Tag Archives: gay

Reviews in Brief: Werewolves and Other Shapeshifters in Popular Culture, by Kimberley McMahon-Coleman and Roslyn Weaver

Because I read a many books here at the Driftless Area Review, I can’t hope to give them all a thorough long-form review.  Reviews in Brief are short-form reviews that offer a concentrated dose of information.

One doesn’t have to walk very far to see the impact of the shapeshifter on popular culture.  As the last installment of the Twilight movie series lumbers through cinemas nationwide, it is important to take a step back from the marketing onslaught and Robert Pattison-induced hysterics.  Werewolves and Other Shapeshifters in Popular Culture, by Kimberley McMahon-Coleman and Roslyn Weaver, approach the material through thematic analyses.  The pair of Australian academics investigate how things like marriage, sexuality, disability, addiction, gender, and spirituality come to play within the novels and films.

The material covered is vast, including the Being Human TV series (UK and US versions), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series and comics), True Blood (books and TV series), Twilight (films and books), and the Vampire Diaries (TV series and books), among others.  Included in the analyses are more obscure Australian novels like Jatta by Jenny Hale.  For those oversaturated on the Twilight phenomenon, the “Works Cited” list offers some fascinating recommendations.

Werewolves proves its usefulness in its good timing.  Coleman and Weaver investigate the numerous pop cultural pieces here, analyzing how specific treatments reflect attitudes of society at large.  For those curious as to why Twilight is so huge with teens these days will find the thematic analyses illuminating.  Make no mistake, not every TV series, film, or book covered here would fit into the Great Literature category, but it is a wonderful addition to the growing field of reader reception theory.  (Similar reader reception studies have been done with romance novel readership.)  The book is a handy resource for those interested in understanding pop cultural trends, but who have neither the time nor inclination to read through the primary source material.

The thematic analysis is an advantage but also a liability in Werewolves.  The various rubrics (addiction, gender, etc.) put the primary source material through various lenses, all thought provoking.  Conversely, the numerous lenses make the analyses thin and superficial.  As a theoretical starting point in exploring shapeshifters in popular culture, the approach delivers.  Unfortunately, the weakness shows itself most in the section on spirituality, itself a soft, mushy term acting as a catchall for ritual, religion, and cultic social behaviors.  This is seen when McMahon-Coleman and Weaver apply Christian symbolism to the Twilight series.  While spiritual and ethical issues like sacrifice, eternity, and morality get explored sufficiently, the analysis of spirituality in Twilight would have benefited immensely from a specific reading attuned to the uniqueness of the Mormon faith.  The Mormon concept of blood atonement in a vampire novel series would have proved fascinating, along with the Mormon’s specific understanding of links between Native American and Jewish groups.  In Mormon theology, Native Americans are descended from the ancient Jewish population.  What does this mean in light of Twilight’s Native American shapeshifter characters, especially since those shapeshifters pass on their powers via hereditary transmission?

Werewolves is a great starting point for those interested in the significance of the shapeshifter in popular culture and how it reflects modern mores.

Translation Tuesdays: Firefly, by Severo Sarduy

A series dedicated to literature in translation whether classic or contemporary.

Originally published in 1990 as Cocuyo
Translated from the Spanish by Mark Fried
Archipelago Books (Available March 2013)

Lauded by French semiotician Roland Barthes as a creator of a “paradisiac text,” a “teeming flux of every kind of linguistic pleasure,” Severo Sarduy recreates a pre-Castro Cuba in his late novel Firefly.  Unfortunately, Barthes premature death in 1980 prevented him from reading Sarduy’s slim novel.  (He did however praise Sarduy’s earlier novel Cobra in the seminal work, The Pleasure of the Text.)  Linguistic pleasures abound in Firefly, about the misadventures of a child named Firefly whose giant head and poor sense of direction get him in all sorts of trouble.

Sarduy creates a kind of decadent picaresque, painting a Cuba immersed in occultism, decay, and danger.  We meet Firefly’s aunts “all in shining silk” and wearing “crocodile-leather high heels with red platforms and over their shoulders see-through handbags like round canteens for a thirsty outing.”  After faking his death from rat poison, Firefly ends up in a hospital where he gets examined by two doctors, Gator and Isidro.  Gator, “lean and olive-skinned”, wears a pinstriped suit, rimless glasses, and “a silk tie decorated with four-leaf clovers.”  But his footwear is most disturbing, since “His shoes are made of his own skin.”  His rotund counterpart, Isidro, teaches anatomy, and “owns a mouse-infested grotto” that functions as a makeshift medical school, where students gather to learn “his Frenchified skills in the pestilent art of dissection.”

Once freed of the machinations of the two doctors, he goes to live with Munificence, sleeping on a couch below an office used by notaries and situated next to a charity school.  Sarduy creates an atmosphere of decay and corruption as Firefly becomes employed as a gofer for the notaries and falls in love with Ada, a beautiful redhead student at the charity school.  Unlike the decadent works of Joris-Karl Huysmans, Sarduy leavens the atmosphere with color and energy.  As Firefly matures, he desires escape from the claustrophobic atmosphere.

The setting is asynchronous, existing in a hallucinatory past, with slave markets, mysterious cults, and Soviet advisors.  A dream logic persists throughout, with patterns repeating themselves, or reconstituting into different identities.  The novel is filled with mismatched pairs, usually one thin and one fat, whether it is Gator and Isidro, along with the two ladies who seduce him.

Along with Reinaldo Arenas (1943 – 1990), Sarduy belongs to the Gay Cuban literary heritage.  Both were expatriates, although Sarduy left in 1960, shortly after Castro dictatorship overthrew the Batista dictatorship.  Firefly is a meditation on exile, a sensual love letter to a Cuba of a childhood imagination, its exuberance and wit poking holes into the gummy haze of nostalgia.  Sarduy misses the Cuba he had to flee, but the hothouse corruption and rot, as evidenced in the notaries, the quack doctors, and the legacy of the nation’s slave trade, remind one that nostalgia can inform as much as delude the writer and reader.  Prior to Castro, Cuba was every bit as hellish for the poor and blacks as after.  Sarduy meditates on the knot of Catholicism, race, and slavery:

The catechumens always returned to their venerable orishas, hidden on the top shelf of their armoires – the inheritance, along with the cinnamon skin and thick lips, of some maroon ancestor if not of a great-grandfather who, being from Africa itself, was respected in the neighborhood as a man black by birth. [Emphasis in original.]

