Flip Through

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

The Matter of Britain

I think it's time to talk about my addiction. Well, one of them--I have many: potatoes, Tamora Pierce fandom, STAR WARS, Joss Whedon shows, sleeping.

But today is an Arthur day. Arthur Arthur Arthur.

No, DR SHE BLOGGO, I am not talking about your car.)

KING ARTHUR, PEOPLE. THE MAN HIMSELF. Maybe it's a sentimental attachment to the legends due to my grandmother, who bequeathed me her editions of The Once and Future King and The Book of Merlin, as well as three of Mary Stewart's Merlin books. I read the latter until they fell to pieces sometime in my fifteenth year (and recently replaced them with four first editions found at St. Petersburg's antiquarian book fair! Noice). Maybe it's a childhood love of the (really horrific) Disney version of The Sword and the Stone. Maybe it's my teenage protofeminist's love for The Mists of Avalon.

Whatever the root, I am a big, big, big fan of Arthur. As Missy Elliott would say. I've read every version I can get my sweaty paws on, including the romances (Tennyson, Malory, de Troyes), the "historical" (Whyte, Stewart, Cornwell), the children's/YA versions (Cooper, Barron, Alexander, Sutcliff, Yolen, Morris), the female-centric ones (Bradley, Miles, Woolley), the ones that defy description (Lawhead, Elliott)...I spent a good chunk of my youth reading everything I could find about King Arthur. I even read every damn book Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote AFTER The Mists of Avalon (even the really shitty recent ones by Diana Paxson "as" Bradley). I read nonfiction, too--anything about Roman Britain, anything that verified the existence of a historical Arthur. I tried to read The Mabinogion when I was about 13 and kept a book called The People Who Came Out of the Dark checked out of my high school library until it was overdue (it was about Celts).

And then there are the moving-picture adaptations. Ohhhh the 2001 made-for-TV version of Mists. It stands out for me as the best of the bunch, and I confess that Julianna Margulies is who I see when I envision Morgan le Fay. The awful 2004 film with Keira Knightley and Clive Owen, I saw just so I could smack my smarmy friend down about how historically inaccurate it was. First Knight, I was disgusted by even at age eleven. The Last Legion was turgid and dull despite its reasonably excellent cast. The TV series Merlin I have a few problems with; mostly I think it's boring (although, hai @Anthony Stewart Head!). And now--NOW--now I hear that the good folks who made my personal favorite Showtime porn, The Tudors, are helming a project called Camelot, with Eva Green as Morgan and that kid who's playing Grindelwald as the young Arthur.

ZOMG SO ON BOARD. The allure is incredible. I can't wait. Even if it's the opposite of my dreams.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BAYBEEEZ??!!1one

Disclaimer: I am not a big fan of children: I have no younger siblings, I rarely babysat as a teen, and though I was until relatively recently an active Mormon, I've never had much contact with young children. I very much doubt I will ever have any. That said, I have EXTREME problems with US views and attitudes toward pregnancy, childbirth, and early childhood rearing (not to mention a sort of broad, anthropologically-based distaste for the concept of teenagehood, particularly as it is spun out in the United States. But that's another post). My aunt is a nurse practitioner and lactation consultant, and knows many midwives; when I was small my mother and aunt would take me, my sister, and my cousin to La Leche League meetings. Cultural and to some extent biological anthropology delves into global birthing practices, "alternative" child-rearing processes, and cultural attitudes and values surrounding pregnancy and birth. Suffice to say I am comfortable with and reasonably knowledgeable about female bodies and how they are viewed and treated in a variety of cultures.

What's my point again? Oh yes. A book review! The book in question is The Women's Wheel of Life, published in 1996 by Carol Leonard and Elizabeth Davis (the latter having previously written the Bible of midwifery, Heart and Hands). This text purports to provide positive archetypes for women in any stage of life--thirteen in all--and, as an Amazon.com review says, is rather steeped in New Age/Neo-pagan language, references, and rhetoric. I have no opinion on whether drawing on goddess archetypes and utilizing I Ching will enrich a woman's life or empower her (ok, untrue: I DO, of course, but that is also a topic for another post), and can't really comment on these aspects of the book. However, what I found really compelling and fairly groundbreaking was the book's treatment of midwifery and what the authors refer to as "Blood Mysteries": menarche and menstruation, childbirth, and menopause.

Unsurprisingly, the US is not friendly to any of these female-centric mysteries. Some of you will say, Hold on, Diana! America LOVES babies! Just look at the abortion controversy! To which I say, Indeed. You are not incorrect. BUT, once the baby's out of the womb, do we give a shit? Not really! The processes for removing the baby from the womb are also fraught with problems. The months of pregnancy leading up to birth are questionably traversed. The early childhood rearing process, including breastfeeding and the question of where the child sleeps, are practically Victorian. At least we've dispensed with twilight sleep, amirite ladies?? Ack. So anyway, The Women's Wheel of Life emphasizes that menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth, and menopause are WOMEN's mysteries, and basically the authors' position is that the devaluation, diminishment, and divorcing (alliterative agony!) of these mysteries from the lives of women who experience them has contributed greatly to the erosion of the nuclear family and the oppression of women in general.

No matter my position on the nuclear family, I don't find their hypothesis difficult to accept. In our society, menstruation is a laughing matter, subject for jokes and mocking when a girl is in public school, and a drag later on in her life as she must navigate higher education, jobs, and family and social obligations. "PMS" is blamed for everything and its spectre demonizes women's emotions and bodies alike. Menopause as well is always good for a giggle at the expense of older women who are beginning to be perceived as less feminine, no longer worthy of the male gaze. And pregnancy and birth--well, in this country, with all our boasting about cutting-edge medicine, it's practically archaic. The pregnant woman's body becomes public property; suddenly invasion of personal space and the laying of hands on a stranger's body are acceptable and typical. Throughout her pregnancy she is subjected to unwanted advice, again often from strangers, and a barrage of information which may not be on the topics she needs. Midwifery is STILL looked down upon by the general public as unsafe. Why would any woman choose a midwife and/or doula when she could go to the best hospital and have a Real Doctor?

The prevailing attitudes toward women's bodies in general and these female mysteries in particular predictably leave lower-class and minority women in the cold. The general perception of pregnancy and childbirth/rearing ignores women who do not have access to or cannot afford hospitals and obstetricians, as well as placing women who PREFER a midwife firmly in the freak category. Popular literature decries extended breastfeeding and co-sleeping. Midwives and lactation consultants are not covered by health insurance plans, and it was not until the late 1980s that midwifery was licensed. Pregnancy and childbirth in the US come down, like so many other things, to capitalism: what will make doctors and hospitals money? What will make diaper and formula companies money? What will make insurance companies money? Instead of placing emphasis on the woman in question, instead of reaffirming that this process is HER decision and HER experience, pregnancy and childbirth have become commodified. No, scratch "have become"--the pregnant woman's experience in the US went from being tied down and morphined up at the turn of the century to the twilight sleep of the '50s and '60s to the epidural, which, while certainly an effective palliative, has been noted by some studies as reducing automatic biological bonding processes between a mother and newborn.

