When I heard that the musical Les Miserables (or Les Mis to its legions of fans) was going to be made into a movie, I wasn't sure what to think. I've always loved musicals, and Les Mis has been one of my favorites for years. I’ve seen it on stage twice, and at one point I had the original Broadway cast album practically memorized. I’m definitely a fan, but I wasn’t sold on the idea of a film adaptation. As much as I love musicals, I don’t care for the way they’ve been treated by Hollywood over the last several years. Between non-singing celebrities being cast in lead roles to movies that just seem to lack the energy of a live performance, most recent movie musicals just haven’t done it for me. I remained cautiously optimistic about the movie adaptation of Les Mis, but I was fully prepared to be underwhelmed.
Well, after seeing the movie for myself, I can honestly say that my fears were unfounded. It’s not perfect, but I think this version of Les Miserables will please fans of the stage show.
For those unfamiliar with Les Mis, it tells the story of Jean Valjean, an ex-convict in 19th Century France who violates his parole to create a new life for himself. Over the course of several years, Valjean befriends the dying prostitute Fantine, raises Fantine’s daughter as his own and gets caught up in the failed June Rebellion of 1832, all while being pursued by the fanatical police inspector Javert. It’s a story that covers a period of nearly two decades and involves several supporting characters, but the main focus is on Valjean’s journey of redemption and the lives affected by it.
Director Tom Hooper famously made some interesting choices as the director of this movie, the most significant of which was his decision to have the actors sing their parts live on set as opposed to lip synching to pre-recorded music. This may seem like an insignificant change, but it helps the film stand out from other musicals. The actors may be singing their lines, but since they’re doing it “live” they dictate the rhythm and timing of what they are singing and make it sound more like natural spoken dialogue. It also allows for far more emotional performances, which is a plus considering that Les Mis has always had a reputation of being a powerful tearjerker of a musical.
Another interesting decision that was made was to shoot most of the big musical numbers in close-up using long, uninterrupted takes. It seems like an odd choice, but it puts the focus on the performers and the emotions that their songs are supposed to convey. For example, Anne Hathaway’s much talked-about rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” probably wouldn’t be as poweful as it is had the camera not focused so closely on her. The song has always been about Fantine breaking down and losing nearly all hope, but because it’s shot in close-up we feel every bit of her pain and heartbreak. It gives the number a more intimate feeling that turns an already powerful performance into something that people will be talking about for a long time.
As for the performances themselves, they are quite good for the most part. Hugh Jackman isn’t the best singer to ever play Jean Valjean (he has to strain to hit the high notes), but he has a strong and expressive singing voice that lends itself well to the role. It also helps that he seems to be an actor first and a singer second. He seems to be more concerned with conveying emotion than with singing perfectly, and it helps him carry what is a very emotional musical. As Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette, Amanda Seyfried reliably hits all of her high notes and is likable enough, as is Eddie Redmayne as her romantic interest, the revolutionary Marius. Samantha Barks brings a Broadway-honed singing voice to her role as Eponine, a street urchin in love with Marius. She’s easily one of the best singers in the movie, and I found her far more likable and engaging than Cosette. Meanwhile, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter bring some much-needed comic relief as a pair of crooked innkeepers.
All of these actors are good in their roles, but the real scene stealer is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. She actually has little screen time compared to many of the other characters, but to say that she leaves her mark is an understatement. Everything she does tears my heart out, and as strange as it sounds I’m kind of glad that she makes an early exit from the movie. I found myself caring for her enough to want her suffering to end, even if that means seeing her die in a hospital bed. She really is that good, and the fact that she can convey such deep sadness and despair while singing and hitting every note is pretty damn incredible.
The only real complaint that I have about this movie is that I didn’t care much for Russell Crowe’s Inspector Javert, which is a shame because Javert was my favorite part of both live performances of the stage show that I’ve seen. To me, Javert should have a menacingly deep baritone voice and an intensity that borders on psychosis. Valjean spends the better part of two decades running from him, and I like to think that part of the reason is because he’s a little afraid of the guy. Javert is scary in his fanaticism and single-mindedness, and that should be conveyed with an intense performance that demands the audience’s attention. Sadly, Russell Crowe doesn’t deliver the goods. Instead of being frighteningly intense, he just comes across as too nice, a little weary and too boring. Plus, his singing voice isn’t anything special. It’s pleasant enough and he does manage to stay on key, but any actor who plays Javert needs to do more than that.
Yes, Russell Crowe is a little weak as the story’s villain, but fortunately it isn’t enough to ruin the movie. Overall, the film version of Les Mis manages to hit most of the emotional highs and lows that the stage version does. I’m not sure I’d recommend it to those who don’t like big epic-length musicals, but die-hard Les Mis fans should be pleased.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Life Cycle of a Social Networking Site
I have a confession to make, a confession that I’m sure will border on sacrilege to a lot of people on the Internet.
I don’t really like Facebook, and the only reason why I have a Facebook account is because just about everyone I know has one.
I think I did like Facebook once, back when only a handful of people used it as a networking tool and before I felt like I had to check it twelve times a day. Having a Facebook account now just seems like a lot of work for very little reward. Ideally, I should log on once or twice a day and read interesting things that my friends have to say or learn the details of a party that I’m invited to. Instead, logging on means reading trite “inspirational” quotes, getting bombarded by invites to games I don’t want to play and seeing memes that stopped being funny weeks ago. It gets really irritating, yet everyone from my social circle to the mainstream media wants me to stay glued to my Facebook wall lest I become hopelessly out of touch with modern society.
Basically, Facebook has become more annoying than useful, but I think it’s actually following what I think is the lifespan of a typical social networking site. Before everyone on the planet had a Facebook account, just about everyone on the planet had a Myspace account. From a technical standpoint, I liked Myspace, and to be honest I thought it was better than Facebook is now. Myspace pages were more customizable than Facebook walls, there were message boards and chat rooms that let you easily talk to users that weren’t on your friends list, and it is still the preferred network for unsigned musicians. Of course, it started going downhill once people started to discover Facebook, but I don’t think it was out of any hatred for its interface. I think what happened was that Myspace became overcrowded with annoying users. The message boards and chat rooms were full of trolls, and it became way too easy to stumble into a really gaudy and poorly designed personal page. I would often see things like ditzy teenage girls who had way too many glitter effects on their pages and suburban white kids who had pictures of themselves flashing gang signs while loud gangsta rap plays. On top of it all, it seemed like everyone was using Myspace to bitch about other people or try to get laid by messaging random users.
Like the rest of the world, I eventually gave up on Myspace and moved on to Facebook. At the time, Facebook seemed like the more mature alternative to the drama-filled teen hangout that Myspace had become. College students and graduates used Facebook. They talked about their college courses. They talked about their careers. They talked about life, politics and society in a respectful manner. In other words, the Facebook crowd acted like adults. As someone who was tired of the constant trolling and high school drama on Myspace, I couldn’t sign up for a Facebook account fast enough.
Unfortunately, just as Myspace became too big and too crowded by stupidity, so has Facebook. Facebook’s interface usually keeps me from stumbling into pages that annoy me as much as some Myspace pages did, but between the sappy quotes, cutesy pictures, game requests and drama-filled status updates there’s plenty to keep me annoyed. Just as I got turned off of Myspace, I’m getting turned off of Facebook, something that I think was inevitable. It’s probably part of the social network life cycle. A shiny new networking site gets people’s attention, people flock to it and have a blast catching up with old friends for a few years, there’s an overload of annoying stupidity after a while, and people leave for the next big thing. Facebook may be the most visited site on the Internet now, and it will probably be going strong in a year or two, but if I’m right it will decline in popularity. People will move on to another social network, and Facebook will be the ghost town/punchline that Myspace has become.
So, if my theory about the rise and fall of social networks is correct, what will the next major social networking site be? Tumblr is already popular for blogging and photo sharing, and Google Plus (or Google+) has been trying really hard to become a Facebook killer. Maybe Myspace will have a renaissance and become king of the Internet again. It recently relaunched with an updated interface, and I would be willing to give it another chance if I knew enough people who were willing to do the same thing.
Until then, you could say that I’m suffering from social network burnout, or at least Facebook burnout. Feel free to continue updating your Facebook page and posting to your wall. If I’m not too annoyed, I might see it.
Then again, maybe I’ll be on Myspace. Hopefully I won’t be the only one.
(Just like my last "I hate Facebook" post, this will probably be shared on Facebook. I am well aware of the irony of that fact, so there's no need to remind me.)
I don’t really like Facebook, and the only reason why I have a Facebook account is because just about everyone I know has one.
I think I did like Facebook once, back when only a handful of people used it as a networking tool and before I felt like I had to check it twelve times a day. Having a Facebook account now just seems like a lot of work for very little reward. Ideally, I should log on once or twice a day and read interesting things that my friends have to say or learn the details of a party that I’m invited to. Instead, logging on means reading trite “inspirational” quotes, getting bombarded by invites to games I don’t want to play and seeing memes that stopped being funny weeks ago. It gets really irritating, yet everyone from my social circle to the mainstream media wants me to stay glued to my Facebook wall lest I become hopelessly out of touch with modern society.
Basically, Facebook has become more annoying than useful, but I think it’s actually following what I think is the lifespan of a typical social networking site. Before everyone on the planet had a Facebook account, just about everyone on the planet had a Myspace account. From a technical standpoint, I liked Myspace, and to be honest I thought it was better than Facebook is now. Myspace pages were more customizable than Facebook walls, there were message boards and chat rooms that let you easily talk to users that weren’t on your friends list, and it is still the preferred network for unsigned musicians. Of course, it started going downhill once people started to discover Facebook, but I don’t think it was out of any hatred for its interface. I think what happened was that Myspace became overcrowded with annoying users. The message boards and chat rooms were full of trolls, and it became way too easy to stumble into a really gaudy and poorly designed personal page. I would often see things like ditzy teenage girls who had way too many glitter effects on their pages and suburban white kids who had pictures of themselves flashing gang signs while loud gangsta rap plays. On top of it all, it seemed like everyone was using Myspace to bitch about other people or try to get laid by messaging random users.
Like the rest of the world, I eventually gave up on Myspace and moved on to Facebook. At the time, Facebook seemed like the more mature alternative to the drama-filled teen hangout that Myspace had become. College students and graduates used Facebook. They talked about their college courses. They talked about their careers. They talked about life, politics and society in a respectful manner. In other words, the Facebook crowd acted like adults. As someone who was tired of the constant trolling and high school drama on Myspace, I couldn’t sign up for a Facebook account fast enough.
