The Big Cheese

My brother Rick, a.k.a. Preacher Jenkins (no, he's not a preacher -- it's a long story, if you get me and my brother drunk enough sometime we'll tell you the story, or at least make one up that's reasonably entertaining, and did we ever tell you about the time that...)

Where was I?

Oh, yes. My brother Rick, a.k.a. Preacher Jenkins, has gotten into filmmaking as a fairly serious hobby, and has finally put a couple of his films on YouTube. This is my favorite of his so far, The Big Cheese. Obviously I'm biased, but I think it's very cool in a non-linear sort of way.

Video after the jump. Or you can watch it full-sized on YouTube itself.

Continue reading "The Big Cheese" »

The Bank Job, And The Normalizing Of Kink: The Blowfish Blog

Note to family and others who don't want to read about my personal sex life: This piece, and the piece it links to, doesn't go into a lot of detail about my personal sex life, but it mentions it in passing. Use your judgment about whether you want to read it. Thanks.

The_bank_job_posterI have a new piece on the Blowfish Blog. It's a review of the new heist movie, "The Bank Job," and... well, do you remember that Saturday Night Live sketch about the welder's review of "Flashdance"? This is sort of like that.

This is the sadomasochist's review of "The Bank Job."

It's called The Bank Job, And The Normalizing Of Kink, and here's the teaser:

Now, secret sex -- even secret sadomasochistic sex -- being used to drive a movie plot is hardly unusual. It's barely worth even mentioning, much less writing an entire column about. But there’s something about the kink in "The Bank Job" that’s very unusual indeed... so unusual in mainstream movies as to be almost unheard of.

And that's this: The movie’s attitude towards the sadomasochism is entirely casual, and entirely non-judgmental.

To find out more, read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

And The Winner of the Internet Today Is...

Pz_myersPZ Myers, of Pharyngula fame, for being refused admission -- dare we say it, expelled? -- to a screening of the creationist propaganda film "Expelled," while his guest was admitted without incident.

His guest:

Richard Dawkins.

The whole story is here. It's the funniest thing I've seen all week. The creationist movement: stifling debate, and doing it incompetently.

American Pie, and Sexual Morality Plays

Film_reelsvg_2I'm still feeling very low-energy, plus I'm frantically trying to catch up on the day-job and deadline work I've been putting to the side for the last couple of weeks. So today you get something from the archives. I worked a a film critic for years, and one of my favorite gigs was for the adult newspaper The Spectator, using movies as a jumping-off point for socio-sexual analysis of the culture. It was really fun -- especially when my job was to analyze silly pop-culture fluff like American Pie. I hope to have a proper new post in the next day or two; in the meantime, enjoy!

Oh, BTW: I give away endings. So if you don't want to know how American Pie turns out, you may want to skip this review.

American Pie

American_pie_2Relax. This isn't going to be another rant about juvenile sex humor. I've finally acquired some sort of Zen acceptance about the fact that I'm thirty-seven (well, I was when I wrote this), and movies marketed for seventeen-year-olds may just not appeal to me. And I've given up on that particular rant. (At least for this week. No promises for the future.) Yes, the movie does have that somewhat annoying trait of finding gut-wrenching humor in the very existence of sex and other bodily functions; it's full of anxious, giggly jokes that essentially go, "Sex! Masturbation! Boobies! Toilets! Diarrhea!" upon which it falls all over itself in gales of uncontrolled hysteria. But it's not mean-spirited about it for the most part; and if I'm going to be fair and honest, I do have to remember that I was once a teenager, awkward and anxious and uncomfortable about my body in general and sex very much in particular, and at age seventeen, I might well have found this movie a laff riot. Yes, I do get bored and irritated at comedy that finds its humor in the very existence of sex; but I'm in a generous mood at the moment, and am willing to acknowledge that not all art has to be aimed at me personally. So I'm not going to rail against it. This week.

Morality_play_3No, the odd thing is this. For all of its wall-to-wall sex talk, American Pie is actually something of a sexual morality play. It's a raunchy, smutty, potty-mouthed sexual morality play, but it's a morality play nevertheless. The point of the movie (other than "Titties! Jism! Vagina!") seems to be that there are good reasons to have sex and bad reasons to have sex, and that the bad reasons will be punished while the good ones are rewarded.

Dramafilmstubicon_2Come to think of it, that's not the odd thing. Sexual morality plays aren't an odd thing at all in the movies. I see them all the time. Heck, I rant and bitch about them all the time. What's odd about this one is that I actually found myself agreeing with the moral. For all of its juvenile boobie-humor, I think the movie is pretty much dead-on right about what are good reasons and bad reasons to have sex. And although I do have general issues about the "What have we learned from this, class?" type of movie, I'm completely happy that the teenagers watching this particular movie are getting this particular lesson.

Continue reading "American Pie, and Sexual Morality Plays" »

Star Trek Meets Monty Python, or, The Geekiest Thing in the Universe This Week

Oh, my sweet Loki.

I am speechless.