The crux of this wide-ranging issue is abortion. Although Leonard and Davis rarely mention it in The Women's Wheel of Life, it's easy to extrapolate their position to include abortion. The divorcing of female biological processes from the female experiencing them is exactly what abortion is about. The babies, as I have stated, are not the issue. The issue is that our current kyriarchal structure is so vehemently opposed to the concept of female bodily autonomy.

If menarche has no ritual and menstruation is mocked and demonized and menopause largely ignored but for the laugh value, if pregnancy means that the woman's body becomes the state's, if women who breastfeed longer than ten months and co-sleep with their children are peered at suspiciously, it is all too clear where the blame lies. The systemic oppression of women throughout Western history has resulted in this: an almost complete separation of women's minds and souls from the processes their bodies undergo. There is no participation anymore, no involvement. Men don't want to hear about their girlfriends' or wives' bodies, even if it involves the so-called miracle of life. No glory is given to the girl experiencing her first period. The thing that makes pregnancy, which America is obsessed with, possible is demonized and laughed at. Remove the woman from the process her body is undergoing and small wonder that abortion becomes appealing beyond its place as a method for removing an unwanted passenger: it's a CHOICE, a grasp for power that has been stripped from her.
(On a happier book note, I am pleased to announce that tomorrow all four books of The Circle Opens plus The Will of the Empress will be arriving from Borders, and then my Tamora Pierce collection wil be complete. Yes yes.)

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Gladiator in Britain

I don't feel like talking about LOST. I will leave that up to the rest of the Internet. Instead, I want to talk about Robin Hood! Disclaimer: I am almost as big of a Robin Hood fan as I am a King Arthur fan (love love love me some British legends, obvs). The Disney version is still my favorite Disney film (even more than Beauty and the Beast!); I've read the Lancelyn Green, Furlong, McKinley, Sutcliff, and Lawhead versions, even the semi-nutty Trease one. Every now and then I rewatch Prince of Thieves for Alan Rickman's delectable Sheriff (and ignore Costner's well-I-tried British accent and Slater's eyebrows and the fact that Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio played Tony Montana's sister in Scarface). Devon Sawa in Robin of Locksley was my prepubescent crush.

(I am a sad sick person, yes yes.)

So it was inevitable that I would see Robin Hood starring, of course, Russell Crowe as Maximus Decimus Meridius and love it, even if it was awful and flawed and stupid. Which it wasn't, mostly. Admittedly I would have LOVED to see what was apparently the original script, with Crowe playing Hood as a villain, or the Sheriff as a hero, or possibly playing Hood AND the Sheriff, or something like that--instead what we got was a pretty standard historical drama centered around the Magna Carta. O the Magna Carta (at least we see John literally torching it, which probably didn't actually happen, but he certainly did give a basic f-u to the barons about four months after it was signed). There are a couple of really notable historical inaccuracies, but whatevs. Ridley Scott is still a good filmmaker (I am basically forever his, simply because of Alien and Thelma and Louise); Crowe, Blanchett, MARK MOTHERFUCKING STRONG, MacFadyen, and Huston are good actors; and I am a sucker for longbows. And there is a relatively good reason for Robin Hood being shown in the trailers wearing mail and wielding a greatsword. Did I mention Max von Sydow? Who doesn't love Max von Sydow? I didn't even know he was still alive. BONUS!

A sad downside to the film is that I don't think my boyfriend will ever see a movie with me again, because I spent our time together afterwards, when we could have been doing more interesting things like taking our clothes off, talking about how the French were stupid for not arming their footmen with pikes and speculating about what the draw weight of Robin's bow was and how now Kevin Durand will never freak me out again because he was jolly Little John and made jokes about cohabiting with sheep. Oh well.

Monday, May 17, 2010

The best place on Earth

This is British Columbia's tagline. Though I am fond of hyperbole, I don't usually take it seriously; in this case, however, I find B.C.'s selling line more than apt. Vancouver is the second most-amazing city I have ever been to (London, of course, being the first).

As western Canada's largest metropolitan area, Vancouver is as bustling of a city as you could desire, full of interesting food, easily navigable streets, laid-back citizens, and right good public transportation (in many varieties, too! Want to take an aquabus across False Creek to Yaletown? No problem!)--and also contains stunning natural spaces, in-city oases, and parks galore. Stanley Park is obviously Vancouver's green selling point and easily lives up to its hype: acres of West Coast rainforest, thousands of bird species, cool streams, and That Seawall make spending a day there magical. But don't stop there, if you're into the great outdoors; Queen Elizabeth Park and its flower conservatory and amazing views, Vandusen Botanical Gardens and its Elizabethan maze and beautiful landscapes, UBC's Nitobe Memorial Garden and Chinatown's classical Chinese scholar's garden, the forested sprawl of the North Shore, the isolated calm of Pacific Spirit Regional Park and the University of British Columbia, Beach Avenue's stretch of jogging and bicycle paths along the water, the numerous small parks dotting every neighborhood...forgive if I run on, but Vancouver is the dream city for nature-lovers.

And that's not all! Oh, no; no no. Culture-freaks will find their happy here too. UBC houses the country's best collection of northwest coastal native artifacts, including dozens of Haida and Kwakiutl totems, masks, implements, art, and clothing, as well as other treasures from a variety of cultures (including some stunning samurai armor, Cantonese opera costumes, Yoruba figurines, and a beautiful collection of Buddhas). The Vancouver Art Gallery and Emily Carr University between them host (I think) Canada's largest collection of Emily Carr paintings. Chinatown's gorgeous Sun Yat-Sen Classical Garden and nearby Cultural Center provide history and information about the Chinese presence in British Columbia. Stanley Park contains a grand aquarium stuffed with amazing specimens and fascinating tidbits about British Columbia's ecosystems.

What about foodies, you say? Vancouver says, Come hungry. Between salmon fresh from the northern rivers, locally-grown fruits and vegetables, and a vast array of ethnic cuisines, Vancouverites eat high on the hog. If in Granville Island (and have a few dollars to play with), try out the Sandbar for a wonderful view of False Creek coupled with fabulous West Coast eats. Cruise the West End near the harbor for an excellent variety of Japanese and Korean food, and don't miss a Gastown pub for local brews (Okanagan Springs Brewmaster is a great dark beer) and yummy comfort food--Irish Heather is a good stop. For the best view in the city combined with great dishes, head to Queen Elizabeth Park's Seasons in the Park restaurant and try the stuffed mushrooms.

If your belt's a bit tight after all that munching, no worries--Vancouver is one of the most pedestrian-friendly big cities I've been to. Hordes of walkers crowd every streetcorner and cars actually stop for them...amazing! Thanks to the city's grid system, Vancouver's downtown is extremely walkable and just about everything needed to sustain life is within strolling distance. If bicycling is more your ouvre, rental stores abound (such as Spokes on Denman near Stanley Park), and the uphill climbs throughout the city will make you feel less guilty about having another beer later on.

Oh friends, just go to there, as Liz Lemon says. It's amazing. It has something for everyone. The citizens are friendly, the city is beautiful and well-made and forward-thinking. You will never be bored. I can't wait to go back--permanently, someday.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

SHOWDOWN

The second half of the first season of Glee has convinced me that FOX hates the world at large.

