The Existence of the Universe is a Definitive Affirmation of the Existence of God

Looking at the awesomeness of Creation – how mindblowingly complex it is, how marvelously beautiful it is, how gloriously big it is – and, by extension, all the incredible creations and accomplishments that have come out of human imagination, creativity, intellect, resolve, and talent, I am deeply perplexed that some people can dare conclude that all of these “just happened.”  To me, with my daily encounters with reality and its wonders, it is very much apparent that there is Someone Bigger beyond all of these.  Yes, it is based on faith.  But it’s not an irrational faith.  In fact, as a Christian, is it with Spirit-driven faith that I was able to think more rationally – to sincerely seek truth.           

Pompous “enlightened people” pretend to have all the answers.  They believe they are superior because they aren’t a “superstitious bunch” that believe in a Supreme Being.  But upon meticulous scrutiny, you will see that they are hypocritical, that their presuppositions are also based on faith – and a faith working on a foundation something actually shakier than a faith in God at that!

For example, the strongest “evidences” out there for the Theory of Evolution are almost solely limited to “microevolution” – wherein an animal or plant develops an additional function in response to particular stimuli.  And that doesn’t prove Evolution at all.  An illustration of microevolution is a fish developing a camouflage in order to avoid predators; in that scenario, the fish’s nature as fish remains intact.   But a fish transforming into a bird is the kind of dramatic change that Evolution is claiming as possible – that’s “macroevolution” – and there are no empirical data to support such absurdity.  More so with Abiogenesis – wherein an inanimate object is supposed to dramatically transform into a living thing.  Macroevolution and Abiogenesis are ridiculous, proof-less claims; without these two, the Theory of Evolution falls apart.  And yet people will readily accept Evolution’s infallibility!  Most atheists I encounter that believes in Evolution or the Big Bang or any other theory that denies God creating life and the universe simply accepts these theories are true without really thoroughly understanding them (or they pretend that they do).  They embrace these as truths without any struggle, without further reflection or discernment, just because a famous scientist or philosopher said so.   In fact, if they choose to exert an effort in honestly examining these for themselves, they might discover that these presented ideas don’t really have airtight, empirical proofs.  Hence, they might not have faith in God, but the manner of how they strongly believe in the ideas of Evolution or Big Bang or Sagan or Dawkins or Darwin – without genuine comprehension of them and without finding definitive proofs to support them – is some kind of faith.    

 

Science is a great, great thing.  But it is not God.  Science should lead us to God.  And if more scientists are more honest with themselves, and not give in to peer pressure, and really apply objective thought, and get rid of prejudices and double standards, they would definitely see God in the wonders of the universe that they discover through Science.

When one truly fathomed the awesomeness of life and the universe, one won’t really be comfortable of accepting that all of these were brought about by random accidents.  The existence of life and the universe – Creation – is clearly a definite affirmation of the existence of God – the Creator (for, in fact, Creation is the physical manifestation of God’s glory).  The intrinsic beauty and complexity found in every detail of Creation are something that I can never rationally accept as things that “just happened.” 

The Law of Cause-and-Effect states that, for every effect, there should be an appropriate, reasonable cause that made it so.  And the only “appropriate, reasonable” cause there is for an “effect” of such magnitude as the universe is an infinite, intelligent God.  To think that the universe has been brought about by a “cause” lesser than that is ridiculous. 

If one denies an eternal Creator has made the universe, one has to embrace the belief of either: a.) the universe created itself; or b.) the universe originated from a finite cause – either a finite catalyst or a creator, who himself has been created by something or someone.  Both options are obviously absurd.  The first option is contradictory.  How can something create itself?  For the universe to be capable of creating itself, it should first have to be.  It would have to be before it was.  And that’s an impossibility.  Even God can’t create himself, because he wouldn’t be present to create himself in the first place.  God is – by essence and definition – infinite, un-created, and exists before time came to be.         

The second conclusion – that the universe originated from a finite creator/catalyst – is very problematic because, ultimately, it relies on the belief that an actual infinity of finite things is possible.  One would have to wrestle with the problem: if the universe is created by an A, what is the B that created A in the first place?  How was B created then?  By a C?  Then what created C?   And so on.  Ad infinitum.  And that is just plain nonsense.  If one subscribes to such thought that an infinite chain of finite causes is possible, one also has to subscribe to a belief that time has been running eternally since an infinity of finite causes would require infinite time to work on.  The problem however is that infinite yesterdays is unthinkable for it’s an impossibility to cross through eternity.  You won’t be able to go through an infinite number of yesterdays to get to today just as a negative infinity can’t “count down” towards zero.  If it has been going on forever, it can’t possibly get to today.                

