Here's a nice picture up on flicker of Webster's Falls, one of over 100 waterfalls in Hamilton. Our city is divided by the escarpment- Claire and I live about two blocks from it in fact. This means that we have a lot of waterfalls here. This is, of course, the same escarpment that Niagara Falls goes over. They are now trying to "brand" Hamilton as "The Waterfall Capital of the World". It's better than out current tag line, "You Can Smell the Steel Mills from the Highway!".
Friday, December 11, 2009
Underwater Santa for christmas in Japan
Well, it's getting to be that time again! To get everyone into the Christmas spirit, here's Santa Claus hugging an eel underwater.
"Death Comes to Town"
Kids in the Hall: Death Comes to Town - watch more funny videos
Just a note for all the other Kids in the Hall fans: they have an eight-episode murder mystery premiering on the CBC next spring. Death Comes to Town reunites all the Kids who also wrote and directed it. I will let all our non-Canadian friends know when it is available to watch (or download, shhhhh!) outside of Canuckia. It is safe to say, though, that I am excited about this.
Movie Notes: Trasgredire (2000)
Tinto Brass makes dirty movies.
However, his work has a certain cache because his dirty movies are very well-made, quite stylish, and tend more towards the tease than the pornographic. They're well-liked among a certain kind of feminist. It's interesting to me that his films often express a philosophy about female desire and infidelity that I'm not sure I remember seeing in any other movies. The vast majority of films (and quite a bit of literature) treat female infidelity as potent, but ultimately destructive, to others and usually to herself. It always ends badly.
And then you have Tinto Brass. In contrast, his films basically argue that female infidelity is not only healthy, but actually strengthens and enriches her primary relationship. He thinks monogamy is unnatural. So, for a cheating woman, the occasional fling is good for her libido, fun, and has no real effect on her love for her partner. For the cuckold, his unconfirmed suspicions arouse a tinge of jealousy, which ignites his sexual desire. So, their sex life is improved by increased desire on both ends. It's sort of a win-win situation. One can disagree with a lot here; although (to be a bit provocative) I'll admit that it does make a good bit of sense. And it's perhaps the most non-misogynist attitude I've ever seen in a dirty movie. Because his point seems to be that jealous men (the fountainhead of misogyny) just need to get over it.
Certainly that's the case in Trasgredire (released as "Cheeky!" in the UK, and "Transgressions" in the US). The main character, Carla (Yula Mayarchuk), has just moved to London from Venice in order to go to school, and is trying to get her boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi) to come join her. She's quite a beautiful girl and, like a character in a sex romp fantasy, likes to flirt with whoever she can and go around in short skirts with no underwear (she's allergic, naturally). This behavior makes Matteo crazy with suspicion and jealousy. But, for her, it's all in good fun. Like most of Brass's female leads, she is frivolous, lighthearted, and sexy. The rest of us just take things too seriously.
So, this is all usual sex farce stuff thus far. Matteo, however, soon comes to realize, through a series of episodes (of course), that his jealousy really turns him on, so long as he's suspicious. And we discover, of course, that Carla really is fooling around with her female real estate agent, a stud at a party, a camera shop owner, a cute classmate, a masseur, et cetera! She's pretty okay with meaningless sex. But she still loves him madly. It's complicated. The decide the best idea is for her to promise to lie to him. Thus, she can continue fooling around, and he can stay a little bit jealous, and their sex life will be extraordinary.
Of course, it's easy to see where their plan might run into problems in the real world; or maybe not. I'm not going to tub-thump for cheating here! One thing I like about Tinto Brass though is that, unlike most dirty filmmakers, you get the feeling that he really adores women outside of his fantasy version of them. He sees a power they have that society often denies. I often see these young women around Hamilton who look so worn out and dejected, dressed so shabby and dumpy, and walking around with these angry-looking lugs; and I think, "If they only knew how sexy they really are, their boyfriends would be in real trouble!" Oh, but it would be fun though!
This is what I was bitching about.
