So, Christmas has come and gone, with nary a mention in my blog. Some of you may be asking yourselves why: do I have some ulterior motive? Do I secretly hate Christmas? Am I part of the massive liberal conspiracy to wage war on the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus H. Christ? Am I a secret Muslim?
The answer to all of these questions is simple: if you're asking those questions seriously and without irony, your name is probably Glenn Beck and you can fuck right off.
In any case, I am what many people would call a Scrooge or a Grinch or a generally crotchety bastard. This is due in large part to the fact that what is frequently referred to as "the Christmas Spirit" just pisses me off. Bitches love Christmas ("bitches" being used here to mean "the majority of the American public")--and instead of just allowing themselves to enjoy that love, people have a tendency to go batshit crazy over it. Case in point: Black Friday stampedes. People have actually died trying to get deals on clothing and electronics and other shit that is fun and shiny and useful (sometimes) and NOT ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR LIFE. You'd think that maybe a "good Christian" would notice if he was stepping on someone's face, but no. Apparently the warm fuzzy Christmas Spirit doesn't extend to not trampling your fellow man.
This shit happens every year. And even if no one dies, there are always violent altercations and verbal abuse. Always. Some people are just assholes, and you can dress that up as much as you want with talk about Santa and Jesus and Christmas, but they're still assholes, and will turn into even bigger assholes if you're standing between them and that 50" plasma TV.
Next in line are the douchebags who blather about "keeping the Christ in Christmas" and get extremely offended whenever someone wishes them "happy holidays" because it's godless and liberal and pagan (though I'm sure they believe those words are pretty much synonymous). Well, funny thing about that: Christmas was a pagan holiday that was wrapped in proverbial swaddling clothes and appropriated for Christianity. People who say "happy holidays" generally mean it as a compliment, so get off your goddamn high horse and deal with it. The same goes for people who get offended when people wish them a merry Christmas--they really do mean well, unless they're dicks. Hell, I'd have no problem with someone wishing me a happy Hanukkah, and I'm pretty far from being Jewish.
And then you have the well-meaning but extremely passive-aggressive people who judge you if your Christmas decorations aren't up to their standards. But you know what? Not every house has to have Christmas lights--or even a wreath on the door, for that matter. Different people celebrate in different ways, and we don't all have to have giant inflatable Santas on our lawn that wave to passersby and shit candy canes, because some of us find that sort of crap tacky as hell. It has no reflection on how much we love our families or our fellow man; we just don't consider pretty lights absolutely necessary. And yes, we are still aware that it's Christmas. Thanks for your concern, and kindly piss off.
So why the ire on my part? Because people are using the holiday as an excuse to lie to themselves.
The prettiest tree in the world won't mend a broken family. Expensive presents don't make you a good parent. Pretending that everything is wonderful and filled with holiday cheer just because it's December does not mean that troubled children will stop doing drugs and setting shit on fire or that unhappy spouses will suddenly want to stay together and fix everything. Christmas is less about letting yourself be filled with the magical Christmas Spirit than it is about being a decent human being.
Stop looking at the fucking animatronic reindeer for a minute and look at your family. Look at your friends. Look at your life. Do you like what you see? If not, maybe you should do something about it that doesn't involve ribbons or wrapping paper.
So, yeah, apparently thinking this way makes me a Scrooge. But hey, the surplus population of jackasses could stand to be decreased, so bah freaking humbug. I wear the mantle proudly.
Merry belated Christmas, everyone, and happy New Year.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
My SpiDURRR Sense is Tingling
Okay, it's time to clear something up. Raise your hands if you thought that a Broadway musical about Spider-Man was a good idea.
Be honest, now.
All right. If you raised your hand, congratulations! You're either Julie Taymor, Bono, or a complete fucking moron. You get a special prize if you can figure out which category you fall into! (Protip: celebrities don't read my blog.)
On the heels of this revelation, I have some good news and bad news. The good news is, if you're too scared to go see Black Swan, you can go see a real-life instance of crazy people putting performance ahead of their physical well-being. And the bad news? The privilege will cost anywhere between $75 and $145, and you may or may not get to see a full performance.
Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark has finally opened (kinda) on Broadway after some massive delays, and guess what! They can't even run the damn show all the way through without crippling technical difficulties and/or actors plummeting 30 feet into the orchestra pit. Add that to the estimated $65 million budget, and you have the makings of one of the most expensive and spectacular failures of all time.
But really, is anyone surprised? There's a reason that it took Spider-Man thirteen years longer than Batman to get a big-screen adaptation--to do it well, you need some rather extensive CGI. He's not even some generic flying superhero like Superman, either--he's kinetic, constantly swinging and bouncing and flipping like a parkour practitioner on crystal meth (though that last part might be redundant). In other words, that's some difficult shit right there. A musical takes all of the post-production magic out of the movie-making process, meaning you have to do all those crazy stunts live at every single performance.
It's a dumb fucking idea.
Seriously.
And just because I enjoy kicking people while they're down, I would just like to say that "Turn Off the Dark" is a terrible title. I mean, yes, it sounds appropriately trippy in a Julie Taymor kinda way, but really? It has no relation to Spider-Man at all. His powers really have nothing to do with light or darkness; he climbs walls, he jumps hella high, and does other spider-related stuff.
You know who does have light-based powers? Dazzler. Why don't they make a musical about her?
Oh, that's right: because she sucks.
But then again, by all accounts, so does Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Maybe I'm on to something here.
Be honest, now.
All right. If you raised your hand, congratulations! You're either Julie Taymor, Bono, or a complete fucking moron. You get a special prize if you can figure out which category you fall into! (Protip: celebrities don't read my blog.)
On the heels of this revelation, I have some good news and bad news. The good news is, if you're too scared to go see Black Swan, you can go see a real-life instance of crazy people putting performance ahead of their physical well-being. And the bad news? The privilege will cost anywhere between $75 and $145, and you may or may not get to see a full performance.
Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark has finally opened (kinda) on Broadway after some massive delays, and guess what! They can't even run the damn show all the way through without crippling technical difficulties and/or actors plummeting 30 feet into the orchestra pit. Add that to the estimated $65 million budget, and you have the makings of one of the most expensive and spectacular failures of all time.
But really, is anyone surprised? There's a reason that it took Spider-Man thirteen years longer than Batman to get a big-screen adaptation--to do it well, you need some rather extensive CGI. He's not even some generic flying superhero like Superman, either--he's kinetic, constantly swinging and bouncing and flipping like a parkour practitioner on crystal meth (though that last part might be redundant). In other words, that's some difficult shit right there. A musical takes all of the post-production magic out of the movie-making process, meaning you have to do all those crazy stunts live at every single performance.
It's a dumb fucking idea.
Seriously.
And just because I enjoy kicking people while they're down, I would just like to say that "Turn Off the Dark" is a terrible title. I mean, yes, it sounds appropriately trippy in a Julie Taymor kinda way, but really? It has no relation to Spider-Man at all. His powers really have nothing to do with light or darkness; he climbs walls, he jumps hella high, and does other spider-related stuff.
