Alright, this is tenuously connected to the death of Leslie Nielsen. Just...humor me. The death of Leslie Nielsen-an actor I've liked since I was about nine years old, despite the vast number of terrible movies he's been in-surprised me by actually making me quite sad. I wasn't even looking forward to any forthcoming movies of his, I just had an appreciation for the man, his attitude, and his body of work. It was like losing a distant uncle who you rarely see, but have fond memories of.
The reason this surprised me is that I rarely feel personally effected by celebrity deaths. I feel bad for their families, etc. etc., but I never feel a sense of personal loss. I only know of these people through their movies, but their movies will still exist long after they're gone, so that connection isn't lost. I know, I sound like a horrible person, but then again I am kind of a horrible person.
But deaths like Leslie Nielsen's are a reminder to me of how deeply films can effect us, and make us feel personal loss even when nature says we shouldn't. That's why I really like when movies succeed at making me legitimately sad. It brings out an aspect of myself I'm not normally comfortable with-grief.
So this is my longwinded way of introducing a selection of incredibly sad scenes that should make your entire brain cry (Community reference). Naturally, there are spoilers galore. If you see a title of a movie you haven't seen and plan to see (and you should plan to see most of these) then I suggest you look away.
1. Kick-Ass
The last movie I ever expected to bring me close to tears was a superhero comedy featuring Nicolas Cage as a batman-wannabe, but Kick-Ass succeeded with flying colors.
The death of said batman-wannabe (known as Big Daddy) by fire starts out darkly hilarious, becomes awesome, and then ends by being incredibly sad. What makes it work is the offbeat-yet-believable daughter-father relationship between Big Daddy and Hit Girl. They may be psychotic killers, but they do have a strangely moving relationship. They each risk their lives multiple times to save the other. They have a genuine, fun rapport. And in a weird way, Big Daddy seems like a really cool Dad who makes hot chocolate, takes his girl bowling, and only uses low-velocity rounds to shoot her.
The thing is, you don't realize how much you like these characters until you lose them or see them suffer. This scene alone is what got me to watch Kick-Ass three times in one week and recommend it to every friend in sight.
2. Talk Radio
On a subtler note is the mental breakdown of Eric Bogosian's abrasive talk-show host. This is relatively spoiler-free, since there isn't much of a plot twist or ending in this scene. Still, there's something heartbreaking about watching somebody who desperately needs to come to terms with his own failures and shortcomings taking out all of his self-loathing on his audience, even if his audience does deserve the verbal lashing he inflicts upon them.
This film is phenomenal, and criminally underrated. I don't particularly like Oliver Stone, but I think he and Bogosian did an amazing job with Talk Radio.
3. The Fellowship of the Rings
I love the Lord of the Rings films, but I don't think the second two films ever approached the emotional intensity of the first film's climax. The entire thing makes me feel like tearing up, particularly Frodo flashing back to Gandalf's "that is an encouraging thought" speech, but it's the heroic death of Boromir-a character we haven't even seen much of, but still identify with as the flawed human character in need of redemption-that really gets the eyeballs juiced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20w-nuLcneU&feature=related
By the time you get to the final film, you've already seen several dozen heroic deaths, so you're a bit too exhausted to shed any more tears. Here though, Jackson hits all of the right notes. The sound editing, the music, and the few moments of silence (and there isn't a lot of silence in these movies), all add up to a beautiful scene. Even though Boromir's fate is sealed with the first arrow in his chest, you still hope that he'll survive just a little bit longer.
4. Schindler's List
I know. Saying Schindler's List is sad is like saying rain makes you feel curiously wet. The reason I include it here is because the scene in particular is not a graphic depiction of jews being slaughtered or of a red-dressed girl being tossed in a fiery pit. It's a monologue from Liam Neeson, in which he laments the jews he did not save by being selfish in a way that we often take for granted; keeping his car, keeping a simple pin, keeping a little bit of gold. It brings home the hopeless enormity of the holocaust more effectively than a thousand scenes of random prisoners being shot.
It's a solid demonstration of some good, heartfelt writing being more effective than a hundred grisly images. Of course, having said that, I know turn to...
5. Reservoir Dogs
I don't think anybody in the history of film criticism has brought up Reservoir Dogs as being a sad movie, but damn if that final shot of Harvey Keitel doesn't tug at my heartstrings. The man has given up everything he ever worked for, and even killed his oldest friends, and all for a man who was lying to him the entire film. He's compromised all of his values in a final bid for redemption, and he's been stabbed in the back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c0FN8ajIlY
Not that you can't feel bad for Mr. Orange. He's in a position where he has no choice but to betray someone who has essentially sacrificed his life for him. He's about to die as a result of a sting mission that should have been easy as cake.
6. Synecdoche, New York
Let me preface this by saying that Synecdoche, New York will either make you completely rethink your entire life, perspective, values, and goals, or you will disregard it as arrogant bullshit. I'm clearly in the former category. I love this film. Nothing has ever made me think about life in the way this film did.
I could have taken five or six scenes from the film and stuck them in here, but I settled on Sammy's suicide. Of course, now I have to explain the plot, which is a daunting task in its own right. So Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is directing a massive play that depicts every single person in his life and experience-no matter how small and insignificant they may seem-reading the same lines as they would in their daily lives. Sammy is playing Caden himself, but has also fallen in love with Hazel, Caden's box office manager. Hazel restarts her affair with Caden, prompting Sammy's suicide.
It's particularly tragic, because even though Sammy is merely a player portraying Caden, he is considerably more human than the man he is portraying. Caden has become so self-absorbed and obsessed with his overambitious creative work that he has completely left Sammy behind. Saying goodbye to Sammy is like saying goodbye to the last bit of humanity Caden has left.
7. Moon
I know I already issued a spoiler warning for this entire entry, but I’m restating it for Moon. Don’t read this if you haven’t seen Moon. In fact, don’t read anything about Moon if you haven’t seen it, just see it. No, there isn’t a magnificent Usual Suspects twist at the end, but there are a number of twists that you won’t see coming even if you think you know what’s coming. Just see Moon. It’s terrific, I promise.
That said, the scene that made this list comes right after the magnificent twist I just denied the existence of (don’t tell the people who haven’t seen it, all of you have seen Moon). Sam Bell finds out that he is a clone, and that all of his memories never directly happened to him. Furthermore, he is engineered to die very soon. The only sympathy comes from GERTY, the robot we were all expecting to turn on Sam and kill him.
It’s existential horror turned into existential sadness, with a cute robot crying thrown in for good measure. What’s not to weep at?
8. Return of the Jedi
It’s funny; Star Wars has become such a phenomenon as a franchise with a massive, ever-expanding mythology that it’s rare to see the original films discussed as actual films. I’ve seen plenty of “sad movie lists” and I’ve never seen the death of Yoda mentioned. It’s sad when a grandfather figure dies, and it’s sadder when a cute muppet dies, and Yoda is arguably both.
As a kid, this scene was incredibly sad even with the knowledge that Yoda would just show up again as a blue sparkle-ghost. This was before the Star Wars novels turned death from a tragic occurrence into something more along the lines of a minor inconvenience. Dead Jedi now appear with irritating frequency, their spirits kept alive by Holocrons or clones or some other bullshit. Whereas Obi-Wan and Yoda only seemed to show up as ghosts when Luke was in a Jedi trance or something, death loses its meaning in fiction when anybody can be summoned or brought back seemingly at will (look at comic books).
Add the gut-punch that is the confirmation that Darth Vader is Luke's father, and you have a low key scene that brings out many emotions in the viewer. The kind of scene the prequels never managed to craft.
This was also before Yoda was turned into a bouncing, psychopathic monkey-wizard with disastrous shortsightedness regarding little kids and senators.
9. Requiem for a Dream
It’s a small moment in a soul-tearing series of scenes that show the lives of the four protagonists growing progressively worse, but I think the saddest moment of Requiem for a Dream comes when Sarah Goldfarb’s friends visit her in the mental hospital. Just their immediate reactions to her haggard appearance, and the shot of them weeping outside is enough to remind you that what’s happening will effect more than just our four heroes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuzNohk5cYw
I’ve often reflected that my fear of death stems more from the grief that my nearest and dearest would suffer at my passing, and less from an actual fear of dying. That’s what this scene brings home to me; the reminder that our self-destructive ways can hurt our friends as much as they hurt us..
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Spider-Man: Another big, stupid, musical disaster
Since we're on the topic of big-budget, horrible musicals, I'd like to turn your attention to this:
This is one of many images from the actual upcoming Broadway musical; "Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark" (as in "dammit, who left the dark on? I told them a thousand times; before you leave the house, you have to turn off the dark.") Julie Taymor, who has done the impossible in the past by bringing "The Lion King" to the Broadway stage and getting a huge amount of acclaim for it, is directing. Note that she has also directed "Titus" and "Across the Universe"; the latter of which was astounding visually, but utterly moronic story-wise.
Meanwhile, Bono-who it should be noted, has never composed a Broadway musical (or anything remotely approaching a Broadway musical)-is putting together the music. The villains featured are Carnage, The Green Goblin, Swiss Miss (created for the show), and a new villain based on greek mythology. According to various sources around the internet, Swarm and Kraven the Hunter are also going to be in it, but it's difficult to determine how much of this is just hearsay. But hey, at least we can see the Swiss Miss...
Okay, seriously? What the hell is that? Is that C-3P0's awkward sister? Madonna playing the Tin Man? What is that?
Also, what kind of a name is "Swiss Miss"? Really? I guess the point is that he (she? it?) is a swiss-army-knife themed villain. Alright, excusing the fact that that's the kind of villain a 7-year old would come up with, why would you name a knife themed villain "swiss miss"? That doesn't inspire fear. It makes me want to brew some hot chocolate and go hiking. Plus, just look at how impractical that costume is for someone who's planning on doing a lot of fighting. It's so awkward and off balance-you can barely move your arms, you can't really crouch, and a blunt object to your chest would knock you over, leaving you squirming to get back up. Maybe it looks cool when a ballet dancer is prancing around in it, but most supervillains aren't trying to impress an audience with their skillful pirouettes.
I mean, seriously, you couldn't have just found another villain who already exists? Why are Julie Taymor and Glen Berger writing this script when you could have paired one of them off with somebody who actually writes and understands comic books? I mean, somebody must have done some research on these characters. Because after all, they put a lesser-known character like Carnage in the mix...
