95 Theses (But a Bitch Ain't One)

As all of you should know, unless you're morons or you don't have a calendar (but if you're reading this, you're on a computer with internet access and can find out the date easily enough, so moron is really the only option here), it's Halloween. Om nom nom nom. However, unless you're one of those godless Protestant types, you might not know that it's also Reformation Sunday, which commemorates the nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the cathedral in Wittenberg.

Luther was an interesting figure, to be sure. His intention wasn't to split Christendom into warring factions, but to bring the Church back to its original mission - and let's be honest here, the Church had certainly strayed. He was (and is) a divisive figure, a brilliant scholar, and also a little crazy. My favorite crazy Luther tidbit is something I read in one of his letters when I was writing a Music History paper on the theological significance of the Lutheran chorales. He was discussing Satan (as he was wont to do) and basically making the point that we always have to do the exact opposite of what we think Satan wants. His example: if I think Satan wants me to stop drinking, I go right ahead and have several more - because it's better to fall into some small sin of excess than to align with the Devil's wishes.

I just get this mental image of Luther standing near a pile of smoldering wreckage and ash and saying, "But I had to burn down that orphanage, you see, because Satan told me not to!" Obviously, they didn't have a concept of reverse psychology at the time.

So, here's to you, Martin Luther. You certainly weren't a perfect man, but you had the courage to stand up for what you believed was right, even though you were threatened with all sorts of earthly and divine punishments - and that's something we should all be able to respect. And besides, if you hadn't split up the Church, it would be a lot more crowded in heaven right now - and we Catholics like to have some leg room.

In Which Irrational Hatred is Displayed

So, this has come up in conversation several times recently, and I feel like it's something I should make an official statement on:

I hate the Midwest and it can go to hell.

There, I said it. And before anyone gets all offended, I would just like to point out that this view does not reflect on people who live there; rather, it reflects on the land itself. It is a piss-poor excuse for a geographical region and it should be ashamed of itself.

Why, you ask?

Because it's so unnaturally fucking flat. There are no hills. There are barely any trees. It's all just gently rolling fields of wheat and corn as far as the eye can see and it makes me want to shoot myself in the face. It's as if God was creating the world and suddenly ran out of ideas. "Screw it," he said. "I'll just make this part flat. It's not like anyone will notice." Well you were wrong, God. I notice, and it's terrible.

As if the flawless logic of my argument weren't already evident, take a moment and ponder the fact that the unusual flatness of the terrain directly contributes to the number of devastating tornadoes that go through the region every year. I mean, honestly - why the fuck anyone would live in a place known as "Tornado Alley" is beyond me. That's like moving to a place called "Murder Town" and being surprised when someone shanks you in the kidney so he can get the five cent deposit on that can of soda you just finished. (No offense to anyone who lives in Baltimore.)

God, I hate the Midwest.

Cinema Snark: Let Me In

This is the condensed version, because mama's going to bed early tonight. So, let's see how succinct I can make this.

Let Me In

So there's this boy. He's pretty much a serial killer/school shooter waiting to happen. He's bullied by other kids and acts out revenge fantasies (with knives) in his room. Then this girl (Abby, played by Chloe Moretz, whom I might have to marry [after she turns 18]) about his age moves in next door. They become friends, blah blah blah, she's actually a vampire. And then something resembling romance blossoms.

If this sounds like a weird premise for something that's supposed to be a horror film, you're absolutely right. It is weird, and different, and that's the biggest reason it's pretty damn good.

In short, it's a horror film that's not a horror film. It's got its fair share of blood (as any self-respecting vampire movie should), but it's not actually about the violence. Let Me In exercises an admirable amount of restraint in the gore department, choosing to make the film about characters and atmosphere instead. The horror is more in the premise than anything else - it's essentially a love story between two killers. The boy hasn't actually killed anyone yet, but he's well down that dark path when we first meet him, and the one ray of sunshine (as it were) in his relatively hopeless life is this mysterious girl, who will almost certainly make him into a killer in the future.

