Everything about Time Travel I Learned from Dr. Who (Endgame Spoilers inside)

First let me say that the Doctor has stated many times that paradoxes are bad. In classic Who, there is an episode, The Mawdryn Undead, where the Brigadier meets his past self. The Doctor tells him they must never actually meet and by all accounts, they must absolutely never touch. Well, they do and, thankfully the universe does not end, but a very large explosion does take place. In new Who, there is an episode, Father's Day, where Rose wants to see her dad on the day of his death. The Doctor hesitantly allows this, but of course, she saves his life. The event is put on lock down and the cleaners of time come in to destroy it. The only way to fix it is to allow her father to die, in effect setting time back to normal. These are just the two instances that I immediately recall. There are more.

In the Time Machine movie of 2002, the main character is Alexander Hartdegen. He builds his time machine to go back in time and save his fiance. In each instance, he has to watch her die a different way, but she must die. In the future, he asks the Morlock leader why he can't change the past. The Morlock gives him a very plain answer. If you could change the past, it would change the future. You would have no reason to build a time machine, therefore you never would have built one. You would never have gone back in time. Creating a paradox. You can't change the past without changing the future.

***Endgame Spoilers Ahead -- Turn Back Now If You Have Not Seen It -- You Have Been Warned***

*

*

*

*

*

*

*** Ready?***

*

*

*

Okay, hopefully you're still here because you've already seen the movie and are curious what others might think. I would like to think that from reading my opening that you believe I was not satisfied with the ending of Avengers: Endgame and you would be right.

Barring that, you're here because you have no desire to see the movie and just want to know what all the hype is about and get a general idea of plot to at least somewhat participate in the water cooler talk at work. That's fair. Here it is.

The Avengers: Endgame opens where Infinity War left off. Half the world's population has been clicked out of existence. Dr. Strange's proclamation hangs in your mind, "I've seen all possibilities and only one outcome is successful." Can this be it? The Avengers that are left are depressed, disorganized, and unable to fully move on. It is a slow beginning for an action movie, but if you care about the characters, you let it slide. 

They are looking for Thanos, with a plan to get the stones from him to try and bring everyone back. Captian America, Black Widow, Rocket, Nebula, War Machine, Thor, and Banner are doing various things, but ultimately waiting. Thanos uses the stones again and they get a fix on his location. So they all get into Rocket's craft, and by way of Captain Marvel, get to the planet where Thanos is living in retirement. He tells them he used the stones to destroy the stones so no one could undo what he had done. In a rage, Thor kills him.

Thor falls into despair. He has let himself go to the point that he has a beer belly and dreadlocks. He basically has given up. Hawkeye lost his family and is now a vigilante, the Captain has begun a support group for people trying to move on, Tony and Pepper are married and have a daughter, living outside of the city trying to keep their family together. Suddenly, Antman returns from the quantum realm because a rat wanders over the controls in the van. He gets out of the storage facility that houses the van and after a scary moment of where and when am I, and where is everyone, he determines a way to get things back. He does find that while Hope and Hank are gone, his ex-wife and her husband are gone, his daughter is still here. They comfort each other and Antman seeks out the Avengers.

Once he has gained admission to the compound, he comes face to face with Black Widow and Captain America. All of these series of events are logical and while a bit slow moving, it is still somewhat satisfying. I like to think that I would also be quite morose if my family was in tatters because of a cataclysmic event that took half of them away. I feel for the characters and their motivations. They even manage to get a cameo of Stan Lee in there.

Antman's idea involves time travel. He states that time in the quantum realm behaves differently. That while for them it has been five years, for him it's been five hours. He thinks that if they can somehow harness the quantum realm and leave from a specified point, they could go back to before Thanos had the stones and stop everything before it happened. He's an engineer though, not a physicist. They go to Stark. He doesn't even want to try. He doesn't want to risk losing his new family in the process. He is intrigued by the idea of changing things, but he won't let himself work it out. Upset, but not ready to give up, they go see Banner. He has embraced the Hulk. He is now a large, green, bespectacled scientist. He tells them he really isn't the right scientist for the job, but he will try to help.

They build a machine, utilizing the quantum tunnel from the van. Banner and Captain America get to a point where they are ready to run a trial on the machine and send Antman back in time. Through some almost hilarious snafus, they bring him back as a kid, an old man, and even a baby before they get the right Antman back. That's when Stark shows up.

He was curious about the concept and worked on it after they left. He figured it out even, and talked it over with Pepper, finally deciding that he had to help no matter the risk. They get it built and are ready to go. They decided that they must not go back to the war and try to prevent Thanos from clicking his fingers, or even to the point of Thanos's birth and kill him as an infant. Instead, they have to go back before the war, before Thanos has found the stones and, after collecting them, take them back to the future to undo what Thanos has done. the plan is to take the stones back to the exact point and place they were taken from so as not to change the course of history as they know it.

Okay, this is where it falls out of logic. The Marvel Universe is no longer in a world where physics is a real thing and time travel has no consequences. This is where my suspension of disbelief becomes a wide eyed gasp of incredulity. How could they even think that would work? If they succeeded perfectly, just as they planned, it would maybe work, but of course nothing goes exactly the way you planned. They did decide to only bring back everyone lost in the Event, the snap of Thanos's fingers, and nothing to alter the five years that followed. Stark doesn't want to lose his daughter. By bringing everyone back in that moment, it would be a world of reunions. The population would, in an instant, be doubled. There would be a lot of cleanup from the destruction that occurred when half the population disappeared. But okay, my suspension of disbelief is only slightly riled at this point.

