The Social Contract, an idea first created by 18th century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, basically postulates a system in which people participate in a democracy following the basic rule that no one person will use his or her power in order to disenfranchise another member of the society. This was an idea that heavily influenced our Founding Fathers.
In the Foucault-Chomsky Debate, Michel Foucault expresses his belief that the Social Contract is a sham.
As we continue to experience the increasing cascade of official actions against minority groups--rampant police homicide in Baltimore and Ferguson, laws passed and rhetoric spoken by our presidential candidates against homosexuals, women, and illegal immigrants, and with so few victories won on behalf of these populations, one begins to wonder if Foucault was right.
America was ostensibly a democracy on paper, but limited the voting population to white, land-owning males. Thomas Jefferson held slaves, and the population of slaves was established in the Three-Fifths Compromise, wherein a state's slave population was officially counted for only 60% of the actual slave population. If you were black, you were only 60% of a person. Women gained the right to vote only in 1920. Following the Civil War, while African-Americans were mostly liberated from slavery, they still found themselves everywhere oppressed by a white power structure determined to--despite what was stated in the law--maintain its dominance. This continues to the present day, where African-Americans are still not afforded equal opportunity for economic success, and are still disproportionately targeted by an oppressive law enforcement regime built by a paranoid society in the aftermath of white crime.
The police were placed in public schools in order to defend against mass shootings, such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and many others. As the public school system became a regular police beat, infractions that would normally be punished by administrative action (at the discretion of teachers, principals, etc), became the jurisdiction of police. As a result, minority children are unfairly dragged and locked into a legal system that immediately alienates them and destroys whatever chances they have of contributing productively to society. It is worth noting, also, that all mass shootings at schools with one exception have been perpetrated by white kids. Only the Virginia Tech shooting was perpetrated by a non-white student, and he was Korean (America loves Koreans!).
It is worth noting that in one case in Florida, a white 8th grade student was charged with felony cybercrime because he changed the desktop background of his teacher's computer using a password that was a secret to everyone. The school administration asserted that the test files on the teacher's computer had not been compromised, but Sheriff Chris Nocco pressed on: "Who knows what he has done?" If you don't know what he did, then what the hell are you charging him with? However, this student is still in the minority, and his case is just as absurd as any other. PBS reports that over 70% of in-school arrests and children reported to law enforcement by school administrations are of black or Latino descent.
In April 2015, an autistic 11 year-old child--who is black--was handcuffed and charged with disorderly conduct for kicking a trash can. I knew a kid in high school who had Asperger's. He once threw a trash can across the cafeteria because someone blocked his favorite Magic: The Gathering card during a game. We were all very amused. No, he wasn't arrested. The school psychologist called him over to calm down and take a breather. As far as I know, the kid has no criminal record, at least not consisting of anything at school. Why should the 11 year old black kid be treated any differently?
The point is that we need to recognize that our society doesn't do what it says it does. We don't treat people fairly, and everyone is constantly abusing their power in order to disenfranchise other people that they don't like.
"Let's write RFRA laws so we don't have to respect gay people." "Let's disenfranchise teenagers by not telling them how to have safe sex, and punish them for making natural choices without taking the necessary precautions." "Let's ruin some black lives today."
Power, especially in our ostensibly democratic society, in which--we claim--that everyone has personal autonomy, is still all about one-upping and destroying each other. We now find ourselves playing this game where any vote for the "wrong" candidate is a vote for complete annihilation. We don't expect that, if, say, a Republican candidate wins the presidency, that they won't go out of their way to marginalize and oppress certain groups. On the other hand, they see a Hillary or Bernie Sanders victory as opposing an immoral Liberal Reconstruction on the entire South. [You know what I think, but the point is clear.] This is what our democracy has become. This is why the Social Contract may be dead. And this is even before I bring up the omnipresent security/counter-terrorism apparatus.
Foucault said that all of us are potential delinquents, and this is pretty much true. It only takes one antagonistic brush with the law to alienate one completely from society, and isn't as though the police aren't looking for people to put in prison. For some--because of the color of their skin, for their socioeconomic background--it is possible to be reintegrated with society, but for others who aren't so lucky, for those who may be members of the minority, law enforcement exists for them.
They are not--and perhaps never will be, as a class--part of society. The rift, the struggle to contain and restrain them, is older than the nation itself, and the white, wealthy power structure will perpetually do all in its power to maintain its position, without a care for who or what gets caught in its grasp. The 8 year old who is being charged with cybercrime is merely an accident; its real target is the 11 year old who kicked a trash can. Both of these actions--changing a teacher's desktop wallpaper as a prank, and taking one's anger out on a garbage bin--are harmless. But one is white, and the other black. One got caught in the machine, the other was targeted.
There is a system of economic disparity that works in tandem with an oppressive law enforcement regime designed, much like a fishing net in a bathtub, to keep minorities under stricter behavioral norms than members of the majority. Literally any minor infraction--kicking a garbage can, even waging a water balloon fight--can trigger a hostile law enforcement response depending on one's minority status in society. If you are white and not wearing a hooded sweatshirt, you probably won't be treated as harshly than if you were of African-American descent.
There is one other phenomenon it is worth looking at: The Baltimore and Ferguson demonstrations. Here is a list of "11 Stupid Reasons White People Rioted". Over half of these are sports-related, and others are even more absurd. What do we say about white people rioting? Do we say "White people should shut up, learn their place, and obey the law"? Nope. But black people and young adults need to be on their best behavior (see Occupy Wall Street) in order to even be considered worth listening to. They are on unstable ground simply because they are black. It doesn't matter that their grievances are historically the most justified, and deserving of more attention and respect than the power structure and public at large has given them.
At least three issues in the 2016 Presidential Campaign Season are related to the disenfranchisement of minorities in the United States: 1) Same sex marriage and religious freedom restoration laws (the entire GOP caucus has supported RFRA laws) 2) Immigration, which I have not touched upon here, but Marco Rubio is quick to sell out his own group in order to conform with the Republican party line, and 3) Income inequality.
Income inequality is the other important example for the failure of the Social Contract: As political candidates construct SuperPACs, SuperMegaUltraPAC Alpha Edition DX (sorry for the Street Fighter Word Salad, though it isn't so far-fetched), and vast networks of financial pipelines, the ability for the uberwealthy, like Sheldon Adelson, to buy politicians for their own private use, enables them to manipulate the law to their private benefit, against the public at large. In the near future, business owners will have bought the law outright. Currently, there are private organizations like ALEC and the Heritage Foundation that draft laws on behalf of businesses, but these still have to go through Congress to be passed. Currently, Sheldon Adelson is on the verge of being in trouble with the law because he fired his executive because the executive refused to work with a Chinese crime syndicate. The reason why he tried to buy Mitt Romney and pretty much the entire GOP is because he wanted them to intervene in his case on his behalf. He attempted (and is still attempting) to buy the law.
In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, the executives and board members became extremely wealthy when the rest of the population was being laid off. The GOP, owned by the wealthy business owners who gained what everyone else had lost, called for "austerity" and massive cuts to the programs and services that people needed, and cried foul when the government wanted to do what it could in order to stimulate the economy again--the $800 billion stimulus package that Paul Krugman, to name one, felt should have been much more substantial.
One other interesting point is that people are constantly complaining that the tax law is FUBAR (I'll let you Google that). Let me just ask: Who do you think has the resources to write the tax law? The tax law is the result of a constant war between corporations constantly trying to buy the law in order to protect themselves. Who has the most lobbyists? Which company hires the most competent attorneys? Which company can most afford to buy the law?
