In 1997, I was convicted of an “OUIL”, which means “operating under the influence of liquor”. In short, I got a DUI, or “deewee” as the phonetic punsters like to say. It’s a funny, almost Seussian word for describing an event that is anything but funny. But you wouldn’t know it isn’t funny by seeing the sentences recently meted out to Lindsay Lohan and Nicole Ritchie, both convicted of multiple DUIs. Pundits and bloggers alike have no doubt already beaten this topic to death; to say that celebrities get a different kind of justice is to repeat what everyone already knows. However, I want to weigh in on this subject from what I hope is a different point of view, and I’m sure it’s one that is not going to be popular, but that’s OK. If Lindsay Lohan can spend one day in jail and perform 10 days of community service for a second DUI (cocaine possession is apparently not a crime in California), and Nicole Ritchie can serve 84 minutes in jail for a second offense, with no fines and no license suspensions, then I don’t have a problem with my unpopular views.
That rich people get a different brand of justice is an unfortunate reality and it pisses me off, and it should you too. But the bigger problem here is in the drunken driving law itself. We have laws in place because a society without them just wouldn’t work. There has to be accountability for transgressions. If you steal or kill or rape you should be punished. If you commit an act that harms another person, you are guilty. Read that again. If you commit an act that harms another person, you are guilty. We put people in jail for things they have done.
Remember George Orwell’s “1984”? You’ll recall that they had “Thought Police”, a force that found people guilty of thinking what the state considered wrong thoughts. In Orwell’s frightening (and not implausible) world, people were punished for merely thinking the wrong way. They were punished for things they might do. It’s ridiculous, right? Orwell was of course being satirical, but in a very prophetic way. He knew that it is a very small leap to go from crimes committed to crimes merely thought of. How could we possibly punish people for thinking or for crimes they might commit? Well, my friends, I’m no lawyer, but isn’t the drunk driving law set up to punish people for something they might do?
If you drink and drive you might hurt someone (and believe me when I say that there is absolutely no excuse for injuries and deaths caused by idiots who are drunk behind the wheel), you should be severely punished. If Lindsay Lohan had hurt or killed the woman she was obviously menacing, or if Nicole Ritchie had done the same to someone while she was driving on the wrong side of the freeway, we would be shocked and angry. But would we look the other way because they’re celebrities? Would their fame somehow mitigate their crime? They’re obviously stupid, but we can’t put people in jail for being dumb. How bad do you think our prison overcrowding system would be if every moron you know had to go to jail? But, by speculating on what they might have done, aren’t we behaving like Orwell’s thought police; aren’t we vilifying them for something that didn’t happen?
This argument is hair splitting, at best; drunk driving is a recipe for disaster, but not every drunk driver kills or hurts someone when they do it. I guess my main point is that if it were you or me who was caught behaving like these stupid spoiled whores (a nod to South Park) we would suffer consequences that quite often destroy us little people. You pay the state a fine and lose your license, but in many states you are additionally forced to do penance by attending alcoholics anonymous, a blatantly Christian organization, as if God can help you to not be so stupid. You are also punished by the insurance companies with higher rates for up to five years. If you want to change jobs, background checks can and do follow you and hinder you, perhaps indefinitely, with the fact that you’ve already paid your societal debt ignored. All this and more for being stupid and doing well…nothing. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I thought that you could only be punished once for a crime that you actually committed.
If you or I or any regular person gets a DUI, we are looked upon as the dregs of society, a menace to all things good and wholesome, and we bear watching for the rest of our lives with the slavering state ready to pounce on us should we step out of line again. And, as everybody knows, if you get more than one DUI, you are punished for the new offense and the first one as well. It can ruin your life for years. Again, somehow, the constitution has been rewritten to make sure that we are punished twice for the same crime. But as we have witnessed the Lohans and the Ritchies can and do commit multiple drunken driving offenses, and the public watches eagerly because they are different than us, and the second or third offense might be the one that turns them around and boosts their career. I’m waiting for them to pull a Michael Vick and find Jesus, because I know He has nothing better to do than to make sure that celebrities are not held to the same standard as the little people.