It's not scary as such - it's disturbing. It tones down the disturbing-ness a bit from the original Swedish film (translated to Let the Right One In), which itself had toned down the disturbing-ness from the book it was based on, but it remains one of the most unnerving horror movies I've seen recently. Abby and her "father" do some pretty horrific things, but the worst acts of cruelty are reserved for the middle-school students who torment the main character.

It seems oddly appropriate, given what we've been seeing in the news recently.

So, to sum up: if you're looking for a different breed of horror movie, something that focuses on story more than tits and murder, see it. It's well-made and generally well-acted and it gives you a lot to think about. And then watch the Swedish version, because it's weirder and creepier. Because, you know. Sweden.

Cinema Snark: Red

I saw movies last weekend! Shocking, I know. My attendance at the movies has dropped considerably now that I actually have to pay for tickets, but I felt that Red and Let Me In warranted my attention. So, here's the first review.

Red

Okay, I've been drooling over this since I saw the trailer way back in June or July or whatever. It ran before Twilight: Eclipse, which struck me as an odd marketing decision - until I considered the possibility that they were comforting the menfolk in the audience who were only there because their womenfolk had threatened not to put out if they didn't get to go see Twilight as a couple. In that sense, you could say that the Red trailer was a testosterone shot to ward off the bitch flu. Either that, or the trailer was there because both movies are made by Summit Entertainment. (I like my first theory better.)

But basically, all you need to know about the movie is this: there are a bunch of old people, and they're complete fucking badasses. Bruce Willis plays the exact same character that he always does, and it somehow hasn't stopped being entertaining (a phenomenon known as the "Samuel L. Jackson Effect") - but this time, he's brought friends! John Malkovich is the resident batshit crazy one, Morgan Freeman is the resident cheerful black one, aaand then there's Helen Mirren. She arranges flowers and makes tea and kills shit dead with a variety of high-powered weapons. Not bad for the Queen of England. (In other Helen Mirren-related news, she's going to be Prospera in Julie Taymor's upcoming movie adaptation of The Tempest. I'm freaking out.) Rounding out the cast are Karl Urban, who gets lots of points for Lord of the Rings but loses so, so many for Doom and Pathfinder, Brian Cox, who was inexplicably absent from the entire marketing campaign despite having a bigger role than Morgan Freeman, and Mary Louise Parker, who is pretty entertaining despite spending so much of the movie with duct tape over her mouth.

Long story short, it's just fantastic to see "respectable" Oscar-winning actors letting their hair down (what little they have left, in several cases) and having a good time. Is Red a cinematic masterpiece? Christ, no - but it doesn't want to be. It exists pretty much solely for the purpose of letting audiences watch otherwise dignified AARP members beat the shit out of everyone who gets in their way. One-liners and impossible stunts abound, and it's basically a great 90's-style action-comedy in every way.

Unfortunately, that's also the movie's main weakness. It's an action-comedy, meaning that it's not particularly ground-breaking in in any way. The plot is simultaneously simplistic (little to no character development) and convoluted (government conspiracy, blah blah blah). It's not mind-screwy enough to gain a rabid fanbase, and the budget isn't big enough to make it a real blockbuster. The cast and the action sequences make the movie fun, but it never really goes above and beyond.

There's a scene midway through the movie which is very reminiscent of The Dark Knight Returns: Bruce Willis hears that Karl Urban "looks pretty tough," so he goes out of his way to find him and engage in brutal hand-to-hand combat. It's a pride thing: an aging man trying to prove that he's still the badass alpha male. They fight and there's blood and glass and shit getting broken, and then Bruce dislocates Karl's arm and gets away. In DKR, on the other hand, Batman does the same thing with the leader of the mutants - only to get summarily curbstomped. He barely escapes with his life, but he learns a lesson: he shouldn't try to fight like a young man anymore; he needs to fight smarter and use the benefit of his years of experience. That scene (and Batman's victory in the eventual rematch) made the story more interesting, because it added a layer of vulnerability to the protagonist - something that is sorely lacking in Red.

