EVAN: To start this off by ignoring our readership and addressing you, this week’s topic is a weird sort of continuation of the various posts on culture you’ve written, such as “manly culture,” “science culture,” etc. And similar to these other groups of people, “nerd culture” is a pretty nebulous sort of thing to define.

GORDON: No argument there. After all, even the “nerds” insist on calling out “fake nerds”- especially in regards to women/girls. But what is a nerd anyways?

EVAN: See, now I’m torn, because we do need to define it, but you’ve also directly referenced an issue I wanted to discuss in depth this week.

GORDON: How about we abandon our previous track record, and just plunge recklessly ahead and hope the issue resolves itself?

EVAN: Well, let me throw this image out there:

And then hope that suffices for now.

GORDON: Works for me. So what was it that you wanted to address specifically?

EVAN: Well, just last month there was this guy, a comic artist, named Tony Harris. And he wrote this post on his Facebook page that was essentially a tirade against “faux nerd” women, and how they are whores, and so on.

To break it down further, these are women who dress up as superheroes and what have you without knowing about the actual characters themselves. He is upset because, to quote him:

BECAUSE YOU DONT KNOW SH-T ABOUT COMICS, BEYOND WHATEVER GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH YOU DID TO GET REF ON THE MOST MAINSTREAM CHARACTER WITH THE MOST REVEALING COSTUME EVER.

Also that they attend to essentially just tease the regular con-goers and are actually not even hot, just “con-hot.” So yeah, he said a lot.

GORDON: Ah yes, I recall reading about this. And while I think we can all agree Harris went too far, is a bit hypocritical (seeing how most comic women ain’t exactly average looking), and probably getting too emotional, I can’t help but wonder if he has, somewhere in there, a point.

I mean, imagine if all of a sudden, something that you had been stigmatized for became popular, and people started trying to co-opt your identity knowing nearly nothing about it. I’d be ticked off too.

EVAN: That’s definitely something I’ve read people write about, that this used to be an exclusive club and that it took years to build up this knowledge and become, well, a nerd, and here are these noobs and they want in and it’s not that easy.

And I can see where they’re coming from as well.

But if you really love something, shouldn’t you want others to as well? The Avengers has an enormous following on tumblr these days [because of the movie], and these are people who are actually going out and starting to buy comics. They are helping sales, aiding the industry, etc.

GORDON: That’s true, and something I’ve considered, but there’s probably also an argument to be made for the other side. That something precious to you is being watered down and diluted for profit. I don’t believe that nerds (comic book nerds, anyways) can necessarily make this argument, but the line of logic is there.

Let’s try to come up with an example of this happening somewhere else, especially in regards to persecution.

EVAN: Mmk, go ahead-

GORDON: “Black culture” (or what was passed off as black culture) might be an example. Can you state that you’re not driven nuts by wealthy, comfortable suburban kids fronting like they’re from the streets of Oakland?

EVAN: Yeah, people are upset about it, sure, but there’s not this immense outcry over it. There are comic-con enthusiasts that are genuinely incensed that all of this is happening-

I doubt that an actual thug or gangbanger or whatever these rich White kids are playing at imitating is going to start freaking out that he’s getting ripped off. He’s going to laugh or shrug it off, because it hardly matters.

GORDON: I’d argue that the reason for this has more to do with the change in venue. It’s easy for the major players of the comic book industry to voice their opinions than, say, a Wu-Tang Clan fan in the late 90s. But maybe I’m wrong.

EVAN: For the most part, I see this as a mindset that is the foundation or core of hipsterism, and that we all feel to some extent, however minor. That we found something and we love it and there is a pride in joy in being one of the original fans.

And this outpouring of others somehow cheapens things. And all of a sudden we’re trying to assert how we’re better than them in some way.

“You chose to dress up as Spider-Woman? Do you even know who her alter-ego is, or what her powers are? Etc.”

GORDON: Again, do we not sympathize? Do we not feel frustrated with people who have more or less jumped on the bandwagon now that it’s all safe and socially acceptable to do so? Heck, just imagine if someone tried listing themselves as a fan of fine cooking, having only eaten sushi once- would you be ticked?

EVAN: If I equated sushi with fine cooking I guess I would, yeah. But just because we can understand someone’s anger and frustration doesn’t make it logical.

GORDON: I wouldn’t say that there’s not a logic to it. I mean, a major part of being a nerd is, and always has been, the social pariah element. All of the sudden you have these people trying to claim to be on the fringes of society? It’s condescending and insulting.

EVAN: I think that’s the issue- They’re not trying to “claim to be on the fringes of society.”

GORDON: I disagree- I feel this is a coward’s way of feigning rebelliousness and all that.

EVAN: Sometimes people who haven’t been exposed to comics for much of their lives see a movie, or read a trade, and go to a con. Maybe they wear a costume. That doesn’t mean they’re going into this thinking, in any way, that they’re suddenly a part of this group of outcasts.

Comics are popular now. I mean, more than they’ve ever been. To say “I like comics” is no longer the sort of thing that’s going to get you shunned. People are going to raise their eyebrows and wonder why you think that’s a big deal.

GORDON: Comics yes, no one is gonna argue that. The title of “nerd” however, that’s different. And after all, “nerd” is a much larger term. It applies to gamers, to film, and so on.

EVAN: So how does one become a “fake nerd”?

GORDON: Therein lies the rub- there’s always gonna be more obsessive nerds out there. People higher up and lower down the hierarchy. But for the most part, I think we can agree that a “false” nerd is one who does not meet the criteria in that diagram you posted.

The “social ineptitude”, the “obsessiveness”- if it’s not actually there (no matter how much the person or persons might insist otherwise) then that person is a “fake” nerd.

EVAN: So am I a “fake nerd”?

GORDON: Do you call yourself a nerd?

EVAN: I don’t really call myself anything. But I’d also say that many of the girls who go to cons and find themselves attacked by Harris don’t refer to themselves as anything in particular either.

GORDON: Then no, I wouldn’t define you or them as fitting this category. Like I said- Harris went overboard.

EVAN: I just don’t think social ineptitude needs to be a requirement in this. I think you could be a nerd and still have friends, and achieve some level of popularity. The diagram above really shoehorns the definition. I mean, what if I did call myself a nerd?

I’m fairly smart, about 80% of the time I’m thinking about comics, or comics-related media. At the same time, I’m a fairly social guy. What does that mean?

GORDON: You think about comics 80% of the time?

EVAN: I think about comics a lot.

GORDON: 80% of your waking thoughts is a craaaaaazy lot, though I’d say your self-identification as a nerd is flawed. Serial-killer in the making would be more accurate. But we begin to split hairs at this point.

EVAN: I guess it’s like, does Hugh Laurie have the right to play the blues?

GORDON: Hugh Laurie can do whatever the **** he wants. As does anyone. With everything he does, can he identify himself first and foremost as a blues musician? Not really. At least, that ain’t how we’re all gonna think of him, or remember him.

EVAN: Does it matter that it’s what you identify as first and foremost? I am positive that at some level, yes, he does identify as a blues musician.

GORDON: It does matter how you identify yourself first and foremost. I’ve eaten bugs on multiple occasions- I don’t declare myself “Gordon Brown: Bug Eater.” The rest of the stuff I do outweighs it by far.

EVAN: You’re missing my point. You’ve eaten bugs, so on some level you can identify as a bug-eater.

If he identifies as a blues artist less than he does as an actor, that doesn’t negate the fact that he identifies as a blues artist, and what we’re talking about is people being able to say that they can and do relate to a culture, and that doesn’t make them fake adherents of that.

GORDON: Let me offer another example: I’ve been camping, and I occasionally read survivalist pamphlets. For me to call myself a “survivalist” would nevertheless be inaccurate and misleading. That’s the crux of the matter, I believe.

A nerd is someone who is in this for the long haul- a person who enjoys The Avengers or Nolan’s Batman trilogy isn’t. At least, not necessarily.

EVAN: I’m not saying that a person who enjoyed The Avengers equates being a nerd. That’s like, half the Earth’s population, if the box office is any indicator.

I’m saying that a person who saw The Avengers, and then heads over to their local comics store to check some out, and gets really into it, has the potential to become a “comics nerd” of sorts. And people who see them and scorn them for not being there from the beginning should be ashamed of themselves.

If we’re sticking with the example of film and comics and so-on.

GORDON: And I agree- those people should not be viewed with derision. But that’s not who we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about ****ing hipsters, about people who have just enough knowledge of a culture to give themselves the veneer or adopting it. People who wear glasses as a ****ing fashion statement. You know the kind.

It’s about motives. The noob who is just now getting into the culture isn’t a “false” nerd- just a young one. The person who call himself or herself a nerd to co-opt the social stigma (now that it’s all but gone) deserves contempt.

EVAN: I honestly don’t think that what these people are trying to co-opt is the social stigma.

GORDON: My poor choice of words. I mean the false sense of rebellion. Like people who post pro-gay Facebook statements simply to draw attention and applause to themselves. Fake-rebels. Fair-weather activists.

EVAN: That’s fine, and I agree that these people are not to be applauded.

I just think that for the most part, people are realizing that there is a lot in the “nerd culture” that they find interesting and accessible, and are gravitating towards it. Not out of some misguided attempt to be on the edge of society, but because they legitimately enjoy whatever it is they’re trying to engage with.

GORDON: I agree- I simply don’t think it’s these people most old-guard nerds are angry at.

EVAN: But how can they differentiate? That’s a huge issue. It’s this reaction of the community against anyone that’s not legit, but without any way of truly being able to tell how people feel-

A person can go to comic-con in an elaborate costume simply because they enjoy the aesthetics and design of the character. They’re not required to know everything about them, and shouldn’t be hissed and booed at when they don’t.

GORDON: That in and of itself is another issue. If I showed up to the social justice convention dressed as Che Guevara  you’d best believe I’d better know a thing or two about the guy who I’m completely dressed up as- but we’re moving off track.

EVAN: But the point of social justice conventions isn’t to dress up as your favourite revolutionary- that’s entirely besides the point. I bring it up because it’s completely cogent to our topic, because it’s exactly what Tony Harris was railing against.

GORDON: Tony Harris ran his mouth and made a fool of himself, I ain’t trying to defend a word of what he said or wrote, only the general perspective he seems to be coming from.

EVAN: What I’m saying, without negating your points is this, and I’m going to try to wrap up since we’re 15 minutes past our cut-off, is this:

I’m someone says “LOL im such a nerd” and they wear glasses with big frames and have a Green Lantern patch on their backpack, yeah, I’d say that’s not okay. But a large issue is being able to, as a community, acknowledge when “outsiders” try to access what it is that we love so dearly.

We like comic books and Star Trek and Dungeons and Dragons, and if other people might as well, that’s fine. Just because others weren’t always welcoming of us in the past doesn’t mean we should do the same to others. Especially when there’s some likelihood, even a little, that they could one day be as big a fan as you [as hard as that may be to believe].

GORDON: Well put. Be sure to stop by next time for our discussion of . . .

EVAN: Of . . . uh . . . I threw out this topic last week, what’ve you got?

GORDON: Let’s address the portrayal of drugs- weed in particular- in media and popular culture.

EVAN: That’s a pretty contemporary topic too, because of the legalization in Washington and all that. Sounds good to me.

GORDON: Let it be so then. Merry Wednesday to all, and to all a good night!

Let me begin by explaining that this is not a review of the simultaneously acclaimed and decried 2012 Tarantino blood-fest. You want to hear one of those, I’d recommend clicking over to Spill or The Escapist’s “Escape to the Movies.” No, what I want to talk about are some specific elements and segments of the film which have become points of contention, controversy, and debate in the past weeks.

Let’s start with the most obvious:

I. Saying “Nigger” Every Other Word

I won’t claim to know your stance on the word “Nigger”- heck, I’m not even sure of my own stance. Perhaps you view the term as so degrading and reprehensible as to merit burning it from spoken language. Perhaps you believe that appropriating and using the word strips it of its power to even be used as an insult. Maybe you see it as being purely contextual- a term of address with audience and a terrible insult with another.

It’s all Elmo ever thinks about

There are probably strong points to be made on all sides, but perhaps the stance you cannot take is that the use of the word “nigger” was inappropriate for the movie.

Now before you take up the battle-cry of “Tarantino is just trying to shock us!” or “Tarantino uses the word excessively in his other movies!” I have to say this.

You’re right.

