23.12.08

new column: merry spendmas and other holiday musings

Whew! The holidays are really throwing my writing schedule off. This is my last column until the New Year, and I'm not anticipating having any film reviews until the first week of January. I may, however, arbitrarily update the blog in the meantime - I expect to get back to a regular schedule on January 5th.
With the Christmas season comes all the usual ornaments and traditions including, of course, the biggest tradition of all: spend money. We could consider renaming the holiday “spendmas,” especially when the news reminds us about how much we’re doling out for stuff in comparison to past years. Outlook: not so good. Says the Front Page’s favourite punching bag, the L.A. Times: “The International Council of Shopping Centers has estimated that in November and December, sales at stores open at least a year may decline as much as 1 percent. That would be the largest drop since at least 1969, when the New York trade group starting tracking data.”
Read the rest of Merry Spendmas and Other Holiday Musings.

Happy holidays!

20.12.08

new film reviews: yes man and cycle of fear

Two movies this week.

Yes Man:
The ambiguous label of “B movie” is often reserved for quasi-exploitative genre films. But the definition could be expanded to include any film in which cheap thrills take precedence over meaningful drama. Just as horror films that focus on gore and sex easily fall into the B movie category, and action flicks filled with explosions, car chases and gunfire with nary more than an unintelligible grunt from the hero, the comedy that subsists on gags with only token gestures towards genuine heart is as B as it gets.

Read the rest of Yes Man? Maybe Man.

Cycle of Fear:
The film’s tagline is, “There is No End,” and if ever there was truth in advertising, this is it. There is no end to the recycling of fearful clichés in the horror genre – storytelling becomes affliction, thanks to a low budget. Beginning with the basic premise of a witch unjustly burned at the stake taking revenge on innocent people one hundred years later, “Cycle of Fear” hasn’t even gotten past zippy, swoosh-y credits before instilling the fear of a derivative piece of work. Suddenly, it’s possible to appreciate “The Blair Witch Project” a little more – not because it has any substance, but because, at least, it starts from an intriguing premise and presents it with a clever cinematic gimmick.
Read the rest of (Re)Cycle of Fear(ful) Cliches.

Housekeeping note: blogging is light these days on account of the madness we call the holidays.

16.12.08

crudely sexual

So I went to a press screening of Yes Man yesterday and noticed the film’s rating in the production packet: Rated PG-13 for crude sexual humor, language, and brief nudity. My question is: why is it always crude sexual humor? Why not refined sexual humor? Intelligent sexual humor? Silly sexual humor? Anyone? Anyone?

And: is the humor crude because it is sexual? If so, what does that say about our culture’s sexual mores? Or is the humor’s crudeness distinct from the fact it involves sex? Let me put it this way: does a randy senior citizen make you laugh uncomfortably? I mean, the scene with Jim Carrey and an elderly neighbor IS funny, but is it funny because we don’t normally put the word “sex” in the same sentence as “senior?”

That’s just a minor spoiler, by the way. Not even minor. A trifle. And I got to use the word “sex” in the same sentence as “senior,” even I did have to use quotation marks.

15.12.08

new column: going for gold - an archery range for culver city

There's a proposal out there to build an archery range in Culver City - great idea. I shoot at Rancho Park, which isn't too far from where I live. But a range at the Culver City Park would be much closer, which means afternoon jaunts to the range for some extra practice sessions. This doesn't mean I'd abandon the Rancho Park range, though, given all the fine people I've been shooting with there.
I am not a sporty guy. Truly. I like hiking, and bicycling, and camping – you know, physical outdoorsy stuff. But sports? Nuh-uh. Oh, sure, I like watching the Olympics, and basketball has a certain appeal to me. But again: sports? Not on the top of my list. I did swim competitively for about three years, though, when I was a kid. The first year was great. Our coach was a swell lady who really focused on proper swimming form, a focus that made swim meets that much more fun. But she left to become a nun in the middle of nowhere, Québec, and year two brought along a wishy-washy coach. Nice guy, but wishy-washy…And then came year three, with a coach focused on winning, winning, winning. The fun got sucked out of the swimming, the competitiveness became oppressive, and suddenly, there was no good justification for getting up at 5:30 on Saturday mornings for swim practice in freezing water. So much for athleticism.
Read the rest of Going for Gold: An Archery Range for Culver City.

11.12.08

new theatre review: aah! scrooge must die!

I'm not one to go for raunch or offensiveness for the sake of being offensiveness, but I kinda dig this new play, Aah! Scrooge Must Die!, at the Ivy Substation. The Actor's Gang sure is a wacky bunch.
Ah, yes. The holidays. Christmas carols over the speakers of stuff-selling stores. Tinsel for the trees. Snow on Disney’s Main Street. The Ivy and the Holly. Ho, ho, ho, and glowing red noses – a certain reindeer’s luminous proboscis and too much rum in the egg nog. Colourful wrapping paper, ribbons and gift cards. Chocolate peppermint bark. Family visits. And maybe, just maybe a dash of that old bah, humbug? In the stress of the holidays, the relentless drive to play a part in unbridled consumerism, the forced smiles and strained good cheers – surely it’s not uncommon to feel a bit like a pre-phantasmic Scrooge amidst the onslaught.
Read the rest of Scrooge Must Die...Laughing.

9.12.08

the salvation army: WTF!?

Despite the role Salvation Army bell ringers have in iconic Christmas scenes – and who among us hasn’t put an ol’ Washington or two in the kettle – I’m rather bothered by the militaristic theme behind the charitable organization. Army? Salvation? Sounds like the zeal to march on the world and gain converts, which isn’t entirely a stretch:

“The Salvation Army has a devoutly religious mission, rooted in its founding in 1865 by an evangelical protestant minister (and former pawn broker) named William Booth, whose early motivation was to convert poor Londoners — and eventually prostitutes, gamblers and alcoholics — to Christianity. Recognizing that his followers needed more than just religion to improve their lives — and that the way to attract the destitute was the provide services — Booth provided meals, clothing and other assistance to his early converts. He was famous for saying, "Nobody ever got saved while they had a toothache." The quasi-military name "Salvation Army" was given to the charitable church in 1878 — Booth had been known as its "general" even before that — and the first U.S. chapter opened around 1880.” (Source: Time)
Regardless of how harmless the Salvation Army may be, I’m wary of military analogies – it encourages flawed reasoning. After all, armies conduct war. If it were called the Salvation Corps, the impression would be different.


In any case, an item in the news came to my attention and I’m just gobsmacked: a Salvation Army officer is facing dismissal over his choice of fiancée. Apparently, officers are only allowed to marry other officers due to expectations that they live and breathe the Salvation Army. Captain Johnny Harsh of Oshkosh, Washington, was suspended from his leadership position after he became engaged to a nurse he met through an online Christian dating website.
“Harsh was suspended from his position as leader of the Oshkosh Salvation Army after he announced his engagement to a woman he named only as "Cia." Harsh's first wife, Capt. Yalanda "Yoley" Harsh, a Salvation Army officer, died suddenly of a heart attack in June. A few months later Harsh said he met Cia, 56, a nurse, on a Christian online dating Web site.

‘I prayed and told the Lord, I can't stand being single. Can you please give me a woman on the outside and inside,’ said Harsh. He said it was love at first sight. ‘One word describes her. Wow.’

