|
| OK. This isn't going to be my movie review, but Roger Ebert's , who has been reviewing movies for decades. He has had a lifetime pass to the movies.
One quick comment that is worth considering. How does a movie about the last 12 hours in the life of Chrsit get made in America today? I don't believe we are simply living in an un-Christian world (United States), but an anti-Christian United States. Consider this quote from 60 Minutes' Andy Rooney in his commentary this past week. ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/19/60minutes/
rooney/main601254.shtml)
I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.
"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that.
"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people,” said God.
Now consider this review of "The Passion of the Christ," by Roger Ebert. Add his website to your list of favoritesw. His insights into movies is pretty good. (I have recommended him in an email once before, if you remember.)
________________________________________
February 24, 2004
Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel
Mary: Maia Morgenstern
Mary Magdalene: Monica Bellucci
Pontius Pilate: Hristo Shopov
Caiaphas: Mattia Sbragia
Judas: Luca Lionello
Claudia: Claudia Gerini
Gesmas: Francesco Cabras
Satan: Rosalinda Celentano
Newmarket Films presents a film directed by Mel Gibson. Written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated R (for sequences of graphic violence). Opening Wednesday at local theaters, but selected locations will start screening the movie at midnight Tuesday.
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC
If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.
The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.
I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:
At the Cross, her station keeping ...
Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...
Close to Jesus to the last.
For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.
David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."
This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.
This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)
If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.
The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.
In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.
Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.
"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."
This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.
A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.
This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.
Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).
It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.
Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic. | | |
| (Pictured Item is not the exact item reviewed.)
If you are a psychology major, or have any interest in psychology, eBay
is the place to be at the moment. Someone has released a limited edition
boxed set of the entire Twilight Zone TV series on 49 dvds. This box set
is limited to just 2500, and most are sold out already, with the last
batches being snapped up on Ebay. Aside from the limited number
available, what makes these sets unique is that the shows are all in
order, whereas other Twilight Zones put together the shows in random
order. It also comes with a Twilight Zone tee shirt, an interview with
Rod Serling, and reviews of all the shows.
What makes this whole thing interesting is the way people bid on these
box sets. They are going fast, and a seller who may have bought ten of
these sets is prety much guaranteed of selling every one. Since they are
selling fast, no one is going to be able to buy a collection for $50, but
that is often where the bidding starts, as if people think they have a
remote chance of actually getting it for anywhere near that price.
The Buy It Now price for The Twilight Zone Gold sets range from a low of
$328 to a high of about $360, with shipping going anywhere from $14 to
$20. The list price is $499. Think about this. With a dozen or more sets
available with a Buy It Now price in the mid $300 range, and with all the
bidding, after push comes to shove, it still ends up in the low to mid
$300 range, so why not just skip the bidding and skip the week long wait
and just Buy It Now? Even bids that are high at $258 with just an hour to
go end up going up to $320 or more. But its that thought of getting a
good deal that drives people to, in effect, drive 50 miles so they can
save $5.00.
I wanted to get a Gold edition, but didn't just want to fork over the
money, so I ended up selling a bunch of stuff on eBay. And then today I
bid on a Gold edition, was the high bidder, but I knew that even with
less than a minute to go I knew someone was going to outbid me as if that
one Gold edition was the last one on earth. And so it happened. Someone
outbid me. But listed a little ways below this ad was another seller with
a Buy It Now price for less, and who charged less for shipping, so why do
people fight over something that isn't even the best deal??? I bought
that set with no waiting and no hassles.
There is always a downside to buyin an entire series of something.
Overall, I am not into TV that much that I need a complete collection of
anything, and as a series runs its course, the quality tends to go down
hill, as the creative force behind the show leaves due to burnout, and
someone else takes his place that doesn't have the same vision. And then
to save the show they add characters and situations that end up
distracting frrom the show rather than adding to it. What the Twilight
Zone ended up doing was first experimenting with video, which made the
images fuzzy, and later padding the show from 30 minutes to an hour, with
about 30 minutes of filler. Still, througout the series there were enough
classic shows to make owning the series worthwhile. Overall, I paid less
for the entire series than if I had bought the entire series in other
formats.
So when the set gets here, I will begin exploring the total world of The
Twilight Zone. Care to join me? Only real Martians are invited.
