My 12-year-old's critique of Ray
nmstevens
thought worth repeating.
Mini-Spoiler:
Okay -- toward the very end, after we've found out that, as a boy, Ray
stood by and watched his younger brother drown accidentally in a wash
basin, and he's now going through heroin withdrawal and he has a final
sort of visionary flashback -- and now confronts his mother and his
(now once-again living) younger brother, his mother, who, over the
course of the movie, we've heard say to him (as a boy) "I don't want
you to end up a cripple" says to him, more or less, that because he's
addicted to heroin, he's become a cripple and I thought -- well, that's
okay, that works.
And then the little boy pipes up and says, "Ray, it wasn't your fault,"
-- meaning, of course, the drowning, which has tormented him -- and
presumably driven him to drown his guilt in heroin.
And I'm thinking -- man, that's kind of hitting the nail real hard on
the head.
At which point, Zak, my twelve-year-old, who's sitting with my wife,
promptly comes out with, "Awww, isn't that cute."
Man, what a little cynic. I don't where he gets it.
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Man, what a little cynic. I don't know where he gets it.
I can't imagine.
Herimoine
my wife, promptly comes out with, "Awww, isn't that cute." Man, what a
little cynic. I don't where he gets it.
>
RonB
news:cve3ti$nfr$1...@reader2.panix.com:
I don't think he was bragging -- simply telling it as it is. But there are
worse things in the world than cynicism.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Herimoine
>
Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
Jacques E. Bouchard
@reader2.panix.com:
> "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
>>
>
> Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
Healthy cynicism keeps you from turning into one of those horribly maudlin,
weepy, fragile people who embrace pink tedy bears and "Touched by an
Angel".
jaybee
nmstevens
Herimoine wrote:
> "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
> >
>
> Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
Gee, how about, oh, say -- truth?
I know that's the common call - the terribleness of truth -- that we
need to protect children from Truth. That if we don't hide the *Truth*
from the children that the children will be destroyed by the *Truth* --
we get so much into the habit of telling bullshit lies to our kids
about the world that before you know it, we grow up believing those
lies -- and all of sudden, we're not just telling lies to our kids to
protect them from the truth -- we teach it to our kids because we
actually believe the lies.
Fuck you, Herimoine.
What I found noteworthy was that, just as my own bullshit detector was
going off while watching Ray -- just as I was thinking that the moment
was phony -- which it was -- my twelve-year-old's remark aptly mirrored
precisely what I was thinking.
As writers, as artists, we owe our audiences nothing but truth - and as
parents we owe our kids nothing but truth.
As for being cynical -- we are currently living in a country where the
majority of people think that the greatest president in our history --
is Ronald Reagan.
Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not Franklin Delano
Roosevelt.
Fucking Ronald Reagan.
To live today in this world and not be cynical is to be a fucking
moron.
I guess I'd be reaching to presume that you're not a cynic, Herimoine?
NMS
pinknebulous
bzel...@comcast.net wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
>
> > As for being cynical -- we are currently living in a country where
> the
> > majority of people think that the greatest president in our history
> --
> > is Ronald Reagan.
> >
> > Not George Washington. Not Abraham Lincoln. Not Franklin Delano
> > Roosevelt.
>
> Washington!. Yesterday was president's day but today, of course, is
his
> real birthday.
One day before mine!
> Yay, George!
Pisces rule!
pink
Paulo Joe Jingy
> "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
>
>
> Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
Neal's son is what he is. I really doubt that Neal and his wife sent
him to *cynical* school. And, cynical or not, he apparently has a grasp
of what bullshit is, which will help him if he decides to follow his
Dad's line of work. (Or any other line of work).
You have to have a firm grasp of reality if you're going to write
fiction. Not some sugar-coated, "life is rainbows and bunny wabbits"
fantasy land. Obviously you use common sense, you don't shock a
two-year old with graphic anything, but Neal's son is twelve -- he
should be noticing the world around him -- the real world -- and he
should be developing a *healthy* cynicism, because, quite frankly, a lot
in this world sucks right now.
In fact, I have a hunch that the children who are put in a cocoon and
who are spoon-fed the "life is a bed of roses" bullshit until their
adults are probably *more* likely, not less to turn to alcoholism and
drug abuse when they *suddenly* start getting a healthy dose of reality.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
ov...@aol.com
>Healthy cynicism keeps you from turning into one of >those horribly
maudlin,
>weepy, fragile people who embrace pink tedy bears >and "Touched by an
>Angel".
Hey!
On secind thought, I rescind that "hey." I've never watched TBAA.
And I have no pink teddy bears.
However, I did choke up when the Star Trek theme music played at the
beginning of "First Contact."
So ... um ... "hey!"
Lois
ov...@aol.com
was the flashback scene when Ray's little brother says, "It wasn't your
fault."
There are thousands of people in recovery right now whose lives would
be just as transformed if they could only hear the right person say,
"It wasn't your fault."
"It wasn't your fault that your parents got divorced." "It wasn't your
fault that your dad broke your mother's jaw. Twice." "It wasn't your
fault that your sister ran away from home." "It wasn't your fault that
your brother committed suicide."
People get eaten alive by guilt and regret. In Scott Peck's book, he
makes the case that 80 percent of medical conditions begin as guilt.
(The guilt caused the overeating which caused the obesity which caused
the high blood pressure which caused the heart condition. And so on.)
Peck also makes the case that a majority of clinical neurosis spring
from a seed of unresolved guilt.
I'm not condemning anybody's reaction to the film "Ray." Just thought
I'd get serious for a second and point out the deep psychological and
emotional truths underlying the scene.
Lois
Brian Christgau
news:cvfcvu$5ea$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Herimoine wrote:
> > "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
> > >
> >
> > Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
>
> Gee, how about, oh, say -- truth?
>
> I know that's the common call - the terribleness of truth -- that we
> need to protect children from Truth. That if we don't hide the *Truth*
> from the children that the children will be destroyed by the *Truth* --
> we get so much into the habit of telling bullshit lies to our kids
> about the world that before you know it, we grow up believing those
> lies -- and all of sudden, we're not just telling lies to our kids to
> protect them from the truth -- we teach it to our kids because we
> actually believe the lies.
A while back my girlfriend and I were having a discussion about the
purpose of school in our society, which I maintained was to rob human
beings of their individuality and turn them into little chickenshit
conformists,
cogs for the big machine. While she agreed that was part of it, she
expressed her belief that its primary purpose was to indoctrinate children
into the wonderful world of BULLSHIT, to prepare their impressionable
little minds to accept a lifetime of lies, deceptions and double-think.
I 've gotta say she has a point. How else can half the country not see
through a lying sack of shit - and not even a GOOD lying sack of shit but a
lousy one - like King George II? How else can seemingly reasonable people
(like my father) watch the Fox News Channel and actually think it's a news
channel? Get 'em while they're young.
> Fuck you, Herimoine.
Gee Neal, why don't you tell her how you *really* feel?
> As writers, as artists, we owe our audiences nothing but truth - and as
> parents we owe our kids nothing but truth.
The other day I was walking through the local supermarket when my eyes
fell on a children's book with what has to be one of the funniest titles
I've ever seen: "You Should Always Tell the Truth". I laughed so hard the
other customers in the supermarket looked like they thought I was having a
seizure. What an utterly fucked up thing to teach a kid!
And do the parents who feed their kids a bullshit line like that
actually believe it? Hell no! If they always told the truth they'd be
divorced, unemployed and probably homeless by now... and yet they want their
kids to believe that this is a world where honesty and virtue are respected
and rewarded.
> As for being cynical -- we are currently living in a country where the
> majority of people think that the greatest president in our history --
> is Ronald Reagan.
Well, that's because they're brainwashed by that frigging glass teat in
their living rooms. Now that's got to be the bullshit coup of all time:
propaganda dressed up as news - 24 hour bullshit channels. Joe Goebbels
would have kicked himself in the ass for not thinking of it.
> To live today in this world and not be cynical is to be a fucking
> moron.
Of course I agree, but I also think there are different types of
cynicism. Recently I was reading an interview with the British writer Warren
Ellis who when asked if he was cynical replied with an enthusiastic (nay,
buoyant), "Of course!" And I suddenly realized that, although I find his
work clever and scathingly funny, the reason I've never been able to connect
with it on an emotional level is because he's the kind of guy who enjoys
being a cynic and I'm the kind of kind who hates being a cynic.
If you were to ask me the same question, I'd sigh sadly and say, "Yeah."
I hate the fact that I live in a world (and particularly a country) that's
more cold full of shit than a colostomy bag and take no joy in pointing it
out. Still, the world and its people are the way that they are and
pretending that they're otherwise would be, well, bullshit.
Cheers,
B
Brian Christgau
> > "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
> > >
> >
> > Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
>
> Gee, how about, oh, say -- truth?
>
> I know that's the common call - the terribleness of truth -- that we
> need to protect children from Truth. That if we don't hide the *Truth*
> from the children that the children will be destroyed by the *Truth* --
> we get so much into the habit of telling bullshit lies to our kids
> about the world that before you know it, we grow up believing those
> lies -- and all of sudden, we're not just telling lies to our kids to
> protect them from the truth -- we teach it to our kids because we
> actually believe the lies.
A while back my girlfriend and I were having a discussion about the
purpose of school in our society, which I maintained was to rob human
beings of their individuality and turn them into little chickenshit
conformists,
cogs for the big machine. While she agreed that was part of it, she
expressed her belief that its primary purpose was to indoctrinate children
into the wonderful world of BULLSHIT, to prepare their impressionable
little minds to accept a lifetime of lies, deceptions and double-think.
I 've gotta say she has a point. How else can half the country not see
through a lying sack of shit - and not even a GOOD lying sack of shit but a
lousy one - like King George II? How else can seemingly reasonable people
(like my father) watch the Fox News Channel and actually think it's a news
channel? Get 'em while they're young.
