Popcorn.

Went to the movies today. I got a free ticket which included a free "children´s combo" meaning a children´s size soda and popcorn measured for childrens usage. There was 1,5 liters of popcorn and 0.4 liters of lemonade.

I was with my girlfriend, so we ate it together. Movie was something over 2 hours, and when the movie ended, there was one or two popcorns left and some leftovers.

So, I´m just saying, that there was enough for us. in the children´s popcorn combo. for 2 hours for 2 adults. So, of course it is good that there are more choices in the menu, but the "normal" size is way too much for one guy, who in any case, is there ( or should be there ) to watch a film. Not to eat a whole meal. What would be a good thing, I think, to get them change the names of the "combos". It would please me if they were something like: regular, big and huge. Not: for children, normal and large.

here are the information available in finnkino website:

-----------

POPCORN
Lasten	2,70 €
Normaali	4,10 €
Iso	5,60 €

MIKSI POPCORN ON NIIN HYVÄÄ?

Koska sen valmistamisesta on monen tuhannen vuoden kokemus. Maissin alkuperä on arvoitus, se tunnetaan ainoastaan viljeltynä. Intiaanit kasvattivat maissia jo 7 000 vuotta sitten ja Kolumbus toi sen mukanaan Eurooppaan.

Maississa, kuten muissakin viljalajikkeissa on runsaasti hyödyllistä energiaa, hitaasti imeytyviä hiilihydraatteja, tärkeitä ravintokuituja, hyviä valkuaisaineita ja korkealaatuisia kasvirasvoja. 100 grammaa Finnkinon popcornia sisältää peräti 10 grammaa ravintokuituja! Popcorn on turvallinen kivennäis- ja hivenainepommi. Popcorn on siis paljon yleistä käsitystä terveellisempi snack-tuote. Finnkino käyttää Popcornin paistamiseen kookosöljyä. Popcorn ei sisällä gluteenia, joten popcorn sopii myös keliakiaa sairastaville henkilöille.

------

Findie: March of The Mediocre

I can not understand why Findie-scene, which has been quite well on the media lately, aims to be, at best, mediocre.

Usually things like computer graphics are quite impressive, length something close to respectable 90 minutes. But the script is nothing. Acting is unbearable and the image-storytelling is something too inferior to describe. And why is the humor so bad?

Being able to show your skills in technical pragmatics is one thing, but I think is not enough. That is not the function of making and indie film. No one is ( or maybe i should write: I am not) interested how well someone can frame a picture or light it with no money. That is a thing that one can learn, to some point atleast. To tell a story in the language of cinema, is the thing that is lacking from the indie (and mainstream) makers of today. And this is not only my personal opinion. Of course, this "to be original" might be something of a cliché, but there is some truth to it. "There is no need for intellect in maintaining a culture, but a genious, a true human is needed to create it." -....

Maybe (F)Indie is facing some sort of crisis now, when films made with big money deals whit splatter/horror/teen- sort of themes, which are commonly the subjects of indie-films. Or so it seems, cause I haven´t seen an indie film with any originality in years. If I have, it has been an american film with big distributors, and that doesn´t count.

For me, the most important things are; the idea of the story and the way of telling a story and characters, of course These things are almost every time set aside when making an indie film. Or so it seems. The way I see it it is more important to show how well one handles storytelling, apart from for example imagequality.. Of course findie is a large phenomenon and there are lots of different makers, but still, often it seems that some take pride in being "Findie-makers" and there fore it is a good thing to do something which does not even aim to be anything different. Apart from being somehow grotesque, containing bad humor or using in it self, the mark of indie, for to justify bad storytelling in some urban lovestory.

Santa Claus: The Final Tabu

Today is the premiere of the biggest Finnish Christmas movie Christmas-story ( Joulutarina ), I had the pleasure of getting invited to the special-guest screening on Wednesday.

I won´t argue ( too much anyway ) about the success of the movie it self, but what surprised me is how people reacted to the fact that it tried to present Santa Claus as a normal human being, a lonely and traumatized boy. In fact, the lead character wasn´t even santa claus, it was a boy/man called Nikolas.

It is an interesting pheonemon when movie doers now-a-days try to make films about superheroes. They quickly come to the conclusion that only when a man is somehow mentally damaged, can he do the things that most superheroes do. Think about Batman. A rich guy who beats bad guys wearing black rubber clothes. Well Santa Claus is not a super hero, but there are lots of similarities to the story and I think the approach has been similar in this case.

A man comes out once a year to deliver presents to children, what kind of man would he be like in reality? I think that the starting point in the story is at least logically true. A lonely ant traumatic child, who misses his parents and sister, who feels obliged to compensate being a burden to the small town whose people are taking care of him, being an orphan. First he gives presents to people who have helped him, later on to all children.

The fact that Nikolas stays in that state, that his madness grows even bigger during the years, is in no way funny or nice, but if we want that he keeps bringing the presents to the children, he must not find happiness in any other way. And trough suffering one becomes a saint, like St. Nicholas. (this is not in the movie, apart from small references and a very odd and symbolic ending of the film).

My point is, that it seems that Santa Claus has more power than we, or at least I think. Everyone hates the Coca-Cola santa, but everyone seems to reject the look of what could be the real santa. The story looks to me like being a basis for the myth that now-a-days surrounds the santa claus thing. This is how stories and myths are born; from some messed up guy, usually a loner who does something out of ordinary.
If the movie had been a tale about a jolly old man with elfs and singing, everyone would have hated it. But now the same people reject this story.

Is Santa Claus really that sacred? That it cannot be viewed from any other point of view? not to me. I think I´ve never had any relationship to santa. I hear that I was afraid of him when I was younger. But it is really funny that in our freedom of speech, liberal and politically-incorrect, nothing-is-sacred-kind of time, santa claus still holds his position of an icon, not to be changed.

The movie has many problems, I think it deals with the subject too lightly, superficially, even for a children movie. Children movies can be more scary than grownups seem to think. That kind of scary and dark stories are what affected me most when I was a kid. The movie is too fast, there is no space to breath and get in to the emotion.. Things like this. Acting is poor from time to time, even tough the lead man was good all the time. music was good but it increased the feel of the movie being "ahead of emotion" so the viewer was forced to feel, which is bad. But if there was something good, I think it was exactly this point, this what someone calls a Finnish way of looking life; melancholic and lonely life, of santa.