...as I write this.

I'm not ashamed.

I decided to watch it, so that I could pin-point my hate of this franchise. Yes, I went into it knowing that I'd hate it.
Twihards, I know Good Vs Bad is hard to resist. I also know that reading about a girl who could be you (because you can transplant your personality onto her) being with a handsome boy who isn't all about the sex (though it really is) is compelling.

But let's get one thing straight; abusive relationships are not romantic. Thinking your boyfriend is a predator is not sexy. Stalking is a crime.

Also, my god she could be replaced by a blow-up doll and it have the same effect on plot, narrative and her personality.

That's great female role-modelling you've got there.

WTF! Sparkles?!

*sigh* I'm disappointed in literature sometimes, and thus the human race.

Related to this, I've taken to reading fandomsecrets. It's very fascinating, what anonymity enables us to say and do. Most of what's written there is quite common and a large amount of the secrets repeat each other in variations.
By reading F!S I can also tell which Fandom is bigger than others.

Today, this secret appeared:
( Hating Fiction ).
You can read the comments here.

I'm not planning on commenting.
Mainly because I find the "secret" a fascinating one. To me it reads as someone who possibly enjoys reading fiction that they are ashamed of.
Fiction and possibly fanfiction because it is de facto unedited by an outside reader and usually Beta readers (the editors of the Fanfic world) encourage the writers to go beyond what they consider their limits - you can read that often when authors thank their Beta readers.
The all encompassing offence of this "secret" is just incredible.

The way I see it, fiction gives us the ability to discuss all the "offensive exploitation and glorification of real issues" - humanity is not really good with dealing with things head on. We do truly horrible things to each other.

The monsters of fiction (Vampires and Werewolves and Zombies... whatever) are yet to have been verified by science - but we all know those people who suck the life out of us, those people who can be the sweetest people one second and then without warning can make you cry from the violent cruelty they impose and who hasn't met those people who just wander through life without passion and want nothing but to take the passion out of others.

Most of life's bad things are not actually spoken about. We do not talk about torture or how sexual it is. We do not speak about the fact that rape is a crime against humanity and that it is committed against 1 in 4 women, 1 in 10 men, 1 in 6 children of any gender - usually by someone they knew.
That incest is far more common than we want to imagine.
Fiction is able to present us with a disturbing, yet palpable picture of the world.

The "secret" is obviously accusatory, but I think it's more inward than anything else. The person who wrote the "secret" most likely has read a bunch of fiction that "offensive" and "glorified violence", enjoyed it and was ashamed of pursuing the stories that were gritty, disturbing, kinky and fantastic (= fantasy, not "amazing").

I say, if we can't discuss, talk, explore and live fictional lives how can we do the same for non-fictional lives - in which we hide, repress, suppress and oppress so much more?

As I finish writing this, the credits of Twilight are rolling. A more boring movie I can't remember seeing. Disturbing gender, race and class relations abound.
This is fiction that many find meaning in. It is bad, it glorifies behaviour that in our world can get you killed, relationships that can wreak emotional havoc and personalities I hope one day get help to sustain healthier lives.

If we can't say that on a world found in books, how will we ever be able to say it about the world that exists at the end of our nose?

I think I'm an idiot sometimes, getting emotional over stories of this kind.

I really like Clint Eastwood as a director, his subject matter(s) and execution of all his films are epic, humane and historical in their own way.

Watching this trailer and having South African roots really struck a cord:



I'm interested in seeing the movie, because the trailer appears to give equal footing to Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon, the poster (here) seems to give precedence to Damon making him front and centre, but enlarging Freeman.

Clint Eastwood is really good at portraying problematic racial dynamics... South Africa is an understatement when it comes to that.

Any way, it's going to be an Oscar film. And a Bechdel fail.

I'll report on it when I see it.

Vampires have taken over our lives. They suck out time via books, television and film like no other supernatural beast ever could.

Why?

Because they look like people, like you and me, they can walk among us unknown and seduce us with their glamour, mystique and plain ole' attractiveness.
Vampires are always beautiful, those that ugly, do not need to be. We are attracted to the fact that they are excluded from daylight, that they are reflected only in the eyes of human (their prey) and to the fact that they are immortal.

They do not die.

We pass away and they pass on.

Vampires have reached a kind of peak of pop-culture popularity. Ten years ago when I was fourteen and obsessed with Buffy, I read Dracula, Interview with a Vampire and thought Bella Lugosi was the shit.
Vampires were awesome.

Now... they're poster boys for Abstinence.
Where have we gone wrong.
( This glamour will make you click on the cut )

When some one links to an article titled The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky on a website called The Spearhead and the Author's nick is Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech; you know you're in for some fun sci-fi critique!

My first thought after reading that diatribe of misogyny, homophobia and exclusionary nostalgia, was pretty uncharitable, petty and mean.
Not even the most "one of the boys/I'm not a feminist" female-geek wouldn be able to consider this person particularly tasteful.
Seeing as he's laying out misogyny and homophobia pretty fucking thick. Without any shame and certainly without any self-reflection.
But That's what cowards do.