Dan.
| | |
| Book Title: Uncle Tom's Cabin
Format: hardcover (637 pages)
This edition: Modern Library
Author: Harriet Beecher Stowe
First published: 1852
Initial sales: 300,000 copies the first year
Its time to play catch-up on my reading, and so I am picking up some books from my Modern Library series on the Civil War, including, "Lincoln," by Gore Vidal, "The Confessions of Nat Turner," by William Styron, and "Uncle Tom's Cabin," by Harriet Beecher Stowe. When push comes to shove the political polarization we see today aint got nothing on the events leading up to the Civil War. It wasn't just a case of whether slavery should be allowed, or if it was a necessary evil, but also whether slavery should be allowed in the newly formed territories of the West, and to solve these issues people were going to war with each other long before war was declared. Shootings and murder were often commonplace. In the 1850s, for example, Kansas was known as "Bleeding Kansas." Pro slavery men were burning buildings, and kidnapping and killing people. In retaliation, a man by the name of John Brown captured some pro slavery men and hacked them to death. Those men opposing slavery were provided rifles by abolitionist minister, Henry Ward Beecher. Printing presses were destroyed, and owners of the presses were sometimes physically discouraged from expressing their views. It is interesting to note that long after the dust has settled, those names strongly associated with being against slavery are the ones we remember today. Of course, this is not an entirely positive thing. John Brown was an extremist, who hoped to organize a massive slave uprising. In his words, the issue of slavery could only be settled by blood. And it was. Still, think about this. How many prominent members of the Civil War era can you name who stand out as being actively pro slavery? They are forgotten completely. History has not judged them kindly. By comparison, the big names of the anti slavery movement include publisher William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, John Brown, and the Beechers--Henry Ward Beecher, and his daughter Harriet.
It was daughter Harriet Beecher who is remembered more today than her father, mostly for the book she wrote, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and so great was the book's influence that when Civil War President Lincoln met her, he apparently referred to her as the lady who started all the trouble. Even the black characters of Uncle Tom and Jim Crow are from this book. Selling 300,000 copies its first year, the book stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy. So much so, that Harriet Beecher Stow wrote a second book, "A Key To Uncle Tom's Cabin" that documented what she had written.
It may seem hard for us today to understand the controversy. No one in his right mind today would attempt to justify slavery, but back in the days of the Civil War, slavery made good business sense to many people, even those living in the North. It made just as much sense to buy and sell slaves as it does for businessmen to open their doors all day Sunday. And seen as the descendents of Cain in the Bible, the whole issue of slavery had divine approval, so it was Biblical, and who were the slave traders that they should fight God? It is these attitudes that makes "Uncle Tom's Cabin" stand out. Its not necessarily great literature by today's standards, but between the story line, and her preaching in the book, Stowe confronts the issue of slavery and the reasons for its existence. And I suspect that is where the controversy lies. She hits the nail on the head, and many people had to go into defense mode to justify their behavior. If nothing else, the book justifies the comparison between slavery and abortion that has so often been made. People just don't want to know that both the black man and the unborn child are indeed human and worth of basic rights. The parallels of political correctness in both eras are astonishing. Let me give you some examples from the book.
(Stowe preaching:) "Whoever visits some estates there, and witnesses the good-humored indulgence of some masters and mistresses, and the affectionate loyalty of some slaves, might be tempted to dream the oft-fabled poetic legend of a patriarchal institution, and all that; but over and above the scene there broods a portentous shadow—the shadow of law. So long as the law considers all these human beings, with beating hearts and living affections, only as so many things belonging to a master,—so long as the failure, or misfortune, or imprudence, or death of the kindest owner, may cause them any day to exchange a life of kind protection and indulgence for one of hopeless misery and toil...."
"I’m sorry you feel so about it,—indeed I am,” said Mr. Shelby; “and I respect your feelings, too, though I don’t pretend to share them to their full extent; but I tell you now, solemnly, it’s of no use—I can’t help myself. I didn’t mean to tell you this Emily; but, in plain words, there is no choice between selling these two and selling everything. Either they must go, or all must. Haley has come into possession of a mortgage, which, if I don’t clear off with him directly, will take everything before it. I’ve raked, and scraped, and borrowed, and all but begged,—and the price of these two was needed to make up the balance, and I had to give them up."
