Life: Magical and Realistic

Movie: TCoN: Prince Caspian

It was date night the other night, and instead of going to our favorite Sushi place, we decided to go catch Prince Caspian at the local movie theater.  Two things of note before I start with the usual: I went to Costco earlier and scored those cheaper Regal Entertainment Theater coupons, saving some money, and then went on to blow the savings and a lot more on a large tub-o-popcorn and large diet coke (I know, why diet coke when I am eating a freaking tub of lard?  Dunno, I just like it, that's why).  Yes, I was upsold to the tub, but I am a sucker for popcorn.  I am starting to think part of the reason I like to go to movies so much is not for the movie itself, but for the indulgence in the popcorn!  So maybe if I brought popcorn into other parts of my life... hmmm...  More on that later.

So, the movie was OK, not at all like what I remember the book being about.  Note to self: re-read the book if you can find it.  It starts with the kids being whisked away from the Strand Tube station in London, and plopped straight back into Narnia where, of course, everything has changed for the worse.  It is apparently 1300 years later (we learn that at the end of the film in a sticky moment where one of our heroines, Susan, is tempted to stay in Narnia with Prince Caspian, but I digress) and the evil Telmarines have taken over the place and exterminated -- or so they think -- all the creatures of Narnia.  Later we find out the Telmarines are just another bunch of misplaced humans who came in through another magical hole in space/time, and that they are just acting, well, human, circa 19th century lore: brutal, bad-ass, and a bit boring.  And in a weird twist of fate, they all have odd accents, as is noted by the Movie Mom (who I think rocks for telling me what to bring my kids to - and so far, there is nothing, and I mean not a single movie, I feel I can bring my kids to, but I digress again).

So, this movie is a bit like the Telmarines: brutal, bad-ass and a bit boring.  The fight scenes between the Telmarines and the not-actually-extinct Narnians are brutal, the heroes are bad-ass (as are the bad guys), but somewhere through the forest, Aslan, the White witch (again), and even back in jolly old London, things are just kind of moving along, running in place, or kind of boring, so to speak.  OK, the visual effects were amazing, so I would go again just for that.  But as for adding it to my collection of DVDs at home to watch again another day (of which I am just waiting for the day they are obsolete because of movies moving to hard-drives a la music to ipods), this movie, unlike the original Chronicles of Narnia, fails.  Not to say I didn't get a little teary eyed at the end.  After all, the movie is about the end of innocence and childhood, and Peter and Susan won't be coming back to Narnia.  So, I guess my point is this: if you liked the books, you will like the movie just because it brings the characters to the big screen in a fantastical way (especially Reepicheep, the mouse, who steals the show).  If you haven't read the books but like big action-packed movies, you will also like it.  But if you haven't read the books and want an interesting storyline, stay away from the movie and read the book at home instead.

I guarantee you will like it better that way.  And, if you are like me, devour some tubs of popcorn while reading - it is good for the soul.

Movie: Over Her Dead Body

Claudia was frankly sick of dark movies, and we had somehow wound up with a good share of them.  So, when it was time to reorder Netflix and look at their suggestions, I looked hard in Comedy or Romance to find something somewhat suitable and interesting.  This one was recommended to us, and so I gave it a shot.

Now, maybe it was the dearth of either comedy or romance in the last movies we watched, or maybe it was just the gin and tonics talking... but this movie hit a funny bone towards the middle part of the movie that had us both LOL!  From the reviews I later read, and from the start of the movie itself, I was prepared for the worst.  In fact, the Kate character is so annoying that she made me want to leave the room or otherwise strangle the character, virtually, somehow.  Never a good start.  But inertia kept us firmly in our seats, and so we continued to watch, and eventually to enjoy!  Of course, all good things must come to an end, so during the last third of the movie I have to say I was ready to get up and go to bed, but the belly laughs in the middle made it all worthwhile.