You know who does have light-based powers? Dazzler. Why don't they make a musical about her?
Oh, that's right: because she sucks.
But then again, by all accounts, so does Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Maybe I'm on to something here.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Cinema Snark: Tron Legacy
I'm going to say it right off the bat: Tron was my favorite movie when I was a young lad. God only knows why, really--it had a slow pace and a whole religious subplot going on, and was surprisingly short on action. Everyone always remembers the light-cycles and the disc-fights, of course, but they make up a depressingly small portion of the movie. There's a lot of talking and running and hiding and dystopian computer-generated landscapes, making Tron something of a spiritual precursor to the Beast Machines TV series. (That's probably going to be really funny mildly amusing to the three other people in the world who ever watched that show.)
In any case, I loved the damn movie anyway, even though liking it apparently put me in a category with various fat, sweaty mouthbreathers who subsisted on diets of Mountain Dew and Doritos. Because that's what all nerds are like, right? Right.
Flash forward fifteen years.
I was intrigued by whispers of a sequel, which culminated in the release of a teaser trailer at Comic-Con 2008. (That link is actually the more polished version shown at Comic-Con 2009, but you get the idea.) Better visuals, check. Better color palette (neon on black works so much better than neon on white), check. Cool action sequences, check. And hey, look, it's Jeff Bridges!
So much awesome. Needless to say, I have been giddy ever since, with subsequent trailers only increasing my fanboyish glee. And, upon its release, did it live up to my expectations?
Short answer: Yes. I loved it.
Long answer: While it is by no means a perfect movie, Tron Legacy improves upon the original in a number of ways. As previously stated, the color scheme and visual aspect have been vastly improved, and the movie makes good use of the 3D/IMAX technology without resorting to those cheapass "this will look great in 3D but will look absolutely retarded on a normal screen" moments. It also helps that the movie was actually filmed in 3D instead of just shoehorning the 3D elements in in post-production to make an extra buck. (I'm looking at you, Clash of the Titans. And no, you can't come out of the box of shame yet. Stop asking.)
The thing about this movie is, I can't help but view it through the lens of the original. So when people say that Tron Legacy is boring and has pacing issues, I can't help but laugh--because in comparison to the original, Legacy is a non-stop adrenaline-fueled thrill ride. The thing is, Tron and Tron Legacy tell two completely different stories with radically different intentions. Legacy uses several characters and gimmicks from the original, of course, but it's a completely different animal. Here's what I mean:
Tron begins as a story of corporate corruption and greed, and a man trying to regain his intellectual property. When Kevin Flynn is sent to the game world, it becomes a high-tech fantasy with gladiators and messianic themes. Imagine a futuristic team-up between Spartacus (Tron) and Jesus (Flynn), where they have to fight Robespierre Mark II (the Master Control Program) and end his Reign of Terror. [Actually, you know how I said "God only knows why" I liked Tron? Scratch that. Any movie awesome enough to draw that last analogy is pretty much the best movie ever.]
Tron Legacy, on the other hand, is a much more straightforward story of a young man (Sam Flynn) looking for his missing father (Kevin Flynn, played once again by JEFF BRIDGES). I mean, sure, there's a brutal dictator with genocidal tendencies (CLU II) which his father created in his own image, but Sam's top priority the entire time is to get his dad home. They only really move into confrontation with CLU when he becomes a direct obstacle to their return to the real world.
In other words, Legacy has a simpler overall structure and less to discuss in terms of philosophy and other such high-minded concepts--but those things are less necessary if you're just looking to create a cool action-adventure that's fun for the whole family. And, as it turns out, that's exactly what Disney is looking to do these days. They took a big gamble by handing this project to an untested director like Joseph Kosinski, but I'd say it paid off: the movie looks great, although there are occasional points where things start to look like a futuristic Mac commercial (understandable, considering Kosinski's previous directorial experience was in advertising). Everything is sleek and shiny, and the updated costumes andfrisbees of doom memory discs look great. Most of the vehicles from the first film reappear in Legacy as well, with a couple new models (there's a really awesome aerial combat section in the shiny new light-planes).
One cool thing from the original that didn't feature in the sequel was the idea that programs would look like their creators, so--in proper Wizard of Oz fashion--every major character in the real world also appeared as a program in the digital world. It added a bit of cohesion to the two different stories, and was a way of instantly making you sympathize with (or dislike) the programs. It doesn't happen in Legacy, because The Grid that Flynn created appears to be kept separate from the internet and the rest of the digital world (God, imagine what a clusterfuck that would be), so the new faces at ENCOM have no reason to appear as programs. I was hopeful that Cillian Murphy's cameo as Dillinger (the son of the rat bastard who stole Flynn's ideas in the first movie) would extend to an appearance as a digital antagonist, but no such luck.
On the other hand, however, the supporting characters in Legacy certainly have more personality than the ones in Tron--the most notable examples being Olivia Wilde's alternately badass and z0mg-adorable Quorra and Michael Sheen's glam-rock, drag-queen-fabulous Castor. (My reaction to the antics of the latter character was something along the lines of "what is this I don't even")
In terms of action, the violence is fast-paced and surprisingly brutal. Because we're dealing with programs here instead of actual people, Disney can get away with showing characters get cut in half or shot through the head--it's okay because there's no blood; they just crumble into pixels. Also, the integration of capoeira into the hand-to-hand fight choreography was an inspired choice, because the break-dance-like moves work reeeeally well with the soundtrack by Daft Punk.
Also, the sound track is by motherfucking DAFT PUNK. Do you really still need more convincing to go see this movie? (They even make a cameo. It's great.)
And now we come to The Dude. After all, I couldn't very well review this movie without talking in some detail about Jeff Bridges. Flynn is an odd character in this, oscillating back and forth between zen and zany, and occasionally achieving both at the same time. ("You're messing with my zen thing, man.") He has his moments of stern, Jedi-like badassery (the hooded robe helps), and then he turns into his character from The Big Lebowski at the drop of a hat. It's bizarre, but so fantastic that I can't bring myself to care. The CGI-bestowed youth that they use to turn him into CLU circa 1989 is a little jarring, because we really can't do perfect photo-realistic faces with computers yet. It's functional, but you can definitely tell that CGI-witchery is at work. That would be fine in and of itself, because CLU isn't human, but they use the same effect for flashbacks of Flynn himself, and he definitely is human. (Not to mention that none of the other programs look like that.)
Long story short: It's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously, but sometimes you don't want to take things seriously. On the scale of pure fun movies this year, I'd put it ahead of Red.
Lastly, any movie that inspires THIS is pretty fucking cool in my book. Go see it, if you haven't already.
In any case, I loved the damn movie anyway, even though liking it apparently put me in a category with various fat, sweaty mouthbreathers who subsisted on diets of Mountain Dew and Doritos. Because that's what all nerds are like, right? Right.
Flash forward fifteen years.
I was intrigued by whispers of a sequel, which culminated in the release of a teaser trailer at Comic-Con 2008. (That link is actually the more polished version shown at Comic-Con 2009, but you get the idea.) Better visuals, check. Better color palette (neon on black works so much better than neon on white), check. Cool action sequences, check. And hey, look, it's Jeff Bridges!