Written in 1990, Firefly can be seen as a parody of the novels of the Latin American Boom and a harbinger of things to come (Roberto Bolaño and Javier Marías).  The novel’s tone and structure have it swinging between a kind of magical realism (the opening chapter involving the hurricane) and long-form dream sequences (the chapter with Firefly in The Pavilion of the Pure Orchid, a Lynchian nightmare in cloying tropical heat).  Sarduy’s verbal richness sets it against the now-standard Magical Realist novels (One Hundred Years of Solitude, etc.) and Bolaño’s tricksy epics like The Savage Detectives and 2666, works exploring the post-NAFTA socioeconomic situation through a combination of flat journalistic prose and gut-wrenching horror and violence.  Sarduy’s pre-Castro Cuba is far from idealized, but he deftly avoids devolving into simplistic agitprop.

An overly nostalgic interpretation of the past can be crippling in its construction of false idols, assuming one doesn’t take Faulkner at his word when he said, “The past is never dead.  It’s not even past.”*  The carnival of grotesques, the decadent corruption, and the dreamlike atmosphere dissolve into a mélange of beauty, cruelty, and comedy.  Sarduy is unencumbered by chronological exactitude and the evangelizing obsession to assert that the past was better.

Firefly and Severo Sarduy are worth the time, especially given Mark Fried’s luminous and playful translation.  Sarduy is a master stylist, his writing radiating the refined sensuality of Jean Genet, the formalist experimentalism of James Joyce, and the verbal richness of Joris-Karl Huysmans.  A gorgeous and decadent seam of literature is revealed in the pages of Firefly, offering yet another aspect of Latin American literature.

*Requiem for a Nun (1950)

Critical Appraisals: A Spy in the Ruins, by Christopher Bernard

Described by Anna Sears as “A Bildungsroman hallucinogenic in its intensity,” A Spy in the Ruins by Christopher Bernard constructs a postapocalyptic anti-narrative replete with verbal richness, political aggression, and erotic tenderness.  The back cover blurb by Jack Foley asserts Spy “is a book not for the faint of criticism.”  A book this intense, word-drunk, and ferocious demands a proper dissection and investigation.

Spy is an idiosyncratic book about the Sixties and the moral consequences.  At the same time, it encompasses much more in formal experimentalism and in vicious verbal assaults.  The only other fiction where one encounters lacerating indictments “our vexed, complicated, technomiserable situation” (again, Jack Foley) are in the works of Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Alexander Theroux, and Thomas Bernhard.  Despite the formalistic challenges presented in the text, an almost physical immediacy haunts the text.

While the current trend in literary circles is to bow before the Cult of the Sentence, crafting polished gems befitting the pages of the New Yorker, Bernard rips apart and defiles the sentence.  It takes a while to adjust to the flow of the novel.  Bernard creates scenes with run-on unpunctuated sentences followed by.  Brief.  Breaks.  In the text.  This is off-putting at first, but eventually this becomes a means to instill a specific tone for the novel.  With the breaks and the run-ons, Bernard’s style balances between that of a prose poem and an epigram.

The plot of the novel follows the life story of “the solitary one,” an unnamed (for the most part) male whose formative experiences include some political activism in the Sixties.  Divided into ten chapters with an overarching framing device, Spy follows the Solitary One from birth to death.  Besides the narrative style, the first half of the novel is notable for its insistent vagueness.  There are discrete scenes and characters, but lacking in proper names and location.  It creates a mythic, dream-like quality, apropos since Foley (again) compares Spy to Finnegans Wake.  (In his blurb, Foley likens Spy to both Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, a comparison the novel almost achieves.)

The only time the novel really fails to deliver is in passages obviously set in the Sixties but seemingly clouded in a willful vagueness.  The Kennedy assassination is described as a leader killed in a Southern city.  It is only when the accretion of historical facts lean against the mythic edifice of the novel that things begin to strain.

The Solitary One endures a brutal upbringing, only leavened by his nascent sexual experiences with a female schoolmate.  But his upbringing drain these erotic scenes of their joy and later corrode and curdle in his later relationships.  The last sections involve him enduring a one-way conversation with his former lover.  The scene possesses a vicious mood with the Solitary One desperately wanting to answer, but prevented by his deteriorating health.

Prior to that, Spy has chapters increasing in specificity.  A screenplay has a Him and Her where we see a relationship fracture amidst the earnest political discussions one witnesses in bright-eyed college students.  The ninth chapter begins as an espionage novel and ends as a Therouvian indictment of modern culture’s shallowness and rot.  Characters get specific names, but we are unsure whether this is a realistic depiction or whether the hospitalized Solitary One is making this up in his head, retconning the past to make his mistakes more palatable.  The chapter is less Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy than Malone Dies.

Bernard marries the formal experimentalism of James Joyce with the unflinching emotional brutality of Samuel Beckett.  Written in 2005, A Spy in the Ruins has a bold experimentalism welded to a strident and intelligent point of view.  It stands toe-to-toe with Infinite Jest, Angels in America, and The Savage Detectives as an epic that has a lot to say and does so in a new invigorating way.

 

The Art of Reviewing: Roland Barthes

The Art of Reviewing explores reviewing as an art form and as a valuable element to understanding society and profiles specific reviewers of merit.

“Criticism does not always demonstrate its customary incisiveness: it often ignores the most worthless ephemera.” – Karl Kraus

“I would go to the stake for a sensation and be a skeptic to the last.” – Oscar Wilde

Roland Barthes (1915 – 1980) was a theorist, literary critic, and semiotician, but most importantly, he expanded the field of reviewing.  In addition, he reinvented the ways in which things could be reviewed.  He looked at old works in new ways.  This installment of the Art of Reviewing will explore how Barthes reinvented and reinvigorated the concept of reviewing.  (This article is not meant to function as purely biographical or theoretical, but more as a means to show nascent reviewers the potential of Barthes’s ideas and continually evolving philosophy.)

One of the great things about Barthes was his ability to deconstruct his own philosophical perspective.  He began his career from the vantage point of orthodox Marxism, amplified with some semiotic theory taken from linguistics.  In the end, his philosophy became more personal, intimate, and autobiographical.  One of his last works was Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes.  He was too inventive and too passionate to remain affixed to any particular philosophical or ideological box.  As reviewers get older, their ideas change.  The slow evolution from the ideological Marxist to contemplative individual makes for a useful case study in the importance of changing one’s mind.

Barthes represents an important bridge between the complicated Marxist mysticism of pop culture critic Walter Benjamin and Michel Foucault’s large-scale deconstructionist archaeologies of institutions.  Barthes’s writings are a Rosetta Stone of pop culture studies and how cultures manufacture ideology with its ephemera.