Red discusses the problems of retirement and aging, but more in terms of boredom than anything else. They're still just as good at shooting people as they ever were, if not better. Government assassins are apparently like fine wine, or possibly some kind of cheese - i.e., they only get better with age. The protagonists generally shrug off bullet wounds and make comments about how the Secret Service "used to be tougher." Sure, it's entertaining, but there's also no real sense of tension or drama. The song "Back in the Saddle Again" is featured prominently in the trailer and the fight scene discussed above, and it pretty much sums up the tone of the movie - they used to kill people, then they didn't for a while, but now they do again and it's never been easier.

Bottom line: Red is entertaining as hell, but it's not exactly a movie for the ages. In fact, it would be pretty damn forgettable if not for the wonderful casting. But hey, it still beats the hell out of The Expendables.

On Relationships (of the Fictional Variety), Part II

Okay. First of all, some of you may be wondering why I'm rambling about this. What could possibly be the point? After all, just about every story ever told, written, illustrated, or performed has some sort of depiction of love or relationships - and if the story is devoid of both, that tends to be a statement in and of itself. Hell, a story with no romantic elements whatsoever could actually say more about love than your average romantic comedy - in large part because most romantic comedies are shit, but also because love is so ubiquitous that its absence is arguably more noteworthy than its presence.

"But Charlie," some of you might whine, "you just went on a tangent instead of answering our question." And I would reply, "That's because the question is stupid, and so are you." I'm doing this for the hell of it, of course, not because there's any particular point. Also, I like the sound of my own voice - or rather, I enjoy the sound of my spite-filled fingertips going clickety-clack across the keyboard.

Any more questions? No?

Good.

II. Love = Something to Lose (this time, it's personal)

So, when I last left you, I had broached the subject of what happens when a hero's love interest is killed (this also often applies to family members and close bromances friends). The answer, of course, is revenge. Lots of it.

You see, sometimes people just want to tell a story about a guy who goes around killing everyone and everything that gets in his way. The thing is, though, most people don't really want to make their protagonists completely unrepentant killing machines with no values or moral code and no reason for their ongoing genocides other than boredom. Even Dexter "Bay Harbor Butcher" Morgan has a code, and he's one of the most accomplished fictional serial killers the world has ever seen. Actually, I think the only non-video-game example I've ever seen of the unrepentant-psycho-murderer-protagonist is Wesley Gibson, from the graphic novel Wanted (subtitle: And You Thought The Movie Was a Piece of Shit). Another writer might have gone with the dark, twisted, "holy shit, this guy is a monster, but a strangely fascinating one" route - but not Mark Millar. Oh, no. He went with "I used to be a pussy like you but now I'm awesome and can rape and/or murder anyone I want and I'm badass and rich and don't you wish you could be like me." No, actually, I really don't. You're an immature asshole with the mindset of a twelve-year-old school shooter. Also, while I'm on the subject: go fuck yourself, Mark Millar. People like you are the reason that so much of the public thinks all comic books are trash.

God, I hate Wanted.

Anyway, back on track. Given that unflinchingly genocidal protagonists are damn near impossible to write well, many writers turn to the tried and true formula of Murdered Loved One: Instant Moral Justification (now with Gravitas!). Sometimes this occurs late in the story, as the final act that pushes the hero over the edge, while many other movies and the like use it as the basic premise: man's girlfriend/wife/daughter gets dead, man goes on rampage, man finds and kills everyone responsible. But it's not really murder, right? It's justice. Because they totally started it.

