Cooler Dirt

We have a confession to make: We hate plays.

There, we said it.

Yes, yes, hold your rancor and chastisements.  We know we have now branded ourselves uncultured, illiterate, beer-swilling simpletons, but we don’t care.  No matter what you say to bring us out of our provincial shitkickerdom, plays suck.   Here’s why;

1.  The Medium: For most of human history there haven’t been a lot of options when it came to entertainment.  Medieval people would no doubt see the production of a play as an awe inspiring, life changing experience.  Compared to their daily drudgery, why wouldn’t they?

But times have changed.  We have mass produced books., films, television, sporting events, etc, etc.  The days when a group of people standing in front of you playing make believe was the supreme achievement in human entertainment are long gone.  Whenever we see a play nowadays, we can’t get past the idea that we are watching adults stand around for an hour and a half, pretending to not be on a stage, pretending to not be pretending, pretending to be someone they are not, pretending to…oh, you get the point.

2.  The Culture: What little exposure we’ve had to theater culture has left us scratching our head and wondering whether or not these people could be found anywhere else in life.  Even forgetting the dramatic persona that seems so common amongst these denizens of the stage, there is so much off kilter here, we have no idea where to even begin relating to them.

For instance, what is with the superstitions?  Why can’t you say Macbeth without a theater person going into convulsions and frothing at the mouth in terror?    Why say “break a leg” instead of “good luck”?  No, we don’t really understand any superstition.  They all seem to be so primitive and ego-centric, as if the universe is keeping watch and just waiting to cause you problems because you say one thing instead of another.

And in what kind of world is the excuse “Well, that’s show business,” acceptable when something goes wrong?  If a ship’s captain runs their vessel aground, you don’t hear them say “Well, that’s trans-oceanic shipping for ya!”

And getting back to the people.  We’ll merely summarize our conclusion by saying: only theater people could call someone who sings, dances and acts a “Triple Threat” without breaking into hysterics.  

There is nothing threatening about any of those actions.  Never has been, never will be.

3.  Musicals: No.  Seriously…just, no. We can listen to music and enjoy it’s performance, but when someone stops talking and starts singing, forget it. Whatever narrative thread we, the audience, have been following up to that point is summarily sliced away when the people who I am trying to take seriously start singing in an attempt to communicate.  No.

So let’s hear it.  Why do you hate us now?

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art plays, theater

We had an interesting discussion the other day about horror movies.  More specifically, the Zombie Movie.  One of us recently read the Max Brooks book World War Z, about a future where zombies almost wipe out the human race and the leftover people have to fight back against them.   Though we all liked zombie movies to one extent or another, we did come up with an interesting observation about the zombie genre in particular.

1.  Zombie survivors make shelters: In pretty much every zombie movie we’ve seen, the non-zombie people wall themselves up, bar the doors, build barricades or otherwise create a fortress to keep the hordes of zombies from getting inside and eating their brains.  (Or something.)

2.  Zombie survivors have immediate needs: Apart from food, shelter, weapons and maybe a zombie-escape-mobile, zombie survivors don’t really have a lot to do.  They don’t have to pay bills, don’t have to study, don’t have to worry about getting the girl.  It’s pretty much basic survival needs with none of the complications of modern life and socialization.  Conversations revolve around how to get away, where the ammo is and what needs to be done to stay alive.

3.  Zombie survivors use violence: It goes without saying that if you are attacked by a zombie, you’re going to defend yourself using whatever you have available.   Chainsaws, swords, bats, and of course, as many guns as you can get your hands on.  If you are cast into a world of zombies, you gotta fight, and fight well.

As we see it,  zombie movie people use violence, build forts and think of nothing other than meeting their immediate survival needs.  Does this sound like anyone you might know?  Or, to be more specific, is there a certain group of people who’s desires closely match those of the people in zombie movies?

How about pre-teen boys?  How about teenage boys, or those on the verge of sexual maturity?  In other words, are zombie movies fantasies of the pre-teen boy inside of all the fanboys, film makers and otherwise adult men who flock to them?

Look at it this way:  If you survive a zombie attack, you have to build a fort to wall yourself off from the outside world. (Very boyish).  You have to find all the weapons you can.  (Ever seen boys play war?)  You have to get food and concentrate on staying alive.  You don’t have to deal with school, or parents, or complicated relationships,or, god forbid, sex! (Sure, there are sexy women in these movies, but aren’t they too just fantasies?)

The zombie fantasy offered by these films caters to the regressed or psychologically stunted impulse to wall yourself off from the world and not grow up.  You don’t have to worry about any big, emotional, complicated stuff that adults have to deal with.  All you have to do is play soldier and stay alive.

Of course, we haven’t found any direct evidence that the people making these films or books believes this, or is using the zombie setting as a metaphorical tool to explore these ideas.  We could be completely wrong about it.

But we don’t think we are.   After all, who are the biggest fans of zombie movies?  When the next zombie movie comes out  (the movie version of World War Z is set to be made soon), go see it in the theater.  Pay attention to the ratio of men to women.  We’re guessing it’s going to be fairly male heavy.  We’re also guessing those men are either adolescents or a little regressed.