Unfortunately, just as Myspace became too big and too crowded by stupidity, so has Facebook. Facebook’s interface usually keeps me from stumbling into pages that annoy me as much as some Myspace pages did, but between the sappy quotes, cutesy pictures, game requests and drama-filled status updates there’s plenty to keep me annoyed. Just as I got turned off of Myspace, I’m getting turned off of Facebook, something that I think was inevitable. It’s probably part of the social network life cycle. A shiny new networking site gets people’s attention, people flock to it and have a blast catching up with old friends for a few years, there’s an overload of annoying stupidity after a while, and people leave for the next big thing. Facebook may be the most visited site on the Internet now, and it will probably be going strong in a year or two, but if I’m right it will decline in popularity. People will move on to another social network, and Facebook will be the ghost town/punchline that Myspace has become.
So, if my theory about the rise and fall of social networks is correct, what will the next major social networking site be? Tumblr is already popular for blogging and photo sharing, and Google Plus (or Google+) has been trying really hard to become a Facebook killer. Maybe Myspace will have a renaissance and become king of the Internet again. It recently relaunched with an updated interface, and I would be willing to give it another chance if I knew enough people who were willing to do the same thing.
Until then, you could say that I’m suffering from social network burnout, or at least Facebook burnout. Feel free to continue updating your Facebook page and posting to your wall. If I’m not too annoyed, I might see it.
Then again, maybe I’ll be on Myspace. Hopefully I won’t be the only one.
(Just like my last "I hate Facebook" post, this will probably be shared on Facebook. I am well aware of the irony of that fact, so there's no need to remind me.)
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Discussions about Sandy Hook
By now, there’s probably not a whole lot I can say about the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that hasn’t already been said, but I feel like I should still weigh in on the subject. It’s not like I’m anybody of any real importance or anything, but when we are faced with a tragedy of this magnitude I feel that we as a country should be talking about it. It gives us a better understanding of how and why it happened, and what we can do to keep something like it from happening again. We’re already having what feels to me like the first serious discussion on gun control in years, a discussion that I think is long overdue. If there can be any positive outcome to this tragedy, that would be it. I can’t think of any good reason in this day and age why military-grade assault weapons should be made available to civilians, and we need to do more to keep them out of the wrong hands.
I definitely think there’s a lot we can learn from discussions about the Sandy Hook massacre or the many other shootings that seem to be in the news these days. Sadly, for every worthwhile observation that is made, there seem to be ten that end up doing more harm than good. They focus too much on horrific details, unsubstantiated rumors and fear mongering in an attempt to present the “truth.”
A couple of days after the Sandy Hook shooting took place, a certain quote went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. Here’s an excerpt:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."
Somebody somewhere decided that this was from a statement made by Morgan Freeman. That somebody is wrong. Morgan Freeman didn’t say any of these things, and he isn’t happy that people think he did. The fact that this was going around as a statement made by Mr. Freeman is an example of Internet stupidity at work.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to the quote. Whenever a horrific act of violence grabs the nation’s attention, one of the first things that the media likes to do is dig up as much information on the perpetrators as possible. Before long, we know all about what kind of people the killers are, what their methods were, what kinds of weapons they were using and what could’ve driven them to do such horrible things. The victims are mentioned, but they're never given as much attention as the killers who are all but elevated to legendary status by the press. With that in mind, it’s no wonder why certain people are inspired by them instead of horrified.
The Sandy Hook shooting reminds me of when the Columbine massacre happened in more ways than one. In the weeks following that particular tragedy, it seemed like every high school in the country received bomb threats from kids who wanted a "fun" way to disrupt class and stick it to their schools. For the most part, these threats didn't amount to anything; they were tasteless "jokes" meant to capitalize on a tragic event. Not surprisingly, I see the same things happening now. It seems like I can’t turn on the news without hearing about someone threatening to open fire on a school or doing something else to kill lots of people. As with all the threats that went on after Columbine, most of these threats probably aren’t serious, but it's too risky to make that assumption about every one of them. For every ten kids who think they’re being funny by saying how they’re going to shoot up a school on Facebook, there’s at least one who is actually planning a massacre and would carry it out if given the opportunity. These folks might hear about incidents like Sandy Hook and get just a little bit bolder, and the sensationalism that I always see when things like this happen just makes things worse.
I also think sensationalism in the face of tragedy plays up what seems to be another factor in violent crimes: mental illness. It’s been reported that Adam Lanza, the man responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre, had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on Lanza or his mental state, but I haven’t heard a lot about autism driving a person to mass murder. I don’t doubt that an autistic person can kill, but a quick glance at a handful of headlines on the Internet suggest that there are plenty of people who think being on the autism spectrum makes a person a ticking time bomb.
I think this is just the latest example of the notion that mental illness makes a person dangerous. I know the general public is much better informed about mental illness than they used to be, but I still believe that there are people who lump all mentally ill people into the category of “crazy.” “Crazy” people are irrational and dangerous, and at any moment they can snap and commit mass murder for no apparent reason. Since autism is seen by many as a mental illness, those with autism must be “crazy” and therefore dangerous.
Anybody who has known people with mental illness in general and autism in particular should know how wrong the previous statement is. Autism doesn’t turn a person into a violent killer, and neither does chronic depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. There is rarely one single psychological factor that drives a person to want to commit murder, and for anybody in the media to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and immoral.
Like I said before, I think we should talk about tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. There’s too much we can learn from these discussions, and turning our backs on what happened would be a huge disservice to the victims and survivors of the shooting. We need to be careful about how we talk about things, though. The sensationalism, fear mongering and misinformation that I see when something like this happens does far more harm than good.
I definitely think there’s a lot we can learn from discussions about the Sandy Hook massacre or the many other shootings that seem to be in the news these days. Sadly, for every worthwhile observation that is made, there seem to be ten that end up doing more harm than good. They focus too much on horrific details, unsubstantiated rumors and fear mongering in an attempt to present the “truth.”
A couple of days after the Sandy Hook shooting took place, a certain quote went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. Here’s an excerpt:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."
Somebody somewhere decided that this was from a statement made by Morgan Freeman. That somebody is wrong. Morgan Freeman didn’t say any of these things, and he isn’t happy that people think he did. The fact that this was going around as a statement made by Mr. Freeman is an example of Internet stupidity at work.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to the quote. Whenever a horrific act of violence grabs the nation’s attention, one of the first things that the media likes to do is dig up as much information on the perpetrators as possible. Before long, we know all about what kind of people the killers are, what their methods were, what kinds of weapons they were using and what could’ve driven them to do such horrible things. The victims are mentioned, but they're never given as much attention as the killers who are all but elevated to legendary status by the press. With that in mind, it’s no wonder why certain people are inspired by them instead of horrified.
The Sandy Hook shooting reminds me of when the Columbine massacre happened in more ways than one. In the weeks following that particular tragedy, it seemed like every high school in the country received bomb threats from kids who wanted a "fun" way to disrupt class and stick it to their schools. For the most part, these threats didn't amount to anything; they were tasteless "jokes" meant to capitalize on a tragic event. Not surprisingly, I see the same things happening now. It seems like I can’t turn on the news without hearing about someone threatening to open fire on a school or doing something else to kill lots of people. As with all the threats that went on after Columbine, most of these threats probably aren’t serious, but it's too risky to make that assumption about every one of them. For every ten kids who think they’re being funny by saying how they’re going to shoot up a school on Facebook, there’s at least one who is actually planning a massacre and would carry it out if given the opportunity. These folks might hear about incidents like Sandy Hook and get just a little bit bolder, and the sensationalism that I always see when things like this happen just makes things worse.
I also think sensationalism in the face of tragedy plays up what seems to be another factor in violent crimes: mental illness. It’s been reported that Adam Lanza, the man responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre, had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on Lanza or his mental state, but I haven’t heard a lot about autism driving a person to mass murder. I don’t doubt that an autistic person can kill, but a quick glance at a handful of headlines on the Internet suggest that there are plenty of people who think being on the autism spectrum makes a person a ticking time bomb.
I think this is just the latest example of the notion that mental illness makes a person dangerous. I know the general public is much better informed about mental illness than they used to be, but I still believe that there are people who lump all mentally ill people into the category of “crazy.” “Crazy” people are irrational and dangerous, and at any moment they can snap and commit mass murder for no apparent reason. Since autism is seen by many as a mental illness, those with autism must be “crazy” and therefore dangerous.
Anybody who has known people with mental illness in general and autism in particular should know how wrong the previous statement is. Autism doesn’t turn a person into a violent killer, and neither does chronic depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. There is rarely one single psychological factor that drives a person to want to commit murder, and for anybody in the media to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and immoral.
Like I said before, I think we should talk about tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. There’s too much we can learn from these discussions, and turning our backs on what happened would be a huge disservice to the victims and survivors of the shooting. We need to be careful about how we talk about things, though. The sensationalism, fear mongering and misinformation that I see when something like this happens does far more harm than good.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Why Gangsta Culture Isn't Funny
Last Friday, Minnesota Vikings punter and famously outspoken blogger Chris Kluwe (a.k.a ChrisWarcraft on Twitter) wrote a series of tweets about a new massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) concept he came up with. The following is what he had to say in his feed:
I would ask if all of this is racist, but I’ve always been of the opinion that if you have to ask if something is racist, then it almost certainly is. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think Kluwe was intending to be racially insensitive. This is an attempt at satire, and taken from a certain point of view it’s actually kind of funny. Kluwe is making fun of “gangsta” culture, something that I’ve always found stupid, offensive and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule we can throw at it. Unfortunately, many people see “gangsta” culture and African American culture as one and the same. There are just far too many people who will read something like this and just assume he’s making fun of African Americans in general. To make matters worse, many of these people will “agree” with him that all black people are like this and find it hilarious.
In other words, Chris Kluwe wasn’t trying to be racist, but he ended up feeding into the racism inherent in our society.
This whole thing got me thinking about “gangsta” culture and what it really represents. I’ve already said that I think it’s stupid and offensive, but I didn’t talk about why I feel this way. The way I see it, “gangsta” culture, or the version of it that has been glorified by rappers since the 1990s, is just one example of institutionalized racism. It delivers the message that African Americans are violent criminals, and it tells poor young black people everywhere that this is the best kind of life they can hope for. Meanwhile, predominantly white businessmen make millions of dollars by perpetuating negative stereotypes and giving an entire race a bad name.
Like I said before, I’d love to see someone use satire to tear down “gangsta” culture and reveal the racism behind it, but Chris Kluwe isn’t the one to do it. Kluwe is a smart guy who can be very insightful and funny, but the fact of the matter is that as a white male he’s not in the position to make these kinds of jokes. Too many people will see him as just another racist making fun of black people, which is really sad.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter that someone is making these kinds of jokes. People would understand that Kluwe is making fun of a certain subculture that happens to be related to African American culture but isn't representative of African American culture as a whole. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where racism exists, and where people like to believe that the worst stereotypes of an entire culture are true. Since we live in that world, I can't read something like Chris Kluwe's tweets about "the game" and find them funny.
