- Cadillac = Pick-up Truck
- Rims = Mud Tires
- Cell Phone = Hunting Rifle
- Big Screen TV = Bass Boat
- Gold Teeth = Confederate Flag Tattoos
- Tommy Hilfiger = Official NASCAR
- Junk Food = Replace references to specific types with "pork rinds" and "Moon Pies"
- Soda = Specify "RC Cola"
- Crack = Meth
- Oprah = Hee Haw
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Food Stamp Conversions
As a result of some comments Newt Gingrich made regarding food stamps, it's come to light that more white people than black people receive food stamps. About 42% of food stamp recipients are white, compared to only 28% who are African American. This of course presents a small problem with the "welfare Cadillac" meme, but "the 53%" needn't worry. With just a few minor changes, they can use the same tired old arguments to talk about how lazy whit people are taking their tax money. The following conversion list should prove helpful:
Monday, February 6, 2012
Other Laws Oklahoma Should Pass
In November of 2010, the Oklahoma legislature approved an amendment that would make it illegal for courts to consider Sharia law when deciding cases. More recently, legislation has been introduced to make it illegal to sell food products made out of aborted fetuses. I, for one, am glad to hear that Oklahoma is boldly taking the initiative to ensure that there are laws in place to prevent things that have absolutely no chance of ever happening. However, there are still so many imaginary threats that Oklahoma lawmakers have yet to address that I fear they may be overwhelmed when it comes to deciding what the next battle should be. That’s why I’ve put together the following list of what, in my opinion, are the most pressing completely made up dangers facing Oklahoma and society as a whole. I hope that Oklahoma legislators will make it a priority to address as many of these issues as possible in the immediate future.
- Werewolves and vampires are two completely different mythological species, and should not be allowed to intermarry.
- People with no formal training in the Dark Arts should not be permitted to perform rituals or read from ancient blasphemous tomes, as this inevitably leads to an outbreak of uncontrolled demonic activity. A regulatory system providing for formal licensing and accreditation in the Black Arts is highly recommended.
- Anyone who captures a leprechaun is entitled to a pot of gold. Any leprechaun who gives a person “fairy gold” that turns into something with no value after a period of time should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
- Mental institutions, especially those subject to frequent escapes, should stop providing hooks to patients who have lost their hands. It only leads to tragedy.
- “Loose Cannon” police detectives should be forced to turn in their gun and badge as soon as they are assigned to a case. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this improves officer efficiency and success rate by over 1000%.
- Popular high school students will no longer be allowed to make wagers regarding the captain of the football team’s ability to turn the quiet, introverted girl with glasses into prom queen.
- Aliens may not perform anal probes without express written consent of the person to be probed. If the probee is under the age of 18, consent must be provided by a parent or legal guardian.
- Jenkem should be treated as a Schedule II controlled substance.
- Referring to He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named by name should be classified an act of treason against the wizarding world.
- Debates about the Romantic poets at NASCAR events should be strictly prohibited.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Doubleplus Ungoodthink
From the December issue of Bazooka Magazine:
In some cases, the hidden meaning of this kind of constructed language is so blatant that nobody falls for it. The abortion debate provides a good example: those who support abortion rights frame them in terms of the rights of the mother and call themselves “pro-choice,” while those who oppose abortion frame the issue in terms of the rights of the unborn fetus and refer to themselves as “pro-life.” Despite the false dichotomy established by each of these terms, the obvious self-labeling makes the terms appropriate for use by those who wish to maintain some level of neutrality. In fact, the use of any other name for either group (whether it’s something as mild as “anti-choice” or as evocative as “baby killer”) is usually a good indication that the person applying the label has chosen a side in the debate.
Unfortunately, the best kind of loaded language is subtle enough that repetition and laziness allow it attain everyday usage. When this happens, those who disagree with the idea that the loaded phrase is expressing find themselves at a disadvantage. The very act of using such language lends credibility to the emotional argument made by those who invented the euphemism. Below are a few examples of expressions that “people who should know better” have allowed to enter common usage and, by doing so, corrupt our thoughts about the ideas that they express.
Big Government
“Big Government” is code for “the nanny state” and is used to describe the intrusive, paternalistic government that Liberals supposedly want to bring into existence. The phrase is usually used to describe the end goal of anyone who wants the government to take action that the presumably anti-Big Government speaker disagrees with. Why anyone, regardless of political persuasion, would want such a shambling bureaucracy is never addressed, nor is that fact that the power and reach of government has historically increased more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Remember, after all, that the GOP are strong proponents of both the security state and the idea that government should have a say about who you choose to fuck. In reality, a lot of the complexity of government, especially when it comes to regulations and corporate law, is at the behest of corporate lobbyists, who know it’s easier to lawyer your way around a complicated law than a simple one.
The Death Tax
The phrase “death tax” was invented by Frank Luntz, a conservative consultant and pollster who has all the linguistic savvy of George Carlin or Lenny Bruce, but uses his powers for evil. The death tax used to be called the “estate tax,” which gave the (correct) impression that the tax only applied to large inheritances. In 2001, the estate tax, which was then 55%, was only paid by those who inherited over $675,000. By calling it a “death tax” and implying that it applied to everyone who took a dirt nap, the Bush administration was able to scare the shit out of people who probably wouldn’t leave much behind (and certainly not enough to qualify for the tax) in the first place. As a result the tax was eliminated on estates worth less than $3.5 million, and the tax rate itself dropped to 35%. Barack Obama, apparently in an attempt to prove that he loves the rich even more than Dubya, later raised the exemption to $5 million.
Entitlements
This term is most often applied to Medicare, food stamps, and other programs that form the social safety net, though a few pundits use it to describe things as fundamental as education and clean drinking water. Linguistically, this usage makes perfect sense. After all, an entitlement is something you deserve, either because you’ve earned it or because it’s a fundamental human right. In this case, the pundits have taken a previously neutral word and corrupted its meaning by highlighting its association with phrases like “entitlement issues” or “sense of entitlement.” Ironically enough, prior to being co-opted by the right to describe welfare and Medicare recipients, these phrases were most commonly used by service industry workers to describe the kind of well-off douchebag who feels he’s entitled to special treatment because of his money, power, or connections.
