James McLean

I saw Star Trek yesterday.

In the common day, that doesn’t sound unusual, since Star Trek is on multi channels, filling DVD cupboards, adorned on groking shirts and of course, sitting as tie in video games on people’s PC, sandwiched between the obligatory porn files and files to hide the porn files.

I went to see Star Trek: Into Darkness yesterday, to be more concise.

How was it? Well I’m reluctant to give plot points away, but I’ll say that this is one of those annoying films where the trailer virtually plot points the entire story in continuity. The trailer did this task so well, I could work out where I needed to take a rest-room break without missing any key moments.

Was it any good? Yes, it was. Better than the first film without a doubt. Everyone seemed more relaxed and the story made use of all its component characters. Lots of little bits for Trekkies too - blink and you’ll miss Archer’s Enterprise on display (yes you canon buffs, regardless of the messed up future continuity of the film franchise, your weary heart will have to accept the only show to survive the canon mashup is the very show that didn’t deserve it), and more - lots more. In fact, too much more.

The problem with this film isn’t the quality, nor is it the acting (everyone manages very well, Cumberbatch has a meatier and far more interesting role than Bana had in the first, though their motivations aren’t inherently different - revenge). It’s not the visuals which are perfect in every regard. The problem that stifles this film is the whole fucking Star Trek franchise.

Seriously film makers, seriously big Trek fans, let the past go. Star Trek: Into Darkness still feels required to homage the past continuity. In the first film it was in a practical story sense; they HAD to show how this was linked to the Star Trek franchise, and by doing so made the story clunky, awkward and extra difficult for the new cast to establish themselves. In Star Trek: Into Darkness, we have dialogue lifted from the previous film franchise… We have actual scenes re-used - and on top of that, another cameo from the past.

Let that past go.

Those films won’t be forgotten. Just because the new franchise is new, doesn’t mean your DVDs, video games, porn and t-shirts are going to vanish from continuity. For god’s sake, let this very solid new cast and new production do films without feel obligated to pay homage to the past franchise. You have your Kirk, you have your Spock, you have your wonderful Karl Urban. Let them do something new.

That all being said, if I was about to U-turn and go all hipocrite on my ass, my only minor character quibble is on Kirk. He’s impusive, he’s rash. He takes risks, he goes with his gut. All aspects I think are Kirk. One thing I miss, (and I use “miss” intentionally, because to say it “has” to be there will make me bad as those I lambast for being too focused on the past), is the cunning. At no point really in this film do you feel Kirk’s cunning. There’s no corbomite maneuver moment, none of the ingenuity you seen in Star Trek II, III or VI. He is raw, and somewhat disappointing for it. That of course being said, this is a very young Kirk, maybe that’s to come later, but I have to say I missed it, if nothing else.

So quibbles aside, it’s a great action film, that doesn’t let up, enjoys playing with the characters and is a lot of fun, but when it homages the past, it directly encourages you to compare past to present, and that’s not fair on either. Frankly, in some regards where it does this, the past wins out - I can’t think any of the homages that actually better the past - though Cumberbatch, who is linked to the past continuity does a great job at redefining it.

Good film. Go see. Trek lovers will be proud, casual cinema goers will have a lot of fun.

Popped to the cinema yesterday, after previously spending several weeks non-existing (so far as any regular readers of this are concerned), and went to see Iron Man 3.

Now I’m quite comfortably smug in some sort of cinematic snobbish manner, to have never followed the Iron Man craze. As a kid I liked the repulsors in his hands with a fascination of how a grown man enjoys staring at a ladies crotch. Beyond that superficial interest, he never did much for more. As a grew older, even less. Tony Stark seemed to transform from vaguely two dimensional drunk, to two dimensional wheelchair guy, to rather right wing registration bloke. Perhaps that was all quite three-dimensional; rich guys have far too much money to worry about being much more than need to present themselves as more than two of anything (money and a rather alluring car being the only two things you really need), needless to say, I wasn’t wooed by an Iron Man film, even with all the glittering gushing the first one got.

Though going to see the third and latest installment in a four part outing (thank you Avengers, which I still haven’t seen), meant I felt the need to see the previous two installments out of the four part trilogy.

Well I’ve enjoyed them. Have to say, and I enjoyed Iron Man 3.

