ﾠ But there is a balancing view: that Morgan Freeman's spiritual guides, Sam Jackson's emasculated bad-asses, Denzel Washington's noble neuters, Eddie Murphy's prosthetic camouflage and Smith's harmless Vunderkind personaes have set the stage for Barack Obama. And when (I think it was) Butterfly McQueen was asked "why do you play maids?" she replied "Honey, If I hadn't played one, I would have been one." So I don't resent Halle Berry whoring herself to get an Oscar for "Monster's Ball"--there is a tremendous insult if one applies McQueen's comment to Berry's screen personage, but I'll let you work that one out for yourself. # Back to "Hancock", those caveats aside. At the 4th of July party, a lady made a tremendously insightful observation that I will amplfy a bit. ﾠ "Iron Man", "The Hulk", "Fantastic Four" "Spider-Man" "Bat Man" and so forth have a common thread running through them: the heroes are all brilliant scientists who are courageous if not also wealthy and sexy. In other words, they express the healthy self-image of white people, especially white males. ﾠ "Hancock", the first major film with a black superhero, is about a foul-mouthed, alcoholic bum who is occassionally useful but destructive. He is rescued by a white man who, in order to rehabilitate him, demands he go to prison (!) to "serve his debt to society." Irresistably drawn to a white woman forever out of his reach, she is his Delilah, and he weakens if he touches her. They cannot have sex. He can't have sex at all (they cut a scene where, shades of "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex") he blows a woman through the side of his trailer with his super-sperm. On the other hand, the white woman, who has equal powers, appears to have no trouble at al having sex. Her involuntary vaginal contractions seem to have no real bizarre attributes. As Superman can have sex. Hancock cannot. ﾠ We learn that he lost his powers because racists didn't like him holding hands with a white woman. ﾠ At the end, he sacrifices everything so that the white couple can continue to screw happily ever. ﾠ In other words, Hancock matches the most negative stereotypes imaginable that whites have of blacks. And the film was ruined when half-way through, I think someone realized the road they had accidentally traveled, and tried desperately to stop from saying what their subconscious was so eager to reveal. # Smith probably knew, just as he knew that "Wild Wild West" was off the rails. But it's hard to resist 20 million dollars. How many of you wouldn't have appeared in that movie for twenty million dollars? Be honest. But I can still be angry. # Casting the white woman? Just the toxic frosting on a rancid cake. The fact that she is South African is just an incredible "coincidence", in a universe that has none. In all likelihood, not one person involved in the project consciously thought about this, but think about it: this movie will probably be Smith's biggest bomb in a decade. The subliminal message? DON'T TOUCH WHITE WOMEN. ﾠ Now, most people will probably stop with the interracial aspect, without grasping that black men don't have sex with ANYONE. It isn't just white women. And sisters, I feel you on the discomfort you felt when she appeared. I hear about it on the radio, in conversations, in magazines: you don't want Denzel or Will boffing white women. But, and I say this with all affection, you do NOT complain as loudly when Halle screws Billy Bob Thornton or Pierce Brosnan, or Thandie Newton screws Tom Cruise. You remain curiously quiet. As black men weren't likely to complain much back when Jim Brown screwed Stella Stevens in "Slaughter" forty years ago. That's natural. Every group wants all the advantages, and every group wants all the advantages for themselves. I remember back in the 60's I heard black radical males saying it was better for black men to screw white women than for black women to screw white men. I thought they were full of shit, and said so. ﾠ And I know black women now who say that it is better for black women to marry white men than for black men to marry white women. This is exactly, precisely, the kind of self-serving nonsense that allows any group to claim they have the right to control what others do using judgement and shame. ﾠ So when you flinch to see Will Smith approach Charlize Theron, I empathize. I hope you flinched as much watching "Die Another Day." If you did, bravo. # Denzel and Will both understand the game, and both lie about what they're doing. Denzel supposedly refuses love scenes because he's "promised the sisters he won't screw white women onscreen." Note what was left out there? Think about it. All right, what's left out is: then why don't you have love scenes with black women? Eddie Murphy? After "Boomerang" (God, I had