DaRK PaRTY: Why have the "Star Wars" films become so popular?

Mike: When you strip away all the special effects, Star Wars is a genuine story of good verses evil. A story of right verses wrong told in a way that is pleasing and fun to all ages. It is rather timeless. You had an original group of fans that were created by the Original Trilogy (of Star Wars movies). Then came the Expanded Universe in the early 90s that spawned many novels and comics. From there, around 1997, the Original Trilogy was re-released in theaters giving us a chance to see the films on the big screen again and gave a younger audience a chance to see them in theaters for the first time.

The prequels helped usher in more fans. Sure you have your segment of the fandom that did not get into the prequels, but many a young fan did. For every fan that was turned off, there were three more that were newly excited with the franchise. With books, comics, TV shows, video games, and collectables, there is no end in sight and a little something for every type of fan. Every piece of the Star Wars universe is someone's favorite, whether it be Boba Fett or even Jar Jar Binks.

DP: Some rabid fans have listed "Jedi" as their religion on census forms. What does being a "Jedi" mean in the "Star Wars" universe?

Mike: To live a good and honest life. To be true to yourself and those around you.

DP: Which of the six "Star Wars" films is your favorite and why? What film do you like the least?

Mike: As an adult, I love "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980) mainly for the story and relationship between the characters. Everyone is much more dynamic than in "A New Hope" (1977) and I love the way the whole story plays out. On the other hand, "Return of the Jedi" (1983) was my favorite as a kid... and still is some days. I loved Lando piloting the Millennium Falcon and the space battles in
general, took things to a level not seen in "Hope" or "Empire."

DP: There are hundreds of characters in the films. What are your three favorites and why?

Mike: Lando Calrissian: Coolest cat in the galaxy. Really comes into his own in the novels (I am just as big a fan of the novels).

Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi: Loved the sarcasm in Alec Guinness' portrayal and found Ewan McGregor to be the highlight of the prequels in every way.

Luke Skywalker: He started as a simply farm boy, so he was the easiest to identify with. If something spectacular could happen to him... what about me?

DP: TheForce.net is one of the largest "Star Wars" fan sites in the world. Can you tell DaRK PaRTY readers about the site and what it wants to accomplish?

Mike: TheForce.net is run by fans for the fans. We want to get all the Star Wars news and articles out there to feed the fans hunger for more Star Wars information. It could be news on an upcoming project, news on cast appearances, or links to Star Wars related articles that people might otherwise not see.

We cover news, collecting, TV, video games, books, comics, you name it. If it has to do with Star Wars, we will cover it. We also have a very active message board and Fan Force section that allows fans all over the world to connect, share ideas and even post their fan films and art.

In a lot of ways we are like a big community center online for Star Wars fans. Regardless of what area of the Star Wars universe peaks your interest, you should be able to get your fix here. Regardless of your vice, we are all united with our general love of Star Wars.

Labels: 5 Questions, interview, Mike Barrick, Star Wars

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

I enjoy mowing. I like the feel of my muscles as they push the mower; the sweat on my brow and down my back. I like the smell of freshly cut grass. It’s a pungent, earthy scent that reminds me of baseball, picnics, and darting through lawn sprinklers on hot August afternoons.

Mowing the lawn is a chore. But it’s work that has an easily identifiable beginning and an end. I get to watch the results of my labors as I progress. There are no hidden tasks, mysterious agendas, or extra work orders. I make course corrections immediately for any missed patches and when I’m finished I get the satisfaction of a neat, beautiful lawn.

I’m a rarity in my New England neighborhood.

Few of my neighbors mow their own lawns. Oh, there are some hold-outs – mostly neighbors of my father’s generation. But the majority of the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers hire landscaping companies to do the work. It’s a new mindset. Mowing the lawn is menial – a trivial and irritating task that is better left to others with the time and motivation.

So once a week pick-up trucks loaded with industrial mowers, leaf blowers, and Brazilian laborers descend on my street. The sound of engines and blowers roars above the song birds and the laborers mow the lawns of my neighborhood. These strangers also prune shrubbery and throw down cedar mulch.

Then they load back on the trucks and vanish for another week.

Sometimes my neighbors are home and watch as other people perform the duties that were once considered the admission price of home ownership. My father would never have dreamed of hiring someone else to mow his lawn. It would have been a sacrilege. It would also have cast dispersion on his character.

My father will still judge a man by the condition of his home. Neatly mowed, nicely painted, and well maintained speaks well of a man’s makeup in my father’s world. It also speaks to his Puritan work ethic – a willingness to sacrifice leisure time in order to take care of his property.

This mindset – and one that my father passed on to me – is disappearing. No longer are chores like mowing the lawn considered part of a man’s duty. In fact, I often get friends and neighbors asking me why I mow my own lawn. Why waste the time? Why not spend the money to hire someone to do it?

“For a hundred bucks a month, I don’t have to bother with it,” one friend told me and then said to me. “Don’t be so cheap.” In his mind, my reluctance to hire a stranger to do my own chores is about money.

This same friend is the father of a young boy. His son mimics Bill, the landscaper he hires to mow his lawn. The boy pushes his toy mower up and down the driveway as Bill mows the lawn. The boy idolizes Bill while my friend sits in his living room watching the Red Sox play on TV. This strikes me as sad. Isn’t the boy reaching for something in Bill that his father just isn’t providing?

I wonder what he is teaching his son.

Will his boy learn that responsibility can be pushed to others just as long as you’re willing to compensate them for it? That getting something done is more important than doing it yourself? Will his son ever learn that there is something inherently special and satisfying about working with his own hands? Menial labor isn’t menial at all. It’s about a sense of accomplishment – about self-reliance, responsibility, and doing a good job.

I mow my own lawn because the thought of hiring someone to do it for me embarrasses me. It makes me feel like a less of a man: That I’m shirking a chore that belongs to me. I might not be able to put on a new roof or fix electrical wiring, but I can at least mow my own lawn, water my garden, and pull up the weeds growing between my patio stones.

Yet most people don’t mow their own lawns. They don’t paint their own homes. They hire maids to vacuum and dust. There are many reasons: They don’t want to; they are too busy; they can’t be bothered; they are too lazy; or maybe it is simply one of the conditions of a society that gets too affluent.

Whatever the case after I finished mowing my lawn and stowing my gear, I pulled out a lawn chair and sat. I opened a cold beer and smelled my grass and let the scent push out memories.

My rest was richer and more satisfying because I knew that I had worked hard, that I had accomplished a chore, and that I had fulfilled a responsibility – a responsibility to myself.

Read our essay on the lies of technology

Labels: Essay, Work Ethic

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

--------------------

The movie opens like a teen splatter flick. A full moon obscured by dark clouds sends a silvery light through the foggy desert wilderness (since when do deserts have fog?). Wild birds squeal and squawk. The camera pans across the desolate landscape to Jesus praying to God in a harsh whispering voice. He wants protection and clearly feels abandoned.

That’s the weird thing about the Bible and Jesus. Every other major figure in the Bible has an intimate relationship with God. David, Joseph, and Moses all have conversations with God – he speaks to them, directs them, and advises them. Yet no where in the New Testament does God speak directly to Jesus – his son.

God apparently is very aloft with family.

--------------------

Judas gets a bum rap by Christians. Without his greedy betrayal there would be no “passion.” Jesus would have lived to a ripe old age with his wife Mary Magdalene, sired several children, and retired to a bungalow somewhere on the Mediterranean Sea.

Gibson takes some liberties with Judas in the movie. He creates a “Children of the Corn” moment when the babbling Judas is chased from town by a pack of raving, demon-possessed children right out of “Oliver Twist.” They taunt and poke him to the point where he hangs himself over the rotting corpse of a grinning camel. One wonders why he’d kill himself. Won’t death bring him face to face with Jesus’ dad?

Bad planning there.

--------------------

Mel resorts to “Mad Max” mode when the Jews come to capture Jesus. There’s a slow motion battle with swords flashing and blood spurting. I almost expected Saint Peter to shout: “FREEDOM!”

--------------------

The torture of Jesus begins about 12 minutes into the movie when the Jewish soldiers chain him and begin to whip him. That didn't take long.

--------------------

Well, it’s clear why Jewish groups were offended by this movie. Gibson clearly casts the Jewish rabbis as the bad guys – they are portrayed as ruthless, conniving villains (complete with squinty eyes – George Lucas couldn’t have come up with a better caricature). The Jews – according to Gibson – manipulate the conquering Romans. What a neat trick.

--------------------

Very weird flashback moment in the movie – Jesus and his mom in a bonding moment (she chastises him for not washing his hands before lunch. What Gospel passage is this from?).

And apparently, Jesus invented dining room tables. Not only is he the Son of God but a damn fine woodworker.

--------------------

Wow. The top Jewish rabbi just backhanded Jesus and spit in his face. Then the rest of the rabbis line up Conga-style to slap and spit on him. Then the crowd – in glorious harmony – kicks the crap out of him.

--------------------

Hmmm. There’s more appearance of Satan in this movie than of God.

--------------------

Mel’s Pontious Pilot is a nice guy manipulated by the evil Jews. The poor bastard had no choice but to crucify Jesus. The only thing missing is for Pilot to pass out homemade chocolate chip cookies to the crowd.

--------------------

The scene when the Roman soldiers – depicted like cackling overfed hyenas – is one of the most brutal I’ve ever seen on screen. They flay Jesus to the point where his skin is flying through the air in sprays of blood. You can even see his uncovered rib bones. Is this necessary?

--------------------

What kind of God would allow this kind of brutal, inhuman torture of his son? And why would millions of people choose to worship such a God? How sad. Isn’t the Christian God supposed to be about love? How does this torture fest reconcile that?

What a vile movie.

--------------------

If Jesus is supposed to die for the sins of us all – then why does he cop out of the agenda at the last minute when he screams: “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” Does Jesus lose faith at the end?

--------------------

So the Gospel According to Mel comes to an end. It's a bad action/horror flick. Religious porn. Hard to believe that this movie is embraced by Christians.

Read our commentary on Fiction and the Catholic Church

Labels: Jesus, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: What makes a good documentary?

