What God is teaching me about careers

VS

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

I am in a bit of a predicament. (I feel like due to the nature of the shows now up for discussion, I have to give this post a "spectacular" open.) Ever since the Writer's Guild of America went on strike, it has been impossible to find a job - many shows are on forced hiatus, and all the people working on those shows are competing against ME for EVERY job that is left in Hollywood. That leaves me searching every nook and cranny for another penny that will help pay for my extravagant rent. The strike sucks. Big time.

Early last week there were various stories in the news that alluded to the strike coming to a end. HURRAY (of course)!!!!! I knew the next step would be a call from MADtv asking me if I can come in next week to get things back in order, etc. etc. Big sigh of relief, as I am not sure how much longer I could last with no income.

Also early last week . . . I received a call from the post production supervisor on the show On the Lot, who I failed in an interview with last summer, who now works on Dancing with the Stars (he affectionately calls it "our little video dance party" - it happens to be the No. 2 show in America), who wanted to talk to me about the possibility of me working there. After our pseudo-phone-interview I felt pretty confident that he wanted me for the job, despite the fact that I screwed up the interview for On the Lot. He said he'd call Thursday to let me know the decision. No call on Thursday. No call on Friday. I weeped Thursday. On Friday I started to think about how nice it is that I don't have to choose between MADtv and Dancing with the Stars.

On Saturday, I got the call. He offered me the job. Woo Hoo!?

Here is the thing. If I take the job at Dancing with the Stars, my work on the show only lasts until May. Then, come September/October, when I'd be going back to MADtv . . . forget it - they will have already hired a new assistant editor. Sooooo, MADtv would be no more for me. On the one hand, I can have continued stability with a show that is semi-popular, working with people I know, making good money. On the other hand, I work on the country's second most watch show, working with who knows who, making probably same good money, but with no stability. Basically, I have the chance to rub elbows with primetime network people and put a primetime network show on my resume, effectively boosting me into another category, while gaining the experience of how to handle a live show. Meanwhile, I'd have all the pressure one can ask for from a career, since I would have to now feel confident when I go for yet another job search, come May, August and beyond.

So then, what is God teaching me about careers? I think God was speaking through my uncle when he told me, "listen to jazz - improvise!" At that I am reminded what has given me my self-professed "success" in my career thus far in the first place - my ability to take risks, to improvise, and especially my ability to deal with the hardships that may come with the risks. I am also beginning to remember the fears I had when I started at MADtv. Everyone in editorial has been there since season one of the show, so I can assume they aren't going to want to get rid of me unless my character and work ethic started to drastically change. I knew there would come a point where I would start feeling complacent with the job and have no ambition to move on and upwards, which isn't a bad thing in itself, but it doesn't fit my personality - I need to strive for something bigger, or else I will neglect my current situation, ie I will start doing the bare minimum at work, just to let the day go by and get out of there. With this somewhat scary opportunity, God has really brought me back to who I am as a worker, as an entrepreneur, and for this I thank Him.

There ARE Nominations for 'Blood'

As I listen to the Jonny Greenwood's soundtrack of There Will Be Blood, unsettling though it may be, I am comforted by the fact that it swiped 8 Oscar nominations! As many of my friends know, the odd side of me (an oxymoron) finds Paul Thomas (P.T. for short) Anderson to be one of the most talented filmmakers alive. I am very pleased with the Oscar nominations this year (although, I have a feeling I may be more than a bit disappointed with the awards), it seems the Academy members are watching the films from a more objective standpoint than they usually do (may or may not delve into that in a separate post).

Since I am pretty much obsessed with P.T.'s movies and since this film has received 5 more nominations than any single one of his films (he received 3 nominations for Boogie Nights and 3 for Magnolia), I am going to break down the nominations and talk about why or why not they deserve to win.

