Kariann

Re-posted in honor of Roger Ebert’s passing. Cross-posted at BlogHer.

University of Minnesota doctoral candidate Chris Miller sent in a fascinating episode of Siskel and Ebert, a long-lasting TV show devoted to reviewing movies.  What is amazing about this episode is the frankness with which the movie critics — Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert — articulate a feminist analysis of a group of slasher movies.

The year? 1980.

First they describe the typical movie:

A woman or young girl is shown alone and isolated and defenseless… a crazy killer springs out of the shadows and attacks her and frequently the killer sadistically threatens the victims before he strikes.

They pull no punches in talking about the problem with the films:

These films hate women.

They go on to suggest that the films are a backlash against the women’s movement:

I’m convinced it has to do with the growth of the woman’s movement in America in the last decade. I think that these films are some sort of primordial response by some very sick people… of men saying “get back in your place, women.”

…

One thing that most of the victims have in common is that they do act independently… They are liberated women who act on their own. When a woman makes a decision for herself, you can almost bet she will pay with her life.

They note, too, that the violence is sexualized:

The nudity is always gratuitous. It is put in to titillate the audience and women who dress this way or merely uncover their bodies are somehow asking for trouble and somehow deserve the trouble they get. That’s a sick idea.

And they’re not just being anti-horror movie.  They conclude:

[There are] good old fashioned horror films… [but] there is a difference between good and scary movies and movies that systematically demean half the human race.

It’s refreshing to hear a straightforward unapologetic feminist analysis outside of a feminist space.  Their analysis, however, isn’t as sophisticated as it could be.

In doing research for a podcast about sex and violence against women in horror films (Sounds Familiar), I came across the keen analysis of Carol Clover, who wrote a book called Men, Women, and Chainsaws.

Clover admitted that most horror films of the time sexualized violence against women — meditating on the torture and terrorizing of beautiful female victims — but she also pointed out that the person who ultimately vanquished the murderer was almost always also female. She called this person the ”final girl.”

The final girl was different than the rest of the women in the film: she was less sexually active, more androgynous, and smarter.  You could pick her out, Clover argued, from the very beginning of the movie.  She was always the first to notice that something frightening might be going on.

Boys and men watching horror films, then (and that is the main audience for this genre), were encouraged to “get off” on the murder of women, but they were also encouraged to identify with a female heroine in the end.  How many other genres routinely ask men to identify with a female character?  Almost none.

In this sense, Clover argues, horror films don’t “hate women.”   Instead, they hate a particular kind of woman. They reproduce a Madonna/whore dichotomy in which the whores are dispatched with pleasure, but the Madonna rises to save us all in the end.

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Siskel and Ebert full episode:

———————–

Full transcript after the jump:

>> RUN IF YOU MUST.
>> HELLO, OPERATOR.
>> HIDE IF YOU CAN.
SCREAM IF YOU ARE ABLE, BUT ABOVE ALL, IF YOU ARE ALONE… [ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE.
DON’T ANSWER THE PHONE!
RATED R.
[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]

Roger Ebert:
TV COMMERCIALS LIKE THAT, EXPLOITING THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN IN DANGER. THEY HAVE BEEN SATURATING TV FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS AND THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1980 ARE THE WORST YET. IT’S A DISTURBING NEW TREND AT THE MOVIE BOX OFFICE, ONE WE WILL BE DISCUSSING ON THIS SPECIAL EDITION OF SNEAK PREVIEWS. ACROSS THE HEIL FROM ME IS GENE SISKEL OF THE “CHICAGO TRIBUNE.”

Gene Siskel:
AND THIS IS ROGER EBERT OF THE “CHICAGO SUNTIMES.” WE WILL LOOK AT A GROUP OF RECENT FILMS THAT HAVE UGLY THEMES IN COLUMN. THEY ARE THRILLERS FEATURES EXTREME VIOLENCE DIRECTED AT YOUNG WOMEN. TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WHAT YOU SEE IN MOST OF THESE YOUNG FILMS IS YOUNG GIRLS BEING RAPED OR STABBED TO DEATH, USUALLY BOTH. THIS IS A DEPRESSING DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICAN MOVIES. WE WILL EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THIS TREND AND SPECULATE ON WHY WE ARE GETTING SO MANY OF THESE FILMS AND GETTING THEM NOW. A LOT OF MOVIE GOERS, ADULTS AND TEENAGERS SEE THESE R RATED FILMS AND THEY ASSUME THEY WILL SEE A BUNCH OF ROUTINE SCARY PICTURES BUT OFTENTIMES THEY ARE REALLY SHOCKED HOW AWFUL THESE FILMS ARE. AS WE EXPLORE THIS TREND, WE WILL NOT BE SHOWING YOU EXTREME VIOLENCE IN THESE MOVIES. WE PICKED THEMES THAT ONLY SUGGEST THE VIOLENCE. WE WANT TO INFORM YOU NOT OFFEND YOU.

Roger Ebert:
IT’S JUST AS WELL WE ARE NOT SEEING SOME OF THOSE FILMS. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD TURN THEIR SETS OFF.

Gene Siskel:
YES.

Roger Ebert:
TO BEGIN WITH, ONE OF THE SOCALLED WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS HAVE IN COMMON, THEY PORTRAY WOMEN AS HELPLESS WOMEN. AS YOU SET THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OF THESE FILMS AS GENE AND I HAVE HAD TO, THEY FALL INTO THE SAME PATTERN. A WOMAN OR YOUNG GIRL IS SHOWN ALONE AND ISOLATED AND DEFENSELESS AND THE SUSPENSE FILLED SCENES AND THEN WHEN YOU THINK EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE OKAY AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, A CRAZY KILLER SPRINGS OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND ATTACKS HER AND FREQUENTLY THE KILLER SADISTICALLY THREATENS THE VICTIM BEFORE HE STRIKES. THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING FROM LAST YEAR’S SLEAZY MOVIE “WHEN A STRANGER CALLS” WHICH HAS BEEN RERELEASED BECAUSE OF THE RECENT UPSURGE OF THE POPULARITY OF THESE MOVIES AFTER TACKS ON WOMEN. THE WOMAN HAS BEEN TOLD TO KEEP THE CALLER ON THE LINE THAT HAS BEEN THREATENING HER UNTIL THE POLICE CAN TRACE THE CALL.

[ TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> HELLO?
>> IT’S ME.
>> I KNOW.
WHO ARE YOU?
I’M NOT GOING TO BE HERE MUCH LONGER.
I’M COMING HOME.
>> I KNOW.
>> CAN YOU SEE ME?
>> YES.
>> TAKE ME HOME, OR MAYBE EVEN THE POLICE.
>> YOU CALLED THE POLICE?
>> I WANT TO TALK TO YOU.
[ DIAL TONE ]

TELEPHONE RINGING ]
>> LEAVE ME ALONE.
>> JILL, LISTEN TO ME.
WE TRACED THE CALL.
IT’S COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE.
JUST GET OUT OF THAT HOUSE.

Roger Ebert:
THAT BASIC SCENE HAS PROVIDED THE PREMISE FOR AT LEAST A DOZEN FILMS IN THE LAST YEAR. IT’S ALWAYS THE SAME, THE GIRL IS AT HOME ALONE. THE MENACING ATTACKER, THE RINGING TELEPHONE, THE WIDE, FRIGHTENED EYES. I THINK THERE’S SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG WHEN AN IMAGE LIKE THAT BECOMES THE BUILDING BLOCK OF AN ENTIRE MOVIE GENRE.

Gene Siskel:
A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT THE BATTLE HAS BEEN WON THAT THERE ARE STRONG WOMEN IMAGES IN THE FILM AND JILL CLAYBURGH IN “UNMARRIED WOMAN” AND FONDA AND CLAYBURGH MAYBE ONE FILM A YEAR. AND THESE FILMS COME OUT WEEK AFTER WEEK AND THE DOMINANT FILMS IS NOT FONDA AND CLAYBURGH IT’S WOMEN LIKE THAT COWERING IN THE CORNER, KNIVES BEING BRANDISHED IN THEIR FACES, BEING RAPED AND BEING SLICED APART. THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON IN AMERICAN MOVIES. THAT’S WHY WE ARE DOING THE SHOW.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK PEOPLE IDENTIFY THESE FILMS WITH EARLIER THRILLERS LIKE PSYCHO OR MORE RECENT FILMS LIKE HALLOWEEN. THESE FILMS ARE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY. THESE FILM HATE WOMEN AND UNFORTUNATELY THE AUDIENCES THAT GO TO THEM DON’T SEEM TO LIKE WOMEN TOO MUCH EITHER. WE GO TO SEE THESE FILMS IN MOVIE THEATERS. THESE ARE NOT THE KIND OF MOVIES WHERE THEY HAVE NICE PRIVATE LITTLE SCREENINGS FOR THE CRITICS AND TO BE SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE CHEERING THE VILLAIN ON IS A SCARY EXPERIENCE.

