I don't usually do this but after having given the matter some though, I going to revise/take back what I wrot for my review of the film Psycho. When I wrote my review of Psycho, I talked about how Hitchcock's film did not appear to me to be particularly transphobic. However a conversation I had with my partner after the review, has caused me to rethink my position.
Originally, I had posited that the character of Norman Bates did not appear to be transgender, gay, or in anyways queer. Instead I pointed out that Bates was presented as being attracted to woman and a line later in the film explicitely describes him as NOT being a transvestite. I also originally pointed out I could detect no queer subtext.
However, my partner pointed out to me one queer subtext I had over looked, namely that Bates clearly had an obession with his mother, a trait often ascribed to gay men in the 1950's. This is why I think I may have been mistaken originally. So with this in mind, I think that it becomes safe to say that in addition to the stigmitization of mental illness, there is defintely a vein of transphobia in the film Psycho.
April 11, 2012
March 28, 2012
Classic Review: Psycho (1960)
Psycho
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Joseph Stefano. Based upon the novel by Robert Bloch.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire
Overview
The granddaddy of all slasher films, Psycho tells the story of a man driven to madness by an overbearing mother, or so it seems so at the beginning.
Synopsis
When Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer, she flees, only to find herself at the creepy and derelict Bates Motel, run by the pleasant but oddly sinster Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Soon afterwards, a private Detective (Martin Balsam), Marions' boyfriend, Sam Loomis, (John Gavin) along with her sister, Lila (Vera Miles) come to Bates Motel looking for Marion. All of them make startling discoveries about the true nature of the Bates Motel and its' caretaker.
The Queering
Watching Psycho for the first time recently, the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt" kept running through my head. Unfortunately for Hitchcocks' classic slasher flick, I knew too much of the plot going in and the infamous shower scene failed to do much of anything for me. At the time of the release, Hitchcock took extreme measures to avoid the plot from becoming widely known so as to avoid spoiling the shocking twists. He was quite wise to do this. I spent most of the first part of the film, forcing myself to pay attention and not give into boredom. After the shower scene and my knowledge of the plot dropped off, I became a lot more engaged with the film and Hitchcock's mastery of the cinematic medium became more apparent.
However, given the nature of the villian, I was a little worried that the film was going to engage in some rather overt transphobia. Ultimately, I am not sure that this was he case. Yes, the bad guy does crossdress, (technically speaking) but the behavior in this case is more reflective of multiple personality disorder, than anything to do with the experiences of transgender/transsexual individuals. There's even a line from a psychologist at the end, explicitly stating that the character is not a transvestite. I might otherwise make a point about the problematic terminology used here, but given that Psycho was made in 1960 I don't really feel like it. Furthermore, other than a single instance of limp wristedness, I did not notice any attempt to overly feminize the villian, nor did I discern a queer subtext. Ultimately, the film is much worse when it comes to stigmitizing mental illness and one need look no further than the title for proof of that.
For me, there are also some interesting issues related to the attempts of certain parties to censor Psycho or more precisely, what some censors wanted to censor. Objections were raised over the use of the term "transvestite". The shower scene had one shot of female buttocks removed and some censors were worried that a shot of Curtis's nipples had made it into the final cut. Psycho is also famous for quiet likely containing the first scene where a toilet is being flushed and Hitchcock had to fight hard to make sure that this moment was not cut. Oddly enough, the fact that two people are brutally murdered on screen does not seem to have raised quiet the number of objections as the above items, although some film critics apparantly did protest the graphic violence after the film was relased.
From a technical perspective, Psycho is very well constructed, using complex camerawork and bold editing during key sequences. The image of the Bates Motel and shower scene have become etched into our cultural memory for a reason. Anthony Perkins gives the most chilling performance as Norman Bates - the audience does not need any line about the highway being undertraveled to know that there is a reason why no one stays at the Bates Motel. No one else really is given enough to do to leave much of an impression. I may have been underwhelmed by the lack of suspense to the plot (having forknowledge of what would happen before even seeing this) but I cannot deny Hitchock's genius in constructing this classic.
Recommendation
Anyone with an interest in classic films, horror and slasher flicks, or evenjust generally the history of cinema should drive themselves Psycho in order to see this.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Joseph Stefano. Based upon the novel by Robert Bloch.
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Janet Leigh, John Gavin, Martin Balsam, John McIntire
Overview
The granddaddy of all slasher films, Psycho tells the story of a man driven to madness by an overbearing mother, or so it seems so at the beginning.
Synopsis
When Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer, she flees, only to find herself at the creepy and derelict Bates Motel, run by the pleasant but oddly sinster Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). Soon afterwards, a private Detective (Martin Balsam), Marions' boyfriend, Sam Loomis, (John Gavin) along with her sister, Lila (Vera Miles) come to Bates Motel looking for Marion. All of them make startling discoveries about the true nature of the Bates Motel and its' caretaker.