I'm reminded of my entry into the comic book world, there are women there (readers that is) and I gravitated to the classics (Batman, Superman, Catwoman, Wonder Woman, the Justice League - yeah, I'm a DC grrl) and to horror-fantasy (DC's Vertigo line; Sandman, Hellblazer, Fables, Lucifer etc).
This is not an odd thing, most people like more than one kind of genre in they chosen form of medium, but I definitely felt the overwhelmed by the amount of boys in this medium and how my reading of the stories being feminist (even before I could articulate why it was feminist - I was 15 when I got into comics) made me iffy about getting into discussion with other Batman fans - many of them, somehow, ignoring the fetish gear he dons in order to fight crime and the only women he's ever been interested in sexually (he doesn't do romance) have been other criminals who wear costumes.
I digress.
( This is cut for length )

Times they are a changing, and guess what, they've been "changing" and "changed" since the mid-60's, you, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech failed to get on that boat and complaining about us women and queers taking over your genre and taking your jobs in science...
This is not a tree-house club and there are no more Wendy houses.
This is a sandbox - please stop peeing in it.

ETA: I couldn't stop myself. I commented, sans a link to this blog. I don't need to make easier for them to find me.

I went to see Inglourious Basterds this evening.

It totally and utterly rocked.

Tarantino at his best and funnest.
Art that was very much not dumbed down for the "masses".

A longer, spoilerific and analytic review at a later date, probably tomorrow.

Stay tuned... or I'll scalp ya!

Oh wait.

It really, really is not a fucking conundrum.

The man raped a child, plead guilty, then ran away because the sentencing was too harsh for him (U.S. Appellate Court! Hello!), not that I think there's anything to appeal, or condone or even sympathise with a criminal who decided to do a runner rather than serve the time given him for the crime he committed upon a 13 year old girl.

Is this getting into people's thick skulls?! Obviously not, seeing as there is a fucking petition (No! Tilda Swinton! Pedro Almodovar?!?! *weeps*... just a couple of names at first glance that popped out at me) calling for him to be let go and set free signed by a large amount of people, whose work I admire and inspire me. This is all so fucking Twilight Zone I'm having a hard time articulating it in a manner that doesn't include me tearing my hair out and run screaming through the streets like the "hysterical woman" that I am.

The man, drugged and raped a girl, is also an artist.

*crickets*

What? Is that so bloody hard to imagine? That people who create great things are also morally bankrupt and make no mistake, even if he personally feels guilty (but doesn't really want to sit in jail for it) he still raped a child.

It's really not that complicated. Either the rape of a child is punishable no matter who commits it, or those who are famous, wealthy and part of the artistic Elite are utterly exempt from the laws governing us lowly serfs.

An exaggeration? Please, this is once again a moment in history in which those who "Have" are entitled to get away with espousing the ugliest, most anti-social bullshit imaginable.

And for getting away with criminal behaviour, of course.

Obviously, this is no longer just about Polanski.

If you still want in on this meme, you can fill it out here.
But now, the lists!

There is no hierarchy to this Top Five Lists, all are equally awesome in my mind!

( Top Five Catchphrases )

( Top Five Musicians )

( Top Five Fights )

( Top Five Books )

( Top Five Comic Book Characters )

( Top Five Dream Jobs )

Any questions?

During the San Diego Comic Con Torchwood Panel (available in seven parts) lots of things came up.

It was interesting to hear the Panellists' (Russel T. Davies, John Barrowman, Euros Lynn and Julie Gardner) opinions on the characters and the epic itself, it's always nice to hear creator and performer insights into characters. What a lovely touchy-squishy medium.

A few *squeeee* worthy moments were ( This kiss )

In addition, during the panel, one of the questions pertained to John Barrowman's costumes and his clothing in the parts that he plays. In his answer he mentioned that one of his dreams would be to play ( him )

And moving on to some of the more serious content in conjunction of Fandom reaction of the past two weeks.

RTD's response to what would be considered the internet fan response and it really put things in perspective for me.

Personally, I don't care what RTD thinks about the fans, fandom or even his own creation.

He has a vision, as Julie Gardner said, and it their jobs as storytellers to execute those visions to the best of their ability, in the way that matches how they see character, plot and world they built (and consequently destroyed).

As fans, we feel propitiatory towards the characters. We love them, we know them, we read how others love them and think about them.
Those are interpretations.
That is meta.
That is how the characters, story, world relates to us, the readers, the viewers and that is no less important than those who created them, with one big difference.
We do not get a say in how the vision plays out.

We do not get a say in what should have happened.
Nor should we.
Art is not a democracy.
Art is a tricky piece of the modern market.

We are not the Patrons of Yonder Years (or the real Art Patrons and Matrons of today), the majority of us do not have enough money to be that.
We spend our money on the stuff that we like, enjoy and then create a community around that.
It's fun, I dunno who I'd be if it weren't for other obsessive geeks like me.

We are lucky that the creators chose to take more feedback from us than ratings. That kind of closeness should not be taken lightly or derided.

Not too long ago, Neil Gaiman wrote a post in his blog about entitlement issues regarding writer George R.R. Martin's accessibility to his fans:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

This is a useful thing to know, perhaps a useful thing to point out when you find yourself thinking that possibly George is, indeed, your bitch, and should be out there typing what you want to read right now.

