Let’s talk about moving pictures. No, not hallucinations - movies. The type of entertainment and art introduced by the Lumiere brothers in the late 19th century… On second thought, let’s not talk about movies. Let’s talk about the media in which they are presented. We are currently observing a shift in offers: the original medium of cinema has had competition in form of television for quite a long time, but watching movies on a computer or a home theater is a new phenomenon. Each has its own pros and cons, but personal preferences tend to differ. The objective is quite simple - compare and decide which, if any, choice is the best.

The contestants are: traditional cinema; not-as-traditional-but-close TV; the constantly changing private systems, including VHS, DVD players and home theaters; and the new kid PC.

Commence.

Well, I personally have not been watching TV for at least a couple of years now. While I occasionally do catch a glimpse of the news when I am in that area of the house, TV has hardly any favorable traits. For one, I hate dubbed movies (and/or any other dubbed program). Now, one must of course consider that popular channels broadcast for the masses, which includes kids and elderly people, both of whom have possibly no desire to further strain their vision by reading subtitles. I, on other hand, feel that I can’t properly enjoy the movie when half of it’s charm is consumed by dubbing. Voice actors may be incredibly talented and enthusiastic, but they will never manage to replicate the original cast, the specific people that were chosen for the roles. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. But more later, I guess?

There is not much I can say about VHS, DVD players and home theaters for I possess none of them (I am probably the only one in the area that doesn’t, too). Excluding my rant about future plans of having an ultimate home theater, I am pleased to say that I find going to the cinema highly satisfying. While it certainly has it’s own advantages and disadvantages, I rarely miss a chance to see new movies in the theaters (and then purchase or download them for repeated viewing, of course).

As for the dearly beloved PC, my survival depends on it. Sure, there are certain limits of what you can accomplish with it, but for me, it is possibly the best solution.

I agree, dubbing in TV broadcasts is an annoyance. However, when watching a dubbed movie, I prefer those that are dubbed by a single or a pair of voice actors, not the ones with complete dubbing - maybe it’s just a habit, but the ability to hear the original voices and to ignore everything about the dubbing except for the translation is far better than depending only on dubbing. Indeed, I think dubbing a movie completely is waste of time (and resources too) - its negative effects outweigh the positive ones. Then again, the preference only applies when choosing between different types of dubbing - otherwise subtitles is the way to go.

A plus of TV is that it allows people to watch movies without any prior trouble, you just have to tune in at a given time. Because of that, TV is a good device to discover new movies or simply watch movies which you aren’t sure you’ll like and so don’t want to bother searching or paying to see it. Of course, the same property can be viewed as a downside in different conditions: the schedule cannot be personalized, so it rarely is a good way to watch your favorite movies as you have to adapt to a channel’s authorities’ opinion.

(I’ll take the liberty of ignoring the rest - not in the mood of multitasking yet.)

Dubbing indeed has many downsides. For one, as I have mentioned before, it takes away the charm that the original cast gives the movie. Also, I find that subtitles are a good way to further your knowledge of a different language. I believe that a few of the most important criteria for learning a foreign language is reading, writing and also hearing people speak. Dubbing takes away the opportunity to enjoy yourself and do something educational at the same time. Not to mention that it is more expensive and complicated than subbing.

While watching TV really does not require a lot of effort, somehow, I am just unable to find time when the supposedly good stuff is on. Besides, the commercials that I usually have to encounter while viewing a late night movie or show are downright annoying. This is based on my opinion solely, but I hate the alcohol advertisements folks here in Lithuania have managed to put together. Fact is, there is a whole bunch of them and either they were created by agencies with no talent, or I possess no sense of humor. Finally, TV most commonly features none of the shows or movies that I wish to see, so I simply choose some other form of media.

think we’re done with TV. Let’s move on, then.

Next on the list is cinema. Being the original medium, it is still the most popular way to introduce new movies to the public. (Not that it says anything about it’s comparative quality, just a point worth mentioning.) It differs from the other types as it is the only ‘public event’ of sorts. Cinema offers a way to spend time away and this, combined with superior video and audio quality is an advantage. Of course it can be a downside too - it requires the viewers to part with the comforts of home and, once again, adjust to schedules. Another point to consider is the price - in many cases it is too expensive if your only goal is to simply watch the movie. Then again, that’s in no way universal - for some people it might not be worth the price, while others may happily pay more for the exclusive bonuses.