It’s Tarantino; that’s not an excuse, that’s a fact. You wanna take up his use of the word in other films, then that’s part of the whole debate mentioned above. Simple truth of the matter is that this use of the word “nigger” would still be controversial if the film had been made by anyone else. So let’s talk about it.

Let’s assume that this movie, with selfish or noble intent, is trying to demonstrate a glimpse of the world in question; the use of that word is almost bound to come up. I might throw out the example of Mark Twain’s classic novel Huckleberry Finn, and while by sheer volume Django probably has Huck beat for use of the word, by percentage I’d posit the two are pretty evenly matched. The escaped slave Jim is repeatedly and almost exclusively referred to as “Nigger Jim,” as are the other black characters in the book. Now Twain was anti-slavery and used that word to demonstrate the dehumanization of African Americans (which is why taking the word out of versions of the book is so dumb), as well as reflect the general use of the word. Now I’m admittedly no historian, but if the writings of Twain and other authors are any indication of the times, I wouldn’t say the film is quite so far off as some critics might suggest.

And speaking of historical accuracy…

II. The KKK, or Lack Thereof

There is a scene in the film during which a group of men wearing white sacks over their heads attempt to stage an attack on Django and Schultz. New Yorker contributor Jelani Cobb writes “Tarantino depicts the K.K.K. a decade prior to its actual formation in order to thoroughly ridicule its members’ (literally) veiled racism.” While that scene was (in my own opinion) side-splittingly hilarious, Jelani, and many others, are dead wrong in assuming that this scene depicted historical inaccuracy.

Take this section from Huckleberry Finn:

Why don’t your juries hang murderers? Because they’re afraid the man’s friends will shoot them in the back, in the dark — and it’s just what they WOULD do.

“So they always acquit; and then a MAN goes in the night, with a hundred masked cowards at his back and lynches the rascal. Your mistake is, that you didn’t bring a man with you; that’s one mistake, and the other is that you didn’t come in the dark and fetch your masks.

Again, this is a Tarantino movie set in a Tarantino universe. That’s not a defense, simply, as I’ve already stated, a fact. If you’re looking for a historical account of the pre-war South, a spaghetti-western revenge flick probably ain’t the best place to look for it. There are going to be certain inaccuracies, and there are going to be things the filmmaker has to get right- but all of that is beside the point (which we’ll get to in a minute). All of that’s to say if you’re gonna try to criticize (or praise) the movie’s deviation from historical truth, make sure you’re (1) doing it for the right reason and (2) that you’re critique is actually right.

III. Samuel L. Jackson as Uncle Tom

In Django, Samuel L. Jackson plays the role of the villain’s head-slave Stephen, who isn’t so much a character as a caricature of the most groveling, snivelling Uncle Tom you will ever see or even imagine. This guy makes Uncle Ruckus look like Eldridge Cleaver.

You are guaranteed one genuine Gordon hug if you know who Eldridge Cleaver is.

I’ve heard people call this portrayal offensive, bordering on “black-face” in its depiction of stereotypical “black” mannerisms. It’s exactly for that reason that I didn’t have a problem with the character.

I really have no reason for putting this gif in here…

See, the entire point is to make fun of the guy- and not just him, but the quisling slaves that did indeed exist. I don’t think that this portrayal robbed the film of the gravity of slavery anymore than Bugs Bunny foiling a cartoonized Hitler robbed WWII of it’s gravity.

Now let’s get right to it-

IV. The Horror, The Horror

LA Times journalist Erin Aubry Kaplan said this of Django’s depiction of slavery: “It is an institution whose horrors need no exaggerating, yet Django does exactly that…”

This is a flat-out falsehood.

If Django Unchained exaggerated the horrors of the slavery, if the film depicted one one-hundredth of the horrors of slavery, I will never write again. Despite the allegations of this critic, the truth of the matter is that we could depict the institution of slavery for a century and be no closer to depicting an ounce the inhumanity of it all than when we first started. Does the film exaggerate slavery? Absolutely not. Does it make light of it? Certainly this was a concern of mine going into the movie, but having seen it, I really don’t think it can be faulted there either. The film does, I believe, make a distinct effort to show slavery as brutish and ugly as possible. Or, at the very least, the slavery scenes; this is, after all, a revenge movie first and foremost.

V. The Point

That’s the thing I feel most people are missing here. This ins’t a movie about slavery, this is a movie with slavery in it. It’s a revenge film in which one sorely persecuted character dispenses well-deserved justice upon his persecutors and we all nod our heads in approval and feel a sense of pride and joy well up as we look into this fantasy where the bad guy does get what’s coming to him. Slavery is the backdrop, not the subject, of the movie, but it’s just such a major issue that most of us are getting hung up on it. The equivalent might be bashing a western on the basis that the actual “wild west” was pretty peaceful- factually true, but still missing the goal of the story.

No, this is not a historically accurate film. No, it doesn’t capture the horror of slavery. No, it doesn’t even try to wrestle with it. No, it’s not a discussion of our checkered heritage. No, it’s not the film to drag that dark, bloody history out into the light of day.

But damn it, it’s a start.

There is, if sources are to be believed, going to be a rebooted Left Behind movie coming out sometime next year.

Your reaction should be as follows:

If it isn’t, then you probably aren’t familiar with the series (and should count yourself truly fortunate), so for you blissfully innocent, here’s the basic run-down.

The Left Behind series is based on the book of Revelation in the Bible, as well as certain (delectably) apocalyptic verses in Old Testament books. I say “based on”, but that’s more to demonstrate the authors’ intentions. Left Behind is “based on” the book of Revelation in the same way that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is based on Vasari’s biographies of Italian Renaissance artists.

In the sixteen-novel series, all true (cough, Protestant, cough) Christians have been “raptured” (removed from the world and taken directly to the after life), leaving behind the unsaved protagonists of the story who find themselves contending with the oncoming “tribulations” (the host of hardships and catastrophes marking the end times) and the rise of the antichrist, who walks the earth in the form of a Romanian politician who takes control of the UN (because, you know, there’s no one more powerful than the UN).

Things more powerful than the UN:
The Student Government of MLK Jr. Middle School,
A Junior Sales Rep from Prescott Pharmaceuticals,
Paris Hilton’s Chihuahua

Needless to say, I don’t think very highly of the series. But hey, if we’re looking for badly written fan-fiction, why not haul Twilight to the guillotine?

It’s because of the fan part. That’s what really gets me. We’re not talking about someone fawning over the idea of stalker-veggie-sparkle-vampires, we’re talking about someone fawning over the idea of millions- billions- of human beings undergoing agonizing deaths. Think I’m reading into things? Take a look at this passage from the series:

The riders not thrown leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated. As Rayford watched, the soldiers stood briefly as skeletons in now-baggy uniforms, then dropped in heaps of bones as the blinded horses continued to fume and rant and rave.

Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement.

You might say “Sure, that’s violent, but that isn’t exactly glorifying it, is it?”. Let me continue on.

…Jesus nudged His magnificent white charger and descended to the top of the Mount of Olives.

As He dismounted, Carpathia shrieked out his final command, “Attack!” The hundred thousand troops followed orders, horsemen at full gallop firing, foot soldiers running and firing, rolling stock rolling and firing.

And Jesus said, in that voice like a trumpet and the sound of rushing waters, “I AM WHO I AM.”

At that instant the Mount of Olives split in two from east to west, the place Jesus stood moving to the north and the place where the Unity Army stood moving to the south, leaving a large valley.

All the firing and the running and the galloping and the rolling stopped. The soldiers screamed and fell, their bodies bursting open from head to toe…

So much for turning the other cheek, eh?

And here’s what gets me about the series. It’s not the generally bad writing or the twisted theology- it’s just how freakishly popular the series is. Popular enough not to spawn just one movie attempt, but two. It’s hard enough for good stories to get a second chance at something like that, let alone this junk. And it’s the implication of that popularity which gnaws at me. There are people out there- a lot of people- who genuinely look forward to this supposed apocalyptic scenario, or an apocalyptic scenario, anyhow. People who fully expect the end of the world to be a plague and hellfire ridden Armageddon, complete with WWIII and genocide of unheard of proportions. People who look forward to this- and not in a “in the sweet by and by” way, I’m talking about a “I love the smell of napalm in the morning” kind of way.

You can’t deny that this blood-thirsty anticipation does exist. If you’re even only vaguely familiar with the Christian (American-Christian, more on that in a second) subculture, you’ll almost have certainly run into this. There’s plenty of other lousy Armageddon fantasies out there.

And what makes it all the worse is just how utterly undeserved all this hidden vitriol is. This vengeful glee isn’t coming from people who have been mercilessly persecuted for their faith. This isn’t coming from the families of martyrs or the congregations of assassinated priests and pastors in the third world. The churches of Africa, Asia, and South America have enough problems combating war, poverty, and disease to be drooling over prophesied war, poverty, and disease. No, this is the bitter vindictiveness that only comfort and safety can breed. All this body-bursting leering isn’t a result of imprisonment (not that it would be justified there either), it’s a result of being snubbed by Bill Maher or portrayed as yokels on some sitcom.

That’s just messed up.

Now this isn’t Shame Day, but that doesn’t mean we can’t all gather ’round and ruthlessly mock something that so richly deserves it, and if this drivel doesn’t deserve it, I don’t know what does.

Four days ago actor Morris Chestnut, who will appear in the upcoming Kick-Ass 2, posted the following on both his Twitter feed and Facebook page:

It’s time to get familiar with the Black Panther character.

This prompted the usual onslaught of internet speculation, and both have since been taken down. The next day he wrote a tweet to quell the masses who were clamouring to hear more about an upcoming Black Panther film.

Thx to the fans for bringing #blackpanther to my attention, NOT in talks about this project with .@Marvel—
Morris Chestnut (@Morris_Chestnut) April 10, 2013

I, for one, was personally grateful to hear this news.

“Why?” you might be asking, “Evan, I thought you were all about introducing the Wakandan super-king into the Marvel cinematic universe.” You would not be wrong in your assessment, and let me explain why, exactly, I felt this way.

Black Panther, AKA T’Challa, is the king of the fictional super-advanced African country of Wakanda. He is, for all points and purposes, Marvel’s premiere African super hero. The problem with Morris Chestnut being chosen to portray the character is that he is African-American; he is not Black.

Allow me to explain myself.

I had a conversation in college with an African-American housemate of mine about his Ugandan girlfriend, who he referred to as being “Black.” I asked him if he wasn’t Black as well, to which he answered that he was not. He elaborated by explaining that African-Americans are the descendants of slaves that arrived in North America hundreds of years ago, and as such are now very different from the people who were born, and live, in Africa. This can be observed through the respective lightness and darkness of their skin, among other things.

Up above I’ve already posted a picture of Morris Chestnut, so allow me to throw in a few other images for contrast.

Below, on the left, is a picture of the actor most often mentioned when discussing the role: Djimon Honsou. Born in Benin, Honsou is the one I would most love to play T’Challa, and this desire is only curbed by the fact that he’s currently pushing 50. Next to him  are Chiwetel Ejiofor and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, both British actors born to Nigerian parents.

Hopefully by scrolling up and down you can recognize that African-Americans and Black people can actually look quite different. Just because someone is racially “Black,” like Chestnut, does not mean that they are a good representation of the people indigenous to a continent. As always, I call for casting that is as accurate as possible. An African-American actor, while talented, would not the right choice for this role.

In other comic-related news David Zavimbe will be retiring the role of Batwing next month. The product of Batman Incorporated, the Caped Crusader’s project to have a network of heroes across the globe, Batwing was essentially the Batman of Africa. Within the course of his comic book the Congolese native has battled both supervillains and the local corrupt police force; his was a book that largely took place far, far away from the US. Zavimbe will be replaced by the African-American Luke Fox, the son of the character who Morgan Freeman played in the Christopher Nolan films.

The change from an African native underneath the armour to a Gothamite seems illogical as far as the original point of the title, but writer Justin Gray insists that him and his co-writer, Jimmy Palmiotti, wanted “to make Batwing more relevant and important.” Not only that, but they will be keeping the character an “‘international’ hero,” with his first mission taking place in Africa.

Does no one else see the problem with this? Were Zavimbe’s stories not “relevant” enough that we needed to hand the mantle over to an American? Why is it that we need an African-American hero going to Africa to wage war against supervillainy when formerly one of their very own filled that very role?