People are not machines. Writers and artists aren't machines.

You're complaining about George doing other things than writing the books you want to read as if your buying the first book in the series was a contract with him: that you would pay over your ten dollars, and George for his part would spend every waking hour until the series was done, writing the rest of the books for you.

No such contract existed. You were paying your ten dollars for the book you were reading, and I assume that you enjoyed it because you want to know what happens next.

He goes on and this is of course applicable to any writer, musician, actor and any other artist who chooses to interact with the people who consume the work.

We do not get a say. They, the people who provide us with entertainment, are not under any obligation to make feel all squishy inside and make our self-worth issues the centre of their universe.

That's my opinion as a fan who has interacted with the people who created things I love.

I'm feeling very bitter towards fandom who makes the likes of me look bad and actually have this bullshit be a part of the way we are perceived.

That is all.

Okay.
So Kirk and Spock have been having an epic (Slash) love affair for 40 years, of this there is no doubt. They are the Slash couple. They are in fact, as far as I'm aware, the namers of the genre, named after the "/" that goes between their names: Kirk(Slash)Spock.

In canon they are the best of friends - in the New!Canon they are primed to be quite good friends with an ally of their own at their sides, Uhura backing Spock and Bones backing Kirk.

The old dynamic refurbished for the 21st century, I like it. It was refreshing see a successful relationship happening aboard the Enterprise, especially between Uhura and Spock, whose differences in manner and temperament make the whole thing so damn pretty.

My own fannisheness aside.

Star Trek as a franchise, in the 60's and to a certain extent up until the 80's was considered ahead of its time (hah!) when it came to representation of charterers and social issues. That isn't to say it wasn't or isn't flaws, we all know it is, but the ideal of Star Trek is that of the IDIC as much as it is to Boldly Go...

Now here's the pickle.
To Boldly Go... and the idea of IDIC aren't the co-optation and appropriation of Real Life issues and Human Rights in order to push a pairing a very particular and overly fethishised NON-Canon pairing in the name of Equality.

No really, it is not!

This campaign - started here and I quote:

From Gene Roddenberry: "Yes, there's certainly some of that - certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal - we never suggested in the series - physical love between the two. But it's the - we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century." Roddenberry directly stated that Kirk and Spock loved each other and that their level of love for one another was sufficient for a romantic relationship, and while he did not confirm or deny this relationship, he did mention essentially that if homosexuality was to be accepted in the 23rd century, then the relationship between the two characters would indeed be possible.

We've seen Brokeback Mountain, and we've seen other homosexual relationships on screen. However, the relationships are generally either the focus of the film, or comic relief. It would be a big step indeed to see the Captain and First Officer of the Enterprise in a relationship that is simply a normal part of life. The push is for equality in the media; for the normalization of GLBT relationships in movies and television.

See... it would have been okay, maybe, if the concern actually was LGBTQI representation in media and NOT the objectification of queer sexuality on screen.
Also, Brokwback Mountain, I've said it once, twice, three times a gentleman!
"Gay Movie for Straight People!"
Along with this little campaign which I hoped dies in obscurity into a fiery pit dowsed by torrential rain, there are people who just don't see the problem.
Like this precious quote:

Hm. I'm...Buhhh. I really like the K/S focus, to be honest. But I don't want to be stubborn and obtuse and cause unnecessary trouble by not agreeing. ._.
I really think it's a bit...silly? For people who support LGBT interests not to sign the petition or support us because they don't support the pairing. It's like if civil rights supporters decided not to support the movement because they didn't like MLK Jr.. Progress is progress, as long as we're not harming anyone, I think it's fine.
No offense to anyone, that's just my opinion.

From See Trek Love.

Crack open a book why don't you.

I'd like to add that the focus on a particular Fanon pairing and attempting to push it for Canonisation ostensibly in the name of Queer Rights is downright nauseating.
No really.
It is.

Especially since one is willing to pretty much "guilt"(?) a creator to change fictional character dynamics in the name of social change. I know that this may come off as hypocritical considering the very long debate I had not too long ago here regarding the same subject, namely Queering Kirk.
That really was just an example of how the Reboot could have been a little bit more awesome and more inclusive when it came to the Queer.

The new movie, though far from being terribly progressive, did see a huge leap for Uhura who was crucial to the plot and was not undermined by the fact that she is romantically involved with a superior officer, both of them concerned (as well they should be, I really like that they showed that concern) with the issues of Hierarchy.
That too was a little push of the envelope when it came to heteto representation and mixed-race couple representation.
Go Trek.

Again. A push for a specific same-sex pairing "in the name" of Queer Rights stinks of appropriation and an utter misunderstanding of what Queer Rights are and what media representation actually is.
You want to have more queer characters? I know I do, then campaign for THAT, not for an on-screen kiss between Chris Pine and Zack Quinto.
Seriously.

In the comments of the link at newtrekslash there are a few prime examples of cluelessness, racism and misogyny. Because Uhura is using her Nubian Wiles to keep Spock from his OTL Kirk.
Excuse me while I go vomit.

I urge you. Do Not Support this campaign. If you're going to mention it... mention that you oppose it. Please. This is just another example of the unwitting (though it really shouldn't be) homophobia found in fandom and should be not be tolerated, just like any transphobia, racism, misogyny and other forms of oppression should not be tolerated.