For me, going to the cinema is a great way to spend time. Watching a premiere might not be a correct choice if your objective is lots of personal space, yet the excited chatter of fans is certainly enjoyable. While going to the cinema does require some planning and has additional expenses, neither TV nor PC can offer the same atmosphere the cinema has. Sure, staying at home and being able to press pause when you need to is convenient, but the theaters have a whole set of smartly-placed equipment that enables you to experience both visual and sound effects to their maximum capacity. Possibly, the most troubling aspect of going to the cinema is the crowd. As long as I manage to successfully avoid the Spoilers, the Brats and the Folks-that-can’t-turn-of-their-damn-cellphones, I leave satisfied. Thankfully, the best key to picking the right crowd is usually picking the right movie, so it’s a win-win, so to speak.

On the personal level, I rarely go to the cinema. I certainly don’t dislike it*, it just doesn’t seem an optimal choice - the supposed advantages don’t fully appeal to me: I can live without the big screen, the countless speakers and the comfy chairs** and the social element applies only when there are friends or people I know around (in all fairness, not a statistically significant figure). Oh, and the extra efforts. Because of all this, my visits to the cinema can be counted yearly and still stay well inside the single digit space.

(off-discussion?)

* we don’t need no double negatives, we don’t want our thoughts confused…

** I usually don’t survive the soft cushions anyway.

So then the perfect solution for you would be a home theater, perhaps? Since it not only has the same features as, say, a PC, but can also offer the aforementioned big screen and other cinema-related equipment, all of your own choice. As for me, I still find going to the cinema entertaining. Sure, were I to possess a home theater, my currently frequent number of trips would definitely decline, yet would not disappear altogether. Watching a movie in the theaters is a somewhat of an event. It is certainly more satisfying than watching television and since new movies appear in the cinema the earliest, I do not really mind leaving my everyday surroundings for a couple of hours.

Might be so. Many properties of home theater indeed look attractive - audio-visual quality second only to cinema (in most cases, that is), watching movies when you want, general effortlessness of usage, etc. The major drawback here is the price, which limits it’s market to the most avid movie watchers. A cheaper approach - a DVD player with a regular TV - is naturally less attractive as the quality advantage is lost, but, in my opinion, it’s sufficient in many cases. As for me, a home theater, while a nice thing to have, would be somewhat of an overkill and as such isn’t a wish of primary importance.

Well, we have finally approached our conclusion then, haven’t we? Or rather, discovered our own preferences, to be a little more exact. As it goes, I would place cinema and the PC at the top of my list, the cinema winning a solid first place, with the PC following closely behind, of course. Someday, a home theater might certainly prove to be a dream-come-true for me, however at the moment I choose to favor the cinema. Also, both VHS and DVD players might be a smart choice (even if they do not really offer what I seek), seeing as how watching TV nowadays brings hardly any satisfaction at all.

In my case, it’s PC taking the gold, followed by the home theatre/DVD player/VHS trinity (in that order), and TV in the last position, suitable for a situation in the likes of an apocalypse (subtlety in its finest, you see). For listing purposes, cinema gets a parallel category of its own, since it’s difficult for me to compare cinema against the other media: depending on outside variables, it might as easily be a waste of time or the only sensible choice. That’s pretty much the only thing we disagree about - I just can’t see cinema as the universally acceptable way to watch movies.

Comments and afterthoughts: Does the fable about the tortoise and the hare work as well when the tortoise decides to go on a hibernation too?

So… how many candles are there?

Here in Lithuania, one of the hottest discussion topics amongst high school minors is the anticipation of turning eighteen years old.

Young adolescent people often find it hard to cope with their parents’ restrictions and terms, justifying their actions by stating that while they are still technically minors, they are no longer children. They demand more freedom, seek independence… and in the end succumb to their parents’ sensible arguments only to find them impossible to accept yet again. But then after a couple of years, they wake up one day only to realize, that they have turned 18. Having waited so long for it to happen, what is their first thought? Do they jump upright in their beds, recalling that they had absolutely forgotten to pick up the birthday cake from the store or do they feel disgruntled by the fact that the final exams have drawn one day closer? Do they suddenly feel excitement scorching their insides as the list of new things they can now (legally) experience flashes in front of their eyes?

