2009 was a very good year for film. I’ve seen over 60 films released this year, so you can trust me when I say that this year has been very good. I did find it somewhat difficult to narrow my list down to just the top ten. This list could have easily turned into a top 20 list. My 1 through 4 picks I had no trouble deciding. My 5 through 10 picks could almost be interchangeable. Here is the list of the top 10 films of 2009 counting down from number 10 to number 1.

10. Sugar

This is a small independent film from directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, the paired who directed “Half Nelson.” The two have crafted a great immigrant story with this film. The story centers on a young Dominican baseball player, Miguel Santos, aka Sugar, who makes it to the Minor Leagues in America. Baseball is everything for Sugar, if he makes it big he can support his family back home. We see what the pressure to succeed does to the man. The story is simple and does not go for over the top melodramatic moments. The filmmakers do a great job of showing us the despair, loneliness that a new immigrant in this country goes through. By the end we are left with a level of sadness and hopefulness for this character’s future.

9. Avatar

One of the best cinematic experiences I had at the movies this year. After seeing the film in IMAX 3D you are left with the feeling that you have experienced a truly special cinematic moment. I like what Roger Ebert said about the film’s director James Cameron, “there is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it 300 million, wisely.” Using today’s modern technology, Cameron is able to fully engulf the audience into the beautiful, realistic alien world of Pandora. Cameron has returned amazement to the movies.

8. Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

I was surprised at how much humor, warmth and hopefulness I found in this picture about a young African-American teenage girl, who is illiterate, pregnant, and abused emotionally and sexually by her mother. The film features a great performance from the title character Precious played by Gabourey Sidibe. Mo’Nique is also terrific as the worst mother ever put on-screen. The film never ventures into the over the top melodrama. It’s able to properly balance the despair and hopefulness that Precious experiences throughout the picture. The scenes involving Precious and her fellow students in a classroom are some of the film’s standout moments. Director Lee Daniels and screenwriter Geoffrey Fletcher do a remarkable job of putting us into the reality of the story.

7. Up in the Air

The impressive third feature film from director Jason Reitman stars George Clooney as a termination specialist who lives off not having any deep human connections. Things change when he meets two women, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick. Both deliver strong performances that are up to par with Clooney’s. Clooney and Farmiga have great chemistry together. Their dialogue scenes remind you of Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell going at it in “His Girl Friday.” Clooney is delivering some of his best work here. He shows you that firing people is a art. Reitman has a real handle on how to balance drama and comedy. It’s not easy to pigeon hole this film into a specific genre. I would recommend this film to anybody, film fan or not.

6. Fantastic Mr. Fox

One of my flat-out favorite films of the year. The film is tremendous fun to watch from beginning to end. This is defiantly Wes Anderon’s best picture since “The Royal Tenenbaums.” The voice cast is one of the best ever assembled for an animated film. Based on the children’s book by Roald Dahl, George Clooney voices Mr. Fox, a chicken raider whose antics gets his entire animal community in a war with up tight British farmers. The stop-motion animation is a great fit for Anderson’s style. I found it really beautiful to look at. The stop-motion animation brings these characters to life better than CG ever could. This is a funny, charming film that can appeal to both kids and adults.

5. Goodbye Solo

A beautiful, truly moving picture from director Ramin Bahrani. The film tells the story of a friendship developed between a African cab driver named Solo and one his clients, an old white guy named William. William pays Solo 1,000 dollars to drive him to the top of mountain in 10 days. The film does not follow the plot of a typical Hollywood movie. This is a character piece where we get to learn and care about these characters. It never betrays its story by going for over the top melodramatic moments. There is a moment that these two characters share that is one of the great moments in film I saw this year. The moment consists of just Solo and William staring at each other, no words are spoken. This moment of silence is able to convey their feelings better than any dialogue could . This is a small independent film that people should rush out to see.

4. A Serious Man

The Coen Brother’s return to their home of Minnesota for this film. Set in the late 1960’s, the film follows the worst couple of weeks that Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) has ever experienced. Stuhlbarg gives one of the best performances of the year as the family man who is just trying to live an ordinary life. The key to Stuhlbarg’s performance is that he doesn’t play Larry as a loser, he plays him as a decent man who is going through the worst events in his life. This is a very, very black comedy. The film confirms that the Coen’s are master storytellers. It’s amazing what reactions they are able to convey with just one single shot. Fine supporting work from Fred Melamed as Sy Albeman, the man who is seeing Larry’s wife. He’s not what the audience or Larry expects. The Goy’s teeth sequence is one the funniest sequences I saw at the movies this year.

3. Where the Wild Things Are

A beautiful look at childhood from director Spike Jonze. Based on the children’s book by Maurice Sendak, the story centers on a young child named Max (Max Records) who after running away from home arrives on an island full of creatures called the Wild Things. Max is not a pleasant child protagonist but I found myself relating to him. There is one scene in the beginning of the film where Max, in a rage, destroys something and then immediately regrets it. I’ve done exactly the same thing as a child. When the story arrives on the island there really is no plot. What Jonze is able to do is create a mood. He shows us that childhood is fun, but also scary. Great use of practical effects and CG to create the Wild Things. The voice talent of the Wild Things, led by James Gandolfini, is terrific because each actor is able to make each creature a unique personality. The first twenty minutes and the last five minutes of the film are just plain perfect.

2. The Hurt Locker

Kathryn Bigelow has directed the best action film of the year. This is also the best film about the Iraq War because it puts us on the ground with the soldiers who are fighting the war. The film is a series of expertly crafted set pieces about a bomb disposal unit in Iraq. Jeremy Renner is terrific as the lead bomb defusal expert. Watching him dismantle a bomb is like watching a great artist create a painting. There is also strong work from the two other members of Renner’s team, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty. Excellent camerawork from the cinematographer Barry Ackroy. The film uses the handheld camera technique in a way that never makes the audience feel dizzy or nauseating. What Bigelow is able to do with handheld camera is put the viewer on the ground with the dangerous situations that these soldiers are going through. We always know where the soldiers are, where the potential threats are. The film has you on the edge of your seat.

1. Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s World War Two epic is the best film of 2009. It’s also the most joyous time I had at the movies. I saw this film 3 times in the theatre and I grew to love the film each time I saw it. I admire the sheer audacity of Tarantino to open the film with a twenty-minute dialogue sequence. What Tarantino does with these long dialogue scenes is build suspense. The film is divided into five chapters and each chapter in the film is like a mini movie. All five of the chapters build up and combine into one spectacular final sequence. Christoph Waltz as the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa delivers one of the best performances of the year. Waltz is smart and charming, which makes him even more terrifying. Tarantino has assembled a great ensemble cast. Standouts for me include Michael Fassbender as a British Lieutenant and Melanie Laurent as a Jewish survivor out for revenge. Leave it to Tarantino to make a World War Two movie without a single battle sequence and a climax in a movie theatre. In the end cinema saves the world, as it should be.

