Staaaaaaay [away from] Meeeeeeee

63TV is a Sky Digital channel that plays a "mix of the greatest music videos of all time that make up the Soundtrack of our lives." Its selection of contemporary crap soft rock and crap soft rock from the 80s and 90s makes it the TV equivalent of More FM and the channel is always playing at Burger Kings across the land (perhaps they won BK's lucrative Audio-Visual entertainment tender).

The other place that 63 makes a frequent appearance is at my work's gym. I am often there at ungodly hours of the morning pumping iron or training for marathons but no matter how early I get there, there is always someone who beats me to the remote control and decides that 63 is perfect for working out to.

Sometimes 63 unearths a little gem of a video that accompanies a kick-ass tune (the other day it scored a trifecta by screening Devo, Talking Heads and The Cure videos within a twenty minute window) but most of the time its crappy 80s soft-rock, or mum-friendly drivel from the likes of Jack Johnson, Brooke Fraser et al.

Twice in the last couple of months however, they have screened something that literally made my skin crawl. Something eyeball-gougingly horrible that not only assaulted my ears, but left my eyes glued to the screen in paralytic, abject terror.

The video was for the song STAY by Shakespeare's Sister.

I have a personal history with the song which I had long since buried; it was one of the tracks on a series of tapes that were on constant rotation at a supermarket I worked at when I was 15. Each tape was only about two hours long and was continuously looped thru the shop's PA system for about six months at a time. As a result, by the time I left the supermarket in 2000, I had heard Shakespeares Sister's STAY roughly eighty-six thousand times.

But…

I had never seen the video until 63TV regurgitated it onto the gym's TV screen.

My God. What the hell is this shit?

Why is she fawning over the comatose naked guy? What planet is she on so close to the moon? Whats with the haircut that presumedly inspired Nick Carter's 'do in his Backstreet Boys days?

And good Lord, where the hell did the other chick come from? She looks like shes on her way to audition for a bit part as a supporting demon in a CHARMED episode (and manages to ham up her performance with the manic intensity of Deborah Reed in TROLL 2). This is the stuff of nightmares.

With art direction that looks like a low-budget Total Eclipse of the Heart video in Space, and a soundtrack that effectively uses the repeated whiny, drawn-out delivery of three words as the foundation for a whole song, STAY gets my vote for the worst video of the 1990s. If not all time.

And after a little wikipedia-based research (born out of the same morbid curiosity that makes people read serial killer biographies) I also discovered an additional two facts that terrify me. One is that the video won awards (*shudder*) and the other is that "after a 13 year hiatus, Shakespeares Sister reformed in 2009"

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Maths = Lies

I've never been awesome at Maths. I couldn't tell you how to work out the square root of anything, or what a fractal is. Hell, I couldn't even tell you the names of any of my five maths teachers in High School.

The one aspect of Maths that I was okay at, however, was Probability. You know, the concept that calculates the chances of something happening or not happening - the theory that underpins statements like "the chances of the All Blacks winning their next game is one in five" - or "Sarah Palin has a one-in-eighty-six-thousand-trillion shot of NOT being pronounced legally retarded by the next Election".

I took all this for granted back in High School. But looking back on it, if you add a little rationale and logic to the probability equation, you can come to the conclusion that this probability stuff doesn't quite work...

Let me explain. Lets say you are sitting in a coffee shop, having a latte with a friend. According to the probabilitist's argument, the chances of that friend putting a sachet of sugar into their drink or not will be a one-in-whatever-number-they-calculate chance. This ratio will invariably be higher or lower than the chances of the same event (putting sugar into coffee) occurring with another friend.

If you think about this rationally... Its crap.

If your friend wants to have sugar, they will. If they don't (or are diabetic) they wont. When it comes right down to it, there is only ever a 50-50 chance of ANYTHING happening.

Your friend may fart loudly whilst taking a bite of their muffin. Or they may not.

The barrista may have a sudden heart attack whilst sprinkling cinnamon onto a hot chocolate. Or they may not.

Your dog may sprout wings and run for President. Or it may not.

There are an infinite number of things that MAY happen, but logically, there is no way to chart the likelihood of ANY of them happening. They either will, or they wont.

Even if you use statistical data to make a probability-based prediction - such as tracking the results of a racehorse to work out the odds of winning it's next race - the horse still only has a one-in-two shot of coming across the finish line first - it either will or it wont.

So there you have it - your maths teacher lied to you.

Next week: the Algebra conspiracy...

EXCLUSIVE! Lady Gaga's latest music video script leaked online!

EXT – AUSCHWITZ DEATH CAMP – NIGHT

A grey mist circles the dilapidated buildings as the wind whistles and howls.