hopes!) America bought him off by offering him obscene amounts of money for PG family-friendly movies. Don't be dangerous, Eddie. Don't drop trou, and we'll make you incredibly rich. All you have to do is leave your dick at home. ﾠ Will Smith talks about making family movies, and the fact that he and his agents sat down and calculated the most successful films: science fiction action family films. So that's why he doesn't have sex in these movies? And what explains "Bad Boys II"? If you cut out all the R-rated material, you'd have a short subject. ﾠ I first noticed the game Smith was playing with America during "Bad Boys." The lead woman was sexy, and Smith played a playboy detective. The natural outcome? Sex, of course. Because the lead was white, I KNEW that wasn't going to happen, and sat in the theater wondering how they were going to work around it. Oh! Martin Lawrences' character was married, and the two characters got 'confused" so that the woman was with Lawrence while Smith was with Lawrences' wife. Hilarity ensued...for anyone who didn't see the naked manipulation. ﾠ Step back. "Six Degrees of Separation". He's gay. Hmmm. "Independence Day"--BIG leap forward. Love that movie. He gets a big, juicy kiss. I have no complaints, and rub my hands, anticipating nookie to come. "Men in Black"--some "sexy" double entendres, but nothing. "Enemy of the State." Well, his wife wears negligee in one scene, although they're nowhere near a bed. Still, I have hope. Maybe next time. "Wild Wild West." He's kissing a nameless woman in the beginning, so I had hope. Then...another kiss or two, and he ends up riding into the sunset with Kevin Klein, who appeared in drag, and was also in "In and Out" as a homosexual. Hmmm. Nice way to make the threatening Black Male unthreatening, no? "The Legend of Bagger Vance" pure, humiliating spiritual guide. "Ali" Ah! Smith's only love scene. But even though played with his own WIFE, (could you get more non-threatening than that?) the film failed at the box office. Coincidence, of course. "Men In Black II" Nothing. "Bad Boys II"? A "Clever" situation where he's dating Martin Lawrence's sister, see, and Lawrence can't know they're dating...so in the entire movie he gets exactly one kiss. "I, Robot"? Nothing. "Shark Tale"? Well, I believe his animated character kissed an animated Renee Zellwegger. Yum. "Hitch"? The most interesting yet. An actual relationship, although non-sexual. This script went through vast re-writing, and I can bet why. A bunch of things made this film possible (from my perspective) 1) the lead was Latina. Since "Bandolero" with Jim Brown and Raquel Welch, Latinas have been a safe middle ground. Not a white woman, and without the genetic threat of watching a black man and woman indulge in reproductive behavior. 2) The entire (unusually strong) B-Story involved helping Kevin James get a white woman. No cock-block here! 3) The coming attraction PROMENENTLY featured Smith kissing Kevin James. Again, emasculating the scary black man. No threat here! 4) No sex # Honestly, I loved 'Hitch" and again my hopes raised... "The Pursuit of Happyness"--never so much as kissed Thandie Newton. "I Am Legend" --the original book by Richard Matheson, "The Last Man int he World" with Vincent Price, and "Omega Man" with Charton Heston all made much of the lead's encounter ith the last woman in the world. Heston screwed Rosalind Cash (a black woman). In contradiction of the original story, and all biological and sociological impulses, when the "last man in the world" meets the "last woman" in Smith's movie, he is completely uninterested in sex, and commits suicide as quickly as possible. NOT ONE WHITE CRITIC NOTICED. Of course not. These images work to the advantage of white males, who, as long as they don't consciously notice, get to bask in the myth that they are the hottest, smartest, sexiest, deadliest critters on the planet. ﾠ And then Hancock. Knowing Smith's history, and the game he's playing, it is glaringly obvious what went wrong, and why it did: nobody was honest about the game they were playing: giving white people the image of black men they're comfortable with, while SLOWLY increasing the range of roles available to black men. God it's slow, and painful. And twenty years from now, Smith will probably be honest about what he was doing. Right now, he's making bank, and in his one way, changing the face of Cinema. ﾠ I still bet that he'll be the first to break the barrier. My guess: the movie that features him as sexual might cross the 100 million threshold...but his FOLLOWING film will take a big drop. Just my suspicion. "If Will Smith Can't Get Laid, Obama Can't Get Elected" is actually a reflexive social equation: "If Obama can get elected, Will Smith can get laid." With his half-white heritage, his African last name (he is not a product of slavery, and therefore doesn't hold the anger and fear that black American men feel, and doesn't trigger the same guilt reactions from whites) Obama has a real chance of his blackness not working against him as strongly as it does for most. And if he makes it, that changes the image systems in a heartbeat--you watch. Within one year of his taking office, there WILL be images of black men being sexual, and those films will be successful. And everyone will wonder what the fuss is, and try to pretend the last 50 years didn't happen. ﾠ But they did.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
