Nerd Prom and Our Journalists Suck

Prom is presented as a treat for graduating students.  The administration makes it clear that you only get to attend prom if you are passing all your classes and don’t get suspended.  Graduation I was told is for the parents, while prom is for the students.  Prom is a privilege, not a guarantee.  This brings us to the White House Correspondence’s Dinner which is otherwise known as “Nerd Prom”.  Here all the people in the news media get to dress to the nines and dine with celebrities while watching the president and a top notch comedian shoot barbs at the political and media scene.  From the looks of the whole gathering, “nerd prom” sounds like quite a scene.  But as previously mentioned prom is a privilege, not a right.  So why does the media get to celebrate themselves with celebrities and comedians when they obviously do not deserve it?

When was the last time you saw something from a news network that actually made a positive difference?  When was the last time a journalist from one of the big three or from one of the cable news behemoths did something worthy of admiration and not of scorn or mockery?  These guys do a terrible job and the proof of this is that Jon Stewart is considered the most trusted “newsman” in America.  It’s come to us praising a topical comedian, a brilliant one albeit, over real news people.  Think about the accomplishments of the two competing sides of late.  Jon Stewart helped to get the 9/11 1^st Responders Bill passed through Congress while the news media covered what was being said on Twitter.  Jon Stewart rallied against the reporting on the 2008 financial crises while the news media just sat there and took the side of Wall Street.  Where was the 4^th estate on that one?  Today Jon Stewart isn’t the main go to for news anymore; it’s another comedian John Oliver.  Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has garnered more praise and hit on more stories than the media ever cares to cover.  He goes deep into a story and doesn’t play to corporate interests.  He is a comedian doing a better job at journalism than the people who went to school for it.  If anything he should be at “nerd prom” while the rest of these phonies should be at home sulking over the terrible job they’ve been doing.

The media doesn’t deserve a night of celebration because they suck.  They don’t deserve to get roasted by comedians like Cecily Strong, Joel McHale, or Conan O’Brien because a roast implies some level of respect between the participants.  Watching the speeches of these comedians is great because they obviously don’t like the people they are roasting, similar to watching the roasts of Justin Bieber or Donald Trump.  The comedians have been following in the vein of Stephen Colbert and just taking it to our fourth estate and their lack of vigilance.  For that I enjoy “nerd prom” because it reminds me of Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes.  It’s good when those in a bubble are forced to confront the fact that not everything they do is gold.  I enjoy seeing the rich and powerful squirm and get offended over a few jokes.  So I have nothing but praise for these comedians because they are doing a great service in my mind.  Plus it’s impossible to follow the performance that was Stephen Colbert in 2006.  Nothing will ever top that speech but I welcome those who try.

In conclusion, unless the press corps decides to do a better job they should not be allowed to have nerd prom.  You have to earn prom and so far nothing I’ve seen these journalists is anywhere close to earning a glamorous night out with celebrities who are only there to be seen.  In short I close with this new rule from Bill Maher who sums up my disgust with the news best:

Pinocchio: The Most Disturbing Children's Film of All Time

Today I’ll be continuing my look back at Disney by reviewing Pinocchio, or the most disturbing kid’s movie of all time.  Let’s begin shall we (or rather I).

Pinocchio scares the hell out of me because of how the film resolves the children to donkey plot.  There is no resolution as the children get turned into donkeys and sent to salt mines and circuses.  Pinocchio escapes with the help of Jiminy Cricket and then that part of the story is completed with no questions asked.  Neither of them decides to go back and help the errant donkey children and they are content to let these children live out the rest of their days in animal slavery.  In a modern day adaptation I would have to believe this would be handled differently because there is no hope of redemption in the original.  A current Pinocchio for kids would have Pinocchio going back to save his donkey brethren with Jiminy Cricket working out a way to reverse the curse which would of course succeed and the children would be back to normal having learned their lesson.  The film would end with a capture of the coachman and a shutting down of Pleasure Island.  We’ve grow accustomed to happy endings for all (thanks in part to Disney) so to see children, even though they are bad, condemned to a life of servitude without the slightest glimmer of hope is jarring to say the least.  I would show this part of the film on the first day of kindergarten to nip in the bud any future instance of bad behavior. 