Gene Siskel:
THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF THE KILLER AND REALLY AGAINST THE WOMEN COWERING BACK. I DON’T THINK WE CAN STRESS THIS TOO STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST A COUPLE OF FILMS. IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE GETTING NEW ONES OF THESE TYPES OF FILMS EVERY OTHER WEEK. THAT AMOUNTS TO A MAJOR MOVIE TREND. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. THERE’S PROM NIGHT WITH TEENAGED GIRLS BEING SLAUGHTERED AT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM. THE AD CAMPAIGN IS, IF YOU ARE NOT BACK BY MIDNIGHT, YOU WON’T BE COMING HOME. THERE’S DON’T GO IN THE HOUSE. A GUY WHO WAS TORTURED BY HIS MOTHER BURNS THREE WOMEN TO DEATH, AND THE SELL LINE HERE IS YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. AND THERE’S THE HOWLING, A NEW MOVIE ABOUT A WOMAN WHO GOES ALONE ON A VACATION AND IS TORTURED BY THE LOCALS. THE COME ON LINE HERE IS IMAGINE YOUR WORST FEAR A REALITY. AND THERE’S TERROR TRAIN IN WHICH SIX COLLEGE STUDENTS AT A MASQUERADE PARTY ON A TRAIN ARE STALKED BY A PSYCHO PATH AND THERE’S THE BOOGEYMAN. A SUPERNATURAL KILLER HAUNTS A HOUSE. HERE’S ONE OF THE ADS FOR THE BOOGEYMAN.

>> YOU CAN’T HIDE FROM HIM.
[ CRYING ]
>> BY THE TIME YOU BELIEVE IN HIM, IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
THE BOOGEYMAN, HE WILL GET YOU.

Gene Siskel:
AND WE ARE OUT TO GET HIM BEFORE HE GETS YOU AND YOUR $4. THESE ARE THE MOVIES WE ARE GETTING. IT’S RELENTLESS. EVERY FILM COMPANY SEEMS TO BE MAKING ONE OF THESE MOVIES OR DISTRIBUTING ONE. IN ADDITION TO THE FILMS WE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS SEASON, WE ALSO HAVE “HE KNOWS YOU ARE ALONE,” MOTEL HELL, PHOBIA, MOTHER’S DAY, SCHIZOID, SILENT SCREAM AND I SPIT ON YOUR GAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, WHICH IS EASILY THE WORST OF THIS BUNCH.

Roger Ebert:
THEY SEE THE R RATING AND THEY THINK, R, THAT MEANS IF YOU ARE UNDER 17, YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALONG A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN, AND IT CAN’T BE THAT BAD. MAYBE THEY SAW THE BLUE LAGOON OR THE BLUES BROTHERS AND THEY SAY, WELL, THAT’S NOT SO BAD. THEY HAVE NO IDEA. I AGREE WITH YOU, ABOUT I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. THAT’S THE MOST VIOLENT, EXTREME, GROTESQUE, NAUSEATING R RATED FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN. I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW THE R RATING HAS GROWN SO LARGE TO INCLUDE THAT MOVIE.

Gene Siskel:
WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE GOUGINGS, AGAIN TO MAKE THE POINT ARE TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE BASICALLY, BASICALLY WOMEN THAT ARE BEING GOUGED. I THINK AT THIS POINT SOMEBODY IS PROBABLY WONDERING WHY. WHY? WHY NOW? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING? I THINK IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS I HAVE BEEN SEEING THESE PICTURES, I’M CONVINCED IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE GROWTH OF THE WOMAN’S MOVEMENT IN AMERICA IN THE LAST DECADE. I THINK THAT THESE FILMS ARE SOME SORT OF PRIMORDIAL RESPONSE BY SOME VERY SICK PEOPLE OF MEN SAYING GET BACK IN YOUR PLACE, WOMEN.

Roger Ebert:
I THINK YOU ARE BASICALLY RIGHT, GENE. YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU SET THROUGH HOUR AFTER HOUR OF THIS COMPLETE TRASH, YOU BEGIN TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DID THESE FEMALE VICTIMS DO TO DESERVE THE HORRIBLE ATTACKS THEY UNDERGO IN THESE FILMS? WHAT WAS THEIR CRIME? WHY IS IT SUDDENLY OPEN SEASON ON YOUNG WOMEN IN THE MOVIES? ONE THING THAT MOST OF THE VICTIMS DO HAVE IN COMMON IS THEY DO ACT INDEPENDENTLY. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE POINT. THEY ARE LIBERATED WOMEN WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN. WHEN A WOMAN MAKES A DECISION FOR HERSELF, YOU CAN ALMOST BET SHE WILL PAY WITH HER LIFE, AND HERE’S A SCENE FROM “THE SILENT SCREAM” WHERE SHE’S LOOKING FOR OFF CAMPUS HOUSING.

>> I’M NOT A VIOLENT PERSON BY NATURE.
IF THERE’S A ROOM HERE, I’M READY TO FIGHT FOR IT.
>> WHY FIGHT?
WE CAN SHARE IT.
>> SHE GETS A ROOM, BEATEN, GAGGED AND ATTACKED WITH A KNIFE.
[ WHIMPERING ]

Roger Ebert:
AND IN MOVIE “FRIDAY THE 13th” AND INDEPENDENT CAMP COUNSELOR GETS A RIDE WITH THE WRONG DRIVER.

>> HI.
I’M GOING TO THE LAKE.
I GUESS I ALWAYS WANT SISTERS.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE CALL THEM KIDS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE GOATS.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A DREAM AS LONG AS I HAD, YOU WILL DO ANYTHING.
HEY, WASN’T THAT THE ROAD FOR CAMP CRYSTAL LAKE BACK THERE?
I THINK WE BETTER STOP.
PLEASE.
PLEASE.
PLEASE STOP!
PLEASE!
PLEASE STOP!

Roger Ebert:
NOW THAT SCENE DEMONSTRATES A VERY COMMON AND PROBABLY VERY SIGNIFICANT TECHNIQUE THAT’S USED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THESE FILMS. WE VIEW A SCENE THROUGH THE EYES OF THE KILLER. YOU NEVER SAW THE DRIVER IN THAT LAST SCENE. INSTEAD, YOU SAW EVERYTHING THROUGH THE DRIVER’S EYES. NOW, IN THE TRADITIONAL HORROR MOVIE, WE OFTEN SAW THINGS FROM THE VICTIM’S POINT OF VIEW, BUT THAT’S NO LONGER. NOW WE LOOK THROUGH THE KILLER’S EYES. IT’S ALMOST AS IF THE AUDIENCE IS BEING ASKED TO IDENTIFY WITH THE ATTACKERS IN THESE MOVIES AND THAT REALLY BOTHERS ME.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S A GOOD POINT. THE BEHAVIOR THAT THESE WOMEN ARE ENGAGING IN, IF DONE BY MEN WOULD BE BRAVE, BOLD AND FUN, HITCHHIKING LIKE IN “EASY RIDER.” A WOMAN TRIES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THESE FILMS, WHAMO, THEY GET SLICED UP. WHENEVER WE SEE A MOVIE TREND, I THINK THAT’S WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. I THINK I TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A CONVALESCED DREAM THAT THE PEOPLE MAY BE FEELING AND THE FILMMAKER HITS ON. THEY TALKED ABOUT EVERYBODY BEING AFRAID THAT SOMETHING BAD MIGHT HAPPEN TO THE WORLD, A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. I THINK THEY ARE PICKING UP THAT MEN ARE ANGRY WITH WOMEN AND THEY ARE PANDERING, EXCITING, INFLAMING MEN. VERY BAD.

Roger Ebert:
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONVALESCED DREAMS. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE URGES OR FEARS THAT THEY DON’T ARTICULATE THEMSELVES AND SOMETIMES A MOVIE COMES ALONG THAT STRIKES THAT CHORD. WHEN “AIRPORT” CAME OUT IN 1970, NOBODY KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FIRST OF COUNTLESS, UMPTEEN DOZEN DISASTER MOVIES BUT IT SPOKE TO PEOPLE THAT MADE THEM INITIATE IT. I THE FIRST MOVIE IN THESE WOMEN IN DANGER FILMS WAS HALLOWEEN, WHICH WE WILL GET TO HALLOWEEN IN JUST A MOMENT. I THINK IT’S A PRETTY GOOD PICTURE BUT IT CAPTURED AN ENORMOUS AUDIENCE. IT DID MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUSINESS AND THEN THE SLEAZE MERCHANTS LOOKED AT THAT MOVIE AND TRIED TO PUT THEIR FINGER ON WHAT IT WAS THAT MADE IT SO SUCCESSFUL. WOMEN BEING CHASED BY A KILLER.

