When my friend Lizzy Hill invited me to a naked sushi party, I mistakenly envisioned a bunch of butt naked people standing around eating.
"I'm in," I told her.
It turns out you go fully clothed and eat sushi off of naked people who lie as still as possible trying to closely emulate a plate. The tradition started in some crazy country - Japan, I assume; the whole thing reeks of Japan - and made its way over here because we love to follow down their crazy paths. Mark my words, our streets will one day be lined with vending machines despensing the underwear of virgins.
Anyway, I arrived at Lizzy's early to help set up. My first piece of advice for throwing a naked sushi party is to have your guests show up good and hungry. After starving for a few hours your body will be ready to eat off any surface, regardless of what feeble protests of "strangeness" and "hygiene" your brain can muster.
Another good strategy is to get everyone drunk. Lizzy had her friends bring a healthy dose of wine to get loosened up. Drugs would also work but nothing too heavy, eating food off a naked person is weird enough without thinking their nipples are talking to you.
Lizzy was able to use her north end scene connections to find two volunteers(!) for the evening. Setup is key. Two tables were prepared and lined with candles in such a way that things wouldn't seem "too gynocological." Guests were corralled into the kitchen of Lizzy's apartment to get buzzed while the models went to a seperate room to psych up and strip down.
Eventually a bell was rung and the dozen or so guests headed to the living room. The covered in sushi part was weird, but the most striking thing was that both models were physically perfect and totally hairless below the eyebrows. They lay face up and totally still, as if in a trance. Guests were instructed not to touch the models - except with chopsticks - or to talk to them.
And yes, you could see prettymuch everything. The girl - an attractive woman named Natalie who is apparently a burlesque dancer - had sea shells over her nipples but that's about it. Both her and Redman, Lizzy's hairdresser, had floral arrangements over their crotches but they did more to more garnish their genitals than conceal them.
It was surprisingly unawkward. People hung out as they normally would and there was no jackass making too-obvious jokes ("Is that a spicy tempura salmon roll or are you just happy to see me?").
Despite the no-talking rule, one girl sweetly clutched Redman's hand, squeezed it, and repeated "you look beautiful." I, meanwhile, was busy greedily plucking sushi from his shoulder and focusing on not dropping any soya sauce in his eyeball.
For music, Lizzy's roommate Lee searched 'background japanese restaurant music' into youtube, which worked kind of well. Eventually people got on the laptop and started playing whatever came to mind. Hip hop didn't quite seem to match the vibe of eating fish off a seemingly-comatose naked stranger but by that point everyone had drank enough wine that it didn't matter.
So what was the point of it all? Honestly, I have no idea. According to the weabsite SushiOrDeath.com (uh, I choose sushi?), the practice is called Nyotaimori and is a sub-fetish of food play. Others say there's nothing sexual about it. Also Nyotaimori, like freedom, is banned in China.
Whatever it is, it isn't sexual. It's too awkward an environment to be arousing, and yet too interesting to really be awkward. All I know for sure is it's a fun story and Lizzy knows how to throw a hell of a unique party. Also, she makes good sushi.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Mike Danton joke roundup
Nova Scotians are tickled at the news this week that former NHLer Mike Danton plans to suit up for the local Saint Mary's Huskies. Of course Danton just spent a few years in jail after admitting to a judge that he kind of, sort of, tried to have his father killed.
Like all the best controversies, the Danton matter is pretty hilarious. Here are some of the jokes I heard about it today:
"He called up the Calgary Hitmen, but they weren't looking for any centres." - G. MacDonald (identity obscured by request due to fear of retribution)
"SMU saw something in him, though. The coach said he liked Danton's killer instinct. So he's basically a lock." - also G. MacDonald
“Stieny isn’t going to bother coaching him much because he’s already shown he can’t execute the game plan.” - Adam Richardson
"I hope SMU goes after Gilbert Arenas next." - Ruari Murphy. (I've also heard or said variations of this one involving Michael Vick, Chris Benoit, O.J Simpson and - I don't really get this one - Magic Johnson.)
My personal favourite is from a sports reporter talking about needing backup the first time he interviews Danton:
“You don’t know what it’s like. You just go to a courtroom where there’s all kinds of protection. I have to go to a hockey rink where I’m going to get murdered.”
There are a lot of people bashing SMU for the move. One commenter on the Chronicle Herald website went so far as to say she would boycot Saint Mary's and ban her children from going there, which is too bad because she sounds cool.
But let's be reasonable, Danton is a great pickup for the Huskies. First, he'll be great for team chemistry. The guy's used to spending lots of time with other dudes in a close, personal environment so he'll be a natural team player. After a strenuous hockey game who wouldn't want to hit the showers with a convicted criminal? Plus, on the ice the guy is a sniper (or at least he knows one). And he's a natural enforcer because really, who's going to want to fight him?
That said he isn't a very good physical player and is known for not finishing his hits. But anything that makes AUS hockey remotely interesting is a great move in my books. I may start going to games just to hear what names the hecklers come up with. My vote is for Patty Patricide.
Like all the best controversies, the Danton matter is pretty hilarious. Here are some of the jokes I heard about it today:
"He called up the Calgary Hitmen, but they weren't looking for any centres." - G. MacDonald (identity obscured by request due to fear of retribution)
"SMU saw something in him, though. The coach said he liked Danton's killer instinct. So he's basically a lock." - also G. MacDonald
“Stieny isn’t going to bother coaching him much because he’s already shown he can’t execute the game plan.” - Adam Richardson
"I hope SMU goes after Gilbert Arenas next." - Ruari Murphy. (I've also heard or said variations of this one involving Michael Vick, Chris Benoit, O.J Simpson and - I don't really get this one - Magic Johnson.)
My personal favourite is from a sports reporter talking about needing backup the first time he interviews Danton:
“You don’t know what it’s like. You just go to a courtroom where there’s all kinds of protection. I have to go to a hockey rink where I’m going to get murdered.”
There are a lot of people bashing SMU for the move. One commenter on the Chronicle Herald website went so far as to say she would boycot Saint Mary's and ban her children from going there, which is too bad because she sounds cool.
But let's be reasonable, Danton is a great pickup for the Huskies. First, he'll be great for team chemistry. The guy's used to spending lots of time with other dudes in a close, personal environment so he'll be a natural team player. After a strenuous hockey game who wouldn't want to hit the showers with a convicted criminal? Plus, on the ice the guy is a sniper (or at least he knows one). And he's a natural enforcer because really, who's going to want to fight him?
That said he isn't a very good physical player and is known for not finishing his hits. But anything that makes AUS hockey remotely interesting is a great move in my books. I may start going to games just to hear what names the hecklers come up with. My vote is for Patty Patricide.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The 20 Best Films of the Decade
I love movies and I love lists, so I hereby present my list of the 20 best movies of the decade. This turned out to be much harder than I originally thought. In defining 'best' I considered three factors: artistic merit; audience impact; and longevity.
I was originally going to just list the top 20 alphabetically but that seemed too easy so in the end
I ranked them by number. Admittedly, these rankings are mostly arbitrary so don't read too much into them (how the hell do you really distinguish between the 15th and 16th greatest movies in a decade?) Also, documentaries are not included since it's too hard to compare them to fiction.
Feedback and alternate lists are welcome. Let's get to it.
What is it?
Daniel Day-Lewis drinks other people’s milkshakes.
Why is it great?
To be honest, I’ve never found the character study of Daniel Plainview fully satisfying. We learn so much about how he is but virtually nothing about why. From his initial hatred of humanity to his final descent into loner hell, we’re never given an understanding as to what’s behind it all, which I think limits the character’s impact. Still, when the movie works it really works. When you’ve got one of the best directors alive working with one of the best actors alive in an early American oil epic it’s almost hard for it not to be great. Anderson’s beautiful, patient shots and the brilliant Plainview vs. Eli Sunday scenes are going to be just as riveting 50 years from now as they are today.
What is it?
A group of highway patrol officers get up to some shenanigans.
Why is it great?