THAT's not carnage! That's what a carnage toy would look like if you cooked it in the microwave on high for three minutes! This is a professional costume design? Not only is that not a good Carnage costume, it's not a good costume, period!
I mean, if you needed to pull off a high-concept villain onstage, why not someone like Sandman, or Dr. Octopus? You know, somebody who DIDN't have to wear a stupid-looking halloween mask for the entirety of the production?
Look, I'm not going to complain about what they left out, what they screwed up, and how they got the comics wrong. This isn't a film, there's no CGI, and there are going to be a lot of compromises made with the original material.
That said, this looks poised to be an epic disaster. Not only is it continuing the desperate trend of Broadway trying to be more like the movies by adapting literally anything popular into a big, forced production, but it's making every mistake a Spider-Man movie could possibly make. Look at what this show is trying to do for a story: it's trying to tell Spider-Man's origins (including the death of Uncle Ben shown in shadow-puppet form), show off upwards of 4 villains, integrate musical numbers and elaborate stunts, and all for an audience (Broadway regulars) that probably has only a passing familiarity with the source material.
Meanwhile, the show has been delayed twice (most recently due to a couple of stunt-man injuries) and will be opening in January-well past the holiday rush. Spider-Man isn't exactly a hot property right now, either, seeing as how his last film was a poorly received threequel three years ago, his comics have been suffering since the "One More Day" fiasco, and his new film won't be out for a few years. Comics fans probably won't be too interested in seeing a freakish troll version of Green Goblin flying around on a hang-glider, theater fans aren't exactly waiting on bated breath for Bono's Broadway debut, and comic book fans who are also theater fans (myself) are too poor to go see this (I may be projecting a little, though). I have a feeling this will be an incredible bomb. Then again, I thought "Avatar" was going to be a massive flop.
Honestly though, I don't want this to succeed. I don't want Broadway to smell a hit in every comic book property. I don't want "Batman: Turn off the Dark Knight", or "Iron Man: Turn off the Mark-1", or "Watchmen-Nite Owl gets Turned On". If I thought that this show was borne out of some genuinely brilliant experimental vision wherein pop-culture and elitist theatricality were melded into some sort of Baroque masterpiece, then I might be willing to give it a chance. But those pictures only demonstrate a desperate desire to cram as many neat comic-booky things onstage as possible, with little understanding of what makes these characters and their associated images so special in the first place.
All images are viewable here.
Oh, and can we please stop putting "Ka-Pow!" into the title of every single comic-book related article? Please?
This is one of many images from the actual upcoming Broadway musical; "Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark" (as in "dammit, who left the dark on? I told them a thousand times; before you leave the house, you have to turn off the dark.") Julie Taymor, who has done the impossible in the past by bringing "The Lion King" to the Broadway stage and getting a huge amount of acclaim for it, is directing. Note that she has also directed "Titus" and "Across the Universe"; the latter of which was astounding visually, but utterly moronic story-wise.
Meanwhile, Bono-who it should be noted, has never composed a Broadway musical (or anything remotely approaching a Broadway musical)-is putting together the music. The villains featured are Carnage, The Green Goblin, Swiss Miss (created for the show), and a new villain based on greek mythology. According to various sources around the internet, Swarm and Kraven the Hunter are also going to be in it, but it's difficult to determine how much of this is just hearsay. But hey, at least we can see the Swiss Miss...
Okay, seriously? What the hell is that? Is that C-3P0's awkward sister? Madonna playing the Tin Man? What is that?Also, what kind of a name is "Swiss Miss"? Really? I guess the point is that he (she? it?) is a swiss-army-knife themed villain. Alright, excusing the fact that that's the kind of villain a 7-year old would come up with, why would you name a knife themed villain "swiss miss"? That doesn't inspire fear. It makes me want to brew some hot chocolate and go hiking. Plus, just look at how impractical that costume is for someone who's planning on doing a lot of fighting. It's so awkward and off balance-you can barely move your arms, you can't really crouch, and a blunt object to your chest would knock you over, leaving you squirming to get back up. Maybe it looks cool when a ballet dancer is prancing around in it, but most supervillains aren't trying to impress an audience with their skillful pirouettes.
I mean, seriously, you couldn't have just found another villain who already exists? Why are Julie Taymor and Glen Berger writing this script when you could have paired one of them off with somebody who actually writes and understands comic books? I mean, somebody must have done some research on these characters. Because after all, they put a lesser-known character like Carnage in the mix...
THAT's not carnage! That's what a carnage toy would look like if you cooked it in the microwave on high for three minutes! This is a professional costume design? Not only is that not a good Carnage costume, it's not a good costume, period!
I mean, if you needed to pull off a high-concept villain onstage, why not someone like Sandman, or Dr. Octopus? You know, somebody who DIDN't have to wear a stupid-looking halloween mask for the entirety of the production?
Look, I'm not going to complain about what they left out, what they screwed up, and how they got the comics wrong. This isn't a film, there's no CGI, and there are going to be a lot of compromises made with the original material.
That said, this looks poised to be an epic disaster. Not only is it continuing the desperate trend of Broadway trying to be more like the movies by adapting literally anything popular into a big, forced production, but it's making every mistake a Spider-Man movie could possibly make. Look at what this show is trying to do for a story: it's trying to tell Spider-Man's origins (including the death of Uncle Ben shown in shadow-puppet form), show off upwards of 4 villains, integrate musical numbers and elaborate stunts, and all for an audience (Broadway regulars) that probably has only a passing familiarity with the source material.
Meanwhile, the show has been delayed twice (most recently due to a couple of stunt-man injuries) and will be opening in January-well past the holiday rush. Spider-Man isn't exactly a hot property right now, either, seeing as how his last film was a poorly received threequel three years ago, his comics have been suffering since the "One More Day" fiasco, and his new film won't be out for a few years. Comics fans probably won't be too interested in seeing a freakish troll version of Green Goblin flying around on a hang-glider, theater fans aren't exactly waiting on bated breath for Bono's Broadway debut, and comic book fans who are also theater fans (myself) are too poor to go see this (I may be projecting a little, though). I have a feeling this will be an incredible bomb. Then again, I thought "Avatar" was going to be a massive flop.
Honestly though, I don't want this to succeed. I don't want Broadway to smell a hit in every comic book property. I don't want "Batman: Turn off the Dark Knight", or "Iron Man: Turn off the Mark-1", or "Watchmen-Nite Owl gets Turned On". If I thought that this show was borne out of some genuinely brilliant experimental vision wherein pop-culture and elitist theatricality were melded into some sort of Baroque masterpiece, then I might be willing to give it a chance. But those pictures only demonstrate a desperate desire to cram as many neat comic-booky things onstage as possible, with little understanding of what makes these characters and their associated images so special in the first place.
All images are viewable here.
Oh, and can we please stop putting "Ka-Pow!" into the title of every single comic-book related article? Please?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Ok, it's final
I officially hate Glee.
Seriously, this brings me nothing but pain. The watered-down and obnoxiously censored lyrics, Gwyneth Paltrow trying to be sassy, the unbelievably obvious autotuning...I'm sorry. I hate Glee. It's official.
That said, I don't think I ever have to write anything about it ever again. I'm done. It's finished. I'm not going to watch any more. It's gone from being a good show to being an interesting trainwreck, then to being a trainwreck, and finally to being a complete waste of time. I don't even want to watch the show to see how much worse it gets, because frankly, I don't think it can possibly get any worse than this.
I mean, seriously. You put a bunch of white kids in a band room with Gwyneth Paltrow-the whitest person in the world-censor all of the lyrics to "Fuck You", and you expect the song to have anything close to the power and absurdly hilarious joy that Cee Lo Green brings to it?
The song is a soul number, for crying out loud! The least you could do is give it to the one soul singer in the cast: Mercedes. But no, you didn't put this song into the show because you know anything about music, did you? You shoehorned this song into the episode because it's popular and will bring in millions in iTunes downloads. Fine. Revel in your goddamn riches, you hacks. Just feast at the table of the almighty dollar. I hope you choke on a Missouri quarter.
Okay, good. I've gotten it out of my system. I don't ever have to devote a blog post to Glee again. I can turn to other interests. Right now, I'm going to watch this until my mind is completely scrubbed of anything Gwyneth Paltrow-related. Besides Iron Man.
Friday, November 12, 2010
This is a repost of something I wrote a few years ago, but you probably never read it, so it's new to you
I'm putting this up for two reasons. 1) I seriously am exhausted tonight, and even though I know I should be updating my blog on a weekly basis, I literally can't think of a thing to say. 2) I like to look at my old writing to see how much has changed since I wrote things like this two years ago. As you can tell, I was a lot angrier. It's a good thing I'm in a relationship now.
I was driving through Meredith today, going to a highly unnecessary orthodontist appointment, when a sign in front of the Meredith Baptist Church caught my eye. It was one of those stupid religious billboards with trite sayings that neither communicate any intelligent commentary on faith, nor communicate anything intelligent at all. Usually, I just ignore these signs and go on my merry Roman Catholic way, but today the sign I saw angered me with its blatant disregard for any sort of mathematical, logical, or downright common sense.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE NOT THINGS
I'm sorry, what?
That makes sense how?
Okay, then what are the best things in life? Are you saying the best things in life are logical contradictions?
I mean just think about it. In mathematical terms, what you're essentially saying here is "x does not equal x". You CAN'T DO THAT! It doesn't make sense!
In Aristotelian logic, you would have to sum this sentence up in the following argument.
1. Some things (x) are the best things (y) (Assuming that there are "best things")
2. No things (x) are the best things (y) (re-arranged from THE BEST THINGS ARE NOT THINGS)
3. Conclusion: Some things (x) are not things (x)
4. Conclusion: People who make signs (z) are idiots (k)
Already, if we go by the square of opposition, we can see that what we have here is a contradiction. Actually, you know what? You don't even need a square of opposition. IT'S SO FREAKING OBVIOUS!
I noticed that-with very little effort-you could arrange the letters on this sign to say THE HINGES ARE NOT HINGES. And you might as well. Because it MAKES ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SENSE.
