What're the chances I would like an art-house film by a gay director featuring graphic, there's-no-faking-that depictions of various forms of sexual activity, a significant proportion of it being gay or bisexual and much of it in group scenes? If you guessed "next to nil", you would be right, but last week I tested the waters of modern film critical zeitgiest by watching Shortbus when it turned up on cable TV.
The movie got a significant number of good reviews from credible critics, including our very own David Stratton. A lot of those reviews commented favourably on the liberal attitude to sex. (Stratton and Pomeranz commented on the "exuberance" and lack of inhibition, and called it "lovely". Would they give an X rated DVD high marks for the same qualities?)
But of course, from the Cynics of Greece to Catherine Deveny, there are always people who think that everyone else is just, you know, too hung up about sex. At least the 21st century can be thankful that Deveny hasn't taken to living on the street in a barrel and engaging in self pleasuring when the feeling arises. Not yet, anyway.
Of course, those who are the most forthright advocates against sexual jealousy and continence are usually the ones who leave behind them a bitter trail of unhappy and used former partners. (Bertrand Russell, Sartre and a whole swathe of poets come to mind.) Or if they are like the late politician/old age hippy Jim Cairns, their alleged belief in "honesty" in sexual relationships does not extend to being above lying about their sex life in court to make a profit.
Anyhow, I slightly digress. I didn't see every minute of the film; I missed the first few but still saw the one extremely graphic and icky sex act that didn't really seem to make any sense in terms of later plot at all. Here are some other thoughts about it the movie:
1. It's appallingly bad. Just had to get that out of the way first.
2. What is wrong with critics these days? As far as I can see, none of them question any more whether real sex should appear in mainstream cinema. It's true, quiet a few said that the sex in this one did not make it into a good movie; but few seem to question the wisdom or practical consequence of having actors having sex on screen when the product is not intended to be pornographic.
Because, let's face it, when the average audience sees the sex is real, it inevitably jars them out of the normal experience of watching a story.
It's a bit contradictory that this happens, I suppose: if you want an audience to really believe in a fictional sexual relationship, it's best to fake it on screen. But for nearly everyone, there's a natural tendancy towards modesty about the act - and breaching that for the mere sake of storytelling just seems an inadequate excuse. (People forgive porn stars more readily - at least that purpose can only be served by the immodesty.)
The cinematic real-sex taboo was broken a long time ago, most famously by In the Realm of the Senses in the mid 70's. (The plot of that film screams art-house with a capital "A".) But I see there is a Wikipedia entry listing every "mainstream" movie which has featured the real thing. That's handy, because it helps me make the point that there is not, it would seem, any significant audience for explicit real sex in mainstream film. So why do it?
Should I allow for the fact that some viewers say that they have been strongly emotionally affected by a fictional movie involving real sex? (I recall that Margaret Pomeranz went all incoherent once when trying to explain how strong her reaction was In the Realm of the Senses.) Well, if cinema involving acted sex had never been emotionally affecting, they might have a point, but that's clearly not the case.
No, I say: get over it, art-house lovers; you don't need to see real sex. Public sex is hardly dignified, otherwise I assume you'd be doing it yourself. Fake sex is at least a bit more dignified than real. Just because the ground's been broken doesn't mean it has to be done again. In fact, most movies featuring it have been far from critical or commercial successes.
3. Let's ignore the real sex issue for a while and look at the logic of the story itself. The main plot-line is probably the one about a gay couple having a relationship crisis. One of the guys has been depressed for a long time. Unknown to both of them, a gay man in the adjoining building has been longingly watching them have sex through the window for months too. (Despite New York gay couples usually having a high disposable income, it would seem they cannot afford curtains.)
The couple together try having sex with another young guy they meet at this orgy saloon known as Shortbus. (I actually missed the reason that the couple were attendees at this place. But then again, it never really made sense why any of them were there. I can't help but imagine that a venue with lots of public sex taking place while others sit around clothed, chatting or listening to music would be anything other than a smelly, unpleasant place to be with more than its fair share of somewhat scary clientele.)
Anyway, threesome sex with the young guy doesn't cure the sad one's depression. At some point, we learn he (the depressed one) used to be a young male prostitute.
On making a suicide attempt, the voyeuristic neighbour rescues the depressed guy who soon ends up in his rescuer's apartment. The depressive says he can't feel the love of his partner. It "stops at his skin." (So far so logical: it is not surprising that an ex-prostitute should have self esteem issues which makes it hard for him to "feel" loved.)
