can I sit next to you girl?

Having just watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan again (I’ve lost track of how many times I have seen it), I wanted to use the movie as a jumping-off points for some of the big issues it discusses. I know many of you might be quick to dismiss a Trek film as a joke; something trekkies like me enjoy. And while I am not an obsessive Trek fan, I certainly love the many movies and tv shows a great deal more than I do other things. So I guess this does in fact make me a pretty big trekkie. However none of that takes away from some of the very big and very important issues Trek raises. Even if you want to dismiss the show as a fantasy, it is hard to ignore that sometimes Trek asks very important questions about humanity, where it has been, where it is going, and how we plan on getting there. But really right now I want to talk about The Wrath of Khan. This is a movie which is first and foremost about friendship, getting old, mortality, and sacrifice. It is regarded as the best Trek film specifically because it deals with these issues firstly, and the science fiction elements come secondly. It is actually highly regarded even by non-Trek fans, as it is a thrilling, entertaining, and engaging movie even for those people who know nothing about Star Trek. In the film, we see James T. Kirk, now an desk-bound admiral, wrestling with his inability to do what he does best: command a starship. His friends, such as Spock and Bones, recognize that Kirk is failing to do what amounts to his best destiny: commanding the Enterprise. Kirk is further bothered by a mid-life crisis; he is getting old and he lacks purpose and drive. When Khan, an enemy from Kirk’s past reappears, we see Kirk take command of the Enterprise once again and regain what he has lost. Yet at the same time Kirk is forced to confront his worst fear: the fear of losing. All his life he has cheated death by finding ways out of no-win situations; however this time his success and the survival of the Enterprise is tested by the ultimate no-win scenario, to which even Kirk has no answer. However, it is ultimately the dedication and friendship of Spock which saves the ship, although Spock gives his life in the process. He also gives Kirk a final gift; the understanding that his life can be reaffirmed by confronting the death of his friend, by which Kirk finally reveals he feels young once again. It is a bittersweet and moving moment at the end of the film seeing Spock say goodbye to Kirk as his friend. I think you can see what I mean when I say the film tackles some big issues. In a sense, it is a film about rebirth. The rebirth of Kirk, the possible rebirth of Spock, and the beginnings of life from which there was none before (the Genesis planet). Much of this gets me thinking. Death, for instance. We do much to shield ourselves from the reality of death and we often wish it away. Of course, in doing so we deny the very thing that makes us human: our mortality. It is in knowing that we must die that ultimately we can gain control over our lives and make them for the better. We hear that we should like each day like it is our last, however that’s often difficult to do when life itself gets in the way and we can’t find the time, or the honesty, or the bravery to do the things we want to do and say the things we want to say everyday to those around us. It’s easy to say “live everyday like it’s the last one”, but much harder to actually live it. But maybe all it really means is sometimes you have to take the time to realize that you live side-by-side with your own mortality, and the sooner you can accept it the sooner you can begin to live. I also like to think about another message in the film: that of rebirth, of hope, of possibility. Spock is often fond of saying “there are always possibilities”, and I think Kirk’s desire to defeat the no-win scenario reflects that. Everyday, every hour, every minute, every second the world around us changes and us with it. Often we don’t even notice that we change along with the world. But it’s not really a bad thing is it? It’s about hope I think. If everything is constantly reborn, becoming anew, then we truly do live in a world of possibilities. I don’t like to imagine that the world is slowly closing its doors to me; I prefer to think that in everything I do I will find more and more possibilities. Maybe that is why I have a hard time saying goodbye to things, because I like to believe that nothing truly ends or is over. Actually what this all reminds me of is a great poem by Ezra Pound entitled “Exile’s Letter”. There is a great line towards the end which states “there is no end of things in the heart”. I’ve always taken that line to heart, so to speak. Ultimately if we keep believing, then we’ll find it to be true. Ok, so I hope that was a bit deeper than trekkies usually go!

