Mediums of Storytelling: Movies

I have written a blog in the past about how I feel it is absurd for people to be surprised by the fact that movie adaptions of books are almost always different.  In that post I covered both television and movie adaptions, but here I would like to focus solely on movies.  Films may not have the length or depth of books, but they are viable means to tell a story, especially if there are time constraints.

Movies have a problem of time, something novels general don’t have to worry about.  Films typically do not exceed three hours because many people do not have time to sit through something that long or have that extensive of an attention span.  Books take time to consume, movies do not, and for authors sometimes we need quick bursts of inspiration.  Films fulfill this role.  Aside from the shorter length, the visual stimulation that comes from movies is unparalleled.  Reading is essential to being an author, but sometimes being well-versed in movies is as well.

With the advancement of technology, the cinematic experience has evolved and has enhanced movies beyond their campy, stilly status decades prior.  With these enhancements compiled with a different vision, directors almost universally decide to change their version of a story that originally was a novel.  Those who read the books typically get upset over the differences, and these changes can affect the movie’s critical reviews.  It blows me away that people still get upset over the fact that movies and books are usually different.  This has been the case for decades.  Why are people still surprised by this?  Just because there are differences doesn’t mean the movie is bad, sometimes the changes are good.  Movies and books are two completely different forms of art, and by extension of that reality inevitably tell stories differently.  Both are still equally legitimate.

In the writing community, books are praised, and movies are either forgotten as sources of inspiration or looked down upon.  I feel this might be partially because of the differences between movie and film adaptations of the same stories and the stigma that goes along with it.  It is possible to appreciate all forms of storytelling, including the old and modern.

I Believe in Science!

I just started writing a science fiction novel.  With writing in a new genre comes research and new things begin to stand out more than normal. Many times, I come across either memes on social media or blog posts declaring that a person or group “believes in science.” I find this to be rather odd.

I’ve never read about, met, or otherwise known of anyone who doesn’t believe in the process of coming up with a hypothesis and testing it to see if the results are not only possible but repeatable.  Despite what some may think, I am not sure there are many worldviews that are actively against believing in such processes.  Of course, I’m not an idiot and know that this declaration is meant to counter what the scientific community’s stances are on evolution and climate change.  More accurately, “I believe in science!” is a statement that has baggage which indirectly is sometimes used to discredit “religious” beliefs.  Not always, but it is true rather often.

As a Christian who accepts the scientific findings, I am all too aware that the culture that surrounds my faith is known for rejecting things that appear painfully obvious to those who do not adhere to Christianity.  I would argue that such an instance isn’t about rejecting science, but instead scientists’ findings and claims.  Those who announce their love for science claim those who do not fully accept climate change and evolution to be real fail to understand or believe science at all.  Those on the receiving side of those arguments say that there are things science cannot answer and can and has been wrong before.  “Religious” folks do not see it as rejecting science as a process.  Many of them believe science supports other ideas than what are mainstream.  Instead they reject common belief due to worldviews and that history has shown that scientists have been wrong before.  Do I as a Christian agree with this position?  Not entirely.  Yes, scientific consensus has been wrong in the past and until more information comes to light we might find out that is the case now as well.  That is the nature and beauty of science.  However, where I disagree is to use that as a catch all to simply justify preconceptions and therefore reject an idea even when heaps upon heaps of evidence, peer reviews, and testable evidence support a theory.

This topic ties into my previous blog post about truth.  People believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence is given.  One must not only be open-minded but have a worldview that doesn’t crumble simply because something is uncomfortable.  This is true on all matters, not just heavy topics like climate change.  Another thing that would help would be for both believers and non-believers to acknowledge that science and faith are not incompatible.  Certainly, they are if either are layered with presuppositions, but that doesn’t have to be the case.  Ultimately, believing in science does not equate believing in scientific claims.  The process and the results are different.  Political and religious worldviews shape how we interpret these claims.  I would argue both political sides ignore important scientific truths.  The reality is we must do our best to curb our natural human bias with discernment.  This is possible, but a difficult endeavor.

Growth

I wrote a blog before about how characters are expected to change and grow. That is a fair expectation, if all characters were static they wouldn’t be interesting.  Everyone changes to some degree, but how many people change significantly enough where they would be considered a “dynamic” character in a book? Honestly, I do not know the answer. Maybe it’s everyone, maybe the number is a small minority.

