Dear reader,
so now the post some have been waiting for for a long time and for which the last posts have been sort of to prepare for. Some thoughts on how I lost weight a couple of years ago.
Some time around 2002 I wanted to lose weight. At first I thought of going to the fitness center. But then I saw the well well-conditioned men in front of my minds eye and me, the short, untrained girl among all of them? Hardly. But I wasn't happy with my belly. I wanted definitely to have a thinner belly and that was the beginning of all.
1. The absolute and definite thought of change.
Some dream of changing "the world". This big planet as a whole. It's too big a project, I'm telling you. Just as bad as a blank "I want to be thin." So something else is important, too
2. The thought of only changing one definied part.
But more on thoughts and the mind in my next post. The way I see it, that's in fact the even more important and more powerful part of the whole thing.
So I wanted to lose weight without going to the fitness center. I decided on push-ups and something that seems generally to be called crunches. I started with 10 push-ups as you know them. Then do the crunches to relax the arms. That's lying on your back, legs bent, feet on the ground. Now for example lift the left leg a bit so that the left knee and the right ellbow can touch and vice versa. So it's touching crossed knees and ellbows. Just as a variation to the "normal" lifting your head. Do 10 of those each side. (I always did left ellbow right knee, then right ellbow left knee and again left ellbow right knee.) Then to relax the belly I did so called "woman push-ups". That means you're on your knees, feet bent in the air (and crossed at the ankles is the most comfortable, I think). These are easier and even untrained I can do at least 15 of them easily. Then again go on your back and do the "normal" crunches": legs bent, feet on the ground and lift your head and shoulders just up.
For the arms what I did "back then" when we still had birds and bird grit, I once filled up two small plastic bottles with the grit and used them as dumbbells. I don't do that anymore these days. It's easy to do exercises with that when you're just sitting in front of the tv. Apropos of nothing.
About the legs: a really easy exercise can be done sitting, too. Put both feet on the ground. Then lift one. Just a tiny bit and tense up the leg. Imagine you have weights on your ankle, which pull down the leg. Do 10 to 15 of those, just as you please and then switch to the other leg. That's something that can be done again apropos of nothing, like at work or when you're having a coffee with a friend or when you're at the bus stop waiting for the bus to arrive. But it's important to do all the exercises I mentioned here on a regular basis! Going through them once takes no time at all. So doing them once a day or at least every second day should be really easy.
There's always a lot of talk about doing lots of sports and being active. You don't necessarily have to do that as such. I didn't do that, apart from the exercises I mentioned here, which I don't do on a regular basis anymore these days. It starts with little things such as going the stairs instead of taking the escalator or elevator. With that alone you're already more active. Or just stand up and walk around while on the phone. Especially these days where practically all phones (mobile phones anyway) are wireless, that's no problem anymore.
Recently I found juggling for myself again, after I started it for a bit in 2011 and taught myself quite fast to juggle with 2 balls and then stopped doing it until a couple of months ago. My next long term goal would be to juggle 4 balls. Also I found so called contact juggling to do. That's juggling, but not throwing the ball, instead it's always in contact (hence the name) with the body. There are all sorts of quite impressive contact juggling videos on youtube both tutorials and simply to watch and enjoy. Some of them are very meditating and relaxing to watch. As is doing it. ;-)
A lot of people often suggest to go jogging. Jogging isn't my thing. Never interested me really. Althought there's this thing of combining jogging and juggling, which is called "joggling". There's even sort of marathons where you are allowed to drop a ball only so many times and you're running and juggling with others. Find your own sports to do. I am fascinated with juggling. Sitting on the bed or on the sofa it's easy to do apropos of nothing. It's good for coordination, a nice arm exercise and it's proved that activities that involve using both hands also help to (re)connect both of the brain hemispheres better (again). Which is also, by the way, why it helps with depression and increases the creativity! Which is not to say that I want you all to start learning to juggle now. Everybody should find their own activity they enjoy to be active. I for one like juggling at this moment with great fun and it's easy to carry 2 balls in your bag. That's my thing at the moment.
