Wolverine, where art thou?

When word about a Wolverine spin-off movie hit the interweb, I was just as excited as next guy. And let's face it, a Wolverine movie would be for men and men only. I'm sorry but I've tried to explain the metaphorical and allegorical properties of his infamous berserker attack to many women and none of them really get it. As I see it, his devastating attack is a commentary on the damaged modern male psyche - a condition only explicable if you were part of a secret government weapons project or raised by a single mother. And as I see it, there really isn't much difference between the two.

Then came the title – X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a great title because immediately you start thinking about other titles in this possible franchise. X-Men Origins: Gambit, X-Men Origins: Storm, X-Men Origins: Magneto, etc.

Then came the cast – Hugh Jackman reprising his role from the earlier X-Men films, always a good sign. Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool which may or may not be the greatest casting decision in comic book movie history. I think Reynolds is the only ripped-up model type actor that I can take seriously as both a bad-ass and as a solid comic presence. Muscles and humor never go well together.

Like (as bad an example as this is) Carrot Top. While not the funniest guy around, if he stopped working out, lost his shredded physique, I might be able to laugh at his jokes. Maybe. I just can't take him seriously as a comic and believe me, I totally get the paradoxical nature of that comment.

You're destroying what little career you have left, sir.

But about Jackman, I mean, personally, I wasn't too happy seeing him as Wolverine in the first film. Wolverine is supposed to be 5'3". Jackman is like 6'1". But he somehow made it work, at least for me. I grew to appreciate his take on the role. But the casting of Liev Schreiber as Sabertooth – that decision was very brave. In the first X-Men film, Sabertooth is played by someone who could actually be Sabertooth in real life. But he didn't have much presence other than his size and physicality. And Schreiber is tall but he isn't imposing by any means. I think casting him was a good decision only because he can become Sabertooth. And since this is an origin story, it works.

So obviously I've been pumped for a long time.

And then this giant dark cloud casted on the set and all the people involved. Buzz about Gavin Hood not being in control of his set and a series of re-shoots and Fox Studio execs changing things around had flooded the internet. It did not look good. And now I just read about ANOTHER set of re-shoots for Wolverine. The movie is due out in a few months. This does not bode well.

And the thing that is kind of unsettling about the whole thing is that, I don't really care. I went from being really excited for a movie to not caring at all about it. I remember reading about all the terrible things and then watching the trailer and thinking – meh. And then I started asking why I thought that. I should have been really excited for it. Maybe it's a sign that I'm getting older and I just don't get excited for things like that anymore.

The Little Problem with Taoism

I can't help but be in a constant zen-like state at work because I don't really do anything. I usually get all the work I need to get done by 11:00 a.m. so I'm mainly sitting around reflecting on my life until something I need to do lands on my desk.

And in my time of doing nothing today, I thought about taoism and being zen and how it may be the best thing for people. Taoism insists that people stop getting all worked up over the crap that drives them bonkers. There's a principle of Taoism called wu wei, which can be easily defined as "not getting in your way". For example, I would be much more content if I were to casually walk down the street with no destination in mind then if I were to have somewhere to go. If I had a place to be then I would be in a position to stress out about it. Maybe there's traffic and I can't cross the street. What if I'm late? What if I'm meeting someone? What if they aren't there when I get there? What if I'm going to the wrong place? But if I'm just outside walking around, there is no issue.

But as I thought about it, I realized an inherent contradiction in Taoism and wu wei. As it turns out, not having a goal is still a goal. If I say, I'm not going to have a goal today, then I did in fact start a goal. Knowing me (a neurotic defeatist), if my goal in life was to have no goal, I would stress out about not being able to accomplish it. I imagined myself as the person aimlessly walking down the street. I'd be so paranoid about accidentally doing something of significance. Like if I walked into a store and thought that maybe this was my subconscious goal. Then I'd leave in a haste and wonder if it's a goal of mine to leave here quickly in an attempt to preserve my original goal of not doing anything. It's a vicious circle.

But like I said, Taoism and wu wei are good for people because most people are normal. Unfortunately, doing nothing in my book is monumentally important.

Tips for Writing a Blog About Dating Tips

When writing about dating tips, there are a few things to keep in mind. Luckily, for the blogosphere, I have taken the time out of my busy day to help you.

Tips for Writing a Blog About Dating Tips:

1. Do not write blogs about dating tips.
   

If you write a blog about dating tips, you will come off as a moron. I just read one and, aside from the author sounding like a know-it-all/God's gift to women wannabe, there is a huge contradiction to his advice.

His "research" consists of his own personal experiences which, for me at least, completely discredits him. But in his "studies" he compiles ten tips for men to follow in order to get the proverbial girl.

