Install Theme

Voice via Medium: Textual Tension

Another Monday, another flame war you never meant to start. 

You know the feeling. 

What made this particular internet-time swallower so astounding compared to all the other worthless internet debates… was the subject matter. It wasn’t a matter of political differences, or subjective entertainment choices…

It was over the merits and limitations over communicating via text message. 

Over the past year, I’ve gone on quite a few dates. It’s probably the first time in my life where I’ve really begun “dating”. I’m a socially active “dater”. I’ve met a lot of cool people, and I’ve had a lot of fun, but the hardest part about dating as a millennial is the way we communicate while in relationships. And it seems that most of my romantic hopefuls fall off the map primarily because of how we interact between dates. So it stands to reason that I don’t know how to text and date.

Here is a depressingly-accurate list/article on how modern dating is THE WORST.

^This is the same article I posted to my social media. Commence: debate. 

I was, initially, met with several agreeable posts. Things akin to “oh man, so accurate.” and “I’ve been saying the same thing for a while now!”, etc. But then a good friend of mine (WHO HAS A TOTALLY AWESOME SHORT STORY ON AMAZON YOU SHOULD BUY RIGHT NAOW) brought up something in the article which I found very strange:

"I don’t understand people who say texting is inherently unemotional. It certainly can be, but for thousands of years texting was the only way of communicating [long] distance. They just called it writing letters. Just learn to write better and convey your meaning and emotions more effectively."

The article is essentially saying that modern dating relies too much on reading into the subtext behind texting. How often do they respond? When do they respond? How are they responding? And the answers to all of these questions are completely different from how an actual conversation would go, and the argument goes that traditional dating was more successful and fun before this technology existed. Texting has become a mind game in modern dating.  

This got me thinking A LOT about the nature of communication. Why do some mediums communicate differently than others? What makes some mediums, such as a handwritten letter or an email, different from a text message? 

As much respect as I have for this guy, I can’t unsee the inherent complications (and benefits) within a message’s medium. A text is different from a letter, no? 

Need an example? Google search for “text with a period” and this is the first article you’ll encounter.

The nature of the text is based solely on it’s level of convenience. Example: Periods don’t get used in texts because they’re redundant. Just send a second message or add a line break for multiple sentences… Now if that little dot does get added, it suddenly means something, usually something mean. This is one example of thousands of ways that texting is detrimental when used as a means of personal communication, because it is redefining how communication happens based on convenience as opposed to the value and traditional intention of the words we use. 

Which brings me to my next point: I’m not a text message nazi. I prefer texts to calls. This is mostly because… I hate talking on the phone. I need to plug in a headset every time because I don’t like holding my phone to my ear, and I feel as if I can never understand what my acquaintance is saying on the other end of the line. On top of that, texting takes less time… it is easier to shoot someone a text, feel confident that they received the information, and move forward. 


Hey Dan, I’ll be 12 minutes late to trivia night 
Save me a seat!

Sarah, can you water the plants? 
I forgot 2 this morning

Hey Clarissa
wanna go out this weekend?


Which of the above examples doesn’t belong? When you choose to communicate via a medium that requires the least amount of effort, time, and even thought… you remove all of the crucial microexpressions that exist in an important conversation. Even a handwritten letter holds more emotional resonance than a text message, because it necessitates time. 

Here’s where the dialogue comes in… most handwritten letters are difficult to read, annoying to write, and actually cost money if they’re being delivered by a carrier. No wonder UPS is going bankrupt! Now I don’t know about you, but in spite of this I feel so elated every single time I receive a handwritten letter. It’s why people still write “thank you” notes and send out pressed wedding invitations… there’s something beyond the words that is happening, the medium is the spine of the message. 

I’ve constructed a theory, the more difficult and vulnerable a conversational environment forces you to be… the more meaningful and impactful the result of the conversation… regardless of subject. It’s why I go over to my friend Jacob’s house to just rant about how awesome Star Wars is instead of just texting him. 


yo remember how cool that one part in star wars was?

yea that was awesome

yo remember how uncool the prequels are?

yea that was not awesome


Likewise, if I were to write a screenplay, I would prefer to type it on my computer than a text message. It’s far easier to tap into your creative “zone” when you have fewer thresholds or barriers to cross… and the limitations of texting holds far too many barriers. However, if I can’t communicate a message effectively via texting… why would I text at all? 

