The Great Gatsby 2013: A Very Pretty Fart.

As soon as I found out that Baz Luhrmann was making an adaptation of The Great Gatsby, I was horrified. I doubted immensely that he could handle the subtlety of Fitzgerald’s storytelling or even begin to glean any of the meaning in the material. But I held out a glimmer of hope that it wouldn’t be a total hate-fuck. I could see a way that he might possibly have been able to do it right, and I resolved to give him a chance.

Five minutes in, I was annoyed. Ten minutes in, I took out my cell phone to check if there was a showing of Star Trek: Into Darkness about to start in one of the theaters down the hallway. Left up to me, I would have walked, but my husband talked me down, saying, “We’ve paid for this abortion, we might as well go through with it.” Sometimes hate is a road that must be traveled to the end.

After a stunning opening credits sequence, the film opens with a “crane” shot (most of the exterior shots are CGI) zooming down to the vast green lawns and gates of a sanitarium. It turns out that Nick Carraway has been committed for treatment of alcoholism, among other things, and the narration unfolds as he relates the story of his time with Gatsby to his analyst, who eventually convinces him to write it all out. Right out of the gate, I hate this need to couch the narration in a “real” setting. I think it would have worked just fine to have the voice of “Older Nick” telling the story to the audience without any explanation or background. Or, if that was unacceptable for some reason, it would be very easy to tell this story without using Nick Carraway’s narration at all. In many places, doing so would have made the film more powerful by forcing Luhrmann to allow things to happen off camera. Instead, he leans on the same storytelling cliché he used in Moulin Rouge: the writer recalls the events of the film as he dedicates them to paper. It’s lazy and trite and it represents a lame attempt on the director’s part to pay homage to the fact that the source material for the film is one of the greatest books ever written without actually paying homage to the book.

In fact, every time F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words are repeated and the text splashes across the screen, the film looks worse by comparison. Each quote bears a reminder of just how much Baz Luhrmann does not understand The Great Gatsby.

The characters have no depth; no subtlety. They are macquettes in a stilted melodrama that very deftly apes its source material in plot and scenery but utterly loses the message in a flurry of glitter and Möet and booty dancers. DiCaprio acts well, in spite of the horrible direction, as does Joel Edgerton. But Toby Maguire feels like the star of a small-town community theater, all folksy and stilted. And if Carey Mulligan and Elizabeth Debicki do a fine job conveying the alternately sad and frantic vacuity Fitzgerald goes to so much trouble illustrating in the book, well, it’s lost among an ocean of meaningless and empty characterizations.

The sets are gorgeous, and with the exception of some very obvious anachronism, so are the props and costumes. The 3D is utilized very deftly to show off the eye candy, and there is a lot of eye candy. But the music is awful. As the first party sequence unfolded, I thought I was watching a hip-hop video on MTV. And then there was that strangeness with the people partying in the car on the highway where, again, the film inexplicably becomes a rap video; thick, scantily clad dancers and all. (This made more sense as the end credits rolled and I saw that Jay-z produced it.) Just, why? Really? I’m out of touch with mainstream culture – I’ll readily cop to that, but I’m not some kind of puritanical, high-brow white bread asshole who hates fun. But there is no reason to turn The Great Gatsby into an overblown, sexed-up, postmodern gangsta flick with giant ribbon confetti and disco balls.

Well, no reason that doesn’t involve a completely crass, money-grubbing, marketing-over-content attitude. I have this image in my mind of Jay-z and Baz, sitting at opposite ends of a long table in a trendy yet minimalist office in the upper floors of a skyscraper somewhere, drinking fancy bottled water and rubbing their hands together villainously as they strategize on just how they are going to turn a great American novel into a cash cow. (There is another, obscener image that kept flashing through my mind as I watched this horror show: Baz Luhrmann with literal hams for hands, frantically fucking a copy of the book through a hole in one of those iconic disembodied eyes on the cover.)

Why not play it straight? Why not use period music? The scene with the organ was kind of cool. It would not have been hard to convey the same kind of party atmosphere without resorting to rough, modern clichés as shorthand. But then again, where would Baz Luhrmann be without shorthand? He takes all the emotional subtlety out of the text and turns it into overemphasized physical display – especially in the way the characters express emotion. All the repression and sublimation is gone, clumsily transposed into oversimplified theater-mask play-acting. It makes most of the human interactions in the film completely unbelievable.

