Thursday, May 29, 2014

살다 - 쿠로사와의 영화 6부

요새 쿠로사와의 영화에 대한 글을 쓰고 있어요.
1부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/1_28.html
2부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/2_29.html
3부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/3_30.html
4부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/05/4.html
5부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/05/5.html

로사와의 영화 중 "7인의 사무라이"는 논란의 여지 있지만 가장 유명한 영화이 당대의 걸작으로 간주다. 또한, 셰익스피어의 연극을 각색한 "혈통의 왕좌"와 ""과는 다르게, "7인의 사무라이"는 로사와 감독이 직접 각본을 쓰고 감독한 작품이기도 하다. 그리고 "7인의 사무라이"로 쿠로사와의 생각을 더 보였다.

"7인의 사무라이" 내용에는 매년 불쌍한 농장주들이 산적 수십 명에게 수확을 빼았겼다. 때문에 농장주들은 돈이 없는데도 자신들을 보호해 줄 수 있는 사무라이를 구하기로 의논하여 결정을 내렸다. 배고픈 사무라이를 찾기 위해서 남은 쌀을 모았고 도시로 갔어요. 결국 사무라이 7명을 찾 마을에 데리고 온다.

  중에 하나는 농부였었고, 다른 한 명은지만 결투 경험 없는 남자였다. 마을에 도착 이후젊은 사무라이 젊은 여자를 만 서로 사랑에 빠졌다. 산적들이 내려와 사투가 벌어지고, 그로 인해 사무라이 4명이 목숨을 잃게 된다.

마지막 장면이 가장 중요한다. 사무라이 4명 죽었는데도 농장주들이 축하하면서 남은 사무라이 3명이 매장을 하고 있다. 보호가 필요없어지자젊은 여자 사무라이 헤어고, 심지어 농장주들남은 사무라이를 무시하기 까지 한다. 행복없이 "7인의 사무라이"가 이렇게 끝난다.

(I got a lot of help with this one, so I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that I get my corrections from Lang-8: http://lang-8.com/kswarzala/journals/213156444872967666688927654286456720490)

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The Byeol System - Part Two

Yesterday I got started on explaining my stupid calendar star system, and Imma gonna continue that today.

The key to the whole things revolves around identifying activities that I want to turn into habits or things I want to improve about myself. I've "redesigned" these activities and this system several times, and the first step is always making this list of activities. For example, the current list of "daily" activities looks like this:

-Writing in my journal/Keeping track of my weight/Keeping track of my finances
-Misc.
-Doing one session of moderate exercise
-Korean vocab practice (usually around 100 notecards)
-Korean reading practice (a few pages out of a book or an article)
-Korean writing practice (You see it on this blog.)
-Reading (usually around 50 pages)
-Writing (At least 500 words)
-Grad school reading
-Grad school daily homework
-Grad school essay writing
-MCO or charity work

The "Grad school essay writing" is a good example of how the entire system should work. If I have a paper to write, let's say it's 5 pages, ideally I would write one page a day, instead of all five pages in one day. That's the main idea: Doing a little bit each day so it doesn't get exhausting.

Following the "daily activities", there are also a few things that are impossible to do once a day. For these, I set a goal for the number of times I want to do that activity in a week, and then if I reach the goal, I give myself a star, in lieu of the "Five Day" star. The current list is:

-A more intense exercise session, like weightlifting or hiking for a few hours (3x/week)
-An hour or more with my Korean tutor (2x/week)
-A meeting with my coworkers at MCO (2x/week)

