Although I practically never watch reality TV, I made an exception last year in 2012 when I saw an ad for New Zealand's Next Top Model.
The ad was of a tanned girl with smug hostility in her voice, telling another girl 'I think you have the fattest arse ever! Ha! Ha! Ha!' After seeing that, I thought the show would be amusing. It wasn't. It turned out that the comment from the tanned girl had a sad context, which was as follows...
(Incidentally I apologise for not knowing the names of any of the models. As I said, I only saw the show once.)
The contestants were all getting along fine chatting with one another, when the host, Sara Tetro came over to their table and asked them who they each thought should be sent home next.
All the models froze. None of them wanted to needlessly say anything that would insult any of the other contestants.
Sara then told them that there was an understanding that they were in a competition so it was okay to voice an opinion on this topic. Foolishly, they believed her, and everyone other than the tanned girl said that they thought that the tanned girl should be sent home next. Feeling she had been undermined, ganged-up on and betrayed, the tanned girl angrily lashed out at the girl sitting next to her! 'I think you have the fattest arse ever! Ha! Ha! Ha!'
It was very cringe-worthy for me how Sara manipulated the circumstances and played the contestant's emotions to give the show more drama and ratings. There was no need to insist on the discussion of a topic that was guaranteed to cause distress.
The social damage from this incident only compiled as the show went on. The other contestants were mad at the tanned girl for her outburst and didn't seem to empathise with the situation she was put in. The girl who the tanned girl had lashed out at told the camera, 'we all hate her.' On top of this, it was clearly the tanned girl who performed poorest in the photo-shoot challenge, so in addition to now being on the wrong side of all the other contestants, it looked as though she would be sent home during eliminations.
Sara Tetro was also in charge of the eliminations. Knowing that the tanned girl was in a scary position already due to the likelihood of being sent home, Sara asked her in a harsh, judgemental tone, 'Why did you tell (insert name here) she has a fat butt? What has her butt got to do with you?' To this, the tanned girl said something to the effect of, 'I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I was just angry.' To this, Sara snapped 'Keep making excuses. That's a good way to get sent home!'
AAAAAAARGH! I'm cringing so hard right now!
How much audacity can a person have? Sara was the one who deliberately rocked the boat and upset the harmony of the group in the first place, while hoping someone would lash out! Then, once she gets the drama she was hoping for, she uses it to verbally bash the girl who she's already hurt, and make her squirm during the elimination proceedings! And that's what Next Top Model LET'S IT'S AUDIENCE SEE! There will be other calculated tortures we don't see because they get set up behind the scenes!
This is everything that's wrong with reality TV in a nutshell. The pain of the contestants is real and the ratings are real, but the situation isn't. And there's an incentive to make their contestants miserable, to make their shows more interesting. In summary, I advise against watching this show, taking part in this show and the existence of this show.
And for the record, the final decision was that the tanned girl would not be voted off that week. Apparently Sara wasn't done fucking her life up for ratings.
Tuesday, 22 October 2013
Sunday, 11 August 2013
'Dexter' is Ridiculous
I've only seen three episodes of Dexter but it only takes that long to understand what the show's about. It's a show that sends the message that it would be a good thing if there was a serial killer killing other serial killers as a vigilante operating outside the law. However, it sends this message by secretly omitting the facts of the world we live in and replacing them with a fantasy world.
Here are some problems with Dexter's premise, which makes it's message ugly and dangerous.
1. There are not that many serial killer in real life.
The show makes it look like there are hundreds of serial killers in just one city, as Dexter Morgan murders several serial killers per episode. In real life there are not enough serial killers in America for even one criminal psychologist to be able to work exclusively on them. (That's according to my university psychology lecturer who has worked in the legal system.)
2. Dexter would not kill a guilty person every time in real life.
Dexter never kills any innocent people, yet the death penalty gets it wrong half the time in the cases that were reviewed. Presumably it would be far more inaccurate if it was only one individual deciding people's fate, as opposed to a judge and jury. Furthermore, Dexter states that he can't control his urge to kill, so he lacks impartiality and has a strong incentive to believe people are guilty. Yet, I never saw him make a mistake and he did a lot of killing for only three episodes. The idea that he wouldn't be making any mistakes in knowing who's guilty or innocent is ridiculous, yet it's presented as plausible.
3. Dexter's victims are dehumanised.
It's uncomfortable how there is ZERO opportunity to feel AT ALL bad for Dexter's victims. We only see 10 seconds of their lives where they brag about their crimes, or make excuses, or lie and then Dexter kills them. We don't see anything from their 30+ years on the planet that may mitigate the righteousness of the decision to kill them. This exaggerates the black and white view of Dexter's actions.
Contrary to the show's claim that it's dealing with an ethical grey area, it appears that everything Dexter does is good, and everything about his victims is bad.
4. We never actually SEE any evidence that Dexter is the monster he claims to be.
Dexter repeatedly calls himself a monster on the show, but it comes across as modesty rather than accuracy. There's no opportunity to like anything about Dexter's victims whatsoever, so I haven't been given any reason to oppose what Dexter's doing.
In fact, Dexter only kills people who have evaded the law so unless you can somehow feel sorry for the mass murderers who Dexter is killing, AND feel worse for them than for their victims, then you have no reason to oppose Dexter.
What the ethical dilemma of the show comes down to is - 'Are you going to side with Dexter, or are you going to let these evil murderers get away with it?' It's not a difficult ethical dilemma that we're presented with. It's a clear cut black and white, good versus evil scenario, where Dexter is good and his victims are evil.