In some cases, the death of a loved one at the hands of criminals is handled well, and treated with the proper respect. But let's be honest: most people don't go to vigilante revenge movies to see interesting characters and thoughtful writing. People see them for the violence. Thus, in most cases, whatever "love" appears in such stories is a cardboard cutout, something that exists only to be taken away. The most blatant case I've seen recently is the Gerard Butler/Jamie Foxx movie Law Abiding Citizen. While most revenge movies take a good ten to fifteen minutes to give you a passing look at the characters before their horrible deaths, Law Abiding Citizen puts the murder and rape in the very first scene. It pretty much just slaps you upside the head and says, "FAMILY DEAD. YOU SHOULD CARE." Of course, then the movie turns into a psychotic and convoluted polemic against the American criminal justice system, so it clearly doesn't expect you to care about his family for much longer. And that's a good thing, because I didn't.

Jodie Foster's The Brave One, on the other hand, is an interesting piece of work. It's not a perfect movie by any stretch of the imagination, and it hits many of the same points as your standard vigilante justice movie, but the whole thing takes on a remarkably different tone because the protagonist is female - and not your Angelina-Jolie-type badass, but a relatively normal, everyday woman. She's horrified by what she sees herself becoming, and her vigilantism is just as much a result of her desire to regain control of her life as it is a quest for revenge. When it comes down to it, there's not much actual footage of Jodie's relationship, because the focus of the movie is the result of the attack which leaves her in a coma and her lover dead - and yet, the emotion seems much stronger and much more real than it would in another movie of a similar type, in large part because she's an actual actress and not just an action star. You realize quite quickly that it's a very different sort of vigilante movie, even as you recognize the familiar hallmarks of the genre.

Aaaaand that's all for the moment. If you're wondering why this installment didn't talk a whole lot about love, it's because the source material doesn't either. Which is kinda my point. Funny how these things work.

Part III looms on the horizon, after a couple movie reviews.

On Relationships (of the Fictional Variety), Part I

Speaking as someone who has gone through a string of girlfriends and become something of a family joke in the process (at least in the Washington-based circle of my relatives), I believe I can say with a certain degree of certainty that relationships can be extremely tricky things to navigate in real life. On one memorable occasion, I was dragged into a protracted argument with a particular girlfriend when I suggested that House and Wilson were totally gay for each other. It's amazing how something as harmless (and completely true) as that can cause heated tempers and fireworks of a nearly domestically violent variety. More than amazing, actually: it's completely fucking irrational.

But that's the whole point - love (not to mention lust, and everything related to the two) is something which operates outside the realm of rationality. It's full of ups and downs - some bigger than others - and often cannot be relied upon to conform to whatever rules or conventions you decide to impose upon it. If you're a biblical sort of person, you'll know that "love is patient, love is kind," but if you listen to Chris Rock, you should also know that "if you've never seriously considered murder, you ain't never been in love."

I. Love = Achievement Unlocked (way to level up, bro)

Love is a difficult and complex thing; even in the best of times, it's hard to understand in real life - which makes it damn near impossible to write (well) in fiction, especially of the serial variety. Movies can often neatly sidestep the issue by waiting until the ending to have people get together, and leaving the rest to your imagination. The same goes for operas and novels and such: like movies, they have a limited amount of time and/or space to tell their story, and the easiest way to treat love is as something to be achieved. Love is a prize, and the hero/ine has to overcome whatever obstacles are necessary to gain that love - whether those obstacles come in the form of societal pressure, emotional problems, or (most likely, considering my tastes in entertainment) zombies/men with guns/zombies with guns/snakes on a muthafuckin' plane/orcs. This tends to lead to a "happily ever after" mindset, where we're just expected to accept that since these people have just saved the world and they're kissing now, everything is going to be warm-fuzzy and shiny forever. Sequels will sometimes play with this trope, having a couple that was together at the end of the first movie be estranged by the beginning of the second (e.g. Ghostbusters 2. Yes, I know it's a shit movie, but it's the first one I could think of). This recognizes the whole "love isn't easy" thing, but it still sidesteps the issue of having to portray two people in a relationship - and thus, I call bullshit.