(Photo courtest Ateo Fiel’s Flickr site through Creative Commons.  Thanks, Ateo Fiel.)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, brain, conversation, conversations, life

We were having a discussion the other night, and the topic of Mel Gibson came up.  No, not for the reasons you’re thinking.  (Well, probably because of those reasons.)  We were talking about his Lethal Weapon movies when the topic of the ‘revenge fantasy’ came up.

A common thread or theme found in many films, the revenge fantasy caters to that urge in all of us when we feel we have been wronged and want to pay the wrongdoer back and fantasize about how that retribution would be, how it would feel.  (See movies like The Brave One, Man on Fire, Defiance, etc.)  It arises in many contexts, from the schadenfreude we feel when someone else fails, to the conversations we have with ourselves when we think up the perfect comeback line to say after someone has insulted us and the opportunity has passed.  (”Well the jerkstore called and they’re running out of you!”)

Now, we don’t want to psychoanalyze anyone.  Apart from being grossly unqualified and in every other way not a psychologist, we never the less think there’s something to our observations.  The Basics are this:  Mel Gibson likes revenge. As an actor, he seems to play roles in which the character has a strong desire for revenge.  These characters go on to kill and deal out violence.

If nothing else, it causes us to ask why?  Is Mr. Gibson drawn to these characters because the emotion/impulse resonates with him, or that it’s one he can easily identify with?  Does he just happen to get these parts with strong revenge fantasy elements?  Is he fighting an urge in himself by letting his rage out in a constructive environment?   Is it all of these?

We don’t know, but it makes for an intersting conversation topic.  Take a look at the evidence. Here is a list of some of the Mel Gibson movies that have the revenge fantasy present:

1.  Lethal Weapon 2: Though less prominent in the other films of this series, this film is all about revenge.  Riggs (Gibson’s character) finds out that the bad guys are not only responsible for killing his girlfriend, but also his wife.  Revenge ensues.

2.  Hamlet: Depressed prince finds out Uncle killed dad and married mom.  Revenge ensues.

3.  Braveheart: Scottish clansman William Wallace gets married to his childhood sweetheart whom the English then kill.  Revenge ensues.

4.  Ransom: Millionaire airline owner’s son is kidnapped and a ransom is demanded.  Gibson’s character gets the ransom but instead uses it as a bounty on the kidnappers’s heads.  Personal and third party revenge ensues.

5.  Payback: Ok, we never saw this one, but it’s got ‘payback’ as the title.  We’re guessing the plot goes like this:  Gibson’s character is wronged.  He goes to get….wait for it…payback.  Revenge (and payback!) ensue.

6.  The Patriot: Former extremely violent guy (Gibson) lives peacefully on his farm until the English kill his son.  Bloody revenge (lots and lots and lots of it) ensues.

7.  Paparazzi: Mr. Gibson didn’t star in this film, but he did  produce it, have a cameo and got his former hairdresser to direct it.   In it a star is hassled by paparazzi.  After a car accident is caused by the paparazzi’s flashing their cameras at the star (where did they get that idea?), the star decides to kill him some paparazzi.  Revenge ensues.

Mr. Gibson has been in a lot of other movies (and has directed or been part of the production of many more), but this list at least gives you an idea of what we’re talking about.  I’m sure if we tried, we could find a lot of other revenge elements in his other films.  We just thought these seemed fairly obvious.

The revenge fantasy is a particularly primitive instinct, isn’t it?  Freud said that civilization started when the first person chose to hurl an insult rather than a stone. It seems that some people still very much like the idea of hurling stones.  Or at least shoting people, hacking them to death or burning them alive.

But hey, it’s all just a fantasy.  Right?

(Photo courtesy EAWB’s flickr page through Creative Commons.  Thanks, EAWB!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art conversation, conversation topic, conversations, personal

It seems like every time we start talking about movies, someone brings up the Academy Awards.   We like the Oscars, we do.  We like to think about what movies were good, what movies were bad, and which ones we think were better than the rest.  (Though we don’t really think all movies are equal, or should be judged equally.)

Our problem with the Academy Awards though, is not about them specifically.  People can make up any award they want.  Super.  Have at it.  Go nuts.

No, what troubles us about the Oscars is the impact it has upon discussing movies.  Here’s what we mean;

1.  Sycophantic Explosions: Movies are great entertainment. They are art. They are enjoyable, thought provoking and capable of changing the way you view the world.  They are also the surest way to get someone to claim that a person involved in the film industry is astonishing/amazing/unbelievable/brilliant/tremendous/possessed of unearthly intelligence/a once in a century genius, etc.  Our point is this: why do we pile praise upon films, or actors, or those involved with film making so effortlessly?  Why do some people feel the need to adore and gush over actors or filmmakers?  Why does an actor’s performance or a director’s work have to be praised with ‘I hope they get an Oscar‘?  Isn’t it enough to say you enjoyed the movie, or that it made you think, or cry, or laugh?