Again, people are using their political power in a society that ostensibly believes in the principle of the Social Contract in order to attack other members of the society. The idea that the law can be bought--that it is not unassailable, that its nature can be deciphered for what it is (not even the terrifying, nebulous, nameless, thing that Kafka said it was), but a material artifact that can be wielded--like an ion particle beam cannon, like the Death Star, against one's enemies--is the most damaging fact. This truth, that the law has a price, above and taken into account with all else, is truly the death knell for the sanctity of the Social Contract.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
God Says I Will Go To Heaven As Long As I Don't Bake a Wedding Cake For A Gay Couple
Last week, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to a collective "What the f---!?". Many sources were quick to remind the enraged public that 19 other states--and the federal government--have similar (emphasis on "similar") laws on the books, but Indiana's RFRA has one critical difference: Indiana's RFRA applies to private businesses
The Atlantic makes clear:
How does a corporation believe in God? I once worked, a million years ago, as a delivery driver for a restaurant owned by a devout Korean woman. She eventually had to fire me because I drive like a normal person: "I was too slow" She said to me, as close to verbatim as I can remember, "I believe in Jesus Christ, but I have to protect my business." Sorry, Jesus. You just got knocked down a peg by the Almighty Dollar. We are a monotheistic society, but you are not its deity.
It is impossible, because survival and profit against all are paramount, for any business to hold any sort of authentic ethical or religious concern as long as the conflict of interest between doing what is profitable and doing what is morally good exists. True belief of any kind relies upon placing one's self at risk in order to do what is right. Businesses will never choose to put themselves at risk for any ethical cause unless they are sure that doing so will pay off as good PR and recoup whatever costs through their image as an "ethical" company. Any claim by a business enterprise to hold a religious belief can only be met with laughter and derision.
There is another, more pressing concern with this RFRA, however. The law allows the current power structure to take priority in disputes. More profoundly, it removes the burden of moral actions from the Christians it protects. It protects the people who believe my title.
These people don't need to be protected. Being a Christian is the most pedestrian thing a person can be in a country--nay, a world--that is 70-80% Christian. Christians, as the majority of the United States, do not comprise a protected class because being Christian (especially if you're a white Christian: that certainly helps) is basically doing what everyone else is doing. Do you know who needs to be protected? Gay people. Transgendered people. Transsexual people. Muslims. African-Americans. Women. People who do not identify with or fit into the greater power structure (specifically, the power structure that sent this law to Mike Pence's desk).
Gays, transsexuals, transgendered people, Muslims, African-Americans, and women need legal protection because they not only have experienced historical discrimination by such private entities, but in many cases, that same discrimination by private parties continues to the moment you read this sentence. Mike Pence's RFRA protects not the rights of victims of discrimination, but rather the supposed right of the power structure to discriminate. Except that the power to discriminate is not a right!
The entire spirit of the law up to the 21st century was built on citizens' autonomy from negative pressure by the church of England, by the King, and even--potentially--the power of domestic tyrants. The idea that individual human beings could be free to pursue their own "[lives], liberty, and...happiness" precludes any codification of discrimination of any kind! There is absolutely no right to discriminate against any group of people whatever, especially if that target is a minority.
There is one consolation to this RFRA: It reveals which group really is in control, particularly in the South and Midwest, where the Bible Belt is still a thing. It shows us just how far we still have to go to bump Jerry Falwell's ghost from power.
I will say that I don't quite blame Mike Pence. Mike Pence is just an idiot, he is the Adolf Eichmann in the whole thing: Just doing his job, just following orders. Nobody told him what it was that landed on his desk, because the only people who had access to him were the Evangelical groups who wanted it passed. I would imagine that the discussion went like this:
Pence (P): "Should I sign this?"
Evangelicals (E): "Yes! Sign it. Gay people are gross."
*Pence does what he's told, word gets out that the RFRA is now law. A media firestorm against Indiana and Mike Pence now ensues*
P: "WHOA WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SIGN!? THEY TOLD ME TO!"
Mike Pence is right now begging the legislature to "fix" the law because it wasn't until it was too late that he realized what he did. He cannot go on TV and defend the law to the public. He is getting absolutely annihilated because he signed a law that he didn't read to the benefit of the Evangelical base and to the detriment of everyone else. I predict, at this moment, that the Evangelicals throw Pence to the lions and do nothing.
The Atlantic makes clear:
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.The Atlantic article continues:
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”Essentially the law is both providing free license to discriminate and legitimizing the personhood of corporations vis-a-vis religious belief. Corporate entities such as Hobby Lobby now believe in God.
How does a corporation believe in God? I once worked, a million years ago, as a delivery driver for a restaurant owned by a devout Korean woman. She eventually had to fire me because I drive like a normal person: "I was too slow" She said to me, as close to verbatim as I can remember, "I believe in Jesus Christ, but I have to protect my business." Sorry, Jesus. You just got knocked down a peg by the Almighty Dollar. We are a monotheistic society, but you are not its deity.
It is impossible, because survival and profit against all are paramount, for any business to hold any sort of authentic ethical or religious concern as long as the conflict of interest between doing what is profitable and doing what is morally good exists. True belief of any kind relies upon placing one's self at risk in order to do what is right. Businesses will never choose to put themselves at risk for any ethical cause unless they are sure that doing so will pay off as good PR and recoup whatever costs through their image as an "ethical" company. Any claim by a business enterprise to hold a religious belief can only be met with laughter and derision.
There is another, more pressing concern with this RFRA, however. The law allows the current power structure to take priority in disputes. More profoundly, it removes the burden of moral actions from the Christians it protects. It protects the people who believe my title.
These people don't need to be protected. Being a Christian is the most pedestrian thing a person can be in a country--nay, a world--that is 70-80% Christian. Christians, as the majority of the United States, do not comprise a protected class because being Christian (especially if you're a white Christian: that certainly helps) is basically doing what everyone else is doing. Do you know who needs to be protected? Gay people. Transgendered people. Transsexual people. Muslims. African-Americans. Women. People who do not identify with or fit into the greater power structure (specifically, the power structure that sent this law to Mike Pence's desk).
Gays, transsexuals, transgendered people, Muslims, African-Americans, and women need legal protection because they not only have experienced historical discrimination by such private entities, but in many cases, that same discrimination by private parties continues to the moment you read this sentence. Mike Pence's RFRA protects not the rights of victims of discrimination, but rather the supposed right of the power structure to discriminate. Except that the power to discriminate is not a right!
The entire spirit of the law up to the 21st century was built on citizens' autonomy from negative pressure by the church of England, by the King, and even--potentially--the power of domestic tyrants. The idea that individual human beings could be free to pursue their own "[lives], liberty, and...happiness" precludes any codification of discrimination of any kind! There is absolutely no right to discriminate against any group of people whatever, especially if that target is a minority.
There is one consolation to this RFRA: It reveals which group really is in control, particularly in the South and Midwest, where the Bible Belt is still a thing. It shows us just how far we still have to go to bump Jerry Falwell's ghost from power.
I will say that I don't quite blame Mike Pence. Mike Pence is just an idiot, he is the Adolf Eichmann in the whole thing: Just doing his job, just following orders. Nobody told him what it was that landed on his desk, because the only people who had access to him were the Evangelical groups who wanted it passed. I would imagine that the discussion went like this:
Pence (P): "Should I sign this?"
Evangelicals (E): "Yes! Sign it. Gay people are gross."
*Pence does what he's told, word gets out that the RFRA is now law. A media firestorm against Indiana and Mike Pence now ensues*
P: "WHOA WHAT THE HELL DID I JUST SIGN!? THEY TOLD ME TO!"