Mythologies (1957)

Written in 1957, Mythologies has tautly written dissections of French pop cultural artifacts and is an indispensible educational tool for aspiring pop culture observers.  The first half has a collection of newspaper articles, most no longer than two pages, examining a specific item.  The selection is incredibly diverse and disregards arbitrary barriers like High and Low Culture.  It examines everything from TV wrestling matches (of the WCW variety), cuisine, science fiction, and museum exhibits.  A veritable Whitman’s Sampler of cultural detritus, a monument to the mundane and commonplace.  The second half of the book is an expanded explanation of semiotics (connotation, denotation, signifier, signified, etc.), along with its linguistic roots, and the accusation that the bourgeoisie is a “joint-stock company.”

Barthes takes the position of an orthodox Marxist to dissect and examine the cultural products of the postwar French bourgeoisie.  His status as an ideological outsider gives him a much-needed critical perspective.  The semiotic background gives him the intellectual apparatus to read the artifact.  More specifically, to read against the grain of the status quo.  In academic parlance, the “queer the text,” since Barthes was gay, like Foucault (and those contemporary Fifties bulwarks of American conservatism, Whittaker Chambers and Roy Cohn).

The book is a must read for cultural critics and curators of museums and historical societies.  Less for the Marxist readings per se, but for the book’s illustration of how to read material culture.  Material culture is a means of passing along our culture’s mores, codes, and traditions.  While these things are important, anyone tasked with writing exhibit labels should understand how these things are socially constructs manufactured by humans.  As such, each embodies a specific ideology and point of view.  Whether that is good or bad depends on the individual’s interpretation.  But one needs to understand that this manufactured ideology is present within the object.  In the book, Barthes gives the example of the black child soldier in a French military uniform saluting on the cover of the weekly magazine Paris Match.  On the surface, it is a poster that glorifies the patrie and the republican “us.”  Dig a little deeper and one realizes that the poster operates as a legitimizing force for colonialism and imperialism.  Mythologies was published shortly after France’s disastrous Indochina War (1946 – 1954) and amidst the brutalities of the Algerian Revolution (1954 – 1962).  This explains the vituperative passion Barthes had as a Marxist and utilizing the tools of linguistics as an intellectual means of exposing the oppressive agendas buried beneath seemingly innocent pop cultural artifacts.

On a more mundane level, the miniature shopping carts kids push around the grocery conditions them to become consumers.  Whether this is a horrifying example of mental abuse against a developing child or business as usual depends on the individual’s specific interpretation.  But to say that this social conditioning is not taking place seems like a particularly weak example of willful ignorance.  The recent rebooting of the GI Joe franchise and America’s Middle Eastern foreign policy seem like something far more ominous than tiny shopping carts.  “Go Joe!”

Sade Fourier Loyola (1976)

Sade Fourier Loyola explores the works of three major innovators of language: the French philosopher, pornographer and atheist Donatien Alphonse François, Marquis de Sade (2 June 1740 – 2 December 1814); the French utopian socialist François Marie Charles Fourier (7 April 1772 – 10 October 1837); and Basque Spanish theologian and founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) Ignacio López de Loyola (Saint Ignatius of Loyola) (1491 – July 31, 1556).  Barthes goes on to illustrate how each writer in this superficially blasphemous trio transformed language.  How the three writers reflect off each other displays Barthes’s unique take on the subject, transcending the standard academic category of “comparative literature.”

Everybody has heard of DAF Sade, yet very few have read his works.  In the opening sections of Sade Fourier Loyola, Barthes reflects on the contradictory accusations leveled against Sade: His works are boring and his works are shocking.  How can one be both?  Mythologies dissected pop cultural artifacts while Sade Fourier Loyola examined well-known works in a different way.  The comparative literary criticism Barthes achieves is reminiscent of the ad slogan, “Think different.”

He examines Sade’s work, seeing it in mathematical terms, with each carnal atrocity building upon each other until they reach a séance, a kind of Enlightenment clockwork made of frenzied bodies.  Sade’s writing exemplifies what Barthes terms “a contamination of discourses,” with extended speeches championing reason and rationality suddenly broken by curse-laced shouts and blasphemies involving orgies, murder, and torture.  One of many things bedeviling critics is the inability to place Sade within a neat framework of periodicity.  Sade is simultaneously a Gothic writer, embracing the darker strains of Romanticism, an Enlightenment philosopher, and a literary satirist.  Furthermore, his work continually champions crime over law and power over morality.  Those who are more powerful are thus because of Nature.

The theme of subservience is picked up in his analysis of Loyola, whose Spiritual Exercises bears resemblances to Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom.  Each work appears like a glorified outline.  While both writers come from completely different backgrounds, Barthes brings our attention to the meticulousness and concentration involved in writing these books.  Loyola even has a section where the success or failure of the spiritual retreat’s practitioner can be measured on a graph.  Loyola and Sade also have their practitioners in severe isolation and endure physical hardships.

Fourier, the utopian socialist, uses language that combines aspects of both Sade and Loyola.  His utopia is spiritual in nature, but man’s perfection is attained by the release of bodily passions that have been repressed by civilization.  Barthes also explores the playfulness of Fourier’s brand of utopia, especially regarding his notorious phrase about turning the sea into lemonade.  The treatment of Fourier as a literary figure to be celebrated shows how Barthes has evolved from an orthodox Marxist to a non-ideological literary critic.  Marxists shy away from Fourier because of his wild eccentricities and the non-scientific basis for his utopian vision.  Barthes embraces him as he does Sade and Loyola.

The Pleasure of the Text (1975)

Barthes approaches reviewing and criticism as joyful acts, hence the title of the small book, the Pleasure of the Text.  Inspired by Severo Sarduy’s Cobra, a novel about a Cuban drag queen who transforms into a Tibetal bardo during an orgy with leatherclad biker studs, Barthes wrote down mini-essays in alphabetic order.  The essays focused on how a text can bring pleasure to the reader.  He elucidates the much-misunderstood concept of the Death of the Author.  The concept, maligned by the likes of Harold Bloom and Camille Paglia, does not involve turning a literary work into an amalgamation of social forces, thus negating the author.  The explanation is much more prosaic.

The Death of the Author is thus: After the Author has finished his or her work; he has no control over it.  The Author’s interpretative power is negated.  This is because the Reader is not consuming the Author’s Interpretation, but simply a Text.  (Barthes’s book can be seen as a precursor to the current discipline of Reader Reception Theory.)

