Weak from the week.

This week has been (and will continue to be) an extra-large portion of busy with a side order of hectic. There's much to catch up on, but I'm afraid most of it will have to wait until the weekend when things calm down ever so slightly. Slightly.

One item in particular that I'm looking forward to starting up is a tag team blog-venture with my friend and fellow blogger Brian Patterson. Together we have decided to save the Republican party from itself. Quite frankly, whatever schadenfreude I may feel over the continued implosion of the GOP is not worth the harsh reality...which is that American government functions best when there are two points of view (at least) that are both well represented. Plus, I can't stand to see poor Glenn Beck weep another tear. Never let it be said that liberals are cruel and indifferent to human suffering. If anything, we care too much. We care so much that we're going to reveal precisely how the GOP can restore its credibility, stop hemorrhaging members, and once again represent a legitimate opposition to the Democratic party. Together, Brian and I are rewriting Karl Rove's playbook. First step...burning Karl Rove's playbook.

But that's for later.

In the meantime, let me give another shameless plug for my short play which now has just three more performances left before it's reduced to a vague memory. Last night's show played to a full house (thank you all for coming!), but ticket sales are slow for next Sunday, Monday and Tuesday's performances. I'd be ever so grateful if you would buy a ticket for yourself, your significant other, your concubine, and anyone else with a pulse. It's a diverse group of shorts and you're likely to find something you'll like. Without being too self-congratulatory, my short seems to have been well received. I don't trust my friends' praise, but I do like it when total strangers stroke my ego. This comment was excerpted from a longer email that an audience member sent after last night's performance:

"For my money Kraig Smith produced the most polished, witty script of the evening - and he was well served because the actors and the (very busy) director succeeded in making the most of it."

Mia Moreland and Jason Grossman (below) have done fantastic work under the direction of the equally fantastic Paula D'Alessandris. Come see for yourself!

A different kind of torture.

Today was opening day (and in a bit, opening night) for my short play Daft in Death, one of nine shorts being performed in "BritBits 5" by the Mind the Gap Theatre Company here in Manhattan. It's an eclectic group of shorts performed, written and directed by an equally eclectic group of talented artists. While this wasn't the first time I've been in the audience for something I've written or co-written, it was the first time I've done so for a live performance. The experience was terrifying.

Thanks to the beautiful weather, the audience today was a cozy (and gracious) one, very supportive of everyone's hard work on this project. Still, in spite of laughs and applause, and despite both actors doing great work with the material, it felt like being on trial. Each joke that fell flat was an accusation against me, while each joke that succeeded was merely a mitigating circumstance which could reduce my sentence. Being my harshest critic, I'd like to think that I'm only going to get probation this time. People laughed. That's a good thing. Sometimes they laughed harder at things that were only intended to induce a mild guffaw, and sometimes they were silent when I thought to myself, "oh, come on...that shit's clever! Laugh!", but it seemed to be generally well received by those in attendance.

Tomorrow and Tuesday will be the hardest for me, however, as those are the nights when my friends and co-workers will most attend. The jury will almost triple in size. I'd plead temporary insanity, except everyone who knows me knows that my insanity is far from temporary.

Friday Night Video---2 days late

I'm not very good at maintaining my "segments" around here, obviously. The "Friday Night Video" was created just last Friday and already I've let it fall by the wayside. Better late than never? Don't answer that.

This week's entry was the answer to a head-scratching question from this Friday evening (see? loose connection to Friday night makes it retroactively relevant). I had just seen a dance performance that was partially scored by my talented friend Koven J. Smith. Following the performance I was wracking my brain trying to identify the song to which I personally choreographed a "modern dance" in 1984 at a Jewish summer camp. I now have the answer.

Yes, at the tender age of 11, I choreographed some of the most awesomest dance moves ever to be witnessed at the Greene Family Camp talent show...all to the edgy tune of "Mothers Talk" by Tears for Fears. Let your imagination of my moves run wild, but only if it skews largely toward robotic-like movements.

Out of this world.

Last Wednesday night was my trivia team's third time to host and, all things considered, it went reasonably well. The evening's loose theme was "Earth Day," but as an anti-Earth round (since Earth was getting too much attention) I created the following visual round...re-posted here for your quizzing pleasure.

What you'll see are 11 planets which have been featured in either a movie or a television show. I want you to identify both the name of the planet and the name of the movie or television show from which the visual clue is taken. Some of the planets are real, some of them are fictitious. You can click on the image to get a better look. I'll post the answers in the comments section.

Enjoy!



p.s. Ignore the watermark on the images. I'm using a demo of image conversion software.

Top TV Pilots of All-Time, #6

We resume the never-ending countdown to the best television pilot of all-time with a show that redefined not only its genre, but essentially the very face of dramatic television, too.