As a final note, I want to say that I am not endorsing drunk driving. I am sorry for the people, good people who have lost a loved one because of another person’s stupidity. All I’m saying is that legislation that punishes for crimes that might happen is a dangerous thing. And in case it didn’t show, I’m angry that popularity is both a license for arrogant behavior and a viable defense for being an idiot.
29 August 2007
13 August 2007
Call Me Hawk
I love “Mad” magazine. I haven’t read it in years, but some of my fondest childhood memories are of slumber parties (where my parents weren’t) where I could sit with my buddies and read “Mad” and “Vampira” and “Famous Monsters of Filmland.” I could go on and on about “Mad”, and how much I loved some of the artists. Don Martin, Al Jaffee, Sergio Aragones and the “usual gang of idiots” never failed to amuse and yes, I’ll say it, educate me. In particular, I remember a short lived series by Al Jaffee called “Hawks and Doves”, and I’ll be damned if I can find any information on the series, but the basic premise was that officer Hawks was always in opposition to Private Dove(s); it was juxtaposed against the Vietnam War. As I remember, the strip did not take sides, and instead skewered both for their views, which ultimately lead the young reader to realize that neither side had the upper hand. The bottom line was that killing each other was a bad idea no matter how you sliced it, and for years, I clung to that philosophy. Today, however, I am going to deviate from that. I am going to be hawkish. Read a little more, and if you don’t agree with me, fine. I will gladly recant my position if a suitable argument can be provided to refute my stance, which is simply this: If we (and I mean everybody, not just America) do not stop the Taliban in Afghanistan, we will at best have blood on our hands, and at worst, become victims ourselves.
As of this writing, the Taliban say they will release two of twenty one South Korean captives in exchange for the release of 21 Taliban prisoners held in Afghanistan prisons. Doesn’t this seem fair, in a way? Kind of? Maybe? Well, no, it doesn’t. It doesn’t even resemble fair play. In fact, it is a perversion of what we would think fair play is. 23 South Korean Christian relief workers in Afghanistan were taken prisoner in late July. Two have already been shot in cold blood, murdered by the Taliban, and now, under the guise of diplomacy, they want to negotiate for the release of the remaining 21. Just today, the Taliban captors say they are engaged in talks to successfully secure the release of two sick Korean women, as if they are somehow suddenly compassionate captors. “God willing,” they say, the captives will be released, if, of course, the Taliban prisoners held in prison are released. The Taliban would have you believe that it’s not them, but Allah himself who is responsible.
I want to spread my hawkish wings and sharpen my hawkish beak and say that if anyone goes out of their way to negotiate with the Taliban, they are legitimizing terrorist tactics, and giving credence to the notion that kidnapping and murdering innocents is an acceptable means to an end. If this were the way the world worked, any country could kidnap a bunch of North Koreans, (or Iranians) and murder a few, and then negotiate the release of the rest to put a stop to their nuclear weapons program. Or maybe, they could kidnap some Dutch residents and show those pot smoking, prostitution-friendly deviants that their lifestyle won’t be tolerated. (That’s just an example, of course. It is my goal to visit Amsterdam just once before I die.) My obvious point is that America, and every other civilized culture doesn’t resort to that sort of barbaric, prehistoric behavior because we’ve realized that it is inhumane, and counterproductive to the growth of the species. The cretins of the Taliban, however, seem to be stuck in the cave, and can’t find their way out. In fact, I don’t think they want to, which is why I think we should wipe them off the face of the earth. And by the way, when I say “we,” I mean every thinking, empathetic person no matter what their country of origin.
The obvious argument here is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and if I’m advocating murder, I’m no better than them. The difference, though, is that they murder proactively, (and they won’t stop) whereas I am being reactive. They are in all respects a cancerous tumor, and as we would remove an infection from a body, we must remove the Taliban from the body of humanity before they infect and destroy it. The doves among us would cry for reeducation, and I’m not completely opposed to that, but they often fail to understand that this sort of religious fervor is instilled at a very young age. I remember learning things at a young age, and some of those things are ingrained so deeply that I’m not sure I could change my mind about them, and that’s the problem with reeducation. You and I know that it’s wrong to steal and lie and kill, but in order to understand the Taliban mentality, you must understand that the children are taught, just like you and I were, that killing is good if done in the name of God. Think about that for a minute. The lessons that most people learn (golden rule stuff) are a part of our collective being, and although it’s hard to believe, there is another school of thought that believes the opposite, that killing is good if done for the right reason, and it is just as ingrained in them as it is in us. I would spare the children (although I’d keep a close eye on them) and kill the men. I would do this because I know that if given the chance, they would do the same to me. Am I being paranoid? Maybe, but consider that if a militant Taliban zealot were to read this, I would be marked for death for speaking my mind.