There have been a few changes to the system and the list of activities.
-The "Reading" activity used to be a monthly book quota, but I found this to be too intimidating. My goal was to read 4-6 books a month, but the problem created here was that I was too focused on just finishing books, so I would always choose the shortest ones to read. It also flew in the face of the "habit-forming" idea; It would be much better to spread out 4 books over 24 some-odd days of reading 50 pages.
-That "Journal" category used to be split up into several categories of smaller, easy-to-accomplish activities. (I think "Answer email" used to be one of them, and "Read the news".) The journal activity is good because it's by far the easiest thing on the list. I usually do it as soon as I can in the morning, so it feels like I'm accomplishing something early on. It sorta gets the ball rolling for the day. While this category is useful as being the "easy one", there doesn't need to be four of them. That's why I combined it all into one.
-The "Misc." activity is very important. Once I really got into this system, it really did dictate a lot of my actions throughout the day. It got to the point where I would avoid my friends or chores in my home because it didn't contribute to this system. The result was that I had a disgusting apartment and dirty clothes way too often. Adding this category gave me a chance to see my friends (which is a responsibility we all have) and keep everything clean.
-I used to have two activities for Korean that were "Listening" and "Speaking". The "Listening" was listening to some sort of Korean conversation, either the news or a TV show, and "Speaking" was usually just a conversation with someone. As my Korean progressed, it became harder and harder to quantify the "Speaking" category, as I spent most of my day speaking Korean anyway. "Listening" had the same problem, plus the fact that it's too hard to judge how well one listens to a conversation.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

The Byeol System - Part One

I am quite a big fan of habits. I believe that habits are what make us, not only in the philosophical sense of "who a person is" being defined by what they do regularly, but also in the sense that habits "make us" the people we are trying to be. For example, I try not to "study Korean", so much as I want to become a "Korean studying person". This idea about habits is not only a core component to my character, but also the reason I'm writing about this lame topic today, as I want to write on this blog once a day, but I'm too tired and brain dead to come up with anything substantial.

Those that know me pretty well know that I keep a fucking insane calendar on my desk filled with rainbow lines and star stickers. This calendar system has been with me for almost three full years now, and undergone a lot of changes in how it works, but I can honestly say that it has had the biggest impact on my life than anything else since 2011. So today, I wanted to explain a bit about it.

First, this is a point-based system, and each point is represented on the calendar by a star sticker. I originally devised this for studying Korean, so the whole thing is named after the Korean word for star, which is "Byeol". Now, I am a 29-year-old adult, but dammit, I believe in the power of star stickers. I originally started this out by giving myself money to spend freely instead of just stickers, but if you attach meaning to something, even something as dumb and childish as a star sticker, it can motivate you. So, I got rid of the money system pretty quickly and just stayed with stickers.

The way to get stickers has changed a few times (and I'll detail this changes later) but it essentially is about two things: making a habit and getting the most out of my time every day (and week, and month). The first method to getting points involves doing something consistently. Forming the habit is less about studying for 5 hours in one sitting and more about spreading those five hours out over a week. So the way to get points here is to do something for five days in a row. For example, if I write in my journal from Monday to Friday, that's a star. The reason behind five days is to make sure I take a break from said activity for at least a day, if not the weekend. But this is also "five days in a row" and not "Monday through Friday" for a reason. I can sometimes get started on something on Sunday and finish on Thursday, which makes my Fridays lighter with more time for friends.

The second method to getting points involves having a completely full day, and not wasting any time. This is harder to quantify, and so while the "Five-Day Rule" has remained totally consistent over three years, the "Full Day Rule" has changed several times every year. Usually, the way I determine this is by starting with a list of all activities I count as "useful"; This master list is somewhere around 16 or 17 items deep most of the time. From there, I determine which of those activities I could do every day -- Things like studying Korean vocab, writing in my journal, or eating healthy. This is usually around 6 or 7 for me. After that, I'll have a list of things that I can't do every day -- like studying with my Korean tutor or working out. I figure out how much time I need for all the daily things, and then add on a few of the "weekly" activities, and this number is my "Full Day" number. This has ranged anywhere from 6 to 13 over the years, depending on what's going on in my life at the time.

살다 - 쿠로사와의 영화 5부

요새 쿠로사와의 영화에 대한 글을 쓰고 있어요.
1부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/1_28.html
2부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/2_29.html
3부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/3_30.html
4부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/05/4.html




지난 번에 나는 혈통의 왕좌의 줄거리를 소개했다. 와시주 장군이 귀신의 예언을 들었고 왕을 죽이겠다는 생각을 가지기 시작했다. 와시주 장군이 왕, 왕의 아들을, 다른 장군을 죽였고 왕이 되었다. 마지막 군대우기 전에 병사들에게 장담하고 있었다. "숲속의 너무들이 거미줄의 성에 오기까지 나는 왕이 될 것 습니다." 동일 숨길도록 상대방 군대가 숲속의 나무를 자랐고 가지고 왔다. 그냥 나무 밑에 병사들이 있던 것 뿐이었는데 성안에 있는 와시주 장군의 병사들에게는 숲속의 나무들이 성으로 걸어가는 것처럼 보였다. 와시주의 병사들이 공황상태에서 와시주를 죽였다.

