Gérard Depardieu to Socialists: “Suck It”

January 3rd, 2013

_64813268_asterixI never thought I’d say this in the same breath, but both Gérard Depardieu and Vladimir Putin have become my personal heroes.  When Socialism comes a-knocking in France, where did the scion of the French Cinema go?  Why, to the Kremlin, of course!

This is just too delicious for words.  Think the rich and successful are dishonest, parasitic leeches on the face of society?  Think it’s their duty to sit still for oppressive taxation and social abuse at the hands of a populist government?  Well, the Russian Federation will take them off your hands for free!  The Wikipedia entry on Depardieu has already been altered to call him a “French-born Russian.”  This is just the greatest thing ever.  Oh, sure, it’s a lot of political posturing that has nothing to do with France or Russia, per se, I know that.  But it’s still pretty funny.  It’s also a great example of non-violent, non-aggressive protest, in the finest tradition of Western Liberalism.

Je pars parce que vous considérez que le succès, la création, le talent, en fait, la différence, doivent être sanctionnés,»  wrote Depardieu in the Journal du Dimanche, “I am leaving because you [the Socialists] consider that success, creativity, talent, in essence, non-conformity itself, should be placed under sanction.”  Amen, brother.

In the United States, it’s a common and tired refrain (mostly among the members of the Left) to say that you’re going to move to another country if so-and-so gets elected.  You have to hand it to a guy who actually followed through.  Not to mention the delectable schadenfreude to be found in the howls of anger among the Socialist intelligentsia, calling him unpatriotic and pathetic for thinking that forking over 85% of his income in 2012 might have been a bit burdensome.  And oh! the mealy-mouthed rhetoric that goes with it, all the co-opted voluntarist terminology about “spreading the wealth,” “sharing,” “giving” the government your money and “social responsibilities.”  Depardieu is simply the most prominent person so far to call this nonsense what it is: theft by violence, plain and simple.  One can only hope more people, both in Europe and the U.S., get the message, and soon.

Спрездом в россию, Товарищ Депардье!

In The Red, In The Black

September 12th, 2012

The past few weeks, up to and including yesterday’s (and today’s) violence in Libya and Egypt, often cause me to fear that we are entering another Dark Age, or, worse, that we may already be in the middle of it.  It is of some comfort that the general public in Libya took a strong stand against the violence there; renewed violence and rabble-rousing in Egypt, however, gives me less cause for hope there, unfortunately.  It makes one wonder if the Romans ever really knew when their Empire was about to fall.

Politics in Europe and the United States have also given me a very sour stomach.  The Republicans’ mealy-mouthed attempts to get elected and refusal to take anything like a strong moral stand on encouraging free trade, reducing taxation, decentralizing government power, or reducing our far-flung, costly, and increasingly lethal military commitments, has been an extreme disappointment to me.  Democrats have done no better, declaring themselves more or less openly to be neo-fascists who are not ashamed to deploy the force of government coercion to force people to do things against their will, without regard to or respect for anything like individual initiative, which they openly mock as an illusion.  It’s all because the government let you do it, you see.  And then there’s Europe, where the Left and the Right take on whole new orders of magnitude, and both ends of the spectrum seem quite content to pull the temple down on their own heads.

Igor Shafarevich, a Soviet mathematician, once described the appeal of Socialism as being a sign of a fundamental Fruedian “death wish” for society on the part of intellectuals.  Milton Friedman, in fact, referred to the paper in which he did so on one occasion – it’s not an easy read, but I think Friedman was right in saying that the theory has a lot more sense to it than you might at first imagine.  In particular, as we now live, apparently, in a time when barbarism and domestic mob violence are once again considered a legitimate means to political ends, when freedom of speech is met with disdain and disrespect, when liberty and individual dignity are so openly dismissed and even vilified by the so-called progressives in society, when the government is so rapidly becoming our master at the very moment when it seemed we were about to triumph over it, I think you’ll agree that there’s a lot of reason to be pessimistic about the future of Western culture.

Milton Friedman, the great champion of classical liberalism and personal freedom, would have been one hundred years old this year, had he lived another half-decade or so.  He, of course, feared greatly any system of political order that depended on the “right sort of people” running the show, because he knew that the great danger is that trying to do good by using violent means inevitably leads to the corruption of all levels of the social structure.  And so I put to you this brief excerpt from one of his most brilliant lectures, one titled “Is Capitalism Humane?”  In this excerpt, Friedman manages in just a few moments to restore my hope that freedom can yet prevail in the midst of all this, and eloquently and simply explains the essential character of a free society, which we are allowing to slip through our fingers day by day.  At the time, he believed that the odds were something around fifty to sixty percent against our managing to rebuild a free and open society.  Today, I’m afraid that number has swayed up closer to eighty or ninety percent against.  But any chance, however slim, is worth taking in the cause of peace, nonviolence, and human freedom.

Happy Birthday, Dr. Friedman.

If you have more time at your disposal, watch the entire lecture, and listen to the boos and hisses when he suggests that people should be free to do what they want, and make their own choices.  He could just as easily be speaking to the Democratic National Convention, or an Occupy Wherever rally.  It is definitely worth it, and I think you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.

Godspeed, Eagle One

August 26th, 2012

Neil Armstrong has died.  Gosh, man, it’s the end of an era.  But then, eras are ending and beginning all the time.  Still, to me, it feels like the First Age of Space Exploration has just finally come to a close.  We still have a lot of the greats with us, of course: Alexei Leonov, John Glenn, Valentina Tereshkova, Buzz Aldrin.  Still, the freaking first man on the moon. You just can’t beat that.