Africa is not a country, and far be it from me to equate the Democratic Republic of Congo with Nigeria, or Benin with South Africa. Wakanda, like the vibranium mined there, does not exist, but in the Marvel universe can be found on the continent alongside these other countries. Africa is the second largest land mass in the world and, like anywhere else, is full of its own rich cultures and people groups. Africa deserves its own super heroes.

Currently Marvel [supposedly] searches for an actor to portray an African superhero from a made-up country, and that is something that they will have to approach with a great deal of tact. On the other side of things DC has taken their African superhero and managed to change things so that he no longer even hails from the continent.

While this week we’re trying to take a break from politics here at Culture War Reporters (last week was dominated by the subject), I really wouldn’t be doing my due dilligence if I didn’t give a shout out the protestors currently flooding the streets of Rio De Janeiro, down in Brazil. The Brazilian government has proposed tripling the cost of public transportation, and while that might sound to many like a pretty paltry thing, to the poor and urban working class of Brazil who rely on public transit, that kind of increase is going to be devastating. Brazilian protestors- keep up the good work.

Now on to the focus of today’s Fame Day- internet sketch group 5 Second Films.

And yeah, the name pretty much says it all. Each weekday, these guys put out a five second sketch film (eight seconds, if you’re really OCD and count the intro sequence). Let me throw out a few of my personal favorites:

I could go on and on, but I’ll try to exercise some restraint here when it comes to sharing their stuff. But really that’s exactly what makes 5 Second Films so good. There’s really no “bad” sketch, or even on that you could call sub-par. The only comedy series that I’ve ever seen that’s as consistently funny and reliable as 5SF is Scrubs. Yeah, it’s weird that I just compared a YouTube sketch series to one of the best comedy series of all time, but let me break that down.

5SF is really just that good. These guys can deliver more in a few seconds (often with just a single camera) than most major series- heck, films- can with infinitely more time and money. George Lucas had an hour and a half, a budget of over 100 million, and the support of Hollywood and a built-in fan base and he produced one lousy movie.

He then did it twice more.

I think that right there stands in testament to how the pen is mightier than the green screen. At the end of the day, good writing trumps everything else. It’s a bit melodramatic, I know, but seriously think about it. The sum total of 5SF‘s film collection amounts to at least a short movie, and is of such a higher caliber than the average comedy movie that there’s really no comparison.

And it’s not just that these guys are consistently funny- they’re consistent period. 5SF has put out a film every weekday since 2008, and that’s excluding their side projects and skits. Like this one:

And even for being a YouTube sketch series, they’ve managed to pull in people like Patton Oswalt, Weird Al, and for some reason, Peter Stormare.

Now, Evan would probably chew me out if I didn’t include the link and intro to the Kickstarter these guys have going. Expanding off of a Halloween sketch, 5 Second Films is trying to pull together funds to turn Dude Bro Party Massacre III into a full length movie. Now I’ve seen some of their longer skits, and while I’ve every confidence that these guys can make a good movie, I’m just not sure it’s one I’d be interested in contributing to myself. But that’s up for you to decide.

One way or another, these guys really do deserve some recognition for not just being good in their own field of competition, but outshining the majority of television and movie swill labeled “comedy” by some corporate stooge with no soul. 5 Second Films- you guys are awesome.

YouTube Channel: 5 Second Films – YouTube
Website: 5secondfilms.com
Twitter: @5sf
Updates Every Weekday

Newer readers may not know this, but this is actually the third post about World War Z on this blog. I first wrote about the way the film was to deviate from the book back in 2011, while former CWR writer [who I dearly miss] Elisa briefly explored their prevalence in pop culture the year after.

So two days ago I saw the movie, and I’m not going to write the logical continuation of my first post, complaining about how the movie could have been “so much better if only. . .”

What I’m going to write about how I wasn’t in the movie.

I drew this over two years ago for an all-comics weekly publication I used to run.

And no, I don’t mean why wasn’t there a zombified version of me in the movie, because seriously if you guys didn’t know I am deathly terrified of any sort of biting reanimated corpse. What I mean is why, when I watched this movie, weren’t there any dang Asians.

Spoilers follow. Kind mild, kinda not.

To catch you up really, really quickly on the differences between the book and the movie:

• The book, full title World War Z: The Oral History of the Zombie War, is comprised of different chapters each consisting of an interview with a survivor of, well, World War Z. These people are men and women, young and old, and hail from all across the globe. Oh, and the zombies are your slow, run of the mill variety.

• The movie is all about Brad Pitt as a UN investigator who flies all over the place trying to figure out where all these zombies came from. It is his story and his story alone. Also the zombies are super fast and can make immense towers and waves of writhing, crawling flesh, and that was actually sort of cool.

The first person interviewed in the book is Kwang Jingshu, an elderly Chinese doctor. Other Asians include a South Korean intelligence agent, a Japanese otaku, and an Indian lance corporal.  That’s in addition to characters from Palestine, France, and South Africa, adding a great deal of colour and diversity to the book. All of these characters tell their story; they are fleshed out, living, breathing people.

He may look pretty spry and well-armed here, but I assure you that he is not long for this life.

By my count, and believe me, I was paying close attention, there are really only two Asians in the film. Elyes Gabel plays Dr. Fassbach, an [what I assumed to be] Indian virologist with a British accent who trips and shoots himself soon after being introduced and spouting some wisdom on mother nature and disease. Song Xuan Ke plays a character only known as “Korean Doctor,” shown in a flashback. Of the two I would only consider the former to be a speaking role, since the latter whispers something in Korean before being bitten on the ear and, presumably, dying.

And really, that’s it.

Like I said, I was looking pretty hard, and I didn’t even see any Asian characters in the large scale scene of general pandemonium in Philadelphia that had hundreds of extras milling around. Nor did I see any on the floating military HQ that Pitt’s character and his family stay at. Here’s the kicker, though, what really, really gets me-

Brad Pitt flies to South Korea with Dr. Fassbach to find “patient zero.” They land on a rainy night, on a US military base, where they do not lay eyes on a single Korean. The flashback with “Korean Doctor” has him near a bound Korean young man, the one who ends up biting him, but I just can’t really count him because he starts out dead. Oh, and all of the soldiers on the base are white.

Look, I didn’t expect to be wowed by this movie. I didn’t expect a well-documented series of interviews which covered the horrors of the Zombie War before giving way to the hope of a life where we can, and do, win. I likewise didn’t expect a lot of globetrotting, and was surprised the film hit three countries as it was [South Korea, Israel, Wales].

What I did expect was a little more attention given to the largest continent on the planet. The closest thing we would’ve gotten, given the original third act footage of the film, was a large battle scene in Russia. Let’s be fair, you guys- Russia is geographically Asian, but it is by most standards fairly culturally European. Even if you want to disagree with that, they’re at least aesthetically European.

Why couldn’t Brad Pitt’s Plan B Entertainment work out rights to film in Asia? I mean, Iron Man 3 had a Chinese edition specifically made to tap into that box office; they made almost $100 million in two weeks. Honestly, it makes almost no sense to me from a purely business-minded standpoint.

I mean, let me just mention very shortly that the film is not a great one, but I really do think it could have been improved by emphasizing the “world” in World War Z. The book aside that’s what’s really missing. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that we get to hang out in Jerusalem for a bit of the film, but don’t  tell me we’re going to South Korea and give me a dark, rainy airstrip. Don’t tell me that we’re in South Korea and show me a bunch of white American soldiers.

Honestly, I don’t think I’m asking too much to ask for a speaking role, however small, in a movie called World War Z. I definitely don’t think it’s too much to expect to see an honest-to-goodness Asian in South Korea.

I don’t usually celebrate Halloween readers. Honestly, I don’t celebrate any holiday, if I can help it, May Day being the sole exception.

Nevertheless, we’re always trying to expand our horizons here at Culture War Reporters, and hope that you might be trying the same. To help us both get into the psychotically commercialized spirit of the season (baby steps, people, baby steps), here’s our recommendations for your scary viewing pleasure.

The Mothman Prophecies

I’d honestly be surprised if you had heard of this one. 2002’s The Mothman Prophecies wasn’t a big enough hit or a bad enough flop to gain either fame or notoriety. Regardless of it’s mediocre performance at the box office, I think The Mothman Prophecies is probably one of the most underrated horror/thriller flicks out there. The story follows a journalist John Klein (played by Richard Gere), who in the wake of car accident in which his wife is injured and eventually dies, alternatively hunts and is haunted by a strange, otherworldly presence acting as a harbinger of doom. In a refreshing break from your run of the mill guts-and-gore flick, The Mothman Prophecies forgoes violence in favor of a tense, surreal atmosphere far more disturbing than anything that could actually be shown. If you’re a Twin Peaks or X-Files fan, you’ll probably get a kick out of this one.

The Cabin In The Woods

Part of me is tempted to cite 2012’s The Cabin In The Woods as “Horror for people who don’t like Horror”, only I think horror fans will love it just as much (if not more). The Cabin In The Woods pulls off the well-nigh impossible task of being a satire and an excellent version of the very thing it’s making fun of. I don’t know that you’ll be scared watching it, but the twists on every typical horror trope you’ve come to know and love/hate will keep you on your toes the entire time.

Silent Hill

Silent Hill was by no means a perfect movie. Heck, you could say that the ending was a sloppy mess and I really wouldn’t be able to argue with you. All that said, Silent Hill is surreal, fun, and more than anything else a shining example of how visually stunning and downright beautiful a horror movie can be if you actually put money into it. Even if the ending isn’t great, I think there’s enough redeeming quality in the movie, between the amazing cinematography and effects to the disorienting and exhausting feel of the thing, to merit you giving it a shot.

The Birds

Hitchcock’s most famous movie, surpassing perhaps even Psycho, was filmed back in 1963 and to this day remains an icon of the horror/thriller genre. You’re all already familiar with the plot- people go to remote seaside town, birds go nuts, people try to get away- but you still have to see it to really feel the full impact of it all. Just as a concept, it’s strength lies in it’s simplicity- the sheer randomness really hits home the feelings of dread and powerlessness that a good horror flick is supposed to. If you haven’t seen this one already, go out and watch it.

Pandorum

Another film that did not receive the credit it deserves, Pandorum is a sci-fi-horror flick perhaps most reminiscent of the Alien franchise. While the similarities are there, to say that Pandorum is a imitation would be a grave injustice- the movie brings elements to the table entirely of its own making. The horror of loneliness, claustrophobia, and paranoia all make this movie both unique and really, really good. While not quite as “pretty” as Silent Hill, this is another great example of how good horror can be when it actually gets some half-decent funding.

Marble Hornets

Marble Hornets is… different. It’s not a movie, but rather, a regularly updated YouTube series comprised of “found footage.” Trailing a series of strange events in a small, unnamed town, a likewise unnamed narrator- citing himself as a film student- examines the footage and finds repeating patterns of a strange, slender, impossibly tall figure fading in and out of many of the segments. Again, not being a traditional movie, it’s tough to peg down Marble Hornet‘s single best selling point, though if forced I’d probably have to say that it’s the eeriness of it. In the tradition of such films as The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity (we shall not speak of the ****ing brood of sequels), the Marble Hornets installments really and truly do feel real, making the departures from reality all the more unsettling. You can get started on the first episode here.

The Wolfman

Let’s finish up with a classic. Or the re-make of a classic. The Wolfman, starring Benicio Del Toro, is a remake of the 1940s horror film of the same name. While being a surprisingly faithful adaptation of the original, this latest incarnation of The Wolfman really and truly does pick up on everything the original was lacking, from an exploration of the main character’s background to a more full depiction of the setting, as well as the character’s relationships with each other. What the movies lacks in atmosphere it makes up for in bluntness, with all the good ultra-violence that you really just can’t have a werewolf movie without. The Wolfman also makes good use of something I’d like to call the “double-jump-scare”, which is essentially-

Ah, never mind. When it happens, you’ll know.

Go out and get yourselves some movies people. And watch out for the hands that are gonna grab your ankles as you get out of or get into bed.

Since joining the blog in June of 2012 (yes, it’s been over a year now and yes, the romance is dead), I’ve often made reference to a mysterious musical figure by the name of “Steve Taylor”.

With the end of Year 2 fast approaching, I figure it’s about time I actually explain who this guy was.