Yes, I know: the first episode of the second half of the first season of Glee (Jesus H. what a mouthful) has not yet premiered. It could be awesome, Diana! you cry. Oh yes--I have no fear of the new episodes' pending awesomosity. At this point, I have swallowed so much of the Glee Kool-Aid that they could have William Hung guest-star, belt out some Celine Dion tunes, and go home with Sue, and I would think it was great.

(Note: this does not mean I don't also enjoy analyzing Glee. There are several problematic aspects of the show, which I may discuss here at some point, but other bloggers, notably FWD have done a bang-up job already.)

My point is that Glee will now be on at the same time as LOST. Now. There may not be much overlap between the two shows' fanbases, since on the surface they appear to appeal to completely different audiences, but I have my suspicions that I am not the only person in the world who is going to be crying inside tonight as she watches LOST on ABC instead of Glee on FOX at 9pm Eastern time.

Yep, I made my choice. It's LOST. The show's been on longer, has more hanging on every episode as we near the end, and has more attractive male characters than Glee. Also, I am a big fan of Bittorrent, and Glee is the easiest show to torrent in the history of torrenting. Seriously, I nabbed the first thirteen episodes in about five minutes.

And yet...as I watch Desmond do cartwheels with Sayid, or Charlie miraculously reappear and make out with Shannon, or the Man in Black fight aliens with a pug-dog (at this point, anything is possible), part of me will be yearning for histrionic Jewish girls, dopey football players, mohawks, Cheerio uniforms. I will bolt from my friend Vince's couch the minute the trailer for next week's LOST is over, skip watching my favorite sci-fi show to make fun of (V, obviously), and gallop home to steal the delectable first episode of Glee.

And this will be my life until May 23rd. So it goes. AND ALL BECAUSE OF FOX. I knew FOX was a monster--they canceled Dark Angel to make way for Firefly, then gave that awesome show the chop. They canceled Sarah Connor Chronicles to give Dollhouse a chance, then canceled Dollhouse just as the show was getting to be Fucking Amazing. Their scheduling of Glee in the same timeslot as LOST just proves what we have always known: FOX is the devil.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

In which pants are soiled

So, I just got home from seeing Clash of the Titans, which was fun (and a good antidote to the stress of the past few weeks), but isn't why my undies are in a bunch. No no; Sam Worthington is cute in a stolid way, and Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes gnawing scenery is delectable, but in all honesty the best part of the viewing experience was the trailers.

FOR LO, CHILDREN--THIS SUMMER WILL BE THE SUMMER OF THE NERD BLOCKBUSTER. The nerdbuster, if you will.

BEHOLD. (Not all of these were in front of Titans, but they're what I and the rest of geekdom are excited about).

+Iron Man 2, obviously. 'Nuff said.

+The Expendables. My only concern regarding this film is that viewing it may actually turn me into a man. Also I'm a bit sad that Jean Claude Van Damme and Jeff Speakman are not part of the man-u (that's man-menu, hello!) of deliciousness here, but the more times I watch the trailer, the less I care.

+Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. I admit it, I fucking love Michael Cera. And him in various death matches against vindictive ex-boyfriends sounds pretty funny.

+The Losers. Zoe Saldana doing what she does best. For those who don't know, that's kicking ass and being sexy. Also, she speaks three dialects of Romulan, so get out of her fucking chair and let her do her fucking job. Whoops, wrong movie.

+The A-Team. Mostly I just want to see Patrick Wilson try to be badass. Jessica Biel will also eventually get naked or mostly, which is a plus.

+Kick-Ass. I am setting aside my loathing for Nicolas Cage to see this movie. He should be damn flattered.


What upcoming movies have YOU wetting/creaming yourself?

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Where does your heart live?

So, I am a literature fangirl, we know this much is true. Something that I find many of the books I love to have in common is a marvelous establishment of place--this is true of L.M. Montgomery's many books, Susan Cooper's YA series(es), Marion Zimmer Bradley's book The Firebrand, Ian McEwan's books Saturday and The Cement Garden, Kazuo Ishiguro's conception of Britain in The Remains of the Day, A.S. Byatt's masterpiece Possession, and many more.

And so, something I have always wanted to do: go on a literary tour. You know, a physical tour of a geographical location based on how that location is written. I assume Big Cities do this a lot; I think there's a Dickens tour of London, for instance. And while I think you could tour London via LOTS of books (as Anna Quindlen's lovely Imagined London does), I am more interested in smaller and broader spaces. I want to tour Avonlea through the real town of Cavendish and wander about in Kingsport in the footsteps of Anne; I want to hike Cader Idris and walk by Tal y Llyn after Bran and Will, and trail down the Cornish beach with the Drews; I want to climb Glastobury Tor in search of Avalon.

The only time to date that I have really been able to indulge in my literary-place fantasies is with The Yearling, by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. It helps that I live in Florida and am relatively close to her historic ranch property at Cross Creek. It also helps that my mother is both a Yearling fanatic (as am I) and loves the natural cold springs which thickly coat much of Ocala National Forest and surrounding area; our summer trips when I was a young thing were most often to the springs and campgrounds throughout the region. Rawlings wrote what is basically a guidebook to the central Florida scrub in The Yearling, including name-dropping Juniper, Silver Glen, and Salt Springs as well as towns such as Volusia and Fort Gates, all of which are real visitable places. And--best of all--there is an actual Yearling Trail precisely across the road from Silver Glen Springs which has a long hiking trail with information about Rawlings, the book, Florida wildlife, and what this area of Florida was like in her time, as well as some historic sites from the Long farm (the family and land on which The Yearling was based). It is not at all difficult to imagine Jody and Flag frolicking down the sandy road toward the springs when hiking this area due to the beautiful specificity of Rawlings' writing.

"He reached the thick-bedded sand of the Silver Glen road. The tar-flower was in bloom, and fetter-bush and sparkleberry. He slowed to a walk, so that he might pass the changing vegetation tree by tree, bush by bush, each one unique and familiar. He reached the magnolia tree where he had carved the wildcat's face. The growth was a sign that there was water nearby. It seemed a strange thing to him, when earth was earth and rain was rain, that scrawny pines should grow in the scrub, while by every branch and lake and river there grew magnolias...The east bank of the road shelved suddenly. It dropped below him twenty feet to a spring. The bank was dense with magnolia and loblolly bay, sweet gum and gray-barked ash. He went down to the spring in the cool darkness of their shadows. A sharp pleasure came over him. This was a secret and a lovely place.

A spring as clear as well water bubbled up from nowhere in the sand. It was as though the banks cupped green leafy hands to hold it. There was a whirlpool where the water rose from the earth. Grains of sand boiled in it. Beyond the bank, the parent spring bubbled up at a higher level, cut itself a channel through white limestone and began to run rapidly downhill to make a creek. The creek joined Lake George, Lake George was a part of the St John's River, the great river flowed northward and into the sea. It excited Jody to watch the beginning of the ocean. There were other beginnings, true, but this one was his own."

Friday, January 22, 2010

Happy Blog for Choice Day!