The book also focuses on the concept of pleasure as it relates to the practice of reading.  He asserts that literature does not require a moral component to be pleasurable to the reader.  As an American subject to High School English classes, there was the tendency to examine works with a Major Moral Lesson, whether it was Grapes of Wrath or Heart of Darkness.  Literary consumption became analogous to an annual teeth cleaning: painful, tedious, and instructive.  But knowing the Moral Lesson made one feel good, or at least pass the quiz.  What became a rarity was how to enjoy the texts as objects of pleasure.  (Unfortunately, Americans have a schizophrenic relationship with pleasure and morality.)

When reading a text, this usually is administered to the skull.

Readers should be able to enjoy the language of the narrative without having to endure horse pills of morality.  An appreciation can be made on how the author formulates the language in the same way art can be appreciated once one becomes aware of specific brushstrokes and manipulation of pigments.  Appreciating books just on their moral level is stunningly pedestrian.

Roland Barthes was revolutionary both in what he reviewed and how he reviewed.  He began as an orthodox Marxist but evolved a personal philosophy that embraced many things.  Ecumenical and joyful, his approach to the review showed a writer both erudite and expansive.

FURTHER READING

Susan Sontag raised awareness of Barthes’s value to a well-rounded intellect.  The closing line of her seminal essay, “Against Interpretation” (1964) reads, “In place of a hermeneutrics we need an erotics of art.”  Barthes provides this much-needed erotics of art.

Sontag wrote two major essays on Barthes:

  • “Remembering Barthes” (1980) in Under the Sign of Saturn (1980).
  • “Writing Itself: On Roland Barthes” (1982) in Where the Stress Falls (2001).

WORKS BY ROLAND BARTHES

At present, many of Barthes’s lesser-known works remain hard to come by.  Except for Mythologies, his critical work remains unknown to lay audiences.  This is unfortunate, especially since the Internet has provided the perfect medium for discussions about pop culture.  The publisher Hill & Wang have volumes of Barthes more notable volumes in print.  So long as one isn’t averse to scouring used bookstores and Internet shopping sources, one can also find his lesser known works in English translation.  Despite his untimely death, Barthes remained prolific.

His instrumental work in the interpretation of pop cultural artifacts and Susan Sontag’s relentless championing should be reason enough to bring his works back into print.

Critic’s Notebook: Unpopular Causes, Part III

Reappropriation: Camp, Kitsch, and Sincerity

“When something is just bad (rather than Camp), it’s often because it is too mediocre in its ambition.  The artist hasn’t attempted to do anything outlandish.” – “Notes on Camp” [1965], Susan Sontag

“Need more clarification? To his fans Liberace was the epitome of cultured taste, but of course we know he was kitsch. However, unlike the not-quite-weird-enough musical stylings of ABBA, say, or the Village People, Liberace-style kitsch is so weird, so outré, that hipsters find it impossible to appropriate as cheese. Liberace didn’t make his work inappropriable on purpose; others, however, have. The director John Waters, for example, described his (excellent) early films, which lovingly celebrate kitsch in an extreme, even terrifying way, as “trash.” He did so in order to prevent hipsters from fake-appreciating his work — as they’ve done with, e.g., the films of Ed Wood. Deploying the term “trash” was a brilliant anti-ironic maneuver on the part of a master ironist.” – “Kitsch, Camp, and Cheese,” Hilowbrow.com [June 5, 2010], Joshua Glenn

Beneath every hipster opinion is a root of contempt.  For the popular, for the mainstream, the straw men are various and sundry.  A similar position of championing the unpopular involves camp and kitsch.  Unlike the fake-appreciation of hipsters for Pabst Blue Ribbon and the accoutrements of working class garb, fans of camp and kitsch embrace certain cultural products with a passionate sincerity.  Camp and kitsch, while similar, are not the same, although the popular press and consumers often confuse the two.

Camp reappropriates culturally disreputable works in a kind of counterintuitive appreciation.  A work that is generally abhorrent and awful (example: Zak Snyder’s 300) can be repurposed.  As a standard action film, 300 represents the nadir of the genre.  But what if one watches it as a comedy?  The Heavy Metal Librarian asserts:

I predict that, in ten years, 300 will have the same type of following that Rocky Horror Picture Show has today: ie, it will be aired after midnight at theaters in college towns all over the country, attended by audiences of gay men and people dressed up in costumes from the movie, who will recite the dialogue word for word, throw popcorn at the screen, and laugh uproariously at parts that are supposed to be deadly serious. After all, the only real difference between the two movies is that the latter is intentionally campy. (from the post, “Wank the Spartans”, Heavy Metal Librarian, September 14, 2009)

300 is unintentionally campy and pretty hilarious when read that way.  Sontag differentiates the Camp from the bad by the outlandishness of its execution. 300 fits the bill.  The Heavy Metal Librarian catalogues 300’s outlandishness:

300 is one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen in my life.

I was reminded of the film’s brilliance when it made its television debut this past weekend. Seriously, it’s perfect. What other movie gives you:

  • Howlingly bad dialogue (“because freedom isn’t free” sounds like something from George Bush’s wet dream)
  • Rampant homoeroticism (buff, chiseled, shaven-chested Greeks prancing around in underwear and capes) in an allegedly tough-guy war movie
  • An enemy, the Persians, who manage to simultaneously look like a cross between an al-Qaeda training video and a Gay Pride parade from Mordor
  • Said enemy led by Xerxes, a ten foot tall Rupaul clone obsessed with making people kneel in front of him

The undeniably homoerotic element in the movie is its most amusing aspect. After all, there exists a high correlation between people who think that Islamofascists are hiding under their beds and those who believe that Teh Homosexual Agenda is attempting to subvert their children. The fact that this crowd loved 300 constitutes further scientific proof of the Foley/Haggard Theorem (“The Degree of one’s Homophobia is Directly Proportional to the Depth of one’s Closet.”)

The same reading could possibly be made for John Wayne’s performance in The Green Berets, but most definitely for his turn as Genghis Khan.

Kitsch is a much harder beast to cage, since it is typified by terrible artistic production.  Embracing Art Nouveau lamps and Busby Berkeley musicals can be Camp.  Embracing Keane paintings and the Left Behind series is kitschy.  Unless one sincerely believes the idiosyncratic Bible interpretation of the Left Behind series, it is a challenging work to champion, let alone read, on any level.  Where Camp succeeds in surely executed outlandishness, Kitsch fails because of shoddy craftsmanship.