Other than a man with impeccable taste in clothing…

Steve Taylor was a Christian Rock musician, which given my past statements on the subject probably only makes it weirder that I’d be bringing him. But you see, Steve Taylor was doing his thing in the 80s, back in a time when the genre was still in its infancy and trying to combine religion and rock meant being edgy. We’re talking about the heyday of Jerry Falwell and his ilk reigned unchallenged and anything with a decent beat was listed as being of voodoo and/or satanic in origin.

Fortunately, that didn’t stop Taylor from blazing ahead anyways.

In spite of the challenges facing him, Taylor managed to build a career for himself largely through his witty lyrics and vicious satire, with televangelists and legalists usually at the receiving end.

“The golden cash-cow had a body like the great cows of ancient Egypt / And a face like the face of Robert Tilton (without the horns)”
-“Cash Cow”, Squint, 1993

“I think most pople get their image of Christianity from media, especially TV preachers… who preach doctrines like God is an American or Canadian and He wants us all to be rich and conservative…”

-“Steve Taylor Comments On His Ministry”, Harvest Rock Syndicate, 1987

Taylor was characterized as being something of an anti-hero, brutally attacking the subculture that had arguable produced him. Taylor frequently called out Contemporary Christian Rock as being bland, boring, or commercialistic, and straight-up declared mid-show altar calls as “Fascist” and “Manipulative”.

Steve feels there is a difference between ministry and entertainment, not so much now that you can’t have both, but essentially that you should choose one or the other. The tool that he has chosen is music, so he wants to make his performances as good musically as possible and as entertaining as possible.

-Ibid

Taylor wound up being so good at his acerbic send-ups that he managed to get televangelist Jimmy Swaggart to devote a segment of his book Rock ‘N’ Roll, a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing to decrying Taylor.

Taylor even managed to get a couple of his music videos onto MTV (back when MTV did music, of course), and in 1985 received a Grammy nomination. All in all, not too shabby for a band struggling against resistance from both the religious and secular camps alike. With criticism more or less just bouncing off of him, it looked like Taylor would become a mainstay of the genre.

So what happened?

Well, this did:

Steve Taylor released a song and music video titled “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good“. The story was sung from the perspective of a crazed ice cream man who decides to bomb an abortion clinic after becoming worried that he’ll run out of kids to buy his products. The song satirized the “ends justify the means” thinking of very real abortion clinic bombers, but nevertheless wound up bringing down a torrent of outrage on Taylor from those who did and didn’t understand the parody alike. Allegations that the cover of his “I Predict 1990″ album was based off of a Tarot card and contained “New Age” hand gestures also resulted in many stores pulling him from their shelves.

Taylor’s music career ended not with a bang but with a whisper, as the struggle to overcome the controversies intensified and as the band dealt with the same “too church for radio, too radio for church” problem that had haunted others in their position. While Taylor continued making music, by the early 90s the band had broken up and Steve himself had gone into self-imposed exile in the world of production, helping create such bands as the Newsboys, Sixpence None The Richer, and Chevelle.

Yeah, no Steve Taylor, no Chevelle. You can take that however you want…

Taylor also dabbled briefly in cinema, his most recent producing being the film adaptation of Blue Like Jazz.

So why am I bringing this all up now, seeing as I’m not going to have to do a dreaded Fame Day post until January?

Heads up, we’re gonna be going on break until January…

Well here’s why:

Steve Taylor’s coming back.

So maybe some of you already know where I’m going with this…

Yeah, I’m calling on you to first check out the guy’s music and interviews as they are both (1) hilarious and (2) really, really good. Second I want you to go listen to as much contemporary Christian music as you can without the urge to leap off of a cliff becoming overwhelming. Once you’ve done both of those things, I’m pretty sure you too will come to the conclusion that the ratio of Steve Taylor to Lousy Music is waaay to imbalanced, and you’ll want to get that corrected as soon as possible.

So what do ya say? ‘Tis the season for assuaging guilt by pitiful acts of charity- how ’bout you make this project one of ‘em?

I’ve been reading a lot about Frozen lately, and not even intentionally. I mean I watched it intentionally, but it was when I was having a slumber party with my niece. Okay, fine. You caught me. My niece is now a teenager and we were watching it in spite of not being the age demographic they were aiming for. Seriously though guys, why are Disney movies so appealing? There are so many things I can hate on in this movie. Like how it features ANOTHER typical white, skinny heroine whose eyes are bigger than her wrists.

Okay fine, I see you Jasmine… and Mulan.. and Pocahontas… and Tiana, but they’re still all skinny!

Or how the head of Frozen‘s animation shared about how difficult it is to animate female characters because you have to keep them pretty all the time.

Man that is tricky. I mean, they’re just all such unique characters.

And yet I am just as happy as the next girl/woman to pop in a Disney flick and sing along. That’s not to say that boys can’t/don’t like princess films, by the way, because there are many who do, including adult men I know.  To be more realistic, it’s girls who are the target demographic of “princes culture”.

Some of my Frozen reading has prompted me to share something with you that I rarely tell people. The reason I don’t usually share this, besides the fact that they probably wouldn’t really care, is because it makes me look like far less of the down-to-earth, non-consumeristic feminist I would love to pretend to be.

The thing I want to share is this, when I was a little girl my favorite movie of all time was War and Peace.

“Now Kat”, you might be thinking, “You wonderfully cultured thing you, why on earth would you be ashamed of enjoying a film based on a classic piece of literature? Why, that film probably planted the seed that inspired you to pursue such an incredibly pretentious useful degree like English.”

Well, the truth is I only watched it for the ballroom scene so I could see Audrey Hepburn in this dress:

Yes, you heard me right. I was watching it for the pretty dresses.

The reason why I was reminded of, and have now shared, this secret of mine is because of an article Dana Stevens wrote called “The Sexy ‘Frozen’ Moment No One Is Talking About”, which was featured in both Slate and HuffPost. I’ve included the sexy moment she is talking about below (you can click ahead to 2:55 minutes if you don’t want to groove out to the whole song).

According to Stevens:

“It’s a moment I recognize from too many movies in my own childhood—Grease was one, The Breakfast Club another—in which the ‘good girl’ goes over to ‘the bad side’ thanks to a quick cosmetic fix-up … These moments always bugged me as a kid, because they seemed to be last-minute reversals of the foregoing movie’s message, which was that the character in question [...] was fine just the way she was.”

I totally get what Stevens is saying. I agree that it isn’t fair to constantly force on girls (and boys) the idea that a physical makeover is all it takes to cure their woes. Yet that plot is repeated over and over in our movies. What do we find so appealing about it?

Well, I think it just feels really good to know you look good. Let me tell you, I looked mighty fine at my wedding. I’m not even going to pretend I wasn’t checking myself out. I will probably never look like that again, but it felt really great to have that one day to forgive myself for digging into my wallet solely for the sake of looking fabulous. 

Thing is, I never look like that in my day to day. Heck, I haven’t even shaved my legs since sometime before Christmas. I don’t even remember when. 

I realize that I usually write articles criticizing this kind of thing on the blog (like The Problem with Pink, and The Problem with Cute) and perhaps I risk being a hypocrite here, but maybe makeovers aren’t such a big problem. Does it contribute to the way society emphasizes the physical over everything else? Probably, but does that make it bad in and of itself? I don’t think so. There’s a big problem in thinking our bodies are where our identity lies, but maybe there is also a problem with thinking that it doesn’t affect us at all. For better or for worse, when I look in the mirror I think to myself “that’s me.” And every now and then, I think it’s okay if I try to make that “me” look mighty fine. And quite frankly, I don’t want to feel bad about it. I don’t want it to be what comprises my identity, but I’m fooling myself if I think my physical self isn’t part of that identity. Maybe we need to be reminded that, even as feminists, there is still a little room to want to look pretty.  And to belt out “Let It Go” in our living rooms while our significant others are trying to study… or is that just me?

What do you think? Where do we draw the line in our fight to move away from the kind of media that emphasizes beauty as the most important virtue an individual can possess?

* If I haven’t convinced you to watch Frozen yet you should check out this article on the 7 moments that made Frozen the most progressive Disney movie ever. That being said I already included the best part in this article, so I guess you don’t really have to watch it now.

I haven’t seen Noah yet, but I also haven’t seen anything by Aronofsky that I didn’t like. You probably know him from such movies as The Black Swan, The Wrestler, and The Fountain- all tending to center on people pursuing their dreams and passions even at their own destruction.

Now in spite of his impressive filmography, Noah has nevertheless come under fire from several directions, though perhaps none more vocal than the conservative (heck, even moderate) Christian community.

Now as with any film dealing even remotely with religion, that’s more or less to be expected, however, we’re going to be addressing these complaints less for their inherent claims and more for the much, much bigger issue that they’re telling of.

Now the banner that the critics of the film are flocking to is the claim that “it’s not Biblical.”

Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t have to be.

The Christian community has been a little spoiled from having the various Jesus films based exclusively off of the New Testament. Whatever movie gets made, even the highly controversial Last Temptation of Christ, is still based almost exclusively off of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Noah, however, is a figure appearing not only in Christianity, but in Jewish and Muslim texts as well- to say nothing of the countless Noah-figures from pretty much every culture in the world.

The simple fact of the matter is that Aronofsky isn’t required to portray Noah exclusively using the handful of verses referencing him (and the time he lived in) in the Old Testament. In fact, in spite of the hue and cry being raised here, Aronofsky is actually probably being more faithful to the story than most folks are giving him credit for.

Yep, we’re talking about the “rock monsters”.

The appearance of these strange creatures is being pointed as clear and irrefutable evidence of Aronofsky’s typical Hollywood irreverence for Biblical accuracy. Now I’ve already come out against biblical inerrancy, but even if I did adopt the most hardcore literalist position, I still wouldn’t have a leg to stand on because the rocks monsters are in there.

Ok, not “rock-monsters”, but to quote Genesis 6:1-4:

“Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”

Now exactly what on earth “the Nephilim” were (the King James Version simply translates it as “giants”) is never explained. There’s still a lot of debate surrounding the translation and the implications of the verse, but all that ought to go to show that there’s really no way you get to rail on Noah for this.

Simple fact of the matter is that the Bible is jam-packed with this kind of off-the-wall stuff. And I’m not going to blame anyone for leaving the dismembering of concubines (Judges 19:1-30) out of church pamphlets, it just strikes me that western Christians have been so busy building up this particular image of their own religion that they’re starting to confuse it with the the real thing. I’d bet cold hard cash that if I portrayed Jesus whipping the crap out of moneylenders at the temple, a hefty chunk of Christians would accuse me of playing fast and loose with scripture even though there’s a verse saying Jesus did exactly that.

And let’s be clear, after all these years, Christians don’t suddenly get to jump up and start complaining about accuracy.

Jesus has been portrayed using white actors over and over and over. Where was the hue and cry of accuracy then? Nowhere in scripture are angels described as having wings, and yet countless times they’re depicted as having ‘em and the Christian community has nothing to say about this. Pretty much everything from the Sistine Chapel to the illustrations in a collection of children’s Bible stories are based off of what will have the best aesthetic or make some kind of contextual sense (just look at any Christmas creche). And again, Aronofsky is not basing his Noah exclusively off of source material in Genesis. You can’t start wailing about the portrayal of something you don’t even having a monopoly on.

Over and over though, the main issue seems to be this: the critics are acting as if somehow they’re owed a Christian movie. Let’s get this straight- neither Aronofsky nor Hollywood nor any filmmaker past, present, or future owes you anything.

Christians are returning yet again to their favored dead-horse of faux-persecution, trying to make a bunch of non-complimentary details in Noah out to be evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to undermine scripture.

The madness of that aside, I need something explained to me. Who on earth do you think you are that you get to throw a tantrum because a movie wasn’t exactly to your tastes?

Let’s have Jagger break it down for you:

But if you try sometimes to start making your own movies that don’t make the viewer want to face-plant onto an electric drill, maybe we wouldn’t be running into this issue. It is not Aronofsky’s job to create fuzzy, self-affirming films for a specific demographic.

Yeah, the film does have it’s problems- let there be no mistake on that- but how ’bout ya pull the log from your own eye, huh?

Shame on you.

Well readers, it’s that time of the year again.

Decorations are going up, costumes are coming out, and here at your favorite blog in the whole wide world, we’ve got your latest batch of chilling and thrilling movie recommendations.

Let’s get to it.

Splice

You know all those classic monster movies with heavy-handed messages about scientists playing God?

This isn’t one of ‘em.

