Being both incredibly smart and extremely loud is a rare combination. We have a lot of smart people, and we have a lot of loud people, but they tend to be at odds with each other.

There is a huge surplus of loud people in the world, in this country especially, and they tend to hang out in the public eye because, well, they’re very loud, and it’s difficult to ignore them. Examples of loud people include, but are not limited to the following groups: most politicians, some athletes, all on-camera newscasters, many bloggers, and a lot of actors, but probably not as many as you’d think.

Being loud is not difficult to do, but it can strain the throat and get tiresome if you do it enough. Some people don’t have the energy to go out and be loud, but would rather stay home and read quietly, and both choices are valid. Being loud or quiet are not inherently bad things.

What is a bad thing is being both loud and colossally ignorant. So ignorant that you assume there isn’t anything left for you to learn in the world. So ignorant that, since you assume you know everything, you believe you should share your views with the world. So ignorant that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not only wrong, but a fundamentally bad person.

The Republican Primary race is mercifully drawing to a close soon, and it is obviously a hotbed of loud, dumb people. There were some spectacular moments.  We had Rick Perry’s campaign killing brain fart, Herman Cain openly defending his ignorance on foreign policy, and Michelle Bachmann discouraging children to get a potentially life-saving vaccine.

It’s been a rough winter.

And now the race is essentially down to two. There’s Rick Santorum, perhaps the loudest and stupidest of the bunch, having in the past equated gay sex to beastiality and more recently criticized Obama for encouraging people to get higher educations so they are not dumb like him. Then there’s Mitt Romney, arguably less objectionable, but he’s made it clear he will say anything he needs to say to get a crack at the white house.  One of these two people will have a chance to become the most powerful man in the world.

These are just examples, mind you. I’m not interested in debating the merits of the GOP pool, I’m just demonstrating what happens when loud dumb people speak unchallenged.

So where are all the loud, smart people? Do they exist, or do people just pay more attention to the inflammatory remarks of the ignorant? Is there some quality in being loud that negates the ability to think rationally before you speak?

I don’t have any of these answers. I wish I did. I would shout them from the highest building as loud as possible. But I remain, on this subject, ignorant, and quiet.

I’ve never really felt the urge to watch The Godfather. It was never on my radar growing up, despite being part Italian. I enjoy movies, but I wouldn’t call myself a savant. For me, the draw of movies has always been the story rather than the culture of cinema, and the Godfather is so steeped in culture that it’s sort of hard to get around.

I was, of course, familiar with The Godfather, as it’s impossible not to be. It birthed an entire generation of Italian mobster stereotypes, after all, but I was never interested in it. Part of it is that the more serious people take something, the less appealing it is to me, especially when it comes to entertainment.

The first time I mentioned that I had not seen The Godfather to someone, they regarded me with such levels of shock and disappointment that you’d think I had just denied the holocaust. Granted, I’ve reacted similarly when people have told me they either haven’t watched or cared for Star Wars or The Princess Bride, but neither of those movies/franchises really take themselves that seriously. Everything I’d heard about The Godfather was that it was a serious movie for serious people, a cinematic masterpiece with layer upon layer of subtlety and depth and meaning, and that simply didn’t appeal to me the same way a Death Star does.

However, after receiving that same look of shock and disappointment every time the subject was broached, I decided it was only fair to give the movie a chance. I grabbed a bottle of wine and a friend who was more of a film savant and made an evening of it. So after years of stern looks, what did I think about The Godfather?

I think it’s impossible to watch a film in a vacuum, and the more culturally prevalent the movie is, the more difficult it is to watch and form opinions based solely on the movie. If I had seen The Godfather right when it first came out, however long ago, I think I would’ve liked it better. As things stood, it was… fine. The individual scenes were clearly well done, I just… It was distracting to watch a movie I’d heard so much about over the course of many years. Parts of it were like a scavenger hunt for phrases like “Make him an offer he can’t refuse,” or “On this, the day of my daughter’s wedding.”