Heard lots of rap lyrics reference "The game", so while running I came up with an MMO rules structure for "The game". #lookoutWoW
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Name generation in "The game" begins with a normal name, Harold Douglas for example, which is then randomly altered to be contextual.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
The name database will create a combination of words from "young", "yung", "little", "lil", "big", "old", and random "z"s thrown in.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Character classes depend on gender selection. Males can choose from "gangsta", "pimp", "hustla", and "playa". Prestige class is "real".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Female classes include "ho", "skank", "bitch", and "meat receptacle". Prestige class for women is "fly honey".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
"The game" will have permadeath, because YOLO. Unless, of course, you unlock the extremely rare [Tupac] perk. All dungeons are autotuned.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Any out of game communication on strategies or hints will result in loss of level, because snitches get stitches. Now to find a publisher...
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
I would ask if all of this is racist, but I’ve always been of the opinion that if you have to ask if something is racist, then it almost certainly is. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think Kluwe was intending to be racially insensitive. This is an attempt at satire, and taken from a certain point of view it’s actually kind of funny. Kluwe is making fun of “gangsta” culture, something that I’ve always found stupid, offensive and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule we can throw at it. Unfortunately, many people see “gangsta” culture and African American culture as one and the same. There are just far too many people who will read something like this and just assume he’s making fun of African Americans in general. To make matters worse, many of these people will “agree” with him that all black people are like this and find it hilarious.
In other words, Chris Kluwe wasn’t trying to be racist, but he ended up feeding into the racism inherent in our society.
This whole thing got me thinking about “gangsta” culture and what it really represents. I’ve already said that I think it’s stupid and offensive, but I didn’t talk about why I feel this way. The way I see it, “gangsta” culture, or the version of it that has been glorified by rappers since the 1990s, is just one example of institutionalized racism. It delivers the message that African Americans are violent criminals, and it tells poor young black people everywhere that this is the best kind of life they can hope for. Meanwhile, predominantly white businessmen make millions of dollars by perpetuating negative stereotypes and giving an entire race a bad name.
Like I said before, I’d love to see someone use satire to tear down “gangsta” culture and reveal the racism behind it, but Chris Kluwe isn’t the one to do it. Kluwe is a smart guy who can be very insightful and funny, but the fact of the matter is that as a white male he’s not in the position to make these kinds of jokes. Too many people will see him as just another racist making fun of black people, which is really sad.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter that someone is making these kinds of jokes. People would understand that Kluwe is making fun of a certain subculture that happens to be related to African American culture but isn't representative of African American culture as a whole. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where racism exists, and where people like to believe that the worst stereotypes of an entire culture are true. Since we live in that world, I can't read something like Chris Kluwe's tweets about "the game" and find them funny.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Why I Hate Debating Abortion
The 2012 Presidential Election is almost upon us, and like every election year abortion is a major issue. As always, there seems to be two main camps with regards to abortion: those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. Those on the pro-choice side believe that having an abortion should be a legal option for women facing unwanted pregnancies, while those who are pro-life believe that abortion is ethically wrong and should be outlawed.
This argument is not new; it has been around since before the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling in 1973, and I don’t think it will go away anytime soon. If abortion were made 100 percent illegal with no exceptions until the end of time, there will still be people fighting tooth and nail for a woman’s right to choose.
Yes, the debate over abortion rights is a complex one that often leads to some spirited arguments, and I hate it with every fiber of my being.
It’s not that I don’t think abortion is a complex issue or that it isn’t worthy of discussion. It’s a very complex issue with a lot of grey area, and there are few things I enjoy more than a spirited debate over a complicated topic. I should be happy to jump into an abortion debate and come out swinging, but I’m not. Aside from this blog post, I try to avoid the issue like the plague.
The only high-profile politician who has said anything about abortion recently that I can totally get behind is Vice President Joe Biden. At the recent vice presidential candidate debate, he said that he believes abortion is wrong. However, he doesn’t believe that he or anybody else has the right to make decisions regarding abortion for other people, and I agree with him. I don’t believe in abortion, and if I were a woman I would never consider it for myself except in very extreme circumstances, but I won’t force my beliefs on others. If someone were to tell me that she’s having an abortion, I wouldn’t stop her. I’d tell her that I disagree with her decision if she asked me how I felt, but in the end it’s her decision to make. Besides, outlawing abortion will create its own problems. There will always be women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, and if they can't do it legally and safely they'll resort to dangerous methods that could endanger their lives.
Technically, I would be pro-choice; I’m all for letting women make this personal decision on their own without interference from the government. Sadly, I don’t think I can tell people that I’m pro-choice, because all certain people will hear is that I’m perfectly fine with killing babies. I could clear things up and say that I don’t personally believe in abortion, but that would place me in the pro-life camp, which means that I don’t believe women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
That’s the problem I have with the abortion issue: too many people see it in black and white while ignoring the shades of grey. Like I said before, abortion is a complex issue, and expecting someone to take one of two opposing stances makes absolutely no sense to me. If I were to take any hard-line stance on abortion, I would be seen as a horrible person by those taking the opposite stance. Since I don’t completely agree with either side, I just choose to not take a side even though that’s apparently not good enough for a lot of people.
So that’s all I want to say about abortion. I understand that it’s an important issue, but until people can talk rationally about it and see how complex it really is I prefer to keep out of it.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Hello. I'm a Straight Ally.
Yesterday was International Coming Out Day, which is of course a big day for the GLBTQ community. Since I’m not GLBTQ myself, I couldn’t really take the opportunity to come out yesterday. I’m not gay, I’m not transgender and I’m pretty sure I’m not bisexual. What I am is a straight ally, something that I believe I’ve mentioned on this blog before. This means that the only way I could really celebrate International Coming Out Day was to share an image on Facebook of a name tag that says “Hello. I’m a Straight Ally.”
Yeah, I’m sure you’re thinking that I’m one of those people who think that “liking” or sharing a status on Facebook makes me an activist. Believe me when I say that I know better. The people who think clicking “like” on Facebook brings us closer to solving all of the world’s problems are irritating to be sure, and I hope I don’t come across as that kind of person. Still, I’d like to think sharing that image meant something. I am a straight GLBTQ ally, something that I think is still important.
It’s pretty clear that things have gotten a lot better for GLBTQ people, but they’re still far from perfect. For example, Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on the ballot next month that will define marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, but a constitutional amendment would make legalization next to impossible. It would limit the civil rights of a large part of the population and effectively invalidate long-term same-sex relationships, relationships that I feel are just as special and important as any “traditional” heterosexual marriage. On top of this pretty blatant attack on civil rights, GLBTQ people are still treated as pariahs and freaks in many parts of this country. They face discrimination, harassment and even threats of violence just because of who they are.
The reason why I feel being a GLBTQ ally is so important is because it would be too easy for someone like me to turn a blind eye to all of this. I’m a white heterosexual male; I’m not personally affected by the plight of the GLBTQ population. I don’t have to worry about not being able to marry the Love of my life. I can go out with her in public and not have to worry about being harassed or attacked. When I hear about the prejudice faced by a queer person, I could just say “Well, that sucks,” and come home to my wife without giving it a second thought. A lot of people do exactly that. In fact, they’re all but expected to do exactly that. Many people still see homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and all things queer as deviant, immoral and sinful, and us straight people are expected to heap scorn and ridicule onto queer people for not being “normal.” Some would say that I’m not supposed to side with queer people lest I be seen as one of them. I know this attitude isn't as prevalent as it was ten or fifteen years ago, but it’s still out there.
As a white heterosexual male, I’m part of the majority. I may not have a lot of influence in anything personally, but when I go out in public I’m still more likely to be acknowledged than a lot of other people. I have a voice, and as much as I hate to admit it, my voice is more likely to be heard above others just because of who I am. A recent report from the Williams Institute found that only about four percent of the country’s population identifies as gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s a fairly small minority, and if these people were left to stand alone they would remain marginalized. They need support just to have the same rights as everybody else. I’m happy to provide what little support I have to offer, and I’m always glad to find other straight allies who feel the same way.
For what it’s worth, I’m proud to be an ally of the GLBTQ community. I’m proud to stand up for the rights of others, even if those “others” aren't always popular. I can only hope that there are enough people out there who agree with me.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Of course some women drink too much. Of course it's a problem.
Last week, I had to write a 400-word article about famous female alcoholics who became sober. I figured that since it’s only 400 words on a topic that should be easy to research through Google, it wouldn’t take me that long to write it.
Well, it turns out I was wrong. I spent more time than anybody ever should on 400 words to write that article, simply because there simply wasn’t much information on famous female alcoholics. Yes, there was Betty Ford, but she was about the only name who came up on most sites. Nearly every other article I could find talked at great length about Eric Clapton, Robert Downey, Jr. and other famous men who struggled with alcoholism, but I had a lot of trouble finding any information on famous women who sobered up aside from stupid tabloid articles that print any salacious rumor out there as absolute fact.
So basically there was a severe shortage of information on famous female alcoholics compared to information on famous male alcoholics. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around why this was the case. Just because alcoholism is 2 ½ times more common among men than women doesn’t mean that women don’t have drinking problems, so why did I have so much trouble finding information about female alcoholics? I know Google occasionally drops the research ball for me thanks to overzealous SEO Internet marketers clogging up the web with pointless articles, but I didn't think I would have that much trouble finding relevant information.
I know part of the problem is good old fashioned misogyny. Since men are more “important” than women in society’s eyes whether people like to admit it or not, we’re less likely to hear about women or their problems. We want to hear about strong men of integrity who overcome deadly addictions to live good, long healthy lives, but apparently the same thing can’t be said about women. It’s a real shame, and as a feminist it’s something that I’ve always found irritating. Even when we’re not talking about people overcoming dangerous vices, women are basically dismissed by society. If a man accomplishes something important, it’s because he’s smart, strong and everything a man is supposed to be. If a woman does the same thing, people are in awe of the fact that something important was accomplished by a woman instead of a man. It’s not nearly as bad as it once was, but that attitude still exists in our society even when people like to pretend that it doesn’t.
Another reason why I think it was so hard to find the information I needed was because in my experiences people react differently to drunk men than they do to drunk women. Specifically, they’re far more likely to notice a man who drinks to excess and see it as a problem. Although there always seem to be guys who encourage their friends’ wild, “funny” drunken behavior, I often notice that people regard male drunks as problems waiting to happen. Guys are seen as more likely to be the kind of destructive, occasionally violent drunks that do really stupid things and cause trouble. People try to stay away from them, or at least I do. Meanwhile, girls who get drunk are just seen as having fun. They’re letting their hair down and having a blast with their girlfriends. They’re laughing, dancing and flirting with guys. People don’t look at these women and see them as having a problem.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’ve noticed that society is dismissive of the problem of alcohol abuse in women. I’ve been to plenty of parties where people think the giggly drunk girls who are flirting with all the guys are fun while thinking that the drunk guys are obnoxious. They rarely saw the girls’ behavior as problematic, which was problematic in itself. The guys at these parties didn't seem to realize (or care) that some of those drunk girls who were flirting with them would get drunk regularly and be just as self-destructive as that guy who trashes his friends' houses, starts fights and crashes his car when he has too much to drink.
