mcsanders278

[mcsanders278]

Travel Series : Disneyworld (days 1 & 2)

I’m a bit behind on my travel blogs. Incidentally, I went to Disneyland in October with my youngest son but I figured it would be best to write about my Disneyworld trip a few weeks ago with my eldest.

For some reason I never really gave much thought to visiting Disneyworld until recently and when I had enough American Airlines points to essentially get 2 round trip flights anywhere within the US it was thrown out more as a “what if” to my sons. As my youngest voiced no desire to fly to Florida / visit Disneyworld it made the choice somewhat easy as my eldest son’s winter break started much sooner (one luxury of a college schedule).

We took a non-stop flight from Phoenix to MCO on a Saturday (nowadays I try to avoid layovers like the plague unless they are necessary). Between the 4 hour flight and 2 hour time difference I wisely did not pay to visit the parks the day we flew into Orlando. For those flying from Phoenix / the West Coast I highly recommend the same thing as not only is it about 30 minutes from the airports to the area with the parks / hotels, you also then have to drive to whichever park you plan on visiting. I also suggest using a share-driving service versus car rental as the parking fees alone seemed to average about $25 at the parks and hotels. I think in all we spent about $200 for the ride-shares, which undoubtedly is less than we would have spent on a 4 day car rental and parking.

One thing to keep in mind about Disneyworld is that unless you are staying at a Disney hotel specific to the park there is no option to walk to any of the parks. As it was my first trip to Florida one of the first things I noticed was the nice green surrounds with intermittent ponds / lakes. This is one way that Orlando is far superior to Anaheim...let’s face it, aside from Disneyland Anaheim is the pits. That being said, I have heard that Florida summers are brutal (compared to California summers) so you will definitely want to choose a time with decent weather. We luckily were there during colder weather (more on this later).

Other options which Disneyland does not have (but should adopt) are the Magicbands and setting up Fastpasses 30 days in advance (60 days if you stay at a Disney hotel). The Magicbands link anything you need for the parks - since we did not use a dining plan we only used it as our ticket and for the Fastpasses. Having the Fastpasses 30 days beforehand it a great tool as it will allow you to properly structure your days. One thing I learned; however, is that you can only choose the passes at one park each day (ie, you can’t have one pass at the Animal Kingdom in the morning and one later that day for Epcot) but you are allowed to get 3 passes each day. I highly recommend selecting the passes as soon as the option opens / at the 30 day mark as even in doing this there were rides which were already out of passes (likely grabbed by the Disney hotel people) or had very late entry times / were almost out. The hot ticket rides seemed to be both rides in the Avatar Pandora land at Animal Kingdom and the Test Track and Frozen rides at Epcot.    

I didn’t choose to look at a map of Orlando prior to the trip but when I finally did I noticed that downtown is north of the airport while the theme park areas are southwest. This is a plus for travelers as there was pretty light traffic heading to and from Disneyworld.

Taking advantage of having a Saturday evening without park tickets we decided to go to the Disney Springs area. For those of you familiar with Downtown Disney at Disneyland this is essentially a souped of version of that. It was much larger than I was expecting and should fulfill any and all consumerism needs. One thing to note is that getting into the Disney Springs area was probably the most traffic we dealt with on the entire trip (being Saturday evening was likely the main factor).

Sunday was our first day at a park and we chose to visit the Animal Kingdom. Another item to note is that none of the parks are within walking distance of each other; however, there are transportation options between each one. The Animal Kingdom only has the option of buses to the other parks but the other parks are either connected by bus, monorail, and even boat. Aesthetically, the Animal Kingdom is quite stunning. It is essentially a wildlife zoo intermixed with rides. At the center of the park is the Tree of Life - it really is a sight to behold with pictures not doing it justice.

The park’s lands are structured by the countries Africa and Asia and also has a Dinoland and the Avatar Pandora land. Since we only had 3 days at the parks and had been to Disneyland so many times we chose to only use our time there as wisely as possible by only focusing on attractions which were specific to Disneyworld / not at the California parks. I was expecting rain on our day at Animal Kingdom but wasn’t really expecting the slight drizzles to turn into a relatively heavy on-pour for about 2.5 hours. Although this hindered things it also played in our favor later on in the day.