The Queering
Watching Psycho for the first time recently, the old saying that "familiarity breeds contempt" kept running through my head. Unfortunately for Hitchcocks' classic slasher flick, I knew too much of the plot going in and the infamous shower scene failed to do much of anything for me. At the time of the release, Hitchcock took extreme measures to avoid the plot from becoming widely known so as to avoid spoiling the shocking twists. He was quite wise to do this. I spent most of the first part of the film, forcing myself to pay attention and not give into boredom. After the shower scene and my knowledge of the plot dropped off, I became a lot more engaged with the film and Hitchcock's mastery of the cinematic medium became more apparent.
However, given the nature of the villian, I was a little worried that the film was going to engage in some rather overt transphobia. Ultimately, I am not sure that this was he case. Yes, the bad guy does crossdress, (technically speaking) but the behavior in this case is more reflective of multiple personality disorder, than anything to do with the experiences of transgender/transsexual individuals. There's even a line from a psychologist at the end, explicitly stating that the character is not a transvestite. I might otherwise make a point about the problematic terminology used here, but given that Psycho was made in 1960 I don't really feel like it. Furthermore, other than a single instance of limp wristedness, I did not notice any attempt to overly feminize the villian, nor did I discern a queer subtext. Ultimately, the film is much worse when it comes to stigmitizing mental illness and one need look no further than the title for proof of that.
For me, there are also some interesting issues related to the attempts of certain parties to censor Psycho or more precisely, what some censors wanted to censor. Objections were raised over the use of the term "transvestite". The shower scene had one shot of female buttocks removed and some censors were worried that a shot of Curtis's nipples had made it into the final cut. Psycho is also famous for quiet likely containing the first scene where a toilet is being flushed and Hitchcock had to fight hard to make sure that this moment was not cut. Oddly enough, the fact that two people are brutally murdered on screen does not seem to have raised quiet the number of objections as the above items, although some film critics apparantly did protest the graphic violence after the film was relased.
From a technical perspective, Psycho is very well constructed, using complex camerawork and bold editing during key sequences. The image of the Bates Motel and shower scene have become etched into our cultural memory for a reason. Anthony Perkins gives the most chilling performance as Norman Bates - the audience does not need any line about the highway being undertraveled to know that there is a reason why no one stays at the Bates Motel. No one else really is given enough to do to leave much of an impression. I may have been underwhelmed by the lack of suspense to the plot (having forknowledge of what would happen before even seeing this) but I cannot deny Hitchock's genius in constructing this classic.
Recommendation
Anyone with an interest in classic films, horror and slasher flicks, or evenjust generally the history of cinema should drive themselves Psycho in order to see this.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 9, 2012
Queer Review: Mamma Mia! (2008)
Mamma Mia!
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Writer: Catherine Johnson
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Stellan Skarsgård, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Julie Walters, Christine Baranski, Dominic Cooper
Overview
What happens when you take the songs of ABBA, mix in a plot light story and the acting talents of Meryl Streep? Why, Mamma Mia! of course, the cinematic equivalent of a sparkler, that is it burns bright once lit but the memory is unlikely to linger.
Synopsis
Sophia (Amanda Seyfried) is in the final preparations for her wedding to Sky (Dominic Cooper) but with one wrinkle. She does not know who her father is. So after snooping through her mother's diary, Sophia invites the three candidates, Harry Bright (Colin Firth), Bill Anderson (Stellan Skarsgård), and Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan). However, since she did not tell anyone she was doing this, naturally, lots of hijinks ensue, all set to the tunes of ABBA.
The Queering
Musicals, much like the westerns, are a rare breed in modern cinema, but Mamia Mia! proves that there is good reason for them not to go extinct. Completely, lacking in substance (of course) Mamma Mia! still manages to provide a reasonably entertaining cinematic experience. The song and dance sequences are energetic and keep the plot moving at a fast enough pace that other issues become ignorably.
Character development can charitably be called shallow and the plot is as flimsy as the gorgeous, flowing costumes Meryl Streep frequently wears. The most memorable one having her on the prow of a large boat, king of the world style, with a large sash flowing over most of the railings. No matter what, between the song and dance numbers and the gorgeous island scenery Mamma Mia! is at least always interesting to look at. Since Mamma Mia! is set in Greece, it's worth pointing out that it literally does have a greek chorus.
Meryl Streep, while perhaps not quite up to her usual standerds, manages to demonstrate yet again why Hollywood's insistence on putting women past the age of 30 out to pasture is the most moronic of attitudes. Amanda Seyfried is suitably charming. Of the rest of the cast only Pierce Brosnan feels miscast, but that's mostly due to his singing abilities - or more precisely, the lack thereof.
In the "blink and you'll miss it" category, I should point out that Colin Firth's character is gay. Call me cynical and while I generally applaud the inclusion of positive queer characters, even minor ones, the evidence that Firth's character is in fact gay is presented in such a brief and rushed manor that I could not help but wonder about the motivation for putting it in the screenplay. Given that ABBA has a strong following with gay men, I therefore believe that the producers thought that a movie set securely in heteronormative land, might not have played too strongly with the target audience, thus motivating the inclusion of a minor gay character.