So for this universe to exist, it should have been created by something eternal – something that existed before time even existed – and is infinite in essence.  It’s the only possible solution.   Furthermore, this infinite something can’t be something without awareness.  It should be something – someone – with intelligent consciousness – a supreme intelligent consciousness.    

When I was still a kid who had never even ridden in a plane yet, airplanes provoked awe in me.  I was curious of its engineering (or whatever term the concept of engineering represented in my mind then); my mind was asking things like “How something heavy was made to fly?”  I knew that the answers would be complicated and I probably had to get a bit older to understand.  However, I knew that this complex airplane couldn’t possibly have “just happened”; its complex, purposed design required a conscious, intelligent effort to be.   Now, life and the universe have much more complex engineering in it than an airplane.  It definitely couldn’t “just happened”!  Believing that is more ridiculous than believing that an airplane can be made out of an exploding junkyard.    

Even if, let’s say, experiments using the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland supposedly proved the Big Bang Theory or how matter exploded out of energy, it doesn’t necessarily is a point against Creationism and a point for Anti-Creationism theories.  What was done to simulate the supposedly beginning of the universe hasn’t been something random, undirected, or unsupervised.  There were scientists who had consciously worked, assembled, and directed the factors to bring the creation of matter about.  It didn’t really happen chaotically.  There was a conscious, intelligent effort behind it.   It’s not the same thing as what atheists believe in – that the universe just “exploded” into being without conscious guidance.   

The universe exists because an infinite and intelligent and living God created it.   It’s the only logical conclusion.  The Apostle Paul revealed in the first chapter of Romans that men have no excuse in denying the existence of God because the universe clearly manifests His being and glory.  The existence of the universe should be a sufficient – no, overwhelming – objective proof for the affirmation of God’s existence. 

But why are there atheists?  Why aren’t everyone compelled to believe in God if the universe compellingly proves his existence?  Well, it’s because humans are sinners, and our sinful and depraved nature won’t allow us to be persuaded by the overwhelming proof.   We are blinded (or prefer to be blinded).  The truth never really mattered to us.  We prefer to deny the existence of the Creator since we don’t want to acknowledge our accountability to our Creator. 

But through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the stubbornness and pride brought by our depraved nature will be shattered.  We will be able to humbly embrace truth and instruction.  And it is only by this time that our reasoning won’t be hindered when we argue or encounter arguments for truth.  When proof of the existence of God is brought forth by the universe, we can now allow ourselves to be persuaded.  From the point where we can wholeheartedly acknowledge God’s existence, then we can proceed to the next step of wholeheartedly acknowledging His lordship over us, and decide to live – to exist – solely for declaring His glory – just as what He has always intended for His Creation to be.

Read More

'Paddington' Could Be This Year's Best Family Movie

I have never read the children books, but I watched the cartoons fondly back when I was a kid.  Thus, I can claim that I have familiarity with the source material, and I believe that the movie has perfectly depicted the clumsy but well-meaning, marmalade-loving bear from “darkest Peru.” 

Paddington is as heart-warming and adorable as the best of Disney movies (which, in my opinion, are the greatest family movies out there).  Yes, I went there.  It’s just that wonderful.  Every aspect of Paddington resonates with timelessness and charm – the plot isn’t exactly novel, but the familiar nature of the story is so amiable that it’s still refreshing overall; the kind of humor delivered is clichéd, but everything else is just clicking very well that it does generate genuine laughs; the CGI is impeccable; the narrative romanticizes London as setting to great effect; and its family-centered message truly hits home.  It definitely has the makings of a classic.  Watching it will leave a cozy, warm feeling inside.      

The supporting cast to the CGI bear did a swell, believable job in interacting with the lead character.  The Brown household is easily likable.  Peter Capaldi is simply being the lovable, eccentric Doctor Who that I know.  And Nicole Kidman is a delightfully campy villainess that reminds me of Glenn Close’s Cruella de Vil in the live-action 101 Dalmatians movie.  

It’s still early in the year.   But Paddington, for me, is already the go-to family movie of 2015*.  And it has raised the bar so high for upcoming G-rated films that it’s going to be very difficult to knock this movie off its pedestal in my eyes. 