It pretty much blows my mind to think that we did so much, getting to the Moon and all, with what we now consider to be basically analog technology.  It was a really amazing time, even if it was basically an overblown government-run military project to try to leave the Soviet (or the Yank, depending on which side you were on) the with egg on his face.  But it was also a time in which space technology and exploration was seen as being of self-evident value, and Armstrong himself embodied that time and vision.

Nowadays, it’s only kind of that way.  We get little explorer-bots traipsing across Mars, which, cool as they are (yay, cute little American robots!) are just not the same thing.  In the 1960′s, our time was the far-flung future, when we’d have commercial flights to the colonies at Clavius and Cheleyenka, and be sending missions to explore the moons of Jupiter.  Instead, we have a Space Station we barely use, an empty rock for a Moon, and exploration of Mars which is basically a media blitz followed by an unceremonious denouement.

Our best hope now is that commercial space exploration ramps up.  I’m all in favor of it as a matter of principle: the more we can get from space, the less we have to take out of the Earth.  But at the same time, something in me just knows it’ll never be the same.  The sense of purpose is gone, now, the mystery of it.  I’m not opposed to making a buck, but the idea of Americans and Russians sallying forth to conquer the cosmos “because it’s there” will just never be there again.  Not for a long time, anyway.

But then, at the end of the XIX Century, they thought they’d discovered everything, too.  So maybe – hopefully – I’ll be proven wrong. And if I’m lucky, if I reach 100 in 2078,  I’ll be watching the great ascent of Olympus Mons by the multinational team; and when they unfurl the UN flag at the summit, I’ll gladly eat my words.

???

August 2nd, 2012

It seems that words and meaning have finally parted company altogether in our society.  Read this ad I saw on a New York train this morning and try to make sense of it.

“No matter what you want, it’s kind of what Maine gives you that’s unexpected.”  Um, wait, what now?

Yeah, I couldn’t understand it, either.  And it isn’t just silly or a non-sequitur, it’s just total nonsense.  It’s not even coherent English.

*Sigh*

This American Lie

March 25th, 2012

By now, the news cycle, as it does, has very nearly turned full circle on the Mike Daisey incident.  It’s interesting to note that the time required for a thing like this to cycle through the media mill has gone down to about three to five days.  That being the case, of course, I thought it might be interesting to do my own post-mortem on this bizarre and, to me, infuriating event.  To those of you who don’t know what happened, in brief, the facts are these:

Mike Daisey, a monologue actor and writer, wrote a stage piece titled The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, in which he detailed a trip he took through the seamy underbelly of the Chinese supply and manufacturing chain of Apple Computers.  The monologue was picked up by the NPR radio program This American Life, which, after fact-checking the claims Daisey had made, found it suitable for an entire episode of their acclaimed radio program, with excerpts of the stage performance followed by a interview between host Ira Glass and Daisey about the brutal industrial serfdom he witnessed in China at the hands of Foxconn Technologies Group, an Apple supplier based in Taipei, Taiwan, and with factories across Asia, the Pacific, and Latin America.  It was one of This American Life’s most highly-regarded and highly-downloaded broadcasts.

It was also a lie.

In the end, it turned out that many of the claims that Daisey had made were exaggerations or fabrications, many people he claimed to have met were either composites based on news stories or people he’d met at other times, or things people told him they had heard about; at least one is now believed to have been invented entirely by Daisey for dramatic effect.

For This American Life, the whole thing was a titanic journalistic gaffe.  The episode was taken down from their website, and they devoted the entirety of last week’s show (dated 3.16.12) to retracting the episode, debunking Daisey’s claims, interviewing Daisey himself, and rightfully putting him on the spot.  Daisey ultimately came back with a variety of excuses for his misrepresentations and lies.  When asked why he tried to conceal the identity of his translator (in order, he later admitted, to keep her from contradicting his claims) he came back with this timeless gem: “I did think it would unpack the complexities of, of like how, how the story gets told.”  And ultimately, after much qualification using the passive voice, he evaded responsibility for what he’d done by claiming it was theater and not fact, and that he had to take shortcuts “in my passion to be heard.”  In essence, he felt that what he was doing was so important, that in his pursuit of “making people care,” not being truthful, or even treading the line of truthfulness, was okay.

What then, do I have to say about all of this?  Does it outrage me as a believer in objective reality, the immorality of fraud, the need for an acceptance and respect for and duty to the truth?  You bet.  But I’m hardly surprised by this.  It’s just another sign of the times.

The mixing of lies with the truth is hardly new.  In fact, it’s probably as old as mankind.  But its open acceptance in our society, to the extent that it meets with, at a minimum, passivity, and at worst with tacit approval, is something I think is very much a new development, one which goes far beyond the public rage of Yellow Journalism of the turn of the last century.  Our society, in the West, has spent forty years glorifying the “movement” and the “activist,” a cultural slide that has encouraged, simultaneously, a diminution in the faculties of critical thinking and rational debate.  If you’re going to be an activist, in a modern sense, you have to accept that your ends justify your means.  If you’re going to join a movement, in a modern sense, you have to be willing to lay aside your own ideas of right and wrong and go with the flow.  Is it any wonder that there’s so much indifference about this kind of thing?  We’ve been training students in colleges and graduate schools to be indifferent, to accept at face value that lying and bending the truth is okay when it serves an accepted political or social purpose.