Recommendation
A lot depends on how big a fan one is of ABBA in order to determine if one will be screaming with joy or agony while watching Mamma Mia!. For the ABBA fans, this will be a joy to watch, for the non-fans, well, I would wager your time will be better off listening to your K.I.S.S. or Aerosmith albums for the millionth time.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Writer: Catherine Johnson
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Stellan Skarsgård, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Julie Walters, Christine Baranski, Dominic Cooper
Overview
What happens when you take the songs of ABBA, mix in a plot light story and the acting talents of Meryl Streep? Why, Mamma Mia! of course, the cinematic equivalent of a sparkler, that is it burns bright once lit but the memory is unlikely to linger.
Synopsis
Sophia (Amanda Seyfried) is in the final preparations for her wedding to Sky (Dominic Cooper) but with one wrinkle. She does not know who her father is. So after snooping through her mother's diary, Sophia invites the three candidates, Harry Bright (Colin Firth), Bill Anderson (Stellan Skarsgård), and Sam Carmichael (Pierce Brosnan). However, since she did not tell anyone she was doing this, naturally, lots of hijinks ensue, all set to the tunes of ABBA.
The Queering
Musicals, much like the westerns, are a rare breed in modern cinema, but Mamia Mia! proves that there is good reason for them not to go extinct. Completely, lacking in substance (of course) Mamma Mia! still manages to provide a reasonably entertaining cinematic experience. The song and dance sequences are energetic and keep the plot moving at a fast enough pace that other issues become ignorably.
Character development can charitably be called shallow and the plot is as flimsy as the gorgeous, flowing costumes Meryl Streep frequently wears. The most memorable one having her on the prow of a large boat, king of the world style, with a large sash flowing over most of the railings. No matter what, between the song and dance numbers and the gorgeous island scenery Mamma Mia! is at least always interesting to look at. Since Mamma Mia! is set in Greece, it's worth pointing out that it literally does have a greek chorus.
Meryl Streep, while perhaps not quite up to her usual standerds, manages to demonstrate yet again why Hollywood's insistence on putting women past the age of 30 out to pasture is the most moronic of attitudes. Amanda Seyfried is suitably charming. Of the rest of the cast only Pierce Brosnan feels miscast, but that's mostly due to his singing abilities - or more precisely, the lack thereof.
In the "blink and you'll miss it" category, I should point out that Colin Firth's character is gay. Call me cynical and while I generally applaud the inclusion of positive queer characters, even minor ones, the evidence that Firth's character is in fact gay is presented in such a brief and rushed manor that I could not help but wonder about the motivation for putting it in the screenplay. Given that ABBA has a strong following with gay men, I therefore believe that the producers thought that a movie set securely in heteronormative land, might not have played too strongly with the target audience, thus motivating the inclusion of a minor gay character.
Recommendation
A lot depends on how big a fan one is of ABBA in order to determine if one will be screaming with joy or agony while watching Mamma Mia!. For the ABBA fans, this will be a joy to watch, for the non-fans, well, I would wager your time will be better off listening to your K.I.S.S. or Aerosmith albums for the millionth time.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 8, 2012
Queer Issue: Why the Baseball Hall of Fame should honor the legacy of Glenn Burke.
I have to confess that I am not the best person when it comes to publicity as I tend to feel that if an idea is good enough one should not have to polish said idea and make it shiny in order for people to realise that, yes, a good idea is a good idea and a great idea is a great idea. Of course, such idealism rarely survives for very long in the real world. Hence this post.
With regards to Glenn Burke, I came up with the idea that the Baseball Hall of Fame should honor the legacy of Glenn Burke, who was the first openly gay major league baseball player because it seemed like obviously a good idea, nay, a great idea.
This past year, I proposed to Pflag Oneonta/Otsego, the chapter that I am president of, to make petitioning the Baseball Hall of Fame to honor the legacy of Glenn Burke one of our goals. The group agreed, so here we are now. (For those not aware, the village of Cooperstown, NY which is the home of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, is in Otsego County.)
To date only two individuals who played Major League Baseball have come out, the other being Billy Bean, who unfortunately did not get to be played by Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Glenn Burke came out while he was playing for the Los Angelos Dodgers, and while accepted by most of his teammates, Tommy LaSorda, the Dodger Team Manager was unhappy knowing of Glenn Burkes' sexuality (along with Glenn Burke befriending LaSordas' son, Tommy LaSorda Jr.). The season immediately following his coming out, LaSorda traded Glenn Burke to the Oakland Athletics.
While entering professional baseball with great promise, Glenn Burke left it with a whimper, rather then the proverbial bang. After playing with the Oakland Athletics for a brief period, Glenn Burke suffered a knee injury and was eventually let go in 1979.