Okay, I get what they're saying with this sign. They're saying "Hey, you shouldn't worry about material possessions ("things") so much because (either God or your family or...I dunno, fruit roll ups maybe) are the best things in life. And they're not things! Doesn't that make them good things?". Well, in that case, what the hell is the definition for a thing? You're saying (God or your family or whatever) is not a thing. Says who? If a "thing" is an object in space, then hell, maybe a person is a thing in the strictly literal sense. A person is totally an object in space, although it has the capabilities and sentience to distinguish it from non-sentient objects. But fine, we'll all agree that calling a person a "thing" is kind of derogatory, so they're not really things. We'll limit "things" to non-living objects, like an X-Box or a poop sculpture. Well then, why bother even classifying (people or God or whatever) as "the best things" in the first place? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, aren't you? It's the equivalent of a dumbass husband saying to his wife "you're the best thing in my life!.....not that I think of you as a thing or anything...Not like you're just an object to me...a dishwasher, specifically..."
So don't even bother with the Oscar nominees this year, because according to the Baptists it's quite possible to nominate your grandparents for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Animated Short. When the audience screams in protest as Granny Meredith mounts the stage to take her Best Supporting Actress Oscar, you can go up to the podium and say "Hey, hey, hey, look. The best supporting actresses are not actresses, okay?"
Writer's Block
I'm having a real hard time coming up with things to write about these days.
......
...
Um, that's it.
(cue laughter).
No laughs?
Okay. I guess that wasn't funny.
Damn. Now I have to come up with something to write about.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Character Design, Part 1: Avatar vs. LOTR
If you, like me, have any interest in screenwriting, playwriting, or writing for comics, then you should definitely check out Jack Monahan’s design blog, specifically this entry. Yes, it’s geared towards videogame design, and I’ve never even played the game he’s talking about, but a great deal of it can apply to . My interests are geared more towards writing and directing than towards visual and costume design, but I always try to have some sort of visual basis for the characters I’m trying to convey before I start a new project.
Monahan’s entry does a great job demonstrating just how important variety is when you’re assembling an ensemble of characters. If they all look the same and act the same, what’s the point of having so many of them? Why should we care what happens to one character over another character?
This especially holds true of stylized genres set in a world with which we have no familiarity, i.e. sci-fi and fantasy. A cast of colorful, unique characters each with decisively different personalities, looks, and backgrounds will help us feel more immersed in a fully realized world.
Whereas, if we’re thrown into a fantasy setting with a bunch of generic looking knights, all of whom are stoic nobles who believe in chivalry, we become spectators; we’re just watching archetypes going through the motions of doing archetype-y things. We’re no longer immersed in the world; we’re fully outside of it, and we’re fully aware that we’re watching something that can only exist in fiction.
Not that it's a bad movie, but did you really care when any of them bit the dust?
Ok, ok. This is getting pretty pedantic. In fact, me saying the word pedantic is pretty pedantic in itself. So let’s go to some examples. Basically, I’m describing the difference between reading “The Fellowship of the Rings” and watching “Avatar”, a film I loathe (I’ll elaborate more on that in a later blog post). Let’s look at the Fellowship of the Ring.
It's a pretty distinct group of characters, each one different enough to potentially come into conflict or bond with any of the others. Even their poses separates them into distinct individuals. We have a vast array of possible interactions, clashes, and friendships. Because these characters are each so different, the fantastical events that ensue will elicit a wide range of reactions, which will help us absorb the otherworldly nature of it all. Let's look at who we have. We've got the gruff, down-to-earth dwarf, the inexperienced hobbits, the wise old wizard, the mysterious and aloof ranger, the nobleman, and the mystical elf. Even if you'd never seen the movie, you'd be able to pick out each of those characters just from the picture, and my description of them. Each character has a distinct look that separates him from his companions.
We have Aragorn, the mystery man, who has lived in the wild. He’s a skilled ranger, used to surviving in the wild. Everything about his design conveys that; the stubble, the long, unkempt hair, the dark, camouflage clothes…and yet there’s a quiet confidence to him that comes across in Viggo Mortensen’s performance that suggests that he wouldn’t be ought of place leading an army. With a minimal amount of dialogue, we've established that he's going to be the one to take charge when things get rough.
Compare that with:
Jake Sully, whose name I had to look up on imdb because I had no idea what it was. I compare him to Aragorn, because he fulfills a pretty similar function; he's the outsider overcoming adversity to eventually lead a giant army against a terrible threat. I'm talking about Sully's look as a Na'vi, which is the form he inhabits whenever he's doing anything important to the plot. We have no visual clues to tell us what makes Jake Na’vi any different from the other thousand Na’vi in the film. Hold that image up to the image of any other alien in the movie, and you'd have no idea what sets him apart and makes him worth our attention.
My biggest issue with the praise heaped on Avatar is that the Na’vi design is not really all that practical from a storytelling standpoint. Yes, it looks pretty realistic, but realism comes at the expense of visual clarity. All of the Na’vi look exactly the same, except for the hair, on occasion. Look at a sea of na’vi, and it’s not much different from looking at an army of smurfs. The variety between them is so subtle that it's virtually unnoticeable. If we’re expected to take this race seriously and empathize with them as though they were human beings, we should get a variety of na'vi with different poses and looks, and attitudes.
And not just a sea of copy-pasted computerized images. Seriously, look at that second picture. Look at the guy in the foreground on the leftmost side of the screen, and then the guy in the foreground on the rightmost side. They're the SAME GUY.
Every Na’vi acts the same, looks the same, dresses the same, and talks the same. It makes for a pretty boring group of characters. Why should I watch them?
Contrast with:
Boromir, who despite being human, like Aragorn clearly comes from a significantly different upbringing and history. His armor is cleaned up, his beard is trimmed, his colors suggest nobility. Even if you knew nothing about the Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth, you could tell just from a glance that these two had lived significantly different lives. This act of inferring sparks our imagination and engages us in the world we’re watching.
Contrast with:
Tsu'tey.
If you just said, “who?” than congratulations. You remember as much of Avatar as I do. You might argue that Tsu'tey has a sillier haircut than Jake Sully, but seriously. Look at some of those other pictures from before. That haircut is everywhere. It seems totally arbitrary who has a silly haircut and who doesn’t. If we were to look at him from a distance, we probably would have no idea what makes him special or different from the rest of the million Na’vi.
Alright, you might argue that this comparison is unfair, because we only see one tribe of Na’vi, and we see dozens of races in nobilities in Fellowship of the Rings. Fair enough. So let’s look at just one relatively alien race, and four characters who all come from the exact same town, the exact same social class, and who are exactly the same age.
Yes, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin.
You might get Merry and Pippin's names confused, but I’m guessing that if you look at any decent LOTR artwork, you’ll at least be able to tell who Frodo and Sam are, and then work out the other two later.
These are four hobbits who all grew up in the same environment, yet everything about them suggests differing personalities that will react differently to extreme circumstances.
Frodo is always the most innocent, vulnerable looking one. Sam is always the most doggedly determined. Pippin and Merry are always a little bewildered, suggesting their youth, but they never look as vulnerable as Frodo. Merry particularly looks ready to take charge, especially in this shot. Once they actually start talking, their distinct personalities shine through even more, clarifying their different personalities, and reinforcing what their images suggest. There’s no way you’ll get them confused (well, maybe you’ll get Merry and Pippin’s names mixed up, but that’s just a whole Tom Stoppard situation right there).
Compare with:
Seriously, is there any difference between looking at this image and looking at an army of toy soldiers? They’re all so uniform and bland, it becomes virtually impossible to pick any one out and identify with him.
Now, what bothers me so much is that this wasn’t entirely inevitable. Yes, making each Na’vi look different to the degree that humans do would have been an incredibly expensive and time-consuming task for an already incredibly expensive and time-consuming film.
However, let’s turn to the film that anyone who wants an Avatar alternative should see: “District 9”. On the surface, it seems like all of the prawns look exactly the same, but the differences are there and subtle enough that we can at least pick the most important ones out of a lineup. Neil Blomkampf made sure that Christopher Johnson, the most important prawn, and his son had the widest range of facial expressions of all the prawns. This means that we can immediately tell them apart from the rest on a subconscious level, even if our brains are doing it subconsciously. Johnson also carries himself in the most upright, dignified manner of all the prawns we see, while his son scuttles around in a hunched position. If we were to stick them in a lineup, that would be enough to tell us who they were. Christopher Johnson will be the one who’s upright, and his son will be the one who’s hunched.
But more important than that, the rest of the prawns are very different from one another, making CJ the most “normal” looking one, and that helps him stand out. One thing I’ve gathered from Monahan, and what “Avatar” doesn’t grasp, is that the more uniform a group of characters is, the more a slight change will make the individual stand out. Just a hat given to one of the prawns tells us a little bit about him, and makes him stand out just a little tiny bit from the rest of the group. A yellow prawn will show up. One will have a t-shirt on. These simple additions give just enough personality to the prawns to make us feel like we’re looking at a fully-realized population, and not just a bunch of anthropomorphized crabs.
I’m going to talk a little more about both character design (specifically in Star Wars) and Avatar in future posts, so subscribe if you want to hear more.
Monahan’s entry does a great job demonstrating just how important variety is when you’re assembling an ensemble of characters. If they all look the same and act the same, what’s the point of having so many of them? Why should we care what happens to one character over another character?
This especially holds true of stylized genres set in a world with which we have no familiarity, i.e. sci-fi and fantasy. A cast of colorful, unique characters each with decisively different personalities, looks, and backgrounds will help us feel more immersed in a fully realized world.
Whereas, if we’re thrown into a fantasy setting with a bunch of generic looking knights, all of whom are stoic nobles who believe in chivalry, we become spectators; we’re just watching archetypes going through the motions of doing archetype-y things. We’re no longer immersed in the world; we’re fully outside of it, and we’re fully aware that we’re watching something that can only exist in fiction.
Not that it's a bad movie, but did you really care when any of them bit the dust?
Ok, ok. This is getting pretty pedantic. In fact, me saying the word pedantic is pretty pedantic in itself. So let’s go to some examples. Basically, I’m describing the difference between reading “The Fellowship of the Rings” and watching “Avatar”, a film I loathe (I’ll elaborate more on that in a later blog post). Let’s look at the Fellowship of the Ring.
It's a pretty distinct group of characters, each one different enough to potentially come into conflict or bond with any of the others. Even their poses separates them into distinct individuals. We have a vast array of possible interactions, clashes, and friendships. Because these characters are each so different, the fantastical events that ensue will elicit a wide range of reactions, which will help us absorb the otherworldly nature of it all. Let's look at who we have. We've got the gruff, down-to-earth dwarf, the inexperienced hobbits, the wise old wizard, the mysterious and aloof ranger, the nobleman, and the mystical elf. Even if you'd never seen the movie, you'd be able to pick out each of those characters just from the picture, and my description of them. Each character has a distinct look that separates him from his companions.
