Not to sound like a Marxist, but I’m amazed and appalled at how obsessed our culture is with commodities. I’m not saying capitalism and things are bad, but our love for things and purchasable goods seems to mold us into sheep. Maybe it’s because we’re more or less raised on commodities: butter over margarine, Pepsi before Coke, this toy over that toy, etc. Maybe it’s because we get lazy and fall into grooves, like getting our coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts everyday and thus predisposing ourselves against coffees from other food-based retailers, even if we find ourselves in a position where a competitor’s coffee is more readily accessible. And, possibly worst of all, maybe it’s because we feel incomplete unless we subscribe to some kind of ideal; not just to define ourselves, but to set ourselves apart from others. Put another way, it's as if we feel the need to belong to some sort of club or we're nothing.
So, just to be clear, what is a commodity? Well, there’s the term used for trading on the mercantile exchange, with examples like soybeans, orange juice, and oil being commodities. But then there’s Marx’s idea. In short, he has written that the value of a commodity is not based on its usefulness, but by its capacity to be exchanged for other things. For example, a car is a commodity because, even though it may get you from point A to point B, handles well on wet and rocky roads, and has ample space for large loads to be transported, its true value lies in its potential to be traded in for a newer car. And he goes on to explain that the labor that leads to the production of these goods is also commoditized for its potential for exchange rather than its base usefulness. And then, our labor and skills become commodities and more or less leads people to become commodities unto ourselves.
That was a brief glimpse of Marx’s Commodity Fetishism, which is fascinating stuff. And it won’t necessarily turn you into a communist! So if you’re not easily brainwashed, go ahead and look it up. It’s good to gain perspective on the world around you. Anyways…
In one of my previous blog essays, I briefly mentioned how technology molds the way we live. Like, what DID we do before the internet? Well, if we wanted to order a pizza, we used a physical object known as the Yellow Pages. If we wanted to see what movies were playing where and at what time, we needed a current copy of the day’s newspaper. And then there’s the online dating aspect, but that’s a whole other ball of wax. But it’s funny to think that some people just can’t live without television (or, I guess I should just call it TV…). Even better, some people can’t live without cable TV. And for some, even that’s not good enough; it’s gotta be dish or satellite TV! As if we’d just die if we met other people, entertained ourselves, and whatever else by actually going outside!
On a side note, I suppose I’m guilty of some fetishism for commodities since if I have free time, I typically spend it online for hours. But since I do spend lots of time online, I do notice that we as a people aren’t happy unless we rank and organize our interests and other nouns. For example, how often do you see an article on an online form of a magazine or a web-based magazine like the A.V. Club that ranks the top however many movies within a genre? That doesn’t sound so bad, but how about the top [insert type] movie scenes? Do we really care what movies have the most awkward family dinner scenes? Or how about a list of the best songs with the worst titles? Or some other list where the basis is fueled by the author’s biased opinion? How many questions are in this paragraph?
I think I started thinking about this when I was on a free dating site years ago called Ok! Cupid. The hilarious thing about the site is, even though you can message other members for free, find them according to interests and location, and even chat with them for free within the site, one of its biggest draws is all the tests you can take. Like the “What ‘80s movie character are you?” test, or the “What kind of person were you in high school?” test, or the “What psychological illness are you likely to suffer with your current lifestyle?” test. I find this hilarious because, when we were in school, we dreaded tests! We hated having to stay up late the night before studying and filling our minds with rote information we plan to forget less than 24 hours after cramming it in our heads. And granted, the biggest difference is the online tests we take revolve around trivial bullshit that’s relevant to our interests. But the fact remains; we’re addicted to doing something we’d rather not do in a school setting. We’re addicted to pointless self-assessment exams so we can identify ourselves with the results of this test and that. Because, I don’t know about you, but if I don’t take the “Would you make a good boyfriend?” test, then I just don’t know who I am and I’m too incomplete to commune with other human beings.
The pointless lists and so-called friends we “make” through Myspace and Facebook are also hollow things we use to define ourselves and add artificial value to our lives. I’ve always been amazed when my real-life friends have personal pages (either through Myspace or Facebook) and they somehow manage to acquire several thousand friends, when really most of them are people they don’t even meet or talk to. As far as I can tell, many people just include whoever sends a request their way and just pad their friend list to sate an insecure need to be loved by lots of people. We all want friends, right? And the more, the merrier. Which sort of means, in a way, people become commodities because their value is based on their potential to make you seem popular. They’re like cheap designer clothes or bright plumage, if you like bird similes.