Okay, so my post about global warming might not have been "controversial", but it seems like I wasn't exactly clear. Brian makes the reasonable point that serious commentators aren't talking about a conspiracy. Granted. But a lot of know-nothing commentators are. Here's an article from the New York Post on the "Global warming con job". In the article, the writer claims that global warming is an "imaginary beast", an "imaginary problem", and "fraud". (I guess we can debate about whether the NYPost is talking about an actual conspiracy, or just unintentional fraud.) My point was that people who make such claims (regularly) should have pretty airtight evidence for them. So, let's see what evidence the writer offers:
* A claim from the Science & Public Policy Institute that temperatures have recently increased. The Science & Public Policy Institute, incidentally, is a conservative think tank that was founded by Republican politicians with the express purpose of convincing the public that global warming might not be caused by humans and definitely does not require any action.
* Four sentences picked out of those 3,000 stolen emails with no context or even explanation of them. We don't even get their respective paragraphs or a link!
* The claim that CRU dumped data, for reasons that are never explained, and actually what sort of data is never explained; we're just to understand that it was nefarious, for sure.
And this is supposed to be much stronger evidence than NASA and all these other groups have offered for the theory of global warming! I just don't find this sort of cherry picked and misrepresented "evidence" as fully convincing as a lot of other people do, including this columnist. Should there be an investigation into what happened at the CRU? Absolutely, and there is one ongoing apparently. I definitely don't buy Al Gore's argument that all the questions about the CRU are "silly" either. However, after a few weeks of reading breathless articles along the lines of "Yippee! The global warming theory is collapsing!", I felt compelled to explain why I remain skeptical that the right wing think tank theory has won the day. But, we can agree (I think) that articles like this are not making a serious argument.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Proof of the Gay Agenda!
A scene from the film Run, Ronnie, Run that comes to mind whenever I hear people like that "ex-gay" fellow talk about the gay predatory agenda. It's sort of an uneven movie- but worth a rental for a few scenes like this one.
Doesn't the guy have a right to be wrong?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Okay, I keep getting directed to this video in which a cable news talk show host (?) "demolishes" one of these "ex-gay" writers, by linking him to anti-gay laws in Uganda. I take it that people like this interview because they find it exhilarating and hard hitting. I'm a bit bothered by it actually.I do get that the guy is a bit of a charlatan. He's one of these people that publishes pseudo-psychological books with little to no evidence supporting their claims. In his case, he has a degree in clinical therapy, as well as having once lived a homosexual lifestyle, since disowned. He thinks that qualifies him to promote himself as an expert in "reforming" homosexuals. He's apparently been disbarred for some sort of fraud and he, indeed, sounds like a bit of a snake oil salesman.
As for "reforming" gays, my sense of it is that there are just a lot more bisexuals in the population than anyone wants to admit. When someone lives in a heterosexual marriage for decades, gets divorced, and then settles down with a same sex partner, I just assume they were always bisexual, although I know plenty of people who assume they were "living a lie" before and have "come out" now. Similarly, when someone goes the other way, I just assume they're bi; not that they have been "cured". I think sexuality is probably pretty fluid; something that many monosexuals are frankly way too close-minded about.
So, as for "curing gays", yes, I think the guy is wrong on that count. But, in the first place, I'm not sure that he doesn't believe what he's saying. The interviewer seems to think that he's a con artist, and maybe he is. But I get the feeling here that he's fully bought the con. I think he's trying to convince others of something that he has convinced himself of. It's a small difference, but it's important.
With people like that, I think you have to use reason to try to show them where they're wrong, or at least, why you disagree with them. Instead, the interviewer is really trying to cast as much doubt on him as a person as she can. I think her hope is to dissuade the people who believe what he has to say. But, I'm not sure that the end result isn't that people who already agree with his nonsense will continue to believe in it, because she really just seems to be trying to shame the guy, as opposed to persuasively arguing that he's deluded. But, if he is deluded, what's the point in trying to shame him? How will that change his mind? Or the minds of any of the deluded people who agree with him? What is the point here?
I think the point is to rile up those people who already think that "ex-gays" are deluded. Okay, sure. Great. But where I think she goes over the line is in holding the guy responsible for the horrifying anti-gay laws in Uganda. 1. This guy goes around claiming that gays can "reform themselves"; and 2. the psychos in Uganda are using that to bolster their case that gays should be jailed or executed for not going straight. All of that is evident. But does that mean that the deluded guy is directly responsible for what the psychos are doing in Uganda? Because that's how I take it when she says that he has "blood on his hands", and I don't get the sense that the anti-gay extremists in Uganda really needed the imprimatur of US evangelicals and ex-gay ministries to do what they're doing. And I don't actually think the deluded guy was trying to give them his imprimatur to do those things. Maybe I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
I realize this is a hair-splitting and vague point I'm making, but I think there's a real difference between saying that the guy is wrong and deluded, which I agree with, and saying that he shouldn't be expressing his deluded opinions because other people with those opinions are trying to get their state to kill homosexuals, and it might encourage them. I think the attempt here is to put his deluded opinions beyond the pale by conflating them with other people's far more extreme opinions. And that's what bothers me.
