Bad for the Gays?

What bothers me and worries me most (well, beside the obvious ethical implications) about this Jim West (mayor of Spokane, Washington; made some homophobic remarks; was caught in a pretty intense gay sex scandal [offering jobs to gay men via online chat, hounding those men for dates, etc.]) is that I’m guessing after this all blows over, it will ultimately look worse for gays than for the hypocritcal republicans who pretend to be straight and then do really sketchy sexual things on the side. It’s like the priest thing — while the Catholic church has suffered some loss of face for letting the sexual abuse occur, I think in the end these types of things reinforce the idea that gay men are pedophiles and sexual predators who cannot be trusted. It seems that whenever there is a gay man in a postion of power (priest, politics, etc.), all we hear about is when he comes out of the closet after doing something really bad. The “openly gay” politicians are pretty benign so we don’t hear much about them doing good things.

I wish I knew what the solution would be. I don’t think, this time, that the problem necessarily rests on the media. I think it has more to do with oppressive organizations (e.g. Catholic church, republican party) forcing their members to adopt a lifestyle (i.e. straight) that isn’t them. The psyhcic torture of pretending to be someone else (Jim West: living “this double life has been hell”) causes these men to do really bad and inappropriate things.

The internalized homophobia and self-hate casues destructive behavior that causes these closeted gay men to make bad decisions. It isn’t a problem with being gay, per say, but homophobia.

Post(it) Notes

Arianna Huffington
I want to be the 1,000th blogger to direct everyone to The Huffington Post, the new web site/blog/news site created by Arianna Huffington. She’s totally great. She used to be really conservative and right-wing, then her rich husband came out of the closet and she got tons of money… then she became a super progressive. She also writes columns for Salon.com and ran for the governor of California in the recall race (until she dropped out and endorsed Gray Davis). She rocks!!

1224-1225

2046 movie poster
SIFF has this year’s schedule up, so everyone in Seattle should go see Wong Kar-Wai‘s 2046.

I’m not sure which version this will be. The one that played at Cannes last year has apparently been edited a bit to make it make more sense. The version I got from Netflix lists the running time at 129 min, which is the same running time posted on the SIFF web site. So maybe it’s the version I’ve seen before, maybe not?

One thing I will say is that before seeing it again, I am going to re-watch In the Mood For Love. Not that it is a prerequisite, but I think it would be awesome seeing them back-to-back. (Hey, some people do it with Lord of the Rings, others with Star Wars… I do it with… well, both of those, plus these WKW ones.)

You might always want to checkout my first review of 2046 for my overall (spoiler-free) impressions and then if you are ambitious, check the follow-up review of 2046 for more thematic types of thoughts.

You Can’t Take the Sky From Me

It’s no secret that I’m a huge Buffy and Angel fan. That said, I don’t really fall into that category of fan who thinks that Joss Whedon is the smartest and most talented man in the world. Yea, I love Buffy and Angel and I am one of the few people who don’t hate Alien: Resurrection, but whatever.

That said, I decided to pretend being a Whedon obsessee by purchasing his short-lived televsion show Firefly the other week.

It took me a while to get into the series — and I’m still about six or so episodes from finishing it — but now that I’ve had time to really get to know the characters and whatnot, I gotta say that it’s pretty damn good.

Specifically, the back-to-back (but unrelated) episodes “Out of Gas” and “Ariel” are some of the finest ever.

I loved how “Out of Gas” showed how Mal met all of the crew members… it’s always nice to see backstory, so I was a fan of seeing how people ended up on Serenity. I also loved the three narrative threads: one showing past (meeting the crew), one showing present (how the ship became damaged and why people left), and future (Mal attempting to fix Sereneity). It was both suspenseful and informational.

As for “Ariel,” I can’t really say why I loved it without giving much away — and I don’t want to give anything away. That said, let me just say that the ending (the last three minutes) really disappointed me. Oh well. I’m curious to see how the events of “Ariel” change things going forward.

It’s All Lies!