It is possible we’re predisposed to useless crap from an early age. I know when I was a kid, most of the cookies I ate were either Chips Ahoy!, Chips Deluxe, and Oreos. If a holiday was near, then I got a few from Grandma or my mom (and for what it’s worth, Mom’s cookies were the best). But it did mean that a lot of cookies I ate were just bought at the store and just eaten leisurely, sometimes even if I didn’t want a snack. They were just there. I know I drank a lot of cans of soda growing up just because it was there and I wasn’t thirsty for anything. And I think that gets the ball rolling and we learn to occupy ourselves with something equally useless, unhealthy, and unnecessary. I think we develop our tastes in movies, music, and TV in similar ways. Think about it, if you grew up with one movie (say, John Carpenter’s Halloween, The Breakfast Club, or Ghostbusters), you’ll be predisposed to liking vaguely similar movies as you grow up. If you started with a horror movie, you’ll probably turn your nose on comedies and blockbuster adventure films and just follow horror movies for a sizable chunk of your life. It’s like you can’t start fresh and decide “Well, maybe I’ll like this kind of movie”. You have to have that seed planted in you in your childhood. For what it’s worth, we get into a variety of films when we grow up so we can appreciate comedies and dramas as well as horrors and blockbusters. But it also means if you’ve never seen a French film, then French cinema will be a hard sell to you. Or, something like that.
This is sort of why I write these blogs. I think it’s important to spend time with your own thoughts and dwell on them. Not to sound like a crazy person, but I sometimes pass the time (usually waiting) just having conversations with myself. It’s mostly like having a viewpoint on a topic and providing your own counterpoint and disputing that. In any case, it’s good exercise for the mind and you can consider all the things in your life and decide for yourself how much of it is necessary, how much is nice to have, and how much is just bullshit.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Spoiler-free review of the movie "Moon"
Through Ain’t It Cool News, I was lucky enough to be chosen for an invite-only viewing of the science fiction film Moon, written and directed by Duncan Jones. And in case you’re interested, he’s David Bowie’s son. Whether or not that makes any difference is up to you, but even if he wasn’t, he still told one hell of a story. Critics are comparing this movie to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey and it’s not a bad comparison. This movie has that tone, presence, and scope of Kubrick’s movie and at the same time, it’s its own story. It’s its own monolith (no pun intended).
The story follows one Sam Well, played by Sam Rockwell, who is stationed on the far side of the moon harvesting a remarkable, renewable energy known as H3. His one companion is an intelligent robot named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey. You can compare Sam and GERTY to Dave Bowman and HAL9000, but you can’t compare them too far, as Sam and GERTY are completely different. If anything, Sam reminded me of Joel Robinson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and GERTY reminded me of…well, I guess the computer voice that announced commercial sign-off.
I really don’t want to spoil the movie, so I have to choose my descriptions carefully. The best I can do is run with the 2001: A Space Odyssey comparison.
Now, 2001… was a grandiose movie. It’s what good sci-fi is meant to be, in my humble opinion. 2001… was a movie that puts mankind under a microscope and, through Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea), we are exploring the infinite possibilities of existence. We are coming into contact with alien life. We are observing alternate planes of reality as if they were passing scenery.
Science fiction actually has a lot in common with horror: they both play with the unknown. In horror, we don’t know what lurks in the dark, under the bed, behind that door, or anything about the supernatural. It works because the protagonist’s life is in jeopardy, and the reason and/or cause is unclear. That’s scary.
And, actually, science fiction can be scary, too, but then the story in question is considered a cross-over (Cronenberg’s The Fly is one example). But, fundamentally, science fiction is about exploring the unknown. It's about possibility and the excitement of finding out. Maybe the aliens from other worlds are hostile and maybe they’re benevolent. But we’re on unfamiliar ground with them and it’s both scary and exhilarating.. We don’t know what happens when a machine becomes sophisticated enough to take on its own consciousness. We don’t know what planets and realities exist beyond our own and the thought of seeing them is a little nerve-wracking. And it's interesting to conceive that in the future, there will be no war and we'll live in a perfect society, because we'd like to see what happens next. And something would happen.
Good science fiction, in this light, is sort of like watching a magic trick and wondering in awe as to how it works. Or maybe a mystery that one simply stumbles upon and the solution is impractical and shocking.
I’m pretty sure Duncan Jones understands this. Or something like it, otherwise he wouldn’t have made the movie he did. Moon is a science fiction story that is devoid of obligatory, blockbuster-inspired action. It is devoid of horrible monstrous aliens bent on eating, hunting, or harvesting humans for wombs to hatch eggs. And, I’m pleased to say, it is devoid of the obligatory romantic conquest between a protagonist and some beautiful love interest. Of that last point, I mean to say it doesn’t have a fake, cheesy building romance where the girl hates the guy or they don’t like each other and, through the series of extraordinary events, they learn to love each other.