That's it for now. Being thinner the first, the easy part: the body. Next time will be the harder part: the brain and the mind!
Until next blog,
sarah
Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts
Friday, 26 July 2013
Sunday, 2 June 2013
Try Not To Try
Dear reader,
there is one thing that I want to write about as a sort of preparation for the topic that I know, some are waiting to read about already.
Today I want to write about the word "try" or "trying". There is a scene in Star Wars, in which Master Yoda is with young Luke Skywalker. They're in this moorland or whatever you call it. Luke's spaceship has gone under there and Yoda told him to take it out with the help of the force only, through the power of the mind. Luke says he'll try. To which Yoda says the famous words of, "Do or do not. There is no try."
Many people know, how I think about "try". If someone doesn't know and uses the word "try" in my presence, I usually tell Master Yoda says hi. Some don't think this is a bad word. They say, "if you don't know if the thing will work or not, you can well say you're trying." Can you? Either it works or it doesn't. If you try and it works, you made it. If you try and fail, you failed. In both cases this is a clearer position than "trying". I think, Master Yoda is right. Either the thing will work out one way or another: positive or negative. To "try" however is an uncertain position in between those and in fact unnecessary. Say, there's a person, who's uncertain if something will work or not, for whatever reason. Even then this person doesn't need to try. It would be far better, especially because of that uncertainty, to get at it with "I'll do it." If something isn't quite right yet and it will fail because of that, then it will fail anyway. A bit more self-confidence, please! A positive attitude works much to make something to well.
To try something means resistance, that something is difficult. Yes, to dare something new can be difficult. I still stick to it: if you have a positive attitude to go with this thing, you have a better chance of succeeding. And something that is bound to fail, will also fail with the best of positive attitudes. So there is no reason to anticipate failure in any way. Lately I told people of the pink elephant and said to them, "If your thoughts are negative, you'll have the pink elephant in your mind, and you don't want that, do you?" (Tag question, by the way! See my last post.)
I practically deleted "try" of my vocabulary. There would be only one exception, in which I would use that word very consciously and where it would be highly effective. If you want that something doesn't work. I'd especially suggest that in hypnosis. For example if you aim for the arm to be stuck and can't be moved, catalepsy, I might say, "Try in vain to move your arm."
While we're on hypnosis, one more thing about the topic of failure in the context of therapy and generally difficult goals: a therapy means work and relapses. Sometimes it doesn't quite work as the therapist and especially the patient wish. Or good resolutions like being thinner or quitting smoking and similar things seem totally destroyed with the first bigger meal or the first cigarette after some time without one. I personally don't have the qualification to do therapy, so I can't give therapies. But I would urge each therapist to anticipate relapses and talk about that in therapy early on. A paradox? First I write about not using the word "try" and now I suggest explicitly talking about failure or rather relapses in therapy before they happen? Yes! Absolutely! Say, someone is depressed. There can be days on which the person feels bad. This happens to not depressed people, too. If the therapist doesn't talk about the possibility of bad days, the person could feel like a complete failure. It would be better to talk about the bad days explicitly and make them part of the therapy process, "You will feel bad on one or two days." What happens, if the person some day feels bad then? Well, it's okay then. The therapist said, I would feel bad one or two days. No problem. What if the therapy ends and the patient is not depressed anymore and didn't have bad days? Even better! The person can be proud, because s/he is better than even the therapist seemed to have thought, who said there will be one or two bad days. The simple anticipation of bad days gives the whole thing a different, a positive view!
By the way, the irish writer Samuel Beckett said the following about failure, "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
Until next blog,
sarah
there is one thing that I want to write about as a sort of preparation for the topic that I know, some are waiting to read about already.
