One of my favorite genres is the mockumentary, where it all looks so real, but the whole thing clearly isn't. Bruno brings us the latest incarnation of this often hilarious subgenre. So, I've decided to compile a list of top notch entertainment for you to check out if Bruno's got you in the mood (for watching mockumentaries...not the other thing):
5. Borat - This one is quite the enigma. The character of Borat isn't real, but the situations he finds himself in are certainly very real. It's genius the way Sasha Baron Cohen was able to focus on America's xenophobia while at the same time making us guffaw like jabbering foreign idiots who need to stay out of my country (poor attempt at satire here. Cohen much better at it.) The movie makes the uncomfortable hilarious, and it features the funniest balls out nude fight scene in the history of cinema. Bonus points as the movie that got Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock to split up. Now, if only the National Guard would stop asking him to do music videos, we could be rid of him once and for all. Memorable line: "You telling me the man who try to put a rubber fist in my anus was a homosexual?"
4. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon - If you are a fan of horror, then you have to check this one out. Go rent it right now. It's a unique horror comedy mockumentary that will actually have moments to scare you. The film is about a documentary crew following around Leslie Vernon, a fun loving serial killer who is trying to set up the night he'll be famous as a group of teenagers are set to spend the night at an abandoned house. The first hour tears down the conventions of slasher films with sly comedy and consistent winks to the comedy. Then, the documentary turns into a straight up horror film with tons of scares as the crew tries to save the teens. It's too bad that this one didn't make it in theaters, because a lot of people missed out on something truly different. Memorable line: "What kind of a survivor girl passes out in a pinch?" "Passes out? What kind of survivor girl hops on the nerdy kid's johnson like it's a pogo stick? "
3. Zelig - Woody Allen's hilarious mockumentary centers around a man who is known as the human chameleon. He takes the form of whoever he's around and can slip into just about any situation. It is a poignant study into what is human identity with the great Allen humor that you saw in Sleeper and Bananas. Also, Allen wanted to get the look of old film so much that he took his footage and through it into a bathtub where his crew would stomp on the film to give it that old look. That's dedication to art. Memorable Line: "My deepest apology goes to the Trochman family in Detroit. I...I never delivered a baby before in my life, and I... I just thought that ice tongs was the way to do it."
2. Best in Show - My mother was embarrassed when we saw this in theaters together, because I couldn't stop laughing. When I fell into the aisle after Fred Willard, as a clueless announcer who knew nothing about dog shows, delivered a line, I felt like she was going to walk out. This is exactly what makes a great mockumentary. There is a story hidden within the funny improvisation that makes you care about the characters while milk shoots out your nose (Word of warning: Do not drink milk while watching). This is my favorite of the Christopher Guest improv style movies. Memorable line: Anything said by Fred Willard. Here's a sampling: "And to think that in some countries these dogs are eaten."
1. This is Spinal Tap - The granddaddy of them all, and still the king of comedy. The exploits of an over the hill metal band trying to return to greatness never gets old. Musicians still watch this film and are amazed at how accurate the film hits the problem of touring. The film has so many memorable scenes (Harry Shearer with the cucumber down his pants, Christopher Guest showing off his amp that goes to 11, getting lost while trying to find the stage, etc.). It's clear to see where the style came from and how today's mockumentaries are still heavily influenced by this one. If you haven't seen it and want to still be called an American, then check this one out. Memorable line: (a line I still live by) "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
Friday, July 10, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Summer 2009 So Far
This blog is just a quick update on my opinions of the movies of the summer of 2009 so far. Then, I will do my best to bring you at least one movie a week. I've categorized the movies into five different categories:
100% PURE JOY: Just like the name suggests, these movies were awesome. I wanted to see them again the moment I left the theater. The cream of the crop.
Star Trek - This movie worked for one reason and one reason only: strong characters. Despite the flaws, this reboot of Star Trek was one of the finest pieces of sci fi filmmaking. It didn't spend tons of time on effects but focused on building the characters and even supplying a decent story to root for them. J.J. Abrams should reboot every franchise.
Up - I cried during the first ten minutes of the movie. The opening is an emotional tour de force that does it all without uttering a single word. Then the rest of the movie gets going and never lets you down. Pixar remembers that movies are only about spectacle. Themes, characters, and storytelling are the important parts to a fine motion picture.