But it wasn’t just that. I couldn’t help but compare young Al Pacino to Terry Benedict from Oceans 11, especially towards the end when he went to Vegas with his hair all slicked back. This comparison was so strong that I started imagining the entire movie being one giant backstory of how Terry Benedict came into power before he met a cunning rogue named Danny Ocean. Of course, this isn’t The Godfather‘s fault, none of it is. It was filmed in a sort of vacuum, one that was protected from the legacy it would create (and the comparisons to an Oceans remake that wouldn’t happen for years).

If anything, the one thing I didn’t really like about The Godfather is that I found the overall story arch to be a little meandering for my tastes. They kill off the main rival with a face about two thirds through the story or so, and though there are other threats, it just seems like the movie is kind of drifting from that point forward. It becomes less of a story and more of a character study, which is perfectly fine, in fact that very thing sets it apart from a lot of movies out there, but it wasn’t something I was prepared for coming in. I’m sure many die hards will defend the pacing of the film and point out that it’s all part of the genius, and to those I say sure, that’s fine. I don’t feel strongly enough about The Godfather to argue anything to the contrary, but I would like to point out that you can pick any aspect of any film and decide to call it whatever you like, but that’s not an argument, that’s like, your opinion, man. The best example of this is my friend who claims that Aliens vs. Predators is the greatest love story ever told. I mean, you can argue about it if you want, but that’s a fight where everyone is the loser.

I know I’m coming off as sort of lukewarm on the film, but I want to stress what I said earlier, that I thought the individual scenes were wonderful. The acting is excellent, and there’s a real tension in some parts that just don’t exist in other films. Was it the cinematic equivelant of being struck blind on the road to Damascus? No, I am not a believer now, but at least when it comes up at parties, I can speak up without worrying about strict disapproval.

That is, unless they bring up The Godfather: Part 2.

Greetings all, and a merry winter months to everyone!

I know I had, long ago, promised to post my thoughts on the Godfather, and rest assured I do have thoughts on it, but I’ve been busy with other things. I am, after all, a writer first, a friend and husband second, a student third, a beard cultivator fourth, well the list goes on. I’d say blogger fits in just below public speaker and just above guy who glues dice together to make larger dice. I tend to post my thoughts as they occur to me, and clearly that’s not very often.

However, the other day I was listening to an interesting episode of This American Life (a link to which can be found here),  and one part of it got my brain going something fierce, and that’s the first story that involves religion.

I know I’ve posted about this before, but I want to elaborate on a point that I only briefly touched upon in my last post.

But first, back to the recording. Around the 11:52 mark, the woman reporting (a lesbian Jew) asks her born-again Christian brother what he thinks heaven is like, and the first thing he does is reaches for his bible. This upsets her, because she doesn’t really care what the bible says about heaven, she wants to know what her brother personally thinks about heaven, and it sparks this argument between them. He argues that anything he knows about heaven is based on scripture, and since he hasn’t memorized the whole book, he has to look it up.

First, I have to confess something. The whole concept of being born-again is a completely foreign concept to me. I mean, I know what it is on an intellectual level, it’s just something that I can’t believe actually happens to people in real life. Well, I can believe that it happens, because it does happen all the time, but I can’t fathom how. Well, people have talked about how, but…

Let me start again. I’ve never witnessed a life-changing epiphany. I’ve had many, smaller epiphanies, great ideas will leap into my head and I’ll get that “aha!” moment, but it’s been overwhelmingly my experience that change does not happen immediately. People do change, obviously, people are constantly changing, but it’s a gradual change brought on through aging and experience.

For example, if you’re an alcoholic, and you have an epiphany one day that if you keep drinking, it will kill you, you’re not instantly transformed. You don’t stop being an alcoholic and start being sober. You’re still the sort of person who drinks, but through an active effort of will, you don’t. To stop an addiction is hard work, and there are no miracle cures or instant transformations.