Today I want to write about the word "try" or "trying". There is a scene in Star Wars, in which Master Yoda is with young Luke Skywalker. They're in this moorland or whatever you call it. Luke's spaceship has gone under there and Yoda told him to take it out with the help of the force only, through the power of the mind. Luke says he'll try. To which Yoda says the famous words of, "Do or do not. There is no try."
Many people know, how I think about "try". If someone doesn't know and uses the word "try" in my presence, I usually tell Master Yoda says hi. Some don't think this is a bad word. They say, "if you don't know if the thing will work or not, you can well say you're trying." Can you? Either it works or it doesn't. If you try and it works, you made it. If you try and fail, you failed. In both cases this is a clearer position than "trying". I think, Master Yoda is right. Either the thing will work out one way or another: positive or negative. To "try" however is an uncertain position in between those and in fact unnecessary. Say, there's a person, who's uncertain if something will work or not, for whatever reason. Even then this person doesn't need to try. It would be far better, especially because of that uncertainty, to get at it with "I'll do it." If something isn't quite right yet and it will fail because of that, then it will fail anyway. A bit more self-confidence, please! A positive attitude works much to make something to well.
To try something means resistance, that something is difficult. Yes, to dare something new can be difficult. I still stick to it: if you have a positive attitude to go with this thing, you have a better chance of succeeding. And something that is bound to fail, will also fail with the best of positive attitudes. So there is no reason to anticipate failure in any way. Lately I told people of the pink elephant and said to them, "If your thoughts are negative, you'll have the pink elephant in your mind, and you don't want that, do you?" (Tag question, by the way! See my last post.)
I practically deleted "try" of my vocabulary. There would be only one exception, in which I would use that word very consciously and where it would be highly effective. If you want that something doesn't work. I'd especially suggest that in hypnosis. For example if you aim for the arm to be stuck and can't be moved, catalepsy, I might say, "Try in vain to move your arm."
While we're on hypnosis, one more thing about the topic of failure in the context of therapy and generally difficult goals: a therapy means work and relapses. Sometimes it doesn't quite work as the therapist and especially the patient wish. Or good resolutions like being thinner or quitting smoking and similar things seem totally destroyed with the first bigger meal or the first cigarette after some time without one. I personally don't have the qualification to do therapy, so I can't give therapies. But I would urge each therapist to anticipate relapses and talk about that in therapy early on. A paradox? First I write about not using the word "try" and now I suggest explicitly talking about failure or rather relapses in therapy before they happen? Yes! Absolutely! Say, someone is depressed. There can be days on which the person feels bad. This happens to not depressed people, too. If the therapist doesn't talk about the possibility of bad days, the person could feel like a complete failure. It would be better to talk about the bad days explicitly and make them part of the therapy process, "You will feel bad on one or two days." What happens, if the person some day feels bad then? Well, it's okay then. The therapist said, I would feel bad one or two days. No problem. What if the therapy ends and the patient is not depressed anymore and didn't have bad days? Even better! The person can be proud, because s/he is better than even the therapist seemed to have thought, who said there will be one or two bad days. The simple anticipation of bad days gives the whole thing a different, a positive view!
By the way, the irish writer Samuel Beckett said the following about failure, "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
Until next blog,
sarah
Friday, 17 May 2013
On Should, Should Not and Not
Dear reader,
why is it easier to follow "should not" than "should"? "Should not stay up online late at night." Done. I am online late at night. "Should be in bed early." Not really. "Should eat less sweets." A pack of haribo jellybabies last a couple of days at best. "Should eat more fruits and veggies." I'm allergic to some fruits and my guinea pigs eat more veggies than I do. (Okay, we often divide into three.)
I think, part of the answer to that question is in the choice of words, the phrasing. It's similar to asking you "Do not think of a pink elephant." What are you thinking of? Smart people among you may answer with "A blue elephant." Yes, yes... it's a harmless task and everyone smiles about it. But it's less funny when something might happen. Like a mother telling the child, "Do not knock over the glass." I can guarantee you that the possibility of the child knocking over the glass is quite high.
