Earlier today I was having a gross exchange with a fellow twitter denizen on the topic of rubbish. Somehow, “deep reflection” led to the following paragraphs. Fair warning, this is pretty stupid.
For the racers the whole of their existence had led to this moment. Billy was perched at the starting gate. His brethren too trained and honed their beings for what seemed like ages. Upon receipt of the signal, they were off; dashing hard amidst the space between spaces. The racers glided as birds on the lift of rising winds. But alas, for all his iron tenacity, Billy began to feel the light of said resolve weaken within him.
Gradually, Billy’s muscles gave out. His more virile brethren passed him one by one. Mired amidst the bodies of those who had been retarded not by providential will, but by chance he came to a dead stop. Beaten and hovering in shame, Billy lamented defeat. The culminating effort of his life had been for naught. Then, from the distance he could see the forerunner running back through the crowd exclaiming…
“Turn back! Turn back! It’s a hand job!”
Yeah, it’s absurdly dumb. I’ve no idea what possessed me to post this as it is not even remotely blog worthy. This shit wouldn’t even pass for a decent bar-side conversational tomfoolery. As to why I named the protagonist Billy – I… I don’t know. It just seemed right.
Social commentary has been seeping its way into games of late. While games as a vessel for serious themes have yet to ascertain mainstream acceptance, some tent pole releases and many smaller independent titles are finding their attempts to do so lauded. A lot has been made about the religious content in BioShock Infinite. There was even some silly to-do involving simulated baptism during the opening half hour. The sequence, as with most of the game, sparked debate. A feat Irrational clearly strives for all throughout. If nothing else, Infinite can be perceived as an exercise in encouraging the kind of conversation normally reserved for older, more “refined” types of media.
Christianity is presented as an agent of oppression and the ideology of the enemy. A faith is singled out not because it makes a suitable whipping boy for some liberal, God-hating agenda; but rather because of its importance and impact on societal structure in America. Its application within the narrative is emphasizing the imperativeness of secular government to a democratized society’s survival. The Christian creed here is a conduit for one evil man to impose his will onto an impressionable people. Control through heinous manipulation, dominance through empty promises. Comstock twists a popular dogma to suit his evil ends under the guise of righteousness. A machination used time and time again all throughout the progression of this reality’s human history.
Watching any amount of news coverage one can see a fair number of politicians who equate freedom to practice religion with freedom to practice Christianity and impose my belief on everyone. With all the rules and restrictions placed on election campaigns it’s a wonder that there isn’t a rule that forces politicians to keep their doctrine away from the podium. Allowing them that wiggle room propagates among the masses the assumption it’s what I believe so it is what is right and true.
Religious and spiritual alignments are personal choices meant to enrich a person. They are supposed to ground one’s perception of one’s self in the whole of our known universe. A relationship with it is based on one’s volition as is how much of a particular doctrine one allows to influence their lives. For politicians it’s a justification for their feelings of infallibility; it affords them the opportunity to appear as bearers of moral rightness. Revered by many as being worthy of serving pubic office; they are no more than pompous demagogues masquerading their personal intent behind the facade of caring for others.
Film criticism is an examination of a movie’s substance. Film critics disseminate their critique of a particular film’s meaning and worth via dissertation. Critical pieces are not product reviews; they’re an examination of a film’s artful merit. Most people who abstain from reading movie reviews don’t get that. Usually when a movie they love gets panned, these folks are quick to take offense and view it as a personal insult. A negative evaluation of something they love whether it sucked or not makes them feel stupid. If what they’re seeking is vapid entertainment, then they should be self-aware enough to acknowledge it.
When a movie, e.g. Malibu’s Most Wanted, is bereft of any meaning it gives full acquiescence to be bashed. The documentary Heckler is derived more from Jaime Kennedy being butt hurt by the negative reception to some of his comedies than from his disdain for the title creatures. It clumsily stumbles into calling out film critics. Not because it can’t make cohesive segue between the heckler and critic, but because it can’t articulate a legitimate argument against the validity of critical writing.
If your flick is just a bunch of idiots jumping around a camera acting the part of court jester, supported by only the barest semblance of a plot, then they’ve no right to start griping about how badly it reviewed. In fact, they should expect nothing more than a proper roasting of your project across the board. You can’t use the it’s a popcorn movie for kids/teenagers/troglodytes argument then expect a bevy four star reviews that are singing you praises. An egregious behavior often exhibited by the makers of potty humor comedies. A line of thinking that can perhaps be attributed to the incorrect notion that comedy is about being stupid. It’s not. Comedy is by and large about the timing between set up and delivery of humor. Poignancy comes not from how rancid your jizz jokes are, but from the way you express and indicate the comicality of a given subject that doesn’t involve jumping and pointing. Seldom do gross out jokes illicit humor by being foul.
They don’t get me/us/it is another popular counter to less than favorable evaluations. If they (the critics) don’t get you, then that speaks more to you (the creator) not being clear with whatever point you’re trying to make. Assuming you have a point. If you don’t, again, you’ve no right to bellyache at the unkind reception. A professional film critic isn’t reviewing a movie with the mentality that it’s made for fourteen year old boys. Such ill-formed conceptions are the give rise to a vile species like hecklers; who believe that walking out in front of a microphone and chuckling like Butthead and making fart noises for an hour is all it takes to be funny or entertaining.
Shooting insults at live comics takes balls and a deficiency of gray matter. I’m sure most hecklers believe they conform to the former. Those interviewed in Heckler sermonize to Kennedy, “you’re not funny” and “you should do better” but offer no feedback. They tender no insight or so much as basic reason as to why Kennedy isn’t funny. That’s not what they’re after; as a behavioral expert pointed out they want nothing more than to draw the spotlight to them. It’s little more than an ego trip for these fools.