John: As with real estate’s essence of location, location, and location, I believe the three most integral parts of a documentary are story, story, story. It is at the heart and soul of a documentary. The range of documentaries is vast, from the direct cinema of a horrifying tale of abuse in Fred Wiseman’s “Titicut Follies” (1967), to the shattering experiences of the disabled in “Murderball” (2006), yet they each must have a story that can hold an audience that is often jaded by the popularity of the moving image. The documentary must share a unique experience with this audience that is over-exposed to the visual image, now in high definition.

DP: The most popular documentary filmmaker today is Michael Moore -- yet many of his peers are critical of his work. What is your view of Moore and his films?

John: The two most successful (popular and financially sound) documentary filmmakers are Michael Moore and Ken Burns. Both have shed light on a fractured America that needs healing. While Burns takes the high road of romanticizing the story with mesmerizing images, Moore gets to the heart and soul of an America that is truly hurting, whether it is the physical, psychological, and financial bankruptcy of the auto industry in “Roger and Me,” to the complete availability of weapons in our society that still may live by the code of the Wild West at times, and now to “Fahrenheit 9/11” as he exposes our government and president in all of its weakness concerning the current war in Iraq.

His new film on the health care industry, “Sicko,” will surely raise some of the same controversies of old. While Burns is the official film historian of America — taking the place of the former analyst of American institutions, Fred Wiseman — Moore is the guerrilla filmmaker who lives as a Socratic gadfly, provoking us, forcing us to re-examine the tenets of a fragile society. I appreciate Moore for the cleverness, tongue-in-cheek approach to the craft (at times, art) and delight is the freshness of his personal style. It is certainly not mine, but there is an important place in our society for this type of filmmaker.

DP: What three documentaries would you recommend and why?

John: Historically, I would see “Night and Fog” filmed in 1955 about the Holocaust a decade after World War II, as one of the more important documentaries to watch about man’s inhumanity to man. The unnerving conclusion of the film is that this genocide could happen again…. and it has, multiple times!

“Born into Brothels” (2003) offers an insight into a slice of Indian life in a section of a city that caters to prostitutes. Since its focus is on the next generation, the children, it is especially interesting to view as a window into the future. The cleverness of the story as it unfolds, and its freshness with the behavior of the children, renders it a very educational and entertaining work of art.

“Murderball” dealing with an American wheelchair rugby team with disabilities is exciting to watch as the team prepares for its major athletic competitions. The viewer gets an insight into the psychology of those who are disabled, especially Mark Zupan, who some may think borders on psychotic at times, as does his former American coach.

DP: Your films, such as "Killing Silence: Taking on the Mafia in Sicily" and "Different Drummers: Daring to Make Peace in the Middle East" often focus on social justice. What motivates you as a filmmaker?

John: Since 1991, our film crew has made approximately 15 films, mostly around an hour long for PBS. My passion is social justice. These films are very, very serious documentaries that oblige the viewer to rethink society, especially in the areas on racism and bigotry, conflict resolution, and disabilities.

I use films as an art form and as a vehicle to spread my own gospel of social justice without hitting the viewer over the head. If anything, I approach my work as trying to understand both sides in the conflict resolution series noted above. Through PBS television, I am able to get this “message” across to countless viewers, but it is in the intimate forum of a classroom or conference that I see the films making the most impact.

DP: Your films often focus on war and strife -- such as the conflict in northern Ireland and the violence in the Middle East -- what draws you to the subject of warfare?

John: I was born during World War II, grew up during the Korean War, and strongly protested the Vietnam War. My courses in film history and in interdisciplinary studies often focus on the literature, art, and film of war. I see war as the arena where the human psyche is pushed to its breaking point, showing courage or cowardice, wisdom or folly. I am especially sensitive to the post-traumatic stress that occurs in the wake of these wars and have published with my wife on trauma and warfare in veterans returning from war. Seeing the veterans from the current war returning critically damaged in body and soul, I feel great pain. My mind and camera go beyond the battlefield to the home and the heart.

Labels: 5 Questions, interview, John Michalczyk, Movies

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

By: Rev. Colson Crosslick

At the time, I was a newly minted preacher in charge of manipulating a small flock of evangelical Pentecostals in a small town in the Texas panhandle. I had heard a lot about Rev. Falwell and was eager to see him action. It was like being a singer and being able to watch Elvis Presley in action or an actor getting to share the stage with Nathan Lane.

And, boy, could Rev. Falwell speak! His voice was like thunder from the Lord God himself!

After his performance, the Rev. Falwell deigned to grant me an audience. I was frightened, of course. Here was a man with angels dancing on his shoulder, a man with DSL line straight to the Lord God’s ear.

I found the Rev. Falwell in a tent behind the main one wrapped in a purple robe and eating a greasy roasted turkey with several nubile women followers. He held the drumstick like a baton and once, when shouting out a point, he shook it like he was pounding the devil on the head (amusingly, the grease splattered on my white Oxford shirt and ruined it – but I didn’t mind).

I remembered staring at him, turkey-fat smeared across his pudgy face, and thinking that here was a preacher who would change America. He seemed to have an unworldly greenish glow about him (ironically, I learned later that he suffered from food poisoning that night).

I left that mattress-lined tent with my spirits high and my wallet empty (I handed over my hard-earned cash to the Rev. Falwell with pleasure because I knew he would spend it better than I ever could!)

When they buried Rev. Falwell yesterday, I cried. Not for him. The Rev. Falwell is now ensconced under the thumb of Jesus Christ, who no doubt has great love and devotion to the preacher who committed so many transgressions in his Lordly name.

No I wept for us – the good citizens of the United States. The Rev. Falwell was like a moral compass. He ferreted out evil in the dark, liberal corners of our country. He was like a chunky bloodhound with a nose for conspiracies.

It was Rev. Falwell who discovered that Tinky Winky, one of the Teletubbies TV characters, was, in fact, a gay puppet-like creature. Without the Rev. Falwell, our children would have been corrupted and seduced into the homosexual lifestyle by this purple, purse-carrying poison pill!

I had always wondered about my unnatural attraction Tinky Winky and now I know that the creators of the Teletubbies were deliberately trying to make the character hot for males. Shame on them! Hooray for Rev. Falwell!

Falwell was a tireless advocate against the homosexual agenda that is turning this country into a cesspool that allows gay people to have equal rights. Do we really want to grant consenting adults of the same sex the right to legalize their long term commitments in the form of marriage – which every one who has ever read the Bible knows belongs to heterosexuals?

I think not. And so did the Rev. Falwell. We both know that homosexuals should go back to the shadows (I want to stress that I do not hate homosexuals and, in fact, I count several gay men as my close intimate associates. It is the act of homosexuality that I despise with every fiber of my Christian soul. There is a difference – a big difference!).

So as I continue to mourn for the Rev. Falwell, I wanted to share my thoughts about this great teddy bear of a man. He might not have been the smartest guy on the block, but he certainly was the most religious! And religion is always better than intelligence in my book.

Rest in peace in the glorious gardens of heaven, Rev. Falwell. We will miss you down here on Earth.

(The Rev. Colson Crosslick is pastor of the Pretty Good Shepherd Church in Ripsaw, Arkansas. In the past, he has called for a boycott of the Teletubbies. He also writes the regularly appearing column Under God’s Right Arm for DaRK PaRTY.)

Read Colson's column on the Hollywood hate machine

Labels: Falwell, Under God's Right Arm

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Somehow I managed to miss the hype around “Maus” when it became famous in 1992 (to mainstream audiences anyway. Spiegelman had actually been publishing excerpts of the graphic novel since the 1970s).

On the surface the two books in the series, “My Father Bleeds History” and “And Here My Troubles Began,” seem a silly premise: a Holocaust comic book with mice representing the Jews and cats the Nazis. I avoided “Maus” because I thought the format wouldn’t do justice to such a serious topic and would come across as a “Tom & Jerry” approach to an ugly part of 20^th century history.

So when I received a copy of the first book at a Yankee swap at Christmas, I reluctantly plopped it on my stack of books to read. My expectations were low, but I figured that I would at least start the book to get a taste of the content.

I was completely wrong about “Maus.” The book is anything, but trite. It is gut-wrenching. It is an amazing piece of storytelling and a staggering pseudo-biography about Spiegelman’s father’s experiences as a Polish Jew from the late 1930s and until post World War II. The narrative takes us from Vladek’s life as a textile factory owner in Poland, to the Polish ghettos after Germany’s invasion, and finally to the death camps of Auschwitz and Dachau.

Every page of “Maus” crackles with tension. It doesn’t seem possible that Vladek’s life can get any worse, but it does. You begin to admire him for his resourcefulness and pluck. Vladek is persistent and intelligent – a natural survivor. He’s also a complicated character, but we’ll return to that shortly.

The beauty of “Maus” isn’t just about Vladek’s amazing journey, but the relationship he has with his son, Art. The Holocaust story is the backdrop and told in flashback as Vladek narrates his experiences in a very detached manner to his son, who wants to create a graphic novel about the story. The older Vladek is a shell of his younger self, yet in many ways he is the same man. The older version is haunted by the Holocaust, but the scars run so deeply that he unable to face them in any proactive way. He is self-centered, tense, and nervous – a man who frets about the number of wooden matches he has left in his kitchen and stresses out about half-eaten boxes of cereal.

Despite his surviving the death camps, Vladek doesn’t appear to have learned anything about his inner self or human nature in general. He is shallow – racist towards a black hitchhiker, a sexist who degrades and insults his second wife, and a man who pinches every penny. But this personality trait may, in fact, be why he survived and others didn’t.

Vladek lives in the moment and lets the emotions of his life wash away – because he may understand on a subconscious level that these intense emotions might destroy him. His detachment is what helped him navigate through hell.

Not so for Art – who needs the cathartic experience of talking about his family’s history to heal his own wounds of growing up the son of concentration camp survivors (his mother committed suicide in 1968 – probably as a result of the war). This is part of the reason why Art and Vladek have an uneasy relationship. They don’t like each other and they bicker constantly.