*It was released in 2014 in the UK.  But as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it’s a 2015 movie.  

Read More

'Kobe Bryant's Muse' is My Highlight as a Laker Fan This Season

I thought that the 2013-2014 Laker season was “rock bottom” for the franchise, but, boy, I was sure wrong.  This current Laker campaign is turning out to be even worse as the team’s horrible record has made them eligible for the top 5 draft picks (hope they get the next “great Laker” out of it, though).  Aside from the occasional highlights from young Laker players (I hope Jordan Clarkson would prove to be the next Kobe for the Lakers), there aren’t much to delight on as a Laker fan right now.  And that’s why I’m happy about the latest Showtime documentary, Kobe Bryant’s Muse.  It proved to be the thing I derived the most enjoyment out of as a Laker fan this season.  In the midst of another depressing Laker season, this beautiful documentary somewhat cheered me up.  

Kobe Bryant has always been my favorite NBA player, and I’ve come to admire his talent and drive.  Kobe Bryant’s Muse is a great thing for a fan like me because it provided the most in-depth look ever on how the Kobe Bryant we love – or, in the case of others, hate – came to be.  Kobe served as the sole voice of the documentary, and there are no other place – interviews, documentaries, etc. – where we can find Kobe being as candid and as vulnerable as he was in Kobe Bryant’s Muse.   Listening and watching Kobe talk throughout the 1-hour and 23-minute documentary – as he thoroughly and honestly revealed his thoughts, struggles, and emotions during the important points of his formative years and career – was a gripping experience. 

The documentary took a gloomy, minimalist approach in its production.  The supplementary “narrative” footage were limited to Kobe’s Achilles injury from 2013 and his recovery process.  Other video clips featured were mostly muted, and simply served as “visual aid” on whatever topic was at hand.  There were no insights or interviews of other people regarding Kobe.  There were no flash and flare.  The primary focus was (almost) all about Kobe talking to the camera, “up close and personal”, in a dim setting.  And it worked, for the tone was compatible to Kobe Bryant’s own character.  Yes, it was grim, but it was never dull.  Rather, it was direct-to-the-point, analytical, and compelling.  As a documentary, it was savvy and gorgeously-made.     

Prior to the release of this movie, Kobe Bryant was quoted as saying that he “didn’t want to write a book”, that he doesn’t “have the patience for that,” and that’s why he did Kobe Bryant’s Muse.  So, basically, Kobe Bryant’s Muse is a must-watch because this is not just any biopic/documentary.  It is Kobe’s actual autobiography.   And until Kobe finds the “patience” to write an autobiographical book – which I hope will still happen – this is the best we can get for now.    

Read More

The Live-Action ‘Lupin III’ Movie is a Big Pile of Disappointment

I was greatly looking forward to this movie ever since I became aware that a live-action Lupin III movie was on the way and saw some teaser images and trailers.  It was released in Japan (and limited releases on some parts of the world, maybe) in 2014, but it was only this year that most of us got the opportunity to see it (the release of DVD and Blu-ray was recent).  Unfortunately, the result of the long wait for it is a big pile of disappointment.  Lupin III’s such a disappointment that it took me four part-by-part viewings before I could watch its entirety; I couldn’t watch it in just one go. 

To be fair, my expectations were probably too high, hence, the big disappointment.  I was hoping it was going to be a live-action The Castle of Cagliostro (I mean, have the same quality of that classic anime movie, not necessarily have the same plot).  At the very least, I was hoping it would be as authentic and appealing as the live-action Ruruoni Kenshin.  But it was not to be so.   

The live-action portrayals of the Lupin III characters have been almost fantastic.  I have nothing negative to say about the characterizations of the adapted characters in general.  However, I have a couple of problems with the particular portrayal of Arsene Lupin III.  There was noticeable emphasis in making him a badass combatant – an “action hero” – but, on the other hand, a lack of stress on what makes the iconic anime character truly awesome.  Sure, in the anime, Lupin can also throw a mean punch once in a while as well as be an impressive shooter, but that’s not how the character is defined.  His distinctive traits are his wits, slipperiness, and unpredictability; beneath the goofy, playful appearance is a sharp, creative, and tactical mind.  There were moments when I can see these elements in the live-action character.  But, unfortunately, those moments were not sustained for me; the excessive way he was being sold as an “action hero” just proved to be too distracting.  I would have considerably preferred more for the character to be straightly depicted as the extremely versatile escape artist and master of disguise that he is – a facet of Lupin that was only minimally used in the last act (just another disappointment in a big pile of disappointment) – than just another generic “action hero.”