So, what is the movie about?  Basically the annoying Kate gets killed on her wedding day, then comes back to haunt her husband as he starts to date.  The situational comedy part of the movie comes when our hero, Henry (played by an actor I really like, Paul Rudd), goes to a psychic to try to contact his dearly departed ball and chain, and winds up falling for her.  The misadventures continue somewhat predictably, but the best parts involve the psychic, the crazy Kate ghost, and Henry, including a part where they are an unlikely threesome in bed.

OK, sure this has been done better, notably in Dona Flor and her Two Husbands (the book, of course, better than the movie), based in Brazil.  But for what it is worth, if you are OK with 1/3 movie being truly funny, 1/3 being just hum-drum, and the other 1/3 being downright boring, then you should enjoy this farcical and fantastical movie.

The internet devolution

When facebook started out, in its geeky yet cool way of connecting college kids to one another, I stood up and paid attention. Sure, we had seen the Friendsters of the world come and go, but here, I think, was a truly novel concept: a walled social networking site that informed you about the goings on at your school. I think back to my college days, with no internet, barely computers, and just your face to face social scene and think "wow", what a difference a facebook would have made. A yearbook come to life, and, better yet, a record of that time (which, granted for me, remains foggy....).

And then they moved to including high schools. Even better, I think! And so fun, in an era of adolescence where it really does matter how one feels that day, how it would be cool to poke someone you don't know, to flirt, to organize, and all in the safety of your own school zone.

And the capitalist in me is thinking - wow, you have these kids, this perfect demographic to advertise to... this is gonna be huge! You can follow these guys through life, give linkedin.com a run for its money, etc.

Then it opened up to everyone. Now all the fun "poking" and "throwing sheep" around on the site is suddenly open from just kids to my 54 year old uncle, and he can tell my mom about my wild weekend pics, and ... well, so what, it is still really just for the kids, right?

But then facebook is open to the general search world, and profiles can show up in search results. Hmmm.. now my 4 year old profile of when I was in college can be seen by my boss - since I am now in the real world, and not in college anymore. Not so cool, Facebook. Some older members even start deleting their profiles (is that even really possible?), or making it all very private, or maybe now I have 4000 friends and family members who can poke, superpoke, or tell me to download the newest, coolest facebook app that I just need to use!

And the newer users, those excluded from the "cool" college site, now get to wander into this formerly exclusive world of mine, and they find a world that can't quite figure out.... Seems like friendster, but on some kind of weird college vibe, still talking about poking, and being in class, and so on... And I keep having random people ask to be my friend, but they are in high school, or are really old, or are really young. And the newest, coolest apps don't work on my Mac. And do I really care how my friends are "feeling" today? That so and so can't wait to get a massage? That my friend in London is "psyched for the weekend"? Have they all reverted to being 18-22 year olds, instead of serious professionals? Have they swallowed a collective amount of Koolaid and are in some nether world where "contemplating my touch Ipod" is somehow important?

Facebook, you have come a long way. You are valued by "the market" at some ridiculous billion dollar mark. And you keep opening up the tent, letting more people in.... But my guess is, your active users are leaving once they realize they can never be kids again, and that by using your site they are simply acting like the kids they once were, or wanted to be.

And it is frankly a bit pathetic.  Or maybe I am just old!

Coaching Soccer in the USA

I was an unlikely coach for my son's soccer team.  I figured since I had some time, I would volunteer for assistant coach and help out however I could.  Little did I know that it meant I would become the real coach, that "assistant coach" really just meant "coach."  But, so be it, I figured I would give it my best shot. I have learned a lot about coaching a team of under 6 players (all of them around 5), and even more about the way soccer is viewed in the USA.  The former was noteworthy for the fun it provided for me, and for the winning season and increase in abilities that it gave to my team of 8 players.  The latter is a bit of a disappointment for me, since I grew up in Brasil and to me, soccer is really the only game that matters.  Not so much here in the USA, as I was to find out.

I will leave my tips and training methodology for another day.  Needless to say, a lot of the training ideas came off the internet, and the practical approach was hit or miss with my team.  There is a lot of good info out there, although it needs to be sorted through carefully since some of the training methodology goes hand in hand with the American philosophy of teaching and playing soccer. 

