Get Off My Intellectual Property!

I'm halfway interested in the new horror film Mirrors for a couple of reasons. The first is director Alexander Aja, who directed the stylish(but completely inconsistent and mindless) slasher chase film High Tension, and the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. I almost thoroughly enjoyed High Tension when I saw it in theatres, and felt that his Hills Have Eyes remake was technically superior to the original, but emotionally and viscerally not in the same league. The other reason is that the film's central idea is eerily similar to an idea I've been kicking around since high school.

As a teenager I had a dream where mirrors weren't just reflections, but windows to alternate universes that were almost perfectly identical to our own. They looked exactly alike, but I was convinced that people in that mirror world were living their own separate lives. I could only imagine what they were doing when I wasn't watching. In the dream it wasn't malevolent, but it's hard to deny the creepiness in that idea. So it's made it's way into several ghost stories I've tried to write, and I made it a concept in my long(and slowly) gestating haunted house script. It's not a close enough similarity to seem like more than a mild coincidence, and it certainly doesn't mean I need to change my story, but it is a bit irritating now that if I ever do make my movie, I'll have the inevitable comparison to contend with. Or maybe Mirrors will be forgotten by then. It seems likely.

Or, maybe the moral is that I need to get off my ass and do something.

Stay tuned...

Download

And I'm young enough to look at
And far too old to see
All the scars are on the inside
I'm not sure if there's anything left of me
- Blue Oyster Cult
Veteran of the Psychic Wars

The other day, as I travelled around midtown doing some errands, rocking out to BOC's Fire of Unknown Origin, those lyrics struck me. Not as incredibly deep, or moving, or even pretentious, but as highly... nerdy. And it hit me that that was a really big thing in the seventies. People like to credit They Might Be Giants, or even go back to Devo, as the progenitors of nerd rock, but really, it was people like Led Zepellin, with they epic songs about hobbits and elves and wizards, or Blue Oyster Cult with their rockin' singles about Godzilla, or the works of Michael Moorcock(the aforementioned song is narrated by a thinly veiled version of Jerry Cornelius). Hell, even Kiss and Alice Cooper fell into this category, only they were more spookshow oriented.

So if rock and roll in the seventies was all about mythology and fantasy, in the eighties it started to become about the myth of rock and roll itself. Bands like Metallica or Motorhead or even Bon Jovi started to take the focus away from 'isn't this cool and epic?' to 'aren't we cool and epic?'

And then come the nineties, where grunge came along and everyone misunderstood how close to arena rock these musicians actually were. It was, again, the focus that had changed. Grunge was about deconstructing the myth of rock and roll, it was about taking the focus away from the band and putting it back into the hands of the people. If that makes any sense.

Here's a story I read, that is both funny and sad. In the late eighties, Axl Rose of Guns 'N Roses apparently sensed some sort of camaraderie with Kurt Cobain, and he actually tried to get a project off the ground with the rising grunge superstars. You see, in Axl's eyes, they were two of a kind, both making a statement about the stale, corporate world of arena rock. They were both voices of their generations counter culture. But in Kurt Cobain's eyes, Guns 'N Roses were the precise form of cock rock they hated so much, and were so against.

That story made me laugh when I first heard it, but the more I think about it the more tragic it seems. Axl Rose had just been laughed out of the building by the voice of a generation, so of course he fired his band and has spent the last dozen or so years in seclusion, spiralling further into drugs and working on an album that will at this rate only be released posthumously.

Sorry, got off on a tangent there.

So if the rock in the 70s was about mythology, and in the 80s it was about mythologizing rock itself, then the 90s were about deconstructing all of that. That means that the 00's are all about looking back and trying to reclaim some of those styles that were rejected by other generations. Bands like the Darkness or Eagles of Death Metal are reviving the sex and glam of rock, while Tenacious D are handling the mythology front. Bands like The Strokes, The Killers or Franz Ferdinand and even Coldplay are bringing back 80s arena rock. And then you have Nickelback regurgitating all of the worst aspects of grunge.

A friend has a theory about music, and although he probably wont read this, I'll give Eric credit anyway. He says that every genre has three good decades. The first decade, it's unknown. The only people aware of it are the people doing it. In the second decade it's still unknown, but it's starting to catch on. The third decade is where it gets popular, and after that it's a slow assimilation into the generic world of popular music. It happened with country and bluegrass, and now it seems to be happening simultaneously with rock and hip hop.

These Pipes... Are Clean!

You've probably noticed the silence around here, and all I can do is apologize. It's an old song of mine, I know, to make excuses for my inability to keep anything close to a normal schedule of posting. Let's face it, I'm a procrastinator. I'll always err on the side of lazing about. And all I can do is apologize again. To you, and to me. We both deserve better. Well, it's my pleasure to say that the times might be a-changin'.

Primarily, two things have caused my output to slow from infrequent to downright rare. A host of smaller issues helped, but the two big ones were a couple of projects of mine. One was a music cataloging project I was undertaking, and which now appears to be finished. You'll be seeing a couple of tangentially related musings over the next few days. The other was my latest review for Spout.com, which you can read by scrolling down the page for a bit. I can't explain it, but that review was the hardest one yet, and I sat on it for almost a month before I just decided to sit down and write whatever came to mind in one sitting. It's not the review I'm proudest of, but I think it pretty accurately conveys my pleasure in the film and my inability to form coherent thoughts about it. Maybe that's a good thing. Now that that is out of the way, I can focus on more personal, and, frankly, more rewarding projects. I had a few gestating, but in order to force myself to work on the review, I refused to work on them too much.

Add to those issues a full time job, my daughter starting pre-school(it's her first time in any sort of daycare program... big changes), some visiting friends I haven't seen in a long time, and other friends leaving state for good, and I just haven't been keeping my end of this little bargain. Now, however, with the obstruction that was causing all of the work stoppage cleared, and with this little bit of throat clearing out of the way, I dive back into work, and you will hopefully be seeing the fruits of those endeavors soon.

Soundtrack to my Life

As I have mentioned more than a few times lately, I recently received a very massive iPod. So massive that I can put my entire collection on it, and still have room for a couple years worth of CD purchases(to be honest, I'm a bit ashamed that my entire collection fits so nicely on this one iPod). One of the great things about going disc by disc through my collection and importing them into a portable CD library is that I'm becoming reacquainted with some artists and albums that I haven't listened to in awhile. Some not even in this century. The usual question, and the one I've been asked by work friends who obviously don't know me well enough is 'why do you need all those CDs, if you don't listen to so many of them?' The obvious, logistical answer is that with so many albums in one collection, it's impossible to listen to them all regularly. But of course the real answer is probably the same one that would be given by anyone with a record collection in the triple(or quadruple) digits; these discs are important to me.


I know it isn't particularly enlightened, and we're all supposed to see material goods as nothing more than 'things', but if a house fire were to destroy my entire CD collection, DVD or book library, or even my collection of pop-culture memorabilia, I would be highly distraught. In the end these aren't family members, and so I wouldn't be devastated, but I am also more emotionally connected to my collection of 'things' than I think most people view as healthy. I can't yet explain it, as I've chosen not to closely analyze this compulsive collecting, but I think in the end I do agree with Rob from the novel High Fidelity; it's what a person likes that matters more than what a person is like. OK, a disclaimer; I don't follow that exactly, but I think the sentiment is a fairly close to how I view the world, good or bad.


People rarely show the outside world everything about themselves, and even the largest asshole you run into in the supermarket has hidden depths. The 'things' people buy can end up defining them in greater accuracy than a casual acquaintance could, if you know what to look for. And I think that's how I view my collection of CDs, books, movies and memorabilia. That after I'm gone, someone could sift through all of this stuff and know who I was, warts and all. They may not know that I have the admittedly lackluster Golden Earring album Cut on both Vinyl and CD because as a child my mom played that album during summer roadtrips across Alaska(this is also partly why I have so many Electric Light Orchestra albums, although the rest of the reason is because they rock!). There's no way someone randomly looking through my CDs would know that I own ABBA Gold because during a few months in London I would go to the club Trash every Monday with the Swedish woman I was staying with, and the final song every night was Dancing Queen. They played it ironically, I think, but I ended every night thinking 'this is the best song in the history of ever!' However this collection still traces the path of my life, my interests and my moods.


Everything I own has a story to go along with it, and a connection to my life that goes beyond what you might think. And although people probably won't get the whole story, my collection of 'meaningless things' forms as personal a roadmap of my life as any diary could be. If you know how to read it.