In case folks didn't know, it is Blog for Choice Day! This year's topic is "Trust Women". And, in case it wasn't obvious, I'm a screaming hairy-legged manhating feminist (except without the hairy legs and manhating. Hi Jeremy!)...and I am actually going to blog about something else today. I trust women (duh), and I think that you, the ephemeral YOU of the Intarwubs, should too. Chances are you are one or you know one.

So, let's talk about science fiction/fantasy reading protocols! Jo Walton, one of my very favorite authors (let me drool for a bit: please go and read The King's Peace, The King's Name, and The Prize in the Game RIGHT NOW. And everything else she's written), blogs at Tor.com, and one of her recent posts was exceptionally compelling. She states that there is a certain skillset required for reading science fiction and fantasy works. I don't disagree. At all, actually. And I don't take offense at her gentle pokes at people who read A.S. Byatt and E.M. Forster (two of my personal favorites). However, I do think that her concept of SF protocols really applies to all fiction reading. In order to really comprehend a story, the ability to suspend disbelief is required (duh). In order to comprehend the vast majority of stories, the ability to analyze metaphors is required. In order to comprehend specific types of genre stories (SF, mystery/crime) and stories not set in the exact current present of your personal world, the ability to parse what is Significant and what is not is required.

Walton uses the example of a Trollope story in which he joshes about decimalization and hansom cabs, and points out that she hates footnotes written by editors. I too loathe all footnotes not written by the author (in principle; in practice, I occasionally find some of them illuminating); they're insulting. They cater to the lowest denominator of readers, never pausing to wonder if perhaps they are CREATING the lowest denominator of readers by assuming that all readers know nothing, have no sense of pulling information from context, and don't own dictionaries. If only they knew that many, many readers--armed with their trusty SF reading toolkits!--are more than capable of pulling meaning from unfamiliar text! If only they knew of the vast army of SF fans, who are experts at tunneling through threads of history, politics, science, and social mores! Reading well-written SF will do that to a body.

If--spare me, gods--I ever have children, I will encourage them to read science fiction and fantasy early on. I will encourage the children who frequent my future school library to do so as well. I think that reading a lot of SF early in life makes for a careful reader capable of applying a homegrown, instinctive analytical sense to books of other genres and times. Reading SF instills a sense of what is most important to any given text (do I need to know how a tachyon drive works, to use another of Walton's examples? Nope! Just how it affects the people using it), which is a valuable skill when trying to plow through Dickens or Eliot. In short, many of the most thoughtful readers and best writers I know are big readers of science fiction and fantasy. I'd like to see more credence given to SF in the mainstream; at the present it's generally still relegated to snide remarks about "genre fiction" and the mass market (see, for instance, this post by Julian Gough about the incredible, seemingly impossible, invisibility of American Gods to some literary critics). SF reading develops important mental muscles in kids which come in all sorts of handy later in life, when those kids are reading--by choice or not--the so-called Important Books.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Sherlock Holmes and the Curious Case of the Sub/Text (Spoilers)

I am not a fan of Sherlock Holmes really at all; I think he's annoying. However, I like Robert Downey, Jr. and Rachel McAdams, and I think Jude Law is a good actor even if he is very, very pretty, and I found the trailers intriguing because they were so NOT what Basil Rathbone would approve of. And I am glad I saw the film.

It wasn't perfect, but it was very good, and Guy Ritchie's take is a new one. Fanboys all over Topless Robot and Great White Snark have been getting their boxers in a bunch over Holmes' boxing, etc. scenes, but the fact is that the character's written (read: canon!) history mentions not only boxing, the use of pistols, swords, and staves, but also some martial art whose name I have forgotten. Holmes was young once, and so was Watson, and that is what this movie is about. The fanboys also disapproved of the movie's villain being an occultist, whining that this was incongruent with Ritchie's purported portrayal of Holmes as the thinking man's action star. All I can say to this is, Hello? Do you know ANYTHING about Arthur Conan Doyle? The man was an enthusiastic spiritualist, dabbled in theosophy, and believed in fairies. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Aleister Crowley make an appearance in this movie (word is Lord Blackwood was based on him).

And, yes. The gay subtext is there. And I am glad! There was always a homoerotic undertone to the Holmes/Watson relationship, YES FANBOYS EVEN IN THE BOOKS WHICH YOU HAVE CLEARLY READ. There are interesting homosexual notes in a lot of Victorian literature. Book!Holmes is a misogynist and a sworn bachelor who happens to be very attached to his doctor in a time when homosexuality was illegal and immoral, and when homosexuals were considered "inverted" people. Movie!Holmes is clearly jealous of Watson's engagement and apparently attracted to Irene Adler. Being that the character of the bisexual is rarely found in Victorian literature, movie!Holmes presents a predicament. Personally, I read the film as portraying Holmes as a straight man enduring the changing of a deep friendship. There are plenty of guys who are jealous of their friends' girlfriends or wives, and they aren't always gay. Current American society has a real problem with male friendships, something I would like to see change. Women are allowed to link arms, even hold hands, in public; allowed to hug and kiss (if only on the cheek); but men are restricted to shallow friendships and shaking hands. Now, the addition of Irene Adler might have been to give movie!Holmes a beard. However, the filming of their scenes together (particularly the first scene Irene appears in and the scene in which she is not very heavily dressed) are shot to show that Holmes IS looking at her with desire. If Ritchie intended to really go whole hog and have the Holmes/Watson slashationship, surely he's smart enough to have shot the Irene/Holmes scenes without any indication of desire on Holmes' part. RDJr's facial expressions and movements are part of his acting, obviously, and they show that the character wants Irene. So I found her presence+Holmes' jealousy of Mary, Watson's fiancee, to=Holmes as a straight man who wants his working relationship and friendship with Watson to go on unhindered and unchanged.

Of course there is the possibility that Holmes wants very much to be straight but is not, and therefore attempts to look at Irene in the way that a straight man would. It is also possible that Watson, a character portrayed as very neat and dapper, is using his engagement to Mary to force himself into a heterosexual role. It is worth noting that book!Watson is a reputed womanizer, something which men have occasionally used to make other men think they're not gay.

At any rate, I think that RDJr. and Jude Law were very aware of the homoerotic things going on in between the lines of Conan Doyle's writing. Jude Law is a big Holmes fan and has read most of the works, I believe. I think that they did intend to act a fine line between a closeted gay male relationship and a straight male relationship, and I think they did it well. If viewers see their portrayals as gay men, that's great. If they see them as straight men, that's good too. Either interpretation works toward acceptance and tolerance.

...I can't be the only one who thought the hog-factory-conveyor-belt scene with the Holmes/Adler/Watson sandwich was totally erotic. Can I? o.O

ALSO these bear repeating (and repeating, and repeating):






Hot DAMN, former drug addict!

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

To lie upon the earth and smell it

I very much miss living in a place of natural beauty. I grew up in Merritt Island, which contains two rivers and one very broad "creek" (basically a wide, long, marshy area with some deep water in the middle), and which is five minutes from the beach; the place has two wildlife refuges and numerous small parks; it's part of the National Seashore and the Great American Birding Trail, and is in general really rich in trees, shrubs, flowers, bushes, water, birds, sunshine, and all the other fabulous things that people come to Florida for.

