As you may know… I’m a proud Geek.
(I’ve also been told, in a loving fashion, I’m a Nerd. And I’ve also heard that I’m “a Dork… but in a good way!”)
That wasn’t always used as a badge of honor, though. When you’re young, awkward, and just wanting to be liked… and people are saying it with a sneer in their voice and a condescending look in their eye… you’d prefer to be anything BUT a Geek. Because then it sounds synonymous with Outcast, Aberration, Unliked, Unwanted, “Oh-My-God-Just-Go-Away-You-Pathetic-Piece-of-Nothing”, and so much else.
It’s hard to comprehend exactly WHY that is. Being a Geek is a trait connected to the attribute of Intelligence… and we are really the only species on this planet that actually *uses* our Intelligence to the degree we can. Our brains are larger, more defined than other animals… we have short-term and long-term memories, we can use reason and logic, we have a sense of morality… and it’s because of our brains and those functions, that enable us to live and adapt to almost ANY environment that we can encounter. As such, we are not slaves to Mother Nature, and can actually exist despite some of her harsher efforts.
It is an incredible achievement of Evolution, God, Fate, Luck, Buddha, or whatever you believe in… that we *can actually BE a Geek*. (Whoever is responsible… they done good!)
So, it’s odd that amazing achievement singles out some people over others… and not in a good way.
Don’t forget or ignore the fact that every human being on this planet can (and does) find pleasure solely in the acquisition of new knowledge.
That’s right… *everyone* has fun with facts. It’s obvious that when you meet someone that really likes Science Fiction or Film History… they’re going to know a lot about it. They’ll probably have a few hundred facts that you won’t give a damn about.
But exactly how different is it from the tough, jersey-wearing sports fan that knows all the names of all the players on his favorite football team? (Even the 4th stringers!) Or who’s leading the league in touchdown passes… or knows about all the college players that are up for the annual draft… AND has opinions on how they’ll adjust to the big leagues? Guess what? They got themselves a bunch of facts, numbers and statistics that the majority of the world doesn’t give a flying freeball about.
Or what about the person that spouts off memorized book and passage numbers from the Bible?
Or the Golf enthusiast who knows par for every hole and every course that Tiger Woods is playing on?
Or the guy that knows the name of every Playboy Playmate of every month from 1983 to today? (Actually… that one’s kinda creepy)
Or the tough-talking, tattooed grease-monkey mechanic that “knows everything about engines and cars”?
Or the gal that knows all the plotlines and episodes of Friends?
Are we allowed to get in a group and point at them, yelling:
“NNNNNEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDDD!!!!!!!!”?
What makes some subjects more “socially acceptable” than others? In America, someone who’s a fan of Doctor Who is considered a Nerd and a Geek, and maybe a bit shunned for being “weird”. Yet in several other countries around the world… the show (old version and new) is wildly popular. I hear Steven Spielberg himself, arguably the greatest filmmaker of the last 35 years, is a fan of Doctor Who. Would you call him a Nerd to his face? Or does the fact that he can buy and sell you 900 times over give him some leeway? Hell, I’ve seen intelligent, incredibly Hot women tell me how hooked they are on World of Warcraft.
We’re all Geeks. It just depends on exactly what you’re a Geek about. There is a subject that you know a lot about, that other people don’t (and don’t even care about)… but you derive a lot of pleasure from it. Doesn’t matter what it is… but that’s what you’re a Geek about. Even if your knowledge in it is limited… the pursuit of that activity/show/subject is enough to get your Geek on. I say… Embrace it. It’s healthy… it gives us an escape… a pleasurable option in life to relax within.
Me… I’ve got plenty of Geek to go around.
The aforementioned Doctor Who… I’m a fan. I watched the old series a little as a kid, but I was given a more thorough introduction in college… and I find it immensely fun. My favorite of “The Doctors” is Tom Baker… he had the big curly hair and the 13-foot long scarf. Sure, the acting wasn’t the best… but they were earnest, and had fun. Yeah, the sets wobbled… but the whole show has a “charm” to it… that just makes it endlessly watchable to me.
As for the new series… some of the best writing and effects I have ever seen on television. It’s absolutely genius!
Star Wars… I’ve talked about before. Admittedly, my enthusiasm for it has dropped off a bit… because sadly, the story *didn’t* end with the 6th movie… No, George Lucas is continually beating a dead horse… insisting there’s still milk in that teat. Cripes on Toast, man… just let it die! But the originals are just so great…
Harry Potter… I didn’t get into it until after the fourth book came out… and just before the first movie. It was my Graduate advisor, of all people, insisting that I read them… and once I did… I was hooked. Those books are like crack! I read the first four straight in a row. I ordered the fifth book, got it when it came out… but didn’t read it for about a month or two. Sixth and seventh books… read them the days they came out. I revel in most any opportunity to talk about and dissect that story… and my favorite character is actually Neville Longbottom… I was so glad he got to shine in the last book! (It’s not that much… but enough. He kicked ass! Hells yeah!)
Horror… well, I’ve also talked about this before. It still applies… I love it, but most of it sucks.
Science Fiction… a lot like Horror… there’s a lot of crap out there. But when it’s good… it’s brilliant! (And there’s quite of bit of underrated stuff out there) What makes most of it crap… is that the stuff they call science fiction, *isn’t really* Science Fiction. I may have to do a whole post on this sometime.
Theatre… probably my first official Geek label. It was really the first thing I found that got me on my way to actually finding an identity for myself… and even so, I think I’m a bit of an anomalous freak amongst Theatre Folk. For one: A lot are touchy-feely, and say, “I’m in Theatre, I don’t have a personal bubble”… but I do. I’ve been told several times over the years that I’m “not a typical theatre person”… whether they meant it as a compliment or insult, I’m not always sure. And while I usually know what I’m talking about… as I’ve been studying it about half my life, and even taught it for awhile… there’s STILL a lot I don’t know. (Musicals for one… I’m not *that* learned in.)
Movies… while I attain that I’m not a “film buff”… I do know what I like, and like to see it often... and I have opinions on it. When I worked on the fringes of the industry, and trying to get into it… I did learn a lot, and was exposed to a lot of older movies and shows that I wasn’t previously aware of. And whenever I watch a movie or a new show… usually right after, I hop on IMDB or Wikipedia and look up any trivia or notes they have about it… just to find out more about it. Hmmm… maybe that *would* make me a film buff… I just think that’s a silly title.
Graphic Novels… This is kind of intersecting with movies, these days. Normally referred to as “comics”… but I think this is more accurate. I haven’t collected actual comic books in several years… I wait until they collect several issues together and throw them in a trade paperback, otherwise known as “graphic novels”. Sure, maybe it’s a little more expensive… but I get a complete story… with a beginning, middle and end. And there’s no chance of missing a middle part of the story, by having that chapter sell out before I can get to it. Plus, there are a lot of stories made FOR the graphic novel format… and there’s nothing “comic” about them. There are a lot of darker, more adult-style stories out there. Hell, anything written by Alan Moore I’m willing to read… he’s just that good of a writer. Same with Neil Gaiman, Kurt Busiek, and the Granddaddy master: Will Eisner (who is probably responsible for elevating the world of comics to Art).
But at the same time… every now and then, I like to kick back with an old Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge comic (written by Carl Barks… without him, there would never have been Ducktales). They’re just so much fun!
RPGs… Yep… Role-Playing Games. No, I don’t mean Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft. This is not computer or video games… this is the actual and original meaning of Role-Playing Games… where you actually play a role. You have dice and character sheets, and actually sit around with friends and interact and engage your imagination in ways that video games can’t. It’s more social than computer pixels… and more interesting to me. If you have a problem or an obstacle in a computer game, it can only be solved by doing one of the solutions that has been pre-programmed in by the developers… which is limited, no matter how many options they give you. In a real pen-and-paper RPG… the options are whatever you can imagine. The inventor of the obstacle may actually have no idea HOW you’d get past it… just wants to see you try. It’s basically Co-operative Improvisation Storytelling… and I’m surprised more people in the Theatre/Filmmaking world are not involved in it. (Though it is gaining some credibility these days… as filmmakers and actors like Jon Favreau, Wil Wheaton and Vin Diesel have all talked favorably about their past involvements with the hobby) I actually credit this hobby for having a significant impact on my personal writing and storytelling skills. Don’t knock it till you try it.
And no… I’m not a Satanist, I don’t know how to do Black Magic, nor do I think I’m a Vampire. Sheesh… And for the record, I’ve never gotten lost in Steam Tunnels. (Okay, I have… but NOT for purposes of gaming)
Board Games… Because you wouldn’t put Monopoly in the RPG category, that’s for sure. I have myself a nice collection of board games. Hell, I’ve got almost 10 different versions/variations of the game Clue (my all-time favorite classic board game). Plus several horror-themed ones (perfect to pull out around Halloween)… some collectible games… and still have several games that I’ve owned for awhile, but haven’t had the chance to play yet. Yeah… this probably is the hobby that takes up the most room in my house. Ooch!
And my newest hobby:
Letterboxing… it’s very simple and very cheap to do. Since discovering it a short ways back… I think it’s just the Bee’s Knees… and can’t believe it took me this long to discover it. It’s like Geocaching… only you don’t need a GPS. All you need is a rubber stamp (either buy one, or make your own for cheap), and a logbook. Then you go to this website (www.letterboxing.org), and look for “clues” in your area. You follow the instructions on the clues (they can be very direct or very cryptic… mostly they lead you through public parks and hiking trails), where you eventually find a small box… and inside is ANOTHER rubber stamp and another log book. You use *your* stamp on that logbook… use that stamp on *your* logbook, sign and date it with a little message… and put it all back for the next person to find.
It’s basically a treasure hunt! How cool is that? When I was first told about it… I was intrigued, because I never heard of it before. So, I got a little book… made up a crude rubber stamp… and grabbed a clue off the website… and went to see for myself.
It was right there… just where it said it would be. And this particular one had been there for months. It was so neat… and I couldn’t believe that something like that could be there, and not be vandalized or taken away. I got such a kick out of it… I felt like I was Five! I loved it!
