A new weekly segment on the blog will be "Pondering Life Moments with Raymond." This will be a time for me to talk about something that is common in life or our culture and ponder it with you, the reader. They're crazy. They're silly. But then again, isn't life that way?
So this past summer, I was a camp pastor for a week of camp for 5th-6th graders. As I was leisurely sauntering across the sun-filled scenery towards the restroom, a youngster sprinted in such a speedy manner in my direction, arms wide open, shouting for all to hear "BEAR HUG". This triggered an image in my mind of a grizzly "hugging" it's prey before devouring it.
It is safe to say that I no longer needed to use the sanitary and squeaky clean facilities.
The young lad apologized upon seeing my accident, saying that he didn't mean anything by it. It got me thinking, though: why do we call them bear hugs if they are to be a comfort or display of affection. Have you ever hugged a bear before? I doubt it. If you have, you wouldn't be reading this blog right now, you'd be too busy talking to Jesus and asking Him all the questions you want to ask Him once you get to Heaven (because you'll be there).
Unless they read this blog in Heaven. If that's true, I'd get more than 24 views per post.
Anyway....yes. Back to bear hugs.
When did you last feel the need to show someone you cared about them, and promptly channel your inner wild sabertooth tiger and bite their face off? The only culture in which that's acceptable is in the household of Hannibal Lecter.
Here's what I propose: why not rename this grandest of hugs to reflect the comfort and love it gives? Why not, instead of striking fear with the term "bear hug" we call them "bed hugs"? My bed is warm, always welcomes me, and is sad whenever I leave it in the morning (at least, that's what I tell myself when I call my house just so I can leave a message on the machine to reassure my mattress that I will indeed return to it soon).
Remember: bear hugs don't comfort, they kill. Lets bring about a new era of love and acceptance...and bed hugs.
-Raymond Morris
Friday, January 30, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Busting Barriers
My phone buzzed with a warning tweet from a good friend of mine. "@OfficialRMorris Movie tweets are coming." He, much like me, loves film as both entertainment and a beautiful art form. Hearing this, I knew what was coming: a reaction to the Ghostbusters news. The beloved duo of movies that have evolved into one of the most iconic comedy movie series (think about it. If you say "Who you gonna call?", odds are very good that you'll get a reply of "GHOSTBUSTERS") is now officially getting a makeover, but not just a normal makeover, one with an all-female cast of Kristen Wiig (Former SNL), Melissa McCarthy (Tammy, The Heat, St. Vincent), Kate McKinnon (Current SNL) and Leslie Jones (Current SNL). So when my phone continued buzzing with Twitter notifications alerting me to the next 5 tweets voicing his displeasure, it did not surprise me. Honestly, I tended to agree right at the outset. 1) This is a blatant cash grab. 2) If you are going to do this, you should get better actresses! 3) The director Paul Fieg has not really made a movie that I thoroughly enjoy yet. I should be worried. I should be mad.
So why is it that I am strangely ok with it?
As a self proclaimed "Pastor of Cinematic Experiences"/film enthusiast/indie lover/Hollywood cynic, I should be enraged at the prospect of this! Right? Right?
This is what scares me. The more I thought about it and the more I wanted to be irritated about it, the more I began to like this. Why?
Ask yourself this question: when was the last time you watched a big time movie that gave you a primarily female cast? Scratch that: when was the last time you saw ANY movie with a primarily female cast? What about one that was more concerned with presenting the female (females if you are watching a progressive enough movie that has more than 1 female main cast member) cast as characters that were treated more like human beings and not eye candy? This film may have a chance to break this mold. We can get a movie that presents the lady cast as human beings that are legitimately funny or have some legitimate acting talent (Look up the movie "The Nines" if you doubt McCarthy as an actress).
The possibilities for this movie excite me. Will this be one of the greatest cinematic works of all time? I doubt it. Will it involve "stupid" comedy that resorts to cheap laughs from time to time? Most likely. Then again, so did it's predecessor. Before Ghostbusters, Bill Murray was the silly man in "Stripes" and the moron hitting flowers in "CaddyShack". Dan Aykroyd was an extra in "Temple of Doom", and Harold Ramis couldn't get a movie role unless he wrote it for himself. What's interesting is that the female cast proposed for this reboot has a better pre-Busters resume than the original cast did. But the possibility of getting a movie that, if smartly written and well executed, can break down some of the barriers that women in movies tend to have is awesome. I am excited to see a reboot that is a new spin on a (now) classic story, and to have the female presence take a back-seat to the laughs and good story presented.
...now if only they could get Tina Fey to co-write...
What are your thoughts? Are you ok with this news? Why/why not?
-Raymond Morris
So why is it that I am strangely ok with it?
As a self proclaimed "Pastor of Cinematic Experiences"/film enthusiast/indie lover/Hollywood cynic, I should be enraged at the prospect of this! Right? Right?
This is what scares me. The more I thought about it and the more I wanted to be irritated about it, the more I began to like this. Why?
Ask yourself this question: when was the last time you watched a big time movie that gave you a primarily female cast? Scratch that: when was the last time you saw ANY movie with a primarily female cast? What about one that was more concerned with presenting the female (females if you are watching a progressive enough movie that has more than 1 female main cast member) cast as characters that were treated more like human beings and not eye candy? This film may have a chance to break this mold. We can get a movie that presents the lady cast as human beings that are legitimately funny or have some legitimate acting talent (Look up the movie "The Nines" if you doubt McCarthy as an actress).
The possibilities for this movie excite me. Will this be one of the greatest cinematic works of all time? I doubt it. Will it involve "stupid" comedy that resorts to cheap laughs from time to time? Most likely. Then again, so did it's predecessor. Before Ghostbusters, Bill Murray was the silly man in "Stripes" and the moron hitting flowers in "CaddyShack". Dan Aykroyd was an extra in "Temple of Doom", and Harold Ramis couldn't get a movie role unless he wrote it for himself. What's interesting is that the female cast proposed for this reboot has a better pre-Busters resume than the original cast did. But the possibility of getting a movie that, if smartly written and well executed, can break down some of the barriers that women in movies tend to have is awesome. I am excited to see a reboot that is a new spin on a (now) classic story, and to have the female presence take a back-seat to the laughs and good story presented.
...now if only they could get Tina Fey to co-write...
What are your thoughts? Are you ok with this news? Why/why not?
-Raymond Morris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)