Did you know that under Taliban law, it is a crime for women to laugh loud enough to be heard? That it is a crime to listen to music or watch movies or TV for anyone? That a person can be executed for possessing literature deemed “inappropriate”? Did you know that all people are forced to pray five times a day; failure to do so is cause for execution. There are those who would say it’s not our business to be the police of the world, but can you stand idly by in the enlightened 21st century and watch this sort of treatment inflicted on fellow human beings? People should not be punished for the crime of being born in Afghanistan. If we do nothing, we are just as guilty as the zealots of the Taliban. We are the world’s police and believe me, they want us to intervene.
Is the Taliban evil? Maybe not in the biblical sense, but in the realistic sense, it is. I am loathe to discredit alternative philosophies; indeed I welcome them as a means to improve, or at least, expand my own perspective. But the virtual enslavement of people and the kidnapping and killing of innocents is a way I cannot accept, and to see it in action in our time is anathema. It makes me sick and it should make you sick too. I’ve used this euphemism before, and I want to make it clear that I don’t use it in a cavalier fashion, so people please listen. Make no mistake: If thinking people do not crush the Taliban way of thinking, there will be no more thought.
As of this writing, the Taliban say they will release two of twenty one South Korean captives in exchange for the release of 21 Taliban prisoners held in Afghanistan prisons. Doesn’t this seem fair, in a way? Kind of? Maybe? Well, no, it doesn’t. It doesn’t even resemble fair play. In fact, it is a perversion of what we would think fair play is. 23 South Korean Christian relief workers in Afghanistan were taken prisoner in late July. Two have already been shot in cold blood, murdered by the Taliban, and now, under the guise of diplomacy, they want to negotiate for the release of the remaining 21. Just today, the Taliban captors say they are engaged in talks to successfully secure the release of two sick Korean women, as if they are somehow suddenly compassionate captors. “God willing,” they say, the captives will be released, if, of course, the Taliban prisoners held in prison are released. The Taliban would have you believe that it’s not them, but Allah himself who is responsible.
I want to spread my hawkish wings and sharpen my hawkish beak and say that if anyone goes out of their way to negotiate with the Taliban, they are legitimizing terrorist tactics, and giving credence to the notion that kidnapping and murdering innocents is an acceptable means to an end. If this were the way the world worked, any country could kidnap a bunch of North Koreans, (or Iranians) and murder a few, and then negotiate the release of the rest to put a stop to their nuclear weapons program. Or maybe, they could kidnap some Dutch residents and show those pot smoking, prostitution-friendly deviants that their lifestyle won’t be tolerated. (That’s just an example, of course. It is my goal to visit Amsterdam just once before I die.) My obvious point is that America, and every other civilized culture doesn’t resort to that sort of barbaric, prehistoric behavior because we’ve realized that it is inhumane, and counterproductive to the growth of the species. The cretins of the Taliban, however, seem to be stuck in the cave, and can’t find their way out. In fact, I don’t think they want to, which is why I think we should wipe them off the face of the earth. And by the way, when I say “we,” I mean every thinking, empathetic person no matter what their country of origin.