More on "Hancock"
Seducing Ourselves
## I still want to talk about relationships, because I believe our relationships with others are our best mirror to our true relationship to ourselves for about 99.9% of people. It's a great place to start. And I have a hard time thinking of someone with a healthy, lusty committed relationship that has been stable for say, 10 years who doesn't have the other major aspects of his/her life under decent control. On the other hand, I know people in GREAT shape who are broke-ass and alone. And people with lotsa money who are in terrible shape, and have travesties for relationshps. So...it is very possible that our relationship with ourselves, USUALLY (but not always) expressed through our relationships with others, is the core of the entire question. ﾠ First Question: does this seem reasonable? ﾠ # The reason this comes up is that last night I woke up at 3 in the morning (even with air conditioning, somehow I don't sleep as well in hot weather) and remembered a conversation I had with a student. ﾠ He was complaining about how his wife won't give him sex. I asked more questions, and it was obvious that he had his hat on backwards on this one. She works a hard job, and when she gets home, she is tired. She made it clear to him that if he wants sex, she needs to be romanced a little. Her request was really quite reasonable. But he pouted and sulked: she should give it to him when he wants it, without hesitation. Because he won't slow down and give her time to depressurize and get in the mood, sometimes they don't have sex for months. I happen to know this is one VERY lusty lady, so in my mind, the problem is all his. ﾠ But you know I think that men and women are the same spirits having slightly different experiences in biologically different bodies, so I ain't blaming the guys. I've had three different family therapists/ councelors/relationship seminar leaders say something similar to me: ﾠ Asking men and women about the relative importance of sex in relationships, men invariably list it as first, second, or third most important. Women invariably list it as third, fourth, or fifth. You know what, being a guy, I forgot to ask? What is the relative importance of ROMANCE? I'd bet anything that those numbers would be reversed. ﾠ Recently, there was an article about a reality-show couple, where the guy was complaining that they hadn't had sex in six months (Jeeze, and they're only 30. That's freakin' scary.) The woman is always "busy" with their multi-million dollar empire, or their kids. Six months? That is NOT busy. I have a suspicion that that isn't even a "neutral" (I don't care one way or the other about sex). Because if there is something that means nothing to you, but means a lot t your partner, you do it just to keep harmony in the relationship. I mean, no one likes taking out the garbage, right? I hate to put it like that, but if you have a neutral charge on something, maybe you do it less often than something you like, but...six months? ﾠ My strong suspicion is that there is actual aversion. Call it...resentment. In other words, he withdrew the romance, and she withdrew the sex. When men are courting women, they try everything to trigger the sexual response. They try words, actions, scents, sounds, different touches. Once they find "it" and she responds, huzzah! Then...either they stop trying, figuring that THAT wall is breeched, deliver the goods, babe. Or, they keep doing the same thing every night (or week. Or month.) and get frustrated when it doesn't work. ﾠ Of course, men have the opposite complaint of women: in the beginning they are experimental and red-hot. After kids and marriage, the sex almost ALWAYS drops off and gets more perfunctory: several men and women have phrased this the same way: she is "servicing" him. Frankly, I can't clearly remember either a man or a woman talking about the man "servicing" the woman in quite the same way. ﾠ Another piece. I have a friend who is wealthy, and provides all material needs for his wife, but they aren't strongly connected emotionally (actually it's gotten better these days). But back in the day, I noticed