Some say this happens, because we first have to have a positive image in our head of the thing that should not happen. To know that you shouldn't think of a pink elephant, you first have to have a pink elephant in your head. For the child to know not to knock over the glass, she has to see a glass knocked over. In case of the child this is more unconscious than the pink elephant. But still both is in the head.
In german this is relatively harmless so far. English is more complicated. Because the english "not", "knot" and "nod", if spoken the first two are the same and almost undistinguishable from the "nod". What helps is the over all context. For someone where english is a foreign language, the process of "not", "knot" and "nod" and hearing the right one may possibly be more conscious than for someone with english as a native language. In the "right" situation it may still happen that I hear or read other things in the text.
As a hypnotist you can play with that in a beautiful way. There are things called "tag questions". They're easier and more elegant to use in english, I think. In german they don't come across that beautiful. A statement is said and you tag a question to it at the end. A simple thing, isn't it? (In german they're literally called "refrain questions", but the actual refrain isn't there. It's obvious in english though.) To go back to the "knot" from earlier: "It's easy, is it not?" And how did you react to that just now? With a (unconscious) nod? Wonderful!
There's something else, which is called "yes-set" and can be played with and used to manipulate perfectly. Say I want the person sitting with me to agree to a certain thing or be positive about something. I set it up with a bunch of questions or statements, which I know the answer will be "yes" or the person will agree with it. So the person will be programmed to "yes", positive and nodding and eventually will agree to the thing or the statement I want him or her to agree to. But: if someone asks me a chain of questions and I repeatedly say "yes" all the time, I get suspicious. I don't need to be a hypnotist for that. You can vary all that by asking questions in a negative way and the negative will be confirmed. Example: "Kids should really not play with fire." You agree with that statement by shaking your head or saying "no" to confirm it. Although you say "no" or shake your head for "no", you still agree positively to my statement and I keep you in a positive mind-set.
Until next blog,
sarah
why is it easier to follow "should not" than "should"? "Should not stay up online late at night." Done. I am online late at night. "Should be in bed early." Not really. "Should eat less sweets." A pack of haribo jellybabies last a couple of days at best. "Should eat more fruits and veggies." I'm allergic to some fruits and my guinea pigs eat more veggies than I do. (Okay, we often divide into three.)
I think, part of the answer to that question is in the choice of words, the phrasing. It's similar to asking you "Do not think of a pink elephant." What are you thinking of? Smart people among you may answer with "A blue elephant." Yes, yes... it's a harmless task and everyone smiles about it. But it's less funny when something might happen. Like a mother telling the child, "Do not knock over the glass." I can guarantee you that the possibility of the child knocking over the glass is quite high.
Some say this happens, because we first have to have a positive image in our head of the thing that should not happen. To know that you shouldn't think of a pink elephant, you first have to have a pink elephant in your head. For the child to know not to knock over the glass, she has to see a glass knocked over. In case of the child this is more unconscious than the pink elephant. But still both is in the head.
In german this is relatively harmless so far. English is more complicated. Because the english "not", "knot" and "nod", if spoken the first two are the same and almost undistinguishable from the "nod". What helps is the over all context. For someone where english is a foreign language, the process of "not", "knot" and "nod" and hearing the right one may possibly be more conscious than for someone with english as a native language. In the "right" situation it may still happen that I hear or read other things in the text.
As a hypnotist you can play with that in a beautiful way. There are things called "tag questions". They're easier and more elegant to use in english, I think. In german they don't come across that beautiful. A statement is said and you tag a question to it at the end. A simple thing, isn't it? (In german they're literally called "refrain questions", but the actual refrain isn't there. It's obvious in english though.) To go back to the "knot" from earlier: "It's easy, is it not?" And how did you react to that just now? With a (unconscious) nod? Wonderful!