Rounding out my list to the top 25: 11) Public Enemies 12) An Education 13) Up 14) Moon 15) The Cove 16) Humpday 17)District 9 18)Adventureland 19)Capitalism: A Love Story 20) Duplicity 21) The Hangover 22) A Single Man 23) Anvil! The Story of Anvil 24) World’s Greatest Dad 25) Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

The New York Times has a piece running on an ”academic” symposium that took place recently on Black Metal Theory. I wasn’t going to post about this because people more engaged than myself  will no doubt address it.

It does however kick the dirt off an issue that consistently irks me: The imposition of meaning on art irregardless of the artists intent.

People take their own personal impressions away from a piece of art or literature, music or film. Metaphor, allegory and archetypes all speak beyond the concrete elements of a work. That’s the power of art, that’s good.

When institutions, critics and theorists start declaring meaning and intent without the input of the artist it is pure bluster. Academia can create a consensus on the meaning of a piece of art and not take the artists intent into consideration. It’s a speculative house of cards.

There are those that believe once the art falls from the nest and into the public view the artist becomes irrelevant.  However, when you are documenting a piece of art for the ages and making declarations about its soul, it’s irresponsible and dishonest to ignore the intentions behind it.

Not a top 10 list, more of a top 8.

Half the films on his list wouldn’t make my top 10 or even top 25. Star Trek was fun, but overrated in my view. Funny People and Drag Me to Hell were okay but very flawed. Observe and Report was just plain bad.

Precious and Up in the Air are solid picks. Those films look like they would appear on my list of the top 10 films of 2009.

In Historical Representations, a third year course that I took in the summer, between Social Media and French III, we were required to respond once a week to historical representations found in the media, academia or the public sphere. It was here that I began thinking about public history, and so it’s a bit appropriate to end my first term of my graduate degree by returning to the beginning. One of the first responses was on the commemoration of Queen Victoria’s birthday, as represented in the opinion pages of the Globe and Mail. It can become taxing, over time, to discuss the same historical monument over and over. I should hope not too taxing though, as it appears my internship might be at the NCC, “doing” commemoration. I digress. The discussion of the commemoration of events such as Victoria Day and Remembrance Day is worthwhile, however it begets the question how do these representations change over time? Is there anything new that can really be said about them? St. Patrick’s Day used to be a huge celebration of the Irish in Canada, particularly in Toronto and Montreal. However, as Canada becomes more multicultural, this representation of the moment in history has become diluted. Does it still merit discussion?

Something that I had not considered in developing critical analysis of heritage and public history was at what point criticism is legitimate. The front page of the Globe and Mail’s Focus section hosted a montage of black and white photographs of individuals whose human rights had been denied. The two-page article dealt with the development of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

The front page outlined one of the cross-country stops that the advisory board is making to find out from Canadians what they want from their museum. I swallowed hard as I read that one woman, Jennifer, was representing the right-to-life campaign. Without getting too terribly political, Jennifer was arguing that a discussion of the rights of fetuses should be held alongside the Komagata Maru and the internment of the Japanese. While I respect her personal convictions, I also find it hard to swallow a representation of the history of abortion as a human rights issue displayed in a museum without having the perspective of men and women who fought for the woman’s right to access safe and legal abortions in Canada. It’s far too selective.

The advisory council that is making the trip across the country (and boy, do I wish I knew when they would be in Ottawa) is not dissimilar to the steering committee of any other museum deciding which stories should be told.

However, as I mentioned, what this really had me considering is at what point am I allowed to be critical of a museum? The ground has barely been broken at the Forks in Winnipeg and yet I already cannot wait to go visit my in-laws and explore the museum with a critical perspective.

(Stay tuned: the critical perspective portion of this blog has yet to be edited. The gym is calling my name, but I promise when I return, I will share my issues with Canada’s newest museum)

9:54 PM
Another day of fantastic studying, but I have only one week left until a glorious month off. I often find it kind of ironic that my chemistry class is keeping me from reading Origin at any significant pace. Ironic only because my chemistry prof is a firm believer in creation ’science’. It seems to me that anyone who truly considers themselves scientists should be able to look at creation ’science’ and see the insurmountable improbability of it all. The first argument of creationism shoots itself in the foot: ’species are too complex to have come about by chance, so there needs to be an even more complex being to create them’. If that’s the case, who created the creator?

Enough of this errant diatribe, on to the book. Darwin spends a large section to talking about how having different varieties of the same species fertilize each other can be advantageous or even indispensable. He mainly talks about this in relation to the development of different sexes. Something I never knew that was discussed: many flowers have distinct sexes! The only logical explanation, as Darwin submits is that cross-breeding is advantageous. He also conjectures that any level of self-fertilization cannot continue perpetually and an species must eventually cross thus owing to the different sexes present in the various species. And even so in hermaphroditic species, there is no case in which the reproductive organs are so perfectly enclosed within the body as to prevent interbreeding. Thus interbreeding is both necessary and inevitable.

On an unrelated note, my sister is back from college while I still have a week of finals left to complete. Sigh. Tomorrow then.

It’s about time that we looked at the rot that has been eating away at the base values of America: hyper-capitalism. Milton Friedman and other “let the market self-regulate” believers (and make no mistake, it is a belief, a la faith, because no matter how many historical fiascos are used as evidence against this idea, they will inevitably claim that they came about due to too much regulation) have corrupted, or more accurately shunted aside, the middle-class values that are the core of a reasonably prosperous society. Allow me to elaborate.

First of all, some people, those who I expect think of themselves as rationalists, see a strange and wondrous force in the world of economics. Supply and demand, micro and macro, imports and exports – the numbers dance across the world and commerce occurs. It seems so wonderful. And all these basic principles are absolutely self-regulating – or so the lie goes. Follow the money: capitalism is a system whereby those who succeed in acquiring capital become more powerful – in fact, pure capitalism demands that you acquire more stuff than your competitors to distinguish yourself from them. Money is the only measure of success in a purely capitalistic society. Therefore, a high-paying job is not simply a means to and end: i.e. raising a family, retiring mad early, etc. but a status symbol in itself. After all, your job is literally how much you are worth to somebody, or to the system at least.  See how these egotistical wall-streeters became that way? They have been taught to value money as an end in itself. They honestly believe they are worth the mind-boggling money they bring in. They’re not. I’m not just saying this because I hate these people. Most of the high-risk products that these people work in are high-risk, high yield but they hide the risk in this composite derivatives system – literally allowing ordinary banking institutions to gamble with money that, on the surface, appears to be safely invested. But as you can see, all this wheeling and dealing can have negative consequences when these derivatives turn out to be the illusion that they are. Because these people could not rake it money fast enough the safe way, they figured out a treacherous back door (Paul Krugman has called it “shadow banking”) so they could keep paying themselves obscene amounts of money. This sort of money shifting does not produce anything of value, it’s simply rearranging money and skimming off a hearty portion for yourself. Sounds a bit like the health insurance industry, doesn’t it?