J and Y having sex
I’ve watched some pretty sexual, taboo-breaking movies in my day (The Dreamers, In the Realm of the Senses, Visitor Q, etc.), so I would say that I’m pretty used to explicit and strange sex on film. Now I can add Lies (Korean title: Gojitmal) to my list of sexually-intense movies.

I would also add that all of these movies (in addition to tamer American ones such as 9 1/2 Weeks and Secretary to the list) seem to have the same moral message: If sex becomes the primary focus of your life and you forget about things such as your job and friends, only trouble will come. In the end, it is impossible to sustain a hyper-passionate physical relationship with someone… So while these movies may seem subversive and whatnot on the outside, I think that they ultimately suggest a more conservative message and theme.

That said, on to Lies:

This movie was based on (what is, as far as I can tell) an autobiographical story that takes place in South Korea and is about two lovers involved in an sado-masochistic relationship. The man, J, is 38 years old and married (though his wife is a non-character, as she is off-screen in Paris all the time — except for J’s infrequent visits to her). The woman, Y, is an 18 year old school girl.

The film opens with the director telling (in a documentary-like format) that the film is based on a story and that he wanted to make it into a movie — or something like that. When I first saw this part, I wasn’t sure if it was a making-of before the film started or whether it was part of the movie or a disclaimer. To be honest, it made me uncomfortable — a perfect setup for a movie like Lies.

Y meets J because Y’s friend Woori somehow knows J (it’s never clear how they met, though it is clear that they didn’t have sex). Y speaks to J on the phone and is so enamored by his voice that she tells him that she wants to fuck him. She then takes the train to wherever he lives and they awkwardly meet.

Again, the film cuts-away to a documentary-styled interview with either Y or the actress who plays Y. An off-screen male voice asks her how she feels about doing the film. She says that she doesn’t like to be naked. She also says that regardless of her fears, she will go ahead with the movie because she doesn’t want to let the crew down and ruin the movie.

Then the interview ends and we return to the film.

Back in the motel room, J and Y begin to have sex. When they first kiss, it’s somewhat disgusting and juvenile. J uses way too much tongue and Y obviously doesn’t know what she’s doing (as a virgin, I’m guessing she hasn’t ever kissed, either?) — or maybe they are both uncomfortable? They make it over to the bed quickly. J asks Y if she is sure that she wants to do this, and she says yes — he is making her feel good.

The first time they have sex, he penetrates three holes: first her vagina, then her mouth, and finally her asshole. The sex during the first encounter is the most explicit in the film. There is no background music. All we see and hear is them having sex. He licks her body, he eats her pussy, he licks her ass — we see it all. We even see his penis, which is pretty rare for any movie containing nudity — and we see it often. His penis isn’t present in one dominating and dramatic shot (like penises usually are when they appear in film), but it’s soft and very typical looking. I was, obviously, surprised by this.

Also, at one point during the sex scene, while J is licking Y’s armpit (and he tells her that it doesn’t smell), there is a strange self-aware moment where the director (or someone) says to J: “She doesn’t smell, like the devil. Maybe she is the devil?” The whole thing was very weird, and isn’t really addressed anywhere else in the film. It’s worth mentioning and noticing, though, because I do think that one of the goals of the film was to blur the boundaries between art film, pornographic film, and documentary.

Following the sex, there is an “interview” where J asks Y why she wanted to have sex with him. Her answer was maybe one of the most shocking parts of the movie: she explains that both of her sisters lost their virginity through rape. She reasoned that she didn’t want to lose her virginity by rape, so she would choose her first sexual partner. Wow. Just the reality of thinking that way struck me. What an awful way to decide to have sex for the first time.

After their first encounter, Y returns home and is beat-up by her friend Woori, who is very jealous. Eventually they make up, and Y tells Woori all of the explicit details of her sexual encounter with J.

So turned on by their first meeting, J and Y continue meeting. Eventually, during one of the times J is fucking her up the ass, he slaps her. The narrator (who is sometimes J and sometimes the director [I think?]) notes that J used to slap his wife until she said she had enough of it and moved to Paris. Unlike J’s wife, however, Y seems to take pleasure from J’s slaps.