Camp

Kitsch

This brings us to a reckoning point: Sincerity.  (The weasel word “authentic” will be avoided, mainly because of the associations with fake-authentic cultural products.)  Can one appreciate a disreputable genre or film or book with sincerity without falling into the traps of Kitsch and Camp?

Up next, Nathan Rabin!

Tiny Book Reviews

The Line of Beauty (2004), by Alan Hollinghurst

Alan Hollinghurst reveals his mastery of English prose with The Line of Beauty, the 2004 Man Booker Prize-winning novel set in the decadent days of Thatcher’s Britain.  In the novel, Nick Guest, a Henry James scholar, spends time as a houseguest of the Feddens.  Gerald Fedden is the newly-elected Tory MP and lives with his wife and children in a glorious mansion in Notting Hill.  Nick’s long-burning infatuation for Gerald’s son Toby gets extinguished and then transfigured in the two loves he meets.  The first love is with Leo, a West Indian, while the second is Wani, a wealthy Lebanese heir to a grocery store fortune.

Hollinghurst’s controls the prose with a crisp precision.  The novel explores the life of Nick’s closeted homosexuality in a social commentary emanating as interior observation, not shrill agitprop.  In a conversation with Lord Kessler, the brother of Rachel, Gerald’s wife, Nick explains that his thesis is about Henry James’s style, specifically “style that hides things and reveals things at the same time.”  One could summarize The Line of Beauty in a similar vein.  One could describe Hollinghurst’s style as Realist, but it is the heightened realism of James, Waugh, and Proust.  The conceit of hiding and revelation play out in the novel’s plot.

While the line between the hidden and the revealed get blurred in the machinations of the characters, other lines reveal themselves.  Clandestine encounters between men; lines of cocaine sniffed on mirrors; and the veiled specter of AIDS.  In the end, the vanity, the wealth, and the connections reveal themselves as mere dross when Nick comes to terms with the very real, very close, and very tragic devastations of AIDS, bigotry, and love.

One sentence summary: Hollinghurst’s prose hits the brain like a perfectly balanced gin martini in this tale of love, lust, and loyalty set in Thatcher’s Britain.

My Friend the Fanatic: Travels With a Radical Islamist (2009), by Sadanand Dhume.

My Friend the Fanatic: Travels With a Radical Islamist, by Sadanad Dhume, is a fascinating look into Indonesian current affairs, culture, and religious tension.  The twin engines of globalization and Islamism work diligently to earn people’s loyalty.  One of the more disturbing things encountered in the book were the familiar enemies the Islamic extremists targeted: lesbians, abortionists, pop culture, individuality, and free choice. Odd how these targets meet with the same ire and hatred in the United State’s own Christian Right.

Unfortunately for Indonesia, two successive dictatorships, the Asian economic collapse of the late 1990s, and the nation’s misleading reputation as a “moderate Islamic country” make it ripe picking for the extremists and opportunists. Like the Catholic Counter-reformation of the 17th century in Europe, the Saudi Wahhabist “Counter-reformation” (against modernity, feminism, etc.), funded by petrodollars, has produced a global spread in extremist madrases.  The madrases are insidious institutions, since they only produce more madrases.

The sciences and humanities, the benchmarks of any decent educational system, face slow eradication, making the madrases de facto “factories for idiots” (Lindsay Wier’s description of detention in the TV series Freaks and Geeks).  The amoebic spread has its origin in the Asian market collapse of the 1990s and Indonesia’s lack of separation between religion and government.

In the end the nation will become populated by pious clones who know the Koran backwards and forwards but will be unable to fix a motor, titrate a chemical compound, or interpret a passage from Salman Rushdie.  Since hypocrisy is the conjoined twin of piety, the madrasa-products will decry the West, the US, and Modernity, while using terrorist tactics that include weapons and explosive made in the West.  The transformation of the book’s “fanatic”, Herry, from a quasi-secular, kind of skeptical follower, to a full-on anti-Semitic, anti-Freemason author is both tragic and comedic.  Comedic in the belief system so devoutly followed and tragic in seeing one person’s individuality strip-mined and obliterated.  Herry’s devolution from pious journalist to fanatical clone mirrors Indonesia’s devolution from an archipelago embracing ethnic and religious pluralism to a Saudi puppet regime shackled to an arid puritanical faith.

One sentence summary: An exploration of the insidious nature of extremist faith and the methods by which political, legislative, and cultural power centers get co-opted.

Liver: A Fictional Organ with a Surface Anatomy of Four Lobes by Will Self

A Review with a Surface Anatomy of Four Lobes


1. A Culinary Introduction

Liver: A Fictional Organ with a Surface Anatomy of Four Lobes by Will Self explores and revels in decay and degeneration, gushing with bile and blood.  The quartet of interconnected short stories focus on the liver, a bodily organ with interconnected lobes.

The liver functions by processing toxins and connects to the gall bladder.  People also consume liver as a delicacy.  The dish “liver and onions” is a classic in American cuisine.  I have eaten deer liver with onions and I enjoy the taste.  Prior to preparing it, I divided the sizable organ into four sections.  After placing the remainder in the freezer for safekeeping, I washed my fingers, coated in maroon-colored blood.  I’ve also had duck liver.  It was not foie gras, but still silky and delicious.  Unlike the dark deer liver, the duck liver looked taupe, a yellowish ivory hue.  Considerably smaller than the deer’s liver, the duck liver only provided for consumption as an appetizer.

Since liver is an organ meat, people have different reactions to it.  Some consider it anathema, taboo, or simply gross.  To others it is a delicacy to worthy of celebration.  Restaurant au Pied de Cochon in Montreal specializes in foie gras dishes, the menu a symphony of culinary excess.  Liver as a delicacy created controversy in the United States with cities, including New York City, placing a ban on the consumption of goose liver.

The liver is an organ.  What we consider meat is actually an animal’s muscle.  Meat, whether it is steak or a chicken drumstick, should be tender and chewy.  Liver, including other organs like kidney, possesses a blocky, chalky texture.

For a bodily organ, the liver unleashes bodily, political, and culinary complications.  Self mines these complications and creates an interconnected work of addiction, destruction, decay, and violence.

2. Pleasures of the Text


Liver has four stories: “Foie Humaine,” “Leberknödel,” “Prometheus,” and “Birdy Num Num.”  The first is a story about alcoholics.  The second follows a cancer patient to Zurich for assisted-suicide.  The third involves an ad man getting his liver sliced out while he’s alive.  The fourth follows a junky into a kaleidoscopic vision of addiction, farce, and disease.