all in the name of liberty

Oddly enough, after having a discussion the other night with Brett about Ted “The Nuge” Nugent, I was unlucky enough to stumble across a show of his on OLN, which is the Outdoor Life Network for those of you without it. Anyways, this show is called “Wanted: Ted or Alive”, which in itself is humourous. However, my laughing soon ceased once I began to watch the show. Uncle Ted gets five people to come out to the wilderness with him, where he intends to reward them with money if the succeed in completing various “wilderness and hunting” related feats. Such feats include wearing nothing but buffalo skins; learning how to wield a crossbow in order to hunt; and killing and skinning a chicken for food. This is not so unusual because Nugent is in fact an avid and outspoken hunter and unapologetic “patriotic” American, which he believes gives him the right to slur and attack women and “foreigners”. Because he is such a blowharding jackass, it’s possible to find him humourous, although we are laughing at him, not with him. As we discussed the other night, Uncle Ted is like the more disturbing, less charming version of David “Diamond Dave” Lee Roth of Van Halen. While Dave always has a funny quip ready, Nuge would just as soon accuse you of being a pansy left-wing liberal Jew lover as he skins an animal alive. I have a wild fantasy where Ted actually contracts cat scratch fever and goes feral and runs off to live in the wild where he is promptly attacked and feasted on by a roaming pack of American Buffalo.

Still on the topic of OLN, let’s discuss another show entitled “Mantracker”. It actually is exactly what it sounds like. Two people are dropped off in the wilderness and given a certain amount of time to make it on foot to the finish line. That in itself is not so strange. What is strange is that chasing them the entire way is a rather gruff and angry looking man on horseback. He is the “mantracker” and it is his job to find his prey and catch them before they make it to the end. Mantracker seems to take his job very personally, and he gets offended if his prey disrepect him. His cold, steely blue eyes scan from ontop his mount for his victims, and God help you ladies and gentlemen if you piss mantracker off. However, mantracker is ultimately a eunuch. If he does find his prey, he doesn’t do anything remotely dangerous or deadly to him. In my version of this show at the very least he would chase them down and rope them like a wild bull. Perhaps he could even shoot them with buckshot or something, not kill them but give them a little incentive to be more cunning and wary while in the woods.

Just on the basis of these two shows, I’ll dare say the outdoor life is not for me.

come on come on love me for the money

As I sit here listening to some of Billboard’s Top 100 from 1972, I’m amazed at how great some of these songs are and how much they move me (emotionally, friends, not physically). Take for example “Layla”, by Derek and the Dominoes. I’m sure most of you are familiar with this song; it’s highly regarded as an incredible piece of musicianship on the part of Eric Clapton. He wrote the song after falling in love with George Harrison’s wife, Patty. It is essentially two songs in the one; the blistering first half and the more gentle reflective second part. I could only get through the first half tonight actually. Sometimes you just want to hear that passion for love unfulfilled rather than the “filled” love part. Let’s also talk about the track I’ve got on now, Bread’s “Everything I Own”. My mother actually has the vinyl version of Bread’s greatest hits, so I feel as though I’m honouring a tradition of listening to sappy music by playing it now. Bread is perhaps best known for the song “If”, which is usually played at weddings (which gives you an indication of how sappy it is). But “Everything I Own” is a much more superior song. To be honest, this song always gets me choked up. He’s singing about a relationship after the fact, and his message is essentially “I’d give it all up you have you once again”. Pretty powerful stuff, and the music that goes with it is gorgeous. Let’s see. I’ve got on now Harry Nilsson covering Badfinger’s “Without You”. You might have heard one of the various other covers of this song, with the refrain “Can’t live if living is without you”. You might have heard that line at least. Anyways, those covers all suck. Nilsson’s is the definitive one, and you take a listen and you’ll see. Sure the song is overblown to begin with, but frankly I don’t mind. Somehow I always identify with this song, as sad and depressing as that is. It’s a very pessimistic, sad, and fatalistic look at relationships. Ok I’ve moved onto one of the most beautiful songs that has ever graced my ears: Roberta Flack singing “The First time ever I saw your face”. Roberta has a very commanding voice, but she exhibits a control over it which impresses me very much. It is a pretty and gentle song, and Roberta knows how to keep her emotions in check, which makes it all the more powerful. Clint Eastwood was a particular fan of this song. He put it in his movie Play Misty for Me, which is a nice little thriller about an obsessed woman. The movie actually popularized this song, and for good reason. I love Roberta. Anyways, that’s just a sampling of some very moving music from 1972.

