Did you know there are Mexicans in Arkansas? Tons of them. Guatemalans, too. Even a few people from El Salvador and Honduras here and there. Did you know that? I didn't in 2009, when I opened a manila envelope that sent me there for two years to be a missionary. I don't know why, but I had always thought Hispanic immigrants stayed in the Southwest, or the areas around. I didn't expect to find apartment complexes almost completely rented out to immigrants in the Dirty South. I also didn't expect to have my mind changed about so many things.
I had never felt good about the immigration situation. I won't pretend I was ever in favor of mass deportations or aggressive crackdowns. But Arkansas (and by extension, Tennessee) was where my mind was really changed. A mission is an interesting thing, because for the first time in, at least, my life, I walked a mile in someone else's shoes. I can't speak to numbers, or statistics. I can't say much by way of hard, fast facts about the issue. All I have is my own experience among undocumented immigrants. I would say I became acquainted in two years with 1000-2000 Hispanic immigrants over the course of two years. As such, I feel like I had a fairly diverse sample size.
I was involved in 25 baptisms as a missionary. Five of those were teenagers born in the United States, the rest were immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. None of them were documented. All but two of them were gainfully employed. In my whole mission, I don't believe I ever seriously taught anyone with papeles. If you are a believer in the divinity of missionary callings, you must at least admit that I was sent specifically to teach "illegal" immigrants.
First, understand: it is extremely difficult to get a green card. We place quotas on how many Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans etc. we let in. For many there doesn't seem to be any other way than either a. coming with a temporary visa and overstaying it or b. crossing the border on foot. It isn't the easy way out of Mexico. For many its the ONLY way out of Mexico
To me, there seems to be a problem whenever you limit the potential on a group of people. Different limits are placed on these immigrants than are placed on citizens. In reality, an undocumented high school student has little if any hope of going to college. In fact, because of employment difficulties, many of them end up doing the same thing their parents did: construction, housecleaning and other manual labor. Even though they speak English, and maybe even have a diploma, they are relegated as second class citizens.
I ask you, what effort would you have put forth in high school if you already knew where you were headed? We may complain that such immigration creates poverty, and yet it us that put them there and keep them there.
I wouldn't say I'm proud to be an American. I'm not ASHAMED. I love this country, and I appreciate all that has been given to me. But all I did to become an American was be born; so what is there to proud of? We should be proud of what we do as Americans; what we build. And why shouldn't we include anyone that wants to be a part of it. In my opinion, if someone wants to come to America and work hard, why should we discourage them?
I understand that border security is important. I agree we need to keep track of who comes in. But do you think if it was conceivable to come legally so many would brave the border? To my knowledge, many pay coyotes as much as $8,000 to get across. We would put a big dent in the drug cartels income if we made it unnecessary for would-be immigrants to pay them.
We should screen for criminals.We should deport those that come and cause trouble. Keep the country safe. But America wasn't built to be exclusive. It should be exactly the opposite.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Case for the new Spider-Man
I had myself a good time last night. I went to the midnight showing of "The Amazing Spider-Man". The first thing that came to my mind was that I was surrounded by high school kids. This isn't a bad thing per se, but it does make one feel a bit out of place, and more importantly, judge whether one has made the right choice in seeing this movie at such a late hour. As I walked in to the theater, the ticket taker and I had the following exchange.
"Would you like a free Spider-Man premiere t-shirt?"
"No thanks, I haven't decided if I'm going to tell anyone I was here."
And yet, despite less than inspiring previews beforehand, (the movies previewed before a show are a good indicator of whether you fall into the target audience; last night's previews included the new Twilight movie and a Nickelodeon production starring the girl from "Victorious") I realized this movie was a perfectly acceptable movie for a 22-year old, straight, bearded male to see; even one who's never cracked open a comic book in his life. The casting was good, the dialogue was decent and the love interest was not "wet-blanket-y". Though how much longer will we as Americans accept Martin Sheen in the role of a wise and effective father-figure? He's responsible for the tutelage of Charlie Sheen. I don't like to judge, but I think we can agree that Old Man Sheen could take a few pointers from Uncle Ben and Irish-American-cop-from-the-Departed-whose-name-escapes-me-at-the-moment.
And yet questions persist: was this reboot really necessary? What was wrong with the Tobey Maguire version? A Spider-Man! A Spider-Man! We have a Spider-Man and we need no more Spider-Man.
Fools! Know ye not that there is more than one way to skin a cat? (Credit this Mormon in-joke to Nephi-via-Joseph Smith)
First off, the Tobey Maguire-Kirsten Dunst iteration was dead. Embalmed. Buried. DEAD. Spider-Man 3 was so bad that it's become the high water mark of terrible trilogy wrap-ups. And I never thought that title would be taken so quickly from Attack of the Clones. Or Godfather Part III. Anyway, let us also remember that Tobey Maguire isn't a kid anymore. And I'm not positive Kirsten Dunst is still a working actress; or alive for that matter. If she's not I apologize for insensitively calling that trilogy "dead" and will edit that to say "done" or "leased out". Nobody was interested in seeing mid-thirties Peter Parker become a hipster and jam out to a soundtrack of Bon Iver and the Shins.
So, what to do if you're Sony (and I'm not saying you are), and you've got the Avengers breathing down your neck, and yet, still hold the rights to the third most popular super hero in American Culture behind only Superman and Batman (don't argue with me on this nerds; there's no AP poll on this. It is as I say it is for the purposes of this column). Spider-Man is a super compelling character. He appeals to the middle ground between Superman (Alien-Genetic Freak with invincible powers) and Batman (rich muggle with awesome car). He's at once given special powers and yet earns his abilities. This especially comes with a change in this recent movie with Peter Parker developing his own webbing device, rather that producing it out of his wrist with a magic hand gesture. He's got the spider abilities, but he finds better ways to harness them.