And here lies the emotional center of the work. Through the terror of the death camps to the estranged relationship between father and son, we learn that the Holocaust wasn’t just a period of time, but remains a scar on humanity – on the survivors and their children and their children’s children. It’s a blight that won’t go away.

And that’s why “Maus” has become a classic. It offers no real insight or answers – but provides a stark view of Vladek and Art and what can happen to families that have such trauma and grief in their history, yet refuse to confront it head on.

Beyond all reason, the animal portrayals work like magic. Spiegelman goes beyond mice and cats with pigs used to portray Poles, dogs Americans, frogs French, fish the British, Reindeer Swedes and moths Gypsies. The animals humanize a rather inhuman tale. What they represent tells us a lot about the time and the societal mores of this period of history.

The artwork is a perfect companion to the complex narrative. The black and white drawings are done in heavy shadow with thick lines. It’s a masterpiece of setting and mood; and adds to the emotional punch of the writing.

“Maus” should not be missed. If, like me, you missed it the first time around, now – on the year of its 15^th anniversary – is a good time to revisit this graphic novel classic.

Read our commentary on the works of Brett Easton Ellis

Labels: comics, literature, Maus

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“Music & Lyrics” (2007) is the latter. This is bad cinema at its nauseatingly finest. It’s so predictable that at various points in the film you may get the tingling feeling of déjà vu because you’ve seen all of this before. Yet like all other fantastically bad cinema, it’s hard to tear your eyes away from the screen. Even as you watch Grant and Drew Barrymore, the Meg Ryan of her generation, flailing with the poor writing and terrible plot there’s something appealing about watching them both drown.

Be prepared, however, because you’ll be forced to endure a trite, achingly bad romantic comedy overflowing with smug one-dimensional characters that sprout off bad one-liners like, well, like bad movie characters. But that’s the appeal of “Music & Lyrics.” The one-liners are the movie. Grant gets to utter nonsense like: “I like your roof. It's good that its upstairs” and “We could even re-pot the ficus.”

Then there is Drew Barrymore. Poor Drew. She seems to be stuck in romantic comedy hell. In the last few years, she’s fallen in cinematic love with the likes of Jimmy Fallon, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, and Eric Bana. None of those couplings, however, are as stained to watch as “Music & Lyrics.” Generally, Barrymore is a natural in romances, but in “Music & Lyrics” her character comes across as emotionally unstable – not quirky.

Here’s the premise. Grant plays a washed up eighties pop star named Alex Fletcher (the forgotten half of a duo called Pop!). The best part of the movie is the MTV video of Pop’s hit single “Pop Goes My Heart.” Unfortunately, this hilarious parody takes place during the opening credits. It’s all downhill from there.

After spending the first 10 minutes establishing Grant as an affable, but self-centered has-been, we’re introduced to the fragile, emotionally scarred, yet talented writer Sofie Fisher. At any point in the film, it wouldn’t be surprising if Barrymore took razor blades to her wrists.

They meet when – get this – she comes to Grant’s apartment as his replacement “plant lady.” Her job: to water the plants. Barrymore plunges into the apartment as a nattering nub of neuroses. After lobbing one-liners and ridiculous asides at each other, she pricks her finger on a cactus. Panicking when she learns that he doesn’t have a first aid kit, she flees to the emergency room to get it treated. Oh, the hilarity!

They meet again, of course. She returns while Grant is trying to pen a new hit pop song for a mega-pop diva who happened to love him when she was 7-years-old. The problem: Grant hasn’t written new material in more than 10 years and has only – gulp! – three days to write a song for her new album.

Grant’s new lyrist is dark, bitter, and cynical (better suited, perhaps, for writing material for Rage Against the Machine). So while Barrymore waters the plants, she naturally begins to snap out punchy lyrics and suddenly Grant has got to work with her. She’s a natural!

Much hijinx follows – none it very memorable, lots of it painful. There’s a sub-plot about Barrymore and her former love affair with an English professor who used her as a model for his bestselling novel. Other than a wasted performance by the usually fantastic Campbell Scott, the sub-plot borders on the preposterous. I won’t bore you with the restaurant fight between Grant and Scott, where Grant shouts: “My face is in the butter!”

But here’s where we get to the fantastically awful part of the movie. Grant and Barrymore have written the song, fallen in love, and hit the deadline within the first hour of the movie. There’s nothing left to do – but the filmmakers need another 40 minutes. So they devise a bizarre sub-plot about selling out and artistic integrity.

It is truly painful to watch.

The pop diva (played by Haley Bennett) wants to change the song and Barrymore won’t have it. Grant, of course, could careless – just as long as he’s paid. Can the couple – partners for all of 96 hours – endure the artistic impasse? Can audience digest this improbable plot twist? Will there be more one-liners like: “You seem angry - click your pen!”

The answer is: yes, no, and yes.

“Music & Lyrics” ends up celebrating Grant’s final redemption – for not selling out. But the beauty is that he only does it to win back Barrymore. So, in fact, he sells out his sell-out personality to get what he wants.

Simply beautiful and hideous at the same time – kind of like “Music & Lyrics.”

Labels: Bad-Cinema, Movies, Music-Lyrics

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY 55-word Fiction Contest

The judging has begun so please stay tuned to learn about the three winners. We will be announcing the winners the week of June 18th. Winners will be notified shortly.

There will be three prizes:

• The Grand Prize (first place)
• First Runner-Up (second place)
• Second Runner-Up (third place)

All three winners will be published at the DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW with mega-kudos.

If you have questions, please feel free to write us at: darkpartyreview@gmail.com.

Good luck to all who entered.

Labels: Contest, Writing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

An Interview With Kevin C. Fitzpatrick, Founder Dorothy Parker Society

DaRK PaRTY: How would you describe the life and works of Dorothy Parker to someone who knows nothing about her?

Kevin: Dorothy Parker’s life was centered in two places: New York and Hollywood. In both cities she was there for time periods that were arguably the most exciting of the 20^th Century: Roaring Twenties New York and the Golden Age of motion pictures. Parker started out at the bottom rung in magazines, and propelled herself into becoming one of the most popular writers of her era. She was not only friends with Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, Parker was their peer. Parker’s career began with her light verse and short fiction, but she really wrote every kind of piece there is: reviews, essays, speeches, plays, and screenplays.

Most know of Parker for her verse and her short stories. Everything she wrote you could fit in your backpack, so she is fairly easy to get a grip on: about 300 poems and around 30 short stories. She never wrote a novel, to her chagrin. Her verse is well-crafted from a technical point of view, but what Parker is known for is her turn of a phrase, such as “Frustration” which she wrote 80 years ago this summer:

If I had a shiny gun
I could have a world of fun
Speeding bullets through the brains
Of the folk who give me pains;

Or had I some poison gas
I could make the moments pass
Bumping off a number of
People whom I do not love.

But I have no lethal weapon --
Thus does Fate our pleasure step on!
So they still are quick and well
Who should be, by rights, in hell.

Her short fiction is extremely easy for newcomers to get into. Parker wrote primarily about everyday people, the kind of characters you’d meet casually or know from school. All her work is centered in the world we know; Parker never wrote about 17^th Century French chateau love triangles. Her stories are set in speakeasies, taxicabs, diners, and sidewalk cafes.

DP: Parker was known for her sharp, caustic wit. Can you give us some examples of your favorite Parker barbs?

Kevin: At one time Dorothy Parker was the most-quoted woman in America. The problem was, half of what was attributed to her, she never really said. But since she was a member of the Algonquin Round Table, her quips and bon mots always made the newspapers.

She was Broadway’s first female drama critic, and a lot of her immortal reviews and comments are centered on the theatre. Of the play The House Beautiful she wrote, “The House Beautiful is the play lousy.” She also reviewed books for The New Yorker. Reviewing a science book, she wrote, “It was written without fear and without research.” Of Lucius Beebe’s Shoot If You Must, Parker said, “This must be a gift book. That is to say, a book which you wouldn’t take on any other terms.”

There are so many good ones; it is hard to narrow it down. But I do like the story of Parker out on a date with a snobby younger man. He put down the antics of one of the other party guests, saying, “I’m afraid I can’t join in the merriment, I can’t bear fools.” To which Parker replied, “But your mother could.”

DP: Next month is the 40th anniversary of Parker's death and your organization is holding "A Journey into Dorothy Parker's New York" on June 4. What exactly was Parker's New York?

Kevin: That is what makes Dorothy Parker timeless. Her New York still exists: cocktail lounges, hotel lobbies, jazz clubs, magazine offices, crowded subway cars, long taxicab rides at night. Almost all the places she lived 40, 60, 80 years ago are still standing. You don’t have to go too far in Manhattan to find the milieu that she lived in. However, since the mayor’s smoking ban, the cigarette smoke has been removed from the picture.

If you read one of her Broadway play reviews, the theater she sat in is probably still in business. Or a short story that is set in Grand Central Terminal or on West End Avenue. Readers can go to these places, 80 years after the story was written, and the scene is relatively the same.

DP: Parker attempted suicide on three occasions, yet lived to the age of 74. What demons do you think she was battling?

Kevin: All those attempts ended when she met her second husband, Alan Campbell, when she was 38. She was very unhappy in her thirties. Today, someone suffering such as she did would seek professional help or be prescribed drugs to combat depression. Instead she self-medicated with alcohol. I think she had a very unhappy childhood, which stretched to young adulthood. Her mother died when she was a child; I believe she was genuinely lonely. I know a lot of creative people that for whatever reason, they may be the life the party and have lots of friends and acquaintances, but suffer from depression.

DP: Is Parker still an important literary figure in 2007? If so, why?

Kevin: The fact is Dorothy Parker has never gone out of print. Work that she created before World War I is still on bookshelves. There are not that many American writers, male or female, who are in that company; certainly not a writer such as Parker, who had a limited output.