Is there anyone that considers moving out of their parents’ home immediately (just like they said they would, a million times before), now that they are legally old enough to live the free life they had longed for?

Or are there people that smile thoughtfully, remembering their heated rants about this very moment, and simply go back to sleep, accepting that nothing has changed?

I find this phenomenon funny. First of all, while turning eighteen is important legally, life never works in such strict ways. Primary example of this is the fact that those who boast about turning 18 most are usually the ones who start enjoying the advantages(?) of adult life early, so in practice it doesn’t really mean anything. In fact, this behavior is so widespread that I can’t honestly imagine someone waiting for majority to start, for example, smoking. In turn, this vastly reduces the role of 18th birthday as an important boundary between minority and majority, at least for those crossing it.

Another point of view, although overshadowed by both anticipation and indifference, is fear of the eighteenth birthday. As in many cases, both extremes are unnatural and perhaps even silly: even though the loss of dependence on parents might not be perfect for everyone, I think that if one has to worry about being treated differently after the coming of age, problem is not the age.

Is it really that important legally? It is true that after turning eighteen you are considered a full-fledged citizen, you gain the right to vote and can express your opinions more freely. You no longer bear the status of a minor and have permission to indulge yourself in almost any activity you find entertaining. However, how is that a change at all for young people nowadays? Hardly any of them even follow the news regularly, not to mention paying attention to the underwater currents of politics. As for drugs, alcohol and smoking, nobody even bothers to pretend anymore that restrictions set down by the law have any effect on teenagers. More and more often you find yourself staring at a headline which says yet another minor was rushed to the ER after having overdosed. Personally, I still freak out when I see an eight-grader smoking on the corner of his own school. I feel that adults, especially teachers, who are directly responsible for students and their activities in school, have no right to let things like that slip by. There can be no such excuse as stating that there is nothing they can do to change the way youth thinks. Adults ignoring their responsibilities and young people ignoring common sense - these are the main reasons, why turning eighteen has basically no relevance in a teenager’s life anymore.

As for those who fear turning eighteen, I think it is quite a natural response. At this point, they are becoming adults, therefore they are also fully responsible for their actions. This alone naturally clashes with the habits of teenagers, for they are accustomed to act first and think later. Furthermore, their parents’ expectations of them rise exponentially. Now that they are adults, they must begin creating their own life without the helping hand of others.

It is important legally, but that doesn’t mean that the eighteen-year-olds are concerned. Otherwise, I don’t have anything to add here.

In my opinion, fear is as unnatural as the often-superficial anticipation is: firstly, nothing can be changed - turning eighteen is just that - turning eighteen, with the only guaranteed change being that of one’s legal status. And, I think, suddenly starting to treat one’s offspring differently as soon as they turn eighteen is bad parenting - the turn might coincide with the beginning of a new episode of their lives, but it might as well had started earlier or will start later — or, even more likely, the transition won’t have such clear boundaries at all, therefore stressing a single date is irrational (either way, we’ve just agreed that turning eighteen isn’t relevant any more, and if this kind of behavior was considered normal, relevance would still be big).

So far we’ve only been stating the problems. What about the solutions? Teaching teenagers that turning eighteen isn’t important? That wouldn’t do any good for their civil consciousness. Raising obedient teenagers? That’s neither realistic nor tolerant. Stricter laws could only worsen the situation in my opinion. Is there anything to be done?

I agree - turning eighteen is just turning eighteen. And you are right, the way parents view their children doesn’t change in one night. However, I still think this fear teenagers speak of is natural. Actually, maybe calling it ‘awareness’ rather than ‘fear’ would be more suitable. No drastic changes occur at that very moment, when you turn eighteen. But even before that, as time moves on, you become aware of the fact that you will be finishing school shortly, that at this point, getting a job would be a smart decision. You realize you do not feel all that comfortable any more asking favors from your parents and that you want to lead your life yourself. As you become aware of these things, you might just get a little nervous, thinking about your eighteenth birthday. Not because you are afraid of turning eighteen, but probably because you are both anticipating and dreading that, which comes next.

