The God Delusion (part 1).

I know, I know: the book's some three years old. Today, I picked up my copy of The God Delusion and started on a new chapter. I've had my copy for around two years but I've never really given it a fair shot - after all, I thought that I'd read the ultimate in anti-theism polemics: Why I am Not a Christian (by Bertrand Russell).

I started reading it a few weeks back and then left it, focusing on something else which I can't quite remember. Today, by chance, I started reading chapter 4: Why There Almost Certainly is no God. What can I say? I'm finishing the chapter as I write this and I'm full of excitement and my mind is brimming with the ideas I've been consuming.

It starts as a rebuttal of Fred Hoyle's posit that the origin of life is as unlikely as a Boeing 747 being assembled out of scrapyard junk randomly during a hurricane. Dawkins repeatedly rebuts this idea by showing that if something is reduced to being irreducibly complex, then that means that the likelihood of its being made by any deity is even more unlikely - thus we get into an infinite regress of the 'what made God' sort. By stating that something is too complex to have arisen via natural selection, one immediately undermines one's argument - how could something as complex as a deity have arisen by chance? Surely, it was also designed. But then what designed the designer of the designer? Ergo, we have an infinite regress that isn't helpful but rather creates infinite confusion.

The main point given early in the chapter is that evolution isn't determined by chance - it is guided by natural selection. The only chancey thing that's ever occured is the origin of life. Dawkins states that we are here not because of God (or a god, or gods, or a flying spaghetti monster) but because of the 'anthropic principle'. What is it? Well, simply stated it is the fact that out of all the billions and billions of planets that exist in our universe, many (billions, in fact) are likely to be well-suited to life. If one per cent in a billion billion planets bears life, that still means that there exist a billion life-bearing planets in our universe.

The anthropic principle has two qualities: the human side and the cosmological side. The human side has been stated in the previous paragraph. The cosmological side of the anthropic principle coin is very much similar. I'm sure you've heard of it - multiverse theory. This theory posits that there could be an infinite number of parallel universes (an alternative theory is that they could be linked in series). In this theory, each universe has a different set of conditions - some combinations of which lend themselves to life; others of which are hostile to life or, in fact, can never bear life - or even certain mixtures of atoms.

It could be that all universes bear the same six 'univeral constants' that support life (the ones present in our universe); it could be that there are many possible combinations. Either way, we know that we live in one of said universes because we are here.

One theorist - Lee Smolin - presents an altogether more tangible idea 0f the multiverse (although it still is quite peculiar to our everyday senses). In his mind, the multiverse isn't a 'foamy' structure like that of Martin Rees's - universes exist inside black holes (so the multiverse is a honeycomb structure that, in theory, 'evolves'). In this theory, successful universes are universes which bear black holes. Universes that bear clouds of dust form stars, stars form black holes, and black holes create new 'universes inside the universes in which they're present'. Each new 'daughter' universe born of a black hole contains 'mutations' which alters slightly its properties. It's a fascinating idea.

http://www.2think.org/lifeofthecosmos.shtml

Movie review: The Fisher King.

The Fisher King (1991) is a film by Terry Gilliam, starring Robin Williams, Jeff Bridges and several other actors of note.

When Jack - a radio host for a subversive morning show - gives an ambiguous message to a disgruntled and disturbed listener, a terrible series of events unfolds: the listener goes to a 'yuppie' bar and kills several people, before turning the gun on himself.

This controversy spells the end for Jack's career. He spirals into a life of bitter self-loathing - although he still has a wonderful girlfriend and a job (at her video store).

One night, guilt takes hold and Jack takes a drunken walk. In his stupor, he finds himself lost in either Brooklyn or Manhattan and is set upon by two young men who mistake him for a homeless man. Out of nowhere, a knight in dulled armour appears: a homeless man named Perry. Perry sees off the attackers and takes in Jack for the night.

When Jack is rested, Perry tells him that he needs him to fulfill a particular purpose: Perry is working for God and needs Jack to steal the Holy Grail from a wealthy entrepreneur's house. (Perry also occasionally thinks fairies are present and perpetually sees a so-called 'Red Knight' who roams Central Park trying to get at him.)

Jack leaves, but soon sees Perry again - and decides to get to know him. After seeing brilliance behind his madness - and often delusional behaviour - he decides to help him in whatever way he can. And there's another reason: it turns out that Perry's wife was one of the victims killed in the shooting three years earlier.

