On Paying Attention To Television

When I was growing up, there were two shows on television that I knew better than to interrupt: West Wing and Deep Space Nine. Whether it was Aaron Sorkin's dialogue or the fact that you couldn't just rewind it TiVo style, it was a no no to say anything during either of those shows (probably moreso West Wing because of that Aaron Sorkin thing). It was plainly understood. West Wing was on Wednesday nights so the stress level was already high having to get home from church, but my sister and I didn't want any of that stress coming out on us...so interrupting was not even thought of.

I've never come to watch West Wing in its entirety, but I have watched a few episodes and it was extremely clear to me within the first episode or so why this rule was in place: lines are easy to miss. If you miss the lines, you've missed the show.

They are not always humorous lines, although often are, but the dialogue moves so quickly that you have to pay close attention in order to be able to get everything. It's like being stuck in Gilmore Girls hell.

Of late, being a full time Divinity student, I have not had time to watch many shows. My wonderful wife on the other hand, does. We have had discussion after discussion about how in the world she keeps up with work while still watching TV. She has often told me, "You can't just decide to watch a movie and only watch a movie, you have to get other things done at the same time." She is a master at it.

My issue: I don't think my mind works like this. I'm the type of guy who likes to get to the theater at least 30 minutes before a showing, get the snacks, get great seats, and use the restroom at least once before the movie begins. Films are pieces of art; if you got up in the middle of an opera or symphony performance, you'd be lost. The same is true of films.

I have two shows that I go out of my way to watch every week (meaning I don't wait for them to go to Hulu and if I'm not at home the minute they come on, I'm keenly aware): Modern Family and Glee.

Both of these shows are West Wing types (although not always as respectable). These shows incorporate tons of funny and poignant lines that are not responded to by a studio audience and the humor is left to be noticed by the viewer. The writers and editors mercilessly move from line to line and don't hold back.

If you try to read or write during Glee or Modern Family, you will miss Phil Dunphy's Gloria comments and Brittany's random thoughts. And...if you miss those aspects of the show, you've missed a large part of what makes these shows successful and brilliant.

In the age of laptops, iPads, and smartphones, there is too much to distract you from true art.

Perhaps you don't need to be mono tasking when you watch The King Of Queens, but when it comes to a show that relies on curvy stories and quick, funny lines in order to "get it", mono tasking is the only way I see to do it.

I learned that this week with Glee. If you miss the narrative of Glee, you're lost and will probably write it off as a silly show. But if you catch it, your world will be opened up.

-B

My New Song...Name It For Me

I haven't written a ton of music as of late. I have a few that are coming but are unfinished. I stumbled across this one, which I wrote at the end of college, yesterday. The thing is, I never really came up with a name for it. I like the song, I think the message is relatively clear, and the recording came out pretty well for being done in our dorm room.

So, the issue remains. I wanted to share the song, but I didn't have a name for it. So I came up with this idea: have you all name it.

I put it on YouTube with the lyrics sliding by as it goes along in hopes that you'll listen to it. The visuals are minimalistic and bare bones, but that way you'll be able to focus. If you'd like, leave your idea for a title in the comments. I'll give two prizes, one for the one I pick or think most fits, then one for the most creative.

I'm seriously considering putting it on iTunes too, so anyone who wants to design some cover art for it as a single will win my heart forever (after Jesus, Allie, and my family of course).

Hope you enjoy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAihr-ws5o&]

-B

iPad 2

The iPad 2 is releasing today in stores. I'm going early to wait in line in Raleigh. I'm planning on buying the 32GB black Wifi-only version. Lots of reviews have been favorable of it. Even Walt of the Wall Street Journal tried to find stuff wrong with it in order to play down the hype...but he was unsuccessful.

After we got back to Raleigh last night, I played with GarageBand for a little bit. I own a lot of music apps for the iPad but this was definitely the most responsive app I've ever used. And the design of it was just brilliant.

Maybe I'll make a little video on iMovie and share.

I can't wait.

-B

Born This Way

I believe that by this point I have made it clear that eccentric, brilliant, crazy people intrigue me greatly. I don't really see how this will ever change. But, this new Lady Gaga video is beyond where I am willing to go.

Gaga' new single "Born This Way" found its way onto these here inter-webs in video form last week sometime on Vevo, YouTube's recent offering for legal artist-submitted and promoted music video content.

Born This Way, like Gaga's "Alejandro", is about 7 or 8 minutes long and truly reminds me of the old Michael videos that were really short films rather than just a music video. Something about this production style seems to be very artistic and I really like it. I like story lines, creativity, and one medium acting as another.