Harsh said the organization's rules regarding marriage are outdated, unfair and must be changed, but he doesn't want his personal situation to harm the Salvation Army.”
This is exactly how institutionalized religion can become a detriment to individuals - in terms of freedom, personal fulfillment, and even basic humanity. These are not “divine” rules, but organizational rules that work to keep people in the fold. But Harsh knew what he was getting into, and his first wife, who died of a heart attack, was indeed an SA officer. And his call for people not to stop giving to the charity, which is only second to the United Way, goes a long way from making this exposure a personal vendetta.

For my part, however, I’ve come to realize just to what degree the Salvation Army is really a Christian organization, complete with doctrines of original sin, the holy trinity, heaven for the righteous and punishment for the wicked, and so on. The question is, to what extent does supporting their considerable charitable work a reinforcement for their religious and organizational beliefs?

8.12.08

Nick LaRue and I are writing a book on the topic of living without religion, and we're starting off with some research. Whether you're an atheist or a person of faith, we want to hear from you.

Background in this week's column at The Front Page Online.


...and the book's blog here at goodbyegod.blogspot.com.

7.12.08

new review: the life I lived

Perhaps greater than the fear of that undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns is the fear that comes with discovering, then desperately clinging to, regret over bad choices. And many are the stories that take this primal psychological morass as the drive to dig deep into character.
Read the rest of The Life I Lived, and Rather Wish I Had Not
.

4.12.08

on the topic of truth in scripture

Does the Bible condemn gays or support them? The answer is yes! Religious scriptures are so vague and contradictory, leading to an endless pick-and-choose game to find that bit of text that rationalizes whatever people of faith want to rationalize, it’s no surprise the Anglicans are tearing themselves to pieces:

Theological conservatives upset by liberal views of U.S. Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans formed a rival North American province Wednesday, in a long-developing rift over the Bible that erupted when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop.

2.12.08

new column: what's so great about being the greatest?

As my wife and I prepared for a family Thanksgiving gathering at our home, we had the TV set to the Macy’s parade. Big balloons, floats, marching bands; the whole shebang. At some point, a modestly sized float came into view, a large urban landscape crowning a giant apple. But it wasn’t the float itself that took my attention away from some last-minute cleaning-up. It was the commentator announcing the float with something more or less along the lines of “and here’s the float for New York City, the greatest city in the world.” My first reaction: Sorry, but New York is not the greatest city in the world. My second reaction: What is this obsession with being “the greatest?”
Read the rest of What's So Great About Being the Greatest?

1.12.08

new film review: bolt

Sorry for the delay in posting this. Holidays happen.
Only an overzealous dog lover would make a cat give a speech about having a dog complex defined by a secret desire to be a dog. Why can’t cats get any respect? Never mind. It’s all about the hamster, anyway. “Bolt,” Di­sney’s riff on “An Incredible Journey,” delivered in gorgeously rendered 3-D animation, starts out with Bolt (Travolta), a brave dog who is the victim of a monstrous “Truman Show” deception: He doesn’t know the TV show he stars in as a superpowered canine is all fake. So when his beloved and perpetually endangered human Penny (Cyrus) is separated from him in the latest episode’s cliffhanger and a mailing mishap puts him on the other side of the country, Bolt doggedly sets off, as always, to the rescue.
Read the rest Forget the Dog. It's the Hamster Who Saves the Movie. Also at inkandashes.net.

21.11.08

new DVD review: death of a president

With assassination fears and an increased number of threats directed to President-elect Obama, it seems appropriate to review another hypothetical Presidential assassination, one I suspect many people never have heard of let alone seen. When released in 2006, “Death of a President” created quite the hubbub with its realistic depiction of a sitting President’s assassination – the President of the title being none other than George W. Bush. But the filmmakers were aware of the controversy – a controversy fully realized as many have condemned the film as shocking and tasteless. In crafting the film’s style and presentation, director Gabriel Range and his crew successfully avoid face-slapping sensationalism; even the assassination scene itself is too gritty, too quick, too chaotic to be perversely exploitative.
Read the rest of Shots Fired in Controversial Film.

Also at inkandashes.net.

19.11.08

what is baseline veganism? part 2

However, a few qualifications are in order. First is that humans are, indeed, omnivores. Our body has evolved to eat a variety of food. However, just because we CAN eat a variety of food types doesn’t mean that we SHOULD. Based on what I’ve read, I’ve come to see nutrition like this: as with sweets and alcohol, we can eat meat in small quantities, but for long term-health it’s best to follow a vegan diet. This brings me to a second point, namely, that in terms of ethics an absolute injunction against eating meat doesn’t really make sense. For one thing, all life is predicated on the consumption of other life, whether we like it or not. Carnivores eat meat, and unless we’re prepared to slaughter lions and wolves and the like because they are fundamentally immoral, then we have to admit that survival is a mitigating factor. Carnivores kill other animals because that’s how they evolved, and meat is what they need to survive. In human, omnivorous terms, this translates to: if the choice comes down to killing and eating an animal or starving to death, I certainly wouldn’t choose to starve to death. Veganism doesn’t work as an absolute.

There are more aesthetic reasons not to be so absolutist: not everything animal-related is harmful to animals. Milk, for example. Even though it’s not especially healthy in large quantities, it doesn’t hurt the cow to drink it. Same thing with eggs, or honey. The point isn’t to argue for vegetarianism, but to say that flexibility in a vegan diet means that we can be sure that the occasional treat of milk and eggs can from well-treated, free-range, organic animals that have not been made to suffer. Even eating meat, on occasion, may be acceptable if we take Michael Pollan’s point that there’s more to food than nutrition. Food is intrinsically tied to culture, to socializing, to enjoying the good life. I happen to enjoy sushi – forget beef and chicken – and like indulging in a good Japanese meal on special occasions. I don't necessarily see a problem when this is the exception and not the rule, although this does play fast and loose with the actual rule.

So this brings me to the rationale behind “baseline” veganism. Baseline, because the vegan diet serves as the, well, baseline for eating on a day to day basis (as opposed to vegetarianism, which allows animal-derived food as part of the diet). But a baseline is just that; a starting point. A guideline from which it is okay to deviate on occasion. A baseline vegan, or bVegan, is someone who adheres to veganism while allowing for limited compromises and deviations.

Or, a bVegan is a vegan who isn’t propped upright by a stick up the ass.

what is baseline veganism? part 1

When it comes to food, whether eating out with friends or partaking in the product lunch presentation at work, the fact that I am vegan inevitably creates a bit of a problem. Not so much in a logistical sense, although of course there’s an issue there, but more in terms of labels. While I consider myself essentially vegan, I don’t think the word “vegan” as commonly understood is an accurate label. Reason the first; too many vegans have an insufferable self-righteous attitude, and I’m insufferably self-righteous as it is that I don’t need any more encouragement. I’m talking about folks who refer to people who eat meat as corpse-eaters, for example. I’m talking about PETA, who are otherwise commendable in their efforts for securing humane treatment for animals. Reason the second: the word “vegan” does connote an absolute stance – absolutely no meat, no animal products, never-ever – and I don’t think this is either philosophically justified or realistic in terms of living life.