During the initial light rains we started at Dinoland, which is mainly for younger children and was probably the most unimpressive section of the park / could use an update. The Dinosaur ride is the main ride in this area, which is essentially Disneyworld’s version of Indiana Jones. Needless to say, it is nowhere near as good as Indiana Jones - it is a passable ride but I wouldn’t recommend spending over 20 minutes in line and would also recommend getting Fastpasses for other rides.      

It was then that the heavy rains began. We ran between any overhead coverings we could find and made our way to the Nomad Lounge. We luckily made it there right when it opened as other visitors had the same idea in mind of finding refuge from the storm. The atmosphere of the lounge was fantastic. At Disneyland we always make a point of going to the Carthay Circle Lounge for a break amidst the walking / crowd insanity and Nomad is the perfect place for such at Disneyworld. It also has a much better selection of food than the Carthay Circle lounge. We ordered more than we would have under other circumstances, essentially to stake our claim on the table until the rain let-up as people continued to file into the lounge trying to find non-existent seats and even gave us an eye like they wanted us to share our table. In their defense, we did have a pretty large area in the indoor/outdoor area which consistent of two end chairs, a sofa and a coffee table but our anti-social tendencies prevailed. To be fair, I did raise the idea of sharing the table  to my son but he only scoffed and continued to watch patrons sit on wet chairs at wet tables. It probably didn’t make us look any better when the people it a similar seating area next to us were kind enough to allow another couple sit with them.

For $1 you have an option to fill out the small banners which are hung from the ceiling and on the walls. There are numerous questions posted throughout the lounge pertaining to travel - you simply choose your favorite question and write your answer. It is a nice option for those who want to become a part of a Disney park in some way. If you go to the lounge I recommend trying the bread board, which is different breads from around the world with different spreads.

The best thing about the heavy rain was that the lines drastically diminished the rest of the day, which in turn allowed us to ride the Flight of Passage in the Avatar land (as noted previously, the Fastpasses were gone even 30 days before our trip). I am by no means an Avatar fan but I have to admit that the detail in the Pandora land was quite impressive. I highly recommend going there during the night / when all of the surroundings are lit-up. We did have Fastpasses for the Na’vi River Journey, which is a boat ride in the vein of Pirates of the Carribean. My son and I both agreed that it was alright - there were a few cool visuals but not worth an extremely long wait (the line can usually run over 2 hours). 

I was a bit reluctant to ride Flight of Passage as my initial read-up on it gave the impression like it was similar to the Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios Hollywood (which was probably the most nauseating ride experience of my life). When I asked the attendant about the ride and noted the Harry ride as comparison she quickly pointed out that she usually gets sick on rides and didn’t have the issue with Flight of Passage. It is usually against my better judgment to stand in line for 85 minutes for any ride by my son really wanted to experience the ride and this undoubtedly was the shortest the line was going to get during our trip (as I am writing this the wait time noted on the app is 285 minutes...that’s right, over 4 hours...). There are enough things to look at during the 85 minute wait / in the queue but I cannot in any way justify recommend waiting in line over 2 hours for a ride, let alone 4 hours. That being said, the ride experience was pretty cool. Think Soaring Over the World crossed with an Avatar theme in which you get your individual seat...the idea is that you’re riding one of the banshees from the film.

The two other rides we experienced were Expedition Everest and Kilimanjaro Safaris. Both of these rides were very impressive. Expedition Everest has the same Yeti theme as the Matterhorn but be forewarned, it is a bit more intense. My son was not too keen initially on riding the Safari but with the rains diminishing the line to a 5 minute wait we choose to check it out. Neither of us were disappointed - it seriously is a straight-up safari in which the animals have free roam of the land and you are actually riding in a jeep which isn’t on rails - there is a path for cast members to follow but he/she can stop and go as they please if there is something interesting going on.

Overall thoughts : Although it is not a park heavy on rides, there is more than enough to see / do between the live animal exhibits, rides, and restaurants. Definitely check out Nomad for lunch or dinner and the 3 rides I recommend for Fast Passes are Flight of Passage, Expedition Everest, and Kilimanjaro Safaris.          

[mcsanders278]

Travel Series : Pittsburgh

This is the first in (what I hope to be) a series about my travels since it is my goal to try and visit as many new places as possible in the upcoming years. Along with providing my overall thoughts of the destination I will also give my recommended days of travel and rating (on a scale of 1 to 5 stars) on the city itself and/or specific attractions.