But, also like Alejandro, the video of Born This Way does not necessarily add to the song in a way that provides any insight into the textual poetry. And, also like Alejandro, it shows way too much skin unnecessarily. For that reason, I choose not to link to the video here as I would often do. I do consider it an attempt at art and so I won't necessarily discourage you from watching it, but I do recommend that you be careful.

The Born This Way video approaches the art of movie making much like the Thriller video did. It gives a little context, tells a little story, and then infiltrates the screen with dancing and singing. One major difference though: Gaga is nearly naked for the entire video. Same thing was true of the Alejandro video and when she WAS clothed she was dressed as a nun (and it eventually heads toward a sacrilegious ending). Not only is Gaga almost naked, but she enacts sexual movements throughout the video as well. It is extreme overkill. (Arguably, the Alejandro video is still much worse.)

Typically, those of us who are offended by this blatant sexual outpouring from a TV screen would just change the channel or click a different video. But I watched this all the way through because I couldn't figure out if it was the sexual discourse that I struggled with or whether or not it was the fact that this was a great song, written for a noble cause, and was simply destroyed by a terrible video design.

I interpret the text of the song like this: love yourself no matter who you are, what you do, how you feel, or what people think of you or call you. In today's world this is a message that ought to speak loudly. Very loudly. God makes no mistakes.

I interpret the video like this: a star like Gaga was born and helped to raise up followers who don't hate. Given, the metaphor used in the video was extreme, strong, and downright weird...but I still got the message.

Problem number one: is this video about keeping people from wanting to kill themselves because they feel out of place because they are gay, fat, or not cool? Or is it a message that Gaga is helping the world out by promoting self confidence? I would argue that it might be both. As a Christian, I appreciate an effort to promote an idea and message of love.

Here's the issue that I see though. If the ultimate goal is that someone love themselves no matter who they are or what they look like, what is the need for the sexual acts on screen? What good does that do? I might argue that, if anything, it only makes a fan look at Gaga's body and think differently about their own body. This seems counterproductive.

P!nk's new video and song seems to be a better representation of this message.

As a result of the issue stated above, I think that Gaga's new video does nothing to advance culture in a way that she wants it to advance (toward a movement of love and acceptance) because it is so bogged down with sexual aspects that a viewer may never be able to get past it. (Though, P!nk's new video uses the F word unnecessarily as well.)

It seems to me that the popular world is catching on to the damage it has caused. And some artists are trying to fix it. I appreciate that.

But, they're not seeing the whole picture.

-B

I have a lot a respect for Gaga but I think she is quickly losing me as a true fan.

Charlie Sheen and Jesus

As I have been watching ABC's interview with Charlie Sheen tonight, I am struck by how genuinely interested I am in crazy people. Though I can't really pin down why, crazy, eccentric people fascinate me. I've tried to figure it out and a few things came to me. Most notably, they have giant egos and are extremely good at what they do. But...there is more.

While watching the interview, I kept thinking, "My God, this guy is crazy."

And while translating Jesus' appearance before the Sanhedrin from Greek to English throughout the commercials, it occurred to me that this may have been how people viewed Jesus.

I mean, think about it. Here is a crazy man who does crazy things, talks in ways we can't really comprehend, has a completely different mindset on society and life, and seems on the outside to have a huge ego. (Jesus DID pretty much claim to be the son of God)

Jesus tended to live into a reality that certain principles that had been taught throughout history were finally coming to be. You could use the word "fulfillment." While I admit it is a stretch, it seems to me that Charlie Sheen is living into principles that have come to reality inside of him; these principles might be articulated as: winning is everything and only the best win.

Interestingly, Charlie Sheen has admitted fault in several situations and even apologized for some tonight...sort of. It is pretty well accepted by believers that Jesus was a perfect man.

Another comparison occurred to me; Jesus selected followers who followed him, left everything (Matthew 19) and were willing to believe in him, live like he asked them to live, and die for his cause. Charlie's "goddesses" seem to buy into the same mindset of him. And...people (mostly those in questionable job situations) seem to follow him still. To add, Charlie seemed to sum up his theory on life as "love" based around Charlie. Jesus seemed to sum up his "theory" (many of us would say...reality) as "love" based around Jesus (I include God the Father in this definition of Jesus).

Of course, I don't think Charlie Sheen is Jesus (I actually would hold to an argument to the contrary) but I do think that it can be an interesting study as to those in our presence who are crazy and the difference and effect they have on our lives.

Next week, Hitler and Jesus.