If you tack on some of Ayn Rand’s “rational selfishness” onto this economic fairy tale – suddenly you have what appears to be a philosophy that allows you to loot other people blind and yet you are perfectly justified in doing so. In fact, this poisonous philosophy is often waved about by right-wingers without any real understanding of the issues at hand. They bludgeon people with “Atlas Shrugged” not realizing that they themselves are the very dross that the industrialists in the book abandon utterly. This has a lot to do with this pernicious idea that Republicans have thrown around: you can’t tax the wealthy because one day you’ll be rich too! However, most people don’t end up hitting it big – certainly not enough to justify this me-too chicanery. Taken as a portion of the population, holding up a meager 1 or 2% as a model simply due to their socioeconomic status is completely nonsensical. You won’t be likely to find the average American there – but somehow that’s what they want us to believe.

Into this seething cauldron of greed for greed’s sake let’s add the funtastic world of the Christian fundamentalist. You really double the issues all over again when you’re dealing with people that believe their fortunes in life are handed out by a third party. Why, surely what happens to others can hardly be your fault – God gave them their due in life. You’re only the lucky one because God likes you.

Note the lack of the trademark Christian compassion? True followers of Christ would reject this wealth-mongering out of hand, but there’s nothing that bastards like Robertson and his ilk can’t corrupt and twist to suit their ends. If you don’t believe that Christian fundamentalism is part of this composite hyper-capitalistic plague, you should check out the Family – not the mafia, but rather pseudo-Christians who believe that Jesus had a separate message to the rich and powerful – the movers and shakers of the world. That message was to due whatever it takes and take whatever you want. Members of this delusional and filthy cabal are in some of the most powerful positions in America, both public and private. And they command legions of brain-dead frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist Christians who will maim and kill in the name of peace and love.

Really, does it take any more than this utter defilement of what is (or was, originally) a pretty chill religion to prove that there is nothing sacred about religion? Indeed, that they are constructs of man and are (as they always have been) used to control people who like easy answers over tough choices.

I wish I could say I was overstating my case here. I am being a bit hyperbolic, but the danger that this venom represents to American values is very real indeed. The decline of these values is inextricably linked with our vanishing middle class. You see, the basic idea of the middle class is you have a job where you can work hard, raise kids, retire, and all in all leave your kids a little bit better off than you were. This pattern repeats, and it does (as it did from the 50’s to the 80’s) bring about huge GDP growth in America because while it is slow, it is very, very steady. The trick in these sorts of values is that other than perhaps a few aspirations towards property ownership and perhaps some retirement-oriented investing, money is not the main goal per se, rather it is the means towards and end. As long as you have a decent job, you should be able to accomplish these things. Remember when single-income households used to be the rule, rather than the exception? That’s because living wages were all the rage back in the distant past.

But hypercapitalism demands profit – so much so that we have to go overseas and employ foreign workers because how can we honestly expect to make money when we have to pay for things like health insurance for workers (note: I realize that this system is a rip off for employers too), vacations and so forth? How many more handouts could our drones possibly want? They should feel lucky just to have a job! Especially when they’re just a hair’s breadth away from having their job done for them in Thailand!

The automakers were one of the few remnant companies that made any effort to bolster the middle-class standard of living in the face of these transnational money-whore megacorporations. They actually tried to insure and provide pensions to everyone, which is one of the the reasons why they tanked (other than extremely poor marketing decisions regarding fuel mileage). Now if we had single-payer government healthcare, employers wouldn’t have to pay out monstrous amounts of money to companies who are literally delivering sub-standard coverage and pocketing the difference.

It’s amazing how everything is related isn’t it?

But from the very beginning of life these days, children are inundated with how they should get a high paying job so they can afford a bunch of stuff that they don’t actually need. The lifestyles of the extraordinarily wealthy are held up as some sort of guide for the rest of us to aspire to, rather than treated as the extreme minority of the population that they actually are. The consumer culture in America may be responsible for a great deal of it’s growth, but it also encourages people to live beyond their means in an attempt to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak. Hence, credit card debt for all. By the way, credit is not counted as “real money” by the Fed’s market calculation – since you’re technically just moving money around, credit does nothing to improve the GDP from an individual lendee perspective (it does for companies inasmuch as credit allows them to actually function at all, but that is an indirect result).

So here I am, feeling extremely countercultural with no viable options. There are two political parties – The Corporate Fascists, and The Corporate Fascists Lite. They drown out sensible people like Dennis Kusinich – one of the few people who actually expresses outrage at the tepidity of recent health care reform, since he knows full well we could create a fantastic, efficient, and money-saving single-payer healthcare system if these fallen politicians would stop fellating their corporate masters for two goddamn minutes.

I’m gonna have to start voting third party. It may be a joke, but I refuse to vote for these hyper-capitalistic whores for even one more goddamn minute. I’m sorry to good old Dems like Mr. Kusinich, but you’re being drowned out by obstructionists who aren’t even trying to hide their utter contempt for the fates of their constituents or their shameless endorsement of all things corporate.

What is it like to wake up one morning and realize that the evil empire was really us, all along?

Later.

The Corvidae Cabal site has been online for a year now. I’m surprised by the number of hits we’ve gotten, largely from tags and searches, since there hasn’t been any real promotion at all. I hope the people who’ve passed by got something out of it. It’s hard to gauge such things.

The coming year should be more active, at least from my end. Perhaps I can get another voice or two in here as well so the updates are more frequent. It seems the most viewed topic was one regarding Bill Shields and his white knuckle poetic reflections on Vietnam. That pleases me to no end.

I want to thank M. Londus Pike  for the nightmare puzzles and Golden Knuckles as well for their contributions.

Feel free to leave a comment.

“Thou Shalt Not partake of decaf… Thou Shall Not allow anything to deter you in your quest for all.” – Descendents

the eulogist

Romans 6.1-2:

1 – What then shall we conclude?  Should we continue to reside in the realm of sin so that grace might greatly increase? 2 – No way! How can people such as us who died with reference to the lordship of sin still behaviorally participate in it? (translation mine)

In approaching Romans 6.1ff, there is some debate over who exactly Paul has in mind when asking this question.

One view, based on similar classical Greco-Roman writings of the same period (1 c. e.), thinks Paul is using a method of argumentation known as a diatribe since he continuously poses rhetorical questions and answers throughout Romans (cf. 3.1, 9; 4.1; 6.15; 7.7; 9.14, 19, 30).[1]

Another possibility is that Paul may be addressing antinomian thought that could arise from the doctrine set forth in 5.20, thus also appeasing any Jew who might be reading the epistle.[2] Here an appeal is made to verses 6.15-23 which provide the wider context to understand verses 1-14.

Related to this is a third view that Paul’s question and answer routine is strictly pedagogical to teach on the implications of grace since he is not primarily interested in answering intellectual questions but rather with christian practice.[3]

To distinguish between these three views, however, I would humbly suggest, is a false disjunction and fails to understand the precise nature of a diatribe. The reason a diatribe was so often used in the Greco-Roman world was because it raised questions and answers that might inevitably be raised in objection to one’s assertions for academic and pedagogical purposes. Granted, the opponents in view are technically fictitious, but the fictitious opponent of a good diatribe would connect with a probable and likely objection from a genuine opponent.[4] Thus, it makes good sense to think of 6.1 as pedagogical, while addressing a potential objection by a Jew, and while also refuting antinomian conclusions; or, in short: a well thought out argument which covers all bases.

