A Separate Peace

The two main characters of John Knowles novel, A Separate Peace, are best friends.  Their names are Gene and Finny.  Gene is the quiet smart one while Finny is much more outgoing and athletic.  Their differences are obvious as the narrator takes much of the book trying to explain them and what they caused.  As great of friends as the two are, there is something evil between them, something Finny is oblivious too, as he has far too much love for his friend.  Gene knows there is something growing in their relationship, but he cannot accept or name it. 

This something is born and raised in the secret thoughts of Gene’s mind.  These very thoughts center around Finny ranging from love, to jealousy, to rage.  Gene adores Finny, as he is proud to have him as his best friend, but deep, deep down he hates him.  Gene is jealous of the human marvel that Finny is.  He hates the hold that Finny has over him, able to bring Gene along on any random adventure that Finny thinks up.  Gene despises this hold, but at first he doesn’t know it.  He thinks that Finny and he are best friends and this is just how things go, this is how they play out for him.  He’s proud that someone as great as Finny has selected him, out of the many, to be his closest friend, his partner for the summer of 1938.  Deep down, a rage is growing in Gene.  A rage brought on by a desire of all Finny has and all he is able to do. 

That is why Gene causes Finny to fall from the tree.  When first reading that sentence, I never believed it had actually happened.  I reread the paragraph over and over again until finally I understood that Gene had truly allowed to his friend Gene to fall from the tree.  To me, he does this because he can never be like Finny.  Never able to be as spontaneous or physically capable as Finny, so Knowles decided that Gene will just take these things away from him, because as his talents are taken so are his unique emotions.  Gene ruins his best friend Finny. 

Could Finny have pushed Gene too far? Could he have been too cocky, shown off too much, and dragged Gene along on too many adventures.  No.  Plain and simple fault could never be Finny’s.  No one is deserving of that kind of fall, one that could even have killed them depending on how they landed.  Gene commits an act of evil, but I don’t think that he is actually evil.  In an extreme moment of weakness he allows is jealousy to over take him.  Gene is no terrorist or professional killer, he may have even thought Finny would have been fine.  Seeing that Finny is so talented and wonderful, he may have thought that Finny would have bounced right off the shallow pond shore.  This didn’t happen though, one of his legs is shattered completely.  Four thousand miles away from war, a young boy makes a decision just as life threatening as the American soldiers fighting for his sake.  Maybe Knowles was just trying to show how evil and corrupting was is.  That men of war make decisions equal in evil to that of Gene’s choice. 

           

Django

            The second watch always brings a comfortable feeling.  Before sitting down and even starting the movie I always think, “I’m wasting and money.  I’ve already seen this movie what’s the use of watching it again if it’s not free?”  About twenty minutes later though I couldn’t be in a farther state of mind.  Good movies have that effect.  That feeling you get when you know you’ve seen something before and you know everything that’s going to happen, all the twists and turns, but it’s okay, because the essence of the movie itself allows your knowledge to lie asleep for the next 2 hours.  Almost all well made movies are deserving of a second watch.  My most recent encounter with this phenomenon is Tarantino’s Django Unchained.

            Movies like Django, those centered around slavery and the hatred of blacks, always makes me think.  While inspiring a powerful hatred for the southern folk of that age, it always makes me wonder what I may have done back then.  Would I have even had slaves, or helped in the fights against it.  Every single time I’ve asked myself this question, without a doubt I envision myself as a man fighting against slavery.  Tarantino captures the evil and horror of the 1800’s southern men perfectly.  I know that there truthfully never was a sport like Mandingo Fighting, but sometimes seeing things like this makes a white person like me wonder what our ancestors were thinking.  By this time, most parts of Europe had abandoned the use of slaves, and it slightly shames me to think of how we took so long to catch on. 

            In the same frame of mind is Dr. Schultz.  To me, Schultz stands for the American spirit today, the one which looks down on our dark history of slavery.  He is Tarantino’s own way of dealing with the idea that a practice so horrendous existed.  Placed back in the time of Django, I believe I would fit right in as a Schultz-type character.  I wouldn’t be as violent or as smooth, but stopping bad guys and aiding slaves in unfair situations seems as if it be a very cool career.

Californication

            Whether it’s a form of procrastination or that the show is just that good, Californication is my new obsession.  I can’t get enough of it.  I’ll sit down and say to myself, “One episode then I’m going right to bed,” but I’ll end up watching three or four and going to bed much later than I originally planned. 