The one that stuck out for me was #2: Don't convince her to like you. And I suppose that is good advice because if a woman likes a man, she likes him and if not, then she doesn't. This seems easy enough to understand but it also makes the entire blog pointless. The tip should have just been: If the girl likes you, then she likes you. Way to go.

The rest of the blog includes points about not being too nice a guy, and not completely submitting to her will, and not buying her affection with gifts, and blah blah blah. But like I said, if a woman like you, then she does. There is no other way to "get" the girl. This is not to say that men have no control in whether or not a woman will like him, but the things that would keep a woman a way are obvious truisms that need not be mentioned. And that's all this list was: completely obvious statements that everyone already knows like "don't be too submissive". Well of course don't be. I mean, that's advice for anyone in any situation.

The advice should come after you get the girl. It should be in how to not screw up a relationship. I don't think men have trouble "getting" the girl. The trouble is "keeping" her around. Because let's face it, men are idiots. But even then, most of the tips would be obvious like "don't cheat on her" or "Tell her you feel warm inside when she's around". But as I said, men are idiots and maybe we need to be told these things.

Click here to read the one guy's blog about "dating tips"

A Fun Fact for Teenagers and Literature Buffs

Because of wikipedia, the word research has lost much of it's meaning. 

Regardless, I was researching Ernest Hemingway and, for one reason or another, I read about his suicide via shotgun blast to the face in 1961. As gruesome as that is, I read a bit more that just added to the grotesqueness of it all - he purchased the shotgun from Abercrombie & Fitch. 

I'm going to let that last part marinate for a bit. 

Apparently, Abercrombie & Fitch, the now hip clothing store for tweens, was once an elite excursion and fire-arms retailer up until the late 80s before it was bought out by The Limited and turned into what it is today. 

How weird is that? A popular clothing store with a legacy of self-inflicted shotgun blasts to the face. Although it's kind of appropriate - everytime I go into an Abercrombie & Fitch I want to kill myself. 

Expensive Virals and My Reality TV Idea

I wanted to talk about two things and I thought it would be ok to just combine them into one post. But it doesn't really matter because no one reads this. 

I just watched the new SNL digital short "Jizz in my Pants" for the 48th time. It is one of the funniest videos they have done, even more so than "Dear Sister" and "Dick in a Box". 

And I'm glad for one thing about the video - it has solid production value to it. This is good for two reasons. 

1. It adds to the humor of it all because it looks so much like an actual music video. 
2. I don't have to worry about all the YouTube wannabes remaking it. 

I'm fine with movie remakes and I'm actually excited to see The Day the Earth Stood Still but for some reason, I fucking hate it when the YouTube crowd finds it appropriate to make their own version of a funny skit on SNL  or whatever. They are piss poor and have no redeeming value. I think I've made a post about this before. 

But because this video has some much production value, no one in their bedroom is going to decide to remake it. And that makes me sleep better at night, knowing that their aren't fifty horrible remakes. 

It might be the volume of the YouTube remakes that pisses me off. If Hollywood decided to send out fifty remakes of The Day the Earth Stood Still, I think I would get upset. 

The next thing I want to talk about is my Reality TV show idea. Although, it probably wouldn't work as a Reality TV show, I think it was a cool thought experiment. 

So in the show, regular folks would come together and form small groups (4-5 people) and write a movie script. These people would be mechanics, businessmen, housewives, nurses, students, what have you. All walks of life. Basically, you can't be involved in the movie industry in anyway. And they write a script. Now I know what you're thinking, "They would probably write a terrible script," and that's the point. The worst it is the better. I want plot holes, paper thin characters, no structure, just a flat-out terrible script. I wouldn't want it to be made outside of the show. 

So this terrible, terrible script, a script that would defile any kind of artistic credibility that film is desperately clinging to, would be brought to a visionary director of today like Steven Spielberg or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers. They would take this God-forsaken script and direct it with perhaps struggling actors looking to make a break into the industry. 

The main idea behind it is to see if they truly possess the talent to tell even a horrible story in a way that would be generally acceptable to a modern audience. Two films would be made, by two groups and two different directors. The best film, judged by a panel of film critics and regular folks, would win. What they win, I haven't decided. 

But like I said, it would never happen because it would cost so much money to make and waste a lot of important people's time. 

The Hills and Metaphysics

For one reason or another, there was an issue of Us Weekly on my kitchen table.

This is strange because I hate Us Weekly and celebrity magazines in general and my roommate is an uber-masculine ex-cop who I'm sure feels the same.

Regardless, there was the latest issue on the table and the cover story was about the elopement of two "characters" from the "reality show" The Hills. The quotations are not meant to be sarcasm rather they are a foreshadowing of the topic at hand.