There's something else, which is called "yes-set" and can be played with and used to manipulate perfectly. Say I want the person sitting with me to agree to a certain thing or be positive about something. I set it up with a bunch of questions or statements, which I know the answer will be "yes" or the person will agree with it. So the person will be programmed to "yes", positive and nodding and eventually will agree to the thing or the statement I want him or her to agree to. But: if someone asks me a chain of questions and I repeatedly say "yes" all the time, I get suspicious. I don't need to be a hypnotist for that. You can vary all that by asking questions in a negative way and the negative will be confirmed. Example: "Kids should really not play with fire." You agree with that statement by shaking your head or saying "no" to confirm it. Although you say "no" or shake your head for "no", you still agree positively to my statement and I keep you in a positive mind-set.
Until next blog,
sarah
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
The Memory Palace
Dear reader,
I'm don't remember exactly in which book I read about this first, the thought of a memory palace. Either it was Stephen King's "Duddits" (probably better nown as the movie "Dreamcatcher") or Thomas Harris' "Hannibal". The memory palace is a way to remember and recollect things that are connected at any time.
Some of you may know this idea of connecting a list of words to a story and by retelling that story also remembering the individual words in their set order. The memory palace works similar. Only that the memory palace, as the name suggests, is a set of rooms, which play a role in this. You start with one room and then expand with other rooms and at the end you have many rooms: a palace.
You start it like this: You take one room you know well. It makes little sense to go to this room now and look for certain aspects in it. If you can't recall them and have them in your head already now, it will probably be difficult to remember the aspects later when you have to and when they're linked to information you want to remember. You use this room to place things in it. Things you want to remember later. It could be a picture of a friend on the door of the fridge, to remind you that you wanted to call him. Cupboards, shelves, tables, chairs can be used to put objects on them to remind you of something.
To create a palace like that is very much connected with the so called loci method. Loci deriving from latin locus a "place" or "location". In a sense the memory palace is the loci method in its most beautiful way.
To see what wikipedia had on the topic of the mind palace, I looked it up there. Thinking back I'd have to rewise my first paragraph here. Many years back I read the Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the book "A Study In Scarlet" Doyle mentions that Holmes uses his memory palace, to remember certain things.
Three moies are also mentioned on the german wikipedia page (I didn't bother to check the english one, too, but suspect there are listed there as well). In an episode of "Mind Control" Derren Brown shows, how he created a room that helps him count cards and remember in a Black Jack game which card were dealt. In a new, modern BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, the series "Sherlock", in the episode "The Hound of Baskerville", Holmes uses the method to recall associations. Here's the scene for you to watch. In the second episode of the american, modern Holmes version, the series "Elementary" (episode "While You Were Sleeping"), Holmes describes to Watson why he hypnotises himself in support group meetings to take a break. He has what he calls "attic theory": in an attic there is only a finite amount of space. The brain is the same. This space should be consciously used to fill with things and only useful ones. Unuseful things will be thrown out again.
Which may be an explaination why Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as well as the BBC-Sherlock-Holmes both don't know how the sun, the moon and the earth relate to each other and which revolves around which planet. There's no space for something like that in Holmes' head.
Also Jonsey in "Dreamcatcher"/"Duddits" explains to his friends that for new information, like for example how to use a computer, he had to throw out other old information. Here is Jonsey's explaination for what he calls his memory warehouse.
The german wikipedia page also mentions the series "The Mentalist" in which Patrick Jane also uses the method to help witnesses to recall things. But right now I can't remember a certain episode or scene that would show this. Sherlock Holmes is more familiar for me these days, because I'm currently watching the two series I mentioned.
More on Sherlock Holmes some time later... I'm not sure, if I described the memory palace well enough so that others know what to do and how to use it. For me this is something like describing only with words to someone how to tie a shoe lace. Like you may find, it's way more difficult and takes endlessly longer than showing it and actually doing.