Also of note is that when I visit places I always seek the unique; for example, it will be rare for me to go to something like a Natural History or Science Museum as we already have such here in Phoenix and I would rather spend my time visiting attractions which can only be found in the respective city.

To give some background my sons and I visiting Pittsburgh last week, the decision was based upon a few factors. The first and foremost was the desire to see Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater but I had also seen many articles and surveys recently listing Pittsburgh as one of the best cities in the country. Needless to say, after spending 3 nights there, it is a bit of a head-scratcher for me as to how it made such lists. The “feel” of a city is always big with me and Pittsburgh was less than desirable on this front. It is probably the worst / most confusing place I have had to drive around (and I’ve had the luxury of driving in crazy cities like downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco) but, more than anything, as much as it has tried to shake the image, it still has a very industrial feel to it.

The biggest highlight / surprise within the city was the Heinz History Center. It really is a great museum which is plentiful with Pittsburgh history and very nice exhibits throughout its multiple stories. My sons and I both really enjoyed it. I would recommend allowing at least 2 hours to get through everything. I also enjoyed (and my sons to a lesser extent) the Andy Warhol Museum (some photos below). This too had multiple floors (which were essentially broken down by decades) and probably took us about a hour to get through all of the art exhibits. An area of interest which we did not explore in the museum was a audio/visual area where you have access to over 100 of Andy Warhol’s films. As much as I was curious to check this out I was already pushing my luck with my sons by dragging them to the museum in the first place. Seeing that most of Warhol’s films are currently unavailable to the public I could see how such an exhibit would be worthwhile for locals as there are undoubtedly multiple hours of his work which would take many weekends to get through.

The most impressive “area” of the city was probably across the river / where the Steelers and Pirates stadiums are located. It had multiple restaurants and a very nice view of the three rivers (below). One interesting thing of note (I don’t know if this was just our bad luck) is that the service at almost every restaurant we visited in the city was sub par at best. Although prices were relatively reasonable the waitresses/waiters were almost nowhere to be found after being seated and it took forever to get our food. My sons would likely note the Milkshake Factory as the best “food” establishment we visited - a locally-owned ice cream parlor, it has been around for over 100 years, starting as a soda fountain and chocolate shop.

Aside from the great luck of having Radiohead tour through the city while out there (it was a fantastic concert for which they played almost 2.5 hours), the saving grace of the trip was our visit to Fallingwater. I have always been amazed/intrigued by Frank Lloyd Wright and seeing (arguably) his best-known structure in person was quite surreal. Approximately 1.5 hours from Pittsburgh, the drive was quite scenic, showing very lush, green, surrounds which are all but void her in the desert / Phoenix. The tour itself was fantastic as we were able to see the entire house and most of the guest house. After making the round-trip on the same day I would highly recommend just spending the evening at a nearby bed and breakfast so that you won’t have to rush. We spent approximately 2.5 hours at the site (the tour itself was approximately 1.5 hours) but (depending on the availability) there are different tours (including a Twilight Tour) as well as other houses of interest in the vicinity (one being the Duncan House at Polymath Park) which we were just not able to visit in the space of one day with the travel time and most of the sites closing early.

Final Thoughts : Falling Water makes me recommend going to Pittsburgh but if you choose to drive there from Philadelphia instead (the drive is approximately twice as long), I just don’t see the purpose of visiting Pittsburgh solely to visit Pittsburgh (especially with a 4 hour flight time from Arizona). Our 3 evenings were more than enough (even with the 3 hour time difference) but it would have been best having the middle night near the Fallingwater location; or, better yet, fly into Pittsburgh, stay one evening in the city to check out the few worthwhile attractions, drive to Fallingwater for an evening, then head to / fly out of Philadelphia. I have not yet visited Philadelphia but this would have allowed us to see all of the main areas Pennsylvania has to offer in one trip. I give Pittsburgh 2 out of 5 stars and Fallingwater 5 out of 5 stars.