Ces't Tout.

Any questions?

( Buffy Summers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) vs Edward Cullen (Twilight) )

Buffy rocks.
Period.
"Twilight" can go suck on a stale bag of O Neg and perish quickly into the aether never to return.
Please.
Now-ish!

This is of course, memed everywhere.

This the text that accompanies this brilliant remix at the blip.tv link:

In this remixed narrative, Edward Cullen from the Twilight Series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer at Sunnydale High. It's an example of transformative storytelling serving as a visual critique of Edward's character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy's eyes some of the more patriarchal gender roles and sexist Hollywood tropes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed in hilarious ways. --- This transformative work constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law. The remix is licensed under a creative commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 license. -- Find me at www.rebelliouspixels.com

'Kay, so this doesn't look anything like the Sherlock Holmes I read (and co continue to read).
I mean, there's all this sexual innuendo and slashy undertones and Rachel McAdams (Irene Adler) as a beard for Robert Downy Jr (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Doctor Watson).

Not that I'm complaining mind you. Though I probably will...

It looks to be (and we're also told on the interwebs) character interpretation based and not so much on the Arthur Conan Doyle canon, which makes me wonder it's structured to be a one off or planned to be franchised, because if you look at Iron Man, it was made to be sequeled, as was Batman Begins (oh, Dark Knight, how good you are).

However, I very much enjoy re-imaginings and Sherlock is very much the hero. My brother would argue he's the first Super-Hero, massive intellect as a Superpower, sidekick and the parallel Nemesis.
I tend to disagree, because then what do you call all the classic myths?
The first "Modern" Super-Hero?
I'll think about it.

Regardless, the trailer looks quite awesome as most Guy Ritchie movies tend to look. I very much like RDJ being Sherlock. Being the hero is a good look on him. Jude Law being the side-kick is a bit odd, as I think I'm used to him being the Main or the Villain, 'cause he's tall.
Or at least, taller than RDJ.
The movie just from the trailer looks pretty formulaic; murder/mystery, hero, villain, Establishment/Officialdom antagonism towards the hero, side-kick, femme, villain kidnaps hero/sidekick/femme/two or all of the above, villain is defeated, Establishment/Officialdom deny that hero helped solve the murder/mystery and capture the villain, hero walks into the sunset/fog with sidekick/femme/or both.

I'm still waiting for a Holmes/Bond crossover.
I'm also waiting for Felix Leiter to be the Bond girl boy in the new movies... that would be awesome.
All right, now I'm digressing.
I'll tell you what would be really fantastic... if Sherlock really would walk off arm in arm in arm with Watson and Irene at the end of the movie.
But I have until December to find out.

I saw this graph* this morning.
Just a few days ago I was talking to some friends about Watchmen and one of the things everyone agreed about was how hilarious it was to see Dr. Manhattan's, well, schmuck.

Nobody cares about tits any more.

Mainly because tits are there for the looking. Women's fashion is designed to accentuate the curve of ones breast, bras are there to support as well as to enhance, cleavage is the monetary unit of the tits.
They everywhere.
And thus they are no where.

The penis in our culture, as XKCD put it succinctly is obsessed upon.
It's put on a pedestal, without it sex isn't real, in fact without it there is no sex.
That is what is called phallocentrism, that is to say, the cultural narrative focuses around the image which the penis evokes.
Penis origionally meant "tail", a "shcmuck" is a snake, in Hebrew the slang word for penis is "zaiyn" - זין - which, among other things, means weapon.

In Watchmen we see Dr. Manhattan's penis sway as he walks. But Dr. Manhattan himself is the phallus.

I was shocked to see it.
I knew there would be nudity in the film, after all, the comic book isn't shy about the Doc's nudity.
But comic books are not that easily translated onto the big screen. That dick may be blue, but it is looks real.
For many, this is probably the first non-pornographic penis have ever seen on screen and in the cinema.
Tits, very likely, the average viewer has seen aplenty on screen, on teevee etc.
Seeing a dick on screen is rare and special.

The cock, despite being a sex organ, is not defied as a sex object.
It is the thing through which sex is made.
Sex is of course power.
Seeing the source of power on screen, in all it's banal "glory" is not the way we - boys, girls and others - are used to thinking about it.

Which is why every body is talking about it.
We are seeing the source of cultural power.
The female body is invisible to cultural power, because it is by default powerless by virtue of being a sex object.
As I've said, we usually do not see the penis itself, we see the phallus - that would be a gun, a suit, a cigarette, etc.

Personally, I think the more male full frontal nudity the better.
Not because I want to see more naked men - but because it can be a way of levelling the image playing field.
If nudity is something that equal on screen, then maybe phallocentrism won't be such a huge burden on us.

*( Graph image under the cut )

A few years ago, I must of been in my early teens, I saw a movie on television which I've never seen since.
Mainly because I could never forget it.
The movie is When the Wind Blows.
The film horrified me.
I had nightmares for days, it was like when I went to the Planetarium when I was about seven or eight years old and was convinced the sun would expand and destroy all life on earth... today.

