Friday, August 31, 2007

Hot Fuzz Sucked

“Hot Fuzz” should have been titled “Twit Brits.” It stars Timothy Dalton and his posse of British actors who used to do better but have made some bad career choices in the last 20 years, and two dudes from the surprise zombie-comedy “Shaun of the Dead.” As a glimpse into English cultural confusion, “Hot Fuzz” serves notice to viewers outside the British Isles that the UK is adrift in the modern era, simultaneously yearning for the high-tech future the EU represents and aggressively trying to maintain the country squire ideal. As Jonathan Wiener once argued, the point of modernity, for the English, has always been to make enough money to buy a pile in the country and leave modernity behind.

This movie got a viewing, however, not in the interest of dissecting the wacky British psyche, but rather as a diversion. I heard it was a comedy. In fact, the film isn’t even mildly amusing. This is not to say that it isn’t trying; there are obvious moments where the actors are trying to make jokes. But jokes, even dumb jokes, need to have punchlines, and none of the putative jokes in “Hot Fuzz” do. Just for one example, there’s the “Scottish”/retarded farmer who mumbles unintelligibly. Haha. I think I saw that, done better, albeit also not really that funny, in “Blazing Saddles” when I was about 10 years old. The “Scottish”/retarded farmer (I have to be uber-descriptive of the character because it would seem that all the “Scottish” folk in the film are retarded) has a tool shed full of heavy ordnance that he “just found”? Hilarious. Wait, was that a joke? No, no it wasn’t. On second thought, not hilarious. “Hey, Jamie, is your house full of illegal firearms?” “Mumble, mumble, skreee, skidoo…” “Well, where’d you get all of them?” “Mumble, mumble, hars n’ sich…” “Oh, I see. You just found them.” I don’t know about you, but I’ve never not laughed so hard.

The only other “humor” in the film appears to have been meant to come from the juxtaposition of a big-shot London cop with the sleepy little village he’s assigned to protect (after his bosses transfer him out of London because his dazzling record makes them look bad by comparison—now, that’s funny! Wait, no. That also isn’t funny. Hmm….). The first half of the film, in fact, is just one long variation of “hot-shot cop sees a petty crime being committed and blows his wad arresting the offender in over-the-top fashion, only to watch forlornly as his captain lets the perp off with a gentle scolding." Jesus, I’m going to piss myself with glee! No, wait. “Boredom.” Piss myself from boredom, is what I meant to say. I couldn’t get up and go to the bathroom, either, because what if I left just when the lone joke accidentally got out? In that one, throwaway line, I’ve just been 100% funnier than “Hot Fuzz.”

Now, I don’t do the *SPOILER ALERT* thing, because I don’t think knowing the end of a movie makes it any less enjoyable—anything worth watching is worth watching a few times, in which case you’ll already know the ending during most of the times you view a given feature. Only teenagers and people who watch disposable movies, made in the moment and useless thereafter, would give a shit about giving away the ending.

“Hot Fuzz” ends with a “cop”-out. (See? I’ve just been 200% funnier than the movie!) The story would have us believe that the entire town is so dedicated to preserving its quaint character that village leaders systematically murder anyone caught breaking the law or otherwise lowering the chances that it will win the “Village of the Year” award for all rustic England. So, everybody who’s been arrested and got off, soon found themselves abducted, murdered, and stashed under the old castle (yes, there’s a castle). But since the criteria for offenses against the town include aesthetic variances that alter its historic value, the townspeople have also killed a nouveau riche who built a gaudy mansion, some gypsies who hung around too long, and even their friends and neighbors who wanted merely to move away and make new lives in the modern world.

Nice twist, eh? Well, not really. See, in order for this plot—which isn’t funny, need I remind you again—to work, everyone in the town has to be in on it. But, they aren’t, as evidenced by the fact that the protagonist—who finds himself on the hit list about halfway through and spends the rest of the movie dodging assassins—is able to convince all the other cops to help him bust up the cabal of town leaders at the film’s climax. Um, weren’t they aware of the program? The hero’s partner, the son of the police chief, was. The police chief is the head of the murder council. And how big is this fucking town, anyway? It’s small enough so that, at times, everybody the protagonist meets is spying on him and reporting back to the village elders, but big enough to have a gypsy problem, unwelcome petty criminals who gravitated there for some reason, and most of all, it’s so big that in the end, when the main character literally kills every significant person in the town, there’s still enough people left that instead of returning to London when he’s proffered his old job (because, you know, London’s still a crime-ridden stinkhole), our hero decides to stay behind and become the new police chief in the village he just completely wiped out. Whew!