Wrecked with guilt and overcome by the power of his new-found friendship, Jack goes on to help Perry find love. Whilst helping Perry, though, Jack is losing his way. The film is about redemption and recognition - and finding love and wonder where one can.

The title is derived from a story Perry tells Jack one night when they're both lying on a green in Central Park at night - Perry is nude in this scene. Whilst sleeping in a forest, a young boy destined to be king awakes to be greeted with a vision of a fire containing the Holy Grail - a symbol of "God's divine grace".

With wonder, the boy tries to retrieve the grail but is terribly badly burned. With time, his wounds grow deeper. One morning, a simple fool enters the king's chambers and sees him sitting alone, looking pained.

The fool doesn't see a king - merely a man in pain. He asks him if he can help soothe him. The king tells the fool that he's thirsty. The fool finds a cup and gives him some water. Through this simple act, the king's wounds miraculously disappear and he is healed.

When the King looks into his hand, he sees not a cup, but the grail for which he's been hunting his life entire. 'How could you have found that which my brightest and best have failed to find all these years?' enquires the King. 'I don't know,' replies the fool, 'I only knew that you were thirsty.' The story is an interpretation of an Arthurian story - of King Arthur. My interpretation of it is that grandeur is often found in the simplest of things - but that's just me.

The movie is streaked with themes of love and pain. When Perry enters a state of catatonia after re-living the nightmare that unfolded three years previous, Jack finally endeavours to get the grail in hope that it might bring Perry out of said state. I won't spoil the ending - although I've probably already given it away. It ends on a high note; it left me feeling enchanted. Watching it again wouldn't be as much of a pleasureable experience, but it's a real gem.

A review of Changeling.

Changeling tells the story of Christine Collins - a mother who fights tooth and nail against police corruption and unthinkable odds in order to find her missing son, Walter. The film is written by J. Michael Straczynski and directed, produced and scored by Clint Eastwood. The film's message: never start a fight, but always finish it.

The film is set in the bustling, yet seedy, world of LA in the 1920s. Christine oversees a team of switchboard operators and is the single parent of her nine-year-old son, Walter. One day, she leaves work but misses her usual tram, arriving home slightly later than normal. When she returns, her son is nowhere to be found; the gentle piece of music playing begins to turn ominous in tone - a testament to Clint Eastwood's musical prowess. In desperation, she calls the police - who tell her nothing can be done until morning.

Walter goes missing on March 20th, 1928. In August of that same year, she receives an impromptu visit from the LAPD. They tell her that Walter has been found and he's in the process of being returned to her from Ohio (where he was supposedly found in the company of a vagrant man). When she greets him, though, she's struck with awe - he's not her son. In shock, she tells Captain Jones that she doesn't know who he is. He manages to get her to co-operate, though, and the LA press snap pictures of mother and 'son' together.

All seems to be working well until Christine tends to the boy after he slips in the bath - she sees the boy is circumcised. She drags him out into the hallway and measures him - he's three inches shorter than when last measured (five months previous). She calls Captain Jones and he gives her lip-service about what stress can do to a child. She refuses to co-operate so he sends in a counsellor (who proceeds to drag 'Walter' around the neighbourhood in order to have neighbours judge him 'objectively').

Soon, we are greeted with the presence of Reverend Briegleb (played by John Malkovich) - a local pastor who proselytises about the evils of the LAPD on his community radio programme. He asks to meet Christine at the church one morning. When she arrives, he shows her an article printed earlier in the morning insinuating that Christine might not be looking after Walter properly from shock (and so she might be the reason for his extreme physical changes).

Reverend Briegleb says: "Many children have been sacrificed to expediency; your boy is not the first, but, depending on what you choose to do, he might be the last...". He also informs Christine of various corruptions in the LAPD - one such corrpution is that police officers are able to kill criminals if they refuse to co-operate.

With the Reverend's help, Christine succours the confidence to take on the establishment. She receives testimonies from Walter's dentist (who notes extreme differences in the two children's teeth), and his teacher - who also notices differences in behaviour. (Both are prepared to give evidence in a court of law.)

The following morning, Christine gives a statement to the local press outside the town hall, stating that she has testimonies and will soon be speaking out against the corruption and incompetence of the LAPD. An officer present calls Captain Jones and notifies him. He issues an order to have Christine brought back to LAPD headquarters and brought in "through the back door".