> Fuck you, Herimoine.
Gee Neal, why don't you tell her how you *really* feel?
> As writers, as artists, we owe our audiences nothing but truth - and as
> parents we owe our kids nothing but truth.
The other day I was walking through the local supermarket when my eyes
fell on a children's book with what has to be one of the funniest titles
I've ever seen: "You Should Always Tell the Truth". I laughed so hard the
other customers in the supermarket looked like they thought I was having a
seizure. What an utterly fucked up thing to teach a kid!
And do the parents who feed their kids a bullshit line like that
actually believe it? Hell no! If they always told the truth they'd be
divorced, unemployed and probably homeless by now... and yet they want their
kids to believe that this is a world where honesty and virtue are respected
and rewarded.
> As for being cynical -- we are currently living in a country where the
> majority of people think that the greatest president in our history --
> is Ronald Reagan.
Well, that's because they're brainwashed by that frigging glass teat in
their living rooms. Now that's got to be the bullshit coup of all time:
propaganda dressed up as news - 24 hour bullshit channels. Joe Goebbels
would have kicked himself in the ass for not thinking of it.
> To live today in this world and not be cynical is to be a fucking
> moron.
Of course I agree, but I also think there are different types of
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> A while back my girlfriend and I were having a discussion about
> the purpose of school in our society, which I maintained was to rob
> human beings of their individuality and turn them into little
> chickenshit conformists,
> cogs for the big machine. While she agreed that was part of it, she
> expressed her belief that its primary purpose was to indoctrinate
> children into the wonderful world of BULLSHIT, to prepare their
> impressionable little minds to accept a lifetime of lies, deceptions
> and double-think.
Well I guess it was a discussion not a debate then! 8-o
I thought school was a mix of creating a blue collar class, creating a white
collar class, and creating empowered individuals who can think for
themselves. The latter being more the tendency the longer one stayed in
school, and the more money one spent upon it. In a capitalist society, one
gets what one pays for?
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.
Giuditta
-- meaning, of course, the drowning, which has tormented him -- and
presumably driven him to drown his guilt in heroin.
And I'm thinking -- man, that's kind of hitting the nail real hard on
the head.
At which point, Zak, my twelve-year-old, who's sitting with my wife,
promptly comes out with, "Awww, isn't that cute."
Man, what a little cynic. I don't where he gets it.
NMS
Your son is obviously very mature and sees into the scenario with 20/20
mental vision. It seems that he made the comment with a sarcastic tone
(did he?), and I think it reveals his insight; he knows what's real and
you should be glad for that.
Maybe he is a wee cynic...I like that in a person, even a little
person. You've taught him to see the world as it is, not as some would
like it to appear.
One can make excuses for fatal choices, but there comes a time when one
must grow up and stop blaming circumstances on addictions, etc. Your
child knows this already.
I see students every day who are street wise and know "what's up," but
they can't share their thoughts with a parent. I say...hats off to you
for obviously being a positive role model and making Zak comfortable
with himself and secure enough to share his feelings in your company.
Giuditta
Jacques E. Bouchard
in news:cvhh3e$92b$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> I thought school was a mix of creating a blue collar class, creating a
> white collar class, and creating empowered individuals who can think
> for themselves. The latter being more the tendency the longer one
> stayed in school, and the more money one spent upon it. In a
> capitalist society, one gets what one pays for?
School isn't going to make someone they're not. Most people can stay twenty
years in school without ever learning to think for themselves.
jaybee
Giuditta
School is over rated but education is not. I feel that the entire
educational system in this country needs revamping, and teachers that
do not genuinely care about their students need to leave. There are
some mean ones out there that turn kids off anything related to
learning. Teachers should also be paid more money since they work many
hours overtime at home and spend their own money on resourses and
supplies. Better health care benefits would help as well.
Giuditta
Ron
"ov...@aol.com" <ov...@aol.com> wrote:
> There are thousands of people in recovery right now whose lives would
> be just as transformed if they could only hear the right person say,
> "It wasn't your fault."
>
> "It wasn't your fault that your parents got divorced." "It wasn't your
> fault that your dad broke your mother's jaw. Twice." "It wasn't your
> fault that your sister ran away from home." "It wasn't your fault that
> your brother committed suicide."
I don't know, Lois;
There might be thousands of people who would be a lot better off if they
didn't hold themselves responsible for something that wasn't their
fault.
The problem is, making their lives better off isn't as simple as having
someone say, "It's not your fault."
It's a very Hollywoody type of thing to suggest that merely hearing
somebody say the words is enough. Hey, it's great, it feels good, but
the underlying problem doesn't go away.
Swerving back towards "Ray" (a movie I liked even if it was a little too
1-2-3 for my taste -- it never surprised me) part of the problem with
that line, in that movie, is that is WAS Ray's fault. Not completely, of
course, it was an accident, but there was definitely a sense that if Ray
had yelled for help, had, really, done anything other than just stand
there and watch, he might have been able to save his brother.
And that's powerful stuff. VERY powerful stuff. And to really dig into
that, to admit that, if true, it's not the sort of thing that's going to
be cured by somebody saying, "It's not your fault."
My biggest problem with Ray -- again, a movie I liked -- is that it took
the easy way out a lot of the time with stuff like this. Ray Charles'
real life was much more interesting than the life they showed us, and I
think that doing a little more digging into what was really going on
with Ray's feeling about his brother would have only made the movie
stronger.
-Ron
Brandon J. Van Every
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in news:cvhh3e$92b$1...@reader2.panix.com:
>
>> I thought school was a mix of creating a blue collar class, creating
>> a white collar class, and creating empowered individuals who can
>> think
>> for themselves. The latter being more the tendency the longer one
>> stayed in school, and the more money one spent upon it. In a
>> capitalist society, one gets what one pays for?
>
> School isn't going to make someone they're not.
Really. I suppose you were born with literacy, math skills, historical
awareness...?
> Most people can stay
> twenty years in school without ever learning to think for themselves.
Most people have bad teachers.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon J. Van Every
>School is over rated but education is not. I feel that the entire
educational system in this country needs revamping, and teachers that
do not genuinely care about their students need to leave. There are
some mean ones out there that turn kids off anything related to
learning. Teachers should also be paid more money since they work many
hours overtime at home and spend their own money on resourses and
supplies. Better health care benefits would help as well.
Almost a year ago, for my day job, I carried Initiative 884 in Washington
state. It was about funding education at all levels to the tune of $1
billion by raising the state sales tax 1%. Qualifying the measure for the
ballot was not difficult. We got the needed signatures. But when it came
to the polls, it was resoundingly defeated by a 2:1 margin. I found that
depressing. But, looking at it objectively, the Washington state economy is
pretty weak right now.
Giuditta
Washington
state. It was about funding education at all levels to the tune of $1
billion by raising the state sales tax 1%. Qualifying the measure for
the
ballot was not difficult. We got the needed signatures. But when it
came
to the polls, it was resoundingly defeated by a 2:1 margin. I found
that
depressing. But, looking at it objectively, the Washington state
economy is
pretty weak right now.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold
Well, thank you for trying. Wish more people would.
G
ov...@aol.com
>The problem is, making their lives >better off isn't as simple as
having
>someone say, "It's not your fault."
You're right. Having *the right person* say it is only half the battle.
*Believing* that person is the other half.
>It's a very Hollywoody type of thing >to suggest that merely hearing
>somebody say the words is >enough.
Except that in this case, the movie is based on what actually happened
to a real live person, and that person "saw" the film and signed off on
it.
If Ray Charles claims he had a vision (or a dream, hallucination,
fantasy, whatever you want to call it), and it helped him kick his
heroin addiction, who are you to say that's not true?
>there was definitely a sense that if >Ray
>had yelled for help, had, really, >done anything other than just
>stand
>there and watch, he might have >been able to save his brother.
Come on, he was just a little kid! He had no frame of reference for
what was happening! It's not like he'd watched 20 drownings before and
knew what to do! How many stupid things did any of us do as kids (or
adults) that could have gotten somebody killed?
Lois
nmstevens
ov...@aol.com wrote:
> Ron writes:
>
> >The problem is, making their lives >better off isn't as simple as
> having
> >someone say, "It's not your fault."
>
> You're right. Having *the right person* say it is only half the
battle.
> *Believing* that person is the other half.
>
> >It's a very Hollywoody type of thing >to suggest that merely hearing
> >somebody say the words is >enough.
>
> Except that in this case, the movie is based on what actually
happened
> to a real live person, and that person "saw" the film and signed off
on
> it.
>
> If Ray Charles claims he had a vision (or a dream, hallucination,
> fantasy, whatever you want to call it), and it helped him kick his
> heroin addiction, who are you to say that's not true?
You know Lois, you shouldn't necessarily assume that simply because
somebody "signs off" on something that's in a movie -- even a movie
that's about him -- that it is necessarily a hundred percent accurate.
That's where those words, "based on" come in. Now, maybe he really did
have all those watery-type hallucinations -- or maybe he didn't. Maybe
that was simply a very dramatic way to -- well, to "dramatize"
something that Ray Charles was likely experiencing in his life --
namely that he was having guilt feelings and flashing back to his
brother's death -- but perhaps not in nearly as visually interesting a
way.
And as for having a vision -- does he actually claim to have had a
vision -- or did he simply go into the hospital, reach rock bottom, and
achieve a moment of realization about himself and his life -- sans
vision?
Even if he didn't -- that's not to say that he wouldn't necessarily
have approved such a scene in a movie.
>
> >there was definitely a sense that if >Ray
> >had yelled for help, had, really, >done anything other than just
> >stand
> >there and watch, he might have >been able to save his brother.