that her bookshelf was packed with romance novels, while his was packed with Playboy and Penthouse-level semi-porn. I thought: hmmm. They love each other, but he's not romantic, and she, well, she had let herself get rather dumpy. So my guess was that they were giving themselves the vitamins they needed to be able to stay in the relationship: she needed romance, he needed visual 36-24-36 stimulation and "nasty" fantasies. ﾠ Now, obviously there are exceptions, and the lustiest ladies and the most romantic men will protest that THEY aren't like that...but I don't think that in general, I'm generalizing too much. ﾠ And this is really most important because I want to look at the aspects of our personality that might be called "Male" and "Female"--not because there is actually a man and a woman inside us, but because we separate things into dualities so that we can discuss them. Language sucks at discussing undifferentiated wholes, even though that's the way we actually experience reality. So pardon, please: I'm not trying to confine men and women to boxes, just to discuss a phenomenon that strongly affects our relationships with others, and with ourselves. ﾠ Because my tendency is to consider the different aspects of our personalities as regards a particular outcome. If "Fitness" is the child, might the "Parents" be Self-Love and Discipline? If Income is the child...well, maybe the same. Romance is a mood, a feeling, a communication of softness, while sex is an action (yes, I know that sexual stimulation is more mental than physical, but I'm just trying to understand something here.) What we know about the patterns of male and female stimulation, their reproductive imperatives and so forth, makes sense of this. But try using evolutionary justifications to get your lady to drop her undies on demand, guys, and see how far THAT gets you. You have no more right to demand that she yield to your imperatives than she does to demand you yield to hers. ﾠ And that biological stuff is just the base level. Marching up the chakras, you enter the levels where sex and romance are expressions of power, love, human communication, artistic expression, and spirituality. Complicated, no? ﾠ A woman told me once, a long time ago, that the difference between male and female sexuality could be described as follows: ﾠ Women are like a combination safe. The combination changes every day, and even she doesn't know what the combination is. ﾠ Men are like a balloon. You just blow it up until it explodes. ﾠ Now, that's obviously an oversimplification, and overlooks the fact that both men and women have male and female aspects...but it contributes to understanding, I think. And if our internal worlds mirror our external relationships, it suggests that there are aspects of our creativity, intellect, and self-discipline which must be "romanced", "seduced" or approached directly. The danger in a relationship is when we assume the other person will find satisfaction in what satisfies US. I suspect that in th relationship between different aspects of our personality, the conscious mind assumes that the best way to service or coax varying guests at our "parts party" is to approach them the way IT wants to be approached, rather than observing and asking questions like: 1) Under what circumstances do I take the best care of my body in terms of diet and exercise? Under which do I take the worst? 2) Under what circumstances do I do my best work? Worst? Under what circumstances do I manage my money the best? Worst? ﾠ And so forth. Observing the results, remembering the precursive actions and emotions, and duplicating them to the best of our ability until we figure out our "combination", always remembering that it changes slightly every day. ﾠ
Saturday, July 05, 2008
The Great mariah Moore Knife Auction
Hi, This is Steve's webmaster coming at you here.
Steve asked me to post this and point you at a worthy cause we are working to support.
This last winter, Steve met a young lady named Mariah Moore at the World Eskrima,Kali Arnis Federation National Championships, which were held in Southern California.
Mariah, who took two gold and one silver at the last WEKAF world Championships, fought her way to a place on the American team to represent her country in this years World's in Cebu Philippines.
Here is a promo clip of her showing off her skills just a bit.
.....
.....
Because of the rising price of everything, it has been very difficult for Mariah's family to make it possible for her to get to the tournament on their own, so several people and companies have stepped up to help.
One of the things we are doing is auctioning off a knife donated by Tribal Edge Knifeworks to help with the expenses.
You can find out more about the knife and the auction at the Eskrimadora blog.
