I’m awfully sorry I haven’t been posting lately.
I know how all five of you are disappointed (sorry, Mom).
I was thinking about bitching to you as to why I haven’t been posted, but I’m going to postulate that your lack of caring plus your own problems means . . . well, I’ve never been good at math, but I’m sure someone out there can figure it out.
Anyway, one of the biggest drains on my time recently has been a new web-comic I’ve discovered.
That’s right: I discovered. I’m like Columbus all up in this Internet-shit, and just because there are a bunch of naked, indigenous people looking at me like “What the hell does this guy think he’s . . . AGGGGHHH! SMALL POX!” doesn’t mean I don’t have a good claim. As Eddie Izzard says in his special, Dress to Kill, “Do you have a flag?” I’ve got a flag, son, and I’m planting it on the World Wide Web.
Screw Internet neutrality.
Never mind that for now. What I was trying to say was that I’ve started reading a new web-comic, and as I am wont to do, started from the beginning. Unfortunately, the artist, R.K. Milholland, was a little bit of a “go-getter,” and having started in 2001 (and updating a lot more frequently than many web-comics), left me a great deal to go through to catch up. I’m currently somewhere in the middle of 2006. It’s nice.
Oh, the strip? It’s actually pretty famous, as far as web-comics go. It’s called Something Positive, and it’s essentially the story of a group of late twenty-somethings in Boston. It’s got its requisite nerd-fodder (lots of gaming – D&D and the like), melodrama (relationships), and pretty good artwork (for a comic).
It’s also incredibly wordy. This is dialogue-driven, and that’s one of the reasons it’s taking me so long to read through them all (that and the pirated wireless I’m currently using is in-and-out – Thank you, East Village person who doesn’t know how to password protect their network!). Granted, some of the words get in the way of . . . I guess I’d call it “enjoyment.” Milholland is writing semi-autobiographical stuff, so a lot of it can tend to be personal. That in and of itself isn’t bad, but it sometimes means that the Milholland is a bit into the narrative, and seeing it’s his own site, can be as verbose as he chooses.
As someone who isn’t at all like that, it can sometimes be annoying.
The other thing is that a lot of the jokes get repeated. Again, though, I’m reading them straight through, so it’s a lot easier to recognize the patterns (which is an interesting idea to study: how does reading through a web-comic archive or a television show DVD change the medium . . . Oh McLuhan, you’ve invaded my life again!)
What I like so much though, is that it is not just a comic with characters, but a comic about characters. These characters grow, change, and amazingly enough, age (think of a certain Bill Watterson character and the fact he keeps coming back from summer vacation to have Ms. Wormwood – and the fact that he has different summer vacations). They may not be the most realistic characters, but they’re also cartoons.
I will warn you, though, that the subject matter is Rated R for extreme violence, adult language, strong sexual content, cruelty to animals, excessive drinking, abject pessimism, sickly-sweet sentimentality, and adult situations.
“Adult situations” is such a stupid term – reminds me (and man, I’m already repeating my references) of a Calvin and Hobbes strip where they want to go see a movie, and Calvin notes that it has “Adult Situations.” Curious, he asks Hobbes what that means, and he says: “Oh, you know, paying bills, doing laundry, going to work,” to which Calvin replies “I guess that’s why they don’t want kids to go see it.” Or something like that. "If my answers frighten you Vincent, then you should cease asking scary questions".
Extremely violent, but ironically acceptable, because most of it is girl-on-guy violence.
(Huge Aside: Acceptable, I say, because in our culture, we seem to have reached a point where man (especially The Father), is seen as an object of easy ridicule. I might have mentioned this before, but either way, here it is again: Watch television commercials or sitcoms. See how the father is situated in the family dynamic. I guarantee you that nine times out of ten he will be a bumbling-yet-tenderhearted idiot, who continually messes up, but usually makes good in the end. He will have a sassy and out-of-his-league attractive wife, and you will wonder, if he’s such an idiot, why they are together in the first place. Like this show . . . )
There is also a lot what I guess I’ll call “queer content.” There is a strong pro-gay sentiment in this strip, and Milholland is almost nonchalant about his inclusion of the topic. I think the fact that it is on the Internet, and there are no censors except advertisers, means that content can go in any direction the writer wants. Based on the “success” of Something Positive, I would say that he’s giving his audience what they want, and part of that is a whole lotta’ gay.
