22 January 2016
The 2015 Oscars, much like those of 2014, have not nominated any blacks (or, save Inarritu, minorities) in any categories. While black groups are acting on this with boycotts and editorials, the primary social presence is via the #OscarsSoWhite hashtag. This is on its face a statistical oddity, so what representation would we expect based on the racial makeup of the US? The Wikipedia article on this, excluding measurements of mixed race, provides several groups of slightly different percentages. The first group comes from the article header representing census numbers, the second from the section on racial makeup representing estimates:
- White - 62.6%
- Hispanic (ethnic) - 17.1%
- Black (race) - 13.2%
- Other - 7.1% (remainder from the above)
- White - 63.0% (2012 est.)
- Black - 16.3% (2014 est.)
- Hispanic - 14.1% (2012 est.)
- Asian - 4.4% (2008 est.)
- Other - 1.2% (remainder from the above)
Going with these numbers, we are ignoring actual minority participation in the acting community (i.e. there are probably no Quaker bankers, few white rappers, etc.), barrier to entry (here's where racism comes in to play), and representation in high-quality and possibly well-financed films (if there is a ghettoization of a minority, participation and support of projects becomes extremely problematic). Also, and perhaps more importantly, we are assuming that artistic skill is distributed evenly across humans no matter the race or ethnicity (or gender or left-handedness, etc.). Given that best and supporting actor and actress categories have five nominations each, any racial or ethnic minority would need 20% of the population to make a slot statistically representative (I suck at statistics; are there issues with this logic?). Blacks and Hispanics are under that 20% margin, but not by too much. Suspicious?
Related: there has been some grousing regarding non-transgendered (cisgendered) actors getting transgendered roles. I have not read enough of the articles/editorials to provide a good summary, but Jared Leto is probably going to win an Oscar tonight, and I feel weird about it (updated) from two years ago gets close to the group gestalt. Simply: it's an insider complaining that a dramatic representation is not as faithful as it could be. Complications arise when the insider status coincides with deep prejudice from society and the oft-correlated ignorance that begets prejudice. More even than racism, I'm treading into dangerous waters here.
As a relatively well-informed musician and a long-time industry software developer, I know from imprecise dramatic liberties. Many example exist; some are egregious; most are harmless. The getting-it-right is satisfying to see, but art is suggestion and generally not encyclopedic. A good writer can hit key points and work around that they don't know the difference between F# and Gb or how EBCDIC is related to ASCII.
With that in mind, I dislike the assumption that like must play like. Writers and actors research in an attempt to portray the diversity of human nature by having the full of humanity in their palette. Many don't succeed; some don't spectacularly; most are harmless. When you've seen a good actor in two roles in diametric opposition and embody them to their fullest, it's difficult to want to make typecasting a requirement. We constantly accept that French characters only ever speak to other French people with a French accent, and accept that the actor is not actually French. When did actor-to-role authenticity become mandatory?
Conversely: is man-playing-woman ever acceptable? Or--and here's the real icky part--is white playing black ever acceptable? Is this the same as cis-playing-trans?
9 January 2016
What excesses happened in December?
Movies: We started with Krampus [ 3/5 | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes ] on Sunday the 6th to remember the reason for the season. A goofy, garish horror flick that re-frames X-mas in the same way that any recent Grimms' stories attempt to honor the source material. Watch if you like Evil Dead or Rare Exports (another seasonal flick) or maybe Troll Hunters (haven't seen tho). End of the month was of course Star Wars: The Force Awakens [ 5/5 | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes ]. We went Sunday the 20th and revisited Saturday the 26th. I was surprised that for all the flaws, it was still so emotional. I didn't have a big problem with the many dramatic parallels it has to the original movie. With the time that's passed, the re-emergence of the original actors, and the purge of George Lucas, calling back to the 1977 original felt a useful touch to clean the slate. Tarantino's 8th, The Hateful Eight [ 4/5 | IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes ] was a couple of days later on Monday at Atlantic Station during the 100-city tour with 70 mm film projectors and surprise guest Walton Goggins to introduce. Jennifer Jason Leigh's and Goggins' characters were the absolute best and worth a rewatch just to see their performances again. The 70 mm was impressive and reminded me of watching the re-mastered Lawrence of Arabia last April at Landmark. Next up: more violence with The Revenant at Lafont in Sandy Springs.