Yet, how do you think our hero will find his apparent cure? If you said "by having (for the first time) receptive anal sex with the kindly voyeur neighbour that he has talked to for 10 minutes" you would win some kind of award for being able to guess stupid gay libertine plot resolution devices. (Thankfully, though, this is one point where the sex is not explicit.)
As a plot device, it reminded me a little of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, where the young guy is temporarily cured of his stuttering by losing his virginity. I still find that a pretty risible, corny idea. But that's got nothing on a gay man who's had umpteen orgasms with heaps of lovers just having to have the right type of sex with a virtual stranger to be able to love his partner.
It is, I suppose, a uber-gay idea if ever there was one.
Anyway, our "hero" is better now, goes back to his boyfriend, where they make yet another trip to the local orgy salon for some groping in public again, relationship cured. (And then the movie ends with a ridiculous finale that involves a song with the line "we all get it in the end" and a band marching in amongst the writhing bodies. It was sort of like a Benny Hill version of Queen's "I want to break free" video clip.)
I don't care what your sexual orientation is: if that's not trite, implausible psycho-sexual storytelling, I don't know what is. I was so glad all the sex on screen had a worthwhile moral. (Sarcasm, that last line.)
Catholics get criticised all the time for worrying too much about sex. At least they don't (or shouldn't!) put it on the silly quasi-Freudian pedestal that this storyline indicates gay liberals believe in. (We also like to remember that it has something to do with reproduction.)
4. The other main storyline is about a female sex therapist who cannot achieve orgasm with her husband, despite his best efforts. Guess what. (No prizes for this one.) By the end of the film she's on her way to sexual happiness by leaving her husband and entering into the new world of bisexual casual fun at the orgy venue.
This woman's character never struck me as particularly sympathetic or pleasant. In the middle of the movie she is involved in an extended bit of ostensible comedy (I won't bother describing it) that was simply stupid and puerile.
5. Another subplot involves a somewhat sympathetically played dominatrix who doesn't like her work anymore. Yet, if I am not mistaken, she's the one left hanging at the end with no obvious resolution of her unhappy situation.
If you ask me, the entire movie is based on a liberal wish fulfilment fantasy in which innovative sex with nice strangers will cure most psychological/emotional ills.
I reckon sensible people of all persuasions, particularly if they have known someone who has actively pursued a highly libertine lifestyle, know this is just about 99% crap, but the idea of sex as therapy is one that keeps getting revived over the years, probably because sex is physically enjoyable and people like to imagine justifications to have lots of it.
That a gay director and bunch of exhibitionist actors may believe this is one thing: that a majority of movie critics don't call him out on it is another.
The only redeeming feature of such a film is that not many people will have seen it. I think I actually get more upset by Sex in the City by virtue of its capacity to do harm to the population's attitude towards sex en masse.
Yet, when you visit IMDB, you'll see lots of comments praising the film to death (although a fair smattering of loathing turns up too.) This is another useful function such a picture serves: it's sort of a barometer for being able to tell which people have exactly a 180 degree opposite world view from yourself. That's assuming, of course, that you're prepared to say over a beer to the bloke you've just met at a party "geez, what did you think of that gay movie Shortbus, what a crock, hey?" Mmm, might not work so well after all.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Mini-golf made useful
Golfing Through the Stratosphere - NYTimes.com
Go have a look at the coolest looking, physics-teaching mini-golf course in the world.
Go have a look at the coolest looking, physics-teaching mini-golf course in the world.
Large Hadron Collider delays
Experimental HEP News - Not Even Wrong
Hmm. Sounds to me like there is a distinct possibility that the LHC is not going to have its teething issues sorted by the end of this year after all.
My pet theory that this was sabotaged from the future still stands.
Hmm. Sounds to me like there is a distinct possibility that the LHC is not going to have its teething issues sorted by the end of this year after all.
My pet theory that this was sabotaged from the future still stands.
Meanwhile, in Bahrain
Gulfnews: Bahraini woman jailed for kissing in public
A Bahrain woman was jailed for 20 days after she kissed a Bahraini man in public and got into an argument with the police.I hope they report his sentence.
The couple was caught by a police patrol as they were getting intimate inside a car, according to the court papers. However, when the police wanted to arrest them for "indecent behaviour in public", the woman shouted at one of the officers, saying that what she and the man were doing was "none of their business".
She was eventually arrested and the Lower Criminal Court convicted her of public indecency and insulting a policeman carrying out his duties. The Bahraini man is being tried separately.