My reaction (if I didn't know that Dexter's actions are insanely irresponsible when you consider how the world actually works) would be to come to Dexter's defence in his harsh criticism of himself, and feel sorry for such a great guy having such low self-esteem as to call himself a monster!
5. Mark Twitchall.
Mark Twitchall is a real-life murderer in Canada who is a big fan of Dexter. Twitchall wrote a movie script inspired by Dexter then acted it out in real life. He did this by subscibing to an online dating website where he intended to lure men to his house while pretending to be a woman so he could kill them. Twitchall only managed to kill one person this way before he was caught, (38-year-old Johnny Altinger) but he had plans to become a serial killer himself.
Soon after Twitchall was arrested, Edmonton homicide detective Mark Ansley said 'we have a lot of evidence that suggests he definitely idolises Dexter and a lot of information that he tried to emulate him during this incident.'
Part of this evidence is that Twitchall's 'kill room' where he killed his victim in was designed to look like Dexter Morgan's kill room.http://www.uproxx.com/tv/2013/05/canadian-dexter-copycat-killer-still-watching-dexter-in-maximum-security-prison-obvs/. Twichall also commented on facebook that he had way too much in common with Dexter Morgan.
After finding out about this case Dexter's writer and producer Melissa Rosenberg responded by conveying that the show's creators had been slightly worried about something like this, but insisted that the show did not glorify Dexter's actions.
'Every time you think you're identifying with Dexter and rooting for him, for us it's about turning that back and saying 'You may think that he's doing good but he's a monster. He's killing because he's a monster.''
My conclusion from this is that the show fucked up grotesquely, stupidly and irresponsibly!
I have no idea WHEN the show turned it back and made Dexter look like a monster! All I saw was a morally upstanding individual modestly claiming to be a monster. And I don't think the show got any better. I'll leave a link at the bottom of the page to an article called 'Such a nice boy serial killer' which is saying basically the same thing I'm saying except it's written by someone who's seen more episodes. It sounds like all the episodes were as pro-Dexter as the first three!
Although Melissa Rosenberg claims that the show is not meant to glorify Dexter's actions, actor Michael. C. Hall who plays Dexter Morgan, claims that the viewers decision as to whether Dexter's actions are appropriate is supposed to remain ambiguous.
So the defence of Dexter's message comes down to this- 'We're not glorifying the idea of a vigilante killer with an obvious conflict of interest towards finding people guilty, acting as judge, jury and executioner again and again and again perpetually. We're just saying it MIGHT be a good idea.'
That's a terrible defence! It would NEVER be a good idea in a million years. And the defence isn't even true! Of course Dexter Morgan is glorified! On the show he is both unquestionably right and the only one with the stomach to do what's right, which makes him an exceptional hero. That's what glorifying is.
For me, it's frustrating that the creators apparently couldn't see how appallingly irresponsible it is create something like that.
Here is what the show should be saying. 'Dexter is not a monster. He is a hero. But he's only able to be a hero within the realm of this fantasy world where real life rules do not apply.'
If you want to watch Dexter, THAT'S what you're getting, regardless of what the show claims it's giving you.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/such-a-nice-boy-serial-killer/
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Hogwarts gets Owned!
I loved the Harry Potter books when I was little and they're still somewhat entertaining but unfortunately nowhere near the 'WOW' factor that they used to have. There are a number of behaviours which don't make sense, such as the fact that people keep saying that Albus Dumbledore is the greatest headmaster Hogwarts ever had while it's perfectly clear that the school is run terribly.
Here are some adjustments the school should make.
1. Eliminate Slytherine house as an option.
If we know Salazaar Slytherine was a racist murderer then why does he have his own house?
In the second Harry Potter book we discover that Slytherine House's founder built a secret chamber with a monster in it that would kill wizards born in non-wizarding families on command. Once this was established, Slytherine house should have been dissolved. They now know that Slytherine was a racist murderer and yet they continue to prize the values of a racist murderer so much that they keep this house as an option. Why?
That's appalling. Putting a student in Slytherine house to learn racist propaganda off each other has gotta be close to child abuse.
2. Fire Proffessor Trelawney, the Divination teacher.
I don't get why she doesn't get fired when Dumbledore knows full well that she's a fraud. She's teaching all the students bullshit! Dumbledore's meant to be the best headmaster even, yet he deliberately hires a fraud to teach bullshit? What the hell were the other Hogwarts Headmasters doing?
Not only is she indefensible in principle, but she's a sicko. In the third Harry Potter book, she told Harry, who she knew had a dark wizard currently trying to kill him, that he was going to die soon.
That has potential to seriously mess a person up psychologically.
How does she keep her job? How?
3. Expel Peeves the poltergeist.
Filch, the caretaker is constantly trying to have Peeves expelled. Why on God's green earth hasn't he succeeded? What is the argument for keeping him? He doesn't do anything useful! All he does is play dangerous, irresponsible jokes on people. It's hard to tell who's more useless, him or Professor Trelawney.
It's pretty obvious that Peeves is only written into the stories for comic relief, and that the school can't lose him because it would lose it's comic buffoon, that the reader can laugh at. But he has no practical use at Hogwarts.
4. Fire Professor Snape, the Potions Master.
Snape uses WAY too much negative reinforcement in his teaching methods. In book three he actually threatens to poison a struggling, frightened student's pet toad if he doesn't perform at a higher academic level. That is a firing offense in itself.
I'll say this in his favour. You'd DEFINATELY take your schoolwork seriously if your teacher threatened to kill your pet.
5. Fire Professor Hagrid, the Care of Magical Creatures teacher.
Hagrid is an incompetent, bigoted arse-clown.