We have Aragorn, the mystery man, who has lived in the wild. He’s a skilled ranger, used to surviving in the wild. Everything about his design conveys that; the stubble, the long, unkempt hair, the dark, camouflage clothes…and yet there’s a quiet confidence to him that comes across in Viggo Mortensen’s performance that suggests that he wouldn’t be ought of place leading an army. With a minimal amount of dialogue, we've established that he's going to be the one to take charge when things get rough.
Compare that with:
Jake Sully, whose name I had to look up on imdb because I had no idea what it was. I compare him to Aragorn, because he fulfills a pretty similar function; he's the outsider overcoming adversity to eventually lead a giant army against a terrible threat. I'm talking about Sully's look as a Na'vi, which is the form he inhabits whenever he's doing anything important to the plot. We have no visual clues to tell us what makes Jake Na’vi any different from the other thousand Na’vi in the film. Hold that image up to the image of any other alien in the movie, and you'd have no idea what sets him apart and makes him worth our attention.
My biggest issue with the praise heaped on Avatar is that the Na’vi design is not really all that practical from a storytelling standpoint. Yes, it looks pretty realistic, but realism comes at the expense of visual clarity. All of the Na’vi look exactly the same, except for the hair, on occasion. Look at a sea of na’vi, and it’s not much different from looking at an army of smurfs. The variety between them is so subtle that it's virtually unnoticeable. If we’re expected to take this race seriously and empathize with them as though they were human beings, we should get a variety of na'vi with different poses and looks, and attitudes.
And not just a sea of copy-pasted computerized images. Seriously, look at that second picture. Look at the guy in the foreground on the leftmost side of the screen, and then the guy in the foreground on the rightmost side. They're the SAME GUY.
Every Na’vi acts the same, looks the same, dresses the same, and talks the same. It makes for a pretty boring group of characters. Why should I watch them?
Contrast with:
Boromir, who despite being human, like Aragorn clearly comes from a significantly different upbringing and history. His armor is cleaned up, his beard is trimmed, his colors suggest nobility. Even if you knew nothing about the Lord of the Rings and Middle Earth, you could tell just from a glance that these two had lived significantly different lives. This act of inferring sparks our imagination and engages us in the world we’re watching.
Contrast with:
Tsu'tey.
If you just said, “who?” than congratulations. You remember as much of Avatar as I do. You might argue that Tsu'tey has a sillier haircut than Jake Sully, but seriously. Look at some of those other pictures from before. That haircut is everywhere. It seems totally arbitrary who has a silly haircut and who doesn’t. If we were to look at him from a distance, we probably would have no idea what makes him special or different from the rest of the million Na’vi.
Alright, you might argue that this comparison is unfair, because we only see one tribe of Na’vi, and we see dozens of races in nobilities in Fellowship of the Rings. Fair enough. So let’s look at just one relatively alien race, and four characters who all come from the exact same town, the exact same social class, and who are exactly the same age.
Yes, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin.
You might get Merry and Pippin's names confused, but I’m guessing that if you look at any decent LOTR artwork, you’ll at least be able to tell who Frodo and Sam are, and then work out the other two later.
These are four hobbits who all grew up in the same environment, yet everything about them suggests differing personalities that will react differently to extreme circumstances.
Frodo is always the most innocent, vulnerable looking one. Sam is always the most doggedly determined. Pippin and Merry are always a little bewildered, suggesting their youth, but they never look as vulnerable as Frodo. Merry particularly looks ready to take charge, especially in this shot. Once they actually start talking, their distinct personalities shine through even more, clarifying their different personalities, and reinforcing what their images suggest. There’s no way you’ll get them confused (well, maybe you’ll get Merry and Pippin’s names mixed up, but that’s just a whole Tom Stoppard situation right there).
Compare with:
Seriously, is there any difference between looking at this image and looking at an army of toy soldiers? They’re all so uniform and bland, it becomes virtually impossible to pick any one out and identify with him.
Now, what bothers me so much is that this wasn’t entirely inevitable. Yes, making each Na’vi look different to the degree that humans do would have been an incredibly expensive and time-consuming task for an already incredibly expensive and time-consuming film.
However, let’s turn to the film that anyone who wants an Avatar alternative should see: “District 9”. On the surface, it seems like all of the prawns look exactly the same, but the differences are there and subtle enough that we can at least pick the most important ones out of a lineup. Neil Blomkampf made sure that Christopher Johnson, the most important prawn, and his son had the widest range of facial expressions of all the prawns. This means that we can immediately tell them apart from the rest on a subconscious level, even if our brains are doing it subconsciously. Johnson also carries himself in the most upright, dignified manner of all the prawns we see, while his son scuttles around in a hunched position. If we were to stick them in a lineup, that would be enough to tell us who they were. Christopher Johnson will be the one who’s upright, and his son will be the one who’s hunched.
But more important than that, the rest of the prawns are very different from one another, making CJ the most “normal” looking one, and that helps him stand out. One thing I’ve gathered from Monahan, and what “Avatar” doesn’t grasp, is that the more uniform a group of characters is, the more a slight change will make the individual stand out. Just a hat given to one of the prawns tells us a little bit about him, and makes him stand out just a little tiny bit from the rest of the group. A yellow prawn will show up. One will have a t-shirt on. These simple additions give just enough personality to the prawns to make us feel like we’re looking at a fully-realized population, and not just a bunch of anthropomorphized crabs.
I’m going to talk a little more about both character design (specifically in Star Wars) and Avatar in future posts, so subscribe if you want to hear more.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Open with some lips singing “Science Fiction Double Feature”. It is autotuned, and sounds like barely-decent karaoke rather than an actual song. The opening credits tells us that this is the “The Rocky Horror Glee Show”, even though the show’s traditional title screen announcing that this is just “Glee” will come on in a few minutes.
CUT TO:
RACHEL and FINN are onstage singing “Over at the Frankenstein Place”. Because this is a surprisingly good rendition of a lesser-known song, it has to be cut short so that the sucking can commence. Will watches from the auditorium, even though he's IN the show, so he should probably be getting ready or something.
John Stamos stops the performance to embarrass himself, which is really saying something considering what John Stamos has done in his career. But he’s sooooooo good looking so it’s ok.
John Stamos: Hey! Will! You’re trying to get with my girl!
Will makes a stupid face. He might be A) showing how awkward and uncomfortable he feels B) remembering that he cast himself in this show, so he should probably be in costume and backstage, or C) shocked that John Stamos has just now realized that Will is after his girl.
Will’s inner monologue begins.
WILL (I.M): How did this all happen! My plan was perfect. I was going to put on a full-budget production of The Rocky Horror Show without enough actors for a school that has repeatedly punished me for allowing sexually explicit material to be performed, and have the entire show staged, designed, choreographed, and rehearsed in one week. Also, isn’t one of my cast members a single mother? Or did we just sort of forget about that? Anyway, it’s time to show you how we got to this arbitrary point of contention that isn’t actually the climax of the story.
CUT TO:
Will and Emma are having lunch together, because this show believes that adults only ever discuss anything over lunch.
EMMA: Carl has cured me of my mental disorders! He did it by bringing me to the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
WILL: Yeah? Well, my Glee club is going to put on an entire staged production of “The Rocky Horror Show”!
EMMA: Oh how nice! Well, anyway, we also went to see “The Passion of the Christ”. It’s my favorite movie.
WILL: Oh really? Well, the Glee club is going to stage a cross country rendition of the Passion, starting at the baseball field and ending on Golgotha’s Rock. We’re actually going to crucify three cast members.
EMMA: Oh, that’s nice. We also went to see Avatar. It was so much fun!
WILL: My Glee club is going to write and produce the sequel to Avatar, get James Cameron to declare it canon, and win the Best Picture Oscar he never received. I’m going to play a Na’Vi.
EMMA: Do you have some sort of ulterior motive in doing all of this?
WILL: No. Because I say I don’t.
Will then tears off his shirt and starts screaming for attention. Everyone in the cafeteria considers calling 911, but instead cowers in silence.
CUT TO:
The classroom. All Glee club members are present.
WILL: We’re going to do the Rocky Horror Show!
MEMBER (it doesn’t matter who says it. Seriously. Give this line to anyone.): I don’t know what that show is, because I’m like, 16.
WILL: It’s a classic. Everyone loves the Rocky Horror Show!
And because WILL says it is so, it is so. Excited murmuring indicates how happy everyone is to be doing a show that is mostly famous for being terrible.
WILL: Now tell me what role you want, and I’ll give it to you because making actual casting choices makes me puke blood.
Rachel and Finn will be Brad and Janet, because they fit those roles.
Kurt will not play Frank N. Furter, because he would fit that role.
Sam will play the monster, because he’s blonde.
So Mike will play Frank N. Furter, because…he’s the only male left.
More than one person will play Columbia, because…what?
Quinn will play Magenta because she used to be pregnant…I guess. I don’t know.
The kid in the wheelchair will play the guy in the wheelchair, even though he’s a shitty actor. He’s not a shitty actor because he’s handicapped, he’s just a shitty actor.
WILL: Yay! NOW LOVE ME CHILDREN! LOVE MEEEEE!
CUT TO:
SUE says something dry and witty. It is similar to what conservatives say on the planet that Ryan Murphy comes from.
CUT TO:
MEAT LOAF and BARRY BOSTWICK show up to give Rocky Horror fans boners. Their only other purpose is to make everyone else wonder why Glee brought in such awful actors to play boring, unfunny characters we’ve never seen before. SUE is there too, to be dry and witty and intimidating.
MEAT LOAF: We need you to make sure Rocky Horror gets performed so that you can talk about how awful and immoral it is!
SUE: Why wouldn’t we just shut it down, since we think it’s awful and immoral?
BARRY BOSTWICK: Something something something you’ll get a local emmy.
SUE: Sold!
SUE does something intimidating.
CUT TO:
RACHEL and FINN have a scene, because they’re allegedly the main characters. It has nothing to do with anything.
CUT TO:
“Dammit Janet” is performed. Again, it is kind of good, so we have to interrupt it halfway through for some more bullshit.
SUE pulls WILL aside.
SUE: I want to be in the show.
WILL: There is absolutely nothing suspicious about this. I am a gullible moron. You can be in it.
SUE: I can rewrite the show now.