Then I moved to Tampa. Now, having been here for five years, I am very fond of Tampa. I certainly like it better than Orlando, Tallahassee, and Jacksonville (I've never been to Miami). It has several excellent record stores, one very good bookstore, some nice clubs, and the best beer hall in the state. I love my university in particular, but I will be the first to admit that it, its surrounding area, and Tampa in general are, if not hideously ugly, at least stark and unimaginative. And with very little greenery. Yes, there are the token oak trees with their Spanish moss (my favorite natural accessory), but the university's only real green spot is its botanical garden. And Tampa as a city is even worse off. There are very few parks, and the ones that do exist are far-flung and not always well-kept (the ones in my old neighborhood--o hai Nebraska Ave--were generally rife with old needles and newspapers. The downtown area likes to brag that it has the city's smallest park (it's basically just a gazebo and a square of grass). What's to brag about, exactly? Keep in mind, kiddos--I studied abroad in London, a city with a park in every neighborhood. The private university in town has a nicer campus than mine, and it's on one of the channels which give Tampa's Channelside its name, but the campus greenery still isn't a patch on northern universities, or even FSU.

The extreme borders of Tampa fare a bit better. Old Tampa Bay runs along the expensive neighborhoods in the south and provides an amazing view and plenty of green growth, and the far northern and outer edges are somewhat woodsy. But the university area and the mid-city are just...barren. Concrete and wood, and little effort to provide breathing living growth. Neither cultivated nor wild green places.

My hometown isn't perfect, by any stretch. Merritt Island has more than its fair share of dying strip malls, chain restaurants, and Hummers. But if you want to, there are ample places to go which provide beautiful views, the smell of trees and water, and relative quiet. Maybe because it's half the size of sprawling Trampa, maybe not. Cities far larger than Tampa manage to keep vast green areas intact and usable (see: every major city in the world). I would like to see our city's Powers That Be think about things other than getting the Super Bowl and whether or not the Lightning are going to win this year.

People need parks and open places.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

La-da-da-DAH

Yes, yes, the theme song is absolute shite (actually, I sort of want an explanation for that, since every single one of Joss Whedon's other themes are marvelous). And yes, season 1 started off pretty effing slow. And yes, Eliza Dushku, the star, is not the most interesting character or the best actor.

BUT.

I am still really, genuinely sad that Dollhouse has been canceled. And I think that the episodes airing right now--held over from November--are ace. I'm glad Joss is going out with all guns blazing, because this show deserved its chance and hello? Firefly being the exception (to everything ever), Whedon shows typically take a season to really get rolling (Buffy S1vs.S2, come on! No contest!). As its short run winds down, the show is busting out twists left and right, and I, a gullible lass, am falling for and loving every one. The guest stars with familiar faces are welcome and do great jobs (hai@River'n'Wesley!), and oh, sweet science, did anyone else faint from laughter and awe when Topher imprinted Victor with his personality and then talked to himself about how hot Summer Glau was? JESUS CARPENTER. Enver Gjoka took one of Whedon's hallmarks to new heights of awesome. I AM missing Amy Acker, but word is she (and Felicia Day!) will be in the series finale, which will give use those muchly needed answers about "Epitaph". Alan Tudyk veers between scenery-chewing evil and understated evil, and does both impeccably. And oh, Adelle, Adelle! Razor-sharp and vulnerable at the same time; Olivia Williams is perfect.

Ok. Gushing done. I guess I can be glad that at least now with no Dollhouse to work on, Joss will have plenty of time to devote to the Dr. Horrible sequel and Buffy S8. But still...I'll miss the Dolls.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

List

Sooo I'm waiting for a meeting to start (the story of my life at work) and so I am going to do one of these things that make a blogger seem more human to their readers. If I have any readers. Ganked from Dianne Sylvan's blog.

5 Items in My Bag

1 – a crappy old Motorola cell phone
2 – a copy of The Saxon Shore by Jack Whyte
3 – a variety of pens from back when I worked in a restaurant
4 – a change purse made out of owl fabric
5 – a moleskin notebook

Titles of 5 Files in My Documents Folder

1 – levantineneandertals.doc
2 – thelock.doc
3 – firewoman.jpg
4 – hammertimenazis.gif
5 – PRAAAAY.jpg

5 Things on My Coffee Table


1 – a variety of coasters made out of old disks
2 – 2 remote controls
3 – DVD: The Wire and Turner and Hooch (my roommates' tastes vary WIDELY)
4 – A NetFlix envelope
5 – Sadie's Can o'Doom

5 Things in My Fridge/Freezer

1 – a bag of mixed veggies, frozen
2 – half a cherry pie
3 – Publix-brand 2% milk
4 – homemade strawberry jam
5 – ice pack

5 Things on My Desk


1 – a pencil sharpener shaped like a cat (guess where the pencil is inserted??)
2 – a whole mess of magazine clippings, printouts, etc. for scrapbooking purposes
3 – copies of The Skystone, The Singing Sword, and The Eagles' Brood
4 – an empty flowerpot with a mermaid painted on it
5 – candles

5 Songs With the Highest Playcounts on My iTunes

1 - "Eden Echo"--Kamelot
2 - "The Last Sunset"--Conception
3 - "Everybody Here Wants You"--Jeff Buckley
4 - "Find the River"--R.E.M.
5 - "Parallel Minds"--Conception

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Prindresses

I will make no bones about my desire to see The Princess and the Frog this weekend. I like Disney, and I like old-fashioned hand-drawn animation.

And I also want to know if there's a reason other than impending poverty why Disney has produced merchandise for Princess Tiana showcasing two different dresses. I can't be the only one bothered by this! 10-year-old girls of the Internet, cash in! Back me up! Every Disney Princess (TM) gets ONE iconic dress. One "The Dress". Just one. Belle has the glorious yellow gown; Aurora has the pink gown; Cinderella has the blue gown. Tiana has the...blue AND green gowns? Presumably, from what I have seen of movie stills, the green gown is The Dress. Why, then, are they creating merchandise, posters, and cardboard standies with her in the blue AND the green gowns? (Srsly guys, I have seen two different standies in two different theatres featuring two different dresses.)

Disney, this is just not on. It has to be the green one! Powder blue is Cinderella's color! In future Disney Princesses (TM) posters, mugs, compilation DVDs/CDs/videogames, we assume that Tiana will be wearing her pretty lily-pad-inspired green dress. So why all the double marketing?

My boyfriend, of course, thinks I am blowing this out of proportion. He does not understand, being a boy and more of a Miyazaki fan, the import of The Dresses. Go to Google Images and type in "Aurora". The page will be filled with pink. The same happens for Belle (yellow) and Cinderella (blue). The core of Disney Princesses (TM) are defined by their Dresses. It is true that every girl has several different outfits throughout her film, but The Dress is what she is identified by and what the dolls, etc. are marketed with.