Unfortunately, because I don’t want to spoil anything, I can’t say what it does have. I’ve been told if you see the trailer first, even that will affect your viewing experience. In other words, it’s best to know absolutely nothing and be surprised by every film frame. Actually, that’s an inviting concept. I wonder how many movies we hate because we were exposed to trailers, commercials, and reviews before seeing them.
In short, go see Moon. It’s a breath of fresh air in a film climate severely lacking in original and compelling stories.
The story follows one Sam Well, played by Sam Rockwell, who is stationed on the far side of the moon harvesting a remarkable, renewable energy known as H3. His one companion is an intelligent robot named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey. You can compare Sam and GERTY to Dave Bowman and HAL9000, but you can’t compare them too far, as Sam and GERTY are completely different. If anything, Sam reminded me of Joel Robinson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and GERTY reminded me of…well, I guess the computer voice that announced commercial sign-off.
I really don’t want to spoil the movie, so I have to choose my descriptions carefully. The best I can do is run with the 2001: A Space Odyssey comparison.
Now, 2001… was a grandiose movie. It’s what good sci-fi is meant to be, in my humble opinion. 2001… was a movie that puts mankind under a microscope and, through Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea), we are exploring the infinite possibilities of existence. We are coming into contact with alien life. We are observing alternate planes of reality as if they were passing scenery.
Science fiction actually has a lot in common with horror: they both play with the unknown. In horror, we don’t know what lurks in the dark, under the bed, behind that door, or anything about the supernatural. It works because the protagonist’s life is in jeopardy, and the reason and/or cause is unclear. That’s scary.
And, actually, science fiction can be scary, too, but then the story in question is considered a cross-over (Cronenberg’s The Fly is one example). But, fundamentally, science fiction is about exploring the unknown. It's about possibility and the excitement of finding out. Maybe the aliens from other worlds are hostile and maybe they’re benevolent. But we’re on unfamiliar ground with them and it’s both scary and exhilarating.. We don’t know what happens when a machine becomes sophisticated enough to take on its own consciousness. We don’t know what planets and realities exist beyond our own and the thought of seeing them is a little nerve-wracking. And it's interesting to conceive that in the future, there will be no war and we'll live in a perfect society, because we'd like to see what happens next. And something would happen.
Good science fiction, in this light, is sort of like watching a magic trick and wondering in awe as to how it works. Or maybe a mystery that one simply stumbles upon and the solution is impractical and shocking.
I’m pretty sure Duncan Jones understands this. Or something like it, otherwise he wouldn’t have made the movie he did. Moon is a science fiction story that is devoid of obligatory, blockbuster-inspired action. It is devoid of horrible monstrous aliens bent on eating, hunting, or harvesting humans for wombs to hatch eggs. And, I’m pleased to say, it is devoid of the obligatory romantic conquest between a protagonist and some beautiful love interest. Of that last point, I mean to say it doesn’t have a fake, cheesy building romance where the girl hates the guy or they don’t like each other and, through the series of extraordinary events, they learn to love each other.
Unfortunately, because I don’t want to spoil anything, I can’t say what it does have. I’ve been told if you see the trailer first, even that will affect your viewing experience. In other words, it’s best to know absolutely nothing and be surprised by every film frame. Actually, that’s an inviting concept. I wonder how many movies we hate because we were exposed to trailers, commercials, and reviews before seeing them.
In short, go see Moon. It’s a breath of fresh air in a film climate severely lacking in original and compelling stories.
Friday, March 13, 2009
On Virginity
This is a subject I think about a lot because I think about my culture a lot. I think about what kind of person I am, where I came from, how sociable I am, and how responsible I am for my lack of social experience. I think about how difficult it is for people to meet each other and trust each other enough just to have a conversation. I think about how geeks are considered cool in this modern age, at least to an extent. With that, I think about who fits the bill of a cool geek or just a cool person in general, and just what types of people aren’t likable. I think about how mature we are and, at the same time, how immature we remain. And I’ve noticed that the phrase “I think about” occurs eight times in this paragraph, including the mention I put in quotes in this sentence.
Sorry, hope I didn’t lose you.