This is where it circles back around to texting/dating/and the debate I was involved with on my Facebook. It’s my opinion that my friend simply missed the subject of the article entirely, because texting ISN’T designed for personal communication, in the same way that email wasn’t designed for personal communication. Email has been adopted by our generation primarily into business transactional uses. It’s how our usernames are determined for most websites… and how we exchange important information amongst professionals. Texting is similar, but hasn’t been adopted properly by our culture yet. It’s not just being used for “fast pass” discussion or quippy-comments, it’s being used as a means of instantaneous gratification devoid of vulnerability within relationships. I can’t make a blanket statement that this is how all couples function, but I can admit to having been a pawn of this during the dating game. I’m just over it. 

So it seems clear to me that texting simply isn’t designed for any level of relational communication. It may, with the right word-choice, communicate the message it intends… but only on surface level. The only thing it may be better than… is emails and facebook messaging. This is especially true since we DON’T live in an age where we are forced to rely on non-personal communication. Have a g/f in Canada? That’s cool - DON’T JUST TEXT HER. FACETIME HER. Talk TO her.

Imagine if every written document addressed to you was spoken to you instead. I keep a lot of my favorite letters, but sometimes I sincerely wish everything of worth, negative and positive, was told to my face, even if it means I can’t keep a record of it. 

Texting isn’t bad. It’s super useful under the right context, but that’s all it is… useful. It’s a medium that requires you to walk in a straight line. “Yes, I’ll water the plants” “Sure lets go out”. It’s like going on a hike on an interstate instead of through a mountain. One is difficult, the other is unfulfilling. 

Which brings us back to mediums and communication. All mediums serve a purpose, some serve multiple. Some mediums can only serve one purpose very well, and some mediums serve some purposes… very poorly. 

What do you think? Is the “texty-relationship” the end of traditional dating? How does a medium affect a message? 

And what did you think of that guy’s book? It’s good right??? Can’t believe it was only $1…


I have never seen a Godzilla film before, and Godzilla might be one of the most challenging film’s I’ve ever had to defend. 

Lots of people really like it, some really hate it, some just think it was ok. So at the end of the day it’s falling into the “this is a normal/kinda good summer movie”. 


Normally when I approach films, I am 100% ready to tear them apart. I’m looking for things to disappoint me, places where the direction was lackluster, or the action was clearly CG’d instead of practical. The film’s that truly elevate me to another plane of existence… this place beyond the fourth wall… even with the extremely critical mindset, are those that set me apart. 

GODZILLA is a film that had every reason to make me go “that’s just silly” or “this is ridiculous” but I NEVER DID. 


The film’s strongest vehicle is it’s humanity. Fear is the driving force of this film, if that were not made evident by the trailer, but I will also warn you… it is not the fear you will be expecting. 

The only way I can prepare you for this film’s narrative structure without spoiling the entire film is to simply summarize how it is told. The film is consistently told from a human perspective, giving the monster a grander scale. We very rarely ever see it up close, but this gives the King of all Monsters a scope of unimaginable proportions. It is truly magnificent. Having seen a few clips of the previous Godzilla film by Roland Emmerich, I can clearly feel a deference between how the filmmaker’s held reverence to the beast, and I’m in favor of how Gareth Edwards handled it. 

The film also boasts an intriguing political subtext, which is apparently a classic analysis of the original Godzilla film. It’s strangely fascinating and thrilling to watch a beast of epic proportions rampage through a city as a result of how we have been treating our own world. The fear is also the invigoration, but that may be because as the audience… we are all aware that this is something we’ve already done to ourselves. 


If I haven’t already made this clear, The Spectacle is intricately tied to the story. Without the scope of the beast, there would be no reverence for it, and if there were no reverence, than we would not be in awe of the carnage it causes. But it goes without saying, that Godzilla looks dammed good. 

I had the pleasure of witnessing the mauling of multiple cities by a prehistoric beast on a glorious IMAX screen, and I cannot imagine seeing a Godzilla film any other way. 


Cranston’s performance is as compelling as it is embarrassingly short, but the cast of  Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen provide some very honest depictions of desperate broken people trying to make it through an apocalypse. Their familial dynamic is welcome, but wasn’t quite pushed to the dynamic extreme I would have hoped to have seen. This is just as much a critique of the writing and direction as it is of the acting, but we spend an entire hour developing these characters before we finally meet our monster, so I’m not sure if there was an easy answer to this problem for this film. 


