This article originally appeared in the May 2012 issue of Bazooka Magazine.
Although
I rarely watch the news on WPSD, I do get a lot of entertainment from
their Facebook page. There’s a certain Carlinesque, nihilistic joy in
having a front-row seat to the kind of willful ignorance that’s directly
responsible for human civilization’s steady downward spiral towards
Idiocracy. This ignorance is rarely more proudly displayed than during
the Confederate flag “discussions” that the Channel 6 web monkeys incite
every Tater Day and periodically throughout the year.
It’s
really not surprising that there are strong feelings about the
Confederate flag in Kentucky, and especially in our part of the state.
After all, all the “brother against brother” cliches about the Civil War
apply doubly to Kentucky. Our state was the birthplace of both Abraham
Lincoln and Confederate President Jefferson Davis, Kentuckians fought on
both sides, several bloody battles and a lot of raids and skirmishes
took place here, and we were one of only two states (along with
Missouri) represented in the Confederate Congress despite officially
remaining part of the Union. Since Confederate sympathies were
especially strong in the western part of the state--Kentucky’s
Confederate shadow government’s capital was officially Bowling Green,
though in reality representatives spent most of the war in exile in
Tennessee--we have good reason to be conflicted about our Confederate
heritage, both as a region and as individuals.
In
the interest of historical accuracy, I should probably mention that
what most people refer to as the “Confederate flag” was never actually
the flag of the Confederacy, though its design did appear as an element
on the second and third C.S.A. flags. The first Confederate national
flag--and the flag the name “Stars and Bars” actually referred to during
the Civil War era--closely resembled early American flags, but with
three broad stripes instead of thirteen and between seven and thirteen
stars (depending on the number of states in the Confederacy). In fact,
the C.S.A. flag was so similar to that of the Union that it was often
mistaken for the Stars and Stripes in the confusion of battle, leading
Confederate soldiers to fire on their own troops. In order to cut down
on the amount of friendly fire, the Confederate Army decided to adopt a
battle flag that was distinct enough to prevent confusion. They ended up
choosing a flag based on the “secessionist flag” of South Carolina, and
that’s the flag--the one southerners like airbrush Hank Jr. onto and
paint on the top of Dodge Chargers--that most people today think of as
the “Confederate flag.” Because the Confederacy was never rich in
resources or strong on logistics, the flag was never universally adopted
by the Confederate army, but its use by prominent units like Lee’s Army
of Northern Virginia made it a powerful symbol of the Civil War South.
A
lot of people on both sides of the issue believe that some people
consider the flag to be a symbol of racism because it represented the
Confederacy and the Civil War was about slavery, but that’s a gross
oversimplification. At that point in our nation’s history, the balance
of power between the federal government and the states was still a point
of heated contention. In the pre-Civil War era the states were still to
some extent considered sovereign entities, with the federal government
playing a role more akin to the European Union today. As a result, many
people thought of themselves as citizens of a particular state rather
than citizens of the United States. Many southerners who were not slave
owners and were opposed to secession--notably Robert E. Lee--sided with
the Confederacy because they felt loyalty to their home state trumped
loyalty to the Union.
It’s
also important to remember that when it comes to war, there’s usually a
disconnect between the real motivations of those in power and the
reasons that those who are actually doing the fighting believe they’re
getting shot at. While many of the loudest proponents of succession
certainly benefitted economically from slavery, most southerners didn’t
own slaves and many were economically marginalized because of plantation
agriculture. They wouldn’t support a war solely to protect the
institution of slavery any more than Americans a few years ago would
have supported a war to improve Halliburton’s bottom line and allow
Dubya to get revenge on the guy who tried to kill his daddy. Think of
“states’ rights” as the 1860s version of “weapons of mass destruction.”
As the war--mostly fought in the South--went on, many southerners who
neither supported slavery nor bought the states’ rights argument joined
the Confederate army for no other reason than to protect their homes and
communities.
On
the other hand, the claim that the Civil War was entirely about state
sovereignty and had nothing to do with racism is just as much of an
oversimplification. Proponents of the “heritage” side of the argument
who accept that the institution of slavery was at the root of succession
often point out that the debate that led to the Civil War was about the
expansion of slavery to new states, not abolition, that the southern
states wanted to expand slavery for economic and political reasons that
had nothing to do with racism, and that black Southerners fought in the
Confederate army. These arguments, however, ignore the simple fact that
slavery in America was was based around the premise that people of
certain races were somehow “less human” than the rest of us. Therefore,
proponents of slavery were also implicit proponents of racism, and even
those who joined the Confederate cause to defend the rights of the
states were placing political concerns above the basic human rights of
slaves.