Snow White is an interesting case. For one thing, she only has one dress--The Dress--and that gown is multicolored. Then again, Snow White is a weird film and a weird character. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that her concept is not replicated by any of the other Princesses. The lesser princesses/women of Disney--Jasmine, Ariel, Mulan, Pocahontas, Meg--likewise have their own iconic colors: turquoise, a fishtail and some seashells, red, tan, purple. Disney recognizes a simple formula for making their girl characters different from one another and easily recognizable. That Outfit, In That Color.

So this is my ultimatum, Princess and the Frog. Give me a damn good reason why Tiana gets two dresses, or tell me that she doesn't.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Sex, sex, and rock'n'roll

Because I think it's such fun that women are only featured in hard rock magazines if they're hot (eg, Revolver's annual "Hottest Women In Metal!" issue), I am going to objectify every male metal artist whom I consider attractive. Consider yourself warned. Also, I encourage everyone to also read my own post about the hot women of metal. We are equal opportunity objectifiers here.

10. Bjorn Gelotte. Guitarist for In Flames. Originally the group's drummer, Gelotte now wields his axe in all directions and sports an interesting twist on heavy metal follicular fashion: close-cropped noggin, hefty beard. Looks good to me!



9. Kiki Loureiro. Guitarist for Angra. Jesus H., does this guy look like a model or what? He's so pretty, he almost didn't make the list. Then I remembered his guitar chops and reconsidered. Dude can shred and has insanely Pre-Raphaelite hair. Doubleplusbonus!


8. Oliver Palotai. Keyboardist for Kamelot. Maybe it's unfair to have more than one member of the same band on a list, but it's their fault for having more than one ridiculously attractive member. The very Germanic-looking Palotai, unfortunately, is involved with the equally gorgeous Simone Simons (to the despair of everyone everywhere who has eyes), but that does not mean we can't enjoy his lean mean keyboarding arms and well-conditioned hair.


7. J.D. Cronise. Guitarist and lead vocalist for The Sword. Certainly one of the better doom metal vocalists, and attractive in a way rather similar to Dan Watchorn (see Number Two), Cronise makes the list chiefly for his skillz at dropping lyrical hints to literature, including nods to George R.R. Martin, H.P. Lovecraft, Arthur C. Clarke, and Norse mythology.


6. Janne Wirman. Keyboardist for Children of Bodom and Warmen. Good-looking in that clean, Nordic way, and a little calmer than his manic bandmates, you also gotta figure that as far as musicians go, groupies aren't too interested in the guy behind the keyboard (unless that guy is our Number Eight). So all love for this list's resident elf impersonator, Janne Wirman.

5. Henrik Danhage. Guitarist for Evergrey. Homeboy's got all the metal good looks: long hair, an acceptable beard, plenty of tattoos, soulful eyes. Okay, maybe that last bit isn't the norm, but it works for him, particularly when he's ripping your ears out with his guitar.

4. Steven Wilson. Porcupine Tree's lead singer and guitarist. Far too often heavy metal dudes follow a pattern--lots of hair, lots of leather--which is by no means bad, but can get old after a while. For the nerd girls in the bunch, Wilson is here for all your underwear emergencies with his stylin' wire-rim glasses and Cromwellian bob haircut. He also often plays barefoot, which is kinda cute, and makes music to fuck with your head to!

3. Mikael Akerfeldt. Singer and guitarist for Opeth and vocalist for Bloodbath. This guy's prowess with both death metal and clean vocals, as well as his flowing locks and stellar facial hair, cements his status as one of heavy metal's hottest dudes. The fact that Metalocalypse's Toki Wartooth is based on Akerfeldt doesn't hurt either.

2. All of Priestess, especially Dan Watchorn. Hot in a hairy, Canadian way--lots of beard!--these guys rock. Hard. Mikey Heppner's rocky-road vocals might not be guaranteed to make you come in the way of our Number One but it's still pretty sexy (in a hoarse, Canadian way).

1. Roy Khan. Past singer for Conception, current (and, presumably, future) singer for Kamelot. Trained as an opera vocalist, so you know he's got pipes. Also, rockin' bod much? Yes please. It's too bad he's married, but really, no one thinks about that when he's working up a sweat and straddling microphones onstage.
Honorable Mentions: Dave Mustaine (Megadeth), Tore Ostby (Conception, Ark), and Gabriel Garcia (Black Tide...jailbait FTW).

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Charge of the Goddess

For an academic side-project--'cause graduate school just doesn't give enough homework!--I've been researching Goddess religion in historical and contemporary contexts. This means scouring the university and public libraries for all the classic texts on neo-Pagan and Wiccan revivals, including Starhawk's The Spiral Dance, and Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler. Drawing Down the Moon in particular is an excellent text, which has survived the test of time far better than Starhawk's book (it helps that it was updated and re-released last year), and is more interested in the sociology, anthropology, and psychology of Paganism, rather than providing a witches' handbook or how-to guide. Adler is sympathetic to the Pagan movements, as she considers herself a Wiccan, and though this is clear to the reader, scholarly research and varied viewpoints balance the text.

Thus far, it seems that Goddess religions in general and Wicca in particular are not exactly what I thought. I confess, I'm a fan of The Craft, Charmed, Practical Magic, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and while all are good in their ways, none come terribly close to depicting the point of Wicca or the traditions as they stand today. It is easy to be drawn in by candles and incense, ceremonial garments and daggers, lovely chalices, hand-crafted wands, moonlight rituals, and altars or shrines to ancient goddesses--and while what Adler calls the "trappings" of Wicca are significant, she emphasizes, as do many of the Craft interviews throughout the book, that the items used in ritual are symbols. Isaac Bonewits in particular has noted that physical symbols such as pentacles, incense, and lighted candles are useful for instigating and maintaining altered states of consciousness, which is one of the intents of Wicca: to open and broaden the mind in order to perceive truths which a person might not otherwise be attuned to. Much of what is termed "magic" is done by the mind; methods for honing, conducting, and releasing this magic include forms of yoga and Reiki, meditation, hypnosis and trance, and dancing (and some Wicca do advocate the responsible use of hallucinogens, though I'm not certain how widespread this is).

What really stood out to me, though, is not the physical, rational explanations for magic or for the pursuit and practice of magic. The point Adler makes that struck me is that a Wicca practitioner can worship the Goddess without belief--the "religion" (though as I read more, the more I tend to view Wicca as a group of "traditions"; covens and circles are autonomous, following no set liturgy and having very loose group structures, depending on which path they follow, and the bulk of Wiccans in North America are solitary) leapfrogs out of any sort of conflict with "faith" as it is used by most mainstream religions today. Wicca allows for atheism, polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism; it does not grate on intellectuals, people who are hard scientists, or people who consider themselves Christians or Jews. The worship of goddesses is flexible enough to allow nearly any mode of thought or belief, or none at all. I find that this goes back to the significance of symbols within Wicca--the Goddess may be viewed literally, as an Earth Mother figure, or she may be seen as an archetype of and for powerful women throughout history, and a practitioner may worship the idea of her, rather than using prayer and supplication in more mainstream ways. The ideal of the Goddess is appealing to men and women who desire strong, intelligent, sensitive, self-possessed and self-controlling female models; the thorny question of historical goddess worship and matriarchal societies is not really a question for debate at all once you take the view that the concept of a goddess religion is what many Wiccans are interested in. To be sure, there are many reconstructionist paths and some traditions which hold to be gospel-truth that at some point in human history there was indeed a Golden Age of Goddess religion, but the thing about Wicca is that a practitioner is not required to subscribe to ANY of these ideas. If a person is drawn to the archetypal Goddess as an icon or avatar of themselves, or what they could become, and looks upon worship of the Goddess as a way to a more enlightened mind, a more open soul, a more responsible, responsive, thoughtful, and fulfilled life, then that is what Wicca will provide.