I also find this part of the story very cruel as what child doesn’t want to give up school and hard work for a life of unlimited pleasure and fun?  This part of the film reads more like propaganda for the “protestant work ethic” mentality than a guide for mischievous children.  Also, I don’t like the fact that these kids are damned for eternity because they screwed up in their youth.  Do the writers behind Pinocchio believe that once a bad kid always a bad person?  Have they no mind for the idea that children can learn and grow from mistakes and youthful malevolence to grow into contributing consumers and capitalists?  The only character allowed to learn from his mistakes is Pinocchio who isn’t even real for most of the film!  It’s nice to see that Disney believes in the one strike and you’re out policy that made this country the number one jailor in the world.

My favorite character is Honest John and the best song in the film is “Hi-Diddle-Dee-Dee”.  That fox is a great flim-flam man and I enjoy his manipulative movements and sayings.  The scene where he convinces Pinocchio he is ill is the best use of his manipulative body language and talk.  I’m always a sucker for a snake oil salesman. 

My least favorite character has to be that Jiminy Cricket.  The guy thinks he’s the end all on everything and is the worst conscious in the world.  What kind of conscious forsakes his pupil when the going gets tough or the pupil won’t listen (he abandon’s Pinocchio at least twice in the film like a quitter)?  Plus the guy has some lame one liners and a holier than thou attitude who only seems to be in it for a possible gold medal.  Get over yourself cricket man.  Plus, how was he able to breathe under water?  That was never explained.

The clocks in Gepetto’s workshop are amazing.  The variety of different singing clocks is amazing and really shows off the creativity of the visual and writing staff.  It sets the tone of what a master craftsman Gepetto is and how he deserves a better son than Pinocchio.  They could have set the whole film in his workshop showing off the different clocks he made and I would have been okay with that.

I was surprised to see that Pinocchio’s nose only grew once in the movie.  It’s the most famous visual from the film and it occurs for roughly a minute with the Blue Fairy.  I also wasn’t expecting Pinocchio to be so willing an accomplice in his own mischief.  He willingly follows Honest John even after the whole actor thing doesn’t pan out.  That has got to be either the most trustworthy or most forgiving puppet in the world.  Or maybe he just likes messing around with that insufferable Jiminy Cricket.  I must also laud that they gave the role to an actual child and let the boy sing like a believable child.  In most musicals today the kids try to sing like they’re Whitney Houston because that’s all that people applaud for and want on those singing competition shows.  It’s refreshing to hear a kid sound like a kid and not pretend to be an adult.

In conclusion Pinocchio scares the shit out of me more than when I saw it as a kid.  Let that be a lesson: never re-watch children’s movies.

Lady and the Tramp: Love, Doggystyle

For some reason I’ve been watching a fair amount of old Disney animated classics and I feel compelled to write my feelings about these old standbys.  So following in the tradition of my Sleeping Beauty essay, here comes one about everybody’s favorite mismatched pair: Lady and the Tramp.

I never realized that every dog in this film skirts the line between funny, okay stereotype to downright racist ethnic stereotype.  Those Siamese cats are on Breakfast at Tiffany’s Mickey Rooney levels of racism, but to be fair, they do have the best song in the movie.  I stand by that position.  Still I feel like dogs and cats are the best way to go for broad ethnic humor without really drawing much offense because they are just so gosh darn adorable.  It also helps to make your film during the 1950’s.  But for the record I am a fan of the old hound dog and his faulty memory.  That folksy glory day’s living hound is alright in my book.  Plus I’m convinced that the girl dog in the pound is some sort of doggie prostitute besides being a vaudeville/burlesque/showgirl of old.  I think it’s the way she covers her bangs…like a doggie whore.  Still if I were the Tramp I would have been with her instead of Lady.  The hooker dog has a sultry voice and intriguing personality as compared to the posh bland stylings of that upper class “Lady”.  She is a bore in my book and fits in perfectly with the whole blandly nice Disney princess vibe.  When will Disney make the wisecracking/ironic classic princess I demand!