But people who are born again aren’t like that, or at least that’s my understanding from the few I’ve encountered. They talk about how their lives were terrible, and then they had this grand revelation, and then they were less terrible. Yes, life was still hard, and yes there were still struggles, but their entire worldview had changed. One minute, god was an unimportant detail, and the next he was, well, God.

I guess the reason I find this so baffling is that I could never imagine that transformation taking place within myself. I’m the sort who’s always in my head a little, taking mental notes and asking questions, and I have so many questions concerning the universe that I don’t expect answers to that I can’t imagine discarding them and embracing God as the center of my life. Really, like most Christians, it comes back to scripture.

When I was in high school I was a massive fan of Joseph Campbell and studied what he called the Monomyth, more commonly referred to as the Hero’s Journey, a set of trials and tribulations that can be attributed to Jesus, Buddha, Luke Skywalker, and Moses (for a start). The idea intrigued me, and sparked the idea that somewhere, behind the scripture and ancient texts, was some sort of universal truth. Why should I believe that the Bible is the source of all truth when it might just be a piece in a larger puzzle? Would something as massive and ineffable as God just write down a list of dos and don’ts when it seems much more likely that Moses simply needed some sort of moral code to make sure his folks made it across the desert without murdering each other?

The idea that I can let go of these thoughts and turn around completely is bizarre, and the thought that anyone can just decide to be Christian is just as baffling. As I’ve mentioned before, deep abiding faith isn’t a choice. If anyone has ever once heard of a born-again Christian handing pamphlets out on the street or a Jehovah’s Witness knocking on doors actually converting someone, I’d very much like to hear about that.

Back to This American life, there’s a really interesting exchange between the brother and sister right towards the end of their segment around the 25:00 minute mark, that I’ll go ahead and transcript below.

Marc Pimsleur

Yeah, right. Well, that’s always my hesitation about talking about any of this because I just don’t know how to relate it to you without it being something that you’re going to say, “This is weird,” or “I can’t deal with this,” or “I can’t understand this.”

Julia Pimsleur

It’s not that this is weird, it’s the “I know better.”

Marc Pimsleur

Yeah, OK. Well, unfortunately, it can come off extremely arrogant to say, well, this is the way, the truth, and the life. And that’s what Jesus said. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” And you can’t water it down and you can’t make it acceptable. And it divides people.

Julia Pimsleur

But you see that I’m struggling to accept that your way is a valid way that’s just different from my way. And I want to feel like you also feel that my way is a valid way. It’s just different from your way. I know you don’t think that.

Marc Pimsleur

Well, there just isn’t room for that. We can’t really–

Julia Pimsleur

Communicate.

Marc Pimsleur

Not really.

I guess what it all comes down to is truth. People who honestly believe in God know that they know the truth of things. I would never presume that knowledge, and barring some truly, blown off the top miracle, I don’t think I ever will.

I have not seen any of the Godfather movies.

There, I’ve said it, it’s out there.

Whenever I confess this fact at whatever social gathering I happen to be at (and it has happened on more than one occasion), the reactions I’m met with range somewhere from disbelief to disgust and I am inevitably asked, “How can you not have seen the Godfather?”

The answer is, I don’t know. I’m certainly aware of the Godfather movies. I’ve heard them referenced in countless other works of fiction both directly and indirectly. I’ve just never really felt the need to watch it.

Well, that will all change as of next week. Friday evening I will sit down with a couple bottles of fine Italian wine and will live tweet (I’m so trendy!) while watching Godfather part 1 for the very first time. Following that, I will put up an Unnecessary Analysis on the website breaking it down. Will I enjoy it? Does it insist upon itself too much? No idea, but you’re free to find out next week. If you’re interested, go ahead and follow @Devonshyr. Hopefully, it’ll be a good time.

I’m not a scientist in any serious definition of the word. I’ve spent my entire life dedicated to flights of fancy, I can’t balance a simple chemistry equation to save my life, I can’t list the genus and phylum of any species, and the only thing I can tell you about Schist is that it’s a hilarious name for a rock (Mineral? See, I don’t know).