It's a montage of video clips from Star Trek (Original Series), arranged to the "Camelot" song from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

And I am embarassed to admit that it's the funniest thing I've seen all week. Not to mention how embarassed I am to admit that I recognized almost every one of the clips. My geek badge of shame is shining brightly this week.

Video below the fold (since putting it above the fold mucks up my archives).

Continue reading "Star Trek Meets Monty Python, or, The Geekiest Thing in the Universe This Week" »

Oscarology: The Readings

OscarThe readings are in!

A quick recap, for those of you just joining us: Oscarology is a system of astrology I invented -- excuse me, that was revealed to me in a powerful mystical experience -- based on what movie won the Best Picture Oscar for the year you were born. I blogged about it a couple of days ago, asking for people's birth years... and have been spending the time since then communing with the Spirit of the Oscars and transcribing the visions it has vouchsafed to me.

CalendarFirst, to answer a burning question that has been asked: In Oscarology, your movie is the Best Picture that was released the year you were born. Not the one that was granted the award in the ceremony in the year you were born. (So John, if you were born in 1983, you are not a Gandhi. You are a Terms of Endearment. And Stacey, you're not an Annie Hall -- you're a The Deer Hunter.)

FYI, some of these movies I haven't seen, and am totally guessing based on the little I do know and what I looked up on Wikipedia. Unlike real astrologers...

So let's get this started! And if you haven't chimed in with your year yet, it's not too late. Give me your birth year, and I'll fill in the gaps. (Readings start after the jump.)

Continue reading "Oscarology: The Readings" »

Oscarology

OscarYears ago, I invented a system of astrology based on what movie won the Best Picture Oscar for the year you were born. (It's more like Chinese astrology than Western astrology: you share your personality with an entire year's worth of people, instead of just a month's worth. But in Oscarology, the signs never repeat. Your year is special and unique.)

Silence_of_the_lambsThe Skeptical Surfer recently asked me about Oscarology, and I realized I've never blogged about it. I've discussed it in more than one discussion group and bulletin board (my favorite response: someone asked me what had won for 1991 and 1992, and when I said it was "Silence of the Lambs" and "Unforgiven," she replied, "No wonder the kids are so weird!"). But I've never mentioned it here.

So let's play! Tell me what year you were born, and I'll tell you all about your personality based on what won the Oscar for that year. (Assuming I've seen the movie, that is.)

I'll get the ball rolling with my own reading.

WestsidestoryBirth year: 1961.
Best Picture: West Side Story.
Analysis: Although I tend to feel like an outsider in almost any group, I am very concerned with communicating and with making connections and forming bridges with/between people who seem unalterably opposed. Music and dancing are central to my life and identity. I have a somewhat tough exterior, but I dance like a big sissy boy and am as queer as a three-dollar bill.

So what's your sign, baby?

Oh, and for the record: Astrology doesn't work. It flat-out doesn't work. There are many spiritual beliefs -- such as the belief in God -- that, while highly implausible, can't be definitely disproven. Astrology is not one of them. It makes testable claims; the claims have been tested; the claims have been consistently and without a doubt shown not to work at all.

Just so we're clear.

Atheism in Pop Culture Part 7: The Motherlode

TedwilliamsTed Williams and Nina Hartley. David Cronenberg and Dave Barry. Brian Eno and Barry Manilow. Joss Whedon and Andy Rooney. Sarah Vowell and Ted Turner.

All atheists.

I've found the "atheism in pop culture" motherlode, people. It's the Celebrity Atheist List, "an offbeat collection of notable individuals who have been public about their lack of belief in deities."

And it's hilarious.

It's just such a fascinating mish-mosh. I'd be hard pressed to find any other characteristic that all these people have in common, apart from being carbon-based humanoid life forms.

ManilowI mean -- Barry Manilow?

Really?

And that's what I like about it. It's such a rich vein of counter-examples to the stereotype of atheists as sad, hopeless, amoral, unpatriotic, self-centered nihilists who only live for ourselves and only live for the moment.

Dave_barryAfter all, are you really going to call Dave Barry sad and hopeless? Andy Rooney unpatriotic? Studs Terkel nihilistic? Salman Rushdie self-centered and amoral? Did Pat Tillman live only for himself? Does Barbara Ehrenreich live only for the moment?

Plus it's just hilarious. I mean -- Mickey Dolenz and Ingmar Bergman! Jean-Luc Godard and Ani DiFranco! Ray Romano and Marie Curie! Noam Chomsky and Bjork!

Hours of time-wasting fun. Check it out. And tell me who your favorites are!

Dumbledore Is Gay: Good Guys and Literary Closets

Every single person I have ever met in my life has sent me this piece of news.

I wonder why. :-)

Dumbledore_2The news: J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books (yes, I'm a fan, suck it up), announced recently that the headmaster character, Dumbledore, is gay. It came up at a recent reading at Carnegie Hall; a fan asked about Dumbledore's love life, and Rowling answered, "My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." She went on to explain that Dumbledore had been in love with the wizard Grindelwald in his youth, and that Grindelwald turning out to be evil was the great tragedy of Dumbledore's life.