For Love Not Lisa

I stopped in at a pawn shop the other night, something I do with some small amount of regularity. In fact it's the main reason I don't currently have an active membership at Blockbuster; the pawn shop down the street from me has an insanely huge collection of DVDs, and all of them for only a dollar more than the average rental price. Why rent them when I can buy them for almost the same price, and have a copy to keep if I like it? On this particular trip I was looking through the CD selection, which is something I don't often do. Most of the CDs are bargain bin, one hit wonders. Quite a few Reader's Digest compilations as well. I was pretty much looking through the CDs more out of boredom than the hope that I would find something worthwhile. For the most part I was correct, there were more than a few CDs by forgotten bands in the Boyz II Men mold. However something did catch my eye; a completely undecorated recordable CD, in a plain white sleeve with only the handwritten words 'Music From Lisa' on it. This was very tempting.

The homemade mix CD(or to a greater degree, the mixtape) holds a special allure to me. As soon as I got my first CD player I was making mixtapes for friends(despite having only 6 CDs to start with). A couple of years at the college station coincided with my entrance into the world of mix CDs, and while a disc doesn't have the same tactile sense, or indeed the same feel of love and labor, it has proven a boon to my habit of pouring my feelings onto a disc with another person's words. It seemed, when I first saw/read it, that High Fidelity had been written about me. Countless discs and tapes are floating around somewhere, and if they are ever collected they will serve as a perfect document of my attitude at any given moment of my life, and my feelings towards the women in my life. So this nondescript disc, with no indication at all what would be on it, was too much to ignore. Who was Lisa? What type of music did she feel expressed her feelings? Who had the music been intended for, and why had he been so callous as to toss out such an intimate expression of Lisa's emotions? Only one of my questions would be answered.

Lisa loves country music.

As I put the disc in my car stereo, after haggling the price down to 50 cents(it was tempting, but I don't think I would have paid the $3 asking price for a blank CD), Unknown Song #1 came out of the speakers. A song I recognized as 'country', although mainly because that's what this music is classified as these days. This isn't Johnny Cash or Hank Williams, this is music made by people who's musical heroes are Garth Brooks and Billy Ray Cyrus. Still, the song was pleasant, and the experience was striking enough that I instantly loved it. The following tracks were not nearly as enjoyable, but I was smitten by Lisa's opening shot, a melancholy song full of yearning for a far off, better place, and so I continued listening and let the flaws pass me by. In fact, a Morphine song about 4 tracks in threw me over the edge. However, another 10 songs of mediocre-to-shitty country songs began to grate on me, and I realized that Lisa and I were going through all the stages of a relationship, despite having never met.

First off, we 'met' in a striking manner. It may not have been epic, but it wasn't without it's romance. A spur of the moment decision, a lark, and something beautiful is born. At first it was amazing, with the romance and beauty blinding me to whatever flaws existed as we got to know each other. I was too amazed by all the new things I was discovering to realize we were doomed from the start. You see, we all grow up with sitcoms and romantic comedy films that lead us to believe in an unattainable idea of love. We forget that, outside of the fact that these are actors, these people don't spend every day together for extended periods of time. They have commercial breaks, and maybe an hour or two of actual interaction. So of course the relationship seems perfect; they never have time to go from 'getting to know you' to 'know you, hate your guts' or even 'know you, still love you, want some space', which is where the majority of real relationships end up. As I spent more time with Lisa, I began to lose interest.

Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon showed up with a song off of Prairie Home Invasion around track 11 or so, and that was enough to brighten the outlook considerably. However, it was 'Are You Drinkin' with Me Jesus?' which was probably put on as a novelty song, meaning the deeper socio-political messages of that album could have been lost on Lisa. I'd already reached the point in our relationship where I was viewing things that I would normally see as endearing as obnoxious.

We were not going to last. Life is not like a sitcom. I took to skipping the songs after the first ten seconds or so, losing faith that I would find anything worthwhile. And then, on the last track(21), Rick Miller blasted out of my car stereo speakers and asked me to eat another Oatmeal Pie. A Southern Culture on the Skids track! Anyone with enough taste to end a CD with a SCOTS track, no matter how 'trivial', has to be a worthwhile human being. That Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon song wasn't a fluke! Lisa did have great taste! All was forgiven, and I listened happily until pulling into my driveway and cutting off the final chords of Camel Walk.

Maybe life is like a sitcom sometimes.

'bout Spout

A few weeks back, on the invitation of my good friend and fellow blogger Rik, I joined the movie discussion site Spout.com. Despite it's flaws it's an incredibly fun site. I've slowed down on my movie ratings, despite barely putting a dent in my overall film collection, but that's mainly because of the slowness of load time. I have, however, been having a good time exploring the different groups(although most of them don't interest me), meeting some like minded film aficionados, and posting my reviews in an area where the types of people I'm trying to reach will actually see them.

So far I've mainly imported older blogs from here, and a nifty 'link to a movie' option means that anyone searching for said movie will see my review, if they are so inclined. A few things have been written specifically for Spout, and then moved over here, but for the most part it's the other way around. The main exception would be the Spout Mavens reviews, the first of which I posted the other day. Spout Mavens is a group that sends out free screener DVDs in exchange for the reviews that will be written by group members. I expect most of these to be direct-to-video, festival favorites. Probably many of them will not interest me, but I welcome the chance to see movies I would probably not even be aware of.

What this means is that my focus on my 'internet presence' is shifting a bit. WorkingDeadProductions will continue to be my home base, so to speak, with everything I write going on here eventually, but Spout will be the main focus for awhile. A lot of my writings will either directly or indirectly be on, for, or maybe even about, that site. Check it out. If your reading this site, than Spout would probably be right for you.

Adaptation

With the release of Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix, I am forced to listen to friends and co-workers and in some cases complete strangers bitch and moan. Indeed, even many reviews for the movie contain the same gripes, and that is that 'it was OK, but they shouldn't have left such-and-such out.' A more common complaint is the simpler, more direct 'it wasn't as good as the book.' This is unfortunate, because a perfectly fine movie is getting short shrift because of how well it stands up to a completely separate entity; the book. Time was when I would be right alongside these people, complaining about how the movie removed my favorite subplot, or didn't capture the essence of the characters as perfectly as I'd hoped. Nowadays I like to think I'm much more enlightened, and oddly enough I owe this all to the Harry Potter series.

I was a bit late on the Harry Potter bandwagon, and Azkaban was the first movie I saw after reading all the books. Strangely, instead of being upset by the (major) omissions from the book to film transition, the film showed me how you could cut out or alter quite a bit and still make a fantastic film. Azkaban is my favorite film in the series so far, and my reasoning, when I try to boil this down to it's essence, is this; The first films were fine, if you wanted to read the book without all those pesky words. The films kept in as many of the subplots as possible, as much of the minutiae that they could manage, but missed a lot of the heart. Prisoner of Azkaban removed as much of the peripheral stuff as possible, but hit the heart dead center.

To me one of the best examples of book to screen adaptation would have to be Silence of the Lambs. Silence of the Lambs should be required reading/viewing in any film class on the subject of adapted works. The movie excises just enough, and fleshes out peripheral characters in order to give voice to what in the novel was internal dialogue. This meant the film wasn't burdened by clumsy narration or even clumsier exposition, but still maintained much of the atmosphere, information and precision of the source material. I'd also give Hannibal honorable mention, and before you stop reading, hear me out. Hannibal was not a very good movie, but keep this in mind; the book was worse. In this case the source material gave them very little to work with, including an underlining psychological explanation for Lecter that's a bit too on-the-nose, and characters that inexplicably act against everything laid down in previous books(keep in mind this was Hannibal Lecter's third outing). The movie trimmed the noxious backstory, and altered the horrid ending, and was the better for it.

I guess the trick is to know what to cut, to be able to discern when the author is going off on an unsatisfactory tangent, or when it's just not necessary to include something. Take American Psycho, for example. Now, I won't say that Bret Easton Ellis is a bad writer, since I did enjoy the novel, in an odd way(and I haven't read anything else, so I can't really judge), but never was there a book more full of things I didn't want to read about. Whether describing sexual acts in a language Penthouse editors would probably blush at, or going on for page after page about where the main character buys his bottled water, the book seemed to urge you to put it down. The movie dropped most of this, and shortened what it did keep. Most likely out of necessity; as boring as it was to read about his choice of neck tie, it would probably not translate to film any better. However, in a true moment of genius, the screenwriter took Patrick Bateman's knack for spouting off about Huey Lewis or Whitney Houston albums and tied those in with the murders committed on screen. This kept the action going, while still hammering home how absolutely empty this man was; less a human being than a collection of appetites.

Of course, inventive editing of the source material is a tricky feat to accomplish. In the Ninth Gate the three screenwriters(including Roman Polanski himself) edited so much out of the book that the movie had almost no plot. The book had several story lines running simultaneously, and more than a few mcguffins. The film pared it down to only one story(and, oddly, not the main one) and removed most of the twists. This wouldn't have been so bad if the film had been any good(actually, I did enjoy it the first time around), but in this case the gap in quality between movie and book is so large that it's hard to ignore. One good thing came of this change; I saw the movie first, and when I read the book I was still surprised by the outcome. Or perhaps I was surprised because I expected the movie ending.