Mike Pence is right now begging the legislature to "fix" the law because it wasn't until it was too late that he realized what he did. He cannot go on TV and defend the law to the public. He is getting absolutely annihilated because he signed a law that he didn't read to the benefit of the Evangelical base and to the detriment of everyone else. I predict, at this moment, that the Evangelicals throw Pence to the lions and do nothing.
Monday, February 23, 2015
The Quality of Christian Movies Reflects the Quality of Their Culture
Two weeks ago, I came across a Vox.com article discussing the quality (or lack thereof) of Christian films, most notably those of Kirk Cameron and an "answer" to 50 Shades of Grey called Old Fashioned.
Ambrosino, in his essay, basically argues that Christian films subsume the actual art of film to the message; what's important isn't that the film is good--that the actors give authentic performances, that the story is compelling, etc--but rather that the message itself is presented foremost and, worse, as literally as possible:
The possibility of telling a good, captivating story that engages audiences about philosophical/theological issues without beating them over the head seems to elude the people producing contemporary Christian movies. Even "mainstream" Christian movies, such as Heaven is For Real--which certain evangelical factions attacked for being exploitative and manipulative, and eventually turned out to be complete bull--tend to go out of their way to openly attack people with differing opinions. In a review of the film, Odie Henderson writes, "Preaching to the choir is just fine by me, as I was once a member of that choir. But doing victory laps, sticking your tongue out at non-members and hi-fiving the choir while chanting 'Amirite, amirite?' does not help the cause." Kinda hard to do victory laps when the subject publicly renounces the whole damned enterprise. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary starring Ben Stein that eventually sunk so low as to invoke Godwin's Law to attack Charles Darwin, is another fantastic example of the abject failure of contemporary Christian film making. It would be safe to postulate that Expelled compelled exactly zero "evolutionists" to reconsider their positions.
At issue, I think, is Christian culture as a whole. Let me be frank: They have outright lost the Culture War. I know that battles in the Deep South are still being waged, but Texas--Texas! Can you believe it!? Hallelujah!--is about to recognize same-sex marriage. The larger culture is now--with certain outstanding exceptions--wary of anything that even smells like Jesus' three-day-old body odor. They know that Christian parenting compelled Leelah Alcorn to take her own life. Now is certainly not the time to "run victory laps...and [chant] 'amirite, amirite?'" But the fact that this kind of celebration continues--that may appear to outsiders as delusional (jumping on this word would be far too easy)--betrays a much darker side of Christian culture: Is it possible for the kinds of Christians for whom this media is produced able to recognize and understand perspectives that are not their own? This is a really important question to ask because as Christianity loses ground to other ideologies, it will have to quickly learn to cooperate with others in order to achieve its goals. If it cannot recognize other ideologies, it will quickly be extinguished (I will withhold judgment about its demise being good or bad).
Returning for a moment to the literalism of the messages in Christian film, there is an important point to be made about this Christian culture that Ambrosino did not touch upon, perhaps because it was outside the scope of his essay. Films and novels--not to mention religious texts--are open to individual interpretation. This was a fundamental (pardon my use of the term) point of the Protestant Reformation, and one that is notably absent. I would argue that this glaring omission is intentional, and ties into my previous point about recognizing differing opinions. Fundamentalism excludes at the outset any possible historical context, any symbolism, metaphors, or hidden meanings. It also does wonders to establish a monolithic authority and suppress individualism in its base. This suppression of individualism within its ranks not only strangles its own culture--and it is from this position that these films are made. But if dialogue is impossible from within, then it absolutely follows that dialogue without is triply impossible. If it works to suppress interpretation within itself, how can there be any hope of engaging non-believers on a meaningful and productive level?
As pointed out in Ambrosino's essay, the stated goal of Christian film making is "...is engaging and converting secular culture." I'm not going to deny that those are laudable and possible goals in theory, and were actually attained by prominent figures in the past, but given the contemporary "monolithic" nature of what is considered "Christian" culture, in attempting to bridge the gaping wound that is the Culture War, Christians are going to need to be much more humble.
Ambrosino, in his essay, basically argues that Christian films subsume the actual art of film to the message; what's important isn't that the film is good--that the actors give authentic performances, that the story is compelling, etc--but rather that the message itself is presented foremost and, worse, as literally as possible:
But even if Hollywood films do contain embodied messages, they're not always as explicitly drawn out as they are in Christian movies. That's because, says Godawa, many Evangelical Christians, who are people of the Good Book, have come to value words over images. "They don't know how to embody their messages in the story," he says. "They have to hear the literal words [of the Gospel]."It's an important point that most movies contain some meaning, and it's worth pointing out that many secular films can either be interpreted in religious ways (I like to think of No Country For Old Men as a religious allegory), or contain some reference to religious figures (the Coen brothers' A Good Man is described as a retelling of the Book of Job; Simon in Lord of the Flies, as well as even Alex Murphy in Robocop are often cited as "Christ figures", which itself is a motif in other countless "secular" stories). Equally important is that it used to be possible for Christian authors--one or two in particular--to write stories that were Christian in the strictest sense and were compelling for people who may not be Christian: Namely, Fyodor Dostoevsky and CS Lewis.
The possibility of telling a good, captivating story that engages audiences about philosophical/theological issues without beating them over the head seems to elude the people producing contemporary Christian movies. Even "mainstream" Christian movies, such as Heaven is For Real--which certain evangelical factions attacked for being exploitative and manipulative, and eventually turned out to be complete bull--tend to go out of their way to openly attack people with differing opinions. In a review of the film, Odie Henderson writes, "Preaching to the choir is just fine by me, as I was once a member of that choir. But doing victory laps, sticking your tongue out at non-members and hi-fiving the choir while chanting 'Amirite, amirite?' does not help the cause." Kinda hard to do victory laps when the subject publicly renounces the whole damned enterprise. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary starring Ben Stein that eventually sunk so low as to invoke Godwin's Law to attack Charles Darwin, is another fantastic example of the abject failure of contemporary Christian film making. It would be safe to postulate that Expelled compelled exactly zero "evolutionists" to reconsider their positions.
At issue, I think, is Christian culture as a whole. Let me be frank: They have outright lost the Culture War. I know that battles in the Deep South are still being waged, but Texas--Texas! Can you believe it!? Hallelujah!--is about to recognize same-sex marriage. The larger culture is now--with certain outstanding exceptions--wary of anything that even smells like Jesus' three-day-old body odor. They know that Christian parenting compelled Leelah Alcorn to take her own life. Now is certainly not the time to "run victory laps...and [chant] 'amirite, amirite?'" But the fact that this kind of celebration continues--that may appear to outsiders as delusional (jumping on this word would be far too easy)--betrays a much darker side of Christian culture: Is it possible for the kinds of Christians for whom this media is produced able to recognize and understand perspectives that are not their own? This is a really important question to ask because as Christianity loses ground to other ideologies, it will have to quickly learn to cooperate with others in order to achieve its goals. If it cannot recognize other ideologies, it will quickly be extinguished (I will withhold judgment about its demise being good or bad).
Returning for a moment to the literalism of the messages in Christian film, there is an important point to be made about this Christian culture that Ambrosino did not touch upon, perhaps because it was outside the scope of his essay. Films and novels--not to mention religious texts--are open to individual interpretation. This was a fundamental (pardon my use of the term) point of the Protestant Reformation, and one that is notably absent. I would argue that this glaring omission is intentional, and ties into my previous point about recognizing differing opinions. Fundamentalism excludes at the outset any possible historical context, any symbolism, metaphors, or hidden meanings. It also does wonders to establish a monolithic authority and suppress individualism in its base. This suppression of individualism within its ranks not only strangles its own culture--and it is from this position that these films are made. But if dialogue is impossible from within, then it absolutely follows that dialogue without is triply impossible. If it works to suppress interpretation within itself, how can there be any hope of engaging non-believers on a meaningful and productive level?