What nobody has been paying a huge amount of attention, to, it seems to me, is that when lies are mixed with the truth, the truth is damaged far more than the lies.  When you use bad means to achieve ostensibly good ends, the bad influence of the means corrupts the goodness of the ends, and the result is uniformly negative.  Sure, Daisey is a performer, not a journalist.  Sure, people should always take what he says with a grain of salt.  But he cannot go on stage and say “I saw it, I’ve been there,” with the direct and clearly-stated implication, confirmed later by his actions and words outside the theater, that he is speaking truth, and then hide behind artistic license when it all goes bad.  That’s not only disingenuous, it’s fraudulent – and it’s immoral.  Wanting to “make people care” is not an excuse.

The crux of the whole situation, is not just the appropriation of the right to lie, nor the need for apology and the reluctance to issue it.  The real core issue at stake here is that American media journalism has itself become a form of consumption entertainment, typified by programs like This American Life.  The program has a singsongy, colloquial voice, as though you’re having a conversation with an activist hipster in a coffee shop in Brooklyn, and he’s trying to “break it down” for you to convince you of something, while at the same time saying “Yeah, but make up your OWN mind, man.”  I love the program, but putting monologues, theatrical displays, book excerpts and the like on the same wavelength as economic, political and legal investigative journalism was always asking for trouble; and boy did they get it.  As a result, I think we can expect to see more of this kind of scandal on This American Life and other programs like it, the programs which tread that razor’s edge fact and fiction and try to have it both ways.  In this sense, This American Life can almost be said to have invited this scandal, by their tendency to take up tendentious, advocacy-oriented news stories, emphasizing the story and playing more selectively with the news.  In fact, it’s rather surprising this didn’t happen sooner.

Nor is this a partisan issue – the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck on the right, or even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in the “radical middle,” had best be on their guard.  Or more accurately, their viewers should be: finding the truth is getting harder, and with so many people giving up and taking the soft option instead of sticking to intellectual rigor, telling lies from the truth is only going to become more difficult.  The media will give you what you demand of it, and people are demanding the least common denominator.  When once we’ve accepted that our news is, and perhaps always has been, a consumption good, caveat emptor.  Critical thinking skills are continuing to atrophy in this country, leaving us all vulnerable to being sold short in the intellectual marketplace.

In the end, though, I don’t blame This American Life for being duped.  They simply did what any of us would do: they believed what they wanted, or at the very least were predisposed to believe.  In issuing so full a retraction, in putting Daisey on the spot for his lies, they did entirely the right thing.  Well, almost.  If you listen to the episode, you’ll find one thing missing, one thing that This American Life interviewers have time and again tried to worm out of interviewees in the hot seat, something they’ve devoted entire programs to demanding of others:

They never apologize.

Everthin’ G’won Be Fine, Mes Amis

October 5th, 2011

I originally recorded what I’m about to write as a youtube video/podcast, but I got cold feet at the last minute about signing up to put my voice on the internet, and so here we are.  But I wanted to speak… er, write, from the heart here for a moment because of the goings on in New York, where I work, and where I consequently spend a great deal of my life.

This whole “Occupy Wall Street” thing is getting a lot of press and someone (actually, several someones) asked me what I thought of it all, today, and so here is what I think of it.  I have to admit that a lot of the grievances that are being raised are probably legitimate ones, and are worth a hearing.  There is, and has been for many decades, a major entanglement of politics and financial clout in this country, and that has always been a very dangerous and counterproductive thing.  Perhaps predictably, National Public Radio and a lot of other media outlets have latched onto this thing, and all the photogenic young hipster college students going out to change the world, and have approvingly and compliantly built the protest up into a “movement.”  Now, whether or not it’s really that, I don’t know, but I do know that I find myself in sympathy with the emotions underlying it, in that I think that people who have no work and few prospects and mountains of debt have every right to be pissed off about it.  I know I would be, and have been, at the times in my life when I’ve felt stuck or downbeat about my prospects, as we all have.

But beneath that I sense something far more destructive and sinister about the whole situation down there.  It is possible for a peaceful protest to be violent, insofar as what it advocates is itself a form of violence.  What I mean by that is that this kind of movement is inherently violent, not only because it provokes violent responses from the police, but because the act itself, going to get in someone’s face and “occupy” their property, is an exertion of force against them, even if you supposedly are “peaceful” about it.    There’s an undercurrent of anger and threat to this whole thing that I find unsettling and which keeps me from being able to support what’s going on on Wall Street and elsewhere, because it runs very much counter to what I believe.

“Occupying” a place is what soldiers do to oppress people, and I don’t believe in that because that’s violence.  Underneath thus “occupation” protest, likewise, is a sense that these people see someone who has something that they don’t have, and they want to take it for themselves.  That, too, is a tendency associated with violence, and I don’t believe in that either.  I keep getting the feeling that if they could, these protestors would drag bankers into the street and stone them, and that NPR would record the whole thing dutifully and spin it as progressive and forward-thinking.  These people and now their Union cohorts are making speeches daily about something called “corporate greed,” but really the protestors strike me as just as greedy and self-interested themselves and that bothers me very greatly.

I don’t think that banks can do no wrong or that megacorporations are an American’s best friend, but the alternative that’s on the table in “Occupy!” is to start tearing down the successful and putting limits, taxes, controls, burdens and penalties on those who have managed to keep their livelihoods in difficult times.  In short, they want theirs, and they want to take it from someone else.  And that, again, is violent to me, because it implies the exertion of force against someone by someone else.