Half_blood_prince_movie(As it turns out, the subject of Dumbledore's sexual orientation had come up previously during the making of one of the movies; the director had some reference in the script to a girl in Dumbledore's past, and Rowling had to pass him a note to gently point him off that track.)

I pretty much have just three things to say about this:

One: Neat.

Dumbledore_1I think it's cool that Dumbledore is the moral center of the book, the apotheosis of goodness, the one character that all the good guys look to for both political and ethical leadership.

And he's gay.

That's just nifty.

Two: I think it's too bad she couldn't have said so in the books themselves.

Heather_has_two_mommiesDon't get me wrong. I totally understand why she didn't. If she'd made Dumbledore overtly gay in the books, then in the general public eye, that's what the books would have been about. Everything else that the books are about -- moral complexity, the realities of a resistance movement, what it's like to be a child growing up and figuring out that the adult world is seriously messed-up, all the lovely and ridiculous magic stuff -- would have become suddenly and dramatically secondary. It would have become the children's book series about the wizarding school with the gay headmaster. It would have become the seven-volume fantasy version of "Heather Has Two Mommies." I think it was the right decision, and if I'd been Rowling, I would have done exactly the same thing.

I just think that's too bad.

I think it's too bad that we live in a world where the mere presence of a major gay character in a children's book automatically makes it a Kids' Book About Gay.

DracoI think it's too bad that I now have to wonder: How many other characters did Rowling envision as gay, but wasn't able to say so? (My money's on Draco...)

I think it's too bad that the single most popular author in the known universe, the one author who could write her own ticket more than any author living today, still had to keep the gayness of one of her central characters a secret until the series was completed.

AwrinkleintimeIt is better now than it used to be, forty years ago or even twenty. Imagine if L. Frank Baum had announced that Glinda the Good Witch was gay. Or Tolkein with Gandalf. Or Madeleine L'Engle with Mrs. Whatsit. There would have been a shitstorm. But it's a different time now, and the people who are mostly going to be upset about Dumbledore are the fundies who aren't buying the books anyway because they promote witchcraft.

Harry_potter_sorcerers_stoneBut I still think we have a long way to go. I still think it's still too bad that a major children's book can't have a major gay character in it without that becoming the central defining feature of the book.

Maybe in twenty years.

Harry_potter_deathly_hallowsThree: Now I have to read the whole series again. Or the last book, anyway.

Damn. What a shame.

SnapeOh, and P.S.: Snape.

No, I'm not saying he's gay. I'm just saying: Snape. Because I am constitutionally incapable of writing an entire Harry Potter post without mentioning Snape.

Why Religion Is Like Fanfic

Everything_you_know_about_god_is_wrI was reading some unusually wacky Christian theology in Disinformation's new book, Everything You Know About God Is Wrong (more on the book when I'm done with it -- the thing is great, but it's huge). Specifically: In the Middle Ages, there was all this theology about the immaculate conception virgin birth and how exactly Mary got impregnated by God, with several theologians putting forth the theory that -- get this -- the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary in her ear.

No, really. In her ear.

EarWhat's more, there's other theology of the period seriously discussing the question of how, physically, Jesus was born. Did he just teleport out of Mary's womb, or was he born out of her ear (since he was conceived there, after all), or what?

Because, after all, the pussy is a disgusting, putrid font of sin and evil, and God would never go there. Or be born out of there.

But I digress.

I was reading this, and I was suddenly struck with how familiar it all seemed.

Star_trek_1It reads exactly like fan-written blueprints for the Enterprise in "Star Trek." Or fan-written explanations for discrepancies in star dates, or why the Enterprise has completely reliable lie detectors that they only use in three episodes.

Continue reading "Why Religion Is Like Fanfic" »

Dream diary, 10/7/07: Voldemort and the Ikea cabinets

CabinetI dreamed that Ingrid and I had just bought a set of black Ikea cabinets. It turned out that these cabinets somehow held the secret to the world, and that Voldemort was trying to destroy them.

The New "Zoo" Review

This piece originally appeared on the Blowfish Blog.

Zoo_posterThe movie is about bestiality.

I want to tell you that right up front, since it takes a while for the movie to get around to it. A little more specifically, "Zoo" is a documentary about a 2005 incident in which a man died of a perforated colon after engaging in sexual activity with --- read "getting fucked in the ass by" -- a horse. And it's about the small group of people -- other zoophiles, or "zoos" -- who shared these sexual activities and interests as a community: talking about it on the Internet, engaging in it at small gatherings, and sometimes photographing or filming it.

