Everything Went Black

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Superficial

Dashiell

As a film lover, and a critic, it has become impossible to ignore the ever-increasing presence of the comic book superhero on the screen. Of course this is not a new phenomenon, but it is obvious that in the last few years Hollywood has been making movies from the Marvel Comics catalogue at an unprecedented rate, along with other superhero and comic book characters.

I’m not going to take the position that comic books rot the minds of the young. I read them myself when I was a pre-teen, and occasionally even later. An industry expert might argue that the adolescent and “young adult” market is the primary targeted demographic of Hollywood, and that therefore it makes perfect sense that it would latch on to this genre, which also happens to involve a popular element from videogames: computer-generated imagery. In terms of cinema history, this is another example of the tension between film as commercial product and art form. Hollywood’s investment in a blockbuster strategy, in which huge sums are spent on a film in the hopes of massive profits, has meant that the creative aspect of cinema keeps getting pushed farther onto the margins. It also indicates a state of “mainstream” film craft that is increasingly out of touch with what I would call “literary” ideas. Industry filmmakers seem to live in a world without books—we witness instead a steady stream of TV show remakes and adaptations of comic books and graphic novels.

What I find more interesting is how film fans and reviewers manage to convince themselves that superheroes are invested with more significance or insight when they are adapted into films. The daily newspaper reviewers, and those for major magazines and media outlets (I don’t say critics, for that’s a different matter) are going to pay attention to these money-making films or else be out of a job. Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight has gotten this treatment, and plenty of rave reviews. The film struck me as a repellent mélange of sadism, sensory over-stimulation, and traditional simplistic action-movie tropes.

What I call sadism in the movies is the exploitation of the “thrill” of witnessing immoral, amoral, or extremely taboo behavior—in short, brutal violence for its own sake, for the sake of excitement in the spectator rather than as an integral element in a story idea or theme. It took off in the horror genre, and has since migrated to the action/adventure and suspense films. This aspect has come to overshadow narrative itself in many cases. The amped-up “aesthetic” of a film like The Dark Knight reminds me of stronger, more potent forms of drugs that are made to provide a greater “hit” for the addict who has already developed a tolerance for previous forms. In any case, fans and reviewers praise the way Nolan (and the late brilliant actor Heath Ledger) invests this superhero story with “darkness.” I would argue, however, that the nature of the superhero genre itself resists any deeper meanings, either associated with dark themes, or any meaningful themes at all.

Superhero comic books express an adolescent fantasy that is a reaction against fear and powerlessness. A child is confronted with control and interference from adults and from the powerful influence of society. This becomes something of a conflict when the child reaches pre-teen age, about eleven years old, sometimes earlier. We crave autonomy, but we’re not old enough to exercise it wisely. Adolescent rebellion is in large part a striving for separation from the controlling adult forces.

In literary fiction, and in all forms of art that are meaningful and of high quality, the desires of human beings are portrayed and expressed in the context of real life realities. A primary reality is pain and mortality—in other words, the natural limitations of any sentient being or in fact any existing thing or condition. I don’t restrict this to realism or naturalism in the arts. Symbolist or mythic art engages with reality. Lewis Carroll’s playful fantasy, and even the best science or fantasy fiction, engages the human condition in some way that is meaningful.

With modern popular genres, however, we observe a steady flattening effect, a reduction of human reality to much smaller dimensions. In simplest form, genre becomes an expression of wish-fulfillment fantasy. The romance novel or the paperback western don’t give us the unexpected—what the reader wants is the same thing over and over. The good guy beats the bad guy. The woman meets and marries the prince. And so forth. The pleasure of repetitive genre is very crude, but effective. It feels good to see good triumph over evil because it’s a fantasy. In reality, things aren’t that clear cut. Art forms that seek to express the truth is not “clear cut” are often rejected by the genre lover. The common aversion to the “unhappy” ending, for instance, is really the genre lover objecting to the wish fulfillment being frustrated.