Obamacare
During the 2004 presidential election, the Bush campaign pointed out that Kerry was for the war in Iraq before he was against it. In the case of Obamacare, the same sentiment applies to many of the Republicans who voted against Obama’s health care reforms. During the Clinton administration, a conservative think tank called The Heritage Foundation proposed a plan almost identical to the inefficient, corporate-friendly Affordable Care Act as an alternative to Hillary Clinton’s suggestions for meaningful health care reform. Back then, many of the same Congress members who would later vote against the ACA were solidly behind the almost-identical Heritage plan. The name “Obamacare,” in addition to implying that the act is some sort of egomaniacal self-indulgence on the part of the President, invites people to attribute their own negative feelings about Obama (most often relating to his “otherness”) to the plan itself.
There are, of course, many more examples of doublespeak winding their way through our political conversations. Legitimized tax evasion is called “offshoring,” which makes it sounds like the money’s having a nice, well-deserved vacation; the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision made it acceptable to refer to bribes as “Free Speech”; and our policy of keeping for-profit prisons in business by locking up drug addicts who should be receiving medical attention gets the almost heroic-sounding “Drug War” label. Euphemisms like these, when used consistently over time, can make it easy to forget what the words are really describing. To keep this from happening, pay attention to new phrases introduced to express old ideas and new connotations connected to tried-and-true labels. When you notice this happening, ask yourself what message the new phrasing is trying to convey. Nine times out of ten, you’ll find some form of intellectual dishonesty behind the change in vocabulary.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”--George Orwell, Politics and the English LanguageAs Orwell, Carlin, and other people who aren’t even named George have observed, controlling language is the first step to controlling thought. That’s because, in addition to their linguistic meanings, most words also include a lot of cultural baggage that gives them an emotional meaning. Phrases that use loaded language influence how people react to and think about the idea being expressed, often without them even realizing it.
In some cases, the hidden meaning of this kind of constructed language is so blatant that nobody falls for it. The abortion debate provides a good example: those who support abortion rights frame them in terms of the rights of the mother and call themselves “pro-choice,” while those who oppose abortion frame the issue in terms of the rights of the unborn fetus and refer to themselves as “pro-life.” Despite the false dichotomy established by each of these terms, the obvious self-labeling makes the terms appropriate for use by those who wish to maintain some level of neutrality. In fact, the use of any other name for either group (whether it’s something as mild as “anti-choice” or as evocative as “baby killer”) is usually a good indication that the person applying the label has chosen a side in the debate.
Unfortunately, the best kind of loaded language is subtle enough that repetition and laziness allow it attain everyday usage. When this happens, those who disagree with the idea that the loaded phrase is expressing find themselves at a disadvantage. The very act of using such language lends credibility to the emotional argument made by those who invented the euphemism. Below are a few examples of expressions that “people who should know better” have allowed to enter common usage and, by doing so, corrupt our thoughts about the ideas that they express.
Big Government
“Big Government” is code for “the nanny state” and is used to describe the intrusive, paternalistic government that Liberals supposedly want to bring into existence. The phrase is usually used to describe the end goal of anyone who wants the government to take action that the presumably anti-Big Government speaker disagrees with. Why anyone, regardless of political persuasion, would want such a shambling bureaucracy is never addressed, nor is that fact that the power and reach of government has historically increased more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Remember, after all, that the GOP are strong proponents of both the security state and the idea that government should have a say about who you choose to fuck. In reality, a lot of the complexity of government, especially when it comes to regulations and corporate law, is at the behest of corporate lobbyists, who know it’s easier to lawyer your way around a complicated law than a simple one.
The Death Tax
The phrase “death tax” was invented by Frank Luntz, a conservative consultant and pollster who has all the linguistic savvy of George Carlin or Lenny Bruce, but uses his powers for evil. The death tax used to be called the “estate tax,” which gave the (correct) impression that the tax only applied to large inheritances. In 2001, the estate tax, which was then 55%, was only paid by those who inherited over $675,000. By calling it a “death tax” and implying that it applied to everyone who took a dirt nap, the Bush administration was able to scare the shit out of people who probably wouldn’t leave much behind (and certainly not enough to qualify for the tax) in the first place. As a result the tax was eliminated on estates worth less than $3.5 million, and the tax rate itself dropped to 35%. Barack Obama, apparently in an attempt to prove that he loves the rich even more than Dubya, later raised the exemption to $5 million.
Entitlements
This term is most often applied to Medicare, food stamps, and other programs that form the social safety net, though a few pundits use it to describe things as fundamental as education and clean drinking water. Linguistically, this usage makes perfect sense. After all, an entitlement is something you deserve, either because you’ve earned it or because it’s a fundamental human right. In this case, the pundits have taken a previously neutral word and corrupted its meaning by highlighting its association with phrases like “entitlement issues” or “sense of entitlement.” Ironically enough, prior to being co-opted by the right to describe welfare and Medicare recipients, these phrases were most commonly used by service industry workers to describe the kind of well-off douchebag who feels he’s entitled to special treatment because of his money, power, or connections.
Obamacare
During the 2004 presidential election, the Bush campaign pointed out that Kerry was for the war in Iraq before he was against it. In the case of Obamacare, the same sentiment applies to many of the Republicans who voted against Obama’s health care reforms. During the Clinton administration, a conservative think tank called The Heritage Foundation proposed a plan almost identical to the inefficient, corporate-friendly Affordable Care Act as an alternative to Hillary Clinton’s suggestions for meaningful health care reform. Back then, many of the same Congress members who would later vote against the ACA were solidly behind the almost-identical Heritage plan. The name “Obamacare,” in addition to implying that the act is some sort of egomaniacal self-indulgence on the part of the President, invites people to attribute their own negative feelings about Obama (most often relating to his “otherness”) to the plan itself.