INSERT – TITLE: “LADY GAGA PRESENTS”

C/U on PAIR OF HIGH-HEELED FEET as they walk down a dusty concrete floor (making a loud, crisp CLICK! With each step)

INSERT – TITLE: “OATMEAL”

LADY GAGA is standing in a large, darkened room. She is wearing high-waisted pants, a baggy, blue denim shirt and a ragged old hat perched on top of a large, white AFRO. She is also wearing BLACKFACE makeup. Standing behind GAGA are a group of buff, white MODEL-TYPES, wearing grimy dungarees (no shirt) and also in BLACKFACE.

LYRICS

Oh-oh-oh-oh!
Oh-oh-oh-oh!

As the beat kicks in, GAGA and the MODEL-TYPES start performing stylised MINSTREL-SHOW-esque dance moves (including shuffles and Jazz-hands)

VERSE

I want to say ‘I love you’
But you’re making it too hard
I want you to be healthy
But my feelings you discard

The MODEL-TYPES surround GAGA and writhe for a beat, then violently RIP her MINSTREL costume off, revealing a nude-coloured pantsuit with a SWASTIKA painted on one side, and a PENTAGRAM painted on the other. GAGA dances in a jerky way, as if having a seizure.

VERSE

I want you to be healthy,
I want you when you’re hot
I love it when you’re on the stove
Brewing in a pot


BRIDGE

Don’t be so bold,
Don’t be so honest,
I like it steamy like
A bowl of porridge

CHORUS

Oh-oh-oh-oh-Oatmeal!
Mix the oats with water,
Mix the oats with water,
Oh-oh-oh-oh-Oatmeal!
Like your Grandma taught ya,
Like your Grandma taught ya

GAGA is strutting down a corridor with the MODEL-TYPES following close behind snapping their fingers. GAGA is wearing a BURQA that covers her face, but is cut to reveal most of her skeletal, naked body underneath. She has 666 painted on her midriff in what appears to be blood. The MODEL-TYPES are clad in GIMP SUITS.

VERSE

My breakfast time is special and
I want a little treat
If I add a little honey my
Porridge gets so sweet

GAGA and MODEL-TYPES arrive in a DUNGEON where two men are chained to the wall. They are THE PROPHET MOHAMMED and JESUS. Also present are a NAKED WOMAN and a GOAT.

REPEAT CHORUS

CUT BETWEEN:

GAGA forces MOHAMMED and JESUS to make out while she watches sadistically

GAGA, wearing an NAZI SS OFFICER uniform, stabs a RABBI and laughs maniacally

GAGA takes a dump on a massive AMERICAN FLAG

GAGA sets an inverted CRUCIFIX on fire, thereby summoning SATAN

GAGA and SATAN slaughter the MODEL-TYPES taking turns to feast on their leather-clad carcasses.

GAGA looks up from one of their torsos –

OUTRO (spoken)

You know, I’m just like Goldilocks – I like my porridge juuuust riiight!

How to make something sound AWESOME

Original Job Ad = Itallics
My comments = Bold

High school/university graduate required for leadership role:

I can lead... and I graduated BOTH!

Outstanding leadership training
Exceptional professional development and further education opportunities
Unmatched career progression and lifestyle

Interesting...

Friendly, supportive, team environment
International travel and humanitarian aid potential

International Travel?! Score!

Adventure and sporting opportunities
Free access to gyms, pools and personal trainers
Free health and dental care

And here I am payin' for personal trainers and root canals like a CHUMP!

Subsidised accommodation possible

AND they'll pay my morgatge?

We are looking to recruit quality people to lead our world-class teams. No experience is necessary.

NONE?!!!

You will GET outstanding leadership and management training, ensuring you develop the skills and confidence to solve problems and make good decisions in a range of situations.

I want to GET all those things!

The successful applicant could lead a world-class team of 30 after one year with us.

You will have the independence to plan training and execute tasks with your team in environments ranging from the everyday to challenging. Your career progression will be fast and you will receive outstanding personal character development and travel opportunities.

I love things that are fast and outstanding!

You will be called upon to advise on operational matters.

You may also be able to develop sports and adventure skills within your working hours.

Paid to play petanque and build tree huts! Woah!

We have a policy of supporting and looking after our people, so we provide free healthcare, dental care, access to gyms, pools, personal trainers, meals and clothing.

Wow, sounds like either the best job in the world, or a doomsday cult!

You may not have considered a career with us in the past. Now that you know a little bit about what we can offer, we hope you’ll want to know more.

Okay… I dont like the sound of that first part... but I do kinda want to know more...

To find out more, visit army.mil.nz/careers, or call us on 0800 NZ ARMY.

Oh. Never mind.

Ron E Bishop and the Curse of the Evil Smut!