I tend to find Superhero films boring. Not because Superheroes are boring, just the construct for a successful Hollywood Superhero film are boring. They require to appease fans and casual film goers alike, which means the same origins are tripped out (fair enough) and the films escalate into absurdly convoluted affairs as Hollywood is the home of “bigger is better”, leaving sequels with no room and far too many elements (all of which of course, require more origins to justify them). All in all, they start off with a mediocre first part (if you know the origin of a hero, and few 30 somethings don’t know Bruce Wayne’s parents were killed/Superman fell from the sky/Spiderman was bit by one pissed off spider-bastard, this can be a bit dull), to move onto sequels chocked with more villains and more side-kicks than the last one. By the third film, cinema goers, critics, actors, and the industry get sick of it, but too eager not to lose the ready-made buck, plump to just go back to the origins again.

Now only two franchises have kicked this trend in my eyes. “Dredd”, for doing a film that was low key, without world’s exploded and zero origins - a day in the life of the character, essentially, and Iron Man.

For me Iron Man’s success largely echoes the Marvel brand’s savvy approach to comic book films, and one that DC might want to learn: the success doesn’t come in the costume, it comes in the man. If you want a good superhero movie, you get a charming charismatic lead and you ensure that the alter-ego of the hero is as interesting as the hero. Look at Spider-Man, the Spider-Man films are more about Peter Parker than Spider-Man, and its Tobey makes it work. Now look at Batman, and the interesting bits are Batman - the only film, for me, to buck the trend slightly was the original, with Keaton. Bale does a good generic Wayne and a tough Batman, but you are watching for Batman, not Wayne. That’s not to say that the Batman films are bad, I just feel that you are watching, and waiting for Batman or the manic villain. A good superhero film, that reflects the comic medium, should have an equally interesting alter-ego. Peter Parker worked, Bruce Wayne not so much. With Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr makes the franchise.

Throughout the three films, Tony Stark is the hero, the suit actually, so far as battles go, doesn’t get much of an outing at all. If you didn’t like Tony, you’d have a dry film waiting for the suit. I’d argue the same with Spider-Man - especially Spider-Man 3, which while a hit/miss affair, carries its “hit” on Tobey Maguire’s performance to carry Peter Parker. I must say Marvel hasn’t been entirely successful. While I think Eric Bana carried The Hulk well, in the face of a messed up story/script, surprisingly Ed Norton really failed to bring any charm and strength to his version of Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk. Odd given he was so inspired the TV version’s Bill Bixby, he failed to give the character the strength and charm to the gentle hero. Marvel doesn’t always get it right, but it clearly has worked out the winning formula.

So yeah, Downey Jr is the Win here. So, is Paltrow as Pepper Potts, his love interest, who manages to riff off Downey’s portrayl in the exact same way that Kirsten Dunst failed to with Maguire in Spider-Man. There’s chemistry and acting here which carries the love interest in the Iron Man franchise, and this is a big score over Spider-Man’s trilogy: good lead, bad casting for the love interest.

Iron’s other major success is it bucks the “bigger is better” trend. Now naturally there are bigger, better suits in Iron Man 3, a franchise has to build and do different to what its done before, but the threats are pretty much at a constant level, national threat at best. The world won’t blow up without Iron Man, and Iron Man is never faced with a compound of villains per sequel to measure up the danger. In other words, each installment sits pretty much on its own, less a sequel to live up to a previous outing.

Now Iron Man 3 isn’t without its flaws. There is some terribly crass and quite retro-tastic plot choices - the President under threat factor these days, with such worldly wary disdain for all political leaders, carries less punch than it would in the 80s, especially when the President in Iron Man 3, played so wonderful by William “Death” Sanders, is a bit of a flawed piece of work anyhow. Sympathetic, but not perfect - which is cool, as Presidents of all sides are human too, but I don’t think he carries as much weight in the finale as perhaps intended, in fact, through the explosions, tensions and romantic love interest to save, he gets forgotten. It feels a bit odd, and perhaps in some ways quite fitting I suppose, that in the scale of the threat, that even a President is dwarfed by the sheer battle that ensues. Either way, it feels somewhat odd, as the President becomes the damsel in distress for the large part, and its a damsel I don’t think the audience really care about - he’s not representing any real political agenda nor personality, he’s not given that much space in the movie, he becomes a bit absurd. There is nothing wrong with this, but occasionally the film feels as if its slipping into blockbuster formula (The President In Danger! The Evil Hide Out Of The Mandarin! Captured And Lauded By The Villain! Cute Child Sidekick!) where it perhaps it could have done better. However this is why having the strong alter-ego comes in; Downey Jr makes every scene work. Whether he’s working with the smart arsed kid, or at the mercy of Guy Pearce, or trying to save a President I’m not even totally sure he’s that bothered saving, he makes the scene work.