Does anyone else see that? Am I being too kind? What are you supposed to do when you think that someone else's beliefs are deluded and wrong?
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Note on The Twilight Franchise: New Moon
Just a funny note on the Twilight movie- I just noticed that Claire's Uncle Roger was the second unit Director of Photography on the film, and the next one too. I suspected that they shot the thing in Canada- usually in movies anything with a lot of trees that's supposed to be America is Canada.
Art for Today
Des glaneuses (The gleaners) by Jean François Millet (1857)
There are a number of paintings with the subject of gleaners: those peasants who would pick up whatever was left over after the harvest. Millet's is the best-known and for good reason.
If Footmen Tire You, What Will Horses Do? (1971) - (Clip 1)
Horrifying scenes from Obama's America. Oh the pathos!
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Rufus's House of Horrors
I have seen entirely too many horror, exploitation, and martial arts movies. And so, whenever I run into friends, they ask me, "Hey, Rufus! You seen any really crazy horror/exploitation/kung-fu movies recently?" Yes I have. I have started chronicling them on this blog. You can read about Slime City, Street Trash, and the totally insane Sonny Boy. More to come.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
[Note: I initially posted this a few days ago, and then removed it because I thought it would be massively controversial or something. I'm sort of a big puss. Anyway, I've now read a few other people making the same points, so maybe it's not that controversial. Now I'm putting it back. I suppose this makes me a puss and a conformist!]
There’s been quite a buzz lately about a series of emails, stolen from the server of a major climate research center, which are alleged to show conclusively that the theory of man-made global warming is a “lie”. This is said to give credence to people who are “skeptics” about the theory, and as usual the debate is being had in terms of whether or not the warming theory is correct. I think this is a mistake; instead of talking about a debate over a single theory, I think we should speak in terms of two competing theories, and also look at whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the anti-warming theory. The emails do cast some doubt on the first theory; however; they don’t offer any conclusive evidence of the second theory, which I will detail momentarily.
First, however, a caveat: I am not qualified to judge climate science. I have read a few books on the topic, but am not sufficiently well-trained to understand the science of climatology inside and out, and decide which theories are best supported. In my defense, this is pretty high level stuff and I’m willing to bet that the majority of people are not particularly literate in climatology; which means that a lot of the people speaking very authoritatively about global warming on the Internet, for or against, are talking out of their asses. This probably stems from the way that every discussion is framed in the media (for or against, left or right), which seems to structure how people think about these issues. So, for the record, I’m not coming down on the side of the “warming” theory, which I'm not entirely convinced about; I'm just expressing my disbelief in the “anti-warming” conspiracy theory, which I am not at all convinced by.
I am not going to say conclusively which theory is most accurate, however I will say that the warming theorists have offered considerably more evidence to support their theory, although probably not as conclusively as some people believe. That theory, as I understand it is as follows: A. human beings have pumped a massive amount of carbon into the atmosphere over the last two centuries or so (which is undoubtedly true); B. this should cause the overall temperatures of the earth to increase by the greenhouse effect; and C. indeed, global temperatures have risen in recent years; D. therefore A was significant in causing C. This is the “warming” theory to the best of my knowledge.
The alternate theory is often expressed by a grab-bag of criticisms: the earth might not really be warming or not over the entire globe, or it could be due to other causes (particularly solar flares); it might be irreversible, or reversing, or unstoppable, or not happening at all. This is referred to as “skepticism”; but it’s really a number of articulations of a second theory: that a majority of scientists in a particular field have (knowingly or unknowingly) perpetuated a massive and unprecedented worldwide fraud, and have been joined in this fraud (knowingly or unknowingly) by the world’s politicians, due to their own arrogance, lust for power, stupidity, or political leanings. As a commenter on the Economist put it, “The scientists made up this global warming lie to take our cars.”