I’ve often said that the reason Dorothy Parker is still read today, and remains popular while others of her era have been forgotten, is because she wrote about the human condition. Getting your heart smashed into a million pieces feels the same in 2007 as it did in 1927. Parker wrote about bad boyfriends and lousy bosses, topics readers could identify with today. She chose as subject matter wives, dogs, gin, and getting old. Her work carries into the 21^st Century so easily; new readers just scoop Parker up. One of the most telling moments, for me, of how Parker attracts new fans was when I attended an adaptation of her work a couple years ago. The young actors didn’t change any of her words, and they performed her pieces in regular street clothes, not dressed as flappers and gangsters. I vividly remember watching a girl perform Parker’s short story “A Telephone Call" -- using a cell phone. It showed me that Dorothy Parker is going to be with us for a long, long time.

Read our 5 Questions About: Charles Dickens

Read our 5 Questions About interview with Novelist Laurie Foos

Labels: 5 Questions, Dorothy Parker, interview, Kevin Fitzpatrick

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Yeah, I know.

That all changed in an underground record store in Burlington, Vermont, in 1983. I was a college freshman and browsing through the racks when I came upon R.E.M.’s “Murmur.” I vaguely recalled a Rolling Stone article naming it the best album of the year. The cover was peculiar – a moss-covered and vine-laden railroad trestle.

This was… different.

I must have been feeling daring because I bought it. Back in my dormitory room, I unwrapped the cellophane and put the album on my record player (yes, a record player – this was long before CDs and digital music). Coincidentally, I think I was wearing a Van Halen concert t-shirt.

I music quietly, but with authority, blew me away. Here was an intensely personal form of music filled with mystery, depth, and ambiance. It avoided the rush and crush of hard rock; preferring depth and style instead. Michael Stipes’ haunting lyrics cascaded along with the bluesy, yet pop-infused guitars of Peter Buck. There was richness here: an artistic sensibility – mixed with a rattling guitar that echoed the early rock music of the sixties.

The album opened musical doors for me. From R.E.M., I learned that music could be much more complex that guitar solos and lyrics about hot women and cold beer. The album was perfectly named. Stipes’ enigmatic lyrics were “murmured” rather than sung and his words drifted into the music from a faraway place (there were stories that Stipe, intensely shy, would sometimes sing with his back to the audience). It gave the music a soulful sensibility.

The lyrics were cryptic and filled with hidden meanings and symbolism. So much so that the songs became intensely personal to each listener – who often had widely diverging takes on the meanings of the Stipes words. Take this snippet from “Pilgrimage”:

“Speakin' in tongues, it's worth a broken lip
Your hate clipped and distant, your luck
Rest assured this will not last, take a turn for the worst
Your hate clipped and distant, your luck two-headed
The pilgrimage has gained momentum
Take a turn, take a turn
Take our fortune, take our fortune”

If you can translate those lyrics – then please get thee to a poetry seminar on e.e. cummings. But the lyrics and music hooked me and R.E.M. became one of my favorite bands through the 1980s and into the 1990s. The band was a driving force in the alternative sound and heavily influenced many bands of the time.

DaRK PaRTY gives you the 12 best R.E.M. songs you may not have heard of:

Wolves, Lower
Album: Chronic Town (EP)
Year: 1981
Why It Rocks: This is classic R.E.M. – a song that sets the tone for the band’s unique, contrasting sound – the jangling guitar, the haunting distant vocals (with bizarre nonsensical lyrics) and the heavy drum and base line. “Wolves, Lower” has a pop urgency with the sensibilities of a lyric poem.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “Wilder lower wolves. Here's a house to put wolves out the door.”

Perfect Circle
Album: Murmur
Year: 1983
Why It Rocks: “Perfect Circle” feels like a love song – it has the gentle intensity of romance pervading it, but, of course, it’s not (R.E.M. generally shunned love songs). But it is as close as it gets for R.E.M. and the guitar work by Buck is magical and moody.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “Pull your dress on and stay real close/ Who might leave you where I left off?”

7 Chinese Bros.
Album: Reckoning
Year: 1984
Why It Rocks: One of the most underrated R.E.M. songs. This is a fable, a fairy tale of a song. The upbeat tempo seems to defy the intense, dark lyrics. “7 Chinese Bros.” really showcases Stipes singing and his ability to use his voice as an instrument.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “Seven Chinese brothers swallowing the ocean/ Seven thousand years to sleep away the pain”

Pretty Persuasion
Album: Reckoning
Year: 1984
Why It Rocks: Another R.E.M. song that sounds like it could be a love song – but it’s about our consumer driven society. “Pretty Persuasion” is another classic R.E.M. song – with all the classic elements clanking together into a smooth pop number.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “He's got a pretty persuasion/ She's got pretty persuasion/ God damn, pure confusion”

Driver 8
Album: Fables of the Reconstruction
Year: 1985
Why It Rocks: It’s a song about trains – and it’s a hard driving, blues-infused rocking number. One of R.E.M.’s best – hands down. “Driver 8” is infectious and hard to listen to only once.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “And the train conductor says/ "Take a break Driver 8, Driver 8 take a break”

Cuyahoga
Album: Lifes Rich Pageant
Year: 1986
Why It Rocks: “Cuyahoga” has a country twang to it, but with an infusion of the R.E.M. sound that makes it lift off. It’s another tune where Stipes voice seems to be one of the instruments.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “This is where we walked, this is where we swam/
Take a picture here, take a souvenir”

Disturbance at the Heron House
Album: Document
Year: 1987
Why It Rocks: This song could have been the theme song for the movie “12 Monkeys.” It’s got an end of the world, we’re all doomed and going to die message – but the music has bop to it. In other words – dance while you die!
Cool Lyric Snippet: "The followers of chaos out of control/ They're numbering the monkeys /The monkeys and the monkeys"

World Leader Pretend
Album: Green
Year: 1988
Why It Rocks: A fantasy about being the leader of the world. The lyrics are nuts, but more straight forward than most of Stipes cryptic efforts, but the pretentiousness isn’t enough to knock this one down. The hard pumping feel to the music makes it work.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “This is my mistake. Let me make it good/ I raised the wall, and I will be the one to knock it down”

Texarcana
Album: Out of Time
Year: 1991
Why It Rocks: After a three year hiatus from making music, R.E.M. returned with one of their best and most popular albums in “Out of Time.” Stipes’ reflective and personal lyrics are accompanied by the upbeat R.E.M. jangle to create another underrated classic.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “20,000 miles to an oasis/ 20,000 years will I burn/ 20,000 chances I wasted/ Waiting for the moment to turn”

Me In Honey
Album: Out of Time
Year: 1991
Why It Rocks: The title is dirty, but the song isn’t. In fact, it may be one of the few R.E.M. love songs. Maybe. Not quite sure. But let’s just say it is.
Cool Lyric Snippet: “I sat there looking ugly /Looking ugly and mean”

Ignoreland
Album: Automatic for the People
Year: 1992
Why It Rocks: An angry protest song, which was unusual for R.E.M. No one would ever accuse the band of being happy and shiny (ahem), but angry? Nah. Yet, the song works and may be one of the hardest rocking R.E.M. songs.
Cool Lyric Snippet: "These bastards stole their power from the victims of the Us v. Them years/ Wrecking all things virtuous and true.”

I Don’t Sleep, I Dream
Album: Monster
Year: 1994
Why It Rocks: A haunting ballad about dreams and sleep that feels like a mystical journey. Another song where Stipes voice shines.
Cool Lyric Snippet: "You looking to dig my dreams/ Be prepared for anything"

Listen to an iMix of our "Beautiful Obscure" songs at iTunes

Read our article about 18 Bands That Should Go Away -- Forever

Read our interview with Billy Conway, the drummer of Morphine and Treat Her Right

Labels: Music, R.E.M.

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Dear Tiffany:

First, I want to apologize for saying you dress like a prostitute. It was a lame attempt at humor. I had a long, informative meeting with our human resources director and she correctly educated me about the fashion sense of young people. So I now understand that your hip-hugging jeans that show off your cranberry thong and your tight, belly shirt that reveals the butterfly tattoo on your lower back is just a generational interpretation of casual Friday. Does it really matter that the hookers around Fort Dix dressed the same way 20 years ago? Our human resources director tells me no.

But you know me! As our human resource director explained: I’m always using humor to shield my own “insecurities” – whatever that psycho babble means. Unfortunately, some of my jokes fall flat. By flat, I mean, lackluster, not you know, any reference to your breasts. I mean you aren’t flat at all, quite the opposite, in fact. Not that I would ever notice the ample size of your surgically enhanced breasts even though you wear your shirt unbuttoned down to your navel most days. Not that there’s anything wrong with that either. Our human resources director told me that black, lace bras are considered a crucial fashion accessory these days, even if they appear to be two sizes too small. Hey, I’m just a 50 year old department head. What do I know about fashion?

Second, I want to also apologize for saying you were an “unintelligent feces” or something to that effect. I realize that you are a recent graduate of Mount Ida Community College – even though some people – not our human resources director – might argue that a two-year degree from a second-rate community college shouldn’t really count as having a “college” degree. But that is beside the point. Any responsible manager should not insult a subordinate even if said subordinate deleted a crucial client presentation an hour before the client meeting. Not even if said subordinate was only supposed to make color copies of the presentation – a simple task, especially for a “college” graduate. All you had to do was hit one lousy button, but maybe you couldn’t see with all that dyed black hair in your eyes.

I will, no doubt, have to try and make up for the colossal waste of time and money to the client, who flew in from Pittsburgh for the meeting. Does it really matter that I will have to write the presentation from scratch and that this endangers a $1 million account? Not according to the policies we have in place – which was read to me by our human resources director. A responsible manager shouldn’t erupt into a rage and insult the fashion sense and intelligence of a new junior member of our corporate family.

As our human resource director kindly reminded me: we are trying to foster a safe and friendly work environment here. A place where people can dress like sluts and act like fucking retards. So, even despite my outburst, you should fit in nicely around here.

Sincerely,
Chuck

-------------------------------------------

To: Chuck McCutcheon
From: Tiffany Gosselin
CC: Human Resources Department
Subject: RE: A Sincere Apology

whatever… and dream on…my melons r 100% natrual...