Superheros are faintly ridiculous, and occasionally formulaic, so in a sense the above criticism isn’t so bad if you can keep those formulas interesting. Tony Stark makes this film as he made the previous two.

One final note on Iron Man 3 is it has a kick-arse end credits and a smart little cameo afterwards. Stay for that.

And a bucket of cola is my new kind of drunk. That stuff gives a kick as much as tooth rot.

So for the sake of it, my recommended list for Super Hero movies. While it may look like bucks the trend I advise on a good Super Hero movie, The Dark Knight is a stunning piece of writing and production, I would call it exception that proves the rule.

1. Dredd

2. The Dark Knight

3. Iron Man 3

4. Spider-Man 2

5. Batman

6. Iron Man

7. Iron Man 2

8. X-Men

9. Super Man 2

10. Spider Man

It’s funny for a fellow like me, to have such a love for Battlestar Galactica, it’s taken me so long to watch it’s aborted prequel, Caprica.

Battlestar Galactica told the tale of the second Cylon War, where upon the Twelve Colonies of Man were forced on the run by the genocide inflicted by their once robot servants, the Cylons. This story, originally televised in the seventies was rebooted in the 21st Century and its popularity spawned Caprica. Caprica was an ambitious idea for television - a prequel to an epic story of war can only really be set in a time of piece. Now any graduate of a history lesson will tell you the interesting subjects in history tend to be the ones set during conflict - can a show of war beget a show that tells the less exciting events that lead up to that struggle? One could argue that the components that create conflict can be as - or more - exciting than seeing people fight it out, but we are talking in context of a war that involved mass genocide of a race, as far as drama goes, hard pushed to top that.

And some would argue, possibly rightfully, Caprica doesn’t. Perhaps the singular fact that any offshoot of any story shouldn’t be forced to try and be a more interesting concept that it’s parent - or certainly not in the same way.

So what is Caprica? Well Caprica is one of the twelve colonies that built the Cylons that would ultimately devastate them. It is the colony probably closest to Western American, USA to be precise. It is an interest fusion of “our” world, with futuristic technologies and different theologies. In the Pilot there is a terrorist attack on a train that wrecks the show’s core families. This event pretty much spirals out the pattern that will lead to Cylons gaining sentience and turning on their masters.

I’ve finished watching the show, packed on two very good two DVD sets (though if they’d put the set of 19 episodes into one box, I’d have bought it sooner), and I’ve not listened to all the commentaries yet. I’ve had mixed feelings throughout this show, the only singular constant has been my admiration for Eric Stoltz, though now I’m done I have to admit, I feel as if I’ve lost something special, or potentially special. I guess that’s a bad feeling, but show’s a product has done a good thing - it’s left me feeling if not content, that I’ve not wasted 20 odd hours.

I would stress that now, for any people wondering whether to invest in this show, while the end is slightly open - as it should be given you can’t wrap up a story that deals with the birth of two wars in one set of 19 episodes - there is a feeling of journey made by the characters that is fulfilled by the end of the show. It is clear by the last episode that despite the chronic budget demands and ratings issue - plus the horrible hiatus the show suffered mid-season - that they still hoped for a renewal. In some respects, it would have been better if they hadn’t had that hope - there are a couple of characters who I can’t help feel would have been suited for a more final end.

Nevertheless, all in all, this has been a good watching experience. So why did it fail, if I enjoyed watching it? Surely I must be indicative of some of the watching audience? Here are my feelings.

Watch the first part of the show prior to the mid season break, then the final 9 episodes - you’ll feel a distinct shift in pace. Caprica starts gentle, and stays gentle, almost meandering through its storylines, perhaps indulging in those character moments that creators enjoy but most audience watchers will miss as the bite down on their cheeseburger. It takes too long to kick up a gear and give the audience a reason to drop the cheeseburger on the plate and become immersed.