I've always been terrified by scenarios I know can, have and will happen eventually.
I suppose it's one of the reasons I'm a sci-fi/fantasy fan.

Someone has put up When the Wind Blows in eight parts on YouTube.
Here they are for posterity.

When the Wind Blows (playlist permalink)


I will most likely not watch this movie today, or even tomorrow. But I feel that as a piece of culture it's important for me to know where to find it again.
As I said, I've never really forgotten this movie and having found it again I don't think I'll be able to stop myself from sitting down and watching and being thrown back into my early teen pre-Buffy brain and bawling like a baby at the nightmarish reality that that couple is living through.

I'm finding the coincidence of finding this movie again, right after seeing Watchmen and interesting coincidence.
Story of Watchmen takes place during a fictional Cold War reality, brinkmanship is a reality and the Doomsday Clock is only a few minutes to midnight.
In both versions a calamity descends.
And we never really see the aftermath.
When the Wind Blows is that aftermath.
At least, that's what my coincident prone brain told me.

Hi,
This is [Southern!Grrl], asked by Mel to do a review of Watchmen as someone who's never read the book. I should preface this by saying that I also don't watch a lot of movies and when I choose to watch a particular one (as opposed to watching a movie because it's a social activity) I tend to like ones that say something significant about a Major Issue (i.e. American Beauty or You and Me and Everyone We Know or that are fluffy and have a happy ending (i.e. Mars Attacks and School of Rock. That being said, here are some of my thoughts about Watchmen (includes spoilers). ( Read more... )

I got a spanking new icon in honour of this post.

[Southern!Girl] and I just returned from a pleasant outing to the movie theatre.
We went to see Watchmen.

Now, as a comic book aficionado (and movie buff) I saw the movie quite differently from her. She who is not a comic book reader or a particular movie buff (I know, I'm trying to cure her of this "deficiency").
I thought it would be interesting to write a dual review from the perspective of an Alan Moore and specifically Watchmen fan and from the perspective of someone who is very much not.

First thing's first.
It's not a bad movie.
It was hardly the best movie (or even comic book movie I'd ever seen), but as a work of cinematic craft it was very well done and enjoyable.
Yes, even with Zack Snyder's signature slow-mo.
Oh, Zack Snyder, you terrible, horrible, tasteless director.

( Here be Spoilers )

To conclude.
The movie, as far as movies go, was above average. As a comic book movie, it was okay. A new Dark Knight it is not.

As a different reviewer I read said, it had no chance to be adapted from the book. What Alan Moore created with Watchmen was a new way of writing comics, taking the genre and turning it on its head.
Watchmen enabled and pushed comic books to go beyond what they were at the time and all the genre comic books today can only look back and thank Watchmen for existing.
This movie has not changed the way I look movies.
It didn't teach me anything about humanity that I didn't learn about from the movies it referenced - humans are cruel and self-destructive and everybody thinks they know best.

Nothing new.
But it certainly looked good.

Who isn't talking about the fact that Kate Winslet finally got the Oscar she deserved five nominations ago.
Life imitates art as she won it for playing the role in the Holocaust film The Reader... well, post-Holocaust film really. I haven't seen it, so I really cannot comment on her acting in it.
But throughout award season there have been references to her performance on Ricky Gervais' show "Extras" in which she satirises herself - saying that she's doing a Holocaust movie in order to finally get the Oscar the whole world says she should have.

For your viewing pleasure:


Schindler's bloody List indeed.

In any event, good on Winslet, I don't know if this is the movie in which she should have won, but she should have won long ago.
Her craft as an actress has always been beyond superb.

That's what the Oscars are about you know.
The craft of the film - that's why I'm never surprised when the most conventional and conformist movies get nominated and win.
It's kind of why I haven't seen most of the Oscar nominated movies - they're all so conventional and conformist.

The only categories in which truly artistic films - that is, films whose craft are not of the "classical" British or Hollywood made - have a chance at winning an academy award are the Animation features (both long and short) and the foreign language film.
Probably the most arbitrary category in existence!
Because a "foreign language" is a genre.
Really.
It's not.

As most of you know, Waltz with Bashir didn't win the foreign language film category.
I was rooting for it.
But I didn't think it would win.
My own theory is that it didn't win because it was too avant-garde. And the old men and women of the academy, recalling the bygone days of the 50's, 60's and yes, maybe even 70's, could probably not let themselves give an academy award to a cartoon.

Unlike some paranoiacs the Academy did not deny Israel an Oscar because they're anti-Zionst. *snort* not bloody likely.
Bradely Burston, the Ha'aretz English Edition columnist who writes about Israel from the Jewish-American perspective (I can only assume) wrote a very negative column about the Oscars and Jewish portrayal titled Winslet, "Waltz", and how Hollywood likes its Jews:

Hollywood knows exactly how it likes its Jews: Victims. Civilian victims. Targets of genocide. None of this Goliath stuff. None of these pre-emptive, disproportionate, morally amorphous behaviours.

