Greenberg premiered earlier this summer to fairly good reviews, as Noah Baumbach movies usually do. Also much like other Baumbach movies, established older actors got the chance to broaden their resume by playing someone superficially unlikeable, all while expanding the budding career of a younger costar (i.e. Linney and Daniels with Jesse Eisenberg for Squid and the Whale; Nicole Kidman with Zane Pais in Margot at the Wedding).

It seems to me, at least with my two Baumbach experiences (I have yet to actually see Squid,I know. I know), that the realism in his movies is expressed through the caustic cynicism of his protagonists – if you can even call them that. Margot, played perfectly by Nicole Kidman, is a successful and well received author and yet seems to only find satisfaction in her personal life when she brings down and subtly destroys the lives around her. She criticizes her son left and right, and manages to dismantle her sister’s engagement. Margot, though, is much more unlikeable than Greenberg, in my opinion. Her motives seem selfish, childish, and purely motivated by a lack of control for her own life. That being said, she is still an exquisite character, and I am sure I have met – and may have even been – a few Margots in my life.

Now, on to Greenberg. Like Margot, it seems most of his interactions with everyone from complete strangers to his closest friends are full of sarcasm, cynicism, and a biting attitude. Even his relationship with the tragically sweet Florence, played by Greta Gerwig, comprises mostly (at least as we see it in the film) with awkward advances and startlingly unreasonable outbursts. What makes, at least in my opinion, this character at least fractionally more likable than Margot is the fact that his inappropriate and uneasy personality stems ultimately from loneliness and a lacking of basic social skills. You can even literally blame it on the weather. Greenberg has come to L.A. from New York, and watching this fish out of water reminds me of Woody Allen’s L.A. cruising in Annie Hall; he swerves, he causes general chaos, but not out of any pure malice, just a lack of nerves.

I like Greenberg because he reminds me of two kinds of people: myself, and the men I choose to surround myself with. Out of every 5 male friends, maybe 1 is remotely optimistic. My father, for one, and my friend Bob, the children’s librarian. Most others, however, brood in varying stages of disenchantment and complacency. Even if they have something nice to say about something or someone, they usually highlight the unpleasant, the annoying, and the most ugly of features, and not always in the most eloquent or appropriate manner. They are born and raised in Austin, never want to leave, but constantly complain about the ever changing skyline or gentrificating hipsters that cloud their city like smog in Detroit (I have more on this, but for another post). They complain about having nothing to do, but when you mention some form of social activity outside of Facebook they complain about driving and parking and the hipsters that cloud their city like the permafrost over Alaskan tundra. They complain about never having a girlfriend but in the next breath say something off-putting and sexist, and defend it to their death.

They also say biting comments because they don’t know better, because they feel out of place, because they’re nervous and excited but somehow can only express that through lashing out like a chained dog. My friends aren’t violent, and they never shout (they’d never get away with it), but I can tell they’re not always really talking about what they’re talking about, much like Greenberg.

One scene in particular I connect with Greenberg. He’s eating dinner with his old band mate and current flame, and much to his disdain the friggin waiters bring some dumb cake out and sing to him. In an act of total awkward frustration and embarrassment, he shouts to his friend “Sit on my cock!” and leaves. The restaurant is silent, and his friend is visibly hurt. Later, Greenberg and Florcence laugh about it, realizing the true ridiculousness of the event. I had an extremely similar experience at a particular mall diner with a group of friends in junior high. It was my birthday, or at least some day close, and despite my adamant protesting my friends thought it would be a great idea if they got the whole damn place to friggin sing to me. I sulked. I whined. I was a frakin brat about it, and snapped at my friends in public. They weren’t trying to be mean, just festive, and eventually I felt like crap for how I acted but we were able to laugh it off later on. They understood how uncomfortable it was for me, how I don’t like being put on the spot, and how, when I am, I either freeze up or lash out.

It’s part of humanity, our imperfect way of resolving unpleasant and graceless moments with harsh emotional frustration. We’re all just waiting for our Florence to come along and sweetly sweep us off our feet with her delicate half-smile and endless understanding.

Just because I have the insight to notice sexist themes in a piece of work (movie, book, tv show, advertising, what have you), doesn’t mean that I hate the piece of work, doesn’t mean I won’t watch/read/purchase/wear it, and certainly doesn’t mean that it’s the most horrible thing on earth. American (and certainly other) culture has been indoctrinated with sexist/racist/ageist/etc ideals, but the beauty is that individuals within a society can defy those ideals.

So fucking sue me if I choose to.

I grew up on Disney Princesses, and proudly will sing “This Provincial Life” at the top of my lungs in various public social settings. However, as an adult I’m not their biggest fan. Even my favorite princess, Belle, submitted herself to a life of abuse and degradation. With a few exceptions Disney has again and again, at least in their cartoons (not including Pixar), represented women as primarily sexual, innocent, wide-eyed corruptable messes, who’s pitiful lives need only the true love kiss from some overly-valiant prince. When I say this usually people bring up Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, and Pocahontas. To this I say: Ariel won her man BY LOSING HER VOICE, Belle WAS ABUSED by the Beast, Jasmine’s entire purpose was of SEXUAL DESIRE, and even the strong wonderful image of Pocahontas was tarnished by her “choice” between basically dating a white guy or a fellow Native American.

My point? Disney has a track record. This Rapunzel bull ain’t helpin.

In the trailer for Disney’s new princess movie, Tangled, based on the fairy tale of Rapunzel, the primary focus is – the prince? Wait, what? The situation would be different if the movie played the whole “my side of the story” angle, but I don’t think it’s like that. What’s really happening is Disney’s last excuse for a princess movie, The Princess and the Frog, flopped and for some reason they thought that the best way to get kids into the theaters again was to make a male the lead of a princess movie.