-B

Team Jesus...then Bell. And Most Definitely, Not Team Piper

If you're reading this, you've probably heard the news and read the blogs: Rob Bell is being accused of preaching Universalism in his new book, Love Wins. His name was blowing up the trending topics on Saturday and discussions about this topic was all over this here interwebs. I will first point out that I once heard a sermon of Bell's where he said he wasn't actually that into "Love Wins" (a campaign that came out of his community) anymore because it was too complicated, instead, he liked, "Love."

Forgetting all that though, if you haven't heard the story, a blogger wrote about Bell's new book here.

Then, John Piper (my favorite theologian and pastor of all time...) wrote this and linked the blog post in a tweet: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Nice, Piper. Very pastoral of you.

You know, I've got to agree with all of the others...the most bothersome thing about this whole mess is that the Piperists (and yes, I do take him as their leader) seem to be sooooo convinced about the fact that they are right when it comes to salvation and they're basing their argument where they themselves admitted that Bell's language was ambiguous at best! Unbelievable. [Click on "salvation" to see my previous thoughts about how God goes about "saving people"]

And as far as "Farewell, Rob Bell" is concerned...I'm not even sure that I know what he was intending to mean (for those who have heard Piper speak before, this shouldn't be a new concept). I do know one thing about the comment though: it is not loving, it is not pastoral, and it seems to be downright rude.

So, perhaps here I will let Piper's words speak for themselves. Like Charlie Sheen, Piper's words define who he is: a butthead.

Guess who will be skipping Piper's session at Passion next year.

I love you Piper(Jesus commanded it), but you do not have the right to be so rude to others. This is obviously not the first time in history this has happened, church fathers argued in public over and over and called each other "heretics" and the like, but that doesn't mean this has got to go on.

Charlie Sheen demanded an apology from Chuck Lorre. Rob Bell doesn't have the heart, but I think he deserves an apology from Piper.

-B

PS - Allison just informed me that she preordered Bell's book.

Sheen vs. The World

[vodpod id=Video.5665367&w=425&h=350&fv=launch%3D41825237%26amp%3Bwidth%3D420%26amp%3Bheight%3D245] Hey Charlie, you're right...the world is SO against you (or more like CBS is the world). Gosh, that $2 Million an episode must really be a burden.

I had to watch this interview 3 times in order to make sure I took it all in.  I've aggregated some of my favorite lines below:

  • "Drug tests don't lie."
  • "I closed my eyes and made it so." - on how he became clean
  • "No,  I did that because they work...change the way you see things, the way you feel." - on turning to drugs and alcohol
  • "Sober Valley Lodge"
  • "At that point it's just the gibberish of fools" - people who talk about him who don't know the "situation"
  • Jeff: "Are you embarrassed that your kids will one day read about this?" Charlie: "God, no. I mean, talk about an education."
  • "Passionate.  My passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes."
  • "They are trying to destroy my family."
  • "Defeat is not an option.  They picked a fight with a warlock."
  • Jeff: "How do you plan to win that war?" Charlie: "With zeal, and focus, and violent hatred."
  • "Accept me Chuck."
  • Jeff: "Are you going to OD? Are you going to die?" Charlie: "No, that's for amateurs."
  • "Fools, fools, trolls, they allowed defeat to be an option. I won't." - on strong people who relapsed
  • "Come Wednesday they're going to rename it Charlie Brothers and not Warner Brothers...duh. Winning!"
  • "I won Best Picture at 20.  I wasn't even trying."
  • "I'm a man of my word."
  • "3 mil an episode, take it or leave it."
  • They owe me a big one, publicly, while licking my feet."

Something tells me that CBS is not going to apologize.

But, I do think that Chuck Lorre should do a primetime and morning show interview responding to Charlie's questions.

I'm always amazed by eccentric people.  I do believe that there really is a fine line between crazy and brilliant, and sometimes the two are mixed together; Hitler was crazy, but brilliant; Steve Jobs is brilliant, but crazy.

Charlie is in a positon where he thinks he knows that his acting can make or break that show. He also mentioned (not included above) that he had been converting Chuck Lorre's "tin cans" into gold for eight years. I tend to be of the mind that it does require both writer and actor to work together to create a work like Two and a Half Men. The show might be nothing without Charlie, but it is definitely nothing without Chuck Lorre. Based on Lorre's other success, he'll be ok.

So, no, I don't see CBS paying him 3 million just to finish the show.  I think we have seen the end of Two and a Half Men. And yes, I think 2 million an episode is too much. But, you're worth whatever people will pay you to do what you do. When you're good, and in demand, you can request whatever you want. And if they want you bad enough, they'll give it to you. That's supply and demand economics and is the way the world tends to work.

But...it doesn't keep you from being a jerk.