These are just my own opinions and theories, but I really think this dismissive attitude towards women who drink extends into our fascination with celebrities. The famous men who have beaten alcoholism become role models for young and old men because of their strength, courage and determination. From what I could tell in my research for my article last week, women don’t have the same role models. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of famous women who have conquered alcoholism and other vices, but it doesn’t seem that people talk about them quite as much. I think it’s time for that to change.
Then again, maybe I'm thinking too much about this, and my inner rabble-rousing feminist is seeing a bigger problem that isn't there while I rage about the occasional uselessness of Google.
What do you think?
Monday, September 3, 2012
This Is Why I Belong to My Church
I'm not particularly religious. In fact, I'm pretty damn close to being an agnostic. I question everything in the Bible and in traditional Christian dogma, and the only thing that I feel sure of is that there is such a thing as God. I only feel sure of that because I can't imagine the universe appearing out of nothing; some force had to have created it.
To anybody who knows me or who has read some of the previous entries on my blog, this is old news. I will gladly discuss my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to anybody who listens. However, what I don't think I've talked about here a whole lot is that I actually do go to church. I am a member of Living Table United Church of Christ, and if it wasn't for that church I'm pretty sure I would've turned my back on Christianity long ago.
I guess the reason why I love being a member of Living Table is because everyone is welcome there, even those who wouldn't be welcome at other so-called "Christian" churches. Much of the congregation is made up of members of the GLBTQ community, a group that I feel has been unfairly ostracized and vilified all too often in mainstream Christianity for things that I've come to believe aren't even sinful. I have to admit to being a little nervous the first time I went to Living Table. I may be a GLBTQ ally, but I'm not part of that community. I half expected someone in the congregation to question my reasons for being there and tell me that I don't belong. That never happened. I was welcomed with open arms, just like everyone else who attends a service either as a visitor or member of the congregation. There are Christians, agnostics, pagans and at least one person who was raised Jewish in the congregation, and while most of them are GLBTQ it's clear that Living Table isn't intended as a "gay church" like I'm sure certain people would call it. Everyone is welcome and accepted there, and nobody is called upon to change who they are and repent their "sinful" lifestyles. That's what attracted me to the church, and that's why I'm proud to be a member.
And yet, my membership of Living Table doesn't change the fact that I think Christianity in America is royally screwed up for the most part. I got a sad reminder of that yesterday when I had heard that our pastor was performing a funeral service. Of course, that's not unusual. Pastors perform funeral services all the time. The thing that bothered me about this was that our pastor was the fifth pastor asked to perform the funeral. The first four who were asked refused to do it.
Why would four different pastors refuse to honor the passing of one of God's own children? Well, it turns out that this particular child of God was a transgender sex worker and therefore a sinner whose life is apparently better served as an example of how not to live.
I was stunned when I heard this news, but I probably shouldn't have been. I came to the conclusion long ago that much of mainstream American Christianity is horribly intolerant. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or if people these days are more likely to express things that conservative Christians frown upon, but it's getting harder and harder for me to hear about Christians and not imagine a group of elitist bigots who are quick to pass judgment on anybody different from them. I understand that not everybody will be comfortable with someone who is transgender, and I know plenty of people think sex work is amoral, but refusing to show respect for a person by not performing their funeral goes against everything that Christianity is supposed to stand for. I was taught that Christians should not only be compassionate and caring, but also forgiving. The fact that four pastors refused to perform this person's funeral is just sickening.
I like to call myself an agnostic Christian. The only reason why I don't call myself completely agnostic is because of Living Table and the brand of Christianity of the United Church of Christ. As far as I'm concerned, that is real Christianity; refusing to honor someone who has just died because you didn't approve of their lifestyle is not Christian.
To anybody who knows me or who has read some of the previous entries on my blog, this is old news. I will gladly discuss my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to anybody who listens. However, what I don't think I've talked about here a whole lot is that I actually do go to church. I am a member of Living Table United Church of Christ, and if it wasn't for that church I'm pretty sure I would've turned my back on Christianity long ago.
I guess the reason why I love being a member of Living Table is because everyone is welcome there, even those who wouldn't be welcome at other so-called "Christian" churches. Much of the congregation is made up of members of the GLBTQ community, a group that I feel has been unfairly ostracized and vilified all too often in mainstream Christianity for things that I've come to believe aren't even sinful. I have to admit to being a little nervous the first time I went to Living Table. I may be a GLBTQ ally, but I'm not part of that community. I half expected someone in the congregation to question my reasons for being there and tell me that I don't belong. That never happened. I was welcomed with open arms, just like everyone else who attends a service either as a visitor or member of the congregation. There are Christians, agnostics, pagans and at least one person who was raised Jewish in the congregation, and while most of them are GLBTQ it's clear that Living Table isn't intended as a "gay church" like I'm sure certain people would call it. Everyone is welcome and accepted there, and nobody is called upon to change who they are and repent their "sinful" lifestyles. That's what attracted me to the church, and that's why I'm proud to be a member.
And yet, my membership of Living Table doesn't change the fact that I think Christianity in America is royally screwed up for the most part. I got a sad reminder of that yesterday when I had heard that our pastor was performing a funeral service. Of course, that's not unusual. Pastors perform funeral services all the time. The thing that bothered me about this was that our pastor was the fifth pastor asked to perform the funeral. The first four who were asked refused to do it.
Why would four different pastors refuse to honor the passing of one of God's own children? Well, it turns out that this particular child of God was a transgender sex worker and therefore a sinner whose life is apparently better served as an example of how not to live.
I was stunned when I heard this news, but I probably shouldn't have been. I came to the conclusion long ago that much of mainstream American Christianity is horribly intolerant. I'm not sure if it's getting worse or if people these days are more likely to express things that conservative Christians frown upon, but it's getting harder and harder for me to hear about Christians and not imagine a group of elitist bigots who are quick to pass judgment on anybody different from them. I understand that not everybody will be comfortable with someone who is transgender, and I know plenty of people think sex work is amoral, but refusing to show respect for a person by not performing their funeral goes against everything that Christianity is supposed to stand for. I was taught that Christians should not only be compassionate and caring, but also forgiving. The fact that four pastors refused to perform this person's funeral is just sickening.
I like to call myself an agnostic Christian. The only reason why I don't call myself completely agnostic is because of Living Table and the brand of Christianity of the United Church of Christ. As far as I'm concerned, that is real Christianity; refusing to honor someone who has just died because you didn't approve of their lifestyle is not Christian.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
A Blog Post that You Need to Read
I didn't write the post I'm about to link this blog to, but it is something that absolutely needs to be read.
I would like to think that any decent human being would do all that they can to help out a victim of domestic abuse, but many people don't seem to understand exactly what that entails. We would like to think that it's a simple matter of giving the abuse victim a place to stay or to help them escape a bad situation, but it's not that simple. Without going into any concrete details, I'll just say that this is something my wife and I are learning about first-hand.
Fortunately, my wonderful wife wrote this handy guide to providing assistance and shelter to a victim of abuse. It's kind of a long post, but I would encourage everybody to read it. You can find it here.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Remake Nobody Asked For
This November, a modern day remake of the Cold War era classic Red Dawn will be hitting theaters.
For those of you too young to know what I'm talking about, the original Red Dawn was a 1984 war movie in which the United States is invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviet army takes over much of the country, but a group of teenage resistance fighters calling themselves the Wolverines fight back and go to war against the invaders. It's not a bad movie, and it certainly hit a nerve with people who believed that such an invasion could happen. I was only four when the movie came out, so I didn't see it until it was broadcast on TV a few years later. Even at a young age, I heard the movie's message loud and clear. It was totally believable at the time, almost to the point where I had to remind myself that what I was watching was fictional. It's as blatant as propaganda gets, but I have to admire any movie that can grab its audience and make them believe what they're seeing.
As for the remake, well...take a look at the trailer yourself:
The trailer looks like what I would expect from a Red Dawn remake. Most of the elements that I remember from the original seem to be present. There's an invasion from a foreign country, teenage rebels calling themselves Wolverines and lots of stuff blowing up. Sadly, there are no Russians this time. The threat of the Soviet Union is twenty years gone, so the Wolverines will need new commies to kill. Originally, that role was going to be played by the Chinese, but somebody thought it was unwise to make a movie depicting the country that is poised to become the next major world superpower as the enemy, so they did the next best thing.
Instead of an invading Chinese army, we get an invading North Korean army. After all, nobody likes North Korea, right?
*Sigh*
Where do I begin?
First of all, a Red Dawn remake set in the present day seems pretty pointless. Like I said before, the original Red Dawn worked because it took place during the Cold War when a Soviet invasion seemed plausible. It played on people's fears and added a healthy dose of "Die, commie! Die!" jingoism in the process. While a war against North Korea could conceivably happen, chances are that they don't have the resources to actually invade us like they do in this movie. A war against North Korea would most likely be fought on Korean soil, making a movie about a powerful North Korean invasion force taking over a large part of our country laughably unrealistic.
Second of all, the decision to turn the invading Chinese army into an invading North Korean army came so late in the film's production that editors had to digitally alter much of the footage. Chinese flags and uniforms had to be changed to North Korean flags and uniforms, and any dialogue that was originally in Chinese had to be re-dubbed into Korean. No effort was made to make the Asian actors playing the invading Chinese army look Korean. They're Asian, and that's all that apparently matters to us dumbass Americans who believe that all Asians look alike.
Finally, the thing about all of this that bothers me the most is that people are going to get the wrong idea about this movie. North Korea was chosen as the enemy because any remake of Red Dawn needs evil Communists, and the real North Korea is the Communist nation most likely to be hostile towards us. And yet, what I'm seeing is a movie where good, heroic, mostly white Americans fight off an army of evil Asians. Maybe I'm wrong and the movie will be much more racially sensitive than I expect, but any movie with a trailer that has a white man point at an Asian man while telling his kids to "kill this piece of shit" probably isn't striving for political correctness. Something tells me that this movie could very well have been called Yellow Peril without missing a beat.
When I was a child in the 1980s, I believed that Russians were inherently evil. I learned that from movies and TV shows that said as much, and that includes the original Red Dawn. I seriously doubt people will develop that kind of hatred and fear for North Korea or those of Asian descent after seeing the Red Dawn remake, but I can't help thinking that it will at least encourage the most xenophobic and racist people in our country.