There are, of course, many more examples of doublespeak winding their way through our political conversations. Legitimized tax evasion is called “offshoring,” which makes it sounds like the money’s having a nice, well-deserved vacation; the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision made it acceptable to refer to bribes as “Free Speech”; and our policy of keeping for-profit prisons in business by locking up drug addicts who should be receiving medical attention gets the almost heroic-sounding “Drug War” label. Euphemisms like these, when used consistently over time, can make it easy to forget what the words are really describing. To keep this from happening, pay attention to new phrases introduced to express old ideas and new connotations connected to tried-and-true labels. When you notice this happening, ask yourself what message the new phrasing is trying to convey. Nine times out of ten, you’ll find some form of intellectual dishonesty behind the change in vocabulary.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Your Holiday Movie Guide
This article was written for the November/December issue of Bazooka Magazine, which has been unavoidably delayed (but will hopefully be out in the near future). Since some of the movies are already out or about to be released, I'm posting a little early here. I'll also throw in some updates for the films I've seen since I wrote the original.
Big Holiday Movie Guide That I Should Have Come Up With A Better Title For, or,
Boy Will I Feel Foolish If The Muppet Movie Sucks
Movies, at their most basic level, are a form of escapism and there’s nothing people want to escape more than the unending Hell that is the holiday season. Hollywood, either because it loves you or because it wants your money (Full Disclosure: It wants your money.) responds to the basic human need to take a break from the mall (hopefully before going Columbine on Santa) by releasing a whole bunch of movies between Thanksgiving and New Year’s. The sheer volume of movies on the way may make it hard for you to decide which ones to see, so it’s a good thing I’m here to help you, absolutely free of charge. (Full Disclosure: Tips are greatly appreciated. Also, beer.)
Hugo (November 23)
When I first heard about this movie, I thought it seemed a little out of character for Scorsese, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. After all, Scorsese excels at telling big, epic stories, and no genre is bigger or more epic than fantasy. This also looks like a movie that’ll be worth the extra few bucks for 3-D. While stunning visuals are a dime a dozen these days, the trailer reminds me of Gilliam at his best--maybe it’s all the gears and moving parts. Throw in a cast that includes Gandhi, Dracula, Borat, Hit Girl, and Jude Law and this one looks like a winner.
Update: This wasn't even remotely what I expected except for the Gilliam vibe, which goes a lot farther than just the visuals (in fact, Gilliam really should have directed this). The pacing is a little too slow, but otherwise I've got no major complaints.
The Muppets (November 23)
It’s a well-known scientific fact that Muppets are awesome (Full Disclosure: This may not technically be a “scientific fact.”), so the only question here is whether or not the new flick lives up to the standard set by Jim Henson. I know Frank Oz has grumbled about the new movie, but I’m inclined to write off his complaints as old fartism. Jason Segel’s puppet thing on the Sarah Marshall DVD makes me think he’s the perfect choice to write and star in a Muppet film, so my biggest concern here is that my expectations for this one are unattainably high, especially when you throw in Amy Adams and a Chris Cooper villain. As if that’s not enough, Neil Patrick Harris has a cameo, which means there’s a chance for a NPH musical number. (Full Disclosure: It is my firm belief that anything--movie, job interview, nap, funeral, literally anything---can be improved by adding a musical number featuring Neil Patrick Harris.)
Update: Except for the fact that NPH doesn't sing, this movie is perfect. It's got everything you want from a Muppet movie, the entire cast is great, and watching Segel in the middle of it all is sort of like watching one of those cancer kids when they finally get their trip to Disneyworld or something.
My Week With Marilyn (November 23)
This movies stars Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe. Need I say more?
Answers To Nothing (December 2)
The title of this film is also a pretty good description of what you get from the trailer. There’s a missing kid and an operation and some cops and guys crying and I have absolutely no idea what the fuck this movie is about. To make matters worse, it stars Dane Cook, who’s apparently trying his hand at SERIOUS ACTING. I guess it can’t be any worse than his alleged “comedy,” but I’m not paying eight bucks to find out. The only thing even remotely appealing about this movie is Julie Benz, and that’s mainly due to residual Buffy fandom. To be honest, her role here looks like a less interesting variation on her character from the second Boondock Saints movie. Don’t bother.
New Year’s Eve (December 9)
This looks almost like a big-budget remake of 200 Cigarettes, only instead of Christina Ricci, Casey Affleck, and Elvis Costello you get Sarah Jessica Parker, Ashton Kutcher, and Jon Fucking Bon Jovi. Yeah, it’s got DeNiro and a few other people who don’t actively suck, but based on the trailer the shittiest cast members will be getting the bulk of the screen time. Do yourself a favor and watch 200 Cigarettes instead and see if you can spot Paul Rudd. (Full Disclosure: For all I know, Paul Rudd may be a major character in 200 Cigarettes. It’s been over a decade since I saw it, so I doubt I knew who the hell Paul Rudd was at the time. Also, I may remember it being better than it actually is, but I’m reasonably sure that its complete lack of Sarah Jessica Parker means it’s better than New Year’s Eve.)
The Sitter (December 9)
I want to believe that Jonah Hill and Sam Rockwell wouldn’t both agree to work on a steaming pile of shit, and the fact that this is from the director of Pineapple Express is promising. On the other hand, the “unlikely babysitter” formula has failed for everyone from Hulk Hogan to Jackie Chan, so historical precedent prevents me from recommending this one. The best reason to give this one a shot is that there’s really not much else coming out that weekend. (Full disclosure: I have never actually seen any of the previously referenced “unlikely babysitter” movies, but I don’t think that disqualifies me from stating that they suck ass.)