I suppose one shouldn't mention the latest "Holocaust" movie Defiance?
Never mind.
Burston's point is that the Israeli narrative doesn't sit well with the Hollywood ilk.
Because Israelis are and I quote:

Israelis are complicated, angry, unhappy, family-oriented, insular, often flawed human-beings.
Perhaps, in the Hollywood context, the problem with these Israelis, is that they are not identifiable as Jews at all

There.
That's the point.
Israelis, in the classical and historical sense are not really Jews.
We are not wanderers, we are parochial, we are not rootless, we are a cohesive nation (as much as a "nation" of that kind exists) and we are no longer persecuted.
Merely surrounded by enemies.
No, Israelis are not classically identifiable as Jews - that is probably why the Jewish Diaspora is in two minds about Israel - Look at what the Jewish people have become out of the ashes of the Holocaust.
What indeed.

Let's ignore the fact that a bunch of Israelis come from places not even touched or affected by the Holocaust - wouldn't want to disrupt the meta-narrative of Israel's existence.

So because Bashir was about a wholly Israeli experience, with it's avant-garde package of docu-drama quasi-psychological dream-hallucinations and real life footage flashbacks... it didn't win.

As far as I can recall, there is nothing specifically "Jewish" about Waltz with Bashir except that snippet in which the Holocaust is used in an attempt to colour the actions and reactions of the protagonist.
Unsuccessfully I might add.
The only thing the mentioning of the Holocaust does in the movie is bring to mind that Israel commits war crimes and crimes against humanity and that the Holocaust cannot be removed from Israeli conciousness by virtue of it being the worst and last time, Jews were victimised.

But Israeli Jews consider themselves the "real" Jews. And with it comes the double-think.
We are no longer the weak effeminate victims, we are macho land workers etc.
At the same time we are surrounded by enemies who only want to shove us into the sea and we must not allow this - we have the biggest weapons and the biggest allies - *smash-smash-smash*.
Not to mention the over-all disdain a lot of Israeli Jews have towards Diaspora Jews: the Jews who support Israel but don't come to live here are cowards and those who don't support Israel are self-hating Jews who when the going gets tough will probably flock here in droves.

I've been accused of being naive, you know, because I'm "enamoured" of the Palestinians.
I'm not enamoured with anyone.
Is it too much to ask that everyone be allowed to live in dignity and self-determination?
That the recognition of wrongs be made official?

Waltz with Bashir isn't about those things.
It's about the cognitive dissonance of Israeli soldiers raised in a culture of overt masculinity that relies on reliving and relearning the victims that we are.

In the words of Kate Winslet "We get it. It was grim. Move on".
Moving on doesn't mean forgetting or putting aside - anyone who has been through a traumatic event knows this - it does mean that it doesn't overshadow and colour your entire life all the time.
It also means that we will be able to empathise with those are currently being victimised without believing that we suffered more and are thus always oppressed.

It's something to look forward to.

With the Academy Awards just around the corner - tomorrow, in fact - the Interwebs and media that I read are a-buzz with Waltz with Bashir, which I wrote about a few times.

I've mainly been reading analysis' of the film and something that I keep jumping from these reviews is the fact that Ari Folman silenced the Palestinians voices in regards to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila.
That he did a disservice by not talking about or telling a bit of the victims' story.

This is a valid complaint, as Ari Folman really doesn't give a voice to anyone other than the soldiers and journalists that were in Lebanon and Beirut at the time.
Another thing that I keep reading about is how Folman is replicating the myth of The Good Soldier, that Israeli soldiers even when they do bad things are fundamentally good and moral.
And of course, the lack of political context, the invasion of Lebanon and Israel complicities in the massacre, green lighting it and assisting the Phalanges by lighting their way (well, Jews always said they were Light unto the nations). Why was it happening? Who gave the order? Why did the soldiers obey? etc. etc. etc.

All these are valid complaints and questions.
I don't think though, that they have anything to do with the movie.

Ha'aretz jounalist Gideon Levy, well known for his weekend column "The Twiligh Zone in which he writes about the every day atrocities of the Occupation, wrote an op-ed about Waltz with Bashir titled Medal of Dishonour.
In it he wrote:

[...]The images coming out of Gaza that day looked remarkably like those in Folman's film. But he was silent. So before we sing Folman's praises, which will of course be praise for us all, we would do well to remember that this is not an antiwar film, nor even a critical work about Israel as militarist and occupier. It is an act of fraud and deceit, intended to allow us to pat ourselves on the back, to tell us and the world how lovely we are.
[...]
Why do we need propagandists, officers, commentators and spokespersons who will convey "information"? We have this waltz.
The waltz rests on two ideological foundations. One is the "we shot and we cried" syndrome: Oh, how we wept, yet our hands did not spill this blood. Add to this a pinch of Holocaust memories, without which there is no proper Israeli self-preoccupation. And a dash of victimization - another absolutely essential ingredient in public discourse here - and voila! You have the deceptive portrait of Israel 2008, in words and pictures.
[...]
It is very convenient to make a film about the first, and now remote, Lebanon war: We already sent one of those, "Beaufort," to the Oscar competition. And it's even more convenient to focus specifically on Sabra and Chatila, the Beirut refugee camps[...]

I'll stop quoting here, as I don't want to talk about the entirety of Levy's article, but mainly about Levy's shallow reading of the movie.

