![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Just Like Heaven
A few people thought I was being needlessly harsh in my recent brand analysis of the popular spiritual website, Beliefnet. So for those skeptics, I thought I’d have a look at one of their recent articles for further clues illustrating what I think is their being kind of out of touch.
This is an article by Gary Leon Hill about the laters Reese Witherspoon cinema monsterpiece, “Just Like Heaven” which is a romantic comedy based around the completely ridiculous premise of a romance between a man and the spirit of a girl who is either dead or close to it. Hill is the author of a book with a pretty provocative title, which is presumably why he was tapped for this article: People Who Don’t Know They’re Dead: How They Attach Themselves To Unsuspecting bystanders and what to do abou. Hopefully this article isn’t representative of Hill’s book though, as it suffers from a severe case of missing the point.
The whole article is structured as a critique that the movie didn’t get it’s paranormal facts right. Apparently, Hill didn’t notice that this was just a movie, and a Hollywood one designed strictly to make money. Why should a Hollywood script writer give a damn about the vagaries of paranormal literature?
“Just Like Heaven” may not aim to be more than a light-hearted romantic comedy (a genre I have great respect for, by the way). Still, its creators would have been better off to have trusted their impulse to set these events in the paranormal realm by proceeding to find out how things actually work there. There is physics to these metaphysics, and lots of recent research. Much of what they choose to do instead defies that research and undermines the story they are telling.
Honestly, it just seems like a case of them telling a stupid story. Has anybody seen the commercials for this thing? It looks almost so inane that I am weirdly compelled to see it to find out just how the hell they pulled off something as ridiculous as this. Let me give you a more extended excerpt:
For starters, the way these characters meet–both screaming, beer spraying, each one hearing the other scream, each one seeing the other clearly–is contrary to everything I’ve read about such things. True, people see ghosts, but usually as ectoplasmic wisps or wraithlike figures floating through a blind spot out the corner of an eye. They don’t ordinarily manifest with the three-dimensional density represented here by the well-lit Witherspoon.
And how does David even hear her scream? Yes, ghost lore is full of moans and groans heard in the night. But Elizabeth is not a ghost. She’s the etheric body, the spiritual essence, of a woman being kept alive on a respirator whose larynx and voice box remain blocks away. So, how do these two engage in the lengthy conversations in what becomes a very talky movie?
In no near-death encounter I’m familiar with do those still in the body see or hear the one who is having the out-of-body experience. To hear her, to be aware of her at all, David would have to be psychic. There is no evidence of that. And, there is no indication that these conversations are in any way telepathic.
Am I just crazy or does this seem like sort of a preposterous line of criticism to be taking with what’s essentially meant to be a bubblegum movie? I mean, we could sit around and scoff all day at screenwriters for not obeying the “laws” of the paranormal, but where does that really get us?
The whole thing reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer lands the role of Poochie, and is assisting at the fan convention Q&A session:
DOUG
Hi. Question for Ms. Bellamy. In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy’s skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a… (sniggering) magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.BELLAMY
Uh, well, uh…HOMER
I’ll field that one. Let me ask you a question. Why would a man whose shirt says “Genius at Work” spend all of his time watching a children’s cartoon show?DOUG
(embarrassed) I withdraw my question. (eats a chocolate bar)
So, is there something to Hill’s observations about this movie, or is he just eating a chocolate bar here?
- Prev: Ghosts of Animals
- Next: Spiritual Nomads
September 26th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
chocolate bar. i bet he was also disappointed to find that there’s no company called total recall, and that martin sheen isn’t the president. however, i’m impressed that this guy knows “how things actually work” in the paranormal realm. wow, you simply must interview this guy, he has all the answers while millions of us are still just searching and speculating like fwits.
if this shit is what passes for content on beliefnet, i’m sure they’ll make an absolute fortune. shit is what appeals to the mainstream, whether that shit be bland or otherwise.
he obviously hasn’t read “non-telepathic communication with beer-spraying ghosts”. but seriously, what’s this guy saying? it’s contrary? may as well come right out and call it heretical. if it isn’t like everything else then it doesn’t exist, and all that. here’s some heresy: maybe scratchy’s skeleton is a magic xylophone.
gee, it sure felt good to get that off my chest.
and we could sit around all day scoffing at moronic movie reviews. same thing, it makes us feel better about ourselves, that’s all. the chocolate bar is symbolic of how people derive comfort from this behaviour.
he may be a nerd but you’re just trying to prove you’re not a nerd (or that you’re a bigger one) by bullying him. your chocolate bar remains to be eaten. and now that i’ve written this, so does mine.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Yeah, good call. The irony of it all wasn’t lost on me when I wrote this. I guess the reason I really reacted to what this guy was writing is that I’ve been guilty of this very same thing a million times, and it’s something I’d like to put to rest as I really feel like it just doesn’t get me anywhere.
So consider this as me attempting to let go of this style of thought and writing. Apologies to Hill for using him as a tool for my own self-actualization.
September 27th, 2005 at 12:47 am
yeah, recently i’ve been giving a lot of thought to how i define myself by my relationship to others, particularly “enemies”, and particularly enemies who are just like me. it indicates that something’s missing in my character. i’ve realized that it’s no different to the government inventing an “al qaeda” to justify their own existence. i only do that shit when i feel i’ve got nothing to offer the world, so i may as well fight something. that something is just me in disguise. maybe when i grow up i won’t do it anymore.
don’t apologize though. 1) we are all tools for each other’s self-actualization, 2) hill had it coming!
September 27th, 2005 at 3:36 am
Well, I’ll have to concede to you on this one, that is a load of bollocks. Mind you, the fact that it’s “just a film” doesn’t mean it still can’t be critiqued from a given ideological standpoint (political, religious or other). WSWS, Capalert, etc do that sort of thing all the time. The results may be totally idiotic and the method misguided (for example, what exactly would be the point of criticising The Passion of the Christ from a Satanic perspective?) but the activity in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Any criticism of a work of art or entertainment, whether good or bad, can be seen as “eating a chocolate bar”… Ever read Robert Hilburn’s L.A. Times reviews of anything by U2 or Bruce Springsteen? Talk about ass-kissing!
I think, when it comes to certain genres, you have to allow for suspension of disbelief, otherwise you end up having conversations like I had last week: some friends and I were wondering whether the monster from “Frankenstein” was able to reproduce sexually…
Anyway, here’s a link to Insultingly Bad Movie Physics, which is along the same lines as this post here except it deals with improbably cinema science. Maybe someone should come up with Insultingly Bad Movie Supernaturality!
http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html