Speaking of a “whole lotta’ gay,” I seem to do that a lot. Well, try taking a class about gay identities in popular culture, and see how far you can get without noticing it. I promise you soon to give you my list of things I’ve noticed this semester. Something Positive will be on it.
That’s all for now. Devote some time, start from the beginning, and read the strip. It’s like an good, easy novel. A summer read that you can’t take to the beach.
Peacey-weace, sausage guts.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
If I Love it So Much, Why Don't I Marry It?
I love "South Park". Love it. It is the most consistently topical weekly show on air, and has been ever since the Elian Gonzalez case. In case you forgot about that over-blown custody hearing, Elian was a Cuban boy who was basically being “defected” by his family in America. Apparently, though, no one asked the boy’s father if that was “cool” (“frio”). ‘Twasn’t. Well, for some reason, we decided that the reputation of the American brand was worth more than the fact that a extremely impoverished (um, thanks to us), politically impotent island south of us wanted to get in our face. We should have told the father to come pick him up, and then let both of them stay, at the Plaza, smoking Dominican cigars.
Wearing ironic Ché Guevera t-shirts. Ah, capitalists banking on “Marxists.” The system works (and by the way, if you don't get the irony, and are wearing a Che t-shirt, I hope someone thows a box of hornets at you).
Anyway, if you remember, on Easter Sunday (2000), Janet Reno, taking time off from her dance party:
sent in INS commandos to storm Elian’s family’s house, where they found him in a closet.
South Park had an episode about this that Wednesday.
That meant they wrote, animated, voiced, and edited it in 3 days.
Genius.
What is so interesting about their topicality, though, is that for all the liberties they take, they are essentially politically conservative. How can that be? you may ask yourself. You may then ask: Why am I asking myself questions that, if I need the answer, couldn’t possibly answer myself? Let’s stick with the former question.
Look at their track record:
In the Boy Scout episode, Big Gay Al is removed from his post as Scout Leader because the Boy Scouts (which they weren’t called on the show, of course) don’t allow homosexuals to volunteer as adults. They (the real Boy Scouts) find it immoral, and as a private organization, feel that homosexuality is a poor role-model for young men. There is also the more ridiculous idea that homosexuals are inherently pedophiles, but more on that later. In the episode (which also features an homage to the great "Rowdy" Roddy Piper/Keith David They Live fight+), Big Gay Al is pressured into suing, and upon hearing his case, the Supreme Court rules that this is in fact discrimination. Al, though, refuses the ruling, saying that he hopes that one day the Boy Scouts see the error of their ways, but that the people who run the organization are clearly doing what they think is best for boys, and that the organization itself is ultimately a positive force in forging young men. So, with the liberal outcome so clearly in his grasp, Trey Parker and Matt Stone flip the script, making Al voice a more moderate, less reactionary one. In other words, conservative. (To get back to the pedophilia thing: in the episode, the “man’s-man” who takes over the boys’ troop ends up being the pedophile, showing how pedophilia and homosexuality are clearly not mutually exclusive (if mutual at all)).
+
Other episodes clearly follow this path. In the anti-smoking episode, Rob Reiner is made out to be, again, a reactionary who is willing to kill a child if it will get people to stop smoking. The tour through the cigarette factory demonstrates clearly that people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies, and anyone who doesn’t yet know that smoking is bad for them is either a moron or a douche-bag. Either way, you live your life, and let me live mine. The fact that Reiner, bemoaning how unhealthy cigarettes are, is shown to be an obese, obsessive over-eater, only helps to drive the point home.
In the Al Gore episode, they rip into his global warming theory by using the metaphor of a “Man-bear-pig.” Although I think they were off about this one, the idea of their conservativism was crystal clear: Look out for people who wail from the roof-tops.