The Hangover - The funniest movie of the year so far. And it does it without having an idiot character scream lines at the top of his lungs (I'm looking at you, Jack Black and Adam Sandler). The comedy is smart, raunchy, and always hilarious. And Zach Galifinakis is one of the finest comedy performers out there. His character easily could've been botched in the wrong hands but he brings something human and funny to it.
MADE ME SMILE: I liked these movies. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but were entertaining, and I had a smile on my face.
The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 - The first 80 minutes of this remake is solid filmmaking. Tony Scott can put a thriller together. And Denzel is always fun to watch. The tense moments between him and Travolta are sublime. Then, Denzel heads into the tunnel and (pardon the pun) the film derails. Another example of a solid movie ruined by a lackluster ending.
COULD'VE BEEN WORSE: These are the movies that were okay. They could've stunk up the theater, but someone realized that if you put it in an odor controlling trash bag, well, it's not too bad.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - I didn't like the first one too much, but this one had more imagination and funnier moments than the first. Plus Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are wonderful. It's too bad Ben Stiller was in it, since he really landed his lines with a thud. Also, some jokes were a little too juvenile for my tastes.
Imagine That - Not a good movie, but it did offer something I hadn't seen in a while. It focused so much on imagination that it never showed you the wonderful world that the lead girl was dreaming of. It stayed grounded in reality and let us enjoy the visuals in our heads. Anything that speaks to children in the importance of imagination without flashy visuals is a solid effort in my book.
The Proposal - An example of an unoriginal, stupid script made better by the chemistry of the two leads. Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds were great together. If only they weren't saddled with this script.
BITTER AFTER TASTE: Like drinking bad beer, these movies were not good. But they aren't the worse.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - There were too many characters and too many special effects that eventually you forget what made the first two X-Men great. Any movie that removes the charm and fun from Wolverine is a failure in my book.
Angels and Demons - It was supposed to be more exciting than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't see how they did that. Dull, convoluted, and the twist ending felt tagged on (though it worked in the novel). Dan Brown's books are better read than seen.
Land of the Lost - I'm not sure what failed here. We had some great comic actors and a bit of nostalgia. I think they took a fun childhood memory and turned into crude adult gags that felt like it was in the wrong movie. Also Will Ferrell schtick is starting to get real old.
Year One - Surprised this one came from Harold Ramis. Intelligent satiric jokes are completely undone by silly gross out humor. You want funny religious comedy, see Life of Brian. You want funny gross out history jokes, see History of the World Part 1. Don't see this.
PROOF HOLLYWOOD IS TRYING TO KILL ME: The movies that made me angry when I left the theater.
Terminator Salvation - Towards the end of the movie, we get John Connor setting up a trap as You Could Be Mine by GNR plays. All it does is remind of us T2, and how much better a movie that was. The action is so mechanic, the characters so dead eyed, and at no time do you feel like this is the John Connor who is supposed to be our savior. The movie is dull despite the plethora of explosions and chases. McG forgot what made T2 great: characters we cared about. The effects were just window dressing.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Michael Bay shows us what he thinks of us. No need for strong characters or real human emotions. We just want robots transforming and fighting. But when we don't get that, we have to endure the uninteresting Megan Fox and the spastic "hero" Shia Lebouf. Also, the humor in this film made me feel like I was watching bad hacky open mic comedy. I want more than just effects. I want good storytelling.
100% PURE JOY: Just like the name suggests, these movies were awesome. I wanted to see them again the moment I left the theater. The cream of the crop.
Star Trek - This movie worked for one reason and one reason only: strong characters. Despite the flaws, this reboot of Star Trek was one of the finest pieces of sci fi filmmaking. It didn't spend tons of time on effects but focused on building the characters and even supplying a decent story to root for them. J.J. Abrams should reboot every franchise.
Up - I cried during the first ten minutes of the movie. The opening is an emotional tour de force that does it all without uttering a single word. Then the rest of the movie gets going and never lets you down. Pixar remembers that movies are only about spectacle. Themes, characters, and storytelling are the important parts to a fine motion picture.
The Hangover - The funniest movie of the year so far. And it does it without having an idiot character scream lines at the top of his lungs (I'm looking at you, Jack Black and Adam Sandler). The comedy is smart, raunchy, and always hilarious. And Zach Galifinakis is one of the finest comedy performers out there. His character easily could've been botched in the wrong hands but he brings something human and funny to it.