i’ve got big balls

I got the inspiration last night at 4:30. If you haven’t seen Arnold’s movie “Commando” you probably won’t get the punchline. However, it made me laugh this morning and it still seems somewhat funny, so I figured I’d post it.

let there be rock

Today I was lucky enough to find on YouTube a little piece of television history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaXiWgDU4i0

Most kids I knew when I was growing up watched Sesame Street. It was hard to avoid it, really. It was already a legend in children’s programming by the 1980’s, and many of the first books I read were Sesame Street books. When I first started watching it, I’m not sure. Nor can I remember the day when I finally quit watching it full-time (although if I had to guess I’m pretty sure it was about the time that I got hooked on the Ghostbusters and Turtles cartoons). The episode that I’ve linked here I may or may not have seen. It first aired on Thanksgiving weekend (November) in 1983, so even if I did see it there’s no way I can consciously remember doing so (I was only 1 at the time!). However, I was aware of Mr. Hooper when I watched the show growing up, so my memories are pretty fuzy on the whole thing. Regardless, I’ve always known that Mr. Hooper died during the run of the series. This was not a plot contrivance; the actor who played Hooper, Will Lee, did in fact die during the series. The creators of Sesame Street, in a testament to both the actor and to the purpose of the series, decided not to write him out in a plot device. Instead, they integrated Lee’s death into the series as a way for children to understand the concept of death. Big Bird finds out that he can’t give Mr. Hooper the picture he drew of him because he is dead. The human cast then explains to Big Bird about death and the fact that Mr. Hooper won’t be coming back. It is a really well done scene where it is quite obvious the cast itself was still saddened by Lee’s death. Unfortunately, you don’t often see something this powerful on children’s tv today, for whatever reason. But check it out.

this house is on fire, and the flame is gonna burn you, you

Look at me, missing posts left and right and showing a general disregard for the September Extravaganza that I promised to provide. So why don’t I increase the sadness and just give you a movie review this time. And not even a well-written one at that.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