In book three when Buckbeak the Hippogryff gored Malfoy it WAS his fault. When you're explaining to your class how to not get gored by a wild animal it is absolutely essential to be certain sure all the students are listening. He did not do that.
It's also illegal to cross-breed different types of magical creatures and smuggle dragons into your house. He doesn't learn. He keeps doing this stupid shit.
He's also the most bigoted of all the protagonist characters. He shows that he apparently finds all muggles disgusting when he tells Vernon Dursley 'I'd like to see a great muggle like you stop him', states in book two that the reason the Malfoys aren't worth listening to is that they have 'bad blood' and tells Harry in book four (in relation to Madame Maxime) 'these foriegners, you can't trust any of them.' All of these bigoted statements were in front of young students.
What's more when Hagrid is busy and can't teach, it's pretty clear that his substitute is much more competent, as she doesn't cross-breed dangerous creatures and introduce them to animals that might gore them to death.
We're supposed to hope that Hagrid keeps his job because he's a friend of the Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore and because everyone who tries to get him fired such as Malfoy and Umbridge do it for stupid, biased, bigoted reasons. I do NOT hope he keeps his job. I believe quite objectively that he is an incompetent boob and that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore are recklessly endangering the educations of their fellow students, because they don't want big baby Hagrid to start crying because he lost his job.
6. Fire Filch, the caretaker.
If you hate children it's a bad idea to work in a school. Uh-Duuuuuh!
7. Teach Professor Flitwick, the charms teacher common sense.
Professor Flitwick did a terrible job defending the Philosopher's Stone in the first book. Flitwick charmed keys to fly around, AND LEFT RACING BROOMS RIGHT THERE IN THE ROOM SO THE BURGLERS WOULD HAVE A CHANCE OF CATCHING ONE! Why would you do that? They're BURGLERS! You're meant to keep them AWAY from the stone... IDIOT!
8. Fire Professor Binns, the History of Magic teacher.
He's dead already. He's a ghost. And he was a boring, shit teacher when he was alive. He puts all his students to sleep. Fire him!
9. Fire Dumbledore, the Headmaster.
For making, many, many, many terrible, biased and downright inexplicable staff appointments, and running a school which keeps a house known to be founded by a racist murderer.
Do all these thing and this train-wreck of a school will be on the road to recovery.
Here are some adjustments the school should make.
1. Eliminate Slytherine house as an option.
If we know Salazaar Slytherine was a racist murderer then why does he have his own house?
In the second Harry Potter book we discover that Slytherine House's founder built a secret chamber with a monster in it that would kill wizards born in non-wizarding families on command. Once this was established, Slytherine house should have been dissolved. They now know that Slytherine was a racist murderer and yet they continue to prize the values of a racist murderer so much that they keep this house as an option. Why?
That's appalling. Putting a student in Slytherine house to learn racist propaganda off each other has gotta be close to child abuse.
2. Fire Proffessor Trelawney, the Divination teacher.
I don't get why she doesn't get fired when Dumbledore knows full well that she's a fraud. She's teaching all the students bullshit! Dumbledore's meant to be the best headmaster even, yet he deliberately hires a fraud to teach bullshit? What the hell were the other Hogwarts Headmasters doing?
Not only is she indefensible in principle, but she's a sicko. In the third Harry Potter book, she told Harry, who she knew had a dark wizard currently trying to kill him, that he was going to die soon.
That has potential to seriously mess a person up psychologically.
How does she keep her job? How?
3. Expel Peeves the poltergeist.
Filch, the caretaker is constantly trying to have Peeves expelled. Why on God's green earth hasn't he succeeded? What is the argument for keeping him? He doesn't do anything useful! All he does is play dangerous, irresponsible jokes on people. It's hard to tell who's more useless, him or Professor Trelawney.
It's pretty obvious that Peeves is only written into the stories for comic relief, and that the school can't lose him because it would lose it's comic buffoon, that the reader can laugh at. But he has no practical use at Hogwarts.
4. Fire Professor Snape, the Potions Master.
Snape uses WAY too much negative reinforcement in his teaching methods. In book three he actually threatens to poison a struggling, frightened student's pet toad if he doesn't perform at a higher academic level. That is a firing offense in itself.
I'll say this in his favour. You'd DEFINATELY take your schoolwork seriously if your teacher threatened to kill your pet.
5. Fire Professor Hagrid, the Care of Magical Creatures teacher.
Hagrid is an incompetent, bigoted arse-clown.
In book three when Buckbeak the Hippogryff gored Malfoy it WAS his fault. When you're explaining to your class how to not get gored by a wild animal it is absolutely essential to be certain sure all the students are listening. He did not do that.
It's also illegal to cross-breed different types of magical creatures and smuggle dragons into your house. He doesn't learn. He keeps doing this stupid shit.
He's also the most bigoted of all the protagonist characters. He shows that he apparently finds all muggles disgusting when he tells Vernon Dursley 'I'd like to see a great muggle like you stop him', states in book two that the reason the Malfoys aren't worth listening to is that they have 'bad blood' and tells Harry in book four (in relation to Madame Maxime) 'these foriegners, you can't trust any of them.' All of these bigoted statements were in front of young students.
What's more when Hagrid is busy and can't teach, it's pretty clear that his substitute is much more competent, as she doesn't cross-breed dangerous creatures and introduce them to animals that might gore them to death.
We're supposed to hope that Hagrid keeps his job because he's a friend of the Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore and because everyone who tries to get him fired such as Malfoy and Umbridge do it for stupid, biased, bigoted reasons. I do NOT hope he keeps his job. I believe quite objectively that he is an incompetent boob and that Harry, Ron, Hermione and Dumbledore are recklessly endangering the educations of their fellow students, because they don't want big baby Hagrid to start crying because he lost his job.