The obvious argument here is that two wrongs don’t make a right, and if I’m advocating murder, I’m no better than them. The difference, though, is that they murder proactively, (and they won’t stop) whereas I am being reactive. They are in all respects a cancerous tumor, and as we would remove an infection from a body, we must remove the Taliban from the body of humanity before they infect and destroy it. The doves among us would cry for reeducation, and I’m not completely opposed to that, but they often fail to understand that this sort of religious fervor is instilled at a very young age. I remember learning things at a young age, and some of those things are ingrained so deeply that I’m not sure I could change my mind about them, and that’s the problem with reeducation. You and I know that it’s wrong to steal and lie and kill, but in order to understand the Taliban mentality, you must understand that the children are taught, just like you and I were, that killing is good if done in the name of God. Think about that for a minute. The lessons that most people learn (golden rule stuff) are a part of our collective being, and although it’s hard to believe, there is another school of thought that believes the opposite, that killing is good if done for the right reason, and it is just as ingrained in them as it is in us. I would spare the children (although I’d keep a close eye on them) and kill the men. I would do this because I know that if given the chance, they would do the same to me. Am I being paranoid? Maybe, but consider that if a militant Taliban zealot were to read this, I would be marked for death for speaking my mind.
Did you know that under Taliban law, it is a crime for women to laugh loud enough to be heard? That it is a crime to listen to music or watch movies or TV for anyone? That a person can be executed for possessing literature deemed “inappropriate”? Did you know that all people are forced to pray five times a day; failure to do so is cause for execution. There are those who would say it’s not our business to be the police of the world, but can you stand idly by in the enlightened 21st century and watch this sort of treatment inflicted on fellow human beings? People should not be punished for the crime of being born in Afghanistan. If we do nothing, we are just as guilty as the zealots of the Taliban. We are the world’s police and believe me, they want us to intervene.
Is the Taliban evil? Maybe not in the biblical sense, but in the realistic sense, it is. I am loathe to discredit alternative philosophies; indeed I welcome them as a means to improve, or at least, expand my own perspective. But the virtual enslavement of people and the kidnapping and killing of innocents is a way I cannot accept, and to see it in action in our time is anathema. It makes me sick and it should make you sick too. I’ve used this euphemism before, and I want to make it clear that I don’t use it in a cavalier fashion, so people please listen. Make no mistake: If thinking people do not crush the Taliban way of thinking, there will be no more thought.
09 August 2007
More Blurbs
I’ve been rather slack about new postings lately, mostly due to mundane problems that aren’t of any interest to anyone who reads this. These mysterious setbacks, however, make a very convenient excuse for not writing. To help myself get back in the swing I’m posting another column of short blurbs. I hope you find these satisfactory.
On Barry Bonds: As most of you know, I really don’t care much for organized sports, except for hockey. I don’t see how being able to put a basketball through a hoop or smack a baseball 400 feet warrants a multimillion dollar paycheck. Frankly, I find it obscene that the some of the highest paid people in our society are actors and athletes. We hold them in high esteem, as if they have done something meaningful or important. In any case, the baseball world was all atwitter with Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record the other day. For some people, the fact that he used performance enhancing steroids means nothing, and that’s a real shame. It’s cheating, plain and simple, and to recognize his “achievement” speaks volumes for those who consider such things important. Bonds, of course, denies using such drugs, but his former trainer sits in jail for refusing to say if he supplied drugs to the new home run king. Much has been made of this, but I think it bears repeating: Athletes in their mid thirties do not naturally, in the space of one year, almost double their batting abilities along with their physical size. Bonds can deny all he wants, but he’s a cheater, and he knows it. He’s just hoping you won’t care. And if you don’t, shame on you.
There Are Worse Things Than Acne: A while back I wrote an essay about having to deal with the agony of acne. It was an awful thing to have to deal with, especially as an awkward teenager trying to survive puberty. All things, however, need to be put into perspective, and I got a big dose of that this evening while watching The Learning Channel. The episode dealt with the plight of a young teenaged girl in East Africa by the name of Pastina Nkotki. Her personality was one of any teenaged girl in any country, and it was immediately apparent that although we, as people, are separated by our countries and cultures, we are all basically the same creatures. She seemed normal in every way except one: She had an enormous tumor growing beneath her face. To call it a monstrous deformity is putting it mildly. For a short video that shows Pastina, click here. I think what struck me the most as I watched this show was Pastina’s attitude. Despite her appearance, she seemed perfectly normal, and she was. Her relatives thought her bewitched, and hid her from sight lest they be outcasts in their village. They were literally dirt poor, and couldn’t afford modern medical treatment. During the show, Pastina was shown laughing and crying, talking and silently thinking, and behaving in every way except for her appearance like a normal child. It was literally heart wrenching, and I was ashamed as I watched her, ashamed for thinking that acne was a horrible cross to bear. There’s no happy ending here either, as Pastina died just three months after the surgery to remove the tumor. I couldn’t help but think that if I were in her shoes, I don’t think I’d be nearly as strong as she was.