So much awesome. Needless to say, I have been giddy ever since, with subsequent trailers only increasing my fanboyish glee. And, upon its release, did it live up to my expectations?
Short answer: Yes. I loved it.
Long answer: While it is by no means a perfect movie, Tron Legacy improves upon the original in a number of ways. As previously stated, the color scheme and visual aspect have been vastly improved, and the movie makes good use of the 3D/IMAX technology without resorting to those cheapass "this will look great in 3D but will look absolutely retarded on a normal screen" moments. It also helps that the movie was actually filmed in 3D instead of just shoehorning the 3D elements in in post-production to make an extra buck. (I'm looking at you, Clash of the Titans. And no, you can't come out of the box of shame yet. Stop asking.)
The thing about this movie is, I can't help but view it through the lens of the original. So when people say that Tron Legacy is boring and has pacing issues, I can't help but laugh--because in comparison to the original, Legacy is a non-stop adrenaline-fueled thrill ride. The thing is, Tron and Tron Legacy tell two completely different stories with radically different intentions. Legacy uses several characters and gimmicks from the original, of course, but it's a completely different animal. Here's what I mean:
Tron begins as a story of corporate corruption and greed, and a man trying to regain his intellectual property. When Kevin Flynn is sent to the game world, it becomes a high-tech fantasy with gladiators and messianic themes. Imagine a futuristic team-up between Spartacus (Tron) and Jesus (Flynn), where they have to fight Robespierre Mark II (the Master Control Program) and end his Reign of Terror. [Actually, you know how I said "God only knows why" I liked Tron? Scratch that. Any movie awesome enough to draw that last analogy is pretty much the best movie ever.]
Tron Legacy, on the other hand, is a much more straightforward story of a young man (Sam Flynn) looking for his missing father (Kevin Flynn, played once again by JEFF BRIDGES). I mean, sure, there's a brutal dictator with genocidal tendencies (CLU II) which his father created in his own image, but Sam's top priority the entire time is to get his dad home. They only really move into confrontation with CLU when he becomes a direct obstacle to their return to the real world.
In other words, Legacy has a simpler overall structure and less to discuss in terms of philosophy and other such high-minded concepts--but those things are less necessary if you're just looking to create a cool action-adventure that's fun for the whole family. And, as it turns out, that's exactly what Disney is looking to do these days. They took a big gamble by handing this project to an untested director like Joseph Kosinski, but I'd say it paid off: the movie looks great, although there are occasional points where things start to look like a futuristic Mac commercial (understandable, considering Kosinski's previous directorial experience was in advertising). Everything is sleek and shiny, and the updated costumes and
One cool thing from the original that didn't feature in the sequel was the idea that programs would look like their creators, so--in proper Wizard of Oz fashion--every major character in the real world also appeared as a program in the digital world. It added a bit of cohesion to the two different stories, and was a way of instantly making you sympathize with (or dislike) the programs. It doesn't happen in Legacy, because The Grid that Flynn created appears to be kept separate from the internet and the rest of the digital world (God, imagine what a clusterfuck that would be), so the new faces at ENCOM have no reason to appear as programs. I was hopeful that Cillian Murphy's cameo as Dillinger (the son of the rat bastard who stole Flynn's ideas in the first movie) would extend to an appearance as a digital antagonist, but no such luck.
On the other hand, however, the supporting characters in Legacy certainly have more personality than the ones in Tron--the most notable examples being Olivia Wilde's alternately badass and z0mg-adorable Quorra and Michael Sheen's glam-rock, drag-queen-fabulous Castor. (My reaction to the antics of the latter character was something along the lines of "what is this I don't even")
In terms of action, the violence is fast-paced and surprisingly brutal. Because we're dealing with programs here instead of actual people, Disney can get away with showing characters get cut in half or shot through the head--it's okay because there's no blood; they just crumble into pixels. Also, the integration of capoeira into the hand-to-hand fight choreography was an inspired choice, because the break-dance-like moves work reeeeally well with the soundtrack by Daft Punk.
Also, the sound track is by motherfucking DAFT PUNK. Do you really still need more convincing to go see this movie? (They even make a cameo. It's great.)
And now we come to The Dude. After all, I couldn't very well review this movie without talking in some detail about Jeff Bridges. Flynn is an odd character in this, oscillating back and forth between zen and zany, and occasionally achieving both at the same time. ("You're messing with my zen thing, man.") He has his moments of stern, Jedi-like badassery (the hooded robe helps), and then he turns into his character from The Big Lebowski at the drop of a hat. It's bizarre, but so fantastic that I can't bring myself to care. The CGI-bestowed youth that they use to turn him into CLU circa 1989 is a little jarring, because we really can't do perfect photo-realistic faces with computers yet. It's functional, but you can definitely tell that CGI-witchery is at work. That would be fine in and of itself, because CLU isn't human, but they use the same effect for flashbacks of Flynn himself, and he definitely is human. (Not to mention that none of the other programs look like that.)
Long story short: It's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously, but sometimes you don't want to take things seriously. On the scale of pure fun movies this year, I'd put it ahead of Red.
Lastly, any movie that inspires THIS is pretty fucking cool in my book. Go see it, if you haven't already.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Cinema Snark: Final Thoughts on Black Swan
So, it occurred to me that there were a couple things missing from my last review--namely, any negative comments about the movie at all. Having recently seen it a second time, it has been refreshed in my mind, and there are a couple things I think should be said (not all of them negative). So, here goes:
As an opera singer, I certainly sympathize with ballet dancers. The two traditions are closely linked in the history of musical performance, and modern performers are faced with the problem of championing these art forms to a public which frequently views them as elitist or simply archaic. Let's be honest here: unless you are in the profession, directly associated with or related to someone who is, or a die-hard fan, you probably don't know much about ballet. God knows I don't, and I do feel rather guilty on occasion for not taking a greater interest in opera's sister art form--that is, when I'm not watching movies about ninjas or explosions or Christopher Walken.
In any case, I'm not particularly qualified to judge the caliber of the actual dancing done onscreen, because I know next to nothing about ballet. That being said, however, I know how snarky I usually get when opera is featured prominently in a movie ("This guy is supposed to be an amazing tenor and his voice-over is Juan Diego Florez? What a joke."), and would hazard a guess that many ballet aficionados feel similarly about Black Swan. It's a movie for the general public, for the uninitiated, and I'm sure those who are intimately acquainted with the art form would bristle/raise an eyebrow at several things in the movie. The things that got my raised-eyebrow-attention were few and far between, but I should probably mention them just to prove that this isn't actually a perfect movie:
- Vincent Cassel summarizing of the plot of Swan Lake to his company. It's very obviously for the audience's benefit, because Christ knows that all of those skinny bitches onscreen know the story inside and out. It's necessary information because it's relevant to the plot, but it feels a little clumsy because of the circumstances. It's kind of like Cassel turning to the camera and saying "HERE IS SOME EXPOSITION IT IS THEMATICALLY SIGNIFICANT I HOPE YOU LIKE IT"
- The arm-flapping. This is the one major thing I agree with the Washington Post article on: there's a lot of arm-flapping in the choreography, and it feels... not so balletic. Beyond that, I shan't comment on the dancing, due to my previously stated ignorance.