Christine is told by the Captain that she's either lying about Walter or she's not aware of the fact that she's lying - either she's a liar or she's crazy. On that basis, he has Christine thrown into an asylum for being a "danger to the public and the peace". He does this illegally without issuing a warrant and also doing so before the warrant is issued - both of which are extremely illegal actions. Meanwhile, an investigator at the LAPD receives a call about a youth holed up illegally in a ranch in Wineville and tends to the case.

When Christine enters the asylum, she pleads with the head nurse to let her go and states that she's being blackmailed by police. She's hosed down and given a brisk, degrading, brusk cavity search. Upon seeing this scene, I couldn't help but juxtapose it with how Angelina Jolie is presented in 'Girl, Interrupted'.

Christine meets a woman called Carol Dexter. She notices that Christine's not eating, so she tells her: "Eat; eating's normal. You gotta do everything you can in here to appear normal." Christine tells her that she's sane, to which Carol replies: "No matter what you do, you'll appear insane - if you smile too much, you're delusional (you're stifling hysteria); if you don't smile, you're depressed; if you remain neutral, you're emotionally withdrawn." Carol states that she was admitted after one of her clients (she was a prostitute) beat her up (the client of which turned out to be a cop). When she lodged a formal complaint to the LAPD, she was thrown into the nuthouse - along with dozens of other innocent girls - under Code 12 of a relevant police act.

When the investigating officer arrives at Wineville, he comes upon a man whose car has broken down at the side of the road. He asks the man where the Northcott Ranch is. The man proceeds to reach into the back of his truck in order to put away his gasoline and he almost reaches for a 12-gauge shortgun he has in back. However, he refrains and gives the policeman directions. The cop arrives at the ranch and looks around the scene (finding an empty chicken coop, and axes and knives strewn about the ground) when he's startled by a boy who sees him and tries to flee into the house. He takes the boy into custody.

Meanwhile, at the asylum, Christine is being studied by the head psychiatrist. Christine tries to remain neutral and unaffected throughout his questioning. When he asks her if she minds how she's been treated, she says that she doesn't - the nurses are just trying to "cover all their bases" (by doing such things as testing for syphilis). When she's asked if Walter is her son, she says no (in stark contrast to the picture of her with 'Walter' at the train station taken in August). When she's asked if the police are just doing their job she says: "Yes; they're here to help," to which the man replies: "Really? That's not what you said to the head nurse - you told her that the police were 'conspiring against you'. Right, Ms Collins?" She begins to crumble.

Reverend Briegleb arrives at the LAPD headquarters shortly afterwards with hundreds of protestors in tow, demanding that Captain Jones tell him where Christine is. He tells her she's in a "safe place" that she needed to go to in order to maintain public peace. When the Reverend leaves, he calls the cop who was previously investigating the Northcott ranch and asks him to return. However, after he interviews the boy - who turns out to be named Sanford Clark - he finds out that the boy and his older cousin (Gordon Northcott) could potentially be at the heart of one of the state's biggest ever murder investigations. Sanford tells the officer that he and his cousin are responsible for the deaths of up to 20 children at the Ranch. When Sanford looks through the pictures of missing children, he picks out several photographs of children he remembers being held at the ranch - one of whom turns out to be Walter Collins.

Upon going back to the ranch with Sanford, the officer (accompanied by several others) asks the boy to dig where he believes the boys' bodies lie. After several minutes he unearths several skeletons. The investigator requests the aid of every officer within a 20-mile radius and phones back to the LAPD. Shortly afterwards, an article is published (which soon comes into the hands of Reverend Briegleb). The reverend storms the asylum along with California's leading civil-case lawyer and orders the release of Christine Collins. (Shortly afterwards - after she tells the men of the mistreatment and illegal holding of innocent, sane women - all of the women being held under Code 12 are released). When Carol and the others leave, we see the dainty frame of Christine (who's wearing her trademark, floral bonnet) standing at the foot of the entrance of the asylum. Carol throws Christine a look of deep gratitude and pride.

'Walter' is interviewed by the investigative officer who found the bodies of the missing boys and he cracks when he's told he could be prosecuted for impeding a police investigation. The boy says that his real name is Arthur Hutchins and that he wanted to come to LA to meet 'Telmex' - a character in a series of films - and ride his horse. Meanwhile, when Gordon returns home to Vancouver to see his sister she has her husband call the police. Soon afterwards he is arrested and taken into custody.

