OPEN LETTER TO M. KNIGHT SHYMALALALANAANANA

Dear M. Knight,

Quit it.

Sincerely,
V. Rikardson

The Gods must out of their damn mind!

An office debate about the war in Iraq somehow digressed into talk of the indigenous tribal societies that occupied the North American continent. The popular name is Indian. Vargr calls them Skraelings, a Norse word used to describe the indigenous people the Vikings encountered in Greenland and North America. The base word Skral connotes "Thin" or "Scrawny." I used to call them Native Mongoloid, usually to infuriate some knucklehead at work who would start nattering on about what the white man did to "my people." It never ceases to amaze me how many white Anglo-Saxons (we'll discuss this term later) I run into who want so badly to be able to demonstrate some [insert tribe here] connection. As if it makes them a better person because of it. That I will ignore what an ignorant dumbass said person is because of their dubious heritage. Since it was deemed societally acceptable, nay required, to refer to black Americans, who had never been within sight of the African continent, as African Americans. I figured that it would be ok to call the descendents of them that crossed the land bridge from Asia, Mongoloid Americans. Later I started using Native Mongoloid, but I was never really happy with that description. After reading some other internet sites dedicated to this debate, I decided to adopt a new name. Tribal Americans. Tribal American, however, I've came to realize is not just a cultural identifier, but a description of a disturbing state of mind. It is more encompassing than the irrelevant idea that because a person can trace their lineage back to the pre-Colonial inhabitants, it thereby bequeaths them some sacrosanct status as a hyphenated American. If my loathe for this practice of hyphenation is not apparent yet, it will be. I'm in total agreeance with Theodore Roosevelt on the subject of hyphenation.

... There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else. READ MORE

Life is a vicious cycle. Civilizations evolve and devolve. Migration is a constant. Have you ever heard of a Native-Briton? No, of course not, because the original Britons were conquered by the Romans, then enveloped by the Anglo-Saxons who were formerly Germanic tribes. Their tribal traditions and cultures disappeared. We see movies like Braveheart where a Scottish Knight is depicted like a Pict of the first century. In reality William Wallace wore period armor and did not cover his face with woad. Of course those are oversimplifications of the demise of British tribalism, but it demonstrates that when you get past its surface, history is much more incommensurable than the popular notion that it is all the white man's fault. Today the term Anglo-Saxon is used as in incorrect, and often derogatory, way to describe British and American Caucasians. The truth is cultures have been overrunning other cultures as long as recorded history. Whether that culture is an unformalized clan or an Empire. While race may be used as convenient fulcrum to sway opinion against the opposing tribe, it really has little to do with race. It's about human migration.

The Aztecs, or Mexica if you prefer, where in the infancy of an Empire when the Spanish found them. I have no doubt that given more time the Aztecs would have moved like the Roman Empire across North America. The "Native American" conquest by the Europeans would have simply been replaced by one from members of their own anthropological archetype. Would that have made you feel any better? But, instead of being the victims of human sacrifice and living in slavery under an Aztec monarchy, the tribal Americans of today live in relative freedom, constrained only by their unwillingness to unshackle themselves from tribal dogma. This phenomenon is not limited to the Indians. Some black Americans have likewise attempted to engage in this revisionist tribal superiority. Its a humorous thing the way these groups use the institutions of civilization in an attempt to convince the ignorant how much better off we’d all be better living in a mud hut smoking cactus. Or worse, they use them to insinuate they (The unelected spokesperson for the entire demographic) should be provided continuous, special dispensation, on account of wrongs done to their ancestors by someone else’s ancestors, as if such clear lineages could be demonstrated. Does this mean that was done to Tribal Americans or Black Americans was right? Absolutely not. I'm just trying to put it into some historical context.

So come back to the present for a moment. America is currently suffering a descent back to tribalism. The weight and responsibility of freedom is simply too much to bear. "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us." Cries the Grand Inquisitor to Jesus in Dostoevsky's parable. Many people would rather spend their money partying every weekend than buy health insurance, spend their time watching sports than cast an educated and informed vote. Then of course they demand to be taken care of by the rest of the tribe. Especially the rich members of the tribe who were lucky enough to be better hunters, or more efficient gatherers. After all, it isn't about individual effort is it? Are we so willing to sell off our freedom for firewater so we can dance around the fire (or the disco ball if you prefer) to the rhythmic drums, half-naked, tattooed, and pierced? I'm afraid we are.