MADE ME SMILE: I liked these movies. They weren't the best I've ever seen, but were entertaining, and I had a smile on my face.
The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3 - The first 80 minutes of this remake is solid filmmaking. Tony Scott can put a thriller together. And Denzel is always fun to watch. The tense moments between him and Travolta are sublime. Then, Denzel heads into the tunnel and (pardon the pun) the film derails. Another example of a solid movie ruined by a lackluster ending.
COULD'VE BEEN WORSE: These are the movies that were okay. They could've stunk up the theater, but someone realized that if you put it in an odor controlling trash bag, well, it's not too bad.
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - I didn't like the first one too much, but this one had more imagination and funnier moments than the first. Plus Amy Adams and Hank Azaria are wonderful. It's too bad Ben Stiller was in it, since he really landed his lines with a thud. Also, some jokes were a little too juvenile for my tastes.
Imagine That - Not a good movie, but it did offer something I hadn't seen in a while. It focused so much on imagination that it never showed you the wonderful world that the lead girl was dreaming of. It stayed grounded in reality and let us enjoy the visuals in our heads. Anything that speaks to children in the importance of imagination without flashy visuals is a solid effort in my book.
The Proposal - An example of an unoriginal, stupid script made better by the chemistry of the two leads. Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds were great together. If only they weren't saddled with this script.
BITTER AFTER TASTE: Like drinking bad beer, these movies were not good. But they aren't the worse.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine - There were too many characters and too many special effects that eventually you forget what made the first two X-Men great. Any movie that removes the charm and fun from Wolverine is a failure in my book.
Angels and Demons - It was supposed to be more exciting than The Da Vinci Code, but I don't see how they did that. Dull, convoluted, and the twist ending felt tagged on (though it worked in the novel). Dan Brown's books are better read than seen.
Land of the Lost - I'm not sure what failed here. We had some great comic actors and a bit of nostalgia. I think they took a fun childhood memory and turned into crude adult gags that felt like it was in the wrong movie. Also Will Ferrell schtick is starting to get real old.
Year One - Surprised this one came from Harold Ramis. Intelligent satiric jokes are completely undone by silly gross out humor. You want funny religious comedy, see Life of Brian. You want funny gross out history jokes, see History of the World Part 1. Don't see this.
PROOF HOLLYWOOD IS TRYING TO KILL ME: The movies that made me angry when I left the theater.
Terminator Salvation - Towards the end of the movie, we get John Connor setting up a trap as You Could Be Mine by GNR plays. All it does is remind of us T2, and how much better a movie that was. The action is so mechanic, the characters so dead eyed, and at no time do you feel like this is the John Connor who is supposed to be our savior. The movie is dull despite the plethora of explosions and chases. McG forgot what made T2 great: characters we cared about. The effects were just window dressing.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Michael Bay shows us what he thinks of us. No need for strong characters or real human emotions. We just want robots transforming and fighting. But when we don't get that, we have to endure the uninteresting Megan Fox and the spastic "hero" Shia Lebouf. Also, the humor in this film made me feel like I was watching bad hacky open mic comedy. I want more than just effects. I want good storytelling.
STOPPING THE GREEN LIGHT
If there's one guy in my life I would like to meet, it would be the genius who has greenlit the movies over the last year or so. On paper, these ideas are absolutely, positively, undoubtedly, (and a host of other adverbs) the dumbest ideas in pop culture entertainment. Perhaps, when the movie comes out, we will be viewing the next Godfather, or at least, the next Batman Forever (a bottom of the barrel movie that at least gives you a few smiles). But for now, they seem like cruel jokes about to be unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace.
Monopoly - I have been discussing this movie quite frequently in my comedy sets. The main problem is that this movie is being produced, and possibly, directed by Ridley Scott. Now, this isn't some up and coming hotshot director named Ridley Scott. No, I'm referring to the director of Blade Runner, Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Alien, etc. This man has a resume that screams "Don't make a live action adaptation of the board game Monopoly." But alas, Ridley has chosen not to listen to his old pal, his resume. So, the question is: How do you make such a film? The only solution to stay true to the game itself is have a movie that is over 8 hours long and doesn't necessarily end, just has the actors getting bored and deciding to quit.
And, of course, we need the gritty Ridley Scott style prison sequence:
Inmate 1: What are you in for?
