Thursday, October 30, 2014

Parenting, The Shining and The Lego Movie

The Lego Movie and The Shining share more in common than you think. Stories, whether told, written or filmed, can be read in many different ways with the observer becoming part of the story through his or her interpretation. I have long loved the Shining. It is one of the few films that truly scared me. It is a great movie that people go bonkers over. With a small son sick for a weekend, I was introduced to the Lego Movie. It is a children's movie. For a children's movie, it is tolerable for adults. After the fifth viewing of it with my son, the simple "Working dads, you be good to your kids" message could be eye rolled quick enough to think about the movie's weird "the lego is alive" section. The Lego Movie and the Shining are about the same problem, the gifts fathers and sons share, yet the Lego Movie is about a reconciliation of its duo's awareness of said abilities while the Shining is about a split.

This could very easily become stupid, so if you are wary of it, stop reading and enjoy the rest of your day.


In the Shining, Jack and Danny both have a gift. They can both Shine. We know Danny can because the cook explains the secret to us. Without the cook, every ghost moment where Jack or Danny interact with something is purely in their minds. Jack has the gift, just like the cook and his gramma. Danny has the shine amped to '11'. Wendy runs around the hotel spooked out by things, yet never gets cobwebs from the skeletons on her closes or has any splotches of blood from the elevator. The father and son react differently to the evil hotel built on an Indian burial plot. As I wrote recently, their shine mingles with the Overlook, and they react differently. Jack discovers his son has the same abilities as him, and does not want him to ruin his paradise. They love each other, but Jack loves what the hotel does for him. It seduces him, and takes his soul.

In the Lego Movie, the son and father both are gifted Lego builders. They are creative, smart, and organized. It is all a kid's tale to make a nobody who doesn't feel special suddenly important in the eyes of lord business (Daddy, pay attention!). There is a weird little catch though. The lead Lego guy, Emmett, moves on his own in the real world. Maybe it is psychic powers. Maybe it is purely frustrated energies between the father and son. This is a grown man pushed into his basement to play with kids toys. This is his fun zone. His son tramples on his enclave and fantasy world. He recognizes the expert and innovative creativity that his son has, which he has himself. He also sees the improvisational skills his son has that do not require following instructions. He recognizes the limitations he has placed on his son. They can reconcile this ability, their ability. They love each other, and the father decides to accept his son and share the experience.

Your kids are a part of you. Many of your strengths and weaknesses will be their strengths and weaknesses. People worry about not being as good as mom or dad at something. That is small potatoes. A true crisis is what does an adult do when the child proves to be superior. That is a fully formed, adult ego a child or teen is crushing. The parent can always pat a struggling child on the head, "there there, it's okay, not everyone can be awesome". What happens when Junior can destroy dad at his favorite game or is a better singer than mom? The Great Santini shows what happens, and it is not pretty. Jack yelling at Wendy to not ruin this job for him because she might secretly want him doing humiliating work is nothing compared to the reaction Jack has about Danny possibly taking away the world of the Overlook from him. How dare he. It's his retro-paradise where everyone needs him and values him. The Shining is one of the best horror films made and the Lego Movie is a cute children's film. There is no evil hotel to meddle with the family in the Lego Movie, but at its core, the movies deal with a similar conflict. It's a conflict most parents will face.

25 comments:

PA said...

A good kid movie that adults can also enjoy is Pixar "Cars." There is also a quasi father-son angle involving the brash young protagonist Lightening McQueen and his eventual mentor Doc Hudson. Though they are not literally related, there is that dynamic.

Anonymous said...

The famous Boycott American Women blog has returned! We're accepting submissions so if you have any bad experiences with American women and want to share them, just go to the Submit Your Story tab on our site, tell us your story, and we'll publish it, anonymously of course.

www.boycottamericanwomen.com

peterike said...

Couple thangs.

Never saw "The Lego Movie" so I watched the trailer. There is no mention whatsoever of a son. And based on the trailer, you get the impression the lead character is a really stupid white guy surrounded by a wise woman and a smart black wizard (same old same old). Animation looks very cool though.

Another thing that annoys me about Hollywood animation is the need to have celebrities do the voices. Who cares? Why not hire some unknowns who would do just as a good a job and could use the payday? Well, that's a stupid question.

As for "The Shining," I always liked that movie. But I find it laughable that so often the schtick for a horror movie is "something was built on an Indian burial ground." Has there ever been a film where terrible things happened because something got built on an old Christian cemetery? Just more Hollywood anti-Christian hate going on. Because of course if all these demons show up because you violated the Indian burial ground, well then their gods are real, and by assumption, yours isn't.

marko said...

Off topic, but equally terrifying. There's talk of cat calling and any "unwanted attention" from males becoming illegal. The fact that a major media outlet is even raising this question does not bode well for the future:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior

PA said...