Gene Siskel:
THAT’S WHY THEY CALL THEMSELVES EXPLOITATIONS, THESE ROTTEN ONES BECAUSE THEY EXPLOIT ONE ELEMENT AND MAKE IT SICK. AND MANY OF THESE ATTACKS TAKE ON WOMEN WHO ARE SCANTILY CLAD. I THINK THAT THE INTENT IS TO EXPLOIT THE SEX ANGLE IN THESE PICTURES. THE NUDITY IS ALWAYS GRATUITOUS. IT PUT IN TO TITILLATE THE AUDIENCE AND WOMEN WHO DRESS THIS WAY OR MERELY UNCOVER THEIR BODIES ARE SOMEHOW ASKING FOR TROUBLE AND SOMEHOW DESERVE THE TROUBLE THAT THEY GET, THAT’S A SICK IDEA. HERE’S AN INNOCENT SUN BATHER IN “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO HER.
[ SHOUTS ]

Gene Siskel:
AND IN FRIDAY THE 13th WE WATCH AS A YOUNG WOMAN PRIMPS PROVOCATIVELY IN A BATHROOM MIRROR AS SHE’S STALKED BY A HATCHET KILLER. IT’S A FILM SAYING ACT THIS WAY YOUNG WOMEN AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE.

>> HELLO?
>> NED?
COME ON.
>> TRUST ME.

Gene Siskel:
IN THE PAST YEAR, I MUST HAVE SEEN THAT SCENE 100, 150 TIMES, EVERY MOVIE OF THIS KIND HAS EIGHT OR TEN SCENES JUST LIKE IT. I’M SICK OF THEM. I DREAD GOING TO THESE TYPES OF MOVIE. IT’S THE MOST DEPRESSING PART OF MY JOB AS A FILM CRITIC.

Roger Ebert:
THERE WE ARE IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. WE GO TO SEE THESE MOVIES AND I ALMOST FEEL AS IF I DON’T BELONG IN THE THEATER BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE APPARENTLY WENT TO THE MOVIES LIKE THIS VOLUNTARILY. THEY ARE REACTING AND HAPPY TO BE THERE. I FEEL LIKE AN UNDERCOVER SPY IN THE DARK. I SPENT TO SEE “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE” AND I WAS SITTING NEXT TO A MAN WHO WAS 50 YEARS OLD WHO WAS TALKING BACK TO THE SCREEN WHO SAYS, SHE REALLY ASKED FOR IT NOW. OR THERE WAS A RAPE SCENE AND HE SAID, THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE. I FELT CREEPY SITTING THERE.

Gene Siskel:
I SAW A LOT OF COUPLES ON DATES. WELL, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THIS FILM AND IMITATE THE BEHAVIOR. SOME PEOPLE MAY, BUT I DON’T KNOW. A MAJORITY OF MIDDLECLASS PEOPLE ARE SEEING THEM. I WORRY ABOUT THIS IDEA WHICH IS WHEN YOU VIEW WOMEN, CONSTANTLY AS SPORT, BEING STABBED, I THINK THAT’S A SORT OF SICK NOTION THAT JUST SORT OF MAKES IT’S DEGRADING. YOU VIEW THEM AS SECOND CLASS, THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID BEFORE THAT ALL MOVIES TEND TO ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE BEHAVIOR THAT THEY SHOW. THESE ARE WOMEN AS SPORT TO BE STABBED. I THINK THAT’S A BAD IDEA. THEY OUTLAWED BULLFIGHTING BECAUSE IT WAS CRUEL. I ALMOST HAVE SOME OF THE SAME FEELINGS TOWARDS THESE KINDS OF MOVIES.

Roger Ebert:
IT PUTS SOME BAD IDEAS IN SOCIETY IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTERTAINMENT, YES. YOU KNOW, GENE AND I HAD SOME LONG DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE DECIDED TO DO THIS SPECIAL PROGRAM ON WOMEN IN DANGER IN THE MOVIES AND FRANKLY, WE WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER ADDITIONAL PUBLICITY FOR THESE MOVIES MIGHT SIMPLY HELP THEM OUT AT THE BOX OFFICE. WE SURE HOPE NOT. OUR INTENTION IS TO SIMPLY REPORT ON THIS TREND AND TO WARN UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE WHO MIGHT GO TO THESE FILMS THINKING THEY ARE MERELY, GOOD OLDFASHIONED HORROR FILMS, THE KIND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE USED TO ENJOY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND SCARY MOVIES AND MOVIES THAT SYSTEMICALLY DEMEAN HALF THE HUMAN RACE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOVIES WHICH ARE VIOLENT BUT ENTERTAINING AND MOVIES THAT ARE GRUESOME AND DESPICABLE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HORROR MOVIE AND A FREAK SHOW. AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT BOTH OF US GAVE FAVORABLE REVIEWS TO A VERY SCARY 1978 HORROR FILM NAMED “HALLOWEEN” THERE MUST BE PEOPLE ASKING HOW COULD WE PRAISE A MOVIE LIKE THAT AND NOW SAY THESE OTHER MOVIES SORE TERRIBLE. WELL, HERE’S A SCENE FROM “HALLOWEEN” IT HAS THE SAME BASIC SITUATION AS ALL THE WOMEN IN DANGER MOVIES HAVE. THERE’S A WOMAN ALONE IN A BIG HOUSE AND SHE’S BEING CHASED BY A KILLER, BUT LET’S LOOK AT IT FIRST AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES.

>> WE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WALK.
>> WHAT IF IT’S THE BOOGEYMAN.
I’M SCARED.
>> THERE’S NOTHING TO BE SCARED OF.
>> WHY?
>> I KILLED HIM.
>> YOU CAN’T KILL THE BOOGEYMAN.
[ SCREAMING ]
>> LOCK THE DOOR!
¶

Roger Ebert:
OKAY. THAT’S “HALLOWEEN” A HORROR MOVIE WE BOTH THINK IS PRETTY GOOD.

Gene Siskel:
VERY GOOD.

Roger Ebert:
HALLOWEEN IS DIRECTED AND ACTED WITH MORE ARTISTRY AND CRAFTSMANSHIP THAN THE SLEAZE FILMS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. AS YOU WATCH HALLOWEEN, YOUR BASIC SYMPATHIES ARE ENLISTED ON THE SIDE OF THE WOMAN, NOT WITH THE KILLER. THE MOVIE DEVELOPS ITS WOMEN KILLERS AS INDEPENDENT, INTELLIGENT, SPUNKY AND INTERESTING PEOPLE. HALLOWEEN DOES NOT HATE WOMEN.

Gene Siskel:
YOU KNOW WHEN I SAW THAT SCENE, I MUST ADMIT I WASN’T WORRYING AS MUCH ABOUT THE WOMAN, BUT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT KILLER AND HOW I WOULD HANDLE. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HALLOWEEN NOT ONLY HATES WOMEN BUT IT LOVES FILM AND FILMMAKING. THE MUSIC IS FABULOUS, THE WAY HE STARTS ONE THEME AND KEEPING THE OTHER THEME REALLY GOOD. ALSO THE LIGHT COMING THROUGH THE SLATS IN THAT CLOSET. IT’S A FILM THAT’S UP. THAT SCENE IS UP AND YOU ARE JUMPING RATHER THAN GETTING DEPRESSED AND FEELING SORRY AND FEELING SORRY THAT YOU ARE WATCHING.

Roger Ebert:
ARTISTRY CAN REDEEM ANY SUBJECT MATTER. THAT’S WHY I HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO CENSORSHIP. I DON’T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE OFF BASE. WHAT DOES THE ARTIST DO WITH IT? HOW DOES HE PUT IT THROUGH HIS ART IN ORDER TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT IT OR TO MAKE IT INTO A COMMERCIAL FILM OR A SERIOUS FILM. I BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE MOVIE LIKE HALLOWEEN, WE CAN ENGAGE IN THAT JOY OF FILMMAKING THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. THAT’S NOT THE CASE WITH THE OTHER FILMS THAT REALLY ADDRESS THEMSELVES TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COMMON DENOMINATOR.

Gene Siskel:
THE FILM WE ARE DEALING WITH DO NOT HAVE THE ARTISTRY OF HALLOWEEN. THEY BOIL DOWN TO ONE IMAGE, ONE DISTURBING IMAGE, A WOMAN SCREAMING IN ABJECT TERROR.

[ SCREAMS ]

Gene Siskel:
AS TO WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO ABOUT THESE FILMS, THE TREND IN THE MOVIES THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPOTLIGHTING, I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE BOX OFFICE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN JUST TWO FILM CRITICS. IF ONE OF THESE FILMS IS AROUND, IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA THAT IT MIGHT BE AROUND, STAY AWAY.

Roger Ebert:
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT FILMS TO STAY AWAY FROM, USUALLY YOU CAN TELL BY THE ADS, R RATED WITH A KNIFE OR A HATCHET, A GIRL SCREAMING AND SOME GUY IN A HOOD. THESE MOVIES ARE JUNK AND GIVE THEM A PASS.

Gene Siskel:
WE WILL SEE YOU AT THE MOVIES.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
I MEAN I HATE TO DEFEND A FILM THAT ISN’T ALL THAT GOOD. I THINK ROGER IS BEING UNFAIR TO “I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.” IT’S A FILM ABOUT A BRUTAL ACT.

Christy Lemire:
BUT HE’S APPALLED BY THE ORIGINAL, AND “LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT” WHERE THEY LANGUISH OVER AND FETISHIZE THE RAPE IT’S NOT JUST ALLUDED TO. THEY SPEND TIME WITH IT NEEDLESSLY AND THERE’S THE WHOLE TREND OF MOVIES LIKE “HIGH TENSION” WHERE THE WOMAN IS A VICTIM IN THE BEGINNING BUT SHE GETS HER REVENGE IN BLOODY, GORY WAYS.