A few other honorable mentions would be Fight Club, which managed to be a rarity; the film that improved substantially on the source material. Mother Night, which accomplished the herculean task of adapting a Vonnegut novel and succeeding(it's perennially in my top 5, and to contrast, check out the horrid Breakfast of Champions film). It is almost a really great movie, despite being a made for TV mini-series. It could be argued that the mini-series is the best place for adaptations, since the expanded time allows for more of the side stories to be left in, and the nature of watching a movie over several days gives you that sense of familiarity and time spent with these characters that a 2 hour movie just can't. The first half of It is a perfect example of this, utilizing commercial breaks as dramatic punctuations, and a template with which to focus on each of the characters in turn. The second half is not quite so good, although it had a lot of stuff to try and fit into 2 hours, and Stephen King has problems with endings anyway. His novels always resolve themselves too neatly, in one notable case literally having the hand of god come down and stop the action.

In the end, we fans are always going to have the book, and if the movie-going audience is content with the often watered down version on the screen, that shouldn't affect us at all. Upset that Quidditch isn't in the Harry Potter movies anymore? Read the book.

Critical Mass

As I mentioned a post or two back, my pal Rik has been sounding off about film critics and criticism theory in general lately. If you didn't take the opportunity to read his blog at the time, you can follow this handy link here. I recommend you read his entries, and perhaps bookmark the page, as it's updated a helluva lot more regularly AND appeals to many of the same interests as my blog. Plus it's all around entertaining and informative. I bring this up today because he's got me thinking about how I rate movies, and rather than post a reply on his blog that would rival the original posts in length, I moved it over here. I know he checks the site out occasionally, so I'm not worried about him missing it.

On top of Rik's regular blog posts, he recently invited me over to facebook, which has an addictively fast paced movie review application called Flixster. With a lot of time to surf the web during downtime at work, I have quickly rated a few thousand films(3085 have at least simple 1 thru 5 ratings, a fair portion of those I've taken the time to actually say something about). The question this ability raises is, how do I rate a film? What criteria should I use when judging what number to give a film? Basically I went with the breakdown provided to me by Flixster, because I figured it was a pretty general platform that would be recognizable to anyone who would look through my movie ratings. The system goes like this:

5- I was Amazed

4- I loved it

3- I liked it

2- It was OK

1- I hated it

Now, I just went back to Facebook to double check I had the wording correct, and could not find confirmation that this is exactly what the numbers stand for. However, I am certain that 2, 3 & 4 are ranked as I have explained them.

This is actually a pretty loose ratings system, and a lot more subjective than even regular criticism. All any of these ratings mean is that the reviewer either did or didn't like it. However, with that in mind, I'm still occasionally shocked at the criteria most users have. For instance, too many times I've come across a distressing amount of reviews with some variation of the phrase; "I didn't see it all, but it was really (good/bad)". If you don't watch a movie from start to finish, you can't expect to impose your opinions on other people. Of course, as I said, Flixster is pretty loose, and this isn't quite on the level of even a local newspapers movie section. This is just one step above people bullshitting in their living room with their friends about what movies they've seen lately. So maybe I'm taking this a little too seriously.

Still, the question remains; what criteria should I use when I 'review' a movie on this site? Or rate it for my friends- or anyone who's interested- to see. When I began writing on this site, my critical responses to movies were basically; "I liked it. I didn't like it. I thought this scene was cool." Etc... I may have gone a bit deeper than that on certain films, but more often than not all I bothered with was whether or not I enjoyed myself. But now that I find myself putting my thoughts out there for public perusal, I feel obligated to make more informed observations. Before each of my movie posts, even for movies I've seen before, I usually make time for research. A quick trip to IMDB & Wikipedia are mandatory, with maybe a few google searches on top of that. I'll also make an effort to watch a new movie more than once, although the second time around I'll either be watching the commentary or doing something like folding laundry while the movie is on in the background. It's not a very in-depth viewing, but it does allow me to see a few things again with the entire movie in mind.

You see, unlike many critics you probably know of(Roger Ebert, Owen Gleiberman), I have no real experience in this field, and I've done no real study of film theory. Hell, I don't even have a journalism degree. A lot of my faults as a critic I can attribute to my youth, however, I'm not quite so young anymore. You could also chalk it up to plain inexperience, which I'm happier with. Indeed, as I read over these posts I do feel as though I'm improving my skills. And even if I'm not improving, I'm more comfortable with it now than I was when I began this project.

Still, that question remains; how do I rate these films? Well, on my blog site I've avoided this problem by not rating the movies at all, I simply put my thoughts down and let the reader know what I think of a film. Before Flixster I had experimented with my own rating system, one that went into negative numbers. This was an idea inspired by the massive amounts of suckitude I discovered when working my way through discount horror DVD bins. The scale would have gone from 5 to -5. A 5 would obviously be my idea of a perfect movie, whereas a -5 would be for those movies that not only suck, but suck your will to live. I'm thinking of the Vincent Price, Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing vehicle Scream and Scream again, which seemed to dehydrate my brain as I watched it, or Manos the Hands of Fate, which was so bad not even the Mystery Science Theatre crew could make it enjoyable.

This rating system was short lived, and really only ever existed in theory, because I could never really settle upon any type of criteria. How should I judge what a perfect movie is? Has one been made yet? And if so, how long will that perfection last until the rules of the game are changed, and something even better comes along? Should I use a bell curve? Obviously not. I tend to review a film based on what the film tries to do, and try to avoid the whole 'It could have been better if it had done such and such." And besides, too many of the movies I love are films I recognise as being patently horrible, and would only recommend to friends whose tastes I was familiar with. This is the genius of Roger Ebert's thumbs up/down review style(used only on his show, he has a more gradated 4 star rating on his website); it tells you instantly if he liked it or not, while allowing his explanation to go into more specifics. Many times I've seen him give positive reviews to films he didn't seem to like much, admitting that the film succeeded in it's goals and would appeal to it's intended audience.

Generally I'm of the opinion that films, in major publications at least, should only be reviewed by people in that films target audience, because people have usually made up their mind about whether or not to see it before hearing any hyperbolic summary. This is why I tend to trust a critic like Roger Ebert, who gauges the movie against it's own criteria. And I tend to do that as well. Rik is correct in asserting that there is no objectivity in criticism, and perhaps I've been a bit too strict in my own self-imposed rule about not putting my personal life into my blog(which I've broken whenever it suited me), because you can't truly understand someones tastes unless you understand the person. Ebert(I know I keep mentioning him, but he's the only critic I read on a regular basis at this point), or whichever critic you listen to, is trusted partly because of your experience with them in the past; what films they turned you on to, what favorites of yours they shared or didn't share, etc.

So I've got that answered, or maybe I don't. I've decided to just review the movies completely subjectively, putting up my thoughts as they occur and trusting that the people who read this will understand where I'm coming from. The question I have now is; why do I do this at all? Why do I sit and review these movies when most of my friends have heard me talk about them already, or were there when I saw them? Well, I've said before that I use this site primarily to hone my rusty writing skills, and that's true... to a point. In the documentary on the 3-disc Brazil set that Criterion put out, Jack Mathews said that he views it as his duty as a critic to find great, hidden gems and share them with the rest of the world. I think that's a great sentiment, and the one that most informs what I do here. I don't pretend that I'm unearthing any hidden treasures, but I do like sharing with people, letting them in on these great things I've found. I think they're great, and I think you, the reader, would enjoy them too. Unless they're really awful, then I'm trying to spare you. It's about half egoism, half love.

Okay, maybe 60-40.

70-30.

The End of an Era

This week two separate but related eras in my pop-culture 'career' have come to an end. Both ends came about from random and spur of the moment perusals of second hand stores; one for books, one for music. At local used book store Title Wave, which I don't frequent nearly as much as I used to due to outrageous pricing and a shrinking selection of books(to make room for hilarious arty magnets, of course), I came across the one Kurt Vonnegut novel I had yet to read; Slapstick. And then yesterday, on a break from my aforementioned community service I stopped in at a record store I normally can't stand(and won't advertise here), and found a used copy of Good for Your Soul, the long out of print Oingo Boingo album, and the only one I had not been able to track down at a reasonable price. Sure, I could have spent 50 bucks or more on Amazon, or gambled on eBay, but I held out hope that what happened yesterday would eventually occur.