Young Adult (December 9)
This movie is kind of like Grosse Pointe Blank with Charleze Theron instead of John Cusack. And instead of a dark comedy about a hitman, it’s a bunch of predictable jokes about a woman trying to recapture her lost youth. Also, there’s no Jeremy Piven or Dan Ackroyd. (Full disclosure: This movie promises to be absolutely nothing like Grosse Pointe Blank.) So basically this one’s right up there with The Sitter in the “is very likely to make you lose whatever respect you still have for the star” category. So, you know, there’s that.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (December 16)
A gritty, borderline steampunk Sherlock Holmes action movie would be a terrible idea in the hands of most film makers, but Guy Ritchie made it work the first time around. The plot probably could have been a little tighter, but between Downey’s take on Holmes, the great banter between Holmes and Watson, the action sequences, and the visuals, the minor pacing problems didn’t hurt my feelings one bit. The new installment introduces Moriarty, so I’ve got high hopes.
Filmbrew at Maiden Alley: Die Hard (December 20)
If you haven’t been to a Filmbrew night at Maiden Alley yet, this is your last chance until next year. For the final installment of the 2011 series, they’re showing the single greatest Christmas movie ever made. I’m talking, of course, about Die Hard. This is the story of John McClane, a good cop who just wants to spend Christmas with his family. Before that can happen, though, he’s got to kill a shitload of terrorists. (Full Disclosure: They’re not really terrorists.) $20 gets you a couple drinks, free food, and one of the greatest action movies of all time, plus a special super-secret bonus double feature.
TinTin (December 21)
As a comic book geek, I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I don’t actually know anything about the comic that this is based on. It’s one of the world’s most celebrated strips, though, which probably means it’s pretty good. The film adaptation looks like a typical great big Spielberg adventure, so I can’t really imagine it sucking.
The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo (December 23)
I haven’t read the books, but I’ve seen the original movies, which were made in Denmark or Sweden or some other cold European place. I’m still not sure how I feel about them. The story’s fine, but there’s something about the gender politics of the series that kind of bothers me. On the surface, the titular “girl” appears to be a strong female lead, but most of her power is rooted in victimhood and she spends and awful lot of time waiting for Manly Hero Lead to save her. Also, there are some elements of the story (like the fact that she’s a lesbian except when Manly Hero Lead is around) that have a creepy “this character is basically just wank fodder for the guy who wrote the books” vibe. Still, the fact that I sat through three subtitled movies about these characters must mean there’s something worthwhile here.
War Horse (December 25)
This is a story about a horse. A horse that goes to war. A “war horse,” you might say. So if you like feel-good movies about the triumph of the equine soul--or if you’re, like, a furry or something--you might just be the target audience for this movie. (Full disclosure: If you are a furry, you’re not the target audience for this movie. In fact, if Spielberg hears that furries went to see this movie, he’ll probably cry. Do you really want to make the creator of E.T. cry? What kind of monster are you?)
Melancholia (TBA)
The date for this one isn’t set yet, but Maiden Alley will be playing it sometime in December. This is the new movie from Lars Von Trier. He directed Anti-Christ, which overall was a little too artsy-fartsy and gratuitously “shocking” for my tastes. Still, Von Trier’s visuals are interesting and he does a great job of establishing mood, so I’m willing to give him another try before writing him off as a pretentious wannabe ateur. Also, the IMDB synopsis of the movie (“Two sisters find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide into the Earth.”) is too intriguing to pass up.
These are just a few of the movies coming out in the next month or so. There’s also another Mission Impossible movie, a Christmas movie from Aardman (the company that does Wallace and Gromit), and a some other stuff that I didn’t have room to include. (Full disclosure: By “didn’t have room to include,” I mean I couldn’t think of anything clever to say about them). Hopefully my recommendations and warnings will help you choose the holiday movie that’s right for you. (Full disclosure: Unless you hate America, it’s The Muppets.)
Big Holiday Movie Guide That I Should Have Come Up With A Better Title For, or,
Boy Will I Feel Foolish If The Muppet Movie Sucks
Movies, at their most basic level, are a form of escapism and there’s nothing people want to escape more than the unending Hell that is the holiday season. Hollywood, either because it loves you or because it wants your money (Full Disclosure: It wants your money.) responds to the basic human need to take a break from the mall (hopefully before going Columbine on Santa) by releasing a whole bunch of movies between Thanksgiving and New Year’s. The sheer volume of movies on the way may make it hard for you to decide which ones to see, so it’s a good thing I’m here to help you, absolutely free of charge. (Full Disclosure: Tips are greatly appreciated. Also, beer.)
Hugo (November 23)
When I first heard about this movie, I thought it seemed a little out of character for Scorsese, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. After all, Scorsese excels at telling big, epic stories, and no genre is bigger or more epic than fantasy. This also looks like a movie that’ll be worth the extra few bucks for 3-D. While stunning visuals are a dime a dozen these days, the trailer reminds me of Gilliam at his best--maybe it’s all the gears and moving parts. Throw in a cast that includes Gandhi, Dracula, Borat, Hit Girl, and Jude Law and this one looks like a winner.
Update: This wasn't even remotely what I expected except for the Gilliam vibe, which goes a lot farther than just the visuals (in fact, Gilliam really should have directed this). The pacing is a little too slow, but otherwise I've got no major complaints.
The Muppets (November 23)
It’s a well-known scientific fact that Muppets are awesome (Full Disclosure: This may not technically be a “scientific fact.”), so the only question here is whether or not the new flick lives up to the standard set by Jim Henson. I know Frank Oz has grumbled about the new movie, but I’m inclined to write off his complaints as old fartism. Jason Segel’s puppet thing on the Sarah Marshall DVD makes me think he’s the perfect choice to write and star in a Muppet film, so my biggest concern here is that my expectations for this one are unattainably high, especially when you throw in Amy Adams and a Chris Cooper villain. As if that’s not enough, Neil Patrick Harris has a cameo, which means there’s a chance for a NPH musical number. (Full Disclosure: It is my firm belief that anything--movie, job interview, nap, funeral, literally anything---can be improved by adding a musical number featuring Neil Patrick Harris.)