I’ve even made my book a little more elaborate. All you’re really supposed to do is stamp your book, write where you found it, and move on. Me… I’ve been adding photos of the locations and hikes to mine. Making it into a little art project/collage-type-thing… and gets me back doing a little photography. Gives it kind of a “storybook” feel to it… is an easy reminder of the experiences of getting each one… and also makes it easier to illustrate to others what exactly the hell it is I’m doing on my weekends.
More than anything… it’s a great little excuse to go for a hike, and get a little exercise. I think that’s a wonderful byproduct of a “Geek Hobby”. Plus, I’m having fun… so bite me.
So… that’s my Geekness (or at least a good portion of it).
How about you?
What are YOU a Geek about?
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
7.25.2008
4.18.2008
Oh, the Horror!!
I love Horror movies. Always have. I honestly don’t know where this love comes from, as I hate real-life violence. I can’t stand needles, don’t like the sight of blood, and pain hurts me.
But sitting me in front of a horror film… I’ll be a happy camper. I like the adrenaline rush, the “what would I do in that situation” after-thinking, and I love watching it with a date that gets scared. I don’t mean that in a sadistic-I-like-people-to-suffer-in-fear kind of way. It’s actually a more practical reason. When a lovely young lady is scared in a movie theatre, ideally, she grabs onto your arm, squeezes up against you, and buries into your shoulder… coming to YOU for protection. In a testosterone kind of way, that’s a neat feeling… being a protector. She wants to cuddle up to me? I see that as a win-win situation… and I wish it happened more often. A good horror movie can do that.
Even though… well, face it. Most of the horror films and stories out there… suck. Majorly. There’s some wonderful diamonds in the rough… but strictly speaking… putting something in the “horror genre”, usually means you’re in for horrible effects, bad story, abysmal script, and embarrassing acting.
Yet, in the entertainment industry… Horror is a near-guaranteed moneymaker. The general consensus seems to be that its got an automatic built-in fan base, and as long as you put “Boobs and Blood” in a movie… it will sell. Personally, I think that’s half-right.
Sure, there’s a built-in fan base. I’m one of them. But it does take more than “Boobs and Blood” to make a good horror movie. Then again, those that are putting in the boobs and blood… aren’t exactly going for “good” in their pictures. Rather, they’re just going for something that will sell. Sadly, we keep buying. To be honest, when I was 13, I loved the whole “Boobs and Blood” thing… if you were a young boy just entering puberty, you would too.
But I’m about 20 years beyond that now… and I like to think my tastes are a little more discriminating.
For one… I hate nudity in films. ANY kind of film. Not because I’ve gone conservative, far from it. I always have been and always will be a big fan of the female form, in all its variations. If I’m in the mood to see nudity? There are plenty of films made for an audience old enough to rent them from the back room (or hell, just find it on the Internet for free). As a bonus, they don’t even TRY to have a plot to bog it down, and they show more naked body than any horror film would be allowed to. Or if I’m dating someone… I can see it in person (which is even better). If I want it… I can find it. Don’t bother going out of your way to throw it into a horror film. Most of the time… the filmmakers seem to be going out of their way to throw it in.
If it doesn’t make sense to the story… I don’t want to see it. I’m giving anywhere from an hour and a half to three hours (on rare occasion, more) to get involved in a movie’s story. Don’t bog it down with useless crap. Get on with it… and don’t say you’re “slowing it down a bit” so people can catch up. I don’t think people are that stupid. Treat them as if they’re intelligent, and they’ll like you more. This also applies to love scenes… rarely have I seen one that actually makes sense to the plot and story. Frankly, if I’m being chased by Werewolf-Zombie-Vampire hybrids, the last thing I’m doing is getting an erection… no matter how attractive my leading lady is. No, I’d need a few days and some therapy before I even think about that. But that’s just me…
So take out the sex/nudity, please. You should only keep it in if it makes sense to the plot and, more importantly, *drives the story forward*. If it doesn’t directly push you into the next scene, why is it in there? Take it out and make the movie a few minutes shorter. I’d much prefer that, as it lets me get on with my life. And if you do find a reason for a character to be nude? Think about something first: Does it really need to be *shown*? If you’re looking to be a little “sexy” with the scene, or show a little sensuality to the character… its usually more effective when you *don’t* see everything. Implication holds so much power in these instances. I don’t care how much of an “artistic statement” you think you’re making with it… it can be done without showing every nipple… and will often times be more effective for that. Every movie scene that I’ve heard be defended by a director saying it’s “vitally important” to the story… really hasn’t been. And every actress in those scenes that was agreeing with the director… “Really, it was artistically important for me to give him a real BJ on camera”… I just want to pull them aside and gently say, “Darlin, you’ve been conned.”
As for blood and gore… well, if you ask my Mom, she’d tell you that’s what I live for. She seems to think that if I’m watching a horror movie, I must *obviously* be loving it for that very reason. On the contrary… I respect and prefer the horror films that don’t use a lot of blood and gore, or use it very sparingly. If you spend an hour of a film effectively building up the tension and story, when you finally DO show a little bit of blood, it becomes so much more effective.
When I watched the first Saw movie, I was impressed and pleased to see that it wasn’t as gory as the reputation made me believe. It actually had a decent story, and was effectively done. Sure, there were some extreme parts… but I think it could have been a LOT more visceral than it was. I applaud the filmmakers for that. In fact, whenever I look at one of the big franchises… and actually watch the very first one, I’m often surprised to see it’s not as extreme with its blood effects as the sequels. Rather, they all rest on a pretty unique idea (especially for the time it was made), and do it pretty well. It just seems that any sequels automatically lose that novelty, simply by rehashing it with “bigger and more” opportunities for the squeamish to cringe.
Take A Nightmare on Elm Street. The sequels are VERY silly. Mostly because Robert Englund is majorly hamming it up with puns and over-the-top silliness. Granted, the scripts are nothing to shake a stick at. But each killing he performs tries to go too far out-of-the-way to be a unique and imaginative one, and ends up being a little too silly. Watching that schtick makes it easy to forget that the very first movie… was actually really unsettling. Essentially, he was just jumping out and saying “Boo”, then killing in a straightforward manner… it was the unique places he was jumping *out of*, that made it different and ultra-creepy. Plus, you never saw him clearly and well-lit. The sequels, you saw every little scar and ripple on his skin, every burn mark on his sweater. The original… you rarely saw it. He either was obscured by the dark, or moving too fast to be seen. The silhouette of him became much scarier than any gross make-up that would be put on him… because when you have to imagine it… when your mind is forced to fill in the blanks that you’re not seeing… that’s what makes people’s hair stand on end.
The old classic movies really knew this. Granted, the ratings board and system was very particular about what they’d let people get away with… and it wasn’t much. But when you look at the classics… Dracula, all the Frankenstein movies, The Wolf Man, The Mummy… the filmmakers managed to do quite a lot with very little. One of my all-time favorite movies is The Haunting… the original B&W one from the early 1960s. It has no blood, no flashy special effects… just atmosphere and story all the way through. It’s freaking brilliant. (Please, avoid the remake at all costs)
Yet, I think if I were to pick a point where Horror started to go wrong… it would be at the tail-end of the period where those Universal Classics were made. After a while, they started mixing and matching. Sounds like a good idea on paper… Wolf Man was popular… Frankenstein was popular… let’s put them together and be TWICE as popular! Let’s add in Dracula, too! Hollywood Gold!
That idea may have worked for Chocolate and Peanut Butter… not so much in this case. I don’t think the Monster-Mash movies ever really worked, frankly. Sure, I love The Monster Squad… but when it comes down to it, the idea behind it doesn’t exactly mesh. (That movie in particular isn’t a horror, it’s a kid’s adventure movie. A supernatural version of The Goonies) Mainly because of the Frankenstein Monster, and Dracula. You see, a major part of the story and existence of Dracula owes itself to the notion that “God exists”. Crosses repel him, Holy Water hurts him, etc… so for that to actually make sense, it must serve as concrete proof that God does indeed exist. No problem, right? Well… then you add in the Frankenstein Monster… whose very existence is concrete proof that God does NOT exist. Which was the point of the story. (If only God can create life, the fact that a scientist created life himself invalidates the notion of God… therefore, there is nothing man is not meant to know, and he is answerable to no one but himself, with no ill consequences when we’re gone. Essentially… it’s the fear of “No Hell”) One is solid proof of God existing, the other is solid proof of God NOT existing. In either story, we’ll go along with it… that’s our suspension of disbelief (no matter what religion you are). But mashing the conflicting arguments, and saying that both are absolute fact… doesn’t make sense. And as an audience, we’re lost. We can’t be scared in that instance, because subconsciously, we’re too confused. At best, the Monster Mash movies are more “adventure-thrill-rides” than actual horror movies. Excuses for neat special effects and some referential in-jokes.
That’s a reflection on the nature of Horror as a whole… where a lot of movies and stories seem to go wrong, I think. They don’t play to the metaphor. In too many ways, we’ve lost the meaning to many of the classic monsters and fears.
One of my biggest annoyances in horror concerns Vampires. Too often I’ll hear interviews about a Vampire Movie where the actors or the directors talk about how “Vampires have always been metaphors for Sex”.
I want to track them down, tie them to chairs and beat them severely about the head and shoulders screaming why they are certifiably WRONG in that. Vampires have not “always been about Sex”. If anything, Sex was only briefly introduced just over 100 years ago, and only gained real prominence in the last 25 years.
Look at what we call a “Zombie”… a walking corpse trying to eat people. (Technically, that’s not a Zombie. A zombie is a Voodoo slave… and not even really dead.) But 1,000 years ago… that image was what they called a Vampire. This was due to a little thing called The Black Plague. It rotted your skin, made you pale, deathly-looking, and when you were kicked out of your town because you were going to infect everyone else, you shambled over the countryside, trying to get help. To others, you’re a disgusting-looking monster trying to eat them. Hence, the origin of “Wampyre”. Now, this directly ties into the age-old methods of Vampire dissuasion… Garlic is healthy for you; An old home remedy for curing sickness and “whatever ails ye”. If something medically mystified people back then, they turned to their local priest, who brought in God to cast away the evil demonic sickness… hence, crosses and holy water and most anything connected to God, are now vampire-fighting weapons.
