Saturday, October 18, 2008

And The Band Played On

I started this “rant” as a response to a good friend’s well-written (and appreciated) blog, but when it went beyond a response and became a full-blown commentary, I thought it a little much to post there, so I’ll use my own blog as my…forum, if you will. The original blog concerned gay marriage, and the forces that seek to stop it. But it goes SO much deeper than that, and I (of course) have an opinion. So now, please forgive me for just a moment while I step up on my soapbox.

We live in a country founded on the basis that every person living on its shores is entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It saddens and sometimes shames me that we now live in a country where basic rights can be denied to a person (and legally at that) not because they’re killers or thieves or rapists…but because of who they choose to have a relationship with. Impossible to imagine, or even fully appreciate, but true nonetheless.

Straight couples meet, they fall in love, they marry. They vow to be there for each other “in sickness and in health.” If tragedy should strike and a spouse should end up hospitalized, their husband or wife is there. They consult with the doctors; they carry out treatment. If the spouse is unable to take care of themselves, the husband or wife is given the power to make decisions for them. If the spouse should die, the surviving husband or wife can at least know that they will be helped financially through their spouse’s benefits. All of this comes with the legal institution of marriage, but in many states, you are still granted these rights simply by virtue of the fact that you are a “straight” couple living in America.

But does anybody even stop to think of these things as “rights”? For married heterosexual couples, I would guess probably not; it simply is how it is. Now consider this:

A gay person is not considered relevant in the case of a partner’s medical emergency, or even death. They are not considered family, can be denied hospital visitation, cannot have power of attorney, and they have no legal say in the caregiving of their partner. Surviving partners are denied health, 401k, social security, and pension benefits that a straight person would automatically be entitled to on the death of a spouse. Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home/facility. In some states, even making funeral arrangements is denied to the surviving partner.

Think about this for a minute; imagine your husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, lover- dying in a hospital room. Imagine being denied the right to see them, and learning of their death from someone who had the “right” to be there. Then think about how you feel knowing that you could not be with them as they died simply because of your sexual orientation. How is that moral? How can that be legal? How is that even human?? Unforgiveable.

So, how did being gay change one from a person who is entitled to simple rights into an outsider who needs to fight for the right to protect, care for, or even to BURY their loved one? A person’s orientation is as insignificant to the outside world as having green eyes, or being left-handed. Why have we elevated it to the status of an opponent capable of world domination? With all of the hate, war, economic problems, and racial tensions present in the world today, why in the name of God do same-sex relationships cause such turmoil??

Ah, there’s an issue. To all of you “religious” conservatives out there: I respect your religion, and your right to study and practice it. It does not, however, empower you with the Devine right to sacrifice those in the population that YOU deem unworthy. You have a God, and I hear that he is quite powerful and capable of making up his own mind. Let’s let him, shall we?

And to all you politicos and government “officials” who waste your time and my money denying simple rights to American citizens: Help us resolve our National Debt. Get us out and KEEP us out of war. And let’s make laws that promote family unity, no matter how that family is made up. Times are changing. You need to do the same.

I now respectfully step down off my soapbox.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Lost Weekend

My weekends are usually pretty busy- not that I do a whole lot, but there’s usually housecleaning to do, shopping to get done, clothes to launder, bills to pay. There’s usually time spent with family, and time spent with friends. And all that before Sunday night, when it’s time to start getting ready for the work week ahead.

Well, this past weekend I did none of that. It was cold, dark, and rainy, and I just didn’t feel like doing anything. I even took off Monday, with the intention of doing absolutely nothing. So, instead of doing anything productive, I watched movies. Lots of movies. Here’s the roundup:

Saturday I saw “Body of Lies”, the new Ridley Scott “political thriller” with DiCaprio and Crowe. And those three men are the entire reasons I wanted to see this flick. After all, with clout like that, how bad can it be?? “Quite” would be a good answer. It’s long, dull, and for the most part un-thriller like. There’s nothing special about the direction. The actors are adequate but not great (Leo and Mark Strong as “Hanni” being the exceptions). And the script has a vague “been there, done that” feel. Body of lies? Hmph. Body of poo. Skip it.

It has been said (ok, sung- thank you Frank-N-Furter) that “a mental mind fuck can be nice!” That’s really the only way I can describe Sunday’s foray into moviedom. I watched two flicks back-to-back that probably should never be watched together by anyone, ever again.