A lot of people seem to have Anchorman as one of their top movies, and for a while I was thinking of including it. Then my friend Alex shaved his beard into a moustache and I made a crack about moustache rides. Suddenly it hit me – Super Troopers is one of the best films of the decade. It has moments like its brilliant opening that can go toe-to-toe with Anchorman’s best scenes and it did a better job of not slipping into lazy, sit-comy writing. It’s smarter than Harold and Kumar, more consistent than Pineapple Express and more distinct than the pack of Judd Apatow flicks that filled the OOs. Quite simply, it’s the best stoner comedy of the decade.
What is it?
A little girl stumbles into a ghost world after her parents are transformed into pigs. A modern-day Alice in Wonderland follows.
Why is it great?
This was an enviable decade to be a kid, as many children’s movies stopped relying on clichés and Phil Collins soundtracks and started treating their audiences with respect. But the one that impressed me the most wasn’t made by Pixar. Containing more visual ideas than 10 Disney movies combined along with a universal story about childhood, Spirited Away is the best animated film of the decade.
What is it?
Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana… Batman.
Why is it great?
I almost went with Christopher Nolan’s excellent rival magicians movie The Prestige instead, but ultimately I’ve got to hand it to The Dark Knight. Sure the whole x-ray vision stuff was goofy and there were some problems with the plot, but it deserves a spot for a few reasons. 1) It marked the growing up of super hero movies. In his flick, Spiderman had to choose between saving Mary Jane or a trolley full of people. He pulled some web bullshit and voila, everyone’s fine. Batman was given the same choice and a main character died. 2) Hack movies like Babel get fawned over for insipid themes like “not communicating is bad.” The Dark Knight deals with dark thematic issues most movies never touch, like the West’s responsibility for terrorism, deceiving the masses for their own good, love not saving anyone and the impossibility of living up to heroic expectations. 3) Incredibly memorable moments, like the bank heist opening. 4) Heath Ledger's The Joker. Not just one of the two greatest villains of the decade, he's one of the best all-time movie bad guys.
What is it?
A love story told backwards as it’s forgotten.
Why is it great?
Blah blah blah, Charlie Kaufman, blah blah, Michel Gondry, blah blah. By now everyone knows the praise for the script, visuals, and performances of this movie so I won’t rehash it here. Instead I’ll just say one thing I really respect about Eternal Sunshine is it resisted the urge to romanticize. Instead of waiting for the couple to figure out they’re obviously meant to be together, Eternal Sunshine gives us characters that probably aren’t right for each other and may well be doomed to repeat their mistakes. It’s this heavy dose of reality as much as the script and visuals that made this such a fresh viewing experience. And damn it, we’re all still rooting for Joel and Clementine.
What is it?
A brilliantly stylized reinvention of the zombie genre from one of film's most versatile directors.
Why is great?
This is the second most important zombie movie of all time (after Night of the Living Dead, obviously). Where Romero invented the genre as we know it, Boyle reinvented it for the 21st century. But there’s so much more than just the “fast zombies” that makes this movie great. Just watch the beginning and by the haunting scene of Cilian Murphy wandering around an abandoned London you know you’ve got a classic. And yes, 28 Days Later does count as a zombie movie.
What is it?
Clive Own wanders the streets of a ragged, dying Britain. Children inexplicably stopped being born years ago, the youngest man in the world was just killed in a bar fight, xenophobia has manifested into a militaristic dictatorship and – oh shit, is that chick pregnant?
Why s it on the list?
Man, these ten years were pretty thin on great sci fi movies. The 90s finished off on a high with Dark City and The Matrix then this decade tries to carry the torch with god-awful Matrix sequels and Star Wars prequels. The much championed Minority Report and Stark Trek were too shiny and pretty to be considered classics in my mind. Great sci fi should have some grit. Luckily we got quality mind-benders (Primer), space westerns (Serenity) and of course Children of Men, a story that encapsulates despair as well as any I’ve seen. Intriguing plot and strong acting aside, it’s the incredible cinematography that elevates this film to greatness. The stunning, single-shot car heist and city under siege scenes rank among the best of this generation.
(Note: I’d probably have included Serenity on this list of not for that in my mind it’s inherently linked into the TV show Firefly.)
What is it?
Good question.
Why is it great?
I debated about whether to include this or the longer, stranger Lynch film Inland Empire. Neither are films you can shake out of your mind but ultimately the nod goes to Mulholland Drive. It’s hard to say how the original plan for a TV show would have gone. Instead Lynch salvaged the stillborn pilot to create an enduring work of art. A lot of movies are weird for the sake of being weird while having nothing of substance underneath (take the paper-thin Donnie Darko, maybe the most overrated movie of the decade) but here Lynch delivers something worth digging into and exploring. In the end it’s really quite a simple story, but half the fun is piecing it all together. The other half is watching it - the scene of the opera singer dropping dead during Roy Orbison’s song Crying, thus revealing everything as an illusion, is a contender for greatest scene of the decade.
What is it?
Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson star in a surprisingly non-creepy sort of romance story about two tourists in Japan trying to figure it all out.
Why is it great?
The oughts had a bit of an obsession with movies about people ‘finding’ themselves. Lost in Translation was the best of the bunch and set the bar for the Junos, Little Miss Sunshines and Garden States that followed. People tend to gush over, say, holocaust movies because of their heavy subject regardless of whether they’re well made. Yet here is a movie about two upper-class people fighting ennui and through some truly graceful filmmaking we genuinely relate to and care for them. In this case less is more: Long stretches of no dialogue? Instead take in the excellent soundtrack by Air. Having no plot to speak of? Yeah, well neither does real life. Coppola mixes just the right blend of wistfulness and humour so that by the ending fade out you feel truly satisfied.
What is it?
In a futuristic dystopian Japan, a class of grade nine students is kidnapped, taken to an island, given weapons and told they must fight to the death until only one is left alive.
Why is it on the list?
Uh, did you see the premise? Usually something that sounds that batshit awesome turns out to be a heap of disappointment. Not this time. This is one movie that knows how to follow through. I sill rank the first time I saw Battle Royale in high school as one of the most mind-blowing cinema experiences of my life.
What is it?
Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke reunite 10 years after a one-night romantic tryst.
Why is it great?
1995’s Before Sunrise was a charming film about two young people meeting randomly for one passionate night in Europe. Making a follow-up to its excellent ending – will they or won’t they fulfill their promise to meet one year later? – seemed like a terrible idea. Instead, this sequel bests its predecessor in every way. Delpy and Hawke still have some of the best on-screen chemistry ever seen, but 10 years later life has gotten complicated and their discussions have more weight. Instead of a young fairytale romance, here are two adults trying to recreate a fairytale romance. The beauty is in watching them pull it off. Linklater’s direction couldn’t be better – for a film that is basically one long string of dialogue it’s the sparse use of silence that has the most impact.
What is it?
The story of a man with no short-term memory hunting his wife’s killer. Oh, and the movie runs backwards.
Why is it on the list?
I feel a pretty deep connection to this movie. At the time of its release it was my favourite film and in many ways it sparked my love of movies. It’s not the only film to do the backwards chronology thing (2002’s Irreversible, which I painfully couldn’t fit on this list, is a notable example) but it uses it brilliantly. What could have been a gimmick becomes an incredibly fresh way to tell a dark, unforgettable story that is still captivating today. This is raw movie-making gold.
What is it?
Tarantino, master of the literal title, delivers a loving homage to samurai movies.
Why is it great?
First of all, it's one big story so I'm throwing the two movies together. What's striking about Kill Bill is that so much of it is made up of recycled parts. By assembling a mountain of shots and moments and molding them into one Power Rangersesque super movie, Tarantino has surpassed his source material. Only in Pulp Fiction has Tarantino brought style and substance together in such a dynamite package. Plus it rejuvanated David Carradine's career, so huge bonus points.
What is it?
During a night of heavy drinking a man is mysteriously abducted, kept captive in a hotel-style room for 15 years without explanation and then released. He immediately goes on a quest for answers - and revenge.
