On the Subject of Marriage

The next few weeks could be pivotal in our nation's history.  We are witnessing two epic court battles taking place this week and next.  Today the Supreme Court heard the case regarding California's Proposition 8, the one that banned gay marriage in my state back in 2008, when it wasn't my state.  Then I still lived in Ohio, home to most Wiccans in the country and yet, continues to be one of the states that hasn't yet allowed same sex unions.

No let's try to understand something here.  Pro gay marriage/same sex unions or not, there is something everybody needs to remember about how the institution of marriage came about.  Those opposed to gay marriage claim it was a gift from God, that it is a religious right, that is for the procreation of children.  I understand why you must believe that, even I was trained by society and religion to believe that way. 

Growing up I could never understand why a person would be unloved by the being that created him.  As an artist I was often told to "kill your babies."  In this case I was the creator and my babies were my pieces of art.  There is NOTHING that hurts more than to destroy, change, or hide from the light of day that which my own hands brought to life.  Some of those art pieces have found a new life in other works or because my Mom loves to brag about her kids.

Considered at the level of humanity... The idea of hiding a person because she is flawed at first glance is horrifying.  To ask a person to change what makes him unique and special, just as bad a prospect.  Those self same people that refuse to grant the privileges they themselves enjoy are just as bad as those that hide a child because of her perceived deformities.  It is one of many ways to say "I'm better than you."  This battle keeps being fought over and over again.  A real shame we haven't learned from the past.

Now, for what has inspired me to write this inflammatory blog instead of my usual periodic piece about movies and movie making.  For those that know me personally, you know how hard it was for me to accept marriage and all its trappings.  I went so far as to tell my husband, before we married, that I was not going to allow my Dad to walk me down the aisle.  My husband was horrified and refused to marry me if I did not allow my father that special privilege.  What followed was one of our most memorable arguments, at least for me.  I accepted his proposal for many reason, not the least of which were the legal, finacial, and social protections granted by entering into this contract.  It also made him happy, a significant consideration as it is for many couples.

You may think it was crazy for me to make that statement but my reasoning is this:  Before the time of God, before the Bible and many other religious works were written society was developing.  Within that society children were bartering chips.  They were used to cement social contracts between families and tribes.  When that wasn't enough, goods and property were attached to cement the contract or to make a proposed contact more advantageous for both parties.  Now for my particular dislike of the institution.  Eventually, girls were so devalued in this patriarchal society that they needed dowries before a man of good standing would consider her as a wife. In a sense a man was bribed to accept a girl into his family and that same girl was sold by her family for social/financial/political reasons.

This "God given Sacrament" or the Genesis chapter, often quoted in marriage ceremonies, that claims this contract as one granted by a supreme being for the single purpose of bringing children into our world was written in a time when women had very little power over their destinies.  I honestly feel that these beliefs stemmed from loving fathers attempting to calm their children's fears.  Now we understand that women can write their own contracts and parents aren't as intrinsically involved in marriage contracts.

Gay/ same sex couples are being denied by much of our country the social rights and legal responsibilities granted to married heterosexual couples.  Those social, financial, and legal rights and responsibilities are what give the institution of marriage it's significance.  So why can't we as a nation define marriage as what it really is, a social/political/economic contract between two individuals with all the rights and responsibilities covered by it.  Religious views have no bearing on this in THIS country, otherwise such contracts could ONLY be entered into with a religious figure standing as witness or conducting the verbal portion of the contract.

After all, why shouldn't gay couples reap all the benefits and heartaches that come with marriage?  A lot of heterosexual marriages result in broken contracts, in divorces, that damage both individuals and any offspring. Why should we deny the father of a gay child the privilege of walking that child down the aisle and standing witness to a contract born from love and genuine respect for another person.  And better still, how about the pitfalls of bringing two families together?  I dearly hope the supreme law of our land defines marriage appropriately and saves my country from the bloodshed, fear, and anger that was required before Civil Rights were defined.