Because the second thesis is seldom analyzed (only denied outright), the “skeptics” have never had to answer for the fact that they’ve so far been unable to proffer any conclusive evidence for that theory. Where are the climate scientists who have admitted to this massive worldwide conspiracy out of guilt or shame? Why hasn’t anyone accidentally spilled the beans? (More on that in a second) How have so many independent researchers measured changes in the physical environment? Have they been misled and the physical environment is not changing in the way they are measuring? Why did the northern section of this country (Canada) pick now to melt? Melting icecaps, the highest recorded temperatures in history in numerous independent locations, “desertification” in huge swaths of China, not to mention the really weird weather here at least; what’s causing all of this if the climatologists are lying?
The stolen emails have been offered as evidence of the massive worldwide fraud. The media has yet to point out that they do no such thing. Here's a video that explains that a bit more entertainingly than I can:
Now, as for those emails. In the first place, we’re asked to understand that the individuals who stole this organization’s electronic property did so in the disinterested pursuit of truth, and to forgive the fact that stealing people’s mail is usually seen as immoral, dishonest, and borderline psychotic. Fine. Next we’re asked to believe that a group of anonymous citizens who are known only for this massive theft posted these emails to a Russian server without altering them in any way. After all, they’re thieves and criminals; so, of course, they’re not liars.
There are approximately 3,000 emails, which supposedly show these fraudulent scientists speaking off the record. Thus far, no one who has read the emails has claimed that there is a single email in which a scientist explicitly speaks about their massive worldwide fraud. Nothing like, “Hey, I think they’re onto our massive worldwide fraud.” Instead, there are a handful of emails that, if you read between the lines, are supposed to refer in an oblique way to the conspiracy. Let’s just take that on good faith, eh?
Well, now I’ve read these cherry picked emails and the claim is bullshit. What they do seem to show, and I’ll be as specific in my words as possible here, is that some climatologists, feeling that they are under attack (by the people who are attacking them) have sought, in some situations, to make their models seem more conclusive than they really are in order to circle the wagons. Secondly, they seem to have tried to keep the anti-warming theorists out of the discussion because they don’t take them seriously as scientific thinkers. In other words, a consensus mentality seems to have formed, perhaps too early.
But that's pretty inconclusive. Note also that the emails seek to ostracize the anti-warmers because they are not thought to be serious scientists; not because they’re feared to be onto the conspiracy. The climatologists don’t take them seriously; instead, they think the anti-warmers are acting in bad faith in an attempt to destroy their careers and their field of inquiry. Which, of course, they are. And maybe that's a bit elitist of these scientists, but it's a far cry from massive fraud.
Now, this consensus mentality, which I’ve seen in the humanities at times, is not healthy for scientific inquiry. An ideal response to these stolen emails would be to create as much transparency in the climate sciences as possible. And, in fact, some of the emails talk about just this- getting all the available data into the public domain so people can test it out. I’ve not heard that mentioned often. And, also, a heck of a lot of the data is readily available in the public domain, although it seems to generally be beyond the ken of the "skeptics".
Scientific inquiry requires openness and good faith. Intellectual life cannot continue without doubt. Bunker mentalities close people off to data that could strengthen their work. While it’s understandable that scientists would be opposed to the people who argue that they’re frauds, the only right answer is to explain over and over again why those people are full of shit. And I think they are. I've been open minded when it comes to these people. Over the last year, I've read their arguments and the responses of climate scientists and, frankly, the anti-warming argument keeps collapsing into conspiracy theory nonsense. Maybe the global warming theory is not as conclusive as Al Gore would like; but the anti-warming theory is borderline ridiculous.
As for the anti-warming theorists, at some point people need to ask them why they’ve repeatedly over hyped what thin and inconclusive evidence they’ve offered for their theory. If climate scientists are to be doubted about a theory for which they’ve offered overwhelming evidence, why should we be credulous towards a group of people whose ‘evidence’ has so often collapsed when exposed to the light of day? In the last two years, they’ve claimed to have the “smoking gun” for their theory month after month and, when they’re proven wrong, yet again, the anti-warmers have simply moved on to grasping at the next straw in line. This time, a handful of fishy but inconclusive emails is said to disprove an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence; while proving a massive worldwide conspiracy is taking place. I’m skeptical.