Next up : Disneyland / October          

[mcsanders278]

Gerald's Game

With everyone having Stephen King fever and flocking to see IT in the theater, it will probably get lost on people that the Gerald's Game movie on Netflix is actually a better film and a more faithful adaptation (if memory serves from reading it years ago). Back when I read King's books religiously it was easily the most disturbing one I read and was the only book I have ever put down due to a very graphically descriptive scene when she's attempting one of her escapes from the cuffs. Yes, Pennywise is freaky but what makes Gerald's Game (and it's companion book Dolores Claiborne) so upsetting is they are true life horrors.

[mcsanders278]

Silent films vs Green Screen

I remember as a child seeing the first academy award winning best picture, Wings, in class at my elementary school around fifth grade. For those of you who are unaware, it is the only silent film to win best picture. Even at a young age the film left a lasting impression and was my first introduction into silent cinema. Admittedly, looking back on Wings now it is nowhere near one of the best silent pictures made but it will always have a sense of nostalgia for me. 

Since that initial introduction to Wings my appreciation for silent cinema has waxed and waned over the years. I would be remiss to say that silent films don’t require a different level of dedication than sound pictures as it is essentially impossible to do anything else while viewing them. Foreign cinema is similar in nature but foreign films have always felt more accessible to me since there is at least some speaking element - even with a lack of understanding the language, hearing tonal shifts in voices and sound effects can still provide a relatively high level understanding of what is going on even if the viewer is not completely paying attention / engaged in the viewing process. 

There is a large gap in memory between my viewing of Wings and my next silent film as my next cognizance of a silent movie was probably about eight years later in watching Buster Keaton in The General in a film history class. Oddly enough, as much as I considered myself a film connoisseur even at a young age taking the film history class made me realize that the earliest form of cinema had never been a format I completely delved into...I had never even seen a Charlie Chaplin film by the time I was in college (this could easily be viewed as cinematic blasphemy).   

In my third year of college I spent a considerable amount of time in the school library due to having large chunks of time between my classes. It was here that I was introduced to more cinematic endeavors as there were multiple television stations with laserdisc players connected. Even then laserdiscs were a dead form of media but the library had an extensive collection of films, including F.W. Murnau’s silent masterpiece Sunrise and numerous Criterion Collection films (this is a company which will undoubtedly come up in future posts). 

Even with my love of Sunrise and The General, for some reason I still didn’t have a complete buy-in to devoting a great deal of my film viewing hours to the silent form. Fast forward another 10 years or so when my sons were of an age to appreciate something beyond Disney cartoons. The three of us gained an esteem for Charlie Chaplin and his visual genius pretty much at the same time. I wasn’t expecting them to have the patience to sit through a silent film but for those of you who have seen the comedies of Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, etc you are well aware that they have a someone animated quality in their presentation anyway, which is never boring.  

For the next 8-10 years I was open to watching silent films on a regular basis; however, I essentially limited my exposure to comedies. There were a few dramatic films in between the comedies but nothing of mental consequence.  

Fast forward yet again to a relatively recent screening of Fritz Lang’s restored version of Metropolis at the FilmBar in Phoenix. I had seen the film previously years ago but it was a very poor print converted to DVD. One thing I have realized over my film viewing years is that if I am screened a poor print of any film my attention span is already depleted to almost zero. Needless to say, the version screened at FilmBar was a newly restored version with scenes recently found and it was gorgeous. How they were able to make a 90 year old film look so pristine is beyond me / just shows how film itself is magical. The luxury of seeing Metropolis on a big screen and completely devoting myself to its genius in a theater was an insane experience. 

Even if you haven’t seen Metropolis you have unquestionably seen some movie which was influenced by it as it was groundbreaking not only from a technical stance but also from a narrative stance.

I’m sure by now you’re asking how any of this has any relation to my topic / the current use of green screen in films. I’ll get to that in a moment. About 7 years ago I took my sons on the Universal Studios VIP tour which gave us a behind the scenes look at the movie-making process. During the tour we were actually taken into a sound stage which was green screen from floor to the top of the walls (see below)

At the time I thought this was a pretty cool but little did I know how green screen since then / over the past 5 or so years really has created a void in today’s cinema. If you think about the entire concept of green screen/CGI and what it asks of the viewer it is actually pretty weird...you know it is CGI, the filmmaker knows that you know it is CGI, yet you are supposed to pretend that it is real. Think about that for a moment...