Doing! I don't really use the rooms I created to explicitly remember a list of tasks or a string of numbers or something like that. Strictly speaking I don't use them to remember anything as such. They're places to relax or to be in good company. Sometimes they're rooms and scenes of movies with the persons of that scene in it or I take the position of one of the persons involved. I won't tell you the movies. I think those of you, who are interested in movies will find and have your own movies and scenes.
One room is dark and only a small, square table with a drawer is visible. In the drawer there's a note with 20 words on it, the words Derren Brown listed in his book "Tricks Of The Mind" to explain how one can remember this (one) list of words in a set order forwards and backwards. I have to admit, I only take out a sheet of paper. I don't actually see the 20 words then. I think in those moments to take a break and just focus on this string of words is creating a distance for a while. At least as long as it takes me to recite a list of 20 words forwards and then backwards. I read that book in 2008. I still remember the list forwards and backwards. The only thing I didn't do yet, is remembering the position of the words. Like when someone called out a number, I'd know which word was on that position. It would make for a neat, little magic trick.
In recent time I realised I half consciously, half unconsciously go to a supermarket around the corner from where I live. It's a big shop. Take a walk there to check if I know where to find which things. But it's more for fun and pleasure than to actually checking facts.
Until next blog,
sarah
I'm don't remember exactly in which book I read about this first, the thought of a memory palace. Either it was Stephen King's "Duddits" (probably better nown as the movie "Dreamcatcher") or Thomas Harris' "Hannibal". The memory palace is a way to remember and recollect things that are connected at any time.
Some of you may know this idea of connecting a list of words to a story and by retelling that story also remembering the individual words in their set order. The memory palace works similar. Only that the memory palace, as the name suggests, is a set of rooms, which play a role in this. You start with one room and then expand with other rooms and at the end you have many rooms: a palace.
You start it like this: You take one room you know well. It makes little sense to go to this room now and look for certain aspects in it. If you can't recall them and have them in your head already now, it will probably be difficult to remember the aspects later when you have to and when they're linked to information you want to remember. You use this room to place things in it. Things you want to remember later. It could be a picture of a friend on the door of the fridge, to remind you that you wanted to call him. Cupboards, shelves, tables, chairs can be used to put objects on them to remind you of something.
To create a palace like that is very much connected with the so called loci method. Loci deriving from latin locus a "place" or "location". In a sense the memory palace is the loci method in its most beautiful way.
To see what wikipedia had on the topic of the mind palace, I looked it up there. Thinking back I'd have to rewise my first paragraph here. Many years back I read the Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the book "A Study In Scarlet" Doyle mentions that Holmes uses his memory palace, to remember certain things.
Three moies are also mentioned on the german wikipedia page (I didn't bother to check the english one, too, but suspect there are listed there as well). In an episode of "Mind Control" Derren Brown shows, how he created a room that helps him count cards and remember in a Black Jack game which card were dealt. In a new, modern BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, the series "Sherlock", in the episode "The Hound of Baskerville", Holmes uses the method to recall associations. Here's the scene for you to watch. In the second episode of the american, modern Holmes version, the series "Elementary" (episode "While You Were Sleeping"), Holmes describes to Watson why he hypnotises himself in support group meetings to take a break. He has what he calls "attic theory": in an attic there is only a finite amount of space. The brain is the same. This space should be consciously used to fill with things and only useful ones. Unuseful things will be thrown out again.
Which may be an explaination why Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as well as the BBC-Sherlock-Holmes both don't know how the sun, the moon and the earth relate to each other and which revolves around which planet. There's no space for something like that in Holmes' head.
Also Jonsey in "Dreamcatcher"/"Duddits" explains to his friends that for new information, like for example how to use a computer, he had to throw out other old information. Here is Jonsey's explaination for what he calls his memory warehouse.
The german wikipedia page also mentions the series "The Mentalist" in which Patrick Jane also uses the method to help witnesses to recall things. But right now I can't remember a certain episode or scene that would show this. Sherlock Holmes is more familiar for me these days, because I'm currently watching the two series I mentioned.