I really got into the Oingo Boingo very late in the game, with their final release Boingo(not to be confused with Boi-ngo). This was, of course, a hair's breadth away from their disbanding in 1995, but keep in mind I was 16 at the time, which I think is a perfectly respectable age to get into Oingo Boingo. Of course, I had heard them previously, but it was before I was consciously aware of music. There was a great summer in the mid-80s, when I was 7 or 8, where I was in love with the song Weird Science and would scan the car radio endlessly hoping to catch it, and would then sing along happily to the chorus. But I wasn't aware of them as a band, I knew the song, but not who did it. It wasn't until my teens that I started cultivating anything that could be described as some semblance of taste. It was bad enough at the time knowing that they were through as a band, but I still had a fairly sizable back catalog to hunt down. As much as I wanted to gather up all of their releases, I always secretly relished having a new Oingo Boingo album to look forward to one day.

That's over now, and soon it will be over for Kurt Vonnegut, as soon as I read Slapstick. Of course I'm not too despondent. I now have a really kick ass album to listen to whenever I want, and another Vonnegut book to read and reread, but as any pop-culture collector or sleazy frat boy can tell you, the thrill of the hunt is a major part of the fun.

On a side note, I have to express some continuing surprise that Danny Elfman hasn't done anything other than film scores and classical pieces for the past 12 years. I know his composing keeps him busy, and I enjoy most of it, but it still strikes me as odd that he hasn't had the itch to sing and rock out again. I'm not asking for an Oingo Boingo reunion, I understand perfectly why he wouldn't want to do that, but I'd still like another Elfman project. Maybe a solo effort along the lines of So-Lo.

Now, Kurt Vonnegut and Oingo Boingo actually have a few things in common. Both had heydays in the 80s, both are known for their sometimes morbid, often manic, always idiosyncratic styles, and both had cameos in the Rodney Dangerfield comedy Back To School.

Since his death in April, I have been re-reading all of Kurt Vonnegut's novels, some of which have been lost or borrowed over the years. Which is why I found myself scanning the shelves for his name at Title Wave, and how I found Slapstick, a book I had somehow remained unaware of. Don't ask me how this happened, I have no excuse. Kurt Vonnegut was apparently not too thrilled with the result, giving it the grade of 'D', but even sub par Vonnegut is a worthwhile read. It's there in the pile now, but I'm saving it for last in my Vonnegut revival.

I had been wanting to make note of Kurt Vonnegut's passing a few months back, but couldn't come up with anything that I thought would be fitting. Vonnegut is probably my favorite author, and I didn't trust my own writing abilities enough to pay fitting tribute to such a brilliant man. Vonnegut fell into a class of author that, even if not stylistically comparable, puts him alongside Alan Moore and Joss Whedon in my book. Now, by that I mean this: In each of Vonnegut's books, or Moore's comics, or Whedon's shows/films, there comes a moment where everything flips in my mind. I'm going along, enjoying the ride, thinking I'm seeing one thing, and then the rug is pulled out from under me, and the ideas expand to areas I never would have imagined. I think I'm walking down a pleasant valley and it turns out it's the Grand Canyon. Moore & Whedon tend to do this with genre tweaks, adding depth to what starts out as a simple, straightforward affair. Vonnegut did this, for me, with his unceasing love for humanity.

The other day I got into a slight argument with a coworker over this. He referred to Kurt Vonnegut as nihilistic, a charge I disagree with, and I think Mr. Vonnegut would have as well. It's true that most of his books are bleak, and the tend to finish with the end of the world, either figuratively or literally, but his sense of optimism and wry enjoyment are palpable throughout. Before anything else, Kurt Vonnegut was a humane and agreeable person, a man who believed everyone deserved to be loved, even if he couldn't always practice that belief. If anything Kurt Vonnegut showed a surprising lack cynicism considering his life, which included being one of the very few to survive the firebombing of Dresden in WWII as a POW(POWs were kept in an underground meat locker and hence escaped the carnage, inspiring his novel Slaughterhouse 5). There is a sadness prevalent in all of his books, I'll admit that, but I believe in the end that he was hopeful for humanity.

In April Kurt Vonnegut passed away at the age of 84 from brain injuries sustained in a fall. It's probably been pointed out already, but it's extremely ironic that such a witty and intelligent man would eventually be killed by his own brain. Vonnegut would have said this was proof that god had a sense of humor, if he hadn't already said that about gonnorrhea.

I could end this with any number of great Vonnegut quotes, but in the interest of brevity, I'll keep this to one, that I think sums it up:

"And I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, "If this isn't nice, I don't know what is." "

Or this one... couldn't resist:

If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC

Everybody Out of the Pool! (redux)

[I've been going over old posts, and decided this one deserved to be reposted. Mainly because I've come across a few updated numbers and have a couple of other ideas I felt like sharing.]

Spent some time surfing the net today, and decided to check up on a group of people I haven't thought much about since college; the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT(pronounced Vehement). When I first stumbled upon their home page a few years back, I was amused and took it for a joke, but in actuality they seem like intelligent, nice enough people. Maybe a little unbalanced, and they give off some of the same vibe that hardcore christian fundamentalists do, but they don't seem too bad, all in all. Certainly not as bad as christian fundamentalists. They just don't want humans around, and have banded together to find like minded people willing to vow never to breed. It's a cause I can relate to.

Now, that probably sounded callous, seeing as how I have a lovely three year old daughter, and just because I can relate doesn't mean I wish I had never had kids. Far from it, my daughter is the most important thing in the world to me, and the time I spend at home with her is always the highlight of my day. And I don't really want the human race to become extinct, I don't think that's going to solve anything any more than the path we're going on. That being said, I just want other people to stop having kids. Seriously, enough already.

This visit with the VHEMT prompted a trip over to the Census Bureau web site to satisfy some curiousity regarding population booms. According to the International Programs Center of the US Census Bureau, there's an estimated 6,506,534,698 people living today, with another 6 million being added each month(yes, that factors in mortality). Compare that to the figures for 1930 which figured the world population to be only 2 billion. That means that in 76 years, still within an average human lifetime, the human population has more than tripled. The global population doubled between 1968 and 1999, 38 years! In the entire 100 years previous(1830-1930) the population had only doubled, which means as more people are born, our rate of reproduction increases. Even though the global birthrate has been declining in recent years, more people are out there ready to have kids. You hear figures like that, and you begin to wonder if it's too late to turn around all the damage we've done to this planet. I don't want to hear any whining about not being able to prove global warming; of course we can! 6 and a half billion people in the world, and look at how much trash YOU alone throw out in one week.

This sort of information also makes me think twice about every medical breakthrough I hear about that purports to extend the human lifetime. Just what we need. More people. People want to ride without seatbelts? More power to them, their cleaning out the gene pool.

Now, I've never been one to believe that the world is going to end in one fiery ball of nuclear radiation. I may be proven wrong, but I think the changes will be more gradual than that, which only makes them more dangerous. If we're not being slapped in the face immediately with the repercussions of our actions, than we tend to forget about them. Which is why my daughter is going to be inheriting a world that I can't help but believe will be more difficult than mine. SO STOP HAVING KIDS! The reason I like the VHEMT, I think, is that all important V in the front. Voluntary. I don't condone mandatory birth control, or any of those dystopian ideas, instead I'd like everyone to think about it. I know everyone wants pride in continuing their genetic line, but really, whats the point? Just go ahead and adopt if you really want kids, their just going to rebel and become your opposite anyway.

Or imagine this: Currently the worldwide average for family size is just under three children.That means, using my basic algebra math skills, that for every 2 people getting together on earth we're getting 3 people added to the population. Factor in all the people who never have children, and the orphans that don't get counted, and we're still increasing at a geometric rate. If everyone voluntarily decided to have only 2 children, or, even better, only one, a lot of our overcrowding would disappear, and we'd be able to get a handle on all of our environmental concerns. But then of course we'd have a whole new can of worms concerning our global economy, which would have to adjust. It's an idealistic fantasy, something I'm not honestly considering, but it's a fantasy nonetheless.

And so, I support the VHEMT, and although I've already broken their one and only rule, I raise my voice with theirs: May we live long and die out!

Or at least slow down.

Crime and Punishment

At the end of last year, I was arrested. It was actually the week before Christmas, a fact that I was reminded of by every officer in booking("Want an extra mug shot for your mom's Christmas card?"). Now, I'd like to have a great story to go along with this, like I was involved in one of those drunken bar fights you see on TV all the time, or that I had been framed by a one armed man, but the truth is infinitely more mundane. I was driving without insurance. That's a misdemeanor in Alaska, and so I was handcuffed, put into the backseat, and taken to jail.. I should say that the arresting officer was very polite and even apologetic, but the officers in booking are complete douche bags. The man searching my pockets before allowing me into the jail was a diminutive, portly man who tried VERY hard to be intimidating but only tested my ability to hold in laughter. For the rest of my time in booking(I never went into the jail, I got out on bail before that happened) he would walk by and threaten me with violent cavity searches if I couldn't come up with 1,500 dollars in bail. Cash. Yes, 1,500 dollars for driving without insurance. That would only be the beginning of what is becoming a very large shakedown.