#6 Hill Street Blues (1981)

Watching the pilot for this Steven Bochco-created drama, one would not instantly jump to the conclusion that the show was first filmed a whopping 29 years ago. Yes, the fashions are out of date, and yes, it does show its age in other ways, but the narrative structure and the camera work basically represent television as it remains today. Opting for hand-held cameras, shaky close-ups, quick cuts, intertwining storylines amongst a large, diverse ensemble cast, and using background noise and dialogue to create a constant buzz of activity, the pilot for Hill Street Blues became the Rosetta Stone for making good, contemporary television.

Running for seven seasons, the ratings-challenged Hill Street Blues focused on the professional and private lives of the inhabitants of an urban police station in an unnamed Chicago-like city. It showed the inner city of American life in a gritty way that most shows had previously avoided. From gang violence to domestic abuse, both of which are featured in the shockingly violent pilot, this was not a glamorization of police work. Even the "cool" plain clothes detectives are shown as being alcoholics or ego maniacs. Nothing about the show is "neat". It's a messy world and the cops of Hill Street Station are on the front lines for trying keep the mess from spiraling out of control...sometimes without success. It sounds fairly generic for a 2009 show, but for a 1981 show...hardly.

The debut season of Hill Street Blues was nominated for an insane 21 Emmys (98 during its entire run), ultimately winning 8 of them...four of which were specific to the show's pilot. It won the Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series for four consecutive seasons from 1981-1985. It is, quite simply, one of the best and one of the most important television shows in history...and it all began with its standout pilot. If you've not had the pleasure of watching Hill Street Blues before, Hulu.com has every episode from the first three seasons online (for free). Some people described Hill Street Blues as "Barney Miller outdoors," and that might be just about right.

Freedom Questioners

Excerpted from Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard:

As to the morality of the methods used, I don't see anything immoral about smacking around a terrorist or making him sit in the cold or dunking him in the water, but you can argue it either way. Still, I wonder why the same people squealing about the alleged moral indignity to which these monsters were subjected are the same people who want the government to keep morality out of their bedrooms and doctors' offices. Why should the government be forbidden from making a moral judgment about gay marriage or abortion but compelled to make a moral judgment about the treatment of terrorists plotting to murder American citizens?

The link to the blog is labeled "The Freedom Questioners" in the URL, which is apparently the new, palatable way for the right to describe those who were instructed by our leaders to engage in torture. Much like "Freedom Fries," it seems that some people think that adding the word freedom in front of something makes it better and more patriotic. I think the gay rights movement should take a lesson from this and stop calling for "gay marriage." No, they should be calling for "Freedom Marriage." It's not just marriage...it's freedom marriage. Now the right wing will have to vote for it. You can't be against Freedom Marriage, can you? What's that? You say that you're smart enough to know that Freedom Marriage is just a euphemism for gross and disgusting Gay Marriage? Then stop thinking we are fucking stupid enough to think "Freedom Questioners" and "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" means anything less than torture and those who carried it out. Even "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" is being shortened to the less descriptive "EIT" to further minimize the conjured images.

But back to Goldfarb's blog. In it, as you can see, he tries to equate the question of moral judgment of torture to the moral judgment of gay rights...strongly suggesting that it's a double standard for citizens of a country to demand its government to recognize equality for its citizens, but to also uphold the laws pertaining to torture. I'd like to think the lunacy of this casually-made argument is self-evident but, clearly, to some people it isn't. Goldfarb doesn't seem to get that this moral quandary he describes is the VERY ESSENCE of American democracy. He asks the question, "Why should the government be forbidden from making a moral judgment about gay marriage or abortion but compelled to make a moral judgment about the treatment of terrorists plotting to murder Americans citizens?" The answer is painfully obvious.

First, nobody is saying the government can't make a judgment about gay marriage. In fact, in 46 of the 50 states they have, in effect, made that judgment already...just as slavery was once the rule of law, and just as bans on interracial marriage were once the rule of law. A law, and the judgment to embrace a law, can be wrong, obviously, and that's why it's perfectly fair to ask the government to change its laws. There's a process. And while that process may be painfully slow to those of us who see these anti-gay marriage laws as a wrong which must be righted, we are still a nation of laws. A federal statute allowing gay marriage will not happen by fiat---unless you consider the eventual ruling on this by the Supreme Court to be such.

Another law, both domestic and international, relates to how we treat our prisoners. Those rules have been agreed upon by other civilized nations of the world and they're rules to which we have adhered to for quite some time. If you're someone who believes that the definition of torture should be redefined, or that the use of torture should be dependent upon whom is being tortured, then fine. We've never been a nation who tortures, but if you want to open that door as a legal option, fine, let's have that debate. It's one I'm confident you'd lose, but hey, that's the process when you want your government to change its laws. It is NOT a process, however, to use complete and absolute power to subvert the rule of law because the government thinks it best to do so. What if Obama was a strong proponent of Freedom Marriage and, as such, issued an executive order immediately declaring it legal in all 50 states...after he had told his army of lawyers to find him some legal reasoning to empower him to do so. If you opposed Freedom Marriage, you'd be understandably pissed.