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
MANY OF THESE FILMS WHERE WOMEN ARE QUOTE/UNQUOTE VICTIMIZED OR PUT IN DANGER ARE WHERE WOMEN TRIUMPH OVER DANGER. HORROR IS THE ONLY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN FIND A FEMALE PROTAGONIST.

Christy Lemire:
JAMIE THREE CURTIS “THE FINAL GIRL.”

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky:
SHE LASTS THROUGH THE ENTIRE FILM WITHOUT GETTING KILLED. JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR ANOTHER LOOK BACK AT SNEAK PREVIEWS. YOU CAN FOLLOW THE DISCUSSION ON FACEBOOK AND ON TWITTER. UNTIL THEN, THE BALCONY IS CLOSED.

(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Fey Illyas/Flickr

PROBLEM: Out at the fringes of sleep research, small studies have shown that applying a "gentle electric current" can ease the brain into deep sleep, improving sleep quality and increasing overnight memory retention. But the potential therapy has yet to gain popular appeal, probably because the whole sticking electrodes to your head thing just screams "don't try this at home." (There are, of course, companies that are trying to sell you on trying it at home, but you'll need to find upwards of $600 and a doctor willing to write you a note.)

---

• Mummies Have Atherosclerosis, Too
• Black Children Are Less Likely to Be Prescribed Antibiotics Than Children of Other Races
• Women on Birth Control Pills Prefer Less Masculine Men

---

METHODOLOGY: German researchers recruited 11 subjects to spend two nights in their sleep lab. During one night, as the participants approached deep sleep, the researchers played sounds ("pink noise") that were synchronized to their brain rhythms. As a control, no sounds were played the other night.

In addition, the participants were shown 120 pairs of words each night before going to be. First thing in the morning, they were tested to see how many of the pairs they remembered.

RESULTS: While it didn't cause them to experience more deep sleep cycles, the pink noise appeared to prolong deep sleep and to increase the size of the subject's brain waves during that period, as evinced by their EEGs.

The slow brain waves that characterize deep sleep are implicated in information processing and memory formation, and sure enough, on the mornings after those brain waves appeared to have been enhanced, the participants remembered a higher number of word pairs (an average of 22, as opposed to 13).

IMPLICATIONS: Sound stimulation has been tried before, unsuccessfully. The key here, write the researchers, is that the frequency of the sounds was in sync with the subjects' brain waves. Were this technique to be further developed, it could potentially be used to improve sleep in general, and possibly even to enhance brain activity when we're awake. Although it's even less viable, for now, than electric brain stimulation, the latter has been proposed as a way of treating Alzheimer's, fighting depression, easing pain, and the ever-popular "boosting creativity."

---

"Auditory Closed-Loop Stimulation of the Sleep Slow Oscillation Enhances Memory" is published in Neuron.

“What’s interesting—and I think considerably unremarked on—about the rise of a teenaged girl as a staple of big, prestige, often anti-heroic dramas is that these characters function as built-in critics of the behavior of the adults who are at the ostensible centers of the shows they share.”

- From ‘Homeland’ To 'Mad Men,’ How Prestige Drama Quietly Became Young Adult Fiction | ThinkProgress

“There’s also the issue, Flock says, of what the Brewer’s Association calls “crafty” beers — beers owned by big beer companies disguised as small craft beer. A common example is Blue Moon, a Belgian-style beer. “A lot of people think that [Blue Moon] is a craft beer, but is in fact owned by MillerCoors,” she says.”

- Craft Brews Slowly Chipping Away At Big Beer’s Dominance : NPR

“Regardless of your feelings for Baroness Thatcher, it’s clear to read the deeper conflict at play here. It is some form protest that we’re witnessing. Thousands of Britons are expressing their enduring discontent with Thatcher’s influence with their pounds and pence. Plenty of people say that it’s a tasteless way of doing it, but the principles of free speech aren’t supposed to revolve around subjective measures of what’s tasteful and what’s not. Nobody booed Billy Elliott off stage just because it had some critical things to say about Thatcher. So why should the BBC change the rules for this one song, defy protocol and not play it? Well, because it would be awful to broadcast that cheerful tune across the United Kingdom three days before Thatcher’s funeral, when everyone knows that the witch in the song represents the woman who’s about to be buried.”

- The BBC’s Not Sure How to Deal with the Sudden Popularity of ‘Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead’ - Adam Clark Estes - The Atlantic Wire

Most single Angelenos will tell you ours is a challenging city for romantic relationships. The sprawl and bad traffic make it difficult to even have a date. Also, there are so many incredibly at...

“Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking soundbites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, ‘that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘The Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machinegun?”

The obscure 1995 Leonardo DiCaprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. Kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, “The NBC Nightly News” and other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.”

-

A Roger Ebert quote that sticks out in my mind

From his review of Gus Van Sant’s Elephant

(via yeezytaughtme)

Man that movie is so sad.

(via softcastle-mccormick)

foto: Karlson Montenegro

Essa foto foi tirada sábado, durante o cortejo para pendurar a bicicleta fantasma em homenagem a Gisela Matta, atropelada por um ônibus na semana passada no Leblon.

This new duet between Brad Paisley and LL Cool J, "Accidental Racist," is getting beaten up pretty badly on the intertubes. I confess to doing some of the beating, mostly because of laughable lyrics and the fact that there is actually a Rap Genius entry dedicated to the song. With that said, I think it's worth taking a second to analyze why the lyrics are in fact laughable. I think we can get to the root of this by seriously and directly engaging Brad Paisley and his stated motives for the song. Here is Paisley in his own words:

"At this point, after all these albums and all these hits, I have no interest in phoning it in, and I think that [the song] comes from an honest place in both cases, and that's why it's on there and why I'm so proud of it. This isn't a stunt. This isn't something that I just came up with just to be sort of shocking or anything like that. I knew it would be, but I'm sort of doing it in spite of that, really. 

"I'm doing it because it just feels more relevant than it even did a few years ago. I think that we're going through an adolescence in America when it comes to race. You know, it's like we're almost grown up. You have these little moments as a country where it's like, 'Wow things are getting better.' And then you have one where it's like, 'Wow, no they're not.' 

"It really came to a boil last year with Lincoln and Django, and there's just a lot of talk about it. It was really obvious to me that we still have issues as a nation with this. There are two little channels in each chorus that really steal the pie. One of them is, 'We're still picking up the pieces, walking on eggshells, fighting over yesterday,' and the other is, 'Paying for the mistakes that a lot of folks made long before we came.' We're all left holding the bag here, left with the burden of these generations. And I think the younger generations are really kind of looking for ways out of this. 

"I just think art has a responsibility to lead the way, and I don't know the answers, but I feel like asking the question is the first step, and we're asking the question in a big way. How do I show my Southern pride? What is offensive to you? And he kind of replies, and his summation is really that whole let bygones be bygones and 'If you don't judge my do rag, I won't judge your red flag.' We don't solve anything, but it's two guys that believe in who they are and where they're from very honestly having a conversation and trying to reconcile."

The du-rag/red-flag line Paisley cites at the end belongs to LL Cool J, one of the two guys "that believe in who they are." LL Cool J has enjoyed a kind of longevity with which very few rappers can compete. In the mid-'80s and early '90s, particularly, he was a dynamic MC. (I am still partial to the "I'm Bad"/"Radio"/"Go Cut Creator Go" era.)  His career has blossomed beyond the record industry to include music and film.

I can understand why an artist like Paisley would be attracted to an artist like LL Cool J. I can't for the life of me understand why he'd choose LL Cool J to begin "a conversation" to reconcile. Rap is overrun with artists who've spent some portion of their career attempting to have "a conversation." There's Chuck D. There's Big Daddy Kane. There's KRS-ONE. There's Talib. There's Mos Def. There's Kendrick Lamar. There's Black Thought. There's Dead Prez. And so on.

In an artform distinguished by a critical mass concerned with racism, LL's work is distinguished by its lack of concern. Which is fine. "Pink Cookies" is dope. "Booming System" is dope. "I Shot Ya" is dope. I even rock that "Who Do You Love" joint. But I wouldn't call up Talib Kweli to record a song about gang violence in L.A., and I wouldn't call up KRS-ONE to drop a verse on a love ballad. The only real reason to call up LL is that he is black and thus must have something insightful to say about the Confederate Flag. 

The assumption that there is no real difference among black people is exactly what racism is. Our differences, our right to our individuality, is what makes us human. The point of racism is to rob black people of that right. It would be no different than me assuming that Rachel Weisz must necessarily have something to say about black-Jewish relations, or me assuming that Paisley must know something about barbecue because he's Southern. 

It is no different than the only black kid in class being asked to explain "race" to white people, or asking the same question of the sole black dude in your office. The entire fight is to get white people to respect the fact that Mos Def holding a microphone is not LL Cool J holding a microphone, that Trayvon Martin is not De'Marquise Elkins, that wearing a hoodie and being black does not make you the same as every other person wearing a hoodie and being black. 