Update: Except for the fact that NPH doesn't sing, this movie is perfect. It's got everything you want from a Muppet movie, the entire cast is great, and watching Segel in the middle of it all is sort of like watching one of those cancer kids when they finally get their trip to Disneyworld or something.
My Week With Marilyn (November 23)
This movies stars Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe. Need I say more?
Answers To Nothing (December 2)
The title of this film is also a pretty good description of what you get from the trailer. There’s a missing kid and an operation and some cops and guys crying and I have absolutely no idea what the fuck this movie is about. To make matters worse, it stars Dane Cook, who’s apparently trying his hand at SERIOUS ACTING. I guess it can’t be any worse than his alleged “comedy,” but I’m not paying eight bucks to find out. The only thing even remotely appealing about this movie is Julie Benz, and that’s mainly due to residual Buffy fandom. To be honest, her role here looks like a less interesting variation on her character from the second Boondock Saints movie. Don’t bother.
New Year’s Eve (December 9)
This looks almost like a big-budget remake of 200 Cigarettes, only instead of Christina Ricci, Casey Affleck, and Elvis Costello you get Sarah Jessica Parker, Ashton Kutcher, and Jon Fucking Bon Jovi. Yeah, it’s got DeNiro and a few other people who don’t actively suck, but based on the trailer the shittiest cast members will be getting the bulk of the screen time. Do yourself a favor and watch 200 Cigarettes instead and see if you can spot Paul Rudd. (Full Disclosure: For all I know, Paul Rudd may be a major character in 200 Cigarettes. It’s been over a decade since I saw it, so I doubt I knew who the hell Paul Rudd was at the time. Also, I may remember it being better than it actually is, but I’m reasonably sure that its complete lack of Sarah Jessica Parker means it’s better than New Year’s Eve.)
The Sitter (December 9)
I want to believe that Jonah Hill and Sam Rockwell wouldn’t both agree to work on a steaming pile of shit, and the fact that this is from the director of Pineapple Express is promising. On the other hand, the “unlikely babysitter” formula has failed for everyone from Hulk Hogan to Jackie Chan, so historical precedent prevents me from recommending this one. The best reason to give this one a shot is that there’s really not much else coming out that weekend. (Full disclosure: I have never actually seen any of the previously referenced “unlikely babysitter” movies, but I don’t think that disqualifies me from stating that they suck ass.)
Young Adult (December 9)
This movie is kind of like Grosse Pointe Blank with Charleze Theron instead of John Cusack. And instead of a dark comedy about a hitman, it’s a bunch of predictable jokes about a woman trying to recapture her lost youth. Also, there’s no Jeremy Piven or Dan Ackroyd. (Full disclosure: This movie promises to be absolutely nothing like Grosse Pointe Blank.) So basically this one’s right up there with The Sitter in the “is very likely to make you lose whatever respect you still have for the star” category. So, you know, there’s that.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (December 16)
A gritty, borderline steampunk Sherlock Holmes action movie would be a terrible idea in the hands of most film makers, but Guy Ritchie made it work the first time around. The plot probably could have been a little tighter, but between Downey’s take on Holmes, the great banter between Holmes and Watson, the action sequences, and the visuals, the minor pacing problems didn’t hurt my feelings one bit. The new installment introduces Moriarty, so I’ve got high hopes.
Filmbrew at Maiden Alley: Die Hard (December 20)
If you haven’t been to a Filmbrew night at Maiden Alley yet, this is your last chance until next year. For the final installment of the 2011 series, they’re showing the single greatest Christmas movie ever made. I’m talking, of course, about Die Hard. This is the story of John McClane, a good cop who just wants to spend Christmas with his family. Before that can happen, though, he’s got to kill a shitload of terrorists. (Full Disclosure: They’re not really terrorists.) $20 gets you a couple drinks, free food, and one of the greatest action movies of all time, plus a special super-secret bonus double feature.
TinTin (December 21)
As a comic book geek, I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I don’t actually know anything about the comic that this is based on. It’s one of the world’s most celebrated strips, though, which probably means it’s pretty good. The film adaptation looks like a typical great big Spielberg adventure, so I can’t really imagine it sucking.
The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo (December 23)
I haven’t read the books, but I’ve seen the original movies, which were made in Denmark or Sweden or some other cold European place. I’m still not sure how I feel about them. The story’s fine, but there’s something about the gender politics of the series that kind of bothers me. On the surface, the titular “girl” appears to be a strong female lead, but most of her power is rooted in victimhood and she spends and awful lot of time waiting for Manly Hero Lead to save her. Also, there are some elements of the story (like the fact that she’s a lesbian except when Manly Hero Lead is around) that have a creepy “this character is basically just wank fodder for the guy who wrote the books” vibe. Still, the fact that I sat through three subtitled movies about these characters must mean there’s something worthwhile here.
War Horse (December 25)
This is a story about a horse. A horse that goes to war. A “war horse,” you might say. So if you like feel-good movies about the triumph of the equine soul--or if you’re, like, a furry or something--you might just be the target audience for this movie. (Full disclosure: If you are a furry, you’re not the target audience for this movie. In fact, if Spielberg hears that furries went to see this movie, he’ll probably cry. Do you really want to make the creator of E.T. cry? What kind of monster are you?)
Melancholia (TBA)
The date for this one isn’t set yet, but Maiden Alley will be playing it sometime in December. This is the new movie from Lars Von Trier. He directed Anti-Christ, which overall was a little too artsy-fartsy and gratuitously “shocking” for my tastes. Still, Von Trier’s visuals are interesting and he does a great job of establishing mood, so I’m willing to give him another try before writing him off as a pretentious wannabe ateur. Also, the IMDB synopsis of the movie (“Two sisters find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide into the Earth.”) is too intriguing to pass up.