[1]So Wright, Romans, 437-48; and Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 394. For thorough discussion on a diatribe, see Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chicago: Scholars Press, 1981). 

[2]Charles E. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, vol 1, ICC, edited by J. A. Emerton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 297n1.

[3]Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, edited by Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 356.

[4]Also on a diatribe, see “Diatribe,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, edited by David E. Aune (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 71-84. 

There is a law in most countries concerning monopolies that says any company or companies that grow too large or merge with other larger companies the government will step in to stop said business from cornering the market. This is so that one company does not have sole control over a certain section of the market. This is a good law in my opinion as it assists innovation and progression in our society. One man should not have all the power. This is, unfortunately, not always the case (see Rupert Murdoc, Bill Gates, etc.) but by and large it is and even if mergers are not prevented a tax is applied so as to suck some of the money from the company. In the arts, however, the same cannot be said. Particularly music.

I am a musician and a songwriter, the son of a musician and a songwriter, and to say it depresses me to see that there is no less than FIVE Cowell/X Factor-ites pestering the charts would be a grave understatement. Cowell has developed a strangle hold so tight on the musical windpipe of the west it is slowly falling to its knees and gasping for breath as its vision fades waiting for the cold embrace of death. I wouldn’t mind if any of it was good but as it is all the most watered-down, piss-shit-awful crap to have ever disgraced the ‘pop’ chart i find it all the more saddening.

In the age of the internet and a CD burner in everyone’s home, there should be more brave and exciting artists making an impact. Bedroom geniuses and pub-slumming bands are still out there but in a time when the power is meant to be with the people the PR companies utilise this medium for their own ends, saturating the market with this regressive drivel. My only hope is that with the dawn of Spotify, last.fm and such, independent artists will get themselves heard. But what’s the point of being heard if it earns you nothing? The record companies should be finding the buzzing hot young things that are blazing a trail for the future of music. But no. They merely rehash a well trodden path of using the decade-before-lasts’ nostalgic sensibilities to recreate God-awful sound-a-like bands with none of the rebellion. So many bands want to look and sound like the Clash et al, yet have none of their verve, presence, showmanship or intelligence. ‘Guns over Brixton’ would never be written now, let alone heard or bought. I realise there are many great artists plying their trade, some even enjoying moderate success but they will never get the backing of a major label. 

Someone once said “The public gets what it wants”, which is true but only because we are TOLD this is what we want. “BUY IT NOW!” That’s actually a phrase used in every advert for this shit. “The epic/amazing/breathtaking/beautiful/brilliant/awesome/critically acclaimed new album from – insert talentless fly-by-nighter name here – out now”. I would urge anyone reading this blog to vote with your wallets and invest in a truly original and vibrant young act not JLS, Cheryl Cole, Leona Lewis or the redundantly titled ‘X Factor Finalists’ but I know you already do. Everyone I speak to seems to realise this stuff is rubbish but it still seems to be selling by the kebab-bin full.

The worst part is it devalues the currency. I like Girls Aloud or rather, I love their writer. The songs are beautifully crafted pop. Cheryl Coles’ single is, to be generous, pig-swill. When other people come out with brilliant nuggets of pop (Jarvis Cocker, Paolo Nutini, Lily Allen, Kings of Leon) I feel like shouting with joy that something well written, thoughtfully produced and enjoyably performed has cracked the charts then it is lost and forgotten amongst a pile of mediocre tat. I realise this is entirely down to personal taste but this brings me back to my original point.

Simon Cowell is clearly a very shrewd and intelligent man. Too shrewd. He has two of the biggest television shows under his belt that create the biggest selling artists of the year. EVERY YEAR. Christmas No.1s are a foregone conclusion as is any other song with the Cowell/X Factor seal of approval. Some may even be talented but the fact remains the man has too much power. He/his record company has a monopoly on the charts and the music industry as a whole and that, and I mean this, is dangerous.

The arts are what we create to make sense of our world and help us through our lives. Art is created for us to admire, ponder and discuss and this can only be achieved through diversity. There is nothing diverse about the charts or ‘Pop music’ at the moment. Great art challenges and provokes. The only thing that travesty of a cover of the classic Rolling Stones song provokes in me is to Vomit. I can see no end in sight either. This will roll on as long as the money keeps coming in which of course it will, I merely hope the public will get bored of this tosh soon and go looking under rocks and in nooks and crannies for the really brave and innovative stuff.

This is all entirely irrelevant anyway as I bought McFly’s last album but my point is still valid. Y’know. Monopolies an’ shit… yeah. N’stuff. *sigh*

P.S. Why is  it still called Indie Music? Since when have a band signed to SONY been independent? It’s SONY for fucksake! That is not an independent label! Grumble grumble…

I was in Barnes and Nobles the other week and I came across one of the worst examples of photoshopping you will ever see on a DVD cover. The cover is for …And Justice for All starring Al Pacino. In the film Pacino’s head never makes that almost Exorcist like move you see on the dvd cover. Judging the film solely on the strange DVD cover would be wrong because the film is actually very good and features a relatively subtle Pacino performance when you compare it to his work today. What the hell were they thinking when they put this horrible picture of Pacino on the cover of the DVD?

Perhaps the answer is they didn’t care. Not caring is something that could be used to describe Al Pacino’s acting choices of late.

What happened to the 70’s Pacino who amazed us with his range in The Godfather going from quite innocent younger child, to a cold blooded killer? What happened to that level of energy that amazed us in Serpico? Remember that great scene when he walks into the police station dressed as a rabbi? The 70’s Pacino always carried a level of energy and intensity to each of his roles. He was always interesting to watch. I could watch him order and eat breakfast and I’d be fascinated. As a matter of fact he did that with Gene Hackman when the two starred together in a film called Scarecrow that came out in 1973. Definitely check it out.

Today’s Pacino carries a energy level that is over the top. He’s been playing that same type of loud over the top character for years now. He’s not interesting to watch at all. He’s become known as the scenery chewing Hoo-Ah guy. 2008 was a banner year for bad Pacino roles. We now try to forget him in Righteous Kill, and 88 minutes, which features the weirdest fucking hair ever put on a human being.

Mr. Pacino, It’s not too late to pick better film roles and hair.

I want to write about something but I’m not in a good mood… yes I know.. AGAIN…  and it will only come out as a rant.. so I’ll leave that for another day.

Today.. I will give you random facts about me that you may like, love, hate… or find disturbing… or maybe find that I’m disturbed.  Who cares!  Love me, hate me… ::stops–thinks:: On second thought love me… or ignore me… I don’t like hate mail.

So, when you read through these, remember, I’m not trying to change anyone’s religious or political views.  Seriously, if you are nice to me and we can joke and have a great or somewhat great conversation, I don’t care what you believe.  That’s your choice.  I won’t impose my views on you, as long as you don’t ask me to compromise them to make you feel better.  We are all adults here… or at least seem to be .