“21 Grams” is so much more than I thought it would be. I don’t know why it took so long for me to see it, except that I have to be in a mood for thoroughly depressing movies about human suffering, and this one tops almost all of them. The casting is brilliant (Sean Penn is always amazing, but I had no idea that Naomi Watts could do that), and the shots looks great. Just one quibble…that technique of showing the film all cut up and out of chronological order? Yeah…stop it. There are very few films that really pull this off- “Pulp Fiction” comes to mind, and I’ll get to another one (by this same director) shortly- but there are SO many cuts and time warps that all emotional arc is lost to the mercy of the technique. It’s heartbreaking as is…but it would be absolutely devastating told from beginning to end.

After taking a few minutes to grab a stiff drink and try to get that one out of my head, I watched “Donnie Darko.” Mind fuck, I tell ya. This one doesn’t so much jump around in time as it does show what happens when time splits off in another direction. It’s extremely dark, sometimes very disturbing, completely fascinating, and not really so hard to follow if you take time to freeze-frame and read the entries from the book that “explains” things. I saw the director’s cut; I’ve been told that I need to see the original version. All in good time, my little pretty. All in good time. The brain can only take so much.

And finally, Monday I watched one of the most lauded films of 2001, “Amores Perros”, directed by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, who directed the aforementioned “21 Grams.” I have to say that this was my favorite of the weekend. It has layers; I LOVE layers. The technique of showing things out of order works to perfection, showing us a single accident from the points of view of three different sets of characters affected by the tragedy, while allowing each section to complete the arc needed for us to become emotionally involved. It’s fast, brutal, honest, and beautifully played out. And beyond all the pain and suffering, the ending manages to be uplifting, even hopeful. The applause is well-earned.

Now I’m really looking forward to a flick that goes from beginning to end for a change. Hey, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” looks interesting…

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Nosferatu

In the beginning, there was The Count. Starting with an historical figure (Vlad the Impaler of Romania), Bram Stoker took a bit of folklore and added a lot of imagination to create a vampire myth that still scares readers to this day. Stoker’s “Dracula” was the textbook example of vampire stories for many years- because of his tale, we know what vampires look like, how they survive, and what they can (and cannot) do. It was through “Dracula” that we learned about garlic and stakes, of crosses and coffins.

Anne Rice reinvented the vampire legend with the introduction of “Interview With the Vampire,” the first of the Vampire Chronicles, which was followed shortly by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, who brought vampires back to popular literature with a series of books about the Prince vampire Count Saint-Germaine. Now comes the newest addition to the folklore; “The Twilight Saga” by Stephanie Meyer. The series begins with “Twilight” and continues with “New Moon” “Eclipse”, and “Breaking Dawn”.

Meyer’s vampires stray the furthest yet from the creatues of old. These vampires can move easily in daylight (although they exhibit an interesting phenomenon when exposed to direct sunlight that keeps them inside except on cloudy days). They do not drink human blood, preferring the more humane choice of feeding on animals. And they love humans…passionately and against all better judgment. The novels center on the relationships between vampire Edward Cullen, his human love, Bella Swan, and Jacob Black, a love interest for Bella who’s not quite human himself. They are written for young adults, and Stephanie Meyer was hailed as the “new J. K. Rowling” when the first book came out in 2005. I must admit that I liked the novels for the most part…but (with one exception- more on that in a bit), “Harry Potter” this ain’t.

My biggest problem is that Meyer has a tendency to repeat things ad nauseum. It’s not enough to describe a character’s beauty; it has to be pounded in hundreds of times during the course of the novels. Besides that, the characters are likeable but not overly interesting as individuals, there’s a lot of descriptive language that is for the most part unnecessary, and there are changes of voice that are sometimes a bit jarring. But, that being said…

What is GREAT about these novels- the element that makes them so fun to read - is the dark romance at the center of the story. True love between a human and vampire should be dangerous and scary, bringing with it questions about life, death, human frailty, and the appeal of immortality. The books convey all of that and more, and ultimately make us care about how the characters deal with the paths they have chosen. While I enjoyed all of the novels, the fourth in the series, “Breaking Dawn”, is far and away the best of the lot. Somewhere between the first and last books, Meyer learned how to write, and she has a created a novel that is (finally!) as quick moving, well plotted, and full of interesting characters and situations as any of the Harry Potter novels. It also “grows up” a bit, presenting themes that are more adult in nature while still keeping a lighter tone. I can’t wait to check out her first “adult” novel and see how it compares.

If you’re a fan of vampire lore and supernatural love stories, give this vampire series a try. And don’t blame me if it..

Wait for it…

Sucks.