Update (10/22): Winner! In an unannounced and unexpected move, Kevin Smith WAS at the screening last night, and stuck around for over an hour after the movie to do a Q&A with the audience. We really lucked out because we were a little late in getting to the theatre and ended up getting seats near the front. While that wasn't ideal for the movie, it meant that we were about 10 feet from Kevin the entire time he was there. If you've seen any of his "An Evening With Kevin Smith" dvds it was exactly like that. I'm not sure if he'd take it as a compliment or an insult, but I think I laugh harder just hearing him talk for an hour than I do watching any of his movies (and I really like his movies). In any case, the movie was solidly good but not great. Definitely a must for anyone who enjoys either Kevin Smith or Seth Rogen movies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/21
So, apparently I’m talking to myself now (or, more accurately, talking to Becky and Dan). My 4 posts in a 7-day span (which I think is a record for me) resulted in a whopping 6 comments (and 2 of those were mine). Yeesh, was my call for civility really that insulting?
So, last weekend my friend Joe and I went to the burgeoning metropolis that is La Porte, IN to campaign for Obama. I had been hoping that all we’d have to do was hang some literature on peoples doorknobs but we were out there knocking on people’s doors and talking to them. While I’m glad I did it, it just really isn’t my thing. I have a real problem with offering up unsolicited opinions to people (and FYI, I believe that by visiting this site you are implicitly asking for my opinion). I don’t like to be bothered by random campaign people and I assume no one else does either, so it just made the whole experience uncomfortable. What can I say, I’m just not a salesman. I’m also not exactly sure if we did any good. We met some strong Obama supporters that were happy to see us, and also some strong McCain supporters who were . . .less happy to see us, but I don’t really think we changed anybody’s mind. I guess in the end you have to believe in the power of numbers; if 10,000 people all knock on 50 doors somehow minds do get changed even if it can’t be directly traced to any one canvasser. Or maybe that’s just what I’m telling myself so I don’t feel like I wasted 4 gallons of gas and an entire Saturday.
In case the market hasn’t made you nauseous lately maybe this will do the trick . Some 21-year old ate a 15lb. burger in less than 5 hours. And the 15lbs was just the beef itself (pre-cooked). The bun and trimmings brought the total weight to 20.2 lbs. His prize for this feat? $400, 3 t-shirts, and a certificate. No matter how he invests that $400, I’m doubting it will come close to covering the costs of the inevitable angioplasty 20 years down the road. Don’t get me wrong, eating 20lbs of food in 5 hours is impressive, but so is maintaining consciousness while relentlessly beating yourself in the head with a hammer for a half hour. Doesn’t make either idea any less stupid. Of course, this is coming from someone who once drank 14 beers in 85 minutes and (on a separate occasion) decided to walk onto a semi-frozen lake in mid-March, so I think I know a thing or two about stupid ideas.
Going to see the new Kevin Smith movie tonight (Zack and Miri Make a Porno) as part of the Chicago International Film Festival. Sometimes as part of these they have special guests introduce the film and I had been hoping that maybe Kevin Smith would be here but it looks like no such luck. Still, it’s always fun to see a movie in a crowded theatre 10 days before its release.
I’m also really looking forward to seeing Saw V this weekend. I have no idea why, but I am.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Saw V? I had no idea they made III and IV. Are any of the sequels any good? The first one was ok. I saw "The American Ruling Class" last night. Written by the editor of Harper's, Lewis Lapham. It was ok. I just realized I have about 9 movie channels that previously went unnoticed until I got crazy with the page down button. That was a great day.
Unrelated:
1. Did you know vegetable oil can go bad? Well I didn't until just now after I'd already mixed up half a batch of brownies with it and it was too late. UGH! Batter was so gross I couldn't even eat any of it, so you know (since I love brownie dough) that it must have been vile. (And that oil was before its expiration date, too, before you start heckling... )
2. Also, I saw a picture today of some people demonstrating and I realized that anytime I see an abundance of American flags in amongst the demonstrators, generally the group is demonstrating for a conservative cause. So I got to thinking: When exactly was it that the American flag, and furthermore the idea of being patriotic, got annexed by the right? That's weird. Liberals-- or anyone else who demonstrates about something-- they do so in the name of this country, too, do they not? Part of being American is being able to speak up and make it better, and whosoever chooses to do that should be entitled to wave as many flags as they wish. I am tired of tensing up every time I see an abundance of American flags waving because I associate it with groups that dislike me and what I stand for. That's taking my patriotism away from me. I think we should take it back.