I pledge allegience to the fags
of the Devisive States of Amerika
And to the hedonism
for which they stand
One nation, under goddess,
Unfathomable,
With Irresponsibility
And Justice
For some

I realize that I rarely know what is going on in the world. Despite the fact that my wife tunes to the news at least once a day, I rarely know what is going on in the world. However, yesterday I was watching CNN and saw this article about a brave American soldier that died in Iraq and his wife will not accept the standard memorial because he was and she is a Wiccan and the Federal government will not put a pentacle on the memorial and this makes her very, very unhappy. Of course her logic is that the Federal government is ignoring their religion, which they claim is a real religion, and therefore are violating the Constitution and the ever so sacred first amendment.
First let me lay out some basic concepts:
1. I have done more funerals than I can remember as a member of the Colour Guard. The folded flag memorial things, the coffin slabs and what have you are mass produced. Like the uniforms of the soldiers and sailors, the memorials are UNIFORM. The Federal government gives two shits about who dies in combat. So let's not pretend that the govvies care. It is the fellow soldiers and sailors who care. It is those left behind who care.
2. Wicca is not, categorically NOT, a bloody religion. It's lazy wrapped up in some bullshit chanting that allows its adherents to be "individuals" while comfortably fitting into a subculture.
3. Freedom (as guaranteed by the First Amendment) is NOT a bloody right, no matter what the Bill of Rights says, it is a privilage. It must be maintained with dilligence, logic, morality, and yes, sometimes bloodshed.

So what we have here is a woman who has lost her doofus of a husband (I saw pictures, he was a doofus) and rather than grieve and accept the loss, she wants what? Attention? Redress of wrongs? What does she want?
Could it be a memorial that reflects her religion? Doubtful. During all the funerals that I did I never actually noticed a religious content to the memorials. We folded the flag and gave it to the widow, son, whoever and thanked them for the sacrifice they made. But we never actually brought God into it. So this wiccan bullshit is pointless.
Remember separation of Church and State? The Wiccans cry that God must be left out of schools and government proceedings, but she wants special attention of her government to her religion. Sorry, crazy bitch, not actually guaranteed in the First Amendment. First Amendment guarantees that Congress will not make you worship a god of their choosing and that you will be allowed to practice your religion freely. NOT that the government has to make special rules to give you Wiccan things and rites.
Side note: In Winter Harbour I had a wiccan girlfriend. She passed on. Enough about that. However her memorial service was conducted by our Catholic Chaplain and it included Christian rites. Not wiccan rites. Was I upset. A bit. But that memorial wasn't for her, it was for us, the ones she left behind. And I am not, nor have I ever been a bloody dirt worshipper.
So what I see is another stupid, bloody American woman that wants her special Gynocracy enforced, but is not willing to make the sacrifices and uphold the responsibilities that Freedom requires and entails.
Too many bloody Americans want their privilages to be RIGHTS and forget that in order to have privilages they must uphold their RESPONSIBILITIES. And this stupid cow getting CNN coverage, and bringing in her Wiccan lobbyist to help her make noise (sound and fury, signifying nothing) is a prime example of what is wrong with this country. Not its laws. Not its government. It's people.

Discuss.