I’ve resorted to using pragmatic vegan or non-absolute vegan as alternatives, but these are just weasel words, as Wikipedia might put it. After working the ol’ neurons for a long time, I’ve settled on the term “baseline vegan” to label my nutritional stance. Before explaining it, though, I’d like to get on the soapbox and answer the question, “why vegan?” The short answer is predicated on the principle of avoiding or minimizing death and suffering:
  1. It’s healthier for us.
  2. It’s good for animals.
  3. It’s good for the planet.
Nutritionally, it’s Dr. McDougall’s books that persuaded me of the science behind nutrition, along with stuff I’ve read by Michael Pollan (In Defense of Food) and others. Basically, to be healthy and reduce incidence of diseases like cancer, diabetes, what have you, it’s best to avoid processed food and “edible food-like products” and just eat food. Good ol’ natural food, straight from the planet – veggies, fruits, and grains – chock-full of vitamins and nutrients. But it’s also that excess meat and dairy, with high fat, underlies many diseases associated with the Western diet.

Beyond nutrition, the huge planetary population entails a large-scale meat industry, which comes with barbaric practices like debeaking, close confinement, electrocution deaths, and other abuses. I once rationalized these industrial processes as necessary for feeding a large population, but I can’t accept that anymore. Animals are sentient - to varying degrees, of course, but sentient nonetheless. They may not be “human,” but they feel pain; there’s more to animals than we think. To be consistent with acting with compassion, it’s necessary to treat animals humanely, with empathy - not just humans. Not eating meat means not treating animals with cruelty.

Then there’s the planet. The meat industry is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gas that contribute to global warming. Yes, you can say cow farts – the methane of livestock is a greenhouse gas. Between that and the fertilizers, land use, transportation, and so on, the meat industry as it is now is bad for the environment. Other points of contention is how much grain goes to feed cattle (seven pounds of corn to one pound of beef, for example) when it could instead to feeling people directly. The excess consumption of meat, fast-food and otherwise, impacts not only the environment, but the quality of our human civilization.

To be continued...

15.11.08

new film reviews: madascar 2 and quantum of solace

Escape 2 laughs with Madascar: Escape 2 Africa.
So it’s not “Wall.E.” There — I’ve said it. Maybe I’m defending the film from an accusation that hasn’t been made – does anyone really expect a “Madagascar” film to be “Wall.E”? – but,hopefully, with that kind of snootiness out of the way we can get to what makes this sequel to 2005’s “Madagascar” a tasty puff of animation. And there’s nothing wrong with being a tasty puff of beautiful animation. Read the rest here.
Get a wallop of action with your smidgen of comfort - and no, referring to Quantum of Solace as Smidgen of Comfort hasn't gotten old yet.
It’s like that moment on a roller-coaster right after the endless suspense of getting pulled up the ramp and right before the sudden, terrifying drop. And that’s just within the first 10 minutes. “Quantum of Solace,” the 23rd film in a series that needs no introduction, has stunts that fall in the category of unbelievable. Car chases, foot chases, aerial dogfights – if it moves on air, land or sea, it’s in a stunt extravaganza that pounds hearts and drops jaws. Bond’s pursuit of an environmentalist who uses his “green” company as a front for sinister geo-political machinations couldn’t be pumped up with any more adrenaline. Read the rest here.

12.11.08

new theatre review: school of night

I love the theatre space at the Mark Taper Forum...the things they do with sets that assemble and move like clock is quite impressive. Too bad I can't be similarly enthusiastic about the play currently on stage...
An alleged Elizabethan-era association of free-thinkers devoted to science, philosophy, poetry, politics and the repudiation of religion, is an inspired topic for a play – especially when this association encompasses the likes of Sir Walter Raleigh and Christopher Marlowe. The School of Night’s history is so murky – even the name is, apparently, a retroactive indulgence by modern writers taken from a line in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour Lost – that it lends itself to intriguing historical speculation. Toss in a turbulent political climate under Queen Elizabeth I and we have a fertile setting for a provocative drama involving freedom of religion and thought and the birth pangs of science. Read the rest of No Need to Stay Up Late for the School of Night.

11.11.08

capsule review: suspect zero

Most critics, understandably, view Suspect Zero as an overly stylized (read: insubstantial), derivative and even pretentious genre effort. But while it doesn’t escape from the clichés that come with serial killer procedurals, Suspect Zero does have a few flashes of inspiration – call them twists of the knife – that make the film worthwhile. Begin with E. Elias Merhige stylish direction, marked by fascinating, off-kilter camera angles that, along with clever editing and scene splicing, create a visually arresting film. At times slow to take in the scenery, at times fast to convey the disturbing imagery that haunt two of the film’s characters, Merhige puts in a lot of artistry in the film’s composition, the result of which is a film drenched in atmosphere. It’s worth noting that despite the gruesome deaths, the film isn’t particularly gory and has very little on-screen violence. Suspect Zero is, above all, an exercise in creeping, skin-burrowing dread.

The story has its own flourishes, the first of which is the way in which the paranormal ability of remote viewing is woven into the film. Without the self-consciousness of an X-Files episode, where the premise of the FBI using clairvoyance to remotely find criminals would be right at home, Suspect Zero is a science fiction film that doesn’t make a fuss about being a science-fiction film. In fact, the premise is so effortless presented as plausible that we are free to focus on the other nice flourish, namely, the notion of a serial killer who preys on other serial killers, and the Suspect Zero hypothesis of a serial killer who is truly random in his method, motive, and choice of victims. Cue in a deliciously intense performance by Sir Ben Kingsley as the man who may or not be “Suspect Zero,” along robust performances by Aaron Eckhard as Agent Mackelway and Carrie Anne-Moss as his partner Fran Kulok, and Suspect Zero becomes, not so much a crime thriller, but a psychological thriller on the nature of confronting evil in the world punctuated by intensely dramatic character moments.

Where Suspect Zero stumbles is in failing to flesh out its ideas. There are worse things, however, than being left with wanting more, and the film proves surprisingly enjoyable.

7.11.08

new review: body of lies

A devious spymaster, the wary and morally conflicted field operative, the relentless enemy, the high stakes, a larger-than-life plot, the inevitable reach for analogies involving spiders, flies, and webs – the military-espionage thriller gang’s all here, albeit dressed up by Ridley Scott into a gripping, uncompromising, brutal portrait of the global war on terror as fought in the Middle East. Scott’s ability to direct clear action scenes possessed of a visceral, documentary nature – unmuddled by unnecessary cuts and quirky camera angles – strips “Body of Lies” of a superficial exploitative sheen, much like “The Dark Knight” stripped Batman of his comic book-ishness, to deliver a film that entertains without sacrificing its topical integrity.
Read the rest of 'Body of Lies,’ a Very Moral Film With a Certain Vagueness

31.10.08

review: changeling

There were three reasons to be enthused about seeing “Changeling.” In no particular order: 1) Angelina Jolie who, when not collecting a paycheck from comic book detritus like “Wanted” or simply gallivanting (admittedly to our delight) as Lara Croft, is certain an actress of note. 2) Clint Eastwood, the quintessential director’s director whose mastery of filmcraft consistently yields handsome, unassuming but polished work – classical in the best sense of the word. And 3) J. Michael Straczynski (JMS), the man behind the milestone science-fiction series “Babylon 5”, an insightful writer who marks his first foray into feature films after years in television.
Read here to learn why Truth Really Is Stranger Than Fiction.