So what do I think of all this?  I think it’s an understandable expression of emotion and frustration, but I think its indulgence in public and the approval that it’s getting is setting back the cause of producing a less regulated, more fair, just, merciful, compassionate and equitable society, because that kind of society can’t be handed down from above or forced to happen from below.  Such a society can only occur from a general conversion of conscience among all the people, through peace, cooperation and voluntarism.  That may be millenarian of me, but I make no apologies for that.  Saying that the 99% want to kill off or imprison or take from or brutalize the 1% is abhorrent to me in the principle that it expresses, that any percentage of humanity can legitimately declare that the rights of the remainder don’t really matter.  This attitude that being a majority entitles you to what a minority has is the first step down the slippery slope to fascism.  What if it were 80% versus 20%?  Would it still be okay to expropriate them?  Or 66% versus 33%?  Or 51% versus 49%?  The numbers argument holds no water with me.  In fact, it only makes what’s happening in New York more offensive to my sensibilities.  Nor does the “you just don’t understand” argument, because I do understand.  I wonder how many of those protestors have worked in an industrial freezer at 4 below zero in August for $4 an hour.  Or in a dusty, drafty warehouse on Christmas Eve for $8 an hour.  Because I’ve done both of those things, and I feel no desire or entitlement to expropriate anyone in compensation.  The world owes me nothing: that’s the great joy of it!  If I can just sit back and collect on some imagined debt society owes me for having gone to college, there’s no challenge, and the rewards are hollow and the setbacks meaningless.  And subsuming your own common sense into a mass movement because of some sense of what you’re entitled to is a frightening prospect to me, and it should be frightening to any rational human being, college student or otherwise.  That’s just the breaking-up of society into groups to make it easier to hate the Other.  That should scare the HELL out of everyone!

Look, it’s a really tough time for everyone, and I understand people being pissed off about that; I would be, and have been when I’ve been in that situation.  But a public temper tantrum, or a self-indulgent display of entitlement, or a demand that “if I can’t have it, nobody can!” is going to go nowhere good.  If the society they want to build is going to be based on envy and the setting of limits on people’s ability to succeed, it’ll destroy what liberty is all about.  Maybe I “just don’t get it.”  Maybe.  But what I really don’t get is why somebody always has to be the enemy, or why everything always has to be some kind of a fight.  I’m a believer in peace, cooperation, compassion and mercy.  And that’s why I cannot and will not get behind this… whatever it is.

Imagination Christmas

August 5th, 2011

Panic, panic, panic!  That seems to have become America’s top export.  This week has also been an object-lesson in how that most powerful of mental states can grip an entire people so firmly.  Watching the markets and the government this week from Ground Zero (literally – I work in New York) has been like getting reports on a war in a foreign country – horrifying, but uncontrollable, and with this strange spin of inevitability to the whole thing that makes everyone feel so helpless.

But beneath all that, I felt a vague sense of satisfaction coming from everyone who commented on it, a kind of, je ne sais quois, which seemed to me to add up to a kind of schadenfreude, watching the big guy go down.  I can’t remember who it was who said that intellectuals have a Freudian death wish for society as a whole, but this week it seemed more right than ever.  Panic and recession were being predicted even before they happened.  It ceased even to be entirely clear who was in control of the government, with this strange coercive conflict going on in three directions between a shiftless and ignorant Republican Congress, a tepid and characteristically weak Democratic President, and a new player, a heavily-vested private credit rating industry either holding the whole thing hostage or trying to make sense of it, depending on whose side you happened to be on.  All I could think was “So, who’s running this country, anyway?  Remember a few weeks ago when the credit agencies told us they’d downgrade us if we didn’t pass a debt deal, and like by the way whatever happened with that?”

Oh, right.

But what galls me is that it’s all so much in everyone’s head!  This whole thing is, from what I can tell, the result of a lot of panic and confidence crisis.  It’s all about what people think and believe, and so much of that is reinforced by this close-knit tangle of media sensation and dependency and international finance.  I’ve always said (ironically, but there is a kernel of truth to it) that a positive attitude is your best defense against Communism.  But then, even I was checking the markets repeatedly, with that strange tightness in my chest that I get when hearing of a suicide bombing in Afghanistan.  And it immediately rushed into my mind that, about six months before he died, my Dad said to me, in a moment of great seriousness and clarity, that he believed that God was going to send our nation a great trial very soon.  That, my friends, is as close to genuine prophecy as I’m ever likely to experience.  And what’s more, I have to say that if things keep going like they did this week, we are not going to be up to the challenge.

I mean, if you think about it, much as I hate to say it (because all of this will very likely cost me my job in a few months) this could very well be good for America in the long run, assuming it galvanizes those with the genuine political will to move this country into free trade and small government.  Frankly, it may well be a major market-force correction leading to a reorientation of the economic system away from the megacorporation and towards a plurality of smaller businesses.  This would be a great opportunity to start disentangling private industry from public patronage and privilege, to begin building a far more stable system based on private enterprise rather than public control.  My great fear, however, is that the opposite will be true, that this, in the pattern of the 1930′s, will be dressed up by politicians and self-appointed intellectuals as another failure of Capitalism, requiring more control, more authority, more centralization, more government – that this will, in fact, be the first step on the road to a second-wave fascism on the Chinese model, and if that happens, well, God help us all.