These are just a few of the movies coming out in the next month or so. There’s also another Mission Impossible movie, a Christmas movie from Aardman (the company that does Wallace and Gromit), and a some other stuff that I didn’t have room to include. (Full disclosure: By “didn’t have room to include,” I mean I couldn’t think of anything clever to say about them). Hopefully my recommendations and warnings will help you choose the holiday movie that’s right for you. (Full disclosure: Unless you hate America, it’s The Muppets.)
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The War On [Insert Holiday Here]
As anyone who watches Fox News (or--more likely if you're reading this--The Daily Show's coverage of Fox News) knows, a WAR ON CHRISTMAS has been raging for the past several years. This all-out attack on Christian values mainly involves acknowledging that not every single person is a Christian, but if you've got more than five friends on Facebook, you probably know that there's another more sinister battle going on: the Godless Heathens (TM) are abbreviating the word "Christmas" as "Xmas." I don't think I have to tell you that there are few things more offensive than replacing the word "Christ" with the English transliteration of the Greek letter "Chi" (which, incidentally, has been used by Christians to represent Christ for hundreds of years).
I think it's awfully unfair that only Christians get to play the part of victim in a made-up war against their beliefs. Call me a cultural relativist, but I think people of other faiths should also be allowed to get their persecution complex on. So far, it looks like only the Jews have joined in on the fun:
The Liberal Elitist (TM) in me can't help but think that the non-Abrahamic faiths should also be represented. So I decided to help.
I should probably explain that last one. I thought the holiday was something like "Grumenthar's Ascension" and was going to do a "Keep the Groo in Grumenthar's Ascension" pic featuring the Groosalug. Turns out I got the name wrong, but a "Gurn" is basically a funny face, which inevitably leads to the Angel Dance. I suspect there are probably stills from the scene in which Boreanaz's expression is more properly a by-the-book gurn, but unfortunately Google Images didn't turn up too many stills from the scene. So you might want to pretend that Angel looks slightly goofier to get the full effect.
I think it's awfully unfair that only Christians get to play the part of victim in a made-up war against their beliefs. Call me a cultural relativist, but I think people of other faiths should also be allowed to get their persecution complex on. So far, it looks like only the Jews have joined in on the fun:
The Liberal Elitist (TM) in me can't help but think that the non-Abrahamic faiths should also be represented. So I decided to help.
I should probably explain that last one. I thought the holiday was something like "Grumenthar's Ascension" and was going to do a "Keep the Groo in Grumenthar's Ascension" pic featuring the Groosalug. Turns out I got the name wrong, but a "Gurn" is basically a funny face, which inevitably leads to the Angel Dance. I suspect there are probably stills from the scene in which Boreanaz's expression is more properly a by-the-book gurn, but unfortunately Google Images didn't turn up too many stills from the scene. So you might want to pretend that Angel looks slightly goofier to get the full effect.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's Social Justice Superman!
From the October 2011 issue of Bazooka Magazine:
Earlier this year DC Comics, facing flagging sales, announced that it would reboot its entire line of comics. The new books were supposed to provide a chance for writers to re-imagine some of the classic characters and give new readers a jumping-on point that wasn’t bogged down in decades of continuity. The new books released in September to a mixture of guarded optimism, legitimate anger and disgust (Google should turn up plenty of blog posts about former Teen Titan Starfire’s revamp as an amnesiac sex doll), and of course lots of nerd rage.
Before the books came out, Superman’s new costumes got some attention from comic geeks as well as the mainstream press. In Action Comics, which is set during Superman’s early career, he’s wearing jeans, work boots, and a T-shirt bearing the classic “S” symbol. In Superman, set during the new DC Universe’s “present” (about 5 years after most of the characters started their super-hero careers), the costume is similar to the classic Supes uniform, but conspicuously missing its usual red underwear. When Action Comics #1 first came out, it received a bit of media attention when a comic shop in South Carolina pulled it because in one panel Superman said “GD,” (not “God Damn,” just “GD”) which Billy Bubba Joe Bob took to be blasphemy. So far, though, there hasn’t been a lot of talk about what is in my opinion the most interesting and awesome aspect of the new Superman comics: the fact that he’s being written as a filthy Liberal Socialist Progressive class warrior.
For the roughly 20 years that I’ve been reading comics, Superman has always seemed at best naive and hokey, and at worst kind of a Fascist. Frank Miller probably deserves some of the blame for the latter, but over the years numerous comic creators have used The Man of Steel whenever they’ve needed someone to represent the dangers of unchecked power or unquestioning faith in traditional authority figures. In some stories, Superman was a tool of “The Man.” In others, he was “The Man.”
Grant Morrison’s Action Comics #1 offers a different take on The Man of Steel. The book opens with Superman involved in a stand-off with the cops as he dangles a businessman named Glenmorgan off a balcony in an attempt to scare Glenmorgan into confessing his crimes. Supes eventually drops the tycoon, only to catch him before he hits the ground. Scared sufficiently shitless by the experience, Glenmorgan finally makes his confession.
What are Glenmorgan’s crimes? Did he build a doomsday device? Try to blow up the moon? Conduct horrible experiments in an attempt to create an army of superhuman foot soldiers? Not exactly. “I’m guilty!” confesses Glenmorgan, “What do you want me to say?...I used illegal cheap labor...No safety standards...I bribed city officials...I lied...I lied...to everyone...” In other words, pretty much the same things that CEOs do every day in America.
After Supes deals with Glenmorgan and warns the crowd, “You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect to hear from me,” we cut to Lex Luthor, who’s been paid a considerable consulting fee to help General Lane and the U.S. Army capture Superman. In order to lure Superman into his trap, Luthor has begun demolition on a building where squatters are known to be living. Superman manages to get everyone out, but it looks like he’s going to be captured until the homeless people hes’ just saved step in front of the tanks coming to capture him. Since the murder of U.S. citizens by the military would be a public relations nightmare (at least in the comic books), Superman is able to make his escape.