This whole thing is especially troubling to me because I have members in my family that are of Korean descent. My wife is Korean, and her two sons are half-Korean. My youngest stepson already has idiots at school telling him things like "We kicked your ass in the Korean War." What's going to happen when these kids or others like them see stuff like the new Red Dawn and start to think that they should watch out for those shifty Koreans? I know I'm probably just being paranoid, but the fact that a movie that could so easily be interpreted in this way could be released in 2012 is a little disturbing.
The new Red Dawn has got to be the stupidest idea to come out of Hollywood in some time. Not only is it the latest in a long line of pointless remakes, but the whole thing comes off as insensitive or even offensive to me. I'm not calling for a boycott of this movie or anything like that, but it's safe to say that I'm going to pass on it.
For those of you too young to know what I'm talking about, the original Red Dawn was a 1984 war movie in which the United States is invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviet army takes over much of the country, but a group of teenage resistance fighters calling themselves the Wolverines fight back and go to war against the invaders. It's not a bad movie, and it certainly hit a nerve with people who believed that such an invasion could happen. I was only four when the movie came out, so I didn't see it until it was broadcast on TV a few years later. Even at a young age, I heard the movie's message loud and clear. It was totally believable at the time, almost to the point where I had to remind myself that what I was watching was fictional. It's as blatant as propaganda gets, but I have to admire any movie that can grab its audience and make them believe what they're seeing.
As for the remake, well...take a look at the trailer yourself:
The trailer looks like what I would expect from a Red Dawn remake. Most of the elements that I remember from the original seem to be present. There's an invasion from a foreign country, teenage rebels calling themselves Wolverines and lots of stuff blowing up. Sadly, there are no Russians this time. The threat of the Soviet Union is twenty years gone, so the Wolverines will need new commies to kill. Originally, that role was going to be played by the Chinese, but somebody thought it was unwise to make a movie depicting the country that is poised to become the next major world superpower as the enemy, so they did the next best thing.
Instead of an invading Chinese army, we get an invading North Korean army. After all, nobody likes North Korea, right?
*Sigh*
Where do I begin?
First of all, a Red Dawn remake set in the present day seems pretty pointless. Like I said before, the original Red Dawn worked because it took place during the Cold War when a Soviet invasion seemed plausible. It played on people's fears and added a healthy dose of "Die, commie! Die!" jingoism in the process. While a war against North Korea could conceivably happen, chances are that they don't have the resources to actually invade us like they do in this movie. A war against North Korea would most likely be fought on Korean soil, making a movie about a powerful North Korean invasion force taking over a large part of our country laughably unrealistic.
Second of all, the decision to turn the invading Chinese army into an invading North Korean army came so late in the film's production that editors had to digitally alter much of the footage. Chinese flags and uniforms had to be changed to North Korean flags and uniforms, and any dialogue that was originally in Chinese had to be re-dubbed into Korean. No effort was made to make the Asian actors playing the invading Chinese army look Korean. They're Asian, and that's all that apparently matters to us dumbass Americans who believe that all Asians look alike.
Finally, the thing about all of this that bothers me the most is that people are going to get the wrong idea about this movie. North Korea was chosen as the enemy because any remake of Red Dawn needs evil Communists, and the real North Korea is the Communist nation most likely to be hostile towards us. And yet, what I'm seeing is a movie where good, heroic, mostly white Americans fight off an army of evil Asians. Maybe I'm wrong and the movie will be much more racially sensitive than I expect, but any movie with a trailer that has a white man point at an Asian man while telling his kids to "kill this piece of shit" probably isn't striving for political correctness. Something tells me that this movie could very well have been called Yellow Peril without missing a beat.
When I was a child in the 1980s, I believed that Russians were inherently evil. I learned that from movies and TV shows that said as much, and that includes the original Red Dawn. I seriously doubt people will develop that kind of hatred and fear for North Korea or those of Asian descent after seeing the Red Dawn remake, but I can't help thinking that it will at least encourage the most xenophobic and racist people in our country.
This whole thing is especially troubling to me because I have members in my family that are of Korean descent. My wife is Korean, and her two sons are half-Korean. My youngest stepson already has idiots at school telling him things like "We kicked your ass in the Korean War." What's going to happen when these kids or others like them see stuff like the new Red Dawn and start to think that they should watch out for those shifty Koreans? I know I'm probably just being paranoid, but the fact that a movie that could so easily be interpreted in this way could be released in 2012 is a little disturbing.
The new Red Dawn has got to be the stupidest idea to come out of Hollywood in some time. Not only is it the latest in a long line of pointless remakes, but the whole thing comes off as insensitive or even offensive to me. I'm not calling for a boycott of this movie or anything like that, but it's safe to say that I'm going to pass on it.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Superheroes Aren't "Realistic"
This should come as a surprise to nobody who has known me for longer than a year, but I love superheroes. I grew up reading comic books, and I've enjoyed most of the superhero movies that have made it into theaters since they practically became their own genre a decade ago. In fact, my last post on this blog was even a review of The Amazing Spider-man. I'm that geek who gets more excited than anybody really should whenever a new superhero movie comes out, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Despite the fact that we seem to be in a "golden age" of sorts of superhero movies, I can't help but think that there are still some people who just don't get what makes these movies work. I remember when every movie based on a comic book was expected to be a mindless action movie that appealed only to kids and adults who acted like kids. This approach has fallen by the wayside and deemed disrespectful to the source material, but in some respects it seems like people are expecting the complete opposite. Right now, it seems like critics and filmmakers who don't know any better seem to think that the best way to make a superhero movie is to try to make it "gritty" and "realistic." Yes, Christopher Nolan's Batman movies ran with this approach and turned out to be some of the greatest superhero movies of all time, but part of the reason why that approach worked so well is because Batman is (mostly) a gritty and realistic character. It's always been part of his appeal. Batman is a normal guy who just happens to have undergone enough training to hold his own in nightly fights against criminals. Anything he cannot do himself he makes up for with the kind of state-of-the-art crime-fighting equipment that only a billionaire can afford. The idea of Batman has always been that he could exist in the real world, so the Nolan Batman films benefited from a more realistic approach.
The kind of realism of Nolan's Batman trilogy doesn't work so well for other superheroes, however. I was more than a little dismayed when Spider-man was going to get a similar treatment, but I was pleasantly surprised by the results. The Amazing Spider-man was the closest anybody will ever come to a "realistic" take on Spider-man, and it was still about a teenager who gains superpowers from a spider bite and uses them to fight a giant lizard man. It was a smart and believable take on the classic character, but in the end what worked was that the director just ran with the fact that the movie was about a teenager who gains superpowers from a spider bite and fights a giant lizard man. That's not a realistic concept, but it fit the world of the movie.
That's really what makes a superhero movie work: it's set within a world where characters like Spider-man, Batman or Superman can believably exist even if that world isn't our own. Superheroes aren't realistic; they cannot exist in the real world, so they need to be placed in a world where they can exist. I think the most satisfying superhero movies so far have been the movies made by Marvel Studios, and the reason why I believe that is because they exist in their own world with their own rules. Yes, those rules are very close to those of our real world, but they are just different enough to have a billionaire fly around in a robotic suit of armor or a mild-mannered scientist turn into a monster when he gets angry. It's the stuff of pure fantasy, but it fits perfectly in the Marvel Universe. The filmmakers commit to this world and its rules, which is why the colorful heroes that inhabit it never seem silly or out of place like they would in our world. The world is taken seriously, and by the third act of The Avengers (a.k.a. the most satisfying superhero movie ever made) I was able to suspend my disbelief even as the heroes were fighting off an army of aliens led by the Norse god of mischief in New York.
Aside from Nolan's Batman films, superhero movies shouldn't be realistic because superheroes themselves aren't realistic. They cannot and should not exist in the real world, but they can exist in their own world, and it's the commitment to this world that makes superhero movies work. Sadly, with Hollywood being the way it is, I can't help but think we'll bee seeing a lot of really poor attempts at "gritty realism" in movies starring the colorful heroes of my youth.
Despite the fact that we seem to be in a "golden age" of sorts of superhero movies, I can't help but think that there are still some people who just don't get what makes these movies work. I remember when every movie based on a comic book was expected to be a mindless action movie that appealed only to kids and adults who acted like kids. This approach has fallen by the wayside and deemed disrespectful to the source material, but in some respects it seems like people are expecting the complete opposite. Right now, it seems like critics and filmmakers who don't know any better seem to think that the best way to make a superhero movie is to try to make it "gritty" and "realistic." Yes, Christopher Nolan's Batman movies ran with this approach and turned out to be some of the greatest superhero movies of all time, but part of the reason why that approach worked so well is because Batman is (mostly) a gritty and realistic character. It's always been part of his appeal. Batman is a normal guy who just happens to have undergone enough training to hold his own in nightly fights against criminals. Anything he cannot do himself he makes up for with the kind of state-of-the-art crime-fighting equipment that only a billionaire can afford. The idea of Batman has always been that he could exist in the real world, so the Nolan Batman films benefited from a more realistic approach.
The kind of realism of Nolan's Batman trilogy doesn't work so well for other superheroes, however. I was more than a little dismayed when Spider-man was going to get a similar treatment, but I was pleasantly surprised by the results. The Amazing Spider-man was the closest anybody will ever come to a "realistic" take on Spider-man, and it was still about a teenager who gains superpowers from a spider bite and uses them to fight a giant lizard man. It was a smart and believable take on the classic character, but in the end what worked was that the director just ran with the fact that the movie was about a teenager who gains superpowers from a spider bite and fights a giant lizard man. That's not a realistic concept, but it fit the world of the movie.
That's really what makes a superhero movie work: it's set within a world where characters like Spider-man, Batman or Superman can believably exist even if that world isn't our own. Superheroes aren't realistic; they cannot exist in the real world, so they need to be placed in a world where they can exist. I think the most satisfying superhero movies so far have been the movies made by Marvel Studios, and the reason why I believe that is because they exist in their own world with their own rules. Yes, those rules are very close to those of our real world, but they are just different enough to have a billionaire fly around in a robotic suit of armor or a mild-mannered scientist turn into a monster when he gets angry. It's the stuff of pure fantasy, but it fits perfectly in the Marvel Universe. The filmmakers commit to this world and its rules, which is why the colorful heroes that inhabit it never seem silly or out of place like they would in our world. The world is taken seriously, and by the third act of The Avengers (a.k.a. the most satisfying superhero movie ever made) I was able to suspend my disbelief even as the heroes were fighting off an army of aliens led by the Norse god of mischief in New York.