Paisley wants to know how he can express his Southern Pride. Here are some ways. He could hold a huge party on Martin Luther King's birthday, to celebrate a Southerner's contribution to the world of democracy. He could rock a T-shirt emblazoned with Faulkner's Light In August, and celebrate the South's immense contribution to American literature. He could preach about the contributions of unknown Southern soldiers like Andrew Jackson Smith. He could tell the world about the original Cassius Clay. He could insist that Tennessee raise a statue to Ida B. Wells.

Every one of these people are Southerners. And every one of them contributed to this great country. But to do that Paisley would have to be more interested in a challenging conversation and less interested in a comforting lecture.

In trying to dream up a #slatepitch on the new Brad Paisley-LL Cool J collaboration “Accidental Racist,” a variety of contrarian avenues spring to mind: “Why Brad Paisley, Like Skynyrd Before Him, Is Right About The Stars & Bars.” “If You Love The Band You Can’t Hate ‘Accidental Racist.’” “Good Intentions Redeem Gag-Inducing Lyrics In Paisley-LL Collabo.”

None of those headlines can sustain a valid argument. Taking the The Band-themed one first: “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” and “Tears Of Rage” would spit in your tea if you tried to use their rich portraits of confederate humanity to excuse “Now my chains are gold but I’m still misunderstood/I wasn’t there when Sherman’s march turned the South into firewood” (LL) or “Fixed the buildings, dried some tears/But we’re still sifting through the rubble after 150 years” (Paisley). In the case of the Skynyrd pitch, you’d just be retreading a million strained defenses of the Confederate flag that boil down to “…BUT I REALLY LIKE THAT FLAG DON’T TAKE IT AWAY!” Because again, there’s no comparing the subversive lyrical tenor of “Sweet Home Alabama” – arguably the only classic rock staple more widely misunderstood than “Born In The USA” – to the godawful writing of “Accidental Racist.” And the on-wax conflict between Neil Young and Skynyrd provided exactly what’s lacking from the simplistic detente Paisley and LL attempt to voice: the unblinkered honesty that combativeness brings.

In the case of the redemptive-intentions #slatepitch, Rembert Brown already provided the appropriate irate mockery of LL’s inexcusable offer to “forget the iron chains,” among other lyrical crimes. But Brown left just enough meat on the bone to make a separate point:

This is the Americans Elect of pop culture racial healing.

Americans Elect was the Thomas Friedman-inspired moneypit for earnest rich people who believe that our policy issues can be fixed by taking the raspy edge off our politics. That’s an old idea, supported by the constant poll finding that Americans claim to want a less-caustic politics, but gutted by the real, sharp divides which underlie our policy conflicts. We genuinely disagree over the proper balances of liberty and safety, of individual and communal interests, of private property and public resources. The federalist, tri-partide cauldron our founders built functions best when those disagreements flare up underneath it and cause the country to change somewhere between as quickly as is morally just and as slowly as is socially practical. Efforts to smother those conflicts rather than identify legislators capable of crafting them into a truly responsive politics are counterproductive, and born of elites who are tired of the shouting and incapable of seeing its potential value.

The post-racial aspirations voiced by Paisley’s narrator and LL’s “black yankee” interlocutor suffer from the same self-serving, battle-weary ignorance that drove Americans Elect. While the voices in “Accidental Racist” espouse hyperawareness of color, they’re also calling for an approach to racial differences that’s functionally identical to the colorblindness canard Alyssa’s gutted before. The performers call for racism to magically heal itself through major chords and willpower. It’s The Secret by way of Tinkerbell. Paisley doesn’t want to talk to the coffeeshop guy about racism any more than LL wants to talk to white folks about mandatory minimums or systemic disparities in educational outcomes. They each want to know that ‘We’re cool, right bro?’ without actually engaging the ugly substance and legacy of American history. “Accidental Racist” deserves every ounce of clowning it gets, but a song this earnest that actually grappled with racial divisions wouldn’t merit such epic shade-throwing. Unfortunately, the aesthetics here are exactly as simple, cheap, and foolish as the sentiments. Indemnity masquerades as forgiveness, and squeezes critical self-examination conveniently out of the picture for stars&bars fans.

Like Americans Elect, the failures of “Accidental Racist” at least offer a sort of negative-space sketch of what forward motion might look like. There may be a professional political class that exploits voter antagonisms for profit rather than progress, but the antagonisms themselves are real. A third party that severs some of those antagonists from the parties that are minimally responsive to them in policy terms might do some good, but one that wishes them away is both foolish and damaging. Similarly, imagine the good that might come of pop artists calling not for a peaceful, easy, made-for-Clearchannel conversation about how racism manifests in 21^st-century America, but for a difficult, contentious, honest, and combative one.

How appropriate that Paisley locates the initiating event for his narrator’s earnest call for getting over it all in a Starbucks. “Accidental Racist” is the shiny plastic version of a call to productive racial discourse, a cheaply made thought-jalopy that will break down the second anyone foolish enough to buy it drives the thing off the lot.

Yesterday, members of Ukrainian feminist group Femen staged protests across Europe calling for a "topless jihad" in support of Tunisian activist Amina Tyler. Meanwhile Pennsylvania-based brewing company Sly Fox is doing something also called "topless" but involving fewer militant arrests. It's the first American brewery to use this sort of can, which was first introduced at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, according to Jim Galligan at Beer & Whiskey Brothers. 

All photos by Jim Galligan

My immediate reaction is that this would cut my lip. Sales manager Brian Thiel, though, says don't you even worry about that.

Advocates of this model talk about the enhanced aromatic experience. I also imagine more opportunities for people to spill beer on eachother. At least in movies, that always leads to an exciting fight or romance. Like the craft beer culture that's embracing it, this design is all about human connection.

Westwood Blvd. just south of Wishire, Los Angeles, CA. ca. mid-1930s. I miss LA.

(Reuters)

Why is private college tuition so astronomically expensive these days? 

Ask an administrator, and they'll likely tell you that it's because they're taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Many schools advertise sky-high tuition rates that only the wealthiest students ever actually pay, while dolling out generous financial aid packages to needier attendees. At Harvard, to pick a famous example, tuition is $37,000, but students from families earning $65,000 or less per year pay zero. In the higher-ed world, this all gets called the "high-tuition, high-aid" model. 

But exactly how much of the last decade's rising tuition has actually been used to cover rising aid?

Quite a bit, it turns out. Over at Education Sector, Andrew Gillen put together this handy chart comparing tuition increases to changes in financial aid at 911 private, non-profit colleges between 1999 and 2010 in nominal dollars. On average, schools spent 60 cents of every new tuition dollar on aid (as shown via the green line). Overall, 58 percent of schools devoted at least half their new tuition money to aid. (Schools above the red line spent spent more than 100% of their tuition hikes boosting aid, while schools below it spent spent less than 100%)

Here's what this chart is telling us: After cutting out all of the money that got funneled toward aid,* the average private college had 40 cents to cover all of their other rising costs, which were increasing in part because of inflation.

However, just because schools have the right intentions doesn't make the high-tuition, high-aid model a great idea. There's a good deal of evidence that high sticker prices scare off students from poorer families, no matter how generous a college's grants might be. And as Gillen argues, the schools that have boosted aid the most compared to tuition aren't necessarily the schools doing the best job of recruiting low-income students. Instead, they may be spending the money on merit scholarships (which have exploded over the last couple of decades), or grants to more middle class kids. High-tuition, high-aid might be a good idea in theory, but it doesn't seem to be working so well practice. At least, not if stealing from the rich and giving to the poor really is the goal. 

________________

*Note: This paragraph initially said "needy students" instead of "aid." But as one commenter correctly pointed out, it's not possible from this particular data to tell what percentage of this aid is being handed out as merit scholarships (which can go to higher-income students) and what percentage is being awarded based on on need. So I've edited it for the sake of precision. 

Kenneth Dunton, Professor of Marine Sciences at the University of Texas, Austin, has a somber video on “The New Arctic”:

h/t Climate Crocks

Related Posts:

• Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
• NOAA: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather
• NOAA: Climate Change Driving Arctic Into A ‘New State’ With Rapid Ice Loss And Record Permafrost Warming
• Death Spiral Watch: Experts Warn ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue

““A proportion of older men will predictably have testosterone concentrations below the normal range of healthy young men,” wrote BMJ deputy editor Tony Delamothe, in a 2012 commentary. He added, “It seems a bit harsh to turn an age-related phenomenon into a disease, but that’s what’s happened.””

- Should the Modern Man Be Taking Testosterone? - John-Manuel Andriote - The Atlantic

“

He wasn’t a litmus-test reviewer, judging movies on single decisions or statements, but balanced different elements of a film in making up his judgements. This kind of thinking was clear in his reading of Gone With The Wind in Ebert’s Four-Star Reviews. Ebert was scathing about the movie’s uncritical use of Margaret Mitchell’s text, which describes the slave-holding South as “a l and of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields,” writing acidly “One does not have to ask if the slaves saw it the same way.” And he was not kind to the balance of concerns in the film. “The movie sidesteps the inconvenient fact that plantation gentility was purchased with the sweat of forced labor (there is more sympathy for Scarlett getting calluses on her pretty little hands than for all the great crimes of slavery).” But he read the film as a film, noting how some elements of it weighed against others, saying “to its major African American characters it does at least grant humanity and complexity. Hattie McDaniel, as Mammy, is the most sensible and clear-sighted person in the entire story.” In that same review he championed the need to depict even “values and assumptions fundamentally different from our own,” because “A politically correct GWTW would not be worth making, and might largely be a lie.” It’s a piece I wish every person who condemned Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty as an endorsement of torture had read before putting fingers to keyboard.