Punishment Fits Crime: Many times, it seems, we put people in jail for crimes that really don’t warrant jail time. Jail overcrowding is a serious problem, and I really don’t see how putting non violent offenders in with those who really do belong locked up serves justice. Call me crazy, but in today’s world, where image seems to matter much more than substance, I think the best deterrent for non violent offenders is to hit them where it hurts most: In the ego. I would like to see the return of public humiliation (and I don’t care how un-PC that is) in our justice system. Bring back the stocks and rotten tomatoes! Cruel and unusual? I think a little embarrassment is a good thing, and thankfully, I’m not alone. Philip Kolinski from Michigan was convicted of bilking unsuspecting donors by asking for scrap metal that he said he was going to use to build a memorial to US veterans. He took the donations, but sold the metal, having no plans to build anything. His punishment? He had to scrub a monument to veterans with a toothbrush while wearing a T-shirt that read “I Stole From Veterans.” Now that, my friends, is how our justice system should work for non violent offenders. Not just generic, anonymous community service, but shame. It’s a powerful motivator. Here’s a picture and story of this dork serving his sentence.
With that, I’ll sign off. It’s a perplexing, sad and funny world all at once.
On Barry Bonds: As most of you know, I really don’t care much for organized sports, except for hockey. I don’t see how being able to put a basketball through a hoop or smack a baseball 400 feet warrants a multimillion dollar paycheck. Frankly, I find it obscene that the some of the highest paid people in our society are actors and athletes. We hold them in high esteem, as if they have done something meaningful or important. In any case, the baseball world was all atwitter with Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record the other day. For some people, the fact that he used performance enhancing steroids means nothing, and that’s a real shame. It’s cheating, plain and simple, and to recognize his “achievement” speaks volumes for those who consider such things important. Bonds, of course, denies using such drugs, but his former trainer sits in jail for refusing to say if he supplied drugs to the new home run king. Much has been made of this, but I think it bears repeating: Athletes in their mid thirties do not naturally, in the space of one year, almost double their batting abilities along with their physical size. Bonds can deny all he wants, but he’s a cheater, and he knows it. He’s just hoping you won’t care. And if you don’t, shame on you.
There Are Worse Things Than Acne: A while back I wrote an essay about having to deal with the agony of acne. It was an awful thing to have to deal with, especially as an awkward teenager trying to survive puberty. All things, however, need to be put into perspective, and I got a big dose of that this evening while watching The Learning Channel. The episode dealt with the plight of a young teenaged girl in East Africa by the name of Pastina Nkotki. Her personality was one of any teenaged girl in any country, and it was immediately apparent that although we, as people, are separated by our countries and cultures, we are all basically the same creatures. She seemed normal in every way except one: She had an enormous tumor growing beneath her face. To call it a monstrous deformity is putting it mildly. For a short video that shows Pastina, click here. I think what struck me the most as I watched this show was Pastina’s attitude. Despite her appearance, she seemed perfectly normal, and she was. Her relatives thought her bewitched, and hid her from sight lest they be outcasts in their village. They were literally dirt poor, and couldn’t afford modern medical treatment. During the show, Pastina was shown laughing and crying, talking and silently thinking, and behaving in every way except for her appearance like a normal child. It was literally heart wrenching, and I was ashamed as I watched her, ashamed for thinking that acne was a horrible cross to bear. There’s no happy ending here either, as Pastina died just three months after the surgery to remove the tumor. I couldn’t help but think that if I were in her shoes, I don’t think I’d be nearly as strong as she was.