After he’s done championing the weak, Superman returns to his Clark Kent identity, where we find him living in a slummy “bohemian” apartment building. During a conversation with his landlady, he tells her that the scrapes on his face (apparently Earth’s yellow sun hasn’t made him completely invulnerable yet) are the result of a beatdown he received for his story about intergang’s influence on the dock unions. Most previous incarnations of Clark Kent have mainly done the Peter Parker thing, using stories about his super-hero alter-ego to make a living (and occasionally trying to pin illegal activities on members of his rogues’ gallery). This one’s working for justice even when he’s not wearing the blue long johns. During the conversation, we also hear about how Superman recently threw a wife-beater into the river, breaking both his hips and three of his ribs. The rest of the comic covers the second attempt by Luthor and Lane (now joined by Glenmorgan) to capture Supes.
As much as I loved Grant Morrison’s take on Superman in Action Comics, I took it for granted that by the time we got to DC’s other title, Goerge Perez’s Superman, which is set 5 years in the future, I’d find out that Clark had “sold out” and become the boring old Kal-El I’ve been ambivalent at best about since I picked up my first comic book. Turns out, I was wrong. The first issue of Superman finds Clark miffed about the fact that The Daily Planet has been acquired by Superman detractor Morgan Edge, Glenmorgan’s successor and a direct stand-in for Rupert Murdock (right down to the wiretapping). Towards the end of book we also hear that Clark has been working on a story about illegal evictions. I don’t think Perez will focus on the social justice angle as much as Morrison, but it’s good to see that he’s at least acknowledging it.
While I get the impression that Morrison has wanted to re-imagine Superman as a crusader for social justice for a while, the current political climate may make this the perfect time for a bold, new vision of The Man of Steel. A Superman concerned with the same issues that are ripping this country apart might actually make the character relevant again. When you think about it, Superman is one of the few DC heroes who makes sense as a representative of “the common man.” Wonder Woman and Aquaman are royalty, many super-heroes are independently wealthy or have secure upper middle class jobs, and Batman, with his focus on street crime, is essentially a rich guy who puts on a bat costume and beats up poor people. Clark Kent, despite his alien birthright and arsenal of powers, is a Midwestern farm boy who has to bust his ass to make a living as a reporter in the dying print news industry.
I have yet to hear about Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck going on a tirade about the new Superman’s “un-American” activities, but I suspect that says more about the position of comics on the cultural radar than the restraint of right-wing pundits. No doubt somebody will eventually complain about how Morrison subverted the character in order to put forth his Liberal Agenda (TM). Here’s the thing, though: Morrison’s vision of Superman is actually strongly rooted in the character’s origins. Superman was created by a couple of poor Jewish guys during The Great Depression and social justice, especially against those who preyed upon the poor and the weak, was a common theme in the early days of the comic. Keep in mind that one of Superman’s greatest and most enduring villains is Lex Luthor, who when you take away the super-science is just another corrupt businessman.
When World War II came, Superman, like many heroes, went to war against the Nazis, and ever since then the character has steadily evolved to face the nation’s fears (at least metaphorically), be it street crime or nuclear annihilation. Perhaps his most recent incarnation as the ultimate symbol of the status quo says more about America than it does about the abilities of DC’s writing staff. Before he became a good little conformist, though, Superman was a champion of working class Americans. I for one am glad to have him back on our side.
Earlier this year DC Comics, facing flagging sales, announced that it would reboot its entire line of comics. The new books were supposed to provide a chance for writers to re-imagine some of the classic characters and give new readers a jumping-on point that wasn’t bogged down in decades of continuity. The new books released in September to a mixture of guarded optimism, legitimate anger and disgust (Google should turn up plenty of blog posts about former Teen Titan Starfire’s revamp as an amnesiac sex doll), and of course lots of nerd rage.
Before the books came out, Superman’s new costumes got some attention from comic geeks as well as the mainstream press. In Action Comics, which is set during Superman’s early career, he’s wearing jeans, work boots, and a T-shirt bearing the classic “S” symbol. In Superman, set during the new DC Universe’s “present” (about 5 years after most of the characters started their super-hero careers), the costume is similar to the classic Supes uniform, but conspicuously missing its usual red underwear. When Action Comics #1 first came out, it received a bit of media attention when a comic shop in South Carolina pulled it because in one panel Superman said “GD,” (not “God Damn,” just “GD”) which Billy Bubba Joe Bob took to be blasphemy. So far, though, there hasn’t been a lot of talk about what is in my opinion the most interesting and awesome aspect of the new Superman comics: the fact that he’s being written as a filthy Liberal Socialist Progressive class warrior.
For the roughly 20 years that I’ve been reading comics, Superman has always seemed at best naive and hokey, and at worst kind of a Fascist. Frank Miller probably deserves some of the blame for the latter, but over the years numerous comic creators have used The Man of Steel whenever they’ve needed someone to represent the dangers of unchecked power or unquestioning faith in traditional authority figures. In some stories, Superman was a tool of “The Man.” In others, he was “The Man.”
Grant Morrison’s Action Comics #1 offers a different take on The Man of Steel. The book opens with Superman involved in a stand-off with the cops as he dangles a businessman named Glenmorgan off a balcony in an attempt to scare Glenmorgan into confessing his crimes. Supes eventually drops the tycoon, only to catch him before he hits the ground. Scared sufficiently shitless by the experience, Glenmorgan finally makes his confession.
What are Glenmorgan’s crimes? Did he build a doomsday device? Try to blow up the moon? Conduct horrible experiments in an attempt to create an army of superhuman foot soldiers? Not exactly. “I’m guilty!” confesses Glenmorgan, “What do you want me to say?...I used illegal cheap labor...No safety standards...I bribed city officials...I lied...I lied...to everyone...” In other words, pretty much the same things that CEOs do every day in America.