A Good Day to Die Hard, old school

That day that couples love and dread in almost equal measure has come and gone for another year.  I'm sure there were plenty of folks waiting for Friday for the cash infusion to fund your date night, postponing dinner and a movie for a day.  For my husband and myself it was also the opportunity to watch the latest Jon McClane story, A Good Day to Die Hard.  Now, I was introduced to the series by an ex-boyfriend a little over 12 years ago.  He loved the movies with all the gratuitous violence and explosions.  I wasn't as much a fan until Live Free or Die Hard came out in 2007.  Best line: "You just killed a helicopter with a car!" 

Tonight's action packed exploding addition to the franchise was fun to watch, but it wasn't until the credits rolled that I truly appreciated the work that went into the making of this film.  For the first time in a long a while I had watched a movie that contained few computerized effects!  It was shot on film, using Arri cameras and lens with several film crews.  As expected, the credit list for stunt men and women was extremely long, but then when we expected to see list after list of animation and image experts there were none.  I love that the explosion were "real" and shot simultaneously from multiple angles.  No wonder it was filmed outside of the US, the insurance might have strangled the production. 

The audio mixers/editors must have had a blast pulling all of the elements together too.  There were some wonderful moments when you really feel their work, almost all of the ambient sound dissipates when the focus is the overwhelming shock and surprise that a bystander might actually feel.  I particularly enjoyed the ending - not quite riding off into the sunset, but a similar feel.  A little sentimental, but for an action hero who has made us laugh in impossible situations it just seems to work.

Sadly, the film is getting a lot of negative press by the film critics.  True, the story is a continuation of McClane's adventures and true, this time he is reuniting with his son.  But, if you go into expecting a Die Hard movie shot "Old School" then you'll have fun.  We had a good time and I hope you do too!

Prisoner of Zenda

Many years ago, back when I was 17, (see how the epic story begins *waggles eyebrows*) I came across a film called The Prisoner of Zenda.  It's based on a book by the same name and has been remade several times.  The first time I saw it was on VHS, borrowed from the Huber Heights Library.  They had several different versions of this title and I watched all of them.  And all because the first one was silent and had all the swashbuckling, intrigue, action adventure a girl could want. 

The story revolves around a young man who travels to a foreign land in which lives a prince about to be crowned king.  The two meet and discover their very similar figures, like two long lost twins.  Misfortune befalls the prince and his look a like cousin steps in and "plays king." Toss in a lovely princess and a wonderful villain and you've got a fun movie.  The best part is the ending - non-traditional Hollywood, unless you compare the end to some of the great westerns where the hero rides off into the sunset, literally in this case.

So this Christmas I bought a 2 disk set from Amazon that contains the 1937 and 1952 versions of this film.  To my surprise the script and shots were nearly identical!  For a moment it looked like the producers simply colorized the 1937 film.  Being a Selznick production, that might not have been a bad thing.  The '37 film was directed by John Cromwell and the '52 version by Richard Thorpe.  Thorpe must not have had much imagination or the studio was strangling the art considering how similar the films are.

Now, the first time I saw this title I watched the 1922 version and I loved it!  This is of course before sound tied the camera down and after the basic grammar had been established.  If you go to IMDB and look up Prisoner of Zenda you will note that it has been remade no less than 8 times as a film and twice more as a TV episode and series.  The 1996 version includes many references to Start Trek, owing to the presence of several alumni from the franchise.  None of these are bad things and definitely inspired me to find the book and read it.

To my surprise the look alike aspects of the King and his cousin is owed primarily to their RED hair!  It is why the king's brother Michael is referred to as Black Michael - he lacks the aforementioned red locks.  It would be fun to see a pair of twins playing these roles and to go back to the early industrialized time period in which the book is set.  Perhaps even including the much earlier introduction of Cousin Rudolf to Antoinette de Mauban, Black Michael's lover, well before he meets King Rudolf.

With today's technology this story could be made new again with all the excitement and intrigue it should contain.  Just think a wonderful clash of swords, heros riding to the rescue, the bad guy who is loved by the masses... And that was another surprise I discovered by reading the book.  The king is not loved by his people, course he is a drunk and has lived away from the country for several years, carefully nurtured by the king's OLDER brother Michael.  Couldn't we bring out that little side element in some way without losing the rest of Cousin Rudolf's challenges in impersonating the king?  Like so many other things, perhaps it is time to go back to the original work for inspiration on bringing it back to the screen.