We are also giving away a couple of autographed galleys from famous author (and friend of the blog) Steve Perry.
Please take a moment to check out Mariah and her auction. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Steve will say something more about this when he gets a spare moment.
(We will now return control of your computer screen to you)
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Namaste
I wanted to start talking about relationships, and maybe the disastrous "Hancock" isn't a distraction from this. Take away the ability to reproduce, or protect and nurture your offspring, and a species dies. The question of building and sustaining a healthy relationship is inextricably connected to either the rules of relationships as learned culturally or in observation of parents, or arises from a deep well of love within you. ﾠ Love for self, brimming over until you have love to offer others, is a perfectly good starting place, and from my perspective, the very healthiest. It connects you to your survival drive, both being kind to yourself, and being disciplined enough to push through fatigue and emotional detritus to achieve disciplined excellence. Second Chakra is sexuality. While not everyone wants children, I believe we should not open this Pandora's Box before we are mature and focused enough to create goods and services that can be exchanged with our community LEGALLY to put food on our table and a roof over our heads. This is one of the doorways to adulthood. ﾠ A healthy relationship between two adults which includes sexuality should, therefore, be in alignment with the pair bond instinct. Pretty silly to fight against it! Gay or straight, birth control or no, there is no down side to having the most basic aspects in place. And I think that they are: 1) Self-love and love of others. 2) Financial security. More relationships break up over money than sexual infidelity. 3) A body in alignment with your own values: in other words, you would be physically attracted to yourself. 4) Honesty and trustworthiness. 5) Passion for life, which translates into sexual passion, the heat that forges a bond between human beings. ﾠ If we have these things, there is the potential for creating a long-lasting connection that would protect the life and security of a child. And if you don't want children? I can't imagine there being a disadvantage to being ABLE to provide security for a child, even if you don't want one. Everything here is vital to an individual human life. To a partnership. Or the health of a community. ﾠ When abortions like "Hancock" come out, it is glaringly obvious (from my perspective) that something has gone very wrong. The consistency with which it "goes wrong" when the films deal with black or Asian males, strengthens my belief that there is a core, essential cause that can be isolated and examined like a pathogen. ﾠ This isn't about "are white people racist?" "are men racist?" or "Is America a racist country?" I feel the need to say this over and over again, because I don't want o be misunderstood. It is about the universal human instinct toward tribalism, and the way it manifests in our purchasing patterns. ﾠ In a classic science fiction story, "The Screwtape Solution", aliens trigger an atavistic response in human beings so that men kill women. If you disrupt the breeding patterns of a species, you can destroy the species. The aversion to watching mating behavior in members of a group you are in competition with is the unconscious expression of just such a drive, and we must be very careful of it. ﾠ What could they have done in Hancock to save it? 1) Cast a Latina. History has proven that casting a Latina opposite a black man offends far less than casting a blonde white woman...or, oddly enough, casting a black woman. 2) Have Theron's character not actually married to the PR guy. Girlfriend, or fiancee, perhaps. People still would have been uncomfortable , but not quite as much. 3) Play their relationship as tragic, but give Hancock a romantic possibility at the end. Like, say, the policewoman he rescued. Have her transfer to New York to be near him at the end, offering a ray of hope rather than the "black man sacrifices so that white folks can have hot sex" thing that made "The Green Mile" one of the vilest films ever made. ## Enough of that. We want healthy relationships, and want to pursue them in a way that is in alignment with having a healthy body, and a healthy financial life. Starting with passion, health, self-love, empathy, and honesty is great--these are all things that we need whether we are seeking a relationship or not. We need these things to survive and thrive as individuals. It is critical that if we are to grow as a species or society, it starts with individual action. Ultimately, WE are all we can affect. In that way, every hour of every day can be occupied making the entire world a better place. When you love yourself, and love life, it is easy to be kind and loving to others. The sanskrit word "Namaste" means: "The divinity within me perceives and acknowledges the divinity within you." That is a hell of a place to start changing the world: to find God within ourselves, and to learn to see Him (or Her) within every other human being we meet. ﾠ Makes sex REALLY interesting as well. Lovemaking as prayer...sign me up.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Hancock (2008)