As pointed out in Ambrosino's essay, the stated goal of Christian film making is "...is engaging and converting secular culture." I'm not going to deny that those are laudable and possible goals in theory, and were actually attained by prominent figures in the past, but given the contemporary "monolithic" nature of what is considered "Christian" culture, in attempting to bridge the gaping wound that is the Culture War, Christians are going to need to be much more humble.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Best Movies & Books I Read in 2014, Plans for 2015
I'm.... 15 days late.
I don't think I remember the first half of 2014 that well, but here goes nothing.
Best Books
God, I have to scour my GoodReads account and Facebook statuses to remember what I read. Did I read Murakami this year or last? I don't think this is going to work... Goodreads has a gap spanning 18 months.
So, here's what I'm going to do:
1) Dark Places by Gillian Flynn
See, I don't know how many of you know this about me, but I have a pretty strong morbid streak. I had seen Gone Girl in the theater (one of the maybe two or three movies I left my house to see), and I decided to read--because I could not find a decent digital copy of Gone Girl, and only at Christmas did my aunt give me her paperback--her other books instead. I read Sharp Objects first. It was good, it kept me interested, but I kind of knew what was going to happen. It didn't captivate me as Dark Places did.
So I saw the Gone Girl movie, and I got to googling who Gillian Flynn was. Oh: Two other books! Great!
Here's the opener on the Dark Places Wikipedia page: "The novel deals with class issues in rural America, intense poverty and the Satanic cult hysteria that swept the United States in the 1980s." Yes, please!
I had been looking for something like Dark Places for a very, very long time. At that moment, Dark Places had been everything I had ever wanted, and I want to sincerely thank Ms Flynn for writing it.
2) Corruption in America - From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizen's United by Zephyr Teachout
This is, in my estimation, the companion book to Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig. In fact, the two of them appeared together on Bill Moyer's show on PBS not to long ago discussing Campaign Finance Reform.
Corruption in America deals with the historical attitudes toward corruption in government, and how the narrow definition of corruption (as specifically and exclusively "quid-pro-quo") is anomalous and not representative of prevailing attitudes of corruption held not only by most other previous Supreme Court opinions dealing with the subject, but also the body politic.
If Lessig provided the future, the plan; Teachout provides the history and the justification.
CFR is really the only issue that matters because if it is not fixed, Ted Cruz and others like him will continue to be placed in high positions by the decree of corporate interest (Ted Cruz was placed in charge of NASA). We can't have nice things until our government is dependent upon We the People instead of the Brothers Koch.
3) East of Eden by John Steinbeck
I know, I know, this perhaps should have been first. This book centers around a powerful theological debate about human potential and redemption. God, I sound like an Amazon blurb. Honestly, I still can't decide between East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath, which I adored. But I really don't remember it as well as I should. Details are missing and I feel I cannot explain it adequately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond those three, which are the best, I read some Stephen King (Bag of Bones and Cujo, which I finished into the new year), Penpal, which started as a short story on Reddit.com/r/nosleep, a horror/creepypasta forum, which actually kinda creeped me out, Snow by Orhan Pamuk, which was OK, and Real World by Natsuo Kirino, about a group of disillusioned high school students who become infatuated and fascinated by a local boy who murders his parents in cold blood.
I also read Everything I Never Told You, which was listed as the Best Book of 2014 by Amazon.com, and that was decent. A bit too low-key, but still enjoyable. It's hard to find anything really different when everyone is writing prizebait and when you feel you've readall most of the best classics. At that point, you sink into a bit of Stephen King (whom an old friend described as someone who "walks the fine line between pulp and literature"), or read something completely bizarre, which I did during the last half of the year and am continuing to pursue into 2015.
I bought graphic novels. Two of them, in fact. I have Black Hole by Charles Burns and Fun Home by Alison Bechdel (the same Bechdel of the famous "Bechdel Test"), which I finished yesterday in one sitting. It will, I expect, if it is not upstaged later in the year, feature in my 2015 Best Books list. I also finally read Blue is the Warmest Color by Julie Maroh.
Right now, my plan for 2015, as far as books are concerned, is to finish the following, in no specific order:
The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz (I'm on page 205 right now)
Black Hole by Charles Burns
Watchmen by Alan Moore (the only superhero comic I will ever read. Seriously, I hate superheroes)
Primeval and Other Times by Olga Tokarczuk
War & War by Laszlo Krasznahorkai (his name is so much fun to type and say. I've already finished The Melancholy of Resistance, which was wonderfully weird)
There are other books I need to get to, like The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K LeGuin and Watership Down, which I have wanted to read for a very long time, and to crack open the lovely Penguin copy of The Iliad (I read The Odyssey already) my neighbors gave me when they moved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Babadook
As soon as this movie was announced I was head over heels in love, and when I saw it, it wasn't quite what I had expected, but I was absolutely not disappointed. People who manage to see this movie basically fall into two camps: They either respect it for what it is, or they hate it because they were expecting a creature feature (The Babadook is never revealed). The Babadook itself is a psychological bogeyman, onto which all of the main character's anxieties are projected. The performances in this film are, dare I say, more intense and terrifying than Hitchcock. Watching Essie Davis spiral out of control as her anxieties are projected and reflected by the phantom Babadook is breathtaking and terrifying. She drives this film. It is brilliant, and, like Dark Places, everything I had wanted.
2) Gone Girl
This movie was awesome. It was directed by David Fincher, who also did the phenomenal adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Hey, while we're at it, where are the other two movies?), so when his name appeared in the opening credits, I felt assured that I was in for something good. I was not to be disappointed.
3) Under the Skin / Blue Ruin
I saw these two movies at pretty much the same time, and, for some reason, they are linked in my mind. I love low-key science fiction, and, while Johanssen isn't much more than a pretty face in this movie (it is very minimalistic), watching her seduce and suck the life out of unsuspecting men was rather intriguing for my morbid sensibilities.
Blue Ruin, however, was also minimalist, but was thoroughly grounded in a microcosm of damned inevitability. The setup is as quick and dirty as the violent acts Dwight commits, and the final confrontation was wonderfully intense.
4) Rigor Mortis
I read that people hated this film. I really liked it. It's a really unusual vampire film from Hong Kong that incorporates Chinese folklore in its mythology. I will grant that the final scene is a bit silly, but everything that comes before it was comparable to Let the Right One In.
5) The Book of Life
Of course I'd see this movie. It's by the same studio responsible for Paranorman, which I also loved, and this is no less brave in dealing with death, this time centering on a story about the Dia de los Muertos, which is even more hardcore than Halloween in the West. It was, in some ways, almost too similar to Paranorman, but it isn't the same sterilized, lifeless candy put out by other kid-centric studios.
The other notable movies I saw this year are Two Days, One Night, a French movie starring Marion Cotillard about a depressed working mom who must convince her coworkers to forego a bonus in order for her to keep her job, and The Grand Budapest Hotel, but Wes Anderson wins every award already. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to see Birdman or Nightcrawler yet.
In 2015, I am waiting for It Follows, which currently has, I think, a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I don't think I remember the first half of 2014 that well, but here goes nothing.