WILL: That’s…that’s kind of illegal. It's an owned property and we have a contract to perform it as is. We might get sued…
SUE: Ha ha! “Sued”. That’s like my name.
WILL: Well, the joke’s on you, because we’re never going to actually show you playing the role I just cast you in!
WILL then starts poking SUE and meowing, hoping that she’ll feed him.
CUT TO:
MIKE talking to WILL.
MIKE: So my parents don’t want me playing a transvestite.
WILL: HOW could I not SEE this COMING!?!?!??! Everything is SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL!!!!
WILL looks directly into the camera, with a big, silly “jeepers creepers” smile on his face, and shrugs his shoulders.
THE DIRECTOR: Matthew, stop that.
CUT TO:
SUE, JOHN STAMOS, and EMMA are all having a conversation. It really doesn’t matter where. Seriously.
SUE: John Stamo-I mean Carl! We have to cast you in this show!
JOHN STAMOS: Ok. I AM incredibly handsome.
WILL walks in.
WILL: What’s all this about?
SUE: John Stamos is going to be in our show!
WILL: John Stamos?! Oh my god! That’s amazing!
SUE: Wait, did I say John Stamos? I meant Carl. Yes. Carl.
WILL: WHAT!?!!??! (breaks a vase) CARL!?!?!? I HATE CARL!!!!! He has to audition!
JOHN STAMOS: Well, I mean, if I need to audition, you could always just hold open auditions to the entire school, or even the community. I’m sure there’s somebody else who wants to…
THE DIRECTOR: John, just stay on script please.
Cut to:
JOHN STAMOS sings and dances in front of the entire club. It is terrible.
THE ENTIRE CLUB: That was so great!!!!!!! We don’t understand that not all music is great!!!!!!
WILL: Fine. I’m going to cast you in a highly sexual role with a bunch of teenagers. However, I can’t cast you as Frank N. Furter so we still don’t have a show, making this entire musical number completely irrelevant to the plot.
MERCEDES: I want to play Frank N. Furter.
WILL: That’s a really stupid idea, and this is coming from the guy who agreed to a Madonna theme week.
MERCEDES: But a line in the Rocky Horror Script has some vague, tenuous relationship to what I’m experiencing in my life. Therefore, I want to play this role that was clearly not written for an unsexy female gospel singer. If we were doing “Sweeney Todd”, I would want to play Sweeney Todd.
WILL: Sold!
CUT TO:
“Sweet Transvestite” with MERCEDES as Frank N. Furter happens. Tim Curry is more ashamed of this than of “Congo”.
THE ENTIRE CLUB: That was great!!!!!!!!
GLEE FANS WORLDWIDE: AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! THIS IS TEH BEST!!!!1!!!!!
CUT TO:
WILL and EMMA are in an arbitrary room. Just…a room.
WILL: I talked Sam out of playing the monster.
EMMA: Why? He was really looking forward to it.
WILL: I know. I’m just a selfish pig. I’m going to play the monster. Want to help me rehearse?
EMMA: I have a condition where I am completely insensible to men’s attempts at taking advantage of me. Therefore, yes I will
WILL: Good. I really need to rehearse a scene where I just stand here and you writhe around sexily.
EMMA: This sounds like a completely professional use of our time.
EMMA sings “Touch-a Touch me” and rips WILL’s shirt off, because she doesn’t understand how rehearsing works. All of the ears in America die of sadness. EMMA finishes the song and runs out of the room, embarrassed. WILL looks directly at the camera.
WILL: OMG, THINGZ ARE GOING SO WRONG YOU GUYZZZ!!!! WOOPILY SCOOPILY!!!!!!
He makes a silly face at the camera. Then he rips his pants off and does a silly dance. Everything is so silly! Oh that Will!
Cut to:
@#!$%!#!@!$!&$**&!& WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS HORRIBLE SHIT!!!!!! WHEN DID GLEE SUDDENLY TURN INTO SUCH A HORRIBLE PIECE OF COMMERCIAL HACK WORK!?!!?! WHY IS LEA MICHELE ON THE COVER OF VANITY FAIR!?!?!?! WHY AM I CRYING UNCONTROLLABLY AND RIPPING MY ARM HAIR OUT?!?!?!!? WHAT IS THIS SHOW DOING TO MEEEEE!?!?!?!
Cut to:
WILL goes into THAT PRINCIPAL GUY’s office. FINN is there.
WILL: What’s going on?
PRINCIPAL: Finn is suspended!
WILL: Don’t suspend Finn!
PRINCIPAL: Okay.
THIS SHOW WON AN EMMY AND COMMUNITY DIDN’T EVEN GET A NOMINATION?!?!!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, AMERICA!!!!!!
Cut to:
Oh good, we’re back at that scene from the beginning. You know, when they interrupted “Over at the Frankenstein Place” so that we could have a flashback. This is what the entire episode has been building up to. This is the suspenseful moment that we've been waiting the entire episode to see resolved. This is really gonna be an epic confrontation, folks!
JOHN STAMOS: Hey! Will! You’re trying to get with my girl!
WILL: Sorry. Are you going to quit the show?
JOHN STAMOS: No.
WILL: Ok.
…….
WHAT THE F…….
Cut to:
BECKY the retarded girl enters WILL’s office.
BECKY: Sue’s trying to sabotage your show.
WILL: Nooooo I don’t believe that.
BECKY: Are you…are you really surprised? I mean, she’s tried to stop pretty much everything you’ve ever tried to accomplish in your life.
WILL: She’s not up to anything. Don’t be such a retard.
Long pause.
………
Long pause.
WILL: I meant, stop being so retarded.
BECKY: I have a tape to prove it.
WILL: WHAT!?!?!
WILL, rather than freak out and break something, puts on his disappointed puppy dog face and tears up a little. After all, there's only ten minutes left in the episode, and WILL hasn't been disappointed with anyone.
Cut to:
WILL talking to EMMA in an auditorium. Because…where else?
WILL: So I cancelled the show. I was just doing it to impress you.
EMMA: What?! Seriously?!!? I did NOT see that coming.
WILL: Yeah. I’m really sorry. But I learned my lesson. I shouldn’t deprive you of the only thing that makes you happy just because I want to jump your bones.
EMMA: Really? You just learned that?
WILL: Yeah. I’ll probably forget about it in a week, too.
EMMA: Remember when we kissed at the end of the first season one finale? You know, before those other nine episodes that turned you into a total jerk? Remember when that was actually really sweet and touching, and a really moving depiction of two desperately unhappy people finding a fleeting but beautiful moment of solace together?
WILL: I’m sorry, I wasn’t listening. I was too busy coming up with wacky schemes for my Glee club.
EMMA: Oh.
WILL: I love you.
EMMA: See you later! This incident will have no long term effects on our friendship at all!
She leaves.
Cut to:
The entire club does “The Time Warp”.
Because it is terrible, they show the entire thing.
Nothing about their staging, choreography, or casting makes any sense. The singing is autotuned and soulless. By attempting to make Rocky Horror sound polished and professional, they have destroyed the ironic enjoyment that can be gleaned from listening to it. Nothing about this is enjoyable, even on an ironic level. The cast doesn’t even seem to be having any sort of fun; they just look like androids programmed to simulate the motions of human beings having fun.
Glee’s soul makes a final, desperate squeal for help, and then disappears into darkness forever.
Itunes writes Ryan Murphy a check for ten billion dollars.
The end.
CUT TO:
RACHEL and FINN are onstage singing “Over at the Frankenstein Place”. Because this is a surprisingly good rendition of a lesser-known song, it has to be cut short so that the sucking can commence. Will watches from the auditorium, even though he's IN the show, so he should probably be getting ready or something.
John Stamos stops the performance to embarrass himself, which is really saying something considering what John Stamos has done in his career. But he’s sooooooo good looking so it’s ok.
John Stamos: Hey! Will! You’re trying to get with my girl!
Will makes a stupid face. He might be A) showing how awkward and uncomfortable he feels B) remembering that he cast himself in this show, so he should probably be in costume and backstage, or C) shocked that John Stamos has just now realized that Will is after his girl.
Will’s inner monologue begins.
WILL (I.M): How did this all happen! My plan was perfect. I was going to put on a full-budget production of The Rocky Horror Show without enough actors for a school that has repeatedly punished me for allowing sexually explicit material to be performed, and have the entire show staged, designed, choreographed, and rehearsed in one week. Also, isn’t one of my cast members a single mother? Or did we just sort of forget about that? Anyway, it’s time to show you how we got to this arbitrary point of contention that isn’t actually the climax of the story.
CUT TO:
Will and Emma are having lunch together, because this show believes that adults only ever discuss anything over lunch.
EMMA: Carl has cured me of my mental disorders! He did it by bringing me to the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
WILL: Yeah? Well, my Glee club is going to put on an entire staged production of “The Rocky Horror Show”!
EMMA: Oh how nice! Well, anyway, we also went to see “The Passion of the Christ”. It’s my favorite movie.
WILL: Oh really? Well, the Glee club is going to stage a cross country rendition of the Passion, starting at the baseball field and ending on Golgotha’s Rock. We’re actually going to crucify three cast members.
EMMA: Oh, that’s nice. We also went to see Avatar. It was so much fun!
WILL: My Glee club is going to write and produce the sequel to Avatar, get James Cameron to declare it canon, and win the Best Picture Oscar he never received. I’m going to play a Na’Vi.
EMMA: Do you have some sort of ulterior motive in doing all of this?
WILL: No. Because I say I don’t.
Will then tears off his shirt and starts screaming for attention. Everyone in the cafeteria considers calling 911, but instead cowers in silence.
CUT TO:
The classroom. All Glee club members are present.
WILL: We’re going to do the Rocky Horror Show!
MEMBER (it doesn’t matter who says it. Seriously. Give this line to anyone.): I don’t know what that show is, because I’m like, 16.
WILL: It’s a classic. Everyone loves the Rocky Horror Show!
And because WILL says it is so, it is so. Excited murmuring indicates how happy everyone is to be doing a show that is mostly famous for being terrible.
WILL: Now tell me what role you want, and I’ll give it to you because making actual casting choices makes me puke blood.
Rachel and Finn will be Brad and Janet, because they fit those roles.
Kurt will not play Frank N. Furter, because he would fit that role.
Sam will play the monster, because he’s blonde.
So Mike will play Frank N. Furter, because…he’s the only male left.
More than one person will play Columbia, because…what?