In court, following a long line of people there for similar offenses(some a bit more serious, but most traffic violations), the judge gave me 30 days in jail, 30 suspended(the point being that if any similar crime on my part were to occur, I would have to serve that jail time, and it's always on my record), around 1000 dollars in court costs(not counting the 500 to get my car out of impound), and 80 hours of community service. A little known fact: You have to pay for community service. I went to the Community Work Service building to sign up, and they wouldn't allow me to work until I gave them 85 dollars. What a fucking system. The next night I was watching one of those Dateline Internet Predators shows, which I normally don't care for(I'm all for exposing and embarrassing these sickos to the entire world, hell, I'm for doing more than that, but I think these shows are a little too close to the line between vigilantism and fascism), and they caught a man who had 4(count em, 4!) prior convictions, and was currently on trial for a 5th incident at the time. They followed his case through to sentencing, and he got a smaller fine than I did, no jail time, and 50 hours of community service.

What was my crime, essentially? Not paying the right people. And why do you think I(or anyone else) would commit this crime? To intentionally screw the government? Of course not, it's a matter of money. I didn't have the money to pay for insurance, and although I knew it was stupid, I went without. I'm pretty sure that's the same explanation almost everyone caught without insurance will give you. And what is the punishment? Horribly inappropriate fines that shouldn't be administered to people who can't even afford insurance, and community service. The community service is even worse, because for that you have to take time off work, and therefore earn less money. And on top of that you have to PAY for the privilege of cleaning up old beer cans along the side of the road.

I bring this story up not as to draw attention to my misfortune, but as an opportunity to touch on a greater problem with our society. I could easily use this to rant about the ongoing war against the poor in this country, but I'd like to try and illuminate a deeper, more distressing problem. Our legal system, as it is currently set up, is all about punishment, and very little care given to actually helping people. Even in those cases where someone is helped, the actual system is more about punishing the perceived wrongdoer. This ties back into my earlier post about torture porn, because I think this is the same thing, only in the 'real' world, not fictionalized on screen. Our entire culture, from children's tales on up, is about finding the person who's done us wrong and making them pay.

On a grander scale, take the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm not going to debate the morality of that event, but the outcome is something worth noting. I don't consider myself an expert on Japanese culture by any means(so all apologies if I offend anyone here), but I've seen my share of films, read my share of books, taken my share of college courses. I've read postwar books that deal directly with the outcome of those two horrendous bombings, and a funny thing started to become clear; there's very little anger pointed towards America. Here is a country that by all means should hate us; we completely obliterated two entire cities, and then forcefully changed their entire way of life. And yet nothing. A friend in Japan told me of an incident in which an elderly person came up to him on the street to thank him for the way the Americans treated Japan after the war.

As you can imagine this confused me, and I guess upset me a bit. My white liberal guilt almost demanded that someone be angry with us. Where was the outrage? The righteous anger at all that meaningless death? Well, it was still there, even if all you know of Japanese culture is Godzilla, the anger towards that horrible event is evident. It's just not directed anywhere that I would initially think of. There is a great anger, and a great sadness, but it's directed internally just as much as it is externally. The bombs dropped, and almost instantly the country of Japan had a moment of catharsis, a giant 'what the hell were we doing' moment. The sadness I sense when reading about the bombs dropping is one of 'how could we let ourselves get to this point? How could the world let itself get to this point?'

Juxtapose that with how we respond when faced with national crises. September 11th was a horrible event, absolutely horrible. It's something that took me a very long time to come to grips with, but what affected me more than the actual event was how we as a society reacted. Where Japan stepped back and took a more passive approach while healing those wounds, we immediately responded like a shaken hornet's nest. Without even waiting to fully verify who was attacking us, we were calling for war on a handful of countries, all middle eastern. We didn't even bother to think of a reason why we might be under attack. Quick; what is the officially stated reason Al-Qaeda attacked us? Has one even been issued? Has our government even bothered to tell us WHY these people hate us so much? And no, 'because they hate freedom' doesn't count. With no information, no reason, we are ready to strike out and risk everything to get vengeance. That attitude is confused an awful lot with justice.

So, culturally, what is it that separates us from Japan? What causes our reactions to be so completely different? You could argue that Japan, for all it's harsh and draconian rules offers everyone a position. Everyone in Japan has a place to fit in, and a goal premade for them. This is a sensation foreign to almost every American. We have more freedoms, but have the anxieties and mental disorders to match. You could also argue that our religion is to blame, that Christianity is, in essence, all about punishment. From God in the old testament to Jesus being punished for our sins. It's ingrained since birth that everything requires vengeance. You could argue many things, and honestly I'm not sure what I think the culprit is.

As a country we have somehow allowed our feelings of power and masculinity to get tied up with our feelings of victimization. White Americans, who have everything, and have faced no real historical persecution, are constantly complaining about their existence being whittled away by outside influences, Affirmative Action or the NAACP. We like to pretend we're being persecuted because it makes our strength(or the perception of it) all the more impressive. In an individual this type of behavior would be seen as a cry for attention, but what do we call it when it applies to an entire country? This is a dysfunction that I believe is killing this nation.

Always playing the victim role, it's still seen as a sign of weakness to offer or accept help. People like to laugh at all of the mis-spoken phrases our President uses, but take a closer look at what he's actually saying. Whenever he speaks of social improvement or humanitarian undertakings he stutters and uses the wrong words, but listen to him talk about punishing our enemies and he's very lucid and well spoken, showing where his priorities lie. Look what happened with Hurricane Katrina. There was an outpouring of offers for aide, but Bush denied most of them. Venezuela has offered many times to donate oil to the lower income families in America who need it, but has been blocked several times(he's gotten around that by selling at a discounted rate to low income families who apply). On the other end of that spectrum, we view the help WE give with disdain as well, both to those giving it and those receiving it. Welfare is a prime example. Many hate the agencies that make welfare possible, and there's a social stigma associated with receiving it. I myself received aid from the government in the form of Denali Kid Care when Amber was pregnant through my daughter's first year or so, and without it we wouldn't have been able to afford the nice family practitioner we now have, and my daughter may not have had the healthcare she now enjoys. The point is, neither I nor my girlfriend were lazy, drug addicted, or any of the other descriptions used for welfare recipients. I, at the time, was working as a manager at a retail store and 2 other part time jobs.

The point is, this cycle of punishment is one of the main causes of this rift in our culture today. Things are no longer as much about race as they are about class. Our entire society cultivates a mistrust and often hatred of our neighbors for the most inconsequential things. I'm going to borrow(steal) an analogy from a man who is far more knowledgeable about this than I am. Imagine America as a tree, and imagine you put a wedge into that tree's trunk, causing it to branch off in two directions. Now the tree keeps growing, and may become quite great, but with that wedge the two sides of the tree keep growing in different directions. And we all know what happens then; the branches snap.

This Social Darwinism, a concept upheld by many republicans whether they know the phrase or not, is one of the most asinine ideas I've ever heard, and yet it pervades almost every aspect of our culture. The entire point of a society is the advancement of every individual in the group. Without helping our neighbors, society doesn't advance.

(To Be Continued....)

Torture Porn

There's a billboard for the upcoming movie Captivity that's made a bit of fuss lately. The billboard, showing Elisha Cuthbert in various stages of torture and eventual death, was prominently displayed along major highways and in front of elementary schools in California. The artwork angered many people(of course!) and prompted several Internet petitions to punish the filmmakers. It turns out the MPAA denied approval to the billboard images when first approached about them, but the studio went ahead anyway, meaning the MPAA could now revoke the film's rating. In effect this means the film would not get a major theatrical release, since -although the MPAA ratings are voluntary and have no legal binding- no theater chain is going to play an unrated film. Of course this is probably what the filmmakers intended, and indeed on the film's website they're already using complaints as advertising. Still, a removal of a rating would deal a strong financial blow; as big as the video market is, it's still preferable to get your film into a theatre.

Normally I oppose any form of censorship, even regarding things that push the envelope past the point of my own enjoyment(it would help to keep in mind my previous post where I admit to actively tracking down and watching a movie about a man killing people with his several yards long penis), yet I completely support this move. First off, it's all well and good to have some completely insane, misogynistic, hateful content in a movie, where people have to choose and pay to see it, but it's another to sucker punch people who have no desire to see this stuff. There's a pro-life organization here in Anchorage that recently began driving around a truck with images of aborted fetuses on it, solely to show people what abortion does. I agree abortion is detestable(despite being pro-choice), but the truck is just unforgivable; I can only imagine my 3 year old daughters reaction if I happened to pull up next to this thing at a stoplight. My point being that there are better ways to announce your position/product in a way that informs potentially interested parties without disregarding common decency. Secondly; I have officially had enough of torture porn. Not only is it a disgusting and mostly meritless sub genre of horror, it says some disturbing things about our society.