So, with that in mind, look: “Shaun of the Dead” was about two friends—incidentally, the two leads in this movie, Nick Pigg and Johnny Chill, or some such fake names—who try desperately to avoid the zombies that’ve taken over the city (world?). One of them, I think it’s Nick Pigg, gets infected but, since he can’t kill his friend, Johnny Chill builds a special bunker and keeps him locked up in it in the backyard for the rest of his life. He still gets to visit him. No word where he gets the brains from to feed the zombie-friend (“zombro”?). I may have mixed-up who did what, since both actors have equal parts forgettable and risible fake names.

The ending to that film is strikingly similar to “Hot Fuzz”: it’s an embrace of the familiar and homey and a rejection of the “sinister” future and the outside world. Zombie movies, in any context, are metaphors for xenophobia. And thanks to “Hot Fuzz,” we now have a fish-out-of-water cop “comedy” that subscribes to the notion that small towns are flapjackin’ awesome, cities are lame, and Scots are retards. On all three points, I disagree. As the protagonist goes screeching around the town at the end of "Hot Fuzz" in his souped-up police car, the message seems to be, "small towns are genuine and the people are, at heart, earthy and good. But, a little bit of modern life--like a hot rod police car--can fit in without changing how real everything is." My only question would be, "have you ever been to a small town?" The people in them look more like the murderous town council than the open, rough-but-friendly folks who (in the movie) are finally allowed to come to the fore once the aberrant village elders are gone (dead): the truly repugnant attitudes and practices that persist in this modern, liberal society have their roots in the country, not in the cities.

And, one more time for the Scotsmen who might be reading, this movie is not a comedy! Mumble, mumble, blarg begarrah!

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Kill the Messengers

The American press corps, the TV blatherpots, and especially the scandal-massagers at FOX have all really dropped the ball on all these GOP sex pervs lately. These are the same people who couldn't get enough of one cum-stained blue dress, right? Now they have a sitting Senator who likes to piss and shit himself while prostitutes diaper him; and one who wants another man to blow him in a public restroom. Why isn't Bill O'Reilly sniffing Larry Craig's loafers for the scent of jizz or Astro-glide? (Maybe because O'Reilly himself is a sex criminal who settled out of court?)

No hysterics over how damaging to US politics and governments these incidents will be; no wailing about how our debauched representatives send the wrong message to our children, the furriners, or the terrists. Nope, when the Republicans get caught with their pants down, it's purely--as far as the press is concerned--a political issue: how will the party respond? what will the leadership do? is this even an issue worthy of discussion? (the media's suggestions to GOP leadership so far are: expel the fag, keep the adulterous baby: that's called "ideological consistency;" dissemble, dissemble, dissemble; NO.)

Only Democrats, it seems, are held to a high standard in this regard--which is ironic, since liberals by and large are accepting of alternative sexual lifestyles. If Larry Craig were a Democrat, he'd get to keep his job. Think about that.

Of course, Democrats who try to match the Republicans sanctimonious-word-for-sanctimonious-word deserve to be pinned for their transgressions. But, one more time, mainstream media, Republicans are hypocrites--now please, get off your asses and do your fucking jobs! This isn't a matter of policy, it's a question of one of our political parties being a complete and utter wreck. Quite simply, these things do not become public knowledge in 2001-2005. But now, with the party in shambles at every level and actively eating itself, all the media can make out of these and other scandals is "nothing to see here!"

DC Zen

Is there anyone in Washington more poignantly irrelevant than John Conyers? What is he, heading his 100th investigation this month?

Really, if you have a hearing and nobody shows, does it make a sound?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Time Travel Requires a Time Machine. Literally.

Time travel is possible, maybe, but it's so far off and requires such massive gravitational fields that 1. nobody will live long enough to realize it and 2. the gravitational fields would likely destroy the Earth. Huh.

I don't understand a word of the article, since scientists and people who dumb-down science for mass consumption share the unfortunate inability to choose appropriate examples and metaphors ("string theory," anyone?), but I think it's quite funny that you couldn't travel any further back in time than the moment the time machine is created. So, this machine would represent the limit, literally, of agency.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Movie Time!