If you’ve read the blog entry I made about how I relate to women, you’ll know I don’t socialize well with them and I didn’t even start dating until college. And these weren’t even real sociable dates so much as they were personality interviews in diners and coffee shops. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 24, and that’s only because I made a personal ad on Craigslist going for broke. Three of the four replies were dim-witted girls who were either incredulous that someone as old as I was could still be a virgin or wanted to interview me to see what a 24 year old virgin was like. Sometimes I’d chat with girls via AIM and mention to them my plight. Often times they’d say “Oh, you’ll meet someone someday and you’ll make her feel so special”, or “If I didn’t live five states away, I’d totally sleep with you!” or something equally patronizing and irritating. Here’s a tip for you people who are experienced and reading: virgins hate throwaway advice. They’ve heard it a billion times before and it only shows you’re just talking out of your ass. Because of all that patronizing and the occasional bullshit advice I got from more…let’s say “noble”…girls, I wanted to lose it in a meaningless way out of spite. For what it’s worth, I didn’t lose it like that and I’m still friends with the woman who finally helped me out.
But that’s the thing. If a guy isn’t perfectly chiseled or impossibly cute, and if he’s not the most outgoing guy you ever met, then it’s really hard for him to have sex. It’s hilarious how easy it is for people to forget that it takes two people for sex to even take place. People don’t remain virgins because they never figured out masturbation. If that was all it would take, then I would be able to say I lost mine when I was 11 or so.
Another thing is people stress confidence more than anything. Which apparently is even more valuable when you’re below the height of 5’10”, not muscular and fit, not tanned, and not a scenester clone (like a hipster, or a goth, or an emo kid, or a preppy, etc.). And then there’s the personality and interests. I never liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dave Matthews Band, I never got into or ever liked The White Stripes, 3 Doors Down, Smashing Pumpkins, or whatever radio friendly band that gets lots of girls wet. I don’t watch TV, I don’t listen to whatever’s on the Top 40, I don’t like dance clubs, and I don’t have much experience in talking to girls. So, I didn’t know to say whatever is expected to come from a 24 year old’s mouth.
Confidence does not come easily to those who are sexually inexperienced in their mid-twenties or older, and inexperienced in other ways with the preferred gender. It’s really easy for people to say it’s no big deal, or don’t worry about it, or whatever, because they know it from experience. It’s like, imagine being in your late twenties and you’ve never gone swimming, played basketball, been to a concert, been on a roller coaster, or anything simple and common to young people. Sure, these things aren’t too much of a big deal, but they’re great things to experience. And when you’re somewhat old for someone who’s never done any of these things, people think it’s weird and the activity becomes that much more foreign and intimidating to the virgin of the sort.
See, confidence can’t just be summoned. You can’t just be confident any more than you can just be happy, awake, sleepy, or whatever. If you’re not happy, you’re not happy. If you’re shy, then you’re shy. If you’re wide awake, then you’re not going to sleep anytime soon. If you’re still tired and under rested, you’re not going to be very alert. And you know what? It’s hard to be confident when you know you’re a virgin and you’re in your twenties. Because virgins have never gone to bed with someone, they don’t know when they’re getting bedroom eyes. They don’t know how to convince someone to sleep with them. They also don’t have an M.O. in the bedroom, and the lack thereof makes the virgin very nervous. Also, whenever someone admits to being a virgin, it’s somehow a big turn-off to a lot of people. Whenever I told a girl I was still a virgin, she’d be incredulous and whatever attraction that girl had for me went out the window, because it’s apparently a big hassle and invitation for trouble to sleep with a guy who’s still sexually inexperienced. I mean, let’s say you wet your pants. Even if you can still technically carry out your daily routine, can you honestly do so with peace of mind? Even if somehow people don’t notice, wouldn’t the grimy wetness and odor make you uncomfortable? Being a virgin is like that. It nags at you, it eats at your self-esteem, and you can’t get away from it until someone finally liberates you of it.
Now, some people want to save it for marriage, or at least for someone with whom they fall in love. And that’s fine, except the virgin is not exempt from sexual anxiety if that special someone hasn’t entered his or her life for a good while. Women seem to romanticize it more than men; even the lewd, anti-prude women. Guys, especially non-religious guys, just want to be rid of it. The older a guy gets, the more of a curse it is. It’s like quicksand where the older you get, the more it eats at your psyche. And then the guy feels less confident, and it becomes harder to even befriend a girl, let alone sleep with one.
I certainly didn’t value it. I just wanted to be rid of it. Look at it this way: you probably know a lot of people who lost their virginity in their teens or early twenties. And they’ve probably dated a lot, had a few relationships, ended a few of those relationships, been dumped, ended the relationships mutually, cheated on their relationship partners, been cheated on, had one night stands, had their pussies eaten out of or their dicks sucked, and so on. Chances are, these people have had bad sex before, or under performed in bed at some point or other. And that’s fine; we’re all human, anyway.
What difference does it make if the first time is bad? And it probably would be anyway, so just get it out of the way.