POTC Review: Loved it.
But
I see where Rikalonius and some others have expressed a distaste for this film versus the original. Often in a sequel the thought is to take the habits and motives of the established characters and revisit them, to remind us all that these are the same characters. But the characters also have to grow a bit or we are unhappy. Add to that the Back to the Future Set Up Motif. I think we all remember BTtF 2 and 3. Filmed together, released a summer apart. BTtF 2 is easily the weakest film. It really feels like a rehash of Part One with a set up ending for Part 3. Part 3 is arguably the best. Matrix, I have heard, has a similar phenomenon, the Part 2 is a set up for part 3 and not a film in it's own right.
I could argue the same thing about SW ep 1 and 2 being all set up for the big payoff in Ep 3, but we all knew going into it that Ep 3 was the whole bloody point.
Now don't get me wrong, I think that there were problems with Dead Man's Chest. There were certainly things I'd have done differently, but perhaps every film has that feature to it. Maybe that's why so many directors these days would rather "reinvent" an older work than simply make a new film.
However, and call me an apologist if you will, I stand ready to defend the film.
Let us begin with the bad teeth. Fact of life.
Pintel and Ragetti. In the first film they were portrayed very much as the Abott and Costello of Barbossa's crew. Not as blackheartedly evil as their crewmates, but not nice men at all. We even got a hint that Ragetti was smarter than he let on when they were rowing out as a distraction and he said, "This is just like what the Greeks done at Troy. Cept they was in an 'orse. A wooden 'orse."
So there is a precedent for Ragetti knowing about mythology and such. Obviously the writers felt that they were fan favourites enough that they needed to be in the 2nd film, but had to find a way to justify it. Thus their "new attitudes" toward life, justified by their realizing their own mortality. Personally I saw no need to have them back, but if they must come back, at least give them a plausible motivation, which I feel was done. Now why did Jack allow them to hang out with his crew, since they were mutineers from his first command? It can be justified, and I will do so if asked. Though I admit the question has come to me, and did so during the film.
Norrington. What a satisfying turn of events for a character who was very deep in the first film, if only the audience would pay attention to what's going on.
It seems that if we view the first film we can see multiple plot lines all pulling toward the same conclusion, so to speak.
In the first film we had: Barbossa and the crew of the Black Pearl-All wanted to find the last bit of treasure, Bootstrap's offspring and end the curse.
Will Turner-Primary Goal Acquire Elizabeth Swann for Himself. Secondary Goal Rescue E. Swann from Barbossa (who has kidnapped E. Swann to complete his one and only goal)
Elizabeth Swann-No stated goals or objects. Liz is reactive throughout the first film, she is the plot device.
Norrington-Primary Goal is to serve the RN and do his duty. Secondary Goal is to marry Liz.
Jack Sparrow- Primary overarching goal to recover the Pearl. Secondary goal to be revenged upon Barbossa.
These all tie together well and bring all of our major players to the denoument in a satisfying way.
But in POTC:DMC the goals do not mesh, the storyline does not follow the proper structure. The big failure (because I feel there were some failures) is that the writers and Verbinski try to take the disparate plotlines and stick to the traditional narrative style. That makes the viewer uncomfortable. Tarantino (whiney bitch that he is) discarded the traditional style with Reservoir Dogs and to a greater extent in Pulp Ficiton and we loved him for it. DMC chooses to stay linear and we are discomfited by this.
We have:
East India Company-Wants the compass to get the box with the heart to control Davy Jones
Davy Jones-Simply wants what is owed to him.
EIC causes the genesis of both Will and Liz's goals-Each seeks to win freedom for the other. In the process Will picks up an equally important secondary goal of saving his doomed father.
Norrington-Again, a fascinating character. Primary goal seems to be redemption, but in his own eyes not society's. Secondary goal would be to be revenged upon the men that have brought him, in his belief, to this sad state.
Jack's Crew-Just want to do some honest pirating
Jack-Primary goal is to save his skin no matter who gets in the way.
Thus we have conflict with no satisfactory resolution. Everyone can't win. In the first film it all wrapped up nicely. But not in this one. It couldn't have. And if it had, the Deus Ex Machina used to bring it about would have everyone over the age of 10 crying FOUL!
With DMC we have launched fully into the supernatural. While the status of the cursed pirates from CotBP would suggest it has already happened, I say it was this film that has done it. In CotBP even Jack, who knew more about Barbossa than any other character not of his crew was surprised to find out that the curse was true. Norrington and all sensible people that did not witness it first hand doubted it until it was shown to them.
Now we should not be surprised that Jack is comfortable with the supernatural elements of Davy and his crew, after all, he struck a deal with them. Pintel and Ragetti have been cursed to be undead for 10 years, Liz and Will are intimately familiar with the supernatural now. Jack's crew too.
But the British East India Co? A little odd that they were so comfortable with the whole situation and knew so much about it. This is why I say that DMC crosses the line into the supernatural.
And why not? A film about real pirates doing real pirate shit would be either too boring or too graphic to be watched.
Watching pirates at work day to day would be about as exciting as watching a bunch of squids chipping paint. Real pirates often went weeks to months with no excitement. As they were sailors they did what sailors do. They scrubbed, varnished, washed, swabbed, mended sails, payed out seams. Yawn. Most ships were taken without a fight, using intimidation and guile. The exciting battles of Master and Commander are simply not Pirate fare. In fact, most pirate movies throughout the history of the cinema have not really been about Pirates doing Pirate shit. Rather Pirate films are about buried treasure, heroic privateers fighting for a higher ideal against an evil government, misunderstood rogues out to clear their names, or some other equally dashing and swashbuckling concept that is simply not the case.
In a way, the POTC ride is more accurate to a pirate's life than any pirate film ever produced.
Take Cutthroat Island, for example. Take it and shove it right up Gena Davis's arse. God, that was the worst pirate film ever. Ever. Ever.
But it proves my point. A chick pirate inherits her crew from her late father, also a pirate, finds 3 pieces of a map and dodges her evil pirate uncle while searching for a fabulous buried treasure along with the help of charming rogue Matthew Modine. What the shit was that all about? A Carriage chase? Blowing up the waterfront of Port Royal? To catch one bloody carriage with Gena Davis in?
The only good thing about that film, and believe me I had to search to find one thing about it that was not so charybdic as to pull my very eyeballs from their sockets, was Frank Langella as Dog Brown. A thoroughly evil pirate bastard.
So with the POTC films we do not get the day to day life of pirates. That would be interesting to only a few and lack any sort of box office pull. Rather we get the odd slices of life that occur when they are not at work.
But this is every film or telly show. Star Trek. Once a week we were treated to a few days or even just a few hours out of the full time of the starships Enterprises. Because nobody wants to see an episode devoted to 8 hours of LaForge standing the midwatch....just makeing log entries and trying to stay awake. Or maybe an entire episode of O'Brian doing PMs on the transporters.
And what about cop movies and gangster movies and cowboy movies. Would you watch 2 hours of cowboys moving a herd of beeves across the desert? Just moving the herd. Making camp for the night. Drinking coffee, eating beans, telling stories. Maybe some gay love, cuz you know that shit went on. Then up and hit the trail in the morning. Occaissonaly cut a sick cow out of the herd, or bringing in a wanderer? Hell no. That's like some French fucking art flick where the cowboys discuss the meaning of life while they ride through a sea of steer flesh. Or City Slickers. Same diff.
Now, I will admit that your man Johnny hams it up a bit. But I honestly believe that is the character of Jack Sparrow as he sees it. Jack is a bit of a ham, it's obvious from his actions and attitudes. And yet he's also not a nice person. This is the film that at some point should make all but the youngest viewers that like to fantasize that they ARE Jack Sparrow feel uncomfortable with their choice in fantasy hero.
He is, after all, a pirate. But not a really great pirate. He is a fantasy pirate. Henry Morgan or Blackbeard would have his arse, it's a fact. But that's part of his charm, I suppose. Why did Han Solo give up his life of crime? For the love of a woman? Maybe, I can't truly say. Every baddie turned goodie needs something to make him change. But what is it in Jack's case?
Does he have a heart of gold?
Does he really fancy Elizabeth?
Does he just need to lead a dramatic existence that would make him always show up at the most opportune time to make him look good?
Who knows?