I suppose, the first step towards the solution would be identifying the problem. Sure, there is no such thing as an obedient teenager, but I think keeping them preoccupied is one of the most important issues.

This awareness and the fear I was talking about are quite different things - being aware that life’s going to change some time after the eighteenth birthday is not the same as fear of most of the standards associated with legally adult life (having a job, living independently from parents etc.), which is in some ways similar to fear of change or novelty. Awareness, even if not the best way to perceive the event, is a cool-headed viewpoint, while fear has it’s characteristic irrationality.

And how can this be accomplished? I don’t see how any change in teenagers’ habit could happen without forcing it in some way. What teenagers do is mostly what they already want to do, and the unpopularity of alternative activities is definitely not a problem with supply. Advertising campaigns, while effective to some degree, are never enough to reach significant results. Forcing adolescents to choose some sort of legitimate secondary activity would probably generate an even more negative attitude. I honestly don’t see any viable solutions.

Well then, hopefully, not that many teenagers experience actual fear of their eighteenth birthday. While there are those that like to dramatically analyze certain aspects of adult life, I do believe most of them are only responding to popular stereotypes.

In my opinion, mostly everything about a teenager’s life has to do with the way they were raised from their very childhood. Choosing the right company is always important, but the environment the child grows up in has the biggest effect. Honestly, I would say everything depends on the parents. There is not really much to be done when a person is already becoming an adult, but while they are still young, many steps to prevent mistakes later can be taken.

I agree, proper upbringing does the trick. But, by acknowledging this, don’t we accept that the situation will never be perfect? Lack of good role models in many families is a problem of it’s own - in this case, two negatives don’t make a positive. So, I see, the solutions involve either raising a new generation or hoping that current teenagers will realize, what does turning eighteen really mean. Once again we are left to put our faith in humanity and hope for the best. (I have this sudden feeling of helplessness.)

All Soul’s Day. Halloween. The first one, traditional here in Lithuania, is largely considered Christian, while the second is obviously based on some sort of pagan beliefs, but, looking deeper, they both feel the same. They’re both centered around the premise that the dead must be honored in the midtime between autumn equinox and winter solstice, only the related traditions differ. Here we will be trying to find out how good these traditions are.

All Soul’s Day. Halloween. The first one, traditional here in Lithuania, is largely considered Christian, while the second is obviously based on some sort of pagan beliefs, but, looking deeper, they both feel the same. They’re both centered around the premise that the dead must be honored in the midtime between autumn equinox and winter solstice, only the related traditions differ. Isn’t this the same for all the so-called Christian feasts? Instead of relying on any available biographic information about the people to whom the feasts are dedicated, they are based on ancient pagan traditions which in turn are closely related to astrological events. The question is - what good are these traditions? Aren’t they hypocritical?

Well, even though both of these celebrations seemingly have the same purpose, I personally feel that people that choose to participate in Halloween rather than All Souls’ Day also choose to honor the dead differently. While All Souls’ Day is basically a day for grieving - people visiting cemeteries, lighting candles on the graves of their loved ones - Halloween consists of families gathering together, neighbors actively taking part in trick-or-treating, children dressing up as their favorite underworld characters, having fun. The meaning of both of these traditions is often debatable and yet Halloween seems a more proper way to give our respects to the dead. Why choose to mourn, when honoring them by living on, the memories forever in our hearts, seems more appropriate?

That is part of the reason why I dislike All Soul’s Day - the way we are supposed to mourn the dead is yet another form of competition between people, namely relatives of the deceased. The situation is bad enough already: the gravestones are large enough to kill others, the fences around the graves are only short of watchtowers to be considered castle walls and the grave itself can either look like a garden or a sidewalk. Because of the tradition to further decorate the grave with wreaths and lit candles, All Soul’s Day becomes yet another victim of commercialization or, at least, abuse. However, the situation can be improved. I have yet to see a cemetery more beautiful than the Normandy American Cemetery, which illustrates how much of an impact can such a simple idea make on our minds.