Whatever happens with his career, we will forever connect the name Charlie Sheen with a guy living a rock star life with multiple live in girlfriends who cares nothing about anything else except to play this game called American life better than anyone else.

Sadly, he'll probably do pretty well at it too.

-B

P.S. - Something tells me that when you are used to making $2 million an episode, someone canceling your job seems like a big deal.  But, in comparison, the world isn't against you.  I'm sure he feels like the world IS against him because of all of the negative publicity regarding the situation.  But, an interview like this does little except to present you as a man who only cares for himself. I wish him luck, mentally more than anything else.

The Sad Reality That Is Gwyneth Paltrow's Singing

When this debuted on Glee (or rather, the video debuted on YouTube first) I posted it here and made some sort of snide comment about the questionable amount of auto tune used. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1_B9FCZJMA&]

My basic feeling at the time was that while she is an entertaining actress and for the sake of Glee they had to use some pitch correction, I doubt that she had that much of "pop" control over her voice. Not that "pop" control is really all that much different from any other type of control.

Little things like her performance of the word "driving" in the first line "I see you driving 'round town with the guy I love" just made me think there had to be too much computer work done to the vocals.

I had no idea that this was turning into a career for her.

She was introduced tonight at the Oscars as "Country Music's next sensation" (or something like that) and I assume this has all come from Country Strong's suc-wait, lack of success. [I'll post the video whenever it becomes available]

My theory remains true. What was the thing most missing from the performance? Control. Her voice isn't terrible, and yes she has some slight pitch problems. But, mostly what is missing is her control.

She probably sounds like a decent singer in the shower, but not in a microphone.

While in the shower, given the acoustics of typical bathrooms, little nuances in your voice that might not be as pleasing to the ear are covered up by the resonance supplied by the tile, etc. But, in a microphone (and worse, in a dry mix driven to a TV feed) all those nuances cover up the parts of your voice that are actually decent.

It is as if microphones do THE EXACT OPPOSITE that the bathroom walls do.

Which is why, in today's world, people who are not in mastery of their voice ought not sing into a microphone. Or be recorded. Or perform at the Oscars. Or be described as the next big thing.

Stop making actors...singers. Unless they are good. Gwyneth isn't.

-B

For the record, Bieber has incredible control of his voice for not having much training and being 16.

Justin Bieber's Talent

Yes, I did see this movie. By far the most impressive clips from the film were the ones where he beat on things as a kid.  At one point, you watch him open a djembe for Christmas and beat on it, like he's been doing it for years.  He's like two.

He gets a bad reputation because his music is marketed to tweens. But-the kid can sing, and he can play.

Really.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJCN3Mhr14]

-B

Consumer Reports Only Ruins...Themselves

Consumer Reports reviews lots of products. They create a list of "recommended" ones, and a rate each product based on functionality, how well it works, how must it costs, and other things. When the iPhone 4 released, they were the ones who brought the most attention to the antenna situation. They said they "couldn't recommend the phone." To note, they gave it a very high rating. It became a big media frenzy and Apple explained, in detail, how they [Apple] viewed the situation and gave everyone a free case for their phone. Consumer Reports still, after all that, didn't give the phone a "recommended" stamp of approval.

Then a few weeks ago, the Verizon iPhone released. Consumer Reports came out with another review of the unit. Still, they were intentional to not give the phone a "recommended rating."

Many speculate that they only do this because they are losing respect for their reviews to many of the gadget blogging sites and this is a way to get page views and readers. Some say they are doing it because they are sticking it to the man. (How much has our world changed now that Apple is "the man"?)

I say they are doing it because they forgot to go to journalism school.

Shouldn't product reviews be mostly unbiased?

Whatever the case, they ought to fire their writers, editorial, and leadership because I haven't seen droves of iPhone customers returning their phones.

Instead, you know what I see? Droves of iPhone customers evangelizing about the product.

How persistent can they be? They're a bunch of idiots.

-B

My Proposition for the Future of Higher Education

Ok, not really. To say that I might have something that would significantly change the outlook of higher education is a strong statement.

But, I think I'm on to...something.

Here is my situation: I, as most people know, own an iPad. I didn't know how I would use it at first, but Allison and I are already figuring out how we are going to buy the next iPad as well so that both of us can have one.