Best Books
God, I have to scour my GoodReads account and Facebook statuses to remember what I read. Did I read Murakami this year or last? I don't think this is going to work... Goodreads has a gap spanning 18 months.
So, here's what I'm going to do:
Best Books I Read in the Second Half of 2014
1) Dark Places by Gillian Flynn
See, I don't know how many of you know this about me, but I have a pretty strong morbid streak. I had seen Gone Girl in the theater (one of the maybe two or three movies I left my house to see), and I decided to read--because I could not find a decent digital copy of Gone Girl, and only at Christmas did my aunt give me her paperback--her other books instead. I read Sharp Objects first. It was good, it kept me interested, but I kind of knew what was going to happen. It didn't captivate me as Dark Places did.
So I saw the Gone Girl movie, and I got to googling who Gillian Flynn was. Oh: Two other books! Great!
Here's the opener on the Dark Places Wikipedia page: "The novel deals with class issues in rural America, intense poverty and the Satanic cult hysteria that swept the United States in the 1980s." Yes, please!
I had been looking for something like Dark Places for a very, very long time. At that moment, Dark Places had been everything I had ever wanted, and I want to sincerely thank Ms Flynn for writing it.
2) Corruption in America - From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizen's United by Zephyr Teachout
This is, in my estimation, the companion book to Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig. In fact, the two of them appeared together on Bill Moyer's show on PBS not to long ago discussing Campaign Finance Reform.
Corruption in America deals with the historical attitudes toward corruption in government, and how the narrow definition of corruption (as specifically and exclusively "quid-pro-quo") is anomalous and not representative of prevailing attitudes of corruption held not only by most other previous Supreme Court opinions dealing with the subject, but also the body politic.
If Lessig provided the future, the plan; Teachout provides the history and the justification.
CFR is really the only issue that matters because if it is not fixed, Ted Cruz and others like him will continue to be placed in high positions by the decree of corporate interest (Ted Cruz was placed in charge of NASA). We can't have nice things until our government is dependent upon We the People instead of the Brothers Koch.
3) East of Eden by John Steinbeck
I know, I know, this perhaps should have been first. This book centers around a powerful theological debate about human potential and redemption. God, I sound like an Amazon blurb. Honestly, I still can't decide between East of Eden and Grapes of Wrath, which I adored. But I really don't remember it as well as I should. Details are missing and I feel I cannot explain it adequately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond those three, which are the best, I read some Stephen King (Bag of Bones and Cujo, which I finished into the new year), Penpal, which started as a short story on Reddit.com/r/nosleep, a horror/creepypasta forum, which actually kinda creeped me out, Snow by Orhan Pamuk, which was OK, and Real World by Natsuo Kirino, about a group of disillusioned high school students who become infatuated and fascinated by a local boy who murders his parents in cold blood.
I also read Everything I Never Told You, which was listed as the Best Book of 2014 by Amazon.com, and that was decent. A bit too low-key, but still enjoyable. It's hard to find anything really different when everyone is writing prizebait and when you feel you've read
I bought graphic novels. Two of them, in fact. I have Black Hole by Charles Burns and Fun Home by Alison Bechdel (the same Bechdel of the famous "Bechdel Test"), which I finished yesterday in one sitting. It will, I expect, if it is not upstaged later in the year, feature in my 2015 Best Books list. I also finally read Blue is the Warmest Color by Julie Maroh.
Right now, my plan for 2015, as far as books are concerned, is to finish the following, in no specific order:
The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz (I'm on page 205 right now)
Black Hole by Charles Burns
Watchmen by Alan Moore (the only superhero comic I will ever read. Seriously, I hate superheroes)
Primeval and Other Times by Olga Tokarczuk
War & War by Laszlo Krasznahorkai (his name is so much fun to type and say. I've already finished The Melancholy of Resistance, which was wonderfully weird)
There are other books I need to get to, like The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K LeGuin and Watership Down, which I have wanted to read for a very long time, and to crack open the lovely Penguin copy of The Iliad (I read The Odyssey already) my neighbors gave me when they moved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Movies I Saw in 2014
1) The Babadook
As soon as this movie was announced I was head over heels in love, and when I saw it, it wasn't quite what I had expected, but I was absolutely not disappointed. People who manage to see this movie basically fall into two camps: They either respect it for what it is, or they hate it because they were expecting a creature feature (The Babadook is never revealed). The Babadook itself is a psychological bogeyman, onto which all of the main character's anxieties are projected. The performances in this film are, dare I say, more intense and terrifying than Hitchcock. Watching Essie Davis spiral out of control as her anxieties are projected and reflected by the phantom Babadook is breathtaking and terrifying. She drives this film. It is brilliant, and, like Dark Places, everything I had wanted.
2) Gone Girl
This movie was awesome. It was directed by David Fincher, who also did the phenomenal adaptation of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (Hey, while we're at it, where are the other two movies?), so when his name appeared in the opening credits, I felt assured that I was in for something good. I was not to be disappointed.
3) Under the Skin / Blue Ruin
I saw these two movies at pretty much the same time, and, for some reason, they are linked in my mind. I love low-key science fiction, and, while Johanssen isn't much more than a pretty face in this movie (it is very minimalistic), watching her seduce and suck the life out of unsuspecting men was rather intriguing for my morbid sensibilities.
Blue Ruin, however, was also minimalist, but was thoroughly grounded in a microcosm of damned inevitability. The setup is as quick and dirty as the violent acts Dwight commits, and the final confrontation was wonderfully intense.
4) Rigor Mortis
I read that people hated this film. I really liked it. It's a really unusual vampire film from Hong Kong that incorporates Chinese folklore in its mythology. I will grant that the final scene is a bit silly, but everything that comes before it was comparable to Let the Right One In.
5) The Book of Life
Of course I'd see this movie. It's by the same studio responsible for Paranorman, which I also loved, and this is no less brave in dealing with death, this time centering on a story about the Dia de los Muertos, which is even more hardcore than Halloween in the West. It was, in some ways, almost too similar to Paranorman, but it isn't the same sterilized, lifeless candy put out by other kid-centric studios.
The other notable movies I saw this year are Two Days, One Night, a French movie starring Marion Cotillard about a depressed working mom who must convince her coworkers to forego a bonus in order for her to keep her job, and The Grand Budapest Hotel, but Wes Anderson wins every award already. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to see Birdman or Nightcrawler yet.
In 2015, I am waiting for It Follows, which currently has, I think, a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Debates Are Fun!
A couple years ago, I wrote an essay about how atheists view religion, and last night some family friends came over. We had a lengthy and fruitful debate about a variety of topics, but one of which was about how Christianity is starting to decline in the United States. Our friends were about as excited about the decline as I was, and although we used different language (I was speaking in Foucauldian terms, he historical/religious), we both agreed that the decline would help restore the authenticity of religious faith.
In my previous essay (link above), I had written that atheists find it difficult to view religion as an authentic mode of belief because it was the dominant power structure, adding that demagogues had hijacked it, making it incredibly difficult to distinguish between actual Christians and those who were either along for the ride or who used it to conveniently justify their own prejudices.
Christianity's popular decline will force two things to happen: Being a Christian (think of Heideggerian connotations) will be more difficult as the religion evolves to cope with shifting demographics, and widespread acceptance of previously maligned minorities, forcing religious believers to rethink what believing really means. Many Christians are already inspired toward social justice and positive social change through their religious belief, so these, I would go so far as to say, are already ahead, but those who favored discrimination will have to quickly make amends or be abandoned. Furthermore, those who have been defeated on this and other issues will face the most daunting theological challenges as their positions not only fail to satisfy the needs of their constituents, but also fail to sway outsiders to their cause. No longer can simply calling one a "Christian" be sufficient when expressing prejudiced opinions, but it also can no longer shield one from ridicule or rejection; no longer do those calling themselves Christians automatically gain moral high ground for otherwise unpopular and xenophobic opinions.