And he recognized that movies could, in a way that political parties often prove incapable of, represent the confusions and contradictions of America’s approach to the most difficult issues of our time. In Ebert’s Four-Star Reviews (which I’m relying on heavily now because his site is, justifiably, swamped), he writes of Do The Right Thing: “Of course it is confused. of course it wavers between middle-class values and street values. Of course it is not sure whether it believes in liberal pieties, or militancy. Of course some of the characters are sympathetic and others are hateful—and of course some of the likable characters do bad things. Isn’t that the way it is in America today? Anyone who walks into this film expecting answers is a dreamer or a fool. But anyone who leaves the movie with more intolerance than they walked in with wasn’t paying attention.”

”

- Remembering Roger Ebert As A Critic, And As A Liberal | ThinkProgress (via kgoldschmitt)

I’m late to Tegan and Sara’s excellent Heartthrob, but listening to standout track “Now I’m All Messed Up,” I noticed something interesting. In the song’s excellent, heartwrenching chorus, the twins sing “Now I’m all messed up / Sick inside, wondering where / Where you’re leaving your makeup / Now I’m all messed up / Sick inside wondering who / Whose life you’re making worthwhile”:

What’s intriguing about those lines is not just that they’re good and precise, but that the default interpretation of them would probably be—the rise of makeup for men in certain circumstances notwithstanding—that Tegan and Sara are singing to a woman. That shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who’s followed the band for more than half a minute: both of the twins are gay and in long-term relationships with women. But where in the past, those songs and lyrics that clearly referenced women, like the deftly sketched object of desire who is “Dignified in what she does / When she sings the smile that she brings / To all of you unaware of what’s to come ” in “Superstar” were part of what, along with their production, made them kind of a cult group. I think I heard them for the first time at the Women’s Center in college. Now, it doesn’t seem to have pigeonholed them at all. Even if it’s women singing about other women, plenty of guys seem to be able to hear their own experiences in lyrics like these.

A similar kind of identification-bending happens in Robyn’s “Dancing On My Own” when she sings that “I’m not the guy you’re taking home,” a bit of language that could be part of a language barrier, but more likely, seems to be Robyn simultaneously conjuring up “stilettos and broken bottles” and speaking in the voice and to the experience of her gay male fans:

It doesn’t seem to me yet that this kind of pronoun fluidity to mix up the gender of the person we imagine as the protagonist of the song, or the expectation that you can identify with a song even if the sexual orientation of the lyrics or the gender of the singer clearly aren’t yours has completely conquered pop music. And of course there have always been cross-gender affiliations between singers and their audiences. But I wonder if this kind of protean approach is less closeted than it once was, if it’s less a form of code than simply a reflection of social and musical reality. Whatever it is, if it gives Tegan and Sara a chance to break out to mainstream audiences while still writing songs that are clearly addressed to women, it makes me very happy.

kgoldschmitt:

Randall Roberts – “In place of the concept album these are ‘concept songs.’”

So, this is the blog post in which I get to totally gush over my good friend, Sarah’s, new cookbook, More Peas, Thank You.

Y’all, I am in LOVE with this book. It’s truly wonderful. Like Sarah’s previous {ahem, New York Times Bestselling} cookbook, More Peas, Thank You delivers a happy helping of adaptable family friendly vegan and vegetarian recipes. What I love most though in the book, are the sweet and personal stories that Sarah shares along with the recipes. It’s one of those cookbooks that you can go to bed reading. I just love that!

I wanted to share a recipe from Sarah’s new cookbook today — a recipe I think you guys are going to love — and that is a vegan version of everyone’s favorite girl scout classic, thin mint cookies.

These cookies lasted approximately four hours in my house. That’s how delicious they are.

Vegan or not, I think these might be my new favorite cookie. And after you taste them for yourself, I think you’ll have to agree.

Now, I used to be a skeptic on the whole “using applesauce instead of butter” fad.

Okay, I’m still a little bit of a skeptic on most recipes, but I seriously couldn’t believe how well these turned out!!

Unlike traditional thin mint cookies, they are softer and cakier, which I happen to appreciate. Perhaps we should rename them to “thick mint cookies”? Heh. After baking, you douse these puppies in melted chocolate mixed with a teeny bit of coconut oil and peppermint extract.  They are so light, you feel like you can eat a whole stack in one sitting.

Not that I did that or anything.

I’ll stop gushing now and just give y’all the recipe. Make these soon! And pick up a copy of Sarah’s book while you’re at it. It’s beautiful and deserves a spot on your kitchen shelf.

Thin Mint Cookies

lightly adapted from More Peas, Thank You

Print this Recipe!

Ingredients:

1/2 cup whole wheat pastry flour

1/2 cup all purpose flour

1/2 cup sugar

1/2 cup cocoa powder

1/2 tsp baking powder

1/2 tsp baking soda

1/2 tsp salt

1/2 cup unsweetened applesauce

1/4 cup + 1 tsp coconut oil

1/4 cup nondairy milk (or regular milk)

2 tsp vanilla extract

1 cup chocolate chips

1 tsp mint extract

Directions:

Preheat your oven to 375 degrees.

Whisk together the flour, sugar, salt, cocoa, baking powder and baking soda. If the cocoa is extra clumpy, you may want to sift it. Set aside.

In another bowl, mix together the applesauce, 1/4 cup coconut oil, milk and vanilla. Add this to the dry ingredients and mix until a dough forms.

Drop tablespoons of dough onto parchment or silpat-lined baking sheets. With wet hands, gently flatten each mound of dough. Bake for 11-12 minutes until puffy then repeat with remaining dough.

To make the chocolate coating, melt together the chocolate chips, 1/4 tsp coconut oil and peppermint extract in a microwave safe bowl. This is easiest if you zap it in thirty second intervals then stir with a rubber spatula. Make sure all the chocolate chips melt! Dip cookies in the chocolate then place on a plate or back on the baking sheet. After you have dipped all cookies, place cookies in the fridge for 15 minutes to harden and set.

Enjoy!

Time:

45 minutes

Pin It

“When you ask people why they don’t read fantasy, they usually say something along the lines of, ‘because elves don’t exist’. This makes no sense as an objection. Huge swathes of imaginative literature concern things that don’t exist, and as it happens, things that don’t exist feature particularly prominently in the English literary tradition. We’re very good at things that don’t exist. The fantastic is central not just to the English canon – Spenser, Shakespeare, even Dickens – but also to our amazing parallel tradition of para-literary works, from Carroll to Conan Doyle to Stoker to Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Pullman. There’s no other body of literature quite like it: just consider the comparative absence of fantasy from the French and Russian traditions. And yet it’s perfectly normal for widely literate general readers to admit that they read no fantasy at all. I know, because I often ask. It’s as if there is some mysterious fantasy-reading switch that in many people is set to ‘off’. And it’s this that leads to the mayor of Des Moines syndrome, because part of the point of Stephenson’s remark isn’t just that people who don’t live there don’t know who the mayor is, they couldn’t care less. The information is of no use to them. Until recently, George R.R. Martin would’ve been another serious candidate for that mayoralty. He has for decades been an immensely prolific and successful writer of fantasy, unusual in having more than one series on the go simultaneously. (He’s also a fan of his own milieu. Martin held the first numbered ticket to the first Comicon festival, the now famous, gigantic orgy of all things fantastic and SF and geeky. It is impossible to have a more profound qualification as a fan of his own genre: it’s as if Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons turned out to be George Lucas.) Martin is now much more widely famous thanks to his novel cycle A Song of Ice and Fire, perhaps better known, thanks to the immense success of the HBO series, as Game of Thrones, which took its title from the first novel in the series.​† Game of Thrones was first described to me, by someone familiar with the project from before its initial broadcast, as ‘The Sopranos meets Lord of the Rings.’ At that point, I knew I was going to like it. But then, I am that person – the one who likes fantasy and SF. It was far from clear that anyone else would like it. So I have to admit I feel an obscure and entirely unjustified sense of vindication at the fact that now, with the third series about to start airing, Game of Thrones is universally seen as a roaring success, and Martin’s books have hit the best-seller lists, many years after they were first published. (The first book in the sequence came out in 1996.)”

- John Lanchester reviews ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ by George R.R. Martin and ‘Game of Thrones’ · LRB 11 April 2013

By Arturo R. García

Google’s front page display for March 31 honoring civil rights leader Cesar Chavez

A deeply religious man who worked tirelessly to help the less fortunate was publicly acknowledged by Google on Easter Sunday. And a bunch of self-described Christians had a problem with this.

I’m referring, of course, to César Chávez.