A while ago I blogged about a letter-to-the-editor that appeared in the Timaru Herald written by one HH Wilson. The letter started intriguingly by refering to a previous letter in which HH had relayed his theory on how Jesus was from another planet, before segueing into a positive review of Avatar.

The other day I was reading the Timaru Herald again and came across another letter by another Timaruvian religious nutjob. This one bore the show-stopping title "EVIL SMUT" and was penned by one Ron E Bishop (he's even got a religious name!)

Lets see what Ron E has to say…

I chose to go to a comedy show last night to listen to five comedians.

Okay, so far so good…

I was expecting to see some good clean comedy such as Fred Dagg, Billy T James.

Uh-oh. Go into a comedy show with those kind of expectations (ie. assuming that NZ comedy hasn’t changed in 30 years) is just asking for trouble.

What was served up to me for my $40 was the most vulgar, racist, anti-Christian Performance that I ever seen on a public stage.

Sorry Ron, it's gonna take more than forty bucks for them to unfreeze Billy T… and don’t you mean "that I HAVE ever seen on a public stage"? And does this "public stage" differ from the vulgar, racist, anti-Christian performances that you watch in the privacy of your own home?

There were people that left within the first five minutes, it was that bad. As they left the MC said goodbye all you f… Christians and then him and his mates rubbished every religion, every race of people and even our leading politicians.

Wow. That’s just impressive. How did they manage to cram a degrogetory reference to EVERY SINGLE race and religion into one comedy show? Its almost impressive as Ron's grasp of punctuation and sentence structure.

The only reason I sat through it all was to see how bad New Zealand society had become.

Yeah okay, Ron. I bet you told the officer that pulled you over on the way home that you were only speeding to see how dark the night was.

I was not given any warning that it contained coarse and vulgar language or that they would be drinking alcohol on the stage.

The walk-outs in the first five minutes didn’t inspire you?

I asked the promoter of the show for a refund and he refused to give me my money back.

Should have told him that you only stayed to see how bad society was (and that cultural anthropoligists such as yourself are exempt from ticket costs)

The sponsors of the show are TV3, Cadbury Crunchie Bars, More FM, Thrifty Rental Cars, Creative NZ Arts Council on New Zealand.

Hang on, why did you throw this tidbit into the middle of your captivating discourse, Ronnie? I'm guessing its so people can stage some kind of boycott? Rest assured, I'll be eating Whitakers chocolate and listening to ZM in the car that I rented from Avis (after seeing their ad on TV2) on my way to firebomb Creative NZ.

On the way home I was stopped at a police patrol checkpoint…

Hope you told those boys-in-blue about the naughty comedians!

… while the so-called comedians were back at the Theatre Royal drinking. I phoned the police…

Hang on, you phoned them from the CHECKPOINT? I'm confused…

I want their show banned from New Zealand theatres. They are a disgrace to society.

Woah. Hold up, Ronnie. I agree that the Police have no business performing for the theatre-going public, but don’t ban their show!

The sponsors and those involved with the show are equally to blame.

Good thing you told us who they are a few sentences ago…

I'm a Christian who loves to have a beer with family and friends and I enjoy a good yarn in private.

Oh whew! Here I was thinking you were some kind of crazy old crank…

When I see the public being asked to pay for what can only be described as evil smut, someone has to blow the whistle on these people to stop it from spreading.

I sure do hate it when myself, a member of the public, is asked to PAY for something… perhaps Ron would like to see the evil smut-peddlers do it for free?

I hope that someone reading this letter will do something to send these people back to the countries they came from and be made to reimburse all those of us who were decieved.

As a person reading this letter, Ron, I can assure you that "these people" - by which I'm guessing that you're refering to the international comedians - will indeed by travelling back to their home lands at some point. I don’t think your chances of getting your $40 back are good though… you see the people putting on events of this nature do so to MAKE money, as opposed to take people's money, hold on to it for the duration of the show and then give it back.

Perhaps, Mr Bishop, you could try going to a McDonalds, buying a Big Mac, eating it then asking for your money back. You could argue that you only finished it to see how bad the state of NZ's beef industry has become.

More Than Words?

NB: In the aim of making this blog post at least remotely family-friendly, all expletives have been replaced by Pokemon names

A couple of months back I saw Kick Ass - a film notable for its post-modern deconstruction of superhero conventions, and even more notable for this line:

Okay you *Charmanders*, lets see what you can do now"

... being unleashed by an 11 year old girl (who has just slaughtered a whole gaggle of henchmen).

