Having been a fan of Christopher Nolan's work for years, and a huge fan of his Batman re-imagining, I had been waiting for The Dark Knight Rises to come out for well over a year. I had been counting down months, days, hours. I knew I would see it several times and be enthralled as I analyzed it and marveled at Nolan's work of art.
I work in Aurora, Colorado, at the Anschutz Medical Campus, as a matter of fact. So on the sad morning of July 20, 2012, when I was inundated with calls and texts from people, I thought it was because they wanted to know what I thought of the movie (which I had rambled on about incessantly). To my horror, they were checking to see if I was alive. It was my own fortune that I was not in that midnight showing.
A week later I am still swimming in the tide of that event, with the news media and police all around my work, and with some of the victims still in the hospital just a few 100 hundred yards from where I sit. Christian Bale's visit to the victims here would normally make me jealous, as I am a big fan of his. But I do not envy the victims experience, and I hope that Mr. Bale's visit was something of a temporary balm for the victims. It seems every colleague or connection here is being sucked dry by the demands of the media, public and their own conflicting emotions. I can't escape it really, and my small ribbon of support is but one way I can try to help. We are now looking at retooling the ethics course for the campus, as this tragedy cannot help but be brought up in my students' discussions.
What makes me sad as well, (and I feel bad about this), is that this monstrous act has forever tainted my experience of the movie. That is but a small cross to bear considering what the victims of this are going through, but my experience of this movie is a huge part of my life. Nolan's movies have always affected me deeply, but the Batman movies resonated with me in particular because of their themes of justice, hope, and truth. The movies showcase peoples struggles in a real way, all the while being wildly entertaining. I expected this movie to cap the trilogy in a fantastic way and provide hours of discussion dissecting it's themes. I have seen The Dark Knight Rises three times. It is a great movie that has gotten richer with each viewing. But I am torn in my enjoyment of it. Something about loving and speaking to the movie's greatness seems wrong. Though I know it is not the case, it feels like I can't enjoy Nolan's work without somehow trivializing the horror of the movie theatre shooting.
I have tried to go back and watch Inception, and the Prestige, to better acquaint my experience with Nolan's movies in a positive light. But I keep coming back to DKR. It is probably too fresh, having happened so recently. The wound is likely to stay fresh and be reopened for much longer than folks who don't work or live in Aurora, who aren't as proximal, or who don't work where the shooter studied. Though I will probably see DKR many more times, my viewings in the near future will not just be to enjoy the movie, but to escape the reality that is currently Aurora, CO.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Selfishness vs. Beneficence
It has been awhile since I have posted anything here, but I had a philosophical question pop into my head this morning and thought blogging might be a good way to sort it out. Over the past six months I have moved to a new state, sharpened my intellectual teeth on a new job, and tried (and successfully sold a house). Since a lot of big tasks are off my plate, I find my brain wondering back to cerebral, philosophical matters as it is not occupied by completing projects and tasks that require focus. It is also a function of not having seeing any deep, thought-provoking movies in the past couple of months. Though we are moving into summer movie season, which certainly does not promise much, I am hoping that "The Dark Knight Rises" provides the thought-provoking entertainment that I am currently craving. Christopher Nolan has a good track record of delivering entertaining, cerebral movies that stimulate thought upon repeated viewing.
As for the philosophical question, it is: If one enjoys helping/bringing joy/providing for others, is is selfish to be beneficent? I have been thinking about beneficence a lot, mostly because I work in medical research ethics. However, beneficence is not just an ethical requirement for healthcare providers. Many people really and truly enjoy giving to others. Where does this stem from? It could come from a moral code or self-imposed religious duty. Or perhaps the feeling from knowing you had a part (or are completely responsible) for making someone smile or have success. Down to a root level, it suggests that having an impact on others or feeling productive is a base drive that most people have. So in being charitable to others, is it really to help others, or is it selfishly sating one's desire/need to have an impact? Perhaps it is both. There is no reason that there could be multiple motivations for a person's actions.
