Bernie Mac and the Inordinate National Concern

The real Bernie Mac

Stepping off my connecting flight from Kansas City to Charlotte, NC en route to Cleveland, I entered the men's bathroom to perform my necessaries. As I made my way through the door, I almost froze with shock as I thought I was looking at Bernie Mac (God rest his soul) or a very close relative of his. From crazy hair to comical smile, I was certain that he could've made a career being a Mac-alike. It hadn't occurred to me why he was there in his airport uniform, but I made my way to the urinal to fulfill my purpose.

Then, the man who looked like Bernie Mac began to talk to the patrons of the men's restroom. "How are you all doing today? Early? Man, you've gotta wake up with a smile! Since 4 am? Well, I was up by then too! I just want to see everyone smile. How're you doing, sir? I'm good, I'm good, I don't complain. Because nobody listens. How're you doing, sir? Oh, can I help you with that? Don't want you to have any trouble carrying anything and hurting yourself! Alright, alright..." Without trying to be too gratuitous with my details, this sort of upfront chatter was making my bladder very shy, standing before the urinal.

Was the airport paying this guy? It all seemed very invasive and awkward, since the unspoken rule in men's bathroom is that everything should be left unspoken. I was reminded of my similar apprehension when I was pulled aside twice to have my bags checked before getting on to my previous flight. I had been immediately uncomfortable at the thought of being poked and prodded like you hear on all the news stories. Gee, couldn't Bernie Mac just stop talking and let a guy tinkle in peace? I half-expected him with his overly-enthusiastic attitude to give ever man trying to take a whiz in the row of urinals a hearty "good game" butt slap to encourage excellent urination.

This man's identity has been cleverly concealed
by the photographer's crappy iPhone camera

Speaking of the news, I never watch it, but the airport TVs were full of them, all playing one news program or another. The interesting thing was that they were all national network news programs: not local new. National news has absorbed the consciousness of many people. From the presidential elections to the latest disaster, everyone wants to know what's going on around the country. What is Congress fouling up now? How's the stock market doing? What's the latest news with big business? While waiting for my second plane, a man standing in the middle of the gate's sitting area spoke loudly about his company's business strategy and expansion plans, as if to make a big scene of his importance. It was quite comical, and I even snuck a picture, but he seriously was wholly absorbed with global business.

This, I think can be applied to the Hollywood scene as well. Programs like TMZ have made all kinds of money off of gossip and scoop stories on the lives of the "rich and famous". Some people follow their lives more closely than they follow those of their children. America is obsessed with the celebrity scene and any latest juicy, chewy piece of fat to fall from the tables of the mass media is enough into a frantic feeding frenzy and bring us back, begging for more.

I think this even ties into something I was recently having a discussion about regarding "philanthropic" endeavors, especially those worldwide. Wiki-pedia defines "philanthropy" using the notion of enhancing "what it is to be human". Does anyone doing "philanthropy" know what it means "to be human"? And why do these efforts always seem to happen in Africa or some disaster stricken area? What's wrong with right here, in my neighborhood?

These three things all have a common source: an inordinate global concern and a dangerous unwillingness to take personal responsibility for ourselves and our own community. Those who contribute to the alleviate "world hunger" often fail to alleviate the very real pains and struggle of their friends, family, and the needy of their own community. Philanthropy is opposed to true charity, as it seeks to draw attention towards "real world" needs... and the efforts of those who make them. More often then not, my experience has been that philanthropy is a feather in people's caps, and not a nail in their hands and feet like charity is. Anyone can give money to feed the kids in Africa and feel like they did their good deed, but can you give a hug to your mother or father, or a helping hand on your brother's homework, or an hour or two helping your grandparents rake the leaves in their backyard?

We consume the celebrity gossip because the moral missteps of the accomplished and powerful make us feel better about our ethically bankrupt lives. In this same vein, it allows us to neglect our own areas of deficiency, so as not to expose what the level of self-knowledge we lack. We absorb this information because it counts as entertainment to hear about the scandals, the divorces, the political opinions, and the drama; but really, seeing this a source of entertainment helps to placate our own nagging consciences about the miserable and messed-up lives we're leading. In many cases, our lives are not any better than those of Hollywood. We just count ourselves lucky that they're under that kind of scrutiny for our entertainment and comforting, and we're not.