The greatest films often take their time. Godzilla was no different. Until the film’s final act, it’s a slow crawl through a minefield of tangible cinematic tension that crescendos into an eruption of Kaiju glory. It’s a common complaint that it takes too long to get to the conflict, but I’m here to disagree with APPARENTLY THE ENTIRE INTERNET. 

The film does suffer from a bit of a “Return of the King” like ending. “A character goes down, he gets back up, he goes down, he gets back up, he goes down, he gets back up” scenario is prevalent in the final act… and it’s a bit anti-climatic. 


It’s so difficult to describe without completely ruining a few key moments, but all I’ll just to say from here on out, is that the film is as classic as the original Kaiju films. I say this with 100% certainty, having seen none of them, and I’ve heard from many fanboys that this is not an inaccurate statement. If you grew up with these films, or just want to watch a huge dinosaur wreck through an entire city. I cannot recommend seeing Godzilla while it is in theaters enough. 


FROZEN: an amazing film, and it’s flawed conclusion. An example of poor thematic resolution.

So, two things before we get into this post. 

A) SO MANY SPOILERS for the new film FROZEN. Read at your own risk. 

B) Seriously? You haven’t seen it? I thought I was the last one… you should DEFINITELY go see it right now

It used to be that conclusions were the point of stories. You stuck with a film till the end to see how a film is going to resolve itself. The last ten years, thanks in large part to a generation of post-modernist filmmakers, films have become more about the journey than they are about the conclusion. 

This isn’t such a terrible thing though. New storytelling methods usually result in some groundbreaking strides for the medium. Tarantino is a fantastic example of a “journey over destination” storyteller, and he holds near universal praise critically and commercially. 

I’m here to try to explain that Frozen is only enjoyable as a story whose strengths lie in the journey, over the destination. Because the destination is completely half assed. 

Just in case I wasn’t clear enough… FROZEN RULES. The entire soundtrack is crazy catchy, the characters are all equally endearing, the drama will wrench your heart and elevate you all at once, it’s just a fantastic entry into the Disney canon and deserves to be among the ranks of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin. 

Let’s talk about why the ending sucks. 

Our protagonists are two sisters named Anna and Elsa (voiced by the lovely Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel respectively). Elsa has a very unique growing pain to deal with… because she’s a sorceress. Her powers enable her to turn everything she touches to ice, and this results in a near fatal accident while she and Anna were playing together at a young age. Because of this, Anna’s memory is magically wiped and Elsa is locked away in her castle until she is of age to be crowned Queen. She must never reveal her powers to Anna in order to protect her weakened heart from the effects of the accident as well, and Elsa’s aloofness offends Anna. 

Of course, eventually something goes wrong where Elsa’s powers are revealed and she runs away from home. Upon doing so she accidentally freezes the entire country, and Anna sets off on an adventure to find her and restore the balance to the country’s inconveniently consistent new weather system. 

The amazing thing about Elsa’s character is that she’s not a villain, not an unlikeable one anyway. She spends her life in solitary confinement (literally never leaving her room, or interacting with anyone) in an effort to protect her sister and the entire kingdom, something that her sister becomes bitter over. But Anna’s situation is understandable as well, it’s not her fault that her sister can’t control her powers (an element she is not even aware of), but she is punished alongside her by being locked up in a castle with a sister who has seemingly abandoned her and no connection to the outside world. 

Immediately the film has established a theme for us. Sacrificial love. There is no greater way to express love than to sacrifice something precious for someone you care about. Elsa sacrificed her entire childhood, and eventually sacrifices her social status and hikes up a mountain, willing to live there forever. Being a part of the royal family, Anna is also locked up in the castle… so she is also in a similar situation to her sister, but she is not willingly sacrificing anything for anyone, just in an unfortunate situation. 

Here is another example. In the beginning of the film Anna meets Hans. The day of Elsa’s coronation they meet and continue to hang out for the entire evening, and fall “in love”. So naturally Hans proposes to Anna, because that makes sense right? They approach Elsa to receive her blessing, to which Elsa wisely responds “WTF?! NO! ARE YOU JOKING YOU LITERALLY JUST MET THIS GUY? You can do what you want I guess, but I’m not going to give you my blessing.” This is, once again, an expression of sacrificial love. In fact, it parallels Elsa and Anna’s upbringing in isolation. Elsa’s refusal is done out of hopes for Anna’s well being, but Anna takes it as another opportunity for Elsa to “shut people out” and tries to expose her as being a cold, calloused person. 