28.10.08

irony in city of ember (spoilers!)

If you haven’t seen City of Ember and don’t want any spoilers, I suggest skipping this post. If you have, or you don’t mind having the end revealed, then read on…

In my review of City of Ember, I pointed out how the film lacks the kind of irony that gives characters depth. The best example lies in the character of Mayor Cole, played by Bill Murray with amusingly detached self-absorption. In Ember, the Mayor is not only responsible for managing the city, but for protecting a box with a timer gradually counting back from two hundred to zero. This is the amount of time that the city’s builders estimated it would take for the Earth surface to become habitable again after an unspecified apocalyptic disaster. And what’s so important about the box? Instructions on how to leave Ember.

In one of the film’s common-sense defying, but necessary, plot contrivances, the box gets lost sometime during the succession of mayors. Mayor Cole, then, may know about the box’s existence, but he clearly doesn’t have the mayoral knowledge that was passed down with the responsibility of safeguarding the box. Of course, the film is set at the time when the timer reaches zero. Ember is in a state of severe deterioration, the city’s hydroelectric generator is failing, food and other supplies are desperately low. Naturally, the Mayor does what any greedy bastard would do: steal supplies and hoard them in a secret lair where he can retreat too while everyone else perishes.

Naturally, Mayor Cole reaches an end befitting his villainy. The city discovers his duplicity while the kid heroes make their escape, and Mayor Cole heads for his lair, locks out his faithful accomplice…only to get attacked by a giant mutant mole rat. Ho, hum.

Let me present a different scenario. The city is desperate. The generator is at the critical breaking point. The kid heroes have discovered the box and figured the way out, but the Mayor’s hollow promises and obtuse politicking have left them no choice but to strike out on their own. Yet not all the population is fooled; they know something terrible is happening. In the confusion and disorder of an increasingly panicked population, the Mayor is revealed for what he is: a coward who put his own welfare above the people he ostensibly served. Fearful, Mayor Cole makes a run for his secret lair. Eventually, the kids find their out and, with the adults perfectly capable of tracing their footsteps given the machines they activated on their way, the remainder of Ember’s population follows. The city then collapses. The underground river overflows, flooding the streets and underground tunnels that make up Ember’s infrastructure – including the tunnel leading to Mayor Cole’s lair. With no way out, but guaranteed a lifetime’s supply of food and air, the Mayor is essentially buried alive with no way out. Depending on how vicious you want to be, he could either be oblivious to the fact that Ember’s people escaped, or he could be fully aware and helpless to do anything about it.

Now that’s irony, and it would work especially well if the character were developed to be more than just a weak, cowardly man, but a man whose dedication to public service became eroded by cynical fatalism and debauched indifference.

27.10.08

quote of the week: alan greenspan

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
-Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
No shit, Sherlock.

Here's a twist of the knife.

new film review: religulous

If I weren’t the proverbial tree falling in the forest, I could imagine getting comments about Religulous review akin to the waving fists big-timers get whenever they review a politically loaded film. Comments that would accuse me injecting my own personal views and not doing a straight-up review. After all, people don’t read reviews for politics or religion…they want to know about the movie. Right?

Well, no. While it’s important to judge a movie on its own merits, it’s also important to contextualize it. And critics inevitable contextualize a film by drawing on his/her own experiences and philosophies. There is nothing dishonest about this; dishonest is the critic who pretends to be somebody else. In fact, knowing something about a film critic’s ideological stance – and it needn’t be “ideological” per se – can help put the review itself in context. For example: an atheist (like me) reviewing Religulous will have a different take on the film than a Christian. Potential questions arise, such as: what does it mean if a Christian enjoys a film that is critical of religion? Or, what does it mean if an atheist doesn’t like a film promoting atheism? There’s more going on than simply supporting or rejecting a film simply on the basis of ideology, and that’s another example of honesty; just because a film has a message you like doesn’t mean it’s a good film. Differences in perspective, then, can only be good; they yield richer interpretations.
The man behind “Politically Incorrect” on Comedy Central and, currently, “Real Time” on HBO, launches a bold, sorely-needed broadside against religion. The result is typical Bill Maher; unapologetic, blunt, and (mostly) funny as hell. But for a film that, with an irreverent game of gotcha, points out the ridiculous in various religions’ beliefs, Maher’s cannonade isn’t so much aimed at creating cognitive dissonance in believers but to shake atheists from their timidity in the face of nonsense. Read the rest in Bill Maher Takes Aim at the Ridiculous in Religion.

22.10.08

portishead's third; thinking about music criticism

If art criticism could be defined as the art of objectifying a subjective experience – of filtering a visceral experience through rational evaluation – then music criticism has to be the black sheep of the criticism family. Resistant to the kind of analysis that can take apart a novel or film, music can obviously be judged on the technical side of music theory, but in the end boils down to the visceral, pre-rational experience. This aesthetic kind of criticism, limited only by the obvious requirement that musicians hit the right notes – is more of a genealogical, historical, comparative affair. Which explains why music reviews often read like a catalogue of analogies, snap judgments, and unsupported assertions. The film critic, at least, can point to a film’s technique (writing included) to justify why this or that aspect of the film works or doesn’t work. With music, however, once a certain proficiency threshold has been passed (and the bar isn’t necessarily that high), criticism yields to interpretation. At which point, the only thing to do is listen to an album and decide for yourself whether you like what you hear or not. Perhaps distinguishing between “criticism” and “review” is actually useful here.

I’ve only once done music reviews, for Morbid Outlook way back in August 2007. It was a fun experience and I’d do it again, but there’s something about reviewing music that feels like mere opiniating, like passing judgment without the net of reason beneath to catch the loose ends of the purely subjective. Music reviews are the equivalent of lazy film critics who settle for summarizing a film’s plot instead of dissecting the plot’s manifestation through cinematic technique. As an example, here’s Rob Sheffield’s review, at Rolling Stone mag, of Portishead’s long-awaited third album:
It's been ten years since the world last heard from Portishead, the U.K. trip-hop trio, and they do not sound like they've spent the past decade going to therapy, listening to new music or making friends. Actually, they sound like they spent it locked in a tea cupboard underwater off the coast of Bristol, with a piped-in orchestral soundtrack from Dario Argento horror movies. Is this a problem?
No way — nobody ever listened to Portishead for their sparkling personalities or musical variety. What they're brilliant at is obsessively textured studio dread, and Third is an unexpected yet totally impressive return. Beth Gibbons still has her high-pitched trill ("Wounded and afraid/Inside my head," she sings in the opener, "Silence" — big surprise), but she's just another sound effect in the audio creep show of Geoff Barrow and Adrian Utley. "We Carry On" is a smashingly claustrophobic two-note electro riff, with heavy echoes of the Silver Apples' "Oscillations." In highlights like "The Rip," "Small" and "Machine Gun," Portishead mix up dub, break beats, cathedral organ, Moroccan drones and even surf rock into a headphone album for sour times.