For now, though, I take solace, from a personal standpoint, in the thought that I have put all my money into my brain, and there’s no way S&P can downgrade THAT.  As long as I have my head and my hands I will find a way to make a living.  But the prospect of doing so in a system which seems like it will be ruled, for the foreseeable future, by whim and fantasy, does not fill me with a great deal of zest for the enterprise.

So, just in case, do me a favor?  Print out a copy of this, and when someone tells you, in 2020 or so, that Mathieu Moyen never existed, just read it again, for old time’s sake, and remember what a nice Republic it was.  Once.

The Achiever’s Index: STARSHIP INVASIONS

July 4th, 2011

You know, I’d been wondering for some time, while writing these little essays for the Achiever’s Index, why I would bother to include the lower ranks, particularly the rank of “Travesty.”  I mean, if a work of print or cinematic art were that bad, why would I waste my time writing about it?  And then along came Starship Invasions to alter my perceptions, and to compel me to break out my Travesty Stick for a good, sound beating.  I should perhaps preface this essay by saying that I have a very personal connection to the subject matter, here.  No, I don’t believe in aliens: I mean, give me a break – the Fermi Paradox, and I rest my case.  No, it was because… well, let me tell the story thus:

At a particularly rough time in my life, I went to visit a very good friend of mine out in central Pennsylvania.  When I arrived, he proudly presented to me one of his recent acquisitions, a book titled “ASHTAR,” with a bizarrely campy painting on the cover of a white-skinned humanoid alien with a big head, wearing some 1970′s artist’s idea of a space suit – essentially spandex.  This was, as we found out from the nigh-incoherent text within, Commander Ashtar of the Ashtar Command.

He was also Jesus Christ.  That’s right.

We gradually came to realize that we were reading the sacred text of a UFO cult.  It was HI-LAR-I-OUS.  I still remember the absurdity of that book and its insane contents, and how much better I felt after that night: as screwed up as my life was back then, at least I wasn’t in a UFO cult.  And to this day, we occasionally greet each other with the phrase: “Friend, I AM ASHTAR!”

So needless to say when I happened to turn on my television the other day, which receives only a handful of channels and those very badly, and saw this movie playing, the entire experience suddenly crystallized: this was Ashtar: THE MOVIE, in its whole spirit if not literally.  Moreover, to say that the film is as insane as the book would be an act of gross understatement.  The movie is much, much worse.

The film opens with a long bit of overwrought expository dialogue delivered by voice-over, intended to give the impression that all the alien characters are communicating by telepathy.  Christopher Lee (YES, that IS Christopher Lee!) plays bodysuited and dragon-clad alien leader Rameses, who has come to Earth to supplant the Human race with his own, whose planet is about to be consumed by a supernova.  Typical sci-fi fare for the period, I’ll grant you that.  But it begins sliding out of control pretty fast when a great deal of assumptions start happening that begin dragging the plot along at breakneck speed.

See, first he has to sample some humans’ DNA (their Ripperesque Precious Bodily Fluids!) from which he determines that humanity was the unknown ancestor-race of his own Alpha Centaurians.  And so naturally that means they’ll have to be eradicated, now. (Wait, what?)  So he deploys his fleet in orbit to shoot a ray at Earth that will cause humans to commit suicide.  (Woah, back up.)  First, however, he has to make sure the Intergalactic League of Races (Who?) doesn’t interfere.  So he steers his upturned pie plate down to the Atlantic ocean to find their base on Earth. (His what?)  What follows is a bizarrely convoluted set of stylized bluffs and counter-bluffs, culminating in an epic bodysuit-and-finger-laser raid on the League’s submarine combination pyramid base and cathouse.

Man, I only WISH I were making this up.

This movie clocks in at an efficient 89 minutes, and is the ultimate expression of 1970′s-style bad taste and poor aesthetic judgement.  There are positive reams of silver mylar and solid-color pleather, mirrors on any surface capable of being mirrored, clashing color schemes involving crimson, harvest gold and orange, welding-masked robots spouting post-hippie slogans about intergalactic peace, and to crown it all, the whole thing is set to an electro-lounge score that can only be properly encompassed by the word “Jazzalicious.”  Go ahead, click that link.  I dare you.  I DARE you.

And it stars Robert Vaughan and Christopher Lee.  I mean, Robert Vaughan, I could see doing this kind of thing.  After all, he was The Man from U.N.C.L.E., so he was no stranger to bad taste.  But somehow, in the ensuing years, Christopher Lee’s claim to authenticity makes me forget that he actually WAS this person way back when, a B-Movie actor (at best) playing vampires and alien heavies, famed for his fixed stare and wooden performances, and holding his own against campy greats like Vincent Price.  It is entirely logical that he would appear in this trashiest of trashy flicks, and yet still it took me so much by surprise that I could not help but stare, slack-jawed, at the insane fruits of his labor, up there in all its badly-colored glory for all to see.

This in the end is what makes watching this awful film such a sublime experience to be had.  These are people doing their best to make the most of what is clearly just a job, a film of no value whatsoever, greenlighted by God only knows who and made on a budget of… I can’t begin to guess.  And consider also, that this film is a contemporary of Star Wars, which so clearly designated the final cinematic break between this kind of crappy filmmaking and the new way of science fiction.  Star Wars was so far ahead of its time that it created an entirely new way of making films; Starship Invasions is so horribly past it without knowing it that it exudes dreadful, embarrassing obsolescence from every frame.