Goldfarb just doesn't get it. He doesn't get that the issue of gay marriage and the issue of torture is all about the rule of law. Gay marriage advocates are working to right a bad law, whereas those offering moral equivocation for the torture we now know took place are advocating in favor of a government's ability to ignore the laws it deems inconvenient. America, fuck yeah!

Full Video of Shep Smith

The whole thing is worth watching, but it really gets interesting around the 6:02 mark. He gets it. There's not "another side" to the story. It's not a "left or right" issue, it's "a right or wrong" issue. And, most impressively, he's not afraid to explain the right wing's flawed rationale for trying to explain this all away. He's a whisker away from saying that Bush and Cheney should be put in jail. Astonishing stuff.

Hero.

I've posted a few things before on Fox News's Shepard Smith (which you can see here and here), but this next bit is perhaps even more amazing than all that has preceded it. I won't say this is "good" journalism, but on a network that seems to have no definable standard for "fair" and "balanced," it's refreshing to routinely hear one of their main personalities call "bullshit" when the stink gets too much to stand. Check this out.



"Ooops."

I've been resisting jumping into the blogging frenzy over the release of the torture memos, though it's not for lack of an opinion. I will say, however, that it's been disturbing to hear so many on the right shift to an "end justifies the means" argument...this, of course, after insisting we hadn't committed acts of torture in the first place. Indeed, there is a point where faith and idealism can be so naive and foolish as to be destructive. Being a devoted pacifist isn't of much use when someone is stabbing you in the gut. But you also don't have to sacrifice all of your ideals in the name of preserving them. That's not some hippy dippy left-wing talk. That's just common sense. You have to adhere to values with some measure of respect for them, otherwise they aren't worth the patriotic pain you feel when someone opposes them with planes into buildings.

Whether torture tactics can be demonstrated to have produced intelligence which saved lives is irrelevant. It's a little blunt but decidedly on point when Shep says, "we are America. We do not fucking torture!" The problems with the debate now shifting to the issue of whether torture was "successful" or not are numerous. I have little doubt there's a memo somewhere, as Cheney suggests there is, that enumerates in vague detail specific instances where torture can be directly linked to the foiling of a plot, or the prevention of harm to American lives. What no memo can accurately tell us, however, is how many lives have been lost and will be lost as a result of these actions solidifying in the mind of every would-be-terrorist just how hypocritical we as a nation can be.

I recently reviewed the fantastic movie The Class. In that movie there is one moment in particular which had a surprisingly strong impact on me at the time, and an even stronger one in the days since. One of the students, a withdrawn troublemaker, is pressed by the teacher to speak up and reveal what it was that had made the student disruptive. Jokingly, the student resists, saying he's afraid he'll get sent to Guantanamo. It's a funny moment, but shortly thereafter that line really started to sink in. Guantanamo is now globally synonymous with the worst of America. It is now and forever a part of our legacy---a punchline, but a punchline to the gut. Not torturing isn't going to make people love us, but committing acts of torture will make them hate us. It will make us seem like a nation of weak people with even weaker principles.

A few more points. First, I do not for one second question the motives of those who enabled this shameful chapter to commence. Bush and Cheney et al, no doubt acted in what they "thought" were the nation's best interests. They, and several conservatives, will view their legacy as people who were willing to make the hard decisions. I haven't heard too many people on the left question this. But good intentions don't matter much when you subvert the rule of law at every step...laws that were put in place so that mere "good intentions" would not overwhelm good sense. It's not a decision to commit torture or not. THIS IS AMERICA. WE DO NOT FUCKING TORTURE. It's not patriotic to love America so much that you're willing to muddy so much of what it means to be American. YOU DON'T GET A PASS BECAUSE YOUR HEART WAS IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

Second, to those who would deny that what has been detailed in the recent memos amounts to torture...you're not being honest. I know it would almost be too much to admit that America is, in fact, a nation that tortures, but it is what it is. If these acts were performed on any of our captured servicemen in a time of war, we would cry "torture!" and demand swift justice. If you believe otherwise, you're kidding yourself. It is what it is. We can call it "enhanced interrogation techniques," but that's like pissing on me and telling me it's raining.

The issue of criminal prosecutions is a thorny one, and it's one for which I'm still unsure of my own feelings. What I am sure of is this: admitting we committed torture and that it was wrong is way more patriotic than either denying it, or admitting it unapologetically.

We are America. We do not fucking torture.

And the award for most hated couple goes to...

Michael Phelps and Carrie Prejean.

This is the very opposite of an "opposite" couple, so Miss California is nothing if not consistent in her beliefs. And Phelps is, well, Phelps. If they should breed (God, help us) their children will inevitably become Super Soldiers...mindless dolts capable of wiping out entire armies (preferably water-based armies) with their amazing physical talents.

