In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen




All of us believe in something or another, in order to live our lives as consciencely as possible. Some of us have made this belief into convictions. Whether these beliefs or convictions derive from religious, political or social ideals is not what makes us move to achieve it. We have to look at what drives us to strive for our goals in life.

When I say 'beliefs' or 'convictions', I do not mean your average long term modus operandi. What I mean is the very dogma of what we live for. It is the very reason for which each every individual one of us is still alive. Without this 'dogma', we do not have a reason to live as we know it. For example, the suicidal are people who do not believe they have a reason to live anymore, so they kill themselves.

I am also talking about the very reason why we live our lives.

I'm not questioning anyone's reason to live. Nor am I asking myself why I live. That I am very clear of. I thought it might be a good idea if we just take a moment and look at ourselves. Let's say if we already know why we live. What drives us to strive for or maintain this reason?

I am talking about our drive. Let's say that although most people believe in a particular ideal. Let's say this ideal is peace. And let's say that war is still raging around us all the time. We can conclude that most people's ideal (which is peace), is not being fulfilled.

So although we have our beliefs or convictions, and even though we try to follow them, they may not be achieved. Not fully, anyway. But there are those few rare ones who do succeed in their struggle for peace. There are those who have stopped wars and bloodshed. Let's say they belive in peace too. They would have then achieved their aim, at least to the extent of one war.

What separate these people from the others?

Courage.

Courage is not the same as audacity. Courage, like wisdom, can only be used to do good. Courage is the willingness to carry out a personal moral responsibility in the face of insurmountable odds, seemingly or otherwise. This courage may come from different sources, including, but not exclusive to, faith, integrity, experience, etc. How much you believe in your convictions also determines the level of courage you put to your efforts.

We say we admire those who have courage to stand up for their beliefs. Some of us, however, may say that courage is a gift of character or nature of the character. Therefore, either you have it or you don't.

I prefer to admire people with courage. Because I also believe every one of us have courage to achieve the seemingly impossible. It is just a matter of whether we are willing to take it up or not. How much does your convictions mean to you? How much are you willing to sacrifice for this cause?

Many Christians die before submitting defeat. And by defeat I mean, giving up their cause. If becoming a Christian means certain death, true Christians willingly become the so-called lambs to the slaughter. Of course, we Christians also believe that those who are willing to die Jesus' name shall be glorified in heaven.

That's just an example.

Humanitarians like Oskar Schindler are willing to risk their whole career and wealth for sake of saving the lives of the oppressed. Another example was Mother Teresa, who willingly put aside her career in order to serve the needy, who live thousands of miles from her homeland.

Leon Trotzky sacrificed his children in order to preach Leninism (as opposed to Stalinism) to foreigners. Francis Xavier left his entire perverse life, his material belongings, even every single shred of his garments at the steps of his family manor for sake of Christ.

On a lesser scale, film directors Chen Kaige and Zhang Yimou put their civil liberties at stake when they stood up and made controversial films.

I could go on naming a thousand others and still would not finish the list. Not all of these people have succeeded in their attempts. But they have the courage to do so and their message has been heard. And I applaud them and thank God for the lessons they teach us. We can see clearly that all of these people have one unifying character, regardless of race, religion, belief and political convictions: courage.

As for myself, I don't think I am courageous yet. I want to be courageous. To take up my courage and do the right thing: to follow my convictions all the way through. Even if it means death.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Harrowing weekend. The film didn't turn out the way I wanted it to be, but nevertheless I finished it. In a sense, I've tasted a sliver of what could possibly be my career.

I thank the Lord for this because without Him, I would not have gone through with it. If I had listened to the devil's lies, I would not have gone through with it. I told myself that whatever it is, I had to finish it because I know that that's what He intended for me. To give up in the face of embarassment, danger or potential failure would be submitting to the devil.

I now know that the more important thing isn't about the film itself but rather my own perserverence through faith. I had to put my faith in God in order to step forward, otherwise, I would still be at square one and all that change in the last year and more would have been for nought.

I think that failure to me now would be to give up halfway. So from now on, the more adversity I face, the more I must place my faith in Him, for it is through Him will I ever achieve greatness in love.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.