One could say that it is just a souped up version of what Disney did years ago with films like Song of The South and Mary Poppins with the incorporation of animation on live action; however, the difference is that there is never a question that animation is involved with those earlier films and the viewer is not expected to think otherwise. Watching the film Tarzan a few years ago is when I fully realized my pure contempt for films which have predominant use of green screen as it was quite clear that probably more than 85% of a film which was supposed to take place in the jungle was filmed indoors / in a setting like the photo above. Again, think about that for a moment...

Getting back to silent films (and most notably films like Metropolis), the set designs and production values of a lot of silent films by the known silent directors of the time (Lang, Murnau, Chaplin, etc) were pretty insane. It is in seeing the ingenuity and care of films from almost 100 years ago compared to the somewhat frivolous approach to film-making nowadays where all of the big budget, big money-making movies are over run with CGI / green screen that one must wonder if we have taken a huge step backwards in cinema/imagination. We now seem to be at a point where viewers are desensitized and don’t care for good stories and good film-making, just “loud” productions. This isn’t to say that all movies nowadays are bad and that the use of green screen/CGI can’t be used for a good purpose (as long as it only adds to the story and doesn’t drive it) but if I were to have a choice between watching an amazing, emotionally engaging production like Metropolis or Murnau’s Faust versus a predominantly green screen production, which really has a cold, empty feeling to it, I would choose the silent film. 

[mcsanders278]

Intro message / Mother!

I haven’t had a blog in many years and figured that the release of the film Mother! was the perfect artistic venture prompting me to get back into such. For those who know me it is not difficult to guess what my blogs will revolve around; for those who don’t, you’re in store for my thoughts/interpretations/whatnots about all things artistic. It will be heavy on film with some sprinklings of music, books, art, etc. There will likely be spoilers so you are forewarned.

Without further ado, I felt it was important to delve into the recent Darren Aronofsky film Mother! as after reading a slew of comments and reviews on the film it is quickly turning into one of the most polarizing and probably misunderstood films ever made. I have always appreciated Aronofsky’s style and have enjoyed all of his films to some degree, even if they are not the most re-watchable movies. Strangely enough, I have always viewed another one of his films, The Fountain, as a misunderstood masterpiece as well. On a side note, The Fountain is probably Hugh Jackman’s best performance aside from Prisoners (another underrated film) but I digress / that’s a subject for a different blog.

I analyzed Mother! pretty much all day yesterday after watching it and I think the first question a person must ask themselves before beginning to try and interpret such a film is whether you feel that cinema is a form of art. This may be a simple question with a simple answer for many of you but I feel it is a more complex question than one may think. I feel (and always have felt) that cinema is an art form just like a painting one views in an art gallery. The importance of this correlation is that a viewer of a painting in a gallery may not necessarily understand what is hanging in front of him/her and may downright hate it but that doesn’t make it any less art than the painting down the hall which is more aesthetically pleasing. 

Aronofsky is one of the few filmmakers today who reminds us that cinema is an art form and not solely for entertainment. Just like art, music, or books, a film’s purpose may only be to stimulate someone intellectually or emotionally or to challenge a person to think beyond the regular narrative construction. Mother! is one of the most challenging, thought-provoking films I have seen in years and I ate up every piece of it. Needless to say, as much as I loved the film I can completely understand people outright despising it. Of note is that the previews / marketing campaign makes it look like a horror film when it isn’t, which probably didn’t help with the outpouring of negative reviews. I supposed it could be group into “psychological thriller” films; however, even the “thriller” part is a stretch. If I had to categorize it, I would call it “psychological drama”. 

And now for the unraveling of my interpretations (with spoilers)...

From the opening scene it is quite clear that we are in store for a unique experience as Bardem’s character is placing an illuminating piece of glass on a display stand (more on this later). To quickly summarize the story, Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem are a husband and wife (no characters are given names) living in a large house in some remote area. Bardem is a poet with writer’s block and Lawrence is on an ongoing quest to renovate the house to help Bardem focus on his work. Lawrence is in almost every scene of the movie and Aronofsky does a fantastic job of using close-ups for most of the film to convey a sense of claustrophobia. The entire film takes place in the house and the viewer is very aware of the house’s constraints early on. In my opinion, this is Lawrence’s best performance to date as the character shows a meek, vulnerable side which none of her other film characters possessed.