I’ve heard the whole “well guys bring in more to the box office, and maybe Disney’s trying to appeal to more guys”. Because, you know, every effing Pixar film, and nearly all of their live action movies, although almost completely male-centered, aren’t bringing in the dough. Right. And even if that was the problem, why is the only solution to switch sexes? This argument also centers around the bullshit idea that women don’t go to movies. Don’t even get me started.

Sex and the City 1&2, The Twilight Saga (not my favorite example, but still), Harry Potter (which I mainly use to argue that you can market a film to BOTH sexes and watch the money come in), The Notebook, It’s Complicated, Lovely Bones, The Blind Side, The Proposal, Julie & Julia, or maybe, oh, I don’t know, THE ENTIRE DISNEY PRINCESS MOVIE SERIES. There. Women can fucking bring the cash in. As Jos over at  feministing.com said:

Disney deciding girls aren’t worth marketing their films to (or if the trailer is at all accurate, making movies for) is not a victory. It’s a reshaping of children’s culture into a more male-centric place. This is Disney deciding to consider girls about as worthless as Hollywood considers women.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/021498.html

Most of them, however, are political. So, if you have no interest in politics, shag off. If you are interested in politics, read on, agree, get pissed off…just feel something. If you get REALLY pissed off, start your own damn forum! That’s why I’m here! Because this is a free country and you’re (supposedly) allowed to feel anything you want. Let it all out. And don’t forget to thank me. That’s what my e-mail address is here for.

2008

• 9/11 Is A Joke–9/12/08
• Poltergeist…A-FUCKING-GAIN?!?!–8/22/08
• Olympics Schmolympics–8/9/08

2007

• 12/27/07–Christmas is over?
• 7/20/07–Harry Potter is not evil, you silly bastards.

2006

• 8/10/06–What Hell Hath He Wrought?

• 7/27/06–What the shit?!

2005

• 12/15/05–It’s a Wonderful Mess

• 9/16/05–New Orleans: WTF, Mate?!

• July 4, 2005–Where are we now?

2004

• New Year’s Rant 04
• 11/3/04–Post-Election Blues
• 10/30/04–Pre-Election Ranting
• 10/1/04–Post-Debate Wrap Party
• 5/12/04–RIP: Nicholas Berg
• 4/22/04–Janet’s Tit Strikes Back

2003

• Christmas 2003
• Thanksgiving 2003
• 9/11/03–Mercy, Mercy Me…What’s Goin’ On? (9/11 Anniversary Issue)
• July 4th? Damn. Missed it.
• 3/29/03–What hell hath he wrought?
• 2/27/03–Heeeeeeere’s War!

2002

• 12/22/02–Christmas Rant 2002

• 9/26/02–Was he out of line?

• 9/10/02–The Year After…

• 8/22/02–Our trees are screwed

• July 4, 2002

• 6/24/02–Will we forget?

• 1/5/02–Happy 2002

2001

• 10/11/01–Meanwhile, One Month Later

• 9/22/01–America Tries To Heal

• 9/15/01–America Fights Back…In The Wrong Way

• 9/11/01–Terrorism strikes deep in the heartland

• 5/5/01–Bush’s 1st 100 Days

• 1/20/01–Why is my website black?

2000

• 12/18/00–An open letter to Bush

• 12/10/00–Why not recount?

• 11/11/00–The Shrub’s America

• 11/9/00–Is Bush really our president?

• 6/14/00–Is history sexist? (This, as of 8/7/00, now has comments from an informed friend and a rebuttal from me.)

1999

• 5/9/99–Countdown to Episode 1

1998

• 9/21/98–Clinton’s Bad Habits
• 9/10/98–Titanic Backlash

I am not here to eulogize the dead. I am not here to deride the people who did it. I am not even here to commemorate the event. I believe that it was a horrible thing done by horrible people (whomever they may be) and should never be forgotten.

Here’s the thing: no one is LETTING us forget! Yesterday was filled with nothing but 9/11 trivia. There was a special on the History Channel all about it. I’m sure HBO or Cinemax was doing nothing but playing United 93 and Trade Center over and over and over again.

And, while those things are definitely a bit of exploitation, they are understandable. It was a day that will live in infamy and we expect it to be played out on at least the History Channel. (Hell, they play out Pearl Harbor the other 364 days of the year. Something else should get that other day.)

What is unforgivable is the fact that the politicians who are running for office right now are standing on the backs of the dead.

And guess who I’m NOT talking about. Yeah, Barack Obama has not said a whole lot on the subject. I’m sure that yesterday he did some little something to commemorate the event. But he has not made speech after speech talking about 9/11. Not that I’m aware of, anyway. If he has, then I stand corrected. But I don’t think that he has.

I’m talking about John McCain. I’m talking about Sarah Palin. I’m talking about Rudy Guilliani (who has made more money off the dead than most funeral homes). I’m talking about Bush and his entire crew of cronies who can’t stop talking about that one day.

There’s a reason for this: without that day, Bush would not have won a second term in office. He had done so much wrong up to that point and he did so much wrong AFTER that point that no one would have voted for him if he hadn’t kept bringing up the fact that, for one brief, shining moment, he made a good speech. That he was “protecting” us. That he was there for us on a horrible day.

Well, he wasn’t there for us. He was reading about goats. And he didn’t even look particularly surprised when his aide told him that a plane had just slammed into the World Trade Center.

John McCain, who I at one time had some respect for, can’t shut up about it now. He is riding those coattails as long as he can. If he’s not talking about 9/11, then he’s talking about how he was a war prisoner in Vietnam. Does he talk about the flashbacks that he has? Or the deep-seated trauma that he still suffers? Fuck no! That would keep him out of office…as it should.

I’m not here to put down his service to his country. Sure, I don’t agree with the Vietnam War. I think it was a crock of shit. But I hold nothing against the boys in uniform who went over there doing what some of them thought was right. They were told that they were defending their country. From what? They didn’t really know. Communism? Meh. Maybe.