>
> Come on, he was just a little kid! He had no frame of reference for
> what was happening! It's not like he'd watched 20 drownings before
and
> knew what to do! How many stupid things did any of us do as kids (or
> adults) that could have gotten somebody killed?
>
> Lois
Well, I think that very few of us imagine that, when confronted with
emergencies that we'll freeze up like a deer caught in the headlights
-- and yet that is very often how people respond. That's clearly how
Ray Charles responded. He froze.
And while I don't think that that's a particularly blameworthy thing --
and certainly not in a little child -- the moment in the movie still
struck me as phony.
I didn't believe the words coming out of the mouth of that child. It
requires that a completely different, non-child-like mentality
essentially occupy the mind-space of that child in order for that
sentiment to issue forth from that mouth. "Oh, you stood by while I, at
around the age of four, fell in that tub and drowned to death. Don't
feel bad about that. It wasn't your fault."
The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those dots
doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so when those
words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe them.
I'm not saying that, with a little work, you might not be able to keep
that child and his level of understanding appropriately at that age and
still convey the same information -- but this was just lazy writing --
it was, "Let's cut to the chase and just jam the words into this kid's
mouth without even bothering to think about them."
NMS
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> I didn't believe the words coming out of the mouth of that child. It
> requires that a completely different, non-child-like mentality
> essentially occupy the mind-space of that child in order for that
> sentiment to issue forth from that mouth. "Oh, you stood by while I,
> at around the age of four, fell in that tub and drowned to death.
> Don't feel bad about that. It wasn't your fault."
>
> The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those dots
> doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so when those
> words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe them.
What are you talking about? This scene is the dream of *Ray the adult*.
Ray can make people say things any way he wants in a dream, as an adult. Or
ways he doesn't want, for that matter.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
Ron
"ov...@aol.com" <ov...@aol.com> wrote:
> Except that in this case, the movie is based on what actually happened
> to a real live person, and that person "saw" the film and signed off on
> it.
>
> If Ray Charles claims he had a vision (or a dream, hallucination,
> fantasy, whatever you want to call it), and it helped him kick his
> heroin addiction, who are you to say that's not true?
Well, from what I remember reading at the time (although I haven't
gotten around to reading "Brother Ray," yet, though I want to) both the
stuff dealing with his brother and the stuff dealing with heroin were
the most "Hollywooded up" parts of the story.
> >there was definitely a sense that if >Ray
> >had yelled for help, had, really, >done anything other than just
> >stand
> >there and watch, he might have >been able to save his brother.
>
> Come on, he was just a little kid! He had no frame of reference for
> what was happening! It's not like he'd watched 20 drownings before and
> knew what to do! How many stupid things did any of us do as kids (or
> adults) that could have gotten somebody killed?
Probably a bunch. And I think, if most of us did things that could have
killed someone, and did, we'd feel legitimately pretty guilty about it
-- because it would be are fault.
I'm not saying that Ray (the character in the film, as opposed to the
real person) was fully culpable in the way, say, a life guard who
doesn't notice somebody drowning on his watch is culpable, but I think
it's clearly a situation where if Ray had acted differently, his brother
would have survived.
That's real guilt. That's not, "Your blameless." Such a sentiment is,
in my opinion, totally bogus. No, I don't think an adult should feel
wracked with guilt, and there's a more complex place of self
forgiveness, "I was just a kid, I didn't know any better, I had no frame
of reference..." but that's a long way from "It wasn't your fault. You
couldn't have done anything about it."
-Ron
Ron
> > The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those dots
> > doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so when those
> > words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe them.
>
> What are you talking about? This scene is the dream of *Ray the adult*.
> Ray can make people say things any way he wants in a dream, as an adult. Or
> ways he doesn't want, for that matter.
Right. But if it's just the fantastical musings of Ray-the-adult, then
isn't it a little simplistic and trite? Because the reality (in the
film) wasn't that Ray caused the accident, but it certainly was that Ray
could have saved his brothers life, but didn't.
-Ron
Brandon J. Van Every
> In article <cvk1p4$9qo$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those
>>> dots doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so
>>> when those words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe
>>> them.
>>
>> What are you talking about? This scene is the dream of *Ray the
>> adult*. Ray can make people say things any way he wants in a dream,
>> as an adult. Or ways he doesn't want, for that matter.
>
> Right. But if it's just the fantastical musings of Ray-the-adult, then
> isn't it a little simplistic and trite?
It's a dream. If your concern here is realism, dreams don't have to obey
any waking logic of yours. Dreams, almost by definition, only make sense
within the internal world of the dream world. It's only upon waking that
you realize you're not really in college anymore, you don't really have to
go back and get your high school degree, you aren't really half-naked in
class, etc. Generally, your instinct is the best tool for interpreting your
dream. When you start attaching conscious explanations to your dream, and
you hit upon one that 'feels correct', yep, that's what your dream is really
about. Your subconscious has succeeded in informing your conscious mind of
its problems.
Corollary: dreams, if treated realisically, don't have to be satisfying in
terms of character, plot, or stylistic choice.
Corollary: *ANYTHING* in a movie, that you insist on treating realistically,
doesn't have to be satisfying in terms of character, plot, or stylistic
choice.
You may say you don't like the choices made for this dream sequence. But it
is false to discredit those choices on grounds of 'realism'. Dreams are
surrealism. They need only be true at the most metaphorically disconnected
level.
Giuditta
must grow up and stop blaming circumstances on addictions, etc. Your
child knows this already.
oops! my bad...I meant "stop blaming addictions on circumstances."
G
Ron
> It's a dream. If your concern here is realism, dreams don't have to obey
> any waking logic of yours. Dreams, almost by definition, only make sense
> within the internal world of the dream world. It's only upon waking that
> you realize you're not really in college anymore, you don't really have to
> go back and get your high school degree, you aren't really half-naked in
> class, etc. Generally, your instinct is the best tool for interpreting your
> dream. When you start attaching conscious explanations to your dream, and
> you hit upon one that 'feels correct', yep, that's what your dream is really
> about. Your subconscious has succeeded in informing your conscious mind of
> its problems.
But it's not just a dream - it's a cathartic vision. If it was just a
dream, it wouldn't have any power or meaning to the character.
It's (apparently) supposed to represent his ability to forgive himself,
right? Shouldn't that be a little bit more substantial?
-Ron
Giuditta
wrote:
> > The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those
dots
> > doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so when
those
> > words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe them.
> What are you talking about? This scene is the dream of *Ray the
adult*.
> Ray can make people say things any way he wants in a dream, as an
adult. Or
> ways he doesn't want, for that matter.
Right. But if it's just the fantastical musings of Ray-the-adult, then
isn't it a little simplistic and trite? Because the reality (in the
film) wasn't that Ray caused the accident, but it certainly was that
Ray
could have saved his brothers life, but didn't.
-Ron
Musicians have a sort of grapevive thing where they hear stories from
others in their subculture, like being on the inside track of music
business celebrity gossip...so, here is the story I have heard from
those around me...I will quote it:
"Ray Charles' brother didn't drown, he cooked. The pot of water was
boiling hot, Ray stood in shock watching, afraid, could not even move
his legs or scream...he, being a child was not only afraid for his
brother but also afriad of getting near the hot water himself."
So, maybe Charles didn't suffer from guilt but from the horror of
watching it. If he had run to save his brother, "they" say, he still
would not have been able to save his life. Something similar had
happened to another child where they had a big, black pot outside
boiling grease. The child was standing with his back to it, rough
housing with some kids and flipped backward into the pot...maybe Ray
linked this to the same horrid event.
He didn't lead a happy life as a child, that's for sure...origin of the
Blues music genre from others like Ray Charles...same same...Furry
Lewis, Langston Hughes in those eras...
ov...@aol.com
<< Now, maybe he really did
have all those watery-type hallucinations -- or maybe he didn't. Maybe
that was simply a very dramatic way to -- well, to "dramatize"
something that Ray Charles was likely experiencing in his life --
namely that he was having guilt feelings and flashing back to his
brother's death -- but perhaps not in nearly as visually interesting a
way.
And as for having a vision -- does he actually claim to have had a
vision -- or did he simply go into the hospital, reach rock bottom, and
achieve a moment of realization about himself and his life -- sans
vision? >>
"Objection, your honor! Pure speculation on the part of the defendant."
:-)
Lois
Brandon J. Van Every
> In article <cvk8cm$dfi$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a dream. If your concern here is realism, dreams don't have to
>> obey any waking logic of yours. Dreams, almost by definition, only
>> make sense within the internal world of the dream world. It's only
>> upon waking that you realize you're not really in college anymore,
>> you don't really have to go back and get your high school degree,
>> you aren't really half-naked in class, etc. Generally, your
>> instinct is the best tool for interpreting your dream. When you
>> start attaching conscious explanations to your dream, and you hit
>> upon one that 'feels correct', yep, that's what your dream is really
>> about. Your subconscious has succeeded in informing your conscious
>> mind of its problems.
>
> But it's not just a dream - it's a cathartic vision.
So what? Are you expecting rules of realism for cathartic visions too?
> If it was just a
> dream, it wouldn't have any power or meaning to the character.
Why do you say 'just a dream'? Do you have a personal bias against the
importance of dreams? Are you inclined to dismiss dreams out of hand as not
relevant to the human experience?
> It's (apparently) supposed to represent his ability to forgive
> himself, right? Shouldn't that be a little bit more substantial?
Well, why don't you provide us a rewrite? Then we could dissect what you
mean by 'substantial', presuming it is represented by your rewrite.
I'm suggesting this because I don't find your appeals to 'realism' to be an
adequate explanation for anything. So maybe an empirical example would
clear things up, rather than trying to sort this from first principles.