6. Fire Filch, the caretaker.
If you hate children it's a bad idea to work in a school. Uh-Duuuuuh!
7. Teach Professor Flitwick, the charms teacher common sense.
Professor Flitwick did a terrible job defending the Philosopher's Stone in the first book. Flitwick charmed keys to fly around, AND LEFT RACING BROOMS RIGHT THERE IN THE ROOM SO THE BURGLERS WOULD HAVE A CHANCE OF CATCHING ONE! Why would you do that? They're BURGLERS! You're meant to keep them AWAY from the stone... IDIOT!
8. Fire Professor Binns, the History of Magic teacher.
He's dead already. He's a ghost. And he was a boring, shit teacher when he was alive. He puts all his students to sleep. Fire him!
9. Fire Dumbledore, the Headmaster.
For making, many, many, many terrible, biased and downright inexplicable staff appointments, and running a school which keeps a house known to be founded by a racist murderer.
Do all these thing and this train-wreck of a school will be on the road to recovery.
Monday, 8 July 2013
The movie 'Dragonheart' is pro-genocide
Dragonheart is a 1996 fantasy adventure film and it's storyline is completely psycho. I could not believe it when I saw it. In some university subjects it's taught to be wary of biases in movies which cause them to be racist, sexist, classist or homophobic. THIS movie should be the blueprint. It's rare to find a movie where the bias is so extreme that the plot makes no sense at all. The movie looks as though it were written and directed by a Nazi with down syndrome who needs to lay off the sugar and take his medication! It was like watching a car crash. Hideous and yet I couldn't look away.
I actually wonder what was going through the minds of the actors as they were starring in this movie. Were they thinking 'Yes! We're nailing it! This is a really great movie!'? Could anyone think that? I sure hope not.
Here are the aspects of Dragonheart which make it so painful to watch.
1. The Racism
The way dragons are treated in the movies by the hero and protagonist Bowen (Dennis Quaid) is racist in principle.
We only know of one dragon in this movie, Draco, voiced by Sean Connery. As Draco can speak and has human intelligence, we can infer that all dragons in this world can speak and have human intelligence. This essentially makes them human in every meaningful way. Yet Bowen commits murderous genocide against every dragon in the world except Draco. And he's meant to be the GOOD guy. The good guy is Hitler, in principle.
The reason for Bowen hunting down and killing all dragons is that he believed that Draco had tricked him and turned his friend into a brute. He felt this entitled him to murder ALL dragons in retaliation for the action of this one dragon. What's more, Bowen's belief that Draco tricked him, turned out to be completely wrong later in the movie. Whoops! He committed that murderous genocide for nothing!
Also when I say he doesn't kill Draco, that isn't for lack of trying. When Bowen confronts Draco, Draco tell him that he is the last dragon and Bowen has now killed every other dragon in the world. He also knows that Bowen has been getting money for his dragon hunting. Bowen responds (to paraphrase here) - 'I don't kill your kind for the money. I do it for the pleasure!'
Hence, the hero is not only racist, mass-murdering and genocidal but also sadistic. But it gets worse.
Bowen fails to kill Draco, who wins the fight and pins Bowen to the ground. Bowen admits defeat and tells Draco that he may kill him now. BUT... Draco doesn't WANT to kill Bowen at all. Draco holds no grudge whatsoever for the fact that every single one of his people other than him has been murdered by Bowen. Draco is the sweetest, most demure, submissive, subservient, boot-licking house-dragon in the world and all he wants is to be Bowen's friend....WHAT???
Replace the word dragon with black guy. Are you offended yet? This is unbelievable. By having the movie heroes behave in this way they're promoting that this is how things are supposed to work. That the white status-quo can commit genocide and minorities are supposed to say 'Yes massa! Commit all the genocide you want massa! I loves you massa! Can I lick the cyanide off your boots massa?'
I don't even understand how anyone can defend or positively spin this. It's like this movie has just dumped a whole massive pile of shit down in front of me and expected me to be pleased about it. And I'm sitting there bewildered, wondering why I'm supposed to be pleased about this.
Take the shit away! It's awful! What wrong with you?
2. The Homophobia and Classism.
The villain of this movie is King Einon (David Thewlis). Like a lot of movie villains, Einon is 'queered' by being much more effeminate in appearance in contrast with Bowen. Einon is much slimmer.
Now admittedly that vague stereotype is not a LOT to go on to claim Einon is meant to be gay (or a bit gay). Possibly the reason we're supposed to hate Einon is more a classist prejudice, as Einon is a rich King in the movie. Or it may be a combination of homophobia and classism. Whatever the reason, the movie attempts to give the viewer a grotesquely unjust opinion of King Einon's character.
Unlike most villains, Einon does not actually do anything villainous. Yet he gets called 'evil' by the main characters who insist that they won't be safe until he is killed again and again and again. Probably dozens of times. I was utterly confused by this. I didn't see Einon commit a single evil act throughout the entire movie. I remembered wishing I could turn my brain off and just enjoy the gung-ho fighting action, but I couldn't stop myself from thinking WHY? Why does Einon need to die? What the hell did he do that was so bad? Do the makers of this movie realize that villain are villains because of their ACTIONS? You can't just play creepy, dramatic music while a poofter floats around the room and expect the audience to think 'ooh! He's so evil! I'm scared!' That's basically all this movie did!
It's King Nancy-boy!
Although there are a number of scenes that are supposed to make us shocked by Einon's behavior, these scenes are only effective if the viewer lacks the empathy to put themselves in Einon's shoes.