There is a distinct pleasure involved in the literary or non-genre arts. It is the perception of truth. An increase in awareness, which usually involves an increase in emotional presence, is pleasurable, but it is a pleasure that needs to be learned. It is more complex than genre pleasure, and needs more time to develop. The fact, however, is that both elements are often blended together in works of art. Some filmmakers, for example, have employed genre structure while also expressing truth—the results can be very effective. Wishes, desires, are an important part of human nature, so it’s only natural that they should take a prominent place in art.

The superhero tale is a genre in which wish-fulfillment no longer tries to conceal itself within physical reality. H.G. Wells’ Invisible Man had a mythic precursor: the folklore hero with the magic cloak that makes him invisible. But then there’s The Time Machine. It’s curious that no author in all of recorded history ever conceived of time travel before. The scientific and industrial revolutions solidified a world-view in which magic no longer had a place. There’s a sense in which science fiction explored the possibilities within that world-view. But there was also a strong impulse to defy this new regime of thought.

In a popular form of the superhero tale, the main character is a nebbish, a loser who is often bullied by stronger people. Somehow this loser gains supernatural powers. He puts on a costume and fights crime—a hero in disguise. Meanwhile he maintains his old identity as a loser, continuing to be slighted and ignored while secretly knowing that he is a super-powered hero. This isn’t the only form, though. Batman is a rich playboy in “real” life, and he has no supernatural powers, only far-advanced technology and fighting skills. Still, in most cases there’s a “secret” identity (the ordinary identity he was born with) and a separate superhero identity.

Why would this genre originally be aimed at pre-teens and adolescents? Because the peculiar frustration of this group is that they are prevented from exercising autonomy in the world even though they feel the need to express it somehow. And the forces arrayed against their autonomy are so powerful that there is no hope for the child to prevail. The fantasy, then, requires extraordinary powers, powers that defy physical reality, in order for the hero to triumph over the forces that oppose him. The ordinary frustrating life, the real life of the child, is preserved in the story by a secret identity, with the superhero identity expressing the wish for power. (With time, when the readers became thoroughly accustomed to the genre, it became impossible to abandon the “secret identity” altogether. The reader could still identify with the superhero without having to keep a foot in reality.)

I no longer read superhero comic books, for a few reasons. The main reason is that as an adult I have developed a need for the awareness of truth, an engagement with reality through the transforming power of art. I haven’t lost all my wish-fulfillment tendencies—they’ve simply taken a less central role. As a critic, I now view genre fiction and other pure forms of genre narrative, as less interesting, less vital, less important. Therefore I get accused of being a snob, which I’ve co-opted in a humorous way as part of my identity as a critic. Personally, I can’t do much about this. It’s as if I’ve dined regularly on filet mignon and can therefore no longer find the appetite for a Burger King “whopper,” to which the whopper lovers respond by calling me an elitist. But the truth is that I don’t consider the pleasures of genre to be worthless, and I even partake of them sometimes, though less often. I simply think that they are less meaningful and less important than art forms that engage with the truth of human life in an honest and uncompromising fashion, and that an art form that becomes dominated by genre to the point where reality becomes a dirty word is an art form that is in poor health. In terms of film, then, I don’t see anything wrong with superhero films per se. But when the film industry devotes a huge percentage of its resources to the creation of superhero films, I sense something wrong, in fact something dishonest.

I don’t refer to graphic novels in general, but only to the superhero narrative. The notion of the super-powered individual as hero is based, I believe, on a fantasy, and it’s a fantasy of the impossible. When this story emerges from its adolescent origins into the cultural mainstream, what it tells me is that frustration and powerlessness are expanding elements of our experience. The only form of wish-fulfillment that can remedy this is an impossible infusion of power. There is no balance between the autonomy and capabilities of the individual and the powers that restrict him. In social terms, the national security state and the advanced technical power of destruction achieved by the armed forces reduces the powers of the individual protagonist to insignificant proportions. Even the non-superpower action heroes, such as Jason Bourne in the Bourne movies, regularly perform and endure things that are beyond belief. The demands of wish-fulfillment, in short, become more and more exaggerated as our actual powerlessness increases.