The controversy surrounding this particular line reminded me of something I read a while ago about how the BBC had okayed the word *"Charmander"* for broadcast television depending on its context (eg. it would not be acceptable for a wife-beating drunk to scream "You stupid *Charmander*! I'll Kill you!" as he beat his wife to a pulp, but it would be okay for the same character to say to his drinking buddies "Yeah, that Smitty, he's a good *Charmander* - helped me fix the truck, he did").

This also got me wondering how the C-word, and other expletives, are regarded by New Zealand watchdogs - more importantly, was there a ranked LIST that catalogues the most offensive words, preferably in order of offensive-ness. Twelve seconds of googling later and I had my list on-screen.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has released the hilariously titled report "What not to Swear: The Acceptability of Words in Broadcasting" with a whopping 44 pages of analysis into the degrees of offence caused by different words in different contexts. There is also a handy list that ranks the naughty words from most-to-least offensive.

This list is interesting - unsurprisingly, *Charmander* takes out the top spot, followed closely by the derogetory racist term *Nidorina* and *Mother Fearow*. Interestingly, there are four derivations for the *Fearow* root word (the other three being *Jesus Fearowing Christ*, *Get Fearowed* and *Fearow Off*) ranking higher than the actual word itself (which is at #8)

Another surprise is the ranking of the vulgar scatological term for feces, *Squirtle* which is at number 25 (out of 31) and well below words such as the names of deities (namely, the Father and the Son - which I assume refers to their names used in vain) and not-really-offensive-but-more-colloquial terms such as *Pidgey* (urine), *Pidgey Off* and *Bulbasaur* (a female dog) at numbers 18, 21 and 19.

The report, which was compiled as a result of a survey conducted amongst a wide group of diverse groups, made the following broad generalisations:

When comparing different demographic groups, it is evident that, in general:
• Males tend to be more accepting of words than females
• Younger respondents tend to be more accepting than older respondents
• Those that state they have no religion tend to be more accepting than those of
religious belief.
• Those of New Zealand European ethnicity are generally more accepting than
those in the Ma¯ori, Pacific Island and Asian ethnic groups.

Nothing too shocking with these findings on the whole - but the survey participant's real time-to-shine comes later in the report, where they are asked to write the words and terms that they personally find offensive (and which are copied verbatim) that include poorly-spelt pearlers such as:

deuch bag
dork
general sexual inuendo used on radio is disgusting
Ginga
Honky, Hairyback, Redneck, Grognard, Nerd, Buttmunch,
toerag, Porch monkey, User, American, cheesebucket
RACIST REMARKS BY MAORI SCANDAL MONGERING
ELABERATING TO CREATE SENSATIONALISM (calm down, dude!)
John Key
“Brian Tamaki” Anything Paul Henry Says

The whole report, and condensed ranking list, makes for interesting reading if you're at all interested in censorship or broadcasting standards. It was surprising to me to see how some of the words ranked on the list, and no doubt would have compiled a completely different offence-ranking if I was asked to do so.

I do believe it is difficult to classify all of these words (apart from a couple of key offenders) as inherently "bad" words, as a lot of them are completely dependent on context (for example, the word *Arcanine* - the vulgar term for one's anus - would probably not sit well on Shortland Street, but is completely appropriate on Rescue Me, a drama about the troubled lives of FDNY firefighters).

I feel that the best way (but perhaps not the ideal) is to regulate complaints based on their merits on a case-by-case basis (which is what the BSA currently does) and for television producers to perform self-censorship and look at the context of potentially offensive material in the first instance.

Deconstructing Irony

Ever hear a song that you haven't heard in a while and think "God, how was THIS ever popular?"?

The other day I was waiting in line to get some lunch and Alanis Morisette's Ironic was playing on what I can only assume was HAS-BEEN FM ("All washed-up, All the time!") and as I listened to the lyrics I thought to myself, are there any actual examples of irony nestled in amongst all this drivel?

Lets do some deconstruction!

The definition of irony reads:

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning

There is also a thing called dramatic irony which is

irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.

So how do the lines of Morisette's opus fit into these definitions? Lets take a look at a some lyrics:

An old man, turned 98
He won the lottery, and died the next day

Sad? Sure, people dying outside the context of a James Bond movie usually are. Ironic? Not really... Now if he had said "I'm going to use this lottery money to clone myself so that I can live forever!" just before dying, this might fit the definition of dramatic irony... but as it stands Morisette is simply describing the barely-surprising occurrence of a very old man leaving this mortal coil.

Mr. Play-It-Safe, was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase, and kissed his kids goodbye
He waited his whole damn life, to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down he thought, "Well isn't this nice?"

The only thing that fits the definition of "Irony" in this stanza is Mr. Play-It-Safe's (son of Herb and Judy Play-It-Safe of the Long Island Play-It-Safes) little internal non sequiter - "Well isn't this nice" is very obviously not what he's thinking as the aircraft falls out of the sky IF HE WAS BEING LITERAL. This statement could also be an example of sarcasm or sardonic...ness.