As for genuine skepticism about the specifics of global warming, I'm skeptical there too! Scientists are generally skeptical! Scepticism (or skepticism- speculation or doubt) is central to intellectual life. But, with the anti-warming people, the word “skeptic” is misleading because these people are completely sold, hook-line-and-sinker, on a theory with little evidence in support of it. They seem to have even less understanding of the science than I do; and in fact seem to believe that doesn’t matter; after all, they’re just “skeptics”. They seem more like true believers. Let's just say that I’m pretty skeptical about the things they take on faith.
December 6th Candlelight Vigil
Picture from a vigil yesterday in Montreal marking the 20th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre. On December 6, 1989, a young man named Mark Lépine entered the school and started shooting young women in what he called a "fight against feminism". Lépine killed fourteen women, injured ten others and four men, before killing himself. It is safe to say that the massacre devastated Canadians and is marked each year with a National Day of Action and Remembrance on Violence Against Women.
Aristotle and Prodigality
In the Nicomachean Ethics (IV:1), Aristotle talks about the vice of prodigality, a vice that seems particularly dominant in today’s economic world, if not pretty much inescapable. If you’re spending money that you don’t have via a credit card, it could be argued that you’re already a prodigal, and most of us are doing that. I’m not even sure that most of us really see prodigality as a vice, although traditional societies all seem to have agreed on this point. You can find similar discussions in the Confucian classics, for example.
So, what is prodigality? Aristotle describes it as the extreme version of liberality. In general, he sees most virtues as dispositions of the soul in between two seriously flawed extremes. Courage, for example, is a virtue that lies between the extremes of cowardice and belligerence. If I am very open in giving to others, this is the virtue of liberality; taken too far in one direction, it becomes prodigality- squandering my wealth; taken too far in the other direction and it becomes illiberality or stinginess. The idea of a mean, or of moderate behavior, occurs often in classical thinking. In general, man is supposed to be moderate and know his limits. All good things in moderation. Prodigality is excessive and immoderate behavior and it leads to later problems. That said, Aristotle agrees that it is less of a vice than stinginess; particularly because it’s a vice that doesn’t last long. As Nicholas Cage can attest, when you’re out of money, your career as a prodigal is done.
There is some difference between excessive consumption, which Aristotle associates with vulgarity, and excessive spending, which is associated with profligacy. The real problem with the profligate is that he doesn’t care where his money comes from, good or ill, and he doesn’t care if it’s spent for good or ill. Giving money to a beggar or a whore is the same for him. And, because he spends so much money, he gets himself into trouble and often into more trouble trying to get more money. Aristotle writes: “Hence most of them are licentious as well; because spending freely as they do, they squander their money on forms of self-indulgence, and as they do not direct their lives towards an honorable end, they fall into self-indulgence.” Of course, in a culture largely defined by consumer capitalism, it’s hard to see how any of this still registers as a vice.
Aristotle, of course, talks in terms of vice, and not sin. Thomas Aquinas, however, does call prodigality a sin in the Summa Theologica, largely borrowing from Aristotle. Aquinas took great pains to reconcile Aristotle with Christianity, and here he basically repeats his pagan predecessor’s arguments through a Christian framework. But I see little reason though to think Aquinas was unsuccessful. It works for me.
Of course, Christ talks about the prodigal son who squanders his wealth and finds himself reduced to tending to swine (particularly humbling for a Jew), before returning home to his father’s care. However, the story is a parable, dealing with sin and redemption and God’s forgiveness. I don’t think it should be read as a specific commandment about prodigality. In general though, Jesus wants his followers to give up their worldly possessions; I don’t see too many ways around that. But, again, I’m not a Christian.
Christians, at least traditionally, had more of a problem with simony, lending money with interest; which is most often associated with prodigality in today’s world. Many people, including me, take out money that they don’t have in order to spend it on things they can’t afford. In fact, studies seem to show that a majority of Americans are in debt, which would seem to suggest that a majority of them are prodigals, having necessarily already ‘squandered’ their wealth. Given the very real stagnation in wages, but not costs, over the last three decades in the
In fact, we’re often told that the overall economy cannot function if thrift is too widespread. This is not a recent argument. Adam Smith, in fact, says as much at one point: thrift is good for the individual, but it’s disastrous for the economy. A consumer economy needs consumers, not tightwads. A more recent argument has been that the economy will not return to full health until consumer spending returns to what it was before- that is spending into individual debt. Conversely, these record levels of debt will make a lot of us into swine herders.