To many straight people, this story may not seem remarkable. Yet those who have had to face the choice between remaining closeted about our sexuality/gender identity or coming out, will know the difficulties inherent to Glenn Burke's situation.
In short, what I am getting at, is that it takes courage, even under the best of circumstances, to come out, even outside of the sort of macho cultures where homophobia thrives. To date, only two baseball players have come out, Glenn Burke and Billy Bean and Glenn Burke was the first, as well as the only one to come out while still playing professionally. One can only imagine, that for Glenn Burke to come out in the locker-room as he did, took extraordinary bravery.
Furthermore, Glenn Burke was instrumental in popularizing the now ubiquitous high-five greeting, used within Baseball as a means of congratulating players who just scored a home-run. In other words, it should be known that Glenn Burke, in spite of his short tenure in Baseball, was also instrumental in subtly altering the culture of Major League Baseball.
Therefore, as President of Pflag Oneonta/Otsego, I am calling on the Baseball Hall of Fame to honor the legacy of Glenn Burke by creating a permanent exhibit to memorialise his accomplishments.
With regards to Glenn Burke, I came up with the idea that the Baseball Hall of Fame should honor the legacy of Glenn Burke, who was the first openly gay major league baseball player because it seemed like obviously a good idea, nay, a great idea.
This past year, I proposed to Pflag Oneonta/Otsego, the chapter that I am president of, to make petitioning the Baseball Hall of Fame to honor the legacy of Glenn Burke one of our goals. The group agreed, so here we are now. (For those not aware, the village of Cooperstown, NY which is the home of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, is in Otsego County.)
To date only two individuals who played Major League Baseball have come out, the other being Billy Bean, who unfortunately did not get to be played by Brad Pitt in Moneyball. Glenn Burke came out while he was playing for the Los Angelos Dodgers, and while accepted by most of his teammates, Tommy LaSorda, the Dodger Team Manager was unhappy knowing of Glenn Burkes' sexuality (along with Glenn Burke befriending LaSordas' son, Tommy LaSorda Jr.). The season immediately following his coming out, LaSorda traded Glenn Burke to the Oakland Athletics.
While entering professional baseball with great promise, Glenn Burke left it with a whimper, rather then the proverbial bang. After playing with the Oakland Athletics for a brief period, Glenn Burke suffered a knee injury and was eventually let go in 1979.
To many straight people, this story may not seem remarkable. Yet those who have had to face the choice between remaining closeted about our sexuality/gender identity or coming out, will know the difficulties inherent to Glenn Burke's situation.
In short, what I am getting at, is that it takes courage, even under the best of circumstances, to come out, even outside of the sort of macho cultures where homophobia thrives. To date, only two baseball players have come out, Glenn Burke and Billy Bean and Glenn Burke was the first, as well as the only one to come out while still playing professionally. One can only imagine, that for Glenn Burke to come out in the locker-room as he did, took extraordinary bravery.
Furthermore, Glenn Burke was instrumental in popularizing the now ubiquitous high-five greeting, used within Baseball as a means of congratulating players who just scored a home-run. In other words, it should be known that Glenn Burke, in spite of his short tenure in Baseball, was also instrumental in subtly altering the culture of Major League Baseball.
Therefore, as President of Pflag Oneonta/Otsego, I am calling on the Baseball Hall of Fame to honor the legacy of Glenn Burke by creating a permanent exhibit to memorialise his accomplishments.
February 7, 2012
Off Topic: Ayn Rand is the Anti-Christ.
Alright, The Fountain just made it's way up the Netflix que and I therefore was able to see it on Sunday. I don't want to right an actual review (there is nothing artistically worth commenting on) but I do want to say some things about it.
First, Ayn Rand's philosophy is so bizarrely irrational and self contradictory that I feel obligated to argue that Ayn Rand's The Fountain probably represents the greatest contribution of all time to American anti-intellectualism. Admittedly though, at this point I have not seen Atlas Shrugged.
There are two fundamental claims being made in The Fountanhead.
1) People should hold rational self interest above all else. No character in the film actually bothers with this so let's look at claim number 2.
2) A person's work is his own, and the only way society has advanced is thanks to the innovations of a small number individuals who were smarter and brighter than the unwashed conservative, change hating, innovation repelling masses. Furthermore, any man who refuses to compromise and lives only according to his own vision without *any* assistance or aid from anyone else is the ideal man. Also, you can blow shit up whenever things don't go your way.
I will assert that these two concepts are in direct conflict with each other and the only reason they never come into direct conflict with each other in The Fountainhead is because of the complete fantasy land Ayn Rand created for her characters to play in.
The first instance where they almost come into conflict is when Roark almost manages to sell his first architectural design but refuses to compromise in any way. I felt that Ayn Rand was having a nice little laugh during this scene and deliberately flipping a giant birdie at the very notion of rationale self interest. By being principled and uncompromising, Roark, the anti-capitalist, anti-rationale self interest poster boy, gives up an early chance at having a successful career as an architect.