(Stowe preaching:) "If it were your Harry, mother, or your Willie, that were going to be torn from you by a brutal trader, tomorrow morning,—if you had seen the man, and heard that the papers were signed and delivered, and you had only from twelve o’clock till morning to make good your escape,—how fast could you walk? How many miles could you make in those few brief hours, with the darling at your bosom,—the little sleepy head on your shoulder,—the small, soft arms trustingly holding on to your neck?"
And this not too subtle sarcastic comment on the spiritually and politically correct slavery positions of the day: "Tom had watched the whole transaction from first to last, and had a perfect understanding of its results. To him, it looked like something unutterably horrible and cruel, because, poor, ignorant black soul! he had not learned to generalize, and to take enlarged views. If he had only been instructed by certain ministers of Christianity, he might have thought better of it, and seen in it an every-day incident of a lawful trade; a trade which is the vital support of an institution which an American divine
arMenu3[9] =
'';
3tells us has “no evils but such as are inseparable from any other relations in social and domestic life.” But Tom, as we see, being a poor, ignorant fellow, whose reading had been confined entirely to the New Testament, could not comfort and solace himself with views like these. His very soul bled within him for what seemed to him the wrongs of the poor suffering thing that lay like a crushed reed on the boxes; the feeling, living, bleeding, yet immortal thing, which American state law coolly classes with the bundles, and bales, and boxes, among which she is lying."
Stowe goes on to describe how the masters so cooly understand how angry and upset a black mother might get when she watches the last of her children being sold and taken away from her, yet these same masters know full well that given time the mother will get over it, so its OK. Did I hear anyone say, "blob of tissue?"
For a book that defines and captures the social issue of the day, the preaching is dead on, and the arguments and reasonings she uses stand the test of time. We can easily see those same justifications she comments on being used today to OK abortion. And now, as then, people are hell bent and determined not face up to what they are doing, but instead strive in some way to mineralize the killing and abuse.
If there is anything which makes the book less readable for today, its the expected non standard English given to the blacks and slave owners as standard dialogue. I am not sure why this is a distraction, as just today I heard someone say, "that don't look very good, do it." Maybe I have read too many books that do this, and maybe as true as it is or was, I am tired of trying to translate words like, "Mas'r" for Master, and "sartin" for, well, I am not really sure. Every book on slavery is like this, except in the movies like "Roots" everybody speaks college English.
Perhaps its good to re read outdated books like this once in a while to remind us of where we've been. Sometimes its not that far off from where we are.
-----------------------
Part 2
There is another interesting aspect to the book, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that is worth mentioning. The author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, does not resort to using Biblical and Christian cliches to make her point. In fact, she attacks slave owning Christians and Northern hypocrisy as much as she does the basic Southern attitude. And in an interesting portion, as is so often the case in real life, she lifts up a man whom much of society dismisses as a skeptic, and written him off as an ungodly person simply because the man does not go to church and does not fit into the expected Christian norms of the day.
But as this man is telling his story, we learn that his parents were divided on the slavery issue, with his mother pushing for freedom, while the father saw slavery as the natural order of things. Unfortunately, the man lost his mother at an early age, and while her influence on him was greater than the father, there was no one to reinforce her beliefs firmly into his heart. But there was enough to make this character find slavery repulsive. And then with some bitterness the character notes the bottom line attitude of his father toward slavery. No matter how good, noble, honest, and trustworthy a slave may be, the law and the order of things caused hardness, and that is the way of it. The good slaves must suffer along with the bad slaves. A slave is, after all a slave. And with such final pronouncements this character's father would then put his feet up and take a nap, as if he had just solved a major business crisis. Its like the problem of slavery did not even concern him, because he himself was not a slave. He was not of the lower class.
This whole idea of being in the right class was a very dominant idea of society for centuries. If you are rich, you matter and are important, and if you are poor, then you deserve whatever fortunes come your way. This idea was still dominant and easily on display during the sinking of the Titanic, where in an age of women and children first, more first class men survived than did third class women and children.