From my limited perspective, the anecdotal evidence in life seems to indicate that people both change and stay the same simultaneously.  How is that possible?  As people grow older their behaviors change, become more refined, their habits that are good and bad become deeper entrenched. It is common from what I’ve seen for people to become set in their ways and when they encounter challenges to their lifestyle they become defensive.  However, they become set in their ways after adapting to the environment form their childhood and early adulthood.

True change is hard.  I think we all can say we do things that we wish we would change, but despite hating certain behaviors or habits, sometimes they still rear their ugly head. From my limited point-of-view it appears that people eventually accept these habits as a part of who they are.  As I said, change is hard. It takes active participation every day, and frankly not everyone has the will to follow through. There are things I am challenged with daily too.  There are things that I do sometimes that I know are wrong yet do them anyway because they have become ingrained in me.  This is a struggle that we all deal with, but I want to actively try to change them.  Sometimes it is discouraging because it never feels like there is going to be a light at the end of the tunnel.  Sometimes “discouragement” is too weak of a word, “depression” and “hopelessness” are more fitting.  We feel like we can’t be better, we are a slave to our whims, passions, and habits. However, we can change.  Every one of us, no matter what the issue may be. Let us all actively work hard to be better men and women everyday while accepting perfection isn’t going to be possible. We don’t have to be slaves to our habits and become set in our ways.

Do we live in an age without self-awareness?

As an author I feel it is my job to pay attention to cultural leanings and norms.  I’ve written before about the politically charged climate we live in.  People have adapted an “us verses them” mentality not just with politics but faith, lack of faith, and even mundane things like movies.  Yes, movies, I’ve seen some impassioned arguments about them on the internet.  With these discussions one primary accusation comes up; the other person or side is a hypocrite.

The truth is, no one likes a hypocrite and we can smell hypocrisy a million miles away in another person or group but struggle to see it in ourselves.  It’s undoubtful that everyone has been a hypocrite before.  I certainly have, everyone I know has been.  That is an inevitable part of being human.  There is a problem when hypocrisy is a pattern or even a lifestyle.

Hypocrisy can evolve to a point where a person is utterly lacking self-awareness.  The problem compounds when such lack of self-awareness spreads throughout a culture like a cancer.  Perhaps I’m cynical but from my perspective this seems to be where we are at in western society.  We see this especially in politics.  If someone from our “team” is guilty of something we look the other way and justify their actions.  However, if the “other side” does the same thing we lose our minds and catastrophize the situation.  The same thing is with religious verses irreligious folks.  The common attitude is that people can have their faith and believe what they will, but they must keep it to themselves.  However, irreligious folks, sometimes flood the internet with comments about how people who believe differently than them are delusional idiots.

There is a surface celebration of diversity in our culture, but rarely are diverse ideas met with approval.  It is the norm to shout down, belittle, and attack those who think differently.  Maybe we should try to understand why someone believes differently instead?  That is much harder.  It also goes against human nature.  It requires an immense amount of empathy, but it is not impossible.  I’m directing these comments as much to myself as anyone reading this.  This is how we become self-aware and do not become what we hate in others.

A Realization

I wrote a blog in late 2017 about another type of rare love, and that is friendship.  Good and trustworthy friends who desire to invest in you as much as you want to invest in them are hard to come by.  That is especially true in a culture that is busy and sometimes teaches that once you have a family friends are a luxury. Friendship doesn’t require two people to constantly be around one another, but if years go by is the term “friend” even accurate?  If during that time both people change considerably and are not happy how things turned out, then is it good to continue to call the relationship a “friendship?”

There have been more people than I would like that fall into this sort of category.  Not only has there been so much time between visits we don’t know each other, but a few people do not wish for that to change.  Others have been toxic for various reasons, something which I didn’t know while I was close with them, but as they say hindsight is always 20/20.

There are things I would love to say to all these people, but I am starting to realize that the most loving thing I can do is let some people go.  Some folks simply do not want to take the time or effort to invest in you.  Their definition of “friend” is in all actuality an acquaintance.  Someone they know, had a few good times, maybe even shared some deep things, but they ultimately don’t know you and you don’t know them.  I would argue that most people have very few true friends if any at all.  That is scary, especially since we are social creatures.

Do not misunderstand this, I’m not saying a long period of time between seeing each other necessarily means two people are not friends.  What I am saying is that if one or both parties put little to no effort into the friendship it ceases to be a friendship entirely.  Our emotions and sentimentality hinder us from making that realization.  We often cannot comprehend that it might be loving to let someone go.  Most of us would probably agree that we do not want a person feeling in bondage to us or an idea of us out of some sort of misguided sense of friendship.