- The old man on the subway. It has no relevance to the rest of the movie, and it's just kinda weird. But hey, if I were an old rich guy alone in a subway car with Natalie Portman, I'd probably touch myself and make kissy-faces too. Oh, wait, no I wouldn't, because it's sketchy as fuck.
So, yeah. There actually were things about this movie that weren't completely perfect, but really... I can't complain. This could very well go up there with In Bruges as one of my favorite movies of all time. It's well-written, visually engaging, scary as hell, and full of symbolismand shit and the like.
What it isn't, on the other hand, is snooty. It may not be a movie for everyone (read: not for jackasses), but it's visceral and pretty easily approachable if you can handle the fear and the plot-related weirdness. But it's about ballet, so someone's bound to completely miss the point and treat this like it's esoteric and pretentious because COME ON ballet is so boring and only rich old people like it. Amirite?
Aaaaaand cue MovieBob. While I may not agree with all his reviews (Watchmen and Inception for movies I think he overrated, and the newest Star Trek for one he underrated), I tend to like him. He generally justifies his opinions, and is pretty open about his biases as a nostalgic, misanthropic nerdboy. His Black Swan review, however, places him squarely in the Realm of Douchebaggery. It's not about what he says, of course, but the way he says it. He gives the film a glowing review (and rightfully so), but decides that the proper way to go about reviewing this movie (because it's about high culture and all) is to put on a shitty British accent, play classical music in the background, and talk like he's some old rich patron of the arts. Oh, but of course he resumes his normal voice to talk about the lesbian sex and how hot it was.
Goddammit, things like this make me want to facepalm. People don't fucking understand that ballet and opera and classical music in general aren't the exclusive domain of obscenely wealthy geriatrics, mob bosses, and global networks of economic villainy. Those people may go to performances and throw their money around, but the performers themselves will dress up for gala receptions and fundraising parties before going home to their bare apartments and trying not to think about how hungry and cold they are. This is not a movie about audiences; it's a movie about dancers--and that gives you cattiness, backstabbing, backstage sexcapades, and a huge dose of insanity. And hell, the ballet is really a framing device for the real story, which is BITCHES ALL BE GOING CRAZY UP IN HERE.
But no. It's a movie about ballet, so it must be too cultured for us to treat it like any other movie.
Excuse me while I spout profanity for a while.
As an opera singer, I certainly sympathize with ballet dancers. The two traditions are closely linked in the history of musical performance, and modern performers are faced with the problem of championing these art forms to a public which frequently views them as elitist or simply archaic. Let's be honest here: unless you are in the profession, directly associated with or related to someone who is, or a die-hard fan, you probably don't know much about ballet. God knows I don't, and I do feel rather guilty on occasion for not taking a greater interest in opera's sister art form--that is, when I'm not watching movies about ninjas or explosions or Christopher Walken.
In any case, I'm not particularly qualified to judge the caliber of the actual dancing done onscreen, because I know next to nothing about ballet. That being said, however, I know how snarky I usually get when opera is featured prominently in a movie ("This guy is supposed to be an amazing tenor and his voice-over is Juan Diego Florez? What a joke."), and would hazard a guess that many ballet aficionados feel similarly about Black Swan. It's a movie for the general public, for the uninitiated, and I'm sure those who are intimately acquainted with the art form would bristle/raise an eyebrow at several things in the movie. The things that got my raised-eyebrow-attention were few and far between, but I should probably mention them just to prove that this isn't actually a perfect movie:
- Vincent Cassel summarizing of the plot of Swan Lake to his company. It's very obviously for the audience's benefit, because Christ knows that all of those skinny bitches onscreen know the story inside and out. It's necessary information because it's relevant to the plot, but it feels a little clumsy because of the circumstances. It's kind of like Cassel turning to the camera and saying "HERE IS SOME EXPOSITION IT IS THEMATICALLY SIGNIFICANT I HOPE YOU LIKE IT"
- The arm-flapping. This is the one major thing I agree with the Washington Post article on: there's a lot of arm-flapping in the choreography, and it feels... not so balletic. Beyond that, I shan't comment on the dancing, due to my previously stated ignorance.
- The old man on the subway. It has no relevance to the rest of the movie, and it's just kinda weird. But hey, if I were an old rich guy alone in a subway car with Natalie Portman, I'd probably touch myself and make kissy-faces too. Oh, wait, no I wouldn't, because it's sketchy as fuck.
So, yeah. There actually were things about this movie that weren't completely perfect, but really... I can't complain. This could very well go up there with In Bruges as one of my favorite movies of all time. It's well-written, visually engaging, scary as hell, and full of symbolism
What it isn't, on the other hand, is snooty. It may not be a movie for everyone (read: not for jackasses), but it's visceral and pretty easily approachable if you can handle the fear and the plot-related weirdness. But it's about ballet, so someone's bound to completely miss the point and treat this like it's esoteric and pretentious because COME ON ballet is so boring and only rich old people like it. Amirite?
Aaaaaand cue MovieBob. While I may not agree with all his reviews (Watchmen and Inception for movies I think he overrated, and the newest Star Trek for one he underrated), I tend to like him. He generally justifies his opinions, and is pretty open about his biases as a nostalgic, misanthropic nerdboy. His Black Swan review, however, places him squarely in the Realm of Douchebaggery. It's not about what he says, of course, but the way he says it. He gives the film a glowing review (and rightfully so), but decides that the proper way to go about reviewing this movie (because it's about high culture and all) is to put on a shitty British accent, play classical music in the background, and talk like he's some old rich patron of the arts. Oh, but of course he resumes his normal voice to talk about the lesbian sex and how hot it was.
Goddammit, things like this make me want to facepalm. People don't fucking understand that ballet and opera and classical music in general aren't the exclusive domain of obscenely wealthy geriatrics, mob bosses, and global networks of economic villainy. Those people may go to performances and throw their money around, but the performers themselves will dress up for gala receptions and fundraising parties before going home to their bare apartments and trying not to think about how hungry and cold they are. This is not a movie about audiences; it's a movie about dancers--and that gives you cattiness, backstabbing, backstage sexcapades, and a huge dose of insanity. And hell, the ballet is really a framing device for the real story, which is BITCHES ALL BE GOING CRAZY UP IN HERE.
But no. It's a movie about ballet, so it must be too cultured for us to treat it like any other movie.
Excuse me while I spout profanity for a while.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Cinema Snark: Black Swan
All right, I think enough time has passed for me to review Black Swan without babbling in incoherent horror or just plain having a verbal orgasm about how much I loved this freaking movie.