In “Foie Humaine”, the reader is introduced to the Plantation Club.  Occupying the Soho section of London and accessed through Blore Court, the Plantation Club exists, preserved and fossilized, like its denizens.  Steeped in alcohol and oblivion, the club’s nominal gay clientele have degenerated into an asexual amorphous mass.

No change at all was wrought in this sequestered cell.  To say of any of its members that they were ‘gay’ would be a nonsense, for, while outside Old Compton Street everyone became openly gayer and gayer, inside the club they only grew sadder and sadder.

Amidst this decay and depression, Val Carmichael, the club’s owner, spikes the barman’s beer with vodka.  In the story, the deterioration of the liver coincides with city’s decomposition.  Buildings and neighborhoods get torn down, only to have newer structures jut from the rubble.  Only the Plantation Club remains the same.

Self lavishes the reader with delicious phraseology and a vocabulary as rich as any foie gras.  The richness elevates the story from a mere tale of sad sacks drinking at the bar.  The ornate writing careens drunkenly from the urbane to the slangy to the outright vulgar.  Val Carmichael’s penchant for giving his patrons ironic appellations includes a Polari term that remains shocking and unprintable.  Although anyone familiar with Sexy Beast will be familiar with the Latinate term for the female anatomy.

In the end, Val Carmichael dies with his liver bloated and cirrhotic.  It is a death not unlike many of his patrons, although the playful Self allows Val an end that transforms the story’s mood and genre.

3. The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living


“Leberknödel” follows Joyce Beddoes, an aging widow dying of cancer, to a euthanasia clinic in Zurich.  The story’s title is also the German word for lamb’s livers, a dish she consumes after she refuses her treatment.

The story begins with Joyce and her daughter Isobel traveling to Zurich in a plane.  Her body wizened and weakened from the cancer, Joyce finds herself afraid she will die if the plane crashes.  Joyce’s daughter Isobel, an “installation artist” Joyce neither understands nor appreciates, eventually hangs around the Plantation Club with the other artists of questionable repute.

Events become complicated when Joyce’s cancer relapses.  The first complication involves her meeting a nice Catholic couple, although they insist they are not extremists, prior to her relapse.  Joyce enjoys their company, but gets more and more perturbed by the Catholic Church’s desire to determine whether her relapse was a miracle.  Technically.  Joyce, a believer, never enjoyed the “state-assisted piety” of the United Kingdom’s Anglican Church, but the Catholic Church’s activities, a combination of intricate legalisms and public relations, seems off-putting to Joyce.

In the end, after making a life for herself in Zurich, Joyce has to make a choice.  The contract with the euthanasia clinic remains in place.

While the first story mixed the slangy and the ornate, this story interlards the text with Latin phrases and Schweitzerdeutsch, each chapter named after a section of the Catholic Mass.  The story flows to its conclusion, revelatory and powerful, as trenchant as “Foie Humaine” was farcical.

4. You Are All Diseased


The last two stories, “Prometheus” and “Birdy Num Num”, are short and witty.  “Prometheus” follows the eponymous protagonist, a hot shot advertising executive, pitch ideas to Zeus, an entrepreneur selling mineral water.  If the Plantation Club, “an aquarium of absinthe”, like Damien Hirst’s shark in formaldehyde, preserved in stasis, then Titan, where Prometheus works, is, to quote the comically oblivious French and Saunders, “Very young and very now.”  Epimetheus, the slower brother of Prometheus, also works at Titan.

All is normal and mundane at Titan, except for the griffon vulture consuming the liver of Prometheus daily.  The tone and genre is superficially “urban fantasy” with mythological figures coexisting with ordinary mortals.  Gods and humans interact with humorous consequences, making the story similar to Gods Behaving Badly by Marie Phillips.  Phillips’s work is closer to Douglas Adams, whereas Self turns the genre on its head with a heavy dose of visceral realism.  Visceral as in viscera.  The griffin vulture wants the liver of Prometheus and it will stop at nothing to attain it.  Prometheus is only happy to oblige, since the act gives him intellectual prowess and professional luck.  The consequences of the liver removal include physical weakness and harrowing pain.  Self makes these all too real.

The comedy continues in “Birdy Num Num,” this time with Billy Chobham and the dissolute junkies hanging around Tony Riley’s Kensington flat.  A disease narrates the last story.  The perspective gives the story a unique feeling, at once omniscient and omnipresent.  Given the setting is London, Tuesday, November 1998, one can easily guess at a possible culprit for the disease.

When high, Billy’s favorite film is the Peter Seller’s film The Party (Blake Edwards, 1968).  The story’s title comes from what Hrundi V. Bakshi says to the bird at the party.  The film plays as an extended slapstick gag.  As the disease states, “Slapstick is, in essence, the ritualized worship of causation, something humans place more faith in than they do their gods.”  The story unfolds into situations more and more comedic.  Billy play Sellers playing Bakshi while the slapstick of the Party, the movie, gets transfigured into the shenanigans of this Kensington flat.  It’s as if “The Masque of the Red Death” was written as a farce and narrated by the plague itself, not just the crimson robed human carrier crashing Prospero’s shindig.

I enjoyed reading Liver.  Akin to discovering a new cuisine, I was initially hesitant.  This is the first work of fiction I have read by Will Self.  The “Psychogeography” columns in the Independent were my first discovery of him as a writer.  To anyone who enjoys wordplay and wit, Liver is highly recommended.  While the interconnections hearken to Dubliners by James Joyce, a more accurate literary analogue would be Anthony Burgess.  Liver, containing bile and blood and excess and disease, offers visions, revelations, and reading at its most joyous.

 

Brideshead Revisited: The Sacred and Profane Memories of Captain Charles Ryder (1945) by Evelyn Waugh

brideshead

In Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot, Pozzo remarks, “They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.”  Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh represents one of those lights gleaming in the darkness between the grave of the First World War and the impending night of the Second.  The novel, published in 1945, is the reminiscence of Captain Charles Ryder.  The story opens with Captain Ryder’s Army Company transferring to Castle Marchmain, an estate all too familiar to him.  Since he looks back on the past, a heady mix of nostalgia and satire infuse the novel’s atmospheric exploration of love, lust, religion, and sin.

The novel traces Ryder’s days at Oxford, where he meets the eccentric Sebastian Flyte and his teddy bear Aloysius.  The two become fast friends and more than friends.  Waugh’s Augustan prose circumscribes this special relationship.