They just remade this one last year, but I think it’s ridiculous to draw any comparisons between the original and the remake. That’s not an issue of quality, or even nostalgia (although you could make arguments for both I won’t do that here). What it is a matter of is both the cultural awareness of the Amityville story AND developments in the horror film genre over the last twenty-five years. Amityville ‘79 is not a slasher film; in fact, it predates the beginning of the slasher film explosion in 1980 with Friday the 13th (although both Black Christmas and Halloween are often cited as slasher films, neither is representative of the bulk of slashers which were released in the 1980’s). It is rather a take on the haunted house story, of which Hollywood has been making films for years. More importantly, it is also the spawn of The Exorcist (1974), the seminal demonic possession film (Rosemary’s Baby, while predating The Exorcist, fails to ever appear to me as anything but a satire, not horror). Amityville ‘79, based on the “non-fiction” book of the same name was a publishing phenomenon. I say “non-fiction” because the book was quoted that way, the “true” story of one family’s struggle against the demonic forces which had taken over their home and which drove them out in a month’s time, leaving their possessions behind as they fled in terror. Of course the problem is the majority of the book is in fact made up; a fact admitted by the writer and the family (the Lutzes). There was a true backstory to the house; in 1974, Ronnie DeFeo Jr. shot and killed six members of his family in the house that the Lutzes would later move into. DeFeo would later claim he heard “voices” in the house telling him to do it, which is not surprisingly a favoured strategy by defendants to explain their behaviour. Either way, the elements were there: a “haunted” house, marred by the tragedy of violent death. The Lutzes told their story and the book was published as a true account, although even at that time the Lutzes admitted many of the events described in the book were embellished or misleading. After the success of the book, American International Pictures decided it would make a very scary film. Hoping to capitalize on the success of The Exorcist five years earlier, the rejected Exorcist score was in fact used for Amityville. That, however, is where the comparisons should end. In watching Amityville ‘79 what is most obvious is how the film is willing to use religious and demonic elements but at the same time refuse to provide any sort of explanation, even along religious lines. There is talk in the film of the house being located on an Indian burial ground (which interestingly enough is a major plot element in the remake), and although we see priests debating whether “evil” truly does inhabit the house, it feels like nothing more than colouring. This film realizes its own limitations; although the book itself is a sham, the film cannot add more flavour without ceasing to be “based on the book”. From the start you’ve got a handicapped movie. In trying to stay true to the source material (which is in fact made-up), the movie has to play it safe and keep the evil unknown and unconquerable. There is no slasher film to be found here then. The closest we get is to see George Lutz (played by an increasingly moody and unshaven James Brolin) threaten the children or complain about how “damn cold it is in here”. Between shivering in the house and chopping wood out back, George is nothing more than an angry stepfather, perhaps unconsciously regretting the choice he has made in marrying a woman with three children and purchasing a house which is financially beyond his means. Stephen King once described the entire story (and I’m paraphrasing here) as a “horror story about having a mortgage”, and he’s pretty much right. While the film does somewhat succeed in establishing an unsettling mood, the choppiness of the editing and the stupidity of much of the story refuses to be ignored. As a cultural phenomenon the film did have some success, although this owes more to the efforts of the book rather than the movie. Just say “Amityville” and people will know what you are talking about. But they aren’t recognizing the acting talents of Margot Kidder are they? It is more the house itself that becomes recognized. Shoot a movie in which we just watch the house sit there, those window-like eyes staring at us for ninety minutes, and you’ve got something. The remake in 2005 upped the gore and scares but adds nothing to the story which needed to be there. In fact, the addition of ridiculous elements such as a sprint across the rooftop to get away from George (in the rain, no less!) demonstrates the un-necessity (is that a word?) of the house itself in this newest version. Although the hype surrounding the remake was the “based on a true story” element, you aren’t fooling anyone. It is merely a matter of convience that the story chosen was the story of the Amityville house. A generation watching this film knows very little of the cultural impact of the original story. With a series of ridicuous sequels in the 80’s, even the house itself loses its presence. When you start making films that have nothing to do with the house or Amityville at all, then you are using a name brand to promote a totally different product. In spite of itself I think the original story gained a foothold in the cultural landscape precisely because it did so very little. A house can just sit there, it doesn’t need a machete or finger razors to hunt its victims. They come to it. Ultimately,it is the victims that construct the story of their own demise I suppose. Because a house sure as hell can’t do it.

jailbreak, let me out of here.

Yes, I missed some days.

This post will probably only serve to please myself, as I’m going to be discussing a band that is near and dear to my heart, The Cure.  However, I’d like to talk about the more upbeat sound of The Cure, which I think is oftentimes overlooked in examining the band’s works. Yes, The Cure is certainly the prototypical gloomy goth band (in fact, one could argue they are the quintessential goth band). Listen to any of their earlier albums and you are struck by the minimalism and darkness of the band. Yet even though such sounds have become their trademarks, The Cure has never been afraid of opening up their sound and working lyrically towards a more upbeat, pop sound (although one still comfortably ensconced in the musical styles of their gloomier works). I would argue that The Cure in fact succeeds incredibly when it comes to making perfect pop songs.

“In Between Days” is perhaps the first truly upbeat song to emerge from the band.  It represents a clear shift in some elements of the band’s sound, and not surprisingly the album which would follow “The Head on the Door” (of which “In Between Days” was a single from) would in fact become the first album to show off the more pop-oriented styings of Robert Smith. That album was “Kiss me, Kiss me, Kiss me”, of which “Just Like Heaven” and “Why Can’t I be you?” were released as singles.