Onward with crap….

Let’s see…

I’m a Christian.  Shocked? Yeah, so was Jesus.

I don’t consider myself a Republican.. nor a Democrat.  I believe Benjamin Franklin was right when he said the downfall of our country would be political parties, at least limiting it to two.  And what have we done?   We’ve given up our vote.  No, we haven’t given it up, we’ve put it in the paper shredder… mixed it in the blender with some water… dried the pulp and wiped our asses with it.  We’ve got a choice between two major candidates who end up getting all the press.  Really?  Two?  Is that our choice???  We have to decide who we dislike less?  Really?

Oh but wait Corbin… there ARE other political parties.  Really?   I won’t even get into that… you and I both know that’s a  joke.

I say we go back to the old system.  The guy with the most votes gets to be president.  And the guy with the second most votes gets to be the vice president… and if the ‘guy’ ends up being a ‘gal’ well then fine… excellent.  The point is, it forces people to think as Americans and maybe … just maybe.. make decisions for the good of the country.  WHAT a concept.

Next….

Just so you know I deleted a whole lotta diatribe and it’s now approximately 5 days after I started writing this… so I’m not in a bad mood like I was before… so.. what else about me..

I think it’s okay to be ridiculous.  If you take yourself too seriously then no one will take you seriously… when it counts.  Everybody who knows me will know that I do NOT take myself seriously.  Yes, yes, I know, I put up a thousand avatars and some believe I’m narcissistic, but you know what… if you don’t see the ridiculous humor behind the constant changing of the avatars… then …you’ll never understand, so I won’t bother explaining.  NEXT….

I believe in family.  Even if they are annoying, and I know I’ve mentioned how annoying certain relatives are and I’m sure I’m very annoying to them… we stick together.  Okay.. for the most part.

I know I whine a lot but I would not trade my life for anything.

I don’t think I’m a great writer.  I believe I’m a good writer… I know there are better writers than me… yes I know many of them   and I’d like to do what I can to help them get their work out there.  It’s not noble… just something I have the desire to do… ::shrug:: I ask nothing in return.  And yes, I want SilverthornPress to succeed and they are part of that success… they succeed.. we succeed..

Do I make mistakes? HELL YEAH.  If I had a dollar for every mistake I made, Donald Trump would have nothing on me.  My bank account would be greater than that of Bill Gates.  No exaggeration there my friends.  I live and learn.  I make mistakes and I learn, hopefully by the second time around, sometimes it takes more.

I don’t spend my money on the latest clothes or electronic gadgets… Like a true nerd I spend it on books.  Books and magazines.  At my local Barnes & Noble they know me by my first name.  It’s like Norm walking into Cheers.  If you want to make me happy for Christmas or my birthday, give me a gift card to B&N… I’ll love you forever.  All my relatives and friends know this about me.  Yes, true NERD.  And I’m not ashamed of it.  What kind of home improvement must I do? Shelves.  Dear God grant me the wisdom to figure out how to fit more bookshelves into my home.  That’s my prayer.  Heh.

So yeah.. I think I’ll stop here.  That’s the end of this diatribe… but do not fret .. there’s plenty more where this came from.  What’s that you say? “Oh shit”?  What does that mean?  Anyway… I’ll ignore it…

Hate me, love me… be indifferent.. take your pick.  In the end it doesn’t matter.

That’s me.

And one more thing… thanks for reading my rants and my nonsense… it wouldn’t be half as fun… wait.. no.. it would be half as.. half…. oh screw it… It wouldn’t be the same without you.   Thanks, sincerely.

Após falar do politeísmo, e tentar confundi-lo com o monoteísmo, Dawkins abre uma nova seção em seu livro entitulada “Monoteísmo”, na qual não tenta argumentar muito. No máximo, apenas alguns desabafos. Talvez pela falta de assunto, Dawkins inclui uma citação de Gore Vidal:

O grande e indizível mal no cerne de nossa cultura é o monoteísmo. A partir de um texto bárbaro da Idade do Bronze, conhecido como Antigo Testamento, evoluíram três religiões anti-humanas — o judaísmo, o cristianismo e o islã. São religiões de deus-no-céu. São, literalmente, patriarcais — Deus é o Pai Onipotente —, daí o desprezo às mulheres por 2 mil anos nos países afligidos pelo deus-no-céu e seus enviados masculinos terrestres (Gore Vidal)

Não que o fato de Gore Vidal ser tão de esquerda a ponto de ser perseguido pelo macarthismo americano o desabone por completo, mas simplesmente a declaração acima vem de um autor completamente com viés.

Qualquer pessoa de extrema esquerda aplaudiria a declaração de Gore Vidal.

Mas ela não passa da opinião de um escritor que era a priori anti-religião.

Seria o mesmo que colher a opinião de um anti-semita notório a respeito do conflito Palestina X Israel.

Vamos em frente, portanto…

Tecnicamente, nesta seção do livro, Richard Dawkins jamais chega a formular um “caso” contra o monoteísmo. Convém lembrar que na seção anterior Dawkins apenas tentou confundir monoteísmo com politeísmo. É a tal tática do “se não puder esclarecer, confunda”.

Um pouquinho mais da “argumentação” de Dawkins:

A mais antiga das três religiões abraâmicas, e a clara ancestral das outras duas, é o judaísmo: originalmente um culto tribal a um Deus único e desagradável, que tinha uma obsessão mórbida por restrições sexuais, pelo cheiro de carne queimada, por sua superioridade em relação aos deuses rivais e pelo exclusivismo de sua tribo desértica escolhida. Durante a ocupação romana da Palestina, o cristianismo foi fundado por Paulo de Tarso como uma seita do judaísmo menos intransigentemente monoteísta e menos exclusivista, que olhou além dos judeus e para o resto do mundo. Vários séculos depois, Maomé e seus seguidores retomaram o monoteísmo inflexível do original judaico, mas não seu exclusivismo, e fundaram o islamismo a partir de um novo livro sagrado, o Corão, ou Qur’an, acrescentando uma forte ideologia de conquista militar à disseminação da fé. O cristianismo também foi disseminado pela espada, primeiro nas mãos romanas, quando o imperador Constantino o elevou de culto excêntrico a religião oficial, depois nas dos cruzados e depois nas dos conquistadores e outros invasores e colonizadores europeus, com acompanhamento missionário.

Na dá nem sequer para comentar o parágrafo acima. Não passa de um desabafo recheado de clichês aprendidos do discurso marxista, sempre colocando a religião como culpada de opressão e violência, e sempre escondendo os crimes de países como a China e Rússia.

Como é mais do mesmo, o parágrafo só está aí a título de ilustração, para que todos possam perceber o nível da baixaria a que Dawkins se submete.

É um direito dele, naturalmente, embora novamente isso resvale em perda de foco, o que diminui o potencial ofensivo da diatribe dele, quando colocada sob escrutínio cético.