What you might be inadvertently hitting on, is it's difficult to show a
dream in a satisfying manner, because real dreams are shown in a dream
world, not the screen.
RonB
news:cver07$o0o$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
>>
>
> Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
Sorry if this bursts your bubble, but some kids are born cynical. They
come prebuilt with factory installed Bullshit-O-Meters.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> "RonB" <there are worse things in the world than cynicism.
>>
>
> Not for a young child. What next? Alcoholism? Drug Abuse?
And, BTW, what the hell does alcoholism and drug abuse have to do with
cynicism? If anything, a cynical kid is more willing to see through the
"do it because every one else is stupid enough to do it mentality."
nmstevens
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> nmstevens wrote:
> >
> > I didn't believe the words coming out of the mouth of that child.
It
> > requires that a completely different, non-child-like mentality
> > essentially occupy the mind-space of that child in order for that
> > sentiment to issue forth from that mouth. "Oh, you stood by while
I,
> > at around the age of four, fell in that tub and drowned to death.
> > Don't feel bad about that. It wasn't your fault."
> >
> > The kind of mental processing that is capable of connecting those
dots
> > doesn't exist in the head of a child of that age -- and so when
those
> > words come out of a child of that age -- I don't believe them.
>
> What are you talking about? This scene is the dream of *Ray the
adult*.
> Ray can make people say things any way he wants in a dream, as an
adult. Or
> ways he doesn't want, for that matter.
>
> --
Actually, if you want to get technical, it's neither the words of Ray's
dead younger brother, nor the dream of an adult -- it's the words of a
screenwriter being performed by a child actor -- that's what it really
is.
Now as to what it's *supposed* to be -- that is a matter of opinion. It
might simply be a dream, or it might be a vision. So far as I know, the
movie doesn't come with any cliff notes. While, in reality, we might
debate the merits of the existence of one over the other -- in a movie
a vision might exist as easily as a dream.
In any case, there is nothing within the context of any appearance of
Ray's mother or brother to suggest that the intention was for us to
believe that they were being depicted in any way differently than they
had been depicted earlier in the movie, when they were being presented
strictly as memories -- nothing to suggest any aspect of surrealism
about them -- other than the fact that they both are now addressing the
adult Ray directly.
The Mother speaks in exactly the same voice and tone and idiom that
she'd used up to that time - no indication that she was, in this
particular context, any different than she had been in the normal life
in which we'd seen her.
And when the boy speaks, there isn't a grain of evidence to suggest
that, suddenly, we are intended to believe that we are seeing some
alternate, Ray/dream version of what had previously been a normal
little boy but was now some vaguely surreal mental vision thing rather
than exactly the same thing that we'd seen before.
Nothing is abstracted. Nothing is rendered in any non-literal dreamlike
fashion.
It's just a fucking dribble of bad writing -- and maybe when Ray
Charles dreams about his dead brother, he imagines him speaking in a
way that -- by some amazing coincidence -- sounds exactly like a
screenwriter writing a piece of shitty on-the-nose dialogue --
-- or, then again, maybe it just was a screenwriter writing a piece of
shitty on-the-nose dialogue.
NMS
Ron
> > But it's not just a dream - it's a cathartic vision.
>
> So what? Are you expecting rules of realism for cathartic visions too?
Well, that's the thing -- this gesture is supposed to be a symbol of
Ray's recovery and understanding, right?
But as a simple, it's dishonest tripe. It doesn't reflect a new and
deeper understanding of the situation causing him pain.
-Ron
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> In any case, there is nothing within the context of any appearance of
> Ray's mother or brother to suggest that the intention was for us to
> believe that they were being depicted in any way differently than they
> had been depicted earlier in the movie, when they were being presented
> strictly as memories -- nothing to suggest any aspect of surrealism
> about them -- other than the fact that they both are now addressing
> the adult Ray directly.
Are you saying that general audiences are so thick that they can't figure
this kind of thing out? That it confuses them? Didn't confuse me one bit,
but then, I'm smarter than 99.9% of people out there.
> Nothing is abstracted. Nothing is rendered in any non-literal
> dreamlike fashion.
I disagree. I distinctly remember bright colors through a stained glass
window. Nothing else in the film is similarly bright.
> It's just a fucking dribble of bad writing -- and maybe when Ray
> Charles dreams about his dead brother, he imagines him speaking in a
> way that -- by some amazing coincidence -- sounds exactly like a
> screenwriter writing a piece of shitty on-the-nose dialogue --
I wish there were some easy way to separate strong personal opinions from
mass audience reactions. I guess one conducts a focus group?
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> But as a simple, it's dishonest tripe. It doesn't reflect a new and
> deeper understanding of the situation causing him pain.
I dunno. We definitely don't agree how heavy and how exactly the words
"It's not your fault" are supposed to weigh. I have no problem interpreting
those words as, "Some aspects of this situation are sufficiently not my
fault that I'm off the hook as far as torturing myself about it anymore."
You seem to weight the words very literally as total absolution from all
possible blame.
nmstevens
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > In any case, there is nothing within the context of any appearance
of
> > Ray's mother or brother to suggest that the intention was for us to
> > believe that they were being depicted in any way differently than
they
> > had been depicted earlier in the movie, when they were being
presented
> > strictly as memories -- nothing to suggest any aspect of surrealism
> > about them -- other than the fact that they both are now addressing
> > the adult Ray directly.
>
> Are you saying that general audiences are so thick that they can't
figure
> this kind of thing out? That it confuses them? Didn't confuse me
one bit,
> but then, I'm smarter than 99.9% of people out there.
We seem to be talking about two different things (or maybe not).
I was struck by the fact that the words that the kid used seemed wrong
-- it didn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that a kid of that age
would use.
Now, that's something that's hardly special or unique to "Ray". I see
that all the time. Not just in dream sequences. I see it constantly.
That's because writing for little kids and getting it right is
extremely difficult. For a grown man or woman to get behind the head of
a little kid -- never mind for a director to work with a child of the
appropriate age, who often isn't going to necessarily actually be able
to memorize dialogue and deliver it on demand -- is likewise extremely
difficult.
I simply believe that this is yet one more example of a long line of
failures of writers and directors to successfully achieve this end
result -- to get a believable moment out of a child performer. The rest
of his performance is serviceable. Nothing special, but it's okay. But
this particular moment just sucked.
But you are suggesting that, in fact, this suck-hood was somehow
intentional -- that it was intentionally non-literal, and that I
somehow misunderstood it's non-literalness whilst you, and the rest of
the world got it.
It's "non-literalness" being derived from the fact that Ray was
dreaming and thus, in the course of his dream chose to deliver to
himself this moment of truth in a form indistinguishable from that of a
mediocre child actor delivering an on-the-nose line of dialogue.
Well, what can I say? Maybe you're right.
I like to think that the dialogue in my dreams is a little bit better.
>
> > Nothing is abstracted. Nothing is rendered in any non-literal
> > dreamlike fashion.
>
> I disagree. I distinctly remember bright colors through a stained
glass
> window. Nothing else in the film is similarly bright.
I think that you are mis-remembering. The bright colors are the colored
bottles hanging from the tree -- which have been a key visual reference
back to his home, both visual and audible, throughout the movie.
> > It's just a fucking dribble of bad writing -- and maybe when Ray
> > Charles dreams about his dead brother, he imagines him speaking in
a
> > way that -- by some amazing coincidence -- sounds exactly like a
> > screenwriter writing a piece of shitty on-the-nose dialogue --
>
> I wish there were some easy way to separate strong personal opinions
from
> mass audience reactions. I guess one conducts a focus group?
Well, you have to be very careful about focus groups. I think that they
can be an effective way to let you know that the patient is sick -- but
relying on them for the specific diagnosis has spoiled a lot of movies.
NMS
Ron
> You seem to weight the words very literally as total absolution from all
> possible blame.
Well, that seems to be the effect they have on Ray, doesn't it?
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> I was struck by the fact that the words that the kid used seemed wrong
> -- it didn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that a kid of that age
> would use.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a kid. It's a ghost.
>>> Nothing is abstracted. Nothing is rendered in any non-literal
>>> dreamlike fashion.
>>
>> I disagree. I distinctly remember bright colors through a stained
>> glass window. Nothing else in the film is similarly bright.
>
> I think that you are mis-remembering. The bright colors are the
> colored bottles hanging from the tree -- which have been a key visual
> reference back to his home, both visual and audible, throughout the
> movie.
Yeah, and considering that Ray's blind...
Brandon J. Van Every
No, that's your projection.
Ron
> Ron wrote:
> > In article <cvmn0m$340$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> > "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> You seem to weight the words very literally as total absolution from
> >> all possible blame.
> >
> > Well, that seems to be the effect they have on Ray, doesn't it?
>
> No, that's your projection.
Are you kidding?
It's a huge freeing moment in the film. It is explicitly played as a
huge weight off his shoulders -- if that's not absolution, in filmic
terms, then what would be?
-Ron
Brandon J. Van Every
Again, this all comes back to your personal expectations about absolution.
You want "completely off the hook." Others of us accept "at peace with the
circumstances." For instance, I've stopped feeling guilty about something I
did as a camp counsellor when I was 21. Something about that situation is
still my fault, but I have absolved myself of most of the guilt and
responsibility. It doesn't eat at me anymore. I'm also removed by a long
gulf of time: it was 14 years ago.
In other words, in a film or a newspaper headline, when something is 80% not
your fault, you can use the phrase "It's not your fault" to stand in for
that more nuanced version. The nuanced version is slower to deliver, and
not very interesting except to people who want the picky details.
ov...@aol.com
audience, that the last scene with the adult Ray, his mother, and his
still-four-year-old brother, was *not* intended as just another literal
memory. We were supposed to believe it was some kind of vision or dream
he had during detox.