와시주가 재앙을 받았는데 무슨 잘못을 했습니까? 살인입니까? 란 내용에는 왕과 아들이 많이 죽였고 7인의 사무라이 내용에도 살해하는 사람이 많다. 그러기 이 영화 처음에는 와시주가 전투를 잘 해서 승진을 받았다. 아니면 와시주의 잘못은 왕을 살인한 일입니까? 사실 일본 옛날 시대에도 셰익스피어 시대에도 국왕 살해 엄청 악한 것이지만 이 영화는 일본 옛날 시대나 셰익스피어 시대에 만들어지지 않았다. 1957년에 만들어 졌다.

와시주가 욕심적인 야망을 보였다. 왕이 되기를 위해서 왕과 친구를 죽였다. 근데 와시주는 왕이 된 후에 나라를 위해 좋은 일을 하기 보다 그냥 여유롭게 살고 싶었다. 와시주 정치의 강한 영향력을 누리고만 싶었다.

Monday, May 26, 2014

살다 - 쿠로사와의 영화 4부

요새 쿠로사와의 영화에 대한 글을 쓰고 있어요.
1부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/1_28.html
2부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/2_29.html
3부 - http://kevinwarzala.blogspot.kr/2014/04/3_30.html




오늘은 "혈통의 왕좌"의 줄거리를 소개할것이다. 내가 이 제목을 직접 한국어로 번역했다. 원래 일본 제목이 <蜘蛛巣城>인데 이 제목을 한국어로 번역하면 <거미줄성>으로 해석된다. 근데, 영어 제목은 일본 제목이랑 달 으로 번역됐다. 한국어로 직역하면 "피의 왕좌"라는 뜻이다. 그러나 영어로 가 "피"라는 같은 뜻일 뿐만 아니라 "혈통"도 있다. (복잡하죠?^^) 내 생각에는 "혈통"이 영화의 의미랑 더 맞다. 성과 폭력을 중요하게 다루지 않고 가족과 야망에 집중한다.



<란>처럼 이 영화도 셰익스피어의 연극 중 하나인 "Macbeth"을 각색한 것이다. 여기에서는 폭우동안 장군 2명("미키"와 "와시주")이 왕의 성에 돌아가는 길에 숩속에서 귀신과 맞닥뜨리게 된다. 그 귀신은 오늘 미키와 와시주가 왕으로 부터 신임을 얻고, 언제가는 와시주가 왕이 되고, 그 다음으로는 미키의 아들이 왕이 될 것이라고 예언했다. 갑작스럽게 그 귀신이 사라졌고 미키와 와시주가 성에 돌아왔을 때 승진을 받다. 그 후, 와시주는 무언가를 생각하기 시작한다...

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Spider-Man

I've been talking about the Amazing Spider-Man 2 for a few posts now, and I want to finish up today with what I consider to be the unforgivable error the movie makes: Spider-Man himself. Or, to be more accurate, what Spider-Man. Or, to be super-duper accurate, what he doesn't do, which is everything.

I'd like to think that with all the superhero movies coming out in the past few years, we're slowly working on building a definition of what a "superhero movie" is. (Or, if you prefer what a "superhero movie" should do.) This is particularly exciting for me to think about because it's strange why some movies get classified as "sci-fi" or "action", despite having quite a bit in common with superhero movies -- such as Pacific Rim or The Matrix -- and some movies are called "superhero movies" even though they have very little in common with the rest of the genre. The Dark Knight, for example, is really about a wealthy vigilante fighting criminals in and outside of the law, but the dude wears a cape, so he must be a superhero. Right?