The two people who got hitched were Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag. They're lives were featured on the hit show The Hills and it seems they fell in love on the show. In the story from Us Weekly, Pratt talks about the elopement to Mexico, the wedding, etc. The newelyweds even shared their vows with the magazine, which was too much for me to handle. But he also went into his mother-in-law, Darlene Egelhoff. She obviously disapproves of her daughter's decision to get married and her choice in husband. She claims that "it won't last six months". And by Hollywood standards, that's probably a compliment.

But what struck me as interesting, in an otherwise completely dull and meaningless article, is how Pratt described his mother-in-law's motivations for her disapproval.

He says, "I think she thinks she's being funny and, like, playing into her character (on The Hills) - that she hates me."

This seemingly innocuous comment has a lot of weight in the world of metaphysics and media studies. The Hills is supposed to be a reality TV show. From my understanding, there are no "characters" rather just real people in real situations. But it seems like Pratt is shedding some light on this mysterious TV fad. Maybe being on a reality TV show makes one a character on the show. You would be you playing you. You wouldn't just be you.

If I had a reality TV show, my character would be myself and I would be playing that role. I'd be my own cameo in my own show.

Now, I've never watched The Hills, but I can extrapolate the kind of character that Heidi's mom portrayed. She was the typical mother of a teenage daughter who never approved of guys her daughter dated. Now, I believe this to be fairly accurate because I believe what Chuck Klosterman has to say about reality TV and what it does to people: it turns them into stereotypes (Klosterman, p. 30).

So Pratt says that his mother-in-law is "playing the character" in "real life". So what does that mean? Was she a completely different person outside of the show? Or did she somehow transform into her character, which was herself. It's like reverse method acting - instead of preparing for a role by assuming a role in the real world, she is assuming the role she already played after the show is over.

Now I want to know just who the hell this woman is. Has she assumed a different personality or identity because of this show? It makes you ask yourself, how real is reality or reality TV at least. Is it really real or is it somehow even more real than reality in that the facade or artifice of it all (relationships, personalities, the world in general) is so apparent?It's pretty strange to think about. And what's really strange is that a fucking stupid gossip magazine is making me doubt my very existence and the nature of reality.

Klosterman, Chuck (2003) Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs. Scribner, New York.

The Evolution of the Action Movie and Some Thoughts on Film Violence

Today, I watched a movie called Demolition Man (1993) with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes. It was a personal favorite of mine growing up and today I came to the hard realization that it's a terrible movie. It's full of embarrassing one-liners and quasi-science fiction fare. But that's not really what I want to talk about. I want to compare it to The Bourne Ultimatum (2007). After watching Demolition Man, I realized how much action movies have changed in the last ten or twenty years. 

I'm choosing these movies not because they are the best of the action genre but because they perfectly represent the formula of their respective styles. 

I'm glad I didn't grow up in the 80s because I probably would have hated myself. The 80s was full of homophobic movies starring uber-buff male leads like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. I think it's easy to say that they were, not only, the epitome of action star during their time, but also for maleness in general. Everyone wanted to be big and oiled up. This cultural obsession with size is still prevalent, if not growing. But most action films emphasized this type of character up until the end of the 20th century. 

So now let's get a deeper look at the Action Movie of the 80s and 90s:

80s and 90s Action Movies feature:

• Physically impressive male lead 
  

1. Stallone in Demolition Man, Judge Dredd, 
2. Schwarzenegger in Total Recall, Predator, Commando, The Running Man

• Attractive female love interest 

1. Bullock in Demolition Man
2. Tommy Chong's daughter in Commando
3. Maria Conchita Alonso in The Running Man
4. Rachel Ticotin in Total Recall

• Quirky funny sidekick/Comic Relief

1. Rob Schnieder/Dennis Leary in Demolition Man
2. Rob Schnieder in Judge Dredd
3. Johnny Cab, Three-Boob Lady, and the various midgets in Totall Recall
4. Anytime Arnold or Sly make a comment after killing someone a la "Stick around" counts in my opinion

• Outlandish Central Villian

1. Wesley Snipes' hair and tire-armor in Demolition Man
2. Richard Dawson in The Running Man (most unthreatening villain in history?)
3. The Predator in Predator - Outlandish in the most literal of terms
4. Rico in Judge Dredd - Outlandish only in the fact that it's Armand Assante and his over-acting
5. Bennet in Commando - He's outlandish because he wears a metallic mesh tank top, fingerless gloves, and is not gay. 