In short, Black Swan is a singularly unnerving and remarkably beautiful piece of work. From what little I've seen of Darren Aronofsky's work (The Fountain and bits of Requiem For a Dream), he has a remarkable sense of how to create a picture. He has an amazing instinct for using light and darkness to maximum effect, and knows how to create a surprisingly unified visual color palette, making his films visually engaging even as you ask yourself what the fuck is going on with the plot. To be honest, I could write several posts just analyzing his visual style, so for now I'll just keep it to this: Aronofsky makes visually rewarding movies, whether they be complex and fanciful or simple but elegant.
One review of Black Swan complains that the movie falls into too many ballet movie stereotypes, like having shots of the dancers' feet, or examining the mental and physical toll that ballet takes upon its practitioners. Rather than dismiss the writer as a complete fucking moron right away, I decided to wait until I had seen the movie so I could make my own decision.
It didn't take me long to realize that yes, she is a complete fucking moron. First of all, of course there are going to be shots of the dancers' feet. That's like watching Ray and complaining that the film shows him playing the piano, or watching Rambo and complaining that you see him murdering people. Second, perish the thought that there would be any emotionally or mentally fragile people in a psychological horror film. I guess since people have made movies about crazy ballerinas before, it means that no one can ever do anything like that again. It's a pity no one thought to tell Darren that he was wasting his time before he started working on this movie, much less before he released it. Wow, he must be really embarrassed right now.
Finally, maybe the reason that so many films suggest that ballet is emotionally and physically damaging is because OH HEY IT IS. Ballerinas have to maintain a figure that would make a Barbie doll look like the model for a Rubens painting, as well as achieve a stunning degree of technical prowess in doing shit that the human body does not do naturally. Oh, and there's always the danger of someone younger and prettier than you coming along and taking your place. So, yeah. If you're really serious about having a career in ballet, it will fuck with your head and with your body, and you'll be reaching the end of your career when most people are still twenty to thirty years away from retirement.
And that's just ballet. The performing arts in general--and oh hey, Van Gogh, I guess visual art works too--are a veritable magnet for crazy. Let's face it: well-adjusted people don't spend their lives pretending to be someone else. Or, to be more accurate, some people do--but they're not nearly as good at it. You can be a perfectly stable person and learn all the basic mechanics of performance--you can even be perfectly competent at it--but you're never going to be great. Greatness at anything requires some sort of innate quality that sets you apart from others, a different way of moving or thinking or reacting--because if everyone else can do it then it's not great at all; it's just average.
And wow, look at that--this ties right into the themes of the movie. Vincent Cassel's character Thomas is constantly telling Nina (Natalie Portman) that she needs to let go and stop being so straight-laced. She's perfect to dance the virtuous White Swan, but the Black Swan--the slutty evil twin--needs to have a darker, more wanton energy about her. It's not a coincidence that the company's previous prima ballerina (Winona Ryder) is unstable--Thomas admits that she's mesmerizing to watch onstage in large part because she taps into some sort of mental reservoir of crazy. She can go places that others fear to tread, and that makes her great. The problem is, once you let the crazy in, it's pretty damn hard to keep it under control (why so serious, Heath?*). I mean, sure, Thomas [SPOILER ALERT but not really because he makes it pretty obvious] is a lecherous bastard who wants Natalie Portman's mouth on and/or around his genitalia, but he's one of my favorite characters in the film because he actually knows what it takes to make great art.
Time and time again, history has shown us that art is more about expression of emotion than pure technique--and every time an art form gets too restrictive, someone shows up and takes it in a new and visceral direction. Art with no soul isn't art, whether it's ballet or painting or opera or flower-arranging. Christ, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard a beautiful voice sing an aria with no conviction or connection to the words, I would be Steve Motherfucking Jobs (yes, with a capital M). I don't care what degree of technical proficiency you possess: if you can't connect your emotions and intentions to your performance, you do not deserve to be onstage. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is the most renowned Lieder singer of the twentieth century, and it's sure as hell not because he had the best voice in the world. His technique was "meh," but he had a unique command of the music and language, and knew how to use the color of his voice to evoke the desired emotion in his audience. And thus: famous.
But I digress. Long story short: one of the main ideas of Black Swan is that you have to be willing to throw yourself completely into a performance, body and soul, in order to excel--and you may not come out of it intact. The film treats ballet as something visceral, something simultaneously beautiful and destructive, which definitely fits into the strong themes of duality. The two dominant colors in the film are, of course, black and white (there's a club scene where the color palette shifts drastically, but the lights alternately flash red and green, keeping the theme of opposites going). Aronofsky also juxtaposes madness and sanity, attraction and revulsion, youth and age, success and failure--and the prominent use of mirrors throughout the film (which makes sense to anyone who's ever been in a dance studio) definitely contributes to the idea of a divided self.
And beyond their symbolic use, the mirrors are used quite effectively in the "making you void your bowels in the middle of the theater" department. The visual effects in the movie are handled extremely well, in large part because many of them are subtle enough that you're not entirely sure that you really did see what you thought you did: shifting faces, reflections that move just a millisecond after they should, and other such relatively tame things (considering the content of most modern horror movies) somehow become much more unnerving than they should be. The same can be said for the stellar sound effects, such as the soft rustle of feathers in the sound of a passing metro, or the sound of peeling skin. Jesus it's freaky. Black Swan is one of those movies which spends most of its time putting you into an uncomfortable, tense place--so when the actual horror moments happen, they're at least twice as effective.
Also in the category of "things that shouldn't be scary but oh god oh god whyyyyy":
- Nail clippers.
- The phrase "sweet girl".
- Lesbian sex. (No but really. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis are two very attractive women and the two of them getting it on has every right to be extremely hot, but the sound and visual effects used in that scene make it slightly terrifying.)
So, yeah. You should see it, but only if you have a high tolerance for fear--because it's one of the most legitimately scary movies I have ever seen in my life. It's also extremely well-made and well-acted, and is going to be a serious contender when Oscar season rolls around. Don't miss it.
(*Too soon? Yeah, I thought it might be.)
In short, Black Swan is a singularly unnerving and remarkably beautiful piece of work. From what little I've seen of Darren Aronofsky's work (The Fountain and bits of Requiem For a Dream), he has a remarkable sense of how to create a picture. He has an amazing instinct for using light and darkness to maximum effect, and knows how to create a surprisingly unified visual color palette, making his films visually engaging even as you ask yourself what the fuck is going on with the plot. To be honest, I could write several posts just analyzing his visual style, so for now I'll just keep it to this: Aronofsky makes visually rewarding movies, whether they be complex and fanciful or simple but elegant.
One review of Black Swan complains that the movie falls into too many ballet movie stereotypes, like having shots of the dancers' feet, or examining the mental and physical toll that ballet takes upon its practitioners. Rather than dismiss the writer as a complete fucking moron right away, I decided to wait until I had seen the movie so I could make my own decision.
It didn't take me long to realize that yes, she is a complete fucking moron. First of all, of course there are going to be shots of the dancers' feet. That's like watching Ray and complaining that the film shows him playing the piano, or watching Rambo and complaining that you see him murdering people. Second, perish the thought that there would be any emotionally or mentally fragile people in a psychological horror film. I guess since people have made movies about crazy ballerinas before, it means that no one can ever do anything like that again. It's a pity no one thought to tell Darren that he was wasting his time before he started working on this movie, much less before he released it. Wow, he must be really embarrassed right now.