This is so high school.

The Race Is On

Who will be next...New York or Maine? My money is on the place I gladly call home, and where public support for it is strong, but Maine might nip them. Place your bets.

Standing ovation greets Maine gay marriage bill

A public hearing on allowing gay marriage in Maine has opened with a standing ovation for the bill's sponsor.

Sen. Dennis Damon received a roar of approval at a crowded hearing Wednesday when he said the time has come to recognize same-sex marriages.

Inflation

It used to be that a panhandler might ask for only a dime, or some "spare change" as is most often the case. On the way home tonight, however, two different panhandlers---several blocks apart---each asked me for exactly $0.40. "Can you spare forty cents?" I'm sure there's some kind of logic involved here, but I'm missing it. Have beggars finally found the magical price point at which to maximize return on their requested donations?

Whip it. Whip it real good.

Do any of you here in New York City have a riding crop I can borrow as a prop for the production of Daft in Death (which starts this Sunday)? I have access to a cat-of-nine tails, but an English-style riding crop would be best. If you do, I'll draw no conclusions other than that you are a highly skilled equestrian.

p.s. This is not my weak attempt at viral marketing.

I am Seth Rogen.

Just shorter. And now, thanks to his recent diet, fatter. And less funny. Whatever. I'm Seth Rogen. Here's a newly unearthed video of him doing stand-up comedy in a nightclub at the age of 13 (evidently Canada has no child humor laws). Either every 13-year-old Jewish boy looks alike, or I bear a strong resemblance to Rogen.

Like cats in heat.

Last Sunday's shenanigans featured a trip to the karaoke bar and, although every song I sung was a "highlight," probably the most memorable song for me was a duet of Billy Bragg's "New England"---performed with the ever-energetic songtrix Vanessa. In a fortuitous twist of fate, my fake British accent, the one routinely assailed by my friends for being somewhat less than authentic (hmmph), proved to be quite a bit more Britishy when used in song. Who knew? Vanessa's contribution, however, was a bit more like Eliza Doolittle before Henry Higgins got a hold of her. She was spirited, though. No doubt.

In honor of that duet---me as Billy Bragg, and Vanessa as Eliza Doolittle---I give you a new segment...Friday Night Video! Actually, this is totally ripped off (again) from my friend John Williams's blog, but he does Wednesday songs...so I'm mostly in the clear. This first song is an uneven duet of, yes, "New England"...with Kate Nash and Billy Bragg doing honors. It starts with Nash's "Foundations" before they move into the duet of "New England." I think I like Nash's voice, but I'm really, really not sure what song she's singing with him at times. And that's sort of how I felt about my duet with Vanessa. Enjoy?

Movies #48 - #50: Subtitles!

As you may have already noticed, I've recently eschewed the chronological approach to reviewing these and have instead, at least until I get caught up, adopted a more thematic approach. Previous themes have been "crappy set of movies reviewed #1" and "crappy set of movies reviewed #2". Today's theme could conceivably fall under one of two categories. The obvious choice is "foreign language movies," but they could just as easily fall under "super amazing awesome movies." Yes, after a long list of mediocre Hollywood films, leave it to Sweden, Romania and France to raise the average score significantly.

#48 - Let the Right One In (2008)

Let the Right One In is a Swedish vampire film---set in 1982---which offers up many of the standard elements one would expect in a horror film. There's some blood and gore, some scare, some suspense. But unlike a standard Hollywood vampire movie, those elements are really just there as window dressing for a unique take on the genre. The core relationship is between a 12-year-old boy who gets routinely bullied and dreams of revenge against his agitators, and that of a 12-year-old female vampire...though she's been 12 for quite awhile. It's a relationship that's sweet at its core, but one cloaked in utter darkness. It's rare when something can be seen as equally beautiful and disturbing, and this is one such case.

Not everything in the movie works. A subplot with a few of the neighbors felt jarringly idiotic in comparison to everything else, and some of the antics of the school bullies are a bit overplayed and cliche. But these are, ultimately, mild criticisms when you look at the work as a whole. Without giving any of the movie's secrets away, and there are a few, I'll simply say that the ending is perfect...and yet it also made me perfectly uncomfortable. I would hope it would be almost impossible for anyone to watch this and not have some conflicted feelings about the ending. I'm still thinking about it. Tell me, is anyone still thinking about Twilight? I didn't think so.

#49 - The Class (2008)

Let's get the accolades out of the way first. This French film was an Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film, it won the Golden Palm at Cannes, and it won Best Foreign picture at The Independent Spirit Awards and The Image Awards, and it has a 100% approval rating by the top critics at Rotten Tomatoes. And...it's all very much deserved. Hands down, there has never been a better movie made about the teaching experience than The Class. Although it has the distinct feel of a documentary, The Class is a scripted drama written by the film's star Francois Begaudeau, adapted from a book he wrote about his own teaching experience.