To sum up: I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled, cinema-wise. Once upon a time we accepted the lack of blood, the implied violence, the poor special effects and make-up and toned down action. Once upon a time we could sit in a theatre and watch a scene of exposition between two characters in a room and not squirm. Once upon a time we loved to hear Clint say "Go ahead, make my day." or John Wayne say, "I'm not gonna hit ya. The Hell I'm not!". We loved a one-liner. Something we could quote and mis-quote to our friends. "Play it again, Sam." Never said. Not even once. "He slimed me." A classic.
But then shit changed. Every bloody director wanted to be Orson Welles. Every one of them wanted their own goddamn Citizen Kane. M. Knight Suckmycockalon (No talent asshole) thinks that he is Hitchcock. Yet he's made the same film 5 times in a fucking row. Hey M. Knight, get a fucking clue. You suck. Make a new film with a new plot and stop cutting the fucking trailers to make them all look like horror movies when every fucking one of them is a piece of shit happy snappy sappy bullshit story with an O Henry twist ending. Fucking read some Poe you no talent Hack fuck.
We've come to expect a certain amount of brilliance in our cinema and demand a certain amount of "comfort" points in the films. We, as the film watching/ticket purchasing audience, demand a certain narrative structure, we demand a certain 'entertainment' factor that fits a pre-determined pattern. We want everything to have the brilliance of Ovid, mixed with the wit of Wilde, and the Gravitas of the Bible, all rolled into a neat 93 minute package. With or without T&A. We are only prepared to believe in certain things, and that is all we are ready to accept. Whenever something happens that does not fit our concept of belief or "reality" we are distressed and unhappy with the lot.
Do we need an Oceans 13? Hell no. Did we need an Oceans 12? Fuck no (good film though, if you forget that it is a sequel to a remake that never should have been remade. I never watched the remake, so I was OK). Did we need a remake of Oceans 11? Probably not. But here is the clencher: Casablanca, only one of the best films ever (and I really think that, I've seen it more than once, this is not rhetoric) was a remake. Of a play, I believe. Possibly an earlier film, I forget. However, the definitive version was not the first. So remakes are okay, but not neccessary and certainly not to the degree we are seeing today. So when I look at the Pirates sequel and consider a part three coming next summer, I ask myself "what do I want from the film itself?"
If I were really into a sports team or even a single sports star, I would want to see them/him at thier/his best every game. I would want to see them/him doing that thing they do. Bend it like Beckham every time, baby. That's what I'm saying. And we never get tired of that. We want our team to play their best every time and do their thing no matter the opponent(s). Same with porn. If you have a fetish, say facial cum shots, you want to see a girl get jit on her face at the end of every scene, no matter what. If it is your fetish you will never get tired of that.
So when I think of it, if you like Jack Sparrow, his crazy attitude and mannerisms, you want to see Capt Jack doing his Capt Jack shit no matter the situation. If you like action films, things should explode. If you like comedy, a fart should be in there somewhere. Etc. Etc.
Thus, I very much enjoyed POTC:DMC. It was off a bit. I wasn't comfortable. I kept trying to reconcile the film I was watching with the trailers I had watched, and I wasn't able to do it. Sure, I had the basic story structure in my head, but I wasn't ready for that ending. I wasn't ready for the oddness of it. For catching glimpses of a character before the narrative switched again to another bit of story. I was sometimes disoriented, but given the dispersal of the major characters prior to the opening and shortly thereafter, it took quite a bit of work to get everyone together.
In comparison, look at Lord of the Rings. In Fellowship (book and film) an odd series of events leads to a very hokey and contrived meeting that creates a fellowship to deliver the One Ring to Mt Doom and by the end of it the fellowship is broken, leaving two gay hobbits to follow one path (meet Yoda, save their father) and leaving the remainder to fight an entire war becoming friends for life and re-establishing a kingship.
If anything Fellowship is a weak book/film designed to bring on a two part single film about a war.
In this respect POTC was like the Hobbit, setting stages, introducing characters and telling an easily wrapped up story. DMC and Part 3 becomes like Fellowship and THEOTHERTWO respectively.
At least I hope.