I am, however, a great supporter in scientific endeavors, and for the longest time I couldn’t figure out why. Was it because scientists are responsible for sweet new technology for me to play with, like the Ipad or the Xbox 360? Was it because I follow several extremely awesome science friendly comics? Was it my personal background working in science education for some weird screwy reason? Maybe. Could’ve been any one of those things. Could’ve been all of them.

But yesterday I saw the big, controversial news that’s sweeping the science world, and it got me thinking a little differently.

I read that article on my smartphone while walking around at work, and it made me stop dead in my tracks. Yes, it’s super unlikely, and yes, scientists are already airing their disbelief. But just for that moment, standing in the parking garage near my office and reading that maybe, just maybe, faster than light travel is possible, I felt… incredible. Like nothing I’d ever felt before. I imagine it’s how my parents and grandparents felt when man landed on the moon. Like absolutely anything is possible.

And that’s when it occurred to me that maybe the reason I enjoy science so much is that I am, at my core, a very hopeful person. Because really, when I try and associate science with emotion (strange bedfellows, to be sure) the number one thing I think of is hope. Science is the practical implementation of our hope for a better future.

So, that’s a pretty bold statement, one I’m sure many actual scientists would disagree with, but as a semi-outsider looking in, I don’t know. It seems like science is the last frontier, and perhaps one of the only frontiers that ever existed. I mean, think about it, all great explorers and adventurers. They were naturalists and cartographers. Even Indiana Jones  and Captain Picard were both archaeologists. Science is the means of exploration, and innately bound up in exploration is hope. The hope for a better world, for an easier life.

Which isn’t to say bad things haven’t happened because of science. Our climate is going a bit nuts as a direct result of the utilization of oil, the creation of the combustion engine. Sometimes science goes astray, like with Eugenics. I’m not saying that Science is some great big infallible thing, and that’s kind of the point. There’s testing, study, trying to get things right.

But it’s all done to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world, of the universe around us. The intentions are pure. At least, I think they are. I hope they are.

And really, isn’t hope a pretty incredible thing?

So, this is happening.

People are outraged, naturally. There’s always been sort of a weird relationship between audiences and movie adaptations of, well, anything. On the one hand, the movie could never hope to live up to the book (or books), except once in a very great while, when they do. On the other hand, people who love a story want to experience it over and over in different ways. They want to see what Harry or Gandalf look like on the screen, there’s a curiosity there.

And of course, there’s been the major surge in comic book adaptations since THE TURN OF THE CENTURY!!!! (so, the last ten years, but still) Batman’s been redone under three different directors, Superman’s going in for another reboot, Spiderman’s getting a reboot. Hell, they’ve got an Ant-Man movie on the way (something that I would write off as completely ridiculous except it’s being direct by Edgar Wright, so I’m definitely going to go see it.) Comic books and movies seem like an easy fit. People who don’t know comics all that well (say, movie executives) might pick up a comic, look at it, and go “oh, this is trying to be a movie already, just on the page.”

Then there’s the movie adaptations of video games, a formula that Hollywood has never gotten right, though God bless them, they’ll keep trying.

NOTE: While the quality of all video game movies are unquestionably bad, there are a select few that I hold very close and dear to my heart. To quote Patrick Rothfuss, “Anyone can love a thing because. That’s as easy as putting a penny in your pocket. But to love something despite. To know the flaws and love them too. That is rare and pure and perfect.” 

Whew. That was a lot of links.

Now Hollywood is turning its eye to board games. Battleship will be the first in a long line of board games coming out to a cinema near you. Also expect Monopoly, Candyland, Ouija, and last but certainly not least, Clue, which already has a fantastic film adaptation starring Tim Curry and a supporting cast of comic geniuses. (That’s right. Clue is technically getting a gritty reboot.)