I haven't seen 66.6% of his recent films (and only viewed The 40-year-old Virgin while pulling an all-nighter as part of a sleep study), but this Judd Apatow fellow is really starting to grate on my fucking nerves. Moviegoers--hardly the brightest and most discerning people--seem to love this guy's movies, which now include Knocked Up, in which a fat, lazy, stupid asshole (played by a guy who used to write for that pinnacle of sophistication, "Da Ali G Show") impregnates a smart career woman and then proceeds to make her pregnancy all about himself; and Superbad, which opened yesterday to thunderous critical acclaim. Here's a review of it that I happen to like, despite not having seen the movie (and probably won't see it, given that I think its major influences, like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Dazed and Confused, were steaming shit piles--I suppose because I was the only kid in America who didn't think it was awesome to get dumped on by older, "cool" kids while in school). It's interesting that a critic has picked up on the massive vein of homosexuality pulsing (pulsing vein! ha!) through this guy's movies. The first thing I thought when I saw the long trailer for Superbad was, "great, now future fratboys have a movie that gives step-by-step instructions in how to be a pig."

The other movie coming out soon that I won't see but will hold a grudge against is Sean Penn's adaptation of John Krakauer's Into the Wilderness, a very short novel that reconstructs the last months of a recent college graduate of affluent background who gives away his possessions, hitchikes across America, and then strikes out into the Yukon wilderness. Moose hunters wind up pissing on his bones some months later.

Sean Penn is one of the planet's lousiest actors. He ruined Mystic River, he made the insulting Dead Man Walking positively unbearable, and I Am Sam stands to this day as the most embarrassing performance in modern American cinema. Aside from his being behind the camera rather than in front of it for this project--I have no doubt he'll sneak in there, somehow--Penn's translation of this slight story is an abortion from the get-go.

The story is truly, deeply affecting. The sequence of decisions made by the protagonist, ultimately leading to his unnecessary death (he was only 2 miles from a stocked survival cabin!), are indecipherable to us. He wasn't an eco-warrior, nor a wilderness poet, nor a suicidal teenager. He made friends easily on the trip across country, he did some minimal research into surviving in Alaska, and he kept a pretty perfunctory diary of the experience (no transcendentalism for him, thanks). None of what the kid actually did makes for a good movie, so it will no doubt be mostly made-up horseshit that splatters across the screen when the film gets to theaters later this year or early next.

People, particularly young people, will identify with this story. On its face it is highly romantic. The young man wants to make an honest go of it in the wilderness; clearly he is searching for something he feels he has lost in modern society. But it's all so fucking hopeless, and his decisonmaking is so incredibly poor, and the whole idea is so ridiculously naive that you must ask, "THIS is a college graduate?!?"

And the real meaning of this story, as a very smart man pointed out to me, is that this kid was a total asshole. A self-absorbed, sadistic little asshole. He left without a word to his family, which until then had believed he loved them and valued their love in return. He abandoned all the friends he made on the trip to Alaska, including some people who grew to care about him deeply--and for whom our hero apparently cared not at all. What this person failed to realize, as Lewis Hyde explained beautifully in The Gift, is that our lives don't belong to us; they belong to those who are with us. Now, you can call our owners "God" and "Jesus" if you want to, or you can admit that your parents and loved ones have invested in you their hopes and dreams, to say nothing of material resources, and therefore they "own" you. Or, you can accept that you "belong" to a society, which expects from you a productive return, and that our existences are ones of mutual obligation--we make each other better through hard work in all its forms--but you can't, under any circumstances, do what this kid did and abandon those who have an interest in you and go off and kill yourself. That makes you a failure, on all levels. Our lives, quite simply, don't belong to us. There are no self-made men and never were.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Web of Horror #1

Grownups wrote this.

Then they put it in the public forum.

C-SPAN 2 is Good for You (Tube)

Well, shit! There it was, 7 o'clock on a Saturday, and naturally I was at home, cruising the public airwaves, and there was Book TV, C-SPAN's forum for marginal authors.

Guess who was on? That's right! A certain writer and freedom fighter who has recently become a huge fan of the blog but who shall remain nameless in this post (let's call him "Mary Rosh") lest he manifest again in the comments section.

Anyway, you can watch the show (I taped it...I really, really had nothing to do) here. Book review still forthcoming.