But when you think about it, movies like this get made all the time.  Try to think of all the movie trailers you’ve seen on TV in the past year and I bet you won’t even remember a tenth of them.  They come, they go, and people pay their rent and move on.  When they call it “The Industry,” they are hardly lying.  Making movies, by and large, means cranking out a disposable product.  And in this, Starship Invasions represents the diametric opposite of a film like Star Wars, and is therefore a foil to its success.  In its campy, nonsensical, poorly-constructed scenery, you see everything that a movie should not be, an open book for the filmmaker by means of negative example.  And you also see Christopher Lee in black spandex and Robert Vaughn wearing a lot of turtleneck sweaters.  And what does that amount to?  Not a whole lot, but it sure is funny to look at.

It’s interesting to conclude with the final realization that what goes around comes around.  In a perfect example of the “sunrise, sunset” phenomenon, the worst films of the Star Wars franchise, the three ill-advised “prequels,” feature B-Movie actors from this era very prominently.  And who is chief among them?  Christopher Lee.

Rameses lives.

STRIKE: As horrendously bad and overplayed as this movie is, I couldn’t help but smile (and not with mirth) when I saw Christopher Lee, who is so obviously playing a horrible role for everything it’s worth.  Yes, he, like Robert Vaughan, was, and to an extent, is a B-movie actor, but he’s the consummate example of the career actor.  He’s doing this movie because it’s the job he was hired to do.  God bless you, Chris.

GUTTER: Bodysuited aliens, underwater pyramids, upturned pie plates conquering the Earth, that jazzalicious soundtrack… am I forgetting anything?  Oh, yes,  Robert Vaughan.  I… I mean, really?  Somebody greenlighted this one, and you really have to wonder who.  This movie is just so bad that the best one can do is  laugh, and perhaps wonder why they were even making movies in Canada in the 1970′s to begin with.

OVER THE LINE: Where can one begin when the movie never was on the near side of the line?  Before seeing this movie I didn’t even know that they were making movies in Canada, let alone in the 1970′s.  And no offense to my many friends north of the border, but this movie is probably a good example of why that is the case.

Overall Rank: TRAVESTY

This movie is a disgrace, so much so in fact that it more completely defines the word than I had imagined possible.  Yet in that, there is an element of the sublime.  It takes a strong constitution and a decidedly warped sense of humor to subject yourself to this kind of thing, I admit, but there’s something to be said for movies this bad.  They’re still consummate travesties, in every sense of the word, but I can’t help but feel drawn to them in a weird way, and to Starship Invasions in particular, in which you see actors trying so hard to make the best of an intolerable situation.  If you can stand to see something this awful, watch Starship Invasions and you will simply not believe it.  It is so much the sine qua non of bad taste that there is simply no other comparison.  All peace to you, Galactic Brother.

Starship Invasions was only ever released on videocassette, to my knowledge, and so finding it now will be a serious challenge.  You can find clips on YouTube that will pretty well give you the gist of it, though – and in any event, I think that sitting down to watch the whole movie might possibly be fatal to a movie-watcher without the proper training and mental discipline.

Starship Invasions was filmed at Hal Roach Studios in Toronto, Canada, and distributed by Warner Brothers Entertainment in 1977.

The Achiever’s Index: FLCL

May 12th, 2011

Okay, so I figured it was time for another essay on arts and such, and so I decided to expand the horizons of The Achiever’s Index into the world of animation.  And for starters, we have the unbelievably surreal and mind-warping animated event FLCL, rendered in English as “Foolie-Coolie.”

Actually a combination of the Japanese kanji letters フリクリ, which I am informed make a nonsense sound something akin to “Fooree-Cooree,” FLCL gets its name from some translator’s estimation of what the sounds would be if the Japanese could form the palatal letters so crucial to the Latinate languages.  And yet therein, at the very start, lies the first of a series of bizarre cultural disconnects that are at the heart of FLCL’s strangeness, and my own ambiguous feelings about this challenging and, ultimately, incomprehensible cartoon.

I watched this last Sunday while doing some preparatory work for the return of 6-Commando, and almost at once I realized that something was very screwy about the entire setup.  To try to condense the entirety of the six-episode OVA miniseries into a description would probably not be possible, but the plot shares much in common with the Theater of the Absurd, as well as with many American and British “nonsense” humor writers such as Terry Pratchett and Daniel Pinkwater.  Yet where Pratchett and Pinkwater go to great lengths to explore the bizarre aspects of what are otherwise internally-consistent worlds they create, FLCL continuously warps itself, making the whole story spin wildly out of control almost from the very start.

The basic and very tenuous central thread to the plot is the coming of age of Naota Nandaba, a pre-teenaged Japanese boy in a suburban town, whose encounters with his father, his grandfather, his brother and with several girls in his life have left him feeling trapped and jaded about his future, as his emotional development begins to outpace his his physical age.  This is a pretty typical setup for a story – in American literature, you can just start with Tom Sawyer and work your way forward.  And so it’s somewhat predictable that when a nineteen year old, rebellious young woman named Haruko Haruhara rolls into town, the result will be a pseudo-romantic awakening for the frustrated youth.

But beyond this core mise-en-scène, very little of the series holds together.  The first encounter between Naota and Haruko is symbolic in the extreme – she hits him with her Vespa, revives him with CPR, then strikes him in the head with her electric guitar.  Doesn’t get more heavy-handed than that, you have to admit.  But then, robots begin coming out of Naota’s head.  I mean, literally – the first one, a series regular named Canti, literally climbs through Naota’s forehead.  Then he does battle with another robot that comes through the back of Naota’s head, eventually merging with Naota by eating him so that… well, I mean, it just goes on like this.