Christine pays for Arthur to be returned home. The Chief of Police oversees his returning. When he greets his mother, the Chief is giving a statement to the LA press. As Arthur is getting on the train, he tells his mother that it wasn't his fault - "It wasn't even my idea; the police told me to do it". The press members hear this comment and note it with curiousness.

At the civil trial, Captain Jones and the Chief of Police are both fired for malpractice, never again entitled to stand in the LAPD. Meanwhile, Gordon Northcott is being tried in a smaller, criminal trial. After the jury deliberates, they reach their verdict: they find him guilty of 20 counts of murder in the first degree. Gordon is sentenced to be hanged after being held for two months.

The final scene we see takes place a few years after Gordon's death. Christine is called by a 'Mrs Clay'. She tells Christine that a boy has been found. He turns out to be David Clay. David tells of how one night he and Walter and another boy escaped through a hole in the coop. Walter and the other boy were out when David became stuck. His noisy attempt at escape roused the attention of Gordon Northcott. Walter went back to help free David and all three escaped. David spent several years moving in and out of orphanages through fear of being faced with a reprisal kidnapping. Christine Collins kept looking for Walter but never found him.

I found the film riveting. The score was simple and elegant and the set pieces made one feel one was immersed in LA as it actually was in 1928. Angelina Jolie played the part of Christine simply and elegantly, bringing the character alive with the gentleness of her eyes alone - each exchange was like softest velvet; some were as knives. It's certainly up there alongside such greats as the Shawshank Redemption, LA Confidential and Stand by Me. It's certainly one of Clint's finest efforts - perhaps even exceeding Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino - and it offers lots of commentary on contemporary society - if one wants to read it in that way.

Rating: 9/10. If I had a handle on more films I'd give it a 10. It's a little wearisome at over two hours in length but it's a worthy and worthwhile investment.

A review of the film 'Knowing'

Knowing. If only the producers had known how it might be received. I'll spare the pastiche and get down to brass tacs. It's just my opinion, but this film is a big pile of shit. If this film were food, it would be luke-warm, unsweetened porridge. The plot is thus:

A man loses his wife. That man is a teacher at MIT. He has a son and teaches astrophysics. He has scientific beliefs incompatible with his family's religious beliefs and struggles to identify with them, becoming a depressed alcoholic, lingering in his basement like some pathetic boogey man. His scientific beliefs are seemingly nihilistic. Meanwhile, 50 years after the burying of a group of students' time capsule, his only son receives a former student's 'imagining' of the future which turns out to be a piece of paper with numbers scribbled all over it. Mayhem ensues as he starts to see patterns in the numbers. Duh, duh, duh!

The plot is very, very fast-paced. So much so that it starts to lack coherence, straying into the realms of the impossible and the stupid. It's punctuated with two small-scale events - small-scale in relation to the massive arse piece which comes last - involving much mayhem and panicked people who are often depicted on fire and mostly don't make a huge deal of sense.

The final event, which is, I'm sorry to say, a coronal mass ejection (otherwise known as a solar flare) is pointless in relation to the other two events - they seem to have been included only to keep a few morons from straying out due to hysterical boredom.

I was hoping for some terribly revealing finalé involving the son decrying his father as a superstitious old git but all I was greeted with was one scene in which Cage reconciles his beliefs and gives in to his father's ignorant whims - thus being eviscerated by the oncoming ball of flames and intense radiation - and another scene in which albino aliens whisk the two children off to some far-flung planet in a ship made of nothing but spires of light, only to leave them on the planet in some other-worldly scene reminiscent of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; except in this garden nothing but bullshit grows.

After scouting around for reviews and looking at what the amateurs had to say, I was apalled to find not one coherent review - rather reviews written by young morons professing the greatness of this steaming shit-pile of a movie (and also alluding to the predictions of Nostradamus and other such nonsense). It didn't really leave much of an impression on me - excepting the horrible shit-induced wretching - and I wouldn't advise you go see it. Don't listen to me, though; go and waste seven quid on it if you must. In places it's promising, but that promise gives way to silly novelty (such as the stones given by the albino aliens known as the whispering people) and religious hogwash, culminating in an easily predictable, but altogether underwhelming, ending.

Out of 10 stars, I'd probably give it a single nugget of decaying dog shit - it's just that bad.

Adendum (18/4/2009): Okay, there were a few rational reviews I encountered after re-scouting but I'm still reluctant to think there could be people out there who've actually enjoyed seeing this film. If you've seen it, tell me what you think.