Very early on an unexpected guest (Ed Harris) then his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) come to the house and essentially do as they please with no objection from Bardem’s character but to the chagrin of Lawrence. In the course of the narrative it is explained by Bardem to the unexpected guests that the piece of glass (mentioned earlier) was the only thing which survived a past house fire and in turn is a source of his inspiration. As the guests become more unwelcome in Lawrence’s eyes it is revealed that Pfeiffer’s character is an alcoholic and that Harris is dying of cancer. Even at the urging of Lawrence to not do so, the unwanted guests inevitably break Bardem’s glass source of inspiration.

There are some conflicts and happenings thereafter which leads to Lawrence’s character becoming pregnant and Bardem no longer having writer’s block. It is at this point that the film spirals into unconventional territory and likely lost most of the viewers. The last 30 minutes of the film is a complete cacophony which starts somewhat mild then falls into complete insanity. The house is overtaken by unknown people who start to tear apart everything Lawrence has worked on in the house and proceeds to have clans viewing Bardem as a deity due to the success of his newly published work. Lawrence has her baby amidst the craziness, which Bardem wants to show to the masses as almost a Christ-like figure. In a relatively unsettling scene, Bardem takes the baby from Lawrence, which the masses then proceed to tear apart and eat...

Now is probably the time to interject that the viewer needs to keep in mind that Aronofsky has clearly made an allegorical film but to what degree is the question. There have been many theories online that everything is a slight to religion but I have to disagree. My take on the film is that it is an allegory to the insanity of the creative process. Let’s breakdown what we know thus far...through the course of the film Bardem keeps citing to the visitors and other characters that Lawrence is his inspiration (along with the glass shard); however, my take is that she is quite literally Inspiration. As pointed out previously, Harris’ character is found to have cancer and Pfeiffer is an alcoholic and through their collective efforts they break the glass shard of inspiration. Again, allegorically, this is a direct relation of alcoholism and cancer’s (whether it be physically or emotionally; ie, doubt in creative abilities) effect on inspiration. Simply put, it kills it.

As harsh as the scene with the baby is, one must think what the baby represents in relation to the allegorical story. Seeing that we have already established that Bardem is the writer and Lawrence is Inspiration and knowing that Bardem is the father of the child it can be deduced that the baby is his physical piece of writing/his creative work. Through the unwinding of insanity scenes earlier in the film there are some key moments which can help the viewer establish what is outlined, for instance, there is a time where Bardem is going through the house and speaks to a group of people locked in a cage yearning to get out, to which he states, “I won’t forget you”. Although there can be many different associations of the angry mob of people in the house, in its simplest form, they are Bardem’s thoughts and ideas. He is telling this ideas which want to get out (presumably through the writing process) that he will keep them locked up until he is ready to put them on paper. Viewing it in this context of the baby scene, his thoughts (again, possibly self-doubt) and ideas tear apart his writing as he is not happy with the outcome. The ending of the movie only seems to further prove this interpretation as it ends with Lawrence setting the house ablaze due to the murder of her child and Bardem pulling the heart from her charred body...which ends up being the glass shard introduced at the start of the film. We are then interjected into what appears to be a cyclical story; however, the woman/Inspiration is no longer Lawrence but has the same opening scene (including dialogue) as Lawrence. 

For anyone who has attempted artistic creation on any level this film is an understandable allegory to the creative process as it is not uncommon to have the inspiration to create something (book, etc) but the creative process also requires tearing the work apart and changing things (even slightly; ie, at the end the new woman looks very similar to Lawrence and speaks the same words yet it is not her) to get the desired outcome. We are left with the impression that this “rebirth” of creation has happened multiple times for Bardem and will likely happen many more times before he is happy with the outcome. My closing thought on the allegorical aspect of things is that the clans of people viewing Bardem as a deity figure is presumably a stoking of his own ego during the writing process.

As I have suggested to others, this is not a movie for people who want their stories wrapped in a neat bow with everything explained when you leave the theater but if you are open to a challenging, thought-provoking cinematic experience for a film that can undoubtedly spawn hours of conversations, this won’t disappoint. I won’t presume that my interpretation is exactly what Aronofsky went for in making the film but it is how I construed it after hours of mauling it over and isn’t that really the point of art? What it means to you?