Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
A Convenient Santa
Hopefully, most of us (in our rapidly moving, wisdom-acquiring, aging process) will realize the lunacy in buying/exchanging Christmas presents in this 21st century. The idea of spending $20 on you, so you can spend $20 on me, all for some mythos that says we should do so...while the retailer (pusherman of mythos) just made $40 on our gullible exchange...and the profit trickles all the way down to the slave labor in Asia/Indonesia....is lunacy.
Conveniently, for those without credit cards and driver's licences, we have created Santa Claus. That way, stores have a reason to convince you to spend ridiculous amounts of money on youngsters, without expecting them to return the favor (but still affecting your credit). Generally, you would never do the same for an adult, without expecting something in return. No, this doesn't stop at 10 when the kid stops believing in Santa Claus. The disproportionate kid-to-parent gift ratio continues through high school. I don't think I spent the same on my parents until I was at least 20. I would hope, for the sake of the last paragraph, that the same applies to you. The Santa effect transcends childhood fantasy. **EDIT - This, of course, doesn't imply that it would be dandy if kids would spend more on their parents. I am just illustrating how children are lavished with gifts, which is great training for when they have their own credit cards. Something else I thought of since I wrote this...why does "Santa" give more gifts in proportion to the family income? Does "Santa" love wealthy kids more than the less fortunate? Why does "Santa" need help from Toys for Tots for the poor kids, while the "fortunate" get Big Wheels and Playstations? This is also what I meant in the paragraph below about Scrooge and Cratchit. Tiny Tim knew the meaning of Christmas, without being lavished in gifts. While spoiled little shits would whine and pout if they were given one measly gift. Santa doesn't teach them to appreciate getting one out-of-style toy from the clearance rack. Santa teaches them that they get all the material items they want for Christmas.
Why don't we make things for each other? That doesn't require a trip to Jo-Ann or unreasonable amounts of creativity. I can take some tree bark, and carve a smiley face and the letters "I L-O-V-E Y-O-U". I can give you a handful of dirt. Maybe you could plant something in it. Maybe you could just keep it in a bag. This is how we will run our household. One of Julie's coworkers only gives her children 3 presents for Christmas, because "they are no better than Jesus." Will there be some toys to go around in the Harris household? Probably, and it will be hard to control Grandparents, Aunts, and Uncles. But teaching a new generation about the haves and have-nots, and that not-having luxury is perfectly fine given the abundance that surrounds us. Jesus told us that if you have 2 jackets, then you stole one from the man with no jacket. I am a thief.
Which has me wondering lately...why do we, on American holidays, feel the need to take more. Specifically, on the holidays when we are supposed to give thanks. We seem to take thanks in the form of gluttony and materialism. (That is pretty damn pagan in my book.) On Thanksgiving, why do we celebrate our abundance by stuffing ourselves? We stuff ourselves EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. What impact would it have on our fellow man, and the environment, if we didn't take on Thanksgiving. I have covered Christmas pretty well, but it is a celebration of God's gift to mankind. I don't have to give anyone an iPod to try and keep up with God. Celebrating His gift is enough, especially when done with family, friends, prayer, songs, and hot chocolate.
I have also been wondering, going back to the oldest Christmas movies and the oldest Christmas stories (except the first one), there is always a search for the "true meaning" of Christmas amid our consumerism and selfishness. Looking around, the success rate for this quest has only gotten worse. I began wondering how far back it goes. It seems Ebenezer Scrooge is as relevant today as he was 164 years ago. In turn, the Bob Cratchit's of the world still have an easier time finding the "true meaning".
Conveniently, for those without credit cards and driver's licences, we have created Santa Claus. That way, stores have a reason to convince you to spend ridiculous amounts of money on youngsters, without expecting them to return the favor (but still affecting your credit). Generally, you would never do the same for an adult, without expecting something in return. No, this doesn't stop at 10 when the kid stops believing in Santa Claus. The disproportionate kid-to-parent gift ratio continues through high school. I don't think I spent the same on my parents until I was at least 20. I would hope, for the sake of the last paragraph, that the same applies to you. The Santa effect transcends childhood fantasy. **EDIT - This, of course, doesn't imply that it would be dandy if kids would spend more on their parents. I am just illustrating how children are lavished with gifts, which is great training for when they have their own credit cards. Something else I thought of since I wrote this...why does "Santa" give more gifts in proportion to the family income? Does "Santa" love wealthy kids more than the less fortunate? Why does "Santa" need help from Toys for Tots for the poor kids, while the "fortunate" get Big Wheels and Playstations? This is also what I meant in the paragraph below about Scrooge and Cratchit. Tiny Tim knew the meaning of Christmas, without being lavished in gifts. While spoiled little shits would whine and pout if they were given one measly gift. Santa doesn't teach them to appreciate getting one out-of-style toy from the clearance rack. Santa teaches them that they get all the material items they want for Christmas.
Why don't we make things for each other? That doesn't require a trip to Jo-Ann or unreasonable amounts of creativity. I can take some tree bark, and carve a smiley face and the letters "I L-O-V-E Y-O-U". I can give you a handful of dirt. Maybe you could plant something in it. Maybe you could just keep it in a bag. This is how we will run our household. One of Julie's coworkers only gives her children 3 presents for Christmas, because "they are no better than Jesus." Will there be some toys to go around in the Harris household? Probably, and it will be hard to control Grandparents, Aunts, and Uncles. But teaching a new generation about the haves and have-nots, and that not-having luxury is perfectly fine given the abundance that surrounds us. Jesus told us that if you have 2 jackets, then you stole one from the man with no jacket. I am a thief.