The slaps quickly escalate to whipping and flagellation. Originally, J always takes the sadist role and Y takes the masochistic one. I guess you could say that the pain inflicted during the sex escalates. Y has some pretty nasty cuts and scars on her ass and thighs. We also learn that J used to whip his wife and ultimately wanted to turn her into a sculpture basically. That is when she left for Paris.

Although their relationship starts with Y always taking the masochistic role, the tables turn and J is eventually the one getting whipped by Y. The switch is prompted by Y making a comment that she doesn’t take pleasure from the whipping, per say, but rather in the fact that it gives J pleasure — giving him pleasure gives her pleasure. When Y whips J, however, it is obvious that receiving the pain gives him pleasure — not the fact that Y enjoys giving him pain.

Their sexual exploits continue until J has to return to Paris to visit his wife. When he returns three months later, Y reveals that while he was away she gave another man a blowjob. When he gets angry, she argues that she missed his cock and that he was fucking his wife anyway so why could he have sex and she couldn’t? Finally, she suggests that he should punish her for her transgressions.

The scene that follows is, I think, the most violent and difficult to watch scene of the film. When she bends over to receive a whipping, J slaps her in a very non-sensual way (yes, there is a difference). He is taking out his anger and frustration — not trying to enjoy pleasure or give her pleasure. Y is privy to this fact. She cries out and falls over and tries to block the whipping with her hands. He continues to beat her despite her pleas for him to stop and her cries of pain.

After beating her, J proceeds to rape her anally. When she begs that he stops and warns that she needs to take a shit, he continues anyway. As warned, she defecates while he’s fucking her. He takes his dick out and tells her to suck it and clean it off. She hesitates, but obliges, fearful, I’m sure, by his new turn toward violence. After giving a blowjob to his shit-cover cock, J tells her not to swallow and to kiss her. A narrator’s voiceover tells us that he (J) realized why shit was disgusting: it didn’t have a taste (sweet, spicy, salty, bitter, etc.).

The next scene finds J and Y in a subway acting flirtatious and lovey with each other again. Y tells J that she now realizes that he truly loves her. In what has to be one of the best lines ever, she says: “I know now you really love me. Who else would eat my shit?” (or something to that effect). So ask yourself, if someone tells you that they love you, can you really be sure until they eat your shit?

From that point on, basically, J and Y tumble into a life of nonstop sex. J looses his house and spends all of his money paying for places for him and Y to fuck. Y drops out of school and abandons her family. The two of them live only to have sex with each other — nothing else matters.

This path, as I mentioned early in this review, is not sustainable, and ultimately things don’t really work out. I won’t go into too much detail since it’s interesting to see what happens (and, really, from the beginning you must know that they can’t spend the rest of their lives fucking without abandon). I will say, however, that the end, for me, was pretty disappointing. In the last scene we find out what the title of the film, Lies, refers to, and it isn’t deep or profound or very meaningful.

Overall, I think Lies is worth watching because it’s so shocking. The first sex scene is like nothing I’ve seen in contemporary film — it is explicit and awkward: not sexy at all. There are also a few intertextual moments (like the interview of the actress playing Y and the director and the “The devil doesn’t smell” comment) that really force the audience to ask whether the movie is exploitative or what.

Who Really Loves Me?

Wong Kar-Wai DVD Collection
So, who really loves me and wants to buy me The Wong Kar-Wai Collection??? Although the retail price is $76.96, it looks like you can find it used on amazon for under $70. I will love you forever and forever.

For real, though, I have to buy this. It contains the following movies:

Although I already own Happy Together, I think it’s worth doubling my efforts in this case. I can give it away as a present or something sometime in the future.

Also, as a bonus, if you really really really love me, you can throw in In the Mood For Love – The Criterion Edition. I want that too.