Woven into all of this is a strange but inescapable subtext about the United States that I can’t quite put together.  Haruko is clearly representative of American youth: mobile, independent, apparently sexually promiscuous. The prevalence of electric guitars as a symbol of… well, SOMETHING, is unavoidably American as well, as is the presence of baseball as a life-metaphor for Naota (as well as part of his backstory – his estranged brother is in the United States playing minor league ball with an unnamed team).  There is even, in a later episode, a sudden and inexplicable reference to the television show South Park.  But as to what it all amounts to, I haven’t a clue.  By the end of the series, I was left with the distinct feeling that I was not so much watching the program as I was allowing it to happen in my presence, and the effect was rather unsettling.

I have been pondering this for some days now, and I have come to the conclusion that FLCL is either a cinematic Zen Koan, or a colossal exercise in self-reference – or self-indulgence.  It’s all symbol and no substance, a series of disjointed cultural references which might make sense to the Japanese, but to me seem to be chosen almost at random.  It’s surreal in the extreme, but beyond the point at which one can comprehend any kind of underlying artistic process at work.  Yet its animation is too masterful, its mix of styles too diverse, and its massive set of references too intricate, for it to be simply a load of nonsense.  It can’t be nonsense.  But it makes no sense.  And that’s the crux of it: can the point be that there is no point?

As a devotee of Western Philosophy I take it as a first principle that things have to have meaning.  To an extent even the meaningless must have meaning: the nonsense art of the Dada and the Surrealists was itself purposeful in that it evoked a reaction against the conventions of the time in which they developed.  But FLCL is reacting against nothing.  It has no point of reference, internal or external, to link it to anything but itself, and its self-centric and often alinear plot, if one can call it that, has very little underlying it but willful weirdness.

Yet some works like this do exist and are sheer brilliance, in spite of their incomprehensibility.  Take, for example, Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eighth Dimension.  It is a true Zen Koan, or in the Western sense, a Splendid Source, in that in itself it makes no sense except by what you can intuit about its sources, and those myriad things upon which it has had an influence.  It means nothing and is itself unknowable, yet all things spring from it and all things point to it.

But FLCL seems to be the reverse of this.  It points to all things but ties nothing together.  It is simply, from a storytelling standpoint, “a bunch of stuff that happens.”  There are clear metaphors at work and attempts to add moralistic or philosophical turns to the events of the, er, “story,” yet they fall dreadfully silent compared to the overweening insanity of the story the characters, and the setup, generally.  It is more like a Quentin Tarantino move, obsessed with its own coolness and its own ideas, to the exclusion of common sense and good judgement.  Yet it remains seductive and fascinating, to the extent that I watched the whole three-hour run back to back.  Its very weirdness is its attraction to me, in that I keep trying to divine its meaning, despite the fact that it probably has none.

But is it art?  In the loosest sense I suppose it is.  But its broader cultural significance continues to elude me.  It is its own singularity, like the Quentin Tarantino films, and like Tarantino it is constantly in danger of disappearing up its own ass.  But unlike Tarantino, it never does, and remains its own bizarre little storm of animated incomprehensibility.  But is it the nexus of the universe or just a load of silliness?  In the end, it may actually be both.  I could hardly call it an Achiever, I’m afraid, since it exists entirely too much in its own universe, but it is still worth seeing, if only for the fact that it is, in my opinion, that rarest of all gems: a genuinely new thing on the face of the Earth.

STRIKE: The animation changes very rapidly, and the “realistic” (read: traditional Anime) style merges with a cartoony and very loose representative iconographic set very smoothly, and this is a huge part of the cartoon’s appeal.  The basic thread of the story, also, is a pretty good one, in spite of the enormous effort that seems to have been made to cover it up.

GUTTER: Do things always have to mean things?  Yes, they do.  In the end, however much I may have the urge to apologize for this series because of its cool art and its risky complexities of style, there’s just too little backing it up to make it hold together for me.  The story is a simple and typical one, and its emotional level is very straightforward, and this makes the rest of the insane swirl of activity seem all the more of an imposture.  It tries too hard, and obscures its own purpose in the process.  It’s fascinating and engaging, but it’s still half-baked, leaving a lot of confusion and half-developed ideas at the bottom of the pan.

OVER THE LINE: It’s impossible to tell where the line actually lies with this series, and that isn’t really a good thing.  In rejecting all boundaries it has left itself with only the barest thread of a framing device, and it’s clear that the writer was grasping at something very mundane, and trying to dress it in something experimental and bizarre.  The thing is, there’s nothing wrong with a classic story told in a new way.  Yoji Enokido, the writer, has written a lot of other series which were more successful in that department, but in his urge to go in a new direction he abandoned the strong center of literary structure, and the result, however intriguing it may be, was a haphazard mess.

Overall Rank: BUMMER

As seductive and interesting as it may be, the simplified quasi-Postmodernism of “Weird for the sake of Weird” isn’t enough for me.  This just doesn’t come close enough to making any kind of logical or coherent sense for me to call it a genuine Achiever.  Originally, I classed it as “Un-Dude,” but that isn’t quite right either – I still think it’s worth seeing.  It isn’t incompetent or in any way “bad,” it’s just, I think, trying to do more than it can, and not doing any of it properly.  I’ll probably end up seeing it again, several times, before I’m done with it.  But the strong likelihood that it’s all just a lot of self-indulgence on the part of the writers, to say nothing of the fourth-wall breaking self-referential “What Does It All Mean?!” ponderings that pad out the final episode, kill its long-term potential as a really enduring series.  What may endure is its experimentality and its willingness to warp itself for the purpose of that experimentation, but the half-assed attempts to weave in a moralistic subplot kill its credibility as an art experiment, and I think FLCL is destined to be a footnote to the world of animation in the long run.  Its importance will be in what comes after it, I think, and that is where its real long-term interest will lie: in watching it for means of comparison, rather than for itself.

