Perception

So in my latest dive bomb failiure attempt at having a love life, I managed to get dumped and called an insensitive prick before I even met the girl in person, oh the joys of internet dating. But it actually came about because of a discussion about, of all things, X-Men. Now, I'm not a massive X-Men fan and that's what kind of started it. It got long and convoluted and I figured that I should probably talk about it here because it was something that I feel strongly about, no matter if I'm right or wrong.

Perception.

Basically, after this got started, she stated that X-Men is a great representative story for minorities and being recognised and not ashamed of being who you are and that there's someone in there for everyone. I wanted to say that I never got on with the series because I found there to be far too many characters with less developed super powers than some of the more stand along heroes (Iron Man, Captain America and Doctor Strange being some of my favourites, along of course with Green Lantern over on DC). But I didn't say that, instead I said that any hope provided by the story is a kind of false hope, since any actual minority can't protect itself in the same way that Mutants can in X-Men.

Basically, this devolved into a philosophical difference of opinion, in which I stated that stories are for entertainment first and everything else second. When you strip away every factor from a story, all that's left at the core to justify its existence is an attempt to entertain.

Now this didn't go down well with her, who stated that she knows for a fact that she wrote stories to help herself heal from the various bad things that had happened in her life. I get that, that's fair enough, but I still stand by my statement and I feel that I didn't get to explain why.

Basically, to entertain means to lift your spirits. It doesn't matter what form that takes, whether it is to make you less depressed, if it is to make you laugh, if it is to help work through your issues, it all comes under the term of entertainment. When I explained it to Marsh he said that I had a purer view of the word than most people take it to mean and I can see why there was a great deal of confusion, although I'm not sure about the offence. My second offending statement was that, in reference to X-Men representing minorities, is that depth is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. Now, this is as true a statement as any in this field, because stories are Art, not Science, and Art is about opinions, Science is about facts.

Basically, how we percieve stories is all that matters about them. It doesn't matter what the author intended, because he's not here right now explaining his thoughts. It doesn't matter what some crusty old critics say it means, because all their learning can't relate to everyone who might read that story.

So the only understanding of a story that you can ever rely upon is your own, unless you feel that you are virtually empathic with someone on a very deep level, in which case you'll probably get how they get it. That's all I was trying to say, that any depth you see is there because you want it to be there. Hell, I can sit and listen to a Kelly Clarkson song right now (and trust me, I've done enough of that lately) and empathise with the lyrics because of all the woman drama that's been happening to me. Someone who hasn't had my rubbish love life will listen to it and think 'that chick has issues' or someone else can think 'catchy tune' or 'this is whiny crap'. They all percieve it differently.

Perception.

Now, when it comes down to it, I've already said that Art is all about opinion, not fact. There are no facts when it comes to stories, there is only one way to see it or any one of a hundred thousand others. The truly good stories give everyone a slightly different memory of them. Imagine that three people are reading a book and all of them are picturing it in their head, because that's what people tend to do. One of them pictures Brad Pitt in the lead role, the next one pictures Colin Farrell and the third thinks it'd be better if they went with Will Smith instead, to flip it about a bit. They're all reading the same story, they're all being entertained by it, but their perception of it is different.

So somehow this got to me being accused of not caring about anyone else's opinion and how I don't let anyone else speak, since I choose to speak for them... and I don't really know how that happened. It got petty and spiteful after that and I'm just not sure how this keeps happening to me. And there was me trying not to talk about all the crap in my life anymore. But I felt that was worth saying, no matter what I just wanted to get it off my chest, and what else is a blog for, eh?

Women: 3
Al: 0

And now in change to your scheduled programming:

THE WOMAN IN BLACK

Yeah, didn't get a chance to see either of the two films I had wanted to or hoped to, but I had initially thought I wasn't going to get to see this film and then it turned out at the last moment I could. So yeah, the Woman in Black. When I looked it up before I went to see it I was surprised to see that the book had only been written in 1985, I had thought that the stage play was older than that but I was clearly wrong.

It's considered an utter classic of a ghost story, where Arthur Kipps, a struggling junior soliciter, is sent to the back o' beyond to an abandoned house that everyone in the nearby villige regards with suspicion and children seem to keep dying in mysterious and tragic circumstances. In this incarnation (since it's been adapted before), Kipps is played by Harry Potter. I mean Daniel Radcliffe. No, I mean Harry Potter.

Radcliffe gives a pretty good account for his non-wizarding performance and Cirian Hands is an excellent supporting character in Daily. Liz White is chilling as Jennet, the titular character and I think the casting agent just went through all the local schools looking for the creepiest looking children they could find. Several of them have iMDb pages as well, which was just a bit weird. Anyway, what did I think?

Bloody spooky.

I mean, this is how to do a proper horror film, or ghost story at least. There's absolutely no gore, no violence, no real horrifying images. This is just pure, pure atmosphere. There's long and protracted sequences in that eerie house where it's all just chasing shadows and the mirrors and... man, it's chilling. I mean, you should see it. Really, just see it, it's got my vote. This is a very effective movie. Very effective.

Next time: I really don't know, still hoping for John Carter.