If we really want to nitpick, I could question it further by framing it as a chicken or egg type of question. Which comes first, the desire to be charitable or the desire to have an impact? Does one drive the other? I often think about this question when thinking about people's desire to be famous. What power comes from having a lot of people know who you are? There are the obvious perks like money and influence that can get you nice materials items and sway over projects, parties and processes. This would point to a more self-serving bent. But what about people who want to use that money, influence and power to help others? That is provide for those who need, be it material items or life experiences. It is not necessarily a charitable impact either. Perhaps someone wants to be a famous author, and be able to say they entertained, influenced or educated X number of people who read their book.
The desire to be productive or have an impact on others often comes from an existential perspective. People want to know the meaning of life and specifically what they are "meant" to do with themselves (presupposing that anyone who thinks this is operating with a normative level of cognition and self-awareness). Personally I think that the depths with which someone questions their own value/meaning is correlated with their degree of instropection and self-awareness. I don't think that there needs to be any deep thinking though, for someone to want to have an impact. My question is, does that need to have an impact manifest itself through selfish desires (wanting to be loved, admired, respected) or beneficent ones (helping others, giving to causes, contributing to the knowledge base)?
Everyone wants to be known or remembered, whether by a few or many. How one is thought of or remembered is what is important, in my opinion. I admire those who make intellectual, educational and scientific contributions that change people's lives. A utilitarian philosophy would argue the more people impacted, the better. But we all can't be world changers. It's funny because I never want to be famous (though I wouldn't mind some of the financial, social or opportunity perks that come with it). But I would like to impact others. If that is selfish of me, does that matter?
As for the philosophical question, it is: If one enjoys helping/bringing joy/providing for others, is is selfish to be beneficent? I have been thinking about beneficence a lot, mostly because I work in medical research ethics. However, beneficence is not just an ethical requirement for healthcare providers. Many people really and truly enjoy giving to others. Where does this stem from? It could come from a moral code or self-imposed religious duty. Or perhaps the feeling from knowing you had a part (or are completely responsible) for making someone smile or have success. Down to a root level, it suggests that having an impact on others or feeling productive is a base drive that most people have. So in being charitable to others, is it really to help others, or is it selfishly sating one's desire/need to have an impact? Perhaps it is both. There is no reason that there could be multiple motivations for a person's actions.
If we really want to nitpick, I could question it further by framing it as a chicken or egg type of question. Which comes first, the desire to be charitable or the desire to have an impact? Does one drive the other? I often think about this question when thinking about people's desire to be famous. What power comes from having a lot of people know who you are? There are the obvious perks like money and influence that can get you nice materials items and sway over projects, parties and processes. This would point to a more self-serving bent. But what about people who want to use that money, influence and power to help others? That is provide for those who need, be it material items or life experiences. It is not necessarily a charitable impact either. Perhaps someone wants to be a famous author, and be able to say they entertained, influenced or educated X number of people who read their book.
The desire to be productive or have an impact on others often comes from an existential perspective. People want to know the meaning of life and specifically what they are "meant" to do with themselves (presupposing that anyone who thinks this is operating with a normative level of cognition and self-awareness). Personally I think that the depths with which someone questions their own value/meaning is correlated with their degree of instropection and self-awareness. I don't think that there needs to be any deep thinking though, for someone to want to have an impact. My question is, does that need to have an impact manifest itself through selfish desires (wanting to be loved, admired, respected) or beneficent ones (helping others, giving to causes, contributing to the knowledge base)?
Everyone wants to be known or remembered, whether by a few or many. How one is thought of or remembered is what is important, in my opinion. I admire those who make intellectual, educational and scientific contributions that change people's lives. A utilitarian philosophy would argue the more people impacted, the better. But we all can't be world changers. It's funny because I never want to be famous (though I wouldn't mind some of the financial, social or opportunity perks that come with it). But I would like to impact others. If that is selfish of me, does that matter?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Before I Die I Want to....
I recently saw this as a headline on a news story. At first I thought of it for making a bucket list, or a list of things that you want to do before you die. Naturally I started thinking about things that would be on MY bucket list. I am surprised that it never occured to me to make a bucket list before. Given that I have nearly died at least 3 times (being hit by lightning, falling down a flight of stairs, and being hit by a moving truck while I was out running to name a few), it would seem that I would have philosophised about my mortality a bit more. Sure, I have had folks tell me how "lucky" I am to have survived all those things (and that I should play the lottery), but it has never given me any sort of impulse to accomplish specific things.