To me, sex is like a walk in the park, and I’m not using the euphemism for easiness. See, a walk in the park with your loved one can be a wonderful way to spend a spring or summer afternoon. The two of you can walk arm in arm, stop for a ridiculous ice cream cone with seven colorful scoops of ice cream, watch kids play, pet a dog, sit in the shade, bring a basket for a small picnic, whatever. Or it could just be a shortcut to the bus stop. Either way, it is what it is. Whether it’s special or a quick shortcut is what you make of it.
And sex is like that, too. It’s not the satin sheets, candles, Barry White on the stereo, woman in lingerie, man in velvet coat with pipe, and a carefully choreographed session of foreplay, gradually easing into intercourse that makes it so wonderful. It’s who you’re with. Imagine going the whole nine yards like in the scenario I just described, and doing it with someone you barely know or who’s just doing it out of pity or because they’re getting paid. All the setting up, dim lighting, and soft music in the world isn’t going to make it a magical experience. If you’re with someone you love, or at least in which you’re interested, you can have a magical experience of love in a public bathroom stall of a library of all places. Or the back seat of a car, or back of a movie theater, etc. And there’s nothing wrong with doing it with someone you barely know, as long as both parties are getting what they want. So, if two people just want a quick lay, so what?
There’s no reason to elevate the act of sex any higher than we need to. Just because two people got drunk in a bar and fucked in the back of a car before they asked each other’s name doesn’t mean sex on someone’s wedding night will be cheapened. If you want to make it special for your new spouse, then by all means make the most of it. But if other people just want to do it and get it over with, that’s their business. If someone just wants to have sex, and that person isn’t entirely a bad person, then that person deserves an opportunity.
You want further proof? Going to a baseball game can be romantic. Stopping for a latte or ice cream can be romantic. Having uncomfortable sex in a four star hotel suite is NOT romantic. In fact, the extravagant setting puts pressure on at least one of the people involved.
I’ll try and end this on one last metaphor. If someone has never had a hamburger before and just wants to eat one and see what the fuss is about, it’s not necessary to book a reservation at Gibson’s, put on the nice clothes, and spend twenty bucks on an unusually fancy hamburger. It’s a fucking hamburger! Just get one at Wendy’s and be done with it. Likewise, if someone just wants to get laid, indulge the person and help the poor sap join the human race.
Sorry, hope I didn’t lose you.
If you’ve read the blog entry I made about how I relate to women, you’ll know I don’t socialize well with them and I didn’t even start dating until college. And these weren’t even real sociable dates so much as they were personality interviews in diners and coffee shops. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was 24, and that’s only because I made a personal ad on Craigslist going for broke. Three of the four replies were dim-witted girls who were either incredulous that someone as old as I was could still be a virgin or wanted to interview me to see what a 24 year old virgin was like. Sometimes I’d chat with girls via AIM and mention to them my plight. Often times they’d say “Oh, you’ll meet someone someday and you’ll make her feel so special”, or “If I didn’t live five states away, I’d totally sleep with you!” or something equally patronizing and irritating. Here’s a tip for you people who are experienced and reading: virgins hate throwaway advice. They’ve heard it a billion times before and it only shows you’re just talking out of your ass. Because of all that patronizing and the occasional bullshit advice I got from more…let’s say “noble”…girls, I wanted to lose it in a meaningless way out of spite. For what it’s worth, I didn’t lose it like that and I’m still friends with the woman who finally helped me out.
But that’s the thing. If a guy isn’t perfectly chiseled or impossibly cute, and if he’s not the most outgoing guy you ever met, then it’s really hard for him to have sex. It’s hilarious how easy it is for people to forget that it takes two people for sex to even take place. People don’t remain virgins because they never figured out masturbation. If that was all it would take, then I would be able to say I lost mine when I was 11 or so.
Another thing is people stress confidence more than anything. Which apparently is even more valuable when you’re below the height of 5’10”, not muscular and fit, not tanned, and not a scenester clone (like a hipster, or a goth, or an emo kid, or a preppy, etc.). And then there’s the personality and interests. I never liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dave Matthews Band, I never got into or ever liked The White Stripes, 3 Doors Down, Smashing Pumpkins, or whatever radio friendly band that gets lots of girls wet. I don’t watch TV, I don’t listen to whatever’s on the Top 40, I don’t like dance clubs, and I don’t have much experience in talking to girls. So, I didn’t know to say whatever is expected to come from a 24 year old’s mouth.
Confidence does not come easily to those who are sexually inexperienced in their mid-twenties or older, and inexperienced in other ways with the preferred gender. It’s really easy for people to say it’s no big deal, or don’t worry about it, or whatever, because they know it from experience. It’s like, imagine being in your late twenties and you’ve never gone swimming, played basketball, been to a concert, been on a roller coaster, or anything simple and common to young people. Sure, these things aren’t too much of a big deal, but they’re great things to experience. And when you’re somewhat old for someone who’s never done any of these things, people think it’s weird and the activity becomes that much more foreign and intimidating to the virgin of the sort.