Can I do better? Unlikely. (Well, maybe a little?) Here’s my take on Third:
Portishead’s eponymous second outing illustrated the hazard of achieving that holy grail of music, a distinctive sound: the hazard of getting stuck in an endlessly-repeating groove. But the album was solid in its own right, a masterful and necessary continuation of the scratchy, sample-laden, and tripped-out mourning vibe that made Dummy so singularly special and genuinely brilliant. And the concert album, Roseland NYC Live, proved that Portishead could work its way with different kinds of instrumentation, a quality of musicianship also revealed by their remixes and artist collaborations. Geoff Barrow and Adrian Utley, along with Beth Gibbons, are musicians, not monkeys acting out their training.
So Third presented the band with the challenge of being Portishead without being Portishead. Consummate musicians that they are, they meet the challenge head-on with a superlative album that comfortably fits the mood of a dimly-lit room. Veering away (more or less) from hip-hop and into electronic territories laced with industrial, Third is both reinvention and reassertion, possessed of the same introspective melancholy that gives Portishead’s music a gothic flavour, but juiced up by ever-unexpected rhythms, sonic booms, burrowing melodies, and aching lyrics. And, of course, there’s Gibbons – whose voice is often raw, but with a plaintive, breaking quality that is just right for songs of sorrow.
Typical of Portishead, Third is the kind of album that makes adjectives nervous. A hip-hop flavour there, a trace of Trent Reznor here, surreal soundscapes everywhere; this is an album from far out of left field. Just as the Portishead “sound” had long reached overexposure, Third comes along to shake up the music world’s complacency with an effort that evades crass commercialism and preserves the scrappy spirit of musicians developing their own voice in the wilderness.
In all fairness, it is possible for music reviews to go beyond simple aesthetic reactions – see Brian Hiatt’s review of AC/DC’s latest. But I still have to ask: if somebody doesn’t like the way a piece of music sounds, can a music critic change that with a review?

21.10.08

I wouldn't normally post an ad, but...

20.10.08

new column: letter to a (potential) prop 8 nation

This week, I'm talking to those people who are considering voting for Prop 8:
I’ll be upfront. I am not a native son of California, and my arrival here was not the result of me waking up one morning, stuffed with visions of sun, surf and bikinis, and saying, “I’m packin’ up and movin’ to California, eh.” Nope; while I obviously made a conscious decision to move here, my coming to the Golden State, instead of another state, was largely the product of circumstance. Read the rest of Letter to a (Potential) Prop 8 Nation.
Always Choose Love.

17.10.08

new film review: city of ember

The setting is extraordinary. An underground city a flicker away from total darkness, kept alight through thousands of streetlamps and suspended lights powered by a hydroelectric generator. Director Gil Kenan’s vision could be described, to coin a term, as grimepunk – steampunk’s proletarian sibling. Post-apocalyptic, decrepit, stylish in its lack of style, a focus on utility rather than prettiness, a patchwork aesthetic of grimy, rusty machinery barely maintained by a peasantry who know what the machines are for but not how they work. The city that gives the film, and the book on which it’s based, its name is like a low-tech, rudimentary analogue to Alex Proyas’ “Dark City.” Kenan gives Ember a claustrophobic, stagnant atmosphere, which is appropriate given that, as the prologue tells us, the confines of the city are all that generations of people have known throughout 200 years of isolation from an undescribed global disaster.
Discover the chilling end to A Tale About a Mysterious Underground City That Could Have Been So Much Stronger. (Also at inkandashes.net, of course.)

word definition of the day: palindrone

Palindrone: n. A constant, annoying sound that occurs whenever Gov. Sarah Palin opens her mouth, and possessing the unique property of sounding exactly the same whether she speaks from the left side of her mouth or the right.

16.10.08

hey! morbid outlook has a writing contest going on!

Over at Morbid Outlook, Mistress McCutchan says:
We have DVD copies of The Undertaker and His Pals to give away, so I decided to run with that theme... We are seeking zany, creepy stories about food and/or cannibalism! Spill some guts and tell us a story that will make our skin crawl! Three winners will be chosen and have their work published in an upcoming issue of Morbid Outlook.

The absolute maximum word limit is 2000. The contest is open to our North American readers only. The deadline is Friday, November 7, 2008.

Email your entry here by pasting it into the body of your email or snail mail it to

Morbid Outlook Magazine
772 Dovercourt Road
P.O. Box 334
Toronto, ON M6H 4E3
Canada

15.10.08

capsule reviews: elizabethtown and atonement

Elizabethtown: Orlando Bloom and Kirsten Dunst are terrific in Cameron Crowe’s Elizabethtown and it’s good to see them both stretch beyond their blockbuster franchise roles. But their performances can’t keep the film from succumbing to an awww and shucks. Elizabethtown, with its comical situation and colourful characters – including Alec Baldwin as the CEO of a shoe company – comes across as a bit of wishful thinking that gratifies on paper but ultimately doesn’t ring authentic. The event that launches Drew Taylor’s (Bloom) downward spin stretches credibility: could a single shoe designer really be the one on which to hang the albatross of a $900 million corporate loss? And what about Dunst’s role as saving angel? It’s like a depressed person’s self-affirming daydream, in which all of life’s grittiness is polished away by a forced cheerfulness. Elizabethtown ultimately suffers from a case of contrivance, with each scene manufactured for effect instead of rooted in a genuine psychology.

Atonement: The only quality that makes Atonement a contender worthy of the august company of The Assassination of Jesse James, There Will Be Blood, and No Country for Old Men is Joe Wright’s phenomenal direction in partnership with Seamus McGarvey’s photography. (OKk, to be fair, the performances are beautiful tuned too. James McAvoy especially shows himself better than trash like Wanted.) That long take of soldiers miserably biding their time while awaiting evacuation from the beach of Dunkirk is a masterstroke of surreal, moody, visceral film work. And that’s just the most obvious bit of artistry in a film defined by beautiful imagery. But while the film starts off with a knock-out tragedy, the film devolves into a variation of “it-was-just-dream” that undercuts the drama of later scenes. A bratty, stupid, inappropriately imaginative young girl is reintroduced as an old woman who is more aware, perhaps, but also cowardly. Atonement teases with promising scenes of characters squeezed through the ringer, only to fall back on a gimmick that undoutbtedly worked better in the novel. Great visuals, great premise, a resolution that is the very picture of anti-climax.

14.10.08

new column: what is cool? hint: it's not the edison bar

I shy away from using my column as a grinding stone for axes...pettiness isn't an attractive trait in a columnist, or anyone else for that matter. But every so often, something galls my gizzard enough to make me want to write about it. The trick is tying it into a bigger picture. In this case, a ridiculous incident at the Edison ties into the bigger picture of sexist double-standards in fashion:
The first time I was mortally offended while going out, I was 10 (give or take). It was an upscale restaurant in Old Montreal, an establishment called Chez Queue that is amazingly still there, and I had ordered a dessert of strawberries and vanilla ice cream. Only, I didn’t like vanilla at the time. So I asked for chocolate ice cream instead. The waiter pulled a face, a disgusted face, as if I had ordered the strawberries with relish and hot sauce or something equally weird. I was outraged. My parents were far from impressed, and we never went back. Oh, I look back and laugh now. But the incident, and the sheer absurd insult of it all, is the defining memory I have of that place. And that is pretty much how I feel about a recent experience at the Edison bar. Read the rest of What is Cool? Hint: It's not the Edison Bar.
As a postscript, it's worth mentioning that while wandering away from the Edison in search of drinks at a friendly venue, a fellow walking past me spontaneously complimented me on my sandals. Vindication!