Depois do desabafo juvenil, Dawkins propõe algo curioso (e bizarro):

A definição simples da Hipótese de que Deus Existe com que comecei tem de ser significativamente engordada para acomodar o Deus abraâmico. Ele não criou apenas o universo; ele é um Deus pessoal que vive dentro dele, ou talvez fora dele (o que quer que isso signifique), possuidor das qualidades humanas desagradáveis às quais aludi.

Para quem se lembra da refutação ao final do texto relacionado ao início do capítulo 2, Dawkins propôs um Deus que é parte do processo de evolução gradativa (ou seja, que chegou ao universo depois de seu início). E depois propõe “engordar” essa definição para um Deus conforme o das escrituras.

Isso, é claro, é uma proposta totalmente nonsense, pois ambas as definições são mutuamente auto-excludentes.

É simples: se é o Deus das escrituras, que a maioria de nós, religiosos, reconhece, esse Deus não é parte do processo de evolução. E, se é parte do processo de evolução, ele NÃO é o Deus das escrituras. Isso é algo do que não se pode fugir, simplesmente pela definição aceita acerca de Deus.

Dawkins não tem escapatória: ou é um ou é outro. Não pode, absolutamente, ser os dois ao mesmo tempo.

Curiosamente, Dawkins toca no assunto e depois deixa a questão de lado e pula para outro tópico. O fato é que o parágrafo de Dawkins simplesmente poderia ser excluído na revisão (ele afirma, nos agradecimentos do livro, que existiram vários revisores). Pois a proposta dele de unir as duas definições é puramente irracional.

Vamos em frente:

Qualidades pessoais, sejam agradáveis ou desagradáveis, não têm espaço no deus deísta de Voltaire e Thomas Paine. Comparado ao delinqüente psicótico do Antigo Testamento, o Deus deísta do Iluminismo setecentista é um ser mais grandioso: respeitável por sua criação cósmica, altivamente despreocupado com as questões humanas, sublimemente indiferente a nossos pensamentos e esperanças particulares, alheio a nossos pecados ou penitências resmungadas. O Deus deísta é um físico que encerra toda a física, o alfa e ômega dos matemáticos, a apoteose dos projetistas; um hiperengenheiro que estabeleceu as leis e as constantes do universo, ajustou-as com uma precisão e uma antevisão extraordinárias, detonou o que hoje chamamos de big bang, aposentou-se e ninguém nunca mais soube dele.

Em se tratando de mostrar uma cultura que não possui, ninguém é mais constrangedor do que Richard Dawkins. Ele é um escritor trash.

Quem já assistiu a filmes trash, sabe que eles são divertidos justamente quando os seus realizadores acreditam estar realizando um filme bom. Nós rimos de sua incapacidade, que é justamente amplificada pelo fato de que eles se consideram capazes quando realmente não são.

Vale o mesmo para Richard Dawkins.

Vamos avaliar: ele diz que o Deus deísta é mais grandioso. Mas por qual motivo? Será que seria pelo fato de ser despreocupado com as questões humanas? Só que na visão monoteísta, mesmo com sua interferência, quem falou em preocupação? Ou será que é a indiferença que ele acha interessante? Ou será que seria o fato dele ser alheio à comunicação humana? Em qualquer das situações, Dawkins não deixa claro o que configuraria o Deus deísta como “mais grandioso”. Pelo que se nota, é com certeza MENOS grandioso, pois são retiradas características virtuosas dele. Mas não dá para compreender a lógica de Dawkins. Não que eu dica que ele possua algo como uma “lógica”.

Ele também não entende o deismo, que não necessariamente afirma que Deus não interfere. Na verdade, os deístas basicamente contestam coisas como a revelação divina, os dogmas e a tradição.

Tecnicamente, os deístas sequer negam a revelação divina, mas basicamente entendem que a revelação tem caráter puramente pessoal. Não estranha, portanto, que o deísmo seja uma porta de entrada para o ocultismo, que, em muitos casos, busca a interferência não só de Deus como outras entidades.

E, como sói ocorre nesses casos, Dawkins tenta “inflar” o ateísmo com o deísmo:

Em épocas de fé mais exacerbada, os deístas foram considerados iguais aos ateus. Susan Jacoby, em Freethinkers: A history of American secularism [Livres-pensadores: uma história do secularismo americano], lista uma seleção dos epítetos lançados contra o pobre Tom Paine: “Judas, réptil, porco, cachorro louco, bêbado, nefasto, arquibesta, bruto, mentiroso e, é claro, infiel”. Paine morreu abandonado por ex-amigos políticos envergonhados com suas opiniões anticristãs (com a honorável exceção de Jefferson). Hoje em dia, a situação mudou tanto que é mais provável que os deístas sejam contrastados com os ateus e agregados aos teístas. Afinal, eles realmente acreditam numa inteligência suprema que criou o universo.

Errou de novo!

Não existe tal “mudança” de direção.

Algumas religiões teístas consideram o deísmo algo que foge dos princípios básicos do teísmo, o que é natural. (*)

O fato de alguém ser chamado de “infiel”, como Tom Paine foi, não implica em alguém ser chamado de ateu.

Isso valia para antes e vale agora.

Portanto, no próximo tópico, quando Dawkins tentar de novo “inflar” o ateísmo citando deístas, como os Pais Fundadores, é evidente que estamos diante de uma picaretagem da braba.

Como puderam notar, essa seção de “Deus, Um Delírio” é basicamente vaga e desfocada.

Difícil entender o que Dawkins quis com essa sub-seção do livro.

(*) O blog não defende discriminação de doutrina alguma, incluindo o deísmo, portanto o reconhecimento da postura das religiões teístas aqui não busca fazer juízo de valor das mesmas. A título de argumento, é irrelevante se o não-aceite do deísmo pelas religiões tradicionais é correto ou não.

We are approaching the end of the year and when were not preparing for the end of the world in 2012, film critics and film websites are already releasing their top ten films of this past decade. You would think these people would at least wait for the year to be over.

“There are hundreds of challenges to books in schools and libraries in the United States every year. According to the American Library Association (ALA), there were at least 513 in 2008. But the total is far larger. 70 to 80 percent are never reported.”

I found this back during Banned Books Week and neglected to post it then. It’s a map of banned or challenged books in the US.

Overlay this with the traditional Red/Blue map, and there are a few surprises.

Today’s post is going to be short on talk, but will feature a medley of wondrous images and hyperlinks for you to enjoy.

Here are some things from the internet that have recently inspired wonder in me. May they also bestow feelings of amazement upon you.

Tree-Climbing Goats of Morroco – Seriously. You have to see this. Also on Youtube.

10 of the World’s Most Amazing Mummies – Another great post from Atlas Obscura. Incredible.

Solange Knowles covers Dirty Projectors – First she ostensibly gets her sister Beyonce and Jay-Z into Grizzly Bear. Now this.  Somehow, every time a big hip-hop or R&B star (especially a Knowles) flirts with indie rock, which has been happening lately, my dream of one day stealing Beyonce away from Jay-Z seems slightly less absurd. [UPDATE: check out this article from August. Jay-Z on indie rock]. But seriously, Solange’s version of “Stillness is the Move” is so good and based around the same sample as Dr Dre’s xxplosive. Thank you, Pitchfork. (note: Pitchfork’s mp3 was taken down, but this one should still work). Also, if you haven’t seen it, the Dirty Projectors’ incredible original “Stillness is the Move” has a lovely video. I’ll be seeing you Montrealers at the Dirty Projectors show this Sunday at Le National with our good buddy Tuneyards. Should be epic.

