Sunday, 15 March 2009
Deborah 13: servant of God
im watching this documentary on bbc about a thirteen year old girl who is going to go out into the world and spread her beliefs to a wider audience. I haven't gotten to the part of how she is doing this, but they are making it seem like she will be leaving her family, which seems rather wrong. However, what i find interesting that such a devout evangelical girl, who wants to save the world, obviously has a gay brother. Just a random thought...
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Correction: Previous Post
They started the video podcasts on the 2nd not the 3rd for the Rachel Maddow Show.
The Rachel Maddow Show-Podcast
If you don't have a tv (or don't have US television stations), MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show is free on itunes in video and audio podcast form! I had never watched the show before, but while browsing for new podcasts I saw it was available, checked it out, and I love it. It only became available on video this week (as they only have videos for 3/3/09 and onward), but they also have an audio version (great for when I'm trekking around town).
I'm one of the only people who never really got into The Daily Show, and I think that's because ultimately it's a comedy show that does news. The Rachel Maddow show is a news program that does comedy (usually dry and sarcastic). I have mad respect for Jon Stewart and the whole Daily Show crew--but it just ain't my style. I also can't get it for free on itunes, so there. Oh and Jon Stewart isn't the first out and proud lesbian reporter with her own show... that's pretty bad ass if you ask me.
The March 3rd episode is great when she talks about republicans in exile and has Arianna Huffington from Huffington Post and Hal Sparks to discuss it. When she first said his name, I thought "Is there a reporter or politician named Hal Sparks that I don't know?" Oh no, no, no! She brought in comedian Hal Sparks from Queer as Folk and I Love the 80s fame! How he ended up on there, I'm not quite sure; however, he did a good job and I do kinda love him so Maddow officially won me over with his presence. But one request for Hal: CUT YOUR HAIR!
I'm one of the only people who never really got into The Daily Show, and I think that's because ultimately it's a comedy show that does news. The Rachel Maddow show is a news program that does comedy (usually dry and sarcastic). I have mad respect for Jon Stewart and the whole Daily Show crew--but it just ain't my style. I also can't get it for free on itunes, so there. Oh and Jon Stewart isn't the first out and proud lesbian reporter with her own show... that's pretty bad ass if you ask me.
The March 3rd episode is great when she talks about republicans in exile and has Arianna Huffington from Huffington Post and Hal Sparks to discuss it. When she first said his name, I thought "Is there a reporter or politician named Hal Sparks that I don't know?" Oh no, no, no! She brought in comedian Hal Sparks from Queer as Folk and I Love the 80s fame! How he ended up on there, I'm not quite sure; however, he did a good job and I do kinda love him so Maddow officially won me over with his presence. But one request for Hal: CUT YOUR HAIR!
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Donkey Punch the Movie?
OK, I can handle a lot of stupid shit but who decided a donkey punch would be a good premise for a horror film? And when did they decide that it could POSSIBLY be an accident, because last time I checked punching a woman in the back of the head didn't normally happen during sex. Not to mention, who wouldn't assume that there would be at least SOME major damage?
Well, last summer a film called Donkey Punch came out over here in the UK. Some how I missed it. I get the premise--it's rather I Know What You Did Last Summer meets Urban Legend--a bunch of young people vacationing meet up, decide to party it up on a yacht in the middle of the Mediterranean. They talk about the urban sex myth called the "donkey punch" (while orgasming a man will punch his partner in the back of the head) then they all pair up and dun dun dun someone actually does the titular act and a young woman winds up dead, so what do they do? Throw her body overboard and say it was an accident; however, wrap her in a sheet first because THAT is how people usually fall off yachts and drown.
I have two major problems with this though, a) it's basically glamorizing sexually assaulting women, cause I'm pretty sure she didn't sign up for the blow to the head even if it wasn't meant to kill her, and b) what kind of friends let some guys just throw your friend's body over board? Yeah, you're in the ocean, yeah you are out numbered 3 to 2, but still, have some damn respect for your friend! I think I'll make it a requisite for all my future travel companions that if someone donkey punches my head in, that my friends won't let them throw my body over board.
Ok, I realize the girls do end up fighting back and what not, but still, I think there was a bit more they probably could have done prior to throwing the body overboard. The trailer just makes it seem like AFTER the body is off the boat the girls start getting upset. I guess, I'll just make sure I never have sex on a yacht with some drunk guys I've just met in the middle of the sea.