Everything feels completely authentic and natural in The Class, and the acting, especially by the students, appears effortless. Although the students are French and come from a rough, multicultural neighborhood, this classroom could just as easily be in the Bronx or any other urban school setting. Watching The Class is somewhat like watching reality television, except it doesn't feel as neatly edited as what you'd see on a television show. Weirdly, it feels less scripted. The drama isn't fabricated. The conflicts aren't overblown. The sweetness isn't saccharine. And the heroism of the teachers and the administration is perfectly understated...unlike, say, Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds...the antithesis of The Class. I've not seen a better film in quite some time.

#50 - 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (2007)

If your ideal date movie is about a back-alley abortion during the mid 1980's in dark and gloomy Romania, boy, have I got a film for you! With long takes, often from a set camera position, and with scenes naturally lit (washed out), this isn't quite Speed Racer. It is, however, a compelling movie experience. Yes, some of the scenes go on for too long---especially a 10 minute scene in which a dinner is filmed from a static position and in medium close-up of the main character. I'd say I got the director's intention on that after the first four or five minutes. But there is a voyeuristic quality to the filmmaking which is not at all perverse, but rather quite intense.

Some scenes are intentionally dull and routine, just as life is more often than not. Much like The Class, nothing here seems faked for effect...even though there are some truly harrowing moments. And while a woman's attempt to arrange an illegal abortion is the central plot of the movie, the movie is really about female empowerment...and how communist states, in particular, end up oppressing women more so than men. You don't have to be pro-choice to appreciate this film. In the end, it's just not about that. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a classic art house film, but one without all the usual pretension.

Let the Right One In 8/10

The Class 10/10

4 Month, 3 Weeks and 2 Days 8/10

And here we go.

Paterson Unveils Same-Sex Marriage Bill

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday announced that he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, drawing on the soaring oratory of the civil rights movement to call on the Legislature to add New York to the four states that have already authorized such unions.
Comparing the status of gay men and lesbians with that of blacks, Jews, women, disabled people and other groups who were historically excluded from full political and social equality, Mr. Paterson said he would lead the movement to authorize same-sex marriage in the Empire State. “We have a crisis of leadership today,” he declared. “We’re going to fill that vacuum today.”

Genius.

Things are picking up at work and elsewhere of late, so I might not be able to keep this as updated as I'd like over the next few weeks. Still, there's always time for a good video...and this one is great.



(hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Oh, yeah...THIS mofo is guilty.

I hate to judge someone as a homicidal maniac based on their mugshot, but...I'll make an exception in Phil Spector's case.

Headline of the Day

Satan rejoins Penguins for playoffs

And no---it's not from The Onion sports section.

Apologize!

Mark Hemingway's got a post up today on The Corner in which he suggests that Kal Penn apologize for a scene from Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay in which the guards rape the detainees. Penn, who recently quit acting to join the Obama administration as a liaison to the Asian community, was an active member of Obama's campaign and is currently taking graduate-level courses at Stanford University.

Hemingway does his best to seem fair-minded by saying that Penn isn't "terribly unqualified," and that he (Hemingway) is not "reflexively anti-stoner." But here's the problem: Hemingway states that he has "ZERO" problem with the film having a satirical point of view, and that "Penn has the freedom to make whatever films he likes." So let's add this up. Penn is qualified, has the freedom to make whatever movies he likes, and Hemingway recognizes satire of "the president and how he conducted the war on terror" as "completely fair game." Now, apologize.

This seems to be a fundamental example of one of the many things wrong with the conservative movement. Penn has done nothing wrong that Hemingway can point to. Penn exercised his right to appear in a movie with a satirical point of view. He's attended graduate classes in an attempt to further his education and improve himself. And now, when faced with the opportunity to serve his country at the price of a massive salary cut, he does so. Now, apologize.

Hemingway's big beef it seems is with the characterization of our US servicemen as cartoonish rapists and homophobic thugs. This, evidently, is a line satire is not allowed to cross. Even though he freely admits "the film was going for laughs," he still insists that a lot of people "would rightfully have a problem with that." Evidently people would not rightfully have a problem with the torture and murder that actually did go on there. But, whatever. Apologize.

It's entirely possible, although unclear from his post, that Hemingway isn't taking a position on this so much as he's trying to be accommodating to those who would be offended by such a thing. Hemingway concludes his post by writing, "a simple apology from Penn might go a long way here." Let's assume, based on Hemingway's vague defense/accusation wishy-washiness, that he actually doesn't think Penn did anything wrong...and that the requested apology is simply a nice gesture. Assuming that, isn't it a more intelligent tact to explain to those who "might be" offended by this why they shouldn't be offended? And even if they have good cause to be offended, shouldn't Hemingway explain why no apology is necessary?

In the end, this is just another sloppy conservative juxtaposition of ideas. You've got an actor (Hollywood elite) who gets involved in politics after besmirching the good name of the country that gave him the freedom to make the movie he made.