3. This morning on the bus I made the unwise choice of sitting in the suspiciously unoccupied seat. Found out it was because there was an old muttering man next to me. Weird, imaginary conversation with self man. But also vaguely talking to me, or everyone else on the bus. "...Yeah, I know you see me. I hate you too. ...Ridiculous, isn't it? ...Got my bag. I even washed my clothes. What more do you want? ...'Cause we're all just here and no one talks to each other... and now she's taking out her phone. Look at him; he's looking out the window. ...You people don't know what compassion is. I know compassion...." etc. And so, like, you can't argue with what he's saying, but.... and the tone of his muttering is so gosh darn friendly, and he's so seemingly weel adjusted and calm about it, I imagine he could easily be someone's neighbor, or grandpa, just barely on the streets not two months yet. And so he's talking to me, sort of--yeah, directly to me, calling me on me ignoring him, but... you know? It's not safe. Right? I dunno. Maybe if I was a person who knew how to talk people down, like those crisis management people, psychologists, hostage negotiators... MAN that would be a good skill. But I don't, so.
4. Finally, John, if you want to get more readers you have to go post on other people's blogs. Then the readers of those blogs will come back here and start reading yours. Start my going to a blog you like and clicking on the blogs in their links. Follow that path around and in no time you'll come across some good stuff. (I always like www.iwanski.blogspot.com.)
Sorry, that's iwanski.blogspot.com, without the www.
Dan - Hmm, good films? No. But I enjoy them anyway. Really not sure why. And it's become something of a tradition for me to see them the day they come out during my lunch break (I did it with Saw III and IV). Actually, I liked Saw II better than the first one, so I'd call that one good. The other 2 are watchable and nothing more, and I don't exoect this one to be any different.
Becky - Wow, that's a lot of random thoughts.
The flag - In the largest sense, the answer is the same as why they get to be the Jesus party: because they say they are. But for specific reasons, I think it comes down to 3 main things: 2 of them issues and one of them an attitude. The issues were gun control and flag burning, both of which were platforms for the Democratic party in the 80s (and have since been abandoned). Since guns are guaranteed by the Constitution, it provided an easy excuse for anyone against the reform of gun laws to wave around a flag as a symbol of supporting the Constitution. Similarly, when liberals were for allowing the burning of the flag as a matter of free speech, it became an easy emotional appeal for those against it to just bring out the flag and wave it around (even though free speech is also a constitutional right). There was a poignant point made by either Bill Maher or Jon Stewart (can't remember which) recently who asked "why is it always the places that most support the 2nd amendment who least support the 1st?" Lastly is the differing attitudes between liberals and conservatives (and I'm lumping and stereotyping here). When conservatives get upset about something, they tend to direct their rage against the "liberals who are destroying America" and so they wave around the flag to show that what they believe is what America really stands for. When liberals get upset they certainly are pissed at conservatives but they tend to act more ashamed or embarrased by America and thus they don't feel like waving around a patriotic symbol. Obviously they believe (and rightly so, in my opinion) that there is nothing more patriotic than demanding the best from your country and always wanting it to better itself, but it ends up providing easy fodder for the other side to criticise them as "anti-American" or "blame America firsters." I think Obama has done a very good job in reframing that this election (though obviously with the attacks going on now he is not immune) by spurring people on for change while not blaming everything on America (instead, he basically blames everything on Bush).
Crazy bus people - I had a similar experience last night on the way home on the red line. There was just some youngish (probably mid-30s) homeless guy sitting down and crying and asking people to help him. Sad as it is, there's just not a whole lot you can do abotu it. If you give him money, that just guarantees that he's gonna be out there tomorrow doing the same thing. I almost think if you get to that point, you should just go out and rob a bank. You don't even need a weapon. Just write a note that says you have one and they'll give it to you. If you get caught, well at least you don't have to worry about your meals for a while. And if you don't then you can use the money to get yourself an apartment and then a job and put your life back together. Of course, it'd be nice if we actually had something of a social safety net that would allow people to rehabilitate their life in a more legal fashion, but that's never been as big of a priority.