The second mistake is one that’s catastrophic. Harsh Realm? VR5? Remember those? Remember any show that’s been successful that hasn’t pirouetted on the topic of virtual reality? Ever seen an episode of a show that carries heavy VR content that has been a fan hit? No? This is why you avoid virtual reality in television. Caprica is heavily about virtual reality - which in some respects is understandable, as it’s quintessential to its basic premise and that premise makes sense; virtual reality being the precursor to duplication - from flesh to avatar. My advice would have been the show carried the content required to carry this premise, but no more. Caprica does the opposite, whizzing the viewer in and out of “V-World”, all with a clunky bridging cut of red digits and electric sounds. If you need to bridge your transitions with such clunky cue-cards, it looks like you fear your audience isn’t getting the change between reality and digitality - and you’re probably right. There’s a whole long quest near the back end of the first section of the season that is not just irrelevant to the story, it serves little purpose, and could have been done in one episode, than three. People don’t like VR - they don’t feel the compulsion of the idea, nor the threat in the drama.

That all being said, looking at the sandboxes, grids and virtual simulations in today’s internets, the extrapolation is pretty good. Just would have been best left as much out as possible. I do wonder if Caprica had kept VR entry to a bare minimum, audience investment would have been different.

Finally, hope. You have some nice characters in Caprica so far as relationships go. The Adamas have Joesph and Sam, two well cast and played brothers. On the Greystones you have Daniel, who is fantastic. His family might not be quite as compulsive viewing, his wife Amanda can be a frustrating and sometimes charmless watch and Zoe, his now digital daughter, so removed on her own storyline barely to have any dynamic at all with her parents. You’ve got some great characters in between these two groups. Question is, where are they going? There is no sense of purpose or goal to the show for a large part; you are watching grieving characters screw up more and more, setting the pieces in motion for the eventual Cylon war… but does that make them people we want to watch? Do we want to watch a show that is basically about sending all its characters onto a one way ticket to war? Is that what this show is about? What is this show about? A lot of times I wondered that. Galactica was basically a fleeing wagon trail of characters. What IS Caprica?

Having watched it all I would say Caprica is a question about death, finality and possibility, but not really an easy pitch to casual viewers. Galactica wasn’t exactly an upbeat show, but the audience could sit along side the flawed and often unlikable characters and see what the goal was: Earth. Caprica, there is no goal, aside from trying to undo one screw up for another.

Now as I said, get past the mid-season break and the show finds its feet. After descending into some ropey pick-me-ups from the first episode on its return from its mid season cliffhanger, the show moves faster. We start to see more of the strength found in our characters. After episode after episode of watching Joesph Adama grieve and mope and blunder and cry and meander around V-World like a lost puppy, we see his backbone. Lacy finds her storyline as she falls in with terrorists. Daniel takes some massive risks and picks himself off the floor. Maybe we don’t need a goal in television, but we need to see characters pick themselves up as much as fall to the dirt if we’re to feel they’re worth investing in.

So suddenly, with a faster moving second half, the slower fast half doesn’t seem so bad. Those drawn out character moments pay off. We have a solid background to good television.

Now Caprica is not as “real” as Galactica. It never feels quite as believable - Lacy’s arc from schoolkid to terrorist is interesting but has the chimes of television reality to it. Doesn’t make it any less interesting, but this isn’t Galactica. In some ways, looking back, that serves it. There aren’t many genuinely charming characters in Galactica. Galactica is an honest, raw response to human devastation. Caprica is a little less about trying to make you feel these people are real and thereby more unpredictable, as Galactica did so well, it’s about making you feel these people are real by the standards you accept, which is less challenging perhaps, but possibly more enjoyable. Daniel is a flawed character. Sam is too, while in Galactica I think those flaws would be exposed in far colder light, in Caprica, the flaws carry a little more of that television magic which makes it easier to forgive Daniel, Joesph or Sam for their mistakes even if some are minor murderous shortcomings.

So it’s more “television” and sometimes that’s not a bad thing. The show doesn’t fear pulling the odd punch, killing the odd character or committing to some deft plot twists. It will also enrich a re-watch of Galactica probably a lot more than the more “bullets and planes” spin-off Blood and Chrome that came out this year. Because Caprica was axed after one season there’s lots to discuss, speculate and try and tie up with Galactica.

So ultimately while Caprica is flawed, I’d say it is essential to anyone who enjoyed Galatica and loves the idea of an envisioned, serialised, society.

Another blog, hot on the heels of the last.

This was something I meant to highlight this week - an interesting article on the shaming of the poor. Now this isn’t a new topic, the link to the article is here, and I hope you read it, but it’s not the crux of this blog, just my personal lead-in to this subject.