For me the saddest part in the film (other than the presumed death of the hound dog) is the rejection of the Tramp’s lifestyle.  The pivotal scene is when Tramp shows Lady the hills and the mountains and the untamed forests and proclaims this land to be their kingdom.  He says we can take this land and roam around freely in a lovely bohemian existence.  Lady looks out and simply sees the manicured town and responds how she has to watch over the baby, despite the fact that there are two capable parents there.  She decides to live in boring suburbia and drags our bohemian hero down with her.  Talk about a buzzkill. 

Since when do rats have it in for babies?  Why was that rat so intent on killing or hurting that poor little infant?  It made absolutely no sense but then again I don’t have a child nor do I own any dogs nor do I live in a small town at the turn of the century.  So if I’m missing anything pardon my ignorance on the matter.

Jim’s moustache is very distracting to me.  Every time it appears I just become fixated on it and can’t look away.  It’s hypnotic in a strange way. 

The restaurant spaghetti scene is a classic of cinema but I would like to see what was happening on the other side of the equation – the paying customer side.  How long were these people waiting for their fine Italian meals and did anybody notice what was causing the delay?  I like to imagine after about a 20 minute wait a guy looks out the window to the back and sees the wait staff attending to a doggy date.  Then he angrily narrates the scene to his fellow starving patrons until they start to become belligerent and violence ensues.  Or maybe Tony’s restaurant only serves animals.  Again I wasn’t around in America at the turn of the century so I have no idea if that’s how restaurants or small town Italian eateries worked backed then.  So again I ask you to please pardon my ignorance. 

This movie is the perfect date movie.  It’s probably one of the only reasons I would have wanted to be alive and dating in the mid 50’s.  A story about a sheltered uptown Lady and a streetwise rascal Tramp is more romantic than any lame drives up to lookout/make-out/fornication point (well maybe not the last one).  Add in some lovable characters like a Scotty in a vest and scenes of Lady being a puppy and you’ve got the most adorable movie of all time.  It is a force of puppy dog love.

In closing I believe Disney should have stuck with their original title: Love, Doggystyle.  

Daffy Duck is Immortal

Daffy Duck is immortal.  The question naturally arises of how I know this fact, but people it was right before our eyes the whole damn time.  Think about how many times Daffy gets shot by Elmer Fudd in the whole duck season rabbit season trilogy and try to convince me otherwise.  I dare ya.  Daffy gets shot countless times in the face and the only consequence is that is beak gets shifted around or falls to the floor.  On occasion his eyes become bloodshot but that’s usually the worst fate to befall poor old Daffy.   Naturally, Daffy Duck is perturbed at being constantly shot by our dimmed witted gamesman, but I’d wager that his anger does not stem from the fact that he is in a great deal of pain or near death.  His anger stems from the fact that he, rather than Bugs Bunny, was shot.  After every shot to the beak, Daffy is able to rebound in a few seconds proving that either Daffy Duck is an immortal being or/and Elmer Fudd has incredibly weak but showy bullets.  I lean towards the first answer because in all these cartoons, Bugs Bunny is trying his hardest to not get shot in the face.  Plus, at the end of “Duck, Rabbit, Duck”, Daffy gets shot by 10-15 odd hunters with different guns and still makes it out alive.  Furthermore, if Elmer Fudd had truly useless bullets, Bugs would not exert maximum effort on those disguises and schemes to escape a not all that grim fate. 