In
light of history, the question of whether the South’s decision to
succeed from the Union was rooted in racism is “yes and no.” I realize
that in today’s political climate many people will find this kind of
nuance off-putting--after all, isn’t everything supposed to boil down to
two diametrically opposed alternatives that conveniently align with the
beliefs of the political parties who run the Two Man Con?--but it’s the
only conclusion that makes sense. Even if it were possible to conclude
that the Civil War was or was not about racism, so far we’ve only
covered the first few years of the Confederate flag’s history, so we’ve
about a century and a half to go. The meanings of symbols, like the
meanings of words, change over time. When a symbol becomes strongly
associated with a particular movement or idea, the old meanings are
often ruined. For example, the earliest use of the swastika was in
Bronze Age India, where it was a symbol of good fortune. About four
thousand years later (give or take a few centuries), the swastika was
adopted by a symbol of the Nazi party. The association was so strong
that today most people (especially in the West) who see a swastika
conclude that the person displaying it is Nazi scum. And they’re usually
right.
For
the next 100 years or so after the civil war, America as a whole was
largely ambivalent about the Confederate flag. Some saw it as a reminder
of one of the worst times in our nation’s history, others felt it
honored southerners who had followed in the footsteps of the Founding
Fathers by taking up arms to defend themselves against what they saw as
government oppression. Because more than a few ex-Confederates became
involved in white supremacist groups after the war, the flag did take on
some racist associations, but for the most part these associations
weren’t especially strong. It was when the Civil Rights Movement started
building up steam that the Confederate flag was widely adopted as a
symbol by southern opponents of the movement, especially white
supremacist groups like the KKK. Some tried to claim that opposition to
Civil Rights, like the Civil War, were about state’s rights, but such
arguments were paper thin and it’s during this era that the phrase
gained its reputation as a racist dog whistle. More importantly, unlike
the southerners during the Civil War, the people now flying the flag
weren’t fighting an opposing army, they were committed acts of terrorism
against their fellow citizens because of the color of their skin. All
the levels of abstraction that existed during the Civil War era were
stripped away and to many the flag became a symbol of open and violent
racism.
So,
heritage or hate? Once again, there’s not a simple “yes” or “no”
answer. In certain contexts, the flag can still be a genuine expression
of southern heritage. However, because of the flag’s co-option by racist
agitators, the choice to display it publicly reveals a certain level of
disregard for those who have been victimized by people flying it, just
like wearing a swastika reveals a lack of respect for Holocaust
survivors no matter how much you insist you’re wearing it for its
luck-bringing properties. Of course, that conclusion is based on
historical context, and most people who rally around the Confederate
flag have at best a vague grasp of its history. The truth is that for
most people who identify strongly with the Confederate flag, it’s about
tribalism. They wear it, fly it from the backs of their trucks, and
have it tattooed on their bodies to convey a sense of identity and
membership in a particular group. In this way, they’re a lot like the
people who brand themselves with sports team mascots or corporate logos.
The main difference is that people waving Kentucky Wildcat and
Harley-Davidson flags have never burned a cross on somebody’s lawn or
engaged in open warfare against their own government.
Personally,
outside of a few very specific contexts I feel that public display of
the Confederate flag is offensive, but I also support the First
Amendment rights of those whose opinions differ from mine. However,
freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences, so people
who choose to display the Confederate flag need to accept that a lot of
people will interpret it as a sign of ignorance and racism. Likewise,
the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to display the
Confederate flag (or any other symbol) in all situations. Private
businesses can ask you to leave; school officials have considerable
power to enforce rules against potentially disruptive behavior,
including the display of symbols that some may find offensive; and
tuber-based civic festivals have every right to ban Confederate flags
from parades, even if those festivals are run by a government entity.
While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right, freedom to be in a
parade is not. Those who claim First Amendment violations where there
are none prove they meet at least half of the “ignorant racist”
stereotype associated with self-proclaimed “rebels.” Whether or not they
fulfill the “racist” part of the stereotype can usually be determined
by asking their opinions on things like welfare, rap music, and the
validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
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:
- 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
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