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role - Daniel Day-Lewis
Though There Will Be Blood was nominated for Best Picture, I have to put Daniel Day-Lewis at the top, since, not only do I think this is the one shoe-in for an Oscar for Blood, but it's the one shoe-in for an Oscar out of all the noms.
It's all in the voice. I am not an expert when it comes to analyzing an actors' performances, but Lewis' accent and intensity in his voice simply makes the performance, right? And although his voice makes the performance, there is, of course, so much more. There is so much finesse in his facial expressions, with more innocence towards the beginning of the film, while becoming darker and more evil towards the end. Again, I can't analyze his performance very well, I just enjoyed it thoroughly.
As for the other nominees . . . First of all, Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah? I didn't see the film, but I just have a gut instinct that this was a bad decision. Viggo Mortensen for Eastern Promises, again, I didn't see the film, so, I just don't know. Johnny Depp did a good job in Sweeney Todd, but I wouldn't say it was an Oscar worthy performance. Everyone has been talking about how Michael Clayton wasn't great, but that George Clooney was Oscar material - again, didn't see it, I am sure he was as good as they say though, so I'd give Clooney the honor of being the only nominee with a possibility of contending with Lewis.

Best Motion Picture of the Year - Paul Thomas Anderson, JoAnne Sellar, Daniel Lupi
So, we have Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, and No Country for Old Men for competition. I have not seen Clayton, so that is the only film I cannot speak about, but the reviews have called it well shot and acted, but excruciatingly drawn out and boring. I am guessing that since Atonement is probably the most universal film - most anyone can enjoy it to a good degree, it will take Best Pic. The rest of the films (excluding Clayton, of course), are extremely hard to swallow. No Country is way too bloody, Juno makes you cringe if you watch it with your parents, and Blood is too weird. Anderson's directing has me hooked so, no matter how weird or bloody the film is, I am into it, so my vote is for There Will Be Blood.

Achievement in Film Editing - Dylan Tichenor
Although this is the one category that I have some good authority on, it is also one of the hardest to evaluate. How do I know what an editor had to go through to make the film what it is? One can almost only look at a film's editing from a superficial perspective - if the film used flashbacks or other time manipulation techniques, then, of course, we will notice and think that this was huge undertaking to make the film work. But what other common issues did the editor have to work out, what scenes did they have to rework because the director shot the wrong angle or was missing some footage. There are so many elements that go into editing a picture that a viewer is just never going to be able to see - that is the nature of editing and the same goes for sound editing.
Most likely The Borne Ultimatum will pick up this Oscar. I personally think that this probably did have the best editing - it looked very difficult to cut. Second best on my list, close to Ultimatum is The Diving Bell and Butterfly, which seemed to have worked out some very difficult scenes that involved Janusz Kaminski's brilliantly innovative cinematography. Moving straight on to Dylan Tichenor, I am rooting for him to grab the Oscar just because I am a pure fan - he cut Boogie Nights, The Royal Tenenbaums and Magnolia, the last two just so happen to be two of my favorite films.

Achievement in Directing - Paul Thomas Anderson
As far as I am concerned, the only worthy competition for this award is Julian Schnabel for The Diving Bell and Butterfly. That film could have easily received the Most Boring Film of the Year award, but he somehow came up with a way to make it the Most Enduring Film of the Year. Anderson though just uses the most interesting techniques - his timing of music, and the eerie, slow movements of the camera just mesmerizes me. I like the fact that Paul toned it down a bit for Blood though (both in the script and on the screen). Although I like Anderson's contemporary translation of classic director's techniques, such as Kubrick, I am glad that he has made something a bit more accessible, so that he'll continue to receive good funding and so I can actually talk to people about his movies.

Achievement in Art Direction - Jack Fisk, Jim Erickson
I don't really know what to say about this one at all. The movie's Art Direction didn't strike me as particularly spectacular, but I guess these sort of things can be in the small things that I don't see. I am going to go ahead and concede this one to Dante Ferretti for his amazing work in Sweeney Todd, with Atonement and The Golden Compass (which I haven't seen) as very close 2nd and 3rds.

Achievement in Sound Editing - Matthew Wood
This is one that is also difficult to gauge. My gut is going with Transformers, where there is just so much going on - so many layers of sound happening! I don't know how they do it. Frankly, I don't know why There Will Be Blood was nominated for this category.