It only takes a scene change to throw it out. Wide eyed incredulity is the state in which I watch the film from this point on. They prepare, and after making the decision of who will go where, they leave. And by doing what happens next, they completely alter the time line.

Stark, Captain America, Antman and Hulk go back to the point of Loki's invasion of Chitauri, when he is caught, to get the tesseract, the mind stone and the time stone. Hulk goes to get the time stone and is actually the least of the problem. The Grand Sorceress sees all and she tries to explain that the timeline will branch off if even one stone is removed. He shows her that if it is then put back it will be like it never left. She still won't give it to him, until he wonders why Dr. Strange would have given it away. She is then willing to part with it. Easy, done, and Dr. Strange's past timeline is not affected.

Stark, Antman, and Captain America, however, make a mess of the original Avengers story line. Loki escapes with the tesseract. Not the worst of things, though he wouldn't be in prison when Thor and Rocket go to Asgard. No, the worst of it is when Captain America meets himself while carrying the staff with the mind stone in it. It does not matter that the younger Captain believes the Captain of our movie to be Loki in disguise. Remember the situation where the Brigadier meets his younger self? Only, no explosions happen when they touch, they simply fight and are equally matched. Our Captain America wins, of course, because he has to, but this would change his timeline at the very least. He should remember this happening even before it actually happens, because it did. But it didn't. Anyway, because they lose the tesseract, they have to regroup. Banner and Antman go back, Captain and Stark go on. There isn't a whole lot that would kill the timeline when they go back to get the tesseract from an earlier timeline, but I think this is where Captain gets the idea that he might like to stay. Needless to say, they get the tesseract out of a locked vault that Stark cuts open and go back.

Thor and Rocket go to Asgard with the intention of retrieving the ether from Jane and thereby retrieving the reality stone. This of course would change the the course of the story in Thor: the Dark World. Because it leaves one huge hanging question: How are they going to put it back in Jane when they finish? Also, Loki shouldn't be in prison when they arrive as he has escaped Earth with the tesseract in hand.

Perhaps the worst offender is when War Machine and Nebula go to retrieve the power stone. They get it, but then Nebula's mechanical eye syncs with the Nebula of that time and Thanos is able to see the future. War Machine gets the stone away, but Nebula is disabled and caught by Thanos. On his ship, she encounters her younger self. Again, no explosions when they touch. Instead, past Nebula, with major contempt for her future self, disguises herself to look like her future self. Confused yet? She goes back to the future to allow Thanos to bring his ship and his army through to the future. Heck, the Avengers have the stones and so Thanos doesn't need to go looking for them.

In the meantime, Gamora of the past approaches the Nebula of the future and they make a pact to try and stop Thanos. They encounter past Nebula and try to convince her to change, that she has changed, that she can change, but the past Nebula refuses to let her father down, so yes. Future Nebula kills past Nebula. Let me say that again. FUTURE NEBULA KILLS PAST NEBULA. And then doesn't disappear. If past Nebula is dead, future Nebula would not be there, yet, there she is.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let's turn to the fact that past Thanos is now in the future and ready to take the stones from the Avengers. And, yes, the Avengers have made a gauntlet and Hulk used it, but they don't know if it's worked yet. Before they really get to explore that concept, Thanos destroys the compound. Now an epic battle ensues. Really, it is beautifully choreographed, emotionally charged, wonderful to watch, but in the end, horribly disappointing. They kill Thanos. In fact, Stark gets the stones and uses them to click away Thanos and his entire army, ship and followers. THANOS FADES TO DUST.  Let me say that again.  PAST THANOS DIES IN THE FUTURE, BLOWING AWAY TO DUST. So he would never have gotten the stones in the first place.

The universe disappears in a puff of logic and is replaced with everything as it was before Infinity War.

Just kidding. It doesn't. Everyone is relieved that it's over and everyone clicked away is back and all the bad guys are now clicked away. Biggest spoiler here, if you don't want to know, skip to the next paragraph and don't read up. In a very touching scene, Tony Stark dies. But of course he would. He was a mortal who used the infinity stones. Now when your eyes wander up, stop here and you won't see the spoiler.

I realize that Marvel is explaining this all in a multi-verse sort of way, but that is royal cop out. It says to everyone watching that they don't care about physics and logic and neither should we. It's an insult. It's a writer's way out of a situation they are too lazy to really explain.

That would be bad enough, but after the world gets back to normal, like it really could, they gather again to return the stones to where and when they got them. Captain America takes on this task himself, but then after leaving, never returns. At least not via time travel. He makes it to the bench on the property, but now he's old. He decided to stay in the past with his love, Margaret. Because that wouldn't change anything. (Yes, that's sarcasm.)