There's talk of cat calling and any "unwanted attention" from males becoming illegal

This is just another example of how homegrown and imported Coloreds are directly or indirectly used as a tool for making America a police state.

Without muslim Arabs, there would be no justification for the existence of TSA or the Patriot Act. Without blacks and mystery meats, there would be no reason for the broad swath of absurd sex offense-related laws.

Son of Brock Landers said...

PA - BINGO! Agree 100%.

nikcrit said...

Another thing that annoys me about Hollywood animation is the need to have celebrities do the voices. Who cares?

celeb voiceovers are the only way animated features can incorporate starpower into their marketing schemes; and in the u.s., starpower is far and above the strongest such facet of these schemes. Ain't so much the case overseas, tho; that's why there you'll often see films with largely unknown casts winning awards and doing relatively good box office and aftermarket receipts..... u.s. film product is becoming one big episode of American Idol,

nikcrit said...


This part of the nytimes editorial gave me a tad of relief:

Violation of the law could be a tort, meaning a woman could sue her harasser; an infraction, like a ticket with a fine; or even a misdemeanor. Even if rarely enforced, the symbolism of a law weighing in on the side of equality would have powerful effects.

------ though, said 'relief' would've been much greater had she skipped the 'tort' part in her list of possible options. The author's obviously not worried about the 'slippery slope' aspect her proposed law might create.

@PA,
Hey, can you picture this particular piece of 'mystery meat' spending a Saturday afternoon catcalling random non-NAM females who don't welcome my summonings? ..... (joking)

nikcrit said...

PA - BINGO! Agree 100%.

@SOBL,
Ok, are you saying that the agitprop of HOLLABACK! are just tactics, props for making America a police state?

My question then: By whom? And please be specific.

I think a lot of these disagreements develop solely because of a cultivated 'team-blue-vs-team-black' environment existing for so long.

(ironically, on that same nytimes.com page as the editorial we referenced were links to related stories that handled the subject with much more nuanced detail. believe it or not, this guy who's from the d.c. branch of the ACLU opposes the proposed law and offers some good distinguishing detail in why it's not a good idea, despite it's purer intentions.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Nikcrit - Dysfunction exhibited at exaggerated rates by one specific group becomes the reason for changing all of society's laws.

nikcrit said...

@sobl, yeah. That's a drag on the law-abiding majority. But that don't mean the law is a cover step in the goal of creating a police state.

PA said...

For good comment thread, see Heartiste. A recent comment of mine on a related subject is highlighted as COTW.

Nikcrit, how much more obvious does it need to be to you, to see that non-whites are deployed as tools for destroying white society? I thought we went over this at GLP.

Son of Brock Landers said...

PA, You and Gorbachev were my fave GLP commenters to read. There as one other guy like Kyle or (k)yle who was also pretty insightful.

PA said...

I wasn't sure what to make out of Gorbachev. While I generally don't get too involved in the Judischefrage on blog discussions, I am wary of commenters who say they are not Jewish but expand inordinate amounts of energy into combatting each and every comment that ties Jews to leftism. Blogger/commenter Whiskey has become a caricature of this kind of an apparent monomaniac.

Gorbachev also, at first, gave off a whiff of George Soros-style attitudes regarding Eastern Europe, for which I have something of a sixth sense, or maybe ethnic sensitivity. It wasn't any major bombshell that he'd drop, but a lot of little things. Also, he had a tad too much (superficial but broad) knowledge of Eastern Europe for his claimed background. He evinced general contempt for Slavs, and applauded the 1999 bombing of Serbia.

The name "Gorbachev" itself, as he noted, was about openness. You could read that as a good thing -- the demolishing of contemporary Western PC -- or as a Sorosian project of "opening" of Eastern Europe.

He was engaging and endearing in some ways, but my spidey sense was on guard with him.

K(yle) is probably one of my all-time non-blogger commenters, and likely the most intelligent, no-bullshit thinkers on the scene. The one criticism I'd have of him was a certain wallowing in grimness. That is in some ways a reflection of one's temperament, at least as a writer.

Gucci Little Piggy had that rare formula of relatively few commenters, unmoderated commenting, nice visual layout, and comments that were read by big time figures such as Sailer, Derb, and Heartiste.

Chuck's original material was freewheeling, and reflected a younger guy's desire to explore various subjects and learn things without putting on an ego.

Son of Brock Landers said...

I enjoyed Gorb's ability to break down how the lefties do what they do. Never picked on his auto-JIDF tendency. I am more oike Vox Day on the JQ. I will point out their involvement just as I would any other group. No special treatment.

That's a great description of Kyle. He got to the heart of the matter in a smart way with a no nonsense approach.