ﾠ ﾠ WARNING: SAMBO ALERT ﾠ I'm sorry. I'm not going to sugar coat this, or beat around the bush. This is the most egregious example of what I've been trying to say, the most blantant Sambo movie since "Driving Miss Daisy"--no, it's worse. Will Smith is not Morgan Freeman. Will Smith can do any film he wants, and what he wants is to make successful films. Well, take a look at the critical reviews, and you'll see that he's probably blown it there. He'll have a huge weekend. And then boxoffice will drop like a frozen butterfly. I admire Will greatly, and don't blame him for this--he's just working the system, folks. ﾠ In my opinion, not one of the reviewers has put their finger on what went wrong. It's all "it was great for 40 minutes, and then it fell apart..." ﾠ No one knows? Really? No one lets themselves know. The truth is too painful, and everyone wants to believe that human beings aren't what they are. And this particular disaster comes out of that. Let me get to the meat of this, and then go on to say why this was one of the most painful, insulting movie-going experiences of my life. Tananarive was crying--THAT'S how bad it was. ## Hancock is about a superhero (Will Smith) who is an alcoholic bum. A P.R. guy (Jason Bateman) has his life saved, and decides to rehabilitate Hancock's image. Bateman's Wife, (Charlize Theron) doesn't much like the idea. ﾠ (SPOILERS GALORE. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK) ﾠ Hancock is revealed to be a god-like being, the last of his kind in the world...he thinks. The point at which the movie goes to shit is where Hancock is alone with Therone in the kitchen, and is powerfully attracted to her...and she throws him through a wall. You see, she is also a god, and in fact was his wife eighty years ago (they don't age). When they are near each other, they lose powers. ﾠ The fact is, that this is a brilliant set-up for a send-up of the superhero genre, and the first 30-40 minutes ROCKED. Then they ran into a problem we've discussed many, many times: 1) Statistics show that movies in which black men have sex underperform at the box office--badly. 2) Because this smacks of racism, no one will admit it's true...often, even to themselves. ﾠ This means that the natural erotic tension between these characters cannot be allowed to develop. It is glaringly, painfully obvious that there were extensive re-shoots and last-minute edits in this film. Smith and Therone refer to a kiss that we never see--which must have been clumsily excised at the last moment. ﾠ They also refer to Hancock being beaten eighty years ago in Florida (the South) while walking hand-in-hand with his wife. To raise the specter of the racism that horribly scarred my parent's generation while bowing to it's present-day manifestation is simply vile. So Hancock is doomed to live alone, forever...while Theron can have a husband and child. And we are treated to several tender kissing scenes between her and her husband. So touching. ﾠ The fact that she is a blond South African is some kind of sick joke. They cut the kiss from the kitchen, launch into an incoherant action scene, and the movie never, ever recovers. What's missing? The natural rhythm of boy-meets girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets girl. ﾠ Know what? There would have been many ways to write this so that they didn't end up together, really. But I doubt that for an instant anyone in the gaggle of writers who must have worked on this EVER looked honestly at the producers and said: "this is our problem. We can't have them end up together. We can't show them making love, or kissing. We can't even play with the erotic tension, because the audience isn't leaning forward in pleasurable anticipation...they're leaning BACK, away from the screen, hoping like hell we won' t show them Will's bare ass pounding away at a blond. What do we do?" If they were honest, they might have cast, say, a Latina, which would have diminished the color shock, and allowed the relationship to progress more naturally. Then, if they couldn't be together, you have a tragedy. And I could have bought that! Really, I wasn't looking for "Happily Ever After." Just an acknowledgment that I am a god damned human being. Will Smith has to know EXACTLY what's going on. But when Denzel tried to comment on this phenomenon years ago, he was accused of being a bigot. He now shuts up and takes the money. As does Will. And Eddie. And Sam. And everyone else. ﾠ Damn it, did