However, the characterization flaws would have only required a tweak or two to fix.  The movie’s biggest problem is its mediocre story.  With the anime series/movies as benchmarks, the live-action movie was an unimpressive tale that such delightful property as Lupin III is undeserving of.  The plot attempts to be several things at the same time, including being an Ocean 11-esque heist film, but lacked enough suave and twists to pull it off.  I also hated that there were so many unnecessary plot elements and additional characters.  I know the movie would have worked so much better if the plot was kept simple.  The narrative just felt so forced – from the dialogues down to the humor.        

  

As far as the action went, the highest points were scenes wherein the kickass samurai Goemonis involved. In comparison, the rest of the action scenes were often slightly entertaining but unremarkable.  With the decision to consciously be an “action movie”, its action ironically failed to engage me.  The messy camerawork during action sequences doesn’t help either.       

Lupin III is an accurate picture of the word “disappointing” (especially if you adored the anime), but I’m also not completely comfortable of directly branding this movie as “awful.”  It does have a few redeeming factors.  Example, thinking of it as a “cosplay play”, I did find it fun to see Goemon, Jigen, Fujiko, and – despite my minor nitpicks on him – even Lupin being brought to life in live-action.  And, maybe, if I didn’t have such high expectations for this movie – and take it as it is, a stupid-and-shallow action-comedy movie – I could have completely enjoyed it, too. 

But here’s to hoping to a better sequel (if any).

Read More

Top 10 Time Travelers

Time travel stories, when done right, are thoughtful and absorbing.  Fascinating plot elements like alternate timelines, paradoxes, time loops, re-writing of history, and others can arise from time travel stories.  But, more importantly, time travel stories are made more interesting by their featured time travelers – how they get to travel through time, their motivations/reasons for doing so, and how they use time travel to their advantage.  Here are my favorites…    

10.) HENRY DeTAMBLE

 

Henry DeTamble is the time traveler in Audrey Niffenger’s novel The Time Traveler’s Wife, which was also adapted into the film of the same name starring Eric Bana.  DeTamble has a fictional genetic disorder that makes him randomly and uncontrollably time travel to the past or future.  But despite his condition, he was able to develop and maintain a romantic relationship with Clare, who became his wife. 

The Time Traveler’s Wifeis one of the most creative utilization of time travel in a story.  The love story of Henry and Clare is made very unique and interesting because of Henry’s peculiar time travel ability, which made possible a couple of remarkable convergences between the couple during their lifetime.   The Time Traveler’s Wife is something worth reading/watching personally, and I won’t spoil anything here to deny you the pleasure of witnessing this extraordinary story for yourself.  

Also, if I’m to make a modern League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, this character has a spot on my team. 

9.) BOOSTER GOLD

 

Coming from the future, Booster Gold makes use of his knowledge of historical events and futuristic gadgets to be a superhero in the present.  A showboat and a fame-hog, his initial motivation for being a superhero was to enjoy the celebrity status that comes from being a superhero and then exploit his popularity to obtain a luxurious lifestyle.  However, overtime, though still retaining some of his self-promoting ways, he learned how to be a genuine, selfless hero.      

8.) HANK MORGAN

 

My most favorite book by Mark Twain is The Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.  The story tells of a Yankee named Hank Morgan, a superintendent for a factory of firearms by trade, who finds himself mysteriously transported to the place and time period of King Arthur’s reign after being hit on the head by a crowbar.  Armed with his ingenuity, modern knowledge, and manufacturing proficiency, Hank gradually rose in influence and power in England – continuously developing the country until it got to the point that it possessed 19^thcentury infrastructure and technology.   

 

7.) KANG THE CONQUEROR

 

A 30^th-century native, Kang is one of the most notable villains of the Marvel Universe.  Ever since he discovered the time travel technology that Dr. Doom (an ancestor of his) had developed, Kang has ever since been traveling the time stream and devising schemes to conquer the world’s timelines.  But superheroes like the Avengers and Fantastic Four are fortunately always there to stop him. 

Because of his time traveling nature, at least two alternate selves of Kang have spun-off in the timeline.  The first of which is Immortus, a future version of Kang who agreed to preserve timelines for the Time-Keepers in exchange for immortality.  The second one is Iron Lad, the teenage version of Kang, who is appalled of the man he will grow up to be and vowed to avoid the evil path that his future self will take.        