For example, at the beginning of the movie, Einon orders a man's eyes burned out. However, this cannot be called 'evil' as this man has murdered Einon's father and mocked him about it only moments beforehand. Bowen does not agree with this order of physical disfigurement and is upset that Einon has appeared to disregard 'the old code' that Bowen taught Einon growing up. (However as Bowen's code apparently says it's okay to wipe out a whole race of people if one of them pisses you off, I don't fault Einon for disregarding Bowen's code.)
Bowen then points to a castle that Einon is ordering built and is unhappy with the work conditions of the peasants. Bowen's analysis is 'it's madness.' However, when the camera shows us the workers we actually see no suffering at all, leaving me surer than ever that the protagonist characters who I'm supposed to root for, are a deluded lunatics. This makes me hesitant to believe the claims that I hear through the movie that Einon treats peasants and workers appallingly in his kingdom as did his father before him (which is why Einon's father had to be killed) which makes his death essential. We never actually SEE this dreadful, sadistic, tyranny in the movie and the people who assert this to be true, appear to be complete Neanderthals with rocks in their heads!
He also later on kills the man who he blinded. Not that it's morally defensible to kill a blind man, but I do need more than this to hate Einon or think of him as evil like I'm supposed to. These are the only times in the whole movie that shows Einon being a tyrant, and it involves blinding and killing the man who KILLED HIS FATHER and bragged about it. The female lead Kara (Dina Meyer) who is the man's daughter, responds by attempting to assassinate Einon. Einon throws her in prison for this but does not have her killed. Again, not very evil.
When Bowen is going to storm Einon's castle and kill him, Einon begins to get understandably anxious. Then one of the upper-class lords flippantly remarks to Einon that there's nothing to worry about as 'any one of us is worth 100 of them (peasants).' Einon grabs him and slams his head on the table. Confusingly, creepy music then plays as though to indicate that I am now supposed to be shocked by the brutality. I'm not. He said something stupid about a serious situation and got whumped! He deserved it.
At the end we discover that since Draco transplanted one of his hearts into Einon's body to save his life, that Draco will now have to die for Einon to be killed. (Which of course makes perfect medical sense.) Einon sadly catches his own mother Queen Aislinn (Julie Christie) hiring dragon hunters so that Einon will be killed. When he confronts her about this she tells him 'I'm correcting the mistake I made years ago when I saved the life of a creature that didn't deserve to live!' Einon responds by... Doing nothing. This is supposed to be the vicious evil bad guy and he's so passive, that he won't harm someone who just tried to kill him!
Basically, I'm supposed to take the word of a genocidal racist and his supporters, and ignore the evidence of my own eyes which tell me that Einon is a gentle pacifist who's just defending himself. Well, no sale Dragonheart!
Despite the fact that the movie has provided us with no solid evidence of any tyranny from Einon other than the one exception against the man who killed his father, Draco begins screaming at Bowen to kill him so that Einon can die! Bowen is reluctant to kill a friend, but eventually realizes that it's worth it based on some utterly bewildering rationalization (maybe he just wanted Draco to shut up), and runs his sword right through Draco, killing both Draco and Einon.
As I cannot see any substance which would lead me to conclude that Einon deserves to die, I can only conclude that the message here is that it's worth killing your friend to commit a murderous hate crime against a rich homosexual.
3. Sexism
At one stage of the movie Bowen is still dragon hunting only now he's just pretending to kill Draco over and over. Together him and Draco are scamming villagers out of their gold. When Draco comes along to terrorize a village Bowen throws a spear at him and Draco pretends to die. Bowen collects his payment.
Again, Bowen's the GOOD GUY here.
Kara tries to warn the villagers who Bowen and Draco are scamming, by yelling 'Don't you understand? He's in league with the dragon!' Bowen then gives them a cocky, smarmy look that clearly says 'see - she's crazy'. Kara is effectively laughed into a low-status position. Even though she was just telling the truth. Seems like a most sexist way for a 'good guy' to resolve an issue, akin to the methods in Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew.'
This is actual the mildest of the three prejudices that Dragonheart pushes, because even though I don't think the movie writers should have written the movie in this style where Kara attempts to gain more status than Bowen through truth-telling and has to be knocked down, it can at least be somewhat defended in the context of the movie. Bowen was put on the spot and had to think fast. The racism and homophobia/classism leave me thinking what... the... fuck? Why god, Why?
Bowen is also extremely rude to Kara as she tries to rally the peasants against Einon, seemingly for no reason at all.
In summary, Dragonheart has taught me that if a minority upsets me, that I should go on a mass killing spree that wipes out his whole race, that women should be kept in line through humiliation and berating their self-esteem and uppity, rich queers should be killed even if your own friends die in the process! Genocide = good. Peace = bad. And there's nothing that can't be solved by running your sword through someone! Violence - It's what's for dinner! Dragonheart for the win!
I actually wonder what was going through the minds of the actors as they were starring in this movie. Were they thinking 'Yes! We're nailing it! This is a really great movie!'? Could anyone think that? I sure hope not.
Here are the aspects of Dragonheart which make it so painful to watch.
1. The Racism
The way dragons are treated in the movies by the hero and protagonist Bowen (Dennis Quaid) is racist in principle.
We only know of one dragon in this movie, Draco, voiced by Sean Connery. As Draco can speak and has human intelligence, we can infer that all dragons in this world can speak and have human intelligence. This essentially makes them human in every meaningful way. Yet Bowen commits murderous genocide against every dragon in the world except Draco. And he's meant to be the GOOD guy. The good guy is Hitler, in principle.