All of this is to say that industrial consumer capitalism is only a few centuries old and thus at odds with many of the traditional values of western civilization. A system that requires spending instead of thrift in order to satisfy manufactured needs in perpetuity; and which makes those fleeting desires, and therefore the individual will, the sole measure of our behavior, will therefore always be somewhat at odds with traditional ethical systems, which generally seek to limit the behavior of the individual vis-à-vis the family, the community, or the godhead. Moderation is good for the individual, but of ambivalent, if not negative value for the economy.
Of course, Aristotle and Aquinas don’t want us to live as ascetics either. (At least, not Aristotle) It is theoretically possible to reconcile the view of prodigality as a sin and the consumer capitalist economy if we agree that liberality is a virtue. One could spend a reasonable amount of their income, and give a reasonable amount to others; and satisfy both Aristotle and the chamber of commerce. The problem is that if a great number of us did this, the economy would have to seriously shrink. And so, the key to getting the western economies out of recession is promoting prodigality in a time of thrift. That is, promoting vice in a time of increasing virtue. Strength through shopping.
If I have to choose though, I’m going with Aristotle over Adam Smith.
The Imperial Shire
Chomsky: We should examine carefully what's being established here in the prologue. For one, the point is clearly made that the "master ring," the so-called "one ring to rule them all," is actually a rather elaborate justification for preemptive war on Mordor.
Zinn: I think that's correct. Tolkien makes no attempt to hide the fact that rings are wielded by every other ethnic enclave in Middle Earth. The Dwarves have seven rings, the Elves have three. The race of Man has nine rings, for God's sake. There are at least 19 rings floating around out there in Middle Earth, and yet Sauron's ring is supposedly so terrible that no one can be allowed to wield it. Why?
Oh, snap! McSweeney's presents the Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky commentary track for Fellowship of the Ring. More here.Sunday, December 06, 2009
Movie Notes: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
A few years ago, George Clooney gave an Academy Awards acceptance speech in which he lauded Hollywood for its "out of touch" political stances. In the face of a socially backwards population, the Hollywood community had, according to Clooney, stood tall for progressive values. His speech was widely mocked for its smugness, and it was that. It was also wrong; what's most striking about the films that Hollywood cranks out every year is how politically and socially regressive they are, and even downright reactionary. Case in point: The Twilight Saga: New Moon.
This film is being heralded as a victory for female moviegoers because it was designed for girls and has turned a profit, giving the lie to the Hollywood belief that it's not economically feasible to make movies for women. So, let's start there, shall we? Can you think of any other art form whose professionals are uncomfortable making art that might appeal to women? Could you imagine publishers saying, "yeah, we're not into publishing books about women because girls don't read"? And yet, for some years now, there has been an whispered belief in Hollywood that movies whose main perspective is that of a woman are losing bets, and so it's better business sense to crank out mounds of summer blockbusters conspicuously aimed at 13 year old boys, expecting that girls will show up with their boyfriends.
In exchange for that, every year sees a handful of "chick flicks", and we two-fisted he men are expected to groan, "Oh no! Not another chick flick!" every time one comes out. Of course, as a movie addict, I'm aware that they only make about 3 to 5 of these movies a year- in an industry that usually makes 100-200 movies/ year, so it seems a bit much to worry about. Given that at least 2/3rd of Hollywood movies are aimed at young men, having 3% aimed at women seems okay.
Usually, the "chick flicks" do poorly at the box office, and Hollywood's geniuses claim this as evidence that "women don't watch movies". Of course, the reason they fail is really that they're usually truly bad movies about borderline retarded idiot women who can't take care of themselves or even function as adults in society, before finally discovering that the studly man who can do their thinking for them was right under their nose all along.
Between the idiot women in romantic comedies and the hot sex toy babes in blockbuster CGI movies, there are almost never fully functioning, complex adult women in Hollywood movies anymore. The exceptions- notably always played by actresses from across the Atlantic- are characters in the "prestige" pictures that come out right before Oscar time during the one month of the year that Hollywood films are geared towards adults. Otherwise, it's all Megan Fox all the time. And remember, this view of women- as mentally helpless, but sexually available damsels- is that of our "progressive" betters. Or, at least, it's the view of women that they assume we moviegoers in the sticks are most likely to buy.