Some of My Best Friends are John Edwards

Increasingly, Democrats are saying publicly that they just love John Edwards...and that they won't vote for him. As one blogger has mused, it is odd that the candidate with by far the best favorability ratings is only polling 12% among likely voters.

How to explain? Well, this appears to be a case of people wanting to appear progressive by giving lots of self-congratulatory confessions: "I prefer Edwards--I really do! But, this is the real world, and he can't win, so I'll vote fr Obama or Clinton. But I really, really, love John Edwards! Really!"

And I suppose "many of (your) best friends are black," too. You'd hang out with them more, except somehow, it just doesn't ever seem to work with your schedule.

Either Democrats really believe in what Edwards is pushing, and they just lack the guts to follow him, or else Democrats don't believe in Edwards but rather in self-interest, hawkish defense policy, punishing the poor, and all the Republicans' "feel good" issues but are just afraid to be seen for what they are: self-centered American assholes.

Look, you want to be an asshole? Then be an asshole. But, you don't get to play hurt feelings when other people, other nations, the world, treat you as one. Either be liberals, or fuck off.

Christmas Is Coming

...and somebody needs to buy this man a dictionary. Or, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Too much pragmatism will keep the country stuck where it is now -- prone to precipitous military adventures, diddling with the health insurance industry, upholding homilies about personal responsibility in a labor market where work doesn't pay and individual financial risk worsens."

Does the author know what "pragmatism" is? Which part of the paragraph pertains to pragmatism? Hello? He's describing the BUSH administration's legacy as though a Democrat would continue on the same path--and it's a legacy, by the way, of IDEOLOGY trumping common sense, or what we all call "pragmatism." So, is this guy confused?

He also thinks "market solutions" are pragmatic fixes. So, "the market" and "pragmatism" are equivalent? Somebody get William James on the Ouija board!

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

10 Books that Hate America

I've found book #1 for this review segment: "Freedomnomics: why the free market works and other half-baked theories don't" by Some Douche. Ok, it's an easy target: it was published by Regnery. The review would already be here, but the university library website is down for maintenance (how can I find the book without a call number? why, oh why, didn't I pay attention in elementary school when the library lady told us about the card catalog?...because I was staring at her fat feet and cankles, that's why.)

Only 9 more books to complete this list. Suggestions?

Anything by mAyn Rand will be disregarded.

SCOTUS, scrotus

I'll not be the first or last to make that pun.

It turns out that one need not be smart to recognize stupid. Nathan Rabin's "My Year of Flops" feature over on the Onion's AV Club Blog reviewed the ultra-flop "The Real Cancun" this week, and pointed out how refreshing it is when the otherwise presumably addled masses turn their backs on utter dreck. Check out MYOF; it's one of the few pleasures available to me in these dark days of dissertation pissed-offedness (D3PO).

The people have another surprising secret: they hate the conservative Supreme Court. Well, 57% still view SCOTUS favorably (whatever that means), but the Court has lost about 20% of its fans concomitant with losing its goddamn mind (see all recent rulings). This is good--it proves that ordinary people care about the law; moreover, they care about the perversion of the law by hacks like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Apathy aside--about two national elections too late--we can hope that future Courts will be more reflective of public mood. Since the law is created as a tool to serve man, and not the other way around, the change would be proper.

By the way, I love this post on the SCOTUS blog: Upcoming Event in Malibu. A "dialogue" between Scalito, Ken Starr (dean of the mighty Pepperdine Law School...barf), and a partner in a major DC firm was simulcast on C-SPAN yesterday evening. See if you can catch the rerun. It answers the age-old question, "can one be a pussy and a dick at the same time?"

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Get Money

This ship has sailed, but nobody has launched the follow-up, uh, dinghy. The vessel, USS Obfuscatory Assertion, is captained by the venerable Dick Cheney, who claims that his paycheck comes from the legislative branch and thus he is in the executive branch but not of it. Ridiculous, as all agree.

George Bush is paid $400,000 a year to be president. His check is not drawn on the Bank of the Executive Branch, but rather on the US Treasury (as Cheney's is). But shouldn't some Republican hack (the dinghy pilot) be arguing that, since the president's salary was established by an Act of Congress, and is part of the federal budget, that the president himself is technically part of the legislative branch, too? If it's the origin of the check that counts, then is this not so?

Or would that be too absurd? As if there is such a thing to a Republican...