Which brings me to what I have come to find out...  Soccer in the USA, at the youngest levels, is seen as a place where anyone and everyone can play, but beyond that, that soccer is a dumping ground for other sports' untalented players.  The everyone can play philosophy is a good thing:  everyone  can and should play.  The bad part reminds me of an old Vonnegut play about handicapping the beautiful and talented people so that they are more "normal" and everyone is more equal (in other words, a perfect communist society!).  Here in the US, everyone who is talented should "dumb their skill down" so that they don't score too many goals, hurt the other teams feelings, or, indeed, hurt their teammates feelings.  What the fuck is that about?  Let me give you some real life (other) coaches examples, when our team plays them:

We played a team that was pretty bad, so I offered to take one of my players off the field so we didn't humiliate them (as I was taught to do, although if I had my way, I wouldn't even have offered).  The coach turned to me and said:  It doesn't matter, I told my team they get two points for every goal you guys score... (!).  And she said it with a straight face!  I mean, what is she teaching the kids?  The rules of the game are forfeit, and from that point on, any of her players that want to continue playing in a later league will think it is OK to lose since they are (sneakily) actually winning!  I cannot imagine any other team sport where a coach, any coach, would say it is not only OK to lose, to not properly practice, to just be incompetent, because the rules are different in their own heads.  Craziness!

We played another team that was pathetic, and at that time I was just letting the kids have fun and score goals.  Towards the end of the game, the other coach came up and asked me if I could tell my team not to score, but to just pass the ball around (he never mentioned the reason which was that he wanted his kids to feel better about themselves till later).  I explained to him that I just coached the team to win, to score goals, and to have fun.  He got all red in the face, picked up the ball, and went to his team to say the game was over.  It reminded me of those kids in pre-school who grab their balls when they feel slighted or upset, and tell the other kids they are just gonna "take my ball and go home!"  I mean, what is that teaching the kids?  I went up to try to make nice, which is when the coach explained he was part of the Board of Directors and that in "this league, we teach the kids to play fair."  I was flabbergasted!  Play fair is one thing, play stupid and to lose something else altogether.

The funny thing is, when talking to parents around Santa Cruz whose kids   play in other leagues, they say how afraid they are to go down to play the teams from Watsonville (a more Mexican area), since the Santa Cruz teams usually get destroyed.  And I think to myself, well of course they are destroyed, they are not taught to play very well up here!  And I am sure the Watsonville teams both don't allow everyone to play (conceptually they only allow the BEST players to play) and actually encourage good, talented play. You know, like a real sport and all...

So, I sadly shake my head to myself.  On the one hand, I get it that everyone good or bad should play, at least for a bit.  But soccer shouldn't be the dumping ground for untalented players from other sports only because it is soccer.  And the coaching staff, the board of directors, and anyone else involved in Excel Soccer should think of how to make the game fun for everyone, but have different levels of experience and/or talent play together, one set of teams on a "competition track" and the others on a "fun track."  That way, soccer can become the serious sport and the serious competition that it is, and not a place where everyone is dumbed down to the level of the least talented on the various teams (coaches included!).

But hey, this is my first time exposed to this type of philosophy.  In the back my head, the Brasilian in me hopes the USA continues to flounder in their development of a good soccer philosophy and eventual professional play.  Because if the USA put its mind to it, the talent and ability of the good players could be nurtured, and their standing with the rest of the world as a soccer power would increase... and that wouldn't be good for Brasil or any of the other countries where soccer is sport.

Movie: Iron Man

I have to admit that I was very excited to see this movie, and it had nothing to do with Robert Downey Jr.  I am a comic book collector from way back when, and have loved the big screen adaptations of the X-men and Batman (specifically Batman Begins).  So, when I heard about Iron Man I was mildly interested, although it was not one of my favorite titles.  But then the sneak previews appeared, and the film looked like it rocked!  I also liked the way they had updated the storyline to include a whole new beginning for Tony Stark becoming Iron Man.