The pretensions of a film like The Dark Knight are insurmountable, simply put, because the hero, wearing tights and a cape, is an adolescent fantasy that cannot be transformed into meaningful content since it defies the core human reality of death and limitation. For the same reason, the exaltation of violence in Hollywood cinema, not just in superhero or action films but in almost every genre, is meaningless because it is intended as an addictive hit for a powerless spectator rather than as a truth that actually engages us.

A vital art, a vital literature or cinema of the future, would need to explore the actual power and capabilities of human beings without giving way to nihilism and despair. The superhero narrative reduces all power to the physical—it’s the counterpart to the doctrine of pure force and domination that is destroying the world. Higher art forms present wisdom, intelligence, love, emotion, presence, connection, and engagement as forms of true power and meaning in the world. The hero himself, or herself, has long ago lost relevance to the degree that he or she has lost human fallibility, and with it human depth and complexity. The story that Joyce tried to tell in Ulysses, that the mythic hero was a lie that needed to be transcended in favor of the “ordinary” (yet marvelous) narrative of real life, has not yet been absorbed into mass culture. Perhaps it is an adjustment that must come from social conditions as a whole. When the fantasy bubble bursts, there is a chance for light to come in. One of the tasks of art nowadays is to burst the bubble. And it doesn’t take superpowers to do it—just a commitment to honesty.

All I Got for Christmas Was a…Crappy Ass Book?

So my sister got me Denis Leary’s new book Why We Suck for Christmas.

I love my sister, but Denis Leary?

Yep, he’s a real Fucking Riot.

I stopped reading after about 20 pages, because there was simply no reason to continue wasting my time.

Denis Leary is NOT FUNNY.

Never Was.

I hate these Fucking “Comedians” who present themselves as, “Straight Shooters.”

If that were true, the first, and only sentence in Leary’s book would be-

I was going to write a book about why Americans Suck, but then it dawned on me, I SUCK TEN TIMES MORE, I apologize.

What really sent me over the edge was the Preface.

In it, Leary warns his audience to prepare themselves to be “Shocked,” “Angered,” and “Offended.”

In other words, he’s really going to Lay It Out, and “Shoot from the Hip” without any regard for “Political Correctness.”

Christ, what a Cunt.

“Political Correctness?”

Who the Fuck uses that Phrase?

Douche Bags, Drug Addled Wingnuts, and Unfunny Comedians who still think the word “Pussy” is Shocking.

You wanna know why Americans Suck?

I’ll tell you why-

Americans Suck because they give Chain Smoking Cliches like Denis Leary, Book Deals.

That’s Why.

Yes, Denis, Americans are “Fat, Lazy, Self-Absorbed, Semi-Comatose, Under Educated, Marginally Literate, Bitterly Unhappy, and Addicted to Simple Carbohydrates.”

I can only assume you missed the Memo back in ‘81 because, Brother, that information is more played out than Pics of Brittney Spears’ Un-Pantied Pussy.

Oh, did I mention he dedicates a section in his book to Brittney Spears’ Twat?

He does.

Did.

Hilarious.

Speaking of Worn Out Pussies getting Book Deals-

What’s up with the Duggar Family?

Just what the World Needs-Eighteen more Incurious White People

I heard they actually had 21 kids, but three of them made the mistake of sitting on mom’s lap, and were never seen or heard from, again-

Whoooooshhhhh!!

Here’s an interesting Factoid-

The Duggar’s no longer bring tents along when they take the Kids Camping.

They just have Mom drop her pants, and spread her legs; then they Stake her Labia to the Ground.

But they’re Famous.

For what?

Spitting out kids?

Is that even a Skill?

I’m fairly certain you can become Pregnant, Accidentally.