There is the possibility of a third theory which proposes that Bugs Bunny recognizes the ineffectiveness of the bullets, but Elmer Fudd does not.  So to prevent Elmer Fudd from acquiring new shells and lethal ammo, Bugs keeps up this ruse.  The worst that will come out of failing with the fake bullets will be Fudd’s recognition that he is using faulty equipment and the game starts for real now.  But I don’t buy this theory because I’m pretty sure Daffy Duck would expose Elmer Fudd to his shoddy arsenal.  The bullets I say are real and Bugs Bunny is a mortal rabbit.  His mortality has forced him to adopt a clever, outwitting personality to ensure his survival.  Daffy Duck is an immortal.  He can be careless and greedy because he doesn’t have to deal with any major consequences.  Bugs Bunny must always be on edge for he lacks the luxury of immortality.   Daffy has been hit head on time and time again and still makes it out to call Bugs “despicable”.  Why Daffy Duck has it in for Bugs Bunny is a mystery, but I assume it comes out of a combination of jealousy and insecurity. 

In conclusion Daffy Duck is immortal and I’m ashamed I didn’t catch that one earlier.  That’s some egg on my face.    

A Tale of Two Sleeping Beauties

Recently I saw the movie Maleficent which I thought was a fine film bolstered by an extraordinary leading performance by Angelina Jolie.  The movie hit all the right current blockbuster notes by doing the gritty revisionist history where the bad guy isn’t all that evil but rather misunderstood and it’s really the king that’s evil (who knew a goofy cartoon king had some much evil baggage).  The story made a bit more sense than the Disney story (of course Maleficent, the most powerful fairy in the world, would immediately know where Aurora is hiding and I do buy the mini-twist that Aurora would have no connection or loyalty to her father because well he decided to lock her away and never visit), but all it made me want to do was re-watch the old Disney classic.  I recall little from the Disney story other than the fact that the Prince had even less personality than Sleeping Beauty (quite a feat) and that the whole kingdom went through a bit of a snoozing period.  Other than that, my working memory of Sleeping Beauty came through various parodies and references.  It was as a good a time as any to revisit the old classic and see if the viewing experience would be any different.  Truth be told I liked the old classic a lot more than I can remember and much more than Maleficent.  Despite recognizing and calling out every weirdness or problem I had with the film, it’s hard to deny the effortless charm that pervades through the film. 

The magic in Sleeping Beauty is that I full heartedly enjoyed the movie despite agreeing with all the criticism of the film.  Sure Princess Aurora is a damsel in distress, but she really doesn’t do anything in Maleficent either.  Prince Phillip has even less of a personality in Maleficent than he does in Sleeping Beauty (at least in the later he gets to tell a few jokes or something of the sort before totally being helped by the fairies in battle despite their insistence that he’d have to do it alone-what a bunch of liars).  Plus I like evil Maleficent.  She’s happiest when she’s being a big old meanie so who’s idea was it to paint her as a tragic figure?  Why the best scenes in Maleficent are when Angelina Jolie gets to chew some scenery playing a spiteful baddie – like in the gift giving scene and or her lame ways at making life a bit hellish for the three fairies.  The lighter scenes in Maleficent were the best parts of the film.  All the grit and grime has been done to death so it wasn’t rather exciting or shocking.  Showing an “evil character” using her magic for pettiness and personal pleasure was a welcoming change from the rote boring behavior of most magical bad guys.

Sleeping Beauty utilizes no made up fantastical creatures (aside from some weird goblins) or scenes of majestic sweeping battles but still ends up as the more magical film.  These gritty adaptions of stories miss the whole point of why fairy tale adaptions were popular in the first place.  Sometimes it’s fun to watch a light story with a happy and predictable ending.  Not everything has to be as gritty as Frank Miller’s Batman.  We can (and should) keep the pro-woman messages in these new adaptions but we don’t need to sacrifice the charm that made us enjoy these classics in the first place.  I would like to leave a fairy tale with an enchanted feeling because it’s a fucking fairy tale not Lord of the Rings.  Let’s have some tonal diversity people.  Not every fairy tale movie needs to have an epic battle scene to produce a sense of grandeur or wonder; sometimes a simple duet through an enchanted forest is all that is required.  Well one time it was, once upon a dream.