In other words, it’s one thing to have beliefs. In fact, it’s important that you do have beliefs. At the end of each episode, Stan or Kyle will say “You know, I learned something today. . .” Clearly a cliché, and one that they even joke about from time to time, but there is always a lesson to be learned, and generally that lesson is: Don’t worry so much about what other people are saying. Yes, listen to them. But don’t adhere to their words like Scripture. Because, usually, the people are in no position to make the claims they are making. Al Gore is very intelligent, but no matter what he thinks, he’s not a scientist. Rob Reiner is not a doctor. Rosie O’Donnell is not a politician. If anything, the show is a voice of reason against the cult of celebrity we cling to in America. They aren’t afraid to take down the Right, as George Bush was made the butt of an entire season worth of shows (albeit not "South Park"). A few weeks ago, they made sure to rip into the evangelical minister from Colorado who claimed that, after three weeks of intense spiritual training, was “cured of homosexuality.”
And that’s where the distinction lies. They are conservative, not the Religious Right. While Matt Stone is a Republican, Trey Parker is a Libertarian, but neither acts pedantic about their politics. In one interview, Stone summed it up so perfectly: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." With that sentiemnt, they tend to let their work take aim at those talking-heads and egos who feel that because there are cameras in their faces that their opinions suddenly matter. I don’t think Stone or Parker ever overtly say: this is right, this is wrong. Instead, they simply make sure people realize how ludicrous situations become, and how we too often take for granted what other people say, instead of coming to our own conclusions. “I learned something today” is the boys’ line, but it a call for us to make sure that at the end of a debate, we learned something (I'm kind of proud of that last line).
What kind of brought this up is this idea of South Park as being conservative. There is actually a term (or terms) being bandied about regarding this phenomenon: "South Park Conservative" (or Republican, as the case may be). In either form, the concept is that there are young people who clearly have conservative ideals (smaller government, less government interference, free trade, the “unlogic” of political correctness*), but aren’t necessarily morally conservative. The think that conservatives can have a good time, and yet still adhere to the idea of government that is the political implication of conservative. It’s funny that Stone and Parker both dismiss the term (and I’m guessing they do so in colorful language), but the idea is still there. Call it South Park Conservativism, call it Libertarianism, call it whatever.
Just don’t call it late for dinner.
(Couldn’t resist).
*Watch the episode about the South Park flag for a good idea what I'm talking about.
Wearing ironic Ché Guevera t-shirts. Ah, capitalists banking on “Marxists.” The system works (and by the way, if you don't get the irony, and are wearing a Che t-shirt, I hope someone thows a box of hornets at you).
Anyway, if you remember, on Easter Sunday (2000), Janet Reno, taking time off from her dance party:
sent in INS commandos to storm Elian’s family’s house, where they found him in a closet.
South Park had an episode about this that Wednesday.
That meant they wrote, animated, voiced, and edited it in 3 days.
Genius.
What is so interesting about their topicality, though, is that for all the liberties they take, they are essentially politically conservative. How can that be? you may ask yourself. You may then ask: Why am I asking myself questions that, if I need the answer, couldn’t possibly answer myself? Let’s stick with the former question.
Look at their track record:
In the Boy Scout episode, Big Gay Al is removed from his post as Scout Leader because the Boy Scouts (which they weren’t called on the show, of course) don’t allow homosexuals to volunteer as adults. They (the real Boy Scouts) find it immoral, and as a private organization, feel that homosexuality is a poor role-model for young men. There is also the more ridiculous idea that homosexuals are inherently pedophiles, but more on that later. In the episode (which also features an homage to the great "Rowdy" Roddy Piper/Keith David They Live fight+), Big Gay Al is pressured into suing, and upon hearing his case, the Supreme Court rules that this is in fact discrimination. Al, though, refuses the ruling, saying that he hopes that one day the Boy Scouts see the error of their ways, but that the people who run the organization are clearly doing what they think is best for boys, and that the organization itself is ultimately a positive force in forging young men. So, with the liberal outcome so clearly in his grasp, Trey Parker and Matt Stone flip the script, making Al voice a more moderate, less reactionary one. In other words, conservative. (To get back to the pedophilia thing: in the episode, the “man’s-man” who takes over the boys’ troop ends up being the pedophile, showing how pedophilia and homosexuality are clearly not mutually exclusive (if mutual at all)).