Achievement in Cinematography - Robert Elswit
This may be the most difficult award to vote on yet. All these men are on the top of their craft - well, Seamus McGarvey has some good credits to pick up still - but, otherwise, how do you decide? All of these movies were so beautifully shot, I just don't know how to come to a decision. We have Mr. Big - Roger Deakins, pulling in two nominations - one for Jesse James and one for No Country, both films were drop dead gorgeous.
Then there is Janusz Kaminski! How do you compete with that?! I don't even have to say which movie it is and you know it's going to be incredibly shot.
But, of course, it's The Diving Bell and Butterfly. It's honestly hard for me to decide between Diving Bell and Blood, but I am going to root for the underdog, Robert Elswit, since he hasn't picked up an Oscar yet, whereas Janusz has three Oscars since working on all of Steven Spielberg's films since Schindler's List.

Adapted Screenplay - Paul Thomas Anderson
Last, but certainly not least. This may be one of my most controversial picks for an Oscar, heck, even I battle with myself on it, and not because I have another adapted screenplay that I love so much, but because there are parts of this story that puzzle me. Note, I did not say "confused me", I said "puzzled me", which is to say that I just don't know what to make of this epic, evil tale. At the same time though, this is why it is my favorite, I just tend to enjoy movies that make me sit and stare off into space wondering if I should be liking it or now. Know what I mean? I know there all kinds of people out there who think that No Country for Old Men should take this Oscar hands down, but I just don't see it. Whereas No Country was trying to be philosophical in it's dialogue, There Will Be Blood, kept it in deeper layers, it managed to be much more intense and existential without going out and saying it.
If there were to be a contender for Blood in this category it would be The Diving Bell and Butterfly, adapted by Ronald Harwood. The idea of the perspective that movie was written in was all Harwood's idea and the movie just touched me more than any other movie this year.
As a side note, I began reading Oil! by Upton Sinclair, which is the novel P.T. adapted There Will Be Blood from. I recently found out from an article in American Cinematographer magazine that the screenplay was adapted from the first 150 pages of Oil! Well, I am about 50 pages into into the novel right now and let me just say that it is pretty great being able to extend There Will Be Blood from it's already over 2 1/2 hour running time to days and days of strange pleasure.

Books that "Send Chills Up My Spine" Pt. 1 of 4

I have a huge library of books; some of which I have read, some I have not. I share a similar philosophy with Italo Calvino, that "a library ought to be composed half of books we have read and that have really counted for us, and half of books we propose to read and presume will come to count - leaving a section of empty shelves for surprises and occasional discoveries." My library keeps me wondering, thinking, studying; it reminds me that my television and the internet are anything but portals to Truth, and it encourages me to fully explore answers to serious questions.
Over time, as my library has grown, it has become it's own living, breathing entity; it practically creates itself and, in the same vain, it almost speaks to me. As I sit in my living room or bedroom and stare at the shelves I feel various sensations as a either recall the contents of a book or dream of the contents of an unread book. One of these sensations I particularly enjoy, which, of course, are the chills that climb up my spine. It sounds strange and sounds like these chilling feelings should be reserved for a Stephan King book or some similar work, but for me, this sensation occurs more so for books that just seem impossible to write. These books tend to be controversial, they tend to be hard to read or even unreadable (will be explained later), and the authors of them tend to be dead (...after reading through the list, I see only one author on it remains alive). Below is my list, complete with a photo of the book cover, a favorite quote from the work, and a little summery of why it gives me the chills.

The Holy Bible

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

This one may be obvious. It is the first book that ever created the "chills" for me - and in the greatest possible way that eternity can conceive. The quote above is from John 1:1-5, which instills more specific chills, along with the rest of the Book of John. The MacArthur Study New King James Version specifically blows my mind. Although I don't agree with everything MacArthur says, his commentaries are pretty brilliant and certainly exhaustive. It's incredible how much thinking this man has done in one lifetime.

Gödel, Escher, Back: an Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas R. Hofstadter
From the Introduction:

The book is structured in an unusual way: as a counterpoint between Dialogues and Chapters. The purpose of this structure is to allow me to present new concepts twice: almost every new concept is first presented metaphorically in a Dialogue, yielding a set of concrete, visual images; then these serve, during the reading of the following Chapter, as an intuitive background for a more serious and abstract presentation of the same concept. In many of the Dialogues I appear to be talking about one idea on the surface, but in reality I am talking about some other idea, in a thinly disguised way.