The reason for Bowen hunting down and killing all dragons is that he believed that Draco had tricked him and turned his friend into a brute. He felt this entitled him to murder ALL dragons in retaliation for the action of this one dragon. What's more, Bowen's belief that Draco tricked him, turned out to be completely wrong later in the movie. Whoops! He committed that murderous genocide for nothing!
Also when I say he doesn't kill Draco, that isn't for lack of trying. When Bowen confronts Draco, Draco tell him that he is the last dragon and Bowen has now killed every other dragon in the world. He also knows that Bowen has been getting money for his dragon hunting. Bowen responds (to paraphrase here) - 'I don't kill your kind for the money. I do it for the pleasure!'
Hence, the hero is not only racist, mass-murdering and genocidal but also sadistic. But it gets worse.
Bowen fails to kill Draco, who wins the fight and pins Bowen to the ground. Bowen admits defeat and tells Draco that he may kill him now. BUT... Draco doesn't WANT to kill Bowen at all. Draco holds no grudge whatsoever for the fact that every single one of his people other than him has been murdered by Bowen. Draco is the sweetest, most demure, submissive, subservient, boot-licking house-dragon in the world and all he wants is to be Bowen's friend....WHAT???
Replace the word dragon with black guy. Are you offended yet? This is unbelievable. By having the movie heroes behave in this way they're promoting that this is how things are supposed to work. That the white status-quo can commit genocide and minorities are supposed to say 'Yes massa! Commit all the genocide you want massa! I loves you massa! Can I lick the cyanide off your boots massa?'
I don't even understand how anyone can defend or positively spin this. It's like this movie has just dumped a whole massive pile of shit down in front of me and expected me to be pleased about it. And I'm sitting there bewildered, wondering why I'm supposed to be pleased about this.
Take the shit away! It's awful! What wrong with you?
2. The Homophobia and Classism.
The villain of this movie is King Einon (David Thewlis). Like a lot of movie villains, Einon is 'queered' by being much more effeminate in appearance in contrast with Bowen. Einon is much slimmer.
Now admittedly that vague stereotype is not a LOT to go on to claim Einon is meant to be gay (or a bit gay). Possibly the reason we're supposed to hate Einon is more a classist prejudice, as Einon is a rich King in the movie. Or it may be a combination of homophobia and classism. Whatever the reason, the movie attempts to give the viewer a grotesquely unjust opinion of King Einon's character.
Unlike most villains, Einon does not actually do anything villainous. Yet he gets called 'evil' by the main characters who insist that they won't be safe until he is killed again and again and again. Probably dozens of times. I was utterly confused by this. I didn't see Einon commit a single evil act throughout the entire movie. I remembered wishing I could turn my brain off and just enjoy the gung-ho fighting action, but I couldn't stop myself from thinking WHY? Why does Einon need to die? What the hell did he do that was so bad? Do the makers of this movie realize that villain are villains because of their ACTIONS? You can't just play creepy, dramatic music while a poofter floats around the room and expect the audience to think 'ooh! He's so evil! I'm scared!' That's basically all this movie did!
It's King Nancy-boy!
Although there are a number of scenes that are supposed to make us shocked by Einon's behavior, these scenes are only effective if the viewer lacks the empathy to put themselves in Einon's shoes.
For example, at the beginning of the movie, Einon orders a man's eyes burned out. However, this cannot be called 'evil' as this man has murdered Einon's father and mocked him about it only moments beforehand. Bowen does not agree with this order of physical disfigurement and is upset that Einon has appeared to disregard 'the old code' that Bowen taught Einon growing up. (However as Bowen's code apparently says it's okay to wipe out a whole race of people if one of them pisses you off, I don't fault Einon for disregarding Bowen's code.)
Bowen then points to a castle that Einon is ordering built and is unhappy with the work conditions of the peasants. Bowen's analysis is 'it's madness.' However, when the camera shows us the workers we actually see no suffering at all, leaving me surer than ever that the protagonist characters who I'm supposed to root for, are a deluded lunatics. This makes me hesitant to believe the claims that I hear through the movie that Einon treats peasants and workers appallingly in his kingdom as did his father before him (which is why Einon's father had to be killed) which makes his death essential. We never actually SEE this dreadful, sadistic, tyranny in the movie and the people who assert this to be true, appear to be complete Neanderthals with rocks in their heads!
He also later on kills the man who he blinded. Not that it's morally defensible to kill a blind man, but I do need more than this to hate Einon or think of him as evil like I'm supposed to. These are the only times in the whole movie that shows Einon being a tyrant, and it involves blinding and killing the man who KILLED HIS FATHER and bragged about it. The female lead Kara (Dina Meyer) who is the man's daughter, responds by attempting to assassinate Einon. Einon throws her in prison for this but does not have her killed. Again, not very evil.
When Bowen is going to storm Einon's castle and kill him, Einon begins to get understandably anxious. Then one of the upper-class lords flippantly remarks to Einon that there's nothing to worry about as 'any one of us is worth 100 of them (peasants).' Einon grabs him and slams his head on the table. Confusingly, creepy music then plays as though to indicate that I am now supposed to be shocked by the brutality. I'm not. He said something stupid about a serious situation and got whumped! He deserved it.
At the end we discover that since Draco transplanted one of his hearts into Einon's body to save his life, that Draco will now have to die for Einon to be killed. (Which of course makes perfect medical sense.) Einon sadly catches his own mother Queen Aislinn (Julie Christie) hiring dragon hunters so that Einon will be killed. When he confronts her about this she tells him 'I'm correcting the mistake I made years ago when I saved the life of a creature that didn't deserve to live!' Einon responds by... Doing nothing. This is supposed to be the vicious evil bad guy and he's so passive, that he won't harm someone who just tried to kill him!