Vampires are metaphors for Disease. That’s how they are ingrained into our subconscious. Look at some of the vampire literature from the Victorian era… where it started to really bloom. People want to make Dracula into the “definitive sexual example” of vampire fiction. Now, I love that book… I won’t argue its greatness. And yes, there are sexual ELEMENTS… but you also need to look at them in context. In 1898, in England at the time (where the book was written), there was an outbreak of syphilis. It was considered to be on an epidemic proportion. Syphilis… can be spread sexually. So now the images of rape and (very heterosexual) intercourse are a bit on the obvious side. Again… a symptom, not the origin. One of the side-effects of Syphilis? Insanity: Renfield is in an insane asylum, not to mention Jonathan Harker feeling like he’s going insane and trapped in Dracula’s Castle. Look at the symptoms of syphilis, and the events of the book… you might realize a whole other angle you’ve never seen before. Especially when you see that Dracula is moving around in the daylight, and other normal vampire stereotypes aren’t exactly fitting to the book. Those were all elements that Hollywood inserted in… often just “making them up”.
Side note: H.P. Lovecraft… long considered one of the greatest horror writers of all time, suffered from syphilis. Most, if not all, of his stories deal with extreme insanity and his characters are always going crazy. Cause he himself was.
There is a slightly earlier vampire tale, by Sheridan Le Fanu, called Carmilla. Some have pointed to that as being “obviously” a metaphor for sex. The story of a young female vampire seducing a young girl. Plenty of lesbianism to go around… eat that, blog boy! Not quite. Yes, the homosexuality is abundant… but remember that it was written during a time where homosexuality was considered a *disease*… and a curable one at that. Sorry to spoil it… but it’s got a happy ending, with the vampire being vanquished, and the young heroine surviving, and going on to lead a normal life, evermore.
Fast forward to the early 1970s… to Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. Written in 1973, published in 1976. Right around that time, in the medical community, a little something was starting to pop up. Wouldn’t be given full publicity until the late 70s, early 80s… but groups of people were already starting to be affected. This little something would eventually be called HIV/AIDS. And the largest demographic group being affected? Gay men… especially in the San Francisco area, the largest hub of Gay Culture imaginable… where Anne Rice was living and writing her books. “Gee, I wonder why there’s so much Homoeroticism in these stories… Hmmmm?” She has even said that the character Claudia is based on her daughter who died of leukemia in 1972. Again.. disease.
1987… Near Dark, the first “southwestern Vampire movie” (before it became a trend). The Vampires are shown as people “from the wrong side of the tracks”, the kind of people that are often considered “a disease on society”. That one, is a very neat twist… and works wonderfully.
Disease. Do I need a pie chart to make it clearer?
Werewolves are also metaphors for disease… but in a different way from Vampires. Vampires are physical diseases. The common “condition” associated with Werewolves is “Lycanthropy”. And Lycanthropy IS an actual medical disease. It’s not a person who turns into a wolf… it’s someone who THINKS they’re turning into a wolf. It’s a mental disease. One of the earliest illustrated depictions of a “werewolf” is of a farmer who “turned into a wolf and ate his children” while his shocked wife looked on. But the man… doesn’t have a snout or tail. If you look closely, he’s just on all fours, with an overgrowth of hair and beard, with his kid in his mouth, chomping away. Definitely not normal… but look at the circumstances. This was from back in the day where a large portion of the world was not civilized. This depiction is just a farmer out in the middle of nowhere… probably only makes the long slow trip into a village maybe once every 4 months, and his only company is his wife and very small children. The guy just went stir crazy… he was seeing the SAME people every day, cooped up… effectively cut off from civilization. It’s called Cabin Fever… and some people do just snap and kill their families. Sometimes, they just lose it, and think they themselves are wolves (one of the animals they were seeing on a frequent basis, and fighting off)… hence, the mental disease of Lycanthropy.
An American Werewolf in London… in my humble opinion, the best werewolf movie there is, puts a lot of focus on the main character’s feelings of going crazy. His dream sequences, which truly are maddening, are the scariest parts of that movie. Even the classic Universal picture The Wolf Man spends a large part having Lon Chaney Jr. say, “I’m going crazy! I’m mad, I tell you!” Dog Soldiers, deals with special ops soldiers fighting off werewolves. Makes for great action… and gives you a nice appreciation when you think of the condition “Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder” or “Shell Shock”, which you see these characters are definitely going to have when they’re through… if they survive, that is.
The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde… its metaphor? Alcoholism. That one may be hard to see at first. But notice how Dr. Jekyll drinks his “formula” and becomes a different person? Yet, he feels he can control it? So, he keeps drinking the formula, becoming Mr. Hyde… then soon, he needs the formula to STOP from becoming Mr. Hyde, that’s when he realizes he’s in deep doo doo. Bring that basic explanation to any AA meeting, and I’m willing to bet you get a lot of knowing nods.
Godzilla… the original movie was a Japanese Horror film. His metaphor? He’s the walking embodiment of nuclear terror. From a country that was still recovering from having Fat Man and Little Boy dropped on them, causing mindless destruction in its wake. So that movie freaked the living hell out of them. Can you blame them?
We’re missing the metaphors these days. Too many movies and books are churned out without giving us those hooks that really connect us to it… and that’s what really scares us.
A few years ago, I picked up a book… a Vampire book. It looked interesting, it had won the “Bram Stoker” award the previous year, and had a lot of praise written on the back. So I got it, and read it. That book… was the biggest pile of SHIT that I’ve ever read in my life. Narrative-wise… it was atrocious. The very beginning and the very end of the book were one plot… which the entire middle had NOTHING to do with. I only fought my way to the end of the book, hoping to the Almighty that it would redeem itself with a great ending. Nope. If anything, the ending was the worst part. Some interviews praised it for its “honest sexuality”… so an elderly man’s fantasy about a pubescent-girl’s body is “honest”??? I seriously thought the guy was rubbing one out while he was at the typewriter. I don’t call that “honest sexuality”… I call it pathetic masturbation fantasies. Useless references to incest (added nothing to nowhere)… introducing “major characters” 4/5 of the way through the book… casually doing away with the creepiest villains of the story with nothing more than a “oh, I killed them” side note… languishing too long on the uninteresting parts… and all-too-quickly-glossing-over of what would have been the most interesting parts. I hate that book and author with the fury of a thousand suns… and no longer have any faith in the “Bram Stoker Award”, because they apparently give it out to utter crap. When I found out that this was one of the author’s last books, and he had died about a year earlier… I felt bad… because now I couldn’t personally lambaste him for being the worst hack I’ve ever read. I really hope that guy didn’t die of natural causes. I won’t even honor it enough to mention its name on this blog. My blood is actually boiling, and I read this several years ago.
I really hope that’s not what the world of Horror is heading towards. I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the current “Torture Porn”… and frankly… You’re preaching to the choir.
While I did enjoy the first Saw… it was novel and different. Anything after that… is old hat. So, I don’t even need to see the movies whose only selling point is the extreme violence. That’s not a story. (Same reason I didn’t see The Passion of the Christ… I already knew the story, and the violence isn’t an attraction, so why bother?) The gore IS the story, not a tool for the story. Now, I could be wrong on that… maybe there are very intelligent metaphors that inspired those stories, I don’t know. Honestly… I haven’t watched them. But when the focus by the media and filmmakers is all about “look at the gross stuff we can do”… I have no interest to even look for a good metaphor. Gross-out stuff will only disgust me, but it won’t actually *scare* me.
I wanna be scared.
I’ve only been scared by one movie. I’ve jumped at a few, but only one that actually crawled under my skin and really frightened me: The Blair Witch Project.
It was the last movie I saw right before I moved to California…. I saw it with my best friend. The entire theatre was packed with young folk aged 16-19… the age group that you’d definitely consider to be the rowdiest, loudest and most obnoxious theatergoers of all.
The place was so silent, you could hear a pin drop. Love Blair Witch or hate it… most people hit one of those extremes… it was definitely original. It’s worth seeing it for the marketing campaign alone… And that experience of seeing it was one of the most unique ones I’ve ever had in a theatre.
Why did it scare ME so much? Possibly because all the stupid crap those characters were doing: Finding old graveyards, exploring old condemned houses in the dark, etc… My friends and I have actually DONE that crap ourselves. I have seen an abandoned house in northern New Hampshire… that has black handprints on the walls. (No, it wasn’t the same house in the movie) Once the movie finished, I turned to my best friend and said, “You know… in retrospect, maybe we shouldn’t have done all that creepy, stupid shit through college”. She said, “yup”… and neither of us slept that night.
I think Horror can get better. For all the crap out there… we do find some really good stuff every now and then. Once in a while, a new classic will be born… one that really hits us where it counts, and makes us scared again… and then 1,001 bad knockoffs will instantly be born.
Which is probably the scariest thing about it. *shrug*
But sitting me in front of a horror film… I’ll be a happy camper. I like the adrenaline rush, the “what would I do in that situation” after-thinking, and I love watching it with a date that gets scared. I don’t mean that in a sadistic-I-like-people-to-suffer-in-fear kind of way. It’s actually a more practical reason. When a lovely young lady is scared in a movie theatre, ideally, she grabs onto your arm, squeezes up against you, and buries into your shoulder… coming to YOU for protection. In a testosterone kind of way, that’s a neat feeling… being a protector. She wants to cuddle up to me? I see that as a win-win situation… and I wish it happened more often. A good horror movie can do that.
Even though… well, face it. Most of the horror films and stories out there… suck. Majorly. There’s some wonderful diamonds in the rough… but strictly speaking… putting something in the “horror genre”, usually means you’re in for horrible effects, bad story, abysmal script, and embarrassing acting.
Yet, in the entertainment industry… Horror is a near-guaranteed moneymaker. The general consensus seems to be that its got an automatic built-in fan base, and as long as you put “Boobs and Blood” in a movie… it will sell. Personally, I think that’s half-right.
