Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 December
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 May
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
The Mixed Reviews Blog, featuring reviews by Jill Cozzi, Gabriel Shanks, and Ned Depew
Cinemarati: The Web Alliance for Film Criticism
The Online Film Critics Society
Flak Magazine
The Kansas City Film Critics Circle
Mixed Reviews
The Filmsnobs Main Page
Jill Cozzi's Brilliant at Breakfast blog
Gabriel Shanks' Modern Fabulousity blog
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| The Real Victory in the Capture of Saddam Hussein |
| 12.23.03 (7:58 pm) [edit] |
Most of us woke to the news last Sunday morning that Saddam Hussein had been pulled out of a "spider hole" somewhere outside of Tikrit. There was much rejoycing in the land (except at the Dean Headquarters, where they had to send their big foreign policy speech back to Al Gore for a rewrite). But the question was, and is: What does it mean? Surely that NYC Cab Driver they pulled out of that sand bunker wasn't running the insurgency, so what are the real outcomes of his capture?
Most of what I've read says that the insurgency isn't about Saddam at all, but about those upper-mid level Baathists vying to become the next Saddam whenever casualties force the United States to withdraw. At least, that's the game plan anyway. Long-term, however, the effect of catching Saddam will do much for the psychology of the Iraqi people, perhaps enabling the reforms the Bush Administration had in mind for the liberated nation.
The only certain short-term positive outcome, of course, is the re-emergence of Saddam Hussein on "South Park." One of the most bizarre subplots in all of moviedom is the passive-aggressive gay relationship between Saddam Hussein and Satan in hell, which is partially mediated by Kenny after he's killed when a lit fart goes awry. Who can forget Saddam busting through Satan's door, going "Hey Guy!"? Or Saddam's extra-long anal dildo? Wednesday's "South Park" gave us Saddam as Oz, who just happens to be the new prime minister of Canada. Apparently, Canada is a socialist paradise somewhat like Oz--but since all those pussy socialist nations like Canada, Sweden, and probably the Netherlands didn't support the "alliance" in pursuing regime change, they reveal themselves to be run, in secret, by Saddam Hussein. Blame Canada indeed.
But when Stan pulled the curtain to reveal the lice-bearded Saddam, it was a great moment of healing for the nation. The men who created the brilliant, savage "That's My Bush" (featuring sidekick Karl Rove literally sucking the last breath from a guy executed because Bush bragged to his old frat buddies who crashed the White House) put aside partisanship to celebrate the capture of one of the most aggregious offenders of human rights in modern history. We cannot know exactly what the capture of Saddam means for our soldiers in Iraq, but we do know that for a couple days anyway, the country could unite in celebration of the capture of the Dictator. Or, as the Canadian Mounties said at the end of the Saddam South Park, "Saddam Hussein, he was fooling us?" There's no Weapons of Mass Destruction as of yet, but Hey Guys, at least we could all rejoice in the capture.
|
|
|
| |
| Al Gore Gets All Lathered Up Over Howard Dean |
| 12.10.03 (10:18 pm) [edit] |
On Imus in the Morning, Don cut from live coverage of Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean to ask guest Paul Begala what he thought of Al's speech. Begala--responding only seconds after hearing the speech--intuitively picked up on how Gore's endorsement points to exactly why Howard Dean will lose forty-nine states in the general election: Begala noted that Gore said that Dean "was" the only major candidate who was "right" about the Iraq War. Notice the tense of that form of "be"--especially from a man who should be familiar with the power of that verb. Al Gore didn't say, "Howard Dean has a plan to get us out of the quagmire in Iraq," nor did he say, "Howard Dean is the man to lead the world in the fight against terrorism." Gore didn't say those things because he can't say those things.
Howard Dean is an acerbic personality and a sloppy campaigner. He refers to the Soviet Union in the present tense, he mouths "fuck off" to Dick Gephardt during debates--I could catalogue the fodder Howard Dean has provided Karl Rove for the general election, which is precisely why Fox News can't stop talking about him as the front-runner. Thus far, Dean has resisted a total meltdown during the debates--but still, does anyone really believe that Howard Dean is the attractive personality and sharp mind that will swing the middle twenty percent of the nation to the Democrats? Howard Dean is the embodiment of anti-Bush anger, more of an idea than an actual candidate ready to be embraced by 51% of the nation's voters.
It's instructive, I think, that Dean surged to the front on the strength of an internet campaign in which we didn't really get to know Howard Dean--he just tapped into the vicious anti-Bush sentiment and ran with it, while the others cowered at the risk of challenging the President outright. For this, Dean should be commended for being one of the few Democrats to have any balls since Clinton left office. The congressional Democrats running for President have way too much baggage and keep backpeddling because they didn't have the guts to vote their conscious in the first place. But moxie alone will not win this election. When Dean speaks, he doesn't speak in the expansive, positive terms that the great Democrats do, with the vision of great Democrats like Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Clinton. Dean's rhetoric is designed to tear down, not build up. Howard Dean was a good way for us to get it all out of our system, but now it's time to move on.