Basically, I'm supposed to take the word of a genocidal racist and his supporters, and ignore the evidence of my own eyes which tell me that Einon is a gentle pacifist who's just defending himself. Well, no sale Dragonheart!
Despite the fact that the movie has provided us with no solid evidence of any tyranny from Einon other than the one exception against the man who killed his father, Draco begins screaming at Bowen to kill him so that Einon can die! Bowen is reluctant to kill a friend, but eventually realizes that it's worth it based on some utterly bewildering rationalization (maybe he just wanted Draco to shut up), and runs his sword right through Draco, killing both Draco and Einon.
As I cannot see any substance which would lead me to conclude that Einon deserves to die, I can only conclude that the message here is that it's worth killing your friend to commit a murderous hate crime against a rich homosexual.
3. Sexism
At one stage of the movie Bowen is still dragon hunting only now he's just pretending to kill Draco over and over. Together him and Draco are scamming villagers out of their gold. When Draco comes along to terrorize a village Bowen throws a spear at him and Draco pretends to die. Bowen collects his payment.
Again, Bowen's the GOOD GUY here.
Kara tries to warn the villagers who Bowen and Draco are scamming, by yelling 'Don't you understand? He's in league with the dragon!' Bowen then gives them a cocky, smarmy look that clearly says 'see - she's crazy'. Kara is effectively laughed into a low-status position. Even though she was just telling the truth. Seems like a most sexist way for a 'good guy' to resolve an issue, akin to the methods in Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew.'
This is actual the mildest of the three prejudices that Dragonheart pushes, because even though I don't think the movie writers should have written the movie in this style where Kara attempts to gain more status than Bowen through truth-telling and has to be knocked down, it can at least be somewhat defended in the context of the movie. Bowen was put on the spot and had to think fast. The racism and homophobia/classism leave me thinking what... the... fuck? Why god, Why?
Bowen is also extremely rude to Kara as she tries to rally the peasants against Einon, seemingly for no reason at all.
In summary, Dragonheart has taught me that if a minority upsets me, that I should go on a mass killing spree that wipes out his whole race, that women should be kept in line through humiliation and berating their self-esteem and uppity, rich queers should be killed even if your own friends die in the process! Genocide = good. Peace = bad. And there's nothing that can't be solved by running your sword through someone! Violence - It's what's for dinner! Dragonheart for the win!
Friday, 14 June 2013
Second Twilight movie gets OWNED!
Okay, I got a request to do a blog on the second twighlight movie, so I suffered through Twilight New Moon. I'll try to avoid repeating myself, from my first Twilight blog. Here it goes -
Firstly, Edward dumps Bella leaving her a hopeless mess curled up in fetal position until she finds another man she can devote herself to. The new savior is Jacob the werewolf and Bella's attraction to Jacob is similar to her attraction to Edward. Bella gets hot for Jacob because he's macho and dangerous too. If only he'd killed a few innocent people so that he could torturously agonize about it, he'd be perfect. Here are some of Jacob's most charming comments:
'What a marshmallow! You should hold out for someone with a stronger stomach. Someone who laughs at the gore that makes weaker men vomit.'
Yep, the ability to laugh at chunderous gore sounds like an incredibly useful skill. You never know when you're gonna find gruesomely murdered corpses all over the house and need to be able to laugh it off!
'You saw what happened to Emily. Sam got angry. Lost it for a split second... Em was standing too close. What if I got mad at you?'
What if I got mad at you? Isn't the danger SO HOT? Meow! This is a completely healthy relationship...Not.
'Alright, I've gotta go. I've got a vampire to kill.'
And you can think about me killing it while you masturbate. Aren't I so bad-ass?
To sum Jacob up, Jacob is just like Edward except he's tanned, muscular, flexing and shirtless. If you watched the first twilight movie and thought that the only thing wrong with it was that Edward wasn't tanned, muscular, flexing and shirtless, then Twilight New Moon is movie for you!
Watching this has also reminded me of something else which bothered me about the first twilight movie though I didn't completely realize it at the time. These movies unnecessarily highlight the differences between Bella being a human the vampires and werewolves being vampires and werewolves. I realize now that the scene in the first twilight movie where Edward's family repeatedly insinuates that they might eat her wasn't just annoying because it wasn't believable. It was also annoying because there was this narrow-minded view pushed by the vampires themselves that says vampires should NEVER be given a chance to interact with humans. It doesn't even matter what the vampire is actually doing. Don't trust vampires ever. And when Bella doesn't stick this narrow-minded rule, everyone get's way, way too confused by her behavior.
In twilight, new moon there's a scene where a secret society of vampires wants kill Bella for knowing too much and Edward tries to save her, but is going to be murdered himself for standing in their way. Bella intervenes and says 'Kill me! Kill me! Not him!' The vampire, Aro responds by saying 'extraordinary, you would give up your life for someone like us. A vampire. A soulless monster.'
Wow. How many things were wrong with that statement? Firstly, she's not really sacrificing anything. They were going to kill HER anyway. All she did was stand up and say 'please don't kill Edward too. It's not necessary.' THAT'S extraordinary? What did you THINK she was going to do? Did you think she would rationalize her decision like this? - 'Well... Edward and I have a romantic history... But on the other hand, I'm a human and he's a vampire. So therefore - FUCK HIM! I say LET HIM DIE!' It's GOOD that she didn't do that, but it's not extraordinary at all! Calm down. You're getting WAY too impressed.