Let's dissect what we don't see. Captain America could give back the time stone, certainly, with no problem. Even the tesseract, the space stone, he could conceivably get back to the safe, though how he would reconstruct the cube it was in and repair the damage done to the cut safe is questionable. The mind stone would be difficult as they broke it out of Loki's scepter. He would have to somehow reconstruct the scepter without encountering himself at all and get the scepter to Hydra, or risk changing the future. Remember, there are potentially three Captain Americas there. The reality stone would be next to impossible to replace. Rocket had guards chasing him as he had stabbed Jane for the ether with out any sort of preamble. First, I can't imagine Jane would let him put it back. Getting free of the ether is a major premise of Thor The Dark World. The other being to keep the ether from the dark elves. So, my question is simply how did he get the reality stone back where and when it belonged without changing the events of The Dark World further. Remember, Loki escaped and was never imprisoned, so he wouldn't be there to help Thor get off Asgard and take revenge on the dark elves either. Moving on. When he went to return the power stone, he might encounter Quill, just waking from being knocked out so that War Machine and Nebula could take it. But for sure he would encounter Nebula, on the ground, disabled by the connection through her eye. I want to see this movie. The spin off that follows Captain America as he puts the stones back. I can't see him leaving her there to be captured. And if he waited for her to be captured before putting it back, he would encounter Quill. This does affect the story line of Guardians of the Galaxy. Lastly, the soul stone. I'm not concerned about the Red Skull. Cap is putting it back, not getting it. But how does he put it back? Does he drop it off the cliff? Also, if he's giving it back, would he be able to negotiate for the soul that had been given to get it? That's just a musing on my part. However, if he put it back, but Thanos was dead and could no longer go stone hunting, Gamora would be alive. But, then, past Gamora stayed in the future after Thanos died, so even if she were never sacrificed, there wouldn't be two of them. Once the stones were returned, and by the ending of the movie, we are supposed to believe he was successful, Captain went back to spend the rest of his life with Peggy. That would negate Captain America Winter Soldier and Civil War, mainly because he wouldn't be there to do it. Lastly, I simply wonder how Captain America actually grew old. In one of the films he remarks that the state of his cellular regeneration won't let him get drunk. Wouldn't that serve to keep him young as well? Maybe not.

But don't let me end on the negative. Let me tell you what I liked about Endgame.

I really enjoyed that we got to watch Tony Stark grow. His character went from being an entitled womanizer to a man who cares about nothing except the safety of his family. He is a fun character to watch and I cared very deeply about him. I liked watching Captain America hold on to the last threads of what he considered normal and the closest we got to seeing him break was when he said "We have to win, because I don't know what I'd do if we didn't." I liked Thor. In true form, he fell into despair and let himself go. I don't understand why, when they won, he didn't clean up. At least comb your hair, god of thunder. But he came to a good conclusion and I look forward to seeing him in the next Guardians of the Galaxy.

The movie, while it had a slow start, was beautiful to watch. The cinematography was spot on. Seriously, though, the first hour was a bit long to build the characters up to where they needed to be for the final two hours. I love that we see Hawkeye in his home. As a supporting character, he still has a story and we got more than a glimpse of it in Endgame. I wish we saw more of a few people. I want to know Falcon's story, and Scarlet Witch's story. I want to know if Vision is able to come back. After all, he was powered by the mind stone, and now that Thanos never went stone hunting, there is no reason the stone would have been ripped from his head in the first place.

I read that Disney's new streaming service will have Loki's story as well as the Scarlet Witch's story and Falcon's story, as well as Bucky's story. Too bad I don't have the service.

I realize I'm not the first to bring up the paradoxes in this movie, or even the entire Marvel Universe now, but I hope you at least found this interesting. Perhaps, without having read any of the other theories I touched on something already explained. Perhaps I had a new way of looking at it. Either way. I liked Avengers Endgame, but was entirely frustrated by the ending and the movie's complete disregard for physics and logic and the resulting paradoxes. I suppose they summed it up when Stark says, "You mess around with time, it tends to mess back."

To finish, I'll just leave this image of Loki. I like looking at him. Even if he has spun off into an alternate timeline. 😍

Depression Doesn't Look Like Crying All The Time, But Sometimes It Does

For this post, allow me to get a bit vulnerable. I have depression. It does not have me. Years ago, I kicked its mind numbing ass and vowed to do what I could to keep it locked in its box where it belongs. I suffered from major depression from 1994 to 1996. I did counseling, and medication, and with my faith, I got through it. I'm still here. I can say my faith was a big part of getting through it. When I was a kid, I thought me and God were tight. I asked for the rain to stop so I could go out and play, and wouldn't you know the rain would stop. As I got older, I realized that I didn't have God on speed dial and in fact, if he was taking my calls at all, he wasn't calling me back. It was a retreat called the Walk to Emmaus that brought me back. So while I had a strong faith, good meds, and a good counselor, I still took a little while to come out of my depression. It still likes to rear it's ugly head once in a while and remind me that it never really goes away. Currently, I take a lot of vitamins including a good B complex and a high dose of D. What's good for me, though, isn't necessarily what my daughter needs.

My daughter is 21. She's been suffering her depression since about 14. It got really bad in high school and our wonderful school system did nothing if not make it worse. Her depression has robbed her creativity, killed her motivation and desire, destroyed her joy, and has hidden anything she might like to do from her mind. Through all of that she had developed a fanatical devotion to Michael Jackson. He is the only one keeping her alive, according to her. If someone came up to her and told her they could send her back in time to 1980, she would go in a heartbeat. As she tells it, there is nothing here to keep her here. Without outlining that any further, let me just say, that when she falls into her funks, collapses in a meltdown, or feels completely hopeless, she listens to Micheal Jackson to get through it.