This is the first time Rational Self Interest loses out to Adhering to Principled and Uncompromising Vision of the Artistic Genius. It happens later as well when Roark blows up the apartment complex that he designed but for which the design had ended up being altered by others. Again, there is no reason the man adhering only to rational self interest should do this, only a visionary, uncompromising artist would have any reason to blow it up. Again, I could very clearly hear Ayn Rand telling rationale self interest to go fuck itself.
Ultimately, this is what the conflict of The Fountainhead boils down to. Roark, the genuis architect, refusing to compromise his artistic genuis in any way and basically throwing a hissy fit and blowing shit up real good after the one time that he ends up being inadvertantly forced to comprimise his artistic vision.
So let me sum up what I found the take home message of The Fountainhead:
-Rational self interest and capitalism can suck it, because they make too many demands on the artistic vision of geniuses like Ayn Rand.
-Socialism can suck it, because the ways of being dependent on others in a socialist society are somehow, much worse than the ways capitalism makes people dependent on corporations and artistic genuises like Ayn Rand.
-Being nice to others is really bad, because contrary to what a socialist like Jesus might have preached at one point, only the rational self interest of artistic geniuses like Ayn Rand matter.
Regarding that last point, I just want to say this but Ayn Rand is clearly the anti-Christ. Not in a harbinger of the apocalypse kind of way, I just mean that her views are completely antithetical to the message of Jesus. Nietzche, who pointed to Jesus as one possible pre-model for the ubermenzche, had a more Christian message to deliver. This isn't a problem so much for Ayn Rand herself as she was an atheist. However, there is a trend I find disturbing, namely that in this day and age, many adherents of Ayn Rand (namely certain Libertarian/Republican politicians) also proclaim that we are or need to be a Christian nation. Talk about worshipping two masters.
However, while Ayn Rand was an atheist, I could not help but notice that she has Roark following a very messianic path. Roark is beset, from the beginning, by the temptation of giving into the demands of a capitalist society, yet refuses to comprimise his vision, even going so far as to work in a rock quarry. Over time, he even gains his own followers and disciples. Eventually, Roark is forced to take drastic action, in order to maintain his non-rational, non-self interest serving principles and artistic vision, which results in him being arrested and placed on trial. During this time, his darkest hour, even his followers/disciples are forced to abandon/deny him. Eventually, thanks to Roarks willingness to endure these trials and tribulations, he emerges triumphant over evil.
The difference between Roark and Jesus, is that Jesus argued for principles such as humiliaty and empathy for ones fellow man, while Roark sticks his noise in the air, and declares that he, the ever tortured artist, must make a martyr out of himself because his artistic vision is just that awsome.
First, Ayn Rand's philosophy is so bizarrely irrational and self contradictory that I feel obligated to argue that Ayn Rand's The Fountain probably represents the greatest contribution of all time to American anti-intellectualism. Admittedly though, at this point I have not seen Atlas Shrugged.
There are two fundamental claims being made in The Fountanhead.
1) People should hold rational self interest above all else. No character in the film actually bothers with this so let's look at claim number 2.
2) A person's work is his own, and the only way society has advanced is thanks to the innovations of a small number individuals who were smarter and brighter than the unwashed conservative, change hating, innovation repelling masses. Furthermore, any man who refuses to compromise and lives only according to his own vision without *any* assistance or aid from anyone else is the ideal man. Also, you can blow shit up whenever things don't go your way.
I will assert that these two concepts are in direct conflict with each other and the only reason they never come into direct conflict with each other in The Fountainhead is because of the complete fantasy land Ayn Rand created for her characters to play in.
The first instance where they almost come into conflict is when Roark almost manages to sell his first architectural design but refuses to compromise in any way. I felt that Ayn Rand was having a nice little laugh during this scene and deliberately flipping a giant birdie at the very notion of rationale self interest. By being principled and uncompromising, Roark, the anti-capitalist, anti-rationale self interest poster boy, gives up an early chance at having a successful career as an architect.
This is the first time Rational Self Interest loses out to Adhering to Principled and Uncompromising Vision of the Artistic Genius. It happens later as well when Roark blows up the apartment complex that he designed but for which the design had ended up being altered by others. Again, there is no reason the man adhering only to rational self interest should do this, only a visionary, uncompromising artist would have any reason to blow it up. Again, I could very clearly hear Ayn Rand telling rationale self interest to go fuck itself.
Ultimately, this is what the conflict of The Fountainhead boils down to. Roark, the genuis architect, refusing to compromise his artistic genuis in any way and basically throwing a hissy fit and blowing shit up real good after the one time that he ends up being inadvertantly forced to comprimise his artistic vision.
So let me sum up what I found the take home message of The Fountainhead:
-Rational self interest and capitalism can suck it, because they make too many demands on the artistic vision of geniuses like Ayn Rand.