In the commentary track for Titus(an excellent Shakespeare adaptation), director Julie Taymor recounts a problem she had with the MPAA while presenting the film for rating. The violence(Titus Andronicus is Shakespeare's most notoriously violent work) apparently didn't bother them, but a sex scene did. Apparently she had to trim it down, because under MPAA guidelines you can show 1.5 pelvic thrusts on film with an R rating, any more and you get yourself an NC-17(for those not in the know, such a rating would limit a film's distribution almost as much as no rating at all). How bizarre is that? That the line between what the MPAA views as art and what they view as pornography is so arbitrary... and distressingly specific. I see this as an indication of a very upsetting trend in American society.

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't really stop anything. Banning explicit sex from public consumption doesn't mean people all of a sudden lose their appetite for pornography, it just gives them incentives to work around these roadblocks, and in many ways makes things much worse. Take Japan, for example; the censorship laws are so strict and draconian it's led to the creation of an entirely new genre; tentacle porn. You see, in Japan you cannot show male or female genitalia or pubic hair, so inventive perverts began using things that LOOKED like penises, the most popular of which is the tentacles of any number of demons aliens or monsters. Not only this, but the things you CAN show in Japanese pornography are so much worse than what you CAN'T show. Apparently a vagina could destroy the fabric of society, but rape? Bestiality? Feces and urination? Vomit? All of them at once(trust me)? All of these are perfectly acceptable, and prevalent, in Japanese pornography. This is a perfect example of following the rules so closely you forget the point, and I fear it's an extreme example of what's happening currently in America.

How bizarre it is that showing two people giving each other pleasure is so forbidden in our society, but we accept and in many cases reward showing people doing violence to each other. This disparity has led to the advent of what many are calling 'torture porn', movies that are based around, obviously, torture, and frequently rape. It's a very misogynistic sub genre where the majority of victims are female, and the torture is frequently coupled with uncomfortable sexual overtones. When you punish sexuality and reward violence, it leads to a shifting of priorities, and the violence becomes sexual, fetishized. Without actual intercourse, people need a release for all this built up desire and energy, and in many films it manifests violently. Spurting jugulars and sliced tendons are the new orgasms, giving a very literal meaning to the term 'torture porn'. This is our new pornography.

That's not to say there aren't a few films that succeed in this genre. I personally feel that Hostel is a great horror film, and has much more to say than most fans probably realize. Where Hostel succeeds is that it realizes the problem with fetishized violence, and juxtaposes the first half of horny tourists cruising red light districts and brothels for sex with a very similar setting in which rich businessmen pay to torture and kill people. The way these young men discuss and treat women in the beginning of the film is not that different from how they are treated in the last half. Add to that a few little tweaks to the genre that add an interesting dimension to the proceedings, and you get a film light years beyond it's current contemporaries. However, this cultural discussion is not apparent in almost any other film of the genre(despite what the filmmakers would like you to believe). Take The Hills Have Eyes, which is a remake of a film that I have to admit I was never a big fan of. The new one is a far inferior film, and completely tasteless. What was originally a grim, gritty, realistic piece of revenge cinema became even more soulless when coupled with the flashy MTV imagery of today. On top of this, I have to say I don't think rape belongs in horror. It may sound odd to say-what could be more horrific than rape?- but it's true. What horror does is offer an escape, a chance to explore and exploit our fears(and in some cases desires), but all while knowing it's a fantasy. As soon as you add rape to the mix, it becomes real. We know this happens, we know this is horrible, and all it does is make the rest of the proceedings look crass and truly exploitative. It's also used to often as cinematic shorthand to upset an audience, but my experience with those who enjoy these movies seems to be that they are completely immune to any emotions involved here. All I hear is how cool and brutal these films are, when all they do is depress me.

And it's not the gore(believe me, I enjoy me a good splatter flick), it's the content. Or rather, it's what it says about where we as a society are heading. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre originally came out a few years before I was born, meaning that we now have two generations who have been raised around these films, where violence and sex are so tightly interwoven. And I am totally understanding of the attitude. I get a bit uncomfortable when a graphic sex scene comes up in a movie I'm watching with my girlfriend, and yet have no problem sitting through some bloody gun fights. My problem is, as I've stated, with how the violence in these torture movies has become so sexual. And I don't think the answer is more censorship, and I don't believe the answer is less censorship. This isn't a case of violence in movies causing violence in real life, I do think it's the other way around. What I think it means is that we, as a society, need to reevaluate our priorities and discuss why we react this way to sex and violence.

Go With The Flow?

Another year, another Superbowl, another flurry of FCC complaints. It's odd to think about, but the FCC would, once upon a time, receive fewer than 200 complaints a year. In 2000 the total number of complaints was 111. The number rose quite a bit over the next few years to 166,683(resulting, actually, in less than half the number of fines). Things REALLY got going in 2004, when the number jumped to 1,405,419. February alone had 200,000 complaints filed with the FCC. Those of you with decent memories will recognize that as the month that millions of arm-char quarterbacks sat up and said 'did I just see a nipple?' Yes, it was Janet Jackson's infamous Superbowl appearance where her outfit 'malfunctioned' and gave people a flash of nipple. I actually saw the event, which is surprising because I never watch football. And yes, I was instantly aware that a nipple had been revealed, but it was more the realization that it had happened; I didn't actually register seeing anything.

Still, it was enough to shock and anger the entire country. Or so we're led to believe. Certainly it was all over the news, and it was used by any number of christian extremists to prove a point about the end of days and how God will smite us all, but do YOU remember being upset? Do you, does anyone, actually believe that a flash of breast is enough to warp an entire society? I believe the majority of people watching that day were probably surprised and a little amused, but far from angered. In fact, according to the complaints found on the Smoking Gun(who did everyone a favor and paid the FCC for the transcripts of over 1,500 of them), the majority of complaints came only AFTER various 'pro-family' organizations petitioned church groups to complain. I would assume that many of these complaints were form letters church groups printed out and had their congregation send in. Certainly many of these complaints(find them here) have a repetitious feel, many of the same talking points trotted out.

I don't mean to imply everyone angered by the incident is a nutball. Some of the letters make good points, or are well stated, and some of them even show a functional reading/writing level over the 6th grade level. But not many.

This year's Superbowl had Prince, who one would imagine is even riskier a proposition than Janet Jackson. However he's recently turned over a new leaf and has even been self-censoring the sexuality inherent in his earlier songs when he plays them in concert. However, one look at his giant penis guitar seems to have made a few people nervous.




This schtick is nothing new. Prince isn't the first, or even the most shocking example, of a guitar being used as a phallic metaphor, but apparently viewers want their homo-eroticism to stay on the field where it belongs, not in their half time show. It's quite interesting what people claim to have seen in this performance, making it a bizarre Rorschach test. You can read a few of the complaints here, but I have to quote this one, and I nominate this guy as worst parent ever.

"During Prince's rendition of Purple Rain, which I think is a really great song, there seemed to be a shadow puppet of his (penis). The sheet? that was the backdrop seemed to be (stained?) with something (semen?) My children were watching and now I have to explain to them what a wet spot is on a cum covered sheet. Thanks CBS"


Those poor, traumatized kids. They'll have nightmares tonight. Still, they receive slightly LESS sympathy than this guys kids get. Keep in mind I have changed nothing, all spelling and syntax are as they appear in this guys complaint.

"It was obscene to show Prince, a HOMOSEXUAL person through a sheet, as to show his siluette while his guitar showed a very phalic symbol coming from his below-midrif section. I am very offended and I would preffer not to have showed it to my 4 children who love football. One of them has hoped to be a quarterback and now he will turn out gay. I am actually considering to check him for HIV. Thanks CBS for turning my son GAY."


This guy might actually be on to something. I've always found the level of homo-eroticism in the NFL games to be slightly disconcerting, and his son probably is gay. To quote from King Missile: "sports are always gay, because afterwards your showering with other guys, and that's gay."

There were also a few outrageous complaints about that Snickers ad that featured to men eating a Snickers bar from opposite ends a la Lady and The Tramp, only to find their lips lock. The ad has since been pulled amid all the complaints, but really it wasn't as offensive as many seem to think. If the FCC complaints are anything to go by, CBS was apparently airing gay porn instead of the Superbowl(not to belabor the point, but really, how could you tell the difference?).

All humor aside, the problem with this is that the FCC doesn't actually watch or monitor this stuff. They go by only what people complain about. Enough complaints and they investigate, and then penalize the networks held responsible. And of course no one calls the FCC to talk about when something pleases them, or when they aren't bothered by something. So, due to this, we've allowed a comparatively small segment of our population to force it's way into the mainstream through our complacency. It's the same segment of our population that has let Wal-Mart get away with destroying third world countries and has given Kirk Cameron and Casper Van Dien a career way past the point at which they should have been turning tricks for crack money.