Apologize.

Apologize, Hemingway.

It's good to be Bay! (and gay)

It's been a gay marriage-centric week here on BHG, but I hardly think you can blame me...what with two states granting gays the right to marry in just the last few days. This, of course, has spawned some good debate from people on both sides---"good" meaning that those opposed to gay marriage are exposed as being utterly void of any justification for their beliefs. As I've said on here and elsewhere many times before, the denial of equal rights to gays and lesbians is the only black and white issue for me. I've never heard a cogent argument against gay marriage and, believe me, I've now heard them all. With no logical argument to be made against it, I long ago came to the conclusion that those who opposed gay marriage did so on the basis of a strictly visceral reaction...a cringe, if you will. Or, as John Holbo articulately describes on Crooked Timber, it's the "ick" factor. He really nails it, I think:

They want to stop same-sex marriage as a way of sending a message of ‘ick’ to gays, and about gays. But they also don’t want to be labeled homophobes. That is, although saying ‘gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because I believe gay sex is icky’ is actually a less terrible argument than anything they’ve got – hey, it’s not flagrantly internally incoherent, it’s basically honest (I’ll wager), and who doesn’t believe that on some level people steer, morally, by emotional attraction-repulsion drive? – it’s considered embarrassing.

There are countless things which can make me cringe or go "ick." Previews for Michael Bay movies, for example. And yet, some people truly, freaking love Michael Bay movies! Hell, if memory serves, even I used to like Michael Bay movies once. But now, as somewhat of a (theoretical) film snob, there's a part of me which would be happy if Michael Bay was no longer allowed to make movies or show them in public. If this was a ballot initiative in a bizzarro universe where such things are actually voted upon, I might even vote for it based on my cringe reaction to Michael Bay. My thought process in doing so would seem sound, of course. I would rationalize that his movies are too violent...and thus contribute to an overly violent society. I would rationalize that his movies are dumbing down its audience...thus contributing to a society which might also find Jim Carrey movies funny (the next ballot initiative). And if people are watching Bad Boys II, that means they're not watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford...and that's just baaaaaad for society.

But just because you have a visceral reaction to something...just because you cringe...just because it makes you go "ick," that doesn't mean you get to use that as justification for its elimination. You don't get to vote...at least not that way. If you don't like Michael Bay films? Don't watch them. If you don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex. If you don't like Michael Bay films? Write a scathing review. If you don't like gay marriage? Be a homophobe and share your thoughts through a blog. If you don't like Michael Bay films? Try showing someone who does like them a film that puts it to shame. If you don't like gay marriage? Introduce your gay friends (if you have any) to a really hot member of the opposite sex (this won't work, but I suspect it would be only slightly less successful than trying to transform a Bay devotee into an Ingmar Bergman devotee).

The point is simple and obvious to anyone with a functioning brain: not liking something is not justification for denying it to people who do. If it is, and if that's the way you want to play it, fine. Give me your guns. Give me your Hummers. Give me your Jim Carrey and your Michael Bay. Give me your Celine Dion and your Jack Johnson. Give them to me so I can make sure those cringe-worthy things never see the light of day ever again. Give them to me so I can make sure they don't gain "legitimacy" and ruin music the way God intended it (I'm looking at you, Rick Sprinfield). Absurd, yes, but if Michael Bay can exist in the same world as Whit fucking Stillman, and if both can somehow appeal to their audiences in doing what comes natural to them, why can't straight marriage exist in the same universe as gay marriage? I'll repeat this ONE more time: YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, YOU JUST HAVE TO NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF THOSE WHO DO. You go to your megaplex. I'll go to my art house. My art house aint putting your megaplex out of business, so don't worry. Michael Bay will always trump Whit Stillman. Always.

And here's the funny thing...I'm a closeted Michael Bay fan. I'm overcompensating my hate for him to hide the dark, guilt-inducing truth...which is that I fucking loved Armageddon! I cry every time. God, that feels so good to say. It's like a weight has been lifted from my chest. I only hope my friends will understand and accept me. They probably will. They won't understand it, and they won't go see Bad Boys III with me, but they'll accept me for who I am. Because that's what we fucking humans are supposed to do.

Forecast: Partly Cloudy with a 70% chance of Gay.

4 down, 46 to go.

Vermont lawmakers legalize gay marriage

Governor's veto is rejected; state becomes 4th in U.S. to take that path

MONTPELIER, Vt. - Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The Legislature voted to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

There might be a lull before the next state falls, but it will fall. There is no going back now. This is happening, and it's happening now.

Top TV Pilots of All-Time, #7

Chaos. My list is in chaos. One of the many perils in rolling this countdown out over such a lengthy period of time is the possibility that some new pilot, heretofore unseen by me, enters the list and forces a complete and total reevaluation. I've only watched two new (to me) pilots since I started my list but, sure enough, one of them has forced its way on---and the other is missing out only by a technicality! I'll explain the latter in a future post, but...