Sure, there’s a built-in fan base. I’m one of them. But it does take more than “Boobs and Blood” to make a good horror movie. Then again, those that are putting in the boobs and blood… aren’t exactly going for “good” in their pictures. Rather, they’re just going for something that will sell. Sadly, we keep buying. To be honest, when I was 13, I loved the whole “Boobs and Blood” thing… if you were a young boy just entering puberty, you would too.
But I’m about 20 years beyond that now… and I like to think my tastes are a little more discriminating.
For one… I hate nudity in films. ANY kind of film. Not because I’ve gone conservative, far from it. I always have been and always will be a big fan of the female form, in all its variations. If I’m in the mood to see nudity? There are plenty of films made for an audience old enough to rent them from the back room (or hell, just find it on the Internet for free). As a bonus, they don’t even TRY to have a plot to bog it down, and they show more naked body than any horror film would be allowed to. Or if I’m dating someone… I can see it in person (which is even better). If I want it… I can find it. Don’t bother going out of your way to throw it into a horror film. Most of the time… the filmmakers seem to be going out of their way to throw it in.
If it doesn’t make sense to the story… I don’t want to see it. I’m giving anywhere from an hour and a half to three hours (on rare occasion, more) to get involved in a movie’s story. Don’t bog it down with useless crap. Get on with it… and don’t say you’re “slowing it down a bit” so people can catch up. I don’t think people are that stupid. Treat them as if they’re intelligent, and they’ll like you more. This also applies to love scenes… rarely have I seen one that actually makes sense to the plot and story. Frankly, if I’m being chased by Werewolf-Zombie-Vampire hybrids, the last thing I’m doing is getting an erection… no matter how attractive my leading lady is. No, I’d need a few days and some therapy before I even think about that. But that’s just me…
So take out the sex/nudity, please. You should only keep it in if it makes sense to the plot and, more importantly, *drives the story forward*. If it doesn’t directly push you into the next scene, why is it in there? Take it out and make the movie a few minutes shorter. I’d much prefer that, as it lets me get on with my life. And if you do find a reason for a character to be nude? Think about something first: Does it really need to be *shown*? If you’re looking to be a little “sexy” with the scene, or show a little sensuality to the character… its usually more effective when you *don’t* see everything. Implication holds so much power in these instances. I don’t care how much of an “artistic statement” you think you’re making with it… it can be done without showing every nipple… and will often times be more effective for that. Every movie scene that I’ve heard be defended by a director saying it’s “vitally important” to the story… really hasn’t been. And every actress in those scenes that was agreeing with the director… “Really, it was artistically important for me to give him a real BJ on camera”… I just want to pull them aside and gently say, “Darlin, you’ve been conned.”
As for blood and gore… well, if you ask my Mom, she’d tell you that’s what I live for. She seems to think that if I’m watching a horror movie, I must *obviously* be loving it for that very reason. On the contrary… I respect and prefer the horror films that don’t use a lot of blood and gore, or use it very sparingly. If you spend an hour of a film effectively building up the tension and story, when you finally DO show a little bit of blood, it becomes so much more effective.
When I watched the first Saw movie, I was impressed and pleased to see that it wasn’t as gory as the reputation made me believe. It actually had a decent story, and was effectively done. Sure, there were some extreme parts… but I think it could have been a LOT more visceral than it was. I applaud the filmmakers for that. In fact, whenever I look at one of the big franchises… and actually watch the very first one, I’m often surprised to see it’s not as extreme with its blood effects as the sequels. Rather, they all rest on a pretty unique idea (especially for the time it was made), and do it pretty well. It just seems that any sequels automatically lose that novelty, simply by rehashing it with “bigger and more” opportunities for the squeamish to cringe.
Take A Nightmare on Elm Street. The sequels are VERY silly. Mostly because Robert Englund is majorly hamming it up with puns and over-the-top silliness. Granted, the scripts are nothing to shake a stick at. But each killing he performs tries to go too far out-of-the-way to be a unique and imaginative one, and ends up being a little too silly. Watching that schtick makes it easy to forget that the very first movie… was actually really unsettling. Essentially, he was just jumping out and saying “Boo”, then killing in a straightforward manner… it was the unique places he was jumping *out of*, that made it different and ultra-creepy. Plus, you never saw him clearly and well-lit. The sequels, you saw every little scar and ripple on his skin, every burn mark on his sweater. The original… you rarely saw it. He either was obscured by the dark, or moving too fast to be seen. The silhouette of him became much scarier than any gross make-up that would be put on him… because when you have to imagine it… when your mind is forced to fill in the blanks that you’re not seeing… that’s what makes people’s hair stand on end.
The old classic movies really knew this. Granted, the ratings board and system was very particular about what they’d let people get away with… and it wasn’t much. But when you look at the classics… Dracula, all the Frankenstein movies, The Wolf Man, The Mummy… the filmmakers managed to do quite a lot with very little. One of my all-time favorite movies is The Haunting… the original B&W one from the early 1960s. It has no blood, no flashy special effects… just atmosphere and story all the way through. It’s freaking brilliant. (Please, avoid the remake at all costs)
Yet, I think if I were to pick a point where Horror started to go wrong… it would be at the tail-end of the period where those Universal Classics were made. After a while, they started mixing and matching. Sounds like a good idea on paper… Wolf Man was popular… Frankenstein was popular… let’s put them together and be TWICE as popular! Let’s add in Dracula, too! Hollywood Gold!
That idea may have worked for Chocolate and Peanut Butter… not so much in this case. I don’t think the Monster-Mash movies ever really worked, frankly. Sure, I love The Monster Squad… but when it comes down to it, the idea behind it doesn’t exactly mesh. (That movie in particular isn’t a horror, it’s a kid’s adventure movie. A supernatural version of The Goonies) Mainly because of the Frankenstein Monster, and Dracula. You see, a major part of the story and existence of Dracula owes itself to the notion that “God exists”. Crosses repel him, Holy Water hurts him, etc… so for that to actually make sense, it must serve as concrete proof that God does indeed exist. No problem, right? Well… then you add in the Frankenstein Monster… whose very existence is concrete proof that God does NOT exist. Which was the point of the story. (If only God can create life, the fact that a scientist created life himself invalidates the notion of God… therefore, there is nothing man is not meant to know, and he is answerable to no one but himself, with no ill consequences when we’re gone. Essentially… it’s the fear of “No Hell”) One is solid proof of God existing, the other is solid proof of God NOT existing. In either story, we’ll go along with it… that’s our suspension of disbelief (no matter what religion you are). But mashing the conflicting arguments, and saying that both are absolute fact… doesn’t make sense. And as an audience, we’re lost. We can’t be scared in that instance, because subconsciously, we’re too confused. At best, the Monster Mash movies are more “adventure-thrill-rides” than actual horror movies. Excuses for neat special effects and some referential in-jokes.
That’s a reflection on the nature of Horror as a whole… where a lot of movies and stories seem to go wrong, I think. They don’t play to the metaphor. In too many ways, we’ve lost the meaning to many of the classic monsters and fears.
One of my biggest annoyances in horror concerns Vampires. Too often I’ll hear interviews about a Vampire Movie where the actors or the directors talk about how “Vampires have always been metaphors for Sex”.
I want to track them down, tie them to chairs and beat them severely about the head and shoulders screaming why they are certifiably WRONG in that. Vampires have not “always been about Sex”. If anything, Sex was only briefly introduced just over 100 years ago, and only gained real prominence in the last 25 years.
Look at what we call a “Zombie”… a walking corpse trying to eat people. (Technically, that’s not a Zombie. A zombie is a Voodoo slave… and not even really dead.) But 1,000 years ago… that image was what they called a Vampire. This was due to a little thing called The Black Plague. It rotted your skin, made you pale, deathly-looking, and when you were kicked out of your town because you were going to infect everyone else, you shambled over the countryside, trying to get help. To others, you’re a disgusting-looking monster trying to eat them. Hence, the origin of “Wampyre”. Now, this directly ties into the age-old methods of Vampire dissuasion… Garlic is healthy for you; An old home remedy for curing sickness and “whatever ails ye”. If something medically mystified people back then, they turned to their local priest, who brought in God to cast away the evil demonic sickness… hence, crosses and holy water and most anything connected to God, are now vampire-fighting weapons.
Vampires are metaphors for Disease. That’s how they are ingrained into our subconscious. Look at some of the vampire literature from the Victorian era… where it started to really bloom. People want to make Dracula into the “definitive sexual example” of vampire fiction. Now, I love that book… I won’t argue its greatness. And yes, there are sexual ELEMENTS… but you also need to look at them in context. In 1898, in England at the time (where the book was written), there was an outbreak of syphilis. It was considered to be on an epidemic proportion. Syphilis… can be spread sexually. So now the images of rape and (very heterosexual) intercourse are a bit on the obvious side. Again… a symptom, not the origin. One of the side-effects of Syphilis? Insanity: Renfield is in an insane asylum, not to mention Jonathan Harker feeling like he’s going insane and trapped in Dracula’s Castle. Look at the symptoms of syphilis, and the events of the book… you might realize a whole other angle you’ve never seen before. Especially when you see that Dracula is moving around in the daylight, and other normal vampire stereotypes aren’t exactly fitting to the book. Those were all elements that Hollywood inserted in… often just “making them up”.
Side note: H.P. Lovecraft… long considered one of the greatest horror writers of all time, suffered from syphilis. Most, if not all, of his stories deal with extreme insanity and his characters are always going crazy. Cause he himself was.
There is a slightly earlier vampire tale, by Sheridan Le Fanu, called Carmilla. Some have pointed to that as being “obviously” a metaphor for sex. The story of a young female vampire seducing a young girl. Plenty of lesbianism to go around… eat that, blog boy! Not quite. Yes, the homosexuality is abundant… but remember that it was written during a time where homosexuality was considered a *disease*… and a curable one at that. Sorry to spoil it… but it’s got a happy ending, with the vampire being vanquished, and the young heroine surviving, and going on to lead a normal life, evermore.