Quinn will play Magenta because she used to be pregnant…I guess. I don’t know.
The kid in the wheelchair will play the guy in the wheelchair, even though he’s a shitty actor. He’s not a shitty actor because he’s handicapped, he’s just a shitty actor.
WILL: Yay! NOW LOVE ME CHILDREN! LOVE MEEEEE!
CUT TO:
SUE says something dry and witty. It is similar to what conservatives say on the planet that Ryan Murphy comes from.
CUT TO:
MEAT LOAF and BARRY BOSTWICK show up to give Rocky Horror fans boners. Their only other purpose is to make everyone else wonder why Glee brought in such awful actors to play boring, unfunny characters we’ve never seen before. SUE is there too, to be dry and witty and intimidating.
MEAT LOAF: We need you to make sure Rocky Horror gets performed so that you can talk about how awful and immoral it is!
SUE: Why wouldn’t we just shut it down, since we think it’s awful and immoral?
BARRY BOSTWICK: Something something something you’ll get a local emmy.
SUE: Sold!
SUE does something intimidating.
CUT TO:
RACHEL and FINN have a scene, because they’re allegedly the main characters. It has nothing to do with anything.
CUT TO:
“Dammit Janet” is performed. Again, it is kind of good, so we have to interrupt it halfway through for some more bullshit.
SUE pulls WILL aside.
SUE: I want to be in the show.
WILL: There is absolutely nothing suspicious about this. I am a gullible moron. You can be in it.
SUE: I can rewrite the show now.
WILL: That’s…that’s kind of illegal. It's an owned property and we have a contract to perform it as is. We might get sued…
SUE: Ha ha! “Sued”. That’s like my name.
WILL: Well, the joke’s on you, because we’re never going to actually show you playing the role I just cast you in!
WILL then starts poking SUE and meowing, hoping that she’ll feed him.
CUT TO:
MIKE talking to WILL.
MIKE: So my parents don’t want me playing a transvestite.
WILL: HOW could I not SEE this COMING!?!?!??! Everything is SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL!!!!
WILL looks directly into the camera, with a big, silly “jeepers creepers” smile on his face, and shrugs his shoulders.
THE DIRECTOR: Matthew, stop that.
CUT TO:
SUE, JOHN STAMOS, and EMMA are all having a conversation. It really doesn’t matter where. Seriously.
SUE: John Stamo-I mean Carl! We have to cast you in this show!
JOHN STAMOS: Ok. I AM incredibly handsome.
WILL walks in.
WILL: What’s all this about?
SUE: John Stamos is going to be in our show!
WILL: John Stamos?! Oh my god! That’s amazing!
SUE: Wait, did I say John Stamos? I meant Carl. Yes. Carl.
WILL: WHAT!?!!??! (breaks a vase) CARL!?!?!? I HATE CARL!!!!! He has to audition!
JOHN STAMOS: Well, I mean, if I need to audition, you could always just hold open auditions to the entire school, or even the community. I’m sure there’s somebody else who wants to…
THE DIRECTOR: John, just stay on script please.
Cut to:
JOHN STAMOS sings and dances in front of the entire club. It is terrible.
THE ENTIRE CLUB: That was so great!!!!!!! We don’t understand that not all music is great!!!!!!
WILL: Fine. I’m going to cast you in a highly sexual role with a bunch of teenagers. However, I can’t cast you as Frank N. Furter so we still don’t have a show, making this entire musical number completely irrelevant to the plot.
MERCEDES: I want to play Frank N. Furter.
WILL: That’s a really stupid idea, and this is coming from the guy who agreed to a Madonna theme week.
MERCEDES: But a line in the Rocky Horror Script has some vague, tenuous relationship to what I’m experiencing in my life. Therefore, I want to play this role that was clearly not written for an unsexy female gospel singer. If we were doing “Sweeney Todd”, I would want to play Sweeney Todd.
WILL: Sold!
CUT TO:
“Sweet Transvestite” with MERCEDES as Frank N. Furter happens. Tim Curry is more ashamed of this than of “Congo”.
THE ENTIRE CLUB: That was great!!!!!!!!
GLEE FANS WORLDWIDE: AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! THIS IS TEH BEST!!!!1!!!!!
CUT TO:
WILL and EMMA are in an arbitrary room. Just…a room.
WILL: I talked Sam out of playing the monster.
EMMA: Why? He was really looking forward to it.
WILL: I know. I’m just a selfish pig. I’m going to play the monster. Want to help me rehearse?
EMMA: I have a condition where I am completely insensible to men’s attempts at taking advantage of me. Therefore, yes I will
WILL: Good. I really need to rehearse a scene where I just stand here and you writhe around sexily.
EMMA: This sounds like a completely professional use of our time.
EMMA sings “Touch-a Touch me” and rips WILL’s shirt off, because she doesn’t understand how rehearsing works. All of the ears in America die of sadness. EMMA finishes the song and runs out of the room, embarrassed. WILL looks directly at the camera.
WILL: OMG, THINGZ ARE GOING SO WRONG YOU GUYZZZ!!!! WOOPILY SCOOPILY!!!!!!
He makes a silly face at the camera. Then he rips his pants off and does a silly dance. Everything is so silly! Oh that Will!
Cut to:
@#!$%!#!@!$!&$**&!& WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS HORRIBLE SHIT!!!!!! WHEN DID GLEE SUDDENLY TURN INTO SUCH A HORRIBLE PIECE OF COMMERCIAL HACK WORK!?!!?! WHY IS LEA MICHELE ON THE COVER OF VANITY FAIR!?!?!?! WHY AM I CRYING UNCONTROLLABLY AND RIPPING MY ARM HAIR OUT?!?!?!!? WHAT IS THIS SHOW DOING TO MEEEEE!?!?!?!
Cut to:
WILL goes into THAT PRINCIPAL GUY’s office. FINN is there.
WILL: What’s going on?
PRINCIPAL: Finn is suspended!
WILL: Don’t suspend Finn!
PRINCIPAL: Okay.
THIS SHOW WON AN EMMY AND COMMUNITY DIDN’T EVEN GET A NOMINATION?!?!!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, AMERICA!!!!!!
Cut to:
Oh good, we’re back at that scene from the beginning. You know, when they interrupted “Over at the Frankenstein Place” so that we could have a flashback. This is what the entire episode has been building up to. This is the suspenseful moment that we've been waiting the entire episode to see resolved. This is really gonna be an epic confrontation, folks!
JOHN STAMOS: Hey! Will! You’re trying to get with my girl!
WILL: Sorry. Are you going to quit the show?
JOHN STAMOS: No.
WILL: Ok.
…….
WHAT THE F…….
Cut to:
BECKY the retarded girl enters WILL’s office.
BECKY: Sue’s trying to sabotage your show.
WILL: Nooooo I don’t believe that.
BECKY: Are you…are you really surprised? I mean, she’s tried to stop pretty much everything you’ve ever tried to accomplish in your life.
WILL: She’s not up to anything. Don’t be such a retard.
Long pause.
………
Long pause.
WILL: I meant, stop being so retarded.
BECKY: I have a tape to prove it.
WILL: WHAT!?!?!
WILL, rather than freak out and break something, puts on his disappointed puppy dog face and tears up a little. After all, there's only ten minutes left in the episode, and WILL hasn't been disappointed with anyone.
Cut to:
WILL talking to EMMA in an auditorium. Because…where else?
WILL: So I cancelled the show. I was just doing it to impress you.
EMMA: What?! Seriously?!!? I did NOT see that coming.
WILL: Yeah. I’m really sorry. But I learned my lesson. I shouldn’t deprive you of the only thing that makes you happy just because I want to jump your bones.
EMMA: Really? You just learned that?
WILL: Yeah. I’ll probably forget about it in a week, too.
EMMA: Remember when we kissed at the end of the first season one finale? You know, before those other nine episodes that turned you into a total jerk? Remember when that was actually really sweet and touching, and a really moving depiction of two desperately unhappy people finding a fleeting but beautiful moment of solace together?
WILL: I’m sorry, I wasn’t listening. I was too busy coming up with wacky schemes for my Glee club.
EMMA: Oh.
WILL: I love you.
EMMA: See you later! This incident will have no long term effects on our friendship at all!
She leaves.
Cut to:
The entire club does “The Time Warp”.
Because it is terrible, they show the entire thing.
Nothing about their staging, choreography, or casting makes any sense. The singing is autotuned and soulless. By attempting to make Rocky Horror sound polished and professional, they have destroyed the ironic enjoyment that can be gleaned from listening to it. Nothing about this is enjoyable, even on an ironic level. The cast doesn’t even seem to be having any sort of fun; they just look like androids programmed to simulate the motions of human beings having fun.
Glee’s soul makes a final, desperate squeal for help, and then disappears into darkness forever.
Itunes writes Ryan Murphy a check for ten billion dollars.
The end.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Vote for Joe Bitty! First in a series
Inspired by this: http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/lynchs-campaign-ad-actor-endorses-segal/
Sunday, August 1, 2010
I hate California Gurls
"California Gu(i)rls": This song is utterly atrocious, and if you like it, then your subjective opinion is objectively wrong. Also, your head should be examined, preferably after it’s been removed from your body.
I’m sorry, I think we’ve gotten off on the wrong foot. Now that my blunt, gut reaction to this miserable louse of a song is on the table, I can now step back and express exactly what about it makes my ears bleed.
First of all, everyone knows this, but the song IS pretty much Tik-Tok by Ke$#@, or K&Z$!-!^ or whoever. There, I said it. No need to elaborate, because everybody else has already noticed.
Second of all, I don’t mind Katy Perry as a singer, but I get the impression that she is almost entirely auto-tuned and doesn’t really have much natural singing ability (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDebwTnsud0). Her main strengths seem to be looking like Zooey Deschanel and having a cute personality. “I Kissed a Girl” kind of works, because it plays off of that quirky, fun personality. She doesn’t sing it brilliantly, but in terms of attitude she sells it pretty well. That’s saying a lot considering the acting ability of most pop starlets.
“California Gurls”, however, is clearly written solely to get Katy Perry to say sexual things. It’s not a big surprise, really. This is how 90% of the music of today is produced. It’s catchy enough that morons will be able to sing along with it at parties, and that’s about all that’s required of it. There’s nothing creative about it. It doesn’t just sound like “Tik Tok”, it sounds like every pop single released in the past five years.