Do not just read Bolt on climate
Oh dear. Andrew Bolt has recently taken to citing (alleged) cooling oceans as a reason for not believing in AGW.
If you are inclined to convinced by this, you should at the very least read this recent post at Skeptical Science which addresses the issue in detail and gives the "big picture" that skeptics like to leave out.
Skeptical Science is (fortunately) active again, and is an excellent resource for checking up on the claims of Bolt, Marohasy and their mates.
If you are inclined to convinced by this, you should at the very least read this recent post at Skeptical Science which addresses the issue in detail and gives the "big picture" that skeptics like to leave out.
Skeptical Science is (fortunately) active again, and is an excellent resource for checking up on the claims of Bolt, Marohasy and their mates.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Personal parasite update
Are urban tapeworms on the rise?: Scientific American Blog
This story combines two of my interests: parasites and Japan!:
Speaking of parasites, my daughter came out of the toilet at McDonalds last week and announced loudly "There was a worm in my poo!" When I expressed doubt, she told me its head was moving and it was really true. She was not particularly bothered by the discovery; she was pretty excited in fact.
I am not sure what to do about this. I think it more likely to be a case of mistaken identity. The most common kid's intestinal worm in Australia is the threadworm, but I believe they are not so obvious, and she has none of the classic signs.
We are awaiting another sighting, this time at home.
Readers will be informed if positive identification is made. (I bet you're glad you read this blog....)
This story combines two of my interests: parasites and Japan!:
Once the bane of rural Japanese villagers, a paper in the June issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases reports on the spread of the the salmon tapeworm Diphyllobothrium nihonkaiense. The parasite, which can reach lengths of 39 feet (12 meters), has been steadily increasing its global distribution and prevalence – mostly among yuppies with a hankering for sashimi and ceviche.An easy solution: cook your fish.
One hospital in Japan reported 14 cases last year, up from 3 cases in 2000. And starting in 2006, the tapeworm has been popping up for the first time in North America and Europe. Meanwhile, farm-raised salmon from South America have been plagued by a closely related tapeworm that normally infects perch and other freshwater fish.
Speaking of parasites, my daughter came out of the toilet at McDonalds last week and announced loudly "There was a worm in my poo!" When I expressed doubt, she told me its head was moving and it was really true. She was not particularly bothered by the discovery; she was pretty excited in fact.
I am not sure what to do about this. I think it more likely to be a case of mistaken identity. The most common kid's intestinal worm in Australia is the threadworm, but I believe they are not so obvious, and she has none of the classic signs.
We are awaiting another sighting, this time at home.
Readers will be informed if positive identification is made. (I bet you're glad you read this blog....)
Hitchens on Iran
Don't call what happened in Iran last week an election. - Slate Magazine
A good column by Hitchens here, with this interesting anecdote:
Update: There was a very funny election analysis on The Daily Show:
A good column by Hitchens here, with this interesting anecdote:
Mention of the Lebanese elections impels me to pass on what I saw with my own eyes at a recent Hezbollah rally in south Beirut, Lebanon. In a large hall that featured the official attendance of a delegation from the Iranian Embassy, the most luridly displayed poster of the pro-Iranian party was a nuclear mushroom cloud! Underneath this telling symbol was a caption warning the "Zionists" of what lay in store.
Update: There was a very funny election analysis on The Daily Show:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Irandecision 2009 - Election Results | ||||
| ||||
A must read review on Plimer
Heaven + Earth - review by David Karoly - Science Show
I reckon this is the most convincing anti-Plimer review that has come out thus far. Andrew Bolt and his followers should read it. (By the way, when I say "anti-Plimer," I mean against his arguments. The review is free of ad hominem attack.)
I reckon this is the most convincing anti-Plimer review that has come out thus far. Andrew Bolt and his followers should read it. (By the way, when I say "anti-Plimer," I mean against his arguments. The review is free of ad hominem attack.)
Monday, June 15, 2009
Viewing recommendation
Engineering Connections, currently showing on SBS at 7.30 on Saturday evenings, is proving to be very enjoyable. Last week's episode covered everything you never thought to ask before about how they build the most gigantic North Sea gas rig. Have a look at a very short version here.
Oh. I see there is only episode left. Pity, for those of you who have missed it.
Oh. I see there is only episode left. Pity, for those of you who have missed it.
The Return (details pending)
I am currently contemplating possible topics for a return post. It will either be about sex, engineering, Japan, the Illuminati, Kevin Rudd, ocean acidification, religion or the weather; or a combination of two or more of those themes*. Back soon.