I miss Chuck's site for stuff like the Michael Brown shooting or Sterling affair because he wouldve been all over it. Chuck and I are same age and had a similar pov. Always enjoyed his work.

Funny you mention whiskey because i know he has commented here, but he never comments on my tv or movie posts which is his thing. It is true, he is a caricature now.

PA said...

I am more like Vox Day on the JQ

That's funny -- I was going to say this about myself in my original comment but I wasn't sure if you're familiar with Vox Day.

He's someone I started to read recently (earlier I occasionally checked out his stuff on WND ten years ago). Good stuff there. Since his identity and photo are known, it's clear that his alpha personality is the real deal. I like how he is not timid abut going for the kill with leftards. He's a multi-talented, insanely intelligent man.

One of Roissy's old-time commenters, finn Markku is a regular there. He is also one of the best commenters around. I believe he and Vox have down some game-design related business together in real life.

Speaking of real life, it's an interesting thing when someone you know in reality knows about the alt-Right bloggers and personalities independently of you. I directed a couple of my friends to Heartiste but while they are righties like me, they are not the types to read or comment on blogs.

But the one time I came across someone who knows this nook of the internet was some seven yers ago. I was at a party, and had an amicable conversation with a liberal attorney about contemporary press. He bemoaned that the internet is breaking up the common narrative "that keeps us unified as a nation." I answered that this is a much-needed corrective, with freedom of the press being a critical issue. I pointed out to how bloggers such as Steve Sailer provide the much-needed fact- and logic-check to the mainstream media. Upon hearing Sailer's, he did this dismayed head-shake, and said something about Sailer being a racist, without using the R-word.

Alcestis Eshtemoa said...

Off topic, but equally terrifying. There's talk of cat calling and any "unwanted attention" from males becoming illegal. The fact that a major media outlet is even raising this question does not bode well for the future:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior


Three words: Caste system + Feminism. That's a virulent combination and it's quite nasty. A good example of this feminist mutation would be what's currently going on in Brazil with their "slut walks" and "anti-rape legislation".

The girl who made the video about New York City street harassment is possibly a mixed Puerto Rican herself and walked near lower socio-economic status neighborhoods full of either black men, or ambigious yellow-brown men.

This isn’t a white American problem. It’s a caste system problem, which is quite sex-biased towards black males (calling them somewhere akin to niggers), yet assimilated black blood from African females through Spanish/Portuguese conquistadores.

Look at the girl talking about street harassment. She probably has a black grandmother somewhere, which is why she has (mulatto) curly hair, since black American women (short nappy hair) are renowned for wigs, weaves and perms (chemical treatment which makes hair long and straight). In a caste system, both black men and mulatto men (sometimes even quadroon men) have very low-status.

She's calling for lynching since she sees herself as “fair game” (harassment) for those low-status males in the caste system she emerged from.

Black men (Negros), whether in the USA (racial segregation), or Central-South America (mixed populations + caste system), don’t have much political power, wealth, influence and have lower socio-economic status. They're also quite criminally inclined, violent and imprisoned at high rates.

Look at white men in Mexico, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia or Chile as examples. Those men tend to have actual caste system privilege. They tend to be good-looking, rich, educated, suave and live in great housing.

A smart Puerto Rican woman in those countries tends to whore herself out to white men, not just for money, but also for looks. If a black man (negro) touches them, they would go to jail, suffer excessive punishment and the mother would have default custody of her biracial kid (father has no paternal rights).

That's just how it works in Central-South America, particularly in the Mainland and even the Coasts.

nikcrit said...

K(yle) is probably one of my all-time non-blogger commenters, and likely the most intelligent, no-bullshit thinkers on the scene. The one criticism I'd have of him was a certain wallowing in grimness. That is in some ways a reflection of one's temperament, at least as a writer.

I thought he was nihilistic almost to the point of parody; also IMO he had an either intentional or inadvertent tendency to not be objective in his denouements, (even when he purported them to be as much, etc).

Maybe that was just part of his rhetorical sophistry or ruse, etc.; i was bit surprised that he often engaged and riffed further on comments of mine at GLP (and OneSTDV, I believe)..

I tended to most enjoy his critiques of modern art and pop media trends and movements; bit too reactionary for me re. racial issues (but then perhaps I would say something like that.)

It may be a tad trite, but the fact that kyle and I at GLP gave each other rueful consideration in therms of our respective comments on a given issue and even elaborated upon our points in extended give-and-takes, signifies the revolutionary technological aspect of internet forums and discussion; we now take such exchanges for granted, but prior to, say, roughly '1993, such discourse and exchange among others was much, much more limited and fairly non-existent in a way. Because when it did occur, such engagement had to be constructed within the most contrived of situations, i.e., college forums with, say, caricature libs-vs-caricatured-con debates and lectures, with the press advancing the events with sensationalistc gusto,etc.