Here's why:

In grad school (definitely in divinity school and higher education, probably in most others as well) you do a lot of reading and writing. Most of this reading is not done from traditional books, but rather from online PDF documents that have been scanned in by someone who works in the copy room. The typical practice is this: a few days before you are to have read an article, you go to your computer, download the PDF onto your computer, send it to print and print it out. Then you can read it, highlight it, etc. The process is great, students are responsible for the printing instead of teachers carrying loads of paper into class, and everything is online for easy access should someone lose a document etc. It also keeps the cost of physical books that a student might have to buy to a minimum. Most of these articles are from random sources or reference materials that cost way too much to ask a poor grad student to have to buy.

However, I see three fundamental issues: 1) Copyright. 2) Significant waste of paper(this has been a reality of the world for a long time). 3) The digital world only benefits us to access it, not to actually interact with it.

But, the iPad has changed all (except for the Copyright idea, that still seems to be an issue) that for me. (To prove my point, the Divinity School changed the main printer in the library and it took me three weeks--literally--to notice the change)

Here's what I do now:
1) Check the syllabus for the next assignment.
2) Log onto Blackboard from my iPad and find the revenant PDFs.
3) Click the files.
4) Tell the files to open in "Goodreader" (a fantastic PDFs reader app $.99)
5) Read the files, draw on them, write, mark, etc.*
6) Sync your folder of PDFs with Dropbox or MobileMe.
7) Take the iPad to class.

*Thanks to Goodreader's ability to markup PDFs AND save them to the PDFs files, I can highlight (if it recognizes text), underline by drawing with my finger, draw shapes around text, leave comments in text boxes that minimize and maximize as I tell them to. When this file syncs with my Dropbox account, I have an annotated PDF file wherever I go on whatever device I am using at the time. How cool is that?

Reading the files is much preferable for me on the iPad, because I can zoom in on text and actually read the files ALMOST as if they were a book. I can't tell you how many times I have seen student print out the files really small because the library computers' default printing was screwed up or because they were trying to save paper. I, on the other hand, don't have to remember to print and can zoom in on text that is hard to read.

It's not a perfect experience, yet. Depending on how large the scanned file was, each page takes a second to render each page. This isn't the end of the world, but can be annoying when someone is quickly referencing a page number.

So here is my proposition: Add $500 to the bill for each student (in higher education pricing, it doesn't hold a candle to other costs and seems to be a worthwhile investment) and deliver all reading assignments via an iPad. Duke has a history of doing this with its undergrads with iPods (and the use of iTunes U) and later MacBooks. Obviously, the additional fee might be optional, but I would imagine it would be easier to sway people.

Just a thought, but I think...a good one.

-B

PS- Yes, I did type this whole thing on my iPad and despite a few typographical errors, it was an enjoyable experience.

Red Light Cameras

Warning: Some of these are hard to watch.

Every once in awhile I get an email that actually is worth sharing in a way that is uplifting.

Here is what I have to say:

Do not run red lights. No hurry you are in is ever worth your life or the life of another.

ALWAYS enter intersections with caution, being aware of your surroundings and traffic intersecting you. Never trust another driver to take care of you, watch out for yourself.

If you run a red light and get caught, you get what you deserve. If you don't get caught, remember that Red Light cameras don't save lives. Only you can prevent an innocent life from being taken.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvXbIenivk&]

-B

Patriot Network TV

This guy is a community college professor in Arizona. His whole premise is that Obama is going against the American people by siding with the drug cartels and filing a lawsuit to stop Arizona's illegal immigration codes (SB1070) from going through. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo]

Only a few comments:

  • "Let that sink in."  How about, no.
  • The President should never be referred to as "Mr. Obama," but rather, "President Obama."
  • The uses of the words "patriot" and "great Americans" imply that others against the movement are not either. I hate that.
  • Videos that are intended to be seen as off the cuff speeches (no obvious TelePrompTers) are always more effective when they also appear unedited.
  • "You're next." No. Please don't compare illegal immigration to the Holocaust. It is offensive, severely offensive.
  • It sounds like he has been hanging out with Sarah Palin for too long.
  • His watch would be cooler if it played music.
  • Arizona's racism and harsh attitude toward illegal immigrants is so last year.
  • I still say that our ancestors immigrated illegally here. The Natives hated it.

-B

Let My People Go

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_emuOVvlbU&] Not completely sure what they are saying but from what I could find it was either, "God is great" or "Mubarak down down."

This is a mess. A real mess.

When has government oppression and violence ever led to peace among a nation? Unfortunately, at this point, one of the ways I can see this getting fixed is by more substantial violence. If the US can stay out of it, we will be lucky(but perhaps wrong). When authoritative vans go out of their way to run over protestors, we are in big trouble.

If it is democracy that they want, they all (government and people) need to understand that peaceful demonstrations are an integral part of our success here. Think MLK Jr over Malcolm X.

Will it work? I'm not sure.

-B