Yes, John McCain was a prisoner of war. He was tortured. He was beaten. He was stuck in a small cage for months on end.

But…don’t you think that would fuck a guy up? Don’t you think that he might have some anger issues? Do you really want him near the Button? He may be a great senator, but senators don’t have the immediate power that the President does.

And how ’bout his rather cynical pick for VP? Sarah Palin comes from Nowhere. And I mean that quite literally. Even people in Alaska are saying, “Who?” She was a mayor of a small town. Then she was governor of Alaska for a year and a half. Now she’s a Presidential running mate. (After asking what a VP does, mind you.)

Why did McCain pick her? He probably picked her out a hat with the names of all of the female governors out there. He needed someone who would be as revolutionary as a black man as President. And he needed someone who would…um…grab the Hillary vote?

What’s funny is that that is exactly what they were thinking when they chose her. “Well, get a woman! We’ll get all the people who would have voted for Hillary!”

Um…no. Palin is a Third Wave lovin’ Creationist who uses her children like the rest of the GOP uses 9/11. She shamelessly paraded her kids to the entire nation at the convention so that everyone could see her soon to be war hero son and her pregnant daughter.

Speaking of…why did she decide to come out with the pregnant daughter news? Was it really because the Democrats would have jumped on it? I don’t think so. I think it was for sympathy.

Oh yeah…and she believes in witches and warlocks and speaks in tongues. I’m not even kidding.

So, that brings us back around to the subject at hand. Why is it that the Republican Party has been doing nothing but talking about 9/11? Why do they feel the need to bring it up every five seconds in interviews, commercials and debates?

Because they want us to remain scared. They want us to forget that, basically, we are already pretty damn safe. They want us to think that it is George W Bush’s actions that have kept us all alive and kicking.

Well, it’s actually his fucking actions that have made us, once again, the most hated nation in the world. We had the good will of just about every nation in the world on 9/12. Within about a year, though, everyone turned their backs on us. Why? Because we went to war in Iraq for no reason. None at all. No one was for it (except for Tony Blair, Bush’s puppet).

What did we do? We made fun of the French. You know, the guys who made us a little statue? The guys who helped us win our freedom? Yeah. We started calling things “Freedom Fries” and “Freedom Toast.”

How stupid is our government?

Well, they may not be stupid. But they are shameless. They are absolutely evil, conniving bastards who do nothing but profit from the dead.

All of the tears. All of the fear. All of the dead. All so that the Republicans can take office again and again.

Is this what we want? Is this how we want to teach our kids how to get what they want? To exploit and disgrace the memory of loved ones?

I say we stop commemorating 9/11. On that day, just live it like any other day. Instead, commemorate 9/12. THAT is the day that our nation came together. THAT is the day that we truly became a family. People banded together to help New York out of the darkest of times. And it wasn’t just New Yorkers. It was everyone. People all over the world were giving blood and money to help.

In the months after 9/11, there were vigils held, speeches made and plaques erected. But none of them stood as tall as the friends and neighbors from around the world who lent a hand in the recovery process.

For that moment, the world was as close as it ever had been. I felt like the people who died might have actually died for a reason: to bring us that much closer to a world were at least most of us could live in some sort of harmony. And for a few months, we did.

THAT is what we should celebrate every year.

To see some people who agree, check out this video. (I actually haven’t watched it yet, but I wanted to get this up as soon as possible…even though it’s a bit late for being on the 12th. I was away from my computer all day today. Dammit.)

Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper came together in a perfect storm of scary when they decided to make Poltergeist. From the casting of Zelda Rubinstein (one of the most frightening ladies in film) and Heather O’Rourke (one of the cutest and most tragic young actresses in film) to the special effects by the ILM team, this movie was, when I was 8, enough to keep me awake for about a week. When I saw it again at around 10 years old, it did it again. Both times I didn’t manage to see the part where Spielberg peels the face off of the dummy staring in the mirror. Just couldn’t bring myself to watch it.

When I watched it again a couple of years ago…um…well…it nearly did the same thing. It is STILL fucking scary! Sure, some of the effects have dated a bit (that face peeling isn’t nearly as bad as I thought it would be…and the flying records are a bit much), but, for the most part, the movie has aged very well. Like a fine wine with a ghost in the bottle, it finds new ways to scare you at every age you see it at. As a little kid, it was the face peeling and the skeletons in the pool. (Yeah, that’s still pretty scary.) But that last time, as a 30 year old, it was the little brother realizing that his sister was in the tv. So petrified, he couldn’t even speak as he pointed at the tv, trying his best to say, “Ma…Ma….Ma….Ma!”

(It still makes me shiver a bit just thinking about it.)

Add to all of this the weird shit that went down after the filming of this and the sequels, then you have a legacy of fear that has run for just over a quarter of a century. (Holy shit, I’m old.)

Well, just when you thought the fear was over…Hollywood has found a way.

They remaking Poltergeist.

Ok. Get all of your “What the fucks?!?!?!” out of the way now.

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

Done? Good.

Now…let’s think about why this could be happening. The original is a very good movie. It is very much of its time, though. Think about the dad (Craig T Nelson) and mom (JoBeth Williams) smoking out in their bedroom while reading Reagan’s biography.

And let’s look at a little exchange between the kids and their mom:

Diane: Sweetheart, last night, when you said “They’re here.’…

Carol Anne: Can I take my goldfish to school?

Diane: Sweetheart, do you remember last night when you woke up, and you said “They’re here.’?

Carol Anne: Uh huh

Diane: Well, who did you mean?

Carol Anne: The TV People.

Robbie: She’s stoned.

Dana: Oh yeah? What do you know about it?

Robbie: More than you. Ask Dad.

Did Dad get Robbie high some night? And when Mom kept putting Carol Anne on the floor allowing the “TV People” to push her to the other end of the kitchen…she’s positively GIDDY! NO parent these days would do that! And that’s one of the really cool things about this movie. The parents are decent parents…but they have these weird little quirks that make you kind of wonder about them. Hollywood probably wouldn’t allow them to be this cool anymore.