Finally, maybe the reason that so many films suggest that ballet is emotionally and physically damaging is because OH HEY IT IS. Ballerinas have to maintain a figure that would make a Barbie doll look like the model for a Rubens painting, as well as achieve a stunning degree of technical prowess in doing shit that the human body does not do naturally. Oh, and there's always the danger of someone younger and prettier than you coming along and taking your place. So, yeah. If you're really serious about having a career in ballet, it will fuck with your head and with your body, and you'll be reaching the end of your career when most people are still twenty to thirty years away from retirement.
And that's just ballet. The performing arts in general--and oh hey, Van Gogh, I guess visual art works too--are a veritable magnet for crazy. Let's face it: well-adjusted people don't spend their lives pretending to be someone else. Or, to be more accurate, some people do--but they're not nearly as good at it. You can be a perfectly stable person and learn all the basic mechanics of performance--you can even be perfectly competent at it--but you're never going to be great. Greatness at anything requires some sort of innate quality that sets you apart from others, a different way of moving or thinking or reacting--because if everyone else can do it then it's not great at all; it's just average.
And wow, look at that--this ties right into the themes of the movie. Vincent Cassel's character Thomas is constantly telling Nina (Natalie Portman) that she needs to let go and stop being so straight-laced. She's perfect to dance the virtuous White Swan, but the Black Swan--the slutty evil twin--needs to have a darker, more wanton energy about her. It's not a coincidence that the company's previous prima ballerina (Winona Ryder) is unstable--Thomas admits that she's mesmerizing to watch onstage in large part because she taps into some sort of mental reservoir of crazy. She can go places that others fear to tread, and that makes her great. The problem is, once you let the crazy in, it's pretty damn hard to keep it under control (why so serious, Heath?*). I mean, sure, Thomas [SPOILER ALERT but not really because he makes it pretty obvious] is a lecherous bastard who wants Natalie Portman's mouth on and/or around his genitalia, but he's one of my favorite characters in the film because he actually knows what it takes to make great art.
Time and time again, history has shown us that art is more about expression of emotion than pure technique--and every time an art form gets too restrictive, someone shows up and takes it in a new and visceral direction. Art with no soul isn't art, whether it's ballet or painting or opera or flower-arranging. Christ, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard a beautiful voice sing an aria with no conviction or connection to the words, I would be Steve Motherfucking Jobs (yes, with a capital M). I don't care what degree of technical proficiency you possess: if you can't connect your emotions and intentions to your performance, you do not deserve to be onstage. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau is the most renowned Lieder singer of the twentieth century, and it's sure as hell not because he had the best voice in the world. His technique was "meh," but he had a unique command of the music and language, and knew how to use the color of his voice to evoke the desired emotion in his audience. And thus: famous.
But I digress. Long story short: one of the main ideas of Black Swan is that you have to be willing to throw yourself completely into a performance, body and soul, in order to excel--and you may not come out of it intact. The film treats ballet as something visceral, something simultaneously beautiful and destructive, which definitely fits into the strong themes of duality. The two dominant colors in the film are, of course, black and white (there's a club scene where the color palette shifts drastically, but the lights alternately flash red and green, keeping the theme of opposites going). Aronofsky also juxtaposes madness and sanity, attraction and revulsion, youth and age, success and failure--and the prominent use of mirrors throughout the film (which makes sense to anyone who's ever been in a dance studio) definitely contributes to the idea of a divided self.
And beyond their symbolic use, the mirrors are used quite effectively in the "making you void your bowels in the middle of the theater" department. The visual effects in the movie are handled extremely well, in large part because many of them are subtle enough that you're not entirely sure that you really did see what you thought you did: shifting faces, reflections that move just a millisecond after they should, and other such relatively tame things (considering the content of most modern horror movies) somehow become much more unnerving than they should be. The same can be said for the stellar sound effects, such as the soft rustle of feathers in the sound of a passing metro, or the sound of peeling skin. Jesus it's freaky. Black Swan is one of those movies which spends most of its time putting you into an uncomfortable, tense place--so when the actual horror moments happen, they're at least twice as effective.
Also in the category of "things that shouldn't be scary but oh god oh god whyyyyy":
- Nail clippers.
- The phrase "sweet girl".
- Lesbian sex. (No but really. Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis are two very attractive women and the two of them getting it on has every right to be extremely hot, but the sound and visual effects used in that scene make it slightly terrifying.)
So, yeah. You should see it, but only if you have a high tolerance for fear--because it's one of the most legitimately scary movies I have ever seen in my life. It's also extremely well-made and well-acted, and is going to be a serious contender when Oscar season rolls around. Don't miss it.
(*Too soon? Yeah, I thought it might be.)
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Adventures in Music Sales
This actually happened today. The dialogue that follows is recreated as faithfully as possible.
[Scene: The back of a music store. A Crazy Bag Lady, henceforth referred to as CBL, wanders into the Band/Orchestra Department, looking confused.]
CBL [loudly]: Do you have the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah?
Charlie [from the Choral/Organ Department, through the window]: We have it back here. [CBL wanders back to the Choral Department.] Do you have a preferred edition?
CBL [still speaking loudly, with no concept of an indoor voice]: I want the one by Bernstein. [Editor's note: this does not exist.]
Charlie: Okay, I don't think we have that in stock, but I'll check. [Looks in the files.] Are you looking for SATB?
CBL: What's that?
[Charlie dies a little on the inside.]
Charlie: SATB means "soprano, alto, tenor, bass."
CBL: Soprano.
Charlie: What?
CBL: Do you have it for soprano?
Charlie: We have arrangements for all men, all women, and mixed men and women. Are you looking for an all-female arrangement? [CBL nods. Charlie looks through the H drawer and pulls out a folder.] We currently have one arrangement for women's chorus in stock.
CBL: Is it by Bernstein?
Charlie: No; we don't have an arrangement by Bernstein. This is the only arrangement for women's chorus that we have.
[CBL looks through a copy of the arrangement.]
CBL: This is too short. It took us hours to get through when we were learning it in our chorus.
Charlie: It's a short piece. Would you like to see another arrangement?
CBL: I could have sworn there was one by Bernstein. He was the leader or something. You don't have anything with his name on it?
Charlie [sighing heavily]: No. We have an arrangement by Paul Bliss...?
CBL: Maybe that's it.
Charlie [handing her a copy]: Keep in mind that this is for mixed chorus, not just for women.
CBL: No, this isn't right. Handel Bliss. I was looking for Bernstein. [flips through it] Oh, yeah, this is a great arrangement. I forgot about the Bliss. [pause] This is still so short, though. Don't you have anything longer?
[Charlie contemplates murder.]
Charlie [taking out the Schirmer edition]: This edition is exactly what appears in the piano vocal score. It's not going to get any longer than this.
CBL: But I don't want the one by Schirmer.
Charlie: Schirmer isn't the arranger. It's the publisher.
CBL: Oh. It says Hal Leonard at the bottom. Maybe that's where I got Bernstein from. Did Hal Leonard arrange this?