The second thing that will happen is that Christianity will be forced to cope with competing ideologies, and must quickly learn to play nicely with others. Immediately following 9/11, the leaders of the Christian Conservative movement moved to assert power and began attacking, both verbally and legislatively, a whole swath of minority groups that they had previously battled. Jerry Falwell, on the 700 Club the day after 9/11, listed virtually every non-Christian minority and placed direct blame on them for the WTC attacks simply by virtue of not being in line with his narrow ideology. This trend continued unabated to the present day, with the Christianists (in conversation, I regrettably reverted to "Christians" as a gross generalization. Old habits die hard) acting largely with impunity, passing same-sex marriage bans across the nation, injecting their own brand of bad theology into science classrooms, and wielding undue influence on public school reading material and sex education. The latter has yet to be corrected. Through it all, this large group of Knights Templar employed xenophobic rhetoric unbecoming of a movement connected--supposedly--to such an altruistic figure, and this rhetoric largely went unchallenged for a good span of time until the oppressed (specifically the LGBQ* community) organized and began to gain sympathy for their cause. Because of the success of the LGBQ community and the hateful rhetoric of the Christianists, people--especially Millennials--saw the Christianists for what they were and came out, regardless of their own sexual identities, in support for LGBQ rights.
What further complicates the issue--and also further incentivizes support for minority causes--is that many LGBTQϟ people once were and/or want to be religious. This is a very important phenomenon. While I myself don't quite understand it--I don't understand why African Americans are religious either, but that's neither here nor there--it takes some serious frakking guts to want to be open to religious belief after what they've been through. There is a very unique opportunity being given to religious belief here, and were religious leaders to take it, LGBTQ Christians would not only help proliferate the religion like no one else could, but also do wonders for helping certain Christian communities resemble, to a significant degree, what it was when it first started. But there is a caveat to be established, a certain warning to be sounded, because it is at the same likely that religious leaders may still view LGBTQ people with disdain: the unfair and equally condemning "Hate the sin, love the sinner" refrain, which is merely thinly-veiled contempt.
At this point, I feel I should address why I wrote this essay. If I'm an atheist, what interest do I have in the issues facing a demographic I am no longer a part of? In the 11 years I've spent studying and following this issue, the less sure I can be that it's the fault of Christianity itself. Furthermore, I don't think it's quite fair to leave those who are open to change in the religious community in the dust. There are people who are called to social justice and are really trying to make Christianity resemble its original intentions, instead of using it as a platform for their own prejudices and a weapon of disenfranchisement against people they don't understand.
We would be better off if we take the opportunity to get involved, to--forgive the metaphor--reforge their swords into plowshares. A mutual understanding benefits everyone in our society and allows everyone to get what they want. My real hope is that there is something beyond simply fending off the Christianists every election cycle, a way out of the mutual distrust we have felt for one another for so long.
Don't forget, also, that we may get something out of such an exchange: We receive the recognition and the respect we need, leading to the expansion of minority rights, among other issues that we care about. I personally want to restore NASA's budget, boost science education in public schools, and counteract global climate change. There are many on the other side of the religious divide that are more than willing to join us on these initiatives. Theological evolution? Sure, I'll take it, as long as the science remains intact. Christians are also called to be "good stewards" of the Earth, and thus have a divinely-mandated duty to stop climate change. Let's get them on board!
There is another reason why we should come to an understanding: The debate itself is so much fun!
*: The transgender/transsexual communities continue to get shafted by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer community, so their struggle continues. So little is still known about them by outsiders, and they are still unfairly delegitimized by greater society. I am leaving them out only because they have not yet gained full recognition and are still fighting. I am personally sympathetic to their cause.
ϟ: I will include them here because I am not discussing the civil rights movement
In my previous essay (link above), I had written that atheists find it difficult to view religion as an authentic mode of belief because it was the dominant power structure, adding that demagogues had hijacked it, making it incredibly difficult to distinguish between actual Christians and those who were either along for the ride or who used it to conveniently justify their own prejudices.
Christianity's popular decline will force two things to happen: Being a Christian (think of Heideggerian connotations) will be more difficult as the religion evolves to cope with shifting demographics, and widespread acceptance of previously maligned minorities, forcing religious believers to rethink what believing really means. Many Christians are already inspired toward social justice and positive social change through their religious belief, so these, I would go so far as to say, are already ahead, but those who favored discrimination will have to quickly make amends or be abandoned. Furthermore, those who have been defeated on this and other issues will face the most daunting theological challenges as their positions not only fail to satisfy the needs of their constituents, but also fail to sway outsiders to their cause. No longer can simply calling one a "Christian" be sufficient when expressing prejudiced opinions, but it also can no longer shield one from ridicule or rejection; no longer do those calling themselves Christians automatically gain moral high ground for otherwise unpopular and xenophobic opinions.
The second thing that will happen is that Christianity will be forced to cope with competing ideologies, and must quickly learn to play nicely with others. Immediately following 9/11, the leaders of the Christian Conservative movement moved to assert power and began attacking, both verbally and legislatively, a whole swath of minority groups that they had previously battled. Jerry Falwell, on the 700 Club the day after 9/11, listed virtually every non-Christian minority and placed direct blame on them for the WTC attacks simply by virtue of not being in line with his narrow ideology. This trend continued unabated to the present day, with the Christianists (in conversation, I regrettably reverted to "Christians" as a gross generalization. Old habits die hard) acting largely with impunity, passing same-sex marriage bans across the nation, injecting their own brand of bad theology into science classrooms, and wielding undue influence on public school reading material and sex education. The latter has yet to be corrected. Through it all, this large group of Knights Templar employed xenophobic rhetoric unbecoming of a movement connected--supposedly--to such an altruistic figure, and this rhetoric largely went unchallenged for a good span of time until the oppressed (specifically the LGBQ* community) organized and began to gain sympathy for their cause. Because of the success of the LGBQ community and the hateful rhetoric of the Christianists, people--especially Millennials--saw the Christianists for what they were and came out, regardless of their own sexual identities, in support for LGBQ rights.
What further complicates the issue--and also further incentivizes support for minority causes--is that many LGBTQϟ people once were and/or want to be religious. This is a very important phenomenon. While I myself don't quite understand it--I don't understand why African Americans are religious either, but that's neither here nor there--it takes some serious frakking guts to want to be open to religious belief after what they've been through. There is a very unique opportunity being given to religious belief here, and were religious leaders to take it, LGBTQ Christians would not only help proliferate the religion like no one else could, but also do wonders for helping certain Christian communities resemble, to a significant degree, what it was when it first started. But there is a caveat to be established, a certain warning to be sounded, because it is at the same likely that religious leaders may still view LGBTQ people with disdain: the unfair and equally condemning "Hate the sin, love the sinner" refrain, which is merely thinly-veiled contempt.
At this point, I feel I should address why I wrote this essay. If I'm an atheist, what interest do I have in the issues facing a demographic I am no longer a part of? In the 11 years I've spent studying and following this issue, the less sure I can be that it's the fault of Christianity itself. Furthermore, I don't think it's quite fair to leave those who are open to change in the religious community in the dust. There are people who are called to social justice and are really trying to make Christianity resemble its original intentions, instead of using it as a platform for their own prejudices and a weapon of disenfranchisement against people they don't understand.