11.10.08

new film reviews: nick and norah, five moments

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist:
The first question that came to mind when watching the trailer for “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” was: why Nick and Norah? What possible relationship could the film – based on the book by Rachel Cohn – have to the classic “The Thin Man” book and six popular movies starring William Powell and Myrna Loy? After watching the movie, I still don’t know. Maybe it’s a reference to the pajama collection. Or maybe the book’s authors just liked the alliteration and the reference to those classic films is purely a pop-cultural by-product. Read the rest in It's No Song for the Thin Man, but Nick and Norah Do Have a Nice Playlist.
Five Moments of Infidelity:
Stories about infidelity come with a certain amount of risk. It’s easy to get caught up in the melodrama of a person cheating on another, to dwell on the sexual and/or emotional betrayal in a way that renders the characters as caricatures drawn in black and white. Hard is resisting the impulse to moralize. Harder is presenting a nuanced psychology. Harder still is examining infidelity as it occurs in multiple sets of interconnected characters. Yet, writer/director Kate Gorman pulls it off. “Five Moments of Infidelity” is the “Crash” of frail human relationships, although where “Crash” gets it wrong and ends up a blunt, brutish thing that leaves one sullied and bruised, “Five Moments” is perceptive, humane, and fully capable of handling the synchronicity of its ensemble cast. It is remarkably organic, a quality manifested as much in script’s meticulous construction as in the liquid, almost dance-like camerawork that elevates “Five Moments” above similarly-budgeted indie films – although flat, characterless cinematography does the film no favours. Read the rest in Five Moments of Infidelity - A Film That's Faithful to the Aches of the Human Heart.

Also at inkandashes.net.

10.10.08

translating the news: palin's alaska report

From an AP report on Alaskan lawmakers meeting in secret to discuss a report on whether or not Gov. Palin abused her authority in the firing of her state public safety commissioner (who, in turn, was being pressured to fire a state Trooper involved in nasty divorce and custody battle with Gov. Palin's sister):
Some Republicans have questioned why the committee has insisted on finishing the investigation Friday, which they said was an arbitrary date meant to damage the McCain-Palin campaign with less than a month to go before Election Day.
Translation: We don't care if she's guilty or not, and you won't either because after she's elected, there's fuck-all you can do about it. Except whine. Which is what liberals do. Neener-neener, you justice-loving liberal pansies.

The McCain campaign sought to pre-empt the potentially embarrassing report this week by releasing its own analysis, attributing Monegan's firing to a legitimate dispute over budget priorities and control over the department.
Translation: We've investigated ourselves and can say with complete and pure objectivity that we are not guilty. Let's be clear: we did not have improper power trips with that public safety commissioner's job. Oh, and we [heart] Dick Cheney. I mean, we really [heart] the big lug. He can shoot us in the face any day. That's how much we [heart] him.

6.10.08

new column: sex and the GOP

Suppose a politician proposed the following:

Provide economics education to children in the K-12 grades, using age-appropriate and fiscally accurate information, including information on how to stop the transmission of Ponzi schemes, prevent fraud, and detect con artists.

Not very objectionable, right? Now replace the word “economics” with sex:

Provide sex education to children in the K-12 grades, using age-appropriate and fiscally accurate information, including information on how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS.

Has anything changed?

Read the rest of Sex and the GOP...

where has all the romance of space travel gone?

When I was a kid, I fully expected the new millenium to bring with it the next giant leap for humankind: Mars. Yet as the Powers That Be and their enablers, the voting public, have become lost in dangerous philosophical immaturity and the geopolitics of war corporatism. We know we should be up there – on a moon base, for starters – pushing science forwards and living up to the famous Star Trek mantra, yet except for the excitement of Mars landers, we are still very much Earth-bound. Have we lost our ambition? Or is just that it’s hard to get worked up about exploring space when we can’t pay the bills? It’s a fair point – but what sort of age would we live in if we had a trip to Mars to inspire us, if we fully embraced our scientific challenges? Green technology, space travel; this is the stuff international cooperation and goodwill is made of. This is stuff of human evolution.

It’s disappointing to read about the US reliance on the Soviet space program in the gap between the shuttle’s retirement (2010) and replacement (2015). Not for the political reasons involving our tense relationship with Putin, or because it would damage US pride for the Chinese to reach the moon before we do, but because the romance of space exploration seems little more than a quaint dose of nostalgia easily taken for granted.

3.10.08

the Iraq war will cost HOW much??? WTF??

new film review: appaloosa

A Tale of Love and Bullets - Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris didn’t share nearly enough screen time in David Cronenberg’s comic book treatise A History of Violence. But along comes Appaloosa, a classical Western rooted in a mature formulation of the buddy movie, to show just how comfortably these two pros fit together. As two friends and partners in the peacekeeping-for-hire business, Mortensen and Harris (who co-wrote the screenplay and directed) bring a wordless chemistry into the surgically-precise dialogue. Read the rest...
Of course, there's always ink [and] ashes.

30.9.08

new theatre review: this beautiful city

Sometimes, things just happen at the right time. I was trying to figure out how to write my review of This Beautiful City currently on stage at the Kirk Douglas Theatre when I came across a letter to the editor at TFPO. It was one of those expressions of religious condescension towards atheists, the ol 'atheists-have-nothing-on-which-to-build-meaning in-life schtick. Since This Beautiful City is all about Evangelical Christianity in the larger context of American society, that letter to the editor gave me just what I needed to get at the heart of the play.
...I lumped faith and ignorance together. Without all the necessary philosophical and theological qualifications that would normally accompany that kind of statement, this particular lumping could come across as insulting. That’s how atheists feel when people like Danny Bental presumes to tell them they can’t really find meaning in their lives without God, beauty, or anything worthwhile... ...The disconnect I illustrated above arises from a simple letter to the editor, yet it hints at a greater disconnect like the one that exists between Evangelical Christianity and not only atheism, but other religions as well. This Beautiful City, based on actual interviews conducted by theatrical production group The Civilians, looks at the Evangelical movement through an exploration of Colorado Springs prior to the 2006 mid-term elections...It is arguably the best production put on by the Kirk Douglas in recent memory.
Read the rest in Take an Impassioned Stroll...in This Beautiful City

26.9.08

new film review: hell's gate

The railroad bridge in New York called Hell’s Gate got its name, we’re told, on account of lurking above the shipwrecking intersection of two waterways. It’s an ideal place to dispose of inconvenient corpses – divers never find anything dumped there – and a good title for the familiar morality play of a down-on-his-luck felon forced to make difficult choices in a situation that spirals far outside his control.

Read the rest of Hell's Gate is More Like Heck's Gate at The Front Page Online or ink [and] ashes

25.9.08

Busting Paradigms (Among Other Things): A Conversation with Ellie Lumpesse - 3 of 3

Frédérik: Let’s take a different tack and discuss happier associations with sex, like music. In episode 6 of Bedroom Radio, you have a great interview with Mr. Melvis of Comfort Stand, a non-commercial, non-profit net label dedicated to distributing music to the interested masses free of charge. You specifically talk about the wildly popular and widely downloaded album, Wakka Chikka Wakka Chikka, Porn Music for the Masses Volume 1, a fascinating project that asked musicians to submit their interpretation of what music for a porn movie (or a sexual fantasy) sounds like. It would actually be interesting to see what people would come up with if asked to create a soundtrack for sex without filtering it through perceptions of porn movies. Then again, your Bedroom Radio podcasts might very well fit the bill. What prompted you to bring music and sex together the way you did? What do you put into Bedroom Radio? What do you want listeners to take away from it?