But you didn’t come here to hear me talk about the unchanging, monotonous rhythm, Katy Perry’s lack of vocal range, or the utterly horrid music video set in candyland. I’m not a music expert, and I don’t give a shit about music videos. I know enough to get by, but I’d much rather shit all over the idiotic lyrics that this piece of tripe tries to pretend is the English language.
Let’s go through it piece by piece, shall we?
“I know a place/where the grass is really greener”
Than what?
Are you referencing that old idiom about the grass on the other side of the fence? If so, than is that really what California, the entire state, prides itself on? Its green grass? Whatever, maybe it’s kind of poetic in a third-grader kind of way, so I’ll let it go.
“Warm, wet and wild/there must be something in the water”
Wait, isn’t “there must be something in the water” usually something you say to disparage a place? For example:
Todd goes to New York to find that everybody there is a pushy, self-centered asshat. As Todd is hit square in the face with an egg the second he steps out of his car carrying his brooks-brothers suitcase, he shrugs his shoulders with the gracious acceptance of Job, and sadly muses “there must be something in the water”. And then his suitcase is stolen by a skateboarding hooligan.
The whole point of water is that you don’t want things in it. You just want water. Moving on.
“You could travel the world/but nothing comes close to the golden coast”
I skipped ahead a bit, to the one part of the song that actually sounds nice, melodically speaking. On the other hand, it also sounds like something Jason Bateman’s character in “Juno” would be hired to write for the state of California; a stupid, shallow jingle filled with jingoisms and clichés. Here, Juno Bateman explains to us thick pillocks that no matter where you travel to in the entire world, you will not find a place exactly the same as the golden coast, or possibly California as a whole (it’s not really clear which he means, although if he thinks that there are no coasts like California’s coast, than he has never left the state). He doesn’t tell us if we would be travelling the world looking specifically for a place like California, just that we wouldn’t find such a place. Does that make it the best place? We don’t know, because we don’t know what would make it so superior or in what sense it would be superior. So really, we’re left with an empty cliché, designed to excite the easily stimulated puppy-dog part of our brain, and silence the frowning schoolmarm part of our brain that does most of our thinking and reasoning.
“California girls (gurls)/we’re unforgettable”
I hate the title of this song. It’s like somebody is trying to sing the superior Beach Boys song “California Girls” while throwing up. Also, this chorus is horrid and I’m so happy I made it this far.
“Daisy Dukes/Bikinis on top”
Wait, what is the bikini on top of?
Is it on top of the Daisy Dukes? Are you wearing your bikini bottoms over your Daisy Dukes? That probably looks really stupid. You probably look like a crazy person.
“Sun-kissed skin so hot/ We’ll melt your popsicle”
Wait, your skin is so hot you’ll melt my popsicle? That’s really mean. I was enjoying that popsicle.
So I was eating a popsicle on the beach, minding my own business, when an army of slutty girls wearing their bikini bottoms over their daisy dukes ran up to me, grabbed my popsicle, and started rubbing it all over themselves. I was instantly disgusted by this, because not only was my popsicle melting, the girls were getting sticky and sugary (not in a good way). I walked away, hoping to find a road so that I could hitch a ride back to the East Coast.
“California Girls/We’re undeniable”
“Wait!” Screamed the sluts, flashing their breasts for attention. “You cannot deny us! We are undeniable!” “What does that mean?” I helplessly screamed back. “A person can’t be undeniable! A fact or statement can be undeniable, or I can deny you a thing, or I can deny you in the sense that Peter denied Jesus, but a person can’t be deniable or undeniable!”
“Fine, fresh, fierce/we got it unlocked!”
The girls than began chewing on their own hands whilst frothing at the mouth. “We got it unlocked!” “What?” I shouted back, but they had already begun rushing towards me with a look of sex-crazed hunger in their eyes. I ran for my life.
“West coast represent/now put your hands up”
Would somebody please tell California that it’s not the entire west coast? There are a few more states to go, not to mention Mexico and Canada, before we’ve got the entire west coast.
Anyway, this horrible chorus is almost over. There’s one more line to save this idiotic mass of rambling from the shit factory. What have you got for us, K.P?
“Ohh ohhhhhhhhh!!!!”
Fuck this song.
Oh, by the way; it’s about sex.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Excerpt from my Book: "How to Poop in Public"
Chapter 6
Now the question arises; what if you don’t have diarrhea? What if it’s a good, cold, solid poop that can’t be covered up as “spilt coffee” or “a mud puddle mishap”? Well, there are several scenarios where this sort of event can happen.
The first situation we will cover is the subway. You are sitting next to a stranger on a crowded subway. You may or may not have planned to poop in advance, but the course of action is the same regardless.
Now the question arises; what if you don’t have diarrhea? What if it’s a good, cold, solid poop that can’t be covered up as “spilt coffee” or “a mud puddle mishap”? Well, there are several scenarios where this sort of event can happen.
The first situation we will cover is the subway. You are sitting next to a stranger on a crowded subway. You may or may not have planned to poop in advance, but the course of action is the same regardless.
Only if you are extremely comfortable with pooping in public should you announce your poop to the person sitting next to you; e.g., “I am going to poop”, or possibly “I have pooped” if the event in question has already occurred. Otherwise, follow these vital guidelines.
If you expect to be pooping on this subway ride, make sure you smile and say hello to the person you sit next to. This will establish an air of familiarity so that in the event that your poop is noticed, the stranger will be less inclined to react with revulsion, and more inclined to feel bad for you. If you do not expect to be pooping, it would not be inadvisable to do this anyway, just in case.
Now that you are seated comfortably, let’s say you poop your pants about halfway through the ride. It is a half-hour ride, so you should expect to have poopy pants for more at least 15 minutes; more if you have not brought along your emergency trousers (see chapter 3).
Once you have pooped your pants, if you do not want the stranger sitting next to you to notice, you need to cover for 3 uh-ohs (as opposed to the 2 uh-ohs of the previous chapters). You need to cover up the SMELL, the SIGHT, and the TOUCH.
The SMELL is covered by any of the techniques from the previous chapters (best choice: point out the oldest person in the vicinity and make conversation about “old person smell”). The SIGHT is somewhat different, as you are dealing with a solid poo. There are two anecdotes you can slip into conversation to cover the sight of a solid poo poking out of your pants.
“So I’ve been trying to genetically engineer myself a tail, recently…”
“Old people smell terrible. It’s probably because they’re dying. I have a giant tumor on my rear end.”
Alternatively, you can bounce up and down in your seat as part of your “pilates course”. This will hopefully flatten the poo enough for you to look inconspicuous.
The unique aspect of this kind of poo is the TOUCH. Solid poo has a very distinct feel to it. The only solution is to make sure nobody touches your butt. NOBODY. If anybody does, it’s game over. You’ve failed to poop in public.
Now, you may be wondering what to do if subway security gives you a cavity search at the end of the ride. Well, to find out, proceed to chapter 7….
If you expect to be pooping on this subway ride, make sure you smile and say hello to the person you sit next to. This will establish an air of familiarity so that in the event that your poop is noticed, the stranger will be less inclined to react with revulsion, and more inclined to feel bad for you. If you do not expect to be pooping, it would not be inadvisable to do this anyway, just in case.
Now that you are seated comfortably, let’s say you poop your pants about halfway through the ride. It is a half-hour ride, so you should expect to have poopy pants for more at least 15 minutes; more if you have not brought along your emergency trousers (see chapter 3).
Once you have pooped your pants, if you do not want the stranger sitting next to you to notice, you need to cover for 3 uh-ohs (as opposed to the 2 uh-ohs of the previous chapters). You need to cover up the SMELL, the SIGHT, and the TOUCH.
The SMELL is covered by any of the techniques from the previous chapters (best choice: point out the oldest person in the vicinity and make conversation about “old person smell”). The SIGHT is somewhat different, as you are dealing with a solid poo. There are two anecdotes you can slip into conversation to cover the sight of a solid poo poking out of your pants.
“So I’ve been trying to genetically engineer myself a tail, recently…”
“Old people smell terrible. It’s probably because they’re dying. I have a giant tumor on my rear end.”
Alternatively, you can bounce up and down in your seat as part of your “pilates course”. This will hopefully flatten the poo enough for you to look inconspicuous.
The unique aspect of this kind of poo is the TOUCH. Solid poo has a very distinct feel to it. The only solution is to make sure nobody touches your butt. NOBODY. If anybody does, it’s game over. You’ve failed to poop in public.
Now, you may be wondering what to do if subway security gives you a cavity search at the end of the ride. Well, to find out, proceed to chapter 7….
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Super Mario Brothers: A Freudian Hellscape
Who doesn't love Super Mario? Since 1983, the Mario brothers have been the face of the video gaming industry. No matter how violent, mature, or artistic games get, Mario will always be the smiling face we think of when we hear the phrase "video game".
But what the hell is Super Mario about? Why is a plumber murdering turtles and dragons in a land of castles and princesses in the first place?
What if the whole thing is about.....sex?
Not just sex, though...Some of the most twisted, repressed sexual frustrations ever presented in popular culture. The dark subconscious of the adolescent mind. The Freudian hellscape of the dream world.
To begin this exploration into the darkness of the plumber's subconscious, let's first examine our protagonist.
Mario
Just who IS Mario? Let's take a good look:
This is Mario, pre-mushroom. He is small in stature, almost like a child. He wears overalls and a baseball cap, not terribly unlike the average pre-pubescent child of the 1980s. But he is not quite a child; the pubic moustache embracing his upper lip shows signs of a desire to mature-to move past the infant reliance on the mother. What we see in Mario is the trappings of pre-pubescence, with an awareness of one's own sexuality; someone who is arrested in a child-like state of repression, but with a buried need to mature sexually.
But then comes the mushroom. When Mario takes the mushroom, he becomes Super Mario (named after the super-ego). He is realized as a functioning adult, but he is still defenseless. Physically, he has matured, but emotionally he is still fragile, and the slightest bit of damage can cause him to revert to his child-like state. He is abducted by adolescence; forced to grow before he is prepared. He is the repressed individual.
With the fire plant, Mario finally finds release. He has grown physically, but is unafraid to release the orgasmic fire that threatens to consume him from within (most likely through masturbation, or possibly nighttime ejaculation). He is the fully realized sexual being; conquering all of the obstacles in his path with confidence. However, a strong enough force can still revert him to his child-like state.
But just what is it that could cause our repressed adolescent to shrink into his impotent state of repression?