And here's my last point. Remake or reboot, we don't need to paint over the Mona Lisa with different colors. A remake should take something that has room for improvement and make a better product, rather than simply rehash something perfect with middling results. Casablanca should not be remade. Neither should Citizen Kane, Dr. Stangelove, Platoon or Apocalypse Now. These are movies which reached Nirvana. You know what we can remake? Things that weren't as good as they should have been, The Outsiders, say, or American Gangster.
Lets not over reverence the Sam Raimi Spider-Man. In 2002 and 2004, the first and second movies were considered to be among the best Superhero movies out there. But guess what happened? Batman Begins, that's what! Paradigm shifts, possibilities change, and we all realize what a D-Bag James Franco is. So why not make a Spider-Man movie in the era of Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr carrying large acting loads and playing alter egos as interesting as the hero themselves. The Raimi Spider-Man's don't hold up particularly well. Tobey Maguire doesn't seem as realistic. The villains are perhaps less interesting. James Franco is James Franco, and freaking whiny to boot. Kirsten Dunst can be emotionally exhausting to watch.
So here we have Andrew Garfield, a sparsely known British actor, playing a pretty realistic teenager, and in my opinion much more charismatic than his predecessor . Emma Stone being this generation's Julia Roberts (I stole this comparison from Grantland.com, I'll admit it). Better special effects making the action more compelling. You know what? This movie told the story 10% better than the 2002 version, and it will make 200 million dollars because Spider-Man is still bankable. I actually see this as a more ethical move for Hollywood.
If you're going to reboot something, make it better than the original.
"Would you like a free Spider-Man premiere t-shirt?"
"No thanks, I haven't decided if I'm going to tell anyone I was here."
And yet, despite less than inspiring previews beforehand, (the movies previewed before a show are a good indicator of whether you fall into the target audience; last night's previews included the new Twilight movie and a Nickelodeon production starring the girl from "Victorious") I realized this movie was a perfectly acceptable movie for a 22-year old, straight, bearded male to see; even one who's never cracked open a comic book in his life. The casting was good, the dialogue was decent and the love interest was not "wet-blanket-y". Though how much longer will we as Americans accept Martin Sheen in the role of a wise and effective father-figure? He's responsible for the tutelage of Charlie Sheen. I don't like to judge, but I think we can agree that Old Man Sheen could take a few pointers from Uncle Ben and Irish-American-cop-from-the-Departed-whose-name-escapes-me-at-the-moment.
And yet questions persist: was this reboot really necessary? What was wrong with the Tobey Maguire version? A Spider-Man! A Spider-Man! We have a Spider-Man and we need no more Spider-Man.
Fools! Know ye not that there is more than one way to skin a cat? (Credit this Mormon in-joke to Nephi-via-Joseph Smith)
First off, the Tobey Maguire-Kirsten Dunst iteration was dead. Embalmed. Buried. DEAD. Spider-Man 3 was so bad that it's become the high water mark of terrible trilogy wrap-ups. And I never thought that title would be taken so quickly from Attack of the Clones. Or Godfather Part III. Anyway, let us also remember that Tobey Maguire isn't a kid anymore. And I'm not positive Kirsten Dunst is still a working actress; or alive for that matter. If she's not I apologize for insensitively calling that trilogy "dead" and will edit that to say "done" or "leased out". Nobody was interested in seeing mid-thirties Peter Parker become a hipster and jam out to a soundtrack of Bon Iver and the Shins.
So, what to do if you're Sony (and I'm not saying you are), and you've got the Avengers breathing down your neck, and yet, still hold the rights to the third most popular super hero in American Culture behind only Superman and Batman (don't argue with me on this nerds; there's no AP poll on this. It is as I say it is for the purposes of this column). Spider-Man is a super compelling character. He appeals to the middle ground between Superman (Alien-Genetic Freak with invincible powers) and Batman (rich muggle with awesome car). He's at once given special powers and yet earns his abilities. This especially comes with a change in this recent movie with Peter Parker developing his own webbing device, rather that producing it out of his wrist with a magic hand gesture. He's got the spider abilities, but he finds better ways to harness them.
And here's my last point. Remake or reboot, we don't need to paint over the Mona Lisa with different colors. A remake should take something that has room for improvement and make a better product, rather than simply rehash something perfect with middling results. Casablanca should not be remade. Neither should Citizen Kane, Dr. Stangelove, Platoon or Apocalypse Now. These are movies which reached Nirvana. You know what we can remake? Things that weren't as good as they should have been, The Outsiders, say, or American Gangster.
Lets not over reverence the Sam Raimi Spider-Man. In 2002 and 2004, the first and second movies were considered to be among the best Superhero movies out there. But guess what happened? Batman Begins, that's what! Paradigm shifts, possibilities change, and we all realize what a D-Bag James Franco is. So why not make a Spider-Man movie in the era of Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr carrying large acting loads and playing alter egos as interesting as the hero themselves. The Raimi Spider-Man's don't hold up particularly well. Tobey Maguire doesn't seem as realistic. The villains are perhaps less interesting. James Franco is James Franco, and freaking whiny to boot. Kirsten Dunst can be emotionally exhausting to watch.
So here we have Andrew Garfield, a sparsely known British actor, playing a pretty realistic teenager, and in my opinion much more charismatic than his predecessor . Emma Stone being this generation's Julia Roberts (I stole this comparison from Grantland.com, I'll admit it). Better special effects making the action more compelling. You know what? This movie told the story 10% better than the 2002 version, and it will make 200 million dollars because Spider-Man is still bankable. I actually see this as a more ethical move for Hollywood.
If you're going to reboot something, make it better than the original.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)