Planes, Trains and....Cars?

Having enjoyed Pixar's latest (albeit long awaited) anime, I do have a few concerns. First of all, why the long aforementioned wait?? I understand you had bad blood with Disney, but who doesn't? Michael Eisner should die a horrid, painful death due to his corruption of one of America's cornerstone family enterprises. But this should not have any bearing on Pixar's strong box office domination.

Secondly, what age group are you targeting? With Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., and Nemo it was fairly clear your audience should be carrying lunchboxes adorned with GI Joe stickers. There are the occasional jokes thrown in to keep the parents from having Barney or TeleTubby flashbacks, but for most part the message is aimed 4' and lower. Not so with the latest flicks, The Incredibles and Cars. I’ll admit the former is just that, incredible. Who would've thought a superhero couple could hash out their differences all the while indoctrinating their children into superherodom and beating the crazed arch nemesis. Alas, this type of "lesson to be learned" was also applied succently to Cars. Not since Knight Industries Two Thousand has an audience had the opportunity to glean tidbits of wisdom from a fossil fueled air pump on tires. Childish antics aside, the crux of the message is aimed more so at adults, with the hopes that crumb-droppers pick up on the Good Samaritan act as well.

Lastly, why wasn't the envelope being pushed? The Incredibles introduced audiences to lifelike hair movement via Violet's long black mane. Even Sully from Monsters, Inc. had pretty good animatics. Sure, some might say the realism isn't needed in this genre. But if that were the case, then explain the vast differences between Pixar's first CGI film and Finding Nemo. No, they ARE trying to push the envelope; otherwise they lose the edge to Dreamworks pictures, their only other competition.

I just hope Cars was a long delayed, mildly executed carryover until Pixar releases their next masterpiece. Otherwise, I'll just keep watching Syndrome get his butt kicked by an incredible family.