In addition, the movie soundtrack, with AC/DC and Black Sabbath, appealed to my inner heavy metal rocker, circa 1980 when I lived in Florida.  So, I went to see the film, expecting it to be great, and to a certain extent, it was.  The creation of the Iron Man suit, and the entire middle part of the movie, were hilarious and entertaining.  The setup, at the start of the movie, made the entire rest of the movie believable.  But the end... well, let's just say that if it were a comic book, I wouldn't have kept it in "pristine" state.  I mean, two robots duking it out?  That was pretty anticlimactic.  What I would have expected, in good old Marvel tradition, was for Tony to outwit his foe in some amazing way, using brains over brawn to win the day.  Instead we had the usual Hollywood action drivel the likes of Transformers.  Not exactly satisfying.

I did stay to watch the bit after the end credits to see what the hoo-ha was about.  Basically it sets up a future Avengers movie under SHIELD (read the comic books if you don't know wtf I am talking about), which could be great.  But for now I am waiting to see what they do with their next comic-adaptation-for-the-big-screen in the Incredible Hulk.  My expectations are very low (I intensely disliked the comic book), but the trailer looked promising.  My worry is that Hulk, by its very nature will end up a smash-and-kill over the top nut job movie. 

But that won't stop me from seeing it!

Movie: Gone Baby Gone

It is rare a movie comes along that I like as much as this one.  I have been abusing my Netflix queue, with its three-at-a-time movies-at-home option (we just upgraded from one-at-a-time), watching some pretty amazing movies (No Country for Old Men, Before the Devil Knows your Dead) and some crap movies (Ratatouille -- really, a cute RAT?).  But this one stands out, thus this post.

Based in the rougher edges of Boston, with accents as thick as their Irish forebearers, the movie starts off as a pretty basic kidnapping movie, with a young girl disappearing one night when her mom was at the neighbors.  But that is where the similarity to any other kidnapping movie ends.  From that point on, we are given glimpses that not all is as it seems: we learn that the mom was not just at the neighbors, but was doing coke with her boyfriend at another house, that there is a plot to rip off a dealer, that the police are more involved than they seem, and that how our hero, a Private Investigator, deals with the underworld bosses and the police make him the ultimate anti-hero at the end.  Slowly the plot intensifies, with small seemingly unrelated characters coming together.  The beauty of the film is how it unfolds.  As a viewer, you are torn this way and that, like a leaf in a fast current.  At the end, you are hoping that what you know is true is actually not, as relates to the characters.  But, beyond that, the film is so morally ambivalent, that by the end of it, you are cheering for the "bad" guys and booing the "good" guys -- or are you?  That is the essence of the film: it makes you rethink your belief system and society's belief system as to what is good and what is bad.  A film that does that is rare indeed, which is why I think this should be required watching, at some point, for everyone who thinks they understand good and evil.

Why the name Magical Realism?

It took a lot to decide to create this blog, but once the idea was firmly implanted, the decision had to be made about what to call the damn thing.

I have admired the work of various writers, notably Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Jose Saramago, who have been labeled "magical realist" writers.  I might add to that list another of my favorites, Kurt Vonnegut, who, while not labeled by others as a magical realist, certainly seems that way to me.

A quick definition, from that font of knowledge Wikipedia, as to what magical realism is, for those of you who don't know:

Magic realism (or magical realism) is an artistic genre in which magical elements or illogical scenarios appear in an otherwise realistic or even "normal" setting.

Now I am not saying, by any means, that, you know, elves and shit are appearing on my front yard.  Or that God has spoken to me through some coins.  Or whatever.  I am just noting that in my life, sometimes it seems to me that illogical scenarios sometimes interpose themselves in my rather "normal" life.  And sometimes a normal life just appears magical to outsiders who aren't living it.  Either way, here is my attempt to capture some of what happens to me and my family as we move through this brief speck of infinite time, and try to make sense of it.