You can view FLCL in its entirety at http://www.hulu.com/flcl,but with Hulu’s trend towards subscription don’t expect it to stay free there for long.  I think the best way to view this is just to buy the DVD set, which, in spite of my panning, is probably worth having, for any collector of animated film.  The full runtime of all six episodes is approximately three hours.  Though suggestive, it is not explicit.  Still, I advise discretion when viewing this series.

FLCL was originally released in Japan on DVD and video by Studio Gainax in 2003.

Once The Killing Starts…

March 22nd, 2011
I would like to draw your attention to a commentator I follow, Josh Huffman of The Virginia Conservative, who sums up the lunacy going on in North Africa quite well on his website today.  Essentially, the point he makes, alongside extensive primary sources in the US government, is that not only have we gotten the US and European militaries in the middle of a civil war in which we have no immediate and vital security interest, we’ve circumvented our own vital political process to do so, a point about which politicos and the generally self-important were howling endlessly in the so-called “Bush Years.”  It seems that the U.S. has chosen, rather than offering peaceful diplomatic or financial support to a rising democracy, to send in our warplanes, with guns blazing, to shoot up… you know, whoever.  What surprises me (though perhaps it shouldn’t) is that the crowds have not hit the streets in protest.  I thought war was never the answer.  I guess it is, so long as it’s someone charismatic declaring it.

I commend Mr. Huffman for his moral consistency on this issue.  He had the foresight and good sense to oppose the war in Iraq at a time when I admit I supported it, in a display of hawkish recklessness I now consider to be one of my Bushian “youthful indiscretions.”  But he’s bang on on one point: picking and choosing our wars in the way we’ve become accustomed to doing is a very dangerous precedent, and is perpetuating the myth that wars can be fought without bloodshed.  War is not a video game: in wars, people die.  It’s as simple as that.  And though for preference I would rather not have anyone involved in such a state of affairs, if there’s a choice on hand I would much rather it not be Americans doing either the killing or the dying.  We seem to have chosen the opposite.  Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing I want more than a peaceful, democratic Libya, whose people see Americans as their friends and partners.  But I really don’t think that’s something the U.S. can give them, unless they want to join the Union, or endure the blood and suffering of an American occupation, as did Japan and Germany.

Here’s the thing: this is the age of the half-assed conflict.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure all the Americans and Frenchmen and Britons taking to the skies are using their whole asses on this one.  What I mean is that we’re in an age of instant gratification, in the olitical no less than in the social world, and that reached its final and most tragic expression when the boots hit the ground in Iraq.  Everyone wanted the glory of a victory but nobody wanted to face up tot the reality of what a victory means, in a war.  Honestly, we’re talking about war, here, the organized and systematic killing of human beings for political goals.  Bush, for all his shortsightedness and fecklessness, at least recognized that wars are fought with blunt instruments.  Obama wants his war to be clean and surgical, like the Clinton missile strikes on, you know, wherever he struck at whenever he had a scandal to cover up.  But the simple truth is that wars mean that lots of people are going to be killed.  Winning wars means killing people, leveling cities, carpet-bombing enemy encampments, and sending your tanks and infantry to stand on your enemy’s throat, and keeping them there until the he stops thrashing around.  We have armies for the purpose of killing people.  People who aren’t ready for that shouldn’t join the army.  And likewise, politicians who aren’t ready to send their army to do what it was meant to do have no business declaring war.  That’s exactly why they want the US soldiers in the cockpits and not on the ground: they want this war fought through gun cameras and on satellite TV – it’s much better for PR.  But it will not and can not stop there.  As Tacitus said, “Once the killing starts, it’s difficult to draw the line.”

I strongly suspect that the Libyan people are really being used here, as a means to the end of trying to make the United States “look better” to the people of the Middle East.  But already, literally within days, NATO and the US are having buyers’ remorse, as the bombing started without any clear idea of who or what was to be bombed, or how much of it, or under what restrictions.  So instead of Libyans fighting for their own freedom, we have Westerners stepping in to do the killing for them, in a war in which they have no stake, and the result is going to be exactly what we’ve produced elsewhere: a bombed-to-death pile of total confusion.

And even laying all that aside, and granting that what’s done is done, at the very least, I could have hoped that Obama would have the courage to be up front about his goals, take a real stand, and make the bloodhsed count for something beyond the usual tired left-wing rhetoric.  We could have gone in saying “We’re going to support the rebels, topple the Libyan government, and sponsor the creation of a democratic constitutional republic in Libya.”  That would at least give us some kind of moral reasoning underpinning what is doubtless going to cost some thousands of lives, if not tens or hundreds of thousands.  But in yet another display of spinelessness, both the US, the UN and NATO have gone into this with the half-measures already in place, claiming to be taking no sides, just “protecting civilians,” whatever that means.  How you do that from thirty thousand feet is anyone’s guess, and to start a war with the rallying cry that the war will end whenever the war ends is asking for a whole mess of trouble.  And I add the last two words with some reservations.  What will the casualties of such a conflict have died for?