Presence of an Absence

More might come on this later, but this morning I was reading about the idea of the “presence of an absence” (in the Lost Highway section of Pervert in the Pulpit), which the author seemed to attribute to Hegel. I was reminded that this is one of my all-time favorite ideas, right up there with “double reading” and projection. I’m sure there are others. Maybe sometime in the future I can devote an entry to my favorite theories — and even explain what they mean, which I’m not going to do now, either.

Blast From the Past?

Out of Control -- my old web site
I’m debating whether I should try to take some of the posts from my old website and migrate them to this site. I realize that there are a few really good posts saved there that might be worth saving and sharing. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Or does anyone who visited my old site have any “best-ofs” that they remember? There are over 900 blog posts on there, so I’m sure there are a few worth saving, yah?

Preface-Introduction

David Lynch with his hand over his heart
Here is the citation for the edition I am using:
Johnson, Jeff. Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch. North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2004.

I’ll start by noting that I typically only read critical work that enhances or adds to my appreciation of something I already enjoy. Reading Pervert in the Pulpit has been a totally different experience. This book basically blasts David Lynch, who I’ve considered to be my favorite director since high school. I was extremely skeptical when I started reading. The first sentence on the back of the book states: “Filmmaker David Lynch’s work is viewed here as patriotic and Puritanical.” Whoa! That’s a bold statement for someone who represents the idea of counter-culture and weirdness to so many people (including myself).

After reading Johnson’s introduction, however, I was convinced… or, to be less-dramatic, I was intrigued and could see where his argument was going and how it was probably pretty convincing. As I write these notes, I’m 107 pages into the book. I’ve read Johnson’s analysis of Lynch’s short films and the features Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Dune, and Blue Velvet. I’m sold on his argument and I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to watch a Lynch film the same way… and I’m not sure that’s a good thing (or am I just being conservative and nostalgic?). Nonetheless, I’m totally enjoying this book and don’t regret reading it.

On to the notes:

Preface

“David Lynch, instead of claiming the mantle of a counterculture hipster with an affinity for outlaws and disenfranchisement, [has] more accurately aligned himself with foot soldiers in the contemporary culture wars, carrying a banner for virtuecrats, neo-cons and Reagan conservatives” (1).

I’ve always considered Lynch to be a “hipster” and “counterculture,” so this statement immediately caught my attention… plus, I hate “virtuecrats” and neo-cons and Reganites, so I was curious to see how Lynch could align with them.

Johnson identifies a

“Calvinist instinct in David Lynch” (1).

I admit that I’m not terribly familiar with the philosophy of John Calvin, except that he was Christian and extremely conservative and that he was very influential in Geneva back in the day.

Johnson found Lynch’s “moral framing” to be more interesting than other critiques of his work.

“I could not look at his work … without identifying his moralistic slant toward mythological ideals of goodness, charity and benevolence threatened by forces of evil” (2).

“his ‘calling’ as a puritanical preacher, albeit one with a penchant for pornography” (2).

When Johnson looked to other critics, they

“self-consciously emerged as apologists for Lynch’s Puritanism” (2).

This has been my experience, as well. The most critical work I’ve read, Slavoj Zizek’s The Art of the Ridiculous Sublime, is very psychoanalysis-heavy, but makes no arguments about Lynch’s morality or ethical constructions.

The critics

“tended to dismiss his conservatism” (2).

Johnson

“relied on the intertextual theories of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Freud… these theorists provide a handy vocabulary within with certain patterns of Lynch’s behavior can be both examined and exploited” (3).

“Lynch identifies with authority” (3)

ala Gordon Cole in Twin Peaks.

“Lynch epitomizes the voyeurism inherent in a crusade” (4).

Dale Cooper, Jeffrey Beaumont, Paul Artreides (all played by Kyle MacLachlan — “his alter ego”):

“rationalists plagued by the truth of their dreams” (4).

“I was always aware of watching Lynch watch Jeffrey watch Frank deny Dorothy’s visual pleasure” (4).

“All moralists, as Nietzsche says, are prey to their own morality” (4).