Continue reading "The New "Zoo" Review" »

Professionalism = Selling Your Soul: A Feminist Rant on "The Devil Wears Prada"

Devil_wears_prada"The Devil Wears Prada" has been on HBO recently: I watched it again a few days ago (I do think it's a funny, entertaining, well-crafted movie), and I was reminded of a feminist rant I had when the movie first came out.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_2Here's the deal. (Spoiler alert.) The purported arc of the movie is that our heroine, Andrea (Anne Hathaway), is a young would-be journalist in New York who can't find the kind of serious work she wants, and thus takes a job as assistant to the editor-in-chief at the biggest fashion magazine in the country. She justifies this as (a) a source of a much-needed paycheck, and (b) an entry-level position that could earn her some experience and gain her some connections in the profession.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_1But she sells out. She sells her soul. She is seduced by the glamour of the fashion industry into abandoning her high ideals; she prioritizes her work over her personal relationships; she stabs her colleague in the back; and she even winds up defending her abusive control-freak boss, Miranda (Meryl Streep) against her many critics. Eventually she realizes the error of her ways, walks out on her job, finds a better one, and grovels for forgiveness to everyone she injured along the way.

So here's my problem with the movie:

I couldn't see anything she did wrong.

I was watching very carefully the second time around, and almost every "soul-selling" step that the heroine took seemed perfectly reasonable and defensible.

And more to the point, just about everything she did would have been accepted without blinking in a male protagonist.

Let's take it a piece at a time. Here are the sins against her soul that Andrea supposedly committed.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_51) She stayed in a job she didn't much care about, in an industry that's a snakepit of ego and ambition, working for a boss who treated her abysmally... just to get ahead in her career.

Well, yes. If you're serious about a career, "take this job and shove it" isn't always an option. Especially if you're just starting out. Sometimes you have to put up with very bad situations temporarily, to get what you need on your resume (not to mention to keep the paychecks coming). And sometimes you start out at a company you don't much like or care about, to gain experience you'll need to eventually work for someone you do care about. That's not selling your soul. That's having long-term goals, and the stick-to-it-iveness to go through the necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, preliminary steps to get there. That's being willing to prioritize your long-term goals over your immediate happiness and comfort. And theoretically, that's a quality our society values.

Thedevilwearsprada_nate_1jpgIn men, anyway. This especially bugs me because her boyfriend, who's super-critical of her choices throughout the movie, is an equally ambitious, young, struggling would-be chef... and it's not like the world of high-end restaurants isn't a snakepit of ego and ambition, in which people stick with crappy jobs and asshole bosses to get the experience and contacts they need. But somehow, that's different.

And as it turns out, Andrea was right to do what she did. She did get useful experience and contacts, and at the end of the movie when she applies for the serious journalism job at the lefty newspaper, her recommendation from her old fashion-magazine boss is the tipping point that gets her the job. The job she cares about, and is good at, and that matters in the world.

But somehow, she was still selling her soul.

The_devil_wears_prada_nate_and_andr2) She prioritized her job over her friends and her lover -- including, sin of sins, skipping her boyfriend's birthday party because of a work emergency.

Let me ask you this. Ingrid currently has a job that she loves -- and it currently requires her to travel out of town two and a half days a week. This is a little hard on me, and puts some stress on our relationship. I also currently have a job I love (freelance writing) that currently requires me to spend weekends and evenings writing... time that would otherwise be part of the diminishing time we can spend together. This is a little hard on Ingrid, and puts some stress on our relationship.

Is either of us doing something terribly wrong?

AisleI don't think so. I think we're both doing exactly the right thing -- supporting each other in our respective careers, making space for each other to do what we need to do, and making a point of savoring the time we do have together. That, in my mind, is what you do when you love someone. Obviously there's a limit -- if Ingrid's job required her to move to Antarctica, I'd put my foot down -- but especially when a situation is a temporary, experience-gaining or stopgap situation, cutting your partner some slack so they can get where they're going in a career they care about is just part of being in a relationship.

Birthday_cake_2And, as Ingrid pointed out when I first shared this rant with her, "If you had a work emergency and had to skip my birthday party, I'd be disappointed, but I wouldn't think you'd done anything horribly wrong." Thinking that a birthday party is the most important thing in the world... that's not what sane adults do. (In fact, Andrea stayed at the emergency work event only as long as she needed to fulfill the requirements of her job, and when given the chance to stay longer to fulfill her own personal ambitions, she cut out and went home to be with her boyfriend.)

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_andrea_anBut women aren't supposed to think like this. Nobody blinks an eye when men have to work late or miss special personal events for job emergencies... but women are supposed to be loving and emotional and think family and love are always, always, always more important than work. Andrea was making a difficult but reasonable decision... but somehow, she was still selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_63) She got sucked into the world of fashion -- a world she didn't care beans about before she took the job.

Yes. Interestingly enough, when you take a new job in a field you're not familiar with, you often get excited about it and drawn into it. For fuck's sake, that's one of the best things about taking a job in a field you're not familiar with. You learn new things. You expand your horizons. I didn't know that much about women's health care before my job at the Feminist Women's Health Center; or about gay politics before my job at the gay newspaper; or hell, about the music industry before my crappy job at Ticketmaster. I grew to know and care about these things more because of these jobs. That doesn't make me a sell-out. That makes me an open-minded person who's eager to learn.