The rest of the verse - the exposition detailing Play-It-Safe overcoming his crippling, life-long aviophobia affliction - expresses nothing that would be considered ironic - merely tragic. I feel especially sorry for Timmy Play-It-Safe, who will never be able to play catch with his Pop, or Sally Play-It-Safe, who loved her daddy's horsey rides.

A traffic jam, when you're already late
A "No smoking" sign, on your cigarette break
It's like ten thousand spoons, when all you need is a knife
It's meeting the man of my dreams, and then meeting his beautiful wife

The man of your dreams wouldn't be married (unless it was Tiger Woods - ZING!) Not Ironic

If you needed a knife for something, the last place you would look is Jake's Spoon Emporium, the only place 10,000 spoons would logically be in the close proximity. Not Ironic.

"No Smoking" signs are everywhere. People who go on breaks with the express purpose of smoking a cancer-stick have designated spots in which to do so WHERE THERE AREN'T ANY SUCH SIGNS. Not Ironic.

A traffic jam when you're already late is (depending on where you live) is a fact of life. Chances are you're late because of the traffic jam. NOT IRONIC!

In closing, I don't want to make any broad generalisations, but this song is retarded. I apologise for getting all post-modern all you and to make up for it, here's something which also exposes the flaws of this 90s flashback in a much more enlightened way.

EDIT - I cant believe I made it thru a whole post about Alanis Morisette without mentioning that she went down on Uncle Joey from Full House in a cinema... I'm slipping.

Rip it up and Start Again

Recently I was strolling through the video store on $1 DVD day and picked up a few flicks that I'd been meaning to see for a little while. In the selection were a couple of recent-ish horror remakes.

I'm a big horror nut, but like most fanboys have never been hugely responsive to the idea of remakes. I think that some are insulting and disparaging to the source material (Prom Night) whilst others are simply mediocre-but-watchable time-waster flicks (The Hills Have Eyes). Without realising that I had done it, I managed to rent two films that represented two out of the three main types of remake, were based on two of my favourite horror films and that left very different impressions on me.

The first one I watched was the 2009 "reimaging" of Wes Craven's seminal Last House on the Left. The original is a notorious, cheap exploitation flick which became a Video Nasty boogeyman and benchmark in American Horror. It was banned in this country until about 2004 and is still not available 100% uncut in Britain to the best of my knowledge.

I put the remake into the DVD player with low expectations. I thought that the studio would want to water the queasy brutality of the original down into a par-boiled teen fright flick. However despite my cynical outlook (and laughably naff trailer) the 2009 Last House is not a complete write-off - its not amazing, but its not terrible.

There is some particuarly nasty material here - the girls in the film are subjected to some pretty horrific stuff, and the death of ringleader Krug is the stuff of pure exploitation cinema - but the fact that (SPOILER) Mari makes it out alive (barely) makes the remake's plot more optimistic than the original.

The Last House remake is representative of the first strand of horror remake; the slick, updated version of an older film. These are the types of remakes that seek to clean up the shoddy camera work, hammy acting and low-budget production values of classic horror films (see also The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, My Bloody Valentine). These films are generally poor-to-average because they try and undo the very elements that make the originals classic. The original Texas Chainsaw is an intense, claustrophobic, heart-pounding experience because of it's cheap production values - in exactly the same way that the original Last House's raw, visceral aesthetic makes it a more effective film.

The other horror remake that I watched was Quarantine - an English langauge (read: American) remake of pants-wettingly good Spanish shocker [REC]. This remake fits into the Hollywood-ripoff-of-foreign-language-film camp, a remake genre born out of the belief that Americans are too stupid to read subtitles (When I worked at a video store and recommended a French film to somebody once they looked at me as if I had leprosy and said "If I wanted to read, I'd go to the Library" - dick).

[REC] is an amazing piece of filmmaking - potentially the scariest film of the last 5 years. Quarantine is exactly what one would expect - a lazy, over-produced yawnfest that somehow manages to follow [REC]'s storyline beat-by-beat, yet can not generate one-tenth of [REC]'s genuinely terrifying atmosphere. Plus the chick from Dexter is kind of annoying in carefree-slice-of-life-journalist mode (and REALLY annoying in pious "Keep filming! The people have a right to know whats going on!" and hysterical, sobbing, screeching harpy mode). I would say that the film was a disappointment, if it weren't for the fact that my expectations of the film were lower than Pauly Shore's chances of winning an Oscar (or Amy Winehouse's sex appeal level).