Punishment Fits Crime: Many times, it seems, we put people in jail for crimes that really don’t warrant jail time. Jail overcrowding is a serious problem, and I really don’t see how putting non violent offenders in with those who really do belong locked up serves justice. Call me crazy, but in today’s world, where image seems to matter much more than substance, I think the best deterrent for non violent offenders is to hit them where it hurts most: In the ego. I would like to see the return of public humiliation (and I don’t care how un-PC that is) in our justice system. Bring back the stocks and rotten tomatoes! Cruel and unusual? I think a little embarrassment is a good thing, and thankfully, I’m not alone. Philip Kolinski from Michigan was convicted of bilking unsuspecting donors by asking for scrap metal that he said he was going to use to build a memorial to US veterans. He took the donations, but sold the metal, having no plans to build anything. His punishment? He had to scrub a monument to veterans with a toothbrush while wearing a T-shirt that read “I Stole From Veterans.” Now that, my friends, is how our justice system should work for non violent offenders. Not just generic, anonymous community service, but shame. It’s a powerful motivator. Here’s a picture and story of this dork serving his sentence.
With that, I’ll sign off. It’s a perplexing, sad and funny world all at once.
02 August 2007
Murderous Movie Mayhem
You couldn't possibly know this, but I started this rant last night, and typed several pages before I realized I had gone way off topic. My beef today concerns the discrepancies between well established stories and themes that are a part of American pop culture and the positively shameless “re-working” by Hollywood to “improve” them. I can think of so many examples that it’s hard for me to concentrate, and I know I’m not the first person to lament the dumbing down of literature in film. Indeed, much of the pulp that flows out of Hollywood to be passed off as entertainment is truly insulting to thinking persons, and the outright audacity of movie makers’ plot changes when bringing classics to the screen is horrifying. Somebody has to keep sounding the alarm, though, lest we begin to believe that Hollywood knows what good entertainment is.
For context, let’s start with an old example. In 1975, Stephen King published “The Lawnmower Man” in Cavalier magazine, and it was later included in a collection of short stories called “Night Shift.” (If for some reason you haven’t read it, shame on you.) In 1992, the geniuses in Hollywood decided to make a movie with the same title, and even included King’s name in the title. Fans (like myself) who loved the story went to theaters expecting to see a fantasy/horror film with a bizarre plot and even some classic elements of Greek mythology. (King himself says his work is the McDonald’s of literature, but millions of satisfied customers can’t be wrong.) In any case, the movie had absolutely no similarities to the story at all. None. It was like going to see a film adaptation of Goldilocks with a brunette and no bears. King sued to have his name removed from the title, and in my opinion, he was being more than civil. If it were me, I think I would have used the murderous lawn mower on those who butchered my story.
In the present, the same problem still exists, and it’s getting worse. Tomorrow a film adaptation of the classic cartoon “Underdog” will hit theaters. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve seen the promotional ads, and I can tell you right now that the cartoon I loved as a child is nothing like the sappy, contrived shit that’s going to try to pass itself off as an homage to an American pop culture icon. You should be able to tell this is bugging me, as most of my loyal readers will notice that I rarely use profanity in this blog, but this movie is profane, and it deserves the worst treatment I can give it. Insult Underdog at your peril! And before anyone points their finger and accuses me of dismissing or deriding a movie I haven’t seen yet, let me say this: I loved the Underdog cartoon. I have seen the ads for the movie. There is no comparison. None.
The snippets we see in the promos portray Underdog as a snarky, wise cracking (live action) pooch whose utterances clearly imply that he is smarter than the bumbling humans that surround him. This attitude is completely out of character. Anyone who has seen the original Underdog knows that he is “humble and lovable.” Notice that humble is the first attribute used to describe him. With a penchant for speaking in rhymes, the cartoon Underdog was always polite, even when chastising villains. Wally Cox, who voiced the cartoon dog, must be spinning in his grave over the insipid dialogue, mundane delivery of those lines, and the overall distortion of the original character. I don’t have to see the movie to know that it’s going to suck; the promotional ads alone are all I need.
While I’m on the subject, how about I bash another movie coming out that, in my opinion, is going to seriously set back literary understanding for an unsuspecting generation of movie-goers? Any student of literature should cringe at the following announcement: Angelina Jolie is going to portray Grendeldame in an upcoming film adaptation of Beowulf. If you don’t know anything about Beowulf, again, shame on you. Wikipedia says Beowulf is “the single major surviving work of Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry…” in existence. It is the holy grail of written English literature. It is a printed work that is over one thousand years old; it is the only one of its kind. You could call it a classic, but it would be more apt to refer to it as THE classic.