Both of these songs represent the best of the newly emerging pop side of The Cure. “Just Like Heaven” in particular as it is perhaps the most recognizable song from the band for those who do not listen to the gloomier stuff. Robert Smith’s lyrics are easily understood as those of a love song, and the wide open expansive sound of the song is marvellous.

In, 1992 with the release of “Wish”, we were given what I believe is the ultimate release in terms of singles of the pop side of The Cure.  “Friday I’m In Love” is the track that everybody knows, and rightfully so as it is a perfect pop song, catchy and beautiful. However, as a b-side “Halo” is for me just that much more better. “Halo” has a darker sound, more reminiscent of their earlier works. It is not as buoyant as “Friday I’m In Love”, yet the lyrics carry much more weight. It is the epitome of the b-side that must be hunted down, which thankfully got a lot easier with the recent release of “Join the Dots”, a collection of b-sides and rarities.

Finally, 1996’s “Mint Car” off of the album “Wild Mood Swings”. While not as cohesive an album as “Wish” (and in retrospect a dissappointing follow-up), “Mint Car” as pure pop joy makes up for the shortcomings of the album as a whole. While in the same vein as “Friday”, “Mint Car”  impresses me in the maturity of the band and comfortableness in working within the pop style. Robert Smith actually sounds as if he is having fun, and I think I’m just glad to see that he can pull that off while not sounding as if the world is crashing onto his doorstep. Anyways, that wasn’t really well written I know, but I just felt like mentioning some great happy songs.

I feel safe in New York City

Ok, I know it’s not yet September 11th, but I thought I’d share my thoughts on the whole thing now before the deluge of media coverage reaches it’s peak next week and you become too saturated (if it is possible not to be saturated enough over the last five years). Yes, this is going to be a serious post. It’s actually hard for me to believe it’s been five years already. Since 9/11 occurred literally the week after I started university, it has become somewhat of a temporal benchmark for me. I won’t bore you with the “what I was doing when” speech, but I’ll just simply say that my memories of that day are still clear after all this time. With this anniversary you can count on seeing extensive media coverage of the event, and you’ll be able to hear the talking heads on all sides of the issue give their opinions, informed or not, on what has changed and what hasn’t since the attacks. Sadly, the stories that need to be told, the ones that explain how people saved each other and how many of those people died in the process, are often used by politicians on both sides of the issue as claims as to why their opinion is the right one. I think it will be rather unfortunate if the legacy of 9/11 turns out to be that of the politicians rather than the survivors’ accounts of that day. I’m not saying this because I feel that politics sure be ignored; it would be foolish to say that the event could even remain unpoliticized. Nor do I think anyone should be ignorant as to why the policies of the United States are as much to blame for the attacks as the terrorists themselves. But I am never impressed or moved by politicians on either side of the debate explaining why their actions are in dedication or tribute to those who died. I am, however, always moved by the stories of those who were there and what they saw. I am always moved by the undying duty of those rescue personnel who willing went into a situation where they ultimately paid with their lives. These are the things we should memoralize 9/11 for. However, we must at the same time be critical of how governments are willing to use our grief and sadness to further their own agendas. Sadly, this has been the case in the United States, and to a smaller extent in Canada. Somehow, to speak your mind in America after 9/11 and be critical of the government was equated to disloyalty to both those who died that day and those who fight overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq. It seems that finally that ideological construct is being carefully examined in the US and seen as the lie it actually is. Yet, too many people were willing to let some of their freedoms slip away in exchange for “protection” from terror. Unfortunately no government can provide such protection without damaging the foundation of the country itself. The beauty of a “War on Terror” is that it allows those in power to perpetually extend a state of fear and confusion because of the very opaqueness of the idea of “terror” itself. The real disservice to the troops, or the police officers, or the firefighters does not lie in criticizing the government, but rather choosing to allow said government to trample on rights and freedoms in the name of all those who died. My thoughts on this whole thing weren’t very elequent as I read this, however I’d like to hear what y’all have to say.