This is the Leica M6


This is the Leica Digilux-2

What's the difference? The M6 is actually a film rangefinder. It's the photojournalist camera (in the Leica tradition of reportage photography). Leica has maintained this design up till this day.

The Digilux-2 is the digital version. If you look at it carefully, you'd notice that aperture, focal length and focus are all adjusted on the beautiful lens. The shutter-speed can be adjusted on the wheel at the top plate. It almost has the feel of an actual film camera. The only thing lacking is this department is a reflex shutter. Image: 5.0 mega-pixels, 2/3" CCD. Lens is F/2.0-2.5, 28-90mm (135-format equivalent), aspherical, and actually looks like a 35mm Leica M-mount lens!

I want one.

The problem is the price for the Digilux-2. With the same amount of cash, you might as well buy an actual Leica M rangefinder.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.


It's rah-rah time!

Disclaimer: the following views are only my personal opinion.

I'm sorry, but Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King just didn't do anything for me. I don't believe that adaptations should be faithful to its source. In fact, all filmmakers know that a screenwriter who is adapting any source to screen owes nothing to the source itself. But LOTR3 just glossed over too much. Guess what? I don't even have to have read the trilogy to know that.

(This commentary bears no significance to the Tolkien's works, but to the films themselves.)

Let's not talk about what scenes should've been added in and what scene should've been cut. Let's talk about the truth behind the story. All stories, especially those produced in the big-budget Hollywood world, are about the characters involved, no matter the landscape, time period, culture, global events, crises, etc. No characters, no story, no show. Period.

So we have established that every movie made in the commercial world is definitely about characters. LOTR3 has established characters from LOTR1, such as Frodo Baggins, Sam Gamgee, Gandulf, and Aragorn. However, if the movie is only about these characters, then why begin any attempt to introduce characters like Legolas, Gimli, Elrond and others? I don't mind if they were introduced lightly and the characters remain simply part of the world inhabited by the hobbits. But they have been introduced and a perceived depth of character had also been established. When you get that far, you must finish with the characters. They are no longer there to be part of the scenary. They become highly integral to the story.

Truth to be said, besides fighting side-by-side with Aragorn, what do the characters of Legolas and Gimli do for the story? For Legolas, show of panache? A symbol of undying justice without repayment? If a character in the story is simply a symbol of an ideal, I, and many others, say that it's a lousy damned excused. As for Gimli, he was more a joke than anything else. "You have my axe," says he. "You have my ass," says me. I don't mind lending Gimli my end because he didn't have one.

Okay, now let's forget about how hollow these characters are. Let's talk about character consistencies. Elrond, the Lord of the Elves, has been adamant against letting Arwen reunite with Aragorn. Sensible. We have established his character to be a tight-arsed conservative who believes in keeping his line 'pure', according to 'ancient elven lore'. In the end, after much persuasion on Arwen's part, he relents, right? I'm still cool with this. But having him cry at the reunion itself is just too much. Why the hell is he crying? Even though he has relented, the writers must build precedence/premise leading up to his tearful exhibit. I have no problems with the crying, actually. I have problems with the missing parts that lead up to that crying. How has his hardened character move from tough-as-nails-ruler to sobbing-emotional-father?

Characters don't change so easily. If they did, they would have changed long ago, or at least early into the story. And if that happened, how much less story we have left to tell! The filmgoer must see character change. Remember: stories are always about people - their journey, their beliefs and their change. No change, no character, no story, no show. Period.

Don't tell me that this is not a character movie. All stories are about the characters. Just how much character is ranked on whether or not it has a character-driven plot or an action-driven plot. Ultimately, action itself is still driven by characters.

I'm not totally disappointed with LOTR3. I just think that the storyline build for the movie is like this: This happens, that happens, so this has to happen. Nothing more. Exposition is the worst possible excuse for putting in a scene in a movie, much less a whole film on its own.

Having said all that, I do actually like the visual and sound effects in this work. I have to hand it to the crew involved for the effort to make this film at least a visual success, if anything at all. To say that the film is not entertaining would be untrue. Yet, for those who are looking for stories with more truth in them, it would bid you well to read Tolkien's trilogy.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.