Yes, the mere sight of the civil-rights icon on the search engine’s front page on March 31–his birthday–was enough to make conservatives verklempt and accusing Google of breaking from its practice of honoring Judeo-Christian figures (like Santa Claus).

And those were apparently the better-informed ones. There were also folks complaining because they thought Google had honored deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. (Also a Christian, by the way.)

Of course, some of those same people were apparently mollified by Bing’s decision to put Easter eggs–a symbol that pre-dates Christianit, remember–on its own front page.

But what went ignored is that religion was closely tied to Chávez’s mission: it was a priest, Father Donald McDonnell, who introduced him to the concept of non-violent resistance, and the relationship deepened from there:

Chavez placed harsher demands on himself than on anyone else in the movement. In 1968 he fasted (the first of several fasts over his lifetime), to recommit the movement to non-violence. In many ways the fast epitomized Chavez’s approach to social change. On one level it represented his spiritual values, his willingness to sacrifice and do penance. At the same time, he and his lieutenants were extremely aware of the political ramifications of his actions, using the fast as a way of both publicizing and organizing for their movement.

Fasting was just one expression of his deep spirituality. Like most farmworkers, Chavez was a devout Catholic. His vision of religion was a progressive one, that prefigured the “preferential option for the poor” of liberation theology. In the UFW, the mass was a call to action as well as a rededication of the spirit.

While calling Google’s decision to honor the United Farm Workers leader “odd,” the Catholic journal First Things also acknowledges a rather obvious fact that seemed to escape those too busy to, well, google his movement’s connection to spirituality:

… In 1966 the United Farm Workers organized a march from Delano, California, to the state capitol of California in order to demand recognition of the rights of farm workers. While the outside world saw Chavez’s protest as a political march, he and the farm workers also saw it as a pilgrimage. The slogan they chose was “Peregrinacion, Penitencia, Revolucion,” or “Pilgrimage, Penitence, Revolution.”

As seen in archival footage from KQED television, the Christian nature of the event was unmistakable. The 300-mile march, led by an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, was scheduled to end on Good Friday. A large rally, beginning with Mass, was to take place on Easter Sunday.

In other words, Chávez expressed his faith through his work on behalf of his fellow man. Guess that’s not enough for some people. Wonder why that could be?

nevver:

12 Game of Thrones House Sigils for the Internet

Reading and writing about Chris Brown, the undeniably talented singer who in 2009 become notorious for battering his then-girlfriend, Rihanna, has been, for the last four years, a depressing experience. Whether Brown’s been tossing chairs out of television studio windows, screaming at parking lot attendants, getting a tattoo of either a battered woman or a Dia De Los Muertos figure—who at the end of the day, is still a dead woman—on his neck, or reuniting with Rihanna, he’s been a figure of profound discomfort. Whether his behavior is the response to living through the domestic abuse his mother experienced when he was a teenager, a symptom of more wide-spread issues with anger and self-control, or a result of enormous entitlement, it’s awful to watch anyone behave so self-destructively, and do so much damage to other people in public. And whether Brown has been more of a target, or whether he’s been afforded more or fewer excuses for his behavior and chances to continue working than a white celebrity with a record of violence against women like Charlie Sheen, there’s no denying that his continued presence on Emmy stages and morning talk shows is a vertiginous exercise in trying to parse how much a liability the industry thinks domestic violence and a record of fights are, and how much the market believes that Brown is repentant or that his reunion with Rihanna has absolved him.

The latest intersection of Brown’s character rehabilitation and his need to keep selling records came yesterday morning when he appeared on the Today show to promote his latest single, “Fine China.” In response to questioning from Matt Lauer, about how he’s changed, Brown said that “Most importantly, you know, knowing that what I did was totally wrong, and having to kind of deal with myself and forgive myself in the same breath, and being able to apologize to Rihanna, and being able to be that man that can be a man, you know?” I don’t really know what that means, or what it means for an overall view of gender relations for someone to believe that battering an intimate partner is wrong, but that, as Brown recently said at a comedy club “You gotta say that one thing to her… don’t make me have to tell you again, that’s my p—y, baby! so you better not give it away!…So every person in this motherf–king building, if you got a bad b—h you better say that s–t to her, or she might f–k another n—a.”

But this juxtaposition, and the strange spectacle of people going on talk shows to tout their self-improvement in service of record sales, got me thinking about what it is that we want from celebrities who do terrible things but to continue to want our dollars as consumers. Do we want them to apologize to the people they’ve harmed directly, and to promise to do it never again? Brown seems to have that box checked with Rihanna, but the reaction to their reunion has illustrated how little most people know about how frequently survivors of domestic violence return to the people who abused them. And the fact that he’s reconciled with Rihanna doesn’t seem to have stopped Brown to getting into confrontations that sometimes turn violent with everyone from fellow singers like Frank Ocean to service workers like a parking attendant he unloaded on recently. That disjunct raises interesting questions about why we treat some forms of violence by wealthy and famous men as inexcusable and as a sign that they’re deeply troubled, while others get treated like they’re routine, even when they seem like contributing evidence that someone has a pattern of behavior that’s broadly troubling. Maybe it’s condescending, but I’d like to see Chris Brown stop getting into situations that get violent for his sake, for the sake of the people he gets angry at, and for what he could contribute to the larger conversation if he got religion on a deeper level than the need to retain the ability to sell records.

Because I actually think it would be an extraordinary thing to see Chris Brown become an anti-violence advocate. He’s got access to a base of intensely devoted female fans, some of whom talk publicly about the fact that they’d be willing to be abused by him in exchange for a relationship with or sexual access to him. Talking to them about what he’s learned about himself—particularly in the context of his own experiences with domestic violence as a child—what makes for a functional, healthy relationships, and what those young women should expect for themselves would be a rather remarkable act. Given the way that our mass culture fetishizes anger and aggression among men, if Brown talked publicly about what he has and hasn’t gotten out of approaching relatively minor problems and rivalries with dustups, he’d be doing a genuine public service.

It’s probably wrong to say that, in the case of celebrities, great power comes with great responsibility. But with great cultural influence comes great potential to change any number of debates. Chris Brown’s disastrous public presentation over the past four years has, paradoxically, created a situation where if he’s genuinely changed his perspectives and behavior, he could have enormous influence in a positive direction if he wanted to. And perhaps the test of whether he actually wants to inspire “people that have been in my situation,” and to seek out help in building a program that would do that in a meaningful way, is the test of whether he’s really a different person.

““Coming to Florida was like stepping back in time 20 years,” John Hooker, who has been with the same partner for 23 years, told HuffPost Live. “The whole human rights issue here is still so fragile and so vulnerable,” he said, adding that he thinks the state has a “restrictive political climate where people are dishonored, disrespected, and dismissed.””

- Suze Orman Threatens To Leave Florida For Marriage Equality In California (VIDEO)

According to a new indictment, a rocket-propelled grenade is a weapon of mass destruction. Time to retire this misleading term.

thugkitchen:

THE.FUCK.IS.THIS.SHIT.

Frozen vegetables = vegan meal?

Seeing this shit made me so mad that I came home and made acorn squash empanadas from scratch, and guess who ain’t gettin none?

Fuck you too, Whole Foods.

Gil Scott-Heron Whitey on the moon.avi (by martineden110)

Jack Russell Terrier wedding cake toppers

Remember the scene from My Fair Lady in which Liza Doolittle’s no-good, anti-marriage, alcoholic father (who, in the first act, has tried to sell his daughter to Professor ‘Enry ‘Iggins) effects a vast change in his circumstance by getting a wealthy widow to put a ring on it?

Poor and working class people had few options in Victorian London, and marrying into the middle classes was one of them. Both marriage models are represented in My Fair Lady: Liza marries for love, while her father marries for money. Inviting his drinking pals to “feather and tar me” on the eve of his nuptials, Alfred Doolittle inveighs against the marital state, kisses his many girlfriends goodbye, and orders his friends to “get me to the church on time”:

If I am dancing, roll up the floor,
If I am whistling, Right out the door!
I got to get there in the morning;
Ding, ding, dong, the bells they’re gonna chime!
Kick up a rumpus, don’t lose your compass, and
Get me to the church, get me to the church
For Pete’s sake, get me to the church on time!

This perfectly expresses my mixed feelings as I watched last week’s gay marriage cases. I wanted to stay on the beach (literally and metaphorically) and I wanted to be on the steps of the Supreme Court milling around at this historical moment.

But don’t take my word for it. Blogpal Marilee Lindemann was actually there, on her birthday no less.  She has a terrific report up on Edie Windsor, the demonstrations outside the court, and what it means to be a queer who is simultaneously for marriage equality and against marriage. As Carly Simon once crooned, nobody does it better. To be truly informed, you will want to follow up on her links to queer sites that make the case for and against the political campaign that has moved these cases forward to SCOTUS. I have drawn on many of them for my thoughts below.