6.) PHIL CONNORS

Phil Connors is the main character of the classic movie Groundhog Day.  Unlike the other time travelers of this list, who traveled to the future and/or the past, Phil is instead stuck in a time loop – forced to re-live the same day again and again. 

Introduced as a pessimistic, egoistic weather reporter, he was tasked to cover the Groundhog Day celebration in the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.  It was an assignment that he didn’t want to do, and it was apparent from the way he grudgingly delivered his report and his persistence of living the town as soon as possible.  Unfortunately for him, a blizzard forced him to spend another night in the town.  However, waking up the “next day”, he discovered that the day had repeated itself for him.  This was also what he discovered the “following day”, and the “next”, and so on; Phil had to go through Groundhog Day at Punxsutawney over and over again.         

At first, Phil just used the time loop as an opportunity to fool around – which included unethical acts as picking up girls and stealing money from an armored car.  He eventually got exhausted of the time loop, and sought to end it by killing himself.  However, no matter how many times he tried killing himself, he would always find himself waking up – alive – to live through another Groundhog Day. 

Phil, in due course, decided to use the time loop to improve himself.  With unlimited time at his disposal, Phil proceeded to learn various skills and expand his knowledge.  He studied literature and taught himself to speak other languages.  He also learned how to ice sculpt and how to play the piano.  Moreover, he used his familiarity of the day’s events to help people around the town, making him popular and much well-liked in the town in just “one day.”

After becoming a better person through the entire experience (which probably lasted thousands of days) – and winning the girl of his dreams through honest, natural means instead of manipulations (as what he attempted during the first days he was stuck in the time loop) – Phil finally found himself free from the time loop, and decided to permanently settle in Punxsutawney which he learned to love.

5.) CABLE

Nathan Summers a.k.a. Cable doesn’t have much exposure nowadays but there was a time when he was the most popular X-Man next to Wolverine.  I adored this character during the peak of his popularity.  He’s kind of an awesome mash-up of Captain America (the tactical capacity and instinct of a soldier-commander), Forge (cybernetic enhancements and technology manipulation), the Punisher (the anti-heroic, badass persona; and the proficiency and affinity for big guns), and Prof. X (powerful telepathic and telekinetic powers).  

 

He is the son of Scott Summers (Cyclops) and Madelyne Pryor (Goblin Queen), the clone of Jean Grey.  He was born in the present timeline but was sent to the distant future and grew up there.  When he returned back to the timeline of his birth, he had already grown to an adult.  In the present timeline, he founded the X-Force and has constantly allied with the X-Men, even becoming a member at some point.  He has several times traveled through time, and has even been described by Beast as having “latent time-travel abilities.” 

4.) & 3.) DR. EMMETT “DOC” BROWN & MARTY McFLY

The classic Back to the Future trilogy is considered by many as the greatest time travel story in film ever, regardless of having a couple of plot holes.  The trilogy’s two main characters are high school student Marty McFly and the eccentric Doc Brown.  The former served as the central protagonist of the story, traveling to both past and future timelines by the use of the DeLorean time machine that the latter invented.  Marty was the first one to experience time traveling with the DeLorean, but after his initial adventure to the past (in the first movie), Doc Brown became a constant time travel companion (in the second and third movie). 

2.) THE TERMINATOR

The Terminator is not only one of the greatest cyborgs, one of the greatest ex-“bad guy” protagonists, and one of the most recognizable badass characters in fiction, but he’s also one of its greatest time travelers.  The Terminator was originally sent by the Machines from the future to the present timeline to kill the mother of John Connor, the leader of the human resistance.  However, the subsequent versions of the Terminator that traveled back in time were reprogrammed units sent by the humans to protect a young John Connor.

1.) THE DOCTOR    

 

“The Doctor” (his real name is still unknown) is one of the most iconic and most unique fictional characters ever.  He is the titular protagonist of the long-running, beloved TV series, Doctor Who (which I only got into last year).  In the show’s 50 plus years, thirteen actors have portrayed the Doctor without breaking continuity.  This has been made possible due to a plot device called “regeneration” – an ability of a Time Lord to assume a new form (changing in appearance and personality) whenever his mortality is at risk (getting fatality injured or getting too old).  The image I chose for the Doctor is that of David Tennant’s 10^th Doctor, who is my favorite so far (my second most favorite, for the record, is the current one, Peter Capaldi’s 12^th Doctor).             