And this leads to the question, "what does God have to do to get our attention?" when some premise that we base our very lives around turns out to be made of sand? When all of society is doing something, and you are submerged in that way of thinking, so that doing things any other way cannot even be imagined, what does God have to do to get our attention? How does God get the attention of the slave to make him realize, after decades of being belittled and kept in his place, that he is the equal of the master, and that the only thing that separates one from the other is that the master has a whip, and the slave does not.
If "Uncle Tom's Cabin" were written today, it would have to be about abortion and pro choice. It would have to be titled something along the lines of "Uncle Tom's Abortion Clinic." In the same fashion, it would expose all the arguments, lies, and hypocrisy on both sides of the issue, not pulling any punches, but with a razor sharp knife separate the meat from the bone. No doubt it would stir up just as much controversy.
While the original Uncle Tom's Cabin sold 300,000 copies in the US during its first year, I have been told that it sold seven times that amount in Britain--over two million copies. Since Britain had already outlawed slavery, this book may have been a major force in getting Britain not to side with slave owning rebels. This is what can happen when people, like Harriet Beecher Stowe, don't pull any punches. | | |
| OK. Here is the third and last part on some reflections on TV.
When I was watching a lot of TV back in the 1950s and 1960s, and even to a lesser degree in the 1970s, there was one common trait--the character actors. These were the type of actors who were never major stars, and you never saw them on the talk shows, but they instead made a pretty good niche for themselves playing the same basic character, no matter what TV show they guested on. Typically, these roles were those of drunks, hobos, mildly sinister characters, and those who were filled with their own importance. By today's standards, these character actors were misfits. Consider the type of people guesting on TV and game shows from decades ago. Remember Wally Cox? He also did voices for various cartoon characters, but the guy was short, wore glasses, and had no sex appeal whatsoever. You or I may not be able to name many character actors from the past, but we'd know them by their face. The were all wrong by today's standards. They were either older, were balding, overweight, too short--just the exact opposite than what is going on today. Today, the emphasis is on glamour and physical perfection. Its the Jennifer Aniston types with perfectly white teeth, perfect hair styles, perfect figures, and perfect faces. And even though they haven't necessarily done anything, they are always on the cover of teen and gossip magazines, or are always appearing on various talk shows. What happened to bring about this change? The leading female comedian of the 1960s was probably Phyllis Diller, an older looking hag with a wild hairdo and strange laugh. Would she ever make it today with that same personna?
Consider some of the James Bond female villains of the early 1960s. They were basically hags that deserved to die, if only because of their looks. BY the 1970s, female Bond villains were glamerous and seductive.
Remember "Ralph" from Green Acres? She was the carpenter from the show who was so plain looking that if you looked up the meaning of "plain looking" in the dictionary, you would see here picture. Yet, here was this not so attractive actress making a living for herself. Likewise, with the actress who played General Burkhalter's sister in Hogan's Heroes. She was an older actress, and was the definition of a lack of sex appeal, but here she was making a living for herself as an actress. Go figure.
One thing that has not changed about TV is that it continues to get into areas that it cannot get itself out of without losing respect or credibility. One scenerio that continues to pop up is the pregnant woman who is going to have a baby right during a moment of crisis where people's lives are at stake. Of course its up to the hero to deliver the baby, and how does he do it? By delivering the baby right through the woman's underwear, and the end result is that the baby is delivered clean as a whistle with no mess, and already 3 months old. It would be better off if Hollywood didn't even go there, but they still do, as an episode of "Walker Texas Ranger" recently showed. In the future, don't even go there.
One thing I have never been able to fully understand is an actor's fear of being typecast. When millions of people may be out of work, and millions of others are working for $10 an hour in factory jobs, here comes a Hollywood star who quits his job that is paying him $15,000 a week. Once they quit their job, they most often fade into obscurity, never to rise again. Remember Don Knotts from the old Andy Grifith Show? Whatever happened to him after that? He made some forgettable movies--one about a talking fish--and it was 10-15 years before he got a job in a series again. By that time he was only half as funny.
How about Pernell Roberts from Bonanza? He quit the show around 1964, and spent the next 20 years doing very occasional guest roles on other shows. I really wonder how some Hollywood stars manage to make a living. They are in a hit TV series for three years in the 1950s, and then you never hear from them again, except for some nostelgia reunion shows.