After having thought about it, I can only think of one thing. I would like to be on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Now the terms are flexible. I have such an affinity for the show, that whenever is on, I have to watch. Even when the segments or news are uncomfortable, which they frequently are. By uncomfortable, I mean watching the shenanigans of politicians or celebrities, and that sinking feeling that this is the world we live in. Somehow humor makes it more palatable, which is why I think so many people get their news from the Daily Show. The other reason I like it so much is Jon Stewart. The man exhibits an intelligence, humility and wit unlike any other newscaster or pundit (apart from perhaps Brian Williams). It doesn't hurt that Jon and I share an alma mater of William and Mary (Go Tribe! Um, I mean Griffins?). And he shares my morbid sense of humor.
So to be on the Daily Show would be my one item on my bucket list. As I mentioned, how it came to be does not matter. I might be a passerby in one of the news segments (the likeliest), a correspondent deadpanning my way through some issue (a lot less likely) or a guest. Chance dictates the likelihood of the first, a career in comedy would make the second more feasible, and nothing short of a miracle would constitute the third. Daily Show guests are typically celebrities or people who have accomplished something noteworthy. Not being a celebrity, I would have to do the latter. One of the only things I can think of that I might be able to accomplish to be on the Daily Show would be to write a book. A really good book that Jon Stewart would like. I am sure that is no easy task. My favorite author, Mary Roach, was on the Daily Show, and I am not even close to being a Mary Roach.
Not to sell myself short. I have a postgraduate degree, I am introspective, intuitive and am reasonably intelligent. But writing a book that would meet the standards of Jon Stewart is something else. My bucket list doesn't include writing a book, unless writing that book was an avenue to get on the Daily Show. I suppose I could also write a movie (which seems more likely given my love of film) or I could do my dream documentary (about graduate school) but those are expensive endeavors that require networking. I am too much of a realist (and too sensitive to disappointment) to try those. Unless I won the lottery and could live off that money as I tried. But that is not going to happen.
So what could I write about? I have an idea for a book that I would call "What You've Got". It would be my own musings, as well as thoughts from the spectrum of people I have encountered through my various jobs and travel, about what a person possesses. I mean physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, intellectually, etc. I would like to be philosophical and informative, without coming off as a "self-help" book. The key ingredient would be my own brand of humor. The kind that serves Mary Roach so well, and would land me on the Daily Show. Oh I have the outline and some musing already, but the final manuscript needs to be crafted. I guess part of me, well most of me, wants to sign the book deal before I invest that amount of energy/time/blood/sweat/tears. (Remember, I am "sensitive to disappointment" :) ).
So my bucket list is short, and not likely going to happen. But that is okay because it is what one WANTS to do, not what one HAS to do. Sure I would like to go to Scotland or Australia (again). I definitely want to see The Dark Knight Rises (assuming I live until next July). But I don't need to do any of those things. Being on the Daily Show would be an awesome footnote that I think would punctuate my life experience, but not define it.
After having thought about it, I can only think of one thing. I would like to be on "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart. Now the terms are flexible. I have such an affinity for the show, that whenever is on, I have to watch. Even when the segments or news are uncomfortable, which they frequently are. By uncomfortable, I mean watching the shenanigans of politicians or celebrities, and that sinking feeling that this is the world we live in. Somehow humor makes it more palatable, which is why I think so many people get their news from the Daily Show. The other reason I like it so much is Jon Stewart. The man exhibits an intelligence, humility and wit unlike any other newscaster or pundit (apart from perhaps Brian Williams). It doesn't hurt that Jon and I share an alma mater of William and Mary (Go Tribe! Um, I mean Griffins?). And he shares my morbid sense of humor.
So to be on the Daily Show would be my one item on my bucket list. As I mentioned, how it came to be does not matter. I might be a passerby in one of the news segments (the likeliest), a correspondent deadpanning my way through some issue (a lot less likely) or a guest. Chance dictates the likelihood of the first, a career in comedy would make the second more feasible, and nothing short of a miracle would constitute the third. Daily Show guests are typically celebrities or people who have accomplished something noteworthy. Not being a celebrity, I would have to do the latter. One of the only things I can think of that I might be able to accomplish to be on the Daily Show would be to write a book. A really good book that Jon Stewart would like. I am sure that is no easy task. My favorite author, Mary Roach, was on the Daily Show, and I am not even close to being a Mary Roach.