Fast forward to the early 1970s… to Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. Written in 1973, published in 1976. Right around that time, in the medical community, a little something was starting to pop up. Wouldn’t be given full publicity until the late 70s, early 80s… but groups of people were already starting to be affected. This little something would eventually be called HIV/AIDS. And the largest demographic group being affected? Gay men… especially in the San Francisco area, the largest hub of Gay Culture imaginable… where Anne Rice was living and writing her books. “Gee, I wonder why there’s so much Homoeroticism in these stories… Hmmmm?” She has even said that the character Claudia is based on her daughter who died of leukemia in 1972. Again.. disease.
1987… Near Dark, the first “southwestern Vampire movie” (before it became a trend). The Vampires are shown as people “from the wrong side of the tracks”, the kind of people that are often considered “a disease on society”. That one, is a very neat twist… and works wonderfully.
Disease. Do I need a pie chart to make it clearer?
Werewolves are also metaphors for disease… but in a different way from Vampires. Vampires are physical diseases. The common “condition” associated with Werewolves is “Lycanthropy”. And Lycanthropy IS an actual medical disease. It’s not a person who turns into a wolf… it’s someone who THINKS they’re turning into a wolf. It’s a mental disease. One of the earliest illustrated depictions of a “werewolf” is of a farmer who “turned into a wolf and ate his children” while his shocked wife looked on. But the man… doesn’t have a snout or tail. If you look closely, he’s just on all fours, with an overgrowth of hair and beard, with his kid in his mouth, chomping away. Definitely not normal… but look at the circumstances. This was from back in the day where a large portion of the world was not civilized. This depiction is just a farmer out in the middle of nowhere… probably only makes the long slow trip into a village maybe once every 4 months, and his only company is his wife and very small children. The guy just went stir crazy… he was seeing the SAME people every day, cooped up… effectively cut off from civilization. It’s called Cabin Fever… and some people do just snap and kill their families. Sometimes, they just lose it, and think they themselves are wolves (one of the animals they were seeing on a frequent basis, and fighting off)… hence, the mental disease of Lycanthropy.
An American Werewolf in London… in my humble opinion, the best werewolf movie there is, puts a lot of focus on the main character’s feelings of going crazy. His dream sequences, which truly are maddening, are the scariest parts of that movie. Even the classic Universal picture The Wolf Man spends a large part having Lon Chaney Jr. say, “I’m going crazy! I’m mad, I tell you!” Dog Soldiers, deals with special ops soldiers fighting off werewolves. Makes for great action… and gives you a nice appreciation when you think of the condition “Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder” or “Shell Shock”, which you see these characters are definitely going to have when they’re through… if they survive, that is.
The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde… its metaphor? Alcoholism. That one may be hard to see at first. But notice how Dr. Jekyll drinks his “formula” and becomes a different person? Yet, he feels he can control it? So, he keeps drinking the formula, becoming Mr. Hyde… then soon, he needs the formula to STOP from becoming Mr. Hyde, that’s when he realizes he’s in deep doo doo. Bring that basic explanation to any AA meeting, and I’m willing to bet you get a lot of knowing nods.
Godzilla… the original movie was a Japanese Horror film. His metaphor? He’s the walking embodiment of nuclear terror. From a country that was still recovering from having Fat Man and Little Boy dropped on them, causing mindless destruction in its wake. So that movie freaked the living hell out of them. Can you blame them?
We’re missing the metaphors these days. Too many movies and books are churned out without giving us those hooks that really connect us to it… and that’s what really scares us.
A few years ago, I picked up a book… a Vampire book. It looked interesting, it had won the “Bram Stoker” award the previous year, and had a lot of praise written on the back. So I got it, and read it. That book… was the biggest pile of SHIT that I’ve ever read in my life. Narrative-wise… it was atrocious. The very beginning and the very end of the book were one plot… which the entire middle had NOTHING to do with. I only fought my way to the end of the book, hoping to the Almighty that it would redeem itself with a great ending. Nope. If anything, the ending was the worst part. Some interviews praised it for its “honest sexuality”… so an elderly man’s fantasy about a pubescent-girl’s body is “honest”??? I seriously thought the guy was rubbing one out while he was at the typewriter. I don’t call that “honest sexuality”… I call it pathetic masturbation fantasies. Useless references to incest (added nothing to nowhere)… introducing “major characters” 4/5 of the way through the book… casually doing away with the creepiest villains of the story with nothing more than a “oh, I killed them” side note… languishing too long on the uninteresting parts… and all-too-quickly-glossing-over of what would have been the most interesting parts. I hate that book and author with the fury of a thousand suns… and no longer have any faith in the “Bram Stoker Award”, because they apparently give it out to utter crap. When I found out that this was one of the author’s last books, and he had died about a year earlier… I felt bad… because now I couldn’t personally lambaste him for being the worst hack I’ve ever read. I really hope that guy didn’t die of natural causes. I won’t even honor it enough to mention its name on this blog. My blood is actually boiling, and I read this several years ago.
I really hope that’s not what the world of Horror is heading towards. I’ve heard a lot of complaints about the current “Torture Porn”… and frankly… You’re preaching to the choir.
While I did enjoy the first Saw… it was novel and different. Anything after that… is old hat. So, I don’t even need to see the movies whose only selling point is the extreme violence. That’s not a story. (Same reason I didn’t see The Passion of the Christ… I already knew the story, and the violence isn’t an attraction, so why bother?) The gore IS the story, not a tool for the story. Now, I could be wrong on that… maybe there are very intelligent metaphors that inspired those stories, I don’t know. Honestly… I haven’t watched them. But when the focus by the media and filmmakers is all about “look at the gross stuff we can do”… I have no interest to even look for a good metaphor. Gross-out stuff will only disgust me, but it won’t actually *scare* me.
I wanna be scared.
I’ve only been scared by one movie. I’ve jumped at a few, but only one that actually crawled under my skin and really frightened me: The Blair Witch Project.
It was the last movie I saw right before I moved to California…. I saw it with my best friend. The entire theatre was packed with young folk aged 16-19… the age group that you’d definitely consider to be the rowdiest, loudest and most obnoxious theatergoers of all.
The place was so silent, you could hear a pin drop. Love Blair Witch or hate it… most people hit one of those extremes… it was definitely original. It’s worth seeing it for the marketing campaign alone… And that experience of seeing it was one of the most unique ones I’ve ever had in a theatre.
Why did it scare ME so much? Possibly because all the stupid crap those characters were doing: Finding old graveyards, exploring old condemned houses in the dark, etc… My friends and I have actually DONE that crap ourselves. I have seen an abandoned house in northern New Hampshire… that has black handprints on the walls. (No, it wasn’t the same house in the movie) Once the movie finished, I turned to my best friend and said, “You know… in retrospect, maybe we shouldn’t have done all that creepy, stupid shit through college”. She said, “yup”… and neither of us slept that night.
I think Horror can get better. For all the crap out there… we do find some really good stuff every now and then. Once in a while, a new classic will be born… one that really hits us where it counts, and makes us scared again… and then 1,001 bad knockoffs will instantly be born.
Which is probably the scariest thing about it. *shrug*
2.15.2008
What Hollywood Should Be Doing (or Are You Experienced?)
Before I begin, I want to make something clear: This is NOT going to be another rant about how movies are crappy. There are articles and blogs and columns every day written by people saying, “We need characters to care about”, “We want interesting and original plots”, and “Stop doing Re-makes and sequels” and all that. In fact, I’m not even going to talk about “content” at all. Yeah, it seems odd, because the whole business of Hollywood, when you come down to it, is about “content”. They want to make money, but they have to have content, good or bad, to be able to sell. And not to diminish those arguments... because there is a lot of bad crap out there. Course, there’s also a lot of *good* crap out there… not to mention there’s also some Fantastic stuff out there. So all the other guys can bitch and moan about the content. I want… an Experience.
I love movies. I’m not that much of a film “buff”, contrary to what many that know me might think. I’ve always loved horror films, so if there was trivia to be known about that subject, I was looking it up. When I went away to Grad School, I got exposed a little more to “the classics”, both modern-day classics, and classic classics. Then living in Los Angeles, being surrounded by film history (you just need to be willing to look), plus working for a company that quality-tested DVDs… well, I got to see a lot of movies. I came to love more genres than just horror. In fact, I’d say my tastes are pretty wide about now when it comes to genres. I no longer qualify a “good movie” by the amount of boobs, blood or explosions that are in it… instead it’s a more general term I use: “I want a good story, no matter the genre.” And there is a LOT of films I haven’t seen before… a lot of “oh-my-God-YOU-haven’t-seen-that-movie” kind of films. Well, there’s only so many hours in the day, and for some movies I haven’t seen… there are some other obscure ones that I *have* seen. All in the search for a good story.
I am one of those guys that like to watch a movie to the end of the credits. For a couple of reasons, really. For one… there are some movies that like to put an extra scene at the end of the credits… whether it opens up the possibility for a sequel (not always a bad thing), is just a throwaway gag, clears up the last remaining plot question or whatever… I like to see that. Second… and this is a concept I first heard put into words when I saw Dark City in 1998 (an EXTREMELY underrated movie), it’s a sign of respect to all the people that worked on the film… especially if you really enjoyed the movie. A really nice concept, but to be honest… probably the weakest of the reasons that I stay. Third… it’s my “buffer” before getting back to the real world. When the credits begin, the freshness of the story is such that I don’t want to get up; I like to listen to the music that the composer wrote to accentuate the story and emotions. That music keeps the emotions going, and helps me feel like I’m still there, while slowly bringing me out of it at the same time. So when the final music fades and the rating card appears, signifying there is NO more to the film reels, I’m fully OUT of the world of the film story, and back in my theatre chair. (Or couch at home, wherever I happen to be watching it.)
As an extra bonus… staying to the end pretty much guarantees a smooth walk outside, as everyone else has already scrambled to be the first ones to their car, and get out to “avoid the rush”. Me… I tend to get there AFTER the rush, so it’s even smoother sailing. More evidence that “patience is a virtue”.