Which has me wondering lately...why do we, on American holidays, feel the need to take more. Specifically, on the holidays when we are supposed to give thanks. We seem to take thanks in the form of gluttony and materialism. (That is pretty damn pagan in my book.) On Thanksgiving, why do we celebrate our abundance by stuffing ourselves? We stuff ourselves EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. What impact would it have on our fellow man, and the environment, if we didn't take on Thanksgiving. I have covered Christmas pretty well, but it is a celebration of God's gift to mankind. I don't have to give anyone an iPod to try and keep up with God. Celebrating His gift is enough, especially when done with family, friends, prayer, songs, and hot chocolate.
I have also been wondering, going back to the oldest Christmas movies and the oldest Christmas stories (except the first one), there is always a search for the "true meaning" of Christmas amid our consumerism and selfishness. Looking around, the success rate for this quest has only gotten worse. I began wondering how far back it goes. It seems Ebenezer Scrooge is as relevant today as he was 164 years ago. In turn, the Bob Cratchit's of the world still have an easier time finding the "true meaning".
Monday, December 03, 2007
Suddenly, Seymour...gets chomped!
I gave my Little Shop of Horrors tape a workout when I was a kid, because at one point I watched it on a daily basis. I must have watched it at least 50 times. It was on there with Spaceballs, which got equal billing. But I do still have it and it probably works.
So yesterday, it came as a surprise to me that there is an alternate ending! And it is great! How did I miss this all these years? Still not sure if it would be better than the "happy" ending that made the final cut, but it is awesome. So this alternate ending is more in line with the stage show and the 1960 Roger Corman movie. Audrey and Seymour both get eaten by Audrey II, a business man harvests the little Audrey II plants and sells them. They become a fad item, like pet rocks and hula-hoops, and make it into American homes. They grow, eat people, get huge, and take over the world! Oh yeah, don't sleep on those allegories!
Since it was scrapped, it was never finished in post-production. So it is obviously a little raw. I think it is cooler this way, it looks old and campy...almost like a silent-film. Not sure how many of you watched it, or watched it enough to go ga-ga over an alternate ending...but I know of at least one person (hint: he watched the same tape as I). So for that reason alone, here it is...
The lyrics to the final song are hard to understand, so here they are...
>>Subsequent to the events you have just witnessed,
Similar events in cities across America
Events which bore a striking resemblance,
To the ones you have just seen- began occurring
Subsequent to the events you have just witnessed,
Unsuspecting jerks from Maine to California,
Made the acquaintance of a new breed of flytrap,
And got sweet-talked into feeding it blood.
>>Thus the plants worked their terrible will,
Finding jerks who would feed them their fill
And the plants proceeded to grow and grow,
And begin what they came here to do
Which was essentially to Eat Cleveland and Des Moines
And Peoria and New York and where you live!
They may offer you fortune and fame, Love and money and instant acclaim
But whatever they offer you, Don't feed the plants
They may offer you lots of cheap thrills, Fancy condos in Beverly Hills
But whatever they offer you, Don't feed the plants
Look out! Here comes Audrey Two! Look out!
Hold your hat and hang on to your soul, Something's coming to eat the world whole
If we fight it we've still got a chance, But whatever they offer you
Though they're slopping the trough for you, Please, whatever they offer you
Don't feed the plants
Don't feed the plants!
____________
oh yeah, and...
Was this done on purpose???
So yesterday, it came as a surprise to me that there is an alternate ending! And it is great! How did I miss this all these years? Still not sure if it would be better than the "happy" ending that made the final cut, but it is awesome. So this alternate ending is more in line with the stage show and the 1960 Roger Corman movie. Audrey and Seymour both get eaten by Audrey II, a business man harvests the little Audrey II plants and sells them. They become a fad item, like pet rocks and hula-hoops, and make it into American homes. They grow, eat people, get huge, and take over the world! Oh yeah, don't sleep on those allegories!
Since it was scrapped, it was never finished in post-production. So it is obviously a little raw. I think it is cooler this way, it looks old and campy...almost like a silent-film. Not sure how many of you watched it, or watched it enough to go ga-ga over an alternate ending...but I know of at least one person (hint: he watched the same tape as I). So for that reason alone, here it is...
The lyrics to the final song are hard to understand, so here they are...
>>Subsequent to the events you have just witnessed,
Similar events in cities across America
Events which bore a striking resemblance,
To the ones you have just seen- began occurring
Subsequent to the events you have just witnessed,
Unsuspecting jerks from Maine to California,
Made the acquaintance of a new breed of flytrap,
And got sweet-talked into feeding it blood.
>>Thus the plants worked their terrible will,
Finding jerks who would feed them their fill
And the plants proceeded to grow and grow,
And begin what they came here to do
Which was essentially to Eat Cleveland and Des Moines
And Peoria and New York and where you live!
They may offer you fortune and fame, Love and money and instant acclaim
But whatever they offer you, Don't feed the plants
They may offer you lots of cheap thrills, Fancy condos in Beverly Hills
But whatever they offer you, Don't feed the plants
Look out! Here comes Audrey Two! Look out!
Hold your hat and hang on to your soul, Something's coming to eat the world whole
If we fight it we've still got a chance, But whatever they offer you
Though they're slopping the trough for you, Please, whatever they offer you
Don't feed the plants
Don't feed the plants!
____________
oh yeah, and...
Was this done on purpose???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