So I ask you, any of you reading this, to take part in what I've started to do; Every once in awhile, fill out the FCC complaint form(conveniently linked to HERE) and just let them know that you've surveyed the television landscape and found everything fine just the way it is. Or better yet complain when you see something that promotes the right wing christian ideology to the point of being offensive to YOUR beliefs, or call them and complain whenever Elisabeth Hasselbeck on the View says something like "I believe that life begins at the moment of penetration" or "if the government wants to listen in on my phone calls it's okay by me!" Having her as a television personality on such a highly viewed show is MUCH more dangerous than a flash of nipple.

The Year in Preview

I always feel moderately uncomfortable when I find myself looking forward to upcoming movie releases or events, because it puts me in the awkward position of wishing several months of my life would disappear. And yet every year there's another 12 months of exciting pop culture excess to look forward to, and as soon as one of my anticipated events passes, another dozen are waiting to take it's place. I think you can see where this is going, so to save time and get straight to the time wasting, here's a short list of things I'm truly excited about this year. This is by no means complete, because I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.

Planetary #27: Planetary was, and until this issue comes out, IS, the greatest comic book currently being published. Technically the series ended with #26, and this is only an epilogue, but with at least one major storyline still unresolved, this issue stands to have plenty new to tell. Planetary explores a common theme among Warren Ellis' writing; an elite team with highly advanced technology saving the world from even more highly advance technology. Ellis is obviously in love with sci-fi, and does like to explore the nuts and bolts of it more than most sci-fi comics, but it's always in service of the story rather than a bland technical readout. Some have claimed(and probably rightfully so) that Warren Ellis is a misanthropic anarchist, but if you look closely at books like Planetary, Global Frequency and Transmetropolitan, you'll see an intense love of the world and the people in it. The vice and level of human atrocities may increase with technology, but in Ellis' world the capacity for epic heroism also rises. All that, and they're just really good, exciting and fun sci-fi action stories.

League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen; The Black Dossier: It's a constant struggle to explain to people how cool this comic series is when all they know of it is the crappy movie. Imagine basing your opinion of Batman on the Adam West television series, only without the fun(for the record I love the Adam West series). The League comics are so cool, so amazingly fun, and so densely packed with visual references that you may have to read it several times over to get it all. In fact, they released two books to explain all the Victorian-era literary references. That may sound daunting, but really, you need only the barest experience with the main characters-Mina Murray; Dracula, Allan Quatermain; King Solomon's Mines, Griffin Hawley; The Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, and Dr. Jekyll- in order to enjoy this series. Everything else is just gravy. Alan Moore is actually my favorite comic book author, and news of his retirement about 4 years ago left me depressed that there would never be any new books to look forward to(he had left his creations in the hands of others, with varying results). But, after a falling out with DC, Moore came back and did a round of one-shots that effectively wrapped up and closed down the comic imprint he had started for them; America's Best Comics(that sound egotistical, but it fits with the bombastic old-school comic feel the imprint frequently strived for). Further news that Moore was working on a third League book, this one an over sized graphic novel spanning several different incarnations of the team, with lots of nifty extras, restored my faith in comics. Originally this was supposed to be released in October of 2006, but it was put on hold indefinitely while Kevin O'Neill finishes up the highly detailed and excellent artwork. Normally I'd be annoyed, but I'm willing to wait as long as it takes to get this book out at the standards set by the first two volumes(both easily available in trade editions. Go buy them now!) And, to give me a head start on NEXT year's list of anticipated releases, he's already announced two more League books.

Buffy Season 8: My buffy fandom used to be a guilty pleasure, and indeed I still tend to watch who I talk about this show with(my girlfriend wont stop making fun of me for liking it), but nowadays I'm proudly a Buffy fan. I think it was the minor vindication, in the form of Firefly and Serenity, that maybe there WAS something to this show about really attractive women kicking vampire ass. Not that Serenity or Firefly lit the world on fire, but they did appeal to people who WOULD like Buffy if they looked past it's surface. I firmly believe that in a few years, when the whole 'girl power' opinion most people have of the show fades away, Buffy will stand out as truly excellent television, a prime example of what the medium can do. From a storytelling standpoint, Buffy utilized the freedom(timewise, anyway) of television in a way that VERY few series have done. Season 7 had an almost perfect ending for the show, but it was obvious that Joss Whedon had a lot more he could do with it, and now he gets that chance. The new Dark Horse series will run like a Season 8 of Buffy, picking up a little while after the series ended, with Joss writing several key story lines and overseeing all of the individual scripts written by others. It comes out next month, and I am itching in anticipation. And just look at the covers by Jo Chen! Georges Jeanty will be handling interiors.

Twin Peaks Season 2: I was a bit too young to appreciate Twin Peaks when it originally aired(I was 11 when it started), but I still have fond memories of this show, which I bought on VHS with Christmas money while in high school and spent one great weekend not leaving my room except for food and bathroom breaks. In fact, if there was one thing I could be said to be fanatical about, it would be Twin Peaks. I own all of the official book releases for this show(The Secret Diary of Laura Palmer, the Diane Tapes), the entire set of trading cards, I even have a large framed print of black and white photos taken on the set by Richard Beymer(Benjamin Horne). I've even been not once, but twice to the Twin Peaks Festival in Washington state and hold fond memories of hanging out with Michael J. Anderson(Little Man From Another Place) and listening to all of his stoner philosophizing. With all that in mind, it would be hard to overestimate how much I've been looking forward to the release of Twin Peaks' second season on DVD. I was worried for awhile that the release of the DVDs would mirror that of the VHS, where season 1 came out, then several years later you could only buy season 2 in a box with season 1.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is about Twin Peaks that appeals to me so. I've always loved a mystery, and David Lynch's love of showing the mysteries that reside behind every door is just something that really connected with me. I've always responded more emotionally than intellectually to Lynch's films. I may not be able to explain what a specific scene means, but that doesn't stop me from becoming emotionally involved in it. Twin Peaks, for all it's darkness and silliness, is a place I always want to return to. True, season 2 was not as cohesive and, well, good, as season 1. Forced by the network to solve the mystery of 'Who Killed Laura Palmer?', the show had no motivating story, and meandered from quirky to silly and stupid. But, without season 2, we wouldn't have had 'Bob', The Black Lodge, the stunning reveal of Laura's killer, or Annie, the best role Heather Graham has ever had. Things I'm still waiting for? A DVD copy of the pilot episode, which is owned by Warner Brothers who have only released the crappy UK version, which has a horrible tacked on ending to the series. Also the deleted scenes for the Twin Peaks Movie, Fire Walk With Me, which David Lynch keeps teasing will be out sometime soon. 45 minutes were cut from that movie, and I would kill to see a full version of that film.

Grindhouse: Grindhouse theatres are places that I was never around to see, since Anchorage wasn't(and still isn't) a large enough place to have grungy inner-city theatres. The closest we had was The Capri, which was dirty and run-down, but also a haven for hippies and pretentious art fags(I say that with absolutely no regard to sexuality, by the way). Grindhouses specialized in exploitation fare, whether it be kung-fu, horror, blaxploitation, or sexploitation, all genres that I have a fondness for. Of course, there was always the fear of bodily harm at these places, but I like the idea of seeing those movies in a theatre full of people not talking DURING the film, but WITH the film.

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, both people I'll follow into any movie, team up for a two-in-one horror movie. Rodriguez's film is the one that initially appeals to me, because it's got zombies and Rose McGowan with a stupid/crazy/awesome machine gun leg, but I must say I'm REALLY excited to see what Tarantino has Kurt Russel do. I've seen the trailer(s) more times than I can count, and it looks cooler and cooler each time. Find them here if you don't know what I'm talking about. The icing on the cake is going to be the in-between fake film trailers, directed by Eli Roth(Cabin Fever, Hostel), Edgar Wright(Shaun of the Dead), and Rob Zombie(Devil's Rejects).

Cultural Wasteland? Part 2

As I wrote about smart television last week I left out a few of my favorites in consideration of time and space. Technically I can make these blog posts as long as I want, but try to set things at a reasonable length to avoid boring the hell out of you people. Any more than I already do, that is. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is the perfect example of smart television, and watching it makes me wish I had jumped on the West Wing bandwagon while it was still on the air. As it is now I still haven't watched an episode of that earlier, reportedly superior series.