2.  The End of Existence: Discussing what is good or bad about a movie, what you like or don’t like, all that makes for wonderful conversation.  But when someone wins an Academy Award, this fact is often brought up as if it is the single greatest achievement in human existence.  “Well, they did win an Oscar.”  Congratulations to them.  Being recognized is wonderful, and as movies are such a popular medium, we can see why the Oscars get so much attention. But is there nothing a person can do or achieve that will bring about a sense of awe in the faces of their peers as winning an award for making a movie? Is this the ultimate achievement, so much so that it has to be treated with almost reverential awe?

3.  The Removal of the Personal: Movies, books, music, any art is experienced on a personal level. That one person gets something from it is one thing, that the work reaches a wide audience and resonates strongly with it is another.  The only way to evaluate a film is by what you think of it, what effect it had on you.  That awarding an Oscar to an actor or movie often causes people to think differently about that film, even if they’ve seen it and already formed an opinion, seems ridiculous.  If authority has be given from on high, you should now like/dislike/fawn over the movie in questions?   Rubbish. Saying a movie was great because it won an Oscar is like saying a meal tasted great because the chef said it did.

It may sound lie we’re down on the Oscars, but we’re not.  Not at all.  But it has been our experience that people who use the Oscars as basis of their conversations about film usually leave us wanting.  Be it layman or professional film reviewer, we’ve found that best film conversations come from those who watch the movies on their own terms, not on those of the people who vote for the Academy Awards.

(Photo courtesy hellochris’s Flickr page, through Creative Commons  license.  Thanks, hellochris!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, conversation, conversations, music, personal

We forgot who came up with it, but we once heard a rule about evaluating whether or not how women are portrayed in movies, film or TV was realistic.  It went something like this:

If two or more women are in a scene and they only talk about men, it’s no good.

At first glance, it seems fairly simplistic.  But take a look at all the shows, movies or books where women  talking about men (or more specifically, their romantic interests or partners) takes up a lot of the dialogue.  Jane Austin? Sex and the City?   Pretty much any romantic comedy ever made?

Where are the conversations about art or politics or the lesser works of Ovid?  Of course women have these conversations in real life, but they seem to be far less represented in fiction and film.   Think about all the TV shows, movies and books where every conversation is about men; finding them, looking at them, evaluating them, living with them, thinking about them, etc.

It was also pointed out that while this may be how women are portrayed, it may not be far from the truth.  Do women spend more time talking about relationships than men?   Yes.  Do they spend more time talking in general?  Perhaps.  Is the majority of that time spent talking about men?  More importantly, is that what they think about?  Is the conversation merely an expression of their inner thoughts?

A lot of women respond negatively to these ideas.  But that doesn’t mean they are false, does it?  And if they are true, why is that a negative thing?

(Photo courtesy idoherty81’s Flickr page, through Creative Commons.  Thanks, idoherty81!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, conversation, conversations, life, politics

A conversation came up the other day about DVD’s.  Specifically, why do we own them?

You may have experienced the following phenomena:  You are watching television when you come across a movie that is just about to start.  You happen to own the movie on DVD, but for some reason you sit and watch it anyway.

Why? In your mind you know that you can watch it at any time.  Why watch the movie now?

After a brief discussion, we came up with the following reasons:

1.  It’s easier: Yes, it isn’t very hard to get up and go to your DVD player, place the movie in the tray and hit play, but it is more than pressing the channel button.

2.  It’s disposable: Something on TV isn’t permanent, it’s disposable.  You can turn it off and not give it a second thought.  If you stop the DVD, you have to get up, remove it from the player and place it back in its case/rack, etc.

3.  You don’t feel obligated: If you take the time and effort to pick a movie out of your DVD collection, place it in the player and start it, you feel an obligation to watch it.  Yes, you can pause it at any point, but you’ve gone through all the work and built an expectation in your mind that ‘Yes, I am going to commit to watching this now.’   It’s very different than finding a movie on a channel and setting the remote down.

All of this brought up another point: the digital revolution.   With the advent of digital technology (the access and recording of information into a digital format), all manner of media is becoming easily transferable and more portable.  Music, movies, books, photographs, you name it.  You can have it all on your computer, your Ipod, your cell phone.

How long will it be before you carry all of this on a Star-Trek like handheld device?  You may only have to carry around something like your cell phone to have access to all of these things.  You could play your movies wirelessly on your TV screen, or send your music to your stereo, or have your picture frames show changing images of your children.    With sites like HULU, you might be able to go online, click on the movie you want and watch it instantly, anywhere in your house.

So will DVD’s go the way of the 8-track or laser disk?  Clearly, yes.  But what they, or their successors, may be replaced with is…nothing.  At least, nothing physical.  With data being conveyed digitally at an increasing speed and with more and more ease, how long will it be before we all have personal tricorders that have access to every piece of media ever created?

And what happens after that?

(Photo courtesy john a ward’s flickr page through creative commons license.  Thanks, john a ward!”

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art, technology book, books, conversation, music, personal, tech, technology