See, confidence can’t just be summoned. You can’t just be confident any more than you can just be happy, awake, sleepy, or whatever. If you’re not happy, you’re not happy. If you’re shy, then you’re shy. If you’re wide awake, then you’re not going to sleep anytime soon. If you’re still tired and under rested, you’re not going to be very alert. And you know what? It’s hard to be confident when you know you’re a virgin and you’re in your twenties. Because virgins have never gone to bed with someone, they don’t know when they’re getting bedroom eyes. They don’t know how to convince someone to sleep with them. They also don’t have an M.O. in the bedroom, and the lack thereof makes the virgin very nervous. Also, whenever someone admits to being a virgin, it’s somehow a big turn-off to a lot of people. Whenever I told a girl I was still a virgin, she’d be incredulous and whatever attraction that girl had for me went out the window, because it’s apparently a big hassle and invitation for trouble to sleep with a guy who’s still sexually inexperienced. I mean, let’s say you wet your pants. Even if you can still technically carry out your daily routine, can you honestly do so with peace of mind? Even if somehow people don’t notice, wouldn’t the grimy wetness and odor make you uncomfortable? Being a virgin is like that. It nags at you, it eats at your self-esteem, and you can’t get away from it until someone finally liberates you of it.
Now, some people want to save it for marriage, or at least for someone with whom they fall in love. And that’s fine, except the virgin is not exempt from sexual anxiety if that special someone hasn’t entered his or her life for a good while. Women seem to romanticize it more than men; even the lewd, anti-prude women. Guys, especially non-religious guys, just want to be rid of it. The older a guy gets, the more of a curse it is. It’s like quicksand where the older you get, the more it eats at your psyche. And then the guy feels less confident, and it becomes harder to even befriend a girl, let alone sleep with one.
I certainly didn’t value it. I just wanted to be rid of it. Look at it this way: you probably know a lot of people who lost their virginity in their teens or early twenties. And they’ve probably dated a lot, had a few relationships, ended a few of those relationships, been dumped, ended the relationships mutually, cheated on their relationship partners, been cheated on, had one night stands, had their pussies eaten out of or their dicks sucked, and so on. Chances are, these people have had bad sex before, or under performed in bed at some point or other. And that’s fine; we’re all human, anyway.
What difference does it make if the first time is bad? And it probably would be anyway, so just get it out of the way.
To me, sex is like a walk in the park, and I’m not using the euphemism for easiness. See, a walk in the park with your loved one can be a wonderful way to spend a spring or summer afternoon. The two of you can walk arm in arm, stop for a ridiculous ice cream cone with seven colorful scoops of ice cream, watch kids play, pet a dog, sit in the shade, bring a basket for a small picnic, whatever. Or it could just be a shortcut to the bus stop. Either way, it is what it is. Whether it’s special or a quick shortcut is what you make of it.
And sex is like that, too. It’s not the satin sheets, candles, Barry White on the stereo, woman in lingerie, man in velvet coat with pipe, and a carefully choreographed session of foreplay, gradually easing into intercourse that makes it so wonderful. It’s who you’re with. Imagine going the whole nine yards like in the scenario I just described, and doing it with someone you barely know or who’s just doing it out of pity or because they’re getting paid. All the setting up, dim lighting, and soft music in the world isn’t going to make it a magical experience. If you’re with someone you love, or at least in which you’re interested, you can have a magical experience of love in a public bathroom stall of a library of all places. Or the back seat of a car, or back of a movie theater, etc. And there’s nothing wrong with doing it with someone you barely know, as long as both parties are getting what they want. So, if two people just want a quick lay, so what?
There’s no reason to elevate the act of sex any higher than we need to. Just because two people got drunk in a bar and fucked in the back of a car before they asked each other’s name doesn’t mean sex on someone’s wedding night will be cheapened. If you want to make it special for your new spouse, then by all means make the most of it. But if other people just want to do it and get it over with, that’s their business. If someone just wants to have sex, and that person isn’t entirely a bad person, then that person deserves an opportunity.
You want further proof? Going to a baseball game can be romantic. Stopping for a latte or ice cream can be romantic. Having uncomfortable sex in a four star hotel suite is NOT romantic. In fact, the extravagant setting puts pressure on at least one of the people involved.