“Now, that summer term with Sebastian, it seemed as though I was being given a brief spell of what I had never known, a happy childhood, and though its toys were silk shirts and liqueurs and cigars and its naughtiness high in the catalogue of grave sins, there was something of nursery freshness about us that fell little short of the joy of innocence.”

The “grave sin” harkens back to intense male-male relationships of the Renaissance and the male-male relationships prevalent in everything from yaoi literature to Storm Constantine’s Wraeththu series.

Ryder, an agnostic, eventually meets Sebastian’s family, much to Sebastian’s displeasure.  The eccentric family, an ancient clan of Catholic aristocrats, fascinates Ryder.  He meets Sebastian’s old brother, Brideshead, sisters Julia and Cordelia, and Lady Marchmain.  Traveling to Venice, he meets Lord Marchmain and his mistress.  Since Lady Marchmain is a devout Catholic, divorce is out of the question.

While the First World War fades from memory, being the conflict the older generation participated in, the rumblings of the upcoming conflict bubble up amidst cocktail parties and the other activities of Society.

The realistic changes in the characters over time remain the supreme marvel of Brideshead Revisited.  Unlike Waugh’s earlier comedic works, the characters stand out as three-dimensional beings.  Waugh’s populates his first novel, the uproarious Decline and Fall with wonderful characters.  His tone becomes heavier and more serious with such works as A Handful of Dust.

Distilled to a summary, the novel should not work.  The schmaltzy premise becomes literary genius with Waugh crafting sentences ornate and luminous, intricate and organic, like the Baroque and Art Nouveau artifacts that populate the Castle Marchmain.  While some passages reek of high camp, the rare occurrences do not subtract anything from this masterpiece of the English language.

Dollhouse Riffs: Riff #4: Season Openers

dollhouse-promo

Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse opened with the episodes “Vows” and “Instinct,” bringing new faces like Jamie Bamber and Alexis Denisof.  The season also began with a critique of two idols within the conservative mindset: marriage and motherhood.

In “Vows,” the Dollhouse organization imprints Echo with the personality of an undercover FBI agent.  In her assignment, she married a wealthy amoral arms dealer played by Jamie Bamber.  Bamber (Lee Adama on Battlestar Galactica) uses his authentic British accent.  His good looks and easy-going charm create a false front to his nefarious activities.  He is not above selling dirty bomb components to terrorists in the name of a decent profit.  As a heterosexual businessman, he is not exactly the best poster boy for California’s segregationist Prop 8.  “He sells weapons to terrorists, but at least he’s not gay.”  Echo as the undercover agent made a particularly prescient statement.  She rationalized her faux marriage and the resultant sex as nothing but “acts between bodies.”  When one digs deeper and deconstructs the hysteria behind Prop 8’s passage, it boils down to a rather naïve assumption about bodies.  To the proponents of Prop 8, marriage is nothing more than having a dictatorship over the means of production.  In this case, heterosexual sex and the offspring that result from said union.  The Dollhouse technology of imprinting personalities on to a mind bring a violent anarchy to these Bronze Age notions of marriage.  Echo’s “glitching” at the end of “Vows” shows how our Cartesian assumptions about mind-body separation smash into a million little shards.  A little nudge or a minor malfunction will produce a psychopath like Alpha.

Another new face is seen in “Vows” with Senator Daniel Perrin played by Alexis Denisof (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, How I Met Your Mother).  While former FBI Agent Paul Ballard (Tahmoh Penikett) gets co-opted and “turned” into Echo’s handler, Senator Perrin appears as the crusading idealist for the second season.  Since Senator Perrin appears to have a loving relationship with his wife and he remains morally committed to righting corporate wrongs, one is hard pressed to find a real-life equivalent existing in the Congress of today.  If Senator Perrin were real, he would have invited the Rossum Corporation to write whatever health reform legislation came across his desk between accepting bribes for lobbyists and flying to Argentina to visit his mistress.  It is funny how reality reflects back on to this amusing action show.

Former Agent Paul Ballard further illustrates the uneasy relationship between corporate America and public service.  While Ballard gets emotionally blackmailed by the Dollhouse, the phenomenon of the “revolving door” is nothing new.  In the series The 4400, NTAC Director Dennis Ryland (Peter Coyote) retires amidst scandal and then goes to work for Haspel Corporation as an executive.  The concept of the “revolving door” would cause outrage and moral indignation if it were not omnipresent and totally normal.  Regardless of party affiliation or political stance, it occurs at all levels and has been going on for quite some time.  No conspiracy and nothing secretive involved.  It happens every day in every constituency.  What was considered corrupt and nefarious as done by Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed is nothing more than a typical Tuesday in Washington, D.C.  Moreover, like Paul Ballard, one feels powerless to do anything about it.  The money is just too good to pass up.  Unfortunately, that’s the same reason arms dealers and narcotrafficante use for their eccentric business practices.  Like Samuel Beckett said – the Nobel Laureate, not the Quantum Leap character – “I can’t go on.  I’ll go on.”

With the crazy events of this summer past, it is heartening to see Joss Whedon’s action show tackling topics like corporate corruption, the incestuous relationship between corporations and the government, and the shallow ethos underlying the bigotry of Prop 8.
My only pet peeve with the new season is the opening credit sequence.  While it is understandable that Eliza Dushku gets adequate face time in the opening credits, since she is one of the executive producers, the all-Echo, all-the-time is a little frustrating.  The other dolls and the other characters deserve a little visual.  An ironic statement of egomania in a series with a main character who is alternately a blank slate and a crusading altruist.

The Art of Reviewing: Special Case File #1: The movie “300″

300_banner

Every blog needs a large-scale project. The Art of Reviewing will explore reviewing as an art form and as a valuable element to understanding society.  During this project, I will profile specific reviewers of merit.  Several specific cases also explore other facets of reviewing.

Special Case File #1: The movie 300

In this installation of the Art of Reviewing, the focus will be on a single cultural product.  The movie is 300 (Zak Snyder, 2006).  In the halcyon days of Dubya’s second term, the film adapted a comic book written by Frank Miller.  In the process creating a sensational CGI box office hit that seemed to make Michael Bay’s film work seem understated and tightly plotted.

One of the rare pleasures of cinematic travesties is the vitriol they unleash in critics.  Two examples in particular shine out, because of their honesty, writing style, and emotional firepower.