#7 Mad Men (2007)

With only three days distance from having watched the pilot for AMC's Mad Men, I'm careful to not go crazy and push this even higher...though I'm gamely fighting against my instincts in not doing so. With Mad Men already having finished its second season, I'm definitely late to join the bandwagon which has already heaped so much deserving praise on it. It's fun to be the champion of a show early on, before everyone else discovers it, but when a show is this rich, I don't care when I jump on just so long as they don't leave me behind.

The pilot episode, titled "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes," was nominated for a whopping six Emmys and won three...including Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series, Art Direction and Cinematography. I think those three awards nicely sum up what makes the pilot so special---it's style and substance. Almost every show these days is a rehash or, if you're lucky, a re-imagining of some other archetypal show which preceded it. There's the cop drama, the medical drama, the legal drama, the supernatural drama, and so on and so forth...with each new show revisiting familiar territory in an attempt to carve out its own semi-unique niche. Rare is it when a show can explore some untold story from some unexplored time. Mad Men is one such show.

Although it's ostensibly a drama about work and family, the setting of a 1960's Madison Avenue advertising firm gives those familiar conflicts a very unfamiliar context. Without being heavy-handed, the pilot manages to organically work in issues of race, religion, and gender, all the while introducing us to our main character, Don Draper, in a way that makes him both attractive and repulsive. It's a world I've never seen, and it's mesmerizing. It's almost like looking in on the Rat Pack...if the Rat Pack had led more ordinary lives and were actual people. The pilot even manages to work its way toward a surprising reveal in its final scene, one which redefines all that had just come before.

Great casting, great concept, and great execution. There really isn't a misstep in the entire pilot. The following scene from the pilot captures a lot of that.

Blog Spotlight: The Second Pass

A few weeks ago a friend of mine, John Williams, he of the linked blog A Special Way of Being Afraid (which helped inspire my very own blog), launched a new web site called The Second Pass. It's been a labor of love for him and the result is, quite frankly, outstanding.

So what is The Second Pass all about? The short answer is books, books, and books. If you're a book lover, it's the kind of web page that should immediately become your daily portal into the literary world. In addition to well-written reviews of new books, The Second Pass---as the title suggests---also examines older books which may have been forgotten or neglected. They have a small army of reviewers to keep things fresh and constantly updated, and a blog which is updated several times a day with "features, links to noteworthy reviews published elsewhere, great opening sentences, book covers both lovely and horrific, excerpts from books we admire, “anti-blurbs,” and roundups of what’s happening on other blogs."

The page itself, as you can see below, looks as professional and as well organized as anything else out there. Web pages come and go, and it can be murder keeping them up to date and fresh when the traffic is low (as things tend to be in their infancy), so I encourage you all to check it out and spread the word if you're as impressed by it as I am. This is an independent venture and it's the kind of thing that deserves attention. It's also the kind of web page that makes for a great supplement on Sunday mornings to the New York Times. The Second Pass and a cup of coffee. Try it.



P.S. I've now added The Second Pass to my blog links on the right-hand side of this page.

Rush is running out of fingers...

...to keep this dike plugged.

Unanimous ruling: Iowa marriage no longer limited to one man, one woman

The Iowa Supreme Court this morning upheld a Polk County judge’s 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman. The ruling, viewed nationally and at home as a victory for the gay rights movement and a setback for social conservatives, means Iowa’s 5,800 gay couples can legally marry in Iowa beginning April 24. There are no residency rules for marriage in Iowa, so the rule would apply to any couple who wanted to travel to Iowa.

Three states down, 47 to go. It's going to come faster than you think, I promise. As one anonymous commenter on Andrew Sullivan wrote:

"When you take a step back and look at the basic legal argument behind these cases, the correct answer is remarkably clear. So clear, in fact, that I'm quite certain that future generations of lawyers and law students will look at these cases and wonder why it took so long for the courts to reach such an obvious conclusion, particularly in light of the extensive (and directly analogous) case law dealing with miscegenation laws and segregation. Once you accept the premise that there is nothing wrong with being gay (a premise which, I think, the vast majority of people--especially educated people like judges--accept), it becomes nearly impossible to make a principled legal argument in defense of laws that prohibit gay people from being married. It's just such an obvious and straightforward violation of equal protection."

This is a good start to an otherwise wet and dreary Friday.

I don't think that's how it works...

This nugget from Rush Limbaugh today---

“But the slobbering [over Barack Obama], the slobbering… this guy, folks I’m telling ya, if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.”

Beck the fuck off.

While Rush may be the de facto leader of the Republican party, it's entirely possible he's only the "logos" leader while Glenn Beck is the "pathos" leader. When I think of Rush Limbaugh (and I try not to) my mind doesn't typically go to his use of logic...until I watch a little of Glenn Beck. These days Beck is practically the bad cop to Limbaugh's good cop, making Limbaugh seem downright reasonable. Beck, whose recent popularity spike is in direct correlation to his increasing insanity, continually makes emotional pleas for the American people to "wake up"! He sees himself as a contemporary Howard Beale, a populist crusader who is the last man capable of seeing the "truth" about America.