Inmate 2: Rape, murder. What about you?
Inmate 1: They busted me for rolling doubles three times in a row. It's all bullshit, though, it's because I'm a thimble. My lawyer says I can get out for fifty bucks, but fuck that. Rolling doubles got me in here, rolling doubles gonna bust me out.
The thing here is that no one learned from the uber-failure that was Clue. (Do you remember Clue? 1986? Three different endings? Only funny if you are either high or had parts of your brain removed for medical purposes?) We should be learning from the past, and the guy who greenlit this film obviously only goes back as far as 1987 (reason why we haven't had a Loverboy remake). But I wonder if he's the guy who greenlit:
Clue - Yes, they have decided to remake Clue. Well, it's not really a remake, or a reimagining or a reboot or any other creative way to use the prefix re. Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean, The Ring) has signed on to bring a live action adaptation of the board game Clue, and never once mentions the 1986 film. And the plan is to have the film be about detectives involved in a world wide mystery which is NOTHING LIKE THE GAME OF CLUE. I don't think Gore has ever played the game before. He's heard of the game Clue and just assumed that this is what it was about. Ridley's doing the same thing by the way, as Monopoly is going to be about the current recession. Next, we'll get a movie based on Risk about investing in real estate or a movie about people who try to figure out what kind of Asian you really are called Chinese Checkers.
Total Recall - Remakes are nothing new. Easier to come up with an old idea rather than a new one. But is it necessary to remake films that are not really that old? The producers have stated that they are remaking this film because the technology is so much better now. I told several people about this remake and not a single person asked me if the visual effects are going to be better. They all asked, "Will the chick with three boobs be in it?" Thus, the only reason to get this movie remade would be if the Three Tit Technology has improved (It hasn't).
Asteroids - I applaud the guy who put this out there, because it created a four way bidding war which Universal ultimately won (though I wouldn't really call it a win). You remember Asteroids? It was the game in the arcade in the 80's that didn't have mobs of people surrounding because it was the dullest game to watch someone play. It started with a ship in the middle of the asteroid field that has to blast away all the asteroids so that the ship can end up in the middle of another asteroid field. The only suspense occurred when someone accidentally hits the thrust button causing the ship to spin out of control (since there wasn't a stop button) until you reached the edge of the asteroid field leading you to the other side of the asteroid field. With these scenarios, the only possible dialogue in the script would be:
Crew: (in unison) Oh, shit!
Hollywood, it's time to fire this green light guy and find someone who is more tuned into original, fun storytelling. Someone should promote the guy who approved of The Hangover being made. Also, whoever green lights those Pixar movies should be given a position in Obama's cabinet (The Secretary of Not Sucking?).
Of course, we can't blame the green light guy. We go see the movies because we get all jolted by the hype machine. And we are eagerly awaiting plans for Tim Burton's Dig Dug starring Johnny Depp in overalls and using a bicycle pump to blow up a dragon played by Helena Bonham Carter.
Monopoly - I have been discussing this movie quite frequently in my comedy sets. The main problem is that this movie is being produced, and possibly, directed by Ridley Scott. Now, this isn't some up and coming hotshot director named Ridley Scott. No, I'm referring to the director of Blade Runner, Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Alien, etc. This man has a resume that screams "Don't make a live action adaptation of the board game Monopoly." But alas, Ridley has chosen not to listen to his old pal, his resume. So, the question is: How do you make such a film? The only solution to stay true to the game itself is have a movie that is over 8 hours long and doesn't necessarily end, just has the actors getting bored and deciding to quit.
And, of course, we need the gritty Ridley Scott style prison sequence:
Inmate 1: What are you in for?
Inmate 2: Rape, murder. What about you?
Inmate 1: They busted me for rolling doubles three times in a row. It's all bullshit, though, it's because I'm a thimble. My lawyer says I can get out for fifty bucks, but fuck that. Rolling doubles got me in here, rolling doubles gonna bust me out.