What a long strange trip it’s been from institutionalization and electroshock treatments for queers back in the twentieth century to gay marriage in the twenty-first!  In our current easy-peasy, post-Sixties, Turkey-baster, multi-parent, gender-bending, non-monogamous families, it is easy to forget that until quite recently you couldn’t just have a  queer family because you wanted one or had access to IVF (for the history of this, see a wonderful new book by Daniel Winuwe Rivers, Radical Relations: Lesbian Mothers, Gay Fathers, and Their Children in the United States since World War II (UNC Press, 2013). The stubborn notion that children suffer from being raised outside of legal, heterosexual, two-parent marriages has not entirely given way, but it has been significantly modified. As Rivers and others point out, determined litigation by gay and lesbian parents, enhanced legal rights for women, the emergence of joint custody practices,  and a vast number of unmarried (or formerly married) homo- and heterosexual parents changed the state of play completely in the second half of the twentieth century.

Weirdly, childbearing has become a path to respectability for gay, lesbian, and increasingly determined transgendered couples. In addition, the interests of the child are, with no shame at all, now being deployed as an argument for gay marriage. In today’s New York Times, Albert R. Hunt echoes many gays and lesbians who claim that their inability to marry is unnecessarily humiliating and harmful to their children. “Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics, after an extensive review, declared that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is in the best interests of children,” Hunt writes. “When critics worry this will lead to more adoptions by gay couples, they ignore that the alternative often is for these children to suffer in orphanages or in a flawed foster-care system.”

This talk of happier children (who become crucial if you believe that marriage is designed almost exclusively for reproduction) deliberately diverts us from the queer case against marriage, a civil rights strategy that has implications for children but posits that there are far greater stakes to the marriage debate than the psychological well-being of children or adults. The argument goes like this: marriage narrows, rather than expands, the framework within which social justice and economic rights can be delivered. Why does it do this? Because marriage then becomes the normative condition for delivering social justice, it further marginalizes alternative forms of kinship and mutuality, and it confines the delivery of economic/social rights to those in state-sanctioned unions.

In other words, rights are something you get by agreeing to the social contract of two-adult family units that are recognized by the law. Hence, activisms that make marriage central to equality (the euphemistic phrase “marriage equality” has subsumed the phrase “gay marriage” in common parlance just as abortion rights are now “the right to choose”) obscure many other ideas of what equality might look like. They flatten differences that queer people and radicals have cherished over the years: households, kin and economic networks that celebrate many different kinds of connection. Finally, they makes a lack of access to rights into a “bad choice” rather than an effect of unequal access to economic resources.

Queer critics of marriage are correct that mainstream GLBT organizations have staked everything on these cases. Organizations like HRC and Equality Now have seized on the American romance with romance. They have successfully persuaded a broad range of stakeholders that marriage is the gateway to a range of rights and opportunities that “everyone” but gay and lesbian people have. This is not an entirely untrue statement, but it is a radically incomplete one. Rights tend to be distributed along the lines of race, class, gender and nationality; many people, straight and gay, have no access to social, legal or economic justice. Women’s history would also suggest that, until quite recently, marriage itself has been a barrier to legal equality across the lines of race and class.

Really, it’s hard to argue against the queer anti-marriage argument as a moral or a cultural position. Unlike some radicals we know, we at Tenured Radical are sticking to it as a life practice. I have no civil union (a position that some prominent critics of gay marriage seem to be able to bend their minds around) and I remain unmarried. That said, the next time you meet an anti-marriage queer, consider how much privilege is required to maintain that position. I offer myself as an example.

Since attaining adulthood, I have lived in (enlightened) states that feature minimal persecution at a high cost of living. I have had the good fortune to work for (practical, if perhaps not enlightened) employers that have awarded me some spousal rights upon the thin evidence I provide about my domestic partnership. I have an excellent (and pricey) set of professionals who keep me armed with all kinds of paperwork. I have been blessed with a choice of jobs that has allowed me to avoid a place like, say, Virginia. I would prefer Virginia to the unemployment line, but there I would be prohibited from executing any contract with an intimate partner and my employers would be prohibited from extending marriage-like benefits even if they wished to do so.

I am not yet demented, disabled or dependent on the care of another. That is a huge privilege.

In other words, like many heterosexual people who choose not to marry, I have the financial and social means to individuate from my partner in the law, and in economic life:  my desires and my resources currently correspond with my politics. So counter to some queer criticism aimed at Edie Windsor (that her case against DOMA is about a rich white woman’s right to inherit money as a married, heterosexual woman could) the Human Rights Campaign, and the other groups that have fought for marriage equality, I have precisely been able to avoid all balls and chains because of my economic and social  privilege.

Is this the way life should be? No: it is currently the way life is. So how do we move forward to balance our support for marriage equality with our distrust of the institution? Here are a few thoughts that might help to think about what can happen in the event that one form of discrimination is ended, leaving another and more complex one (in which simply not being married remains a potent source of economic  and social discrimination) behind.

I am not the first to suggest that a good social welfare system, excellent public education, liberal child custody laws and universal health care could, and should, be separated from the marriage institution.  As a private institution, or agreement, marriage is what people want it to be (until it isn’t: national marriage and divorce rates can be found here.) But as a public institution, marriage is an agreement between two people and the state in which rights are acquired in exchange for establishing households where we theoretically care for each other and free the state of this responsibility.

The marriage equality movement holds out the false promise of an end to official homophobia (early analysis suggests that even a positive ruling by SCOTUS will not be transformative.) But it is worth pointing out that the limited gains of any ruling are not entirely useless, since marriage inequality reproduces homophobia and structural inequality every time the state, or a Human Resources department, makes marriage a criterion for benefits. Wishing marriage away does not diminish the impact of this on many people, the vast majority of whom are poor. For example, it can hardly be asserted that Loving v. Virginia (1967) ended racism in the United States. Rather, overturning anti-miscegenation laws was an effect of a much longer, more comprehensive anti-racist struggle. Prior to Loving, the lack of economic, citizenship and property rights among African Americans, who lived in a society where property ownership was concentrated among whites, was generationally reproduced in part through the bar on interracial marriage. Interrupting this one aspect of racism was a thread in the broader web of white supremacy. The same might be said about homophobia and the gay marriage cases now before the court. Arguably, the high focus on marriage by the GLBTQ movement might also reflect a far lower, and slower, commitment to the principle of full civil rights across the lines of sex and gender than the African-American civil rights movement had achieved by 1967.

The radical queer critique of marriage emerges from this complex history of marriage: under current conditions, gay and lesbian people who marry signal a commitment to things as they are, not as they could be. But this does not have to be the case: just as marriage should not require the marginalization of the unmarried, movements for economic justice do not have to occur in a world where no one marries. Marriage is not a radical act, and ought not to be spoken of as one — but radical people do sometimes marry, and no one should have to apologize for it.

Regardless of what the court decides, the agenda must be to continue the critique of marriage as an institution, scrutinize the improper power relations that marriage nurtures, and recommit to a larger vision for social justice. But asking millions of people, rich and poor, to accept a set of discriminatory and humiliating legal exclusions until the revolution comes, laws that hurt them economically and repeatedly articulate them as second class citizens, does not necessarily move the revolution forward either.

******************

Kenji Yoshino explains the two marriage cases, why they are different and what is at stake:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

By Andrea Plaid

I know some Racializens hold, at best, a complicated love–and some of y’all hold an uncomplicated disdain–for performer Justin Timberlake. In one of this past week’s most liked/reblogged excerpts on the R’s Tumblr, Colorlines’ Jamilah King seems to have echoed that sentiment:

With production by Timbaland, The Neptunes and P. Diddy, Timberlake’s solo debut, “Justified,” thrived on his novelty: He was the white boy with the bleached blonde fade and vague hip-hop swagger who could really sing the black music he unabashedly recorded. Image-wise, he picked, chose and performed suave and often provocative black masculinities embodied by the likes of James Brown, Michael Jackson, and Prince. For that he was richly rewarded; the album sold more than 7 million copies worldwide and he won two Grammys, ironically for Best Pop Vocal Album and Best Male Pop Vocal Performance.

But when shit hit the fan after the 2004 Super Bowl when he exposed Janet Jackson’s nipple on live television, he was able — after making a public apology on CBS — to easily revert back in the public’s imagination to the wholesome white boy who made pop songs for teenage girls. And that’s what becomes tricky with Justin, that his whiteness acts as both an entryway into a popular culture and a buffer against its criticisms. Janet’s career, on the other hand, stagnated. (Black comedy legend Paul Mooney famously dubbed the scandal her “n*a wakeup call.” And Chris Rock blamed her exposed “40-year-old breast” for creeping censorship in American television.)

Justin wouldn’t likely have that musical freedom without his work in very white Hollywood. Despite early, notable flops (“Black Snake Moan,” “Alpha Dog”) he’s been able to build a movie career, generating Oscar buzz by playing Sean Parker in the ”The Social Network,” doing raunchy, satirical comedy opposite Cameron Diaz (“Bad Teacher”), and straight-ahead romantic comedy opposite Mila Kunis (“Friends With Benefits”). Without Hollywood, his wedding to Jessica Biel might not have landed them both the cover of People magazine. He’s also hosted “Saturday Night Live” five times, a testament to his comedic chops and a larger-scale Hollywood visibility that he wouldn’t likely have access to without his whiteness.

See who and what else Racializens get complicated about on the R’s Tumblr!