Part of my disgust with Dean is that he's symptomatic of what's really wrong with our party. I'm sick and goddamned tired of my party, frankly. I'm tired of the hate we spew at Bush--no matter how much he deserves it, and nobody believes he deserves it more than me. But we offer no vision in return; we can't speak about ourselves without reflecting it off Bush. So much threaten our future--things that are core Democratic values like global warming, education, the erosion of labor, and all the rest. But ask people what they know about Howard Dean, and they'll know that's he's against the war and against the tax cuts. But what's he [i]for [/i]?
We don't know what we're about anymore, so we've taken on the reactionary, sanctimonious tone of those we say we hate: the religious right. We've become sanctimonious about our core issues to the point we've become as unattractive as the born-agains--without a vision of our own, all we can do is react. We hate this; we hate that--we sound like reactionary Falwell followers, except that the stances are different. That sort of sanctimony helped swing moderates to Clinton in the nineties (remember Pat Buchanan's "I hate homosexuals" speech at the 1996 convention?), and now we're threatening to let our anger get the best of us and alienate the voting block we need to unseat Bush. That's what Howard Dean represents.
Al Gore showed more passion in his fifteen minute speech for Dean in Cedar Rapids than he did in the whole of his presidential campaign. Al wagged his fingered, swept his arms, threw the trunk of his body around the podium, flipped his hair about his scalp, and yelled until his bald spot turned red. Gore spoke briefly about Dean's experience as the president of the Governor's Council and listed some of his other accomplishments, but the bulk of his speech was ranting about Iraq and how "Governor Dean is the only major candidate to exercise the right judgment on the war!" This is to be expected, but there's something else going on here too. Gore's glowing endorsement of Dean's firey rhetoric, of his "telling it like it is" and "saying the emperor has no clothes when he's not wearing any" begged the question: Where was all that passion and honesty when you were running, Al?
I like that Al Gore, not the Donna Shalala Gore that was physically made up to resemble Ronald Reagan during the second debate in 2000. But Gore seems like he's trying to rerun the 2000 campaign the only way he can. He called for the rest of the candidates to stop attacking each other, and that "anyone who cares about what I think should know I support Howard Dean," knowing full well that a lot of us do care what he thinks. He called for us Democrats to stop attacking each other and unite behind Dean, as if Al thinks his endorsement is the end of the process.
Well, Al, if this is how you choose to spend the political capital of your martydom, then so be it. But just like Gore's presidential campaign, it's way off. We're still a month away from the Iowa caucus, and by the time people actually start voting, the "bounce" from this announcement will settle back into real numbers. And by being such an ass about the endorsement, the story has been less about Howard Dean and more about Joe Leiberman anyway. This smells like another colossal Gore screw up.
There's something desperate, almost sad about Gore's endorsement. He spoke so often of the past--his support of the first Gulf War, for example--but never made the case for why Howard Dean is the sort of visionary to draw votes from across party lines. Al just said that the "stakes are higher than they've ever been in our lifetime" and left it up to us to figure out what Howard Dean is for. Gore simply reiterated what we already knew: Dean is against Bush. I'm convinced that when America looks behind that Iowa podium and sees Al Gore raising Howard Dean's hand, they're going to see a couple of unattractive, angry whiners. It just might be what the party needs--to see that this is not a road we want to travel again. Gore's endorsement might just turn out to be the non-endorsement that pushes Wesley Clark over the top. Or, it's a forecast of the next Democratic humiliation.
---shimes
|
|
|
| |
| Terry Zwigoff is a Pervert |
| 12.10.03 (9:39 pm) [edit] |
I know that's an ad hominem attack against a man I don't know, but in my heart, I know I'm right. Terry Zwigoff, director of "Ghost World" and now "Bad Santa", is a dirty rotten pervert. The critical line on Ghost World is that it's an observant and sensitive study of teenage reverse snobbery against the conformist world; this veil of cyncism, however, is lifted in the confrontation with human relationships--and this is where the movie derives its power. Well, I didn't buy it. I liked most of the movie--the observations of teenage counter-to-counter culture, the disenchantment of post-modern adolescence, and especially the comic book frames and sterilized vision. But I can't shake the feeling that Enid (Thora Birch) would never fuck Seymour (Steve Buscemi).
I have heard every single deconstruction imaginable, but it, well...it just didn't feel right. I know how lame that sounds, but there's no way...no f'n way...that Enid fucks Seymour. She might have tender feelings for him; she might kiss him or hold his hand--but actually do the deed? There's no way. Just think about the process. At some point, Enid would have said no. Seymour doesn't exude the confidence...listen, I've gone around in circles with this so many times that I'm sick of it. I simply cannot mount an argument other than [i]there's no way Enid would fuck Seymour[/i] and all those deconstructions are just rationalizations. Seymour is nothing more than Terry Zwigoff's wish fulfillment to have sex with teenage girls. With big knockers.
Seeing "Bad Santa" over Thanksgiving gave me the most satisfaction I've had sitting through a zero star movie. Somehow, that vile movie (check JimmyO's review for the dirty details at [url=]http://www.filmsnobs.com/www/...[/url]) justified my hatred of that scene in Ghost World. I understand that's a non sequitur, I really do, but when I heard "You won't shit right for a week", I thought, "You know, Terry Zwigoff is a fucking pervert." When Billy Bob pissed his Santa suit, I felt justified.