Let’s just skip to the end. Eventually Anna is cursed and frozen forever, unless an act of true love is performed (of course). Elsa hugs Anna, says I’m sorry or something… and the curse is lifted. Elsa touching Anna after years of literally no physical contact unfreezes her. Currently, WE ARE ACTUALLY STILL AT THE POINT WHERE THE MOVIE IS GOOD. It feels odd typing it out, but the film leads us to believe that a true love’s kiss is the only thing that can break the curse… but Hans, Anna’s betrothed, is revealed to be evil. We are led to believe that Kristoff, the “true” love interest, will kiss her to lift the curse, but the movie doesn’t address that she has only known Kristoff for 24 hours as well! I’m choosing to believe that this is merely a subtly and that the filmmakers are trying to say that there may be more powerful forces out there (or at least comparable ones) to sexual tension, which is a welcome shift in the traditional Disney fantasy playbook in my mind. But immediately after this “miracle hug” Elsa is all “of course! Love! Love can lift the curse!” she does a spin and the winter is lifted. (edit: a friend pointed out that it was Anna’s sacrifice that lifted her own curse, not Elsa’s hug.) 


All Elsa has ever done is act out of love. She has sacrificed more than any other character in an attempt to save those she cares about the most, even to the point of making those she loves bitter towards her. Those points are now MOOT, because CLEARLY she didn’t understand love before… right? 

But every element in the film, from the lovable Olaf the Snowman’s arc, to Anna discovering that she has an immature understanding of relationships, and Kristoff’s isolated familial/friend group, or artistic exercises meant to illustrate the frustrations and beauty behind real sacrificial care… and these things ARE love. “Some people are worth melting for.” A Snowman said that. If a snowman melts he might as well be dead guys. Hell, I just realized that Kristoff in the third act does the same thing Elsa does in the first act, and Anna does the same thing in the climax that Elsa did in the first act. They both put their own selfish needs aside in order to protect the person they love most. Kristoff delivers Anna to Hans hoping his kiss can thaw her, Anna jumps in front of Hans’s sword to defend Elsa from the killing blow, Elsa spends her life in solitude to protect Anna. 

All these things don’t matter when you have the duchiest of duchey ex machina cliched endings where someone shouts “LOVE IS ALL YOU NEED” and everything is somehow suddenly fine. 

This movie was so close to conveying that universal truth and it’s really sad to me that we just went with a hokey “anything goes brah! just end that story with a song or something!” 

Here’s where I THOUGHT the movie was going…

Olaf’s character and the snow golem… what are they? Olaf is the name of the snowman Anna and Elsa built as children, now personified and alive thanks to Elsa’s magic. Whereas Olaf is the personified voice of the “positive invitation”, and basically Anna’s spirit animal… the snow golem is the symbol for the ramifications of Elsa’s fear, and her fear can/will destroy her relationships. 

Now, here’s the cool thing. We see that Elsa not only has the power to create life, but that this life can be used for creation and destruction. Olaf is a real character, whereas the snow golem is not. It does not have any vitality to it, whereas Olaf has a lot of heart to him. He also has dreams and strong characteristics like loyalty and empathy. Wouldn’t it make more sense if, instead of Elsa reversing her powers by suddenly understanding love, for her powers to be used to make the world a place filled with more joy? Snow is cold, but snow can also be very beautiful, and it can even be used to create all kinds of beauty. We get some of this as Elsa is helping create ice sculptures when summer has returned, but the ending as it stands just doesn’t fit with literally 90% of the ideas that I felt were clearly foreshadowing an ending that involved a comprehension of received love, as opposed to a revelation of the concept of love.

Just saying “yay love!” isn’t an ending. Love isn’t a hokey idea that is difficult to quantify either, it’s often best expressed as an action. I think that Jesus quantified love pretty well by literally sacrificing his status as a god to walk among us, followed by dying for humanity’s sins. The film almost paralleled this universal truth, but fell embarrassingly short in the film’s final act.