Studio 60 follows a group of actors, writers, executives and technicians so witty, intelligent, good looking, and passionate about their jobs that they could only exist together in an Aaron Sorkin fantasy, and my only real problem with the show is that it knows how smart it is, and it really wants YOU to know it, too. Bonus points go to the show-runners for putting in a 2-part episode(starring the underused John Goodman) that dealt with the tendency for Hollywood to underestimate the intelligence of middle-America, but penalties for patting themselves on the shoulder so much for being 'understanding'. Much of the episode had the feel of a well-produced PSA trying to hammer into your head how worthwhile middle-America is, with plenty of 'way to go, us, for pointing this out'. Aside from that problem-which they are addressing, if these last few episodes are anything to go by- the show is pretty spotless. The cast is all around excellent, making me admire Matthew Perry for the first time, but also featuring some mighty fine supporting performances. The writing is both funny and thought provoking, with dialog that rushes by in a rat-a-tat manner(you may want to tape this show so you can rewind and catch missed lines). Oddly enough, however, this witty writing doesn't extend to the small glimpses we get of the show within a show, a Saturday-Night-Live0but-better weekend sketch comedy show. It could be that the producers are purposely writing mediocre and unfunny bits to mirror the way SNL has gone of late, but that doesn't really jibe with the oft-stated goal of the show. Studio 60 is a big hour long block of liberal wish fulfilment, how all of us stalwart SNL supporters, waiting out these mediocre seasons because we know it can't last, want to imagine that hallowed institution. But more than that it shows us a Hollywood we wish existed, populated by people who actually care about quality entertainment that betters the world.

Because somehow the radical, religious right has inserted itself into the mainstream. If you were to ask the average person on the street(man or woman) whether or not it bothered them that Janet Jackson's nipple was visible for a fraction of a second during a football game, the answer would probably be no. Or just a shrug. Most people don't care about this, and yet CBS was fined millions of dollars, and that event has changed the way everybody watches TV by forcing networks to put time-delays on live broadcasts and second guess just about everything they put into a show. How was this done? How did so few gain so much power? Well, aside from whatever you want to say about our current presidential administration, the simple fact is, they got active. People not offended by the nipple incident didn't really feel the need to call the FCC and express their apathy, whereas anyone offended by this emailed everyone they knew, told everyone in their church, or anyone stuck next to them on a bus, that this was a travesty unlike anything since, well, ever. And they emailed the FCC expressing this displeasure. The FCC technically has no one monitoring the airwaves, and they react only to complaints received. I am without the actual statistics in front of me, but the FCC went from receiving a few hundred complaints a year to suddenly receiving literally hundreds of thousands a month. Suddenly they were inundated with millions of emails, apparently leading them to believe that everyone in America saw, and was traumatized by, Ms. Jackson's nipple. That would certainly explain the proliferation of downloads of said nipple pictures. Right?

In the big picture, this whole affair with the FCC isn't stopping any artists from getting their messages out, it's merely making them think around some very stupid obstructions(which, as we've all seen, can lead to some truly sublime work). This is part of an overall trend in which the religious right has hijacked this country by convincing people that they are the norm, the majority, when in actuality they aren't. In reality, the normal people enjoy things like birth control, pre-marital sex, and the occasional f-bomb.

For anyone else annoyed by the hijacking of our popular culture, Studio 60 offers a pretty good weekly hour of escapism, with an entertaining plot line unfolding right now about the very things I've been so upset about. Any of my complaints about the show(the preachiness, the 'aren't we smart' attitude) are all outweighed by the overall production, and it really does put a big, liberal smile on my face.

Cultural Wasteland?

A recent, semi-regular search for info on David Lynch projects gave me some good news; Twin Peaks Season 2 will finally OFFICIALLY be released on DVD stateside in a few months. I've been waiting a very long time for this-the first season came out over five years ago. I've long held Twin Peaks in a special regard, and I still consider it to be my favorite television show ever. Still, despite the place it will always have in my heart and imagination, I've had to admit that the show may no longer be the high watermark of the medium it once was.

Yes, I have to admit, television has improved. In my lifetime it's grown by leaps and bounds, and it's no longer the cultural wasteland that it often gets accused of being. It was tough going there for awhile, with the preponderance of bad reality TV(I'm looking at you, Fox!), and networks that seemed committed to cancelling high quality, intelligent shows in favor of cheap,
mind-numbing programming(I'm still looking at you, Fox!). To be sure, most of those shows still exist(anything on Fox outside of House and the Simpsons), most of the stuff on CBS. Reality shows, though declining, are still big events that are usually every bit as exploitative as they have been.

Outside of those examples, television today is more thought provoking than it was in my youth, and actual serious issues are being addressed in some very popular shows. Take the new Battlestar Galactica. I haven't seen any of season 3, airing now, but the first two seasons rank among the best television has ever produced. Making the humans polytheistic, persecuted by the cylons and their fanatical belief in one true god was an inspired bit of storytelling. The parallel is obvious, making the human heroes a sympathetic stand-in for Iraqi insurgents is only the tip of the controversial iceberg. In fact, I truly believe if this show were more popular, or on network TV instead of basic cable, the show would be the subject of some serious picketing. And I don't just mean from geeky fan boys obsessed over Starbuck being a woman. The show never takes the easy way out by providing a cut and dry answer to problems that are obviously meant to mirror our problems of today, rather portraying each side of an argument so equally that my knee-jerk liberal reactions are put to the test. One episode in particular dealt with abortion. I myself am pro-choice in theory(I agree it's a woman choice), but pro-life in action(I think it's a horrible thing). The episode dealt with a woman wanting an abortion, and the liberal president having to go against her feelings and make abortion illegal, because when the human race is whittled down to less than 50,000 people, every life is important.

And this show isn't alone in this new trend towards the thought-provoking, although it heightens the political more than most. Lost continues to be twisty and entertaining. It's true that this season seems to be suffering from a general lack of purpose, but it's still engaging, and the cold open on the season premier had me shouting 'what the hell!?' at my TV screen. Something I've actually done once or twice this season. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, however, with the Lost producers in talks with ABC to set a cancellation date, which will allow them to work towards a specific ending instead of just stalling for time, which it feels like they've been doing for the last half season or so. The show returns from hiatus in a couple weeks, and I'm fairly excited about it. It isn't the show I've been awaiting with the most excitement, however. That honor belongs to the lovely and witty Veronica Mars.

This season got a lot of flack from fans angered by the CWs decision to market the show to the same audience as the Gilmore Girls. What this involved was a lot more excuses to get Veronica into skimpy/sexy clothing, a blessedly short lived segment where a group of coffee drinking girls discussed which boys they liked on the show during commercial breaks. This fits a lot more this season than it would have last year, because another change seems to be an increase of focus on Veronica's love life(although thank god they got rid of her love interest of the first season and a half... I'm no big fan of Logan, but at least he's not so boring). Most damningly, However, was the wrapping up all of the mysteries left building up from seasons one and two in basically the first few minutes of the first episode. Anything left unresolved has so far been ignored. This last one hurts the most, largely because the mysteries were by and large INTERESTING, and you just know the way they ended isn't REALLY how the producers wanted things to go. However, after the highly convoluted and storyline clogged second season(I watched it in one week on DVD and was lost for large chunks of it) I'm sure the network wanted to draw in as many new viewers as possible, and that means making the show as easy to jump in and understand as possible. And, if this trick works, all will be forgiven, because as of now this looks to be the last season we get.

Looking back on the first few episodes of this new season(the show is airing in story-arc blocks, 6 weeks for one story, a few weeks off. Six weeks of a new story, a few weeks off...) the offenses listed above seem fairly minor, because the show turns out to be better than any single episode would lead you to believe, and was in retrospect quite genius. With a main mystery revolving around a serial rapist on the college campus, each episode explored abuser/victim relations and what absolute power over another person could do. This ranged from the subtle-a kidnapping case at Hearst college with a cameo by... Patti Hearst, that most famous example of victim-abuser relations- to the not so subtle-a class experiment where half the students are guards at a Guantanamo bay-style prison, and the other half are prisoners. This season may not yet be reaching the highs of season one(one of the best, most perfect seasons TV has yet produced), but for my money it's still beating out season two(which is still excellent), if only for the sake that it's nowhere near as confusing. The shows mysteries are all intriguing, even when they're pretty lightweight affairs. This succeeds where most P.I. shows fail; showing the actual detective work. Most detective shows involve the hero stumbling onto the answer by accident, in the final few minutes of the show, but Veronica Mars shows us exactly how these cases are solved. We may not get all the info we need to solve it ourselves, but we do get to see how the clues are put together and therefore don't feel cheated when the revelation seems to come from nowhere.

If you can't tell, this is probably my favorite show airing right now(I don't have cable, so don't bother bringing up any HBO series like The Wire or the Sopranos), and one I want everyone reading this to watch. Rent season one, or just jump in now while a new mystery is about to start, either way just START WATCHING THIS SHOW! If the ratings don't improve, the CW has made clear it's plan to cancel the show, and this is by far the best thing the network has going for it. Now if only everybody else would see that.