What got me was the linked document, a study by The Methodists, the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union on the negative focus the poor get in Britain, looking at attitudes of politicians, media and the populace at large. It is a fascinating study, looking at specific data and debunking myths that have been fostered and nurtured these past couple of years by all three groups above.

Again, this isn’t specifically what impressed me, but I do urge you to read it, far more so than the Guardian article.

What impressed me, was the religious bodies who have formed a union to develop this study. This may happen a lot, I don’t know if it does, but that itself is the problem.

With so much pressure on Churches and Faiths to “keep up” with new trends and changes in our social and ethical beliefs, it’s easy to say, and I’ve said it I imagine, that this is little place for Christian churches in today’s society. While many do believe in a God, or believe in a specific place of Worship, social and ideological progression have stripped many of the incumbered facets; be it on how we view our fellow man or how we consider what is ultimately right and wrong. The more worldly we get, the more we see the greys more than the blacks and whites. Churches once offered simple black and white solutions, what was good and what was evil, and people deep down love and fear such motions equally; it brings comfort to know you are doing good, and fear you might be doing evil. However as we became more educated and unchanged, what was good and what was evil gave way to more what was right and what was wrong, and that also starts to give way to what might be right for some can be wrong for others. Life is complicated and where Churches often by their own nature are traditional, holding onto past values, grey areas become harder to deal with, and one could argue they lose their value and social relevance.

I’m not arguing that at all, I think this pdf document shows how valuable churches can be. For whatever belief a church has, certainly in Christianity there is no doubt that their aim remains to do good - and to make a difference to people’s lives. In our grey wonderful world now, we can argue the toss as to how well these Churches succeed, or whether their good is an honest universal one, or a good clung onto for want of a simpler time where the grey areas weren’t considered or challengers, but again the point is the Churches want to help - and in all cases I can think of, they want to help those who need it.

In today’s capitalist society - and I don’t say that with a sneer, I like my tablets, computers, central heating and broadband accessories thank you - those at the bottom lose out as those at the top will weave a web that’s undeniably strong. The voice of the country isn’t the poor, it’s the wealthy, this hasn’t really changed from the days of aristocracy and landed gentry - if you have money its far easier to have a voice. Evidence has shown how much influence the rich have in the media and in politics, two very loud voices, and even those who work in those sectors, are hardly likely to be on the breadline. Practicality dictates that those with the power to shout will not be poor. It’s not a political argument, it’s just how things have always been. So who does speak for the poor? Who can speak for the poor with honesty, not bound by politics, media empires, marketing - or even consumer demand, because lets face it, we can’t blame papers for attacks on poor people without ignoring those papers only print what they know will sell. There’s prejudice in the market out there they tap.

Well we can point at socal groups, charities, government sanctioned/funded supports. Let’s not pretend people of all classes don’t care, but I can’t think of a more powerful support group than the Churches - in part because their mantra is to do good, but mainly because I think the Church need a contemporary voice and the poor need a voice who will look at them as people. The Christian church believes that those who are poor should be helped, and I believe in these days they need all the help they can get. Faith is neither right or left in politics, these Churches have a neutrality to their message and data that can be very useful. Too often we’re wary of any message funded by any political background - the churches in this country can offer the poor an honest, and objective voice. Not speaking in a partisan way on their behalf, but speaking without looking for benefits or bias.

This pdf file was made by a banded collection of churches, using data and study to try and untangle some of the myths poor people suffer. To me that’s a good thing, and it’s a necessary thing. If any Christian denomination is looking for a way to find it’s relevance in today’s society I believe it’s acting as society today works - and that’s embracing data, statistics, evidence and information to help those who need a voice. It might not just be the poor, it might be different groups of people - hell, maybe the rich will someday need an impartial voice, but I see religion and faith as something that doesn’t have to be washed away. Faith is something we probably all turn to from time to time, so that aspect of religion isn’t going anywhere, but community and support, that’s something I think we’ll always need and if the denominations find away to embrace that aspect AND the ability to project their findings into the busy entanglement of our social communication, I can see the Churches becoming about trying to heal our social shortcomings as much as giving us spiritual solace.

The big hurdle is making yourself heard, especially on topics people don’t want to hear and that really is the task in hand, but this unity of denominations and this clarity of data, is in my uneducated opinion a bold step forward to seeing faith establishing itself as a relevant and impartial voice in our social needs.