Hell, let’s move out a bit and look at the state of suburbs these days. That’s what this movie was about! A brand new suburb was built on an old Indian burial ground and they didn’t move the bodies! That probably wouldn’t even make sense to today’s teenage audience! Suburbs ain’t what they used to be.

The movie was also about the family unit. In the early 80s, there was still such a thing as a complete family. It’s harder and harder to find these days. Not that it was always a good thing when it was found in the early 80s, but it was there more often than it is now.

And the kids were kids. They weren’t over-written little shit-bags who know everything. They weren’t “clever,” in other words.

So, what can a remake offer us?

Well, let’s see what the last horror movie remade by Spielberg brought us. That would be The Haunting in 1999. Spielberg, who denied us a glimpse of the shark until the very end of Jaws because it would add more suspense to the story, said that the audience of the late 90s would never understand a horror movie with no special effects. So his remake of The Haunting, instead of being an incredibly frightening character study of people scared to death without ever actually seeing anything, it became a “roller coaster ride” of a movie devoid of characters.

It was a special effect surrounding actors.

(To be perfectly fair to Mr. Spielberg, he didn’t direct the remake. He only produced it. Of course…he has also said that the only reason he didn’t show “Bruce” the shark until the end of Jaws was because the damn thing kept breaking. So, who knows? I still give him the benefit of the doubt back then. I love the guy, but he makes some bad decisions these days.)

But Spielberg isn’t involved the remake of his early 80s masterpiece of horror. This time it appears to be Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, writers of Boogeyman.

Let me say that again…the writers of Boogeyman.

Fuck, this is gonna suck.

There’s just no reason for this at all. Everyone has seen the original. Everyone loves the original. No one has said, “You know? I really wish that there was a bigger budget version of Poltergeist. That movie scared the be-shitting-Jesus out of me when I was a kid. I think it would scare me even more now with worse actors and a less talented director! Let’s get a really terrible version of the script and see what that does for the story! Sign me up for that!”

Fuck Hollywood. There’s just absolutely no reason for this. I mean, I can almost see if this movie was 50 years old. I can’t imagine that anyone is all that interested in seeing the original version of The Uninvited these days. Hell, I saw that movie around the same time I saw the original Haunting and I don’t remember it at all.

But Poltergeist is only 26 years old. And, while the special effects may not be seen as so “special” anymore, they’re still pretty damn good for the most part. It’s still a scary fucking movie! What could they possibly add to it?!

I’m usually ok with remakes. A screenplay is like a play. Anyone can interpret it at any time in history. If we were so reverent to all forms of storytelling, then no one would be allowed to do Shakespeare except for the original Globe players.

But there are certain movies that the book should be closed on. Poltergeist is kind of one of them. When someone does such an amazing job the first time around and that job is caught on film, why bother? Would you remake Citizen Kane or Casablanca?

(Ok, they’ve both sort of been remade as Velvet Goldmine and Barb Wire…but that’s a bit different. They took the basic story and put it in another world. Different animal all together.)

And I absolutely put Poltergeist up there with those two films. It’s a different genre, one that doesn’t ever get any kind of respect. But it is just about as good as those amazing films. Poltergeist and The Exorcist are the Citizen Kane and Casablanca of horror. Stop touching them! PLEASE!!!

Let me start this by saying that I love Asian culture. I think anyone who knows me knows that this is true. I love the culture, the tradition and the people. Asian films make up not a HUGE portion, but a good portion of my collection. I can name more Asian actors than your normal, everday American. I can even stand a little J-pop every once in a while. And then there’s the women…

That being said, the Olympic Committee made a HUGE mistake.

Last night (or afternoon depending on what part of the world you live in), we gave a party for murderers. If not outright murderers, then accessories to murder. You see, for the past however many years, the Chinese government has been funding the genocide in Darfur.

I don’t know a whole lot about the situation in Darfur, but I know that it’s absolutely wrong. I know that almost every country in the world has spoken out against it (except, of course, America because we have one of the stupidest and most inept governments in our history). And I know that it is so morally aprehensible as to not even NEED a comment or a denouncement from most of the world. I mean, these people are killing thousands of people just because they were born in the wrong area.

And the Chinese are helping this to happen. Not only that, but they have their own little genocide going in their own land with the whole Tibet situation.

2008 was the year that China had the Olympics in line. So, instead of telling China to fuck off because of this little oversight in morality, they decided to go ahead and let them have a party.

Basically, the world is throwing a party and the people who are protesting this party are being looked down upon.

What the fuck?!

Let’s say that I killed 10 people. Everyone knows it. They all think it’s pretty apprehensible. And they don’t particularly like me. Not just because of the murders I committed, but because I’m kind of an asshole, too.

Now my family throws a party. It’s not really for me, but they want to have it at my house. And they invite the whole neighborhood. The neighbors don’t really have anything against my family. They are able to separate me from my family in their minds. But, since the party is being held in my house, some of them are concerned. A few say that they won’t come because they don’t want to be associated with me. A few are apprehensive, but they come anyway. A few just really don’t care.

Is this a pretty normal reaction? Or would the most normal reaction be for my family to just have the party somewhere else. Maybe Zilker Park. Maybe their house. Maybe fucking Australian. Anywhere but my place.

How was this not an option for the Olympics Committee?! How come, when the time came for the big decision, they couldn’t just tell China to fuck off? I’m a little confused here. Of all the places in the world where the Olympics could be held, they had to go ahead and let China do it even though they are kind of the world’s enemy right now.

And, just to add insult to injury, they barred one of our athletes from coming to their country because he spoke out against the genocide in Darfur.

Aspluhndfigibit!?!?!

They actually had the GALL to tell one of our guys to fuck off when he said that they were doing something horrible and should be punished for it!