The thing here is that no one learned from the uber-failure that was Clue. (Do you remember Clue? 1986? Three different endings? Only funny if you are either high or had parts of your brain removed for medical purposes?) We should be learning from the past, and the guy who greenlit this film obviously only goes back as far as 1987 (reason why we haven't had a Loverboy remake). But I wonder if he's the guy who greenlit:
Clue - Yes, they have decided to remake Clue. Well, it's not really a remake, or a reimagining or a reboot or any other creative way to use the prefix re. Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean, The Ring) has signed on to bring a live action adaptation of the board game Clue, and never once mentions the 1986 film. And the plan is to have the film be about detectives involved in a world wide mystery which is NOTHING LIKE THE GAME OF CLUE. I don't think Gore has ever played the game before. He's heard of the game Clue and just assumed that this is what it was about. Ridley's doing the same thing by the way, as Monopoly is going to be about the current recession. Next, we'll get a movie based on Risk about investing in real estate or a movie about people who try to figure out what kind of Asian you really are called Chinese Checkers.
Total Recall - Remakes are nothing new. Easier to come up with an old idea rather than a new one. But is it necessary to remake films that are not really that old? The producers have stated that they are remaking this film because the technology is so much better now. I told several people about this remake and not a single person asked me if the visual effects are going to be better. They all asked, "Will the chick with three boobs be in it?" Thus, the only reason to get this movie remade would be if the Three Tit Technology has improved (It hasn't).
Asteroids - I applaud the guy who put this out there, because it created a four way bidding war which Universal ultimately won (though I wouldn't really call it a win). You remember Asteroids? It was the game in the arcade in the 80's that didn't have mobs of people surrounding because it was the dullest game to watch someone play. It started with a ship in the middle of the asteroid field that has to blast away all the asteroids so that the ship can end up in the middle of another asteroid field. The only suspense occurred when someone accidentally hits the thrust button causing the ship to spin out of control (since there wasn't a stop button) until you reached the edge of the asteroid field leading you to the other side of the asteroid field. With these scenarios, the only possible dialogue in the script would be:
Crew: (in unison) Oh, shit!
Hollywood, it's time to fire this green light guy and find someone who is more tuned into original, fun storytelling. Someone should promote the guy who approved of The Hangover being made. Also, whoever green lights those Pixar movies should be given a position in Obama's cabinet (The Secretary of Not Sucking?).
Of course, we can't blame the green light guy. We go see the movies because we get all jolted by the hype machine. And we are eagerly awaiting plans for Tim Burton's Dig Dug starring Johnny Depp in overalls and using a bicycle pump to blow up a dragon played by Helena Bonham Carter.
THAT'S A GREAT TITLE! NO, IT ISN'T YOU DUMB BITCH!
One of the greatest debates that permeated the annals of history was, of course, Abraham Lincoln vs. Stephen Douglas. It was a series of seven debates where then Republican Lincoln was battling incumbent Illinois democrat senator Stehpen Douglas for the Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate. Lincoln ultimately did not win the seat, but these highly publicized debates help secure his spot in the 1860 election. The debates were an oratory masterpiece that showed intelligence and well documented research to successfully shown two sides of the dangerous coin known as slavery. It was smart and helped careers. At no time during this debate did Lincoln call Douglas's mother a whore nor did Douglas call Lincoln a tall shit-eating butt pirate.
I bring this debate up because I was involved in what is best described as the modern venue for debates, an internet message board. I've never really gotten involved with one of these things, I have heard tales of hardship and great pain as people use it as a forum to spout out words of hate and call various dissidents faggots. But I felt it was something that could have a reasonable debate over the merits of comedy and free speech. I am talking of the Sarah Palin/David Letterman feud. Now, full disclosure, I don't care for Sarah Palin. She seems to be the exact opposite of what the Republican party should be throwing there hopes and dreams upon. I also don't think Letterman is funny or even relevant anymore. Ever since the Academy Award Uma/Oprah fiasco, I haven't really been on board. Not saying I like Leno, or even Jimmy Kimmel. Talk shows tend to bore me. I will always turn off the Daily Show when Jon Stewart gets to a-interviewin'. These are two people who have seen the spotlight start to go down and suddenly, a random joke throws a bright sun on their celebrity, and both sides ran with it as a grab to get ratings and attention. Pure and simple.
Thus, I got involved online because I felt that it was a silly debate that was open and shut. The joke, at its basest level, said that Palin's visit to the Yankee game got a little uncomfortable when during the seven inning stretch, Palin's daughter got knocked up by A-Rod. A reasonably funny joke if you understood that the joke was about Bristol. But, Sarah, in a masterstroke of marketing, quickly decried the joke was about Willow and caused a pointless firestorm. The thread was calling for Letterman to be fired, while the other side was calling for Palin to just go away. I got involved, mainly because I saw it as an attack on comedy, something I love dearly.