she HAVE to be South African? Could they have found a less insulting metaphor? That he needs sacrifice so that the white man can fuck his white wife and have white babies, Hallalujah, Hallalujah? ﾠ Can any of you grasp how it feels to have spent my entire LIFE watching this, while people remain asleep and pretend it isn't happening? ﾠ ﾠ For God's sake, please no one hide behind the "It's Hollywood." Yeah, and New York Publishing. And Washington politics. And everywhere else. It's the heartland. Memphis. Florida. It's the whole world of people who can't look at their flaws and shortcomings, the fears that plague us all and the way we try to hide in groups and demonize the "other"--or at the very least believe they are less human than us. It is the human tribal instinct, in all it's ugly glory, alive and well in 2008. ﾠ And people wonder why I get pissed when they say that it was to Obama's advantage to be black. ﾠ Will Smith is the first star in history to have six 100-million movies in a row. Oh, Hancock will probably be his seventh. But it will be a real disappointment. Read the reviews. All of them will notice that "something" happened. Not one of them will know why. None of them will LET themselves know. Whites don't want to know because it triggers guilt and shame. And it is, frankly, to their advantage. Want to know one of the advantags of being white? You can be Seth Rogen and be thought sexier than Denzel Washington. Hell, if I was white, I'd pretend not to notice, too. When you're winning, you don't ask if the deck is stacked. ﾠ Many blacks don't even have conscious awareness--it triggers fear to feel so alone, outnumbered and outgunned by people who smile in your face, tell you they like you (and mean it) and apparently don't give a living shit that they are entertained my images that emasculate and dehumanize you. And don't for a second think that the psychology that allows a "Hancock" is disconnected from the psychology that allows eight cops to pump a hundred bullets into an unarmed black man. Oops! ﾠ As I work in this industry, I've been warned dozens of times not to talk about this publicly--usually by friends who genuinely care, and are worried I'll hurt my career. ﾠ But I have a four year old son. I don't want him wishing he had blond hair and blue eyes so he can get the girl. And when he notices that that's the way it is, I want to be able to look him straight in the face and say that I didn't lie, I didn't go to sleep, I did my part to create images of power, and to scream and rave and try to awaken the sleeping crowd. If you wake up, if you notice it, you have to either do something, or admit you don't give a shit. I think most people would care, if they were forced to notice. ﾠ This was just one of the worst movie-going experiences of my life. I thought we were further along than this. ﾠ If Will Smith can't get laid, Obama can't get elected. ﾠ John McCain should take heart. While I doubt he WANTS the world to be this way, I'm sure he'd be happy to reap the benefits in November. ﾠ My rating? For sleeping white people, a "C+." For anyone awake, an "F."
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
New 007 Trailer up!
Aintitcoolnews has a link to the new James Bond trailer. Yow! They've definitely learned from Bourne, but that's only fair, considering that Bourne built on the Bond mythology and might almost be considered a specific reaction to it. Hell, even stole 007s initials...as did Jack Bauer. Anyway, the bond movies have lasted 40 years by adjusting to the times, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE seems to be doing this brilliantly. Can't wait. Hey, Dan! Another theater party? # We've got until 4pm tonight to get IN THE NIGHT OF THE HEAT back to the publisher, so today's entry is mighty short. Tananarive is in the dining room doing her run-through checking dates. I cannot even tell you how comforting it is to have someone to watch my back like this. I might even say it's the most important thing in a relationship designed to last. ﾠ Recently, I had a conversation with one of the ladies I knew from the Quodoshka native American spiritual sexuality workshops. Trust me, she knows how to bring the heat, but has reached a point in her life where she wants something lasting and real. A partnership. "Someone to watch her back, and trust her to watch his." The similarity of our thinking struck me. I want to talk about relationships in the 101-Day program (note how that number just shifted? A suggestion from Mushtaq) and wanted to open the door to such speaking. We've all had bad relationships. Hopefully, we've all had good ones, as well. I have my opinions on what bonds one human being to another, and what breaks those bonds. I have a question for you guys: what was the foundation of the BEST relationship you ever had? And what was the basis of the WORST? ﾠ Is it at all possible to predict which will be which in advance?
