Latest Blog Posts

by Nikki Tranter

13 Mar 2008

The new Horton ‘toon may be state of the art. But it’s great virtue isn’t the 3-D animation. It’s the good Doctor, whose writing about Whos never goes out of style.

The good news: Horton Hears a Who is a keeper. At least, Roger Moore thinks it is. And after Mr. Moore’s recent pounding of Ben Stein’s Expelled, I’m inclined to believe him just because he’s just so very cool right now. Moore’s view is such that while the animation in the new film, and its performances from Jim Carrey and Steve Carell, are first-rate, the film works best because it keeps Seuss’s facts vs, faith themes:

It’s as if Seuss, the late Theodor Geisel, was straddling two sides of the “faith vs. facts” debate, and coming down against willful ignorance and narrow-mindedness in general.

Travis Nichols at the Seattle P-I liked the film, too, though his summation of the themes within is a lot simpler: It’s about standing up for what you believe in. The Washington Post are fans, but Desson Thomson wonders if Seuss’s message has been too watered down:

In the McCarthy era in which the book was written, people saw pointed commentary in its depiction of the fascistic qualities in the people of Who-ville (who refuse to believe there is a world beyond the mini speck of dust on which they live), and Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel) made clear his displeasure over the antiabortion movement’s canny politicization of the book’s best-known phrase, “A person’s a person no matter how small.” In a subtle but effective way, the movie sounds a central message: We shouldn’t be tone deaf to other people’s realities.

He ends up referring to the film as sweet, but guileless.

More vocal in their displeasure, the Canadian Press appreciated the whimsy, but felt it was far too drawn out:

There was barely material enough for the 1970 half-hour TV version of Horton Hears a Who! so imagine the stretching and stuffing that went into this. Everything Horton does drags on rather tediously.

So, Moore’s love is not unanimous, but, at the same time, few reviews I’ve come across are out and out Grinch-style pannings. Even the bad reviews note just how much this new film tries to make its point; tries, you might say, to eradicate The Grinch from our memories by actually having a point at all.

Check out Freep‘s look back at past Seuss adaptations. And while you’re at it, go here to check out five things you didn’t know about Dr. Seuss. My favourite? Did you know Dr. Seuss invented the word “nerd”?

I’ll report on my Who experience when the film opens in Australia later this month.

by Rob Horning

13 Mar 2008

This essay by Lauren Berlant at The Nation, about how we denigrate sex in the public sphere, is a good example of something I sort of agree with but the way it’s expressed makes me want to repudiate it and come up with a counterargument.

If her point were that sex scandals reveal how social attitudes about sex are used to control what sorts of relationships people think to create for themselves, I would be on board completely. But she is claiming that sex scandals are at root about erotophobia, the fear of sexuality because of its alleged ickiness. And that just seems flat-out wrong. First of all, prostitution may not even be a primarily a sexual matter, anymore than pornography is about sexuality—they are both expressions of power and control through sexual means, with the sexual overtones serving only to make the thrills of power seem more salient.

And people are not scandalized by Spitzer’s having sex. If anything, they are excited and titillated by the sex in the story. Sex scandals make good press because people love having an excuse to talk about sex in a public forum. If the public is offended by anything, it may be by his breaking the law in a highly hypocritical fashion and spectacularly violating the social contract he entered into by getting married. In the coverage of scandals such as these, sex itself is not made to seem morbid and unnatural, as Berlant argues, but instead it’s the rejection of approved forms for intimate relationships—that one would dare to ignore the strictures of the nuclear family—that is pathologized. That is where the shame is, not in sexual activity itself. Berlant makes it seem as though the problem is that people aren’t having enough sex; but it’s the use of sex as a social tool to control the sorts of relations people can have or even consider having.

This is the graf that annoys me particularly:

Nonetheless, I’m just saying, I really like sex. We have no idea what sex would be like in a world that saw it basically as a good. A weird good. A good that can tip you over and make you want to do strange things. A good that can reveal your incoherence, your love of a little disorder, your love of a little control (adjust the dial as you like). A good that can make you happy, for a minute, before the cat starts scratching the corner of the bed, or the phone rings, or the kids mew, or you’re hungry and sleepy, or you need another drink or the taxi comes.