I guess my point is that there is no need and no call to look on the Goddess as the literal creator of the Earth, as there is in Christianity. For many, the Goddess is an ethereal concept of higher thought, not an actual being, and so rather than restricting practitioners to worrying about what she is up to and whether or not their actions please her, and if she supports the Republicans or the Democrats in the upcoming election, followers of Wicca are free to form her as they will and utilize what she represents to achieve spiritual experiences.

Wicca and other neo-Pagan traditions are by far the most sympathetic religious paths I have encountered thus far.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Cool Jew

Okay, okay, you asked for it and here it is: My Favorite Jews.

Fran Drescher
Andy Samberg
Jon Stewart
Jeff Goldblum
Eve Ensler
Willow Rosenberg
Tevye
Josephus
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Zac Efron
Herschel Krustofsky
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Sacha Baron Cohen
Al Franken
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Barabbas
Jake Berenson
Fagin
Amber Benson
Adam Goldberg
Judy Blume
Andrea Dworkin
Moon Knight


You might be interested to know that about half the starring or supporting cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is Jewish, including Amber Benson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alyson Hannigan, Michelle Trachtenberg, Seth Green, and Danny Strong. Jesus Christ!

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Monday, June 15, 2009

The good, the bad, and...well, there's just the two today

The Good:
Drag Me To Hell, Sam Raimi's new flick, is good. Seriously good. Not as good as the Evil Dead trilogy (because really, what is?), but leagues better than, say, Spider-Man 3. The Chin does not make an appearance, but that sweet Oldsmobile does, and who can possibly complain about an ancient Gyspy crone cursing Alison Lohman's cute little blonde Aryan self? Justin Long is charming as always, and it's frankly nice to see a caring, devoted, trustworthy boyfriend in a horror film, isn't it? Furthermore, as in the case of Ash, Lohman's character reaches a certain point in her harrowing now-demon-cursed life where the getting flung around the kitchen and being used as a teething ring by said ancient Gypsy crone just becomes TOO MUCH--as, I venture, it would in reality--and she starts fighting back (hint: it involves a kitten!). And therein lies the glory of Raimi's films: they push the hero/ine so far that eventually the character becomes, not quite a villain, but an anti-hero/ine. Watching this movie, half of you wants Lohman to escape the curse and the other half is almost glad when she does get dragged to Hell, and that's reality for you; how far can the survival instinct go before the person trying to survive turns into a self-serving asshole and slaughters kittens, debates whether or not to curse a dying old man with a nebulizer, robs graves? Drag Me To Hell, like most of Raimi's horror films, examines the line between physical and spiritual/personal preservation.
The Bad:
Terminator Salvation, the newest installment in the Ah-nuld robot vehicle, is bad. Really bad. And what's worse is that it has potential, but staunchly refuses to exploit it. I went in expecting that Marcus, the cyborg character, would be the fulcrum of the story, the turning point of the war between the machines and the humans--plainly, the future: that the film would acknowledge humanity's debt to and reliance on machines, and would find a workable future in hybridization. Nope! Instead, the movie may be summed up as "the difference between us and the machines is the beating of the human heart" (and if you want to hear that in Christian Bale's Batman voice, so much the better). Backward! Hypocritical! In short, so ten years ago. Salvation is a sad entry into the Terminator canon, marginally better than T3 but so much less than the first two. Skip it and reread Donna Haraway's "Cyborg Manifesto" instead.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

It's finally time

Yes, children, the hour has arrived: your faithful author has decided to undertake the CDAB: the Comprehensive Disney Assessment Blog. Over the course of this post, I will lay out once and for all my personal favorite Disney films.

The films will be divided into four subcategories: Classic Disney, Modern Disney, Weird/Forgotten Disney, and Live-Action Disney, with each subcategory containing my top five films. Let's go!

Classic Disney (1930s-1960s)
1. Fantasia (1940)
2.
Peter Pan (1953)
3. Lady and the Tramp (1955)
4. The Sword in the Stone (1963)
5. Sleeping Beauty (1959)


Modern Disney (1970s-present)
1. Robin Hood (1973)
2. The Rescuers (1977)
3. Beauty and the Beast (1991)
4. Lilo and Stitch (2002)
5. The Emperor's New Groove (2000)


Weird/Forgotten Disney (any era)
1. Pete's Dragon (1977)
2. A Goofy Movie (1995)
3. James and the Giant Peach (1996)
4. The Three Caballeros (1945)
5. The Great Mouse Detective (1986)


Live-Action Disney (any era)
1. Cool Runnings (1993)
2. Bedknobs and Broomsticks (1971)
3. The Parent Trap (1961)
4. Mary Poppins (1964)
5. The Mighty Ducks (1992)


Whew. That was tough. Really, really tough. You have no idea. Disney is awash in great films that I left out--Mulan, Hercules, The Black Cauldron, Cinderella, the third Aladdin. The remake of Freaky Friday was honestly pretty good. The Fox and the Hound, Piglet's Big Movie, and of course the mighty Toy Story franchise...clearly I should have made the lists longer. Le sigh.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Jesus is always the answer--what is the question?

Questions to which 'Jesus' could conceivably be the answer:

+Who is the current president of the United States?
+
Who is the missing fifth Baldwin brother?
+Who is your asshole father who sold you to some redneck in a trailer outside Biloxi for a case of Busch Lite twelve years ago?
+Who is Kanye West?
+Who was the fifth Beatle?
+What do you say at fiveAM when you stub your toe while trying to let the dog out?
+Who owes the thirteenth apostle twelve bucks?
+What is the average flight velocity of an unladen swallow?
+Who is L. Ron Hubbard's father?
+Which has a longer coastline, Jutland or the Yucatan?
+Who does a really good Gandhi impersonation?
+Who created the Salk polio vaccine?
+Who shot J.R.?
+Who shot JFK?
+Who wrote The Female Eunuch?
+
What does Foucault's pendulum show?
+In what region of the world can the nua-nua bird be found?


Question to which 'Jesus' is definitely not the answer:

+
Who is the son of God?

Monday, March 09, 2009

Blue balls

No, no, my significant other does not suffer from any sexual dysfunction involving testicles (I make sure of that, ha-cha cha-cha). However, I have to admit I was left wanting more by Watchmen.

(Plus, hello, did you see Doc Manhattan's junk enough? No? Eighteen penis shots in one film just not enough?)

