Thursday, February 19, 2004
LULLABIES AND DREAMERS
Well, first off, some story news. Found out a week or so ago that I'd sold my story, Animal Biographies to the magazine Lullaby Hearse. They told me that the story would be appearing in issue # 5, which is coming in March (next month!). Talk about amazing turnaround times. The cool part is this is also the same issue that has Laura's story, Number 808 in it. This is the first time Laura and I have had stories in the same magazine! And I found out that a buddy of mine, John Dixon, will also have a story in the same issue. So, if you haven't checked the magazine out yet, I suggest that the March issue might just be a cool issue to try. I know I can't wait to check it out!
As for movies, I saw the new Bernardo Bertolucci flick, on Valetine's Day of all days, called The Dreamers. I have to admit, in a time when a majority of movies are rated PG-13, it was kind of cool to see a new movie come out that was rated NC-17, obviously with a more adult audience in mind. The theater that was showing this movie at the multiplex was corded off, and some usher was checking ID's. It was a decidedly older crowd, which means no assholes were talking during the movie.
But I hear you asking, "Was the movie any good?" Well, it's okay. Basically it's the story of a American college kid named Matthew spending a year in Paris in 1968, when France was in a period of social unrest that resulted in student riots. Matthew is played by Michael Pitt, who you might recognize as Tommy Gnosis from Hedwig and the Angry Inch, or maybe from Larry Clark's movie Bully. He is there to learn French and doesn't know anybody, but he goes to the movies every night. It's because of this that he attracts the attention of Isabelle (the striking Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrell), two fraternal twins the same age as Matthew, who take him into their lives, inviting him to stay at their house while their parents are away. Matthew becomes the third part of their equation and it becomes clear early on that Isabelle and Theo are very close. It doesn't take long before they make Matthew a part of their sexual games.
This is a sticky film, sticky with such things as semen, honey and blood. There's also full-frontal nudity (which really isn't that big a deal, but which also seems to be controversial for some reason). There's the passion of youth and the confusion of two siblings who cling a little too tightly to each other. Matthew tries to get Isabelle alone and have a real relationship with her, but the bond between her and Theo is a formidable rival.
Since Bertolucci is an old master, the film has a self-assured feel to it. Sex is nothing new to Bertolucci - he's the guy who directed Last Tango in Paris (which I still feel is one of Brando's best movies) after all. But this film is no way in the same league as Tango. The Dreamers is a good film, and a brave one, but not a great film. The story feels like it could be a little stronger, and the characters (especially Theo) can get downright annoying at times. While Tango dealt with Brando as a man getting older who throws himself into a passionate affair to feel alive again, the characters in The Dreamers seem more shallow and less important.
So if you're a fan of Bertolluci, or of foreign films in general, and if you're not easily offended by strong sexual content, you might want to check this out. It's certainly a passionate film - passionate about love and sex and passionate about movies - and the use of old movie clips (from films ranging from Goddard's Breathless to Todd Browning's overlooked classic Freaks) throughout and classic songs on the soundtrack (from Serge Gainsbourg to The Doors) just adds to the movie's charm.
And I think Eva Green might just have a long career ahead of her. She definitely stands out in every scene she's in.
One last thing this week. It's official - this is the last season of Angel. For those of you who are fans of the show like I am - it might just be my favorite show on television these days, and that includes cable, and the last two seasons of the show have been exceptional - this is very bad news indeed. I hear Joss Whedon is exploring the possibility of moving Angel to another network, or tying up loose ends in a few TV movies later on. I really hope he finds another network that's interested. I think this is too soon to end the show and it has a lot more to it that's worth exploring. But either way, since Whedon has advanced notice, he can make sure to give Angel a real ending. I just hope it's better than the lackluster Buffy finale was.
And what about a Spike spin-off show at some point?
Oh well, that's it for this week. Until next time.
Infernally Yours,
LLS
Friday, February 13, 2004
The big news in Massachusetts this week is the hubub over gay marriage. Despite the fact that the state supreme court declared gay marriage consitutional, every yahoo and his brother has come out of the woodwork to protest it. And the lawmakers have been scrambling trying to create an amendment to ban gay marriage and instead create something safe and separate - "civil unions."
The one point that people seem to be missing, though, is that if the supreme court said gay marriage is constitutional - doesn't that mean that banning it is unconstitutional?
Frankly I can't fucking understand the debate. The people who are screaming about it are people who aren't gay and who won't be affected by it. What the fuck do they care? How does someone else getting married affect them in the slightest? Some of them are religious fanatics who are going to protest anything gays do anyway, but there are also are a bunch of "ordinary" people who really seem scared at the prospect of gay people tying the knot. I just can't figure out why. What do they care? Why are they so afraid? How is two people being in love some kind of sinister act that will destroy civilization as we know it?
I think a lot of people need to step back and realize how fucking stupid this all is. Denying gays the right to marry is discrimination, pure and simple. If people are dead set against it, it's probably because they are afraid of anyone who's gay.
GET OVER IT ALREADY!
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Saw Henry Rollins do the spoken word thing on Friday. The last time I saw him do this was about 10 years ago, and it's funny how much his act has changed in some ways. I mean, he still tells plenty of funny stories (this time around the best ones involved his infatuation with Sheryl Crowe and his cutting an album with William Shatner!!), and he's still political and outspoken. But in the old days, Henry had a kind of swagger, y' know. I mean this was the lead singer from Black Flag (I remember buying their first album DAMAGED when it first came out. I was in college and on the first listen I realized this was one of the most important bands I would ever hear) and the Rollins Band. He wouldn't hesitate to get in your face to make a point. Sure, he always had kind of humility to him, and his humor is mostly self-deprecating, but the dude also had attitude.
But he's older now (aint' we all!) and he seems to be a bit more politically correct these days. He realized that most of the people in the audience were probably college kids, so he made sure tell everyone to vote in the upcoming election. But the one thing that bothered me the most was that he kept apologizing. He'd preface it with stuff like "We all are entitled to disagree, and that's cool" but then a lot of times when he'd say something edgy, he'd back-pedal and apologize "in case he offended anyone."
I could see how some people would think this is a good thing, but if you're a long time Rollins fan and you've been in tune with the guy over the years, it's kind of sad to see him mellow like this. The man used to be a pitbull.
Still, it was cool seeing him up on stage again, talking about his life. It got a little preachy at times, but it was still Good Ol' Henry. And I've been along for the Rollins ride for a long time now.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
So what is up with everyone screaming about Janet Jackson's tit, anyway? So Fucking What?!! Sometimes this country just comes off like a bunch of pussies when it involves anything to do with sex. She flashed for a second and it shouldn't have even been a blip on the news. Instead, it's like the number one story for days now. Even the government says it's going to do an investigation! What the fuck??? With war and terrorism and a shitty economy they're going to waste time investigating Janet Jackson's breast??? Gimme a break! It's just a breast, people. It's not like she got on her knees and gave Justin Timberjerk a close-up blowjob on national television.
Also, it's no coincidence that the day after the famous flash, Janet Jackson has a new single on the radio. Just like that Britney/Madonna kiss. Fucking marketing - that's all it is. And to give so much attention to it and get suckered into the publicity machine is exactly what these attention-craving assholes want.
Everyone in Europe is no doubt laughing at those "puritanical Americans" again. It's time we grew the fuck up!