The Doctor is the only non-human time traveler in this list.  He seems human in appearance but he is in fact a Time Lord.  Time Lords are natives of the planet Gallifrey and can travel through space and time with ease by means of sentient time travel machines called TARDISes.  The Doctor’s TARDIS (Time and Relative Dimension in Space) is permanently stuck in the form of a 1960’s style London police box because its “chameleon circuitry” is broken (and the last setting that it was set on was that of a police box). 

Always enthusiastic for new adventures and eager to share them with friends (known as “companions” in Doctor Who terminology), the Doctor is constantly travelling across the universe and through different time periods.         

Read More

If I Were a Little Girl, I Would Have Been Blown Away by 'Cinderella'

I liked the movie, but the “Cinderella” tale has been told so many times already in so many ways that there will be always a part of me that will think of Disney’s live-action Cinderella as needless and uninspired.  Moreover, the anime series Cinderella Monogatari will probably always be my most favorite version of the Cinderella story ever, and every other version that I would encounter would always pale in comparison.  So, at most, I consider Cinderella a fun, pleasurable movie that is definitely recommendable for the whole family to watch.  It’s good entertainment, but not remarkably great. 

But that said, I nonetheless understand the charms of the movie.  If I were a little girl of around six to ten years of age who went to watch it in a theater this past week, I would have been blown away by the experience.  The Frozen Fever short film that ran before the movie would be a wonderful treat already.  But it would be mere appetizer to the bright, optimistic loveliness of the movie.  I would have adored everything about it – excitedly consuming all the pretty things I’m seeing.  I would probably have been giggling in delight, like the little girl that I am, during and a few hours after the movie.

Cinderella flawlessly embodied into film the kind of emotional sense of wonder that fairy tale stories aroused in us when we encountered them for the first time as kids.  A big chunk of the credits for this impact definitely goes to the stunningly gorgeous production value – from the costumes to the set, everything about it was an aesthetic success that brought the fairy tale-ness of the story to life.  The visual effects also considerably added to the enchantment.  The sequence where the Fairy Godmother prepared Cinderella for the ball has been especially spectacular.      

             

“So its form is lovely, but how about its substance?” you might ask.  Well, a large part of the story still possesses the worn-out plot elements of the Cinderella story.  Still, there were enough original ideas to make this retelling worth checking out.  It’s actually well-written and well-directed.  Cinderella was pure cotton candy, but though it was not significantly thoughtful, it however has enough thematic and character depths to avoid being “infuriatingly sweet and dumb.” 

After Maleficent and Cinderella, I’m still not a fan of Disney’s recent decisions of adapting their classic fairy tale animated movies (which themselves are adaptations of classic fairy tale literature) into live-action movies.  It gives the feeling that they are beginning to lack the imagination for developing original material.   However, after Cinderella, I also start to get the feeling that I might get used to the trend after all.     

Miscellaneous musings: 

• Cinderella won the day with her grace, positive attitude, and femininity.  In a “modern” culture which prefers its heroines to have tough, no-pushover personalities, I find this aspect of Cinderella refreshing.  There is as much strength in answering cruelty with kindness as kicking scoundrels’ butts. 
• The cast had stellar performances all around, but Cate Blanchett killed it as the Wicked Stepmother – she was a very interesting, complex villainess.  But, hey, you don’t expect something lesser from a talented Cate Blanchett.     
• Next to Cinderella’s blue dress, the Wicked Stepmother had the best dresses.  Yep, I noticed and appreciated the dresses.     
• I find Helena Bonham Carter’s role as the eccentric Fairy Godmother funny.  Not only because of Ms. Carter’s performance, but also because of the fact that the last time she was required to wield a wand for a role, she played the awesome, bloodthirsty Bellatrix Lestrange.  It was an amusing contrast.    
• Her time in the movie was short, but I really enjoyed Agent Carter as Cinderella’s mother.
• Honestly, prior to watching the movie, I had no idea that Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, and Hayley Atwell had roles in it.  (I had zero foreknowledge of what I would be getting from this movie.  I never read articles and never watched trailers about it prior to watching.)  Their appearances came as surprises to me.  Hence, I was easily delighted, approving, and welcoming of their performances.
• Again, I’m not excited of the prospect of having more live-action adaptations of classic Disney animated features.  But, honestly, I’m intrigued on how a live-action Beauty and the Beast(which is currently in production) would look like. 
• Also, I think that the best Disney animated movie that would be perfect for a live-action adaptation is The Black Cauldron.  Make it happen, Disney.  