-Socialism can suck it, because the ways of being dependent on others in a socialist society are somehow, much worse than the ways capitalism makes people dependent on corporations and artistic genuises like Ayn Rand.
-Being nice to others is really bad, because contrary to what a socialist like Jesus might have preached at one point, only the rational self interest of artistic geniuses like Ayn Rand matter.
Regarding that last point, I just want to say this but Ayn Rand is clearly the anti-Christ. Not in a harbinger of the apocalypse kind of way, I just mean that her views are completely antithetical to the message of Jesus. Nietzche, who pointed to Jesus as one possible pre-model for the ubermenzche, had a more Christian message to deliver. This isn't a problem so much for Ayn Rand herself as she was an atheist. However, there is a trend I find disturbing, namely that in this day and age, many adherents of Ayn Rand (namely certain Libertarian/Republican politicians) also proclaim that we are or need to be a Christian nation. Talk about worshipping two masters.
However, while Ayn Rand was an atheist, I could not help but notice that she has Roark following a very messianic path. Roark is beset, from the beginning, by the temptation of giving into the demands of a capitalist society, yet refuses to comprimise his vision, even going so far as to work in a rock quarry. Over time, he even gains his own followers and disciples. Eventually, Roark is forced to take drastic action, in order to maintain his non-rational, non-self interest serving principles and artistic vision, which results in him being arrested and placed on trial. During this time, his darkest hour, even his followers/disciples are forced to abandon/deny him. Eventually, thanks to Roarks willingness to endure these trials and tribulations, he emerges triumphant over evil.
The difference between Roark and Jesus, is that Jesus argued for principles such as humiliaty and empathy for ones fellow man, while Roark sticks his noise in the air, and declares that he, the ever tortured artist, must make a martyr out of himself because his artistic vision is just that awsome.
February 6, 2012
Queer Review: Fried Green Tomatoes (1991)
Fried Green Tomatoes
Director: Jon Avnet
Writers: Fannie Flagg and Carol Sobieski. Based upon the novel Fried Green Tomatoes At the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg.
Cast: Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jessica Tandy, Cicely Tyson, Chris O'Donnell, Stan Shaw, Gailard Sartain
Overview
At times heartwrenching and nostalgic, Fried Green Tomatoes is a good movie that could have been great had it not made the unfortunate decision to straighten out the lesbian relationship between it's lead characters. In other words, this film represents more evidence that Hollywood is not the liberal bastion that so many proclaim it to be.
Synopsis
A housewife struggling with a suffocating marriage, Evelyn Couch (Kathy Bates), meets and befriends Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy), a nursing home resident with a fascinating past. Ninny tells Evelyn the stories of her sister Idgie Threadgoode, a butch woman who was accused of murdering Frank Bennett (Nick Searcy), who was her partner Ruth Jamisons' (Mary-Louise Parker) former husband. Eventually Ninnys' stories help Evelyn to develop the self confidence needed to improve her own life.
The Queering
Fried Green Tomatoes walks a very thin and frustrating line. On one hand, it has perhaps the strongest lesbian subtext of any film out there. The story of Idgie and Ruth Jamison is replete with instances that make it very clear that these woman love each other far more than is normal for most friends. On the other hand, the more explicit content from Flaggs' novel was eviscerated and this is where the source of the irritation lies. There is nothing in the film that makes it clear that Idgie and Ruths' relationship goes beyond the platonic.
Had Fried Green Tomatoes come into existence without being based on previously established material, I would probably be much more willing to sing it's praises. As it is, Fried Green Tomatoes represents yet another example of Hollywooeds' hell bent crusade to straighten out any character it can get it's grubby little hands on.
Overall, the film also features some particularly fine acting and writing and manages to over up an emotionally engaging story. The four leads (Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jessica Tandy) all offer up some of the best work of their careers. Considering the number of Oscar nominations amoung them, that is saying something. There are also many scenes are capable of moving even the most stoic amongst us to either tears or laughter. Too bad all of this talent and effort is wasted on a film that could have been so much more.
Under most circumstances, I would probably give Fried Green Tomatoes 3.5 pink triangles. Thanks to the filmmakers decision to refusal to do the right thing and to just say no to the Hollywood straightening out addiction, I cannot in good conscience rate their film so highly.
Recommendation
While a tasty enough menu choice in its own right, Fried Green Tomatoes serves up little more than the cinematic version of an appetiser and will otherwise leave one hungry for more wholesome and affirming queer productions.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: Jon Avnet
Writers: Fannie Flagg and Carol Sobieski. Based upon the novel Fried Green Tomatoes At the Whistle Stop Cafe by Fannie Flagg.
Cast: Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jessica Tandy, Cicely Tyson, Chris O'Donnell, Stan Shaw, Gailard Sartain
Overview
At times heartwrenching and nostalgic, Fried Green Tomatoes is a good movie that could have been great had it not made the unfortunate decision to straighten out the lesbian relationship between it's lead characters. In other words, this film represents more evidence that Hollywood is not the liberal bastion that so many proclaim it to be.