If I was frank but elusive, been through a bit of a meat, organ and teeth grinder of late. In such cases, I think it’s good to look for positives. Surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprising as this is a bit of a grumble blog, or glog, as I hereby deem it), making such a list was rather difficult. Regardless here are some of the positive things in no particular order of cariness.

- Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, the abridged audio adaption. I’ve mentioned this before, a more than decade old cassette collection I got from Amazon when the company was no more than a loss making nipper. It sits in my car’s aging cassette player and brings me much soothing pleasure. Quite why an audio narration account of a journalist’s witness interpretation of a year in Baltimore’s Homicide Department back in ‘89 would bring anything even vaguely described as “soothing”, is a little beyond me, but it does. Maybe it’s David Simon’s colourful but never melodramatic prose, or perhaps Reed Diamond’s perfect performance as narrator, or maybe it’s simply familiarity, knowing those four cassettes worth of spoken word so well it’s like a travelling brother to me, but I never tired of that audiobook. Never.

- Strawberry Coolies. I think that’s their name. They belong to one coffee franchise whose name I will mention because quite frankly, free press isn’t always a bad thing if something’s done well. I love Costa’s Strawberry Coolies. There, said it. Sorry independent chains, but this is one franchise that by and large, through money and business savvy out do most coffee experiences, and for me, their variant on the Strawberry shake holds a pleasure for me like no other consumption, solid or liquid. It’s quite frankly, an experience I can enjoy over and over. If only my wallet could say the same.

- Family. It sounds a bit of a duffer this one, especially as I’ve hardly been one to spout any obvious affection for blood, in some occasions denouncing people’s belief in blood being thicker than water, a phrase I found recently means the opposite, initially being a phrase to suggest comrades in arms should be a closer bond than family ties. I guess it depends on what family - my immediate family and some more distant family I’ve become connected to these past couple of years are very important to me - and keep me sane, which occasionally I worry is a harder task than I give credit.

- Comics. Never buy ‘em, sad to say, but I do get a fair few graphic novels out of the library. Most I skim read, assessing the artwork, looking at techniques, and seeing how the story flows. Occasionally, you’ll hit one that just amazes you, or re-amazes you, as I’ll happily indulge in some nostalgia from my 2000AD years. Of late, one 2000AD feature story I’d not read, was Judge Dredd’s mutie crisis from a few years back, and it kept me totally hooked for several books. The art, the flow and depth of the stories, mixed with that dark humour was a delight. I’ve just got another batch out, one is one of the Battle! collections, those retro World War II comics that, for me, are a wealth of fascination. I love the sheer expanse of that historical territory for story telling, I love the traditional artwork and I adore the simple pulp simplicity. Looking forward to that.

Television - Not a big television buff but in this day and age, what’s a blog without a television reference? While a little long winded at times, Ripper Street has been a great run, though thanks to iPlayer, who had kept six episodes on in total for a good month, they decided only a week was needed for the final part, so having digested half, I went back to find the other half no longer available. I must stress, this was not a happy moment. Aside from this, the only programme I really take pleasure in his Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe, where he delivers his usual brand of loathing fused with a surprisingly strong dose of objectivity to my tablet. Bravo.

The World - The world is a bit of a double edged sword, it can be wonderful, but more often, it can be horrific. The depths of its horror far exceed any depths of its pleasures, which itself is a very scary thought, but a realistic one. When we complain our food isn’t quite right and is spoiling our ability to enjoy that plate, best remember some of the actual terrors, natural and man-induced, that parade other people’s lives at that second. Despite that sombre message when I wander the streets, for whatever reason it maybe, for a moment, I might catch a waft of adoration for life, you know, real appreciation for the world’s complexities and wonders. It could be just the breeze hitting my face at the right moment, or the light dancing between the clouds. It could simply be the architecture around me, aesthetic enough not to displease, and to server as a reminder that for whatever problems one may have those buildings, those trees, those roads will most likely outlast them as they most likely preceded you - and they don’t give a damn either way. For that one moment, time can stand still and while you may not be in ecstasy, the world for one tiny moment might tell you to just unburden yourself of your worries and just be.It’s good advice, and in a few seconds on from that moment, you’ll have totally forgotten it, and be back to churning or planning your next world-relative inconsequential moves that matter so damn much to your tiny micro existence. Just don’t forget that moment, it’s rather special.