Why is it great?
Thank god rumours of an American remake seem to have fizzled out. There is just no way to improve upon this breathtaking film. Like Battle Royale, Oldboy takes a wicked premise and doesn't just live up to it but exceeds it. Chan-wook Park challenges you to keep up to his winding story that ventures miles beyond what mainstream western movies would dare to touch. This is revenge cinema at its finest. It's so good that its also having one of the best fight scenes of the decade doesn't even seem fair.
What is it?
A comedy? A horror movie? A zom-com? Who knows?
Why is it great?
Sure, it’s quick and funny enough to be on the list for yuks alone. But beyond that, Shaun is actually quite groundbreaking. How many movies, if any, have managed to so finely walk a line between two disparate genres? A hilarious toss up of zombie films while at the same time being a zombie film, Shaun of the Dead is the ultimate case of having your brains and eating them too.
What is it?
The best thriller of the decade.
Why is it great?
Suck it, Stephen Spielberg. Joel and Ethan Coen show that they are the masters of cat-and-mouse thrill ride filmmaking. Everyone brings their A game to this one. You can't ask for better technical camerawork and editing. Its pacing is unconventional but works to a tee. The cast is excellent but the show is stolen by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. With the Joker, Chigurh is one two characters that elevated villainhood to new hights. And of course the star behind the screen is Cormac McCArthy, whose faithfully adapted novel this all stems from.
What is it?
A genre-breaking film about the real life hunt to track down the Zodiac Killer.
Why is it on the list?
Could this be the best serial killer movie ever? I guess it’s not a fair question. While most focus on the mind of the killer (take Fincher’s own Se7en), this movie is about the people hunting him. More truly, it’s about obsession. Fincher puts on an absolute clinic of filmmaking. He juggles an incredible cast of characters (especially Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.) and a complex, weaving plot that spans decades of dead ends and false starts, yet the movie never stops being gripping. It’s a story that shouldn’t work but Fincher inverts the focus and makes this all about that wing of human nature that refuses – or isn’t able – to let things go. People who derided this film as 'slow' need to go back and see all that's going as they're missing exquisite filmmaking.
What is it?
A Quebecois professor is diagnosed with cancer and admitted to hospital. As the end of his life nears, his family and friends gather together to see him off.
Why is it great?
Admittedly, the premise makes this movie sound entirely depressing. It’s not. It’s filled with dark humour, off-colour jokes, womanizing and drug use. This makes the moments of poignancy and insight that much more powerful. Clever, debauched and somehow comforting, this is a personal fable about something we all try to do eventually - come to terms with death. This is also my favourite Canadian film, period.
What is it?
The wily Royal (Gene Hackman) returns to his family of over-the-hill geniuses to try to trick them into loving him again. Paul Simon montages ensue.
Why is it great?
Don’t even get me started. There are so many classic scenes and quotes in this movie that there’s really just too much to take in in one sitting. Repeated viewings begin to peel away a script, cast and direction that fit together so well the end result is, arguably, perfect. Some people dismiss Wes Anderson by throwing him into the “quirky indy filmmaker” camp, but they’re not watching closely enough. Yes, Anderson’s filmmaking is clever, but he doesn’t sacrifice character or story to be so. And as shown by his recent excellent films The Darjeeling Limited and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, he hasn’t slowed down. But Tenenbaums is Anderson’s best film of the decade (as well as my personal favourite film of the decade) and in the end will likely go down as his masterpiece.
What is it?
Star Wars with elves.
Why is it on the list?
In the end, this is inescapable. The Lord of the Rings movies were the defining cinematic accomplishment of the decade.Whether or not LOTR is your style you've got to be impressed by how it cultivated so many millions of die-hard fans. Yearly 11-hour director's cut marathons are now a commonplace tradition.
But it's not just popularity that earns LOTR the top spot. This is old-fashioned adventure filmmaking - a fun, epic, wild ride. In other words, it truly is the Star Wars trilogy for the next generation. People who thought Avatar was a 'game changer' were way off. More CGI is not the answer. It's about making your special effects enhance reality, not become reality. Jackson had groundbreaking technology too but he anchors the films in real flesh and blood so they never become CGI snooze-fests.
This trilogy could have gone so wrong in so many ways. Instead we got that rare movie magic where a beloved series of books now have equally beloved film companions. More than any other movie, the OOs will be remembered for Lord of the Rings.
I was originally going to just list the top 20 alphabetically but that seemed too easy so in the end
I ranked them by number. Admittedly, these rankings are mostly arbitrary so don't read too much into them (how the hell do you really distinguish between the 15th and 16th greatest movies in a decade?) Also, documentaries are not included since it's too hard to compare them to fiction.
Feedback and alternate lists are welcome. Let's get to it.
20) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)
What is it?Daniel Day-Lewis drinks other people’s milkshakes.
Why is it great?
To be honest, I’ve never found the character study of Daniel Plainview fully satisfying. We learn so much about how he is but virtually nothing about why. From his initial hatred of humanity to his final descent into loner hell, we’re never given an understanding as to what’s behind it all, which I think limits the character’s impact. Still, when the movie works it really works. When you’ve got one of the best directors alive working with one of the best actors alive in an early American oil epic it’s almost hard for it not to be great. Anderson’s beautiful, patient shots and the brilliant Plainview vs. Eli Sunday scenes are going to be just as riveting 50 years from now as they are today.
19) Super Troopers (Jay Chandrasekhar, 2001)
What is it?A group of highway patrol officers get up to some shenanigans.
Why is it great?
A lot of people seem to have Anchorman as one of their top movies, and for a while I was thinking of including it. Then my friend Alex shaved his beard into a moustache and I made a crack about moustache rides. Suddenly it hit me – Super Troopers is one of the best films of the decade. It has moments like its brilliant opening that can go toe-to-toe with Anchorman’s best scenes and it did a better job of not slipping into lazy, sit-comy writing. It’s smarter than Harold and Kumar, more consistent than Pineapple Express and more distinct than the pack of Judd Apatow flicks that filled the OOs. Quite simply, it’s the best stoner comedy of the decade.
18) Spirited Away (Hayao Miyazaki, 2001)
What is it?A little girl stumbles into a ghost world after her parents are transformed into pigs. A modern-day Alice in Wonderland follows.
Why is it great?
This was an enviable decade to be a kid, as many children’s movies stopped relying on clichés and Phil Collins soundtracks and started treating their audiences with respect. But the one that impressed me the most wasn’t made by Pixar. Containing more visual ideas than 10 Disney movies combined along with a universal story about childhood, Spirited Away is the best animated film of the decade.
17) The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008)
What is it?Nana nana nana nana nana nana nana nana… Batman.
Why is it great?
I almost went with Christopher Nolan’s excellent rival magicians movie The Prestige instead, but ultimately I’ve got to hand it to The Dark Knight. Sure the whole x-ray vision stuff was goofy and there were some problems with the plot, but it deserves a spot for a few reasons. 1) It marked the growing up of super hero movies. In his flick, Spiderman had to choose between saving Mary Jane or a trolley full of people. He pulled some web bullshit and voila, everyone’s fine. Batman was given the same choice and a main character died. 2) Hack movies like Babel get fawned over for insipid themes like “not communicating is bad.” The Dark Knight deals with dark thematic issues most movies never touch, like the West’s responsibility for terrorism, deceiving the masses for their own good, love not saving anyone and the impossibility of living up to heroic expectations. 3) Incredibly memorable moments, like the bank heist opening. 4) Heath Ledger's The Joker. Not just one of the two greatest villains of the decade, he's one of the best all-time movie bad guys.
16) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry, 2004)
What is it?A love story told backwards as it’s forgotten.
Why is it great?
Blah blah blah, Charlie Kaufman, blah blah, Michel Gondry, blah blah. By now everyone knows the praise for the script, visuals, and performances of this movie so I won’t rehash it here. Instead I’ll just say one thing I really respect about Eternal Sunshine is it resisted the urge to romanticize. Instead of waiting for the couple to figure out they’re obviously meant to be together, Eternal Sunshine gives us characters that probably aren’t right for each other and may well be doomed to repeat their mistakes. It’s this heavy dose of reality as much as the script and visuals that made this such a fresh viewing experience. And damn it, we’re all still rooting for Joel and Clementine.
