Saturday, October 3rd, 2009
I like this restaurant Albuquerque called Weck’s. It states that it has a “full-belly tradition.” I like that too, and the mounds of hash-browns and the pancakes as big as hub-caps. Oddly enough, the decoration of these restaurants is done in classic movies with plenty of space for Gene Kelly, Humphrey Bogart, Marilyn Monroe, and Audrey Hepburn. It actually got me thinking.
Now, at first, it got me thinking about the difference in beauty. Where Marilyn’s beauty was from her sensual appeal; Audrey Hepburn was different. In Hepburn, you have an attractive woman with depth of character and intrigue–which is a higher quality beauty. Marilyn Monroe is also very pretty, but she comes across as loose or cheap. Her actions and modesty issues produced a persona of a plaything rather than that of a valuable beautiful woman.
Both of the women were pretty, no one would argue that either wasn’t; but one presented herself as much more than a pretty face, while the other reveled in only that. Then I noticed something else. Two life-size photos of the two actresses. Marylin in a once-piece swimsuit and Audrey in an evening dress.
Marylin was not skinny! She wasn’t fat but she totally lacked that nearly twiggish body type that our society currently tries to elevate to the position of truly beautiful. If Marylin Monroe would be too big for our society’s current obsession of beauty, who isn’t? Something is definitely wrong!
The thing is the “natural beauties” of the silver screen are nothing natural. If you don’t believe me, go to the local pool during water aerobics. I also suggest you don’t eat first. Those ”natural bodies” will cure you of wanting to see! Those unfortunate enough to be the beauties of Hollywood can’t really enjoy life-They must constantly maintain their petite to super-petite physiques. Marylin Monroe was pretty; I don’t think she used that gift well, but she was a beauty and no one would argue differently. However, she was not a skinny body sculpture of today’s obsessed culture.
What the problem is, is that we have allowed those that have been blessed with good features and then abused themselves to extremes to manipulate those features to be the standard of beauty. But as a twenty minute swim at the local pool will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt; all those feautres are fleeting. Time will not be put off. It will conquer any physique.
But then that brings me back to Audrey Hepburn. She had something more than physical beauty. She was not just a pretty face, but a lady with class and character. I can speak from a guy’s perspective, being pretty is great; but a girl with class and character is a prize that is really attractive.
Sunday, August 10th, 2008
I saw the new Batman movie, Dark Knight, a week or so ago; and honestly it caused an interesting moral conundrum. For those of you who haven’t seen it and want to, I will be discussing the plot’s climax so: WARNING Spoilers follow.
I liked the movie over all. The special effects were slightly cheesy and the laws of physics didn’t apply fairly throughout, but that’s normal for superhero movies. It basically revolves around the cities reaction to the mad man Joker. He kills, blows things up, and otherwise attacks the sanity of the (not quite) fair city of Gotham. Batman, the police, the DA, and the people of Gotham all have to act to stop this mad man. Oddly, Joker puts everything he does into the context of a moral test. Batman has to turn himself in or Joker will kill people, the Police have to remain honest in the face of enormous bribes. Throughout the entire movie the Joker wants to test ethics and morals.
It reminds me of those situational ethics tests; the most popular of which is called the life boat test. “You are on a life boat with three other people lost at sea. There is an old woman with bad arthritis, a five year old girl, a scientist working on the cure for cancer. There is only enough food for all of you for two days. If you throw one member overboard, there will be enough food for a week. Who do you throw off?” Unfortunately, our world runs on situational ethics. Abortion and Euthanasia are two good examples of that; we say that murder is wrong, but we will kill those we consider unwanted. The Joker in the ”Dark Knight” attacks the people on that level. At one point, he breaks a pool cue in half leaving a jagged piece for three men to decide who of them was going to get the one open position in Joker’s crew. He gives Batman the choice of saving one of two people. But the best examples of situational ethics are the two moral dilemmas that Joker gives to the people of Gotham.
The first dilemma comes in the movie when a worker at Wayne Enterprises goes on TV to tell everyone that Bruce Wayne is Batman. The Joker calls the program and says that he will blow up a hospital if somebody doesn’t kill that worker in one hour. Of course that is not enough time to empty the hospitals of Gotham. The Joker basically says, “Okay. You think murder is wrong. Well, unless you murder one person, I will kill lots of people.” What happens? The police protect the worker, empty the hospitals, and a last ditch effort to kill the man is thwarted when Bruce Wayne ”accidentally” puts his sports car between the police car and the would be killer. The final result, Joker blows up an empty hospital.
The second dilemma is even more direct. Joker puts a bomb on two ferry crossing the harbor. One is carrying civilians; the other prisoners. Each ferry has the detonator to the other ferry’s bomb. If one of the two doesn’t blow the other up by midnight, Joker will blow them both up. Another dilemma, “Kill those people to save your people.” Talk about a life boat test! It’s funny to me who shows up as a hero here.
The first is the captain of the civilian ferry. After the civilians vote to blow up the prisoner’s ferry, the captain won’t blow them up. When asked why, he says, “We’re still here.” He understands that the prisoners haven’t blown him up. The threat of violence to himself doesn’t sway him. It’s a little weak, but it is a moral stand. He didn’t go with majority rules; he understands that right and wrong are beyond a vote.
The second hero acts differently. He was a prisoner on the prisoner’s barge. He threatens the warden to give him the detonator so he can “Do what you should have done ten minutes ago.” He grabs the detonator and throws it out the window. He takes the high road, puts himself in jeopardy, and does what is right.
This is where all life boat scenarios fall apart. They forget heroes. The people on the barge forgot this too. They didn’t remember Batman. They only thought that the information provided was the only information. Joker was stopped before midnight. He was hanging upside-down with a bat-errang around his ankles and his detonator was smashed. He couldn’t blow both ships; he couldn’t fulfill that end of the life boat test.
Situational ethics dies in the face of true right and wrong morality. Even though the Joker made it hard, no one had to murder anyone. The true heroes stopped it. People need to realize in the “life boat tests” that a rescue ship can come on day one just as easily as on day five. Circumstances beyond our control can be favorable just as easily as they can be unfavorable. Why does your morality change in the minor heat of circumstance? It shouldn’t. Batman was a hero, the police were heroes, and the convict and the ferry captain were heroes. WHY? Because they did what was right no matter what. (At least in these two dilemmas, in the story’s conclusion everyone decided to embrace situation ethics with a bizarre zeal that undermined the whole point of the movie. {Hollywood is stupid like that sometimes.})
A major problem with situational ethics is that it requires no external input. Batman thwarted the Joker. The rescue ship was prompt. Each time situational ethics seems so easy and nice a monkey wrench called real life messes it up. Right and wrong, however, aren’t messed up by real life. Wrong is still wrong and right is still right no matter what. End of story.