My brother is NOT one of those people. As soon as the credits even start (sometimes even before that), he’s already out of his chair and walking out, no matter how much he liked or disliked it. I’ve seen a few movies with him this year, and he always does that… and it bugs me. I want to just chill for a few minutes, and he’s saying, “Okay, we’re going… come on!” Obviously, my Movie-going practices and habits aren’t for everyone. Just get in, see the explosions and shiny things, hear the cool one-liners, and bolt. Fast-Track Living for a Fast-Tracked Life.
Can we slow down, please?
I don’t want the act of going to the movies to be a tightly scheduled thing. I like to be a little looser with it. If the movie starts at 1:40, and I happen to arrive at 1:48… well, then I’ll just come in to the Theater during the previews. Likewise, I don’t mind arriving a half-hour earlier and just chilling out waiting to start. Either way I’m totally cool with. I don’t consider myself “late” unless the actual movie itself has already started. In which case… I’ll catch a later showing. Because I *do* like to see every second of the story… even if it is just opening credits. (It too is the buffer from the real world… bringing us IN to the story.)
I’ve always considered “going out to a movie”… to be pretty much an all-day-activity… even though it isn’t. I’m not sure why I think that way… but I do. If the movie is 90 minutes long, well, you still have to drive to the theater, maybe grab something to eat (before or after), wait in line, sit in the theatre, waiting for it to start, then leave, drive home… and if it’s a Date, or you’re out with friends, well, there’s probably a little more involved, more time taken. So a movie that’s an hour and a half… could take up to 4 hours of your day. Or even more. That’s 4 hours… of an experience.
When you see a movie for the first time, you’re not just “watching” it. You’re Experiencing it. The filmmakers, actors, editors and everyone that worked on it can only DREAM of being in the position you’re in. Of seeing those jokes, shocks, plot-twists and revelations for the FIRST time. Your reactions to those moments are the closest to real-life, and (from a filmmaking perspective), the final solution to the mystery of whether or not a particular moment truly “works”.
How often have you seen a trailer for a movie, or heard about one, and said to your closest friend, “Dude! You and I *have* to see that movie together!” You don’t mean to say, “I’m going to buy a ticket at the first convenient time for myself, and if you happen to be there, that’s okay.” No… you want to go through that experience WITH that person, specifically. You’ll hold off going on opening weekend, until its convenient for BOTH of you, and then you’ll see it all for the first time together. So what happens when one person goes to see it, and the other one isn’t there? That other person feels “ditched”.
There’s a big difference between “I want to see that movie”, and “I want to see that movie with *you*.”
Even if the movie is really good, and you want to see it again, and go to the theatre AGAIN with that person to see the movie (2nd time for you, 1st for them)… it’s not going to be the same. Because you’re not Experiencing the movie anymore. You’re only watching it. Sure, you can keep your mouth shut and not reveal any details to your friend/date/whatever… But when friendships and relationships are built around “experiencing” things together… you’ve put a wall between the two of you. Some won’t consider it a big deal. I do. (As you may have guessed from reading these other blog entries… I tend to overthink things.)
I remember seeing a one-page ad in a magazine… I don’t even know what the product being advertised WAS, probably deodorant or something. It had a picture of a young couple sitting in a theatre. The caption said something like:
“First date. Popcorn is stale. Dialog is cheesy. Effects are laughable. Story insulting. Movie is horrible.
She puts her hand on yours.
You are watching the Greatest Movie Ever Made in History.”
Yeah, it’s all about the Experience. Even a movie that is laughably horrible can be a wonderful experience for you. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 can attest to that. Now, the Hollywood machine can’t do anything about my bad dates, past or future. But they CAN help contribute more to the Experience.
Last movie I saw (without my brother), just before the movie started, I saw something that I had thought was lost to annals of film history.
A cartoon.
One thing I think a lot of people have forgotten is that all those old Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons… the ones that used to rule Saturday mornings back when there was a concept of Saturday Morning Cartoons… those 9-minute shorts that we’ve laughed at countless times as children and adults… those were shown in movie theatres. One cartoon before a feature film. Sometime in the 60s they stopped this practice, and now it’s a rarity or a “throwback” to make a new 9-minute short “purely for nostalgic value”.
Well, I want more.
I don’t want shorts that have been outsourced to Korea or something… I understand the half-hour animated shows have to do that, and that’s fine. But I think we can get 9 minutes of material created right here at home. Easily. For an animator trying to break into the business, I think they’re willing to give us 9 minutes of their blood, sweat and tears. I’ll gladly give him, or her, a chance to make me laugh or cry with their drawings. There are so many out there, you could have a different cartoon every week, and a different one in every state. So the cartoons that California sees are different from the ones that New Hampshire sees.
The old-time movie experience always had a cartoon. Kids would spend their Saturdays paying a nickel to see the latest adventure picture, and with it would be a new cartoon showing the hijinks of Goofy, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, etcetera etcetera etcetera. There’s also something else they had: A live action short.
The live-action short could be broken into 2 categories… the Cliffhanger serial adventures, or the stand-alones. The stand-alones were just that, 15-20 minutes of a completely independent story… far too short on material for a feature film and sometimes a bit on the “propaganda” side of the fence, but enough nonetheless. The Cliffhangers, though… were the best. These were the 12-part stories… a new 20 minute chapter every week at the local theater… these were the stories of Flash Gordon, or Zombies of the Stratosphere, King of the Rocketmen… these were the inspirations that would become the Indiana Jones movies, and even Star Wars. It was the origin of the whole idea of leaving an episode at a crucial point (like oh… the hero hanging off a cliff), making the audience wait till NEXT week to see the conclusion… a practice so many TV shows of today are utilizing. Hence why they call those endings “Cliffhangers”. Well, I want those back in the theater. The Cliffhangers OR the stand-alones.
I’m sure a lot of bean-counters will say, “We’d like to, but they’re not cost-effective.” Well, guess what? There’s an incredibly easy, cost-effective way to bring them to us. In practically every state, there is at least 1 or 2 “filmmaking festivals”. Of which each one is inundated with submissions of short films (10-20 minutes long) from young filmmakers. These short films are rarely, if ever, seen outside of that festival circuit. Buy some of them for a song. Hell, say it’s a “competition” and the winner gets it presented before a feature film over the country, then it’s free. Put THOSE in the theatres. You’ll be allowing millions of moviegoers the opportunity to see some bright new quality material, and be giving some deserving young filmmakers the opportunity to be seen. How is this NOT a win-win situation? The exact same thing can be done for the cartoons. So many animators looking for a shot, but there is no market for it. Well, there IS a market for it, there’s just no means for those that want to see them.
The last component to achieve that Old Time Moviegoing Experience… Newsreels. Back then, that was how a lot of people got to see the news. Very few, if anyone, had televisions, so they got the news from the radio. If you actually wanted to SEE what the president looked like? Outside of the newspaper, really the only place was at the movie theatre in the newsreels. And the advantage over radio or newspapers… you could actually match the voice and the body together. Obviously nowadays, that wouldn’t be worth it to make newsreels showing the actual news. We get it on the Internet at the speed of thought, or on TV as its happening. So… the solution? Talk to the folks at The Daily Show. Or the Onion… go to the people that make a living satirizing the daily news and current events. Give us an extra 3 to 5 minutes of laughter before the feature starts. Shoot and project it digitally, and you can keep it more current then the newsreels of old. Hell, shooting and projecting digitally… there’s no reason you COULDN’T show regular news stories in the theatres.
You add on a cartoon, a live-action short and a newsreel in addition to the trailers that are there (and some places are showing COMMERCIALS. You’re giving us commercials? Give us this good stuff, too!) and I won’t feel so gypped paying $11.00 to see an 80 minute movie, no matter how flashy the explosions are. If they’re smart, they’ll add a 4 minute intermission just before the feature starts so people can hit the bathroom one last time. (I *hate* leaving to pee… I usually cross my legs and try to wait it out.)
(On the side note of “being gypped”… this is to the Cineplex owners. Go to the supermarket or a drugstore. Go to the candy aisle. See what they’re charging? Charge that. And dump your supplier, 75% of the boxes are air. Go to Costco and buy them in bulk yourself. Sell the NORMAL boxes of candy at NORMAL prices, and you won’t get anymore people sneaking in candy. Which means you’ll sell more and MAKE more profit rather than selling very little for way too much and making NO profit. Thanks to you, the youth population have become better smugglers than Han Solo.)
Hollywood won’t like this for the same reason that they don’t like 3-hour movies. Less times they can show the film, and less money they can make on it. (Funny, that didn’t hurt Lord of the Rings…) So, let’s compromise: Put all this in front of a movie 3 times a week. Friday night at an 8pm showing on the “big movie” that’s out (since each theater chain is owned by a different movie studio, they can decide which movie that is). Saturday night at the 8pm showing… and Saturday afternoon at 1pm (the “kid adventure movie matinee”). It will make going to the theatre (on the popular times) an “Experience” again. I’d personally be more willing to go to the movies on opening weekends, rather than waiting a few weeks until the crowds die down, as I usually do.
To be fair… we movie-goers, as a whole, have some work of our own to do. Very few people know how to be a “good audience member”. There are many of us that need to figure out how to sit down and shut the hell up. (Frankly, it’s the only reason and circumstance, I think, in which Lynching should be legal.)
Give us more time being entertained, more time to feel our date’s hands on ours, more time to be immersed and appreciate the hard work that the filmmakers, actors, writers, producers and bean-counters put into it.
You can take us to other worlds. Let’s hang out and take in the sights. Whaddaya say?
I love movies. I’m not that much of a film “buff”, contrary to what many that know me might think. I’ve always loved horror films, so if there was trivia to be known about that subject, I was looking it up. When I went away to Grad School, I got exposed a little more to “the classics”, both modern-day classics, and classic classics. Then living in Los Angeles, being surrounded by film history (you just need to be willing to look), plus working for a company that quality-tested DVDs… well, I got to see a lot of movies. I came to love more genres than just horror. In fact, I’d say my tastes are pretty wide about now when it comes to genres. I no longer qualify a “good movie” by the amount of boobs, blood or explosions that are in it… instead it’s a more general term I use: “I want a good story, no matter the genre.” And there is a LOT of films I haven’t seen before… a lot of “oh-my-God-YOU-haven’t-seen-that-movie” kind of films. Well, there’s only so many hours in the day, and for some movies I haven’t seen… there are some other obscure ones that I *have* seen. All in the search for a good story.