Unfortunately I didnt rent a film that conforms to the third flavour of contemporary remakes (that was dumb of me) - these are the films that market themselves with the buzzwords "gritty reboot" which is basically a synonym for "starting a previously run-into-the-ground film franchise from scratch... but making it dark and brooding and ruining everything that was good about the originals in the process". These are too numerous to list - but from the horror genre specifically we have Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th (although this "gritty reboot" concept can be applied to everything from James Bond to Batman to the god-damn A-Team.

Ultimately, as humans we are powerless to stop the remake. I dont really have a point to this and this post has effectively been a huge rant, and I probably won't bother proof-reading it. Sorry (but not really)

Does this work?!

Yesterday I had occasion to be near a TV in the middle of the day (I wont tell you where I was… but it’s a doozy!) and caught most of Tyra Banks' talk show (I was mostly flicking between that, Date my Mom on MTV and WonderPets on Nickelodeon)

Tyra had some guest who is apparently a real-life HITCH, coaching guys in the art of meeting and attracting women. There was a lot of time spent following this guy (leather jacket, whispy blond hair) was going through some of his best techniques with a couple of dudes in a park (one of these guys looked just like Justin Beiber will look when he goes through puberty).

After doing the basic greet-a-girl-make-a-joke-be-cocky-but-not-arrogant-don’t-hang-around-too-long teacher and pupil went onto an advanced technique that left me baffled. Basically it goes as follows:

(1) Walk around and wait until a woman you like the look of is walking towards you
(2) Reach out and gently grab her arm as she walks towards you and say "Excuse me"
(3) When she has your attention say something along the lines of "I just had to get your attention because if I didn’t I would have kicked myself later"
(4) Before she has a chance to say anything, compliment her. Not compliment her subtly… say "You're drop-dead gorgeous"
(5) After 30 seconds or so of dialogue, say you'd like to hang out with her sometime and ask for her number
(6) Try not to do a victory whoop as you leave

I watched this with disbelief. Surely this doesn’t work? Right?

I don’t have a lot of experience trying to pick up American girls, but if somebody tried that in New Zealand they would either get scowled, or laughed at, or kicked in the nads. I'm not trying to pick up (being happily married and all) but if I were female and some dork tried that with me, I'm certain that I wouldn’t fall for it.

Or have I got it completely wrong? Would this work and its just that the cultural constraints of New Zealand don’t allow for males to be so forward without feeling either retarded or sleazy?

EDIT - I just remembered that a while ago I was talking to a friend who spent some time in Canada and had pretty much the same thing happen to her (if I remember correctly some guy crossed the street to tell her she was gorgeous). This further cements my theory that this technique is one that would only work in Northern America.

Derty Videos

In further controversial music video news, local "rapper" Derty Sesh has sparked outrage over his video Forever.

The video, which has today been taken down from youtube, depicts the Sesh-meister as a hulking, hoodie-clad killer, stalking and violently stabbing a female victim.

According to Rape Crisis and other women's groups, the video is "violent, misogynist pornography" and should be banned.

Two versions of the video exist, an edited version currently doing the rounds on TV and paid for with a NZ on Air grant and an extended version which features the more graphic version which is (or rather, was) only available online.

I watched the uncut version a couple of days ago and found it not shocking, but tedious. The producers seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to make it look like a horror film and defend the allegations of misogyny by likening the clip to shows like CSI and DEXTER.

The problem with the Forever clip, however, is that it does not reflect these shows, or horror movie conventions in any interesting way. I've been watching quite a bit of DEXTER lately (three-and-a-half seasons worth) and Derty Sesh's clip doesn’t harness any of the restraint or morbid humour of the show. It doesn’t even play with the tropes of horror cinema in general apart from some of the more obvious clichés.

Contrast this with some recent examples from the international film world that have also had the adjectives "violent", "misogynist" and "pornography" hurled at them by various commentators.

Von Trier's ANTICHRIST is one of the more obvious examples, but French film MARTYRS is just as good at illustrating the point. Both of these works are controversial because of the extreme violence, often inflicted upon women (MARTYRS set a benchmark for onscreen violence, being the first French film in it's native France to get 16+ censorship rating… a surprising feat given France's ultra-liberal stance on violence censorship) but both differ from the Sesh video for one big reason. They are both utterly, utterly compelling. Both ANTICHRIST and MARTYRS use their extreme violence as a means of exploring deep philosophical and even religious themes and are executed with breath-taking, jaw-dropping conviction. Even Wes Craven's notorious LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (banned in this country for about 30 years) has more substance in it's weaker moments, than the Forever clip.

Today it was revealed that the Department of Internal Affairs has referred the Forever video to the Office of Film and Literature Classification for the censors to classify. Good news for the clip's detractors, but ultimately I don’t think this action will have any kind of impact.