Aside from Nolan's Batman films, superhero movies shouldn't be realistic because superheroes themselves aren't realistic. They cannot and should not exist in the real world, but they can exist in their own world, and it's the commitment to this world that makes superhero movies work. Sadly, with Hollywood being the way it is, I can't help but think we'll bee seeing a lot of really poor attempts at "gritty realism" in movies starring the colorful heroes of my youth.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Amazing Spider-man: A Review
When I heard that the Spider-man film franchise was being rebooted, I wasn’t happy. Not only is Sam Raimi’s Spider-man trilogy not even ten years old, but it was actually good. Sure, Spider-man 3 wasn’t as good as the first two, but I don’t think it was a bad movie. I certainly didn’t think it was any justification to start over with a reboot so soon. I could’ve seen a reboot in ten years, but not now.
That’s what I was telling myself when The Amazing Spider-man was first announced. I had no interest in it, and figured it was just following the current trend of rebooting stalled or failed movie franchises. After all, the recent reboots for Batman, James Bond and Star Trek all made a ton of money, so why not Spider-man? Never mind that the last Spider-man movie came out just five years ago.
I started to change my mind about the concept when I saw the trailers though. Andrew Garfield looked like a great Peter Parker, and while the movie looked darker than the Raimi Films it also looked exciting. I was intrigued, so I decided to check it out for myself at a midnight showing last night.
It’s been said that The Amazing Spider-man borrows a lot from Christopher Nolan’s Batman films with its darker tone and attempts to ground the movie in reality. In fact, it’s been said so often that it’s almost a cliche by now. A lot of hack critics love to compare new movies to whatever is popular at the time, and I’m sure I could find a review that describes this movie as The Avengers meets The Dark Knight. As much as I hate to think that I’m stooping to the level of a hack film critic, I have to say that this movie’s comparison to the Nolan Batman films isn’t entirely inappropriate. It’s darker in that Spider-man starts out as an angry, vengeance-driven vigilante obsessed with finding his uncle’s killer, and it’s more grounded in reality in that the action scenes feel more realistic than those in Raimi’s films. This sounds pretty horrible for a movie about Spider-man, a character that’s supposed to be fantastic and fun, but it’s better in execution than it is on paper. Yes, Spider-man starts out wanting to find his uncle’s killer, but he soon learns that he should be using his powers to help people instead of just beating up thugs. It’s how he learns the lesson of great power and great responsibility here; he has the power to help people, so it’s his responsibility to do just that. It allows him to grow as a character in a way that wasn’t apparent in the earlier films. As for the action scenes, they look more realistic this time around. When we see Spider-man swinging through the city or flipping around during fight scenes, it looks like it’s actually happening. I’m sure there was no small amount of CGI used, but at least it’s more convincing that a lot of CGI we’ve seen in previous Spider-man movies.. It feels organic. I believed that what I was seeing was really happening when before I felt like I was watching a cartoon or video game. A visually impressive cartoon or video game, but a cartoon or video game all the same.
The rest of the movie worked just fine for me, although it’s not perfect. It’s basically a retelling of Spider-man’s origin story. This time around, Peter Parker is a quirky yet charming loner instead of an awkward nerd. He’s still bitten by a mutated spider, but this time it happens when he’s snooping around the mysterious laboratory where his deceased father used to work. His beloved Uncle Ben still gets killed by someone he could’ve stopped. He still becomes a hero, but it’s a slower progression in which he goes from being a maskless vigilante to a masked vigilante to a full-blown superhero who realizes that he should be helping people in need instead of just beating up criminals. Like I said before, it gives Peter a logical and smart character arc that is totally believable.
Speaking of Peter Parker, I can’t write a review of this movie without mentioning Andrew Garfield’s excellent portrayal of the character. He’s odd and quirky, but also very sweet and charming. He has moments of angst, but he never gets too dark. He can be very funny, especially when he goes into full Spider-man mode and tosses quips left and right (something that was sorely lacking in Raimi’s films). He’s incredibly likable, and he carries the movie well. He also has great chemistry with Emma Stone’s Gwen Stacy. Both Garfield and Stone come off as awkward, smitten teenagers, and they have exactly the kind of relationship a good coming-of-age teenage drama needs.
Unfortunately, this movie isn’t perfect. First of all, I didn’t feel that Uncle Ben’s death carried as much weight as it should have. It felt a little like he was killed off just because that’s how the story goes. Uncle Ben has to die in a Spider-man origin story, just like Krypton has to explode in a Superman origin story, and Bruce Wayne’s parents have to be murdered in a Batman story. It’s too integral to Spider-man’s origin not to be included. Ben’s actual death scene is handled well enough, but the rest of the movie treats it almost as an afterthought. We get a couple of scenes of Peter angsting about it and a revenge subplot that gets dropped as soon as Peter figures out what his true calling is, but that’s about it. Uncle Ben’s presence should be felt throughout the movie even after he’s killed, yet when it’s finally brought up again towards the end I found myself thinking, “Oh yeah, that’s right, his uncle died,” as if it was a minor footnote in the script. The loss of a beloved father figure should have a greater impact than that.
Another complaint that I have is that the villain is uninteresting. Rhys Ifans plays Curt Connors and the Lizard well enough, but I never really bought into the character. He starts out as a benevolent scientist wanting to do something to help humanity, but after injecting himself with a serum and turning into a giant lizard creature he almost immediately becomes a mad scientist bent on "fixing" the human race with his serum. He even has a secret lab in the sewers. I can understand that his transformation affects his mind, but he goes from benevolent scientist to supervillain too quickly and with little motivation. At least his fight scenes with Spider-man look cool.
There’s also some business of trying to set up a sequel by leaving some plot threads unresolved. There are hints of an evil corporate overlord/criminal mastermind pulling everyone’s strings, and the mystery of why Peter’s parents disappeared is never resolved. It’s fairly transparent sequel baiting that’s common in movies these days. It’s frustrating to see in most movies, but what we’re given is intriguing enough to pique my curiosity, so I'm more willing to give it a pass this time.
Overall, I have to say that The Amazing Spider-man is a smarter and more satisfying reboot than I expected it to be. It has its flaws, but the good outweighs the bad. I’m not sure I like it as much as Spider-man or Spider-man 2, but it’s definitely better than Spider-man 3. For what it’s worth, I hope it does well enough to warrant a couple of sequels. I’d love to see where this story is headed.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Geek Elite, or I Was a Geek Before It Was Cool
Next month, I will be attending CONvergence, an annual sci-fi/fantasy convention that is held every July in Bloomington, MN. This will be my fourth year there, and as always I’m excited. For me, it’s basically one big weekend-long party with a bunch of geeks who love sci-fi, fantasy, comic books, video games and lots of other things that I’ve loved since I was a kid.
Of course, like any good convention, CONvergence is host to lots of panels to discuss all things geeky. I took a look at some of the panels available. Just like every year, some of them really spoke to me while some probably won’t hold my interest. I haven’t made much of a game plan as far as hitting these panels is concerned (I never do; it’s more fun for me to make plans on the fly), but one panel that caught my attention that’s been on my mind is one discussing when geek shows and movies go mainstream.
To this longtime self-described geek, the idea of mainstream geek properties is intriguing to me. When I was growing up, being a geek was anything but mainstream. Most of the people I knew were at best dimly aware that things like comic books, anime, sci-fi/fantasy novels and roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons even existed, and many who did know of them thought they only appealed to socially awkward kids with no friends or weird middle-aged virgins who still lived with their parents. Being a geek was decidedly not cool, and all the things that us geeks liked were pushed to the fringes of society where they were all but invisible to mainstreamers.
Things started to change sometime in the early 2000s. Movies like Spider-man, X-Men and the Lord of the Rings trilogy became huge hits in theaters, TV shows like Lost, Heroes and Battlestar Galactica became ratings giants, and the mainstream press started to treat events like the San Diego Comic Con with respect as opposed to weird sideshows. Today, one of the most popular shows on TV is an adaptation of a series of medieval fantasy novels, the biggest movie of the summer so far is based on a 50 year-old comic book series, and video games are a bigger business than movies. On top of all of this, practically everyone uses a computer and an Internet connection to communicate with each other, something that only the hardcore computer nerds did when I was growing up. In other words, geekiness has gone mainstream.
How do I feel about some of my favorite past times and properties stepping out of the shadows to be embraced by all the “normal” people of the world? I love it. Whenever I hear about someone picking up a George R.R. Martin novel after watching Game of Thrones on HBO or buying a bunch of comic books after seeing The Avengers in theaters, I can’t help but smile. I’ve known for years that comic books, anime and fantasy novels can tell great stories, and now that the rest of the world is starting to catch on it kind of feels like my geek friends and I are being vindicated.
Unfortunately, not everyone feels the way that I do. There will always be folks out there who shun all things that are mainstream and embrace obscure alternatives in an attempt to look cool and contrary. I think these people are called “hipsters,” but I tend to be out of touch with most pop culture movements that don’t involve comic books or science fiction, so I could be mistaken (I’ll call them hipsters anyway because it makes things easier). These people often think of entertainment as “theirs,” and they don’t want to share it. When something that isn’t well-known or well-liked is suddenly embraced by the mainstream, one of two things happen: either the hipster elite shuns the now-popular thing and decry its creators as “sellouts,” or they decry the new fans as “posers.” After all, they liked the now-popular thing “before it was cool,” so they’re the only ones who have earned the right to like it. This attitude is mostly associated with the indie music scene, but I think it applies to geek culture as well.
Just like the hipsters in the indie music scene, geeks can be very protective of the things that are “theirs.” They’ve been on the fringes of popular culture for so long that it’s become a point of pride. It makes them unique, and they don’t like it when the “cool” people trespass on what has added to their uniqueness. I’ve seen geeks take people to task for things such as liking superheroes for the movies they appear in and not the comics, calling themselves gamers when they play “casual” games or for watching anime dubbed instead of subtitled. It’s as if people need to gain a certain amount of geek cred before they can truly be accepted by the “geek elite.” If you don’t have the cred (i.e., act and think as the elite geeks tell you to act and think), you have no business calling yourself a geek. It’s a sad, pathetic and hypocritical way to act, especially for a subculture that for years was so unfairly shunned. I know there are posers out there who call themselves geeks just because they happen to have watched Game of Thrones a few times or saw The Avengers once during its opening weekend, but the elitist bullshit has to stop. I know not all geeks are like this; I don’t even think most geeks are like this. Still, the fact that even some geeks are like this annoys me to no end, especially since I’ll be forced to interact with them sooner or later.
As I said before, I’m thrilled that being a geek (or at least liking geeky things) is cool now. I see it as people finding out what I’ve known for years, and I welcome the chance to talk to new converts to the geek culture. I’d like to think any rational human being who likes what I like would agree with me. If you find that your favorite geeky pastime or property is becoming popular with the mainstream, be happy. It means that more people are starting to agree with you about what’s cool.