This post comes out of a recent such meltdown. There was, just this last weekend, a small film festival in Utah playing a documentary accusing Michael Jackson of molesting children. My daughter was incensed. She began with wanting to commit acts that would prevent the theater from showing the film. I told her I wouldn't be party to violence, and neither would Michael Jackson. Her depression reared its head as rage. I talked her down, and she agreed to protest peacefully. This all took place over a month, and by the time she decided she'd protest and wanted a ride out there, it was happened the next weekend. Suffice it to say, I hadn't taken the time off. Now her rage turned to despair and she wouldn't get out of bed, wouldn't eat, would barely speak.

I will do anything for my children. I will fly to the moon and back. I have to try everything before giving up.

I can't give up. So I asked for the time off. Yes it was short notice. But a meltdown born out of depression is different than a temper tantrum, and I needed to make this happen. My job has been very flexible with me, but this time, my scheduling manager made me feel like I was shirking my responsibilities to work, that I was calling this too close, and if my daughter was going to kill herself, she'd do it whether I was there or not. Those were her words, not mine. I was furious, took my daughter to her counselor, and then called in to work to take the next week off. She was not happy. I'm sorry, but family is more important than work, and fuck her.

I drove to Utah from Minnesota, and damn it if my own depression started to rear up. "Don't have fun," it said. "If this looks like a vacation, you could get fired," it said. "You told them you were going on a road trip, but you didn't tell them where. If they only knew," it said. I told it to take a flying leap. I brought my camera. My daughter took pictures. My son ended up coming with and he took pictures. I had fun, and I had guilt, and I felt terrible on my return. But if you're still reading, let me get to the point of this.

Yes, my daughter perked up when I told her I could take her. Her counselor said he liked the idea of a road trip. So, I called in to work, and we left. The drive took almost twenty hours, including the stops for gas and the hotels. I made my daughter pay for the trip. If this was more than me giving in to her threats to end her life, then she could take some responsibility for it. She seemed almost happy while we were driving. She made faces at dinner and we had good conversation. Even her brother was good company.

When we finally made it to Salt Lake City, she curled up and cried herself to sleep. So this wasn't me giving in to her demands. This was me trying to help my daughter through a funk.

I know that depression doesn't mean you're crying all the time. But sometimes you are. She said she's always in a funk, just sometimes it's deeper than other times. I understand this. Having come through it myself, I know she can too. I just don't know how. So, we went to the protest and met a few others who held the same belief. We stayed another night, and she stayed close to me, crying again.

Saturday, we went to the Great Salt Lake, and she seemed to enjoy exploring. And then we went to the second showing of this documentary. She stood outside and seemed to have made some new friends. More people engaged with them, arguing that maybe Michael Jackson was guilty. Her rage began to show again. Once it dissipated, she wanted to leave. it was a good time to go. We said good bye to our new friends and hit the road for home.

We did talk about her depression, her funks, and how she can let me know right away, starting without violence, but simply ask me for help. We'll see. But since being home, we really aren't much better. There always seems to be something to trigger her. And then there's Michael Jackson. She won't get back to 1980 and that triggers her too. I really wish I knew better how to help her. Even the mountains got just a "Meh" response.

So, that's it. Sometimes depression is crying all the time. But most of the time, it doesn't. You can even laugh with depression. Oh, and I still have my job. So, here are a few more picures from the trip, taken either by me, my daughter, or my son. Hope you like them.



This is a journey, and I will continue to support, fight for, and pray for my daughter, because depression doesn't look like crying all the time. But sometimes it does. If you or someone you know needs help, a good counselor is a good place to start. If you or they are already to the point of despair, and I know that feeling, please call for help. Here is the number for the Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255 and know this, even though I may not know who you are, you matter to me. That's at least one person who will miss you if you don't call and go through with what the lie of despair is prompting you to do.

A Wrinkle in Time - a review

All right. Mother's Day marks the second time I've seen this movie and I feel like it's time to review it. If you come across this review, know that there will be spoilers here. So read at your own risk. Over all, I give the film 3 out of 5 stars. It is eye candy, but the story could have been stronger.

I love the book. I have read it many times and read it again right before seeing this movie the first time. I read blogs in anticipation of the film and saw many complaints. I still looked forward to seeing it. So first, let me talk about the things that I didn't mind deviating from the book.

The first thing is Meg. I read many people who were upset at the casting of Meg and called the move to cast an African American actress PC and a poor attempt to bring the book into modern times. I disagree with them. I LOVE that they cast an African American actress and this is an important move, not only because she's black, but she's mixed. Dr. Murray, her father, is white. Dr. Murray, her mother is black. This paints a better picture of how families are now in this age. Meg as a character is a young teenager feeling the emotions of puberty as well as the awkward phases of growth and the expectations of her teachers that she should at least be half as brilliant as her parents. All of this she has to deal with along with the disappearance of her father. She is teased mercilessly and so in dealing with all of this is angry and argumentative. So, in other words, pretty normal for a teenager. I think it was well played and have absolutely no problem that the character was changed from a white girl with unruly red hair in the book, to a black girl with unruly black hair in the film.

The second thing is the missing characters of Sandy and Dennys. In the book, these twins are the "normal" kids in the family. They are younger than Meg, but go to the same school. They champion her in front of the bullies. They're good at sports and are likable kids. They do not go on this adventure with their siblings. For this reason, I don't mind their exclusion from the film. They would have felt superfluous. I add here that the dog, Fortinbrass, was in the film and he did feel a bit unnecessary.