+
Other episodes clearly follow this path. In the anti-smoking episode, Rob Reiner is made out to be, again, a reactionary who is willing to kill a child if it will get people to stop smoking. The tour through the cigarette factory demonstrates clearly that people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies, and anyone who doesn’t yet know that smoking is bad for them is either a moron or a douche-bag. Either way, you live your life, and let me live mine. The fact that Reiner, bemoaning how unhealthy cigarettes are, is shown to be an obese, obsessive over-eater, only helps to drive the point home.
In the Al Gore episode, they rip into his global warming theory by using the metaphor of a “Man-bear-pig.” Although I think they were off about this one, the idea of their conservativism was crystal clear: Look out for people who wail from the roof-tops.
In other words, it’s one thing to have beliefs. In fact, it’s important that you do have beliefs. At the end of each episode, Stan or Kyle will say “You know, I learned something today. . .” Clearly a cliché, and one that they even joke about from time to time, but there is always a lesson to be learned, and generally that lesson is: Don’t worry so much about what other people are saying. Yes, listen to them. But don’t adhere to their words like Scripture. Because, usually, the people are in no position to make the claims they are making. Al Gore is very intelligent, but no matter what he thinks, he’s not a scientist. Rob Reiner is not a doctor. Rosie O’Donnell is not a politician. If anything, the show is a voice of reason against the cult of celebrity we cling to in America. They aren’t afraid to take down the Right, as George Bush was made the butt of an entire season worth of shows (albeit not "South Park"). A few weeks ago, they made sure to rip into the evangelical minister from Colorado who claimed that, after three weeks of intense spiritual training, was “cured of homosexuality.”
And that’s where the distinction lies. They are conservative, not the Religious Right. While Matt Stone is a Republican, Trey Parker is a Libertarian, but neither acts pedantic about their politics. In one interview, Stone summed it up so perfectly: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." With that sentiemnt, they tend to let their work take aim at those talking-heads and egos who feel that because there are cameras in their faces that their opinions suddenly matter. I don’t think Stone or Parker ever overtly say: this is right, this is wrong. Instead, they simply make sure people realize how ludicrous situations become, and how we too often take for granted what other people say, instead of coming to our own conclusions. “I learned something today” is the boys’ line, but it a call for us to make sure that at the end of a debate, we learned something (I'm kind of proud of that last line).
What kind of brought this up is this idea of South Park as being conservative. There is actually a term (or terms) being bandied about regarding this phenomenon: "South Park Conservative" (or Republican, as the case may be). In either form, the concept is that there are young people who clearly have conservative ideals (smaller government, less government interference, free trade, the “unlogic” of political correctness*), but aren’t necessarily morally conservative. The think that conservatives can have a good time, and yet still adhere to the idea of government that is the political implication of conservative. It’s funny that Stone and Parker both dismiss the term (and I’m guessing they do so in colorful language), but the idea is still there. Call it South Park Conservativism, call it Libertarianism, call it whatever.
Just don’t call it late for dinner.
(Couldn’t resist).
*Watch the episode about the South Park flag for a good idea what I'm talking about.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
I'd Make a "This was my SAT score" Joke, But I Don't Think That Makes Sense Anymore
In bowling, they’d call it a perfect game. If you hit it for your career, you’d be a Hall of Famer.
It’s 300. It was dope.
Dope-a-holic rex.
I liked it a lot.
First off, let’s give Frank Miller props. He made sure that Batman wasn’t a nipple-wearing jag-off, he made it so that people under the age of 25 know who Mickey Rourke is (which is questionable in its goodness, I know, but still. . .Diner. The popcorn. Mickey
Rourke), and he did it again with this movie about Sparta.
You know, of “This is Sparta!” fame.
Gerard Butler, who (which surprises the hell out of me), sucked crap as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera (the movie on the whole was pretty bad, save Emmy Rossum (hooray, cute girls!)), was really good as King Leonidas. What little dialogue there was in the movie, he delivered well, and I’m amazed he could talk after production, because everything was in that growly, shouty voice. Very impressive beard, too.
In a role much better than what he was given in Lord of the Rings, David Wenham did a great job as Dilios. Not that he was bad as Faromir, just that the role itself wasn’t that good, because Peter Jackson kind of made Faromir a dick/pussy. He wasn’t the Faromir of the books. In this movie, though, Wenham has a chance to make a character that does a job that doesn’t disappoint. He should be in more stuff.