Finally, I'm really not looking to increase my readership. I'm confident that the ~10 or so people that periodically read my blog continue to do so. Most of them just don't feel like commenting anymore for some reason, and I just found it ironic that it occurred right around the time when I've had some of my more interesting posts (in my opinion anyway).
Just rob a bank? Errr… this is one of those times where you’re kidding and I just don’t get it, right?
I don’t think going to prison is going to put you back together so much as it is going to tear you apart. Plus, if you’re Libertarian it doesn’t seem like that’s the advice you should be giving—“Well, you’ve obviously screwed up your life beyond repair, so you might as well give up and turn over management of it to the state?”
Then your other thought—if you don’t get caught, you can use the money to get your own apartment and a job and put your life back together… that just doesn’t make sense either. I find it hard to imagine someone going that last, dirty route as the proactive first step in stepping up to a new socioeconomic class. What, are they going to rob a new bank every week as a form of income?
But the bigger question is, how do you become un-homeless, anyway? ‘Cause it seems like once you go, it starts to affect you. It changes your outlook, you get depressed and hopeless, and possibly crazy…. then pretty soon you’re a lifer. And at that point, even if you have access food, resources, and/or money, you won’t be able to get out because you yourself prevent you from getting your life back together. You and your own paralyzed psyche and lack of motivation.
There’s a really interesting This American Life where they talk to these two homeless guys—how they became homeless, things they learned to get by on the street, and how they got out of it (or didn’t).
Here’s a direct link to the episode. The homeless guys are in the middle, but the whole thing’s really good actually.
I'm not actually sure if I'm joking or not. I'm certainly not saying that robbing a bank is a *good* idea. It's more of a commentary that given the choice between committing a non-violent crime and leading a perpetually vacuous existence I'm not sure which decision is better or worse. The "advantage" of doing something like robbing a bank is that even though it's desperation it at least shows that you still have some fight left and believe that you have some power over your life. Once you become apathetic and accepting you either go crazy, get horribly depressed, or just get heavily religious and believe that you're suffering now for joy in the next life (or you pinball between all 3 of those).
This is again the old axiom about "an ounce of prevention" because by far the best chance to help someone is before they become homeless. Once they are, except for the cases where people are staying with family or friends and are just homeless by technicality, very few of them ever become "unhomeless" as you say. Because you are right that it changes you. The same societal rules do not apply so you either have to adapt to the new paradigm or you won't survive.
"or just get heavily religious...."
You heard him, that elitist. I suppose the homeless 'cling' to their cans o' beans too? Well they dont. They just want people to respect hand-bean laws and leave them alone.
Yeah, that certainly was the train ride wasnt it? In Europe you see a lot more of people playing on the guilt card. Like the guys with the badly drawn 'go cubes' (yes Cubes) down on game day. People with towels set up where they lay in a praying position waiting for money. And in Italy they have programs to get people off the streets, but tourism is so rampant that people can get plenty of money by getting a kitten or puppy from a shelter, sit/sleep while looking like praying, and getting cash.
And I know you were thinking it.. both of the people asking for cash (one guy with his crying act, one girl with an 'in your face gimme change' wanderer) were on a train. A train that costs $2. I dunno... I guess they're on there all day, so they must get more than $2 back. Its interesting to see the investment. "Well I could go get $2 worth of whatever, or spend that to go on the train... people get off/on... tight quarters... i could get some cash."
I know a lot of cities (especially ones with high tourism) say pan-handling hurts the commerce, the tourism, and rarely helps the homeless do anything but stay homeless. What you really should give to are the private safety nets and programs to get people off the streets.
http://www.downtownmemphis.com/domain/cleansafe/cleansafe_panhandling.asp
for example... They want people to stop giving. That makes less people come to see it as an option to continue the lifestyle. And once the option of thats out, more things have to be done.
http://www.downtownmemphis.com/domain/cleansafe/
i meant
http://nakedloon.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/panhandlers-full.jpg
But its hard to say no to some people
I would give that man money just for originality. Problem is, he might not be joking (or at least he might think he's not joking).
Yeah, I've been away. I'm back for now, because John guilted me into it, but I might disappear until after the weekend.