Then there's the fact that he calls Edward a 'soulless monster'. As I said in my first anti-twilight rant, Edward IS NOT A MONSTER IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Not ugly. Not a mass murderer. Shut up with 'monster' comments! And 'soulless' is an equally meaningless platitude! Nobody has proved that souls exist or what they'd do if they did exist even in this stupid movie! Why should she care, you dumbarse!?
Although the vampire that made this comment is a scary, somewhat villainous figure, I don't think he said it because he's villainous, I think he said it because the whole entire twilight universe has a massively divisive mentality which is just accepted as normal. When Bella visits Jacob's family they act just like Edward's family did by making comments implying she should be scared of them. 'We're faster (than vampires) Freaked out yet?' And Edward's sister dismissively calls Jacob a 'mutt' like he's a piece of poop under her nose. She says she'll come back inside the house 'as soon as you (Bella) put the dog (Jacob) out.'
Basically, I get the impression that the story was written by someone who thinks that the concept of a human fraternizing with vampires and werewolves, even if those vampires and werewolves have a spotless record is mind-bendingly confusing. It's not. It's perfectly simple. She didn't think they were too dangerous so she didn't steer clear, despite their scary labels of 'vampire' and 'werewolf.'
Bella's not super impressive for being open-minded enough spend time with vampires and werewolves who seem well intentioned. Everyone else is just remarkably unimpressive.
Firstly, Edward dumps Bella leaving her a hopeless mess curled up in fetal position until she finds another man she can devote herself to. The new savior is Jacob the werewolf and Bella's attraction to Jacob is similar to her attraction to Edward. Bella gets hot for Jacob because he's macho and dangerous too. If only he'd killed a few innocent people so that he could torturously agonize about it, he'd be perfect. Here are some of Jacob's most charming comments:
'What a marshmallow! You should hold out for someone with a stronger stomach. Someone who laughs at the gore that makes weaker men vomit.'
Yep, the ability to laugh at chunderous gore sounds like an incredibly useful skill. You never know when you're gonna find gruesomely murdered corpses all over the house and need to be able to laugh it off!
'You saw what happened to Emily. Sam got angry. Lost it for a split second... Em was standing too close. What if I got mad at you?'
What if I got mad at you? Isn't the danger SO HOT? Meow! This is a completely healthy relationship...Not.
'Alright, I've gotta go. I've got a vampire to kill.'
And you can think about me killing it while you masturbate. Aren't I so bad-ass?
To sum Jacob up, Jacob is just like Edward except he's tanned, muscular, flexing and shirtless. If you watched the first twilight movie and thought that the only thing wrong with it was that Edward wasn't tanned, muscular, flexing and shirtless, then Twilight New Moon is movie for you!
Watching this has also reminded me of something else which bothered me about the first twilight movie though I didn't completely realize it at the time. These movies unnecessarily highlight the differences between Bella being a human the vampires and werewolves being vampires and werewolves. I realize now that the scene in the first twilight movie where Edward's family repeatedly insinuates that they might eat her wasn't just annoying because it wasn't believable. It was also annoying because there was this narrow-minded view pushed by the vampires themselves that says vampires should NEVER be given a chance to interact with humans. It doesn't even matter what the vampire is actually doing. Don't trust vampires ever. And when Bella doesn't stick this narrow-minded rule, everyone get's way, way too confused by her behavior.
In twilight, new moon there's a scene where a secret society of vampires wants kill Bella for knowing too much and Edward tries to save her, but is going to be murdered himself for standing in their way. Bella intervenes and says 'Kill me! Kill me! Not him!' The vampire, Aro responds by saying 'extraordinary, you would give up your life for someone like us. A vampire. A soulless monster.'
Wow. How many things were wrong with that statement? Firstly, she's not really sacrificing anything. They were going to kill HER anyway. All she did was stand up and say 'please don't kill Edward too. It's not necessary.' THAT'S extraordinary? What did you THINK she was going to do? Did you think she would rationalize her decision like this? - 'Well... Edward and I have a romantic history... But on the other hand, I'm a human and he's a vampire. So therefore - FUCK HIM! I say LET HIM DIE!' It's GOOD that she didn't do that, but it's not extraordinary at all! Calm down. You're getting WAY too impressed.
Then there's the fact that he calls Edward a 'soulless monster'. As I said in my first anti-twilight rant, Edward IS NOT A MONSTER IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. Not ugly. Not a mass murderer. Shut up with 'monster' comments! And 'soulless' is an equally meaningless platitude! Nobody has proved that souls exist or what they'd do if they did exist even in this stupid movie! Why should she care, you dumbarse!?
Although the vampire that made this comment is a scary, somewhat villainous figure, I don't think he said it because he's villainous, I think he said it because the whole entire twilight universe has a massively divisive mentality which is just accepted as normal. When Bella visits Jacob's family they act just like Edward's family did by making comments implying she should be scared of them. 'We're faster (than vampires) Freaked out yet?' And Edward's sister dismissively calls Jacob a 'mutt' like he's a piece of poop under her nose. She says she'll come back inside the house 'as soon as you (Bella) put the dog (Jacob) out.'
Basically, I get the impression that the story was written by someone who thinks that the concept of a human fraternizing with vampires and werewolves, even if those vampires and werewolves have a spotless record is mind-bendingly confusing. It's not. It's perfectly simple. She didn't think they were too dangerous so she didn't steer clear, despite their scary labels of 'vampire' and 'werewolf.'
Bella's not super impressive for being open-minded enough spend time with vampires and werewolves who seem well intentioned. Everyone else is just remarkably unimpressive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)