15) 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002)
What is it?A brilliantly stylized reinvention of the zombie genre from one of film's most versatile directors.
Why is great?
This is the second most important zombie movie of all time (after Night of the Living Dead, obviously). Where Romero invented the genre as we know it, Boyle reinvented it for the 21st century. But there’s so much more than just the “fast zombies” that makes this movie great. Just watch the beginning and by the haunting scene of Cilian Murphy wandering around an abandoned London you know you’ve got a classic. And yes, 28 Days Later does count as a zombie movie.
14) Children of Men (Alfonso Cuaron, 2006)
What is it?Clive Own wanders the streets of a ragged, dying Britain. Children inexplicably stopped being born years ago, the youngest man in the world was just killed in a bar fight, xenophobia has manifested into a militaristic dictatorship and – oh shit, is that chick pregnant?
Why s it on the list?
Man, these ten years were pretty thin on great sci fi movies. The 90s finished off on a high with Dark City and The Matrix then this decade tries to carry the torch with god-awful Matrix sequels and Star Wars prequels. The much championed Minority Report and Stark Trek were too shiny and pretty to be considered classics in my mind. Great sci fi should have some grit. Luckily we got quality mind-benders (Primer), space westerns (Serenity) and of course Children of Men, a story that encapsulates despair as well as any I’ve seen. Intriguing plot and strong acting aside, it’s the incredible cinematography that elevates this film to greatness. The stunning, single-shot car heist and city under siege scenes rank among the best of this generation.
(Note: I’d probably have included Serenity on this list of not for that in my mind it’s inherently linked into the TV show Firefly.)
13) Mulholland Drive (David Lynch, 2001)
What is it?Good question.
Why is it great?
I debated about whether to include this or the longer, stranger Lynch film Inland Empire. Neither are films you can shake out of your mind but ultimately the nod goes to Mulholland Drive. It’s hard to say how the original plan for a TV show would have gone. Instead Lynch salvaged the stillborn pilot to create an enduring work of art. A lot of movies are weird for the sake of being weird while having nothing of substance underneath (take the paper-thin Donnie Darko, maybe the most overrated movie of the decade) but here Lynch delivers something worth digging into and exploring. In the end it’s really quite a simple story, but half the fun is piecing it all together. The other half is watching it - the scene of the opera singer dropping dead during Roy Orbison’s song Crying, thus revealing everything as an illusion, is a contender for greatest scene of the decade.
12) Lost in Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003)
What is it?Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson star in a surprisingly non-creepy sort of romance story about two tourists in Japan trying to figure it all out.
Why is it great?
The oughts had a bit of an obsession with movies about people ‘finding’ themselves. Lost in Translation was the best of the bunch and set the bar for the Junos, Little Miss Sunshines and Garden States that followed. People tend to gush over, say, holocaust movies because of their heavy subject regardless of whether they’re well made. Yet here is a movie about two upper-class people fighting ennui and through some truly graceful filmmaking we genuinely relate to and care for them. In this case less is more: Long stretches of no dialogue? Instead take in the excellent soundtrack by Air. Having no plot to speak of? Yeah, well neither does real life. Coppola mixes just the right blend of wistfulness and humour so that by the ending fade out you feel truly satisfied.
11) Battle Royale (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)
What is it?In a futuristic dystopian Japan, a class of grade nine students is kidnapped, taken to an island, given weapons and told they must fight to the death until only one is left alive.
Why is it on the list?
Uh, did you see the premise? Usually something that sounds that batshit awesome turns out to be a heap of disappointment. Not this time. This is one movie that knows how to follow through. I sill rank the first time I saw Battle Royale in high school as one of the most mind-blowing cinema experiences of my life.
10) Before Sunset (Richard Linklater, 2004)
What is it?Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke reunite 10 years after a one-night romantic tryst.
Why is it great?
1995’s Before Sunrise was a charming film about two young people meeting randomly for one passionate night in Europe. Making a follow-up to its excellent ending – will they or won’t they fulfill their promise to meet one year later? – seemed like a terrible idea. Instead, this sequel bests its predecessor in every way. Delpy and Hawke still have some of the best on-screen chemistry ever seen, but 10 years later life has gotten complicated and their discussions have more weight. Instead of a young fairytale romance, here are two adults trying to recreate a fairytale romance. The beauty is in watching them pull it off. Linklater’s direction couldn’t be better – for a film that is basically one long string of dialogue it’s the sparse use of silence that has the most impact.
9) Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000)
What is it?The story of a man with no short-term memory hunting his wife’s killer. Oh, and the movie runs backwards.
Why is it on the list?
I feel a pretty deep connection to this movie. At the time of its release it was my favourite film and in many ways it sparked my love of movies. It’s not the only film to do the backwards chronology thing (2002’s Irreversible, which I painfully couldn’t fit on this list, is a notable example) but it uses it brilliantly. What could have been a gimmick becomes an incredibly fresh way to tell a dark, unforgettable story that is still captivating today. This is raw movie-making gold.
8) Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 (Quentin Tarantino, 2003/2004)
What is it?Tarantino, master of the literal title, delivers a loving homage to samurai movies.
Why is it great?
First of all, it's one big story so I'm throwing the two movies together. What's striking about Kill Bill is that so much of it is made up of recycled parts. By assembling a mountain of shots and moments and molding them into one Power Rangersesque super movie, Tarantino has surpassed his source material. Only in Pulp Fiction has Tarantino brought style and substance together in such a dynamite package. Plus it rejuvanated David Carradine's career, so huge bonus points.
7) Oldboy (Chan-wook Park, 2003)
What is it?During a night of heavy drinking a man is mysteriously abducted, kept captive in a hotel-style room for 15 years without explanation and then released. He immediately goes on a quest for answers - and revenge.
Why is it great?
Thank god rumours of an American remake seem to have fizzled out. There is just no way to improve upon this breathtaking film. Like Battle Royale, Oldboy takes a wicked premise and doesn't just live up to it but exceeds it. Chan-wook Park challenges you to keep up to his winding story that ventures miles beyond what mainstream western movies would dare to touch. This is revenge cinema at its finest. It's so good that its also having one of the best fight scenes of the decade doesn't even seem fair.
6) Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)
What is it?A comedy? A horror movie? A zom-com? Who knows?
Why is it great?
Sure, it’s quick and funny enough to be on the list for yuks alone. But beyond that, Shaun is actually quite groundbreaking. How many movies, if any, have managed to so finely walk a line between two disparate genres? A hilarious toss up of zombie films while at the same time being a zombie film, Shaun of the Dead is the ultimate case of having your brains and eating them too.
5) No Country for Old Men (The Coen brothers, 2007)
What is it?The best thriller of the decade.
Why is it great?
Suck it, Stephen Spielberg. Joel and Ethan Coen show that they are the masters of cat-and-mouse thrill ride filmmaking. Everyone brings their A game to this one. You can't ask for better technical camerawork and editing. Its pacing is unconventional but works to a tee. The cast is excellent but the show is stolen by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh. With the Joker, Chigurh is one two characters that elevated villainhood to new hights. And of course the star behind the screen is Cormac McCArthy, whose faithfully adapted novel this all stems from.
4) Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007)
What is it?A genre-breaking film about the real life hunt to track down the Zodiac Killer.
Why is it on the list?
Could this be the best serial killer movie ever? I guess it’s not a fair question. While most focus on the mind of the killer (take Fincher’s own Se7en), this movie is about the people hunting him. More truly, it’s about obsession. Fincher puts on an absolute clinic of filmmaking. He juggles an incredible cast of characters (especially Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr.) and a complex, weaving plot that spans decades of dead ends and false starts, yet the movie never stops being gripping. It’s a story that shouldn’t work but Fincher inverts the focus and makes this all about that wing of human nature that refuses – or isn’t able – to let things go. People who derided this film as 'slow' need to go back and see all that's going as they're missing exquisite filmmaking.