Now, this is all set up. I don't want to debate the merits of either side for this piece. I want to get into what truly upset me about this debate on this thread which took an embarrassing week out of my time. It started out with me making statements to show how Palin and Letterman was using this media storm to get some needed attention. I didn't feel either side really cared that much about the issue. I thought the joke was funny and that I clearly knew that it was Bristol and not Willow that was the brunt of the joke. Actually, for all technical purposes, A-Rod was the brunt of that joke but since he didn't come out protesting, I chose to not focus on him. Someone sarcastically (I assume it was, hard to tell with just text on a screen) made the comment that they assumed that I am so great and that they hoped no one dragged my good name through the mud with jokes about you in public. And then, I made the worse possible response. I said, "I'm a comedian, I would love anyone to be talking about me in public." The next three comments where "Well, maybe if you were funny, people would talk about you." Now, seeing as how I never used my full name, just some initials, I thought that it was a bit ridiculous that people had made a fair assessment of my act. So, I asked, "How do you know if I'm funny or not." I received several more comments (all from people on the thread with an opposing point of view on the matter) that I wasn't funny in any of my comments. I called that thinking ridiculous as I was having a serious debate and wasn't using the medium to tell jokes. Thus, by that thinking, if I had said I was a doctor, no one would think I was a good doctor because I didn't ask anyone to cough in my thread. Response from that comment. Zero.
I was appalled but then I realized that I could've been funny, and it wouldn't have mattered. The only proper response to logic and reason is emotion and ridicule. I'm not saying my way of thinking is the right way of thinking. I'm just saying that I wasn't going to insult you as my way of arguing a point. But as I continued on with the discussion, people threw insults at me as if that proved their points. I was a liar, an idiot, a retard, a baby raper, and my personal favorite, a liberal degenerate who would sell his mother to Iraq for some good hashish. Now, my character ended up getting attacked for no other reason that I had an opposing viewpoint. What? And it wasn't like the other side couldn't get some good points in if they wanted to. I actually started to argue with myself. If I made a point, I showed how the opposing point could've responded, with no character attacks. I ended up helping the other side, but alas neither of my sides were read too much, mainly because I never once used the word douchebag. I stated that you've lost the argument once you've insulted me. This led to more insults. Cocksucker (though to be honest it was C**ksucker, don't want any profanity on this thread), faggot, dirtface, socialist, and a Christian Conservative even blamed my disbelief in God as reason for my hatred and lack of being open about other people's ideas. Not to mention the multitude of times I was called an idiot. At one point, I had to explain why Obama's health care plan was not an impeachable offense. Why David Letterman was not a pervy old man who wants to rape as many children that he could get his claws on to? And how a joke is exaggeration with a little bit of truth, but alas not the 100% truth?
And it's not the people's fault. If you look toward the Rush Limbaugh's, the Bill O'Reilly's, the Keith Olbermann's, the Al Franken's. Insults have replaced ideas and themes. Because insults make money, not prove to be great argumentative tools. And the masses are fooled into thinking that Bill or Al or Keith actually care about us. And therefore if it works for them, hey, it could work for us. The insult as argument just doesn't hold water. And the fact is that this idea of being heard by being the loudest and the meanest is downright scary. We won't care about facts or truth, we just want the bitch fight.
The only thing that was cool from this thing was that one of the opposing viewpoints chided another poster that was on his side. The poster called me a retard and the other guy said, "Hey, there's no reason for personal attacks." It made me think I made a little ripple of change within comments about Obama not being a natural born citizen and comments about how Todd Palin eats babies.