But anonymously on the 'net you could find yourself slipping into quality and engaging rumination with someone you'd very never likely do as much with if you encountered that person f2f.

chalk yet another technologically brilliant innovation up for the white-western culture and innovation, and freely bestowed upon the rest of the western world.

nikcrit said...

SOBL, PA, peterike, et.al,

Gotta admit, as self-indulgent and probably unproductive of such a indulgence would be, I would have a VERY AMUSING AND ENGAGING few hours if I could pour over the comment archives of GL PIGGY and OneSTDV.

I actually have some thoughts re. to the kind of policy papers and critiques I submit for my job that would be useful in terms of jogging the memory and refiring the music in other ways; one can really get a lot of blog commenting in terms of it being some sort of real-life ideological brainstorming forum.

nikcrit said...

Nikcrit, how much more obvious does it need to be to you, to see that non-whites are deployed as tools for destroying white society? I thought we went over this at GLP.

I just now saw this 'oldie-but-goldie' of alt-right assertions:

I respectfully respond by asking what I've yet to get a clear response to: "deployed as tool for destroying white society" by who???????

(From this point, I've seen you get annoyed with the snark and what I'm implying in a few of these remarks. But IMO you still haven't answered that question coherently. (ditto for peterike ----- though y'know I love y'all despite these rare rayciss inchoherent tangents of yours!) :)

nikcrit said...

Re: "I miss Chuck's site for stuff like the Michael Brown shooting or Sterling affair because he wouldve been all over it. Chuck and I are same age and had a similar pov. Always enjoyed his work."

I still maintain that you ARE the legacy of GlP and CR. I recall and appreciate you explaining to me why you go with comment-moderating format, but I have a follow-up question relating to the explanation you gave me: you said onetime and wayward loose canons would get into the comment log too often, but can't you do what i believe CR and OneSTDV did: Go live with pre-approved avatars, handles and email addresses but filter the strange names and e-addresses to the moderation filter? Then, of course, folk like me, PA, peterike and familiar and trusty others could go live while you temporarily put the brakes on newer commenters, etc.
I know that the older r.r. blog "Guy White' did as much back in its day (2008-2011); that was a Wordpress blog, but I'd think it was doable in your format as well, no?

(Sorry that I Keep inquiring on this subject, but just think of it as a testament of my support and respect for your blog, lolzz.)

peterike said...

ditto for peterike ----- though y'know I love y'all despite these rare rayciss inchoherent tangents of yours!) :)

INCOHERENT??!!!?! That stings man, that stings!

My blog engagement has been spotty lately. Too much travel. Been on the road at least a few days each week for the past seven weeks. Toooooo much.

Agree with Nik that a semi-moderated blog would be cool if it could be done.

nikcrit said...

RE: INCOHERENT??!!!?! That stings man, that stings!

That criticism of mine specifically refers to the general alt-right theory about anti-white causation; I say it's much more complicated than the obligatory 'liberal/elite/jewish/globalist'-cabal sourcing that's routinely cited in the r.r. blogosphere; (beyond that ------ and not to come off ingratiating ---- I love your rhetorical style: learned but down-to-earth; you've lived enough to see and clearly note the gray areas of life and know that no one gets out of this shite alive!
I mean, alt-right bogeymen are real, but it just ain't that simple and tidy.

nikcrit said...

Funny you mention whiskey.....It is true, he is a caricature now.

I never understood his sort-of renown and infamy in the alt-right blogosphere; I don't have strong feelings about his commenting either way; just curious as to how he became so well known. His blog and commenting goes months without posts at time; he doesn't seem to me to be prolific enough to have so high a profile, etc.

I do recall him having a sort-of neurosis and hysteria about how pale-skinned men are supposedly being de-sexualized by mainstream media memes. It was a point he'd go off on whenever the subject was broached on CH's or other such sites.

peterike said...

Re Whiskey: "I never understood his sort-of renown and infamy in the alt-right blogosphere."

My first exposure to him was at The Belmont Club, where he was a frequent commenter for years, but eventually got banned for his monomania about women-don't-find-white-men-sexy-explains-everything. At first, I found his viewpoint fascinating and something I'd never really heard before. And indeed, I think there's a lot of truth in it, but it attempts to be too comprehensive. He could never admit that ANY women might not find black men sexy or whatever.

Still, sometimes monomaniacs are useful. Like Ayn Rand can be a giant idiot on a lot of things, but she can also be a shocking corrective on ideas like philanthropy where she can open your eyes to a completely different viewpoint that makes an awful lot of sense.

Anyway, I always enjoy Whiskey and I think the scorn toward him is overdone to an extent.