KingofthehillYou can argue that fashion is a vapid, trivial thing to care about. But you can also argue, as many characters in the movie do, that fashion is an art form, one that touches everyone's life. Nobody thinks Hank Hill of "King of the Hill" is a sellout because he's grown to care passionately about propane and propane accessories... but when Andrea grows to see that fashion isn't as vapid and trivial as she'd originally thought, somehow it means she was selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_emily_14) She stabbed her friend and colleague in the back.

Now, this is an interesting one. Andrea's most serious sin, in her mind and everyone else's, is that, when Miranda told her that she would be going on a coveted trip to Paris instead of her fellow assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), her initial reaction was to say, "I can't do that, the Paris trip means too much to Emily." But when Miranda made it clear that refusing the Paris trip would mean risking not only her job, but her chance at a recommendation and her career prospects (I believe her words were, "I'll assume you're not serious about your career, here or anywhere else"), Andrea caves and accepts.

In other words:

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_and_mirandHer boss decides (somewhat unreasonably, but not entirely so) that Andrea is a better and more capable choice for the Paris trip than Emily. Her boss offers her the assignment. She accepts it.

And this is bad because...?

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_and_miranaThat's what the working world is like. If you're a boss, you don't offer assignments based on how much it means to your employees. You offer assignments based on who you think the best person for the assignment will be. And if you're an employee, you don't refuse assignments because taking them would hurt someone's feelings. It's not like the dating world -- it's not rude or bad to take the job your friend is hot for.

It's not like Andrea connived and schemed for the trip. It's not like she tried to undercut Emily or make her look bad so she could get the trip. In fact, she tried to turn the trip down, and she tried to give it to Emily.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_4pgBut in the end, she acted like a professional. She treated her job like a job, not like a social relationship. She accepted an assignment that her boss offered her, an assignment her boss decided she was better suited to than her colleague -- and this, in her own eyes and in everybody else's, makes her a selfish, backstabbing power-slut. Nobody would blink twice if a man did exactly the same thing -- but for Andrea, somehow it means she was selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_15) She began to have understanding and sympathy for her abusive, control-freak boss.

My very, very favorite line in the movie -- and one that I think sums up in a nutshell the movie's real message -- is when Andrea says to a fellow writer (I'm paraphrasing here), "If a man acted the way Miranda does, nobody would say anything at all except what a great job he does."

Yup.

That pretty much says it all.

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_4I think Andrea's character arc when it comes to Miranda is 100% reasonable. She starts out hating and fearing her; she grows to have some respect and compassion for her; and in the end, she decides that the compromises Miranda has made (personal and ethical) aren't compromises she would be willing to make.

But somehow, the fact that she ever had respect for Miranda's professionalism, and compassion for the pain that her sacrifices caused her... somehow, that means she was selling her soul.

*****

HpandphilosophyThere's an essay I read in "Harry Potter and Philosophy," arguing that ambition (the defining quality of the Slytherin house) is, in fact, a virtue. And I would agree. Like most virtues, taken to extremes it can become a vice... but the willingness to focus on long-term professional goals, and to work hard and make sacrifices to reach them, is definitely a virtue. And it's a virtue that our society generally values quite highly.

Devil_wears_prada_2But not in women. In women, ambition -- being willing to put up with shit to get where you want to go, sometimes prioritizing your career over your personal life, becoming engaged with a job even though it's ultimately not what you care about most, treating it like a job instead of a slumber party, having respect for successful high-achievers in your field, and generally taking your career seriously -- isn't considered a virtue at all.

In fact, it's more than just not a virtue. It means that you're selling your soul.

Mighty Real: A Review of "9 Songs"

9_songs_1I was digging through my archives the other day, came across this, and was extremely entertained by it. I think I'm the only film critic on the face of the planet who actually sort of liked "9 Songs." I may be the only sentient being on the face of the planet who actually sort of liked "9 Songs." I think there are giant seven-eyed mollusks from the planet Zarquon who hated "9 Songs." So I decided I should come clean about it and stand by my eccentric opinion. Here's the review I wrote of it for Adult FriendFinder Magazine. Enjoy!

Mighty Real
Copyright 2005 Greta Christina. Written for Adult FriendFinder Magazine.

9 Songs. Directed by Michael Winterbottom. Written by Michael Winterbottom, Kieran O'Brien and Margo Stilley. Starring Kieran O'Brien and Margo Stilley. Unrated.

9_songs_7Before I say anything, let me get this out of the way: This is the movie where people have sex. If you've heard about "9 Songs," this is almost certainly the Number One thing you've heard about it. The actors -- not the characters, the actual actors playing the characters -- have literal, explicit, non-simulated, actual real-life genital fucking-and-sucking sex. And rather a lot of it, too.

Now obviously, if I were talking about a porno movie, this would be so uninteresting as to be laughable. But for a non-porn, semi-mainstream art-house movie, it's pretty much unheard of. And whatever buzz is being generated about the movie is being generated because of it. Which is kind of too bad. Because while the sex in "9 Songs" is pretty interesting, the fact that it's "real sex" isn't the most interesting thing about it.