As for the panel at CONvergence, I might check it out when I’m there. I think it would be interesting, even if to see if people see things the way I do or if I’m just crazy. In any case, I plan to spend that weekend hanging out with the geek "posers" and those where were geeks "before it was cool."
Of course, like any good convention, CONvergence is host to lots of panels to discuss all things geeky. I took a look at some of the panels available. Just like every year, some of them really spoke to me while some probably won’t hold my interest. I haven’t made much of a game plan as far as hitting these panels is concerned (I never do; it’s more fun for me to make plans on the fly), but one panel that caught my attention that’s been on my mind is one discussing when geek shows and movies go mainstream.
To this longtime self-described geek, the idea of mainstream geek properties is intriguing to me. When I was growing up, being a geek was anything but mainstream. Most of the people I knew were at best dimly aware that things like comic books, anime, sci-fi/fantasy novels and roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons even existed, and many who did know of them thought they only appealed to socially awkward kids with no friends or weird middle-aged virgins who still lived with their parents. Being a geek was decidedly not cool, and all the things that us geeks liked were pushed to the fringes of society where they were all but invisible to mainstreamers.
Things started to change sometime in the early 2000s. Movies like Spider-man, X-Men and the Lord of the Rings trilogy became huge hits in theaters, TV shows like Lost, Heroes and Battlestar Galactica became ratings giants, and the mainstream press started to treat events like the San Diego Comic Con with respect as opposed to weird sideshows. Today, one of the most popular shows on TV is an adaptation of a series of medieval fantasy novels, the biggest movie of the summer so far is based on a 50 year-old comic book series, and video games are a bigger business than movies. On top of all of this, practically everyone uses a computer and an Internet connection to communicate with each other, something that only the hardcore computer nerds did when I was growing up. In other words, geekiness has gone mainstream.
How do I feel about some of my favorite past times and properties stepping out of the shadows to be embraced by all the “normal” people of the world? I love it. Whenever I hear about someone picking up a George R.R. Martin novel after watching Game of Thrones on HBO or buying a bunch of comic books after seeing The Avengers in theaters, I can’t help but smile. I’ve known for years that comic books, anime and fantasy novels can tell great stories, and now that the rest of the world is starting to catch on it kind of feels like my geek friends and I are being vindicated.
Unfortunately, not everyone feels the way that I do. There will always be folks out there who shun all things that are mainstream and embrace obscure alternatives in an attempt to look cool and contrary. I think these people are called “hipsters,” but I tend to be out of touch with most pop culture movements that don’t involve comic books or science fiction, so I could be mistaken (I’ll call them hipsters anyway because it makes things easier). These people often think of entertainment as “theirs,” and they don’t want to share it. When something that isn’t well-known or well-liked is suddenly embraced by the mainstream, one of two things happen: either the hipster elite shuns the now-popular thing and decry its creators as “sellouts,” or they decry the new fans as “posers.” After all, they liked the now-popular thing “before it was cool,” so they’re the only ones who have earned the right to like it. This attitude is mostly associated with the indie music scene, but I think it applies to geek culture as well.
Just like the hipsters in the indie music scene, geeks can be very protective of the things that are “theirs.” They’ve been on the fringes of popular culture for so long that it’s become a point of pride. It makes them unique, and they don’t like it when the “cool” people trespass on what has added to their uniqueness. I’ve seen geeks take people to task for things such as liking superheroes for the movies they appear in and not the comics, calling themselves gamers when they play “casual” games or for watching anime dubbed instead of subtitled. It’s as if people need to gain a certain amount of geek cred before they can truly be accepted by the “geek elite.” If you don’t have the cred (i.e., act and think as the elite geeks tell you to act and think), you have no business calling yourself a geek. It’s a sad, pathetic and hypocritical way to act, especially for a subculture that for years was so unfairly shunned. I know there are posers out there who call themselves geeks just because they happen to have watched Game of Thrones a few times or saw The Avengers once during its opening weekend, but the elitist bullshit has to stop. I know not all geeks are like this; I don’t even think most geeks are like this. Still, the fact that even some geeks are like this annoys me to no end, especially since I’ll be forced to interact with them sooner or later.
As I said before, I’m thrilled that being a geek (or at least liking geeky things) is cool now. I see it as people finding out what I’ve known for years, and I welcome the chance to talk to new converts to the geek culture. I’d like to think any rational human being who likes what I like would agree with me. If you find that your favorite geeky pastime or property is becoming popular with the mainstream, be happy. It means that more people are starting to agree with you about what’s cool.
As for the panel at CONvergence, I might check it out when I’m there. I think it would be interesting, even if to see if people see things the way I do or if I’m just crazy. In any case, I plan to spend that weekend hanging out with the geek "posers" and those where were geeks "before it was cool."
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
When Facebook Sells Out
I’ve posted about it before long ago, but I’ve been heavily involved in a grassroots movement called SlutWalk Minneapolis, one of the many SlutWalks that took place last year all over the world. Last year’s SlutWalk was a big success, and we’re gearing up to have another one this year on Saturday, October 6. Like many successful grassroots organizations in the 21st Century, we’ve relied heavily on Facebook to spread the word on who we are and what we stand for. We’ve had a lot of success using Facebook to promote not just the Walk itself, but the various other advocacy and fundraising events that led up to it. We tried to do the same thing this year, but we’ve hit a huge stumbling block. It turns out that the Facebook page we created for SlutWalk Minneapolis has only been reaching a few of its 2,000-plus subscribers thanks to some new policies that Facebook has put in place.
What are these policies, you ask? Well, I could describe them, but I think this article covers it better than I ever could. It’s a long post, but before you stupidly put “too long; didn’t read” in the comments section at least give it a scan. There’s even an “executive summary” towards the beginning of the article that sums things up nicely.
The long and short of it is that Facebook is using a algorithm called EdgeRank which has an impact on what ends up on your news feed. Basically, EdgeRank decides what you see from pages that you’ve “liked” based on its relevancy and your interests. Unfortunately, this means that roughly 84 percent of a page’s subscribers won't see the majority of its posts.
This isn’t anything new; Facebook has been using EdgeRank for at least a year, possibly as far back as 2010. What is new is Facebook’s Promoted Posts feature, which allows admins to reach more of their subscribers by clicking a handy little “Promote” button on their page. Oh, and they have to pay a fee for this privilege.
That’s right. Promoting an event, service, product, indie band or grassroots organization isn’t as simple as creating a Facebook page and getting followers to click “Like” anymore. You now need to pay Facebook to do something that was once free. It’s not a small amount, either; admins of pages with thousands of fans can expect to pay hundreds of dollars per post if they want to reach all of their followers.
To truly realize how bad this latest fuckery can be, try to imagine that you have a small start-up business. You set up a Facebook fan page because that’s what you do in this day and age. You hope that it will help to spread the word that you are open for business, but you soon find that those who choose to follow you are barely aware that you exist. Every advertisement or update that you post is buried under glossy corporate ads from companies that can afford to shell out the money needed to reach all their fans. Sadly, you do not have this kind of money. You’ve been effectively thrown under the bus by Facebook’s greedy new policy.
If you ask me, this goes against what social networking sites like Facebook are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be places where people from all over the world and all walks of life can come together and communicate with each other. A good social networking site should be the water cooler at work, the town square and a gathering of friends except on a more global scale. It shouldn’t be yet another place that gets taken over by Corporate America, but that’s apparently what’s happening with Facebook. Corporate greed is taking over, and once again the little guys are suffering because of it.
My inner anti-establishment grassroots socialist hippie hopes that people will become fed up with this latest turn of events and leave Facebook en masse, but the sad fact of the matter is that I don’t see that happening. People are sheep, especially in Facebook Land. A small number of people may rail against this new policy for as long as it’s trendy, but soon enough they’ll go back to sending out their Farmville requests and giving their life stories in status updates without a care in the world. After all, that’s what you’re “supposed” to do in this day and age. People practically live and breathe on social networks these days, and for many people Facebook is social networking. They don’t know anything else. In fact, chances are that you're reading this because of the link I'll soon post on Facebook (I'm well aware of the sad irony of that fact; there's no need to point it out).
For the record, there are other social networks out there. They may not be as huge as Facebook, but in my opinion they’re closer to what a good social networking site should be. Everyone is probably at least aware of Twitter, but it’s almost as big as Facebook so I don’t think I need to elaborate on it.. There’s also LiveJournal, of which I’ve been a member since 2009 as TJ1380. It seems to be slowly dying, though. There’s also Tumblr, but if you found my blog by scouring the Internet for any length of time you probably know all about that already. For something closer to Facebook, there’s Google Plus. It has yet to draw enough of a crowd to be the Facebook killer that it wants so badly to be, but that could still change. Feel free to sign up and see what it’s all about if you haven’t already. In fact, sign up for any of these sites. There are plenty more out there; these are just a few that I like. Maybe one or more of them can become big enough to be the kind of free promotional tool that Facebook should be.
And now, it’s time for me to help set right what once went wrong...
I mentioned way back at the beginning of this post that I am involved in SlutWalk Minneapolis, a grassroots organization intended to stand against the Rape Culture that is so prevalent in our society. The Walk itself will be held on October 6, 2012, but we have plenty going on until then. For starters, we will have an information booth at Twin Cities Pride on June 23 and 24, and we will be walking in the Pride Parade itself on the 24th. We need volunteers to man the booth and walk with us, so if you’re interested more information can be found here along with information on other upcoming events. And no, you don’t have to be a “slut” to participate; anybody who is sick of victim blaming, slut-shaming and the Rape Culture can participate and make their voices heard.
What are these policies, you ask? Well, I could describe them, but I think this article covers it better than I ever could. It’s a long post, but before you stupidly put “too long; didn’t read” in the comments section at least give it a scan. There’s even an “executive summary” towards the beginning of the article that sums things up nicely.
The long and short of it is that Facebook is using a algorithm called EdgeRank which has an impact on what ends up on your news feed. Basically, EdgeRank decides what you see from pages that you’ve “liked” based on its relevancy and your interests. Unfortunately, this means that roughly 84 percent of a page’s subscribers won't see the majority of its posts.
This isn’t anything new; Facebook has been using EdgeRank for at least a year, possibly as far back as 2010. What is new is Facebook’s Promoted Posts feature, which allows admins to reach more of their subscribers by clicking a handy little “Promote” button on their page. Oh, and they have to pay a fee for this privilege.
That’s right. Promoting an event, service, product, indie band or grassroots organization isn’t as simple as creating a Facebook page and getting followers to click “Like” anymore. You now need to pay Facebook to do something that was once free. It’s not a small amount, either; admins of pages with thousands of fans can expect to pay hundreds of dollars per post if they want to reach all of their followers.