I’m trying to walk a straight line, on sour mash and cheap wine

While the 1980’s are not particularly looked upon as a golden age of filmmaking (most film fans would perhaps suggest the Golden Ages of the 30’s or 70’s in that regard), there were a hell of alot of enjoyable, fun films made in that decade. Many of these movies were aimed at the teenage/youth market, and even more of these films were comedies in which the social outcasts or misfits were allowed to shine. Some that come to mind are “Meatballs”, “Sixteen Candles”, “Better Off Dead”, and so forth. You’ll know what I’m talking about if you’ve seen these films. But tonight I want to talk about one specific film, “Revenge of the Nerds”. Mpix has been playing it consistently for the last month or so, and as I’ve watched it I realize how enjoyable and funny a film it really is. One of the great things about these movies is that the losers or nerds actually end up triumphing in the end. This film is no exception, as the boys from Lambda Lambda Lambda (the only fraternity that would accept them–and a Black one at that!) and the girls from Omega Mu actually succeed in winning the respect of their peers (except for the bastard Alpha Betas). What really makes this film for me however is a classic scene towards the end of the film. The Tri-Lams and the Mus, in order to beat the Alpha Betas, put on a musical number which is extremely hilarious and enjoyable. If you know anything about some of the music that came out of the 80’s (such as Kraftwerk, Devo, or even Michael Jackson), then I hope you’ll get some enjoyment out of this clip. Thanks to YouTube, I can share it with you all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzAJs7NutM

who made who, who made you?

Let me describe the pop culture junk I see as I look around my room. There are two rather large statues of Michael Myers and Leatherface looming over everything, both with a sound feature that I had to disable as anytime I went near I was faced with the sounds of Jamie Lee Curtis screaming AND a chainsaw whirring madly. I also see the largest Alien Queen action figure possible as she stalks by that victim in “Aliens” with the chestburster (which you can make pop in and out of her chest!). The tail on this thing is at least fifteen inches long; mighty impressive I do declare. Of course, to balance that out right beside it is one of the many representations of Gizmo from “Gremlins” I have scattered around the room. This one in particular is a plush Gizmo in “sad” mode, his ears drooping and his eyes downcast. I got that one as a gift, and I’m happy to say they purchased the right mood Gizmo because he’s the one I relate to best (not that crazy bastard one doing the Rambo impression from the second film). Ahead of me is a notebook which contains some of the junk I’ve written; that’s not important. What is important is who is on the cover: Animal from “The Muppet Show”. I’m sure you’ve all seen that great show, and know what a crazy silly bastard Animal is. He’s fantastic. I also have behind me a Darth Vader case containing my collection of Star Wars action figures from the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. When I was young I was quite proud that I was able to get my hands on so many of the figures, which at that time could only really be found at flea markets. Obsessive-compulsive that I am however, I always made sure to give them a good hard cleaning with lots of dishsoap when I got them home. Lurking on one of my shelves is the Terror Dog from “Ghostbusters”, complete with red eyes that light up when you push down on his tail. I believe the one I have is Vinz Clortho. The other is Zuul. Under him are a bunch of little ET the Extraterrestrial’s wearing different clothes or pulling different poses. My favourite is the one where ET is dressed in his Halloween costume (he went as a ghost if you remember the movie). So really so far I’ve just listed a bunch of toys, which might give you the impression that I am a boy who has never grown up. But that is not the case. It’s just that pop culture tends to lend itself to the toy market more than anything else. Plus I grew up in the 80’s where just about every cartoon was in fact linked to a line of toys (and in some cases, the toys inspired the cartoons). What I’ve described is actually only a tiny portion of the junk I have. Downstairs, I have all of the toys I had a child. That means if I want to go down and play with the Ghostbusters, Turtles, He-Man and Dick Tracy!!! figures at one time I can. My basement is like a wet dream for boys from the 80’s. Oh, and my sister still has her My Little Pony stuff, so girls you are welcome to come over and play as well.