Ellie: I wish that I could say I had some grand motivation or goal but that all came together later. The podcast actually started when I offered to help Sam Sugar find musical segments for his now defunct Podnography podcast and he turned his nose up at what I sent him. So, I decided to make my own podcast. That was episode one. From there things grew, and for me sex and music are a natural fit. See, music is deeply sexy and emotional and sex is all about rhythm and tempo and melodies interacting. Bedroom Radio has been many things at many times - a vanity tool, an outlet for exhibitionism, a place to share deeply held convictions, an excuse to flirt with the people I am interviewing, and something that I still get nagged about on an almost daily basis. (For the record, I am trying to find my muse for new episodes, perhaps I'll interview you?). As for what I want my listeners to take away - I don't have an agenda like that although I know what many of them take away. First, a surprising number are really into the music and love that I introduce them to new bands. Plenty take away an orgasm or two because they decided to join in the fun when I get down to business. I think that at least a few take away a new respect for sexuality and the variety of ways it is manifested in this world.

Frédérik: In going through the comments to your blog posts, I notice the occasional response along the lines of “if you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile.” Describe a sexual encounter, someone will ask for pictures. Show a picture and someone will ask to see more. Do you ever feel that reader or listener expectations defy your own expectations of the kind of relationship you have with your audience?

Ellie: I think it is a natural response. Sometimes my lack of elaboration or supporting materials is an intentional tease, sometimes it is an oversight, often it is a practical reality - there is no picture or I don't have time to take one, etc. I take these sorts of request in stride and only get annoyed by them when they seem demanding. My relationship with my audience has evolved through the years and has changed most since I started doing phone work with some of them. I would be a liar if I didn't say that those readers that are clients get more access to me and perhaps more of their requests fulfilled. At the end of the day, though, I'm doing this for myself. If my podcast or blog happen to help you get off - awesome, I get off so why not you? But they aren't there for that purpose so I won't alter them to accomplish that sort of bottom line.

Frédérik: In the first post on your blog, back in March 2005, you wrote: “I am a 23 year old female in a committed relationship with a wonderful boyfriend. I have been with him for 2 and a half years and we have had some amazing sex. He has taught me everything I know at this point and I am becoming increasingly adventurous.” Since then, you’ve certainly had a many positive experiences with group sex, spankings, bondage, and so on. But you’ve also bumped into a few potentially thorny situations, like your encounter with the Professor “conspiring to cheat on his wife” through Adult Friend Finder. There has also been the plain creepy, like that guy who kept insisting he isn’t a pedophile. In other words, you’ve met many different people under varying circumstances, good and bad. How have your experiences changed your outlook on sex since that first post, (or since even before that first post)? How would you describe your journey?

Ellie: I would say that most of those examples you have mentioned are rather mild or comical. In general I haven't written about the more difficult consequences of my actions because they have been either painful or embarrassing or both. The exception to that is the breakup I went through with that boyfriend I wrote about in the intro post. We were experimenting with an open relationship and I met Jay during that time, Jay fell in love, C couldn't handle it and it was a huge mess. I chose the chance for exploring the world of truly open relationships over the man that I was madly and completely in love with. I didn't leave C for Jay but because we had reached an impasse. I knew, quite clearly and quite irrefutably that I was capable of love with more than one man because I was doing it. C knew that he couldn't share me that way because it was hurting him too much. Ironically, the end result of a year or so of experimenting with Jay was trying to excise feelings from any extracurricular activities we might engage in because I was just that afraid of what had happened before. C and I are still dear friends, and our relationship now has peaks and valleys because, well, we're still sad and there is still pain even after almost two years. When I look back on my journey that is the biggest challenge I have faced and the only time I really questioned if I was doing the right thing. I have asked myself the standard questions, am I doing this to get attention? Do I respect myself? Yes. Absolutely, but relationships are still hard especially when other people get involved. The discovery of myself as a sexual being over the last 5 years (when I first lost my virginity) has been a pleasure for me. The fact that I have gotten to share some of that with others has really influenced the way that path has taken me. And it has probably gotten me laid more often. ;)

(That's all, folks. Many, many thanks to Ellie for sharing her time and insight.)

Back to Part 2
Return to Introduction

Busting Paradigms (Among Other Things): A Conversation with Ellie Lumpesse - 2 of 3

Frédérik: How we talk about sex, of course, is vital in considering sex within the politics of culture. In one of your posts, you bring up Michel Foucault to question “standards of sexual misconduct and expectations of men and boys to be always already sexualized.” But there’s more to the issue of seeing women as too demure and subject to victimhood to be capable of sexual predation – an assumption criticized by individualist feminists like Wendy McElroy – namely, how sexual identity is constructed (manufactured?) through language. Here’s where we drag in America’s famous paradoxical Puritanism. Just the other day, I noticed the cover of Cosmopolitan proclaiming, in bold letters, articles explaining dazzling new sex techniques and exposés of men’s secret sexual desires. There are plenty of books and magazines and other gab-fests filled with words about sex. To abuse Foucault a bit, we have sex as seen through the discursive lenses of sin (religion), pathology (medicine), and women’s bodies (culture), to which we can add sex as an object of self-help. Is it possible that sex has become too logocentric, too bound up in words? If we consider Senator Larry Craig’s unfortunate situation, or Bill Clinton and the world’s most famous blowjob, or even the fact that sex toys are banned/ restricted in states like Texas and Alabama, doesn’t it seem like where sex talk is tolerated or encouraged, it’s a heresy to actually have sex?

Ellie: I think I understand what you're getting at but as a writer and a talker primarily, I guess I bristle at the idea. I also don't think that talking about sex and having sex are particularly different things. But there are safe ways to talk about it (heterosexual, monogamous) and dangerous ways (everything that isn't that). I see sex and sexuality themselves as texts - along with every other experience in the world. There are subversive forms of this text and trite pap. That is without even mentioning that the jabber about sex clearly cuts both ways and the conservative tidal wave of repression is lowering the quality of discourse for those that are interested in really discussing sex and sexuality.

Frédérik: To delve into that paradox a bit more, we live in a culture where Janet Jackson’s nipple causes an uproar, but except for occasional mutters, it’s okay for sex to be used in another way: advertising. Sex isn’t just sex, but a means to sell. Interestingly, while it’s culturally acceptable for sex to persuade people to buy things like magazines (or cars, or clothes, or etc), a line is drawn when the sexual act itself is a commercial transaction. Provided that there’s no harm done and consent is given, what people do should, in principle, be no one’s business but their own – even if it includes an exchange of money. Logically, that would include – much to many people’s discomfort – phone sex, pornography, even prostitution. Given that you’re recently added phone sex among your many endeavors, getting paid to do something you enjoy, what’s your take on the how sex and business intersect?