Of course, a certain British spy with a certain license to perform lethal acts of grievous bodily harm has a new love interest each movie, and never makes any mention of what became of the set of breasts woman from the preceding film. Strangely enough, I find this more acceptable (in a narrative sense) than the alternative, because it's a well-established character trait that he will have sex with just about anything that moves. Also, women are little more than objects to him, and he gets a new set of gadgets every movie - so having equally disposable women actually makes sense, in an unrealistic, misogynistic, how-do-you-not-have-sixty-different-varieties-of-syphilis kinda way. The whole idea of love as achievement makes relationships into a commodity anyway - things to be won, like plush toys at a carnival - but at least the Bond movies are open about it. It sure as hell isn't love, but it never really claims to be. There are a couple notable exceptions (cough Vesper Lynd cough), but they both die before their respective movies are finished, putting them in a different category of fictional relationships altogether.

And that brings me to the next segment, which you'll have to wait for. It's taken me too long to get this far anyway.

I like it... when it makes any sense.

Okay, I know I'm not the first person in the world to snark about this. But listen up, people: if you're trying to raise awareness of something, it kinda helps when people know what the hell you're talking about.

Yes, I'm talking about the new Facebook status meme, in which various people of the female persuasion flirtatiously state their preference on where to place their purse, e.g., "I like it on the floor" or "I like it with a ball gag" "I like it on the table." And somehow, this is supposed to make us big dumb men realize that breast cancer exists.

Well, you know what? We already know. In fact, anyone - regardless of gender - who hasn't been affected by it in some way (whether personally or through friends/family) has probably been living with wolves for the past twenty years, and wouldn't have a Facebook in the first place. I have this mental image of a man dressed in sack-cloth, with matted hair and wild eyes, suddenly returning to civilization and seeing one of these Facebook statuses for the first time. His first reaction isn't "What the hell is a face-book" or even "What the hell is a computer," but rather, "My GOD! How have I been unaware of breast cancer all these years? Quick, Robin--" [and here he's actually talking to a bird] "--to the Crazy-mobile!" And then he jumps out a window and runs away, and everyone is glad he's gone because he hadn't showered in years and he smelled like raccoon urine. Also, he may or may not have had rabies.

My point is, the purse thing doesn't work. It's absolutely pointless and doesn't accomplish anything, because everyone already knows that breast cancer is a huge fucking problem. Instead, maybe you could make your status about a loved one you lost - or, better yet, a loved one who survived breast cancer, thanks to the medical advancements that have been made in recent years. Or, if you want to be suggestive, be suggestive - but don't pretend that it's going to help the cause.

As for me... I just miss the days when innuendo was treasured on its own merits.

Hey, kids, it's the Eliot Spitzer Show!

First blog entries, as a rule, are terrible. They have this tendency to try too hard to be welcoming to their readers and explain what's going on, and then backtrack into self-deprecating "yeah but it's not like anyone will read this anyway" territory. (Spoiler alert: it's true.) The other possibility is that they won't actually acknowledge that no one is going to read their blog on a regular basis, instead choosing to live in a magical fantasy world where anyone gives a damn about their opinions.

Thankfully, CNN has been kind enough to give me fuel for my mockery engines, meaning that I have something to talk about other than "Oh hey... first post, y'all." They really couldn't have timed this more perfectly. All I can say is, someone at CNN is looking out for me - and by "is looking out for me" I really just mean "is a complete moron". But really, it all works out the same in the end.

The tagline for their newest political analysis show is "Never settle for one side of the story." The gimmick? One conservative host and one liberal host, discussing and debating issues on the air. The former is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kathleen Parker, and the latter is disgraced former New York State Attorney General and Governor and friend to prostitutes everywhere Eliot Spitzer.

Check it out!

...Really, CNN? I know he has a certain amount of notoriety in the political community, but it's NOT THE GOOD KIND. This is someone who spent $80K on prostitutes over a ten year period, and you're placing him on TV next to a Pulitzer winner. He's just a headset and a bitten tongue away from being the Sham-Wow guy, for God's sake.

But you know, maybe this will start a trend. Look for MSNBC's hot new show next month, which pits Rachel Maddow against Gov. Mark Sanford. Hell, I'd watch it.