So I wanted to get that out of the way right off. And in fact, the movie gets it out of the way almost as quickly, establishing its "real-sex" credentials in the very first scene between the two main characters -- so you can get a good look at it, and get used to it, and move on.

9_songs_10See, here's the interesting thing about "9 Songs." It isn't that the sex is "real," or even that there's so much of it. What's interesting about "9 Songs" is the way the movie uses sex. Directed by Michael Winterbottom ("24 Hour Party People," "Welcome to Sarajevo"), "9 Songs" uses sex to tell the story of a couple's relationship (well, okay, sex interspersed with songs at live rock concerts). We find out about Matt and Lisa (Kieran O'Brien and Margo Stilley) and the rise and fall of their love affair, not through a series of conversations, but through a series of sex acts. The way they're having sex -- what they do, how they seem to feel about it, how it gets started, who takes the lead, how well they pay attention -- this is how we find out about who these people are and what they're like together.

9_songs_8And here's what struck me. In most mainstream (i.e., non-porn) movies, when two characters have sex, it's the very fact that they're having sex that's important. Typical movie sex shows people having sex for the first time; even when it's not a first time, sex is almost always used as a plot point, a shocker or a turning point, a newly opened door or a burned bridge. Filmmakers don't bother to show you anything special about the sex, don't bother to make the style and the feel of the sex unique to those characters. The fact that they're having sex is apparently special enough. The actual sex can just be generically hot movie sex, with perhaps a few broad strokes (rough or tender, quick or slow, loving or cold) to paint a marginally more specific picture.

9_songs_11But in "9 Songs," the fact that Matt and Lisa are having sex is a given. They're having sex from the very beginning of the movie, and by the second or third scene, the fact that they're having sex is no more surprising than the fact that any two people in a relationship are having sex. So it's the kind of sex they're having, the tone and flavor of it, that becomes important.

For instance. There's a scene where Matt ties Lisa up, blindfolds her, and begins guiding her through a fantasy, telling her "Forget where you are" and making up an erotic story for her to imagine and enjoy. But almost immediately she takes over the storytelling, picking it up and running with it in an entirely different direction, taking control away even as she's bound and blindfolded.

For another instance. There's a scene where Matt and Lisa go to a strip club together, apparently to enjoy this naughty thrill together as a couple. But as the scene unfolds, Lisa become increasingly entranced with the dancer, ignoring Matt entirely and even forgetting that he's there -- to the point that she doesn't notice when he takes off and walks out the door.

9_songs_9There are many, many more instances. There's a scene where Lisa is masturbating, with the door open and Matt in the next room; not in a friendly "showing off for my lover" way, not even in a feminist-empowered "my body, my right to masturbate" way, but in a defensive, closed-off, "fuck you I don't care what you think or want" way (exacerbated by the fact that, as always, they're at his house). There's a scene where Matt asks if she thinks they'll ever have sex without a condom, and Lisa says no: not because of safety, but because she likes it better with one. There are scenes near the end of the film where Lisa feels Matt slipping away and starts becoming more sexually attentive and affectionate. I could go on and on. The whole movie is like this, with the actors expressing subtle emotional shadings and character traits during sex scene after sex scene after sex scene.

9_songs_15And again, it struck me how rare that is, in both mainstream movies and porn. Mainstream actors spend years learning to express emotion and character in the way they walk, speak, smoke, eat, scratch their head, look in a mirror, everything. But sex is either supposed to come naturally, or it's not considered important and unique enough to work on. And porn actors -- even the ones who can act -- spend so much time and energy trying to look hot that there's nothing left for depicting the way their particular character would have hot sex. (I still remember how great Rocco Siffredi was in the arthouse movie "Romance" -- until it came to the sex scenes, and he stopped being Paolo the character and just became Rocco the porn star.)

9_songs_16The fact that the sex is real isn't entirely trivial, of course. You'd think it would work as a shocker, and it does a bit at first. Even I was staring at the actor's genitals for the first few minutes, making sure I was really seeing what I thought I was seeing. But after a while, the realness of the sex has the exact opposite effect: it normalizes it. It presents sex as natural: one of the things people in love do together, and therefore interesting to look at and worth depicting as authentically as possible. (Director Michael Winterbottom himself has commented on this, pointing out that, "If you film actors eating a meal, the food is real.") The scenes at the rock shows are given the same casually loving attention as the scenes in the bedroom, putting sex in the same category as music: an integral part of the characters' lives, important but not separate. And while there's no special attempt to show you the fucking and sucking in all its close-up glory the way porn movies do, there's no special attempt to avoid the shot, either. It's just normal, filmed like a normal aspect of love and coupledom, beautiful and moving and fucked-up and funny and sad.

ShortbusAnd of course, the fact that the sex is real puts "9 Songs" firmly on the line between porn and art. You know how non-porn movies have become more and more sexually daring (some of them, anyway), and how porn movies have become more artistically interesting and innovative (some of them, anyway)? You know how that line between the two has started to blur, the way it seemed like it was going to in the '70s before everything went to hell and the two split off back into their own little worlds? Well "9 Songs" is trying to make that happen again. It's more than just the latest salvo in the campaign, more than just the latest push of the envelope. "9 Songs" has plonked itself squarely on the fence between the two territories, sitting its big naked butt in the gateway and holding the gate open for anyone else who wants to come through. In either direction.

