the characters do.
The Fung Bros.’ video on NBA Moves got me thinking about the artistic nature of the athletic performance of basketball moves and scoring.
Even though the ultimate goal is to win by outscoring one’s opponent, it isn’t enough that the players just get the ball into the hoop as many times as possible. Methodology necessitates that players try to keep the other team from scoring by getting the ball back or “fouling” them. In baseball, the pitcher strikes out the batters; in football, the defense keeps the other team from getting another set of downs, sacks the quarterback, or intercepts the ball; in hockey and futbol, and I imagine to a similar extent basketball, each team tries to get the puck/ball to score. Hence, the back-and-forth quality of these three sports compared to baseball and football, where the former is more stationary and the latter consists of a series of stop-and-go’s.
In addition to the technique and skills required to put the ball in the hoop, though, does a player have to execute these plays with ostensibly intentional rhythmic and complex footwork? Is the footwork a byproduct of trying to get the ball close enough to the hoop to dunk? The more I watch a variety of basketball plays, the more I see artistry in the physics of that choreography no matter how (co)incidental.
Basketball game-play impresses me as being more unpredictable than football. The gridiron is a much larger stage and the fluidity of certain plays contributes to the notion that every outcome is planned. It seems that basketball invites and involves more improvisation down the court.