I have sought to weave an Eternal Golden Braid out of these three strands: Gödel, Escher, Bach. I began, intending to write an essay at the core of which would be Gödel's Theorem. I imagined it would be a mere pamphlet. But my ideas expanded like a sphere, and soon touched Back and Escher. It took some time for me to think of making this connection explicit, instead of just letting it be a private motivating force. But finally I realized that to me, Gödel and Escher and Back were only shadows cast in different directions by some central solid essence. I tried to reconstruct the central object, and came up with this book.

The little subtitle/summary on the bottom of the book reads "A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll." It is with this metaphor that this book sends the chills. Just the cover alone does it for me. As evidenced in the introduction, the cover photo really ties in the essence of the book (Hofstadter made those himself). The quoted introduction above really expresses well why this book is so chilling.

Being in Time
Martin Heidegger

The 'Being-true' of the Logos as aleithuein means that in legein as apophainesthai the entities of which one is talking must be taken out of their hiddenness; one must let them be seen as something unhidden (aleithes) that is, they must be discovered.

Heigegger is one of my favorite philosophers to read. His writing is very similar to the late Pope John Paul II: very concise, yet extremely complex. A class at Thomas More College initially sparked my interest in Being in Time. Without a class on Heidegger I don't think I would have ever been able to understand his writing. Without a class on the Greek language, I definitely wouldn't have even been able to read it - oh, and it's so much fun! Although Heidegger is considered an atheistic ontologist, his writings do nothing but strengthen my faith in Christ (the Logos!).

iPilots Do Not Exist!

A few days ago I came across a newish iPhone commercial that featured a supposed airline pilot (we can assume this is an actor) who claims to have used the iPhone to find out that the weather was clear for take off before the air traffic controllers even knew. I found this amusing, but I was quite skeptical, so I immediately sent a link of the commercial to an amazing commercial pilot and good friend of mine. This is what he had to say:

Now I don't mean to go on a rant here, but any pilot who has any experience flying in and out of busy airports, especially Chicago, knows that this is a gigantic exaggeration at best. In O'Hare, while thunderstorms are moving through the area, the controllers have an up-to-the-minute view of the surrounding weather, plus data from adjacent air traffic control sectors. You should see some of the "suicide-runs" (more a figure of speech than reality) that ATC sends planes on to find/utilize any holes in the weather for departures (or arrivals for that matter). At busy airports, controllers' jobs are to keep the runways as "hot" as possible 24 hours a day. The weather channel, however, has generic forecasts and 15 minute old radar maps displayed. People who sit in the back look out of their port-hole, see a break in the weather come and go, and bitch about why we didn't take off when we "had the chance". Maybe if they knew that the runways switched because the wind shifted, or the last guy to go through that hole got his ass-kicked, or there are 50 planes on the taxiway ahead of us that have been waiting longer who get to go first, or re-routing 300 miles off-course to get around it would land us in Kansas City with about 10 gallons of gas, they might think differently.

The only thing I can think of is that they (pilots and dispatcher together) figured they had enough fuel and re-filed their flight plan via some circuitous route around the weather to bypass the congestion and depart. This, by the way, is what has been done for decades between pilots and dispatchers, well before the i-phone (or cell-phones for that matter) were around. All this commercial is going to do is turn what used to be normal passengers into a pack of amateur meteorologists who will end up questioning the flight crew even more. Sorry, but I can already visualize that afternoon next Spring when we're on a ground stop at O'Hare and some Al Roker wannabe in the back who's late for dinner questions our judgement because he thinks he has the "big picture" on his little i-phone.

And here he is, the BUD (Bio-Utility Device) in action:

Pascal's Wager

Every once in a while, as I peruse the math section of my bookshelves (yes, I have a math section), I pick up Blaise Pascal's Penées and reread the famous chapter, The Wager. Although I had never read the original text of this famous theory of Pascal's until I was in my early twenties, I have known about it since at least my early teens. When I was 17 years old I began to seriously question my Christian faith. My chief questions, beyond whether Christ had died for my sins or not, was, "Does God exist?" and "Is there an afterlife?". To me, at the time, the only option if God did not exist, was to kill myself. I felt that there was really nothing to live for if all I have to look forward to at the end of this whole life thing was death. If there was no memory of all the difficult trial and tribulation of life, love, and the attempt to acquire as much happiness as possible, WHAT IS THE POINT? People have since explained to me the arguments for the fallacy of Pascal's proof, but I have continued on, in faith, believing in God and have since gone much further, returning fully, to my Christian faith (initially, by way of C.S. Lewis, which is another story).