9_songs_4But does it work? Sure, it's an important event in the history of cinema, blah blah blah. But is it a good movie? For the most part, I'd say yes. It's very much a small movie -- it's not even a slice of life, it's a sliver -- driven less by plot and narrative than it is by feelings and images. You have to have patience with that sort of thing, with a quiet, meandering story that takes a while to establish itself and doesn't really go very far. And the voiceovers during the Antarctic scenes (the movie is presented as a flashback, with Matt remembering the relationship while he studies glaciers) are pretentious to the point of teeth-gnashing madness. So you'll have to have patience with that, too.

9_songs_2But if you can deal with this sort of small, quiet, occasionally pretentious arthouse movie, I think your patience will be rewarded. It's perceptive and thoughtful about sex, about love, about relationships, about the places they do and don't overlap. The sex is beautiful to watch, even when it's sad, erotic and romantic in the way that your own sex life might be erotic and romantic. And if you're at all interested in the way sex is (and is not) depicted in movies, then rush your butt out to the arthouse before it goes away. You absolutely cannot miss this one.

My New Favorite Picture

This...

is the best thing...

ever.

It's absolutely my new favorite picture of myself. I want to make it my new primary photo on my blog. I want it to be my author photo on my next book. I want it carved on my gravestone.

It's me as a character on the Simpsons.

Avatar_4

It really looks astonishingly like me, I think. Except that I never wear my hair in a headband.

You can get your own here. And if you do, will you please please please please tell me? If you have a blog or website of your own, post the link in the comments. Or else just email me the jpg, to greta at gretachristina dot com. Maybe I'll Photoshop together a group portrait!

P.S. I want that T-shirt!

(Via Friendly Atheist, who is my new favorite atheist blogger for finding this thing.)

Getting Older Means Never Having To Care About What's Cool

American_idol_logoA friend recently sent me a YouTube video clip from American Idol, and I was struck for about the eighty zillionth time by how out of touch I've become with contemporary pop culture.

People_magazineWhen I was in my twenties, it's not that I liked every top 40 recording artist or Top 10 movie. But I pretty much knew who or what most of them were. Now I look at this American Idol montage of celebrities lip-synching to Staying Alive, and I'm lucky if I can identify one out of three. Same with People Magazine. Not only do I not recognize the famous people, I don't even know who they are when it's explained to me. "Oh, she was in 'Five's a Crowd' for a season, and 'Houseboat Surprise,' and that miniature golf movie with Adam Sandler." Huh?

Now usually, my reaction to this has been, "Oh, I'm getting so very very old." I'm 45, and the world of pop culture is passing me by. Pop culture is aimed squarely at the 18-24 set, and I am losing my coolness by the minute. I am already less cool now than I was when I started this post.

But as I was watching this silly American Idol montage, it struck me: There's another reason I don't know who these people are.

I don't care.

Modern_brideWhen Ingrid and I were planning our wedding, I picked up some bridal magazine at the hairdresser's, and it had all this stuff about what bridesmaid's colors and cake flavors and honeymoon destinations were "in" this year. And I remember thinking, "It's your wedding! What could possibly be less relevant that what's 'in'? Who cares what colors and vacation spots other people like? It's your fucking wedding! What do you like?"

This_film_is_not_yet_ratedAnd that's the other side of getting older. As I've gotten older, I've gotten significantly better at just liking the things I like, and not giving a shit about whether they're cool. I like contra dancing, documentaries, cat-eye glasses, graphic novels, spanking porn, comfortable cotton clothing, Richard Dawkins, Harry Potter, atheist bloggers, weightlifting, The Office. And I don't give shit if any of it is on the Vice magazine What's Hot list.

Radiohead_ok_computerNow, I do resist some things about being a codger. I make a conscious effort, for instance, to listen to at least some music made by bands and musicians who are still playing. I never want to be one of those people who only listens to music they listened to in college... and who insists that popular music has all gone downhill since then. In fact, some of my favorite music -- Radiohead, Iron & Wine, Low, White Stripes, DJ Danger Mouse, Be Good Tanyas, yada yada yada -- is made by performers who are still playing.

MadonnaAnd it's not like the twenty-something people I know are mindless pop culture drones. They aren't; no more than I was when I was twenty-something. This isn't about liking or conforming to pop culture. It's about having a baseline familiarity with it. Knowing about it, having an opinion about it, having it be a reasonably big part of the world you walk in. That's what's changed. For me, anyway.

Circle_of_two_arrowsI'm not sure what's the cart and what's the horse. Do older people respond less to pop culture because it isn't aimed at us... or is pop culture not aimed at older people because we don't respond to it as much? The former is at least partly true; what with the whole disposable income thing, and our youth-obsessed culture in which young people set the trends.