3) The Barbarian Invasions (Denys Arcand, 2003)
What is it?A Quebecois professor is diagnosed with cancer and admitted to hospital. As the end of his life nears, his family and friends gather together to see him off.
Why is it great?
Admittedly, the premise makes this movie sound entirely depressing. It’s not. It’s filled with dark humour, off-colour jokes, womanizing and drug use. This makes the moments of poignancy and insight that much more powerful. Clever, debauched and somehow comforting, this is a personal fable about something we all try to do eventually - come to terms with death. This is also my favourite Canadian film, period.
2) The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)
What is it?The wily Royal (Gene Hackman) returns to his family of over-the-hill geniuses to try to trick them into loving him again. Paul Simon montages ensue.
Why is it great?
Don’t even get me started. There are so many classic scenes and quotes in this movie that there’s really just too much to take in in one sitting. Repeated viewings begin to peel away a script, cast and direction that fit together so well the end result is, arguably, perfect. Some people dismiss Wes Anderson by throwing him into the “quirky indy filmmaker” camp, but they’re not watching closely enough. Yes, Anderson’s filmmaking is clever, but he doesn’t sacrifice character or story to be so. And as shown by his recent excellent films The Darjeeling Limited and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, he hasn’t slowed down. But Tenenbaums is Anderson’s best film of the decade (as well as my personal favourite film of the decade) and in the end will likely go down as his masterpiece.
1) The Lord of the Rings trilogy (Peter Jackson, 2001-2003)
What is it?Star Wars with elves.
Why is it on the list?
In the end, this is inescapable. The Lord of the Rings movies were the defining cinematic accomplishment of the decade.Whether or not LOTR is your style you've got to be impressed by how it cultivated so many millions of die-hard fans. Yearly 11-hour director's cut marathons are now a commonplace tradition.
But it's not just popularity that earns LOTR the top spot. This is old-fashioned adventure filmmaking - a fun, epic, wild ride. In other words, it truly is the Star Wars trilogy for the next generation. People who thought Avatar was a 'game changer' were way off. More CGI is not the answer. It's about making your special effects enhance reality, not become reality. Jackson had groundbreaking technology too but he anchors the films in real flesh and blood so they never become CGI snooze-fests.
This trilogy could have gone so wrong in so many ways. Instead we got that rare movie magic where a beloved series of books now have equally beloved film companions. More than any other movie, the OOs will be remembered for Lord of the Rings.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Don't fear the iReaper
I was talking to my coworker Alison about the movie Avatar today and she mentioned an interesting quote from Dave Howlett of Strange Adventures, which was " Why is it so many movies that require great leaps forward in technology to be realized usually end up having an anti-technology message?"
It's a good point. The Terminator franchise, The Matrix, Star Wars, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, I, Robot and the TV show Battlestar Galactica all use state-of-the-art technology to warn as about the dangers of state-of-the-art technology. The Transformer movies kind of count, though they're also anti-human in that I wanted everyone onscreen to die.
But aside from the searing hypocrisy, the problem with these movies is they get it all backward. I'm not worried about machines forcibly harvesting my organs, traveling through time to kill my grandchildren or framing me for murder. But what I can see is people paying money to download iPhone apps that do all of those things.
See, Hollywood, robots aren't the bad guys. We want to be enslaved by machines. We've already ground our economy to a halt through incessant facebook checking, embraced 1984-style newspeak by condensing all our thoughts into 140 characters or less and sacrificed all social decorum.
Take the Globe and Mail story this year about Conservative MP Rick Dykstra. Liberals accused him of texting during a Remembrance Day ceremony when photos surfaced of him playing with his phone at the service.
Dykstra swore it was all a misunderstanding and said he was actually live blogging the ceremony, as if that wasn't much, much worse.
Must... inform... masses...
To recap: Our elected politicians are attending ceremonies honouring veterans who fought for us to have the freedom to ignore those same veterans at said ceremonies and instead type up internet posts for people craving up-to-the-second Remembrance Day updates without actually going near old people.
Dykstra and his ilk will be first against the wall when the Google Apocalypse (or Wikipocalypse, iPocalypose, WiiPocalypse, Microsoft Intel quad core apocalypse, take your pick) hits.
If Hollywood wanted to be truly scary it shouldn't bother with the clichéd stories of robots committing evil deeds like imprisoning humanity or befriending Shia Laboeuf. Just show what would actually happen. Give us a scene where the Avatar guy pauses to marvel at the incredible 3D special effects and is mauled to death by a space rhinoceros. Show the machines luring Neo back into the Matrix with promises of unlimited minsesweeper, or have him die when he pauses to send a text message before using one of those phone portal things to escape.
"My twitter followers are not going to believe this."
Your heavy-handed pleas are falling on deaf ears, movie makers. Next time just show us some hover craft battles, cast Will Smith as the lead and leave out the preaching.
As James Cameron has proven, there are things people care about far more than being lectured on their technology use. To quote my amigo Glen Matthews' review of Avatar: "3 hours of naked alien humanoids running around and not one nipple slip? Thumbs down."
It's a good point. The Terminator franchise, The Matrix, Star Wars, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, I, Robot and the TV show Battlestar Galactica all use state-of-the-art technology to warn as about the dangers of state-of-the-art technology. The Transformer movies kind of count, though they're also anti-human in that I wanted everyone onscreen to die.
But aside from the searing hypocrisy, the problem with these movies is they get it all backward. I'm not worried about machines forcibly harvesting my organs, traveling through time to kill my grandchildren or framing me for murder. But what I can see is people paying money to download iPhone apps that do all of those things.
See, Hollywood, robots aren't the bad guys. We want to be enslaved by machines. We've already ground our economy to a halt through incessant facebook checking, embraced 1984-style newspeak by condensing all our thoughts into 140 characters or less and sacrificed all social decorum.
Take the Globe and Mail story this year about Conservative MP Rick Dykstra. Liberals accused him of texting during a Remembrance Day ceremony when photos surfaced of him playing with his phone at the service.
Dykstra swore it was all a misunderstanding and said he was actually live blogging the ceremony, as if that wasn't much, much worse.
Must... inform... masses...To recap: Our elected politicians are attending ceremonies honouring veterans who fought for us to have the freedom to ignore those same veterans at said ceremonies and instead type up internet posts for people craving up-to-the-second Remembrance Day updates without actually going near old people.
Dykstra and his ilk will be first against the wall when the Google Apocalypse (or Wikipocalypse, iPocalypose, WiiPocalypse, Microsoft Intel quad core apocalypse, take your pick) hits.
If Hollywood wanted to be truly scary it shouldn't bother with the clichéd stories of robots committing evil deeds like imprisoning humanity or befriending Shia Laboeuf. Just show what would actually happen. Give us a scene where the Avatar guy pauses to marvel at the incredible 3D special effects and is mauled to death by a space rhinoceros. Show the machines luring Neo back into the Matrix with promises of unlimited minsesweeper, or have him die when he pauses to send a text message before using one of those phone portal things to escape.
"My twitter followers are not going to believe this."Your heavy-handed pleas are falling on deaf ears, movie makers. Next time just show us some hover craft battles, cast Will Smith as the lead and leave out the preaching.
As James Cameron has proven, there are things people care about far more than being lectured on their technology use. To quote my amigo Glen Matthews' review of Avatar: "3 hours of naked alien humanoids running around and not one nipple slip? Thumbs down."
Monday, November 30, 2009
Too much irony on the field penalty costs Roughriders Grey Cup
CALGARY - The Saskatchewan Roughriders blew their shot at winning the 97th Grey Cup after being penalized for a staggering, unimaginable amount of irony on the field Sunday.
"After months of going on about '13th man this' and '13th man that' they have 13 men on the field during the dying seconds of the game?" asked referee Glen Johnson.
"I'm sorry but that jaw-dropping amount of irony is a 10-yard penalty."