I don't think I'm getting too crazypants wackytown when I suggest that a big part of the superhero genre is heroics. Your superhero needs to be superheroic. Now, how a movie defines "heroic" is up for discussion, and I think a lot of movies, across all genres, vary in levels of success for how they establish what "heroic" means and how their characters exemplify this. A common theme across X-Men films (especially the most recent) is the idea of not only forgiving someone that has wronged you, but working towards their benefit as well. The X-Men are not heroes just because they shoot laser beams out of their eyes, but because they infinite patience in and hope for the racist morons of the world.

With this mind, I ask: What does Spider-Man do that is heroic in Amazing Spider-Man 2? In fact, what does Spider-Man do throughout this entire movie to advance the plot?

One of the things that Sam Raimi's film set out to do from the very beginning, and largely succeeded in, is showing that Peter Parker does love Mary Jane, but pushes her away because he knows a relationship with her will put her in danger. He sacrifices his own happiness for her safety. Webb's Parker doesn't do any of that. At the same point where Raimi's Peter is continuously pushing Mary Jane away and feeling awful for it, Webb's Peter is stalking Gwen Stacy, trying hard to get her back after breaking up with her, and then following her to fucking London, which would abandon his aunt.

Speaking of, why does this guy not have a job? His aunt is apparently going broke, and he just kinda loafs around throughout the entire movie. Not to mention that he doesn't seem to have a plan in place for college. So, Peter breaks up with his girlfriend right after graduation, stalks her, mooches off his poor, windowed aunt, has no job or plans for college, vows to follow his girlfriend across the world because he'll be super sad if she leaves...this is a sociopath.

Not only does this Spider-Man act irresponsibly and selfishly, but the plot is controlled by others throughout the film, and moves along nicely without Spider-Man displaying any cognizance of the events going on around him. "Hey, there's an electric monster downtown. I wonder how this happened?" is not a thought that even pops into his fucking head. Not once does he go, "Hm, last year there was a lizard monster from Oscorp. I bet Oscorp's behind this and I should investigate!" You know, like a normal fucking person who wasn't entirely focusing on shooting his webbing over Emma Stone. It falls on Gwen Stacy to actually look into Max Dillion's past, and Harry Osborn to follow-up on his situation. Peter does none of this and doesn't even ask those guys for any help.

So what exactly is Spider-Man doing this entire time? Well, looking for clues about his parents to solve the mystery of whether they were super-good people or not, I think. I'm not sure what he's looking for exactly. Is it where they are? What they were doing? If it's where they are, well, the parents are dead and there's no way to find that out, so that would be a pretty pointless plot point. If it's what they've done, we learn that they made a spider that can give people spider powers, so, thank god we found that out.

And then he spends the rest of his screen time Rossing Gwen Stacy's Rachel. They start out in love in the beginning of the movie and then end up in love at the end of the movie. Clever folks may have noticed that this is a net result of nothing fucking happening. I get that real people do this, and I get that this happens in romance movies, sometimes to get success, but usually events propel that forward or characters undergo an arc that facilitates changes in their personal relationships. However, none of that happens in Amazing Spider-Man 2. They break up, they miss each other, and they get back together. Powerful stuff.

This post is getting long and people on the internet have already torn this movie apart better than I ever could, but I need to touch on this point. I heard and read a lot of comments about how good Garfield's Spider-Man -- not his Peter Parker -- was. This is wrong. Spider-Man is for sure a bit of a jokester in a fight, but not to the point of recklessness. In the scene with Rhino and the truck, Spider-Man latches on the driver's side door and tom fools with Rhino for a bit, when he could have taken him out at any time. Meanwhile, people are shooting at cops, and Rhino is hitting cars with his giant-ass truck, which would probably, I don't know, kill whoever's inside. And did you really need to put on that fucking firefighter hat?


1) Well made? - This movie is a great example of how so many things in a movie can be amazing, but everything can turn to suck with a bad script.
2) Contributed?  - To someone's bank account.
3) Good time? - I won't lie, the scene with Gwen Stacy almost made me forget all the other problems with this film. But, it didn't.
4) Watch again? - Only if I wanted to rip on it more
5) Worth it?  - I have been reading Spider-Man comics since I was five or six years old, and I wish I hadn't seen it.
6) Who should watch this? - Future screenwriters for a lesson of what not to do