Anyway, here's your trailer:
Well, last summer a film called Donkey Punch came out over here in the UK. Some how I missed it. I get the premise--it's rather I Know What You Did Last Summer meets Urban Legend--a bunch of young people vacationing meet up, decide to party it up on a yacht in the middle of the Mediterranean. They talk about the urban sex myth called the "donkey punch" (while orgasming a man will punch his partner in the back of the head) then they all pair up and dun dun dun someone actually does the titular act and a young woman winds up dead, so what do they do? Throw her body overboard and say it was an accident; however, wrap her in a sheet first because THAT is how people usually fall off yachts and drown.
I have two major problems with this though, a) it's basically glamorizing sexually assaulting women, cause I'm pretty sure she didn't sign up for the blow to the head even if it wasn't meant to kill her, and b) what kind of friends let some guys just throw your friend's body over board? Yeah, you're in the ocean, yeah you are out numbered 3 to 2, but still, have some damn respect for your friend! I think I'll make it a requisite for all my future travel companions that if someone donkey punches my head in, that my friends won't let them throw my body over board.
Ok, I realize the girls do end up fighting back and what not, but still, I think there was a bit more they probably could have done prior to throwing the body overboard. The trailer just makes it seem like AFTER the body is off the boat the girls start getting upset. I guess, I'll just make sure I never have sex on a yacht with some drunk guys I've just met in the middle of the sea.
Anyway, here's your trailer:
Monday, 16 February 2009
Thoughts on THE UNFORGIVEN
The Unforgiven
My father grew up on a farm in West Texas, and like all good Texans, he thinks he's a cowboy. Well, he longs to be a cowboy--or a pirate. He's really not picky, but the point is, his desire to be a cowboy has manifested in his love for Westerns. He lists The Searchers, Rio Bravo, and High Noon as some of his favorite films and becomes rather depressed when none of his 5 daughters (or wife) want to watch one of these films. Of course, my mother's favorite Western is McClintock, the classic John Wayne film that is basically the Western version of The Quiet Man. This is probably my favorite John Wayne film as well, but then it is more of a screwball comedy set in the Old West rather than an actual Western.*
At the same time, my father is very proud of his Native American heritage. One of my great, great grandmothers was full blooded Cherokee, and my father has expressed his disdain for Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Native Americans (specifically the Trail of Tears), yet he still lists The Searchers as one of his favorite (and ultimate) Westerns. What I seem to be unable to understand is how he can be in favor of Native American rights but love Westerns?
Thanks to the Glasgow Film Festival's celebration of Audrey Hepburn, I was able to watch The Unforgiven. In this film, Hepburn plays Rachel, a Native American woman who was adopted as a baby and raised by a white family in Texas. Soon the local tribe discovers she is one of them and hound the family for her return--though they deny that she is Indian. At the same time, the local cattle ranchers turn their backs on her and her family, and, like in High Noon, Burt Lancaster rallies his small family (including Lilian Gish as the matriarch) for a final showdown with the Indians. Rachel is safe, the family loves her regardless of her true heritage--unlike their racists friends.
While the narrative displays the Zachery family as a family unit who consider Rachel one of their own, and will love her no matter her race, it has the same message most Westerns have: White men good, 'Red man' bad** and Rachel must deliver the final blow--killing her 'brother' who has come to rescue her. Rachel turns her back on biological family in favor of her adopted family, but she also rejects herself and kills off the 'evil Indian blood' within her.
I understand that for some this is an adoption story. That she may be biologically related to the local tribe, but the Zachery's are her true family, and she will fight to protect them. However, she is also ashamed and chastised for not being white. The story goes beyond who her family is, but who she is. She cannot stand to be part of the 'others' and thus when she kills an Indian she is killing off the 'dirty' part of herself. To further prove this point, she must be the one to kill the last Indian.
Earlier during the final battle, Rachel is caught off guard and unable to kill one of the Indians when he looks at her and says “sister.” This is the first time it is made clear to her that these are 'her people' and that she was taken from them as a child. However, at the end, her 'Indian brother' enters into the root cellar, where she is alone with her wounded white brother. They stand face to face for a moment before she kills him and ends the fight.
Ultimately, she chooses to be white and as they exit the destroyed house, all is peaceful in the world because she has purged herself of her Indian blood. The birds flying across the beautiful blue sky reinforce that she made the right decision.
Anyway, I can't really answer for my father's preference for Westerns while complaining about Andrew Jackson's Native American policies, but it kind of reminded me of Rachel's identity confusion, and how she falls for the classic genre trappings.