That last line could describe a beer or a cigarette or Wii. What about the sexuality that’s not conceptualized as a reified product to be maximized quantitatively? What of sex that’s not a part of the experience economy—which is what prostitution is simply the ultimate expression of—but is instead a lived-in process that has no rigid boundaries, that expresses the curiosity that fuels an active attitude toward life’s constructive possibilities, that isn’t just something you do to distract yourself from work or everyday hassles?

Anyway, society approves certain modes of sexual expression precisely because the power of sex is so respected. In fact, that power is cultivated—that’s what Foucault seems to be arguing in The History of Sexuality. The power of the sex drive allows it to be an extremely useful tool in structuring social institutions and systems of control. Sexual morality is not an expression of a “fear” of sex; it’s a honing of sex’s power to dictate the shape of people’s lives. And many welcome this—they are following these scandals carefully not out of horror but out of the satisfaction of seeing sex’s cultural power reiterated. To oversimplify a bit, prohibitions make sex more intense and exciting. It reaffirms that we are right to be thinking of sex so much and that it’s appropriate that sex appeal is used ubiquitously to sell products.

That’s why it’s hopelessly utopian and likely counterproductive to wish for a “world that saw [sex] basically as a good. A weird good.” It’s too powerful an impulse to be ignored in the formation of social institutions. It will always be structured, and therefore regarded instrumentally, not as some end-in-itself, some independent good. For it to be “playful” in the way Berlant yearns for, it must exist within a game with rules. “Who knows what sex could be if people were encouraged to enjoy it as play rather than as a drama,”—but isn’t drama a form of play?—“a genuine test of recognition or tool of unwanted control over selves and others.” I don’t know, but I’d venture this guess: To wish for a world that left sexuality unstructured socially would be to yearn to see sex stripped of its power and made into a mundane, natural and inevitable, strictly personal process, akin to going to the bathroom. And then it truly would be icky.

by Mehan Jayasuriya

13 Mar 2008

Photos and Text: Mehan Jayasuriya

Despite their legendary status in certain circles, Leeds, England’s the Wedding Present appear to have only played once during SXSW this year. Was it worth the flight over? Ask just about anyone who was in attendance for the Wednesday afternoon set at Emo’s Annex and you’ll likely hear that it was. Performing as a two-piece, the band turned in a number of earnest, stripped-down readings of songs spanning their 20-plus year career. “That bloke peeking over the fence there thinks he’s getting a deal,” frontman David Gedge said pointing to a man peering over the top of the fence. “He doesn’t know that this is free and everyone is welcome”. What Gedge didn’t know, however, is that the venue had reached its capacity and large line had formed outside—and rightfully so. While the band’s half hour set felt like a tease, Gedge promised that the band will return to tour the States—as a full band—in the fall.

by Mehan Jayasuriya

13 Mar 2008

Photos and Text: Mehan Jayasuriya

Just a day after the release of their excellent new LP Alopecia, Oakland’s WHY? turned in a matching performance at Emo’s, breathing life into Yoni Wolf’s gloomy, desperate narratives. Performing as a four-piece, the band played some of the best hip-hop-meets-psych-pop tracks of off both Alopecia and 2005’s Elephant Eyelash. Live, as on the band’s albums, Wolf’s presence is by turns intense, endearing and unnerving.

by Mehan Jayasuriya

13 Mar 2008

Photos and Text: Mehan Jayasuriya

They may have calmed down a bit on their latest LP HLLLYH, but during their Wednesday afternoon performance at Emo’s, L.A. experimental punks The Mae Shi proved that they can still bring the noise. “There are no lead personalities in this fucking band,” one of them remarked during the soundcheck and as it turns out, it wasn’t just posturing: during the set, all five members of the band ran around the stage screaming their heads off and banging on the various instruments that were strewn about the stage. At one point, they opened up a massive plastic tarp, draped it over the audience and then continued their performance in miniature underneath the makeshift tent. While it’s not too surprising given the often-truncated nature of their songs, their set seemed to last for only an instant—in the blink of an eye they had disappeared whence they came.

//Mixed media

Because Blood Is Drama: Considering Carnage in Video Games and Other Media

// Moving Pixels

"It's easy to dismiss blood and violence as salacious without considering why it is there, what its context is, and what it might communicate.

READ the article