--------------------------------------------

To: Chuck McCutcheon
From: Human Resources Department
CC: Tiffany Gosselin
Subject: RE: RE: A Sincere Apology

Chuck, please come to my office immediately.

Betty Grables
Human Resources Director

Labels: Corporate, Parody

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“Is Poe even a good writer?”

Is there a more polarizing figure in American literature than Edgar Allan Poe? He is either despised (Mark Twain dismissed him) or beloved (George Bernard Shaw was a fan).

His defenders point to his originality – his voice – his imaginative force that created new genres of literature such as detective fiction and science fiction. He greatly influenced horror and gothic fiction and tales of the grotesque.

But his critics can rightly point to his dense, wooden prose – and his almost laughable, emotive poetry. There is ample evidence that Poe is a hackneyed writer. Take this passage from his short story “The Black Cat” (1845):

“From my infancy I was noted for the docility and humanity of my disposition. My tenderness of heart was even so conspicuous as to make me the jest of my companions. I was especially fond of animals, and was indulged by my parents with a great variety of pets. With these I spent most of my time, and never was so happy as when feeding and caressing them. This peculiarity of character grew with my growth, and, in my manhood, I derived from it one of my principal sources of pleasure. To those who have cherished an affection for a faithful and sagacious dog, I need hardly be at the trouble of explaining the nature or the intensity of the gratification thus derivable. There is something in the unselfish and self-sacrificing love of a brute, which goes directly to the heart of him who has had frequent occasion to test the paltry friendship and gossamer fidelity of mere Man.”

It’s difficult to plow through paragraphs like this. Poe is like a writer obsessed with his thesaurus. He always seems to choose the next best word for his purposes. Thus he uses “humanity” rather than “kindness” to describe the narrator’s disposition. He oddly selects the word “sagacious” (which means acutely insightful and wise) to describe a dog and pushes the envelope by using “gossamer” to modify fidelity. Is he trying to convey a “wispy” fidelity?

Poe has an unhealthy fondness for adjectives. Why use one when two or even three can do the trick? That’s why he uses “unselfish” and “self-sacrificing” to modify love – both adjectives having nearly identical meanings. It’s like saying a character is “mean” and “cruel.”

And don’t get me started on the phrase “This peculiarity of character grew with my growth.” And can Poe please elaborate on what is so peculiar about a man liking pets?

“The Black Cat” isn’t the exception – it’s the rule. Poe could write brazenly bad prose. His stories are filled with clunky construction, impassive language, and labored metaphors and imagery. In his collection of poetry called “The Best Poems of the English Language,” literary critic Harold Bloom writes: “Poe is a bad poet, a poor critic, and a dreadful prose stylist in his celebrated tales. Poe is also inescapable.”

And that’s why Poe is so polarizing. He is both bad writer and genius at the same time – which is why no conversation about American literature can avoid him. Poe is larger than life – a writer that transcends his meager talents and vaults into legend. Few American writers can claim this mantle (although Hemingway, a far superior writer, may come the closest).

I fall victim to the mythology of Poe every time. I want to love him – in fact, I often think I do love Poe, but not when I’m reading him.

What I’m intoxicated by is this legend. His personal story is enough of a hook: His descent into madness, his battles with alcohol and drugs, his wife's tuberculosis, his bizarre marriage to his teenage cousin, his bankruptcy and poverty, and, of course, the mystery of his death at age 40 (the day before he died in 1849, Poe was found wandering the streets of Baltimore in a delirious state and wearing clothes belonging to someone else).

When I do pick up his work (and I own at least two collections of his stories and several poetry anthologies that include his work), I struggle with it. Poe’s style is agonizing and you wish you could dive into stories like “The Fall of the House of Usher” (1839) or “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” (1841), but you can’t. The language prohibits you from fully entering Poe’s world and instead you wish you could start marking them up with an editor’s red pencil.

But while I can criticize Poe for his writing, the real reason that he’s “inescapable” has less to do with language and everything to do with imagination. This rich imagination what Poet T.S. Eliot meant when he said: “That Poe had a powerful intellect is undeniable: but it seems to me the intellect of a highly gifted person before puberty.”

In other words Poe’s mind – his glorious vision – is genius, but his maturity as a writer leaves much to be desired.

There is little doubt of Poe’s Herculean stamp on literature. He did invent the detective story. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, cited Poe as one of his influences and made this incredible statement: “Where was the detective story until Poe breathed the breath of life into it?”

Poe’s tales of the macabre still resonate today. His story “The Masque of the Red Death” (1850) was the grandfather of Stephen King’s “The Stand” and Albert Camus’ “The Plague.” His character Luchresi in “The Cask of the Amontillado” (1846) was the seed of serial killer fiction and the great-great-grandfather of Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Lector.

He was innovative in science fiction with his only novel “The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket” (1838). The novel influenced Jules Verne and H.P. Lovecraft. Poe also inspired an entire generation of French writers; including Paul Valery and Marcel Proust.

Poe – dark, brooding, troubled Poe – wasn’t a good writer. But he did possess one of the most limitless and breathtakingly original imaginations in literature.

Labels: Edgar Allan Poe, literature

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: Let's get this over with first. What did you think of the new "Superman Returns" movie?

Justin: Yeah, so I loved it. I know there are a lot of mixed opinions out there, and sometimes when you run a community site like Blue Tights and have to see a lot of it, you can lose a bit of faith. I've come close a couple times to that, just because I have to read all these really negative people.

But then I go and put the DVD in and re-watch it and think: "Damn, I really DO love this movie." I mean, I loved all the themes in it. DC's universe has ALWAYS had strong legacies. They are epics in the truest sense of the word, and usually have tons of father/son dynamics. While doing what “Superman Returns” did wasn't necessarily what some fans wanted for a first film back, I thought that it all just worked for the character, introduced some brave new dynamics, and upheld a strong DC (and Superman) tradition and theme.

I'm really anxious to see where they take it from here. I spoke to one of the writers after seeing it for the first time and I just said: "You know you've painted yourself into a corner, right?" To paraphrase him, he basically said that they were all very aware of the decisions they made, and are going to be very careful to keep the series about SUPERMAN, and not let it become something like “The Incredibles” or “Son of Superman.”

I mean, think about the implications now: we get to see Superman grow up with mortal parents from Jor-El's point of view... sort of. I love it. And that's the SHORT answer! I wrote a nine-page review of the film over at the site if you have an afternoon to kill and absolutely have to know more.

DP: Superman has become a cultural icon. There are few people who don't know something about the Man of Steel. What is it about Superman that captures people's imaginations?

Justin: I think that Superman represents the ultimate in altruistic heroism. Guys like Batman and Spiderman - you can make the argument that they're heroes because they feel guilty over losing loved ones.

Not Superman. He lost his entire PLANET, but that's not WHY he's a hero. He does what's right BECAUSE it's the right thing to do. How can reading or watching that NOT make a person feel good? He does what's right, asks for nothing in return, and derives satisfaction from the act of doing it. I think everyone wants to be more like him.

Additionally, his longevity is largely supported by his ability to adjust with time. At the core it remains a story about some of the most basic and romantic human values, and from that, creators are allowed to explore so many relevant facets of human nature. The character has seen a lot of things come and go. Some stick, some don't, some are only explored in else-worlds, but they all have the chance to be explored. While it may seem easy at first, it's actually kind of hard to say that there is an absolute, definitive Superman, and I love that.

DP: Give us your own personal history with Superman. What has made you such a huge fan?

Justin: Honestly, I used to be more of a Batman guy (though there are photos of me in a Superman costume as a young sprite). My buddy Jeremy, who I've known forever, collected all the Death of Superman stuff when we were younger, and I was all into the Knightfall books.

Something about Superman didn't resonate with me at that time. I fell out of comics for a while, and was drawn back in by Ultimate Spiderman (for shame!). I gave that up when Venom came into it and it became impossible to actually FIND the book for reading. I explored around, got pretty heavily back into Batman again, and just started picking up Superman books here and there. I eventually got drawn into the stuff I described above - the MANY stories you could tell with this character.

I mean, Batman can tend to get repetitive, in my opinion. He's always angry. Or WAS until the latest Crisis (bravo DC!). But he sort of became a one-note-fiddle to me for a while, but I could see Superman in all sorts of different stuff. Add to that the old movies, shows, cartoons, “Smallville.” I mean, the last few years especially have been a GREAT time to be a Superman fan.

Add to that my obsession with anything that flies and you've got a match made in heaven. And Hal Jordan's m'boy... shameless Green Lantern plug. I want more Green Lantern/Superman stories.

DP: There are so many extraordinary Superman villains, yet the movies and TV shows continually fall back on Lex Luthor. Give us your three favorite Superman foes (except for Lex) and why you like them.

Justin: "Fall back?!" Ah, damn. Okay, look - I love Superman's rogues, but when you try to look at them from something like a film or TV perspective, they're a bit wacky. But okay, top three... in no particular order:

General Zod. That's right, you heard me. Or read me, whichever. All we've really gotten in the way of Zod was Terence Stamp's portrayal of Zod in “Superman: the Movie” and “Superman II,” as most of the comics stuff has been largely forgettable. While Stamp acted the hell out of that leather-clad role, I want more. I'm very stoked about what (Action Comics writing team) Richard Donner and Geoff Johns are flirting with in the comics right now, and hope that they get a LOT more depth from the character. I think there are a lot of dynamics that can and should be expanded on.

I mean, this guy is a survivor of Superman's dead world. He was an adult, living life on Krypton before it exploded. There's got to be a part of Superman that wants to sit down and talk about home with this guy. It's just too bad this guy was the mortal enemy of Superman's father, and would rather split Superman's skull in two than sit down for tea at the Fortress. Also, think about it - if Zod's trying to take over the Earth, Superman's going to have to put him down, but how do you put down the one other living member of your entire race? How do you knowingly make yourself alone in the all the universe? Someone smarter than me really needs to write that stuff.

Parasite. I think he's under-rated, personally. I think the stuff (Comic writer) Kurt Busiek explored recently was really cool. Basically – stop reading if you don't want minor details - Kal-El was dead, but Parasite had absorbed the last of his "essence." He sort of was, but wasn't Clark Kent. He'd absorbed so much of Clark that he had, in his own head, assumed the identity of Clark, including Clark's great love for Lois. The only problem was that Lois wasn't really having any of it, and still saw him as Parasite.