* Tim. Exercise your creative skills and come up with a poem touching on all of those topics. Chop chop.
* Tim. Exercise your creative skills and come up with a poem touching on all of those topics. Chop chop.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Just stop it
I need to stop posting for a while. Work is busy, some stuff will be happening at home, and I need to know that that I can exercise self control for a change. (I'm finding it really hard not to post lately, even though I know I should be spending more time catching up on work.)
I have also just passed the 4 year mark with this blog. Time does indeed fly.
Not sure how long this will take, but I absolutely, positively will not be posting for 14 days; that is, unless Kevin Rudd is caught in flagrante delicto with a member of cabinet, in which case I will come back here to laugh.
I have also just passed the 4 year mark with this blog. Time does indeed fly.
Not sure how long this will take, but I absolutely, positively will not be posting for 14 days; that is, unless Kevin Rudd is caught in flagrante delicto with a member of cabinet, in which case I will come back here to laugh.
The modern Gnostics of St Mary's (in exile, not due back any time soon)
I should really stop watching the services from "St Mary's in exile", but they hold a sort of morbid fascination for seeing how far the self delusion of Peter Kennedy and his followers can go.
This is, remember, a congregation which thinks it's terribly unjust and unfair that they should be told by their Archbishop that they are outside of the Catholic Church.
Yet, in today's homily, (not in written form on their website yet, you have to watch the video from the 10 minute mark) we learned from Peter Kennedy that:
* "the jury is still out" as to whether Jesus really existed or not. If he did exist, he was nothing like the Catholic Church has traditionally told us he was like. But anyway, it doesn't really matter if he existed or not. Because:
* the early Christians were all Gnostics who didn't see Jesus as a real historical figure, but only as a metaphor for "awakening" (the awakening being that God is all, All is One; you know - that sort of mystical mystery stuff.)
* that Constantine and the Council of Nicea is what stuffed up the church by going all anti-Gnostic
* modern scientists say there are billions of galaxies (true) and billions of universes (highly speculative)
* that the term "relational matrix" is a cool one for "God"
* that the power of goodness keeps coming out of creation. (I suppose the "relational matrix" sees to that, but it certainly makes it rather unclear as to what Kennedy thinks of animal suffering and evolution.)
As I've said before, I'm no university educated expert on theology and the history of Christianity, but I know enough to be mightily irritated by Kennedy and Fitzpatrick's modus operandi, which is to take a grab bag of whatever bits and pieces of revisionist history, scriptural exegesis, modern physics and speculative science they have found of interest over the last 20 years, and preach it to their congregation as if it were not academically controversial, and not a clear repudiation of Catholic doctrine and teaching.
Every homily contains statements which are exaggerations, over-simplifications, or simply misleading; but if it appeared in one of Peter or Terry's favourite recent authors, they'll repeat it anyway.
I still can't work out Peter Kennedy. I don't understand why his congregation think so highly of him. While this may be unfair, he comes across to me as probably an overly emotional man (with this aspect accounting for what some people describe as his "spiritual" nature,) but a not particularly bright one who is easily swayed by whatever radical re-assessment of Christianity he has read last. It remains my conviction that he should have just left the priesthood early in his career and led a normal life, instead of just having the ersatz family he found by living with a priest who had a son.
But instead, he seems to have decided to make a career of deliberately encouraging people to follow into his mystical, Gnostic, quasi-Eastern mystery-based replacement religion for Catholicism, under the pretence that this was clearly the way of all early Christians before it was corrupted. Perhaps I am being unduly charitable in suggesting that it's all because he is not so bright; maybe there is an element of dishonesty in there too.
Surely some in his congregation are going to start saying to themselves soon "gee, I don't really know that we are Catholic anymore," or even "perhaps I should read some counterclaims to a lot of this stuff Peter goes on about." We can only hope.
UPDATE: I see that the St Mary's blog has linked to this post. Welcome, gnostic heretics!
I note that, since this post was written, there was a later sermon in which Peter Kennedy claimed that a lot of his recent ideas were from books that his congregation had suggested he read, so that it was more a case of the congregation had led him to these radical ideas, rather than the other way around.
Well then, my characterisation of Kennedy as leading his group into Gnosticism may be wrong, but it makes no difference to my key point that it is rather ridiculous for them to claim they are upset that the Archbishop should say they are not Catholic if their position is that the physical reality of Christ himself (not just his resurrection!) is neither here nor there.