The flag, which linguists confirmed was a direct reversal of intention and expectation, allowed dumbfounded Montreal Alouettes to win the game and bewilderingly accept the Cup.
"This a little weird," said Montreal's David Duval, who after the penalty connected on his second try for a game-winning field goal.
"I played terribly the whole game. At one point I punted for seven yards. Seven yards! And yet due to the other team screwing up I'm somehow the big hero.
"Huh. I guess that is pretty ironic."
The bizarre finish was a delight to fans, as the televised broadcast received the highest ratings for any Grey Cup game.
"I tuned in after smoking a couple joints and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why the Steelers and Ravens were wearing such funny colours. Or why they kept not going for it on third down, that just seemed overly cautious to me" said Brent Smuckley of Oromocto, New Brunswick.
"It wasn't until after that crazy finish that I realized I'd inadvertantly watched a CFL game. Who knew such a thing could be entertaining?"
CFL analysts agree this is the most ironic Grey Cup finish since the Hamilton Tiger Cats lost to Saskatchewan in 1980 after a live tiger cat ran onto the field and killed Hamilton quarterback Mike Kerrigan.
"After months of going on about '13th man this' and '13th man that' they have 13 men on the field during the dying seconds of the game?" asked referee Glen Johnson.
"I'm sorry but that jaw-dropping amount of irony is a 10-yard penalty."
The flag, which linguists confirmed was a direct reversal of intention and expectation, allowed dumbfounded Montreal Alouettes to win the game and bewilderingly accept the Cup.
"This a little weird," said Montreal's David Duval, who after the penalty connected on his second try for a game-winning field goal.
"I played terribly the whole game. At one point I punted for seven yards. Seven yards! And yet due to the other team screwing up I'm somehow the big hero.
"Huh. I guess that is pretty ironic."
The bizarre finish was a delight to fans, as the televised broadcast received the highest ratings for any Grey Cup game.
"I tuned in after smoking a couple joints and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why the Steelers and Ravens were wearing such funny colours. Or why they kept not going for it on third down, that just seemed overly cautious to me" said Brent Smuckley of Oromocto, New Brunswick.
"It wasn't until after that crazy finish that I realized I'd inadvertantly watched a CFL game. Who knew such a thing could be entertaining?"
CFL analysts agree this is the most ironic Grey Cup finish since the Hamilton Tiger Cats lost to Saskatchewan in 1980 after a live tiger cat ran onto the field and killed Hamilton quarterback Mike Kerrigan.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Guardian Angels did not make a difference
Amongst headlines I never thought I'd read, "Guardian Angels made a difference" ranks somewhere between "Black man becomes president" and "Screech sex tape leaked."
Finding new column topics every second day would be tough so maybe I should cut Chronicle Herald columnit Marilla "the thrilla" Stephenson some slack. Then again, at a press conference last week she unsuccessfully tried to cut off The Coast's Bruce Wark by jumping in during the two-second pause between Wark asking a question and Premier Darrell Dexter answering him.
That's a pretty huge breach of interview decorum, so for her rudeness I figured it's worth mocking her ridiculous November 24 column. Italics are mine.
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS came to Halifax in an effort to help make our streets safer. But they’re dying a slow death from, among other things, a lack of bureaucratic backing and limited public interest.
Finding new column topics every second day would be tough so maybe I should cut Chronicle Herald columnit Marilla "the thrilla" Stephenson some slack. Then again, at a press conference last week she unsuccessfully tried to cut off The Coast's Bruce Wark by jumping in during the two-second pause between Wark asking a question and Premier Darrell Dexter answering him.
That's a pretty huge breach of interview decorum, so for her rudeness I figured it's worth mocking her ridiculous November 24 column. Italics are mine.
Guardian Angels made a difference
by Marilla Stephenson
by Marilla Stephenson
THE GUARDIAN ANGELS came to Halifax in an effort to help make our streets safer. But they’re dying a slow death from, among other things, a lack of bureaucratic backing and limited public interest.
Do we really need a citizens-on-patrol organization?
There is no question that at the time when the Guardian Angels decided to come to town, Haligonians were demanding better from city leaders and the police in terms of public safety. We can give the Angels credit for stepping in to try to fill the gap.
We know things were bad because that was the summer the Herald ran a huge front page headline decrying Halifax as Canada's most dangerous city. Of course it turns out that didn't come from crime stats but rather a years-old 'victimization study' that polled people on whether they've felt victimized. Of course, newer versions of the exact same poll no longer ranked Halifax first, but that was never mentioned. After the mayor and police complained to the Herald for, uh, lying, they printed a small "clarification" citing the old study and never mentioning it was out of date.
The New York City-based organization, run by founder Curtis Sliwa, operates in many cities around North America and beyond. But Sliwa found an unusual situation upon his arrival in Halifax in 2008.
"In most countries, there’s a positive working relationship with the police," he told The Chronicle Herald at a graduating ceremony for new recruits 18 months ago. "Halifax is the exception."
This was proven untrue in numerous articles. While the Angels work with police in some areas, Halifax is by no means an exception. The slightest bit of fact checking would have cleared this up, Marilla. If you're not careful you'll get promoted to headline writer.
There were only eight recruits who graduated that day. One year later, instead of expanding, the group was down to four regular members.
Last week, Sliwa told The Chronicle Herald that there were just three members remaining.
That’s the bare minimum to mount a single patrol, which now happens once a week at the most. They focus on the Halifax Commons and the Uniacke Square area.
To reiterate - there are only three people willing to dress themselves up in bright red and walk unarmed through the Commons and Uniacke Square at night and this is... a bad thing?
"Obviously, at some point, we’ve got to increase our numbers," said Sliwa.
He reiterated that a lack of backing from the police has made it difficult to recruit new members.
So police aren't encouraging people to dress in red and walk unarmed through the Commons and Uniacke Square at night and this is... a bad thing?
About 20 people turned out for the first meeting two years ago, with a dozen later signing on to join the group. But they had to undertake training at their own cost and on their own time and then be available for rotating patrols.
Why has the citizens-on-patrol movement found so little support in this city? Is it a lack of things to do, lack of commitment or safety concerns? Whatever the reason, there is no question that the initial sizzle associated with the Guardian Angels has petered out.
Well not doing something because you don't have much to do doesn't make sense so we can rule that one out. Lack of commitment is what you're discussing so it can't be its own cause. That just leaves safety concerns. Hooray for problem solving!
Linda Mosher, a Halifax regional councillor, was a primary backer of Sliwa’s group when they first sought support to set up shop in Halifax.
"I really believe that our policing is better now. I mean, we’ve got more bodies on the force and more (police officers) on the street, and those type of swarming issues and things are not as prominent."
Whether it was the high-profile crimes of two years ago or the push to get more officers onto the streets, there is no question that public safety, particularly in certain communities, was high on the minds of residents when the Guardian Angels came to town.
Yeah, Marilla likes to state the obvious and reiterate old news. Feel free to skim.
During the peak of the outcry, the media was blamed for sensationalizing recent cases, while police officials insisted crime rates hadn’t changed much.
Then the report of the mayor’s task force on crime arrived in May 2008.
Dalhousie University professor Don Clairmont told city councillors, in no uncertain terms, that the problem "isn’t a figment of people’s imaginations."
See? We weren't being sensationalist, guys. In hindsight that headline in big, red ink about us being the most dangerous city in Canada showed remarkable restraint.
He called on the city to play a more prominent role in matters of public safety and security, and chastised council for not doing more to stem the impact of crime on the city.
"In my mind, there is no doubt that there is clearly a problem of violence and public safety in HRM," Clairmont said when he presented his report. "The evidence is overwhelming."
He also dismissed the role that the Guardian Angels might play, saying they would provide, at best, "an ineffective solution."
And perhaps he was right. While the Guardian Angels can supplement policing efforts, especially if they work in co-operation with the police, they cannot replace the police.
In other news, wearing a white coat does not qualify you to perform heart surgery and putting a band-aid on your face doesn't give you the power to rap.