Read More

The Profound Message of "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Walt Disney’s Emperor New Groove turned out to be a thoughtful, very hilarious animated movie, but it doesn’t have the depth of the classic short story that inspired its title.  “The Emperor’s New Clothes” was first published in Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tales Told for Children. First Collection., and it’s one of my most favorite “children fairy tales” ever, for it is an amusing tale that conveys a thought-provoking, profound message. 

The story tells of a vain, probably narcissistic emperor whose only concern is wearing the most exquisite clothing and updating his extensive wardrobe collection.  One day, two swindlers presented themselves as tailors to the emperor and offered to weave for him a special, extraordinary clothing that has a remarkable feature: it is rendered invisible to those that are incompetent or stupid.  The emperor’s vanity and curiosity got the better of him and he commissioned the two swindlers/tailors to make it.  Furthermore, he believed this will allow him to kill two birds with one stone – aside from getting to wear this special clothing, he would also be able to determine which among his subjects are stupid and incompetent.  And so, the two swindlers – having been provided with the gold payment and elegant materials that they asked for – proceeded to “work” on the fabric.  People, of course, didn’t see a thing, but not wanting to be considered “stupid and incompetent” talked and behaved as if they have seen it.  The emperor himself, when the fabric was presented to him, was horrified for he can’t see anything, but had to carry on as if he did.  With no one admitting that he actually couldn’t see anything, but pretended that he could because of the self-conscious fear of being shamed and exposed as stupid or incompetent, nobody was able to realize that others were also dealing with the same predicament as his.  The emperor even paraded the “clothes” in front of his people, but he was in fact naked the whole time.  Everybody knew that the emperor wasn’t really wearing any clothes, but they cheered and praised the “emperor’s new clothes” for they didn’t want to be branded as stupid or incompetent.  The ruse would have continued if not for an innocent boy – who had no concern of his self-image but merely acknowledges whatever his eyes show to him – that loudly pointed out the fact that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.  The father initially hushed him, but that one remark of honesty incited the crowd to admit to themselves that the boy was right, that they can’t see any clothing, that the emperor was indeed naked.    

The tale illustrates a sad facet of Men’s depraved nature.   The truth is something we will repress it if it will cause inconvenience and unpopularity.  We are more concerned with maintaining our comfortable status quo; we are more concerned with what people will think of us.   Hence, we prefer conforming to the popular thought of the majority, even if what we honestly perceive is actually the opposite of that.  We pretend to adore the beauty of the emperor’s clothes when in fact what we really see is the nakedness of the emperor.  We readily embrace hypocrisy if it’ll preserve our pride rather than undergo the uneasiness brought by truthfulness.  

And the absurd thing is that the “popular thought of the majority” is sometimes itself an illusion.  Everyone is afraid to speak the contrary in fear of being ridiculed as foolish.  But, ironically, by trying to protect his image from being deemed foolish, one is actually being foolish by carrying a pretense.   Just like the emperor who wanted to avoid humiliation by actually doing something humiliating – parading himself nude in front of his people.   

In this world dominated by superficiality and hypocrisy and vanity and lies, we really need more people that have the childlike boldness and non-hesitance to straightforwardly blurt out the truth.  Oftentimes, at the early stage of falsity, all it takes to break the general facade is a tiny voice that can candidly point out that the emperor has no clothes on.  One drop of honest declaration could lead to the eventual admission of the truth by the majority who initially chose to repress it. 

Indeed, it is important to call the bluff of falsehood as early as possible.  For if no one would do so, this falsehood would eventually evolve into delusion.  And delusions are harder to break.  When it reaches this level, untruth is adopted as the majority’s accepted version of “the truth”, and declaring the genuine truth then will result to graver persecutions (e.g. death).  So at the earliest opportunity, it’s imperative to demolish falsehood, before it becomes terminal.

Still, regardless of the extent of falsehood’s influence, whenever we encounter truth, we are morally obligated to uphold it, no matter what the degree of difficulty we could receive from doing so.  “The truth shall set you free.”  Freedom is what’s at stake here.  And great will be the punishment for those who knowingly and pridefully suppress truth and practice duplicity – it’s going to be worse than suffering the laughter and shaming from parading naked in front of people.      

Read More