Next, Charles Wallace. In the book, he is a young boy of five. He hasn't started school yet. He hadn't begun to talk until he was four and then in complete sentences. Everyone outside the family believed he was possibly retarded. Meg defends him with vehemence. He is her little brother and just about the only person in the world who understands her. He seems to read her mind. He is key to the adventure they take. In the film, he's adopted. He is six and therefore in the same school as Meg, and is there for her champion in lieu of the twins. He does seem to understand her and the writers and directors include a scene in the beginning of the film from the book where a storm drives Meg out of her attic bedroom and Charles Wallace, instead of comforting her by going to her, has come to the kitchen and put milk on the stove for hot chocolate and made sandwiches. In the book, their mother joins them. I felt the absence in the film when she didn't come down, that scene added to the mystery of Charles Wallace and his gift of intuition at such a young age. Still, I like that he was adopted into a interracial marriage. It gives the family the look of a modern family. Also, Charles Wallace is of Asian decent. As a product of my education, I couldn't tell you his heritage, but the eyes tell it. The actor they cast did a fine job for one so young.

The Happy Medium. I really liked Zach Galifianakis in this role. In the book, the medium is a she and good friend to the three Mrs. She likes to be happy and when told to show the children their home, she gets sad after seeing the state of things, especially Calvin's home life. I had always pictured her cave as a dark normal cave with a fire in the center. The film not only changed the character, it re-imagined the location. It is a dark cave but the balancing rocks give it a sense of adventure. I really enjoyed the mood and attitude Zach put into the character.

Now for a few things that I wasn't thrilled with but enjoyed none the less. The three Mrs. In the book, Mrs. Whatsit is described as a tramp. She wore a large overcoat over many scarves with a floppy hat and galoshes. It's a part of her character that she doesn't understand what's right and wrong. She did steal Mrs. Buncomb's sheets, but in the book she wasn't wearing them. She was a small woman, and while Reese Whitherspoon isn't a large woman, I didn't feel she was quite right for the part. Still, she grew on me and by the middle of the film, I could forgive the deviations. One major deviation was her transformation. In the book, she transforms into a large, winged centaur type creature. I actually really liked the large leafy creature she turned into in the film. I loved the flowers on Uriel and that they spoke in color, a language Mrs. Whatsit understood. The middle Mrs, Mrs. Who was quite different as well. In the book, she's described as willowy and thin with thick glasses. She does speak in quotes, but not as much as she does in the film. I don't mind that they have her speaking in more quotes in the film. I do think Mindy Kaling was the wrong choice for this part. She did okay. I didn't hate her in this part, and I don't hate her at all. I love her in Inside Out. I still feel like she wasn't right for the part of Mrs. Who. One line I missed the most I think was on Uriel, in the book, when Mrs. Whatsit changes, Mrs. Who asks Mrs. Which if she should also change. In the book, Mrs. Which tells her "Not now." In the film, there is no line, so no anticipation of what form Mrs. Who would change into. Also, her spectacles are all wrong. Harry Potter showed us we can put thick glasses on a character even if the actress doesn't wear glasses. Though I'm pretty sure we already knew that. In the book the glasses have a key part, which in the film they really don't. Lastly, Mrs. Which. I like Oprah, but I feel like she was too recognizable to be the old spectral figure in this movie. In the book, she hardly takes corporeal form. It's hard for her. When she does, she looks a lot like a witch, with dark flowing robes, a beaky nose, and a pointed hat. Although, Mrs. Which's looks in the film are the last thing I take contention with, I really feel like her character was way too "real". In the book, her speech is wispy and drawn out, as though coming from a great distance. In the film, she talks normally. Other than her too big size, and faded feet, she doesn't seem that otherworldly in this film.

Next, I have to address some of the language in this film. Now don't get me wrong. This is a family friendly film. However, never once in the book are the children called to be warriors. Meg's value as a human being isn't drilled into her as it is in the film. There is a lot of emphasis on the universe and how events and time and choices and happenings all coalesced into Meg, or into Charles Wallace finding their family. It's almost too sweet. Meg complains, in both film and book that tessering is hard and she doesn't like it. In the film they tell her when she can become one with the universe and with herself tessering will become easier. How very zen. I won't deny that the underlying message in the book is very Christian. As a Christian woman, I actually like how the book incorporates the Christian message without being preachy or in your face. The movie felt like they had been very careful to remove as much of the Christian message as they could without changing the story. All that remains of that message is the light and the darkness and the darkness can only be overcome with the light. It also never comes out that the three Mrs. are stars. They were stars chosen for this mission, not warriors or fighters. The closest they came to that was telling Meg they were light. In a round about way, that was true.

On Camazots, the children encounter a field, then a forest, then a suburb. No. They land on the outside of the suburb and make their way in. The movie missed out on the opportunity to show how the evil isn't as strong they think it is. The children are all bouncing balls in rhythm. The rhythm hurts Charles Wallace's head. And rightly so. His rhythm is different. In the book, there is one little boy who can't keep the rhythm and bounces the ball out of time. When the mothers come out and call their children in, they don't acknowledge the three new children. They approach the boy. His mother hurries out and pulls him inside, looking terrified and watching for anyone coming. The children are confused by this, but continue into town. The planet does not change around them, though I did like the effects the film used to change the scenery. The missed opportunity comes when the children reach Central Central Intelligence. Inside they pass a cell where the little boy who couldn't bounce the ball was inside and every time he bounced out of rhythm, he was shocked. It was quite telling for the children in the book.