And so people are upset. How dare Hollywood insult the delicate sensibilities of its audience by trying to introduce such tripe. At least with books and comics and video games there’s some sort of story there. But board games? It’s ridiculous, silly, obnoxious.

And a completely logical choice, from a marketing standpoint.

After all, it isn’t a studio’s job to make a good movie. Their job is to sell tickets. Granted, having a good movie is an important part of selling tickets, probably the most important part, but certainly not the only part. There’s marketing, viral campaigns, trailers, etc… Movie execs are going to use every trick at their disposal to try and sell tickets.

Currently, the only movie legitimately based off a board game in existence is 1985′s Clue, and as I stated above, it’s a brilliant movie. It’s also cited in an interesting article by Simon Mounsey arguing the exact opposite point that I am. The author makes some valid points, in fact, many of the same points I’m making, but draws completely different conclusions from them. One of his points is this.

The thing about the film though was that it wasn’t necessary to have the Clue name attached to it. Yes, it involved the character names and featured a murder in a “who-done-it” scenario much like the board game. However, how difficult could it have been to come up with new character names? … Upon its release, it did awful by starting out at number six at the box office. So, it’s not like it was a huge success, despite having the Clue name as well as some notable comedy actors.

It’s true that Clue did not do spectacularly, but Mr. Mounsey stops short at claiming that the movie would have done any better in the box office if it had been “Original Mystery Whodunnit” or some actually clever title. It also fails to note the difference of the times. There was no internet in 1985, nothing on the scale of global connection to get people riled up about a movie in such a way.

And people are riled up. Whether you’re interested or disgusted by the idea of it, people are talking about it, and that’s half the marketing battle right there.

To further quote Mr. Mounsey:

The bottom line here with these ridiculous board game translations is that they don’t need to happen. There is no advantage to using the names of these board games to create these movies. In pretty much every instance, there is not a lot of plot incased in these board games, which means a completely original story has to be created.

There is an advantage, as noted above, but aside from that, he’s completely correct. These movies don’t need to happen, and completely original stories will have to be created.

But the best adaptations are simply put, good movies. They’re well written, have excellent direction and stellar acting. If you think adapting is easier than creating an original work, you’re fooling yourself. There’s mountains of evidence showing how difficult it can be, to not only stay true to a source work, but to add to it, to create something new. Every single crappy adaptation is proof that it’s no easy task.

Finally, Mr. Mounsey says that board game movies “don’t need to happen,” that they’re unnecessary. I challenge him and all board game movie doubters to give me an example of necessary entertainment. It’s a contradiction in terms.

The board game movie doubters say, “That’s ridiculous,” with a scowl on their faces. I say “That’s ridiculous!” With a grin.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt that Battleship will be just an awful movie. There’s very little doubt in my mind. But it will have nothing to do with being a board game adaptation, and everything to do with being a bad movie.

Still, if we can get a shirtless and bloodied Liam Neeson shouting, “You sunk my Battleship!” at a bunch of aliens, I’m sure we can all agree that it will have been worth it.

Anyone who pays any attention to the date-stamps on my posts will know that any time I post, it is the exception, rather than the rule of this blog. I am working to change that (slowly, but there is work involved, I assure you). Regardless, I will simply have to make up for the sparsity of content with sheer, unadulterated quality. Hold on to your damn hats. Things are about to get real.

–

I recently attended a residency for my MFA program where I had the privilege, no, the honor of meeting a plethora of extremely talented and interesting writers spread to the four corners to the country (the world even, in some cases). They were charming, delightful, etc… I could go on, but I won’t. Just assume that they are badasses with zero flaws, save one very large one.

They are disdainful toward Miller Beer.

It goes without saying that none of them are from my fair city, because something that Milwaukeeans (Milwaukeenites? Oo, the Knights of Milwaukee. That one.) are known for is their pride. And I’m not talking talking that pride before a fall crap. I’m talking pride for an job well done. Earned pride.