But let’s give credit where credit is due: The arrival of the local Guardian Angels chapter helped bring additional attention to public-safety issues and put additional pressure on Halifax Regional Police. Thanks, in part, to additional federal and provincial funding, there are new officers on the force and a returned focus to street patrols.
But, but, you just spent half your column explaining how everyone was freaking out about public safety. The Angels should get credit for shining attention on something everyone was already paying attention to? That's like commending someone for highlighting 9/11.
An effort to get cheap liquor off the menu at downtown bars may also be helping to restore order.
Yes, but at what cost? God I miss being able to get drunk for six bucks.
So, for now, the disturbing crime headlines are off the front pages.
Psst. Marilla... there's been a huge spike in shootings over the last year. Admittedly, a good chunk of those happened in Preston and other places where black people live. Hardly front page worthy. Call me when someone gets stabbed downtown.
But, at some point, there is likely to be another flurry of high-profile cases that leave residents questioning the safety of our streets and wondering whether more might be done.
Don’t expect help to arrive from the Guardian Angels. Next time, we’ll be on our own.
Wait, are we talking about the Guardian Angels or Batman? Because the ending here is clearly referencing Batman.
The worst thing about this column is it's based on utter fiction. Patrols once a week? Bullshit. I have never heard of a single person seeing an Angels patrol. For all we know there may have only been one patrol - the first one when Sliwa came to Halifax.
I was there for that walk, as was every other media outlet in the city except for the Chronicle Herald. The Herald chose to interview Sliwa afterwards and printed an untrue story about the Angels going to Uniacke Square (never happened, they stuck to downtown).
I'd bet there hasn't been a single Angels patrol since 2007. I'd bet they never once stepped foot in Uniacke Square. Somehow I think we'll survive without them because they were never actually here. You owe your readers an apology, Marilla. But most importantly, you owe Bruce Wark an apology.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Duffy just won't die
I just got back to Halifax after a two-week vacation in the American midwest only to discover an old nemesis of mine has arisen, zombie-like, back to the public sphere.
Mayor Peter Kelly, in his finite wisdom, had hired former Chronicle Herald columnist Peter Duffy as his speechwriter and community liaison.
Most people were up in arms that the mayor had hired a guy most famous for publicly claiming to be anally raped by a ghost. This must be what first-century Romans felt like as they watched Caligula appoint his horse to the senate. Though to be fair, the horse never claimed to be anally raped by a ghost.
But to be honest, the whole ghost rape thing doesn't bother me that much. While it's goofy and embarrassing, it's unlikely to affect his job performance (spectral sodomy falls under provincial jurisdiction.)
Pictured: Caspar the convicted sexual predator.
Instead why I'm angry is that one of the most out of touch mayors imaginable somehow hired someone even more out of touch to connect to the community. Halifax is a pretty liberal city and Duffy is a guy who dismissed gender reassignment as kids disgustingly mutilating themselves and doesn't like the idea of gay marriage (to be fair he doesn't oppose legalizing gay marriage, instead taking a do-unto-others approach. So at least Kelly is hiring progressive homophobes.)
The bottom line is that in a city swarming with interesting people and unemployed journalists who could use the reported $42,000-$70,000 salary, Kelly hired a guy who made a career of sitting in his cubicle watching Coronation Street and whining about gas prices.
Just to remind people how excrutiatingly bad Peter Duffy was as a folksy columnist I thought I'd reprint a critique I wrote last year of one of his columns. I'd normally say enjoy but in this case I think the proper word is endure:
Why I Hate Peter Duffy, or, How to be the Worst Writer Ever
December, 2007
Every few months I get overcome with masochistic urges and read a column by the Chronicle Herald's Peter Duffy. Today was one of those days.
In Canada it's illegal to rape or murder people, yet we allow Duffy to viciously torture the english language week after week. Every Duffy column is a clinic on what not to do in writing. I've decided to prove it. I present to you, exhibit A. (Bold writing his, italics mine.)
Bad news is all connected somehow
by Peter Duffy
The crisis besetting the world has taken on a life of its own.
The turmoil gets worse, hitting closer and closer to home with new shocks almost daily.
Witness the week’s events in Ottawa.
It’s the butterfly effect become real.
In that legend, the mere flap of a butterfly’s wings causes a chain reaction of conditions that ultimately spawn a tornado.
A butterfly’s wings!
Holy shit! A butterfly's wings? Really? That's so crazy. It's almost like it's a hypothetical example chosen specifically for its insignificance. I'm blown away!
But think about it; isn’t it how this all started?
Somewhere in Anytown, U.S.A., awash in a sea of easy credit, members of a low-income family allowed themselves to be talked into a mortgage on a home everyone, including them, knew they couldn’t afford at a rate impossible to sustain.
Yeah... sort of. Except the butterfly effect and chaos theory demonstrate how seemingly minor events can have unforseen reactions in complex systems. Billions of dollars of unrepayable debt is actually a pretty obvious link to trouble. You might as well call it the Tornado Machine Effect. Also, dude, that sentence doesn't even make any grammatical sense. The rate of one family buying a mortgage was impossible to sustain?
And sure enough. When the chickens came home to roost for them and millions of others, such economic and social chaos was loosed on the world that not even the sturdiest institution was safe, including governments.
Actually, Peter, there are many institutions that are safe, or recession-proof. And what do you mean by "even governments?" Obviously they're going to be involved in a recession. That's like saying, "I shot Bill in the face and afterwards no one's life was the same, not even Bill's."
It’s no stretch to say this week’s parliamentary meltdown in Ottawa is part of that butterfly’s legacy.
We’ve endured a week of constitutional upheaval, the likes of which we haven’t seen since Quebec almost left, back in 1995.
Now we find ourselves in legislative limbo with a government in hiding, thanks to the prime minister’s ill-conceived attempt to choke off public funding to political parties under the guise of economic restraint.
How come the only time you make sense is when you're parroting well-known opinions that have been uttered thousands of times in the last week? What's the point in telling us what we already know?
As if we needed more fear and stress in our lives at this point.
And somewhere over the horizon, those little wings continue to flutter.
God I hate you.
Eventually, normalcy will return.
Oh, sweet. Hey do me a favour and try to talk down to us a bit more.
But it’s likely to be a new normal, not least in Canadian politics.
Perfect, thanks.
Just consider the amazing developments we’ve witnessed this week.
The Liberals and the NDP announced not only could they govern jointly, but they’d be happy to do so for the foreseeable future.
And if that wasn’t surprising enough, here comes the Bloc, offering to prop them up.
Who would’ve supposed a party bent on destroying the country would step forward to ensure it stays together?
Yes, how shocking. Who would've thought a perennial opposition party would want to have the power to single-handedly uphold the government? Who wants that kind of influence anyway? Especially a party which, as described by you, has all the character depth of a Die Hard villain.
It’s opportunistic partisan politics, of course, but the mere fact the Liberals and NDP are willing to work together suggests their ideologies are not as far apart as one might suppose.
In fact, given ongoing voter disenchantment with both those parties, the idea of a permanent merger is not unrealistic.
I suspect it will come, encouraged by the blurring of centre-left lines and driven by economic realities.
Woah there, Mr. Cynical Pants. So you're basically predicting our entire political system turns into an American style Party A vs. Party B system (based on "economic realities," of course. As opposed to economic fictions like the crash in leprachaun stocks). Very controversial view. I look forward to hearing your reasoned arguments for this debatable position. Oh, we're done here? Just going to throw that out there and leave it at that? Ok, moving on.
And then there’s the Stephen Harper Party, formerly known as the Conservatives.
Zing!
After two minority governments, outcomes which speak volumes for the public’s reservations about this man, his days as leader must surely be numbered, especially now he’s been forced to run for the hills.
Actually it's very likely Harper will stay on because... You know what? Fuck it. Why bother? It's clear you subscribe to the russian roulette school of punditry. Just throw out something with no real insight and hope it sounds like you know what you're talking about. You are the Carrot Top of journalism.
Which leaves — the rest of us.
We, too, have a lot of rethinking to do in the wake of this parliamentary crisis.