It will be interesting to see what happens to TV when all the chaff of the world gets burned away. How much of TV will end up standing?
| | |
| At the risk of sounding like a walking TV Infomercial, I have come across some items that are well worth the money, and I thought I would pass on some recomendations to you.
Not all of these things may appeal to you, but I am very happy to recommend them, based on their price, function, durability, comfort, and or convenience. For best quality, why not go where the police and military go for their supplies?
I am on my feet all day at work, and I need some good shoes for support. I do a lot of constant moving around, and I have had my share of limping home due to shoes that don't support my feet very well. The best shoes that I have found are Bates shoes. These shoes are the most comfortable and long lasting. Like all cross training type shoes, you can buy them for anywhere from $79-$120. They have 10 inch high shoes that are waterproof, and shoes like I wear to work that are 8 inches high. While these lean toward Military combat boots in appearance, they are very comfortable, like cross trainers, and well worth the money. For general wear, I enjoy the SWAT brand of shoe. These are a very rugged and durable police style tennis shoe that is also very comfortable. Some of these shoes even have zippers on the side, so there is nothing to lace up. Just slip them on, zip them up, and you are gone. $59-$99.
One problem I have run into when I edge the yard or use the snowblower is that I get a lot of snow and sometimes debris in my face. For snowblowing I bought one of those head coverings that leave small slits for your eyes, nose, and mouth--$2.00. But I still get pelted with a lot of snow in the face from the snowblower--it seems the wind doesn't listen to me--and to solve this I use a military style goggle that covers about 99% of the eye area. These goggles are the same types used by those in tanks and other vehicles while in the desert. The neat thing about these goggles is that they can double as clear lens safety glasses, or as attractive sunglasses for extremely bright days. They come with two interchangable lens. Here are the specs on two of them, made by Willey X. Their Ballistic series is supposed to withstand impact from a bullet traveling 700 feet per second. These goggles can be easily changed from a strap style to traditional behind the ears style.
--CQC model (close quarter combat) looks more like a small shield that covers the eyes:
Meets and exceeds ANSI Z87.1 safety standards
Meets and exceeds ANSI Z80.3 optical standards
Meets and exceeds Milt. Spec. MIL-STD-662 for fragmentation
Lenses are 2.5mm thick ballistic polycarbonate
Lenses provide 100% U.V. protection
Lenses have scratch resistant coating for longer life
Lenses are anti-fog coated
Lenses are die-cut, ground and polished to eliminate distortion
Lenses are encased in their own frame for prescription capabilities
Lenses are lined with rubberized "Ultra Foam" for perfect facial seal
"Ultra Foam" is much more durable than traditional goggle foam
-SG1 model: has a more traditional sunglasses look to it--about half way between a goggle and traditional sunglasses, and has a greater variety of lens to choose from, including polarized neutral slate colored sunglasses. Also comes with both a headband and a traditional behind the ear style.
You can view these items at the place I found to be the cheapest--LA Police Gear: www.lapolicegear.com. They were as much as $12 cheaper than other sources, and offered free shipping on Wiley X products. I ordered some things on Tuesday, they shipped the same day, and arrived on Friday. Wiley X also makes more traditional looking sunglasses, but their strongest ones are from their military ballistic series. I own a pair of these, and with the clear lens, I will be wearing them to work as clear lens safety glasses, and on the weekends I can change them to the dark polorized sunglasses style. The cost on the CQC model ranges from $58 with free shipping to as much as $70 plus shipping, depending on where you shop. The SG1 model ranges from $89 on up depending on what you order. Prescription lens is also an option.
The rubber coating on the inside of these glasses are designed to absorb moisture and to keep your glasses from slipping. I haven't owned them long enough to see how this works, but the rubber really adds a heavy duty look and feel to the glasses.
Maybe you think you can't afford things like this, but the quality is there, and most required safety glasses are pretty dull and blah to wear
Now you can have a nice style along with meeting any OSHA safety requirements--and get a nice pair of poloarized sunglasses at the same time. I sold a pair of Revo glasses on ebay for $70, so my final cost on these glasses was a lot less. It is money well spent.
I'd be happy to show you the glasses some time, and help you find the best source for buying junk like this if you are interested.
Thanks,
Dan. | | |
|