Childhood obsession I found a few years back when cleaning out my parents' house.
A gift from Lisa!
Music: Friday the 18th was Yacht Rock Revue's 70s Holiday Party at Venkman's. Not much X-mas music but lots of AM fabulousness with the musicians dressed as Star Wars stormtroopers. New Year's Day +1 we went with a co-worker and friends to Smith's Olde Bar to see Puddles Pity Party to continue the 70s theme of YRR. We first saw him by chance at The Goat Farm for a Halloween party in 2014 where he performed in front of a huge screen projecting video from a drone that was flying around the stage. It broke our brains with craziness and was as enjoyable a second time. Schmaltz pop songs performed by a sad clown with a booming tenor voice. Is he respecting the songs or mocking them as if channeling a McSweeney's detachment? Or is this the apotheosis of karaoke (or American Idol) with concerts consisting of a singer singing covers against a pre-recorded backing band? Cf. also Peaches etc. singing originals against a sequencer or Girl Talk etc. performing with a laptop. Next up: more cover songs with Yacht Rock Review performing a Led Zeppelin vs. The Who battle of the bands tonight at Venkman's.
Jeff Lynne battles the force
Events: my first company holiday party Friday the 11th at the CFO's house/mansion in Buckhead. Wine at the basement bar/piano lounge and food from the ginormous food truck out back. Our Uber driver said that Tyler Perry lives nearby but we never saw him. X-mas proper in Knoxville with Too Much Good Food. NYE proper at Gun Show for the second year in a row with more Too Much Good Food. Next up: dieting.
7 November 2015
A month or so ago I came across references to an early 70s vampire exploitation movie called, simply enough, Female Vampire. The director, Jess Franco, is noted for his voluminous output of trash/exploitation horror and a distinctive style as a director. His x-rated output kept him from the mainstream but his work still drew some respect for the occasional gems. I just watched three early films, each wildly unique.
The review over at At the Mansion of Madness got me started on this journey. The story involves a mute Countess Irina Karlstein (Lina Romay) cursed by her family heritage to suck the, ahem, life force from people without ever finding happiness. Absent the many softcore porn scenes, the mood is very static, moody Gothic horror. Notable are the scenes as Irina walks the foggy landscape of the island of Madeira, often with the specters of her victims, as if it were a half-world or purgatory. The blog review above points out that the story has links to a female vampire tale from 1872, 26 years before Dracula, called Carmilla. Side note: underground cinema can produce many versions of a movie with alternate cuts and re-releases. Female Vampire has quite a list of AKAs, a few of the English titles are: Bare Breasted Countess, Sicarius - the Midnight Party, The Black Countess, The Last Thrill, The Loves of Irina, and Erotikill.
[ updated 16 Jan 2016 ]
Countess Irina Karlstein is a reference to the Karnstein family in Hammer Films' The Karnstein Trilogy. These consist of The Vampire Lovers (1970, based on Carmilla), Lust for a Vampire (1971), and Twins of Evil (1971).
Wow. After Lina Romay's vampire I was unprepared for the strong references to David Lynch's Lost Highway, Fellini's La Dolce Vita, and Jean Luc Goddard's Pierrot le Fou (the latter two probably were being referenced). The story: the lead performer (Janine Reynaud, who we'll also see in the 3rd movie) in a sado-masochistic stage show slips into visions of a past life or, possibly, visions implanted by an unscrupulous psychiatrist (?). It is at times impenetrable with its shift in scenes and what I take to be an unreliable narrator in the lead, who often does not remember who she is talking to. Weird and engaging. Original title: Necronomicon - Geträumte Sünden (Dreamt Sins).