To truly realize how bad this latest fuckery can be, try to imagine that you have a small start-up business. You set up a Facebook fan page because that’s what you do in this day and age. You hope that it will help to spread the word that you are open for business, but you soon find that those who choose to follow you are barely aware that you exist. Every advertisement or update that you post is buried under glossy corporate ads from companies that can afford to shell out the money needed to reach all their fans. Sadly, you do not have this kind of money. You’ve been effectively thrown under the bus by Facebook’s greedy new policy.
If you ask me, this goes against what social networking sites like Facebook are supposed to do. They’re supposed to be places where people from all over the world and all walks of life can come together and communicate with each other. A good social networking site should be the water cooler at work, the town square and a gathering of friends except on a more global scale. It shouldn’t be yet another place that gets taken over by Corporate America, but that’s apparently what’s happening with Facebook. Corporate greed is taking over, and once again the little guys are suffering because of it.
My inner anti-establishment grassroots socialist hippie hopes that people will become fed up with this latest turn of events and leave Facebook en masse, but the sad fact of the matter is that I don’t see that happening. People are sheep, especially in Facebook Land. A small number of people may rail against this new policy for as long as it’s trendy, but soon enough they’ll go back to sending out their Farmville requests and giving their life stories in status updates without a care in the world. After all, that’s what you’re “supposed” to do in this day and age. People practically live and breathe on social networks these days, and for many people Facebook is social networking. They don’t know anything else. In fact, chances are that you're reading this because of the link I'll soon post on Facebook (I'm well aware of the sad irony of that fact; there's no need to point it out).
For the record, there are other social networks out there. They may not be as huge as Facebook, but in my opinion they’re closer to what a good social networking site should be. Everyone is probably at least aware of Twitter, but it’s almost as big as Facebook so I don’t think I need to elaborate on it.. There’s also LiveJournal, of which I’ve been a member since 2009 as TJ1380. It seems to be slowly dying, though. There’s also Tumblr, but if you found my blog by scouring the Internet for any length of time you probably know all about that already. For something closer to Facebook, there’s Google Plus. It has yet to draw enough of a crowd to be the Facebook killer that it wants so badly to be, but that could still change. Feel free to sign up and see what it’s all about if you haven’t already. In fact, sign up for any of these sites. There are plenty more out there; these are just a few that I like. Maybe one or more of them can become big enough to be the kind of free promotional tool that Facebook should be.
And now, it’s time for me to help set right what once went wrong...
I mentioned way back at the beginning of this post that I am involved in SlutWalk Minneapolis, a grassroots organization intended to stand against the Rape Culture that is so prevalent in our society. The Walk itself will be held on October 6, 2012, but we have plenty going on until then. For starters, we will have an information booth at Twin Cities Pride on June 23 and 24, and we will be walking in the Pride Parade itself on the 24th. We need volunteers to man the booth and walk with us, so if you’re interested more information can be found here along with information on other upcoming events. And no, you don’t have to be a “slut” to participate; anybody who is sick of victim blaming, slut-shaming and the Rape Culture can participate and make their voices heard.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Yes, Listen to the bigot. You might learn something.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Bryan Fischer, president of The American Family Association.
(Note: Before you watch the following video, know that I do not agree with or endorse anything it says. What you are about to hear is vile, disgusting bullshit spewed from the mouth of a vile, disgusting human being.)
You may be wondering why I, a staunch advocate for GLBT rights and same-sex marriage, decided to post this. I should hate this video with every fiber of my being, but I can't. The truth is that I'm actually kind of glad that Fischer made his point of view known. I'm glad that he came out and said that not only is he firmly against homosexuality, but that he believes that Christians should be able to discriminate against GLBT people.
This all might sound crazy, but to me it does make some kind of sense. As an advocate for GLBT rights, I often find myself surrounded by like-minded people. Most of my friends these days are GLBT or GLBT supportive. There are a few who aren't, but for the most part they're respectful and civil enough to not openly discriminate against GLBT people. The thing about almost always being around people who are accepting of GLBT people is that I'm not often exposed to anybody with a truly hateful or prejudiced mindset. It's almost like I forget that there are still plenty of truly homophobic people out there, people who still believe that there is a "homosexual agenda" that will destroy this country unless we start treating gay people as subhuman.
I sometimes need a reminder of what GLBT people and their allies are truly fighting against. It's too easy for me to look around at the many happy same-sex couples that I know and marvel at how much better life is for them than it would've been just a few decades ago. It's too easy for me to forget that there are people that truly believe that gays are horrible people who are no different from deranged criminals or terrorists, so much so that I'm shocked whenever someone like Bryan Fischer steps forward and voices his hateful and prejudiced views on homosexuality.
I cannot let myself be shocked by this though, and neither should anyone else. The fact of the matter is that while things have gotten better for GLBT people across the country, homophobia and prejudice towards anybody who is openly not straight are still serious problems. Things like this video and the radio show where I'm sure Fischer regularly spews similarly vile, disgusting bullshit are reminders of this. We need to know that mindsets such as this are still out there, and that we need to fight against it.
So when you hear somebody talking about how much of a threat the "homosexual agenda" is to religious freedom, don't get angry at the people saying these things. They're letting us know what GLBT people and their allies are up against. Thanks to them, we know about the attitudes we need to change. It's these attitudes that truly deserve your anger, and hopefully in a few years we can convince others how archaic and backwards this discriminatory mindset really is.
(Note: Before you watch the following video, know that I do not agree with or endorse anything it says. What you are about to hear is vile, disgusting bullshit spewed from the mouth of a vile, disgusting human being.)
You may be wondering why I, a staunch advocate for GLBT rights and same-sex marriage, decided to post this. I should hate this video with every fiber of my being, but I can't. The truth is that I'm actually kind of glad that Fischer made his point of view known. I'm glad that he came out and said that not only is he firmly against homosexuality, but that he believes that Christians should be able to discriminate against GLBT people.
This all might sound crazy, but to me it does make some kind of sense. As an advocate for GLBT rights, I often find myself surrounded by like-minded people. Most of my friends these days are GLBT or GLBT supportive. There are a few who aren't, but for the most part they're respectful and civil enough to not openly discriminate against GLBT people. The thing about almost always being around people who are accepting of GLBT people is that I'm not often exposed to anybody with a truly hateful or prejudiced mindset. It's almost like I forget that there are still plenty of truly homophobic people out there, people who still believe that there is a "homosexual agenda" that will destroy this country unless we start treating gay people as subhuman.
I sometimes need a reminder of what GLBT people and their allies are truly fighting against. It's too easy for me to look around at the many happy same-sex couples that I know and marvel at how much better life is for them than it would've been just a few decades ago. It's too easy for me to forget that there are people that truly believe that gays are horrible people who are no different from deranged criminals or terrorists, so much so that I'm shocked whenever someone like Bryan Fischer steps forward and voices his hateful and prejudiced views on homosexuality.
I cannot let myself be shocked by this though, and neither should anyone else. The fact of the matter is that while things have gotten better for GLBT people across the country, homophobia and prejudice towards anybody who is openly not straight are still serious problems. Things like this video and the radio show where I'm sure Fischer regularly spews similarly vile, disgusting bullshit are reminders of this. We need to know that mindsets such as this are still out there, and that we need to fight against it.
So when you hear somebody talking about how much of a threat the "homosexual agenda" is to religious freedom, don't get angry at the people saying these things. They're letting us know what GLBT people and their allies are up against. Thanks to them, we know about the attitudes we need to change. It's these attitudes that truly deserve your anger, and hopefully in a few years we can convince others how archaic and backwards this discriminatory mindset really is.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
A New Name And Other Things
If you go back a few posts on this blog, you'll notice I talked about some changes that were going to happen here. I wanted a new title that made a little more sense to me and possibly a new layout.
As you can see, I have a new title. I am no longer "Herding Cats." Instead, I am "Burning Around the Edges."
And yes, there's a good reason why I decided on that name. Although I'll continue to blog about whatever the hell I want because this is my blog, I want to have a general theme of social commentary. Things in this country are seriously messed up right now. Technically, this isn't new; life in America has never been perfect for everyone, but to me it feels like it's gotten worse. Society is burning, but it's not beyond saving yet. It's burning around the edges, and we have to get through the burnt parts to get to the stuff worth saving. I'd like to think that I'm shining a light on things that we need to change or get rid of to make things better, even though I'm just one of millions of bloggers in this country recognizing how bad things have gotten and how much worse they can get.
Also, my genius wife suggested the name while I was brainstorming what to call this thing. I think she was thinking of pizza, and I was hungry. Hence, we have a blog that suggests an unfortunate yet salvageable adventure in baking.
As for the layout and background, that's going to stay as is for now. It's simple with no frills, but that's why I like it. There are few things worse than a website where the content takes a back seat to a busy, complicated and garish design. What I have here is nothing fancy, but it isn't supposed to be. Those that come here will hopefully be drawn to what I write, not what happens to be framing it.
One thing that I did add was some gadgets that link my blog to a few other blogs worth checking out and to my Twitter feed. In other words, I've added things that will hopefully make me a little more visible as opposed to the online version of the guy hiding in the corner at parties.
Anyway, I just thought I'd post a quick update. I'll try to post more often here, so stay tuned.
As you can see, I have a new title. I am no longer "Herding Cats." Instead, I am "Burning Around the Edges."
And yes, there's a good reason why I decided on that name. Although I'll continue to blog about whatever the hell I want because this is my blog, I want to have a general theme of social commentary. Things in this country are seriously messed up right now. Technically, this isn't new; life in America has never been perfect for everyone, but to me it feels like it's gotten worse. Society is burning, but it's not beyond saving yet. It's burning around the edges, and we have to get through the burnt parts to get to the stuff worth saving. I'd like to think that I'm shining a light on things that we need to change or get rid of to make things better, even though I'm just one of millions of bloggers in this country recognizing how bad things have gotten and how much worse they can get.
Also, my genius wife suggested the name while I was brainstorming what to call this thing. I think she was thinking of pizza, and I was hungry. Hence, we have a blog that suggests an unfortunate yet salvageable adventure in baking.
As for the layout and background, that's going to stay as is for now. It's simple with no frills, but that's why I like it. There are few things worse than a website where the content takes a back seat to a busy, complicated and garish design. What I have here is nothing fancy, but it isn't supposed to be. Those that come here will hopefully be drawn to what I write, not what happens to be framing it.
One thing that I did add was some gadgets that link my blog to a few other blogs worth checking out and to my Twitter feed. In other words, I've added things that will hopefully make me a little more visible as opposed to the online version of the guy hiding in the corner at parties.
Anyway, I just thought I'd post a quick update. I'll try to post more often here, so stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)