You know, America used to put bans on countries at the drop of a hat. You know why Cuba is forbidden? Because they’re fucking Communists! That’s really it! They’re Communists and hid a few weapons for the Soviet Union. Well, guess what: the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. It’s over. Cuba is now just a poor little country who, up until a few months ago, had an incredibly old leader who was about to kick off. Now they’re new leader may be more of the same…but can they really do anything to us at this point? Fuck, no. It’s time to lift that particular embargo and stick it on China.

The problem is that China won’t feel it. They’re pretty self-sufficient. They don’t HAVE to have us buying their cheap little toys. They have their own film industry. They have more money than us at this point. (Partly because they’re not spending trillions on a war that they can’t win…but I digress.) Cuba, on the other hand, felt it pretty hardcore. Suddenly, no one was buying their cigars and things went to shit.

My point is that it is absolutely time for America to at least say, “Fuck off, China. You can do your thing, but without the support of any of our money or goods. See how long THAT lasts!” Then, if we do it, maybe other countries will do it, too. Because, even though everyone hates us right now, they still kind of look up to us ocassionally. (Especially once we get a new leader at the end of the year.) And, while a lot of other countries have condemned them for what they’re doing, they’re not doing a whole lot about that condemnation. They’re not boycotting them. They’re not putting an embargo on them. They’re just kind of saying, “Bad China!” and slapping their hands.

Maybe it’s time to do something. Maybe it’s time for the governments of the world to finally stop the money flow and stop doing any business with these people. I don’t want to punish the people for the government’s mistakes, but hopefully it wouldn’t take so long for the message to get across.

China has brought a lot of great things to this world and I hope that one day they will start doing that again. But, until that day, they should be off limits to the rest of the world.

It’s too bad that Hong Kong went back to them just in time for all of this shit to go down.

Then I realized something. That’s not what Christmas is about. It’s not about infighting and calling people out on their stupidity. It’s not even really about “the birth of Jesus” or religion anymore. That’s something that a small group of people put on in a few hundred years ago.

No, Christmastime is about one thing: The Future.

When you think of Christmas, what do you think of? Kids opening presents. Or maybe yourself as a kid opening presents. That’s the older generation giving the world to their kids. It may have started out being a symbol for the Three Kings bringing Gold, Frankenstein and Mayo, but that’s not what it is anymore.

And that’s why I make this plea to everyone within the reach of my virtual voice: look to the future. Don’t forget about it. Don’t keep saying, “Weren’t times so much better back then? Why can’t we go back to those values?” Because we can’t. Things have changed too much to go back. I know a lot of people would really love us to, but it’s impossible.

This is why we need to change things for the better. Not so that we can reap the benefits now. But so our kids don’t have to clean up our messes. And so that they can live a real life without being frightened of global warming or wars with people they have no personal problem with.

We need to teach our kids that it’s ok to love people in another country. We need them to understand that it’s ok to talk their problems through instead of just picking up a gun. And we need them to know that peace IS the answer and that someday everyone will figure this out. There may be some crazy people in charge right now, but they won’t be for long. And hopefully the next crew will be more future oriented than that last and we can finally get over this hump we’ve been stuck on for seven years.

You see, about 2000 years ago there was a guy who said some pretty good things about peace and love. And, as much as I kind of reject the WAY his thoughts are taught, I can’t complain about the thoughts themselves. He was looking towards the future. I just wish that everyone who says that they listen to him actually WOULD listen to him. Unfortunately, they just don’t. And it has cost our country, and our world, dearly.

So, I know that Christmas is over, but that doesn’t mean that the thought has to be. All we need to do is keep looking forward. Think of the children whenever we do something. Think of how they will live with the consequences of our actions. And remember that everything we do, good or bad, is a gift for them to open later. It’s up to us to make sure that it’s not rotten to the core by the time they get it.

There’s a storm coming…and it’s called Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows.

As a lot of you know, I’ve become a HUGE Harry Potter fan. I’ll admit it right here and now. If I could, I would be Harry Potter.

Or, well…maybe Ron. I don’t want to have quite the tragic life of Harry. I probably would have offed myself years ago.

But I’m not really here to talk about my love for all things Hogwarts. No, I’m here to talk about the detractors. On the eve of the release of the final book, I think it’s finally time that we confront them and tell them exactly what it is we see in this story.

Around the time of the first movie (I think it took that long, actually), a bunch of Bible thumpers came out against this little story. Apparently, wizards and witches are all dark and anti-God. They’re not Christian, so they must be evil. In fact, HARRY POTTER IS THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!

Yeah, they held boycotts. They burned books. They held pray-ins to keep children “safe” from the evils of a childrens’ book. A popular one, indeed, but still…a children’s book.

According to Evangel-a-holes, these books teach kids about the evils of magic. And, of course, all magic is black magic. Only one man in history has ever been able to do magic…and that’s THEIR hero. No one else’s hero is allowed.

And, of course, there’s all of those other evil lessons that Harry and his friends teach…things like the importance of friendship. The fact that you don’t have to go it alone. The fact that people who love you never leave your side, even in death.

That’s right. A lot of the same lessons that the Bible teaches.

There have been many books that have magic in them that haven’t been protested by Evangel-a-holes (including The Chronicles Of Narnia and Lord Of The Rings…both written by devout Christians). Why this one?

One reason: popularity. To paraphrase John Lennon (another artist whose work was boycotted after a run-in with Jesus), Harry Potter is more popular than Jesus. Kids would MUCH rather read about Harry, Ron and Hermione than Jesus, Moses and Noah. Harry Potter is DANGEROUSLY close to outselling their book! (If he hasn’t already.)

Now, I’m not saying that Harry Potter is more important, historically, than the Bible. Obviously, the Bible has influence a LOT more people than the story of a boy going up against a Dark Lord when everyone else has failed. All I’m saying is that JK Rowling is a better writer than Peter, Paul, Luke, John, et al. I don’t think JK would have wasted all that time on “begats.”