Is Miller a shitty beer? Yes. Of course it is. It suffers from the same problems as any mass produced beer, which is basically that it’s watered down and tastes like crap. There are dozens of micro-brews in Milwaukee alone that are way better. HOWEVER! I would challenge anyone to find a better crappy mass-produced beer. They’ve won so many crappy-beer awards that it’s a little embarrassing.

But of course, arguing matters of taste is pointless. People will like what they like, and there’s no changing that. The most I can hope to do is fully explain my position and hope that others understand it.

My spirited defense is not simply because Miller High Life is my crappy beer of choice (it’s the champagne of beer!) but also because I have a deep history with the product.

I was raised less than two blocks away from Miller Valley (which already sounds way more awesome than the Miller plant or something dumb. Looking at you here, Budweiser.) I spent a lot of incredibly ill advised time climbing up the side of the hundred foot tall bridge that crossed over the valley. There’s a personal connection there.

And all that reminiscing makes an analytical, less nostalgic part of myself wonder. I wonder exactly how much local loyalty is built into the business model? Did Ford or GM plants expect high sales in Michigan?

Furthermore,  just how much is nostalgia built into the model? Am I exactly like those guys in the sixties who smoked pall malls because their pappy did and their pappy before them? Oh god! How can I know that I like what I like? Am I just a point on a line-chart somewhere?

*chik* Glug… glug… glug…

That’s better. Almost lost my head there. As I was saying, Miller is totally the best beer in the universe. I don’t even mind that they  stole my idea for the vortex bottle.

I would even take it one step further. I would say that Sucker Punch hates women exactly as much as the movie 300 loves men.

Allow me to explain.

I went to the theater this past weekend with something I can honestly call an open mind. The trailer had seemed interesting, the advanced reviews scathing. Those two factors balanced out in my mind and I approached the movie with very few expectations, good or bad. After watching a five-minute introduction done entirely in slow motion, I knew without a doubt that I was watching a Zack Snyder movie.

So how was it? The visuals were ok, the acting was not super compelling, the narrative structure was frankly boring, and the dialogue was horrendous (I cannot stress that last point enough. Whenever the characters talked, it made me uncomfortable how bad their lines were).

But I found myself wondering after the first half-hour of rape/mental hospital/whorehouse ugliness whether or not this movie came down as pro-women or anti-women. I mean, a movie that has a team of fighting chicks could be seen as empowerment, right? Of course, the fact that they would be doing it in fetishized costumes might speak volumes against that, depending on who you ask.

So I continued to watch, looking for the answer of whether or not the movie was loved women or hated them. As you can imagine from the title of this post, I did not have to look far.

(This is where the socially acceptable place for a SPOILER alert would go, but the plot is so thin that I’m not sure a spoiling would matter so much to a potential viewer. Regardless, let the serve as your warning.)

Let’s start with the obvious, the sexy costumes. To any casual observer, anyone doing anything in a schoolgirl outfit (except, ya know, being 12 and going to school) is automatically translated to sexualized. And anytime a woman is depicted sexily like that is demeaning to her because she is deminished as a person and instead serves as this symbol of sexy sex. Right?

Not necessarily. As everyone should know, there are as many opinions as there are assholes in the world. And while many people might make a strong argument that fetishizing a person demeans and dehumanizes them, there are a great number of sex-positive folks who would disagree. After all, didn’t she audition for the part? Wasn’t it her choice if she wanted to take the job? Sex-negative people (the sort of people who would argue against skimpy school-girl outfits) are the same people who generally argue against porn and sex work. However, there are many people (and not just the gross man hungering for porn stereotypes) that are pro porn and sex. Just ask Tristan Taormino or Mistress Matisse (Links NSFW). All that said, whether or not the skimpy outfits worn in the movie are an indicator is highly debatable,  so let’s just set it aside. There are plenty of other reasons this movie hates women.