But I do like the contrast between Halloween and All Soul’s Day, as, similarly, I think that manifesting life and remembering the dead in everyday situations is far better than having a single day devoted to that. An additional joyful holiday can’t do any harm, quite the contrary - I think the relatively recent introduction of Halloween to our culture will lead to a better (in my opinion, anyway) view of the death-related traditions.

Absolutely. Rather then choosing a specific date for that and that purpose alone, what wrong would it do to instead keep those special memories alive by acknowledging that which is front of our eyes? Shouldn’t we be focusing on the things that were achieved during one’s lifespan instead of constantly blaming something that is inevitable? While All Souls’ Day concentrates on death, Halloween offers a new and refreshing approach. It might not be the most perfect solution, but it is certainly an event that can truthfully be called a celebration.

Which actually easily questions the necessity of All Souls’ Day. This event, what does it offer the society? It does not create a pleasant atmosphere, nor does it suggest spending time with family. Instead, it infects people with uneasiness, sadness and doubt. Filled with these kind of emotions, how can people possibly honor the dead properly?

The necessity of All Soul’s Day for traditionalistic people is closely tied with beliefs in the afterlife as well as the role the feast plays in Christianity. It is quite natural that if one believes that it’s not only him remembering those who have died, but also them still observing the world, some sort of physical act in memory of them is needed. Given this, it’s also logical to question the necessity of organized spiritual belief systems, but that’s beside the topic. What is in topic is that All Soul’s Day is under pressure of modern lifestyle and it will, sooner or later, have to either lose it’s status as a particularly noteworthy day or adapt to the less spiritual modern worldview, though I doubt it will be easy as masses of people tend to cling to traditions despite not actually believing in their worth (hypocrisy once again). But even if it doesn’t sound right, I’m more worried about the option of adaptation, as I see some signs of it in the current commercialized view of this feast. On the other hand, I do look forward to the time when people realize that All Soul’s Day shouldn’t be such an exceptional time of year, so, to answer your question, I don’t think All Soul’s Day serves more purpose than a simple reminder that the dead should be honored, moreover, no significant damage would be done if the tradition ceased to exist. Then again, I don’t think it’s entirely appropriate for us to dismiss a tradition so largely based on religion, as religion, by definition, is a set of beliefs that no one should question (sorry, I couldn’t resist the temptation).

Halloween, however, is an easier target, and it’s flaw is more obvious to me: Halloween’s premise seems more interesting and, with it’s religious features being suppressed by bigger religions, it looks like fun supplement to Lithuanian version of Mardi Gras, but the commercialization in this case is even more severe, because of both it’s magnitude and the loss of mythological context interesting traditions, which are worth preserving.

It is indeed true that some people that participate in All Souls’ Day seek to receive a sign from the heavens. A reassurance that there is an afterlife. That the venial sins of those that regret committing them are forgiven and that divine punishment is executed upon those who do not. Others, perhaps, simply looking for a chance to meet their loved ones again.

The original concept of All Souls’ Day, however, was different. The celebration was meant to help souls that upon death had not been cleansed of their sins reach heaven. Prayers of the people guiding them, the burning candles lighting the right path. Seeing as how the feast has already changed and gained quite a few questionable traits, why not reconsider it’s importance? Things are bound to change, as are traditions. There is no logical explanation as to why we should blindly cling to old beliefs and let those sacred traditions turn in to whole industries.

I, too, agree that the time has come for us to reset our priorities. It is hard to believe the stunts people pull while trying to both honor the deceased and impress their neighbor.

(Allow me to ignore the second paragraph. ;P)

Given the fact that Christian church supports or, at least, doesn’t oppose the modified traditions of All Soul’s Day, the point that questioning it’s importance equals questioning religion which it is based on still holds true. Of course, we can dismiss it as being purely religious and having nothing to do with secular world, but it wouldn’t change much as the absolute majority of Lithuanians consider themselves Catholic. The real next step should involve either church adjusting it’s laws or people starting to perceive All Soul’s Day as a more-or-less secular holiday and acting accordingly. Until then, nothing more can really be done, and, I think, we’re bound to cope with it for the time being and hope that change comes soon, since I don’t think the current situation is beneficial in any way.

Comments and afterthoughts: Not much, really. I think agreement is going to become the curse of this blog :]