More on Sherlock Holmes some time later... I'm not sure, if I described the memory palace well enough so that others know what to do and how to use it. For me this is something like describing only with words to someone how to tie a shoe lace. Like you may find, it's way more difficult and takes endlessly longer than showing it and actually doing.
Doing! I don't really use the rooms I created to explicitly remember a list of tasks or a string of numbers or something like that. Strictly speaking I don't use them to remember anything as such. They're places to relax or to be in good company. Sometimes they're rooms and scenes of movies with the persons of that scene in it or I take the position of one of the persons involved. I won't tell you the movies. I think those of you, who are interested in movies will find and have your own movies and scenes.
One room is dark and only a small, square table with a drawer is visible. In the drawer there's a note with 20 words on it, the words Derren Brown listed in his book "Tricks Of The Mind" to explain how one can remember this (one) list of words in a set order forwards and backwards. I have to admit, I only take out a sheet of paper. I don't actually see the 20 words then. I think in those moments to take a break and just focus on this string of words is creating a distance for a while. At least as long as it takes me to recite a list of 20 words forwards and then backwards. I read that book in 2008. I still remember the list forwards and backwards. The only thing I didn't do yet, is remembering the position of the words. Like when someone called out a number, I'd know which word was on that position. It would make for a neat, little magic trick.
In recent time I realised I half consciously, half unconsciously go to a supermarket around the corner from where I live. It's a big shop. Take a walk there to check if I know where to find which things. But it's more for fun and pleasure than to actually checking facts.
Until next blog,
sarah
Sunday, 19 August 2012
Pride and Prejudice
Dear reader,
I was able to see for myself how our presuppositions affect our way of thinking, if not to say forms our prejudices. Two evenings ago the movie "Blood Diamond" was on tv. I knew it already, but wanted to watch it again and really see some of the actors this time. I didn't know them before or wasn't aware of them as who they were the first time around.
I didn't remember who composed the music for the film, but "suspected" Hans Zimmer. I don't like him. His music often is big, which is fine in and for blockbusters, but the music without the film is often quite exhausting for me to listen to. I don't listen to the few soundtracks of him that I have anymore. Sometimes I listen to a remix version of the title song "Now We Are Free" from the movie "Gladiator". It's the "Now We Are Free (Juba's Mix" from "Gladiator - More Music From the Motion Picture", one of the two cd's out there. I liked to listen to that one earlier. I liked it better than the other one. On it are pieces which Hans Zimmer composed, but never "made it" into to movie. It also has a couple of parts of dialogue from the movie. Even listening to the "better" one of the two cd's, I don't get passed the first 3 tracks. I then skip all of them except the last 2 tracks. And that it's it.
It took me a long time before I watched the Sherlock Holmes movie from 2009 and Inecption, because Hans Zimmer die the score for it. I know, I'm stupid. (The score for the first Sherlock Holmes movie, by the way, is exactly what I expected of Hans Zimmer: much of other movies and much repetition. To be exact "The Third Man" and this is repeated so much that I was bored, if not to say annoyed by it, even watching the movie. A couple of times I still listened to the soundtrack alone and thought it was okay.) The second Sherlock Holmes movie from 2011, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I didn't watch, because the story didn't interest me much. Maybe I'll watch it some time. Inception and the first Sherlock Holmes movie I really didn't watch out of protest. I had no interest at all in Hans Zimmer.
Back to Blood Diamond. So I had Hans Zimmer in my head and a couple of times when I was aware of the music, I only liked it partly. Sometimes it was pretty good, I had to admit. Overall of course, I could not possibly like it, although some was pretty good. Then the movie was over. And? "Music: James Newton Howard. Ouch. He worked with Hans Zimmer on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. James Newton Howard gave both movies the emotion of the music, which Hans Zimmer cannot, because he can only do "massive blockbuster and action". James Newton Howard's wonderfully minimalistic soundtrack to "The Village" is my favourite. So he had done the score for Blood Diamond? I'll soon listen to it without the movie.