Charlie: Hal Leonard is the distribution company.
CBL: Oh. Did I make up Leonard Bernstein? Is that a real person?
Charlie: No, he's definitely a real person. He composed Candide and West Side Story. He just didn't do an arrangement of the Messiah.
CBL: Oh. That man in West Side Story. I didn't know that was him. Do you have a tape of this Bliss arrangement you could play for me?
Charlie: I mean, you could look it up on Youtube, but most of the arrangements are going to sound exactly the same. It's the Hallelujah Chorus.
CBL: Okay. This Bliss is a great arrangement.
Charlie: That's great. Would you like to buy a copy?
CBL: No, I just wanted to refresh my memory. I used to be in a chorus and I was thinking about it today.
[CBL leaves.]
Charlie: *facepalm*
[End of scene.]
[Scene: The back of a music store. A Crazy Bag Lady, henceforth referred to as CBL, wanders into the Band/Orchestra Department, looking confused.]
CBL [loudly]: Do you have the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah?
Charlie [from the Choral/Organ Department, through the window]: We have it back here. [CBL wanders back to the Choral Department.] Do you have a preferred edition?
CBL [still speaking loudly, with no concept of an indoor voice]: I want the one by Bernstein. [Editor's note: this does not exist.]
Charlie: Okay, I don't think we have that in stock, but I'll check. [Looks in the files.] Are you looking for SATB?
CBL: What's that?
[Charlie dies a little on the inside.]
Charlie: SATB means "soprano, alto, tenor, bass."
CBL: Soprano.
Charlie: What?
CBL: Do you have it for soprano?
Charlie: We have arrangements for all men, all women, and mixed men and women. Are you looking for an all-female arrangement? [CBL nods. Charlie looks through the H drawer and pulls out a folder.] We currently have one arrangement for women's chorus in stock.
CBL: Is it by Bernstein?
Charlie: No; we don't have an arrangement by Bernstein. This is the only arrangement for women's chorus that we have.
[CBL looks through a copy of the arrangement.]
CBL: This is too short. It took us hours to get through when we were learning it in our chorus.
Charlie: It's a short piece. Would you like to see another arrangement?
CBL: I could have sworn there was one by Bernstein. He was the leader or something. You don't have anything with his name on it?
Charlie [sighing heavily]: No. We have an arrangement by Paul Bliss...?
CBL: Maybe that's it.
Charlie [handing her a copy]: Keep in mind that this is for mixed chorus, not just for women.
CBL: No, this isn't right. Handel Bliss. I was looking for Bernstein. [flips through it] Oh, yeah, this is a great arrangement. I forgot about the Bliss. [pause] This is still so short, though. Don't you have anything longer?
[Charlie contemplates murder.]
Charlie [taking out the Schirmer edition]: This edition is exactly what appears in the piano vocal score. It's not going to get any longer than this.
CBL: But I don't want the one by Schirmer.
Charlie: Schirmer isn't the arranger. It's the publisher.
CBL: Oh. It says Hal Leonard at the bottom. Maybe that's where I got Bernstein from. Did Hal Leonard arrange this?
Charlie: Hal Leonard is the distribution company.
CBL: Oh. Did I make up Leonard Bernstein? Is that a real person?
Charlie: No, he's definitely a real person. He composed Candide and West Side Story. He just didn't do an arrangement of the Messiah.
CBL: Oh. That man in West Side Story. I didn't know that was him. Do you have a tape of this Bliss arrangement you could play for me?
Charlie: I mean, you could look it up on Youtube, but most of the arrangements are going to sound exactly the same. It's the Hallelujah Chorus.
CBL: Okay. This Bliss is a great arrangement.
Charlie: That's great. Would you like to buy a copy?
CBL: No, I just wanted to refresh my memory. I used to be in a chorus and I was thinking about it today.
[CBL leaves.]
Charlie: *facepalm*
[End of scene.]
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Triumvirate of Snark
You know how people say that good things come in threes? Well, they generally don't. People also say that they have free candy in the back of their unmarked, windowless vans, and that's generally not true either. The moral of the story is, you shouldn't listen to people when they talk because they're probably just lying, and also waiting for the moment when they can kidnap you and sell you into a life of WHITE SLAVERY.
But! Today happens to be one of those days where good things actually do come in threes. For behold: today, I wage a three-pronged snark war on current events that haven't been current for like a week and a half but I don't care so shut up because it's gonna be awesome. If this post were a rare item in World of Warcraft, it would be a legendary Trident of Vitriol, forged from bile, dry wit, and copious amounts of profanity. (No, really, this is probably a little more offensive than usual posts. Consider yourselves warned.)
Boom. Consider your minds blown.
Item the First: Stephen King has perplexing taste in movies.
We really shouldn't be surprised about this. I mean, the man has gone on record saying that he knows nothing about movies--and, as if that weren't enough proof, his list of the Top Ten Films of 2010 includes Jackass 3D. (Some of his choices for previous years include 2012 and the Jason Statham version of Death Race.) So yeah, "jackass" sounds about right. Anyway, his list is as follows, with my thoughts:
10. Green Zone: Supposed to be a taut, politically relevant thriller about the war in Iraq. Didn't bother to see it; it looked humorless and self-righteous. From everything I heard, it was.
9. Jackass 3D: Really, Stephen King? Really?
8. Monsters: Supposed to be the next District 9. It's apparently not.
7. Splice: Two scientists that have sex with each other create a partially human gender-confused hybrid creature and raise it as their child. And then they both have sex with it. Squick.
6. Kick-Ass: a.k.a. "Watchmen: The Early Years." Violent and ridiculous and pretty entertaining. There's a brainwashed 12-year-old girl that brutally murders just about everyone she meets, but for some reason, people are most offended by the fact that she says "cunt." Priorities, people. Get them in order.
5. Takers: A heist movie for black people. Because movies about white people stealing shit just aren't gangsta enough. Don't even get me started.
4. The Social Network: "Mark Zuckerberg Is A Douche: The Movie"
3. Inception: An ambitious but flawed movie, but regardless of your feelings about it, we can all agree on one thing: Christopher Nolan now has more money than God.
2. The Town: Boston accents and brutal violence seem to go hand-in-hand for some reason. I wonder what that says about people from Boston.
1. Let Me In: Good movie, but definitely not the best of the year. Hit Girl from Kick-Ass stars as a child vampire who murders and/or dismembers at least seven people over the course of the movie and drinks their blood as it steams in the winter air--but she doesn't say "cunt" this time, so it's perfectly socially acceptable.
Item the Second: Benedict XVI extends the hand of friendship to male prostitutes!
This is important, guys. Pope Benedict recently stated in an interview that in a world full of hunger, genocide, and disease, maaaaaaaaybe condoms aren't actually the worst thing ever to happen to mankind EVER. But of course, they're still awful and sinful and there are only a few very limited circumstances in which condom use is acceptable. The only real example he gave of such a circumstance was this: if you're a male prostitute in Africa, then using a condom is probably a good alternative to giving your customers AIDS.