It was sort of heartbreaking. But the whole thing just showed me that I think Parasite has awesome potential, and could lead to so many great stories about power, corruption of power, assumption of power, loss of power, and on and on. I've always said that Superman's greatest power is in his heart, not his fists, and Parasite gives you opportunities to investigate that idea. Parasite can strip Kal-El of his strength, flight, and heat vision, but can he take away Kal's drive, his willingness to sacrifice everything to protect the innocent?

Come on, that's cool.

Lex Luthor... damn it, you told me I can't use that one. Okay. But seriously, Lex rules. He's a man standing up against a veritable GOD. That takes some big brass ones! People love it when Batman does it, but get all fussy when Lex does it. It's a double standard, I say! Okay, so I can't pick Superman's bravest villain, so who else do I pick?

I'm going to use this slot for Doomsday. He's not by any means the most dynamic villain, or even the best, but frankly, everyone likes to see Superman throw some punches at the end of the day. I'm a HUGE proponent of story, and if you look back at the Death of Superman arc, story got a big fat 0 on the scorecard (seriously, go re-read it. There's nothing there). But in terms of throwing down, Doomsday is your guy. Lex Luthor prefers mind over muscle, and Doomsday is the exact opposite. He's just a living, breathing killing machine in fashionable green pants and boots. Now, I don't want to see the "Death Of" arc become a film or anything, because frankly I think it'd be pretty empty and soul-less in a two-hour feature, but I do want to see a Superman fight at some point, and if it was part of a REALLY good story, I'd like that fight to be against Doomsday (assuming Zod wasn't available that day).

Superman's always fighting disasters, and Doomsday is a big fat grey roaming disaster. I've always wanted to see the Superman/Doomsday fight play out on film in a documentary style, like all the helicopter high-speed freeway chase videos and stuff you see, or the tornado chaser videos that are always on those late-night "XTreme Nature" shows. Personally, I don't know how you make it work, but hey... there's my answer (since I can't use Lex!)

DP: Let's get esoteric for a moment. Is Superman God?

Justin: THE God? No. I don't think so, but I'm not particularly religious. I know that for many who are, he's definitely a Christ symbol. Again, that's awesome that he can be different things for different people. For me, he represents gods in the good old fashioned Greek mythological sense.

DC is all "gods and monsters." He represents a god-like being that lives among us, but suffers from some of our more common human frailties because he was raised by two of the most human people you could ever imagine. It's a really interesting examination, I think. I know a lot of people like to think that he's just one of us with powers, but I think the powers definitely set him very far apart. I definitely feel that he's a god figure, but instead of having the luxury of being disconnected and uncaring like a Zeus or something, he's intimately involved with the human race.

It creates extremely difficult situations for him. I think “Superman Returns” showed that very well. He's a god, and has god-like responsibilities, but he's desperately in love with Lois Lane. There's this deep, deep love between them, but they both know that it has to take a sort of back seat to "Superman" and what that means for the rest of the planet. It's got to be SO hard. I'm rambling now, I think.

Labels: 5 Questions, comics, interview, Justin K, superheroes, Superman

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

“I am not a number. I am a free man.”

There are sparrows, and there are canaries
But any bird can have its wings clipped, and
Any bird can fall

Define your humanity. Leave out race, gender, age, orientation, belief, title, citizenship, economic status, the colour of your hair…
Are you in, or are you out?

It’s educational
A to Z. Auschwitz to Alcatraz.
Places to examine, imagine, even be overwhelmed, overcome
But an outsider can never really understand
You can go home again
You can walk away

Some things will always be beyond our grasp
Like the names of all who died in those camps
We turn it into museum and monument
Lest we forget

A prison can become a tourist attraction
Small comfort to more than two million people in America today
But interesting, curious, something to think on
For those with the luxury of contemplation

Freedom is abstract… like love, peace, happiness
Prison is concrete…
Concrete and steel bars and the slow leak of lost hope
Yet, infinity defines them both
What comes after
What’s inside

Released to a new life sentence of uncertain prospects
Freedom is only as big as the cage built around your heart

Read Rebbecca's poem "The Internet Is For Porn"

Labels: Freedom, Poem, Rebecca Traquair

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

The gay-loving commie American haters in Hollywood have gone too far.

Again.

It’s bad enough that they hid the fact that Rock Hudson was a fairy and that they have created an entire litany of false gods with corrupt anti-Christian movies like “Superman Returns” and “Spiderman 3.” The glorification of superheroes in our society is a usurpation of the Lord Jesus Christ and an assault on Christians. That’s why responsible Christian parents should ban comic books and superhero movies -- period.

But I digress.

The new assault on Christian sensibilities has begun. Let me introduce you to one of the most filthy, sleazy, sexually stimulating pieces of sludge ever produced in Hollywood – it’s a movie called “Zoo.”

This movie is pornography in the worst degree. It’s about a community of people who pay to have sex with horses. Let me say that again. It’s a movie about people who have intercourse with animals; as in bestiality. I’m not making this up people. It’s about a man – I warn you to stop reading if you’re faint of heart – who dies after his colon bursts while having sex with a horse!

This movie is the Kentucky Derby of corruption!

The Hollywood company that made this garage describes it this way: “Zoo is an extraordinary glimpse into the life of a seemingly normal Seattle family man whose secret sexual appetites lead to his shocking death… This expressionistic rendering of how apparently upstanding citizens banded together and videotaped their journey into the most taboo realms of behavior, reveals the enormous gulf between what we appear to be and who we really are.”

They should pay that copywriter more money! I don’t even know what “expressionistic” means, but I do know that this movie should be doused in gasoline and set on fire before ever being allowed to be shown on a movie screen. Just thinking about this movie makes me want to puke up my corndogs and then rush into my chapel and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yuck!

But this is what happens when society starts down the slippery slope of allowing sexual deviations to become mainstream. I warned in a column back in July that legalizing same-sex marriages would embolden the sexual deviants in our society to try and normalize grotesque behaviors like incest, coprophilia, bigamy, acomophilia, and bestiality (even the word makes me sweat!).

Now comes “Zoo,” a movie that wants to put a human face on a behavior so abhorrent and evil that it makes movies like “X-Men” and “Daredevil” seem innocent in comparison. This is why Christians need to fight against the homosexual agenda with every last fiber of their existence!

If we legalize gay marriage it is only a matter of time before we’ll be introduced to Bill and his wife, the chicken, at a dinner party; or we’ll be dining at our favorite Applebees across from Susan and her husband, the Saint Bernard. Where will the madness end? The answer, of course, is in the deepest pits of hell – if we don’t stop pushing sexual deviants into the mainstream.

It’s not normal for men to mate with animals – just like it is not normal for men to mate with men – even if that man is freshly tanned, has a rippling washboard stomach, and biceps like canon balls. In fact, it’s disgusting and perverted! The Holy Bible speaks plainly about it and having sex with anyone is just plain wrong – unless you are sexual opposites and are married.

I agree with the Traditional Values Coalition which said about “Zoo”: “The film will undoubtedly be used to normalize bestiality as simply another sexual orientation that must be affirmed as a variation of human sexuality.” And how!

(The Rev. Colson Crosslick is pastor of the Pretty Good Shepherd Church in Ripsaw, Arkansas. In the past, he has called for a boycott of all Spiderman, Batman, and Superman movies. He also writes the regularly appearing column Under God’s Right Arm for DaRK PaRTY.)

Labels: Homosexuality, Under God's Right Arm

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

All you really need to know about the movie “Fight Club” (1999) is that the nameless narrator, played by Edward Norton, has a penguin as his “power” animal.

That’s when you understand that you’re in uncharted territory.

“Fight Club” (1999) nears movie making perfection until the last 15 minutes when it veers off course and smashes into a brick wall of chaos. For all intents and purposes the last 15 minutes is a parody of the beginning and middle – a Keystone Kops version that features Norton scrambling around in his boxer shorts like some deranged circus clown.

It’s ludicrous.

But until that breaking point – the turning point happens when Meat Loaf is shot and the members of Project Mayhem begin to chant “His name is Robert Paulson” – the movie is a gritty, subversive portrayal of a disenchanted yuppie’s descent into madness. Or it might be about the cultural castration of the modern male. Or it could be about the seductive attraction of fascism in a valueless society. Or perhaps it’s a satire about our advertising-driven and consumer-mad culture.

Then again it might not be about anything.

“I love this idea that you can have fascism without offering any direction or solution. Isn't the point of fascism to say, 'This is the way we should be going'? But this movie couldn't be further from offering any kind of solution,” Director David Fincher told Empire magazine.

I like to believe it’s about all of the above – but in a skimming the surface kind of way. “Fight Club” is the shallow end of the pool, but in a good way. It’s all wry observation and ironic snipe – offering its audience a black, tangled comedy, but nothing in the way of a philosophy or an answer.

That’s why “Fight Club” gives audiences some of the best throwaway lines of the last two decades:

• “We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra.”
• “It's just, when you buy furniture, you tell yourself, that's it. That's the last sofa I'm gonna need. Whatever else happens, I've got that sofa problem handled.”
• “I had it all. Even the glass dishes with tiny bubbles and imperfections, proof they were crafted by the honest, simple, hard-working indigenous peoples of... wherever.”

“Fight Club” is the rare movie that becomes better after multiple viewings. The reason is that once the surprise ending is revealed – that Norton and Brad Pitt are actually the same person – you can watch the movie over and over again searching for the telltale clues of the madness Norton is experiencing. It’s a dizzying experience (especially if you watch it on DVD). Flincher carefully constructs the narrative to drop subtle clues to Norton’s condition:

• The movie opens with an animated sequence through brain synapses and the narrator saying: “People are always asking me if I know Tyler Durden.” They’re asking him because he is Tyler.
• When describing the bombs rigged to blow up the financial center in downtown New York, the narrator says: “I know this because Tyler know this.” They share the same brain.
• In the DVD, we begin to see flickers of Tyler Durden – just flashes of Pitt decked out in red leather jacket and sunglasses, wearing a wicked grin. It’s the narrator’s mind beginning to form his delusion.
• The first time Tyler becomes a “real” person is in an airport sequence when the narrator passes him on one of the people movers. Tyler is wearing a white suit and a bright yellow shirt. Such an innocent scene – yet mind blowing at the same time.
• In the scene in his boss’s office, when the narrator beats himself up, he thinks: “For some reason, I thought of my first fight with Tyler.” In fact, his first fight with “Tyler” was his first fight with himself.