Seriously, though, when I read Harry Potter books (or watch the movies), I feel really happy. I feel like I’m 12 years old again and I can’t wait to see what happens next. This is the first time that I’ve ever been biting at the bit for a book to come out. And millions of kids are feeling the same way. They WANT to read! For the first time in decades, kids would rather read than watch tv! It started with the first book and has just been getting stronger. Publishing companies have been breathlessly trying to find something as good (or if not, as popular) as Harry. They’ve pretty much failed across the board, but they’ve come close. I haven’t read any of the Lemony Snicket books, but I hear they’re pretty good and they were REALLY popular. (Even if the movie wasn’t.)

So…what’s the problem? Why do Evangel-a-holes hate it when kids read? Don’t you think that kids reading is a GOOD thing? Maybe they might even read YOUR book if you put it in front of them and tell them that it’s an adventure story!

In fact, here’s an idea: revamp the Bible. Make it more exciting. Rewrite it a little. It’s not blasphemous, ya dumbass. It’s PR. After all, the Bible is just a collection of parables, right? (I know, you don’t want to think of it like that. You like to think of it as “The Word Of God.” Guess what? That Word has been through so many translations that the original Word is lost. Hell, Moses was probably a woman in the original.) So, let’s see what we can do to make the Bible a little more…sexy.

Wait…there’s quite a bit of sex in there already, isn’t there? And violence. LOTS of violence. In fact, that’s kind of where we get the idea that violence is better than sex, isn’t it? People are swallowed by whales and turned to pillars of salt. A kid throws a rock and kills a giant (hmmm…kinda like Harry Potter might in this next book). Entire armies are swept away by rivers. Millions are killed by a flood. Limbs are ripped off. Lions are unleashed on kids.

And, instead of two loving parents making a child, we get a woman who is suddenly impregnated by magic…by an unseen being who eventually kills his son.

Weird.

Yeah, that’s pretty fucked up, honestly. I’m not sure I like that story. The Greeks wrote that kind of story all the time, and it always ended badly. And then a chariot came out of the sky to swoop the “hero” up.

Now, let’s check out the Harry Potter story:

A young orphan is dropped off with a family who doesn’t like his kind. Eleven years later, he finds out that he has magical powers. He is taken away from his unhappy life under the stairs to a place with others like him. Through the strength of his friends and faith in himself, he finds ways to constantly defeat Voldemort, even when the odds are so against him that he thinks he’s going to die. Others do die. Others who are very close to Harry. But, even when things look their worst (as they do at the end of book 6), he keeps soldiering on. He knows that he’s the only one who can defeat this guy for good, so he never gives up. And his friends don’t give up on him. They’re with him every step of the way.

Who wouldn’t want that kind of support group?

Really, I’m not trying to knock Christianity. I have a few friends who are very devout Christians. It’s helped them through some very difficult times in their lives. And that’s great. I’m glad there was something there for them to lean on in those dark times.

Here’s what I’m really trying to knock: Evangel-a-holes who apparently don’t want the rest of the world to have any fun.

To those of you who think that Harry Potter is the anti-Christ (even though, really, he’s a bit more like Moses), I have this to say to you:

You don’t deserve Harry Potter.

That’s right. You don’t deserve to feel as good as I do when I read these books. You don’t deserve to feel like a kid again. You trying to take them away from kids all over the world is like someone trying to pull friends apart.

No, seriously! Harry Potter is a friend to all of those kids out there who are reading these books. To many of them, he’s as real as any of their real friends. (To me, he’s as real as, say, Luke Skywalker. You just TRY to take Star Wars away from me!) They’ve invested so much time into that friendship that he may as well be real. They’ve read and re-read those books more than most kids re-read comic books back in the 50s. I’m sure some of them re-read them more than they re-watched Shrek. And THAT’S a LOT!

Magic isn’t real. (Well, I don’t THINK it is.) Most kids of Harry Potter age know this. If they don’t, then, well…they have more problems than taking Harry away from them can cure. JK Rowling is not a witch trying to teach kids “black magic.” Harry Potter is not going to take the place of Jesus in the hearts of Christian children everywhere.

Just the Jewish ones.

All JK Rowling is out to teach kids is that they have the strength inside of themselves to overcome anything. And friends and family can help them find that strength.

Of course, the overpowering force behind all of the good in the book is something that these Evangel-a-holes know nothing about: Love. Love conquers all evil. Love protects us from all evil. Love makes the world go ’round. Love is a many splendored thing. All you need is Love.

Is that a bad message?

And to the person who decided that the saga of the mandrakes is saying that abortion is ok…you’re REALLY reaching, aren’t you? I mean…it’s just silly.

The same guy (Michael D. O’Brien) says that Harry’s disobedience is never punished:

“There are other serious problems in these books, notably the question of authority and obedience. Harry’s faults are rarely punished, and usually by the negative authority figures in the tale. The positive authority figures actually reward Harry for his disobedience when it brings about some perceived good. His lies, his acts of vengeance and his misuse of his powers are frequently ignored. The message of ’the end justifies the means’ is dominant throughout.”

Have you READ the books, dude? If Harry hadn’t “misbehaved,” Voldemort (or, the Devil in your world) would have taken over. Would you like if it Daniel had just laid down and let the lions eat him like his captures wanted? Or if Moses had just kind of let the Egyptians walk all over him? Or maybe if Jesus had done a few magic tricks for Harrod?

So, yeah. I think going against Snape to overcome the “ultimate evil” is pretty small potatoes. Shut up.

And, could someone help me out here: Is Slytherin really another name for Satan? Or Azkaban? I had never heard those words in my life until JK Rowling made them up. (And a quick search on Google and Wikipedia backed me up.) Here’s his quote:

“Harry also learns a new vocabulary, including such words as Azkaban, Circe, Dracho, Erised, Hermes, Slytherin, all of which are names of real devils or demons. These are no characters of fiction.”

