Someone may think that a writer is avoiding writing by posting four or five continuous film reviews, but this week has been market research day as well, for possible future endeavours and projects. One does get a thrill from deciding what publishers may fit or not. At least its not on the other foot, the other foot being mine, where publishers dispense with a submission at will.
The Killing Fields (1984) is done with a thread of hope and humanity and how things should be made right despite the horror of the atrocities of war.
American Journalist Sydney Schanberg (Sam Waterson) is covering the conflict in Cambodia in the 1970’s and is indignant at what’s going on.
We’re reminded of the horror of the war when a casual conversation is interrupted by an explosion on a street—it’s shocking and alarming.
The country is slowly but surely being torn apart as Pol Pot and his regime decimate the country with his ‘Year Zero’ cleansing campaign, which aims to re-educate the Cambodian people and eliminate dissenters, which truly off-centers Cambodia, sending it into shock and fear.
Foreigners are leaving the country and Schanberg and his photographer Al Rockoff (John Malkovich) attempt to make up a foreign passport for Dith Pran (Haing S. Ngor), Schanberg’s Cambodian interpreter, but it’s not easy.
The “mission” to help Pran leave is thrilling and suspenseful, the aftermath a riveting escape attempt from a prison camp.
Pran stayed in Cambodia and is imprisoned, but he attempts to escape the prison camp and flee to safety.
Schanberg is dealing with a guilty conscience over leaving Pran behind and tries to find him.
This is a story truly centered in the good. Loose ends in relationships aren’t forgotten and left behind, but are dealt to. Forgiveness and reconciliation come, despite living in a world beset by violence. The ability to survive and endure through a deathly situation is haunting but is compelling and urging us to agree that one should live.
The Killing Fields contains violence and coarse language, but it’s accomplished filmmaking, it’s intelligent, and directed with a sense of urgency and purpose, which is what this great story deserves. Roland Joffe’s directorial debut is outstanding, it’s a film that stays firmly in the memory as something special.
The Killing Fields (1984) ****½ Starring: Sam Waterson, Haing S. Ngor, John Malkovich. Director: Roland Joffe.
That Sugar Film (2014) is an Australian documentary that positions itself on the side of the debate that says added sugar in food is not good for you. I agree. In fact, I’m adamant.
I’ve been off juice drinks for almost a year now and don’t miss them. The taste for them has gone. This documentary has motivated me to do more.
There’s a theological rationale for it, too. God the Creator wouldn’t make our bodies react in adverse ways to food that isn’t good for us or isn’t supposed to be there.
One interviewee said that “addiction to sugar” has caused materialism, in that people will buy things that satisfy their cravings for more sugar. Materialism is an artificial way to live as it can leave one feeling empty. But empty for what? More things?
There are different levels of engaging media and art, but the top level perhaps, is when a work or piece of art speaks to the heart. Then one has engaged with the “eyes” of the heart, which is a genuine response. One can begin to see everything in “level one”, the level of seeing what speaks to the heart, and this may be a genuine response. Would seeing with the “eyes of the heart” be the final judge?
What I’m reading. After reading and reflecting on the book of Job I went back to the start of the Bible with Genesis, with the intention of noting facts of the scripture rather than reading primarily for themes. Thematic analysis is what I had been doing, but I wasn’t sure if I was being true to the text by seeing themes that may or may not be there, for what was the purpose of writing devotionals.
I’ve also finished Star Wars, the original novelization of the film. This year it’s been re-published in a trilogy of books. This trilogy is the original Star Wars trilogy, from A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, to Return of the Jedi. I was surprised how they condensed two hours that seems longish into a shortish book. I expected longer, but that’s how this film-tie in went.
With three publishers wanting to see my work, you’d think I’d be happy about that. Well, I am, but it’s just three isn’t it? It’s casual writing work. Short writing or thereabouts. Like it. Would like more avenues but am grateful for what’s in the writing department.
With avenues for writers scarce in the religious genre, the younger ones are being promoted. Did a lot back in the day when the publishers were still going. Hope the younger ones do well.
May just find something else as well. So I keep the possibility open. Have two websites I use for information on publishing somewhere else.
With the thought of possibility, one may never let the possibility die. Opportunities may come and go, but possibility can be forever, whatever happens. Because one thinks, what if? Then you keep on going.
The word repudiate means to deny, refuse to recognize.
On the news, repudiating often comes in the context of politics and goes like this.
A politician is on the defensive when asked about some controversial matter. “I repudiate that!” the politician says. No, it’s more like, “No comment” or “I deny that.”
The media seems to love politicians using repudiate in terms of “I deny that” or “I refute that”. But no politician actually says “I repudiate that!”. It is too much of a mouth full.
Why is repudiate even in the English language if most people refuse to use it? I think repudiate is mainly used by lawyers in their defense of a client. “He repudiates that!”
But there was a guy I saw on television who used it when being asked by a reporter, “Do you accept the charges against you?”
He said quietly, “I repudiate the charges.”
His comment went viral. Repudiate became a sensation for fifteen minutes. Its fifteen minutes of fame. That’s because hardly no one used the word, but he did.
I guess people still love that underused word very much. Repudiate has that exotic appeal in the right context.
A good thing about writing Pirates of the Caribbean reviews is learning how to spell
Carribean, no I mean Caribbean (It gets easier).
While I took a break from a rather tedious writing project that has a deadline none too soon, I read a few pages of the epic poem Inferno and saw the word, “Decurion”. I couldn’t find a definition for it, except on google. It’s an interesting word, but the definition is rather dull. However, a educational excursion.
Yesterday I wanted to try something different. I mean, in terms of submitting to a publisher who has accepted two but also rejected quite a few other submissions of mine. Trying something different was my Plan B.
This Plan B, which I will not explain in detail, may work—if I don’t base my submissions on harder passages to understand in the Bible. But I recalled today that the publisher wanted submissions based on the harder passages. Only those passages. So Plan B goes out the window.
Don’t mind, because there is more to life, but last rejection would be the last from them. This means I write nothing more for this publisher.
Quite simply, the negative outcome seems likely if submitting more, going by past record. Why go on the merry go round of rejection slips with the same publisher? There is a time to stop what one is doing once it is pointless.
This is the end of submitting to this publisher. Sad, but inevitable. I hate break-ups, but they did give thirty-odd reasons to (read: rejection slips).