Would Van Gogh still be considered a “Genius” if Art Historians discovered he  “Accidentally” painted Starry Night by spilling some paint onto a canvas?

I mean, isn’t that what a Pregnancy, for many people, really is, an Accidental Spillage?

Ooops, I think the Condom Broke.

No worries, we’re sure to Get a Book Deal Now!!!

I’m not saying Kids are not Wonderful Creations, some of them are-

But…

Come On, Duggars.

The DNA was already a Tad Thin before you Started Shitting’em Out like someone with Cholera.

Right, Denis Leary (I almost wrote “Timothy Leary.” Damn, if only he were still around. At least LSD was Funny).

The Coup de’ Grace came when I read this “joke”-

If they build a wall to keep out the Mexicans, who’s going to build the wall?

Aaaaarrrrgggggghhhhhhh!!!!!

I’m sure Rush Limbaugh considers that Zinger to be a “Classic,” but Rush Limbaugh is so Emotionally Fragile he can’t Hack living without the Assistance of Cheeseburgers, and Oxycontin.

His opinion, unless it’s on the Subject of Being a Guilt Riddled, Obese,  Sanctimonious Junkie, is, Irrelevant.

It’s not that I disagree with Leary’s Thesis-

Yes, We, Americans, Suck.

Everything he says is True.

However-

People like Leary, who get Book Deals only because They’re Famous, are a HUGE Contributing Factor to our Suckedness.

He’s done nothing in his Career to Warrant a Book Deal.

Nothing.

As revenge, Next Christmas, I plan on purchasing my sister Michelle Malkin’s latest book.

I’m sure she has one, after all, God knows Shrill Bitches are a Dying Breed, and we’d better get what one of them has to say on paper before they All Disappear.

Clean House

Dashiell

Chris Wallace asked Dick Cheney what his “highest moment” in the last eight years was, and he answered “9/11.”

You know, it’s become easy to just dismiss Cheney as a bizarre Darth Vader figure, but people should pay more attention to this answer. All the Bush years are succinctly contained in it. These ghouls, these spooks who somehow gained a grip on power in the United States, were overjoyed at the events of September 11, 2001. They saw it as a great opportunity to be exploited. I’ve said this before, and for those of us who are sane it still might sound extreme, but really, it’s right there in the record. These men exploited this horrific atrocity for their own benefit—and a majority of the American people let them. Like sheep, the majority went along with using a single disaster as an excuse for overturning two hundred years of democratic tradition. They bought into Cheney’s lie about “extraordinary” and “dangerous times” that required the exercise of unfettered executive power. And after five plus years of death in Afghanistan and Iraq, and corruption and criminal incompetence at home, it still took an economic collapse for the voters to turn against the monsters that usurped their country.

I won’t take the time to analyze Cheney’s interview further—he reiterated his dishonest arguments for torture and dictatorship. Dahlia Lithwick lays it out nicely for you at Slate (not exactly a radical left-wing site), and her main point is a most dispiriting one, i.e. Cheney’s views on everything have long been thoroughly discredited, yet there he remains, giving interviews and repeating the Orwellian lies that have surrounded us like a fog.

Let’s be absolutely clear. Richard Cheney should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and for treason. As detestable a human being as he is, revenge is really not the point. Justice requires that when an individual holding high office in this land violates his oath of office, causes the deaths of untold thousands, and threatens the very foundation of constitutional government, there should be an accounting. Not for his sake—he’s incapable of remorse or apparently even of the recognition of ethical values—but for our sake and the sake of the country. If there’s no accountability for criminal behavior on the part of the most powerful people in the nation, then the law itself becomes hypocritical when applied to lesser crimes. Silence equals approval. If Cheney walks away with no consequences, then it’s essentially a win for fascism because it opens the door to future abuse.