Ellie: Sex and money are two things dear to my heart. Why not combine them, eh? I think what we are seeing in the phenomena of sex being used to sell is that it is capitalizing on the transference of desire. If an advertiser can inspire lust in the audience, a lust that will not be fulfilled (and perhaps the audience does not even want it to be fulfilled) then they can use that energy and momentum to sell you anything. Of course I think that audiences are getting smarter than this and in turn, advertisers are becoming more self-reflexive in their use of sex as a marketing tactic. Still, unfulfilled desire - or desire re-deployed down a variety of rabbit holes has been a mainstay of advertising forever. Selling sex is a completely different question because that allows the desire to be fulfilled. Where sex work fits in here is tricky. In my mind sex work is a monolith and I don't draw philosophical, ethical, or social distinctions between phone sex, prostitution, and pornography (although they each comprise of unique job hazards and practical considerations.) Of course among these, prostitution is legal while the other two categories are not. Again, it comes down to the fulfillment (in a physical and bodily sense) of a desire. I find that one of the primary arguments against sex work (once you get past the mumbo jumbo about social ills, etc.) is that it deligitimizes a beautiful expression of love. Sex certainly can be a beautiful expression. It can also be completely mechanical. And it can also fall somewhere in between. Many people feel that if they pay for sex they are admitting that they *have* to pay for sex and that is a deeply humiliating thing (this is why phone domination is such a bigger market than vanilla phone work - subs are more willing to admit it because they get off on the domination). My opinion on selling sexual services is straight-forward. If you are talented and passionate about any other career, no one would dream of saying "If you really cared about this, you would do it for free." Sex work is no different. It is work and passion and it deserves compensation (not to mention better political and economic recognition and protections.)

(to be continued...)


On to Part 3
Back to Part 1
Return to Introduction

24.9.08

a shoe without sole - silly or sublime?

Take a look at this shoe, if it can be called that. (Note: the image was taken from a Huffington Post article and is here displayed under Fair Use principles. If this is nonetheless objectionable to whomever holds the copyright, I will remove it.)


It evokes, at first impression, total disbelief. Ridicule, even. There’s nothing practical about the “shoe.” It leaves toes exposed to stubbing and soles exposed to dirt (and other substances). It’s nonsensical. But in an example of the art of criticism, in which a gut reaction isn’t enough to properly appreciate something – whether positively or negatively – a little bit of consideration can bring about a change of perspective.

For one thing, the shoe is clearly not designed for practical wear and day-to-day use. It’s a question of form as it relates to function, and to condemn the shoe for being impractical is asking the form to function in a way that counters its design. What we’re left with, then, is the shoe as an aesthetic and conceptual experience. The sole-less heel is a concept, a gamble, a toy; this is the basis on which the shoe is best judged. And on this level, the shoe’s designers Aminaka and Wilmont should be credited for their imagination.


Take a look again. Notice how the heel block conforms to the heel of the foot. Notice how the straps not only anchor the heel in place, but give the shoes a gladiatorial look softened by the choice of material. The shoe’s engineering is masterful as it serves a concept of risk: exposing the foot, elevating it off the ground. It’s ultimately clever in its audacity – could it even be sexy? It does possess an idealized fetishism that brings, inevitably, sex into the design. When seen in the context of Aminaka and Wilmont’s 2009 spring/summer collection (see here and here), the sole-less heel is, not a folly, but an artistic expression of fashion perfectly suited, not for the real world, but for the universe of the catwalk and, perhaps, the private home where sharp objects and dirty substances aren’t a threat.
What seemed silly at first has become, amazingly, sublime.

So when Ebert addresses the role of (film) critics in light of people’s hostility to criticism…

I believe a good critic is a teacher. He doesn't have the answers, but he can be an example of the process of finding your own answers. He can notice things, explain them, place them in any number of contexts, ponder why some "work" and others never could. He can urge you toward older movies to expand your context for newer ones. He can examine how movies touch upon individual lives, and can be healing, or damaging. He can defend them, and regard them as important in the face of those who are "just looking for a good time." He can argue that you will have a better time at a better movie. We are all allotted an unknown but finite number of hours of consciousness. Maybe a critic can help you spend them more meaningfully.
…I offer my own pennies in adding that the art of criticism – regardless of what the object of that criticism is, whether film, shoes, or whatever – is the art of appreciation, of looking more deeply into things. In other words, it is a reflection of the view that the examined life - both the good and the bad - is a life worth living.

Busting Paradigms (Among Other Things): A Conversation with Ellie Lumpesse - 1 of 3

Frédérik: Some time ago I submitted a story to a notable online erotica magazine and it was accepted. As the story went through the editing/publishing process, I considered how several contributors, past and present, chose to have their stories published under a pseudonym. Ultimately, I decided to use my own name, but I find it interesting when people decide that anonymity is better than being out in the open. Of course, stories in a magazine are relatively uncontroversial today; reading erotica seems to have regained a certain hipness. But you go beyond fiction. From blogging about the sex you’ve had, which includes threesomes and group sex, to bedroom radio, in which you podcast a blend of groovy off-the-beaten-track music and recordings of yourself masturbating or having sex with your boyfriend, you share considerably more of your sexuality than most people. Given general attitudes towards sexual expression, it doesn’t come as a surprise that you neither publish personally identifiable information about yourself nor show your face in pictures. But what does it say about our culture that we require a mask of anonymity for something as fundamental as sex? Do you ever feel restricted by having to remain anonymous to some degree? At what point, if ever, does the personal, meaning the sexual, cross over into something political?

Ellie: I desperately want to show my face and be forthright about who I am (given the confines of safety considerations, of course) but unfortunately, I'm not at a place in my life where I think that is a good decision. Nonetheless, I have grappled with these issues because I am very proud of my writing, podcasting, and sex work - as proud as I am of any of my academic accomplishments. It has been important to me to always express to my audience that shame does not cause me to obscure my identity but rather practical considerations of job security. I hope to one day create the type of career for myself that will allow me to be open with my readers and open with the other people in my life about my online activities. I have broken this boundary on several occasions by meeting people I've met through my blog and telling friends and loved ones about my writing.

As for what this says about our culture, I find it hard to draw a conclusion that broad. Certainly I could echo the pro-sex shrieking that we are still neo-Puritans and we are afraid of sex and especially afraid of women that are open and forthright about sex. However, I think the issue is more complex than that. Personally, I have a career in education and considerations of acceptable conduct for a teacher are important to me. I don't think it needs to be a secret that I have a sex life and I am open about this with my students. In fact, I've taught Melissa Gira's statements about fake women when discussing sex work with my freshman comp students. But, it would make me pretty uncomfortable to teach a classroom full of students that had read my blog or listened to my podcast. While the mask of anonymity is repressive, I don't regard it as forced upon me but rather a personal decision that is correct for me at this time. There are certainly a number of women in adult entertainment and well-known cultural critics and writers that do not keep this mask and do quite well. I guess the long and short of it is that if I ever feel I can be as successful as some of my role modes (Rachel Kramer Bussel, Tristan Taormino, Violet Blue, Melissa Gira) I will be lucky enough to be as open as them as well. The sexual is always already political - it is an expression and a text produced by each of us that can be interpreted and translated as we each see fit. I feel honored to be a small voice contributing to openess with sexuality and changing opinions one at a time. In my work as a phone sex operator especially, I feel that I am performing a political and educational function. That sounds disgustingly preachy but by that I mean that I have encountered so many men that are shocked by me and have to re-evaluate their own ideas about what is sexy and what is intelligent to accommodate me. To put it in the most crass terms, I bust a paradigm while they bust a nut.

(to be continued...)

On to Part 2
Return to Introduction