• Science Fiction Attributes

1. Brave New World inspired psuedo-utopia in Demolition Man
2. Future dystopia in The Running Man and Judge Dredd
3. Alien Hunter in Predator
4. Aliens, Mutants, and Mars setting in Total Recall

• Ridiculous Over-the-top Ultra-Violent Climax 

1. Snipes' Frozen Head decapitation in Demolition Man
2. Richard Dawson killed by rocket car in world's first Reality TV inspired political coup in The Running Man
3. Arnold activates ancient alien technology which gives Mars a breathable atmosphere but only after Cohaagen's head explodes in Total Recall
4. Arny drops a two-ton wooden pillar on the Predator, prompting him to activate a neutron bomb which destroys everything in a three mile radius except for Schwarzenegger in Predator
5. Arnold throws a ten-foot steaming pipe through Bennet and drolly tells him to "Let off some steam" in Commando

While I can only draw upon two movies that epitomize action  movies of today (Casino Royale and The Bourne Ultimatum) I think it's safe to say that those movies will be the template for future action films. 

Action Movies of Today Feature:

• Physically Ambiguous male lead 

1. Matt Damon shows about as much skin as a devote Shiite woman in The Bourne Ultimatum
2. With the exception for a brief shot of Craig in the Bahamas, he is always dressed up in Casino Royale

• Chase Scenes as Action Center Pieces and a de-emphasis of violent action

1. Bourne giving cues to the British journalist are as captivating and thrilling as any gun fight. 
2. Bond leaping around the construction site like a Russian gymnast. 
3. It should be noted that more people die in the "Hologram Shoot Out" scene in Total Recall than in all the Bourne and Bond movies. Yes, all of them. 

• No humor whatsoever 

1. Bourne never even smiles
2. Bond turns the franchise on it's ear with the "Does it look like I bloody care?" response to the "Shaken or stirred?" question. 

• Intricate network of villians 

1. It's the CIA in Bourne
2. It's an unidentified crime syndicate in Casino

• Espionage Attributes

1. It's pretty obvious to point these out. 

• Symbolic Low Key Book-end Climax 

1. Bourne ends up in the East River (I think) in a way very similar to the first scene in the first movie, where he loses his memory
2. Bond meets up with the man responsible for his love's blackmail and he makes mention of events that happened at the beginning of the film, namely his recently achieved Double-Oh status. 

So we have very distinct evolution. It appears the spectacle of the human form has been put on the back burner in recent action movies (with the exception of sword-and-sandal epics like 300 and Troy). Humor has also been put away but I can't imagine that will last. The success of Live Free or Die Hard is an interesting movie to note because it's franchise has roots in subversion, which shows, but it also embraces the excessiveness of the genre at the same time (like McClane leaping forty feet from a jet fighter to a crumbling freeway). 

I think the biggest change in action movies is the way violence is portrayed. In the 80s, violence was excessive and over-the-top to almost comic degrees. I mean, Wesley Snipes was in a movie where he gets frozen and Stallone swings in and drop kicks his head off. That kind of comic violence would never be in a movie nowadays and I suppose I'm glad. I think of that as a sign of progress. 

Violence in film now is taken more seriously. It's just as, if not more so, graphic but it's more meaningful. I think David Cronenberg has perfected cinematic violence. While he's not an action director, I could totally see him making and action movie. In a Stallone movie from the 80s, you cheer when he shoots some guy or kicks some guy's head off. In a Cronenberg movie, you don't. You see the reality of violence - it's ugly, nauseating, and generally off-putting. Stallone's character in Demolition Man says, "Violence isn't a good thing. Hurting people isn't fun. Well sometimes it is." And it's a crowd pleaser and everyone laughs. But if a character in a Cronenberg movie said that, the audience would jeer and probably feel disappointed in themselves because they probably laughed and cheered when Stallone said it. 

The point of this isn't that action movies of the 80s and 90s were bad or that they were morally unaccountable but that they saw violence in a totally different way as they do now. Violence in action movies of today, generally speaking, is akin to violence found in dramas. Now the violence is handled in the same way as the violence of a husband slapping his wife for being unfaithful. It's got the same tone. It's dark and uncomfortable. Casino Royale was different than the other Bond movies because the violence shaped the character into something terrible. It was gritty and real. And the Bourne movies are the same - he never smiles. He never jokes around. Bourne lives in a world of violence. His life is completely devoid of any kind of joy because of it. That's why there aren't any Jason Bourne action figures. No kid wants to be like Jason Bourne, not in the way they want to be like Dutch from Predator or John Spartan from Demolition Man. The violence in their lives never changed them. Beating up someone for John Spartan or Dutch is like doing the laundry. It happens and it happens so frequently it's as banal as doing your laundry. Of course the audience loves it because they live without that constant violent element and they see how "cool" those types of characters are. They are just like us - except they beat the shit out of the bad guys. They're funny and good natured and you would invite them to your kid's birthday party. In action films like The Bourne Ultimatum, characters ask each other questions like, "Look what they make you give" and we get a sense that beating the shit out of "bad guys" isn't all it's cracked up to be. The violence consumes them and leaves them hollow, lonely, and with a sense of regret for getting involved in that kind of life. 

So if this is the direction of violence in action films, then I sincerely endorse it.