While the violence in the video is graphic by contemporary music video standards, it is not of a level that would deem it "objectionable" in my opinion. Recent mainstream films that have been banned in this country due to violence, HOSTEL PART II and IMPRINT had a sexual nature to the violence which is particular warning-bell for censors. There is little, if any, references to sex or sexual gratification in the Forever clip and it is for this reason that I believe the video will not be banned outright. It may be restricted (I'm putting my money on an R16 rating) but I don’t think anything in the clip warrants a full ban.

The other issue that this whole thing raises is one that is raised every time a questionable film or publication is scrutinized in public - it inevitably leads to a wider audience. However good the intentions of the Forever clip's detractors, if they hadn't have said anything there's a good chance that by this time next year, Derty Sesh would have faded into the lost-sock obscurity of NZ's music scene… and probably be hanging out with Dai Hamo.

Gagablahblahblah

A lot has been made of the "controversial" new Lady Gaga/Beyonce (Beyaga? Lady Geyonce?) and I thought I would throw my three cents (idiom adjusted for inflation) into the discourse.

First things first, the full "explicit" version of the video is here for the six people who haven't seen it yet.

Now, I'm not a Lady Gaga fan by any stretch of the imagination - and this latest video firmly cements my utter indifference towards her. At best, she makes fun pop music that make 19 year old girls yell "WOOOOO! I LOVE THIS SOOOONG!" before chugging the last of their RTD and hitting the dance floor. She isn't now, or never has been, either an avant-garde experiment in mainstream surrealism or the next step in the evolution of feminist theory. Shes what Maddonna was 30 years ago. End of story.

Let me just say, I generally dislike extended music videos that pretend to be short films. I agree that certain videos can tell a story (see the videos for Radiohead's Just or High and Dry) but I hate it when the song is interrupted for a sequence of dialogue or exposition. If you cant tell the story during the duration of the song, don't bother trying.

At a whopping nine-minutes-something more than half of Telephone's running time is narrative. This overstays its welcome really quickly.

The video is very cinematic and has been labelled as a homage to the oeuvre of Quentin Tarantino. Looking at the video as a whole, I can see superficial similarities (and anyone who knows me can confirm that I am a pageboy in the Church of Tarantino) but overall the structure, pacing, editing and mise-en-scene reminds me more of an Oliver Stone production (in particular Natural Born Killers) whilst the ending is clearly lifted from Ridley Scott's Thelma and Louise. The only obvious Tarantino reference is the use of the yellow "Pussy Wagon".

Despite the video's obviously high production values and inherent cinematic quality, it just does not quite gel for me. Could this be perhaps that Telephone is an awful, AWFUL song? Absolutely it could.

Have you listened to the lyrics for this song? On the surface, its about getting pissed off that its hard to hear somebody who is calling you when you're out drinking. The subtext for the song is... well, non-existent. The lyrics are about as deep as Rob Schnieder's performance in The Hot Chick. And the line "Sometimes I feel like I live in Grand Central Sta-TION" makes me cringe. Because of this, the over-produced video seems utterly innocuous.

Compare the Just Dance video with the one she made for Bad Romance (here and here respectively) Just Dance is a song about binge drinking and features LG in some kind of club. Hardly thematically creative, but it works.

On a similar note, Paparazzi a song about the perils of fame and being in the limelight features a video in which that Swedish Vampire pushes LG off a balcony so that the photographers can do a snuff photoshoot. Again, this works as a music video.

Now look at Bad Romance. Here is a song with more surreal lyrics and a less obvious subtext and a video that is... more surreal and with a less obvious subtext. It seems like Gaga is striving to "push-the-envelope" with each subsequent video, and it's a pity that the time and effort expended in the production of the Telephone video was wasted on such a terrible, asinine song.

One last thing, feminists also hate this video for the none-too-subtle shades of S&M, girl-on-girl fetishisation and sequences of pure male-gazery that make the video look like it was made by a sleazy Scandinavian pervert for masturbatory purposes... oh wait...

Nah... give me Video Phone any day of the week.

I'm saddened to learn of the passing of He Pingping on 13 March.

He was, at the time of his death at age 21, the world's shortest man. According to Guiness, he measured a puny 73cm (or 2'5"). He passed away in Rome of aparent heart failure after complaining of chest pains.

What I want to know, however, is why did wikipedia editors feel it was necessary to include the fact that He was a chain smoker? Did they really not have enough verifiable facts to pad out his biography? Or did they want people to form their own cringe-worthy "cigarettes-stunting-growth" jokes by themselves?

RIP little dude.

My new hero

Have you ever heard of H.H. Wilson of Timaru? Neither had I.