I checked two sites for the script, but didn't find it. If anybody can
come up with the slug introducing that scene, it might clear things up.
In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
In some cases, a simple declarative sentence is the most powerful. If
you want every utterance of every character to be some kind of
inscrutable koan, rent "Matrix II."
The kid delivered a basic summary statement of Ray's emotional
epiphany. Why blame the writer for "on the nose" dialog? If the kid had
delivered some rambling, metaphysical, incomprehensible psychoanalysis,
the writer would have gotten blamed for unrealistic dialog!
The bottom line is, it's OK to not think "Ray" was the best mainstream
film of 2004. People who hold that opinion are 110% wrong, but that's
OK. :-)
Lois
nmstevens
ov...@aol.com wrote:
> I agree with Brandon on this one. It was obvious to me, and most of
the
> audience, that the last scene with the adult Ray, his mother, and his
> still-four-year-old brother, was *not* intended as just another
literal
> memory.
Well, fuck, duh -- how could it have been a literal memory -- since the
adult Ray was in it, and his mother and his brother were there, talking
to him?
So call it a dream, call it a vision, call it a catharsis -- call it
whatever the hell you want -- it was still cast in precisely the same
mode as all the other flashbacks, which were clearly presented as
memories -- and so the notion that we ought to accept a fundamental
variation in the behavior of the characters, in this one scene, on the
basis that this scene is somehow different -- I don't buy.
We were supposed to believe it was some kind of vision or dream
> he had during detox.
>
> I checked two sites for the script, but didn't find it. If anybody
can
> come up with the slug introducing that scene, it might clear things
up.
>
> In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
> these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
And clearly, we're also, on some level, supposed to believe that it's
him -- by way of his mother's voice, kicking him in his ass and calling
him a cripple because of his addiction.
And yet the voice that comes out of his mother's mouth is completely
consistent with the voice that we have heard and come to identify with
the *real* mother of his memory.
Not so with the kid. Because the "It's not your fault" line delivered
by the kid in that final scene isn't consistent -- as least as far as
I'm concerned, with what a real kid of that age would say.
>
> In some cases, a simple declarative sentence is the most powerful. If
> you want every utterance of every character to be some kind of
> inscrutable koan, rent "Matrix II."
Bullshit. The alternative to something phony isn't something obscure.
>
> The kid delivered a basic summary statement of Ray's emotional
> epiphany. Why blame the writer for "on the nose" dialog?
Because that's what it was -- and I'm presuming that, since the kid
delivered it, that the writer wrote it.
If the kid had
> delivered some rambling, metaphysical, incomprehensible
psychoanalysis,
> the writer would have gotten blamed for unrealistic dialog!
If the writer writes something that's rambling and and
incomprehensible, then he deserves the blame for that. And if he writes
something that's on-the-nose and unbelievable -- then he deserves the
blame for that, just the same.
Both would be equally inappropriate if equally wrong coming out of the
mouth of a young child.
Your argument from an excluded middle fails to impress. You seem to
suggest that there is nothing that a child of three or four (which is
my best guess of that child's age) might say that would both be
consistent with his age and level of understanding and yet result in
the same cathartic moment that the phony line reaches for and, as far
as I'm concerned, failed utterly to achieve -- because it's simply a
chunk of lazy ho hum writing. It has no substance. It gives us, as an
audience, nothing to do. Ray may have a catharsis -- but we, as viewers
are simply witnesses to it -- we don't share it. At least, I certainly
didn't.
> The bottom line is, it's OK to not think "Ray" was the best
mainstream
> film of 2004. People who hold that opinion are 110% wrong, but that's
> OK. :-)
Ray wasn't terrible, but it was far from the best film of the year --
and the kid's line sucks.
NMS
ov...@aol.com
<< Your argument from an excluded middle fails to impress. You seem to
suggest that there is nothing that a child of three or four (which is
my best guess of that child's age) >>
A quick Google shows that George Charles was five when he drowned.
<< it's simply a
chunk of lazy ho hum writing. It has no substance. It gives us, as an
audience, nothing to do. Ray may have a catharsis -- but we, as viewers
are simply witnesses to it -- we don't share it. At least, I certainly
didn't. >>
How would you have written the scene?
Lois
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Well, fuck, duh -- how could it have been a literal memory -- since
> the adult Ray was in it, and his mother and his brother were there,
> talking to him?
On the one hand, you emphatically agree that something is different here.
> So call it a dream, call it a vision, call it a catharsis -- call it
> whatever the hell you want -- it was still cast in precisely the same
> mode as all the other flashbacks, which were clearly presented as
> memories -- and so the notion that we ought to accept a fundamental
> variation in the behavior of the characters, in this one scene, on the
> basis that this scene is somehow different -- I don't buy.
On the other hand, you say everything should be the same.
I think your expectations are just wired differently than most of us. As a
writer, I wouldn't try to correct things for your benefit. You can't please
everybody.
Also, why can't 4 year olds say things like, "It wasn't your fault?" I
certainly had a concept of accidents when I was 4 years old.
>> In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
>> these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
>
> And clearly, we're also, on some level, supposed to believe that it's
> him -- by way of his mother's voice, kicking him in his ass and
> calling him a cripple because of his addiction.
>
> And yet the voice that comes out of his mother's mouth is completely
> consistent with the voice that we have heard and come to identify with
> the *real* mother of his memory.
Yeah... so... this means you're getting hung up on 4 words in an otherwise
decent scene.
> If the writer writes something that's rambling and and
> incomprehensible, then he deserves the blame for that. And if he
> writes something that's on-the-nose and unbelievable -- then he
> deserves the blame for that, just the same.
So let's say for sake of argument these 4 words are on-the-nose. How much
do you personally hope to improve the scene with your rewrite? Is this a
make-it-or-break-it fault of the movie? For most of us, it isn't. It's a
minor detail in a rather long movie.
If I had to name a specific fault of Ray, I'd say it's long, and requires a
lot of attention if you're going to get through it. I was interested in
Ray, so I supplied that attention. I wondered about people who weren't so
interested in Ray, how much they'd tolerate.
> Your argument from an excluded middle fails to impress. You seem to
> suggest that there is nothing that a child of three or four (which is
> my best guess of that child's age) might say that would both be
> consistent with his age and level of understanding and yet result in
> the same cathartic moment that the phony line reaches for and, as far
> as I'm concerned, failed utterly to achieve -- because it's simply a
> chunk of lazy ho hum writing. It has no substance. It gives us, as an
> audience, nothing to do. Ray may have a catharsis -- but we, as
> viewers are simply witnesses to it -- we don't share it. At least, I
> certainly didn't.
Ok, so what's your energetic, satisfactory line then?
Ron
"ov...@aol.com" <ov...@aol.com> wrote:
I think I've gotten a little off-track here. Let me try to circle back
around.
> In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
> these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
Right. But where'd that come from?
Unlike Neal, I don't neccesarily have a problem with the words, so much
as I have a problem with the idea -- that what Ray's spent the whole
movie needing is absolution from this guilt about his brother's death.
Of course it's coming from within him. But the reason why it doesn't
work, for me, is that the film up to that point hasn't done the hard
work of showing me how all of Ray's faults are connected to his
underlying guilt about his brother.
That's what makes it cheap. We've been given no reason to think that
any of Ray's problems -- his drug addiction, his womanizing, his petty
cruelities -- stem from the fact that he feels guilty for his brother's
death.
Next to this, I'd add the lesser issue that if he is genuinely guilty
(at least in part) for his brother's death, then it's a phony catharsis
-- a catharsis based on self-deceit.
-Ron
ov...@aol.com
<< We've been given no reason to think that
any of Ray's problems -- his drug addiction, his womanizing, his petty
cruelities -- stem from the fact that he feels guilty for his brother's
death. >>
No, I don't think anybody tries to make the case that Ray's adulteries
were the result of unresolved guilt over his brother's death. The film
does try to link his *addiction* to that guilt.
And the film makes a very strong case that Ray was haunted by his
brother's death for most of his life -- that's why we are repeatedly
shown those hallucinations.
<< I'd add the lesser issue that if he is genuinely guilty
(at least in part) for his brother's death, then it's a phony catharsis
-- a catharsis based on self-deceit. >>
I don't buy the idea that Ray Charles directly caused his brother's
death.
Sure, he *could have* called for help. He *should have* done something
other than stand there. If he was older, he probably *would have* saved
his brother from drowning. But putting the "should have, would have,
could have" tape on continuous loop in your head is what drives people
crazy.
"I should have remembered to hide the drain cleaner." "I shouldn't have
left my purse on the desk." "I should have covered up that electrical
socket." Sure, should have, could have, would have. However, your
mistake doesn't mean you personally caused the poisoning, the theft, or
the electrocution.
Lois
Brandon J. Van Every
> In article <cvqcjg$r6h$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> "ov...@aol.com" <ov...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I think I've gotten a little off-track here. Let me try to circle back
> around.
>
>> In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
>> these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
>
> Right. But where'd that come from?
>
> Unlike Neal, I don't neccesarily have a problem with the words, so
> much as I have a problem with the idea -- that what Ray's spent the
> whole movie needing is absolution from this guilt about his brother's
> death.
>
> Of course it's coming from within him. But the reason why it doesn't
> work, for me, is that the film up to that point hasn't done the hard
> work of showing me how all of Ray's faults are connected to his
> underlying guilt about his brother.
Is that possibly asking too much of a biography? When you're trying to
recount the events of a real person's life, you've got a lot of ground to
cover. This is not one of your heroes with 1 underlying need. This is a
real person.