Once in Central Central Intelligence, in the film, Meg uses Mrs. Who's glasses to see the "enfolded" space and climbs seemingly on air to reach her father.

Then she puts the glasses in her pocket and they are forgotten. Poor form on the directors for that move. If a prop is significant enough to use, then use it until it it is no longer useful. Then get rid of it, but don't forget about it. In the book, and I think the movie would have benefited from this telling, Meg used the glasses to get to her father and to pass through the cell wall where he was being kept. Inside the cell it was total darkness. She could see because of the glasses and when she realized this, she put the glasses on her father. He then used them to get out of the cell while holding her. Then they broke. The prop had been used for what it was meant and then it broke. It was not simply forgotten.

When Charles Wallace is dragging them to see IT, Dr. Murray panics when he can't get his son to respond to him. In the film, this is compounded by Meg losing consciousness to the darkness. He tessers away with Calvin and attempts to take Meg home as well. In the film, Meg pulls out of his tesser and remains with Charles Wallace, facing the IT down and declaring her love for her brother.

Two missed opportunities here. The first happens when Dr. Murray tessers. In the book, he manages to get both Meg and Calvin off of Camazots. Meg wakes in darkness and panics. A creature helps her and explains that there is no sun for this world, but it is not a world consumed by darkness. Meg loves this creature for the way the creature cares for her, and she calls her Aunt Beast. When she is strong enough to join her father and Calvin, she is angry at her father for leaving Charles Wallace. This is a key scene in her growth. The three Mrs. appear again here and when she finally realizes that she had expected her father to fix everything, but he couldn't, they send her back to Camazots and remind her that they love her. Their final gift to her is their love. Dr. Murray isn't the hero she needed, and now she's ready to face the IT on her own. Then Mrs. Which tessers her back to Camazots to get her brother.

The second missed opportunity, is simply in the middle of the giant brain that is IT, when Meg is confronted by her brother, he tells her no one loves her. Well, in the film, she can only tell him that he loves her, despite what he thinks in the moment. In the book, she lists those who love her and realized that they, including her brother are the only people that matter. Charles Wallace tries to blow her off, but the mention of the three Mrs and the love they gave Meg, strengthens her. The film could have put that in without making much more than ten minutes longer or so.

Calvin seemed to have a very small part in this. At the beginning of the adventure, he is told that he was chosen for his diplomacy. That never comes into play. In the book, he has a strong intuition. It's different than Charles Wallace's, but strong none the less. He does say that he felt he needed to be there. But his character really had no other significance. He had a crush on Meg and validated her through out, but really, he was largely ignored and his character could have been left out for the story it had. The movie really missed building Calvin's character.

Finally, I think the worst part of this movie is the end. Dr. Murray tesseres out of IT with Calvin, trying to take Meg also. Then we forget about them while Meg fights to get Charles Wallace out of IT's grasp. Dr. Murray had said he was going to take them home to regroup. That's a long time for him to be home without seeing his wife. The time frame of Meg struggling in IT on Camazots as compared to the time of Dr. Murray leaving and being gone to Earth just doesn't mesh. Time doesn't follow that differently. Once Dr. Murray landed on Earth, even without Meg, he would have found his wife and told her what they were up against. That's what should have happened in the movie. I've already mentioned what happened in the book.

So, in conclusion. I liked the movie, but I felt that it need something more. If you haven't read the book, then the movie is just fine. It follows a story arc that is believable enough to allow you to suspend you disbelief. If have read the book, then you will find these issues and perhaps others. Still, I like the CG and I could enjoy the movie, even the second time around. If you have any other issues you found, let me know in the comments.

Graduation

So I see it has been about a year and a half (or more) since I have written anything here. Not that I have many readers (and I appreciate the readers I do have) and not that my opinion counts any more than anyone else's when it comes to photography, but I do have an announcement. As you can see from the banner above, I'm graduating. This is my first Bachelor's degree ever and I am pretty excited. If you're local to Minnesota and can make it at all, I would love to see you at my opening. The gallery show runs from December 13 - January 22, 2015. So even if you can't make the opening on December 18, from 6 - 8:30, please feel free to come and see the gallery any time between those dates. I have a talented class graduating with me. There are five of us in the photography degree program, and one diploma graduate. We will have our portfolios out at the opening along with our business systems: business cards, postcards, leave behinds, resumes. If you're a business professional, please come and see how we've grown into relevant business professionals ourselves, who now also happen to be looking for a job. I, myself, would like to assist. And I know my way around a lighting studio.

So please come if you can, and if you can't, I love you anyway and please keep me in your prayers. Homework may be over, but now the real pressure starts.

My Photography Inspirations: Eikoh Hosoe

EIKOH HOSOE, MASTER PHOTOGRAPHER

Eikoh Hosoe was born in Japan, Toshihio Hosoe. His experimental photography is known for surreal and dreamlike images. Contrast and nudity, as well the surreal images of fairytale, come together as art rather than pornography, even with his use of erotic imagery.

He moved all over Japan because of the war, but by the time he reached high school, he was back in Tokyo. He joined the English language club at school and was an active member of the photography club. His first subjects were the American children on the military base. At his cousin’s suggestion, he took the name Eikoh as one better suited to a new era. In 1952, while still in high school, he won a Fuji photo contest for a portrait series about a boy. His first show was An American Girl in Tokyo, but by the late 1950’s he started to focus more on what it meant to be Japanese.