Seriously? Circe? I’ve read these book twice and I don’t remember reading about Circe. Besides, she was a Greek goddess…not Satan.

Dracho? Um…maybe some form of “dragon”? That’s what Draco means. What’s this new spelling? I couldn’t pull anything up on Google that related it to a demon, much less Satan. Although, dragons are (typically) evil. So he’s got that.

Hermes (I guess Hermione) was a messenger between the Greek gods and the humans.

Erised, as in The Mirror Thereof: read it backwards, fool. There’s nothing else that comes up under THAT name, either. I highly doubt that a different culture in a different time would have named their personal demon a backwards English word. Just a thought.

This guy’s an idiot and more dangerous than Harry Potter ever could be. We should all just lay down in the face of evil if someone else doesn’t believe that that evil is there and fear any words that we don’t understand.

Like I said…doesn’t deserve to feel happy.

Anyway, it’s nearly 5am and I’m ready to sleep…at least for a few hours. The book comes out tomorrow…or today. And I can’t wait.

Well, imagine my surprise when the director of said film, Joe Swanberg, sent me an e-mail after reading my review.

D’OH!!

Well, we had an exchange of words and ideas and he gave me permission to put those words and ideas up on my website. Joe seems like a good guy and I thank him for his permission. I wish I had put this up earlier, but, hey. Better late than never, right?

Anyway, this is the kind of open discussion that film should bring on. So, no matter what I thought about his film, Joe and I had a good, short discussion about his film, where film is going and nudity in America. It was a good thing to happen and, hopefully, it taught me to be a little more clear in my reviews. Only my readers can tell me that, though.

(By the way, I didn’t edit either of these e-mails. All typos and punctuation errors were there before I copied and pasted.)

JOE (4/3/05)

Hey Mark,

i read your review of my film KISSING ON THE MOUTH, and just wanted you to know that you got the characters mixed up. It’s Ellen (Kate Winterich) that’s the main focus of the film, and Laura (Kris Williams) is the one who plays her friend.

It’s a shame that you didn’t like the film more. You have some interesting points, and of course your own take on the film is valid, but you seem to assume the worst in us. That we are only using the sex and nudity as a gimmic, that the film looks cheap because we can’t afford anything better (your example of credits using paint on glass rather than some effects program stands out especially). Of course I could have used Video Toaster, or LiveType, or any other title program including Final Cut Pro, which I cut the film on. We chose to use the painted titles on purpose.

Also, it’s interesting that in the same breath you commend what we are trying to do, but dismiss the film for that exact same reason. How can you say, ” I’m not a prude by any means and I think that these weird-ass barriers we have with showing bodies on screen need to be knocked down. I know we need to get past that to get to where it doesn’t seem so gimmicky, but it sucks that there’s going to be so much crap until that happens.” But a few sentences earlier you say, “You know. All the stuff you basically feel really uncomfortable about seeing someone else do.”

You opinion that the film is “crap” is your own. But if we are ever going to knock down the barriers that you claim to want knocked down, you need to get over your feeling of discomfort. One can’t happen without the other. You’ll never find a film that’s going to hold your hand and slowly walk you through the things you have issues with. Either films charge forward and show life as it is, or they continue to put up false barriers. It seems like you are promoting a halfway point where a film can be realistic about sex, and also allow you to sit comfortably in your seat, but that’s never going to happen if you are the same person to call a film out for being “gimmicky” when it does show sex realistically. You just seem confused on what you want as a viewer. You want to break down barriers, but you feel uncomfortable when it happens. You realize the barriers are bullshit, but you think films are gimmicky when they cross them. How could any film satisfy what you want as a viewer, when you as a film critic are condemning every film that tries? You seem to realize that if enough films start taking this approach, it won’t seem so gimmicky, but you are failing to put yourself as a critic outside of the particular bubble of time and film that we live in.

I appreciate you coming to see our film, and taking the time to write about it. I know there was a lot of great stuff to choose from at SXSW, and I’m happy that you gave our film a shot. If you have the time, i would love to hear your thoughts on my comments, and it would also be helpful if you could switch the character names and actresses around to avoid confusion in your readers.

Best,

Joe

ME (4/3/05)

Hey Joe,

Now THIS makes me uncomfortable. I always hate it when a filmmaker reads a bad review that I wrote. But I put it out there, so I obviously wanted SOMEONE to read it.

Anyway, sorry about the name confusion. I think I was going from the SXSW website and they had Kris listed first. It was a bad assumption.

And it’s fixed now.

As for the movie itself, well, while you make some good arguments, I haven’t changed my opinion. I did add a bit to my review explaining what I think good movies are that are trying to break down this barrier. The Dreamers, Kinsey, some of Almadovar’s films. And I don’t think that the big names get off easy. I thought Young Adam with Ewan McGregor was a terrible movie. I read some good reviews of it (ok, glowing reviews) and I just didn’t understand. Maybe they saw a different movie. The entire audience that I saw it with in Telluride thought it was the most boring movie of the festival.

Anyway, back to your movie:

I think that no matter how many movies show it, we will all be a little uncomfortable watching someone else jerk off. At this point it’s kind of human nature. It’s a very private thing that we certainly don’t see everyday. Maybe it’s silly. I don’t know. The barrier that really needs to be broken down is just seeing bodies on screen. If we can get past everyone in the audience saying, “ACK! A PENIS!!” then we’re getting somewhere. And if we can get past parents getting all pissed off because their kids saw a boob on national tv, then we’re REALLY getting somewhere. It’s a naked body. Everybody’s got one. This isn’t human nature. It’s our screwed up American mentality. I’ve gotten into arguments (mainly with my family…bad idea, by the way) about whether or not Janet’s tit was grounds for fining a network.

But I think even cavemen turned away when their friends were masturbating. Casual nudity, sex and masturbation are three completely different barriers to me. Baby steps. Baby steps.