Not to sell myself short. I have a postgraduate degree, I am introspective, intuitive and am reasonably intelligent. But writing a book that would meet the standards of Jon Stewart is something else. My bucket list doesn't include writing a book, unless writing that book was an avenue to get on the Daily Show. I suppose I could also write a movie (which seems more likely given my love of film) or I could do my dream documentary (about graduate school) but those are expensive endeavors that require networking. I am too much of a realist (and too sensitive to disappointment) to try those. Unless I won the lottery and could live off that money as I tried. But that is not going to happen.
So what could I write about? I have an idea for a book that I would call "What You've Got". It would be my own musings, as well as thoughts from the spectrum of people I have encountered through my various jobs and travel, about what a person possesses. I mean physically, emotionally, spiritually, mentally, intellectually, etc. I would like to be philosophical and informative, without coming off as a "self-help" book. The key ingredient would be my own brand of humor. The kind that serves Mary Roach so well, and would land me on the Daily Show. Oh I have the outline and some musing already, but the final manuscript needs to be crafted. I guess part of me, well most of me, wants to sign the book deal before I invest that amount of energy/time/blood/sweat/tears. (Remember, I am "sensitive to disappointment" :) ).
So my bucket list is short, and not likely going to happen. But that is okay because it is what one WANTS to do, not what one HAS to do. Sure I would like to go to Scotland or Australia (again). I definitely want to see The Dark Knight Rises (assuming I live until next July). But I don't need to do any of those things. Being on the Daily Show would be an awesome footnote that I think would punctuate my life experience, but not define it.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Life as a Book
Hard outer covering becomes soft with age
Flipping through pages
pouring over pages
studying pages
rereading pages
pages are torn, stained, smudged if well-used
is there any dramatic climax?
or just a series of events recorded
The end of the story is here before you know it.
Flipping through pages
pouring over pages
studying pages
rereading pages
pages are torn, stained, smudged if well-used
is there any dramatic climax?
or just a series of events recorded
The end of the story is here before you know it.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Reality TV
Is anyone else sickened by the turn that "reality TV" has taken? I used to watch reality TV in the early stages, when it felt more informative, intimate and like a documentary. Now for the most part it has turned into a horrible boil on the butt of humanity. For example cooking shows like Iron Chef would showcase cooking talent. Now shows like Rocco's Dinner Pary showcase a rude, egomaniacal restaurantuer who just wants to flaunt famous friends and belittle people. In addition, the shows either encourage participants to behave rudely, or just edit to showcase bad behavior. Yuck.
What worse is now people strive to become these "stars". The super wealthy like the Kardashians exploit the viewing public for their monetary gain. I don't know what skills or talents this family might have, but they seem to fall into the realm of being famous for being famous, ala a Paris Hilton. On top of it you have everyday people doing rude, mean, societally invaluable things to become a "star" on TV. And why not? When the people on the Jersey Shore show make more money in one year than some college-educated people, then kids see that as a "profession" particularly because it involves little to no intelligence, education or heaven forbid "work".
Personally I would be bored senseless to be doing any of it, but I am an introspective person who enjoys learning and good intellectual discussion. I wouldn't mind having the money these people have, but I certainly don't want to be famous. It makes me wonder are they in for the money or the fame? I would like to live comfortably and know my retirement is secure, but I would hate having papparazzi following me or the world judging my decisions. Do they need the validation, or do they really think they are deserving or entitled to the attention/money?
I guess with the information superhighway and ease and speed of access to information, that is why we have the reality TV. It is not replacing the useful information or intelligent discussion, but it is providing a common thread of information into the genre of pop culture that most people can easily read and digest. It is sort of like everyone is in high school again, and rather than discussing the SATs or AP exams or athletics or history or math, people talk about who is dating who, who bought a new pair of jeans or has a new car or got caught cheating.
With all this information and ease of access, there is something for everyone. Good thing I can choose to tune into what I want or tune out what I don't.
What worse is now people strive to become these "stars". The super wealthy like the Kardashians exploit the viewing public for their monetary gain. I don't know what skills or talents this family might have, but they seem to fall into the realm of being famous for being famous, ala a Paris Hilton. On top of it you have everyday people doing rude, mean, societally invaluable things to become a "star" on TV. And why not? When the people on the Jersey Shore show make more money in one year than some college-educated people, then kids see that as a "profession" particularly because it involves little to no intelligence, education or heaven forbid "work".