After Supes deals with Glenmorgan and warns the crowd, “You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect to hear from me,” we cut to Lex Luthor, who’s been paid a considerable consulting fee to help General Lane and the U.S. Army capture Superman. In order to lure Superman into his trap, Luthor has begun demolition on a building where squatters are known to be living. Superman manages to get everyone out, but it looks like he’s going to be captured until the homeless people hes’ just saved step in front of the tanks coming to capture him. Since the murder of U.S. citizens by the military would be a public relations nightmare (at least in the comic books), Superman is able to make his escape.
After he’s done championing the weak, Superman returns to his Clark Kent identity, where we find him living in a slummy “bohemian” apartment building. During a conversation with his landlady, he tells her that the scrapes on his face (apparently Earth’s yellow sun hasn’t made him completely invulnerable yet) are the result of a beatdown he received for his story about intergang’s influence on the dock unions. Most previous incarnations of Clark Kent have mainly done the Peter Parker thing, using stories about his super-hero alter-ego to make a living (and occasionally trying to pin illegal activities on members of his rogues’ gallery). This one’s working for justice even when he’s not wearing the blue long johns. During the conversation, we also hear about how Superman recently threw a wife-beater into the river, breaking both his hips and three of his ribs. The rest of the comic covers the second attempt by Luthor and Lane (now joined by Glenmorgan) to capture Supes.
As much as I loved Grant Morrison’s take on Superman in Action Comics, I took it for granted that by the time we got to DC’s other title, Goerge Perez’s Superman, which is set 5 years in the future, I’d find out that Clark had “sold out” and become the boring old Kal-El I’ve been ambivalent at best about since I picked up my first comic book. Turns out, I was wrong. The first issue of Superman finds Clark miffed about the fact that The Daily Planet has been acquired by Superman detractor Morgan Edge, Glenmorgan’s successor and a direct stand-in for Rupert Murdock (right down to the wiretapping). Towards the end of book we also hear that Clark has been working on a story about illegal evictions. I don’t think Perez will focus on the social justice angle as much as Morrison, but it’s good to see that he’s at least acknowledging it.
While I get the impression that Morrison has wanted to re-imagine Superman as a crusader for social justice for a while, the current political climate may make this the perfect time for a bold, new vision of The Man of Steel. A Superman concerned with the same issues that are ripping this country apart might actually make the character relevant again. When you think about it, Superman is one of the few DC heroes who makes sense as a representative of “the common man.” Wonder Woman and Aquaman are royalty, many super-heroes are independently wealthy or have secure upper middle class jobs, and Batman, with his focus on street crime, is essentially a rich guy who puts on a bat costume and beats up poor people. Clark Kent, despite his alien birthright and arsenal of powers, is a Midwestern farm boy who has to bust his ass to make a living as a reporter in the dying print news industry.
I have yet to hear about Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck going on a tirade about the new Superman’s “un-American” activities, but I suspect that says more about the position of comics on the cultural radar than the restraint of right-wing pundits. No doubt somebody will eventually complain about how Morrison subverted the character in order to put forth his Liberal Agenda (TM). Here’s the thing, though: Morrison’s vision of Superman is actually strongly rooted in the character’s origins. Superman was created by a couple of poor Jewish guys during The Great Depression and social justice, especially against those who preyed upon the poor and the weak, was a common theme in the early days of the comic. Keep in mind that one of Superman’s greatest and most enduring villains is Lex Luthor, who when you take away the super-science is just another corrupt businessman.
When World War II came, Superman, like many heroes, went to war against the Nazis, and ever since then the character has steadily evolved to face the nation’s fears (at least metaphorically), be it street crime or nuclear annihilation. Perhaps his most recent incarnation as the ultimate symbol of the status quo says more about America than it does about the abilities of DC’s writing staff. Before he became a good little conformist, though, Superman was a champion of working class Americans. I for one am glad to have him back on our side.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Oakland Police Steal Protester's McRib!
First off, I should probably ease your mind a bit: The Oakland police didn't really steal anyone's heat-lamped chunk of slightly-higher-than-dogfood quality pork. That would unforgivable.
What the Oakland police did (aside from befriending adorable kitty-cats) was fire tear gas, flash bang grenades, and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters. During the fray, one filthy hippie--a former Marine named Scott Olsen, who had served two tours of duty in Iraq--was hit in the head with one of these weapons, suffering a fractured skull and brain swelling. He is currently in the hospital in fair condition. Blogger Aaron Bady was there when the fun started, so check out his blog if you'd like to see some pictures of the crazed, out-of-control behavior that set off the confrontation.
Also in McRib-related news, a scientist hired by the Koch brothers has conceded that global warming does, in fact, exist. Of course, you probably already heard that given that the story has received a total of nearly 30 seconds of coverage on cable news. Seriously, how many times can they keep repeating the same story like that.
Anyway, keep in mind that the McRib will only be around for a limited time.
What the Oakland police did (aside from befriending adorable kitty-cats) was fire tear gas, flash bang grenades, and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters. During the fray, one filthy hippie--a former Marine named Scott Olsen, who had served two tours of duty in Iraq--was hit in the head with one of these weapons, suffering a fractured skull and brain swelling. He is currently in the hospital in fair condition. Blogger Aaron Bady was there when the fun started, so check out his blog if you'd like to see some pictures of the crazed, out-of-control behavior that set off the confrontation.
Also in McRib-related news, a scientist hired by the Koch brothers has conceded that global warming does, in fact, exist. Of course, you probably already heard that given that the story has received a total of nearly 30 seconds of coverage on cable news. Seriously, how many times can they keep repeating the same story like that.
Anyway, keep in mind that the McRib will only be around for a limited time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