Introduction: Blackbeard, Calvin and the Outer Banks of North Carolina

When Johnson first watched Blue Velvet,

“I watched Blue Velvet every day for a week” (6).

When I first watched Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me I watched it every weekend for two months or something like that — so I could identify with Johnson.

“I was fascinated by Lynch’s oddball approach to the ordinary. He seemed like a kinky phenomenologist” (6).

“I was seduced” (6).

From a psychoanalytic standpoint, this is a really funny phrase to use, especially for someone who knows about film theory and the male gaze and whatnot. I’m sure Johnson used this phrase ironically.

Johnson analyzes Dennis Hopper’s acting history, which I think is rather strange, but whatever…:

  • “Redundancy became Hopper’s trademark” (7)
  • He is a “post-abuse neo-conservative” (7)
  • Blue Velvet having become the final repository, the culmination and exhaustion of the motifs and images from all his earlier work” (7)

Lynch’s films

“reinforced a wistful benevolence, projected a vision of nostalgic America that existed only in a Reaganesque, bright-eyed Eagle Scout’s good-deed diary” (9).

“the good people, the elect, are beautiful, wholesome, well-balanced, with a penchant for fifties’ fashion and family values, while the bad people, ugly and carbuncular, deal drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, produce pornography and mock in blatant acts of blasphemy the virtues of American hearth and Heartland” (9, emphasis mine).

This seems pretty par with literature in general — good people are good, bad people are bad… but I guess it’s good to be reminded.

Lynch uses

“desire as a destructive force, the root of evil” (9).

Themes in American literature: guild, sin, and redemption (9)

Lynch is

“a rather straightforward reactionary working within the tradition of typical Calvinist thought in American literature” (10).

“Like Mike Lewis in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom (1959), Lynch seems to derive a kind of voyeuristic pleasure from indulging in what he condemns” (10).

This is, I think, the key to understanding Johnson’s argument.

“Lynch dodges questions about ‘message'” (11).

Lynch is known for being tight-lipped about his films — he never discusses meanings, interpretations, etc. Is this because he doesn’t want the true message to get out?

“Reading Lynch through Freud is, of course, irresistible; but more than a method of analysis, Freudian readings of Lynch identify a framing device around which Lynch builds his narratives” (11).

I.e. id and ego. I love Freudian readings (and Lacanian readings, more so), so I agree that it is “irresistible.”

“[Lynch] reminds me of a debauched priest asking for prurient details during confession, or a judge who needs to read a pornographic text a few times too many before he deems the material obscene” (12).

This reminds me of a few things: first, Foucault’s discussion of confession and rape trials where people had to give explicit details of their sexual activities in order to “turn on” the priests and judges; second, something I read during my Media Studies class about obscenity trials where jurors and congressmen, etc. would spend obscene amounts of time “studying” and “verifying” the pornographic content.

2047

Android-version of Wang Jing Wen
This a follow-up to my 2046 post. I re-watched the movie and have had more time to process some things. This post may contain spoilers, so if you want some spoiler-free thoughts, checkout the original post.

I wish I could say that the movie made more sense the second time around. Or, wait, no I don’t. The second time around didn’t quite make the movie crystal clear, but it did make me love the movie even more. 2046 is one of those “onion”-type pieces of literature, where there are layers upon layers to peel away — and each time you peel away a layer things are a bit different.

The first time I watched the movie, I admit that the descriptions I read about the movie almost had me more confused than the movie itself. After reading reviews on Netflix and IMDB and whatnot (Netflix: “…Through time travel and parallel worlds…”), I went into it thinking the film was about time travel and alternate universes and what not — well, the movie is strange and has sci-fi elements, but not like that. What made the story confusing was the fact that — and this is my tentative working theory: the movie itself was a story that was mentioned in the movie.

The crux of my understanding comes from a scene early in the film (during whatever year there were major riots in Hong Kong). Chow mentions that he is furiously writing a story called “2046” that is about a place called 2046 that everyone wants to go to and that the story is filled with sex and has a sci-fi plot to it that some people didn’t like where everyone is trying to get to a mysterious place called 2046 — isn’t that pretty much exactly what the film is? As Chow is giving a brief summary of his story, we see futuristic scenes that appear to be depicting the story he describes.