Synopsis
A housewife struggling with a suffocating marriage, Evelyn Couch (Kathy Bates), meets and befriends Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy), a nursing home resident with a fascinating past. Ninny tells Evelyn the stories of her sister Idgie Threadgoode, a butch woman who was accused of murdering Frank Bennett (Nick Searcy), who was her partner Ruth Jamisons' (Mary-Louise Parker) former husband. Eventually Ninnys' stories help Evelyn to develop the self confidence needed to improve her own life.
The Queering
Fried Green Tomatoes walks a very thin and frustrating line. On one hand, it has perhaps the strongest lesbian subtext of any film out there. The story of Idgie and Ruth Jamison is replete with instances that make it very clear that these woman love each other far more than is normal for most friends. On the other hand, the more explicit content from Flaggs' novel was eviscerated and this is where the source of the irritation lies. There is nothing in the film that makes it clear that Idgie and Ruths' relationship goes beyond the platonic.
Had Fried Green Tomatoes come into existence without being based on previously established material, I would probably be much more willing to sing it's praises. As it is, Fried Green Tomatoes represents yet another example of Hollywooeds' hell bent crusade to straighten out any character it can get it's grubby little hands on.
Overall, the film also features some particularly fine acting and writing and manages to over up an emotionally engaging story. The four leads (Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jessica Tandy) all offer up some of the best work of their careers. Considering the number of Oscar nominations amoung them, that is saying something. There are also many scenes are capable of moving even the most stoic amongst us to either tears or laughter. Too bad all of this talent and effort is wasted on a film that could have been so much more.
Under most circumstances, I would probably give Fried Green Tomatoes 3.5 pink triangles. Thanks to the filmmakers decision to refusal to do the right thing and to just say no to the Hollywood straightening out addiction, I cannot in good conscience rate their film so highly.
Recommendation
While a tasty enough menu choice in its own right, Fried Green Tomatoes serves up little more than the cinematic version of an appetiser and will otherwise leave one hungry for more wholesome and affirming queer productions.
The Rating
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
February 1, 2012
Queer Issue: Choosing to be Queer is But an Illusion.
Sometimes, as someone who majored in philosophy in college, there comes a certain times when watching certain debates play out, feels to me like watching two boxers going at but where both participants were heavily drugged and blindfolded. This is in addition to neither ever having been properly taught how to spar in the first place.
One debate which exists within the queer community that stands out in this category above all others is the discussion on whether or not one is "born" gay. The arguments of both sides tend to break down like this.
Pro: Sexuality is not a choice, we can't choose who we're going to be attracted to. The scientific evidence all points to sexuality having a genetic component. Furthermore, if sexuality is not a choice than it would mean conclusively that queer behaviour should not be outlawed at all or discriminated against in any way.
Against: Sexuality is a choice and we should not have to justify our lifestyles by claiming that it is not a choice. Furthermore, discrimination and bigotry have not ended for those groups (people of color, women, etc.) who did not choose their minority status either.
Now let me say that both arguments have flaws. Allow me to break them down.
Pro: Moral is different from natural, a mistake many people make. I have problems with the term "unnatural" as well, anything that is "unnatural" technically can't exist (or exist only in imagination). If one desires something, then that desire is natural. Furthermore, simply because one naturally desires something, does not make it moral. If I desire to kill someone who wrongs me, killing them would still be "immoral", no matter the strength or innateness of that desire. There is also a good possibility that pedophilia itself is also an innate desire. There is good reason for paedophilia to remain illegal, no matter how natural or innate the desire to have sex with children is for some individuals.
If we reduce morality to that which we naturally desire, then anything I desire becomes moral by default. It would create total chaos. I want to kill? Fine! Steal my neighbours property? That's cool! Rape and pillage? Get your freak on! Obviously there needs to be some other criteria altogether for developing morality. I'll get to one later, but that's the gist of why mere desire does not work for justifying one's behaviour.
Against: The argument that we queers should not have to justify our existence by proving that sexuality is innate has one obvious flaw - it is a normative claim and has absolutely nothing to do with the way the world is. Technically speaking, I even agree with it. In an ideal world, people would not need to justify sexual activity based upon how natural or innate their desire, but rather on the consent of all participants. This should be the criteria, nothing else.
However, I have to point out that we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a cruel and arbitrary one. There have been cases where queers have been able to pass legislation by arguing that being gay should belong to a protected class (much like race and gender). In short, there are actual benefits to being able do demonstrate that one's sexual orientation is innate, rather then a product of free will.
Which brings me to the last and most important point to all of this. There is absolutely no reason to believe that free will exists. Granted this is hardly a decided philosophical issue but it is one that is very relevant to this discussion. In order to be able to choose to be queer, then free will would need to exist in order for it to be a genuine choice. If free will does not exist, then all choices are naught but an illusion, including the choice to be queer.