The pertinent question is whether we think "It wasn't your fault" is valid
for Ray. Now, unless Ray himself shows up mid-film and says, "Yeah, yeah,
it was really like that," we don't have a way of proving or disproving its
validity in the film itself. In such a case, I think the majority of us are
inclined to offer trust and benefit of the doubt. Who are we to say this
wasn't valid for Ray, unless we go do even more biographical homework on
him? I'm too lazy to do that. It was a fair effort to watch a long film on
him, interested in the subject matter though I was.
> That's what makes it cheap. We've been given no reason to think that
> any of Ray's problems -- his drug addiction, his womanizing, his petty
> cruelities -- stem from the fact that he feels guilty for his
> brother's death.
Except, uuuh, the commonsensical notion that if you have a shit childhood,
your adulthood's gonna be a bit loopy? Again, this is a biography, not a
heroic saga.
> Next to this, I'd add the lesser issue that if he is genuinely guilty
> (at least in part) for his brother's death, then it's a phony
> catharsis
> -- a catharsis based on self-deceit.
Whether you think Ray's psychology is phony is irrelevant. If that's Ray's
psychology, that's Ray's psychology. It's not our option to re-script a
man's life so that it's more dramatically satisfying, or a better
representation of Truths that *we ourselves* hold dear.
I'd be more interested if you'd read some biography or interview of Ray,
proving that these scenes are just pure screenwriter bullshit.
nmstevens
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > I was struck by the fact that the words that the kid used seemed
wrong
> > -- it didn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that a kid of that
age
> > would use.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's not a kid. It's a ghost.
Maybe you need to decide what you think it is. Awhile ago you were
arguing that it was a dream -- that it was Ray himself -- that it was
his unconscious.
So it's a dream of a ghost of a boy?
And what, then is your point regarding his words? That the dream of the
ghost of the boy has somehow continued to grow up, mentally and thus,
now -- in the dream, has the mental sophistication of an adult, even
though the dream of the ghost of the boy still has the body of a boy?
Or are you just writing words to see what they look like on a screen?
>
> >>> Nothing is abstracted. Nothing is rendered in any non-literal
> >>> dreamlike fashion.
> >>
> >> I disagree. I distinctly remember bright colors through a stained
> >> glass window. Nothing else in the film is similarly bright.
> >
> > I think that you are mis-remembering. The bright colors are the
> > colored bottles hanging from the tree -- which have been a key
visual
> > reference back to his home, both visual and audible, throughout the
> > movie.
>
> Yeah, and considering that Ray's blind...
The bottles -- if you remember -- were there when Ray was a child,
before he lost his sight. It is the key visual that brings him back to
the place of his childhood when he has these memory flashes -- because
he remembers the bottle tree -- he remembers what it *looks like*
because he still had his vision when it was there.
NMS
nmstevens
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > But as a simple, it's dishonest tripe. It doesn't reflect a new and
> > deeper understanding of the situation causing him pain.
>
> I dunno. We definitely don't agree how heavy and how exactly the
words
> "It's not your fault" are supposed to weigh. I have no problem
interpreting
> those words as, "Some aspects of this situation are sufficiently not
my
> fault that I'm off the hook as far as torturing myself about it
anymore."
> You seem to weight the words very literally as total absolution from
all
> possible blame.
>
>
Oh, I understand that -- but those concepts are adult concepts -- not
things that belong in the mind or the mouth of a child - and when they
come out of the mouth of a child -- it strikes a false note -- just as
false as if Ray's own voice saying what you wrote above were suddenly
to come out of the child's mouth.
Things like that also happen in dreams. Anything could happen in a
dream -- but if that were to have happened in that scene -- or if,
instead of his mother and brother there was his mother and a sperm
whale wearing a tutu sitting out in front of his house -- that would
also have struck me as a false note.
That's why one of the reasons that dreams in movies generally suck. In
real life, dreams are just dreams. If they have any meaning at all,
that meaning is obscure at best -- but in movies, all scenes --
including dreams scenes -- always have meanings -- and often very
precise story-related meanings, like your mother and brother actually
coming back from the dead and telling you on-the-nose things that are
relevant to the particular things that are happening in your life.
How convenient for your story -- like having the good witch of the
north come floating down in her bubble and tapping you on the head and
saying, "Oh Ray, it is not your fault that your brother drowned -- and
don't be a heroin junkie -- it is just like being a cripple and your
mother would be disappointed -- and you'll never go home again!"
Oh, yeah -- how moving.
NMS
Ron
> > Next to this, I'd add the lesser issue that if he is genuinely guilty
> > (at least in part) for his brother's death, then it's a phony
> > catharsis
> > -- a catharsis based on self-deceit.
>
> Whether you think Ray's psychology is phony is irrelevant. If that's Ray's
> psychology, that's Ray's psychology. It's not our option to re-script a
> man's life so that it's more dramatically satisfying, or a better
> representation of Truths that *we ourselves* hold dear.
Nope. Sorry.
Go read "Brother Ray," and see what Ray says about the connection
between his brother and heroin. He's said things like (I'm
paraphrasing, but this is close) "I just did heroin because it felt damn
good."
In fact, what you accusing me of wanting to do here (rewrite Ray's
psychology to make a better movie) is, as I understand it, exactly what
the filmmakers did.
I just don't happen to think they did a very a good job of it.
You can't do an adaptation -- of a novel, of a person's life, of
anything -- without rewriting certain things to make them work better
filmicly. I think if you do your research you'll find that the
filmmakers did a TON of this in "Ray."
-Ron
nmstevens
Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > Well, fuck, duh -- how could it have been a literal memory -- since
> > the adult Ray was in it, and his mother and his brother were there,
> > talking to him?
>
> On the one hand, you emphatically agree that something is different
here.
>
> > So call it a dream, call it a vision, call it a catharsis -- call
it
> > whatever the hell you want -- it was still cast in precisely the
same
> > mode as all the other flashbacks, which were clearly presented as
> > memories -- and so the notion that we ought to accept a fundamental
> > variation in the behavior of the characters, in this one scene, on
the
> > basis that this scene is somehow different -- I don't buy.
>
> On the other hand, you say everything should be the same.
The world is the same, his mother and brother are presented as we've
seen them before -- there's absolutely no basis -- and everything
you've said is nothing, frankly, but a rationalization, to suggest that
the words coming out of the kid's mouth *ought* to be anything other
than words that are appropriate to what a kid of that age should think
and say.
>
> I think your expectations are just wired differently than most of us.
As a
> writer, I wouldn't try to correct things for your benefit. You can't
please
> everybody.
>
> Also, why can't 4 year olds say things like, "It wasn't your fault?"
I
> certainly had a concept of accidents when I was 4 years old.
Oh, so now *you're* changing your tune?
So which is it? Is the line inappropriate for a child -- but we're
suppose to know and realize that and be okay with it because it's all a
non-literal dream --
-- or is the line appropriate for a child and it's all just my imagine
and I'm just too sensitive?
Or is it that you'll change your argument from post to post depending
on whatever works for you?
>
> >> In the meantime, it was the adult Ray's subconcious mind supplying
> >> these words for his little brother: "It wasn't your fault."
> >
> > And clearly, we're also, on some level, supposed to believe that
it's
> > him -- by way of his mother's voice, kicking him in his ass and
> > calling him a cripple because of his addiction.
> >
> > And yet the voice that comes out of his mother's mouth is
completely
> > consistent with the voice that we have heard and come to identify
with
> > the *real* mother of his memory.
>
> Yeah... so... this means you're getting hung up on 4 words in an
otherwise
> decent scene.
If you think it's about four words, you don't have a clue about it.
This may very well be the most critical moment in the most critical
scene in the movie.
Throughout the whole course of this film Ray's central problem --
really, what this whole, rather long movie is about, is Ray's struggle
with his guilt over the death of his brother. It is that (at least as
it's established in this movie -- reality, as always is a much messier
place) that drives him to his heroin addiction, it endangers his life,
it destroys his relationships, it is shown to haunt him -- through
these visions of water through his entire life and ultimately brings
him to the point of almost destroying his career and destroying his
life --
-- and this is his lowest ebb. This is the scene where he's either
going to drown or come back.
And after two hours plus of movie, what is that brings Ray back from
the brink, that redeems all of that guilt and agony? Not what his
mother says -- she simply says that what he's done has crippled him --
she identifies the problem -- that doesn't fix it.
Four on-the-nose badly performed words -- and ta-dah -- he's fine. Off
the horse and cured.
That sucks.
That would be like Sam and Frodo get to Mount Doom after three long
movies -- and he takes the ring from around his neck, chucks it into
the lava -- and bing -- Sauron and all the Orcs pop like a soap bubble
and everybody goes home.
Even in dreams, that's not how you should make climaxes work.
He has come to his lowest point -- the battle back should be,
emotionally, his hardest battle. He's been sliding down this slope his
whole fucking life -- now he's got to get back up.
And the way it's staged -- there's no battle at all.
It's not about line that doesn't work -- although the line clearly
doesn't. It's about a scene that doesn't work -- because this is
clearly (well, for those of us who are tuned in to structure it is
clear) a critical scene in the movie that fails to deliver.
There are scenes where you want to cut to the chase and get on with it
-- and there are other scenes where you need to take your time -- and
this is not a "cut to the chase" scene. Cut anything else -- cut
musical numbers, cut the stuff with the arguments between the managers
at the end -- cut anything -- but this scene should be the central
emotional moment of the movie -- it is the moment when Ray, on the
verge of death -- emotionally at least -- comes back to life.
And you need to take your time with it. And to make it work, you need
to set it up.
Anyone who's been in this business for long -- and who gets called upon
to do rewrites of other peoples' scripts always hears this note from
producers -- there are problems with the third act.
Problems with the third act.
But the reality is -- problems with the third act almost never start in
the third act. That's like saying that everything about a joke works
fine -- except for the punchline. Leave everything else the same --
just change the punch line so that it's funny.
It doesn't work that way.