On saturday I told my mom about the quasi confusion and how I came to like the score just now because of that. She grinned and said, "See. See how our prejudices influence us." All I could do was grin back at her and nod.
The "pride"-part of this blog entry is this: James Newton Howard composed the music for the first two Batman movies together with Hans Zimmer, like I wrote before. He didn't work on the third and last one though and Hans Zimmer did it alone. Why? The other day I accidentally came across a page on the internet which stated that James Newton Howard seemed to have expected to work on Inception with Hans Zimmer, like they did work together on the two Batman movies. Nolan however didn't ask him. I don't know if it was defiance or pride or whatever, but Howard didn't want to work on the last Batman movie then. What an ego. Sad.
Until next blog,
sarah
I was able to see for myself how our presuppositions affect our way of thinking, if not to say forms our prejudices. Two evenings ago the movie "Blood Diamond" was on tv. I knew it already, but wanted to watch it again and really see some of the actors this time. I didn't know them before or wasn't aware of them as who they were the first time around.
I didn't remember who composed the music for the film, but "suspected" Hans Zimmer. I don't like him. His music often is big, which is fine in and for blockbusters, but the music without the film is often quite exhausting for me to listen to. I don't listen to the few soundtracks of him that I have anymore. Sometimes I listen to a remix version of the title song "Now We Are Free" from the movie "Gladiator". It's the "Now We Are Free (Juba's Mix" from "Gladiator - More Music From the Motion Picture", one of the two cd's out there. I liked to listen to that one earlier. I liked it better than the other one. On it are pieces which Hans Zimmer composed, but never "made it" into to movie. It also has a couple of parts of dialogue from the movie. Even listening to the "better" one of the two cd's, I don't get passed the first 3 tracks. I then skip all of them except the last 2 tracks. And that it's it.
It took me a long time before I watched the Sherlock Holmes movie from 2009 and Inecption, because Hans Zimmer die the score for it. I know, I'm stupid. (The score for the first Sherlock Holmes movie, by the way, is exactly what I expected of Hans Zimmer: much of other movies and much repetition. To be exact "The Third Man" and this is repeated so much that I was bored, if not to say annoyed by it, even watching the movie. A couple of times I still listened to the soundtrack alone and thought it was okay.) The second Sherlock Holmes movie from 2011, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I didn't watch, because the story didn't interest me much. Maybe I'll watch it some time. Inception and the first Sherlock Holmes movie I really didn't watch out of protest. I had no interest at all in Hans Zimmer.
Back to Blood Diamond. So I had Hans Zimmer in my head and a couple of times when I was aware of the music, I only liked it partly. Sometimes it was pretty good, I had to admit. Overall of course, I could not possibly like it, although some was pretty good. Then the movie was over. And? "Music: James Newton Howard. Ouch. He worked with Hans Zimmer on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. James Newton Howard gave both movies the emotion of the music, which Hans Zimmer cannot, because he can only do "massive blockbuster and action". James Newton Howard's wonderfully minimalistic soundtrack to "The Village" is my favourite. So he had done the score for Blood Diamond? I'll soon listen to it without the movie.
On saturday I told my mom about the quasi confusion and how I came to like the score just now because of that. She grinned and said, "See. See how our prejudices influence us." All I could do was grin back at her and nod.
The "pride"-part of this blog entry is this: James Newton Howard composed the music for the first two Batman movies together with Hans Zimmer, like I wrote before. He didn't work on the third and last one though and Hans Zimmer did it alone. Why? The other day I accidentally came across a page on the internet which stated that James Newton Howard seemed to have expected to work on Inception with Hans Zimmer, like they did work together on the two Batman movies. Nolan however didn't ask him. I don't know if it was defiance or pride or whatever, but Howard didn't want to work on the last Batman movie then. What an ego. Sad.
Until next blog,
sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)