Yearning for stability, we may decide a return to majority governments is the way to go.
Truly, it’s a good thing that butterfly doesn’t know its own strength.
Wait, what? The whole point of the column is that the world is going to hell but at least the goddamn butterfly doesn't feel guilty about it? Wouldn't it be a good thing if the butterfly knew it's strength so it could settle down and stop fucking up our shit?
That doesn't even make sense metaphorically. The people who bought subprime mortgages presumably get CNN or have some some access to reality. They know about the recession. I defy you to find any way that sentence makes a lick of sense.
Duffy's column also ends with an unrelated note that claims it's "ironic" that markets go up and down, thus demonstrating a Morisette-ian understanding of the English language.
Empty comments you don't even try to back up? Check.
Rhetorical flourish without any regard for factual accuracy? Check.
Basing your entire column on a metaphor you don't even understand? Check.
Simply stunning. Bravo, Peter Duffy. If words had feelings, your columns would be the Saw franchise.
Mayor Peter Kelly, in his finite wisdom, had hired former Chronicle Herald columnist Peter Duffy as his speechwriter and community liaison.
Most people were up in arms that the mayor had hired a guy most famous for publicly claiming to be anally raped by a ghost. This must be what first-century Romans felt like as they watched Caligula appoint his horse to the senate. Though to be fair, the horse never claimed to be anally raped by a ghost.
But to be honest, the whole ghost rape thing doesn't bother me that much. While it's goofy and embarrassing, it's unlikely to affect his job performance (spectral sodomy falls under provincial jurisdiction.)
Pictured: Caspar the convicted sexual predator.Instead why I'm angry is that one of the most out of touch mayors imaginable somehow hired someone even more out of touch to connect to the community. Halifax is a pretty liberal city and Duffy is a guy who dismissed gender reassignment as kids disgustingly mutilating themselves and doesn't like the idea of gay marriage (to be fair he doesn't oppose legalizing gay marriage, instead taking a do-unto-others approach. So at least Kelly is hiring progressive homophobes.)
The bottom line is that in a city swarming with interesting people and unemployed journalists who could use the reported $42,000-$70,000 salary, Kelly hired a guy who made a career of sitting in his cubicle watching Coronation Street and whining about gas prices.
Just to remind people how excrutiatingly bad Peter Duffy was as a folksy columnist I thought I'd reprint a critique I wrote last year of one of his columns. I'd normally say enjoy but in this case I think the proper word is endure:
Why I Hate Peter Duffy, or, How to be the Worst Writer Ever
December, 2007
Every few months I get overcome with masochistic urges and read a column by the Chronicle Herald's Peter Duffy. Today was one of those days.
In Canada it's illegal to rape or murder people, yet we allow Duffy to viciously torture the english language week after week. Every Duffy column is a clinic on what not to do in writing. I've decided to prove it. I present to you, exhibit A. (Bold writing his, italics mine.)
Bad news is all connected somehow
by Peter Duffy
The crisis besetting the world has taken on a life of its own.
The turmoil gets worse, hitting closer and closer to home with new shocks almost daily.
Witness the week’s events in Ottawa.
It’s the butterfly effect become real.
In that legend, the mere flap of a butterfly’s wings causes a chain reaction of conditions that ultimately spawn a tornado.
A butterfly’s wings!
Holy shit! A butterfly's wings? Really? That's so crazy. It's almost like it's a hypothetical example chosen specifically for its insignificance. I'm blown away!
But think about it; isn’t it how this all started?
Somewhere in Anytown, U.S.A., awash in a sea of easy credit, members of a low-income family allowed themselves to be talked into a mortgage on a home everyone, including them, knew they couldn’t afford at a rate impossible to sustain.
Yeah... sort of. Except the butterfly effect and chaos theory demonstrate how seemingly minor events can have unforseen reactions in complex systems. Billions of dollars of unrepayable debt is actually a pretty obvious link to trouble. You might as well call it the Tornado Machine Effect. Also, dude, that sentence doesn't even make any grammatical sense. The rate of one family buying a mortgage was impossible to sustain?
And sure enough. When the chickens came home to roost for them and millions of others, such economic and social chaos was loosed on the world that not even the sturdiest institution was safe, including governments.
Actually, Peter, there are many institutions that are safe, or recession-proof. And what do you mean by "even governments?" Obviously they're going to be involved in a recession. That's like saying, "I shot Bill in the face and afterwards no one's life was the same, not even Bill's."
It’s no stretch to say this week’s parliamentary meltdown in Ottawa is part of that butterfly’s legacy.
We’ve endured a week of constitutional upheaval, the likes of which we haven’t seen since Quebec almost left, back in 1995.
Now we find ourselves in legislative limbo with a government in hiding, thanks to the prime minister’s ill-conceived attempt to choke off public funding to political parties under the guise of economic restraint.
How come the only time you make sense is when you're parroting well-known opinions that have been uttered thousands of times in the last week? What's the point in telling us what we already know?
As if we needed more fear and stress in our lives at this point.
And somewhere over the horizon, those little wings continue to flutter.
God I hate you.
Eventually, normalcy will return.
Oh, sweet. Hey do me a favour and try to talk down to us a bit more.
But it’s likely to be a new normal, not least in Canadian politics.
Perfect, thanks.
Just consider the amazing developments we’ve witnessed this week.
The Liberals and the NDP announced not only could they govern jointly, but they’d be happy to do so for the foreseeable future.
And if that wasn’t surprising enough, here comes the Bloc, offering to prop them up.
Who would’ve supposed a party bent on destroying the country would step forward to ensure it stays together?
Yes, how shocking. Who would've thought a perennial opposition party would want to have the power to single-handedly uphold the government? Who wants that kind of influence anyway? Especially a party which, as described by you, has all the character depth of a Die Hard villain.
It’s opportunistic partisan politics, of course, but the mere fact the Liberals and NDP are willing to work together suggests their ideologies are not as far apart as one might suppose.
In fact, given ongoing voter disenchantment with both those parties, the idea of a permanent merger is not unrealistic.
I suspect it will come, encouraged by the blurring of centre-left lines and driven by economic realities.
Woah there, Mr. Cynical Pants. So you're basically predicting our entire political system turns into an American style Party A vs. Party B system (based on "economic realities," of course. As opposed to economic fictions like the crash in leprachaun stocks). Very controversial view. I look forward to hearing your reasoned arguments for this debatable position. Oh, we're done here? Just going to throw that out there and leave it at that? Ok, moving on.
And then there’s the Stephen Harper Party, formerly known as the Conservatives.
Zing!
After two minority governments, outcomes which speak volumes for the public’s reservations about this man, his days as leader must surely be numbered, especially now he’s been forced to run for the hills.
Actually it's very likely Harper will stay on because... You know what? Fuck it. Why bother? It's clear you subscribe to the russian roulette school of punditry. Just throw out something with no real insight and hope it sounds like you know what you're talking about. You are the Carrot Top of journalism.
Which leaves — the rest of us.
We, too, have a lot of rethinking to do in the wake of this parliamentary crisis.
Yearning for stability, we may decide a return to majority governments is the way to go.
Truly, it’s a good thing that butterfly doesn’t know its own strength.
Wait, what? The whole point of the column is that the world is going to hell but at least the goddamn butterfly doesn't feel guilty about it? Wouldn't it be a good thing if the butterfly knew it's strength so it could settle down and stop fucking up our shit?
That doesn't even make sense metaphorically. The people who bought subprime mortgages presumably get CNN or have some some access to reality. They know about the recession. I defy you to find any way that sentence makes a lick of sense.
Duffy's column also ends with an unrelated note that claims it's "ironic" that markets go up and down, thus demonstrating a Morisette-ian understanding of the English language.
Empty comments you don't even try to back up? Check.
Rhetorical flourish without any regard for factual accuracy? Check.
Basing your entire column on a metaphor you don't even understand? Check.
Simply stunning. Bravo, Peter Duffy. If words had feelings, your columns would be the Saw franchise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)