Quite the opposite, in fact: Splice is arguably a movie showing just the reverse, the danger of not providing scientists with the necessary resources and trust. And while that’s a long overdue message, beyond that, Splice is a simply fantastic horror flick. Well-acted, well-funded, well-shot, and even if you manage to see certain plot points coming, they’re only made all the more disturbing for it.

Stoker

Created by Park Chan-Wook, the brilliant writer and director of such films as Oldboy and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Stoker is- without a doubt- the single most visually stunning film I’ve ever seen. I’d recommend you watching this film even just for the cinematography- “enthralling” isn’t a word strong enough. Backing that up, however, is a great story- not explicitly what you’d call pure “horror”, but definitely horrifying. I can’t recommend this one enough, folks.

Event Horizon

In spite of having been made back in ’97, Event Horizon not only manages to hold up after nearly two decades, but still works as a disturbing and engrossing sci-fi horror film all on its own. While far from perfect, Event Horizon nevertheless manages to create some genuinely creepy scenes, and the slowly but steady descent into madness is well worth the wait.

The Mist

Even Stephen King, the author of The Mist, admitted he liked the ending of the 2007 adaption better than his own. While again not a perfect movie (the religious woman scenes being especially campy), the cast (the actors from The Walking Dead- tank-zombie included) nevertheless do a great job of keeping the Lovecraftian tale engaging and visceral. And if the ending doesn’t get ya- nothing will.

The Strangers

Now here’s a movie that’ll unnerve even jaded horror fans. No silliness, no goop, no attempts at being parodying or self-referential. The Stangers remembers the goal of horror movies is to horrify, and the 2008 flick does an amazing job of tapping into our culture’s most visceral fears and anxieties. This will send shudders down your spine.

The Ring (Either Version)

Japanese horror films (AKA “J-Horror”) has always been a fascinating cultural element, and one I’m hoping to unwrap a bit later in this month. For present time, all that you need to know is The Ring aint half bad. As much as it’s been parodied since it’s American release in 2002, I challenge anyone to tell me that it’s not an interesting and eerie film- even with the days of video-tapes and VCRs long gone.

The House of the Devil

If you saw posters for The House of the Devil, you might be tempted to think that it’s just some cult-classic from the 80s being given an traditional release for the fans. Actually made in 2009, the film is set in the 80s and directly addresses the culture of the time- particularly the paranoia about witchcraft, cults, and satanism that was sweeping the nation at the time. This is another one whose praises I can’t sing enough- we’re talking about one heck of a slow-burn, but with agonizing tension the whole way, and a degree of unapologetic sincerity so often lacking in this genre.

And there it is, folks. Just like last year, grab yourself some candy corn, a flashlight, and a couple friends dumb enough to watch these with ya in the dark!

Well folks, October has come and gone, and gone with it is the movie industry’s litter of trope-y, recycled Halloween cash-ins.

Yes, I’m talking about you. Now get out of here. Scram.

This means we can get back to the horror movies being made as movies first, rather than cynical money-grabs.

Excluding the Paranormal Activity franchise, but obviously that goes without saying…

See, say what you like about horror flicks (and there’s no shortage of criticism to be leveled), I do truly believe this is a genre just as important as any other- heck, possibly even more. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s a better gauge for contemporary culture than the things we fear most as a society.

Now to a certain extent, we already know this. Time and time again, our fear of zombies has been linked to more widespread fears about mindless consumerism, conformity, and loss of identity. Vampires have been alternatively used as stand-ins for both conservatives (a fearful elite draining the blood of the working man) and liberals alike (decadent, foreign, sexually licentious moochers).

But where do we stand today?

While holding their own for a long while, both vampire and zombie stories seem to be retreating from public attention. One could point to oversaturation, but I’m going to argue that it’s because our fears have changed and the ravenous undead no longer work as avatars for our anxieties.

Sorry, buddy…

So what do?

Well to answer that question, yours truly has been tirelessly observing and analyzing every horror flick coming out this year. And yeah, you’ve got your ghosts, your goblins, a handful of decent lookin’ psychological ones, but do you know what I found above all else?

Aliens.

How crazy is that?

I mean, ever since everyone and their dog first got camera and video capabilities on their phones, reports of UFO sightings and alien encounters have plummeted. As people become (comparatively) more scientifically inclined, an understanding of how implausible it would be for alien life to contact humanity (or vice versa) has become widespread. Truth is, we as a culture have really had no major reason to believe in extraterrestrial life, let alone fear it. So why now?

The other theme of the year would appear to be exorcisms. And while you’re bound to get at least one or two of ‘em a year, they seem to be everywhere these days. And like alien stories, it’s not something you’d necessarily expect to find, especially in today’s increasingly secular culture. It is worth noting that the “demons” we’re being shown really aren’t even demons in any traditional sense. These aren’t so much fallen angels as malevolent spirits with agendas beyond our understanding.

So what’s it all mean?

The common theme seems to be one of cosmic horror- that we’re just insignificant specks against a much bigger backdrop. That there are forces in this universe totally beyond our comprehension or control.

The continued conflict in the Middle East might have something to do with it, as Americans, for the first time in a long time, seem tired of war.

While supporting air strikes against ISIS in the Middle East, more and more I’m hearing people complain that “other countries need to step up” and that “America shouldn’t have to lead all the time”. We seem exhausted- realizing that we just might not be able to fix every problem by bombing it.

This seed of self-doubt seems to have been nurtured by the Ebola outbreak. While we can (and should) point to the bigotry the panic has revealed, I think it has just as much to do with our concern that we’re facing an enemy we have no clue how to deal with. We’re used to using the gun to solve our problems, and while I don’t think that’s as wrong as some people make it out to be, I do think it makes us feel suddenly both very irrelevant and very small in a strange and dangerous world. Of course, the whole alien-foreigner connection might also speak to renewed xenophobia on the part of westerners.

So what do we do with this info?

Engage, of course. The point of literary criticism and study is, after all, to help us make our culture better, either building on the good we have or confronting the bad. Here’s the info, readers- what you do with it is up to you.

To start things off, Happy Galentine’s Day. What’s that, you say, you’re not familiar with the term? Well, I’m sure Pawnee’s very own Leslie Knope could, as Gordon says, “break it down for you”:

That was a lot less specific than I had hoped, but the point of that was to a) reference a sitcom, the last season of which you should all be watching right now, b) bring attention to a day that is for “celebrating special lady friends”, and c) start things off on a lighter note before I have to tackle what has been all over all of your social media feeds for the past two weeks now.

In case it wasn’t painfully obvious, it’s 50 Shades of Grey.

Now what I don’t want to do, and this may surprise you, is talk about how this is a novel which glorifies an abusive sexual relationship. Honestly, if you haven’t tuned into that by now that would legitimately surprise me. Just searching for the above gif I noticed that tumblr had suggested another tag when searching for 50 Shades. At this point I want to say that the focal point of both the novel and film is known across the board to be some fairly messed up stuff.

Here’s another thing I hope we’ve all realized by now: 50 Shades of Grey is pornography. Hopefully a moot point by now given that Saturday Night Live riffed on this two years ago [for any Americans or tech savvy non-Americans who want better quality, it’s also on Hulu]:

It’s the same thing that one of my favourite bloggers, Neil Sharpson AKA Unshaved Mouse, spells out very clearly in his post, cleverly titled “The Fault in Our Shades”. I should also mention, before I frame him and his opinions within the context of this novel and film, that he has reviewed every movie in the Disney animated canon in an entertaining and educational fashion and you should go read said reviews. Carrying on, Sharpson takes umbrage with how this work is defined on Wikipedia [and, I suppose, in many other places]:

He reiterates a story told to him by a friend who hid the fact that she read the novel from her husband because, and I quote, he’d be “furious”. It’s this, Sharpson states, that is the real problem here-

“Because women should just be able to enjoy some guilt-free porn without hiding it from their husbands, or having to justify it either to themselves or to society. The fact is that the only way we allow women to enjoy this book is if we disguise it as something it has absolutely no business being. This should not be treated as a romance novel. It should not be read, marketed, consumed or interpreted as any kind of reflection on love or how men and women should treat each other.

The fact that so many women get off on this book is neither sick nor twisted.

The fact that the only way they feel they can do it is to pretend that Deep Throat is Pride and Prejudice is what’s truly perverse.”

Which I agree with, to a point. It’s calling a spade a shovel, consciously
categorizing this work in a way that is more palatable to the public. To further the illustration he makes in his concluding sentence no one anywhere would ever take, say, Threesome Fantasies Fulfilled and package it as a guide to successful human resource management. There’s a clear double standard here,

At the same time I don’t think, to quote a Howard Porter musical number I had to sing in choir back in high school, that just “anything goes.”

The last time I wrote about pornography in any thorough capacity focused on adult film star Danny Wylde engaging in yellowface to portray Asian character Glenn in a porn parody of The Walking Dead. I used that as a springboard to discuss the overt racism found in the industry, one that’s made extremely apparent in a slew of porn titles I quoted someone listing [and that I don’t feel like retyping or rereading, check out the other post if you really want to know what they are]. My concluding paragraph began with the sentence: “Regardless of the setting, racism and racial stereotypes should never get a “free pass.”

That doesn’t even begin to touch on the sheer amount of pornography that emphasizes the degradation of human beings for the titillation of others. 50 Shades of Grey very clumsily attempts to paint a picture of a relationship, and I use that term loosely, between its two central characters. It has absolutely nothing on straight-up rape porn which is in most cases explicitly non-consensual.

To return to Sharpson’s assertion that women [insert: people] “should just be able to enjoy some guilt-free porn without [. . .] having to justify it either to themselves or to society,” I must respectfully disagree. If what you get off to is people who are being hurt or cheapened or forced against their own will then at the very, very, very least you need to justify it to yourself. I’m not going so far as to say you can’t view such things if you choose to, but your enjoyment of it should absolutely come into question.

My Facebook feed has been peppered with articles about 50 Shades of Grey in the weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day, and the discussion doesn’t seem to be stopping any time soon. I certainly do agree that the books and movie sound like they have some super abusive content, and that they might just signal a larger cultural problem that we aren’t deal with, but I also feel like they’re just a little too easy to criticize.

Seriously, when did super creepy stalkers become romantic?

Instead of preaching to the choir about the 50 Shades series, I plan to make us all feel guilty about the part of Valentine’s Day that is much harder to address: consumerism. This post will focus specifically on the three most common gifts associated with the holiday: flowers, chocolate, and jewelry.

1. Flowers

Did I ever tell you about the job I had picking flowers? It wasn’t actually as easy as it sounds.

The organization I worked for paid by the bundle. If you didn’t cut the stems long enough, or if you included any flowers that had already started to bloom, that bunch was thrown out and you wouldn’t get paid for it. At first, I kind of enjoyed the work. It was monotonous, so I had lots of time for thinking, and I loved being outside in the sun. Unfortunately, it wasn’t always sunny. When it rained my shoes would be sucked deep into the mud. Not to mention how being constantly bent-over made my back hurt. Often, at the end of the day, I would suddenly
realize that the money I made didn’t even equal out to minimum wage. As soon as I was able to get another job, I quit.

That experience was probably the first time I started to think about the history of flowers. Where did they come from? Who picked them? How far were they being shipped?

At the time, I didn’t really know that much about it, and I never put in the work to find out. However, just a few days ago, I came across an article by Oliver Balch in The Guardian, titled “The women suffering for your Valentine’s Day flowers”.

Bulch’s article focuses primarily on flowers being exported from Columbia. While Columbia has recently become the second largest flower exporter, the industry’s growth has also prompted concerns about workers’ rights. According to Ricardo Zamudio, president of the Colombian non-profit called the Cactus Corporation,

“These workers receive the absolute minimum wage of 644,000 pesos a month (£175), which only covers about 40% of their typical monthly outgoings.”

Zamudio also mentioned a variety of health concerns among workers, explaining that,

“carpel tunnel syndrome, tendonitis and other repetitive strain injuries are commonplace among flower workers, around two-thirds (65%) of whom are women… [There are also] registered cases of exposure to toxic chemicals during fumigation.”

Ecuador, one of Columbia’s main flower competitors, has been accused of similar violations of workers’ rights. Additionally, some reports have claimed that up to “55% of women workers in Ecuador’s flower plantations have been the victims of some form of sexual harassment in the workplace”.