I checked out the official movie site for the film, and found these quotes: After slaying Grendel (a monster), Beowulf “incurs the hellish wrath of the beast’s ruthlessly seductive mother.” Also, this quote: “Anthony Hopkins as the corrupt King Hrothgar.” The synopsis on the website was very short, but it was enough to provide me with some ammunition for my rant. Firstly, both Grendel and his mother, Grendeldame, are described CLEARLY in the story as being monsters. They do not speak. They do not seduce. They are monsters. They do kill and eat/drain blood from their victims, which is, in itself, a perfect way to portray them onscreen. Thanks to advancements in CGI, you would think Hollywood would relish the chance to bring a classic story to life without a guy in a rubber monster suit. But no, that’s not good enough. They have to give Grendeldame the power to appear as a human and to tempt and seduce the hapless men. How do I know this without seeing the movie? Call it magic, but I suspect that in order for Grendeldame to appear seductive, she’s going to have to appear as Angelina Jolie (whom, I admit, is very good at looking seductive). Again, the Grendeldame of the story does not seduce nor talk. She kills men, period.
Secondly, King Hrothgar is not corrupt. In fact, he is described as “protector” of the Danes, and if I may go one step further, he is based on a real person. He is not corrupt; in fact he is revered. He is thankful, although somewhat embarrassed that Beowulf has shown up to help him defeat the pall that Grendel has cast on his castle. In short, he is a mortal who is to be saved by the superhuman hero. (This should ring some symbolism bells.) Written when Christianity was is its infancy, Beowulf is a told by a Christian author to a pagan audience. We certainly wouldn’t want THAT to be told to the modern audience. I don’t know what kind of foolish “plot enhancements” the Hollywood whores will come up with, but you can be sure of this: They will be contrived, transparent, and wholly unnecessary elements that have nothing to do with the original story.
I will admit that it must be very difficult to bring the images of the written word to life on the big screen. The main problem, of course, is that readers see their own images and put their own faces on characters, and many times the movie images do not jive with what the reader has imagined. I will also admit that sometimes this works. For instance, in the novel “Jaws,” the character of Quint is described as being bald; Robert Shaw was not. However, his portrayal of Quint was mesmerizing. I can overlook that sort of thing. Indeed, in order to enjoy movies, it is necessary to suspend disbelief; no one would enjoy werewolf movies if they remained grounded in the fact that no such creature exists. I have no problem with monsters or supernatural occurrences in film. I do, however, have a problem with changing the core elements of characters or plots from literature or previous movies/TV and passing them off as faithful renditions of classics. I cannot figure out why so many movie makers feel it necessary to change what was a perfectly good story. Like a child in a store with shining baubles, they just can’t seem to keep their hands off, and they leave greasy fingerprints on what they’ve touched.
For context, let’s start with an old example. In 1975, Stephen King published “The Lawnmower Man” in Cavalier magazine, and it was later included in a collection of short stories called “Night Shift.” (If for some reason you haven’t read it, shame on you.) In 1992, the geniuses in Hollywood decided to make a movie with the same title, and even included King’s name in the title. Fans (like myself) who loved the story went to theaters expecting to see a fantasy/horror film with a bizarre plot and even some classic elements of Greek mythology. (King himself says his work is the McDonald’s of literature, but millions of satisfied customers can’t be wrong.) In any case, the movie had absolutely no similarities to the story at all. None. It was like going to see a film adaptation of Goldilocks with a brunette and no bears. King sued to have his name removed from the title, and in my opinion, he was being more than civil. If it were me, I think I would have used the murderous lawn mower on those who butchered my story.
In the present, the same problem still exists, and it’s getting worse. Tomorrow a film adaptation of the classic cartoon “Underdog” will hit theaters. I haven’t seen it, but I’ve seen the promotional ads, and I can tell you right now that the cartoon I loved as a child is nothing like the sappy, contrived shit that’s going to try to pass itself off as an homage to an American pop culture icon. You should be able to tell this is bugging me, as most of my loyal readers will notice that I rarely use profanity in this blog, but this movie is profane, and it deserves the worst treatment I can give it. Insult Underdog at your peril! And before anyone points their finger and accuses me of dismissing or deriding a movie I haven’t seen yet, let me say this: I loved the Underdog cartoon. I have seen the ads for the movie. There is no comparison. None.
