It was like watching a Michael Bay movie, but only completely opposite in every sense.

Last night I went to a poetry slam that a friend of a friend organized. This was a new experience, to say the least. I heard this type of poetry before, but not often. Purdue does not exactly foster the type of environment in which these contests occur. Come to think of it, Indiana doesn't really foster that type of environment. Or most of the Midwest. On my way there, I was a bit apprehensive because I thought that I would stick out as what these kids today call "n00bs." Fortunately it seemed most in the crowd had never been to a slam before, and were just as curious as I was. The slam worked by groups of spectators would rate each poet, hold up their rating on a board, and the average score was worked out.

My group wanted to give every poet and every poem a 10, almost every single time. I may not know much about slams, but I do know poetry. The poets there were some of the best of the south, so all of them of course were going to be good. The ability of the poet to "move you" was not in question. How well each was at delivery, uniqueness, cleverness, honesty, form, rhythm, these factors had to be thought of before rating each poem. Most of the group, however, either didn't want to rate them at all (the "how can I rate someone's heart and sou?" argument--they want to be rated or they wouldn't be on stage), or had decided that a rating could only be based on emotional response.

On the way home, the experience made me start to think of how one should balance the feeling an artwork evokes in you, and its technical prowess. Just how does one regard art? Should one be rated more than the other? Does a truly great work have to have a balance of both? Or can something shine because it has such a profuse amount of one factor?

I have always been pleased with the AFI's Top 100 Films list. While I may not agree with all the selections on it, the list does a remarkable job of including some films that are probably only on there due to the technical feats it accomplished (ie Star Wars), while others are on there probably due to just the welling of emotions one gets while watching the film (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). The top of that list, however, is reserved for those brilliant films that serve as an outstanding example of all those ways in which a work of art can shine.** The #1 film is Citizen Kane. It took me awhile to understand why this was so. The first time I watched it I realized it certainly was a good film, but a great film? I had trouble seeing it. Slowly though, I began to realize just how well put together the film was technically. Every aspect of the mis en scene serves to underscore the narrative. Not only did Orwell perfect lighting techniques, camera spanning (has anyone done it better since?), and invented new editing styles, he pushed these to new heights, some of which have yet to be reached again. Whenever a friend asks why I like the film so much, I have trouble explaining just how great Orwell's directing is. Part of the reason is that these techniques that were brand new in the film, have been used so often in the following 67 years that they no longer seem new--just a matter of course.

I realized on the ride home, that in admiring this film on its technical merits, an injustice is done by ignoring the way almost every actor played his or her part to the fullest. Orwell himself was the greatest in the film--he never was able to reach this acting height again. Watch his eyes in the film! Almost every emotion a man can have is played out just in his eyes. When needed, Orwell stripped the film of fancy camera and lighting work; he simplified the all that riff-raff to allow the characters to shine.

I've posted my favorite scene below. The scene takes place soon after Kane has acquired his inherited fortune, and has taken over the Inquirer newspaper. He is in the process of transforming it. Like the title character, the newspaper has an ambiguous identity. Half of it is an earnest journalistic endeavour, meant to bring out a truth that the other newspapers have been ignoring. The other half is an ugly rag, inventing yellow journalism, and being anything but honest. In this scene, however, Kane has yet to fall from grace (a fall that is as magnificent as Macbeth), and all of his noble ambition is laid out for all to see. His fall is more wrenching than his rise is delightful, but every time I see this scene, I hope that maybe this time Kane won't betray himself.





On a completely different subject, I'm not the only one taking the zombie invasion threat seriously. I hope the two candidates read this article:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2783/how-would-the-u-s-military-fight-attack-by-a-zombie-army


**The exception to this is Singing in the Rain. Seriously, WTF AFI? This film is a fine, entertaining flick, but top 10?! The acting is nothing but average, the narrative was created to fit the songs, not the other way around, and the songs themselves were half plagiarized! The only decent thing about this movie was its editing and stage effects. Like hell that makes it belong in the top 10.

Some Sais, or a Bo-staff at the very least.

So all around my house I have Hurricane Evacuation Route signs. What they don't have, however, are Zombie Evacuation routes. For the past 23 years this has never bothered me. My first 18 years I lived on a farm in a rural town--easily defendable and with a ready source of food. For the last 5 I lived at Purdue University, which had a vast network of tunnels easily converted as a makeshift base of operations, and 40,000 college students, who, as everyone knows, are well aware of the danger of a zombie horde outbreak. Now however I live in a large-ish urban area (100,000 people or so)--a ready food source for the zombie hordes, and with a population that is decidedly not college students. I doubt most of these people here even know how to decapitate a zombie with a Compact Disc, nor care to learn. They whittle away their days fishing for mackeral, and surfing. What this does mean for me, is that if--when--the Mindless Plague shows up, I could be in a position both to survive, and possibly lead the other survivors.

Right now my emergency plan--and keep in mind I've only had a few days to scout out the areas resources--would involve two possible actions. Worst comes to worst I hightail it to Folly Beach--only a few minutes away--and head to the pier. Assuming zombies can't swim, and I have yet to see any evidence that they can, I can cut off the access to the pier, use the boards for a cooking fire/smoke signals, and fish for survival. Obviously this is not a permanent solution for many reasons. First, fires on a wood pier are generally not a good idea. I mean I can use the tin roof to make a fire pit pretty easily...but still. Also from every movie I've seen, as soon as I'm lulled into a sense of safety, some zombies will have walked the bottom of the ocean and will climb up the anchors of the pier. Now I'm fucked out in the ocean rather on land. At least on land I can outrun a zombie.

So plan two. There is an old Aircraft carrier here, the USS Yorktown, which was created during WWII. As we all know, Nazi Germany was experimenting with zombies during WWII to create a super army (more proof). Knowing this, I'm sure the US Military outfitted all new war machines with anti-zombie defenses. If I can make it to the USS Yorktown, I can survive on the MREs I always keep in my trunk until help arrive. I'm assuming at least a few cadets from the Citadel will have the same idea as myself, and will try to make it to the carrier. Once this happens, we can decide on a course of action from there. Right now my problem is that I don't have much in the way of a weapon. Of course I always keep a baseball bat and tire iron in my trunk, but that's really going to tucker me out. It's much better to decapitate then to bash, as Grandpa Jimmy always used to say. I have always felt that a combat shotgun would be the best general defense, and I can keep that in my room, but when driving around I'm still unprotected. A gun won't work there because I'm afraid that I will be pulled over. I know the government has its eye out on me, and I dont' want to give those bastards a chance. A sword, however, I think is a pretty good weapon, combining the portability/no licensure of a baseball bat with the lethality of a shotgun.

I still need to think of a suitable plan of action if the plague hits while I'm at work. Any ideas?