This was just crazy, stupid fun. Two freelance detective sex-pots groove their way in and out of nightclubs hunting for a deranged art killer. The level of silliness cannot be overstated. I felt I was watching a live action Scooby Doo or somesuch, but a review over at 1000 Misspent Hours and Counting pointed out that Franco described it in an interview on one of the DVD releases as
What if Abbott and Costello had made a parody of Judex or Fantomas and what if that somebody replaced Abbott and Costello with a pair of sexy lesbians? Yep. Notable: Morpho the hairy faced female assistant to the killer, the crazy masked lady that appears periodically, and the constant slapstick antics. Whaa? Preceded by Labios rojos (1960) and followed by Küss mich, Monster (1969). I know what's next on my list. Original title: Rote Lippen, Sadisterotica (Red Lips, Sadisterotica).
4 November 2015
A month and a half ago, a story was published about Exxon's internal climate scientists warning executives of the certainty of anthropocentric climate change back in 1977. The scientist's report included statements such as the
general scientific agreement that it is human-caused, the risk of
agricultural output reduced or destroyed, and that
man has a time window of five to ten years before hard decisions might become critical. Further studies conducted by their scientists reported that
there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. Ten years later, Exxon stopped funding climate research and started funding climate change denial in the form of public reporting and federal lobbying.
I'd learned of this story from On The Media the weekend after it was published. On that show, they summarized the report and confronted Exxon's Senior Adviser for Global Public Affairs with aggressive questioning (eliciting, naturally, no answers). Since its publication, I expected it to be discussed more in the public sphere than it has. Here's a timeline of what I see as key articles:
- 15 Sep 2015 - Exxon: The Road Not Taken (from InsideClimate News) - This is the original reporting.
- 18 Sep 2015 - Exxon's History of Climate Change Research (from On The Media) - OTM's interview with one of the authors of the ICN article.
- 18 Sep 2015 - Exxon Responds to InsideClimate News (from On The Media) - OTM's Bob Garfield grills Exxon's Richard Keil about their culpability.
- 26 Oct 2015 - Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago (from Scientific American) - SA reviews the evidence a month after-the-fact and finds Exxon's present-day denials echo their earlier ones.
- 27 Oct 2015 - It's Always Exxon's Fault (from The Wall Street Journal) - A counter-punch from climate change deniers. Look at this for a blueprint of how doubts will be cast on the ICN assertions. FUD.
4 October 2015
We're back in that cycle of a post-mass-shooting where some struggle or denounce, faux heroically, naming the shooter. The logic is that the shooter wanted attention and, by getting it, will spur on other potential shooters who want attention. The Wikipedia article, Umpqua Community College shooting, gets over with it in the second sentence by naming Christopher Harper-Mercer. Facts are facts, whether you choose to suppress them or not.
The Reddit post, This just happened on CNN..., is a prime example of the do-not-name camp. It includes a video from CNN with a clip of the local sheriff refusing to name the shooter, followed by the reporter naming him. Reddit's opinion as represented by the multi-thousand up-voted comments, several of which were given gold, is that this is an example of media hypocrisy (how?), irresponsibility, arrogance (again, how?), and blood lust (what?). Reddit rarely shocks me with large subreddit, highly up-voted posts going completely opposite to my opinion. However, others who I respect, notably Charlie Brooker back in 2009, also disagree with me.
On The Media, regarding the 2012 Aurora shooting, discussed the issue in the segment Don't Say His Name. Interviewing the father of a victim who is part of a group trying to get media outlets to hide shooters' names, Bob Garfield cites the five Ws as a basic tenant of reporting. The exceptions to reporting "who" are usually (always?) that of rape victims or minors. That is: the assaulted, innocent survivors receive the solace of anonymity.
To hide facts of a car chase or the oft romanticized bank robbery or a home invasion or mass shooting based on the fear that there is someone who will then want to replicate it takes us into a labyrinth of reactively filtered speech. It proposes to remove information from the news if it might trigger any imbalanced fetish out there. That, ultimately, reduces the well-informed-ness of the public.