Visitors may also be interested in my recent post regarding Karen Armstrong's new book on God. After all, someone has probably already handed a copy of it to Kennedy to read.
This is, remember, a congregation which thinks it's terribly unjust and unfair that they should be told by their Archbishop that they are outside of the Catholic Church.
Yet, in today's homily, (not in written form on their website yet, you have to watch the video from the 10 minute mark) we learned from Peter Kennedy that:
* "the jury is still out" as to whether Jesus really existed or not. If he did exist, he was nothing like the Catholic Church has traditionally told us he was like. But anyway, it doesn't really matter if he existed or not. Because:
* the early Christians were all Gnostics who didn't see Jesus as a real historical figure, but only as a metaphor for "awakening" (the awakening being that God is all, All is One; you know - that sort of mystical mystery stuff.)
* that Constantine and the Council of Nicea is what stuffed up the church by going all anti-Gnostic
* modern scientists say there are billions of galaxies (true) and billions of universes (highly speculative)
* that the term "relational matrix" is a cool one for "God"
* that the power of goodness keeps coming out of creation. (I suppose the "relational matrix" sees to that, but it certainly makes it rather unclear as to what Kennedy thinks of animal suffering and evolution.)
As I've said before, I'm no university educated expert on theology and the history of Christianity, but I know enough to be mightily irritated by Kennedy and Fitzpatrick's modus operandi, which is to take a grab bag of whatever bits and pieces of revisionist history, scriptural exegesis, modern physics and speculative science they have found of interest over the last 20 years, and preach it to their congregation as if it were not academically controversial, and not a clear repudiation of Catholic doctrine and teaching.
Every homily contains statements which are exaggerations, over-simplifications, or simply misleading; but if it appeared in one of Peter or Terry's favourite recent authors, they'll repeat it anyway.
I still can't work out Peter Kennedy. I don't understand why his congregation think so highly of him. While this may be unfair, he comes across to me as probably an overly emotional man (with this aspect accounting for what some people describe as his "spiritual" nature,) but a not particularly bright one who is easily swayed by whatever radical re-assessment of Christianity he has read last. It remains my conviction that he should have just left the priesthood early in his career and led a normal life, instead of just having the ersatz family he found by living with a priest who had a son.
But instead, he seems to have decided to make a career of deliberately encouraging people to follow into his mystical, Gnostic, quasi-Eastern mystery-based replacement religion for Catholicism, under the pretence that this was clearly the way of all early Christians before it was corrupted. Perhaps I am being unduly charitable in suggesting that it's all because he is not so bright; maybe there is an element of dishonesty in there too.
Surely some in his congregation are going to start saying to themselves soon "gee, I don't really know that we are Catholic anymore," or even "perhaps I should read some counterclaims to a lot of this stuff Peter goes on about." We can only hope.
UPDATE: I see that the St Mary's blog has linked to this post. Welcome, gnostic heretics!
I note that, since this post was written, there was a later sermon in which Peter Kennedy claimed that a lot of his recent ideas were from books that his congregation had suggested he read, so that it was more a case of the congregation had led him to these radical ideas, rather than the other way around.
Well then, my characterisation of Kennedy as leading his group into Gnosticism may be wrong, but it makes no difference to my key point that it is rather ridiculous for them to claim they are upset that the Archbishop should say they are not Catholic if their position is that the physical reality of Christ himself (not just his resurrection!) is neither here nor there.
Visitors may also be interested in my recent post regarding Karen Armstrong's new book on God. After all, someone has probably already handed a copy of it to Kennedy to read.
What's that big yellow thing in the sky, then?
Forecasts of 'barbecue summer' for UK come with health warning | UK news | The Observer
According to the Observer:
According to the Observer:
And what exactly constitutes a spell of hot weather there?:Temperatures could today reach their highest so far this year and Britain can expect to bask in the heat until Wednesday, say forecasters.
But doctors have warned that the spell of hot weather - which is likely to return throughout much of the summer, according to meteorologists - could ultimately trigger a rise in numbers of skin cancer cases unless care is taken by sunbathers.
Oh, from an Australian perspective, that's pathetic!Yesterday, the Met Office said it expected temperatures would reach at least 23C (73F) throughout most of Britain.
"There is just a chance that it could top 26 degrees, which we experienced on Friday, and so make Sunday the hottest day of the year so far," added forecaster Andy Hobson.....
"The high temperatures and sunshine should last until Wednesday, when clouds will begin to build up over Britain," Hobson added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)