Strangely enough, the center of "Fight Club" is Helena Bonham Carter as Marla Singer. On the surface the movie is about the relationship between Norton and Pitt, but it's Carter's character that is the catalyst for the action. One can argue that Marla Singer is the model that Tyler Durden is created from.

The similarities are striking.

Both Marla and Tyler live on the outskirts of society. They are counter-culture and have rebelled against the mainstream. The first time the narrator meets Marla, she steals clothes from a Laundromat and sells them at second-hand store. The first time Tyler materializes into a “physical form” at the airport, he steals a sports car.

Marla is Tyler – or at least the masculine version of her.

There’s no doubt that “Fight Club” struck a nerve and has become a bona fide cult hit. And for the first hour and 48 minutes the movie cuts to the bone with its wit, humor and scathing social commentary. It’s that last 15 minutes though that comes close to nearly blowing the whole spectacle up: kind of like Tyler Durden himself.

Read "Fantastically Bad Cinema: Cocktail"

Read our picks for the 12 best romantic movies

Labels: Fight-Club, Movie Review, Movies, Ode To

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

DaRK PaRTY: Why do you think Elvis has become a cultural icon?

Nigel: Quite simply, Elvis arrived at a crossroads in the development of the 20th century. It was a time of post-war uncertainty and rising affluence infused with a teenage generation looking for something to call its own. As history shows, Elvis was the key to opening both youth culture and changing popular music in the 20^th century.

And those changes were historically massive.

That is why, 30 years after his death, he has not only musical, but also socio-cultural resonance. Elvis was the most important or seminal figure in those momentous changes and that is why people want to imitate him, and people continue to seek memories, solace and fulfillment through him.

Two of my favorite quotes about Elvis hit the mark about his impact on the world:

Leonard Bernstein: “Elvis Presley is the greatest cultural force in the 20th century.”

JNP on a BBC website: “There were rock 'n' roll records before “Heartbreak Hotel,” but this was the one that didn't just open the door… it literally blasted the door off its rusted, rotten, anachronistic hinges... producing, no propelling, a fundamental, primordial and unstoppable shift in not only musical, but social, political and cultural history.”

DP: What is the biggest misconception about the King?

Nigel: There are two which rankle!

That Elvis was racist is a myth started in the 1950s with unsubstantiated claims he had made an unsavory remark about black Americans. In reality Elvis enjoyed friendships with many black Americans, incorporated them in his touring group, and on various occasions acknowledged his debt to their incredible music. Yet the Elvis and racism myth continues to persist today.

The second misconception about Elvis is one driven by our gossip hungry, sensationalism driven media. Its general bias in focusing on an overweight Elvis high on prescription medications and gorging peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches represents only a small part and time in his life and totally ignores his immense musical and socio-cultural legacy. It is a sad indictment of the unbalanced nature of contemporary media.

DP: What is the weirdest story you have ever heard about Elvis?

Nigel: There are many. Part of having socio-cultural meaning is that strange stories and myths build up around you.

The most way out story, incredibly actually believed by a small number of people, is that Elvis was abducted by aliens to become a real King and rule their planet in some far off galaxy.

One of my favorites though is the (unfounded) idea that Elvis and Bob Dylan did a recording session together.

DP: People forget that the King was also an accomplished actor. What are your three favorite Elvis movies and why?

Nigel: “King Creole” (1958) is regarded by many as Elvis’ best film. It has first rate direction by Oscar winner Michael Curtiz, a great script and cast, a strong bluesy soundtrack, and it radiates New Orleans atmosphere. Along with the King in Jailhouse Rock, “King Creole” represents Elvis at his celluloid best in his younger years.

“Live a Little, Love a Little” (1968): A mature Elvis in an adult plotline. This was Elvis’ only sex comedy (farce) and his flair for light comedy shone through. Bright, breezy and fun. A case of what might have been.

“The Trouble with Girls” (1969): Still largely overlooked today, this movie came in the third or last phase of Elvis’ narrative film career and was another that offered a strong hint of what could have been. Certainly slow-plotted, but with great attention to period detail, strong and eccentric characters, and an adult storyline, “The Trouble with Girls” probably alienated many fans with its contemporary direction by Peter Tewksbury and innovative use of technically impressive camera techniques.

DP: If you could only listen to five Elvis songs for the rest of your life, what songs would you choose and why?

Nigel: “Suspicious Minds” -- Simply a classic pop song which ebbs and flows with emotional heartache, reeling the listener in with each beat of its essence.

“In The Ghetto” -- Arguably Elvis’ most poignant recording. It resonates the hopelessness and angst of ghetto living, and death. As its little known title tag line suggests, it is indeed a “vicious circle,” and one which, along with “If I Can Dream,” shows the lost opportunity for Elvis to offer ongoing social comment through his music.

“I’m Leavin’” -- From 1971, one of Elvis’ most overlooked recordings. A haunting melody, with Elvis artfully evoking the despair of a broken relationship. Sublime!

“Blue Moon” -- Play this one with the lights out. In what is the most unusual and potent recording of the Rodgers-Hart classic, Elvis’ interpretation oozes an atmosphere which transcends what has gone before and commands the listener’s full attention.

“Kiss Me Quick” -- Not a classic recording, but happy, up-tempo mid-60s Elvis which symbolizes a carefree time seemingly oblivious to the seminal socio-political changes about to change it forever. A guilty pleasure!

Read our 5 Questions interview with Billy Conway of Morphine and Treat Her Right

Labels: 5 Questions, Elvis, Nigel Patterson

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Analysis: Frank R. Stockton’s “The Lady, or the Tiger?” always conjures up the Grateful Dead song “Terrapin Station.” In the song, a lady tosses her fan into a lion’s den. She bids a sailor and a soldier to fetch it; promising her eternal love to the one who succeeds. The soldier declines, but the sailor boldly retrieves the fan and the lady leaps into his arms. The song narrator asks the listeners to decide if the sailor made the wise choice.

“The story teller makes no choice. Soon you will not hear his voice.
His job is to shed light, and not to master.
Since the end is never told, we pay the teller off in gold,
In hopes he will return, but he cannot be bought or sold.”

Obviously, the song reflects the short story, which was written in 1882. But the song asks the reader to make the final moral judgment and that’s exactly what Stockton does in his classic tale of a conundrum.

There is one word of dialog in the story: “Which?”

This is the question asked by the suitor to the princess as he stands before the two doors in the arena. It is this question that forms the foundation of Stockton’s fable and ultimately the answer is what he demands of his readers.

On the surface, the story hinges on the princess and her horrible situation (a “Catch-22” before Joseph Heller was even born). She can tell her suitor to pick the door with the tiger and watch him get torn to shreds and devoured or she can picked the door with the lady and watch her true love be wed to one of the women of her court. In either case, she never gets to see him again.

Stockton makes sure to play the story straight down the middle (and he never hinted at the conclusion before he died in 1904). But the reader is told that the daughter is much like her father, the king. “This semi-barbaric king had a daughter as blooming as his most florid fancies, and with a soul as fervent and imperious as his own.”

The princess is acquainted with the lady behind the door – a beauty from her court. We know that the princess is a jealous woman and in the past has “seen, or imagined that she had seen, this fair creature throwing glances of admiration upon the person of her lover, and sometimes she thought these glances were perceived and even returned.” She also “hated the woman who blushed and trembled behind that silent door.”

Yet, she also loves her suitor and the thought of him being mauled by a starving tiger makes her mad with despair. “How often, in her waking hours and in her dreams, had she started in wild horror, and covered her face with her hands, as she thought of her lover opening the door on the other side of which waited the cruel fangs of the tiger!”

Her suitor knows instantly that the princess has discovered the secret of this particular test and that’s when he mutters:

“Which?”

“Her right arm lay on the cushioned parapet before her. She raised her hand, and made a slight, quick movement toward the right. No one but her lover saw her. Every eye but his was fixed on the man in the arena. He turned, and, with a firm and rapid step he walked across the empty space. Every heart stopped beating, every breath was held, every eye was fixed immovably upon that man. Without the slightest hesitation, he went to the door on the right, and opened it.”

But the reader never learns the answer. Instead, Stockton turns outward and addresses the reader. He wants us to make the decision. The decision then is about us; about whom we are behind the façade of our public selves – because every reader of “The lady, or the Tiger?” instantly gets a visual of their own personalized ending. You either see the tiger leap forth or the shy lady standing there (perhaps hiding her blush behind a fan).

Are we cynic or optimist? Are we glass half full or glass half empty? Are we romantics or melancholy pessimists? Do we believe human beings are inherently good or evil?

This is why the short story has become a staple in high school literature classes. The answer is at once intimate and a telling gauge of our own public perspective. It can open up lively classroom discussions and reveal the power of the written word. But the real magic of Stockton’s story is its ability to tell us something about ourselves.

And that’s why I see the trusting lad opening the door and…

Well, let me turn to the Grateful Dead for my answer: “A door within the fire creaks; suddenly flies open, and a girl is standing there.”

Labels: Frank Stockton, literary criticism, literature

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Mitt Romney might not get the Republican nomination for president because of his track record of flip-flopping, but one item on his resume does need further exploration by the mainstream press.

And that’s his religion.

Romney is a Mormon – or more properly a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Mormons, even by the standards set by some of the more fringe evangelical Christian dominations, hold some tenets that can be described politely as outside the mainstream and not so politely as bizarre. But beliefs aside, the LDS Church also has a history of suspect treatment of women and minorities.