We would be better off if we take the opportunity to get involved, to--forgive the metaphor--reforge their swords into plowshares. A mutual understanding benefits everyone in our society and allows everyone to get what they want. My real hope is that there is something beyond simply fending off the Christianists every election cycle, a way out of the mutual distrust we have felt for one another for so long.
Don't forget, also, that we may get something out of such an exchange: We receive the recognition and the respect we need, leading to the expansion of minority rights, among other issues that we care about. I personally want to restore NASA's budget, boost science education in public schools, and counteract global climate change. There are many on the other side of the religious divide that are more than willing to join us on these initiatives. Theological evolution? Sure, I'll take it, as long as the science remains intact. Christians are also called to be "good stewards" of the Earth, and thus have a divinely-mandated duty to stop climate change. Let's get them on board!
There is another reason why we should come to an understanding: The debate itself is so much fun!
*: The transgender/transsexual communities continue to get shafted by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer community, so their struggle continues. So little is still known about them by outsiders, and they are still unfairly delegitimized by greater society. I am leaving them out only because they have not yet gained full recognition and are still fighting. I am personally sympathetic to their cause.
ϟ: I will include them here because I am not discussing the civil rights movement
Friday, November 7, 2014
Noroi: The Curse is the Greatest Found Footage Horror Film Ever Made
The found footage subgenre has exploded in the past 14 years with the release of The Blair Witch Project, leading to franchises such as Quarantine (REC in the US), Paranormal Activity, and myriad other low-budget frightfests, but none of them ever come close to the sheer authenticity and terror of Noroi: The Curse ("Noroi" actually means "curse" in Japanese, so the title is redundant), a little-known film quietly released in 2005.
When most people try to name Japanese horror films they've seen, they name such films as Ringu, Ju-On, Kairo, or Audition. While all of these are excellent, none are as deeply unsettling as Noroi: The Curse.
Without giving too much away, Noroi is the story of a paranormal investigator and his cameraman who are investigating a series of mysterious disappearances centering around a woman named Junko Ishii, a middle-aged recluse, and her son, and encounter a young girl named Kana, who has psychokinetic powers. Eventually, they team up with a famous TV personality and a hikikomori who covers himself in aluminum foil and keeps freaking out about "worms."
Noroi takes itself very seriously, and splices footage from Japanese TV and public access interviews, as well as local historical records and urban legends to provide subtle hints as to what's going on, and does a fantastic job of establishing and maintaining its authenticity right to the ending credits.
The sheer, disturbing beauty of Noroi is that everything is constructed to be as real as possible. There is only about 15 seconds of CGI, and it is startlingly effective, and absolutely not anything the audience would expect. The actual paranormal phenomena in question stays true to traditional Japanese folklore; in fact, I believe that were anything to actually happen, it would work exactly as presented in the film.
Nothing in Noroi is ever expected or predictable; the movie works so well because it has no convention. When one actually discovers what's going on in the second hour of the movie, one's jaw will hit the floor, as it is much, much worse than any monster that could possibly appear on screen.
Noroi works so well because is not a movie that will shock you with jump scares or fast cuts to disturbing images. It doesn't intend to gross you out by showing you blood and guts, no girls coming out of your TV, or bloody mothers gurgling down the stairs; rather it is what's underneath the events in the film that will keep you up after you watch it. The very story is terrifying, and how the film handles what it has presented to you when the credits roll only serves to drive the whole thing home and make your insomnia that much worse. No other found footage films ever address how they actually got "found" and released to the public. Noroi takes special care to include this detail to the audience's satisfaction, and that is one of the primary reasons why it is so utterly horrifying.
Noroi: The Curse is freely available on Youtube in its entirety You can view it here
Happy belated Halloween!
Friday, October 24, 2014
GamerGate is Really Pissing Me Off
By now, the entire Internet is aflame over #GamerGate, which is best described as a misogynistic anonymous swarm of users on 4chan and Reddit who, under the false guise of "journalism ethics", seek to silence feminist critics of video games, namely Anita Sarkeesian, whose video series Tropes Vs Women in Video Games seeks to shed light on misogynistic undercurrents of video game plots and gameplay mechanics.
To recap, Eron Gjoni, an ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, the creator of the brilliant (in my opinion) Depression Quest, alleged that she had slept with a Kotaku writer in exchange for positive coverage of the game when it was released on Steam1. Kotaku investigated the incident, and found no conflict of interest2. Unfortunately, despite the immediate issue being resolved to satisfaction, GamerGate only stepped up its resolve, and began targeting not just Zoe Quinn, but a whole swath of female personalities not only in gaming, but also in geek culture at large. Their primary target right now is Anita Sarkeesian, whose video series mentioned above has already angered many a hikikomori, but they have also attacked Brianna Wu, and even actress Felicia Day, who was "doxxed" (had her personal address discovered and shared on the Internet for the intent to intimidate and harass) for a rather innocuous and mournful Tumblr post3.
Many, such as the famous Chris Kluwe, have already succinctly expressed how I feel about GamerGate, but I feel the need to further explain why GamerGate is so toxic to gaming generally, especially when bastions of "old media" are becoming more accepting of the medium as an art form4.
It isn't quite enough to simply say that GamerGaters (GamerGators?) are the lowest dregs of modern society who should slither back into the filthy holes from which they first appeared; like it or not, the appearance of this phenomenon will irrevocably harm, if not entirely destroy, the hopes of the gaming culture to become an accepted art form, something that at leased used to seem important, back when Roger Ebert said he'd rather read Huckleberry Finn than play a video game.
The truth is, we need women in gaming. Unbeknownst to many, women have contributed a great deal to many of our favorite games. Amy Hennig was responsible not only for Uncharted, but also for the famous Legacy of Kain series. Jane Jensen created Gabriel Knight. and Roberta Williams wrote King's Quest.
I've been playing Counter-Strike in all of its forms starting when it was released (I started playing at version 1.5, I believe), and I have never played in a clan in which women were not present. Over the 14 or so years I have been shooting virtual avatars, I have met a fair number of women on the battlefield, and all of these women were fully capable of playing the game at least as confidently, if not more than the male players. One of these women exclusively uses the shotgun and calls herself ShotgunSally. As an ally, ShotgunSally is invaluable: If the rest of the team were to be eliminated, she can always be depended upon to complete the objective. As an adversary, Sally is terrifying.
A few days ago, RockPaperShotgun published an article about a freeware title called CHYRZA by Kitty Horrorshow5. I got the opportunity to play it late last night, and it was absolutely brilliant. The Unity game revolved around a small desert community in which a giant black pyramid appears on the outskirts of the village and summons inhabitants inside, causing them to disappear. It was a short and haunting game that I would recommend to everyone.
That women not only want to play games but also take part in their creation is beneficial to all of us not only as intelligent human beings, but also as gamers. One argument I've read was that because [gamers] have historically been bullied by women and have thus retreated to video games and other technological hobbies as an escape from daily ridicule, the phenomenon of women who want to partake in "our" culture is seen as an invasion. This is ridiculous. The reason is that because women--and greater society generally--are looking to take a more positive look at video gaming, people who play games no longer have to feel alienated, which is, ironically, something that these isolated boys have secretly wished for forever. There isn't a gamer on this planet who has not secretly wished for a "gamer girlfriend", and now that it is becoming a reality, they are terrified of it.
Because of the growing interest of women, the variety of stories and perspectives gamers are going to be exposed to will expand indefinitely. This is a very good thing. Earlier, I mentioned CHYRZA by Kitty Horrorshow, but there are more examples. Many of the games created by women are critical successes, such as Gone Home, Portal, and Journey, in addition to those I mentioned previously.