*Of course my father and I have had many debates over what constitutes a Western. He refuses to consider Blazing Saddles as a Western (and I usually do not either); however, many people experience their first Western through the Mel Brooks' parody. It adheres to most rules while also mocking it. Much like the debate of whether Shaun of the Dead is in fact horror or parody as well. This is why my father does not truly consider McClintock a Western, much like he wouldn't consider Mel Gibson's Maverick one either. To him, they are (romantic) comedies set in the Old West. However, McClintock stars John Wayne and when you think of John Wayne you think of 'Westerns' and 'War Movies,' and to be a Western it often needs to star a certain actor or be directed by a certain director.
**I use this term only because it is regularly used in these genre films.
My father grew up on a farm in West Texas, and like all good Texans, he thinks he's a cowboy. Well, he longs to be a cowboy--or a pirate. He's really not picky, but the point is, his desire to be a cowboy has manifested in his love for Westerns. He lists The Searchers, Rio Bravo, and High Noon as some of his favorite films and becomes rather depressed when none of his 5 daughters (or wife) want to watch one of these films. Of course, my mother's favorite Western is McClintock, the classic John Wayne film that is basically the Western version of The Quiet Man. This is probably my favorite John Wayne film as well, but then it is more of a screwball comedy set in the Old West rather than an actual Western.*
At the same time, my father is very proud of his Native American heritage. One of my great, great grandmothers was full blooded Cherokee, and my father has expressed his disdain for Andrew Jackson's treatment of the Native Americans (specifically the Trail of Tears), yet he still lists The Searchers as one of his favorite (and ultimate) Westerns. What I seem to be unable to understand is how he can be in favor of Native American rights but love Westerns?
Thanks to the Glasgow Film Festival's celebration of Audrey Hepburn, I was able to watch The Unforgiven. In this film, Hepburn plays Rachel, a Native American woman who was adopted as a baby and raised by a white family in Texas. Soon the local tribe discovers she is one of them and hound the family for her return--though they deny that she is Indian. At the same time, the local cattle ranchers turn their backs on her and her family, and, like in High Noon, Burt Lancaster rallies his small family (including Lilian Gish as the matriarch) for a final showdown with the Indians. Rachel is safe, the family loves her regardless of her true heritage--unlike their racists friends.
While the narrative displays the Zachery family as a family unit who consider Rachel one of their own, and will love her no matter her race, it has the same message most Westerns have: White men good, 'Red man' bad** and Rachel must deliver the final blow--killing her 'brother' who has come to rescue her. Rachel turns her back on biological family in favor of her adopted family, but she also rejects herself and kills off the 'evil Indian blood' within her.
I understand that for some this is an adoption story. That she may be biologically related to the local tribe, but the Zachery's are her true family, and she will fight to protect them. However, she is also ashamed and chastised for not being white. The story goes beyond who her family is, but who she is. She cannot stand to be part of the 'others' and thus when she kills an Indian she is killing off the 'dirty' part of herself. To further prove this point, she must be the one to kill the last Indian.
Earlier during the final battle, Rachel is caught off guard and unable to kill one of the Indians when he looks at her and says “sister.” This is the first time it is made clear to her that these are 'her people' and that she was taken from them as a child. However, at the end, her 'Indian brother' enters into the root cellar, where she is alone with her wounded white brother. They stand face to face for a moment before she kills him and ends the fight.
Ultimately, she chooses to be white and as they exit the destroyed house, all is peaceful in the world because she has purged herself of her Indian blood. The birds flying across the beautiful blue sky reinforce that she made the right decision.
Anyway, I can't really answer for my father's preference for Westerns while complaining about Andrew Jackson's Native American policies, but it kind of reminded me of Rachel's identity confusion, and how she falls for the classic genre trappings.
*Of course my father and I have had many debates over what constitutes a Western. He refuses to consider Blazing Saddles as a Western (and I usually do not either); however, many people experience their first Western through the Mel Brooks' parody. It adheres to most rules while also mocking it. Much like the debate of whether Shaun of the Dead is in fact horror or parody as well. This is why my father does not truly consider McClintock a Western, much like he wouldn't consider Mel Gibson's Maverick one either. To him, they are (romantic) comedies set in the Old West. However, McClintock stars John Wayne and when you think of John Wayne you think of 'Westerns' and 'War Movies,' and to be a Western it often needs to star a certain actor or be directed by a certain director.
**I use this term only because it is regularly used in these genre films.
Friday, 30 January 2009
blood thinners... again?
And the reason I'm back on blood thinners is I'm a genetic mutant. Three times over!
I'm currently taking suggestions for my X-Men name.
I'm currently taking suggestions for my X-Men name.
The love/hate for the NHS
I absolutely love the NHS, specifically that I get great health care at no price. However, with socialized medicine there are some minor set backs, which, while minor, can really annoy the hell out of you.