2. Chocolates

In 2010 Danish journalist Miki Mistrati U. Roberto Romano produced a documentary called The Dark Side of Chocolate. This documentary, which I’ve included below, investigates the cocoa industry in Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa.

The film highlights problems with child trafficking and indentured labour. It also touches on the problem of chemical exposure, since working with pesticides can make child workers “prone to incorrigible respiratory and dermatological diseases”.

After the documentary was released, the Global Chocolate and Cocoa Industry spoke out in condemnation of forced or indentured child labour. However, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs continues to report incidents of child labour in cocoa plantations in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.

3. Jewelry

Two years ago, on February 14th, John popped the ol’ question. I knew it was coming, so I started researching rings, sending him the most ethical options I could find (super romantic, right?). I tried to find something used (surprisingly expensive), or with recycled materials (really hard to find), and avoided getting a real diamond like it was the plague.

What can I say, Blood Diamond really got to me.

In the end, we bought a ring made by a Canadian artisan who claimed the topaz and silver in the ring were ethically sourced. Unfortunately, the origin of gems is so hard to track so there’s really no way of knowing for sure.

Over the last couple years the jewelry industry has begun to focus on finding “conflict free” diamonds in order to meet consumer demands and claims it has increased its “ethical, social and environmental standards“. But just because a company is no longer buying products from a war torn country doesn’t automatically make it ethical. For example, Canadian mining companies continue to be accused of human rights violations, as well as devastating environmental practices.

Meanwhile, even diamonds that come from mines with poor human rights practices are generally able to get “conflict free” certification, since they are not technically “blood diamonds”.

Did I write this just to make us all feel guilty? Partially. Although I’m not in any position to lecture. My house is currently peppered with flowers, from who-knows-where. Recently, we stockpiled on cheap Valentine’s chocolate at Target’s closing down sale, a store I once swore I would never ever enter. And despite my attempt to avoid blood diamonds, I still couldn’t tell you if my wedding ring is actually ethical or not.

So yes, I am writing this as a reminder to myself, and you, to make better choices with our money. I’m also writing it to remind us that, while we have been busy complaining about a film that isn’t (directly) hurting anyone, we have also continued making choices that actually are hurting somebody. Are any of us willing to put as much energy into fighting these problems as we are willing to put into protesting a stupid movie?

Readers, it’s the beautiful month of May, and you know what that means-

That’s right! It’s a seemingly unending salvo of rabidly Socialist-themed blog posts!

From me, anyways…

Now readers, normally I’d get right into the thick of things and engage in a lengthy tirade on the insidious-and-soul-crushing nature of the Capitalist system and the failure of the radical left to challenge that. But since this post is coming to you late, how about I talk about something a bit lighter than the minutiae of modern political-economy instead?

How about movies?

Everyone likes movies, and lord knows that these ones listed here have probably done more to inspire righteous radicalism in the common man than all of the cliff notes on Das Kapital put together. Whether you’re a dirty, seditious Commie or just a fan of the berets and impassioned speeches, here’s Culture War Reporter’s recommendations for your revolutionary viewing pleasure:

The Edukators (German Title: Die Fetten Jahre Sind Vorbei)

Now right off the bat, yes, that is Daniel Brühl, of Rush and Inglorious Basterds. Now that you’re done wondering “where the **** have I seen that guy?”, let’s get into it.

Our story opens with a cadre of disaffected youth, tired and disillusioned with capitalism but not sure exactly what to do with themselves. The characters find themselves drawn into a campaign of pranking the houses of the wealthy elite- harmlessly, at first, but building momentum and severity. Their well-intentioned social statements spiral wildly out of control when they accidentally kidnap the owners of one of the estates they vandalize. Don’t think this is some cheap action movie though- the quiet, contemplative tone packs just as much punch, if not more, than any thriller.

More than anything, The Edukators is an exploration- touching on the zealotry of youth, the realities of growing up, and idealism in a world where ideals just aren’t relevant. The Edukators raises more questions than it offers, and is sure to convict both revolutionary and reactionary alike.

The Motorcycle Diaries (Spanish Title: Diarios de Motocicleta)

Based on the journals of perhaps the most famous revolutionary (Communist or otherwise) to have ever lived, The Motorcycle Diaries is still more of a road-trip flick than a biography. As with The Edukators, action is dropped in favor of one hell of a slow-burn as we journey along with Ernesto and his best friend through vista after stunning vista across the South American continent. Motorcycle Diaries takes the more subtle route, showing the first flickers of Che Guevara’s transformation from happy-go-lucky scoundrel to revolutionary icon.

I did mention that it was about a young Che Guevara, right?

A Huey P. Newton Story

It’s tough to come by Socialist films in English where the dreaded Reds are being portrayed as borscht-slurping, vodka-guzzling villains. Still, with a little digging and some creativity, you can find ’em, and perhaps none stands out so much as Spike Lee’s lesser-known masterpiece, A Huey P. Newton Story. Almost more poetry than a movie, the audience is graced with a one-on-one discussion with the Black Panther Party founder Huey P. Newton, as he narrates the rise and fall of one of the most wrongfully maligned and misunderstood forces of black history.

In Time

2011’s In Time never quite got a fair shake. In spite of a star-studded cast and a decent box-office pull, the flick fizzled with critics and was swiftly forgotten by the public. Which is a shame, because it’s a really, really, really good movie.

Not perfect, mind- far from it, if we’re being honest. But it’s rare to see a truly independent science-fiction movie actually get some decent funding while still addressing the issue of classism and wealth inequality.

Set in a dystopian future where the hours of a person’s life have become currency, the rich luxuriate in lives of decadent (and potentially millennia spanning) boredom while the poor live, quite literally, from one day to the next, a young worker’s life is changed forever when a wealthy stranger donates over a century of life to him. Our protagonist is plunged into a lethal game of cat-and-mouse as he attempts to evade the dreaded time-keepers, the envy of his fellow workers, and the avarice of the rich.

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

It’s all too common for the Irish struggle for independence to get cast solely in the light of a tragic and pointless feud between Catholics and Protestants. Fortunately, The Wind That Shakes the Barley offers much needed balance to the story of the IRA, including it’s oft-forgotten roots as- surprise, surprise- a Socialist organization. While it would be unfair to classify the beautiful film as either a Marxist product or a film celebrating the left, the subtext of the struggle of the Irish working class and poor runs strong throughout the story, and The Wind That Shakes the Barley is well worth the watch for any pinko.

Marx in Soho

This isn’t the first time I’ve sung the praises of celebrated historian Howard Zinn’s Marx in Soho. Which should again reinforce how staggeringly good this play is, especially coming from a guy who hates the theater with an undying and fiery passion. This play (linked below and performed by the incomparable Brian Jones) takes you on a roller coaster, shifting flawlessly from the heights of triumph to the depths of despair. From the comedic to the sweeping arc of history to the man himself, in all his human flaws and failings. If there’s a link you click on this site, make it this one.

The Trotsky

No list would be complete without this one.

Perhaps my favorite movie of all time, The Trotsky is equal parts comedy, underdog story, and fist-pumping call to action. We follow the struggle of Leon Bronstein, Canadian high school student and- if he is to be believed- the reincarnation of Russian revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky. After a series of mishaps lands him in public school, Leon finds himself leading his friends into a heated battle for a (real) student union. If you have a shred of leftist sympathy in you- heck, even if you just know somebody who’s a Red- watch this movie.

That’s right, boys and ghouls-

Good for you.

That’s not something you’d expect someone to say about the genre, is it?

Sure, you might hear about horror “classics”. There are plenty of fans out there who’ll talk about their personal favorites. You might even hear critics fondly contemplate how certain horror flicks were telling of their times. But morally edifying?

Well that’s the argument I’m going to be presenting to you today.

Be warned- spoilers may follow.

Now this isn’t the first time I’ve tried to champion the macabre. I don’t expect it to be the last either- not considering the reaction folks give me when I say I enjoy the stuff.

And before we really dig in here- let me get the obvious out of the way.

Yes, a lot of horror movies are garbage. The slasher/”teen-scream” subgenres use cheap gore and excessive nudity as a crutch for plot. More serious attempts still rely on the same cliches that have been around for decades. Plenty are poorly acted and have production values that could be outstripped by a middle school enactment of Romeo & Juliet.

But that’s hardly unique to horror.

I don’t think you could even begin to count the number of lousy action movies, nauseating rom-coms, insipid indie-flicks, or toilet-humor comedies that flood our culture. And most of these squander money and talent that horror films can only dream of having.

Let’s be real here. Sex, violence, poor quality- these are not your issue with horror.

You just don’t like being scared.

To which you might say:

“Well no ****, Gordon (you eloquent ambassador of this strange and nightmarish land beyond the zone of our collective comfort)! Nobody likes being scared!  What kind of twisted masochist actually enjoys being terrified? Why on earth would we subject ourselves to that?”

Well once again, dear readers- because it’s good for you.

But let me step back here a second.

The purpose of art is to have a dialogue between the creator and the audience. Anything- be it a painting, a book, a movie, or even a comic- is designed to create a conversation. And- just as with any good conversation- that might mean bringing up things that we’re simply not comfortable with. It means addressing problems in society. Failures within individuals. Humanity’s fragile place within the greater scheme of the universe.

You get the idea.

Look, if movies did nothing but give you what you wanted then Old Yeller would still be chasing off rattlesnakes and hogs in the Texan wilderness. We’d only have one incarnation of Doctor Who. Romeo and Juliet would still be sickening the citizens of fair Verona with their public displays of affection. The Titanic would still be serenely sailing the Atlantic and you can forget any movie dealing with war or genocide.

Aaaah! Unwanted feelings!

That’s the value of the horror genre. It’s a dare to-

-scratch that-

-a challenge to watch ’em.

You’re being asked to confront evil. To stare into the abyss, and when the abyss stares back, you do. Not. Blink.

I remember back in college having to sit through a mandatory class on the history of Christianity. Near the end of the semester, we watched Romero– detailing the life of heroic El Salvadorian Archbishop Oscar Romero. In one of the scenes, a government torture chamber was shown. From off-screen (I emphasize: off-screen) we could hear the agonized wails of one of the victims. A girl a few seats over from me burst into tears and promptly fled the room.

I still remember how utterly and sickeningly offended I felt by that.

Dammit, this is a true story. People suffered while the pious and righteous did nothing to stop it. Get your sheltered butt back in here, sit down, and bear ****ing witness to it.

I’m guessing it would help if they actually witnessed ’em…

That’s the value of horror movies. They give us an opportunity to not only explore the nature of evil, but give us the preparation to stare it down.

Evil, dearly beloved, doesn’t like to be looked at. It thrives in darkness and in ignorance- the only places where it ever has any actual power. Drag monsters and mutants, ghosts and goblins, demons and djinn out into the light, and they lose all of their power.

Bring it on, furball.

“But Gordon, you resolute monument of defiance, we’re not actually dealing with monsters. Heck, depending on your theological perspective, you might not even believe demons are anything more than metaphors for the corrosive nature of evil!”

But that’s exactly the point here, folks. Any horror movie antagonist (any decent horror movie antagonist) is a stand-in for a very real problem. How many times have people flown into panic over real or imagined threats of disease, crime, war, immigration, race, or Dungeons & Dragons?

For real though, people have been falsely accused, imprisoned, and even executed as a result of these absurd waves of terror and paranoia.

“But is horror the answer?”

Not always.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m a fan of satire, and I think you can work a good social message into pretty much anything. Heck, action-pulp masterpiece Machete was pretty much all about the issue of illegal immigration and day laborers (and the diverse use of machetes, of course).

But that doesn’t always cut it.

There’s only so much an action movie can do to comment on violence. There’s only so much that comedies can do to address the problems of sin- either personal or social.

People do needed to be shocked. People do need to be confronted with the things they’re so scared of. And fortunately for us all, the horror genre is standing in the wings, ready and waiting to oblige.

Scared?

Good.

It’s the first step not being scared.

Be sure to stop by next week for CWR’s third annual Halloween movie recommendations.

In the beginning, I could not be more excited for Marvel Studios’ upcoming slate of comic book movie offerings. While I noted [and mourned] Black Panther’s absence from their list of Phase 2 films in 2012 I was forced to eat my words a couple of years later, when they announced solo films for both him and Captain Marvel [a female hero!] at a special event.