The first is not so much a review as a vicious indictment of modern cinema.  Entitled “Rants & Hyperbolic Ejaculations,” it remains true to its form.  It is a common misperception that a rant is badly written.  A good rant is like a cruise missile, aimed to fly straight into a target and leave nothing behind.  Just because the author gets emotional and wields words like brickbat does not mean they are wrong.  Read and make up your own mind:

Excerpt from “Rants & Hyperbolic Ejaculations” by Cliff Burns

(Visit the author’s website and blog, Beautiful Desolation.)

A trip to the video store is enough to send my blood pressure soaring. As I walk up and down in the “New Release” section I see:

-200 copies of the latest comic book adaptation (crap)
-100 copies of the latest installment of a slasher/horror/snuff film franchise (“Boogeyman VIII”, “Hacksaw VI”, etc.—utter and complete crap)
-100 copies of the latest romantic comedy starring the latest pretty faces (crap)
-20 copies of the latest indie film about twenty-somethings looking for love or meaning in a world largely indifferent to their angst and vulnerability (crap)

So, inevitably, I skip “New Releases” and wander back into the stacks, hoping I’ll spot some Walter Hill actioner I haven’t seen for awhile or grabbing a full season of “Deadwood” on DVD or “South Park”, if I’m feeling particularly frisky. I also look forward to our family’s monthly trips to Saskatoon (the nearest population center of any size) so I can pillage the shelves of that city’s Central Library, securing as many of the movies on my “Wish List” as I can find. Our last excursion to Toontown was particularly rewarding; I brought back the aforementioned “Mon Oncle” along with Nicholas Ray’s “In A Lonely Place”, Georges Henri Clouzot’s “The Wages of Fear”, Chaplin’s “Limelight” and a couple of films in Val Lewton’s weird oeuvre. Not one movie was more recent than 1956. Fuck it, what’s the point?

CGI (computer graphics) has taken over the world. Now you can shoot movies without sets, without a coherent script, without expensive crowd scenes and there is no limit to what you can portray. You can propel your audience from one end of the universe to the other, from the far future to the distant past.

Take “300” for example. Yes, take it and stick it up your ass.

I know, I know, it was #1 at the box office for three weeks and everybody and his kid brother was telling you what a brilliant film it was. Funny thing that: you had high school students lining up at the movie theatres, inflating its gross earnings…and yet the film was supposed to be “18A”, wasn’t it? That means there were a whole lotta theatre owners looking the other way as pimply faced kids with fuzz on their chins ponied up the dough and went inside to see one of the most ultra-violent shows since Leatherface strapped on a chainsaw and went looking for fun. Where were the folks who are supposed to be guarding our kids against such smut…more to the point, where the fuck were their parents?

I think one reviewer put it best when he said the target audience for “300” was “emotionally disturbed fourteen year olds”.

You know, of course, that “300” was based on a comic book by Frank Miller. That’s right, comic book. Go ahead, defenders of so-called “graphic novels”, take me to task. I’ve read plenty of ’em (including offerings by Miller, Grant Morrison, Joss Whedon, etc.) and it’s my contention that the basic level of writing hasn’t much improved since I was a tweenie devouring Batman and Spiderman comics by the pound.

But the comic book/graphic novel is the perfect format for brain dead twerps who are daunted by all those words in traditional books. They need purty pictures to keep their attention. Ritalin, apparently, isn’t doing the job.

The sad thing is the story of the Spartans is one of the greatest ever told. I urge you to find a of copy of Stephen Pressfield’s amazing account of the battle of Thermopylae, Gates of Fire. You will be absolutely blown away.

The makers of “300” utterly fail to capture the human drama, the scale of the sacrifice, opting to slavishly adapt Miller’s comic book, subjecting every frame to computer tweaking, creating lovely, eye-grabbing tableaux…with nothing at the centre. “Visually stunning” is the term I’ve read over and over again in almost every review. Okay, it’s nice to look at but what about the stupid script, the histrionic over-acting, the inaccuracies? Mere quibbles, supporters sniff dismissively.

When I first saw the promo ad for “300” I was, alternately, enraged and amused. The “Matrix”-like choreography was ridiculous…but the Scottish brogue of the chap who was cast as the Spartan king Leonidas was hilarious. I mean, this fucker sounded like Willie, the janitor from “The Simpson’s”! I was soon entertaining friends and family by re-enacting my version of “300”: “Lissen, laddie, we Spartans are mighty tough people and dinnae think you Purrsian gits are gonnae walk over us…”

“300” is a movie made by people raised on video games for gamers whose brains have been devoured by years of hours spent battling virtual ogres, their thumbs swelling to an unnatural size (frontal lobes shrinking commensurately). If you liked the movie, you’re a moron; if you bobbed your head in eager agreement when that fathead Richard Roeper called Miller’s comic book the “Citizen Kane”(!) of graphic novels, you’ve obviously no idea what film he was alluding to. Mentioning “300” in the same breath as Welles’ masterwork is like comparing an “Archie Digest” to Moby Dick. So fuck you very much, Richard Roeper.

In “Kane”, Orson Welles revolutionized an art form and created a landmark film that sixty years later still tops critics’ polls as the greatest movie ever made. How will posterity treat “300”? As just another mindless blockbuster, a manufactured, computer-simulated experience in the tradition of “Titanic” and Peter Jackson’s overblown take on “King Kong”.

These films have no heart, no brains and, in the final analysis, none of the gripping human drama that makes great art resonate down through the ages. They are fluff, confections, deserving nothing from serious film mavens but our contempt and vilification.

“300” is cinema for the lobotomized.

The second review was written by Matt Christman for his blog, Worse than Hitler.  (Full disclosure: Matt and I were both teaching assistants at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.)  While Burns’s rant is a brilliant use of the long form to deconstruct 300, Christman takes the film out at the knees with verbal precision and snark.  For similar satirical wit and ferocity, one could examine the epigrammatic work of Karl Kraus and Ambrose Bierce.

From Worse than Hitler, a blog by Matt Christman

A Mathematical Movie Review

Triumph of the Will + God of War on Playstation 3 * The Tony Curtis and Lawrence Olivier scene from Spartacus / The messageboards at FreeRepublic.com = 300

Similar spectacles of critical hyperventilation have followed in the wake of controversial films, from The Last Temptation of Christ to JFK to the Golden Compass.  In all cases, astute readers should follow the simple dictum, “Consider the source.”  When reading reviews, you should know where the reviewer is coming from.  Who are these people that love 300?  Why do they love the movie?  Are those reasons valid?

Taste is a subjective phenomenon.  However, it should not be immediately dismissed because of its inherent subjectivity.  Varieties of internal and external factors make up every person’s sensitivities regarding taste.  The movie 300 is a good litmus test for assessing taste.