First, let’s explore some of the tenets of Mormon religion (of which the LDS Church is the largest denomination). In the past, Mormonism has been referred to as a cult, which may be unfair for a church of more than 12 million members, but it does bring up a larger, more important question: Are Mormons even Christian?

Mormons worship Jesus Christ as the son of God and refer to themselves as Christians, but there are compelling arguments coming from many different quarters that Mormons are not Christians.

According to Today’s Christian magazine:

“The Mormons' doctrines of baptism, salvation, and the afterlife place them at odds with centuries of Christian teaching in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.”

Professor Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo, director of research, Center for Religion in Society and Culture, recently wrote on Newsweek's On Faith blog:

"(Mormon Church Founder Joseph) Smith is a prophet with feet of clay. His money-grubbing, womanizing, and conveniently scheduled visions to justify his desires lie at the foundations of Mormonism. His self-destructive behavior would make him more likely be compared to David Koresh or Jim Jones than to Isaiah the prophet or Paul the apostle."

“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior...the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life.”

The differences between traditional Christian doctrine and Mormonism can be striking. For few examples:

• Christians believe in the holy trinity – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The trinity states that God is one being who exists as three different, but intertwined persons. This is a fundamental belief of the Christian doctrine. Yet, Mormons reject it. They believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate entities. Mormons also believe that the Father – like Jesus -- had a physical body. This concept is roundly rejected by mainstream Christian faiths – and would even be called blasphemous by some Christian fundamentalists.

• Mormons believe that God (the Father of the trinity) was once a physical human being – who transformed into a “God” at some point. They also believe that men have the ability to eventually become gods, which means Mormons accept the premise of the existence of multiple Gods. As Brigham Young said: “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods.” The LDS Church has avoided this issue so it is unclear how men eventually transform into gods. But Mormons call the transition “Exaltation.” Traditional Christian doctrine holds that there is a single God who has always existed and who is not a physical entity.

• Christians accept the Bible is the only sacred document and the direct word of God (although different sects do disagree on versions of the Bible). Mormons believe that the Bible is one of four sacred texts that are all the word of God. The others are “The Book of Mormon,” “The Pearl of Great Price” and the “Doctrine and Covenants.” According to Mormons, the Book of Mormon was given to founder Joseph Smith Jr. in 1830 in Palmyra, New York, by the angel Moroni. The book was transcribed on golden plates and Smith translated it to paper before returning the golden plates back to the angel. The Book of Mormon forms the basis of the church’s beliefs.

• Mormons frown on the crucifix as a symbol of Jesus because they say it depicts his death as opposed to his life and resurrection. The Catholic Church and most Christian, however, accept the cross as the ultimate symbol of Jesus’ sacrifice.

These differences are considerable and form the center of why many Christians eye Mormons with suspicion when they refer to themselves as Christians. I’d argue that the Mormon faith breaks away from Christianity significantly enough that calling them Christians isn’t accurate. The religion is certainly an off-shoot of Christianity – they share many traits and moral purpose – but to label Mormons Christian isn’t an accurate descriptor.

But a divergence of doctrine isn’t the only reason why Mormons have taken so long to break into the mainstream. There are the other odd beliefs and practices by Mormons that aren’t helped by the church’s poor track record of relations with women and minorities. Here are some examples:

• Mormons believe the United States was settled by a race of whites known as Jaredites, who created an advanced ancient civilization of more than two million people before they were destroyed. This civilization smelted metal, possessed iron and steel tools and weapons, domesticated animals, were literate and traveled by chariot. There is, of course, no archaeological evidence of this civilization in existence. In fact, most scholars and historians scoff at the very idea of this “hidden” civilization.

• Mormons have struggled with their relationship with African-Americans from the beginning as the church was actively pro-slavery. The church, founded in 1830, banned blacks from the priesthood up until 1978 (when church leaders claimed God told them to stop discriminating on the basis of race). The fact that racial discrimination was so prevalent in the Mormon Church up until 30 years ago deserves considerable scrutiny by the mainstream press – especially since Romney is running for president.

• Although not differing much from most evangelical Christian churches, Mormons believe that homosexuality is a sin.

• Mormons originally advocated polygamy. Under legal pressure from states and the federal government, they issued a Manifesto that banned the practice in 1890. Polygamy, except for some splinter sects of Mormonism, is now widely condemned by the religion, but some of its most prominent historical figures were polygamists. Brigham Young, for example, married 52 women and sired 57 children. As result, women are often seen as second-class citizens among many Mormons and it didn’t help that the church fought against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

• Mormons abstain from consuming coffee, tea and alcohol. They also are forbidden from smoking tobacco. Tattoos and piercings are also frowned on.

Labels: Essay, Mormons

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

Labels: Church, Jess Myers, Poem

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail

So I primarily live an addiction free life. But then there are video games. I’ve got a ghastly jones for video games. Scary stuff. A few years ago, I’d forgo food to play 30 more minutes of “Baldur’s Gate” (Butt kicking for goodness!) When I was in my late twenties, I would frighten my roommates with my inability to just stop playing “The Legend of Zelda.”

It all started with Pong back around 1975. My father – a man not known for a predilection for gaming of any kind – came home from work one day with this bizarre contraption that hooked up to our console TV (which was about the size of a dishwasher).

The game is ridiculously low-tech by today’s standards. It consisted of two paddles and a square ball that you knocked back and forth; scoring a point if you succeeded in getting the ball pass your opponent’s paddle.

Pong was hypnotic and strangely addictive.

So began my descent into video and computer gaming. Please don’t inquire about “Icewind Dale 2” or “Wizardry 8.” Those wounds are still too tender to discuss. But let’s explore the games of the video arcade.

Remember video arcades? It was the 1980s version of an opium den, but located in a mall across from an Orange Julius. They were dim places with bill changer machines that always left you suspicious of technology’s ability to count properly. Boards of Selectmen hated video arcades and mothers would rather have had their children join Hell’s Angels than venture into the local “Fun-a-cade.”

But that’s where any self-respecting teen headed to spend his not-so-hard-earned allowances. Here are the DaRK PaRTY picks for the five most addictive arcade games of the 1980s (old-school):

Galaga

Release Date: 1981

Maker: Namco

Concept: A fixed spacecraft that can only move left or right fires missiles at swarms of insect like aliens. The aliens fly in formation across the screen and then lined up like the aliens in Space Invaders. The bugs then dropped bombs and dived down at the player’s spacecraft. The large aliens could capture the player’s ship and if the player killed it as it dropped, he would be rewarded with a double ship with double the firing power.

Why it Rocked: The speed and fire power were amazing. The best part of the game was the Challenging Rounds – where you couldn’t be killed, but got to test out your accuracy as a shooter. Kill all 40 bugs in the round and you got a big bonus in points.

Big Complaint: Players got addicted to the double shot – and if you only had one ship the game felt slow and clumsy.

Addiction Factor: Alcohol is less addictive.

Joust

Release Date: 1982

Maker: Williams Electronics

Concept: A player is a knight on a flying ostrich. Armed with a lance, he jousts enemy knights who turn into eggs when he slays them. The player then has to touch the eggs to fully destroy the enemy knights. If he doesn’t move fast enough, the player watches helplessly as the egg hatches into a stronger, faster knight. The goal is to clear a screen of four enemy knights. The landscape is cavern like – with five platforms – and a black background. The cool thing about Joust was that two players could play as a team or fight each as well.

Why it Rocked: The two player option made Joust the ultimate arcade game for the bar. Many an argument would erupt when players turned on each other after all the enemy knights were cleared. Joust was a tough game to master, but had an easy control panel and joystick.

Big Complaint: If a player took too long to clear a wave of enemy knights, a pterodactyl appeared and tried to collide with the player. It was nearly impossible to win a round if that damn pterodactyl showed up.

Addiction Factor: Losing only brought you back for more.

Frogger

Release Date: 1981

Maker: Sega/Gremlin

Concept: Believe it or not, but Frogger was about a frog crossing a busy highway and then hopping on the backs of turtles and logs to get across a river. You had to avoid cars and trucks and then alligators, snakes and otters. That’s pretty much it.

Why it Rocked: It defies logic that Frogger was fun – but it was a blast. Really. A freakin’ blast. It also defies logic that Frogger was difficult, but it was surprisingly hard to succeed. It was almost of if the game hypnotized you into a state of cocky assurance and then it would take it all away and leave you a humbled addicted loser.

Big Complaint: Getting bumped off a log by an otter always felt wrong.

Addiction Factor: It was like getting hooked on Marlboro Lights.

Stargate

Release Date: 1981

Maker: Williams Electronics

Concept: Stargate was the follow-up to Defender. The player flew a starcraft along a mountainous, alien terrain. The goal was to protect the humans on the ground from being killed or captured by various enemy ships. The player’s ship was armed with a laser like beam and also a limited number of “smart bombs” and the ability to cloak your ship in invisibility.

Why it Rocked: You were saving humanity! When aliens grabbed the humans you had to gun them down and if the human was too high in the air you had to swoop in and “catch” them on your ship. A very cool move once you got good at it.

Big Complaint: The player’s ship could fly through the landscape without crashing – which always seemed like a flaw in the design. The game was also very difficult for the beginner to master

Addiction Factor: Once you got good – you rarely left the machine.

Ms. Pac-Man

Release Date: 1981

Maker: Midway

Concept: One of the more ridiculous concept’s in arcade gaming history (with the exception of maybe Donkey Kong). A yellow, feminine Pac-Man eats round discs along as maze while multi-colored ghost try to kill her. She has the ability to turn the tables on the ghosts by eating one of four large power pellets that turn the ghosts blue. She then eats them. You score points by eating the discs and eating the ghosts.

Why it Rocked: Ms. Pac-Man pretty much got rid of all the flaws of the original Pac-Man. And it was fast. The game had speed and we all know that speed kills.

Big Complaint: Once you became an addict – the intermissions on how Ms. Pac-Man meets and marries Pac-Man began uber-annoying.

Addiction Factor: Arcade crack.

Labels: Arcade, Games

StumbleUpon

Digg

Technorati

E-mail