Yes, as you can see from the mock-ups they released on the right both were slated to drop on November 2017 and July 2018 respectively, with a good number of years ahead for casting, finding directors, pre-production, extensive post-production for VFX, the whole deal. Like I mentioned, I was ecstatic for what was to come and by no means worried that they were rushing things.

Sure, both films were being released after Captain America: Civil War, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, and Thor Ragnarok, three sequels, two of which are the third for their respective franchises, but I could wait! Things were changing for ol’ Marvel Studios, and for the better.

And then the announcement early this year that Sony was willing to cut a deal with Marvel, allowing the latter to use Spider-Man in their cinematic universe! This news was met by much of the internet with a long drawn out finally. Fans had been waiting to see the webswinger alongside other such heroes as Iron Man and Thor and it was all coming to pass! The comic book movie gods smile down upon us!

Except that that wasn’t the announcement in its entirety. Over on their website Marvel revealed that Peter Parker’s induction into their lineup would result in schedule conflicts, namely [emphasis added]:

Marvel’s “Thor: Ragnarok” will hit theaters November 3, 2017. The following year, Marvel’s “Black Panther” will make its way to theaters on July 6, 2018, and Marvel’s “Captain Marvel” on November 2, 2018. Finally, Marvel’s “Inhumans” will now debut in theaters July 12, 2019.

Over at tumblr bookerdewitch summed it up more perfectly than I ever could:

Because, honestly, this will be the sixth movie following the character, and the second reboot in five years! Spider-Man is straight-up one of my favourite superheroes but I have seen enough of him on the big screen for a lifetime. I am good with him not getting a solo movie, and I certainly don’t want to see one at the expense of Marvel’s only films helmed by a woman and a person of colour.

What hurts me more than almost anything right now is having to admit that this is all old news, and not the end of the story when it comes to Marvel Studios’ treatment of their upcoming Captain Marvel film.

Just yesterday Marvel officially released a “MARVEL STUDIOS PHASE 3 UPDATE“. I’ve copied and pasted it below [emphasis added once again]:

“Now that Phase 2 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has officially reached its conclusion with the release of Marvel’s “Ant-Man,” we have new details on what to expect in Phase 3!

Following our hero’s debut adventure in this summer’s ‘Ant-Man,’ Scott Lang will return alongside Hope Van Dyne on July 6, 2018 with Marvel’s ‘Ant-Man and the Wasp.’ The sequel will mark the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine.

Additionally, Ant-Man’s second adventure will lead to a couple of other films shifting their dates, with Marvel’s ‘Black Panther’ moving up to February 16, 2018 and Marvel’s ‘Captain Marvel’ landing on March 8, 2019.”

Let’s lay out the number one fact right now, before addressing everything else: Captain Marvel, the one and only solo film in their lineup starring a female hero, has been pushed back another four months.

“You shouldn’t have!”

As for the rest of their announcements . . . look, I think the Wasp co-headlining a film is great. As they mentioned this is “the first Marvel Studios film named after its heroine,” but how are we supposed to rejoice about that when it pushes the previously announced Captain Marvel back a second time? Are we really expected to celebrate that a woman is co-starring in a comic book movie instead of just starring in it?

Again, I think the announcement is great, I think it’s exciting in its own way. It just sours when brought into context with the delay. I also want to say that hey, it’s great that Black Panther was moved up, even if it’s being moved up after it was already pushed back.

What’s particularly galling to me, though, is how Marvel appears to be downplaying what’s going on. Ant-Man and the Wasp is an obvious deflection, the studio giving us “what we always wanted” by sacrificing what we were already looking forward to. Also isn’t it convenient that on the same day the news was announced an interview with Captain Marvel co-writer Meg LeFauve dropped as well? Look, guys, this is still happening, just not for another four years.

Now’s probably a good time, as I’m wrapping up, to address those who consider to defend every single one of Marvel Studios’ decisions.

Yes, the second release date for Captain Marvel would have had it falling in direct competition with Warner Bros. new Batman flick, starring Ben Affleck. That’s a daunting task for any movie, let alone a property as unproven, thus far, as this one. My response to that, of course, is that it shouldn’t have been moved in the first place.

Another argument I’ve heard is that people calling for this movie are somehow in a rush. Someone actually responded to my complaints with the question: “You want it fast or you want it good?” Straight-up, though, as I said up above, they were already planning for this four years out. All that time and they haven’t even cast the titular character yet [Chadwick Boseman was revealed to be playing Black Panther quite some time ago].

I’ve also heard that these are “smart” moves by Marvel. A Spider-Man movie will always make them money. Sequels to successful movies will make them money. There’s no proof that Captain Marvel will make bank, so they’re just making business-savvy decisions. Hearing this we should probably ask ourselves, why make one at all? Why try to do anything?

My last point is more of a direct question to Marvel Studios as a whole, which is “Are you waiting for DC/Warner Bros. to catch up?” I already covered back in May how their Distinguished Competition are soundly defeating them in regards to casting people of colour, but now they want to let them get ahead with female characters as well? Black Widow has starred in four Marvel movies and gotten no closer to her own solo. In 2017 Gal Gadot will helm Wonder Woman. Captain Marvel won’t be released for another two years after that.

I shouldn’t have to say it at this point, but I’m frustrated. I’m tired of these safe bets with sequels, with unproven properties which just so happen to headline women and people of colour being shunted around at the drop of a hat. I want Marvel to be serious about these other characters they claim to care about. And I won’t try to explain to people how they’re really doing the right, or smart, thing until I see evidence of that.

Man, Marvel, you ****in’ up. And it breaks my heart.

The Martian is Guilty of Whitewashing

Last Thursday the Media Action Network For Asian-Americans [MANAA] issued a statement criticizing director Ridley Scott for the whitewashing of Asian roles in his film The Martian. Their judgements are twofold, namely citing that:

• NASA’s director of Mars operations Dr. Venkat Kapoor as an Asian-Indian character who identifies religiously as being “a Hindu.” The group pointed out that in Scott’s film, his name is changed to Vincent Kapoor, and he’s played by British black actor Chiwetel Ejiofor, who says his father was “a Hindu” but that his mother was “Baptist.”
• Mindy Park, described by Weir as Korean-American, is played in the movie by Mackenzie Davis, a white, blonde actress.

Now I wish I could proceed on to the rest of this blog post, but people have asked the question as to whether or not this is, technically, whitewashing. It’s going to take a few paragraphs, but let’s get that out of the way-

Okay, The Martian is Guilty of Racebending/Whitewashing

Let’s start from the very, very, very top. The Wikipedia entry for this can actually be found under “racebending”, with “whitewashing” cited as being [citation needed] a more archaic term. Their definition of this practice is:

“when the race or ethnicity of a character, in a story, is altered to an ostensibly more ‘palatable’ or ‘profitable’ ethnicity.”

The reason people have been asking the question as to whether or not this did in fact take place is that The Martian is a film adaptation of a novel by author Andy Weir. As such the source material is devoid of any visual aids in regards to the explicit ethnicities of its characters. Weir himself had a number of things to say about this with MTV News at the Toronto International Film Festival where the film debuted [the interview occurred before MANAA’s statement]:

In regards to writing and describing his characters’ ethnicities-

“So unless a physical description is somehow relevant to the plot, OK, you know he’s missing a leg — something like that, but unless it’s like really important to the plot then I don’t physically describe my characters at all.”

“You can imagine them however you like. Like, for instance, the ethnicity of Mark, I never told you.”

In response to criticisms of Chiwetel Ejiofor being cast as Vincent Kapoor-

“He’s an American. Americans come from lots of different sources! You can be Venkat Kapoor and black.”

In response to criticism of Mackenzie Davis being cast as Mindy Park-

“Whatever ethnicity she has, she’s an American and her family has been in America forever, which is why her first name is just Mindy, but her last name is Park. But Park is also a British surname so the casting people [could have] thought Mackenzie Davis looks like someone descended from Brits. And she did a great job! I’m certainly not complaining about anything related to casting.”

While not a direct quote, MTV News also shares how Weir envisioned Park while writing the novel:

“He did admit that he’d always pictured Mindy Park as of Korean lineage, but emphasized again that he had never actually explicitly written her as Korean.”

This is all well and good, but problematic in that it doesn’t jive with an interview that took place in May of this year with the blog domesoph. When asked by blogger Sophie Milam about how he approached writing his extensive cast, Weir responded [emphasis added]:

“I didn’t set out to deliberately balance the crew. For the most part, I just wanted them each to be unique enough for the reader to tell them apart without prompting. It’s a real problem in written fiction. You don’t have the face on-screen or voice being heard to remind the audience who’s who. They need to know it immediately from the name.
So there are no two people on Hermes who are the same demographic. There’s one white American guy (Beck), one Hispanic guy (Martinez), and one German guy (Vogel). There are two women of undefined ethnicity (presumably white) but one of them is the Commander, so you won’t get them confused either. Especially since they all call her ‘Commander’.
So it wasn’t any deliberate attempt at diversity. It was really just a shortcut to making sure the reader knew who was who. You’ll find I pulled the same trick with the NASA characters: Teddy (white guy who is in charge), Mitch (white guy who isn’t in charge), Venkat (Indian), Annie (white woman), Mindy Park (Korean woman), Rich Purnell (African American).”

Now I want to be fair and admit that not every author is [or can be] Alan Moore, who has very publicly denounced all film adaptations of his own work. Weir is currently working on his sophomore novel, with The Martian making up the entirety of his current bibliography. As an author with his first-ever book being adapted by Hollwood, and with the film rumoured to be nabbing an Oscar, there are more reasons against than for when it comes to rocking the boat. So let’s discard what Weir has to say, separate from his novel, completely.

All art is open to interpretation regardless of the creator’s intent, so without Weir’s opinions here’s what we know about the characters:

• “Venkat [not Vincent, as he’s known in the film] Kapoor” is an East Indian name.
• It’s stated within the text that Vincent Kapoor is a Hindu.
• While “Mindy” is ethnically ambiguous, “Park” is the third most common Korean surname. “Park” is also an English and Scottish surname.

That being said I’m willing to make the concession that free of Weir’s intentions Mindy Park certainly could have been either White or East Asian. When it comes to Venkat Kapoor, on the other hand, most signs point towards him being South Asian, more specifically East Indian. Let’s pull up the definition for “racebending” again:

“when the race or ethnicity of a character, in a story, is altered to an ostensibly more ‘palatable’ or ‘profitable’ ethnicity.”

Chiwetel Ejiofor is an Academy Award winning actor. He’s also a Nigerian English man, part of a demographic that has not struggled in Hollywood compared to many others. Comparatively speaking I would run out of American films headlining East Indian talent before I ran out of fingers. Are Black men more profitable than Indian men? Everything I know about North America answers a resounding yes. So this is what we’re left with:

Venkat Kapoor was racebent for The Martian.

Mindy Park [given the author’s intent] was whitewashed for The Martian.

To be fair [and I think I have been thus far], East Indian actor Irrfan Khan had been in talks to play Kapoor but had to decline due to another commitment. It’s worth noting that the role had been intended for Khan, and it’s also commendable that-

The Martian Has Great Roles for Asians [Note the Strikethroughs, They’re Hard to See]

I’m trying to save a lot of my emotions for the latter part of this post, but I just typed “Benedict Wong The Martian” into Google Image Search and nine out of the first ten images are of Matt Damon in a space suit. In all honesty, at the time of this writing there are none, there are literally no images of Benedict Wong as he appears in The Martian. I need to take a deep breath. Sorry.

Here he is as Kublai Khan from Netflix’s Marco Polo. Quite literally the best I can do.

The reason I had to step back for a second there is that Benedict Wong’s role in this film is not a small one. As Bruce Ng, the director of JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] he’s responsible for ensuring that the shuttle which helps save Matt Damon’s character is built at all. Numerous times throughout the film they refer back to him, and over at /r/movies many audience members were quite taken with his performance.

Also featured in the film are Eddy Ko and Chen Shu, both Chinese actors, who play scientists at CNSA [China National Space Administration]. I unfortunately cannot place them in even the next category under Benedict Wong as they’re barely playing characters of any kind. That’s not to condemn their performances, but to say that their roles are nearly inconsequential. Yes, their help is needed in the course of the film, but they have no actual motivations, no actual reason for existing short of waiting for NASA to seek their aid.