I am one of those guys that like to watch a movie to the end of the credits. For a couple of reasons, really. For one… there are some movies that like to put an extra scene at the end of the credits… whether it opens up the possibility for a sequel (not always a bad thing), is just a throwaway gag, clears up the last remaining plot question or whatever… I like to see that. Second… and this is a concept I first heard put into words when I saw Dark City in 1998 (an EXTREMELY underrated movie), it’s a sign of respect to all the people that worked on the film… especially if you really enjoyed the movie. A really nice concept, but to be honest… probably the weakest of the reasons that I stay. Third… it’s my “buffer” before getting back to the real world. When the credits begin, the freshness of the story is such that I don’t want to get up; I like to listen to the music that the composer wrote to accentuate the story and emotions. That music keeps the emotions going, and helps me feel like I’m still there, while slowly bringing me out of it at the same time. So when the final music fades and the rating card appears, signifying there is NO more to the film reels, I’m fully OUT of the world of the film story, and back in my theatre chair. (Or couch at home, wherever I happen to be watching it.)
As an extra bonus… staying to the end pretty much guarantees a smooth walk outside, as everyone else has already scrambled to be the first ones to their car, and get out to “avoid the rush”. Me… I tend to get there AFTER the rush, so it’s even smoother sailing. More evidence that “patience is a virtue”.
My brother is NOT one of those people. As soon as the credits even start (sometimes even before that), he’s already out of his chair and walking out, no matter how much he liked or disliked it. I’ve seen a few movies with him this year, and he always does that… and it bugs me. I want to just chill for a few minutes, and he’s saying, “Okay, we’re going… come on!” Obviously, my Movie-going practices and habits aren’t for everyone. Just get in, see the explosions and shiny things, hear the cool one-liners, and bolt. Fast-Track Living for a Fast-Tracked Life.
Can we slow down, please?
I don’t want the act of going to the movies to be a tightly scheduled thing. I like to be a little looser with it. If the movie starts at 1:40, and I happen to arrive at 1:48… well, then I’ll just come in to the Theater during the previews. Likewise, I don’t mind arriving a half-hour earlier and just chilling out waiting to start. Either way I’m totally cool with. I don’t consider myself “late” unless the actual movie itself has already started. In which case… I’ll catch a later showing. Because I *do* like to see every second of the story… even if it is just opening credits. (It too is the buffer from the real world… bringing us IN to the story.)
I’ve always considered “going out to a movie”… to be pretty much an all-day-activity… even though it isn’t. I’m not sure why I think that way… but I do. If the movie is 90 minutes long, well, you still have to drive to the theater, maybe grab something to eat (before or after), wait in line, sit in the theatre, waiting for it to start, then leave, drive home… and if it’s a Date, or you’re out with friends, well, there’s probably a little more involved, more time taken. So a movie that’s an hour and a half… could take up to 4 hours of your day. Or even more. That’s 4 hours… of an experience.
When you see a movie for the first time, you’re not just “watching” it. You’re Experiencing it. The filmmakers, actors, editors and everyone that worked on it can only DREAM of being in the position you’re in. Of seeing those jokes, shocks, plot-twists and revelations for the FIRST time. Your reactions to those moments are the closest to real-life, and (from a filmmaking perspective), the final solution to the mystery of whether or not a particular moment truly “works”.
How often have you seen a trailer for a movie, or heard about one, and said to your closest friend, “Dude! You and I *have* to see that movie together!” You don’t mean to say, “I’m going to buy a ticket at the first convenient time for myself, and if you happen to be there, that’s okay.” No… you want to go through that experience WITH that person, specifically. You’ll hold off going on opening weekend, until its convenient for BOTH of you, and then you’ll see it all for the first time together. So what happens when one person goes to see it, and the other one isn’t there? That other person feels “ditched”.
There’s a big difference between “I want to see that movie”, and “I want to see that movie with *you*.”
Even if the movie is really good, and you want to see it again, and go to the theatre AGAIN with that person to see the movie (2nd time for you, 1st for them)… it’s not going to be the same. Because you’re not Experiencing the movie anymore. You’re only watching it. Sure, you can keep your mouth shut and not reveal any details to your friend/date/whatever… But when friendships and relationships are built around “experiencing” things together… you’ve put a wall between the two of you. Some won’t consider it a big deal. I do. (As you may have guessed from reading these other blog entries… I tend to overthink things.)
I remember seeing a one-page ad in a magazine… I don’t even know what the product being advertised WAS, probably deodorant or something. It had a picture of a young couple sitting in a theatre. The caption said something like:
“First date. Popcorn is stale. Dialog is cheesy. Effects are laughable. Story insulting. Movie is horrible.
She puts her hand on yours.
You are watching the Greatest Movie Ever Made in History.”
Yeah, it’s all about the Experience. Even a movie that is laughably horrible can be a wonderful experience for you. Fans of Mystery Science Theater 3000 can attest to that. Now, the Hollywood machine can’t do anything about my bad dates, past or future. But they CAN help contribute more to the Experience.
Last movie I saw (without my brother), just before the movie started, I saw something that I had thought was lost to annals of film history.
A cartoon.
One thing I think a lot of people have forgotten is that all those old Disney and Looney Tunes cartoons… the ones that used to rule Saturday mornings back when there was a concept of Saturday Morning Cartoons… those 9-minute shorts that we’ve laughed at countless times as children and adults… those were shown in movie theatres. One cartoon before a feature film. Sometime in the 60s they stopped this practice, and now it’s a rarity or a “throwback” to make a new 9-minute short “purely for nostalgic value”.
Well, I want more.
I don’t want shorts that have been outsourced to Korea or something… I understand the half-hour animated shows have to do that, and that’s fine. But I think we can get 9 minutes of material created right here at home. Easily. For an animator trying to break into the business, I think they’re willing to give us 9 minutes of their blood, sweat and tears. I’ll gladly give him, or her, a chance to make me laugh or cry with their drawings. There are so many out there, you could have a different cartoon every week, and a different one in every state. So the cartoons that California sees are different from the ones that New Hampshire sees.
The old-time movie experience always had a cartoon. Kids would spend their Saturdays paying a nickel to see the latest adventure picture, and with it would be a new cartoon showing the hijinks of Goofy, Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, etcetera etcetera etcetera. There’s also something else they had: A live action short.
The live-action short could be broken into 2 categories… the Cliffhanger serial adventures, or the stand-alones. The stand-alones were just that, 15-20 minutes of a completely independent story… far too short on material for a feature film and sometimes a bit on the “propaganda” side of the fence, but enough nonetheless. The Cliffhangers, though… were the best. These were the 12-part stories… a new 20 minute chapter every week at the local theater… these were the stories of Flash Gordon, or Zombies of the Stratosphere, King of the Rocketmen… these were the inspirations that would become the Indiana Jones movies, and even Star Wars. It was the origin of the whole idea of leaving an episode at a crucial point (like oh… the hero hanging off a cliff), making the audience wait till NEXT week to see the conclusion… a practice so many TV shows of today are utilizing. Hence why they call those endings “Cliffhangers”. Well, I want those back in the theater. The Cliffhangers OR the stand-alones.
I’m sure a lot of bean-counters will say, “We’d like to, but they’re not cost-effective.” Well, guess what? There’s an incredibly easy, cost-effective way to bring them to us. In practically every state, there is at least 1 or 2 “filmmaking festivals”. Of which each one is inundated with submissions of short films (10-20 minutes long) from young filmmakers. These short films are rarely, if ever, seen outside of that festival circuit. Buy some of them for a song. Hell, say it’s a “competition” and the winner gets it presented before a feature film over the country, then it’s free. Put THOSE in the theatres. You’ll be allowing millions of moviegoers the opportunity to see some bright new quality material, and be giving some deserving young filmmakers the opportunity to be seen. How is this NOT a win-win situation? The exact same thing can be done for the cartoons. So many animators looking for a shot, but there is no market for it. Well, there IS a market for it, there’s just no means for those that want to see them.
The last component to achieve that Old Time Moviegoing Experience… Newsreels. Back then, that was how a lot of people got to see the news. Very few, if anyone, had televisions, so they got the news from the radio. If you actually wanted to SEE what the president looked like? Outside of the newspaper, really the only place was at the movie theatre in the newsreels. And the advantage over radio or newspapers… you could actually match the voice and the body together. Obviously nowadays, that wouldn’t be worth it to make newsreels showing the actual news. We get it on the Internet at the speed of thought, or on TV as its happening. So… the solution? Talk to the folks at The Daily Show. Or the Onion… go to the people that make a living satirizing the daily news and current events. Give us an extra 3 to 5 minutes of laughter before the feature starts. Shoot and project it digitally, and you can keep it more current then the newsreels of old. Hell, shooting and projecting digitally… there’s no reason you COULDN’T show regular news stories in the theatres.
You add on a cartoon, a live-action short and a newsreel in addition to the trailers that are there (and some places are showing COMMERCIALS. You’re giving us commercials? Give us this good stuff, too!) and I won’t feel so gypped paying $11.00 to see an 80 minute movie, no matter how flashy the explosions are. If they’re smart, they’ll add a 4 minute intermission just before the feature starts so people can hit the bathroom one last time. (I *hate* leaving to pee… I usually cross my legs and try to wait it out.)
(On the side note of “being gypped”… this is to the Cineplex owners. Go to the supermarket or a drugstore. Go to the candy aisle. See what they’re charging? Charge that. And dump your supplier, 75% of the boxes are air. Go to Costco and buy them in bulk yourself. Sell the NORMAL boxes of candy at NORMAL prices, and you won’t get anymore people sneaking in candy. Which means you’ll sell more and MAKE more profit rather than selling very little for way too much and making NO profit. Thanks to you, the youth population have become better smugglers than Han Solo.)