Today, I went to the doctor to get put back onto the Anti-Coagulant clinic's roster as I "hadn't been attending" since I had been removed from blood thinners (b t dubs, I'm back on them for what looks like the rest of my life), and the only way is to have my doctor call in for me. I tell the receptionist at my local doctor's that I need to talk about my warfarin and INR as soon as possible with the doctor and she gives me an appointment for the following Friday (mind you this is a whole week away at the time). Fine, whatever.
I wait it out, and go to the doctor today only to get lectured that I should have come to them sooner, that my INR might dangerously high, and I could have to spend the night in the hospital hooked up to a Vitamin K drip. Sounds like a stellar Friday, right?
My doctor asks me to call back at 5 PM to find out what my INR levels are. I call, the receptionist tells me they will call me Monday. I try to explain that I have to talk to the doctor on call tonight as my doctor instructed me to do so, she tells me to call back Monday (as that MUST be what my doctor really meant). Finally, I tell her that I need to talk to him to see if I have to spend the night in the hospital and that it's a near emergency at this point. Finally, she puts me through. I'm fine. No hospital tonight!
I think my major problem is that I don't know the magic words to get around the receptionist. I think I'm saying things to express the urgency, but it doesn't seem to work, and in order to get an urgent appointment, I apparently need to convince her it's really important. If anyone has some tips, please let me know. I've tried warfarin, i've tried INR, I've tried "the doctor told me to call back at this time" and yet it doesn't seem to work. Grr.
Okay, that complaint was more about the receptionist than the NHS, but it's kind of the same problem that I have with the whole NHS. It's not that you have to wait so long for the appointments as most people think, it's the bureaucracy of it all. You have to walk through so much red tape (hence the "I HAVE to see the doctor to get onto the clinic's list again but then I get in trouble for not getting the INR checked earlier"), that it slows down the process.
Many people have asked me about the NHS and socialized medicine as it was a hot topic during the election. As I've put it, if I feel I need something done quickly (that isn't an emergency) I'll get it done when I'm in the States. However, when I spent a week in the hospital for my stroke, I didn't have to pay a dime! Or I guess a 10p. So really, I shouldn't complain so much, but it's bureaucracy that's so prevalant in every day life in the UK that drives me nuts some times.
Today, I went to the doctor to get put back onto the Anti-Coagulant clinic's roster as I "hadn't been attending" since I had been removed from blood thinners (b t dubs, I'm back on them for what looks like the rest of my life), and the only way is to have my doctor call in for me. I tell the receptionist at my local doctor's that I need to talk about my warfarin and INR as soon as possible with the doctor and she gives me an appointment for the following Friday (mind you this is a whole week away at the time). Fine, whatever.
I wait it out, and go to the doctor today only to get lectured that I should have come to them sooner, that my INR might dangerously high, and I could have to spend the night in the hospital hooked up to a Vitamin K drip. Sounds like a stellar Friday, right?
My doctor asks me to call back at 5 PM to find out what my INR levels are. I call, the receptionist tells me they will call me Monday. I try to explain that I have to talk to the doctor on call tonight as my doctor instructed me to do so, she tells me to call back Monday (as that MUST be what my doctor really meant). Finally, I tell her that I need to talk to him to see if I have to spend the night in the hospital and that it's a near emergency at this point. Finally, she puts me through. I'm fine. No hospital tonight!
I think my major problem is that I don't know the magic words to get around the receptionist. I think I'm saying things to express the urgency, but it doesn't seem to work, and in order to get an urgent appointment, I apparently need to convince her it's really important. If anyone has some tips, please let me know. I've tried warfarin, i've tried INR, I've tried "the doctor told me to call back at this time" and yet it doesn't seem to work. Grr.
Okay, that complaint was more about the receptionist than the NHS, but it's kind of the same problem that I have with the whole NHS. It's not that you have to wait so long for the appointments as most people think, it's the bureaucracy of it all. You have to walk through so much red tape (hence the "I HAVE to see the doctor to get onto the clinic's list again but then I get in trouble for not getting the INR checked earlier"), that it slows down the process.
Many people have asked me about the NHS and socialized medicine as it was a hot topic during the election. As I've put it, if I feel I need something done quickly (that isn't an emergency) I'll get it done when I'm in the States. However, when I spent a week in the hospital for my stroke, I didn't have to pay a dime! Or I guess a 10p. So really, I shouldn't complain so much, but it's bureaucracy that's so prevalant in every day life in the UK that drives me nuts some times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