Let’s start things off at the near storybook beginning. The matriarch of the family has died for some reason (The first of a whole bunch of women who die. In fact, as I type this, I’m trying to remember if any male characters die in the movie. I can’t think of any). That leaves the protagonist “Baby Doll” with her unnamed younger sister and her abusively evil stepfather. In trying to defend her sister from her stepfather’s advances. Unfortunately, she a lady and therefore totally incompetant with a firearm (amirite, fellas?) so she accidentally shoots her sister dead instead. Her father then commits her to a mental institution, where Snyder finally lets up on the slo-mo because he needs to use actual dialogue there and sloooo-moooo maaaaakes yooouuuuu taaaaaaallllk fuuuunnnnnyyyyyy…..

The mental institution, like the world outside, like every setting in the whole movie, is dark and dreary. Baby Doll is passive in accepting her fate as she overhears her step-father bribing an orderly to conduct a lobotomy asap. The day arrives, the stupidly handsome Jon Hamm comes in to perform the procedure, and just as the spike is about to be plunged in, suddenly we’re whisked away to the magical land of… a brothel. A brothel as equally depressing and oppressive as the mental hospital.

It’s here, in the imaginary brothel, that Baby Doll meets her future co-conspirators, women who’s names I knew while watching the movie but have since forgotten because they are, largely, forgettable. That’s where Baby Doll is forced to dance, and her dance is so spell-bindingly erotic that it forces men to look at her and not look away. Oh yeah, it also opens up a magical world in her mind where all the samurai zombie robot dragon nazi’s hang out.

Baby Doll then comes up with a plan for escape. Actually, that’s not true. She’s a woman, and couldn’t possibly come up with her own plan. The MAN in her imaginary fantasy escape, tells her exactly what she needs to do to escape. She needs to steal these items to get out. Her contributions are that she will dance sexily while her fellow sister slaves do the actual stealing. (Note: They never actually show the sexy dance, just the fantasy world it generates. I think the purpose is we’re supposed to imagine her doing the sexiest dance we can think of, and if they showed us the actual dance, it might not live up to our expectations. I would be fine with that, but just before the dance starts, Baby Doll does this slow swaying hip thing that is just about the saddest gyration I’ve ever seen. It’s like if there was an international dance for despair, that should be it.)

So the movie settles into a rhythm, alternating between sad, hopeless weak women in the “real world” and sexy dragon slaying bitches in the fantasy world. During each fantasy sequence, they steal another item needed for their escape. The message in all this comes off to me as “Women can kick ass, but only in their generic delusions while they dance pathetically/sexily for men.”

The most ridiculous of these scenes is when they try to steal a knife from the cook. In a kitchen. So instead of say, casually slipping a knife off of a table and hiding it, they make a big deal about sitting the cook down, having him watch Baby Doll dance all sexy, and then stealing the knife from his belt (I suppose you could argue he only has the two knives at his belt, but what the hell kind of kitchen only has two knives?) However, even this objectively simple job of stealing a knife from a kitchen is botched, resulting in the immediate death of one of the girls, and the eventual death of two more.

Brief side note. The women are so cowed in the “real world.” There’s no hint of resistance, no angry looks at the men, with the exception of when, earlier in the movie, Baby Doll saves one of the girl’s from being raped by the cook. It was the most interesting scene in the “real world,” but they go back to being submissive right away after.

(Spoiler reminder. I’m going through this whole thing, so if you care at all to see it, stop now.)

Finally, the end of the movie. Baby Doll sacrifices herself so the only other girl who remains alive can escape. (Baby Doll’s like girl Jesus!) We return from the brothel to the mental institution. Jon Hamm  drives in the spike with sexy panache, and then muses about the right of it all. Deep, man. We cut to the one girl who’s finally about to escape, and the police are on to her. They’re going to take her back and there’s nothing she can do about it, but then at the last moment, the mystery man from Baby Doll’s dreams (the one who outlines their escape), shows up as the world’s friendliest bus driver and she escapes to freedom.

To review. These women are all cowed. The plan to escape is given to them by a man. They can only fight back in their heads, while sexy-dancing at men. Four out of the five fail to escape, and the only one who does is rescued at the last minute by a man.