I love the graphic novel, and I wanted to love the movie--I mean, hell, I went to see it at midnight in IMAX; I wanted it to be another slam-dunk along the lines of 300. Maybe mythologizing history works better when that history is already half-myth, or maybe the graphic novel of Watchmen is simply more complex than 300--duh--but something about this film experience left me cold. Visually it's amazingly evocative of a graphic novel, and the fight scenes are intense, the soundtrack is fun, the opening credits are full of information and simultaneously enjoyable to watch, the casting is mostly good (particularly The Comedian)...so what's the problem?

No idea. Maybe too much of Billy Crudup's dick. Maybe too much of Matthew Goode's bronzer, Malin Akerman's hair, Patrick Wilson's aviator eyeglasses and impotence. Maybe too much reverence--that might be it. So faithful an adaptation leaves you with an embalmed feeling.

After a few days' thought:

I have decided that my main problem with this movie is not that it's too close to the graphic novel, but rather that it doesn't necessarily pick out the points of the novel which are most salient and most critical to understanding what Watchmen is all about. I mean, Nite Owl and Ozy and all the rest AREN'T superheroes. THAT is the point that it seems like Snyder and Co. didn't get, and which does not translate onto the screen.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Bad day

#s 383, 384 of Things Which Piss Diana Off:

-the sudden plethora of goddamn blow job songs (I'm looking at you, "Addicted", "Crazy Bitch", and all versions of "Lollipop"). I like oral as much as anyone, but srsly. The "it's only hot if I'm shoving her head down" meme is sick.

-people who mix up "white elephant" and "Secret Santa" parties. This is what comes of being functionally illiterate.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Let my dreams unfurl

I had the intense, nearly orgasmic, pleasure of seeing Kamelot live once more recently, and something occurred to me: one or more of the band members have a real problem with God, or at least organized Western religion.

Which is fine by me, but I sort of wonder why it's taken me so long to notice, especially if you consider a few of Conception's very anti-religion songs (Conception being the other super-awesome delicious band Roy Khan was part of). I mean, look at 'em: when Kamelot isn't...

+singing about some sort of vague karma, heh heh ("Karma") or Hindu-ish life cycle ("The Haunting", "Love You To Death", "Soul Society"),

+they're openly defying or denying the white male Christian god ("III Ways to Epica", "Soul Society" again, "We Are Not Separate", "Center of the Universe"),

+or taunting the audience with images of an uncaring deity ("Abandoned", "Eden Echo", "Across the Highlands", "Farewell", "Mourning Star") with an evil regent on Earth ("The Inquisitor"),

+a sympathetic demon-figure ("Descent of the Archangel", "March of Mephisto"),

+and, well, Hell ("Black Tower", "A Feast for the Vain" );

+or brandishing their own self-sufficiency ("Rise Again", "Up Through the Ashes", "The Fourth Legacy", "The Edge of Paradise", "Wings of Despair", the "Elizabeth" cycle, "Moonlight", "Anthem").

+They also have a tendency to remake Christ in purely human form ("The Human Stain", "Up Through the Ashes" again, "Birth of a Hero", "Moonlight" again).

+It should be noted that all of these apply to "Nothing Ever Dies".

Whew! Seems to me that Kamelot are a bunch of agnostics at the very least (or maybe pandeists)... Conception, on the other hand, seem to favor textbook Satanism. Their choice gems: "War of Hate", "Among the Gods", "The Promiser", "Parallel Minds", "Soliloquy", "Under a Mourning Star", "A Million Gods", "Gethsemane", "Angel", "Reach Out", and the double whammy of "My Decision"/"Missionary Man", in which any variety of religion-related topics are discussed, including false prophets and preachers, sacrifice, self-reliance and/or the setting-up of oneself as a god, denial of deity, the silliness of the sects, the possibility that Jesus kind of resented being sacrificed, and hey kids, Lucifer is your buddy!

(Kamelot also obviously has a bit of a King Arthur fetish, clearly; if the name wasn't proof enough, check out "The Shadow of Uther" and "Once and Future King", and (if you ask me) "Karma". This band really caters to my own set of obsessions.)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Free people read freely

The right to read is celebrated during the last week in September, and as we have a notably anti-intellectual freedom lady running for Vice President, I'm taking this observance as an excuse to slack off my school assigned texts and indulge in a little Pullman, a little Lawrence, a little Twain.

Here's the list for 2007:

1) “And Tango Makes Three,” by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
Reasons: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group

2) The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Violence

3) “Olive’s Ocean,” by Kevin Henkes
Reasons: Sexually Explicit and Offensive Language

4) “The Golden Compass,” by Philip Pullman
Reasons: Religious Viewpoint

5) “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain
Reasons: Racism

6) “The Color Purple,” by Alice Walker
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language

7) "TTYL,” by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

8) "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou
Reasons: Sexually Explicit

9) “It’s Perfectly Normal,” by Robie Harris
Reasons: Sex Education, Sexually Explicit

10) "The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

Interestingly, it seems that the emphasis has shifted from race to sex --any kind of sex. After all, everyone knows that "offensive language" and "unsuited to age group" are unimaginative code for "sexually explicit"; heck, within the context of His Dark Materials and And Tango Makes Three, "religious viewpoint" and "anti-family" are clearly indicative of sexual themes. Then again, fearing a natural human function makes almost as much sense as fearing a skin tone. I'm almost glad to see, though, that Huck Finn is hanging on at #5; however, I would venture that cries of "Racism!" are simply a veneer for the real thing fundies fear about Twain's classic: its anti-authoritarian stance. The scene when Huck, fearing for his mortal soul, writes a letter turning Jim in...and then tears it up, declaring, "All right, I'll go to hell", is, I assume, the most frightening scenario any conservative can imagine.

I'm also glad to see that people have finally left off James Joyce. Why bother attempting to ban Ulysses? Anyone who claims to have read and understood it is probably lying.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Tell your friends!

Okay, so, remember the part where Joss Whedon is God? Yeah. Reaffirmed by his new project, the online miniseries of Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

I mean really. Stars Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion? Check! Supervillain wannabes, evil horses, homeless folks, asshole superheroes, and laundromats? Check! Quintessentially Whedonesque one-liners and staging? Check! Musical goodness? CHECK! The series, in three acts, covers the sad tale of a would-be supervillain (Neil Patrick Harris in the title role) on the Evil League of Evil (run by aforementioned evil horse), and his many defeats, both in love (with spicy laundress Penny, played by Felicia Day) and in combat (by the "corporate tool" Captain Hammer, played by Captain Tightpants himself, Nathan Fillion). Prime singing abounds on the part of all cast members, Freeze Rays are created, tight goggles and shirts are proudly worn; Harris the villain is sympathetic, shy, and full of pipe-dreams and bad intentions, and Fillion delectably awful as the muscly jackhole Hammer--everything is here.

Whedon, because he is a compassionate deity, posted all three acts of the series for free from July 18th through July 20th, and both the series and its soundtrack are now available on iTunes, if you missed it. There'll be a DVD edition this fall, complete with any number of tasty extras, including shiny new musical numbers by the cast.

He's done it again, kids. Download it now, buy the DVD in the fall, or be like me and aim to do both, but give it up somehow for Whedon and Co. for delivering laughs, music, and heartfelt villainry in the perfect dosage.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...