In The Twilight Trainwreck: Gettin' Mooned, the main character, Bella, is a young woman who is so "vulnerable" that she can hardly speak, which I suppose is intended to be cute. She hems and haws and mumbles and is completely inarticulate and uninteresting. For some reason, which is never explained, this makes extremely popular at her High School. The actress, Kristen Stewart, also appeared in Adventureland, and gave exactly the same weird performance. It's as if she's embarrassed and put out to be acting in a movie. But, her "vulnerability" plays well in a movie about a young adult woman who needs two men and a vampire cult family to think for her.
See, Bella is in love with a sensitive and controlling vampire, played by Robert Pattinson, who looks like a transvestite mime due to his white pancake makeup and dark red lipstick. I never saw the first film, but apparently, I didn't miss very much because it was easy to follow this one. Pattinson also mumbles all of his lines, so the dialogue went something like:
She: I... um, don't... want to... like, leave you!
He: Bella, murrgshs mussrsgg blarg...
She: Don't.... say that!
Anyway, she wants to become a vampire because she loves him, and he doesn't want her to because vampires have no souls; and overall he's really sensitive and depressed all the time in that sort of passive-aggressive way that really insecure men use to control their girlfriends. Mostly, he follows her around and "protects" her. However, she is still human and, after a bloody paper cut makes another member of the vampire cult family go bonkers, he decides to leave her forever. Luckily, he still follows her around in some sort of spirit form to "protect" her from doing foolhardy things like riding a motorcycle at a low speed on a totally abandoned dirt road, like the good vampire mime on her right shoulder.
Of course, Bella responds by doing dangerous things like riding a motorcycle and associating with the wrong sort of boy in order to make the vampire jealous, because she really wants him to come back and mope. Meanwhile, she's fallen in with a tribe of homoerotic werewolves who also want to follow her around and protect her. So, at this point in the film, all of the tension stems from the very real "danger" that this young woman might do something that the men who follow her around "protecting" her don't approve of. Seriously.
The vampires hate the werewolves and vice-versa. Of course, the vampires here don't drink human blood on principle, and instead of turning to dust in sunlight, get all sparkly; while the werewolves are buff shirtless boys who turn into really fake CGI wolves. It is clearly aimed at teenage girls. The fantasy seems to be that the young woman will move out of her father's house only to be sheltered, overseen, and essentially parented by an asexual, mumbling, control freak who doesn't want to fuck her. Or will she, instead, be adopted by the jealous, somewhat violent werewolf who also doesn't want to fuck her because he's afraid he'd beat her? Choices choices.
And this movie is seen as a breakthrough for young women! Here's an article claiming that feminists should go easy on the movie, because after all, Hollywood finally made a movie for women. Feminists, of course, attack movies like this, and sometimes I think it's over-the-top to spend your time attacking fiction. But, what can you really say about The Twilight Fail? It really is pretty sexist. I understand that plenty of young women like it, but so what? Plenty of young men like Limp Bizkit. Crap is still crap, even if it's beloved crap.
And, for crying out loud, it's 2009! And it's not as if Hollywood is "finally" making movies about women. I mean, go watch a movie like His Girl Friday, made in the dark ages of 1940, and pay attention to Rosalind Russel's performance. She's a dynamo in that movie (and everything she did really): whipsmart, witty, dynamic, and crackling with intelligence. She's the perfect foil for Cary Grant and she gets some of the best lines in the film. [Grant (as her ex-husband): There's been a lamp burning in the window for ya, honey. Russel: Oh, I jumped out that window a long time ago!] Was that movie made for a target market of women? Or of men? Or, instead, weren't movies like that just made for intelligent audiences?
It's hard to imagine a movie like that coming out today. Woody Allen still tries, on occasion, but most movies with female leads feature characters like Bella, the sort of stammering milksops that Rosalind Russel or Joan Crawford could have dispatched with a single, well-aimed quip.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Art for Today
DKNY ad for Fall 2009 with some eye-catching patterns. (click to enlarge)
[Note: Of course, I recieve no money from DKNY. If I did, I'd probably ask for payment in some sort of Christmas gift for Claire.]