If my view of women were to come from this movie, sexy costumes aside even, I would think that all women are pathetic, dependent, incompetent wrecks. Because that is how they’re portrayed.

So many reviews of this movie talk about how like a video game it is, how it caters to the nerdocracy. God, for the sake of all other nerds I hope not. I’d hate to think we’re this uniformly misogynistic. The reviews focus largely on the videogame-like aspect of it, missing entirely just how viciously it depicts the female gender.

So amongst my circle of friends, I occasionally recommend tv to folks, and occasionally they enjoy it. After reading various lists of top 2010 tv shows, I thought I would share my top five shows that I have enjoyed this year.

1. Community

This is a show that has an extremely well-defined feel for its characters. It knows when to use them, how to use them, how they bounce off each other. More specifically, the writers have an excellent feel for the actors, and know how to play to their strengths and weaknesses. It’s a show that can get away with an entire stop-motion claymation animated episode and can make it sincere to boot. If I have any complaints, it would be that Chevy Chase’s character seems a little underused in recent episodes, although the little time he had at the end of the Christmas episode was nice.

2. Terriers

After watching the first three episodes of this show, I knew it was something that was going to make it into my all-time favorite show list (a list which is getting overcowded by other strokes of genius cancelled before their time.) It manages to keep a strange lightheartedness while the tone gets darker and darker as the show progresses. One of the actors during an interview stated his frustration that the show was generally considered a comedy, because he had done some of his most raw and vulnerable moments, and oh man does it show. It’s the ultimate scrappy underdog tale, thus the name, I suspect.

3. The Venture Brothers

One thing the Venture Brothers have done supremely well is taken a bunch of random jokes and gags and turned them into a mythology. In fact, I don’t think there is another show that is steeped in as rich a world  as the failure driven one that revolves around the Venture Family. This latest season has pushed that even further, keeping the high quality of entertainment while still pushing it’s characters forcing them to grow, but not really change, not because the writers can’t handle change, but because the characters are too immature to ever try.

4. Children’s Hospital

I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed this show. Everything about it, all the commercials and trailers and stuff convinced me it was going to be another crappy Adult Swim pile of non-sequiters. To a certain extent, it is, but oh man does it do it with style. Basically, once I saw Ken Morino (of The State fame) I was hooked. To borrow from another, much more intelligent critic, “Children’s Hospital is a show that proves that spoofs don’t have to be lazy.”

5. The Daily Show

It almost doesn’t seem fair to put this show on the list, it’s been on the air for so long that it should move aside for other, more interesting shows. However, despite it’s long run, the still is just as cutting and funny as ever, making me laugh regularly four nights out of the week, without breaking a sweat. But everything I’ve heard about the show’s production prooves that if you standardize the process of joke making, and you have talented enough people, you can make gut-splitting jokes forever.

My next post will probably be about my favorite shows of all time, because Terriers got me thinking about it (spoiler alert, like terriers, almost all of those shows were cancelled before their time)

Spammers seem to be taking his death extremely hard. Part of me wants to reach out to them, and another part of me wants to set them on fire. A spokesman for live motion media writes:

The loss of Nielsen has been a distressing strike to the world of comedy! Such a genuinely amazing life plus a exceptional mind. I was eager for experiencing him in a Nielsen/Sheen National Lampoon mixture. Just how amazing would this have actually been?

Other spammers, such as the representative for the lesbian bondage department of naughty-amateur-home-video.com (DON’T GO TO THAT SITE, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL NOT RAPE YOUR COMPUTER) remain unfazed:

Why aren’t there bullet-proof pants?

Excellent question.

Those who have read the blog for a bit of time may remember I mentioned Leslie Nielsen in my unnecessary analysis of the movie Surf Ninjas. It’s a shame that he was something of an anchor in the most important movie he was ever a part of, but I understand he did very well in some of his other roles. I haven’t seen them, but I heard his documentary on the aviation industry was quite groundbreaking.