“Inexplicable suffering. Wounds inflicted by beings whose motives are beyond comprehension. The human and the supernatural encountering each other, unpredictably but inevitably. These notions, it seems, would come to inform and shape much of Hosoe’s photography.” His main subjects are nudes as well as fairytale images about the kamaitachi. After college, he turned back to photographing Japanese subjects and his next photo series was titled Man and Woman. He worked with a Japanese dance troupe, and the black and white images were considered more distinctly Japanese.

They were so widely popular, the controversial writer, Yukio Mishima requested Hosoe to take his portrait for his book of essays. The photo shoot became a series of ten sessions over six months and grew into a gallery exhibition, “Barakei or Killed by Roses”. Hosoe loved the theatrical appearance of Mishima’s home and created a cinematic-like set of portraits symbolizing the author.

After Mishima’s suicide, Hosoe went back to his childhood memory of the kamaitachi and did a series of surreal, fairytale images. Hosoe says in an artist’s talk in 2010, "Kamaitachi is a document of my memories when I was a child evacuated from Tokyo to the countryside." A kamaitachi is a weasel-like demon that attacks with a sickle. It is said they attack in threes. One buffeting the victim, the second clawing him and the third healing the external wounds, leaving the victim to suffer without evidence of injury. It was stories about these creatures that inspired the images in the Kamaitachi series.

In this paper, I use images from these three series, but he made more and in 1971, he created Embrace. This series was a return to the study of the human body. By focusing on parts of the male and female bodies in abstract positions, it was not only about eroticism and intimacy, but it was a celebration of the human body and its beauty as a form. He also did several architecture images and other portraits.



The first image I want to talk about is Man and Woman #33. The image, done in black and white photography, printed in high contrast, features a nude, dark skinned man holding two light colored birds. The birds are kissing. The model is Tatsumi Hijikata, creator of the Butoh dance movement. I chose this image for the stark contrast between black and white, and the gentleness and intimacy conveyed by the way the man is holding the birds. The composition is set in the rule of threes and the solid black background sets the subject apart. The birds are framed by the man’s hands and even though they are small, they hold my eye as being in a safe place. The grain of the film is visible in this print, setting the man apart from the birds even more since the grain is smoother over the birds.

I find I am drawn to this image because of the contrast. I have written about the contrast of black and white in a few of my own works. The reflection of the light off the man to single out the birds makes them the main subject. I thought it was just the sense of intimacy and gentleness that drew me to this image, but Eikoh says that the birds represent us. “We are in the hands of Buddha. We can’t see Buddha’s face.” While I’m not Buddhist, I can see the sense of God in this image. I feel like the birds are in a safe place in the man’s hands, even though all he would have to do is squeeze and they would be crushed.



The second image I want to talk about is Barakei #32. This image is done in black and white photography, printed in high contrast, and features a man holding a rose in his mouth. The model is Yukio Mishima, a controversial writer. Eikoh felt the rose, beautiful outside, but inside full of thorns, represented Mishima.

This image is very symmetrical, yet asymmetrical as well, the asymmetry set by the lighting. I love the symbolism of the rose representing the man. I see the truth of it on a larger scale. People are beautiful on the outside, but inside they are full of thorns. This set was done to commemorate Mishima’s life.

I like that the rose is fully lit while the man is half-shadowed. The metaphor then becomes the image. The reality of the rose promises beauty with a bit of pain. On the same scale, the metaphor can be expanded to represent humanity. While there is beauty in the world, it is tempered by pain and tragedy. The author Mishima committed ritual suicide after this book was finished. Hosoe held off publishing it for a year after Mishima’s death. The image makes me a little sad knowing what happened.

Like image one, this is done in black and white. The black and white allows for the stark contrast Hosoe is using to hit the viewer with the message. Both images are close cropped, telling the story of the second subject: the intimacy of the birds, the beauty of the rose. Both images use Japanese men, but both tell a deeper story than just the story of the men. Hosoe uses the hands of the man to frame the birds and the face of the man to frame the rose. But these images are also very different. The first image is a metaphor for religion, people in the hands of God. The second is a part of the story of one man’s life and death.. Both contain a metaphor, but the first uses birds where the second uses a rose. In the first image, we don’t see the man’s face because no one can know the face of God. The birds then represent man. In the second image, we see the man’s face. The rose becomes the man by placing it in his mouth.



The third image I have to show is Kamaitachi #34. This is also a black and white photograph, with less contrast. It is based on a fairytale Hosoe heard while growing up. This one shows a man in a field portraying the weasel-like demon. He teamed up again with Tatsumi Hijikata for this series.

I chose this image for a few reasons. I like that you can’t tell if the subject is a man or a woman. I thought it was a woman when I first saw it. I really love the hazy, surreal quality of the image. His depth of field is quite shallow, so that while the man is in focus, the grasses around and in front of him are blurred, giving the image a sense of swaying in the wind. This is my favorite of the three images I’ve chosen. I like how the subject is dancing in the field. He looks mischievous, as though he is planning an attack, but the overall feeling I get from the image is that it is playful, though I still wouldn’t want to run into a kamaitachi in a lonely field. Like the first two images, this is done in black and white. Hosoe continues his use of human models to portray a story. But that is really where the similarities end. This image is not done in a studio and the subject is clothed. This image is framed vertically and printed with softer contrast and the more generalized lighting of outside.