I do not propose submitting Cheney to beatings, sleep deprivation, water torture, sexual mutilation, or any of the other methods he so enthusiastically promoted to be inflicted on others. I do not propose that he be imprisoned indefinitely without trial, kept in isolation until he goes insane, and then tried in a military court where he is denied the basic rights and elements of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. I would not propose that for anyone, because I believe in the Constitution of the United States, even for those who try to destroy it. No, I would like to see Dick Cheney tried in a regular court of law, with full right to counsel, and all other rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to someone accused of a crime. That’s not too much to ask. The victims of 9/11, who have been so disgracefully used by this man and his accomplices, deserve that much. So do the victims in Iraq. We all deserve some closure. I don’t want to hear any nonsense about “putting the past behind us.” The past never gets behind us unless there is some resolution.

The political establishment is afraid of bringing the Bush-Cheney crimes to account because they fear “instability.” The two parties are more interested in prestige than justice, so they maintain the false respectability of the status quo rather than bringing criminals in high places to justice. There is probably also a fear of being caught in the net—many members of Congress have been complicit in one way or another in the blood and corruption. So the consensus seems to be that nothing will be done. There will be no trials for Cheney, or Stephen Hadley, or Doug Feith, or Donald Rumsfeld. There may even be pardons—pardons before anyone has even been charged, which is a travesty.

So much the worse for us. But even given this probability, we need all the facts to come out. We need to know exactly what these men said and did. The secrecy must stop, or else it will continue to poison our society. We can’t just put our trust in some new “good” guy like Obama and leave it at that. Even if Obama turns out to be a good president, accountability and justice are structural needs that can’t be met with rhetoric or personalities. In politics, as in life, as in recovery—you don’t grow unless you first clean house.

Proof that government handouts work

Johnny Wingnut
This just in from the AP: “More than half of all homeowners who had their loans modified to make the payments more affordable in the first half of the year are already in default again.” Imagine that. This is exactly what any normal well adjusted intelligent human being would expect. Yet, somehow Uncle Sugar never saw it coming. And that’s not the worst of it. They plan on rewarding the attendant bad behavior of mortgage holders by giving away more of your money.

One article had the audacity to print this “The main goal of the program is to get financial institutions to lend money more freely again, which would help revive the economy.” Yeah…that makes a lot of sense to me. Let’s “lend” (wink wink, nod nod) more tax payer money to those who can’t or won’t pay that money back. I mean, it’s working already isn’t it?  This is insanity.

And now the Bush administration with the connivance of liberal democrats are poised to lend tax payer money to the auto industry. This is all under the auspices of saving jobs. Jobs for which employees are overpaid, CEO’s are overpaid, and for a company infrastructure which has failed to remain competitive. I’m wondering, if the auto industry was ever going to get their act together, wouldn’t they have done it already?  So why or how is another taxpayer funded handout going to get them to fix their broken machine now? Here, I’ll make a little prediction: This loan isn’t going to fix anything. It’s just going to prolong certain death. Just as the $700 billion bailout isn’t fixing anything, but only prolonging the inevitable. The reason none of this is going to work is because bad choices (behavior) is largely behind it all. The money won’ t change the behavior that led lenders into the shape they were in. It won’t change the behavior of irresponsible mortgage holders and it won’t change the behavior of the fat cats running the auto industry. It will merely enable these people to continue behaving in ways which harm themselves and others.

But even if these spending policies worked. Is it right to give away someone else’s money without their consent, especially, when that money is being used to enable the bad choices of others? I don’t think so. I think what our “representatives” are doing is morally wrong and I am outraged. You should be too.

Still, our fearless leaders press onward seemingly oblivious to the fact that the house is coming down all around them. They remain deaf to the cries of a majority of Americans who are begging them to, “Please, for the love of God, STOP!” Their stealing from public coffers so they can sink their teeth into private enterprise won’t save them or us. What it will do is make things worse by enabling mediocrity at taxpayer expense. Yes, it’s sick; it’s obscene; it’s immoral…and what’s worse is that, practically speaking, those of us who are paying the tab are powerless to stop it.