Buddhists and Meat
Here is an interesting article on Buddhism and eating meat. Reading a new collection of Buddhist scriptures right now, I was a bit surprised to find that hunters wind up in a sort of hell. I knew a lot of Buddhists are vegetarian, but not that killing animals is an offense in Buddhism.
Of course, it makes sense because nonviolence/ahimsa towards animals is an ideal in Hinduism, and especially Jainism, so it would have carried over to Buddhism. The Greeks had various philosophers who were vegetarians- Pythagoras didn't eat meat, and Socrates probably didn't either. Vegetarianism sort of died out for a time in the Christian West however. In Judeo-Christianity, animals are on earth for man's use, although it's not always clear what that entails. However, there are animal sacrifices made to God. The same happens in Islam, of course, as Muslims recently celebrated the feast of the sacrifice. But, the Buddhist writings are clear about animal killing as a sin, which begs the question- can Buddhists eat meat that is provided for them? This is especially interesting because monks are supposed to live off alms and charity- what do they do when someone donates meat?
The article seems to suggest they would be okay with eating meat in such a situation. Apparently, Gautama Buddha did eat meat on occasion. His official word to his monks:"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]
So, if you go to the store and buy meat, is that acceptable? It was not killed on purpose for you- and actually in many cultures that still happens- you have to pay someone to slaughter the animal for you. In industrial cultures, of course, all responsibility has been removed- the meat shows up as if by magic. Most of us don't see, hear, or suspect the animal was killed for us.
Suffer little Children
My (ex-Catholic) father is really not fond of the Catholic Church in Portland, near where he lives. His very-memorable explanation, "Well, all they care about is gays and abortions, and I don't really give a damn about gays and abortions." It's not entirely fair; they're also, one would imagine, concerned with pedophilia. Local News WMTM: "A lawyer has confirmed that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland made a $200,000 settlement on Nov. 5 with his client, who said she was molested by a priest in 1976 in the rectory of St. Michael's Church in South Berwick." You know the rest by now.
You know, at some point, you have to ask why this was such a problem for the Catholic Church. It's starting to seem like the problem of child molestation is somehow uniquely acute in the priesthood. This probably isn't true- I imagine that all other occupations that allow for close, unsupervised contact with children attract pedophiles. There do seem to be a lot of them in middle schools. What I think shocks most people about the Catholic scandal though isn't that there were pedophiles; it's the apparently standard response of keeping them in the priesthood, but moving them to different parishes once they got caught. Most of us, I imagine, would have called the cops.
From the outside, it looks like the mob taking care of its own. Corruption arises in all organizations; the problem with large, hierarchical organizations is that they tend to deal with corruption by circling the wagons and silencing discussion. I've read all sorts of statements and essays about this scandal from Catholics that amount to intellectually circling the wagons. Actually, what got me thinking about the topic was a particularly self-serving article by Mary Eberstadt in the us-versus-them genre. Read it and see just how close she comes to arguing that the "liberal elite" only respond negatively to the child molestation scandal because they hate Catholics. I notice that a lot of religious people get caught up in the mentality of permanent war with the "secular society". This time, the secular society was right- the priests should have gone to a secular jail.
On the other hand, there really are people who don't much care for Catholics. I know a few militant atheists who seem to see this scandal as totally unsurprising and in tautological terms. Priests are child molesters and become priests to molest children. Well, it's a shock to me. Of course, I'm an old Romantic: to me, the Catholic Church is incense and art, history and borderline-pagan rituals. It's more Oscar Wilde's Catholicism really. On occasion, I like to go to mass and sing songs with the old people in my neighborhood. And I frankly have a hard time thinking of "the Church" in terms larger than the one down the street. I like that church, and don't care much about the one in Rome.
Of course, I'm not a Catholic. But the Church down the street is full of rational, ethically-minded people; it's hard to imagine any of them covering up for a child molester. Still, that's cold comfort. I wish I had a better answer for how something like this could have happened. The best I can figure is that the Church sees all sins as absolvable through confession and repentance, not to mention grace. Therefore, maybe they didn't see it as a secular matter. Perhaps it's like someone confessing to a crime; generally, the priests don't call the cops. And maybe the bishops saw the priests as fallen members of a sacred brotherhood.
Still, if it was me, I'd have called the cops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