I had been watching/reading/talking a lot of politics, and just needed to recharge my political batteries. I cut out all my political interneting (including this site,) limited my TV news to local news and the Daily Show, and skipped politics articles in the papers.
This time of year (especially in a year divisible by 4 or even 2) it is hard to get away from it, and I just needed to clear my mind.
I've never liked ANY of the Saw movies. I like horror movies, but I've never liked violence for violence sake. I mean, the category 'Torture Porn' was basically created by the first Saw movie, and has gone downhill ever since. Blood and killing can be good, but I prefer it in the context of suspense, or some sort of morality tale. "Frailty" comes to mind.
Oh, and I love camp-horror too. Can't get enough camp. (No, not like Camp Crystal Lake. Camp like campy.)
I think it is important to point out that while liberals may have 'given up' trying to campaign on the issues of gun control and flag burning, they haven't stopped believing in them.
Crazy guy story time? Not crazy, but how about homeless guy story time. While in Champaign, I did (state mandated) community service. I volunteered at a men's homeless shelter (5th and John iirc.) I washed clothes, washed dishes, helped serve food etc... One day one of the regulars came in and he was all excited because he just got a new pair of shoes (from the church next door for free/cheap.) They were nice shoes, and he was going around showing everyone. The next day he came in again and was miserable because he had thrown out his old shoes, and the new shoes were too small and his feet ached. He was miserable and in a lot of pain, and it took a lot of self control to hold back the laughter when ALL of the other homeless guys started laughing at him.
Not the most pleasant way to spend 50 hours, but I got it done.
Oh, and John, the third "Evening with Kevin Smith" dvd comes out soon (although being the self-promoting whore that he is, I expect he told you that.)
Weir - I hate the term "torture porn". It's just a made up term used to set up a straw man that no one can defend and sound rational. It's like when Republicans invented the term "death tax" in 2000 to replace "estate tax". Just a useless label designed to prompt an emotional response.
There was a time when horror movies with excessive violence used to just be called "gore films", but apparently that wasn't good enough. I would invite you to stack up the original Texas Chainsaw massacre, the original Dawn of the Dead, and either of the first two Hellraiser movies and tell me that the images are not vastly more disturbing than anything in any of the Saw movies (or either of the Hostel movies for that matter).
And I completely reject the idea that they contain "violence for the sake of violence." That defines a slasher film to a T (although, yes, those are done in a much more campy style usually). One of the main things I like about the Saw series is that it is NEVER violence for the sake of violence. The series is about a serial killer that plays by very specific rules. He never kills anyone who is innocent and they always have a chance to save themselves. True, you go into the movie knowing that most of them won't, but again the same can be said about any slasher film.
I think the reason Saw gets such a big reaction from people has a lot more to do with its psychological scariness than any actual image. The idea of just waking up in some horrific contraption and being forced to do something inhuman to save your life taps into a very primal fear; much morseo than the idea of some superhuman, knife-wielding maniac at a lake. I refer to this as the "Reservoir Dogs effect". That film always comes up on the list of most violent films but there is next to no violence in it. I think a grand total of 6 people get shot in the movie (and 4 of them are in the last 2 minutes and 1 of those happens offscreen). But there is the perception of far more violence because Tim Roth is bleeding for the whole movie and there are some close-ups of the cop without an ear (even though there is no shot of him actually having it cut off). Where most people just get horribly disturbed is when it looks like the cop is going to get burned alive. But the interesting thing is that even though it doesn't happen, people are just as disturbed as if it had. It's like they've already gone there in their mind so even though the movie doesn't go there it doesn't matter.
One final anecdote on a similar phenomenon. Listening to the Ghostbusters commentary track, they talk about the scene where Sigourney Weaver is in her apartment and hears a strange noise coming from the refrigerator. When she opens the door she sees what looks like a hell dimension with some snarling beast roaring at her and then she screams and slams the door. The interesting part of it is that when they first screen-tested the movie they weren't done with all the special effects yet, so after she opens the fridge door it just cut to a black screen that said "Scene Missing" and then it cut back to show her screaming and slamming the door. People were far more scared of that then they were when they actually had the real scene in there. It's the proverbial "stick your hand into a box when you have no idea what's inside." Your mind often makes things far scarier than what the reality is.