I know this is an idea that most people do not like. After all, we like to think of ourselves as autonomous beings capable of changing the world around us. This desire (which is natural for any sentient being) would of course lead to one believing in that free will exists, even when it does not.
However, I believe in determinism simply because of well, all the evidence points to us living in a world that obeys a few simple rules of physics, which implies a universe with a set future. If the future is set, then we can not affect through mere application of will, it is no more complicated than that.
Add in the mounting evidence that sexual orientation does have it's roots in our genes and it becomes increasingly difficult to see how sexual orientation is a choice. I have no strong evidence to back myself up on this, but I would hazard a guess that bi, pan, and omnisexual individuals, as well as those with a fluid sexual identity, are among those who are most likely to view sexual identity as a matter of choice.
So in summary:
-There is no rule that says a natural desire means that such behaviour is moral.
-In an ideal world we should not have to prove scientifically that we exist or that being queer is not a choice in order for queers to be accepted by society. Only the consent of all participants would matter when determining the morality of a sexual act. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world.
-Given the lack of evidence for free will, therefore it is only logical to believe that being gay is not a choice by default.
All clear? Agree or disagree? Let me know!
One debate which exists within the queer community that stands out in this category above all others is the discussion on whether or not one is "born" gay. The arguments of both sides tend to break down like this.
Pro: Sexuality is not a choice, we can't choose who we're going to be attracted to. The scientific evidence all points to sexuality having a genetic component. Furthermore, if sexuality is not a choice than it would mean conclusively that queer behaviour should not be outlawed at all or discriminated against in any way.
Against: Sexuality is a choice and we should not have to justify our lifestyles by claiming that it is not a choice. Furthermore, discrimination and bigotry have not ended for those groups (people of color, women, etc.) who did not choose their minority status either.
Now let me say that both arguments have flaws. Allow me to break them down.
Pro: Moral is different from natural, a mistake many people make. I have problems with the term "unnatural" as well, anything that is "unnatural" technically can't exist (or exist only in imagination). If one desires something, then that desire is natural. Furthermore, simply because one naturally desires something, does not make it moral. If I desire to kill someone who wrongs me, killing them would still be "immoral", no matter the strength or innateness of that desire. There is also a good possibility that pedophilia itself is also an innate desire. There is good reason for paedophilia to remain illegal, no matter how natural or innate the desire to have sex with children is for some individuals.
If we reduce morality to that which we naturally desire, then anything I desire becomes moral by default. It would create total chaos. I want to kill? Fine! Steal my neighbours property? That's cool! Rape and pillage? Get your freak on! Obviously there needs to be some other criteria altogether for developing morality. I'll get to one later, but that's the gist of why mere desire does not work for justifying one's behaviour.
Against: The argument that we queers should not have to justify our existence by proving that sexuality is innate has one obvious flaw - it is a normative claim and has absolutely nothing to do with the way the world is. Technically speaking, I even agree with it. In an ideal world, people would not need to justify sexual activity based upon how natural or innate their desire, but rather on the consent of all participants. This should be the criteria, nothing else.
However, I have to point out that we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a cruel and arbitrary one. There have been cases where queers have been able to pass legislation by arguing that being gay should belong to a protected class (much like race and gender). In short, there are actual benefits to being able do demonstrate that one's sexual orientation is innate, rather then a product of free will.
Which brings me to the last and most important point to all of this. There is absolutely no reason to believe that free will exists. Granted this is hardly a decided philosophical issue but it is one that is very relevant to this discussion. In order to be able to choose to be queer, then free will would need to exist in order for it to be a genuine choice. If free will does not exist, then all choices are naught but an illusion, including the choice to be queer.
I know this is an idea that most people do not like. After all, we like to think of ourselves as autonomous beings capable of changing the world around us. This desire (which is natural for any sentient being) would of course lead to one believing in that free will exists, even when it does not.
However, I believe in determinism simply because of well, all the evidence points to us living in a world that obeys a few simple rules of physics, which implies a universe with a set future. If the future is set, then we can not affect through mere application of will, it is no more complicated than that.
Add in the mounting evidence that sexual orientation does have it's roots in our genes and it becomes increasingly difficult to see how sexual orientation is a choice. I have no strong evidence to back myself up on this, but I would hazard a guess that bi, pan, and omnisexual individuals, as well as those with a fluid sexual identity, are among those who are most likely to view sexual identity as a matter of choice.
So in summary:
-There is no rule that says a natural desire means that such behaviour is moral.
-In an ideal world we should not have to prove scientifically that we exist or that being queer is not a choice in order for queers to be accepted by society. Only the consent of all participants would matter when determining the morality of a sexual act. Too bad we don't live in an ideal world.
-Given the lack of evidence for free will, therefore it is only logical to believe that being gay is not a choice by default.
All clear? Agree or disagree? Let me know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)