            In a few words, Californication is really good.  Its five main characters hold it together wonderfully and each has their own extremely lovable characteristics.  The show follows the life, relationships, and choices of a middle-aged named Hank Moody.  Hank is a writer whose best-selling book has recently been made into a horrendous movie.  His pen is dry though, as he finds difficulty writing new, worthwhile material.  This hindrance, along with Hank’s struggles to win back his ex-girlfriend-fiancé, Karen, and stay close with his daughter, Becca, make up most of the shows plot. 

            I love Hank, but I don’t know why.  He can be sleazy and he drinks too much, but deep down he’s such a good guy.  He’s also a great father and never gives up on winning back Karen to give his daughter a normal life.  Hank can be a dumb a-hole at times but he’ll come right around and shows signs of extreme bravery, confidence, and compassion.  David Duchovny’s acting is incredible; he plays his role like his name has been Hank Moody since birth. 

            The show isn’t always realistic, at times it’s even completely exaggerated, but somehow I still find it believable.  My faith is always kept in Hank.  No matter how many strange women he fools around with, how many useless fights he gets in, or how many times he moves backwards faster than forwards, Hank Moody is a hero.  He’s a hero for the useless tired souls of Los Angeles, whom he is one of. 

            Maybe that’s why I like the show so much, because it’s not realistic?  It’s fun, rooting for someone you know will more than likely come out successful, while at the same time watching all of their comical failings before they reach that success.  As funny as the show is, it might just be an example of what not to do.  Hank’s a really cool guy but no douche gets away with that much.  In real life, knowing Hank would be a full time job and one I would definitely hate.  Some characters were meant just for the screen.

Californication is a raunchy, rowdy show with numerous almost doubtful plot points, but it is highly entertaining.  That is why I watch it.  Hank Moody is someone I have come to love and with each episode he and I become better buds. 

            It’s a big commitment to begin a series.  It takes hours to watch through the many episodes.  You need to be prepared and aware of what you are about to begin.  I regret zero of my time wasted watching Californication though and I look forward to the release of season 7. 

My type of movie

            Inside Man has been my favorite movie since the first time I saw it.  It’s smart, intense, funny, and best of all, a bank robbery movie.  I don’t know what it is about them, but bank robbery movies just happen to be extremely exciting for me. 

            The movie itself is very intriguing even from the beginning and as it continues it seems to get even better.  Maybe it’s not to others, but after seeing a movie for the first time as a youngster it’s always going to seem just as good as that first time.  Anyway though, I like how most of the movie was a combination of actual real-time footage and then integration/interview footage from after the robbery.  Also, they way the robbers made it seem as if every criminal was a hostage was mind-blowing yet so obvious of an idea.  So, unless the Coen brothers, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Martin Scorsese team up, I’m pretty sure this will always be my favorite movie. 

            On another note… Why are bank robbery movies so interesting?  I think it’s because they make the average Joe feel like a criminal; plotting and scheming along with every movie the actual criminals make.  These movie make you feel like even you could pull that off, and a lot of times the criminals seem like real nice people so it doesn’t even feel like it would be stealing.  In reality though, this obviously couldn’t happen.  Bank robberies like the one of Inside Man should be kept within the confines of movies and books. 

            Also, after reading online reviews it seems like a lot of people don’t like the movie, giving it one, two, and three out of ten star reviews.  I know the ending is given away quickly in the beginning, but to me that doesn’t matter.  Obviously they’re going to pull it off the criminals just seem to slick.  The heist and its intricacy are what’s important.  This isn’t Dog Day Afternoon.

"The Second Coming"

I’m pretty sure we read and analyzed “The Second Coming” in class last year.  I can admit though that compared with now, I didn’t have a clue what the poem meant.  Today I can say that I am beginning to understand it.

The poem speaks of Yeats’ disappointment in society and its recent worldwide failings between 1910 and 1920.  In it, he uses his idea of a gyre to express the next coming of a new “god” or ruler.  It seems to him that this new ruler will not be a happy one. 

This poem really made me admire Yeats once I understood it more.  At first, after reading about Yeats’ automatic writing with his wife, I thought he was a little nuts.  I mean seriously, writing subconsciously? In his poems though, it is obvious that all his elements come together. 

            Do I agree with Yeats idea of gyres? Of course I don’t.  I don’t believe that every two thousand years a divine impregnation begins the process of a new ruler or leader being born.  The idea is just a little too crazy for me.  What isn’t crazy about the idea though, is a poet dealing with real-world and current issues.  To me, that is what qualifies an author, poet, artist, or anyone as great.  Anyone can talk about horses and meadows, but slipping real world issues into their work is what’s impressive, especially when they’re not saying