The Martian offered up one very sizable role to an East Asian actor, and had every intention of casting a South Asian as an even more prominent character, but you know what-

The Martian Doesn’t Let Ridley Scott Off the Hook

The reason I devote a section to this topic at all is because it was brought up to me that this movie might be a reason to give Ridley Scott, of Exodus: Gods and Kings infamy, a film that I asked Christians [and really, anyone with a conscience] to avoid seeing last year, a little slack.

Source.

Once again, I am entirely willing to focus solely on the sins of 2015 and not of 2014. Though for those not in the know it is probably worth pointing out that, as the lovely poster mock-up on the right pokes fun at, Exodus: Gods and Kings is a movie that takes place in ancient Egypt and relegates all minor roles to people of colour, while allowing White talent to headline. With that out of the way, back to The Martian.

On the diversity front this is a film that gave Benedict Wong a fairly sizable role and intended to give a South Asian actor a South Asian role. It’s also a film that then gave that South Asian role to a Black man and whitewashed, depending on how you look at it, an East Asian character. So why exactly should I be cutting him any slack?

Given names like Venkat Kapoor and Bruce Ng the bare minimum expected from a casting director and anyone else involved is finding appropriate talent. You wouldn’t see a name like “Wendy Lin” and then give it to a White actor, right?

Not even you get a pass, Cabin in the Woods. [sections of wiki entry redacted to avoid spoilers]

I’m Tired of Being Told What to Be Angry About

Or more accurately, I’m tired of being told what I can’t be angry about. When I first read about the news over at the AV Club this was the comment at the top of the thread below the article, and the first that I read:

And I’m incensed just reading it again, and typing underneath it while it remains in my field of vision, because it smacks of the kind of thinking that urges people to be fine with Tilda Swinton playing an elderly Asian man, or with Martin Freeman potentially filling the role of a Chinese character. It says “this person is talented [in this case also: non-White]” so you should take it and thank whoever is responsible for it.” It tells me that not only am I wrong, I am spoiled and ungrateful. It feels like ordering the same thing over and over and not getting it and then, finally, being given something similar and being told to be content. And it’s not even the only comment of its kind. I would screenshot more but I refuse to put myself through that right now.

Actor Brian Sounalath

Brian Sounalath is a South East Asian actor who has been working in the industry for the past 8 years and dropped us an email about this very topic, sharing that he’s hesitant to talk about “race things on [his] social media, because then people think [he’s] this huge complainer”. This is with people who are ostensibly largely his own friends and family, which says so much about what MANAA is doing when their statements reach far and wide to complete strangers, many of whom share the same sentiment as beema up above.

And you know what, it made me realize why Phil Yu’s site is called Angry Asian Man. It finally clicked; I finally got it, It’s not even that I’m tired about being told what I should and shouldn’t be angry about, it was actually allowing myself to be angry about, well, all of it.

I can’t subscribe to idea that MANAA’s “all or nothing approach” isn’t helping anyone, because they can not and should not be silent. I won’t allow Benedict Wong’s incredible performance to blind me from seeing that, had Venkat Kapoor and Mindy Park actually been appropriately cast, this film would have passed a form of Racial Bechdel Test [again, I consider the Chinese scientists barely cyphers, given a handful of lines and barely an emotion besides]. I’m not tired, I’m sick of people saying “but what about-” to excuse behaviour that has been perpetuated since Hollywood’s inception and earlier. To be ignorant of wrongdoing is to be compliant. It says that I’m fine with every talented White actor being given the role of a racial minority be they Benedict Cumberbatch or Emma Stone and I’m not. I’m not fine with it, I’ve never been fine with it.

The Martian Was Not a Bad Movie

I don’t believe in writing a blog post without having done an appropriate amount of research, and while I wasn’t able to read the book  I did see The Martian this past Tuesday. I enjoyed it. It was well-acted by all involved and a lot of fun from start to finish.

But every time I saw Mackenzie Davis onscreen I couldn’t ignore the fact that there could have been a Korean in her stead. As much as I like Chiwetel Ejiofor it was impossible for me not to hate that he was supposed to be a “Kapoor”, that they had anglicized his character’s name to make him more believable as a half-Black half-East-Indian man. I like both of these actors, and to hit that last point again I’m angry that I was unable to fully enjoy them doing what they do best.

Adherents of feminist critique have pointed out that just because you despise the Ewoks doesn’t mean you hate Return Of The Jedi, and it’s the same with all other facets of a work of art. My hating whitewashing and racebending with every fibre of my being did not make me discard The Martian and consider it a poor film, but it also did not make me like it one iota more.

So Now What?

At this point I’ve said nearly all I have to say. The Martian, Ridley Scott, and everyone involved who had the authority to make decisions are guilty of whitewashing and racebending prominent roles, keeping minority talent from filling them and minority audiences from seeing themselves on the silver screen. It’s important to point out that there are groups who are vocal, who are making their complaints heard. It’s almost equally important to note the voices in direct opposition, those who don’t want to hear it, those who at their least malicious chide us to make better use of our time.

My plea to you, whether you care about this topic, or consider me a friend, or even just want to impress that one attractive Asian person you know, I don’t care, is to share this post with someone, with anyone. Even if you don’t share the actual post, as long as you’re talking about it with people who are blind to the problem, or those who refuse to acknowledge it is one at all, that’s more than enough. If I can only speak for myself then all I can really say is that I’m angry about this, but my hope and dream is that it’s something you can be angry about as well. No change has ever occurred because of the mild irritation of thousands, but the anger of even just a few hundred? That’s an entirely different story.

Well boys and ghouls, it’s once again that time of the year! The annual Culture War Reporters Halloween Recommendations! As always, details will be kept light to avoid spoilers and to maximize your viewing pleasure- that’s just how thoughtful we are.

Let’s dig in.

Jacob’s Ladder

If I could give someone an example of what I think the standard should be for horror movies, it’d probably be Jacob’s Ladder.

In spite of having hit theaters a quarter century ago, Jacob’s Ladder is an absolutely chilling story that’ll unnerve even the most jaded audience of today. This is one of those all-too-rare horror movies- the kind that remember their goal is to horrify the audience, rather than create an iconic monster or lay the groundwork for a franchise. Unassuming, intelligent, and artistic, Jacob’s Ladder provides a relentless march straight through the heart of darkness, and will drag you along (kicking and screaming if need be).

Honeymoon

In an age when footage of films are leaked on a daily basis, where the internet churns out speculation 24/7, where whole scripts can be accidentally (or “accidentally”) uncovered by the ravenous denizens of cyberspace, it can be hard to keep a film surprising.

And against all odds, Honeymoon does just that.

Forgoing jump-scares for haunting character development and unsettling atmosphere, this exquisitely acted movie manages to remain truly frightening even after its whole hideous design has been laid bare. Definitely one worth watching.

In The Mouth of Madness

How this one managed to slip by me for so many years, I will never know. In The Mouth of Madness is a film heavily borrowing from the style and lore of Lovecraft, as we witness a man slowly crack open the door between this world and cosmic evil too vast to comprehend. Fans of either the Cthulu mythos or The Mist are sure to get a kick out of this one.

The Wicker Man (1973)

No, not the hilariously bad Nicholas Cage remake rife with manic shouting and bees. The original The Wicker Man is probably as sinister as its remake is silly, and while the modern viewer might not be completely surprised by the plot twist, this movie still manages to be eerie on its own merits, with the contrasting forces of austerity, repression, debauchery, and paganism all playing out in a hideous pantomime.

Eraserhead

Now personally, I wouldn’t classify 1977’s Eraserhead a horror movie. But seeing as how you can’t find a list on the internet that doesn’t (and how it’s really, really good), we’re going to be including it anyways.

In true David-Lynch style we’re plunged into a surreal dreamscape of dark shadows and industrial decay as we follow Henry Spencer on his way to dinner with his girlfriend’s family. What follows can only be described as a Kafkaesque journey- as maddening as it is mesmerizing.

The Babadook

The Babadook is a tough one. Many critics are hailing the Austrian flick as being on par with the greatest classics the horror genre’s ever produced, and if its score on Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, the general public agrees.

While I don’t think that The Babadook is the second coming of Hitchcock (I’ll tell you what is in a second), it’s still a fantastic movie, with the horror drawn less from any jump scares than its artfully frightening blurring of reality and fiction. It would be remiss of us not to commend the story’s focus on a female protagonist and her relationship with her son for bringing in a much-needed breath of fresh air to the genre.

It Follows

This.

This is what a horror movie should be, people. Well-funded, superbly acted, beautifully shot, and with a chilling story that’ll haunt you long after the credits finish rolling.

It Follows is equal part Hitchcock’s The Birds and 2013 masterpiece Stoker– with some terrifying urban legend mixed in for seasoning.

Contracted

Most truly scary horror movies make their mark by “hiding the shark”- that is, keeping the grisly blood and gore off screen and left to the imagination of the viewer.

Contracted isn’t one of these movies.

For the first time on this blog, we’re going to be recommending a flick from sub-genre of “body horror”, designed to strike terror as we watch a human devolve and transform into something unrecognizable. We’re forced to watch in agony as each and every detail is portrayed in graphic detail, with the horror not coming from the mutations, but from their inevitability and the shocking fact that this is only the beginning.

And with that, dear readers, we’ll call it for 2015 (I wanted to review Crimson Peak, but unforeseen circumstances prevented that). As always, grab one of these movies, barricade yourself in your room, and settle in.

It’s gonna be a long night.

Readers, I want you to picture me.

It’s 10:30 on a Monday, a metric ****-ton past my deadline for this post. I’m weary from a hard day of work (plus overtime). I’m mentally wiped after my past three attempts at creating a post have resulted in thousand word essays, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And in these times, I turn to the near-infinite bounty of the internet for inspiration, and lo and behold readers the internet hath provided:

Image retrieved from Imgur, fair use

That’s right- it’s a picture of Neil Patrick Harris as Count Olaf, from the upcoming Netflix show A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Because they’re doing that.

Yeah, I’m going nuts here too.

Now I enjoyed the hell out of the books, which were impeccably written (“impeccably written” being a Danish term meaning “the best thing ever”). I thought the 2004 movie adaptation was fascinating, funny, and as faithful a take as could be done in the space of two hours.

There are two kinds of people in the world. People who will say that they want this house, and liars.

That said, I am pumped for the series, and absolutely loving the idea of finally seeing NHP as a villain (yeah, I saw Gone Girl, but I’m not counting that one). And did I mention that the voice of Lemony Snickett will be conveyed to us in the dulcet tones of Patrick Warburton?

Well that’s happening too.

Now am I, a quarter-century-old man going nuts over the rebooting of a young adult series?

You bet I am, and I even still have the lovingly worn (if decade-old) V.F.D. t-shirt to prove it.

Why?

Let me hit you with the highlights:

• This is a series which is about being smarter. Not lucky. Not being “destined” or “fated”, or with the characters discovering they’re somehow the “chosen ones.” No, our intrepid heroes get through by simply being more clever and more well read than their antagonists- be it Olaf’s macabre crew or the hostile world in general. And that’s something I just don’t think you can have too much of.

• This is a series which you make you smarter. Raise your hand if you learned “ersatz”, “denouement”, “penultimate”, and a host of other ridiculously fun vocab exclusively from the SOUE series. Now obviously I can’t see any of you raising your hands, so I’m just going to assume (correctly), that it was most of you. As is right and proper.

• I think there’s something to be said for the surrealism of it all. Now I don’t think Daniel Handler set out to create an introduction to absurdist literature, but I do think that’s very much the effect. The sometimes gothic, sometimes steampunk, sometimes pulp, sometimes always refreshingly weird style does, I believe, open folks up to genres of literature, music, and film that’d otherwise go untouched and unappreciated. To call the series “baby’s first Kafka” would do it an injustice, but I will maintain that A Series of Unfortunate Events is there to help folks along the way.

• And dammit, I think it’s just the spirit of the series itself that needs applauding. That, in spite of all the injustice and suffering that the orphans endure, it’s about rising to the occasion, raging against the dying of the light, imagining Sisyphus as happy, and a host of other dark but ultimately heroic existential ideas. And there will be those (“those” being a way of saying “heathens”) who will say that the 2004 movie was a trainwreck. To them we say:

That’s what I have for you folks. It’s not an incisive look at racism in modern media or a soul-searching examination of our history. It’s just a way of starting off the week by saying “Hey, that’s pretty awesome.”

That said, Aasif Mandvi is getting to play Uncle Monty, so that’s pretty awesome too.

We’ll call it even for Last Airbender – image retrieved from Tumblr, fair use