Like JimmyO, I think Bad Santa could have, and probably should have, worked. But Terry Zwigoff is a fucking pervert. No relationship in this movie makes any sense: The kid who adopts Santa, the relationship between Santa and his "elf"--there's even a hot bartender who has sex with Billy Bob, even though he's perhaps the most repulsive human being filmed all year. What can he possibly have next for us next? Bad Santa probably provides the answer: "More booze, more bullshit, more buttfucking." Terry Zwigoff is a pervert who uses his movies to film his disgusting fantasies. [i]I just know he is. [/i] Wow, I feel better now. Sometimes it feels good just to get it out of your system, right Terry?
---shimes
|
|
|
| |
| Who knew the Reverend Al Could Sing? |
| 12.06.03 (11:43 pm) [edit] |
Sometimes it pays to live in Kansas. I stayed in on Saturday night to study for texidermy finals but took a break to watch Democratic candidate Al Sharpton host Saturday Night Live. I walked into my living room - still bloodied from the KU/Stanford game earlier in the day - and turned on NBC 14 in Kansas City. But they were showing a re-run of the "Best of Steve Martin" show. What the hell was this, I though. Calls from Shimes in Springburg and DT SWMR in St. Louis (via Columbia) also confirmed a SNL blackout. Er, I mean shutdown? Anyway, I realized this was due to potential equal access claims by other Dem candidates. That's when I remembered: All of these stations are in Missouri, a state with a primary. But I live in Kansas, where no one gives a shit. We don't have a primary. Who would we vote for now that Roy Williams is in North Carolina anyway? I changed the channel to Topeka's NBC 27 to enjoy.
And what a show the Reverend put on! The opening featured Sharpton dressed in a killer suit trading jabs with Tracy Morgan who was dressed as the old Sharpton. This is the jump suit-wearing, medallion dangling social activist who stood up for crazy women covered in feces. Morgan said that Sharpton was a sell-out and that the man on stage "was not the same guy who managed James Brown." Sharpton put this criticism to rest by grabbing a mic and doing a rendition of "I Feel Good" that was stunning to say the least. "Man, the Reverend can sing and dance!" This is so much cooler than Bill Clinton playing the sax on Arsenio Hall or the Bush twins making out during the South by Southwest festival? But I digress...
I feared the rest of the show could not live up to the initial momentum. It could crash like a John Edwards' stump stop in Manchester, NH. But the first skit included Sharpton as Johnnie Cochran counseling Michael Jackson (Amy Poehler) as they rode a roller-coaster in Neverland. Funny, but even funnier when the skit ended and the camera panned to the real Cochran sitting in the audience. I almost freaked out but I certainly spat out my Miller Lite. Sharpton also played Ryan Fellows, Brian's older brother who thought that "clubbing a seal" meant barhopping in Alaska. The first portion ended with Sharpton as one of the Three Wise Men getting pulled over by a racist cop. If things couldn't get more surreal, musical guest Pink actually acted like a white girl for once.
Weekend Update would have been enough for any normal week, with Jimmy Fallon interviewing the real Paris Hilton. He promised that he wouldn't mention the scandal, but the scene evolved into a series of entrandes. ("There's a Hilton in Paris? Is it hard to get into the Paris Hilton?) This was followed by a commercial for "Al Sharpton's Sushi Bar." That skit was interrupted by a scene in a living room where Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, and Joe Liebermann were trading jabs and trying to figure out why they weren't hosting SNL. Fallon played Clark like Clint Eastwood, someone underplayed Dean, and Chris Parnell did a perfect impersonation of Joe. John Edwards darted in and out, making appetizers in hope "that someone would consider him good VP material." John Kerry and Dick Gephardt showed up and added more jabs. But I will say Darrell Hammond freaked me out as Gephardt, I actually thought it was the real guy for a second.
But Sharpton proved why those guys weren't hosting SNL and he was. At the end, he gave the following speech:
"I would like to thank my brother Lorne Michaels for bringing us together every week so we can laugh at ourselves. When we can laugh at ourselves, I think that helps us take our jobs and the people more seriously. When we can come together to laugh, it should help us to live together as well."
Wow! I bought every second of it! Why couldn't someone people took seriously say that in the Presidential race? This represented the passion and sincerity that is, frankly, lacking with the other 8 candidates. The man is a preacher, tonight he proved to be a show man, and his line at the end showed potential to be a real voice in the 2004 race. When he supports Wesley Clark, that is. I ,for one, want this guy at the table. I want his articulation and his honest feelings on issues. Bill Bennett and Sean Hannity may think it's funny to say Sharpton is the best guy on stage at the debates, but I'm starting to agree. Is it too much to ask that Sharpton at least be considered for HUD director? But I know that's crazy so let's rest assured that Sharpton may go down with Martin, Alec Baldwin, Tom Hanks, and George Carlin as one of the best SNL hosts ever.
BTW, a special thanks to Topeka's own 27 for broadcasting the show. This almost makes up for that whole Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case. Almost.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