ContraBut I think the latter may be true as well. Speaking for myself, getting older has meant getting to know myself and what I do and don't like better. And it's meant getting to know the world a little better and what it has to offer. I've seen more of the world's nooks and crannies than I had at 25, enough to have found ones that hold my interest more than the broader cultural brushstrokes. I know the world well enough to know that contra dancing is in it... and I know myself well enough to know that I think contra dancing is wicked cool. And I've wasted enough time in the past -- and have little enough of it left -- to waste any of it caring who Ryan Seacrest is.

The New "Zoo" Review: The Blowfish Blog

ZooThose of you who remember my movie reviews for the Bay Times and the Spectator and have told me that you miss them, you're in luck. I'm going to be reviving my long-dormant fim critic career, and will be intermittently using my new gig at the Blowfish Blog to review mainstream and art-house (i.e., non-porn) movies that have interesting content about sex. And I'm starting with the new documentary about zoophilia, "Zoo":

The movie is about bestiality.

I want to tell you that right up front, since it takes a while for the movie to get around to it. A little more specifically, "Zoo" is a documentary about a 2005 incident in which a man died of a perforated colon after engaging in sexual activity with --- read "getting fucked in the ass by" -- a horse. And it's about the small group of people -- other zoophiles, or "zoos" -- who shared these sexual activities and interests as a community: talking about it on the Internet, engaging in it at small gatherings, and sometimes photographing or filming it.

To read the rest, read the Blowfish blog! And if you know of any new movies with interesting stuff about sex -- good or bad -- please be sure to let me know.

RickmanWatch: Robin Hood, Prince of Feebs

Sheriff_of_nottinghamHere's what I've been hearing about "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," pretty consistently ever since it came out: It's a terrible, stupid movie. Kevin Costner is unwatchable. But Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham kicks ass, and is worth sitting through the rest of the movie for. (Or is almost worth sitting through the rest of the movie for. Opinions vary on this point.)

So it showed on HBO recently, and I thought: What the hell. I'll Tivo it, I'll watch it out of the corner of my eye while I'm working on my laptop, and when Alan Rickman comes on I'll pay attention.

Here's my assessment.

Robin_hood_prince_of_feebsFirst: Oh, my dog, is this a terrible movie. Bloated, obvious, as formulaic as bad mainstream porn, with ham-handed attempts at both humor and heroism, it's everything people hate about costume flicks. And Kevin Costner is even more unwatchable than usual.

But who cares about that. What about the RickmanWatch?

Sheriff_of_nottingham_2Yes, Rickman is great as the Sheriff of Nottingham. As you would expect him to be. But I didn't think he was quite all that and a bag of chips. It's a pretty one-note role: Snarling, Cackling, Snidely Whiplash Bad Guy. And that's not enough... even for a Tivo'ed "Hot Moments with Alan Rickman" fast-forward session.

That's hardly Rickman's fault. That's how the part was written, and I'm sure it's how it was directed as well. But I like interesting movie villains, movie villains who seem human, movie villains who shed some light on why people do what they do. They're more compelling -- and more pertinently, they're more hot.

But Rickman does do one thing with the role that makes it stand out: He makes it funny.

Sheriff_of_nottingham_3The scene where the Sheriff is trying to marry Maid Marian against her will, and the Merry Men keep trying to break the door down, is a great example. He's not enraged, he's not frightened -- he's just incredibly annoyed at the constant interruption. He's not like Snidely Whiplash at all. He's like an irritable co-worker who's being interrupted for the tenth time that day and gets snippy.

SnidelywhiplashAnd that isn't something you see a lot of in Standard Snidely Whiplash Movie Villains. Standard Snidely Whiplash Movie Villains are usually too entranced with their beautiful wickedness to let themselves be funny. Rickman is very good at finding the kernel of humor in the humorless, self-important prat -- he does it in the Harry Potter movies, he did it to perfection in "Galaxy Quest." And he does it really well here.

But not quite well enough. Rickman is pretty entertaining in "Robin Hood: Prince of Feebs," and he does the best he can with what he has; but it's just not a well-crafted enough role. And there's just not enough of him in it, even with fast-forwarding through on Tivo. I'm coming down on the "almost worth sitting through the rest of the movie for" side on this one.

So here's the current Rickman Roundup:

Sheriff_of_nottingham_4Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: D-. (And it only escapes getting an F because it has Alan Rickman in it.) Alan Rickman in the movie: B.

SnapeThe Harry Potter series: Ranging from C+ to B+. Alan Rickman in the
movies: A++.

Alexander_daneGalaxy Quest: A. Alan Rickman in the movie: A+.

MetatronDogma: A-. Alan Rickman in the movie: A+.

MarvinHitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: B+. Alan Rickman in the movie: A-.

Alfred_blalockSomething the Lord Made: B. Alan Rickman in the movie: B+.

Colonel_brandonSense and Sensibility: C. Alan Rickman in the movie: B+. (Been a while since I've seen this one, though. I don't much like the story in the first place, and I thought Rickman was wrong for the part -- but he was awfully damn hot. Too hot for the role, actually.)