That sound you hear (or rather, that sound you heard a week and a half ago when this story was current) is all the male prostitutes in Africa breathing a sigh of relief--because if anyone cares what the church has to say about The Secks, it's them. As for the rest of the world, condoms are still strictly off-limits, as are unorthodox sexual positions and enjoyment of sex in any way. The Secks is for MAKING BABIES and NOTHING ELSE. After all, who better to trust on matters of human sexuality than a worldwide organization of middle-aged-to-elderly male virgins?
Item the Third: John McCain is (still) a homophobic douche.
So this link is pretty current, but this is nothing new at all. Senator McCain stated a while back that he would be open to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" under the correct circumstances--namely, if the proper surveys and studies were undertaken to determine the impact of repealing DADT--but has since become a much more vocal opponent of repeal. And hey, now these studies have been performed, and they say that two-thirds of the troops interviewed did not believe there would be significant problems if gays were allowed to serve openly.
So, yeah, McCain is going to stay true to his word and not oppose the repeal now, right? Because only a total asshole would keep supporting a policy that blatantly violates the civil rights of the American gay community, especially now that the studies he requested have been performed.
Yep. A total asshole indeed.
McCain continues to predict that letting gay troops serve openly would cause a mass exodus from the armed forces. Well, you know what? If any bigoted fucks decide that they don't want to serve their country because gays are allowed, then I say good fucking riddance. They aren't the sort of people I want representing our country overseas, because they only serve to reinforce the stereotype that all Americans are ignorant, violent cowboys who hate anyone who doesn't listen to country music and love Jesus in a totally hetero way.
News flash, assholes: there are already gays in the military. They're everywhere. They're sleeping in your barracks; they're next to you in your foxholes; they're fighting for freedom and truth and justice and the American way and all that happy shit. And you know what? They're actually more concerned about the mission than about taking your rectal virginity, so you can calm the fuck down.
And people wonder why I'm a misanthrope. Jesus.
[Also, I'm aware that the word "triumvirate" refers to a group of three people, not things. If you're still thinking about that after reading this entire post, you should find something else to do with your stupendous intellect instead of wasting your time reading this crap. Woooooo]
But! Today happens to be one of those days where good things actually do come in threes. For behold: today, I wage a three-pronged snark war on current events that haven't been current for like a week and a half but I don't care so shut up because it's gonna be awesome. If this post were a rare item in World of Warcraft, it would be a legendary Trident of Vitriol, forged from bile, dry wit, and copious amounts of profanity. (No, really, this is probably a little more offensive than usual posts. Consider yourselves warned.)
Boom. Consider your minds blown.
Item the First: Stephen King has perplexing taste in movies.
We really shouldn't be surprised about this. I mean, the man has gone on record saying that he knows nothing about movies--and, as if that weren't enough proof, his list of the Top Ten Films of 2010 includes Jackass 3D. (Some of his choices for previous years include 2012 and the Jason Statham version of Death Race.) So yeah, "jackass" sounds about right. Anyway, his list is as follows, with my thoughts:
10. Green Zone: Supposed to be a taut, politically relevant thriller about the war in Iraq. Didn't bother to see it; it looked humorless and self-righteous. From everything I heard, it was.
9. Jackass 3D: Really, Stephen King? Really?
8. Monsters: Supposed to be the next District 9. It's apparently not.
7. Splice: Two scientists that have sex with each other create a partially human gender-confused hybrid creature and raise it as their child. And then they both have sex with it. Squick.
6. Kick-Ass: a.k.a. "Watchmen: The Early Years." Violent and ridiculous and pretty entertaining. There's a brainwashed 12-year-old girl that brutally murders just about everyone she meets, but for some reason, people are most offended by the fact that she says "cunt." Priorities, people. Get them in order.
5. Takers: A heist movie for black people. Because movies about white people stealing shit just aren't gangsta enough. Don't even get me started.
4. The Social Network: "Mark Zuckerberg Is A Douche: The Movie"
3. Inception: An ambitious but flawed movie, but regardless of your feelings about it, we can all agree on one thing: Christopher Nolan now has more money than God.
2. The Town: Boston accents and brutal violence seem to go hand-in-hand for some reason. I wonder what that says about people from Boston.
1. Let Me In: Good movie, but definitely not the best of the year. Hit Girl from Kick-Ass stars as a child vampire who murders and/or dismembers at least seven people over the course of the movie and drinks their blood as it steams in the winter air--but she doesn't say "cunt" this time, so it's perfectly socially acceptable.
Item the Second: Benedict XVI extends the hand of friendship to male prostitutes!
This is important, guys. Pope Benedict recently stated in an interview that in a world full of hunger, genocide, and disease, maaaaaaaaybe condoms aren't actually the worst thing ever to happen to mankind EVER. But of course, they're still awful and sinful and there are only a few very limited circumstances in which condom use is acceptable. The only real example he gave of such a circumstance was this: if you're a male prostitute in Africa, then using a condom is probably a good alternative to giving your customers AIDS.
That sound you hear (or rather, that sound you heard a week and a half ago when this story was current) is all the male prostitutes in Africa breathing a sigh of relief--because if anyone cares what the church has to say about The Secks, it's them. As for the rest of the world, condoms are still strictly off-limits, as are unorthodox sexual positions and enjoyment of sex in any way. The Secks is for MAKING BABIES and NOTHING ELSE. After all, who better to trust on matters of human sexuality than a worldwide organization of middle-aged-to-elderly male virgins?
Item the Third: John McCain is (still) a homophobic douche.
So this link is pretty current, but this is nothing new at all. Senator McCain stated a while back that he would be open to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" under the correct circumstances--namely, if the proper surveys and studies were undertaken to determine the impact of repealing DADT--but has since become a much more vocal opponent of repeal. And hey, now these studies have been performed, and they say that two-thirds of the troops interviewed did not believe there would be significant problems if gays were allowed to serve openly.
So, yeah, McCain is going to stay true to his word and not oppose the repeal now, right? Because only a total asshole would keep supporting a policy that blatantly violates the civil rights of the American gay community, especially now that the studies he requested have been performed.
Yep. A total asshole indeed.
McCain continues to predict that letting gay troops serve openly would cause a mass exodus from the armed forces. Well, you know what? If any bigoted fucks decide that they don't want to serve their country because gays are allowed, then I say good fucking riddance. They aren't the sort of people I want representing our country overseas, because they only serve to reinforce the stereotype that all Americans are ignorant, violent cowboys who hate anyone who doesn't listen to country music and love Jesus in a totally hetero way.
News flash, assholes: there are already gays in the military. They're everywhere. They're sleeping in your barracks; they're next to you in your foxholes; they're fighting for freedom and truth and justice and the American way and all that happy shit. And you know what? They're actually more concerned about the mission than about taking your rectal virginity, so you can calm the fuck down.
And people wonder why I'm a misanthrope. Jesus.
[Also, I'm aware that the word "triumvirate" refers to a group of three people, not things. If you're still thinking about that after reading this entire post, you should find something else to do with your stupendous intellect instead of wasting your time reading this crap. Woooooo]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)