Hollywood won’t like this for the same reason that they don’t like 3-hour movies. Less times they can show the film, and less money they can make on it. (Funny, that didn’t hurt Lord of the Rings…) So, let’s compromise: Put all this in front of a movie 3 times a week. Friday night at an 8pm showing on the “big movie” that’s out (since each theater chain is owned by a different movie studio, they can decide which movie that is). Saturday night at the 8pm showing… and Saturday afternoon at 1pm (the “kid adventure movie matinee”). It will make going to the theatre (on the popular times) an “Experience” again. I’d personally be more willing to go to the movies on opening weekends, rather than waiting a few weeks until the crowds die down, as I usually do.
To be fair… we movie-goers, as a whole, have some work of our own to do. Very few people know how to be a “good audience member”. There are many of us that need to figure out how to sit down and shut the hell up. (Frankly, it’s the only reason and circumstance, I think, in which Lynching should be legal.)
Give us more time being entertained, more time to feel our date’s hands on ours, more time to be immersed and appreciate the hard work that the filmmakers, actors, writers, producers and bean-counters put into it.
You can take us to other worlds. Let’s hang out and take in the sights. Whaddaya say?
9.16.2006
Deviant Lifestyles
Last night, I went to a movie premiere party... for an adult film.
Why? Cause I never have. And I'm in freaking L.A.
The film is about submission and domination... but it's one of the "mainstream adult films" (if you could call it that). Made by one of the bigger companies, and it's nicely shot, high production values and apparently known names of the adult film world. So I have a feeling that the fetishism displayed on screen is quite tame compared to the real-world practice of B/D/S/M. Not having seen a "fetish" video before, I would only assume they're more closer to the "B-movie" variety... shot on home videotape... grainy and gritty with performers resembling people you ACTUALLY see on the street.
But they were giving out free gift bags. And if it's free... it's for me. There could be a sign saying "Free Dirt", and I'll be in line with bags waiting for my topsoil.
The website encouraged Fetish Wear... so for the first time in a long while... I got to break out my Pleather Pants... not to mention my "Gay Shirt" (it's shiny, black, humblingly tight, and I got it in West Hollywood. Also haven't worn it in 4 years... I was very happy it still fit.) Then I slicked my hair back... which for my hair, actually entails pomade and a LOT of hairspray. When it dried, if I were to accidentally headbutt somebody, I'd probably crack their skull before that Plaster Toupee even dented.) Then... since I was going for more of a "Cyberpunk" thing... I took eyeliner pencil from my Theatre Makeup kit, and drew circuitry (or something resembling it) all over my left arm, and the left side of my face. When I finished with that, I figured I looked barely passable... hopefully I wouldn't get laughed at.
That actually didn't happen at all... I must have done better with it than I thought. Several people asked if it was a tattoo, and many more complimented me on it. Coolness. :)
But I'm getting ahead. I'm not normally a club-goer. I tend to hang back, people watch, and just sort of visually occupy myself. But here, I actually met people. In a normal club, a quick smile would MAYBE get you the same in return. If you want conversation with someone, you have to break through several barriers including, but not limited to, a shell of turned backs intended to dissuade any passer-bys, finding a spark of conversation when next to no inspiration is nearby, the 2-second judgement, etc. Sometimes it's like pulling your own teeth to get any kind of social momentum going.
Here, it was the complete opposite. Giving someone a basic smile, 9 times out of 10, got an enthusiastic smile in return (as opposed to a non-sincere polite one), and automatic conversation. No need to look for inspiration, everyone was wearing it. Everything seemed so much easier here. In a normal club, if you glance at some girl's overflowing cleavage, she'll think that you should die. Here, if you glance and some girl's overflowing cleavage, she'll think, "Why wouldn't you?"
The first person I met was an older woman... who was a dominatrix. She was very friendly, and we talked quite a bit about the lifestyle and practice. I didn't find it arousing at all... but I did find it very interesting and educational. A little while later, when some people were "playing"... there were plenty of people (myself included) watching. Everyone with knowledge of the practice were admiring other's form and technique... it almost seemed like it was being treated as more of an Art Form, rather than sexual. (Though the sexual element was clearly there.)
Overall, I have to admit... it was pretty darn fascinating. I learned about rope play, domination, knife play, craftsmanship of the racks and S/M tables, some of the different kinds of restraints used... a bunch of stuff. And I'm as white bread as they come... but it was definitely interesting.
And it kind of occurred to me earlier today when I was thinking about it... whenever I've met someone who was involved in what's considered a "deviant lifestyle" (S/M, Bikers, people with Tattoos covering 80% of their body, etc.)... in MY experience, they've always been the nicest... most polite... and most RESPECTFUL people I've ever met.
That's a much different message then I got when growing up. We always were told that "deviants" are evil and sick, with something wrong with them, that only hurt themselves and everyone around them. Well, I didn't see anyone hurting there. No drunken fights breaking out (no one even drunk)... no one crying... nothing like that. Just a lot of polite, happy people having a good time.
As I was leaving (and somehow ended up with 2 gift bags), I was walking back to my car, and I was crossing Sunset Blvd. There were 3 other people also crossing the same way. Two guys and a girl... dressed normally, mundanely... and acting a bit on the obnoxious side. As I passed by them, and they got to see me. All I heard was, "What's up with THIS guy?"
Obviously talking about me. 1am in the morning, no one else around... yeah, it was about me.
I considered turning around and simply saying, "THIS guy just came from a kick ass party with porn stars and scantily clad women everywhere who were HOPING to get spanked."
But then I figured... the worst thing I could do to this Generation Yutz is just let him continue on his way... and then he'd never know about a pretty damn cool place... and hence, never bother any of the truly nice people. So I just smiled and kept on walking.
And dude! I got free nipple clamps. Woo-Hoo!
Why? Cause I never have. And I'm in freaking L.A.
The film is about submission and domination... but it's one of the "mainstream adult films" (if you could call it that). Made by one of the bigger companies, and it's nicely shot, high production values and apparently known names of the adult film world. So I have a feeling that the fetishism displayed on screen is quite tame compared to the real-world practice of B/D/S/M. Not having seen a "fetish" video before, I would only assume they're more closer to the "B-movie" variety... shot on home videotape... grainy and gritty with performers resembling people you ACTUALLY see on the street.
But they were giving out free gift bags. And if it's free... it's for me. There could be a sign saying "Free Dirt", and I'll be in line with bags waiting for my topsoil.
The website encouraged Fetish Wear... so for the first time in a long while... I got to break out my Pleather Pants... not to mention my "Gay Shirt" (it's shiny, black, humblingly tight, and I got it in West Hollywood. Also haven't worn it in 4 years... I was very happy it still fit.) Then I slicked my hair back... which for my hair, actually entails pomade and a LOT of hairspray. When it dried, if I were to accidentally headbutt somebody, I'd probably crack their skull before that Plaster Toupee even dented.) Then... since I was going for more of a "Cyberpunk" thing... I took eyeliner pencil from my Theatre Makeup kit, and drew circuitry (or something resembling it) all over my left arm, and the left side of my face. When I finished with that, I figured I looked barely passable... hopefully I wouldn't get laughed at.
That actually didn't happen at all... I must have done better with it than I thought. Several people asked if it was a tattoo, and many more complimented me on it. Coolness. :)
But I'm getting ahead. I'm not normally a club-goer. I tend to hang back, people watch, and just sort of visually occupy myself. But here, I actually met people. In a normal club, a quick smile would MAYBE get you the same in return. If you want conversation with someone, you have to break through several barriers including, but not limited to, a shell of turned backs intended to dissuade any passer-bys, finding a spark of conversation when next to no inspiration is nearby, the 2-second judgement, etc. Sometimes it's like pulling your own teeth to get any kind of social momentum going.
Here, it was the complete opposite. Giving someone a basic smile, 9 times out of 10, got an enthusiastic smile in return (as opposed to a non-sincere polite one), and automatic conversation. No need to look for inspiration, everyone was wearing it. Everything seemed so much easier here. In a normal club, if you glance at some girl's overflowing cleavage, she'll think that you should die. Here, if you glance and some girl's overflowing cleavage, she'll think, "Why wouldn't you?"
The first person I met was an older woman... who was a dominatrix. She was very friendly, and we talked quite a bit about the lifestyle and practice. I didn't find it arousing at all... but I did find it very interesting and educational. A little while later, when some people were "playing"... there were plenty of people (myself included) watching. Everyone with knowledge of the practice were admiring other's form and technique... it almost seemed like it was being treated as more of an Art Form, rather than sexual. (Though the sexual element was clearly there.)
Overall, I have to admit... it was pretty darn fascinating. I learned about rope play, domination, knife play, craftsmanship of the racks and S/M tables, some of the different kinds of restraints used... a bunch of stuff. And I'm as white bread as they come... but it was definitely interesting.
And it kind of occurred to me earlier today when I was thinking about it... whenever I've met someone who was involved in what's considered a "deviant lifestyle" (S/M, Bikers, people with Tattoos covering 80% of their body, etc.)... in MY experience, they've always been the nicest... most polite... and most RESPECTFUL people I've ever met.
That's a much different message then I got when growing up. We always were told that "deviants" are evil and sick, with something wrong with them, that only hurt themselves and everyone around them. Well, I didn't see anyone hurting there. No drunken fights breaking out (no one even drunk)... no one crying... nothing like that. Just a lot of polite, happy people having a good time.
As I was leaving (and somehow ended up with 2 gift bags), I was walking back to my car, and I was crossing Sunset Blvd. There were 3 other people also crossing the same way. Two guys and a girl... dressed normally, mundanely... and acting a bit on the obnoxious side. As I passed by them, and they got to see me. All I heard was, "What's up with THIS guy?"
Obviously talking about me. 1am in the morning, no one else around... yeah, it was about me.
I considered turning around and simply saying, "THIS guy just came from a kick ass party with porn stars and scantily clad women everywhere who were HOPING to get spanked."
But then I figured... the worst thing I could do to this Generation Yutz is just let him continue on his way... and then he'd never know about a pretty damn cool place... and hence, never bother any of the truly nice people. So I just smiled and kept on walking.
And dude! I got free nipple clamps. Woo-Hoo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