In other news, my herbal detox is going well. I’ve pretty much gotten over feeling hungry all the time, but the other night I had a very impassioned dream in which I ate an entire plate of nachos. That was all that happened. Notably, the nachos had pesto on them, which is something I will have to try after this cleanse is finished.

Also, look out for an Adam & The Amethysts Montreal show or two in the coming months, because, why not?

Archeologists have noted that the first flushing toilet was discovered in ancient China, but who can really know, certainly the Romans had a relatively sophisticated set-up using sluices and gravity to channel the bodies outpourings away from their owner, but it stands to reason that such facilities would only be for the use of the exceptionally privileged. Today, in the wealthsome corners of our world, such technologies have become ubiquitous; the ever-present toilet as we recognise it, with its sophisticated flush plumbing, was a Victorian invention; the night commode, an extrapolation of earlier models with built in bed pans, that necessitated upon the vast Victorian sewer building projects. Once more, such devices began as the sole preserve of a relative aristocracy, and prior to the pull and slosh of such a flush, would have been the servant, to whisk it all away.

In older pasts, humans made little of mess and waste that could not be readily re-sorted into the environmental matrix, nothing that could seriously pollute, or not be eaten by something or other. Bones, cunningly shaped stones and footprints, were typically the only things we could leave in our wake, and humanure would be squat into existence a little ways from camp, perhaps in a hole, but as such, it was always there to confront us. With the advent of the flushing toilet, all of this changed, the foul botherings of our bowels could be removed from sight and being, with but a jaunty tug, and a porcelain gurgle. Therefore it can be seen that the advent of the flushing toilet is to blame for all of our current problems of pollution.

Obviously I’m being facetious, the problems of waste and pollution are extremely complex, yet on a simple psychological level, the enabling facilty of removing one’s waste from one’s sight, and by doing so escaping the consequences of having to deal with it, is profound. In more recents pasts, humans have conjured with their ingenuity all kinds of infrastructures and industries for removing and hiding waste, and in parallel, increasingly sophisticated and insidious pollutions. The commode can therefore be seen as a metaphor for all blasé waste disposal, in that washing powders, shampoos, toothpastes, micturated pharmaceutical metabolites and other glorious effluents now flow down the drains with your poo, removed from sight and cognisance.

The problem of pollution has to a certain extent crept up on us while we sleep-walked, being that most historical waste was readily degraded by nature, unfortunately modern pollutions are not always so easily disposed of. In the last hundred years or so, with advancements in science and technology, we have seen the appearance of plastics and other petrochemical derivatives, complex novel chemistries previously unknown to the biosphere. Some of these chemistries have been released into the ecosystem of Earth with very little cognisance of their consequence, caution was not erred. The environment however is not a laboratory and unexpected or unintended consequences are still consequences. Some familiar examples include PCB’s and DDT and the endocrine disruptors of more recent renown.

We can trace this recklessness back into the past, to when the world was vast and consequences were slight and fevered dieties reigned. With the advent of agriculture, came domesticity, ironically that which had bound man to the land was also to drive a wedge between them; cities separated people from the soil, both physically and psychologically, even though these cities relied on agriculture to sustain them. A limen of perception manifested in the urban dwellers, nature became increasingly exteriorised and distant, the division catalysed by anthropocentric religions and philosophies. More and more the veil became opaque, the plasticised limen thickened; street lights blotted out stars, shrinking context, and food appeared by magick in plastic packets, convenient wrappings which also conveniently disconnected us from its origin. Reality increasingly became a life vicarious, through screens and devices, direct ‘experience’ becoming another novel product. Meanwhile, all of the cities’ waste was carried away by technological minons.

We do have a problem here, both psychologically and physically, I am no luddite, but the plastic limen is now manifesting serious repurcussions; polluted water-systems, whales needing to be dispossed of as toxic waste because of high concentrations of volatile organic compounds; seas filled with plastic bottles; shrinking and collapsing habitats, abandoned to the vicissitudes of necessity and frivolity, etc. etc. On a local level we have littered streets and countryside, abused animals, toxins in our foods and water, all of which exist alongside and operate in a vicious cycle, upon an entrenched, unwholesome culture of ignorance and disrespect (occasionally enforced and glorified) towards both each other and our environ. The common lack of direct felt presence of the wild, of living systems and things, I believe has made us miserable, for it feeds our imagination and enriches our experience, simply because it is beautiful, and to be occluded from it, is a huge social and spirtual loss.

as a general rule of thumb, i dislike protest culture. i don’t like the atmosphere of activism because i find it is so polarizing and bipolitical; us versus them, the good versus the evil. i usually try to stay out of it (a quick visit to a right to life campaign in protest a few years ago taught me that protesting protests are usually counterproductive.)

however, there are a few things that have taken place over the last few weeks that have caught my eye. given that david is encouraging us to break the barriers put up for us by the university, i am going to allow this blog to momentarily become about political issues of the university, rather than about public history. ahem.

carleton university, i spent four years being proud of you; when i walked across the stage and shook president runte’s hand at convocation, i felt a glow of importance about it. while i’m still proud of our students and our faculty and support staff, the high ranking officials at carleton give something…to be desired.

the university’s president, dr roseann runte, comes across as a feminist’s woman: she bakes cupcakes for students (aw!), but is also a strong-headed indiviual and a brilliant academic in her own right. at least, that’s how she comes across (or desires to). back in 2007, there was a rather vicious assault on campus, late at night, which resulted in activism on campus for a sexual assault support centre. dr. runte’s position on this has been that such a centre would provide negative press for the university because it would draw light on assaults taking place. in other words, she would rather turn a blind eye to what’s taking place on campus. great.

the student took the university to court for not having adequate security measures installed on campus (an entirely different issue, which i’m choosing not to speak to here). runte’s foot found its way further into her mouth as the university made a statement that the victim was at fault for staying on campus late and not taking proper safety precautions.

there has since been a handful of sexual assaults and other attacks on campus, which are publicized only through flyers in university buildings; while carleton has hired a ’sexual assault coordinator’ (don’t ask what their job is), that’s no more than what the students were intially asking for. where it become problematic, is that 93% of students in the university student electons (CUSA/GSA) voted in favour of the Sexual Assault Support Centre–described as a student-run centre for resources and support (not dissimilar to the Womyn’s Centre or the GLBTQ Centre on campus), and what they’ve been given is one paid-individual who is operating on the university’s, and not the student’s, agenda.

further to operating on the university’s agenda, Brian Foster (History Grad Students’ Association president) posted a notice last night about the research and travel grant cuts that are supposed to have been made for this year. the cuts affect students in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to the degree of 50% of the worth of previous year’s grants. that is to say that the history department is now receiving only $4 500 to share amongst its more than fifty students; instead of there being up to $1 200 available for international travel, there’s now $600.

given the current economic crisis, i would normally just chalk this up to budget cuts and move on but carleton recetly made a statement about how they were doing well financially. furthermore, carleton’s vice-president of finance duncan watt is on the record as saying that he would like to “get more grads and pay them less”.

the behaviour of this university administration has been absolutely ludicrous. given my experience with bureaucracy, i know it to be nowhere near perfect. however, i also know that despite what dr. runte wants us to believe, carleton does not have the best interests of its students in mind.

oh. also, november fifth is drop fees for a poverty-free ontario. because obviously if the university is going to cut grants, then we’re going to be going into more debt for this education.

argh.