While those could be one way of understanding “2046,” I think the film 2046 is also another way. The movie itself is pretty sexual (take, for instance, the sex scenes between Chow and Bai Ling) and has a strange sci-fi element (the story “2047” that Chow writes for Wang Jen Wen). Furthermore, throughout the film 2046 everyone is trying to get to a 2046 one way or another — either the physical room (e.g. Chow wanting to live in room 2046) or some place where nothing changes (e.g. a stable relationship). So basically what I’m saying is that the interior story of “2046” parallels the larger film of 2046 — the film is itself a metastory.

Anyway, that may be too circular and strange, which is okay. I always make things more confusing that need be, but that’s how I am.

Tak2046
Another thing I was struck by the second time watching was the story of “2047” (see a theme here? me and metastories/intertextualism?). The actress who plays Wang Jen Wen (Faye Wong, who incidentally, I just learned, sang the “love theme song” for Final Fantasy 8 [I knew her name was familiar for some reason]) is phenomenal playing an android. She totally had the jerky movements down and the distant stares that, I would imagine, an android might have. Plus, in the scenes in which Tak asks her to leave with him, when she is pretending to either not listen to not respond to having a delayed response, the “I’m not here”-look she has is great.

Although the movie seems to suggest that Chow’s “true love” was Su Lizhen from In the Mood For Love, I would argue that his best relationship was with Bai Ling. Not only did they seem to have great sex, but they also had a similar history of pushing people away (or so I would assume since she was a prostitute). Also, they seemed to genuinely have fun together. They were playful and joked with each other. I think those types of relationships are probably healthier and have more of a chance to last than those really intense, “I’m so in love with you I could die”-type of relationships (and I think I have some experience here…).

I can’t really tell whether the film (“the film” being, mostly, WKW himself) thinks Chow should go with Bai Ling or move on from Su Lizhen (#1) or give Su Lizhen (#2) a chance or tell Wang Jen Wen that he loves her or what. I want to try to look to “2047” for some help, but I’m still unclear as to what exactly that story is trying to tell us.

Ultimately, despite the fact I’ve tried to do a “close(r) reading” of the film, I think that my first understanding of the overall theme remains the same (and the quote is so lovely it’s worth repeating):

Love is all a matter of timing. It is no good meeting the right person… too soon or too late.

For everything to align correctly so that two people are genuinely 100% in love with each other equally is extremely rare. One person loves the other more than the other (Bai Ling and Chow), one person loves another person but doesn’t know if the love is mutual (Tak and Wang Jen Wen), one person loves the other person at the wrong time (Wang Jen Wen and Tak), one person tries to love someone else who reminds them of someone they used to love (Chow and Su Lizhen #2)… or, who knows what other permutations can exist. I’m sure WKW can show us more.

And for the information-centric readers, here are some other things I’ve learned about the film since my first viewing:

  • 2047 is 50 years after Great Britain returned rule of Hong Kong to China. There was something said by some Chinese leaders about how Hong Kong will remain unchanged (i.e. capitalist) for 50 years. Not sure what this has to do with the movie, but it’s interesting and may give some perspective on the dates 2046 and 2047
  • The version of the film I watched (I’m guessing it’s some sort of “bootleg”) may be the “original cut” of the film that premiered at Cannes. After Cannes WKW decided to edit it a bit and add on five minutes in order to make the film less confusing.
  • It looks like 2046 will be showing at the Seattle Film Festival this year. Although SIFF doesn’t have any information yet, I can’t wait to see 2046 on the big screen.

Where does all of this leave us? I actually plan on going full-on nerd with this film and watching it a couple more times in order to create a timeline or something so that the chronology (there are lots of flashbacks-within-flashbacks going on) is more clear. I think it would make the film more enjoyable and meaningful if I knew exactly what was going on.