The acting, though, wasn’t really what was important (although, of course, acting is always important). The key thing in this movie was the visuals. Like Sin City, the movie truly played up its graphic novel legacy, and the colors were surreal and yet believable. The armies, the action, the costumes – it is all staged to show fantasy. For example, the Spartans have the most impressive collection of six-packs since Delta Tau Chi threw their toga party. Seriously, those guys are ripped. I don’t want to get into another homoerotic thing so soon after my last post, but, I mean, Greece. . .
That aside (or that in the forefront!), the movie is awesome. The story is pretty basic David versus Goliath meets Braveheart fare (and it’s important to realize that Braveheart, with perhaps Glory, is the predecessor of this heroic, battle genre of movie: The Patriot (Braveheart Goes West), Gladiator, Troy, King Arthur, etc. -- perhaps, unsurprisingly, all movies I do not think are that good), but it’s not supposed to be anything overwhelming in that regard. It’s supposed to be about cool slow-mo action sequences, a little bit of breasticles (I’m sure that’s a word), and a tall-ass, half-naked dude with a ton of piercings and an impossible deep voice.
I know it might sound like I’m making fun of this movie, but I’m really just knit-picking (the one exception being some of the home-front political machinations – but even those aid the story). I loved this flick, and I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t. It’s violent, but not super gory, it’s sexy without being pornographic, and it’s fantastic without being absurd. It’s just a simple story with amazing graphics and competent acting.
I only wish I had seen it in IMAX.
It’s 300. It was dope.
Dope-a-holic rex.
I liked it a lot.
First off, let’s give Frank Miller props. He made sure that Batman wasn’t a nipple-wearing jag-off, he made it so that people under the age of 25 know who Mickey Rourke is (which is questionable in its goodness, I know, but still. . .Diner. The popcorn. Mickey
Rourke), and he did it again with this movie about Sparta.
You know, of “This is Sparta!” fame.
Gerard Butler, who (which surprises the hell out of me), sucked crap as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera (the movie on the whole was pretty bad, save Emmy Rossum (hooray, cute girls!)), was really good as King Leonidas. What little dialogue there was in the movie, he delivered well, and I’m amazed he could talk after production, because everything was in that growly, shouty voice. Very impressive beard, too.
In a role much better than what he was given in Lord of the Rings, David Wenham did a great job as Dilios. Not that he was bad as Faromir, just that the role itself wasn’t that good, because Peter Jackson kind of made Faromir a dick/pussy. He wasn’t the Faromir of the books. In this movie, though, Wenham has a chance to make a character that does a job that doesn’t disappoint. He should be in more stuff.
The acting, though, wasn’t really what was important (although, of course, acting is always important). The key thing in this movie was the visuals. Like Sin City, the movie truly played up its graphic novel legacy, and the colors were surreal and yet believable. The armies, the action, the costumes – it is all staged to show fantasy. For example, the Spartans have the most impressive collection of six-packs since Delta Tau Chi threw their toga party. Seriously, those guys are ripped. I don’t want to get into another homoerotic thing so soon after my last post, but, I mean, Greece. . .
That aside (or that in the forefront!), the movie is awesome. The story is pretty basic David versus Goliath meets Braveheart fare (and it’s important to realize that Braveheart, with perhaps Glory, is the predecessor of this heroic, battle genre of movie: The Patriot (Braveheart Goes West), Gladiator, Troy, King Arthur, etc. -- perhaps, unsurprisingly, all movies I do not think are that good), but it’s not supposed to be anything overwhelming in that regard. It’s supposed to be about cool slow-mo action sequences, a little bit of breasticles (I’m sure that’s a word), and a tall-ass, half-naked dude with a ton of piercings and an impossible deep voice.
I know it might sound like I’m making fun of this movie, but I’m really just knit-picking (the one exception being some of the home-front political machinations – but even those aid the story). I loved this flick, and I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t. It’s violent, but not super gory, it’s sexy without being pornographic, and it’s fantastic without being absurd. It’s just a simple story with amazing graphics and competent acting.
I only wish I had seen it in IMAX.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)