The truth, according to Beck, is that we are marching not towards socialism...but instead towards fascism. I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what fascism is, of course, but he's certainly got the Leni Riefenstahl aesthetic down on his show...so I could be wrong. Now, to be fair, Beck does accuse people on both the left and the right of leading us down this dangerous road. The fact that he's only come to this realization within 2 months of Obama taking office is pure coincidence! The fact that he's only now, under Obama, comparing our society to an Orwellian nightmare is simply a case of Delayed Reaction Syndrome. Obviously.

The following video is one of his more recent outpourings of paranoid delusions, and it's a doozy. I particularly like how he begins with classic images of Nazi Germany but then later says "it's not that kind of fascism." If today's fascism is not that kind of fascism, then why show that kind of fascism? This clip is about 3 minutes long and there are so many absurdities in it that I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. It's impossible to know how much influence Beck wields, or whether he even believes half of what he's peddling to great ratings, but something tells me Beck, like Limbaugh, ends up helping the Democrats more than he hurts them. This strikes me as the kind of drivel that only serves to fire up the extreme right, and the more the extreme right is the focus of the GOP, the more likely the Democrats will retain power.



If there's one saving grace in Beck's ascent to madness, it's that it gives Shep Smith great material to work with. Smith became a bit of a hero during the presidential campaign by being an objective voice of reason on Fox...calling bullshit on things that smelled from miles away. The video below is a nice little compilation of Smith ripping on Beck. It's playful, but you certainly get a sense that Smith is embarrassed (not jealous) at Beck's popularity.

Movies #45 - #47: The Invasion, The Strangers, and W.

Much to my friend Vanessa's chagrin, it's time for more reviews of bad movies! (golf clap) She's rather adamant in her belief that there's a better use of my precious time...and she's probably right. She thinks I should be running, reading or rebuking the demons of my past. Of course, it's all these awful movies which give the appropriate context for me to fully appreciate the few good ones I do see. To put it in terms she'd more easily understand---it's like knowingly dating assholes so you can better identify the non-assholes when the right one comes along. This is like practice, Vanessa...and nobody enjoys that.

#45 - The Invasion (2007)

This remake of the classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), the third such effort, is not the total and complete failure that most critics made it out to be. It's easily the least interesting of the "Body Snatcher" movies, the final act is so preposterous and poorly done that it looks as though it was tacked on by a different director (because it was), and the editing is unnecessarily confused in a vain attempt at being artistic...BUT, as a simple sci-fi film, The Invasion succeeds at creating and sustaining genuine tension. There are more than a few creepy moments along the way and, despite its innumerable flaws, it's a decent popcorn film. Keep your expectations low and you just might find this a passable waste of your time. Might.


#46 - The Strangers (2008)

This low-budget horror film starring Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman generated a lot of good buzz early on due to a trailer which most people (not me) thought was one of the scariest previews ever made. Oddly, this is one of those movies where the horror elements were not as interesting to me as the character elements. Taking place over the course of one night, Tyler and Speedman return home from a party where she has just rejected his marriage proposal---parts of which are seen in episodic flashback. It's an interesting and adult dynamic to witness (in a slasher film) two characters who are obviously fond of one another and yet who have just reached the emotional conclusion of their relationship. It's played quietly and realistically and it almost saves the movie. In the end, however, this is essentially another installment to the torture porn genre. It feels like a Sam Peckinpah movie that's been forced to adhere to the studio's demand to "give the audience what they want." Or what they think the audience wants. In the end, it feels like the studio won.


#47 - W. (2008)

Rule number one about biopics: Wait until the person is dead, mostly dead, or at least change the person into a thinly veiled work of fiction (ala Primary Colors). Seeing the life of George W. Bush, as told through the highly subjective eyes of Oliver Stone, is downright uncomfortable. It's not a "bad" film so much as it's an unneccessary one. The story of Bush and his presidency may well be a fascinating one to tell one day, but not now. Not by Stone. And not in this way. Stone doesn't exactly tear into Bush the way one might expect him to, but his choices do seem awfully speculative and inauthentic.

For example, while Bush was famous for his many fumbles with the English language, he certainly didn't always sound like a complete and total neanderthal...yet Stone delights in recreating almost every famous flub Bush ever spoke...giving the illusion of someone far stupider than they actually were. The ensemble cast does its thankless job of mimicking the cabinet reasonably well...particularly Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney and Thandie Newton, unrecognizable as Condy. Even if you're a political junkie like me, I'd skip this. The annoted notes section in the Blu-Ray extras was far more interesting.

The Invasion 5/10
The Strangers 5/10
W. 4/10