It's easy to say "Folam silenced Arab voices".
Well, he silenced Women's voices as well - the only time we see women in the movie is when they are either victims of war or sexually objectified for the soldier's benefit and comfort.
Maybe after the Oscar's I'll rent or download the film and write a feminist and queer review of it - breaking apart Israeli masculinity that is on the verge of destruction there in any case.

But I digress.

Levy writes that this is a "deceptive portrait of Israel 2008, in words and pictures".
On the contrary I say.
This is exactly, exactly the way Israel sees itself and Folman shows it, yes, in a beautiful artistic way.
Israel is enamoured with it's self-righteousness.
Israel cannot distance itself from the Holocaust, it is our greatest disaster and everything we (as citizens) and as soldiers is coloured by the fantasy of persecution, ashes and death.
Ari Folman shows this, by using his therapist friend who lovingly tells him, it is not the camps "over there", but that camps "back then".
Ari Folam in the film isn't convinced that this is so and continued exploring his memories.
Continues to challenge the silence surrounding what happened "over there".
And yes it is specifically Israel's own silence about what happened - the massacre is not taught in History classes, it is not spoken about when discussing atrocities of war, or of anything.

To call the film convenient is very shallow.
Ari Folman managed to bring back into the forefront of people's minds the massacre in which we were complicit - yes, he didn't write or include the political context or give place for the victims story... but as an Israeli film maker, Ari Folam has no right to tell the Palestinians story in this movie. As for political context, I think Folman managed to show us that things in Israel remain the same in every decade.

Yes, during the Golden Globes Israel shot Gaza to smithereens.
And Ari Folman made no statement other than "My movie will always be relevant".
Should he have made a stronger statement against the operation in Gaza?
Maybe.
Or maybe one should watch the movie and see the video images that bring home that this is not a fun, artistic, quasi-psychological film.
This movie brought Sabra and Shatila back into the forefront of people's minds, not to mention that an entire generation that knew little or even nothing about Lebanon now knows that Israel was complicit in the death of hundreds (even thousands) of innocent people.

I know, what about Gaza? Where were the 400,000 people marching in against this operation. Why did we vote for a Right Wing government?

Because Israel is as portrayed in the film.
Self-righteous.
Paranoid.
And disconnected from the principles of cause, effect and dialectics.

And Ari Folman's portrayal of that dissonance was brilliant.

Below I've linked other critical reviews with which I agree with more or less. I didn't feel the need to go into as with Levy's somewhat acidic critique of a film that managed to portray the cruelty of Israel in it's final shot better than he has with a weekly column.

Film Review: "Waltz with Bashir" by Naira Antoun.
Waltzing alone by Liel Leibovitz.
When Israel accepts the war waltz and when it doesn't by Tania Tabar, which I wrote about here.

A critical article regarding Waltz with Bashir called When Israel accepts the war waltz and when it doesn't which was brought to my attention by shelestel via esizzle.

As some of you know Waltz with Bashir won the foreign language Golden Globe which aired during the second week of operation "Cast Lead" a.k.a the Israeli War on Gaza.
To say it was apropos would be an understatement.

Reading this very interesting article, few things popped out and made me think of something I hadn't actually considered before.

"It is a completely apolitical film. It's a personal film. If it were a political film, we would have dealt with the other sides, meaning that we would have interviewed the Palestinian and Christian sides. And it does not. It's a very personal film," Folman told France 24.

But in being apolitical, Waltz With Bashir also fails to provide context.

The film's narrative begins as Folman, the main character, travels to Europe and around Israel speaking with fellow soldiers who fought in Lebanon. He eventually begins to piece together what happened during his time in Beirut, which he had erased from his memory.
[...]
Maybe it was too much to ask Folman to reinterpret the entire historical accounting of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in one film. But if the Israeli public is able to swallow the sensitive nature of Waltz With Bashir it is precisely because it stays away from treating the Israeli state as a long-time political actor in the systematic, ongoing violence in Lebanon.

Thus, there is no overt questioning of why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. Israeli military actions are validated under the guise of "fighting terrorism," and this is poignant when considering how the current Gaza war will be viewed in hindsight.

Also, Waltz With Bashir fails to present Israeli soldiers as direct participants in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. Israeli soldiers were only following orders so any responsibility lay solely with the chain of command.

Emphasis mine.

I have to say... this wasn't something I had considered before. Quite simply, because I am ignorant of Israel's role as a political entity within Lebanon's inner politics.
I consider myself a pretty well-informed individual.
I knew of the massacre.
After the second Lebanon war I took the time to read about the first Lebanon war and "discovered" the massacre in which the IDF is complicit.
Before 2006 Sabra and Shatila was just something that happened to the Palestinians in Lebanon. I had no idea who or why or even what was committed.
For over 21 years a portion of history - mine and theirs - was unknown to me.
This is not something strange, I know a few others to whom this movie was the first time they were confronted with the fact that the we, Israel, helped commit a crime... no "war" prefix needed in my opinion.

This article is correct in stating (not directly) that Israelis in general do not ask "Why?", "For what reason?", "How does this serve us?".
We [the collective] take for granted, in this very militarist and nationalist inclined society that everything done, even if it's "bad" is for the good of Israel and Jewish people.
In Sabra and Shatila there was senseless murder.
Ari Folman shows that very well.
What isn't asked is "Why were we even there in the first place?", now I don't know what Ari Folman's thoughts or opinions on that are, but I do know that for the "average" Israeli the question doesn't even enter our minds.