I’ll try and end this on one last metaphor. If someone has never had a hamburger before and just wants to eat one and see what the fuss is about, it’s not necessary to book a reservation at Gibson’s, put on the nice clothes, and spend twenty bucks on an unusually fancy hamburger. It’s a fucking hamburger! Just get one at Wendy’s and be done with it. Likewise, if someone just wants to get laid, indulge the person and help the poor sap join the human race.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Why the Oscars shouldn't matter
It's the end of January, 2009, and after a big year of movies, people are giddy and frantic about the Oscars. And again, I'm figuratively rolling my eyes and wondering why people still give a damn.
This is the year Heath Ledger is expected to posthumously win an Oscar for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight. It's also the year that people's jaws have dropped because a minor, comparatively inferior movie is being nominated called The Reader. For the record, I don't even think I've heard of it until it was mentioned as a nominee.
In fact, for various reasons, people's jaws drop. Is it any surprise that the best movies aren't nominated or don't win? Or performances by actors? And just who makes up the Academy anyway?
And how long have viewers been crying foul? Is it really any surprise?
Let's take a quick glance at the history, and I'll just work on what I know out of laziness (I'll do the research once I start getting paid for this). How many years was it until Martin Scorsese finally won an Oscar? What's more, can anyone remember off the top of their heads who won in the years that Scorsese made Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Casino? It's also interesting to note that Gandhi won over E.T. I hadn't seen Gandhi, but chances are, I can count on one hand the number of people who have.
Personally, I remember being appalled when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon didn't win and Gladiator did. So was Ebert, but even he should've been numb to these kinds of upsets. One is a beautiful, visually poetic romance that's so rich in beautiful story and cinematography that I honestly forgot I was in a movie theater for over an hour or so. And this is with subtitles! Likewise, while Gladiator was fun, it shouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar. It's a generic underdog story fictionally set in a historic period just so we can watch a gladiator fight and overthrow a corrupt king. I thought it was just a cheap copy of Braveheart. Well, it probably wasn't cheap, but I've little reason to believe the movie wasn't just a cookie-cutter script with a few proper nouns changed.
Some of the criteria is weird, too. Like, if Wall-E was a good movie, then it should earn a spot in the nominations. It being animated is not enough reason to deny a movie a nomination at the Oscars. It's not like it's straight-to-video or was made for TV. It's a full length feature film, made with hard work, and featuring voice actors, cinematography, direction, musical score... everything, really. And The Dark Knight was a legitimate crime drama and had very little in the ways of novelty. It certainly shouldn't be denied nomination for being adapted from a comic franchise, especially if equally great things can be said of the "Batman" comics, and comics in general. To deny these movies is to call into question what winning an Oscar is really worth. You're basically asking, "Okay, what's the best movie released this year that wasn't a comedy, animated, adapted from a comic book, or a horror?" instead of "What's the best movie of the year?". These movies do get shown in theaters that also show independents, foreign films, period pieces, and biopics, so why not?
And I'm not even going to go into the Best Song category. It's like the Oscar awards equivalent to Olympic curling.
And you know what? Oftentimes, when people win Oscars, their ensuing films are usually worse and worse. One would think an Oscar would serve as a status of rank which would provide the winner with the clout to pick and choose his/her roles, or scripts, or what-have-you, and one would expect these Oscar winners would from that point continue to put out quality work. Likewise, people who have been denied the Oscar for many years have put out excellent work. It's as if the golden statuette has something in common with the ring of the dark lord Sauron.
Not to mention that lusting after an Oscar reeks of desperation. If you're desperate to win an Oscar, you probably can't think straight. I mean, do we love Jack Nicholson because he has Oscars, or because he's a great actor who performs in great movies? Isn't that why Tom Hanks is respected? Is the Oscar lust helping Lindsay Lohan to win, or even get work?
I mean, why do people want Oscars? I'm sure people who've been nominated multiple times can afford a golden statue the height of a mansion. I'm also pretty sure it doesn't do anything but stand. And I have a hard time believing that having an Oscar means never having to live in squalor, or guarantees opportunities for greater film projects, or anything.
It's just bragging rights, isn't it?
So, my question--and I know I asked a few in this blog posting--is this: If all this is so, then why is any value placed on the statuette and the decisions of those in the Academy? If Roger Ebert consistently gave good reviews to the Wayans' brothers' crap comedy movies, and bad reviews to actually decent movies, then would Roger Ebert be able to retain his status as an intelligent film critic with valuable opinions?
I'll just say this, then. If somehow, by some quirk of luck, I managed to eke out a career in film and I merely get nominated for my efforts, I'd be happy as anything. If I actually won, I'd be less happy. Heck, I'd be pissed and wondering what I did wrong. No, I think we're better off if we do something for the sheer love of doing it and just doing one's best. It's the appreciation from fans and critics that should inspire filmmakers, not a lump of gold better suited for printed circuit boards. We shouldn't have to strive to make a list or earn something as substantial as a scratch n' sniff sticker.