So if you ask how would I reconfigure that scene -- how would I make it
work in a way that worked more strongly.
Well, off the top of my head -- let's set some things up earlier, in
the flashbacks -- so that we can use them later.
Up front, when the brothers are playing, I'd have them come across the
body of an animal, maybe a pig, that's been drowned in a creek -- and
been there for awhile - so it has the look of an animal that's been
around for a day -- the face, half-submerged, swollen up, flies around
it. Just a very brief little moment.
Now, we come to the funeral -- after the death of his brother -- and
they want Ray to come to the casket. And he won't come forward. He
can't bring himself to come to the casket and face his brother -- and
ultimately it turns into a scuffle with relatives trying to force him
forward and he ends up running away in a panic.
And that becomes the moment that we replay -- that we go back to in his
memories -- not only the brother falling into the tub and drowning --
but his unwillingness to go to the open coffin and face the body of his
brother -- and in his dreams -- his heroin nightmares -- the unseen
face in the coffin becomes mixed up with the decayed nightmare face of
the pig in the creek -- and the prospect of facing that -- essentially
facing his own guilt --
it is that -- the nightmare in the coffin that he can neither escape
nor face that haunts him -- and continues to haunt him up until that
final scene.
At which point, I would let him have the meeting with his mother -- the
brother isn't there.
But a point comes when she's delivered her message and she goes -- and
now he's back facing the death of his brother -- sees it now from the
position of an adult. But still, he can't interfere, he can't prevent
it. It's done. It's history.
But now we're at the funeral again -- and now he has, again, the chance
to go to the coffin or turn away -- and he has to make the long walk to
where his brother lies, unseen -- where he has been unseen since Ray
himself was a little boy.
And we've seen this walk before -- in Ray's nightmares -- with the
terror at the end.
But here, at last, he reaches the end of the walk, where his mother is
waiting at the coffin, and inside, there are no nightmares -- there is
only the little body of his brother, laid out. Nothing terrible. No
nightmares.
And he kneels down at the coffin, crying at last. "Forgive me," he
says, "God, forgive me."
Now, maybe "Ray, it wasn't your fault" works just as well for you.
To me, having the dead come back and say, "Hey don't worry about it,
I'm fine" or saying anything else -- always strikes me as a cheat --
whether in a seance or a dream.
To me, it's not about his brother saying anything -- it's about Ray
reaching a point of acceptance. And in order for that to work *he* has
to do something. He has to take some action, make some choice -- even
if it is within the context of a dream or a vision.
Otherwise, the scene, the moment, has no dramatic weight -- no
substance.
Now, whether you prefer my particular solution or not is beside the
point -- the problem is what it is.
NMS
Brandon J. Van Every
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> nmstevens wrote:
>>>
>>> I was struck by the fact that the words that the kid used seemed
>>> wrong
>>> -- it didn't seem to me to be the sort of thing that a kid of that
>>> age would use.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, it's not a kid. It's a ghost.
>
> Maybe you need to decide what you think it is. Awhile ago you were
> arguing that it was a dream -- that it was Ray himself -- that it was
> his unconscious.
>
> So it's a dream of a ghost of a boy?
Yes, that's exactly what it is. Glad I could clear that up for you. Sounds
like it was harder for you to decide than it was for me. :-) His mother is
a ghost as well, in case you're wondering.
> And what, then is your point regarding his words? That the dream of
> the ghost of the boy has somehow continued to grow up, mentally and
> thus, now -- in the dream, has the mental sophistication of an adult,
> even though the dream of the ghost of the boy still has the body of a
> boy?
If I haven't gotten the point across to you by now, that dreams have their
own arbitrary logical requirements, and that they don't have to behave like
realistic little boys or whatever, you're simply not going to get it. Maybe
it's a difference of life experience. I grew up with psychoanalysis and an
understanding of what dreams are in relation to the waking consciousness.
Perhaps you don't have that life experience? If you do, you're definitely
having a hard time applying it to the movie.
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> In fact, what you accusing me of wanting to do here (rewrite Ray's
> psychology to make a better movie) is, as I understand it, exactly
> what the filmmakers did.
You snipped the part where I said I'd be interested in any other Ray
biographies you read that disprove the scene, etc. That's a very different
argument than the film's internal dynamics.
Brandon J. Van Every
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>> Also, why can't 4 year olds say things like, "It wasn't your fault?"
>> I certainly had a concept of accidents when I was 4 years old.
>
> Oh, so now *you're* changing your tune?
No, I'm offering a different, additional line of objection to your hangup.
You're really hung up about this bit. So much so, that I'm wondering if
this scene has a deep symbolic importance for you, whereas it doesn't for
the rest of us?
> Or is it that you'll change your argument from post to post depending
> on whatever works for you?
I'm not sure how much of your life you spend debating, or what your patience
level for alternate avenues of advance is. But your tack here is not what
I'd call that of a 'pro debater.' It's certainly not necessary for us to
continue a mutually fruitless line of debate. Generally I end a debate when
I find myself repeating the same points, as if they haven't been heard,
considered, or absorbed. Repetition is the key to all learning, so I don't
expect people to get anything on the 1st go, but I'm definitely feeling the
sense of diminishing returns.
Let's see if your partial rewrite gives us more to discuss.
> But the reality is -- problems with the third act almost never start
> in the third act. That's like saying that everything about a joke
> works fine -- except for the punchline. Leave everything else the
> same -- just change the punch line so that it's funny.
So you're saying it's not worth your time to restructure the whole movie to
make it work in your own vision. Ok. Anyone else around here feel there's
a problem, *and* think they can fix the problem simply, without a complete
rewrite of the script?
> Well, off the top of my head -- let's set some things up earlier, in
> the flashbacks -- so that we can use them later.
>
> [etc.]
Ok, so in your redraft, Ray is turning away from, or facing up to, the image
of his drowned brother's body. One question that recurs to me in your
handling of it, is whether such details are true to Ray's life experience?
What did Ray actually do at his brother's funeral?
Is this supposed to have to do with his use of heroin?
> And he kneels down at the coffin, crying at last. "Forgive me," he
> says, "God, forgive me."
Why's he asking God's forgiveness? Just 'cuz he's a religious man? Where
was that developed? Spent the whole film sinnin', far as I could see.
Well, I suppose he was deep into Gospel...
> Now, maybe "Ray, it wasn't your fault" works just as well for you.
Well, there *is* this question of who he needs forgiveness from.
> To me, it's not about his brother saying anything -- it's about Ray
> reaching a point of acceptance. And in order for that to work *he* has
> to do something. He has to take some action, make some choice -- even
> if it is within the context of a dream or a vision.
Why can't he just change how he thinks? Personally, I find it difficult and
courageous to change how I think.
> Otherwise, the scene, the moment, has no dramatic weight -- no
> substance.
But many of us think the scene has dramatic weight and substance as written.
If for no other reason that the movie wore us out for a few hours and we're
ready for it to be over.
nmstevens
Maybe if you'd spent a little less time with psychoanalysis and a
little more time watching and studying movies you'd have a slightly
better understanding of what makes a scene in a movie work -- and you'd
be in a better position than you clearly are to have an informed
discussion on that topic.
Dreams may or may not be aribitrary. Who gives a fuck?
Scenes in movies are not and cannot be arbitary -- because scenes in
movies serve the dramatic purposes the story.
And the effectiveness of any scene, whether it is a dream, a memory, a
vision -- or anything else, in a movie that is a biography, a fantasy,
or anything else -- must ultimately be judged by that fundamental
criterion -- how does the scene serve the story.
Your experience with dreams, psychoanalysis, martial arts, or any other
bullshit -- nor mine for that matter -- doesn't contribute to fuck-all
to that fundamental and irreducible equation.
Does the scene effectively serve the story?
If you're here to do anything other than to demonstrate how fucking
clever you are (something at which, so far, you have failed miserably)
-- then learn that and take a fucking break.
NMS
ov...@aol.com
look kinda ... well ... shall we say, a closed casket would be in
order?
Besides, like Brandon noted, your scene might work better for you
structurally, but there's the question of how much artistic license you
can take to dramatize the story of a real person.
Either way, I just hope Jamie Foxx wins the award tomorrow night. He's
the front-runner, according to Entertainment Weekly.
Lois
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Maybe if you'd spent a little less time with psychoanalysis and a
> little more time watching and studying movies
I can't help you that I spend more time on LOTR and Troy as total works than
I do on 1 scene in Ray. Fantasy and war movies are more relevant to my work
as a Game Designer than biographies of musicians. At least, that is true
right now.
I liked Ray. I saw it once in the theater and it worked fine for me. It
doesn't work for you, and I think you're guilty of being a picky
screenwriter rather than acknowledging the majority of people's experiences
with the movie. Sure you might craft something 'better', given time. I
think you're ignoring that the film works ok for a lot of people as is.
People are lowbrow? Yep, it's true. They are more forgiving of 4 words
than you are.
> Does the scene effectively serve the story?
>
> If you're here to do anything other than to demonstrate how fucking
> clever you are (something at which, so far, you have failed miserably)
> -- then learn that and take a fucking break.
Learn to detach yourself from your own strong opinions of what works and
what doesn't. You aren't The God Of Ray here.
RonB
news:cvrift$h2d$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> You know, Weller can probably answer this, but don't drowning victims
> look kinda ... well ... shall we say, a closed casket would be in
> order?
I think it depends on how long they've been in the water after drowning.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
nmstevens
ov...@aol.com wrote:
> You know, Weller can probably answer this, but don't drowning victims
> look kinda ... well ... shall we say, a closed casket would be in
> order?
Certainly that would be the case if you're talking about somebody that
was washing around in the surf for a week or two -- or if (as someone
else posted, who died in a tub of scalding hot water) -- but not for
someone who fell in a tub of water and drowned and was pulled out after
only a moment.