After reading a bit of the Penées again today, I felt that more people really need to be exposed to his writings. So here I bring you a directly quoted, abridged version of The Wager of Pascal:

Let us then examine the point, let us say: 'Either God is or he is not.' But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong . . .
Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then; wager that he does exist . . .
And thus, since you are obliged to play, you must be renouncing reason if you hoard you life rather than risk it for an infinite gain, just as likely to occur as a loss amounting to nothing . . .
If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions, since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so . . . Learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have . . . What have you to lose? . . .
Now what harm will come to you from choosing this course? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, full of good works, a sincere, true friend . . . It is true you will not enjoy noxious pleasures, glory and good living, but will you not have others?
I tell you that you will gain even in this life, and that at every step you take along this road you will see that your gain is so certain and your risk so negligible that in the end you will realize that you have wagered on something certain and infinite for which you have paid nothing.

Orlando Crash Update

So, it's all over the internet now. If you want to see me in action, fending off the paparazzi, there is a video here. Watch for me telling the photographers to back off (in the green jacket, spouting expletives). These photos I've posted are exactly the thing that really pissed me off.

The Real Surreal Life

A little over an hour ago I was saying goodbye to the girl I am dating when I heard a car accident nearby. As I walked up the street towards my car I noticed the accident was right at the intersection (Vista and Fountain) that I was headed to. Although there didn't seem to be any ambulances, I could still see flashes of light that appeared to be coming from an ambulance. As I walked closer to the accident it became apparent that the lights were not, in fact, those from an ambulance, but rather . . . drum roll please . . . from paparazzi. The crash scene was peppered with these guys. This whole scene just didn't make any sense to me: There were two cars, that I could tell, that were involved in the accident - one small, black hatchback, VW golf type car and one Porsche Cayenne (an SUV), along with two other cars surrounding the scene that were either almost involved in the accident or just there to help - not too sure. About 4 guys and 1 girl were trying to pull another girl out of the small black car while, get this, the paparazzi flashed away and filmed the scene! Honestly, it took me a few minutes to put together what was happening here. I was so confused - was this a film shoot and this was a controlled accident? No, couldn't be - there wasn't enough crew for that sort of shot. What the hell are all these cameras here for??? Was this a reality tv show? Then I realized the simple answer was paparazzi. There had to have been about 6 guys snapping photos and about 4 guys filming the scene with video cameras. As I tried to comprehend the situation, the paparazzi just became more bold as time went on, leaning in closer and closer into these poor people's faces, flashing bright lights into their eyes, including the victim they were trying to help! I really could not believe this was happening! I couldn't believe that the paparazzi had the selfishness to continue bombarding these people even after they just got in an accid- wait! And that is exactly when I realized that it was most likely the paparazzi that caused this whole thing! I've never had so much disdain for these people and their "work". So, I decided to do what I could to help and got into the paparazzi's face, yelling at them and berating them for their lack of integrity, as well as, hopefully, ruining their shots. Meanwhile, the police arrived on the scene. This, of course, did not stop the paparazzi, but at this point I think I had done a fine job of fending them off. Although I never ended up being able to tell who the main victim was, who was pulled out of the car, I am sure that one of the prime targets of the paparazzi was Orlando Bloom. I overheard Orlando tell the police that there was at least one other car involved, and that it was paparazzi who were in the other cars. The paparazzi, it turns out, did indeed instigate this whole situation.

Funny thing is, just last week I ended up as a VIP guest at Area, a nightclub in West Hollywood that apparently the cast from MTV's The Hills frequents, among other celebrities. As I walked out of that club, I will admit that I felt special with all the paparazzi around (I later found out Mark Wahlberg was in there with us). I felt, this must be what it's like to be famous - not as bad as I thought. Tonight changed my opinion for sure. I feel bad for celebrities. They have no peace in public - not even in times of dire, even life-threatening, need. Odd thing is, their jobs are to entertain the public - to make our lives more enjoyable, and the thanks we offer back is "Entertain us in your personal lives too!", thereby ruining their lives to a certain extent. Moral of the story: please leave these people alone, they also deserve a certain amount of privacy.