The Enemies, Or: The Freudian Nightmares
Okay, I know what you're thinking. This is all pretty much elementary school level stuff, right? There's nothing REALLY sexual going on in Mario; it's all just a bunch of 12-year olds snickering about Mario getting "bigger" when he takes "shrooms".
You think that's where this crazy sexual subconscious stuff stops? Well, with the bad guys, things start getting pretty fucked up. If you found the last section to be uncomfortable and titillating, you should probably stop reading right now.
Now hand me that chapstick and pull down your brain-pants, because I am about to blow your mind.
The Goomba is the most overtly sexual of Mario's enemies. It's design is based off of the shiitake mushroom, yes, but it's flesh-colored center and slightly darker tip imply something more akin to a very angry phallus. Furthermore, in dream analysis, mushrooms generally signify unhealthy pleasures. Why do these walking phalluses threaten the repressed Mario? I think the most likely explanation is that they represent other males as competition; Mario fears the competition of larger penises in his quest for sexual satisfaction. They are the confident, sexually active, but mentally inferior males who threaten to separate Mario from possible sexual conquests. But more disturbingly, they are temptation for the repressed Mario to give up his chaste ways. If this is Mario's dream land, than maybe they represent the jocks from his high school years, or a sexy gang of rival plumbers.
The Koopa is an oddity among Mario's enemies. At first glance, he seems non-threatening, almost frightened and confused, as though uncertain as to why he is being sent out into the kingdom to murder a hyperactive plumber. However, if we look at the Koopa as a symbol, and not a character, the mystery fades. Look at the phallic nature of the Koopa. Really drink it in. He is even more blatantly phallic than the Goomba. Even more frustratingly, he cannot be truly killed (except by a fireball, which-remember-represents orgasmic release), signifying that he is somehow a part of Mario's psyche, and not simply an external disturbance. The turtle in dream analysis represents "self-protection, hiding, withdrawing, fear of social interaction or showing one's true self". Koopa represents Mario's own fear of social interaction, which in turn serves as an obstacle in his sexual quest. Alternately, at the very least, Koopa is some sort of stimulus that causes Mario's withdrawal from society, perhaps a bad memory. The phallic imagery might demonstrate that that bad memory is an incident of molestation or sexual abuse from an older male. Is Mario's past more dark and troubled than we ever imagined?
This is the most disturbing sexual symbol in the entire gang, and if you don't believe me, just compare it's appearance to any other enemy in the game. The piranha plant is an eyeless monstrosity, desperately gnashing at an escape route from the phallus it is trapped in-a phallus trapping a phallus. The darkness and depravity on display here is mind-boggling. The design of the piranha plant is similar to that of H.R Giger's alien.
What was the imagery being implied in Giger's alien? That of homosexual oral rape. The phallus being consumed by something that is both an orifice and a phallus. This evokes painful emotion because it represents to us the betrayal of a father figure. Remember when I said that the Koopa implied an instance of sexual abuse in Mario's past? Well, the piranha plant shows us a little more clearly what the circumstances surrounding that abuse were.
The horror.
And finally, there's Bowser. With him, we get the answers we've been seeking. Bowser is the ultimate proof of Mario's Oedipal complex. He is the full realization of the Koopa; the cause of Mario's social insecurity. He is the father figure, depriving Mario of the loving sexual relationship with the mother figure (Princess Toadstool) with his own advances. It is the goal of Mario's sexual quest to destroy the father figure through the use of fire (symbolizing the phoenix-like total destruction of the father to make way for the new male figure) and an axe (symbolizing the castration of the father, allowing Mario exclusive access to the mother).
But why is Bowser-the father figure-so closely associated with the Koopa? Because there is some sort of memory linked with him that causes Mario to shrivel. He is the demonic phallus, a sort of masculine form of vagina dentata. What does this mean?
Mario was raped by his father.
More to come.
But why is Bowser-the father figure-so closely associated with the Koopa? Because there is some sort of memory linked with him that causes Mario to shrivel. He is the demonic phallus, a sort of masculine form of vagina dentata. What does this mean?
Mario was raped by his father.
More to come.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Album; Is it Dying?
A cliche title for an equally cliche topic: the changing landscape of the music industry. However, I'm gonna try to bring something new-ish to the table. Are itunes and amazon killing the album as an art form unto itself?
I bring it up for a reason. While discussing music with some friends the other day, I was struck when somebody remarked that they preferred Beatles covers to actual Beatles-performed songs. They cited as an example how much they enjoyed music from "Across the Universe" compared to the same songs done by the Beatles.
Outrage at this rather blasphemous opinion notwithstanding, I can see his point. Think about it. Which of the following would you most want to listen to?
(a) "A Day in the Life" done by the Beatles, as an individual track
(b) Jeff Beck's fantastic cover of "A Day in the Life" as an individual track
(c) "A Day in the Life" as the denoument to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
If I listed these in order of what I would want to listen to, from most to least, it would go C, B, A. The reason is, I just don't think the average Beatles song goes down well on its own (with exceptions, such as "In My Life", "Hard Day's Night", "Let it Be", and a few others). "Across the Universe" tracks and other covers stand better on their own, because so much emotion and craftsmanship is packed into the one performance of an incredibly well-written tune that you feel as though you have had a complete artistic experience by the end of the track.
As a whole, however, the "Across the Universe" album does not hold up to a Beatles album. Why? Because nobody wants to have their senses assaulted by climactic tune after climactic tune, and that's all "Across the Universe" is. Every song is performed as though it were the finale to a rock concert. There's a reason the average Broadway musical only has one or two "show stopping numbers"; if all you show an audience is a "show stopping number", the law of diminishing returns demands that by the end the audience is sick of the main course and would like to get some dessert or appetitezers for god's sake.
A Beatles album, on the other hand, is a piece of art as a whole-not just in terms of individual tracks. Would I listen to "Mean Mr. Mustard" as an individual track? No, it's not a great song. But coming in between "Sun King" and "Polythene Pam", it becomes a fun, pace-changing little bridge. Did Joe Cocker do a better "With a Little Help from my Friends" than the Beatles? Yes, but it's hard to imagine "Sgt. Pepper" without it. The Beatles weren't about writing hit singles; they were about the album.
This love of the album is drowning in the age of napster. Why buy a whole album when you can just buy the most famous song and put it on repeat? Not to say that this is an entirely bad thing. The benefits to the mp3 system are immense. I don't want to own the soundtrack to "Rent", but "Without You" is a pretty beautiful song, so buying that individual track from itunes is considerably less wasteful than buying the whole thing. There are plenty of CDs that are essentially just compilations of catchy tunes, and breaking those CDs up into little tiny mp3 pieces hardly compromises their artistic merit.
But consider this; if "Dark Side of the Moon" had been released today, would it still be the cultural milestone that it is, or would everybody just buy "Money" and ignore the rest of the album? "The lunatic is on the grass" would not be an instantly recognizable phrase, that weird triangle with the rainbow shining through would not be a staple t-shirt for stoned hipsters, and nobody would know about that crazy thing you do with "The Wizard of Oz". Basically, as a country, we would be fucked.
Watching "Freaks and Geeks" makes me long for the days when it was totally cool to just lie on your floor with a pair of headphones and listen to the greatest rock albums in the world. I missed that age by being born in '88, and now that the album has essentially been downgraded from art form to ipod fuel, I'm pretty sure we're not going to get it back anytime soon.
I bring it up for a reason. While discussing music with some friends the other day, I was struck when somebody remarked that they preferred Beatles covers to actual Beatles-performed songs. They cited as an example how much they enjoyed music from "Across the Universe" compared to the same songs done by the Beatles.
Outrage at this rather blasphemous opinion notwithstanding, I can see his point. Think about it. Which of the following would you most want to listen to?
(a) "A Day in the Life" done by the Beatles, as an individual track
(b) Jeff Beck's fantastic cover of "A Day in the Life" as an individual track
(c) "A Day in the Life" as the denoument to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"
If I listed these in order of what I would want to listen to, from most to least, it would go C, B, A. The reason is, I just don't think the average Beatles song goes down well on its own (with exceptions, such as "In My Life", "Hard Day's Night", "Let it Be", and a few others). "Across the Universe" tracks and other covers stand better on their own, because so much emotion and craftsmanship is packed into the one performance of an incredibly well-written tune that you feel as though you have had a complete artistic experience by the end of the track.
As a whole, however, the "Across the Universe" album does not hold up to a Beatles album. Why? Because nobody wants to have their senses assaulted by climactic tune after climactic tune, and that's all "Across the Universe" is. Every song is performed as though it were the finale to a rock concert. There's a reason the average Broadway musical only has one or two "show stopping numbers"; if all you show an audience is a "show stopping number", the law of diminishing returns demands that by the end the audience is sick of the main course and would like to get some dessert or appetitezers for god's sake.
A Beatles album, on the other hand, is a piece of art as a whole-not just in terms of individual tracks. Would I listen to "Mean Mr. Mustard" as an individual track? No, it's not a great song. But coming in between "Sun King" and "Polythene Pam", it becomes a fun, pace-changing little bridge. Did Joe Cocker do a better "With a Little Help from my Friends" than the Beatles? Yes, but it's hard to imagine "Sgt. Pepper" without it. The Beatles weren't about writing hit singles; they were about the album.
This love of the album is drowning in the age of napster. Why buy a whole album when you can just buy the most famous song and put it on repeat? Not to say that this is an entirely bad thing. The benefits to the mp3 system are immense. I don't want to own the soundtrack to "Rent", but "Without You" is a pretty beautiful song, so buying that individual track from itunes is considerably less wasteful than buying the whole thing. There are plenty of CDs that are essentially just compilations of catchy tunes, and breaking those CDs up into little tiny mp3 pieces hardly compromises their artistic merit.
But consider this; if "Dark Side of the Moon" had been released today, would it still be the cultural milestone that it is, or would everybody just buy "Money" and ignore the rest of the album? "The lunatic is on the grass" would not be an instantly recognizable phrase, that weird triangle with the rainbow shining through would not be a staple t-shirt for stoned hipsters, and nobody would know about that crazy thing you do with "The Wizard of Oz". Basically, as a country, we would be fucked.
Watching "Freaks and Geeks" makes me long for the days when it was totally cool to just lie on your floor with a pair of headphones and listen to the greatest rock albums in the world. I missed that age by being born in '88, and now that the album has essentially been downgraded from art form to ipod fuel, I'm pretty sure we're not going to get it back anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)