I believe there was a time when we were smart. As a people, I think that we took things at face value and understood the difference between truth and fiction. But then again, I believe those times because of what I've seen in historical epics. So, perhaps we have always been collective idiots. It's just now, thanks to the internet, those voices get heard rapidly without need for thought or reference. After all, everyone was just throwing out facts willy nilly on the thread, even though it was obvious that we were on the internet and all we had to do was look it up. (Which I did several times, including learning that Willow wasn't even at the Yankee game despite Sarah Palin saying she was.) And because fact checking can happen so quickly, the made up stuff is still thrown out there without any regard to being called out. One guy said that he thought it was a joke about Willow because he knew Willow was at the ball game. When another threader started posting links to articles all over the internet that never said she was there, the original poster started posting his own articles he found. Articles that confirmed that Willow was in New York, but not at the Yankee game. I said, "Maybe you could say that you knew Willow was in New York so you assumed she went to the Yankee game." The guy on my side even said, "Hey, that's a reasonable response, I'd buy that." But instead the guy said, I saw a picture of her there. No picture was found. When photos of Sarah at the game sans Willow were linked, he said he saw the picture on the View. When said View show was linked without the picture, he said he probably saw it on Regis. By then, we had given up. Or maybe that's the point, to cause people to just give up on arguing. If that's true, then perhaps it is a valid arguing point. It's the 21st century filibuster.
Then, I realized that nobody's mind was going to be changed. No one was arguing for the purpose of bringing people to their side, no one really on the fence. We were just trying to shout above the din. And by this time, Dave had apologized to Sarah and they had moved on. The feud was over, but we continued to spend time out of our lives to argue a dead issue. And then I made my first real insult attack. "Perhaps," I wrote, "perhaps we are all the idiots."
I bring this debate up because I was involved in what is best described as the modern venue for debates, an internet message board. I've never really gotten involved with one of these things, I have heard tales of hardship and great pain as people use it as a forum to spout out words of hate and call various dissidents faggots. But I felt it was something that could have a reasonable debate over the merits of comedy and free speech. I am talking of the Sarah Palin/David Letterman feud. Now, full disclosure, I don't care for Sarah Palin. She seems to be the exact opposite of what the Republican party should be throwing there hopes and dreams upon. I also don't think Letterman is funny or even relevant anymore. Ever since the Academy Award Uma/Oprah fiasco, I haven't really been on board. Not saying I like Leno, or even Jimmy Kimmel. Talk shows tend to bore me. I will always turn off the Daily Show when Jon Stewart gets to a-interviewin'. These are two people who have seen the spotlight start to go down and suddenly, a random joke throws a bright sun on their celebrity, and both sides ran with it as a grab to get ratings and attention. Pure and simple.
Thus, I got involved online because I felt that it was a silly debate that was open and shut. The joke, at its basest level, said that Palin's visit to the Yankee game got a little uncomfortable when during the seven inning stretch, Palin's daughter got knocked up by A-Rod. A reasonably funny joke if you understood that the joke was about Bristol. But, Sarah, in a masterstroke of marketing, quickly decried the joke was about Willow and caused a pointless firestorm. The thread was calling for Letterman to be fired, while the other side was calling for Palin to just go away. I got involved, mainly because I saw it as an attack on comedy, something I love dearly.
Now, this is all set up. I don't want to debate the merits of either side for this piece. I want to get into what truly upset me about this debate on this thread which took an embarrassing week out of my time. It started out with me making statements to show how Palin and Letterman was using this media storm to get some needed attention. I didn't feel either side really cared that much about the issue. I thought the joke was funny and that I clearly knew that it was Bristol and not Willow that was the brunt of the joke. Actually, for all technical purposes, A-Rod was the brunt of that joke but since he didn't come out protesting, I chose to not focus on him. Someone sarcastically (I assume it was, hard to tell with just text on a screen) made the comment that they assumed that I am so great and that they hoped no one dragged my good name through the mud with jokes about you in public. And then, I made the worse possible response. I said, "I'm a comedian, I would love anyone to be talking about me in public." The next three comments where "Well, maybe if you were funny, people would talk about you." Now, seeing as how I never used my full name, just some initials, I thought that it was a bit ridiculous that people had made a fair assessment of my act. So, I asked, "How do you know if I'm funny or not." I received several more comments (all from people on the thread with an opposing point of view on the matter) that I wasn't funny in any of my comments. I called that thinking ridiculous as I was having a serious debate and wasn't using the medium to tell jokes. Thus, by that thinking, if I had said I was a doctor, no one would think I was a good doctor because I didn't ask anyone to cough in my thread. Response from that comment. Zero.