This is the year Heath Ledger is expected to posthumously win an Oscar for his role as The Joker in The Dark Knight. It's also the year that people's jaws have dropped because a minor, comparatively inferior movie is being nominated called The Reader. For the record, I don't even think I've heard of it until it was mentioned as a nominee.
In fact, for various reasons, people's jaws drop. Is it any surprise that the best movies aren't nominated or don't win? Or performances by actors? And just who makes up the Academy anyway?
And how long have viewers been crying foul? Is it really any surprise?
Let's take a quick glance at the history, and I'll just work on what I know out of laziness (I'll do the research once I start getting paid for this). How many years was it until Martin Scorsese finally won an Oscar? What's more, can anyone remember off the top of their heads who won in the years that Scorsese made Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, and Casino? It's also interesting to note that Gandhi won over E.T. I hadn't seen Gandhi, but chances are, I can count on one hand the number of people who have.
Personally, I remember being appalled when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon didn't win and Gladiator did. So was Ebert, but even he should've been numb to these kinds of upsets. One is a beautiful, visually poetic romance that's so rich in beautiful story and cinematography that I honestly forgot I was in a movie theater for over an hour or so. And this is with subtitles! Likewise, while Gladiator was fun, it shouldn't have been nominated for an Oscar. It's a generic underdog story fictionally set in a historic period just so we can watch a gladiator fight and overthrow a corrupt king. I thought it was just a cheap copy of Braveheart. Well, it probably wasn't cheap, but I've little reason to believe the movie wasn't just a cookie-cutter script with a few proper nouns changed.
Some of the criteria is weird, too. Like, if Wall-E was a good movie, then it should earn a spot in the nominations. It being animated is not enough reason to deny a movie a nomination at the Oscars. It's not like it's straight-to-video or was made for TV. It's a full length feature film, made with hard work, and featuring voice actors, cinematography, direction, musical score... everything, really. And The Dark Knight was a legitimate crime drama and had very little in the ways of novelty. It certainly shouldn't be denied nomination for being adapted from a comic franchise, especially if equally great things can be said of the "Batman" comics, and comics in general. To deny these movies is to call into question what winning an Oscar is really worth. You're basically asking, "Okay, what's the best movie released this year that wasn't a comedy, animated, adapted from a comic book, or a horror?" instead of "What's the best movie of the year?". These movies do get shown in theaters that also show independents, foreign films, period pieces, and biopics, so why not?
And I'm not even going to go into the Best Song category. It's like the Oscar awards equivalent to Olympic curling.
And you know what? Oftentimes, when people win Oscars, their ensuing films are usually worse and worse. One would think an Oscar would serve as a status of rank which would provide the winner with the clout to pick and choose his/her roles, or scripts, or what-have-you, and one would expect these Oscar winners would from that point continue to put out quality work. Likewise, people who have been denied the Oscar for many years have put out excellent work. It's as if the golden statuette has something in common with the ring of the dark lord Sauron.
Not to mention that lusting after an Oscar reeks of desperation. If you're desperate to win an Oscar, you probably can't think straight. I mean, do we love Jack Nicholson because he has Oscars, or because he's a great actor who performs in great movies? Isn't that why Tom Hanks is respected? Is the Oscar lust helping Lindsay Lohan to win, or even get work?
I mean, why do people want Oscars? I'm sure people who've been nominated multiple times can afford a golden statue the height of a mansion. I'm also pretty sure it doesn't do anything but stand. And I have a hard time believing that having an Oscar means never having to live in squalor, or guarantees opportunities for greater film projects, or anything.
It's just bragging rights, isn't it?
So, my question--and I know I asked a few in this blog posting--is this: If all this is so, then why is any value placed on the statuette and the decisions of those in the Academy? If Roger Ebert consistently gave good reviews to the Wayans' brothers' crap comedy movies, and bad reviews to actually decent movies, then would Roger Ebert be able to retain his status as an intelligent film critic with valuable opinions?
I'll just say this, then. If somehow, by some quirk of luck, I managed to eke out a career in film and I merely get nominated for my efforts, I'd be happy as anything. If I actually won, I'd be less happy. Heck, I'd be pissed and wondering what I did wrong. No, I think we're better off if we do something for the sheer love of doing it and just doing one's best. It's the appreciation from fans and critics that should inspire filmmakers, not a lump of gold better suited for printed circuit boards. We shouldn't have to strive to make a list or earn something as substantial as a scratch n' sniff sticker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