{image via medmoiselle}

Since Halloween is fast approaching, I thought I’d get us into the mood with a spooky post.

I am a huge fan of the weird fiction of HP Lovecraft. If you’ve never read him before, and appreciate cosmic nihilism, macabre occultist rites, as well as long-winded and archaic diction, you just gotta check him out. I recommend the Library of America’s H.P. Lovecraft: Tales, because it’s hardcover, very extensive with almost 900 onion-skin pages, and has one of those built-in ribbon bookmarks. Perfect for curling up by the fire with a cup of tea and contemplating one’s insignificance in a vast and hostile universe.

And if you’re like me and also love perverse and disgusting horror films, you will fall in love with director Stuart Gordon’s adaptations of HP Lovecraft, in particular Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986), and Castle Freak (1995). All three of them feature Jeffrey Combs, one of those amazing underrated working-class actors who exclusively does B-movies and television and frequents the horror and science fiction convention circuit with his Sharpie marker. He’s actually been in eight Lovecraft adaptations, including ones not by Gordon. Anyway, these three films actually share a lot of actors in common, which is fun. I guess Gordon likes to work with his favourites.

Stuart Gordon is an old hippie turned master of the cinematically nefarious. Here’s his bio lifted directly from Wikipedia:

Gordon attended the University of Wisconsin and soon after formed Screw Theater. In March 1968 Gordon’s Screw Theater produced The Game Show at the UW Memorial Union. The goal of the production was to get the audience to leave. To that end the heat was turned to 90, ushers chained the doors behind the audience, the show’s start time delayed and the content of The Game Show made as inane as possible. The audience finally demanded to leave one hour and fifty minutes into the two hour production. In the fall of 1968, he produced a version of Peter Pan that got him and his future wife arrested for obscenity. The story made national headlines until the charges were dropped in November 1968.

After the University of Wisconsin demanded future theatrical productions by Screw Theater be overseen by a University Professor, Gordon cut his University ties to form Broom Street Theater. Its first production, the new translation of the risque Lysistrata, premiered in May 1969. Gordon is married to Carolyn Purdy-Gordon, whom he frequently casts in his movies. Together in 1970, they founded the Chicago Organic Theater Company, for which Gordon also served as artistic director. With the company, he did several plays, such as Warp!, Sexual Perversity In Chicago, Bleacher Bums, ER, Bloody Bess. Warp! was later adapted into a comic book by First Comics. He is also the proud father of three daughters- Suzanna, Jillian, and Margaret.

And here are some goolish trailers for your enjoyment!

First, a hideous pseudo-Frankenstienian tale of science gone wrong:

Secondly, another tale of science gone wrong. I love the insane fluorescent pink and purple color palette of this movie. So 1986!

And last but not least, a classic macabre tale of a gruesome subhuman creature stalking people in a castle:

So much gruesome dismemberment, so many great memories. Dismembories?

xo a

I’m not quite sure how to react to this piece in the NY Review:

In the near decade since September 11, the tectonic plates beneath the American intelligence community have undergone a seismic shift, knocking the director of the CIA from the top of the organizational chart and replacing him with the new director of national intelligence, a desk-bound espiocrat with a large staff but little else. Not only surviving the earthquake but emerging as the most powerful chief the spy world has ever known was the director of the NSA. He is in charge of an organization three times the size of the CIA and empowered in 2008 by Congress to spy on Americans to an unprecedented degree, despite public criticism of the Bush administration’s use of the agency to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance as part of the “war on terror.” The legislation also largely freed him of the nettlesome Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). And in another significant move, he was recently named to head the new Cyber Command, which also places him in charge of the nation’s growing force of cyber warriors.

Wasting no time, the agency has launched a building boom, doubling the size of its headquarters, expanding its listening posts, and constructing enormous data factories. One clue to the possible purpose of the highly secret megacenters comes from the agency’s British partner, Government Communications Headquarters. Last year, the British government proposed the creation of an enormous government-run central database to store details on every phone call, e-mail, and Internet search made in the United Kingdom. Click a “send” key or push an “answer” button and the details of the communication end up, perhaps forever, in the government’s data warehouse to be scrutinized and analyzed.

The whole piece is fascinating on a variety of levels, particularly in the “There is so much shit going on in the world that is nowhere near my radar” sense.  In any case, however, the realities described in the paragraphs quoted above carry a significant ‘ick’ factor.  I don’t want to betray any naievete about the risks and imperatives of combating terrorism, but the notion of every technological communication in the country automatically registering with a government database is not a little chilling.  I’m not even going so far as decrying harbingers of totalitarian dystopias, I’m merely wondering if we’re collectively aware of who our (and Britain’s) policy consort is in this type of behavior.  This is the kind of ’security’ striven for by authoritarian governments and banana republics.

There’s a difficulty here: when we humans get a new and exciting capability courtesy of our technology and brainpower, it’s often unrealistic to expect us to sit on it.  That being said, it is going to require a lot of discipline on the part of the intelligence community and the courts to not binge on the apples of this particular tree of knowledge.

On the plus side, I lose/break cell phones a lot.  I’ve gotten some pretty funny text messages in my life, and I’m glad to know that someone, somewhere is finally holding on to them.

I was in New York over the weekend. For lunch on Saturday, my friend and I took the Q train out to Brooklyn (way out, almost at Coney Island) to get pizza at Di Fara. First things first, Di Fara is incredible pizza; the best I’ve had anywhere. What actually makes Di Fara particularly remarkable is the man (pictured above), Dom DeMarco. Dom’s been running the place since 1959. He’s 69. He’s been there since he was 19 making great pizzas by hand for 50 years and his, I believe, are the only hands to touch the pizza before they go in the oven.

Di Fara is a small, unassuming corner shop on Avenue J in Midwood. It’s crowded and there’s little seating. Most people are happy to stand and wait, watching while DeMarco works his deceptively simple craft with hands that must have rolled out tens of thousands of pies. I got there a little bit after they opened and still waited about an hour. Waits during rushes would be unbearable to non-enthusiasts, but people wait. I think that’s as much testament to the respect DeMarco’s earned as it is to the quality of the pie.

How much does a man have to love his work to do it, day in and day out, for 50 years? While wildly popular, he can’t be doing it for the money. He’s pushing 70, in and out of the hospital, and still at it. I’ll count myself lucky if I find something to love half as much as Dom loves his work.