This image leaves you with the impression of motion. The subject is dancing. The grasses are waving. The images are static in the first two. The man’s face in the third image is obscured by the grass, but still gives the impression of impish plots. The second image, where we see the man’s face, is clear, and while his eyes implore the viewer to see him, he doesn’t look ready to bite you. In this image of a kamaitachi, I almost expect to see his cohorts coming up out of the field behind him. It is told that the kamaitachi attack in threes.

“The camera is generally assumed to be unable to depict that which is not visible to the eye,” Hosoe has written. “And yet the photographer who wields it well can depict what lies unseen in his memory.” There is nothing obsene about the naked human body, and Eikoh Hosoe does a beautiful job of portraying that. He uses both sexes in evocative positions to show the beauty of lines and forms. What I found while researching his images is that it’s not fully about the body and whether or not it is clothes. The power of an image comes from perspective, depth of field and lighting and is so much more than the subject. Whether Hosoe is taking pictures of men and women or of buildings or of villages, he portrays the story he wants to, and we as a view get to see his vision. He truly is a master photographer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Holborn, Mark. Eikoh Hosoe (Aperture Masters of Photography). New York: Aperture, 1999
Mishima, Yukio (Preface) , Hosoe, Eikoh (Photography), and Holborn, Mark (Afterword). Barakei Ordeal by Roses. Aperture Foundation, Inc. 1985
Hosoe, Eikoh. “On Man and Woman.” Video. Vimeo.com. May 5, 2010 <http://vimeo.com/15772338>
Fallis, Greg, “Eikoh Hosoe.” Utata Tribal Photography Sunday Salon. May 31, 2009 <http://www.utata.org/salon/37884.php>
Ma, A. “Eikoh Hosoe.” Sundays Are For Modern. Blog. July 14, 2007 < http://svegliarsi.blogspot.com/2007/07/eikoh-hosoe.html>
401 Projects – Eikoh Hosoe. Non-profit. 2006 (founded). <http://www.401projects.com/index.php?mode=gallery§ion_id=153>
Rusvar. “Icons: Eikoh Hosoe.” May 10, 2010 <http://www.husvar.com/icons/icons-eikoh-hosoe> Man and Woman #33 BaraKei #32 Kamaitach #34 All photos copywrite © Eikoh Hosoe

Busy Day

Good morning, all.

Ever have one of those days when you wake up knowing it's full? And then before you have the sleep completely wiped away, you have more heaped on to the already nearly overwhelming stack? I get them more than I would like, and today is just such a day.

Thursdays are always full. I work for Right at Home, a client-based, in-home care company. I have two clients on Thursday, from 9 to 12, and then from 1 to 4, then I have class from 5 to 8. I make myself a lunch and a supper, so I can get home, eat, gather my things and leave. I have my bag that I take to work, but in the afternoon, I also have my backpack for class and my "lunch" box with my supper in it. That's just my part of the day. In the morning, between my husband and I, we have to spur the kids to get ready for school, and then get them there on time, and up until yesterday, I also double checked that my husband had his lunch packed. (That's a long story, and a lot more involved than this blog wants to get.)

Well, I was prepared for that level of busy. Only, this morning sort of got away from us. It was almost 7:15 before my husband jumped up to get the kids off to school. I had started getting ready, just in case he was planning to browse job sites this morning, when he jumped up. I was already planning the rest of the morning when he asked me to dig through the files for some paperwork we need. *sigh* Well, hubby heads out with kids in tow, and I get to making my sandwiches (boloney and cheese for lunch, chicken and cheese for supper, unless I grab them differently) and the phone rings. Nothing like becoming Grand Central Station to make a busy morning even busier. But, what's this? It's my daughter. What did she forget? "Mom, what happened last night with the car?" I love the evasiveness... no really, I frequently do things to the car, just to get my husband's goat so he'll ask me leading and vague questions about what "happened" to it... O.o So since I went to the dentist, then parked in a ramp at school, and the wipers were there last night, something happened in the wee hours of the morning in our driveway that didn't set off the alarm. Oh and how much did I drive it yesterday because the gas seems a lot lower than it should be for forty-seven miles. All this before I have to leave for work. (And, yeah, I'm trying to write this blog [for school])

I don't look forward to a day without wiperblades on roads that are relatively soggy. But what can I do? I have my kindle with me, so I can write in my downtime. That's the current work in progress, not this blog. But, but, but... I need a nap and it's only eight o'clock.

As for my new website, it's been up for a couple of days now. I have yet to figure out stats or comments, so feel free to comment here. I've gotten good feedback on facebook. I have a thirty day trial on the webhost site, and then I have to decide if I want to pay for it or let it die. If it's really a great site, and I get some good comments, here or on facebook, I just might keep it. I'll need a website eventually anyway.

*Breathe* That's Thursday. Tuesday will be joining the ranks starting next week, but that may another blog. (Who steals wiperblades?!?)

New Website: Jen Steffen Photography

Hello everyone. As you may or may not know, I am currently in school for Photography. I started this blog for my writing, came back to it for my Web Design class, and am now appropriating it for my Photo Design class. I started a new website for class as an assignment. You can find a link for it in the side bar, but here is the address http://jensteffenphotography.viewbook.com/ I tried to get a page set up for a blog, but it wouldn't work, so I'm using this blog. I have a few albums set up with pictures I've taken for various classes. Take a look. I can't figure out a comment page on that site yet, so feel free to either shoot me an email or comment here or on facebook to let me know what you though. I'm interested to hear what you think.