The snippets we see in the promos portray Underdog as a snarky, wise cracking (live action) pooch whose utterances clearly imply that he is smarter than the bumbling humans that surround him. This attitude is completely out of character. Anyone who has seen the original Underdog knows that he is “humble and lovable.” Notice that humble is the first attribute used to describe him. With a penchant for speaking in rhymes, the cartoon Underdog was always polite, even when chastising villains. Wally Cox, who voiced the cartoon dog, must be spinning in his grave over the insipid dialogue, mundane delivery of those lines, and the overall distortion of the original character. I don’t have to see the movie to know that it’s going to suck; the promotional ads alone are all I need.
While I’m on the subject, how about I bash another movie coming out that, in my opinion, is going to seriously set back literary understanding for an unsuspecting generation of movie-goers? Any student of literature should cringe at the following announcement: Angelina Jolie is going to portray Grendeldame in an upcoming film adaptation of Beowulf. If you don’t know anything about Beowulf, again, shame on you. Wikipedia says Beowulf is “the single major surviving work of Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry…” in existence. It is the holy grail of written English literature. It is a printed work that is over one thousand years old; it is the only one of its kind. You could call it a classic, but it would be more apt to refer to it as THE classic.
I checked out the official movie site for the film, and found these quotes: After slaying Grendel (a monster), Beowulf “incurs the hellish wrath of the beast’s ruthlessly seductive mother.” Also, this quote: “Anthony Hopkins as the corrupt King Hrothgar.” The synopsis on the website was very short, but it was enough to provide me with some ammunition for my rant. Firstly, both Grendel and his mother, Grendeldame, are described CLEARLY in the story as being monsters. They do not speak. They do not seduce. They are monsters. They do kill and eat/drain blood from their victims, which is, in itself, a perfect way to portray them onscreen. Thanks to advancements in CGI, you would think Hollywood would relish the chance to bring a classic story to life without a guy in a rubber monster suit. But no, that’s not good enough. They have to give Grendeldame the power to appear as a human and to tempt and seduce the hapless men. How do I know this without seeing the movie? Call it magic, but I suspect that in order for Grendeldame to appear seductive, she’s going to have to appear as Angelina Jolie (whom, I admit, is very good at looking seductive). Again, the Grendeldame of the story does not seduce nor talk. She kills men, period.
Secondly, King Hrothgar is not corrupt. In fact, he is described as “protector” of the Danes, and if I may go one step further, he is based on a real person. He is not corrupt; in fact he is revered. He is thankful, although somewhat embarrassed that Beowulf has shown up to help him defeat the pall that Grendel has cast on his castle. In short, he is a mortal who is to be saved by the superhuman hero. (This should ring some symbolism bells.) Written when Christianity was is its infancy, Beowulf is a told by a Christian author to a pagan audience. We certainly wouldn’t want THAT to be told to the modern audience. I don’t know what kind of foolish “plot enhancements” the Hollywood whores will come up with, but you can be sure of this: They will be contrived, transparent, and wholly unnecessary elements that have nothing to do with the original story.
I will admit that it must be very difficult to bring the images of the written word to life on the big screen. The main problem, of course, is that readers see their own images and put their own faces on characters, and many times the movie images do not jive with what the reader has imagined. I will also admit that sometimes this works. For instance, in the novel “Jaws,” the character of Quint is described as being bald; Robert Shaw was not. However, his portrayal of Quint was mesmerizing. I can overlook that sort of thing. Indeed, in order to enjoy movies, it is necessary to suspend disbelief; no one would enjoy werewolf movies if they remained grounded in the fact that no such creature exists. I have no problem with monsters or supernatural occurrences in film. I do, however, have a problem with changing the core elements of characters or plots from literature or previous movies/TV and passing them off as faithful renditions of classics. I cannot figure out why so many movie makers feel it necessary to change what was a perfectly good story. Like a child in a store with shining baubles, they just can’t seem to keep their hands off, and they leave greasy fingerprints on what they’ve touched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