People focus on national or global political "issues" because they can remain anonymous about them. We can scream at our televisions at home, and not need to bring our concerns in front of an actual group of people. Mass media and social networks have allowed the citizen to be anonymous in his opinions, never needing to have the courage to risk his identity to stand up for his beliefs. I do believe that our nation is in a very dangerous time with the liberties that have been taken at the national level, but let it not be an excuse to neglect valuing our own local government and business success.

So, do I place my own life into consideration and determine what things I need to change? Do I treat those immediately around me with love and kindness, because "charity begins at home"? In what ways do I look to be a force for the common good of those within my neighborhood or community by setting a personal example for others?

I know I'm asking these questions, but to be honest, I hadn't really thought of an answer because Bernie Mac was still talking and I still couldn't pee yet.

Opinion: A "Hobbit" Trilogy?

"The Hobbit" is going to be three movies."

Most people might read this statement and think, "what is a 'hobbit'?" I'm sorry if you're one of those few, but feel free to educate yourself here.

I have several reactions to this statement, and hopefully by the end of this blog post, I will have gotten my bewilderment sorted out and (maybe) have a coherent opinion on this news.

First: why? Why are they making three films out of one book? This strikes me as a stupid money-making marketing ploy. I hate it when Hollywood complicates stuff like this and really ruins good films. Because the creative team here is mostly intact and all the original actors have returned to play their respective characters as needed, this "trilogy" will forever be associated with The Lord of the Rings, which is critically acclaimed as excellent. Whether for good or ill, this will be considered as essentially the same story. So if this goes south, LotR is going to go the way of Star Wars and its 3 prequel films and Jackson will be regarded as just another George Lucas who creates your childhood cinematic loves, (LotR is very much this for me) then once you've reached adulthood, he ruins them by using it to get more cash from you. So this thought makes me angry.

Second, how? The Hobbit is about 310 pages long. This is just a little over half the size of the Fellowship of the Ring... the first book in the series of the Lord of the Rings trilogy! And it's about one fifth the size of the whole LotR trilogy. Somehow, they got it so that the original plan was to make two movies out of the Hobbit. Where are they getting this new material from? Apparently, much of it arises from the appendices listed at the end of the Return of the King (the third book in the LotR series) and in Tolkien's other notes. But unfortunately, alot of this was not published by Tolkien as its own work because it was not complete/finished. It might be mentioned in passing in an appendix, but will Jackson and the crew be able to fully realize Tolkien's vision and tell his story? Or is it just material scraped and scrounged to make a Hollywood blockbuster? I'd say this idea makes me doubtful.

Now, my reaction to this news has also been positive. Peter Jackson has done a pretty good job of adapting Tolkien's work to the screen. And while it may not be faithful to every single little detail written in the books, I think it does a good job of illustrating for the viewer in the span of 10ish hours what Tolkien is trying to say. (if you want any more than that, then I'm sorry, but you're just going to have to suck it up and read the books) So with this in mind, I'm a little curious to see how Jackson pulls it off.

Also, Howard Shore will be composing the music. All three of his scores for the LotR trilogy were stellar (with the scores for the 1st and 3rd films garnering Academy Award wins). So, if anything, the extra film will just produce more beautiful music that I will inevitably be buying. An example of this are the additional Pirates of the Caribbean films. I have only seen the first two sequels, but the music that Hans Zimmer wrote for them complement and expand on Klaus Badelt's decent score for the first film (which I believe that Hans Zimmer also had a strong hand in creating). Regardless, I'd say more music from Howard Shore's interpretation of Middle Earth makes me giddy.

In conclusion, I'd say I'm dubiously furious at Peter Jackson's audacity to make what was a simple bedtime story into 3-film cinematic epic, while still remaining inquisitively enchanted at the prospect of there being more of Middle Earth to see on the Silver Screen.