Gamers claim that it is important to them that video games are recognized as art, but in silencing critics like Anita Sarkeesian for pointing out what she feels is misogynistic in popular games (one of the games she mentioned in her latest video happens to be one of my personal favorites), GamerGaters can't have their cake, and eat it, too. Part of something being "art" is finding deeper meaning in what's going on under the surface of any story: text, film, or game, and being able to analyze it in a way that is relevant to the greater culture as a whole. And you know what? Anita Sarkeesian is actually right about what she's saying. It would be absurd for me to be offended at what she's saying, and absolutely Kafkaesque in the cruelest sense to silence her for stating what is a reasonable, well-researched opinion.
What Sarkeesian is actually doing is offering developers the opportunity to write better games; games that deliver to us a much wider variety of experiences, and this is, ultimately, what gaming is all about. The very best games tell memorable stories, make us think about our own lives, and ponder the big questions, such as, "What can change the nature of a man?"
Trying to alienate women from gaming vis-a-vis GamerGate has done enormous and irreparable damage to the gaming community in all aspects. As women leave gaming, terrified of severe persecution by Knights Templars*, the quality of games will stagnate, and we will never experience the games that we could have had. Once, gamers had a chance to be accepted into mainstream culture without others looking askance at their virtual hobbies, but GamerGate has all but dashed their hopes, projecting once again the image of basement-dwelling, neckbearded, odorous hikikomoris. As long as GamerGate continues, everything that gamers have wanted will be far beyond their grasp.
1) http://gawker.com/the-angry-ex-who-ignited-gamergate-has-no-regrets-1647186033
2) http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
3) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate
4) https://medium.com/the-cauldron/why-gamergaters-piss-me-the-f-off-a7e4c7f6d8a6 -- Chris Kluwe originally tweeted a colorful condemnation of GamerGate, but I can't find it. I have just discovered that he wrote this wonderful essay as a devastating salvo against the "movement".
5) http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/21/chyrza-horror/
*: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
To recap, Eron Gjoni, an ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, the creator of the brilliant (in my opinion) Depression Quest, alleged that she had slept with a Kotaku writer in exchange for positive coverage of the game when it was released on Steam1. Kotaku investigated the incident, and found no conflict of interest2. Unfortunately, despite the immediate issue being resolved to satisfaction, GamerGate only stepped up its resolve, and began targeting not just Zoe Quinn, but a whole swath of female personalities not only in gaming, but also in geek culture at large. Their primary target right now is Anita Sarkeesian, whose video series mentioned above has already angered many a hikikomori, but they have also attacked Brianna Wu, and even actress Felicia Day, who was "doxxed" (had her personal address discovered and shared on the Internet for the intent to intimidate and harass) for a rather innocuous and mournful Tumblr post3.
Many, such as the famous Chris Kluwe, have already succinctly expressed how I feel about GamerGate, but I feel the need to further explain why GamerGate is so toxic to gaming generally, especially when bastions of "old media" are becoming more accepting of the medium as an art form4.
It isn't quite enough to simply say that GamerGaters (GamerGators?) are the lowest dregs of modern society who should slither back into the filthy holes from which they first appeared; like it or not, the appearance of this phenomenon will irrevocably harm, if not entirely destroy, the hopes of the gaming culture to become an accepted art form, something that at leased used to seem important, back when Roger Ebert said he'd rather read Huckleberry Finn than play a video game.
The truth is, we need women in gaming. Unbeknownst to many, women have contributed a great deal to many of our favorite games. Amy Hennig was responsible not only for Uncharted, but also for the famous Legacy of Kain series. Jane Jensen created Gabriel Knight. and Roberta Williams wrote King's Quest.
I've been playing Counter-Strike in all of its forms starting when it was released (I started playing at version 1.5, I believe), and I have never played in a clan in which women were not present. Over the 14 or so years I have been shooting virtual avatars, I have met a fair number of women on the battlefield, and all of these women were fully capable of playing the game at least as confidently, if not more than the male players. One of these women exclusively uses the shotgun and calls herself ShotgunSally. As an ally, ShotgunSally is invaluable: If the rest of the team were to be eliminated, she can always be depended upon to complete the objective. As an adversary, Sally is terrifying.
A few days ago, RockPaperShotgun published an article about a freeware title called CHYRZA by Kitty Horrorshow5. I got the opportunity to play it late last night, and it was absolutely brilliant. The Unity game revolved around a small desert community in which a giant black pyramid appears on the outskirts of the village and summons inhabitants inside, causing them to disappear. It was a short and haunting game that I would recommend to everyone.
That women not only want to play games but also take part in their creation is beneficial to all of us not only as intelligent human beings, but also as gamers. One argument I've read was that because [gamers] have historically been bullied by women and have thus retreated to video games and other technological hobbies as an escape from daily ridicule, the phenomenon of women who want to partake in "our" culture is seen as an invasion. This is ridiculous. The reason is that because women--and greater society generally--are looking to take a more positive look at video gaming, people who play games no longer have to feel alienated, which is, ironically, something that these isolated boys have secretly wished for forever. There isn't a gamer on this planet who has not secretly wished for a "gamer girlfriend", and now that it is becoming a reality, they are terrified of it.
Because of the growing interest of women, the variety of stories and perspectives gamers are going to be exposed to will expand indefinitely. This is a very good thing. Earlier, I mentioned CHYRZA by Kitty Horrorshow, but there are more examples. Many of the games created by women are critical successes, such as Gone Home, Portal, and Journey, in addition to those I mentioned previously.
Gamers claim that it is important to them that video games are recognized as art, but in silencing critics like Anita Sarkeesian for pointing out what she feels is misogynistic in popular games (one of the games she mentioned in her latest video happens to be one of my personal favorites), GamerGaters can't have their cake, and eat it, too. Part of something being "art" is finding deeper meaning in what's going on under the surface of any story: text, film, or game, and being able to analyze it in a way that is relevant to the greater culture as a whole. And you know what? Anita Sarkeesian is actually right about what she's saying. It would be absurd for me to be offended at what she's saying, and absolutely Kafkaesque in the cruelest sense to silence her for stating what is a reasonable, well-researched opinion.
What Sarkeesian is actually doing is offering developers the opportunity to write better games; games that deliver to us a much wider variety of experiences, and this is, ultimately, what gaming is all about. The very best games tell memorable stories, make us think about our own lives, and ponder the big questions, such as, "What can change the nature of a man?"
Trying to alienate women from gaming vis-a-vis GamerGate has done enormous and irreparable damage to the gaming community in all aspects. As women leave gaming, terrified of severe persecution by Knights Templars*, the quality of games will stagnate, and we will never experience the games that we could have had. Once, gamers had a chance to be accepted into mainstream culture without others looking askance at their virtual hobbies, but GamerGate has all but dashed their hopes, projecting once again the image of basement-dwelling, neckbearded, odorous hikikomoris. As long as GamerGate continues, everything that gamers have wanted will be far beyond their grasp.
1) http://gawker.com/the-angry-ex-who-ignited-gamergate-has-no-regrets-1647186033
2) http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
3) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate
4) https://medium.com/the-cauldron/why-gamergaters-piss-me-the-f-off-a7e4c7f6d8a6 -- Chris Kluwe originally tweeted a colorful condemnation of GamerGate, but I can't find it. I have just discovered that he wrote this wonderful essay as a devastating salvo against the "movement".
5) http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/10/21/chyrza-horror/
*: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)