>
> Besides, like Brandon noted, your scene might work better for you
> structurally, but there's the question of how much artistic license
you
> can take to dramatize the story of a real person.
Believe me -- I've worked on a couple movies that were based on real
characters -- one specifically -- The Vernon Johns Story, was made with
the cooperation and input and approval of his daughter -- and you
wouldn't believe the kind of stuff we changed. We invented characters.
We elliminated characters We invented dramatic incidents wholesale.
Not in a malicious way -- we certainly did everything we could to
maintain the spirit of his life and work -- but the simple fact is --
actual lives are virtually never directly capable of simply being cut
and pasted onto the screen.
Real lives don't have dramatic structure - that's why you have to find
it, or shape it -- or invent it out of the raw material of somebody's
life.
And the idea that somebody would say, "Oh, we can't put that in, or
change it, or revise it, because Ray's actual withdrawal-induced vision
was like this rather than like that -- " believe me -- that is not a
conversation that would ever happen.
That, of course presumes that there ever was a withdrawal induced
vision -- that Ray ever had, for instance those "water-flashbacks" that
we saw in the movie -- that his heroin addiction, in fact, had anything
to do with the death of his brother -- that that whole thing -- which
may play out fine in the movie -- has anything at all to do with his
real life -- as opposed to simply being something that was invented for
the purpose of giving the *movie* life of Ray Charles -- as distinct
from his real life -- some kind of dramatic structure, with some nice
little redemptive pay-off at the end -- as distinct from - he just
happened to have a brother who just happened to drown, and he just
happened to get hooked on heroin like eighty-eight million other
musicians have done -- and one had nothing really to do with the other,
and because he happened to be a rich, successful musician, he managed
to get himself into rehab and dried himself out, and was fortunately
lucky enough for the rehab to take -- and that was really all there was
too it. No great character arc, no redemption -- no great life lesson.
He was hooked, he got off it. His brother drowned -- it happened.
Only that would have made even less of a story than they had.
> Either way, I just hope Jamie Foxx wins the award tomorrow night.
He's
> the front-runner, according to Entertainment Weekly.
> Lois
Personally, I preferred him in Collateral -- which I also, ultimately,
thought was a better movie.
NMS
Brandon J. Van Every
>
> Real lives don't have dramatic structure - that's why you have to find
> it, or shape it -- or invent it out of the raw material of somebody's
> life.
Then I think if I'm ever famous enough to warrant it, I will decline the
Hollywood treatment.
> as opposed to simply being something that was
> invented for the purpose of giving the *movie* life of Ray Charles --
> as distinct from his real life
I will feel very ripped off if I discover that Ray never had any of those
water weird-out experiences. I wanted to hear about Ray, not some lie about
a screenwriter's dramatic ambitions.
ov...@aol.com
<< I think it depends on how long they've been in the water after
drowning. >>
Good point. In the film, the little boy was in the water for maybe two
minutes total. His mother pulled him out as soon as she got there.
Have you seen it yet? It's out on DVD already.
Lois
ov...@aol.com
them?
:-)
Lois
RonB
news:cvteg0$bhl$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> Have you seen it yet? It's out on DVD already.
No, not yet.
Eric Garcia
> water weird-out experiences. I wanted to hear about Ray, not some lie
> about
> a screenwriter's dramatic ambitions.
Well, prepare to feel ripped off.
According to his numerous biographers, Charles never had any of these
hallucinations (though one would imagine he had certain odd experiences
while on heroin) -- nothing with the water, his brother, etc. Clearly the
incident with his brother drowning affected him -- it would affect any
one -- but those sequences were made up by the filmmakers, and from what I
understand, they were specifically Taylor Hackford's idea, that he'd always
envisioned Ray Charles' sense of "vision" as these tactile hallucinations
that haunted him from the past.
Look throughout RAY, and you'll find a bunch of clearly faked moments, at
least for anyone who knows a little about Charles' life.
You think "What'd I Say?" was actually made up improv-style in a club when
they still had to fill 20 minutes? It was a great scene -- in fact, it was
one of the best scenes in the film, in terms of keeping me entertained --
but it was historically and factually false. And there was a *lot* of sin by
omission in RAY -- something on the order of 10 or 11 extra illegitimate
children, at the very least...
Do I care? No. I liked the music, I liked the performances, and though I
felt the film was very, very flat, I'm happy Foxx won the Oscar.
Was it false in parts? Yes. That's what you have to do with biopics. I don't
think there's been a single one (not counting straight-on documentaries,
naturally) that hasn't found the spine of the subject's life and built upon
it, often with exaggerated or wholesale made-up sequences. Sometimes it
works, sometimes it doesn't, but that's the process.
But if *you* care, well... I guess you'd better stop watching biopics.
emg
P.S. That said, I happen to disagree with Neal that the four-year-old
speaking the "It's not your fault" line is a false line because at his age
he can't get concepts of guilt -- that's the adult hallucinating Ray talking
through his brother's lips -- but I agree that the scene was flat, and a
terrible way to end the film.
Steven J. Weller
ov...@aol.com wrote:
> You know, Weller can probably answer this, but don't drowning victims
> look kinda ... well ... shall we say, a closed casket would be in
> order?
Not as a rule, as has already been noted. Drowning is usually more a
matter of asphixiation (sp; I'm posting from google) as the airways
close off to keep the water out. You might end up a little blue n'
puffy but that goes down once you're out of the water.
> Besides, like Brandon noted, your scene might work better for you
> structurally, but there's the question of how much artistic license
you
> can take to dramatize the story of a real person.
Have only worked on one biopic (the faith healer thing in Ohio) but I
have to say that my experience mirrors most other peoples' in this
regard - it was mostly fiction. Scenes are created to try to
illustrate the life of the subject; they might be based on something
that actually happened but as often as not, it's just about getting a
point across.
> Either way, I just hope Jamie Foxx wins the award tomorrow night.
He's
> the front-runner, according to Entertainment Weekly.
I was pleased to see he won; his performance was miles and away better
than the film surrounding it.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Steven J. Weller
bzel...@comcast.net wrote:
> I just now got through watching it. I think the significance
> of the mythology of the whole southern religion thing and the
> bottle tree that keeps coming back in takes that whole
> flashback segments into an almost mythic/fable level, so
> therefore it works for me. This is a southern thang. :)
Suzy - tell me about the bottle tree. It's an image I stole for a film
a couple of years ago (not from Ray, obviously) because it looked cool
and kinda' spooky, but I have no idea what it actually means. I need a
little of your special Southern Wisdom!
> And isn't his wife a saint?! Bless her heart.
For me, that was the hardest part to swallow, and yet I know it's at
least largely true. Ray was whorin' around the country (the world,
actually) and she was just waiting at home for him, bakin' biscuits?
How does someone with an ounce of self respect _do_ that? And it's not
just a 'woman thing;' Dolly Parton's husband Carl Whatsizname's been
doing the same thing for decades.
Wazzup wit'dat?
Brandon J. Van Every
> bzel...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> And isn't his wife a saint?! Bless her heart.
>
> For me, that was the hardest part to swallow, and yet I know it's at
> least largely true. Ray was whorin' around the country (the world,
> actually) and she was just waiting at home for him, bakin' biscuits?
> How does someone with an ounce of self respect _do_ that? And it's
> not just a 'woman thing;' Dolly Parton's husband Carl Whatsizname's
> been doing the same thing for decades.
>
> Wazzup wit'dat?
In the real world, many people behave according to patterns of dominance and
submission and never break free of it. Why they never break free is
difficult to say. In contemporary society, we have abundant information in
TV and magazines telling us to break free. The idea of breaking free is
certainly circulated; for some reason, some people act upon it and others
don't.
Perhaps if one is damaged early enough and long enough in childhood, one
never breaks free? Certainly that is true in the extreme case. While
collecting voter registrations from the homeless, I've seen derelicts on the
street that have missed so many basics of life, they're never going to catch
up. It's remarkable that they feel they have any reason to wake up in the
morning at all. I chalk that up to pure survival instinct; they don't wish
to die.
How one manages a problem also influences the possibility of escape. For
instance, the bottle holds few answers, but it may eventually lead one to an
AA meeting. People with more 'obscure' ways of managing but not dealing
with their problems, may never gain any group support for overcoming them.
One reason I don't condemn the mindfuck of religious conversion, is it's one
of the few things that can snap people out of far worse states. A lie of
Jesus is much healthier than a lie of heroin. For this reason I turn a
blind eye when religious charities get cost-shifted governmental funds.
As we contemplate why people choose to be doormats now, we should remember
what the choices were back then. Women's lib was new. Child abuse, wife
beating, etc. weren't much talked about.
If you step back even farther in human history, and I mean not far at all,
only 1 century, you realize that dominance of the fellow man was the norm.
Individual people might be nice to one another, if they're the same race.
If not, there's every reason to use human biology as a basic resource, like
oil or rubber or cotton or anything else our 'civilization' runs on.
--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"witch-hunt" - (noun) (Date: 1885)
1: a searching out for persecution of persons accused
of witchcraft
2: the searching out and deliberate harassment of
those (as political opponents) with unpopular views
- witch-hunter (noun)
- witch-hunting (noun or adjective)
Skip Press
<try_vanevery_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's a smart take on human behavior.
I knew a couple of guys who played in Ray's band. They sort of scowled
when they talked about him. They mostly talked about his heroin
problem.
Still, loved his music, and I loved the movie and Jamie Foxx's
performance and speech at the Oscars.
I don't think Jesus is a lie, just the modern version of it. First
century Christianity was very different.
Still, movies are broadly an opiate to soothe reality, and we writers
should never forget that.
--
The most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency.
-- Theodore Roosevelt