During the course of my work I get to read newspapers from all over the country. From the prestigious Dominion Post to the dense-as-treacle National Business Review to the laughable Gore Ensign. One of the cringingly best parts of this role is reading some of the inane drivel spouted by people in po-dunk rural New Zealand towns. Today I found something that took WTF?!-style incoherence to a whole new level - all courtesy of the Timaru Herald.


Some years ago I wrote to the [Timaru] Herald suggesting that maybe Jesus was from another planet around another sun in our vast universe...

Sorry, what?! You wrote to a newspaper to suggest... what?!

...Richard Gunther replied there was no hope for me, because I was not altogether stupid, or words to that effect...

Not only is this a poorly-constructed sentence (even I can recognise that) it makes me want to side with Richard Gunther (whoever the hell he is)

...Now Richard you are writing letters about a film you have not seen. I think that is rather more stupid...

Now, I agree that criticising a film (I assume Richard was criticisin') without watching it is retarded... but when did this go from extra-terrestrial theology to a film review???

... Avatar is a little too long for an oldie like me and the battle scenes are prolonged, but in all my 80 years no film has ever gripped me more.

Okay... so you're a geriatric Avatar fan... I have literally nothing to say to this.

There is a message there for all of us.

Huh? THATS where you're going to end this?! I wanna know more about Alien-Jesus!

Well done H.H! You've made my year.

(I have used the news archives to research more of H.H's diatribes... stay tuned!)

My New Favourite Time Waster

Every so often I stumble across a blog-based picture website which makes me waste a bunch of time at work (lolcats a while ago - before they got lame - and, more recently, latfh.com)

The latest of these is a work of pure genius. Take a photo of a father and son, photoshop the heads around and voila! Manbabies.

Some of these are on the lame side... but others are hysterical. Its the kind of site you could spend ages looking at (despite having a NSFW-ish title which implies its a site about men who like wearing nappies)

This one has potential to be the next-big-thing - check it out before everyone jumps on the bandwagon and drastically reduces the quality of the site (a la lolcats)

Roger Ebert

Sometimes it shocks me just how out of the loop I can be with some things.

Upon checking my facebook page this morning one of my geeky friends had put a link to an interview with veteran film critic (and writer of Russ Meyer's seminal BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS) Roger Ebert.

I knew that years ago Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer (legend has it that Vincent Gallo had put a hex on him after the unmercifully scathing review of THE BROWN BUNNY... no, i'm not making this up) but, unbeknownst to me, Ebert had surgery which effectivly removed his lower jaw, making him unable to talk, eat or drink.

The part that really got to me, though, was that this happened nearly FOUR YEARS AGO. Where had i been? How did i not know this? How big is the rock I'd been nestled under?

The interview is a great read. It details the history and current status of a courageous, often curmudgeonly man - one of the most influential and outspoken film writers of all time - and his horrible ordeal.

Superstar

Yesterday was the 27th anniversary of the death of Karen Carpenter, one of music's tragic figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkOryYF6CI

A few years back a group of us sat around and watched THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY (not to be confused with Todd Haynes' illegal pile of WTF SUPERSTAR: THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY - which we also watched that night) and we were in tears towards the poignant finale.

The official cause of death was complications from Anorexia Nervosa, but it was really the critics that killed her.

Yeah, cos THATS what Haiti needs...

Its a bit old-news now, but for those who haven't bothered to venture out from under their rocks, here's something that made me go "guh?!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/26/john-travolta-scientology-aid-haiti

Yep, Tony Manero flew his own plane to a disaster-ravaged zone armed with aid. Aid and SCIENTOLOGY MINISTERS.

Not just any Scientology Ministers, however, Scientology Ministers who can HEAL PEOPLE WITH THE POWER OF TOUCH! Jinkies!

The group, which critics say is a cult peddling quack treatments, has received a mixed reaction to the light "touching", through clothing and bandages, of fractures and infection.

And it gets better...

One US doctor, who declined to be named, said it was more a credibility thing. "I didn't know touching could heal gangrene."

Holy crap! Really?! Gangrene you say? I had no idea EITHER!

I've had a morbid curiosity about Scientology for a while now. I become increasingly befuddled with the concept the more I read about it. What is it that drives people with at least some degree of intelligence and sanity to follow a religion that was not only based on the insane ramblings of a SCIENCE FICTION WRITER (I mean, its not like it was his JOB to MAKE UP STUFF LIKE THIS) but one that charges you HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to do so?

Perhaps the most sinister thing about Scientology though is the fact that, like other cults, they seem to prey on the most vulnerable people claiming to be able to "free" or "help" them.

The last thing the people of Haiti needs is an aging Italian-American actor (presumably with Pilot hat and leather jacket from WILD HOGS) explaining to them that an earthquake leveled their country was caused by Xenu.