Personally I would be bored senseless to be doing any of it, but I am an introspective person who enjoys learning and good intellectual discussion. I wouldn't mind having the money these people have, but I certainly don't want to be famous. It makes me wonder are they in for the money or the fame? I would like to live comfortably and know my retirement is secure, but I would hate having papparazzi following me or the world judging my decisions. Do they need the validation, or do they really think they are deserving or entitled to the attention/money?
I guess with the information superhighway and ease and speed of access to information, that is why we have the reality TV. It is not replacing the useful information or intelligent discussion, but it is providing a common thread of information into the genre of pop culture that most people can easily read and digest. It is sort of like everyone is in high school again, and rather than discussing the SATs or AP exams or athletics or history or math, people talk about who is dating who, who bought a new pair of jeans or has a new car or got caught cheating.
With all this information and ease of access, there is something for everyone. Good thing I can choose to tune into what I want or tune out what I don't.
A Good Read
In previous posts I have discussed music and movies, but today I am moved to write about books. What a person likes to read can be so subjective. I like to read the occasional novel (John Grisham is an author I consistently enjoy) and I have found the occasional Janet Evanovich is a be a nice distraction. But for the most part I like reading what can best be described as "informative, yet entertaining, nonfiction". Currently I am reading The Disappearing Spoon which is about the history and drama behind the periodic table of elements. I loved chemistry in college and have always been fascinated by it, so this book is proving to be a captivating and interesting read. The author also makes liberal use of interesting footnotes, though inconveniently placed in the back of the book.
My absolute favorite author (who uses footnotes both judiciously and hilariously) is Mary Roach. In fact, I am surprised I haven't talked more about her writing in this blog. I started with her first book Stiff, which is about the scientific use of cadavers. After eating that up, I quickly went through her other books, Spook (about the science of the afterlife) and Bonk (about the science of sex). At this point I was hooked and was then excited to hear that she was coming out with Packing for Mars, about the exploration of outer space. I bought it the day it came out and read through it with relish. When she stopped by Austin on a book tour, I was out of town, so my husband graciously went to hear her speak and got her to autograph one of my books. He has since become a fan as well. He was also able to learn the title of her next upcoming book, which sounds interesting, though I don't want to make any assumptions about the content based on the title.
What makes me enjoy Ms. Roach's writing so much is her thoughtful insight and hilarious commentary on the topics about which she writes. She is a science writer, so the topics are informative, but in the most interesting way. Her commentary and writing is thus supported by extensive research. I mean, this woman contacts the most relevant researchers and gets unprecedented access to the places that can best explain/illustrate the topic she is covering. For example, while researching space exploration, she got access to Russian cosmonauts and their space program, as well as got to ride in the US's "vomit comet" the plane which does a parabolic flight to mimic weightlessness. Awesome! Through it all, she describes the experience and discusses the topic with grace and humor.
I realized I hadn't written in this blog for awhile, and at the same time I am mulling inviting Ms. Roach to speak at the place I work. (It is not a stretch at all for her to be a speaker, here, though I personally might do it if I thought it was necessary). In fact, it was one of my colleagues who suggested inviting her to speak, which I wish I had thought of myself. This is the same colleauge who shares my love of film and applies it to our work. So naturally, we get along aces. Well, I am off to extend the invitation to Ms. Roach. I hope it works out.
My absolute favorite author (who uses footnotes both judiciously and hilariously) is Mary Roach. In fact, I am surprised I haven't talked more about her writing in this blog. I started with her first book Stiff, which is about the scientific use of cadavers. After eating that up, I quickly went through her other books, Spook (about the science of the afterlife) and Bonk (about the science of sex). At this point I was hooked and was then excited to hear that she was coming out with Packing for Mars, about the exploration of outer space. I bought it the day it came out and read through it with relish. When she stopped by Austin on a book tour, I was out of town, so my husband graciously went to hear her speak and got her to autograph one of my books. He has since become a fan as well. He was also able to learn the title of her next upcoming book, which sounds interesting, though I don't want to make any assumptions about the content based on the title.