How can it be put into a movie without it seeming totally exploited or uncomfortabe? That’s a tough one. I don’t know that I’m quite creative enough to figure it out. Did you want the audience to feel uncomfortable in this scene? Did you feel uncomfortable filming it? Or did you just think, “Aw, these are my buddies. I don’t care if they see me doing this. And I don’t know the audience, so who cares?” Personally, I probably would have chickened out on that scene. It takes some serious guts to do that and I commend your commitment.

As for the pube shaving, that’s not quite as uncomfortable. It’s not a sexual act, but it’s still something that’s very solitary and private. Maybe I shouldn’t have equated it with masturbation. I just kind of generalized some stuff that I shouldn’t have.

We absolutely need to break down the barriers. No doubt about that.

It’s hard, though, with people constantly saying, “What? You want us all to just walk around naked and screwing in the streets?!” To which we say, “Well, yeah! Would you fight a naked man? There’s the reason!”

Seriously, though, I’m an American. That means that I’m a big ol’ walking contradiction. I’m a pacifist who loves violent, gory movies. I like peanut butter, but not peanut butter flavored things. I like to think that I’m enlightened, but I’m not always as much so as I really want to be. I want people to get over their hatred of naked bodies and sex, but I would never put mine on screen. I want us to be able to put all kinds of things on the screen, but I don’t want to see all of them.

And I’m just a guy with a website that about three people read.

Thanks for your comments, Joe. And if you have any more, please, feel free to let them fly. It always catches me a little off-guard when a filmmaker actually finds my website, but I’m always into the exchange of ideas.

By the way, do you mind if I put your note on the site? I’d like to have your comments up there.

–Mark

JOE (4/4/05)

Hey Mark,

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. Before I forget, please feel free to put my comments on your site. Anything that might create a discussion is good.

As for the film, I’m glad that my email has not made you change your mind about the film. That would mean that you didn’t believe what you wrote in the first place. As I hope I conveyed in my first email, it does not bother me at all that you didn’t like the film. I have developed pretty tough skin when it comes to things like that. I just felt that you were sending mixed messages about the things you wanted vs. the things you were actually ready to deal with. Your email clears that up. I love your examples of the contradictions in your life. I think we are all guilty of quite a few.

We did not want our film to make people uncomfortable. We are realistic enough to know that it WILL make some people uncomfortable, but the intention was never to shock or arouse. A guy jerking off in a shower is something that happens all over the world at all times of day, yet we hardly ever see it in films. It is very private, and I think I agree with you that cavemen probably turned away, but sometimes I think it’s good to take a nice long look at something we’re not used to seeing, if only to analyze how we individually feel about it. The masturbation scene in the film gives us a glimpse into Patrick’s head in a way that I didn’t think anything else could. He’s turned on by the haircut that Laura gave him, and the intimacy of it, but his sexual thoughts still return to Ellen, who he can’t get out of his head.

Uncomfortable? Perhaps. Realistic and telling of the character? Definitely. And in the end, the story won out over the concern for the viewer, for better or for worse in some cases.

But it’s not the masturbation scene that was make or break for you. Obviously you had other issues with the film, and there’s no point dwelling on that one scene as the whole focus of the film. Nothing that we showed exists outside of daily life. There is no superficial action, no random violence, no mistaken identities, and yet our film will naturally stand out as an outsider to our national cinema. I think there is something very wrong with the way we represent ourselves when this is the case. You seem to agree, so even though you didn’t like the film, I’m glad we are on the same page.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to see the film, to write a review, and to write me back. The whole reason that I make films, and I must assume that the reason you go see films like mine at a festival, is to try and explore the world in a way that it isn’t being explored, and to hopefully discover a lot along the way. I think a discussion should exist between the filmmaker and the viewer, and I’m glad that the internet facilitates that in a lot of ways. Hopefully my next film will do something for you that this one didn’t, but at the very least, I hope you will take another chance and come see it.

Best,

Joe

Shit.

This is the bust that Bush and Blair have been waiting their entire political careers for. All this time they’ve had people saying that their searches were illegal, that they weren’t allowed to have so much surveillance, that they were infringing on our rights as human beings living in a free society.

Well, now they’ve managed to cuff 21 people in the biggest terrorist plot ever conceived (according to Faux News, anyway) due to their meddling.

It was 9/11 times a thousand.

Jesus Christ. What does that do to us?

Well, now the government will be able to come into our homes, strip search us and our kids, take our personal belongings and leave without ever showing us any kind of warrant. They’ll be able to put nation wide curfews on us so that we can’t go out after 9pm without written permission from the mayor. They’ll be able to put cameras in our homes without us knowing. They’ll be able to put things in our water that will level us out and make us “less likely to commit violent acts.”

This is what Bush and his cronies have been waiting for for a long, long time.

Which brings this to mind: Mid-term elections are coming up. Bush’s approval ratings are at the lowest they’ve ever been. People are more against the war in Iraq than ever. The Israelis (one of our biggest allies) are committing their own terrorist acts against people who happen to live in a country with a large terrorist group on their border.

Was this bust a set-up? Did Bush’s mastermind (whomever that may be now…Rove, maybe?) find 21 guys to lay down their lives to save Bush career? Were the bombs real? Was there ever a real threat? Is this “terrorist plot” just a figment of the government’s imagination?

It’ll be interesting to see what the major conspiracy theorists come up with. I, of course, don’t have all the facts. No one ever will. This book will be shut tighter than the 9/11 Commission’s real report. They keep saying that there are 50 people who are involved with this plot. Will we ever see the other 29? Do we ever need to? I doubt it.

So, sleep tight tonight. And keep this in mind: I fear our government more than I fear any terrorist. I believe that our government can do things that a terrorist could only dream of. They have more money, more connections and more willingness to do it.

After all, it’s not God and the Promised Land they’re after. It’s their careers.