We are not encouraged to ask these questions that may undermine the hegemony of citizen loyalry to the Zionist collective.
We are not encouraged to ask questions period, we are either stupid or provocative, and who wants to be regarded as either stupid or provocative.

Every war is a war for the continued existence.

Even though every war, since the 1982 Lebanon war, has brought about internal protest.

This war, on Gaza and against Hamas, has brought a wave of right wing nationalism and extremism. The political discourse may be saying "Left", but facts on the ground (a saying we love so much in this part of the world) is screaming "Right":
During "Cast Lead" over 700 Palestinian-Israelis (colloquially known as Israeli-Arabs) were arrested and brought in for questioning for demonstrating against the war.
The two Arab parties Balad and Ra'am-Ta'al were stricken from the ballot (the Supreme court will reinstate their place, no doubt).
The Israeli media did not do it's job by asking the tough questions that great Free Press Journalism makes, we can always blame the IDF censors, but I think a certain ideology runs through Israeli media.

The biggest questions the no one asked was "what good will this war bring? will it actually stop Hamas from firing rockets? and if this is for the people of Sderot and the rest of surrounding towns why was this not dealt with before 2005, before the IDF left the strip?".

Same with Lebanon 1982... no one asked why. Not the soldiers who were only following orders like all the soldiers in the world who do not want to consider what they do to be inhumane. Not the home front who wants to believe that what is happening is done for their own protection.

No one asks.
No one answers.

It's a point that is, I think, brought across quite poignantly in Waltz with Bashir.

I slept like a log last night.
Woke up at dawn and watched a first instances of light filter through... and went back to sleep.
No dreams.
No visions.
Just... pure sleep.

Last night I was unable to write about the film coherently because I was still in a state of catharsis.
It's a very difficult movie, the animation creates a buffer from the gory reality that is portrayed and the seamless transition between the present, memory and hallucination was... magnificent.

Ari Folman is a very courageous film maker, he is making a statement that is very, very political but yet transcends "Left" or "Right", he's showing how we remember that which we really don't want to.
Folman himself doesn't consider the film to be political, just very personal.
But everyone knows, by now, that the Personal is Political and he shows us exactly how intricate that relationship is.

We don't see what went through the minds of the Phalangists or of the Palestinians, he only shows us what goes on in the mind of kids men, who were kids, that witnessed an atrocity and were also complicit in it.

As I said, watching the movie inevitably brought back memories of my own War.
The second Lebanon war.
I recognised Beirut in ruins and I recognised the aerial films that target people in order to bomb them.
Not much has changed.
That could very well have been a point.

Memory is a weird and, ha, surreal thing.
It's also a real thing, though not tangible.
The film shows how this works, how events that are experienced, history will construe differently.
There are complete scenes in the movie that reminded me of things I experienced, but I don't really want to give things away because not knowing all the details and spoilers really enhances the viewing.
One thing that is by now well known about the movie is that at the very end, just before the credits, there is actual footage of Sabra and Shatila after the massacre and it happens just as the young soldier remembers, clearly and really, what happened.
Those memories of war which for twenty years he just didn't want to remember.

It was extraordinary.

Watching the movie wasn't just cathartic for me.
With this viewing I feel I've come full circle with myself as far as my own war is concerned.
Which makes me very, very glad.
Because with the closing of this story I don't need to be haunted any more, I don't need to make sure all the time that I'm not too anxious or starting a spiral of panic.
I'm stronger than I used to be.
Even my therapist says so... and so I've reached a peak of my therapy and will no longer be needing to see her on such a regular basis... just when and if I need to.
Which makes me very, very glad.

Behind the very beautiful moving pictures is a very real and true story, history and it is unforgiving.
This movie is an anti-war film in the sense that when you identify with the soldiers, and you do, you don't want to be there just as much as them.
I have a feeling I'll carry this movie for a long time.

The trailer is really just a taste, a drop in the ocean that is this film: ( Waltz with Bashir )

I hope this didn't take too much of your time.

I've just come back from a movie.

Probably the most important move I've ever seen (or will see) my whole life.

Memory is something we're told to cherish and hold close to our hearts and to never let go of the memories.
Memories are who we are.

I've just come back from watching a movie.
It's an animated feature.
The genre is slippery; it could be a documentary, a biopic or even just your run of the mill (anti)war movie.
But it's not just any of those things.
It's a movie about what we don't want to deal with.

Waltz with Bashir is a movie about how we remember and don't remember and why.
Knowing the details of Sabra and Shatila, the Phalangists and Israel's own complicity in what happened doesn't prepare you for this fragmented tale of memory and the remembering of memories... not forgotten... just... gone away.

Not coherent I know.

I'm still speechless and weepy.
Remembering my own images of war - which were removed from me by cameras and screens and radio coms - the animation helps to keep the gory details away, just like memory filters away those terrible images and you remember them... but without the impact that will have you shaking and sobbing and vomiting.

Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to write something that will make sense.
Maybe not.

If it's in a cinema near you... go see it.
Go.
Just... go.