What makes me enjoy Ms. Roach's writing so much is her thoughtful insight and hilarious commentary on the topics about which she writes. She is a science writer, so the topics are informative, but in the most interesting way. Her commentary and writing is thus supported by extensive research. I mean, this woman contacts the most relevant researchers and gets unprecedented access to the places that can best explain/illustrate the topic she is covering. For example, while researching space exploration, she got access to Russian cosmonauts and their space program, as well as got to ride in the US's "vomit comet" the plane which does a parabolic flight to mimic weightlessness. Awesome! Through it all, she describes the experience and discusses the topic with grace and humor.
I realized I hadn't written in this blog for awhile, and at the same time I am mulling inviting Ms. Roach to speak at the place I work. (It is not a stretch at all for her to be a speaker, here, though I personally might do it if I thought it was necessary). In fact, it was one of my colleagues who suggested inviting her to speak, which I wish I had thought of myself. This is the same colleauge who shares my love of film and applies it to our work. So naturally, we get along aces. Well, I am off to extend the invitation to Ms. Roach. I hope it works out.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Science Fiction as Entertainment
I enjoy Science Fiction. Growing up, I was exposed to a great deal of sci-fi, thanks to my father. Dad loved to both read and watch science fiction, so I was introduced to Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Dr. Who, V, the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits. I still have vivid memories of being scared, intrigued and thrilled by most of it. I have my dad to thank for my lifelong devotion to all things Star Wars (and James Bond, which could arguably be considered science fiction in some circles).
It is probably no accident that I married a science fiction enthusiast. Though his passion for Star Trek exceedingly outweighs the passing interest I hold for it, his ardor does not reach the level of "Trekkie". Our differences in affection for Star Trek and ensuing discussions did help me to learn to articulate what it is about scifi that I like. Yes I love the effects and mythology of Star Wars, but those factors never really helped me to get into Firefly or Stargate. I find that I am drawn more to those movies/shows/stories that are closer to the basic premise of scifi, which is a slight twist on reality. The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits are good examples of this. Most stories include everyday people or situations that are somehow altered by time travel, alternate universes, superpowers, magical objects or monsters.
Perhaps because the slight twist on reality is so close to what reality is, it makes it more relatable. As mentioned in previous posts, I personal prefer entertainment that is not too far removed from reality. Also with an appreciation for darker endings, "slight twist" science fiction lends itself better to darker endings. I mean, if you are going all out and having an outlandish, totally different world in your story, then you can more easily provide a happy ending to suit your desires. I typically find those endings to be more deus ex machina, which I am definitely do not like. If you ever want to see a simple, but incredibly terrifying scifi conceit, watch Dr. Who's episode "Blink". Easily one of the scariest examples of science fiction. And it stars Oscar-nominee Carey Mulligan. The British are good proprietors of scifi, which is why their well-known actors and actresses don't shy away from it. They also make good comedy (Black Adder, Monty Python), but that is for another discussion.
It is probably no accident that I married a science fiction enthusiast. Though his passion for Star Trek exceedingly outweighs the passing interest I hold for it, his ardor does not reach the level of "Trekkie". Our differences in affection for Star Trek and ensuing discussions did help me to learn to articulate what it is about scifi that I like. Yes I love the effects and mythology of Star Wars, but those factors never really helped me to get into Firefly or Stargate. I find that I am drawn more to those movies/shows/stories that are closer to the basic premise of scifi, which is a slight twist on reality. The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits are good examples of this. Most stories include everyday people or situations that are somehow altered by time travel, alternate universes, superpowers, magical objects or monsters.
Perhaps because the slight twist on reality is so close to what reality is, it makes it more relatable. As mentioned in previous posts, I personal prefer entertainment that is not too far removed from reality. Also with an appreciation for darker endings, "slight twist" science fiction lends itself better to darker endings. I mean, if you are going all out and having an outlandish, totally different world in your story, then you can more easily provide a happy ending to suit your desires. I typically find those endings to be more deus ex machina, which I am definitely do not like. If you ever want to see a simple, but incredibly terrifying scifi conceit, watch Dr. Who's episode "Blink". Easily one of the scariest examples of science fiction. And it stars Oscar-nominee Carey Mulligan. The British are good proprietors of scifi, which is why their well-known actors and actresses don't shy away from it. They also make good comedy (Black Adder, Monty Python), but that is for another discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)