To get a little dork for a second before I go back into horror, the same thing happened on Buffy during the tripped out David Lynch episode at the end of season five. They got complaints about the 'lesbian scene.' In fact, the only showed Willow & Tara sitting next to each other, and showed Xander's reaction to the makeout. I always thought taht scene was kinda hot until I heard that story and realized everything happens off camera.
I have no problem with the phrase 'torture porn.' (You know what I have a problem with? George Clooney being tapped to star in a remake of "The Birds." Seriously. Why?) Recent horror movies RELY on the violence, and there is rarely a discernable motive. I don't know, maybe it is because it is human vs. human and not something supernatural and that is why I find it distasteful.
The last 3 movies I found scary were:
1. The Grudge. (Don't know why, but this flick had me turning on hallway lights at night as I walked through my house. Something about dead kids.)
2. The Ring. (Surprisingly, I was scared the second time I saw it but not the first.
3. Blair Witch. (Not surprisingly, I was scared the first time I saw it in a QUIET theater with 50 people. The second time in a sold out theater and people talking and eating it was not scary.)
The plots were original and well scripted.
From what I remember of the Saws that I saw, they reminded me of Law & Order episodes. Cops tracking down a serial killer.
Allright, lets bottle the end. The main attraction of the Saw movies is the violence. We are on the fifth one now. People are not buying tickets to get wrapped up in the story or to see if they catch the bad guy, they are buying tickets saying to each other "Remember in Saw 4 how he set that guy up to mutilate himself in that grotesque way? I can't wait to see how they top THAT!"
(Oh yeah, and Hannibal. Most people hated that movie, but it creeped the hell out of me for days.)
OK, I guess my real problem with the term "torture porn" is that it specifically implies a sexual excitement from violence, and for the vast majority of the viewing public that is not the case. I mean, should we start referring to action movies as "explosion porn"?
I will admit a fascination with the maccabre, but I just reject that it has anything to do with sex. In the end I watch Saw movies probably for the same reason that I decided to visit a torture museum in Amsterdam. It's the "I can't bear to watch yet I can't turn away" phenomenon.
I think the first two Saw movies do have a very good story behind them. The end of the 2nd one in particular, in my opinion, has a twist that's better than anything M. Night Shyamalan has ever written. The last two movies have definitely deteriorated immensely in terms of pretty much everything (acting, writing, plausibility) and I would agree that most people go to see them now with a "how can they top this" mentality. But I don't think I would like them if that's all they offered. They always have something else that I don't think people give them enough credit for. For example, the 3rd one was interesting because the most disturbing scene in the film has nothing to do with torture or a trap, and while the main story of the 4th one was pretty stupid and implausible, about a third of the movie was dedicated to Jigsaw's backstory and I thought that was pretty interesting.
Ultimately I'm not going to talk you or anyone else into liking these movies. Really it's one of those where it's either your thing or it's not. And I certainly don't try to claim that these represent good cinema. I just view them as guilty pleasures and don't understand the "danger" that some people (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) think these films represent.
On another note, The Grudge? Really? That's right, you're creeped out by children in horror movies aren't you? That's got to be the only explanation, because I literally laughed my way through that one. I mean, how can you be scared of "ghosts" that have this perpetual look of surprise on their faces? And speaking of kids in horror movies, have you seen The Orphanage? That movie would scare the crap out of you (and, incidentally, that is a film that I definitely consider to be a great horror movie).
Nah, never saw the orphanage. I'll have to check it out.
I like scenes that are the most disturbing but have nothing to do with blood/guts.
That is one of the reasons I liked Hannibal so much. Even though you had Hopkins cutting off Liota's skull, the most disturbing part of the movie was Lecter (sp?) feeding the brain to the little kid at the end. That made me shiver. Also, I liked it because I thought it played the two sides of his personality (gentleman/killer) against each other in a way that even Silence of the Lambs couldn't.
Also, I think it bears mentioning again.
Frailty.
Frailty.
Frailty.
See it.
Oh yaeh, and when I use the phrase 'torture porn' I'm not talking about anything sexual. I don't think that is what the term was invented for (god, I hope not.) All movies use certain elements to help the audiences "get off" and it doesn't matter if that is torture, explosions, little kids, animals, etc...
And I am going to try to use "explosion porn" in a sentence today.
Post a Comment