I was appalled but then I realized that I could've been funny, and it wouldn't have mattered. The only proper response to logic and reason is emotion and ridicule. I'm not saying my way of thinking is the right way of thinking. I'm just saying that I wasn't going to insult you as my way of arguing a point. But as I continued on with the discussion, people threw insults at me as if that proved their points. I was a liar, an idiot, a retard, a baby raper, and my personal favorite, a liberal degenerate who would sell his mother to Iraq for some good hashish. Now, my character ended up getting attacked for no other reason that I had an opposing viewpoint. What? And it wasn't like the other side couldn't get some good points in if they wanted to. I actually started to argue with myself. If I made a point, I showed how the opposing point could've responded, with no character attacks. I ended up helping the other side, but alas neither of my sides were read too much, mainly because I never once used the word douchebag. I stated that you've lost the argument once you've insulted me. This led to more insults. Cocksucker (though to be honest it was C**ksucker, don't want any profanity on this thread), faggot, dirtface, socialist, and a Christian Conservative even blamed my disbelief in God as reason for my hatred and lack of being open about other people's ideas. Not to mention the multitude of times I was called an idiot. At one point, I had to explain why Obama's health care plan was not an impeachable offense. Why David Letterman was not a pervy old man who wants to rape as many children that he could get his claws on to? And how a joke is exaggeration with a little bit of truth, but alas not the 100% truth?
And it's not the people's fault. If you look toward the Rush Limbaugh's, the Bill O'Reilly's, the Keith Olbermann's, the Al Franken's. Insults have replaced ideas and themes. Because insults make money, not prove to be great argumentative tools. And the masses are fooled into thinking that Bill or Al or Keith actually care about us. And therefore if it works for them, hey, it could work for us. The insult as argument just doesn't hold water. And the fact is that this idea of being heard by being the loudest and the meanest is downright scary. We won't care about facts or truth, we just want the bitch fight.
The only thing that was cool from this thing was that one of the opposing viewpoints chided another poster that was on his side. The poster called me a retard and the other guy said, "Hey, there's no reason for personal attacks." It made me think I made a little ripple of change within comments about Obama not being a natural born citizen and comments about how Todd Palin eats babies.
I believe there was a time when we were smart. As a people, I think that we took things at face value and understood the difference between truth and fiction. But then again, I believe those times because of what I've seen in historical epics. So, perhaps we have always been collective idiots. It's just now, thanks to the internet, those voices get heard rapidly without need for thought or reference. After all, everyone was just throwing out facts willy nilly on the thread, even though it was obvious that we were on the internet and all we had to do was look it up. (Which I did several times, including learning that Willow wasn't even at the Yankee game despite Sarah Palin saying she was.) And because fact checking can happen so quickly, the made up stuff is still thrown out there without any regard to being called out. One guy said that he thought it was a joke about Willow because he knew Willow was at the ball game. When another threader started posting links to articles all over the internet that never said she was there, the original poster started posting his own articles he found. Articles that confirmed that Willow was in New York, but not at the Yankee game. I said, "Maybe you could say that you knew Willow was in New York so you assumed she went to the Yankee game." The guy on my side even said, "Hey, that's a reasonable response, I'd buy that." But instead the guy said, I saw a picture of her there. No picture was found. When photos of Sarah at the game sans Willow were linked, he said he saw the picture on the View. When said View show was linked without the picture, he said he probably saw it on Regis. By then, we had given up. Or maybe that's the point, to cause people to just give up on arguing. If that's true, then perhaps it is a valid arguing point. It's the 21st century filibuster.
Then, I realized that nobody's mind was going to be changed. No one was arguing for the purpose of bringing people to their side, no one really on the fence. We were just trying to shout above the din. And by this time, Dave had apologized to Sarah and they had moved on. The feud was over, but we continued to spend time out of our lives to argue a dead issue. And then I made my first real insult attack. "Perhaps," I wrote, "perhaps we are all the idiots."
The Resurrection
I'm back. And now, I'm going to blog about what I feel is the most important thing in the universe: MOVIES. Here, I will provide reviews, surprises, opinions, disgust, hope, dreams, and revulsion. All of it relating to movies. And if something I put on here doesn't relate to movies, well, don't get worried about it. It's my site, my rules.
So, welcome to Raiders of the Lost Arthur, version 2.0. I'm also going to pretend that version 1.0 never existed. But 1.0 sounds so, you know.
Enjoy.
So, welcome to Raiders of the Lost Arthur, version 2.0. I'm also going to pretend that version 1.0 never existed. But 1.0 sounds so, you know.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