Perhaps Luhrmann’s worst crime is in his attempt to reframe The Great Gatsby as a tragic love story. Yes, the plot of the book contains several overlapping romantic entanglements, but it is most decidedly not a love story. It is a story about deeply broken people doing terrible things to each other, out of carelessness and out of obsessive and naïve attempts to recreate the past with no regard for the agency of the other people whom they would have fill roles in those recreations. Even though the film closes with two quotes from the book that illustrate just that, it fails to show any of it.

They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made…

And

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter – tomorrow, we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…and one fine morning –
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Daisy and Gatsby aren’t in love with each other. They love the idea of each other. Daisy craves escape from her shallow existence as the trophy wife of a wealthy boor, and Gatsby represents mystery and romance. Gatsby, still running from the poverty of his youth, wants a beautiful companion to reflect his beautiful conception of himself as “a son of God”, and Daisy, with her “voice full of money”, has become to him the human embodiment of wealth. Neither sees the other as a fully realized human being. Each views the other as an object in their own Life Plan, and when the details of those plans unfold and conflict, it all falls apart.

Just as this doomed entanglement is painted as glorified romance, everything in the film is painted with a glamorous gloss. In the book, the party in Tom and Myrtle’s New York City apartment is a nightmarish commentary on working-class pretenders to riches that ends in a bloody mess after Tom purposefully breaks Myrtle’s nose. (I just reread it again, and it is easily as horrifying (and entertaining) as Hunter S. Thompson’s account in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas of the seeming transformation of bar patrons into grotesque lizard people. I really think it comes from the same place.) In the film, it becomes a casual gathering of slightly bohemian revelers who drink and take drugs and engage in various debaucheries until Tom slaps Myrtle in the face. Most of the dialogue is removed or recontextualized in such a way that takes all the bite out of it.

Even the climactic scene where Myrtle gets run over gets sanitized. The whole point of that scene is to show the brutal reality of consequence. It’s the dark side of the opulence and carelessness, thrown in the reader’s face like a suckerpunch. And Baz turns it into a pretty tragedy.

…its driver hurried back to where Myrtle Wilson, her life violently extinguished, knelt in the road and mingled her thick dark blood with the dust.

Michaelis and this man reached her first, but when they had torn open her shirtwaist, still damp with perspiration, they saw that her left breast was swinging loose like a flap, and there was no need to listen for her heart beneath. The mouth was wide open and ripped at the corners, as though she had choked a little in giving up the tremendous vitality she had stored so long.

It’s ugly. It’s not a beautiful body flying gracefully through the air and going to death in slow motion with all its romantic baggage intact. It’s real, and it’s brutal. The woman is unsexed. She is reduced to a pile of blood and meat. I knew going into the film that Luhrmann’s handling of this scene would be the crux of the film for me. I can’t say I was surprised, but I was still disappointed.

The turd on top of this shit cake was the closing shot of Carraway’s typed manuscript, titled, simply, GATSBY – and then a pen-wielding hand enters the frame and scrawls “THE GREAT” above it. As the MST3K guys would say, “WE HAVE A TITLE!”

Baz Luhrmann, please do the world a favor: buy a deli slicer and put those hands to good use. I bet you could make enough ham sandwiches to feed a lot of starving children.

Sustainable Sex?

I have a number of friends and family members with very different beliefs and lifestyles from mine. Although this causes me a fair amount of anxiety regarding my interactions with them and finding the proper balance between presenting challenges and maintaining loving discourse, I generally view it as a privilege to have the opportunity to be exposed to different points of view. It is vitally important to me to continually examine my views, and the regular challenges they present, even when I’m not exactly in the mood, keep me on my toes.

Today, a piece from The Hipster Conservative came across my feed. In it, Marc Barnes makes an argument for what he calls “Sustainable Sex”. He makes some interesting points about modern, western, sexual culture. Surprisingly, I don’t entirely disagree with the problems he highlights. His comments regarding the role of pornography in creating an environment in which many men would rather jerk off than engage with a real partner are mostly in line with my own.

Pornography and subsequent masturbation have set an impossibly high standard for women. Men have seen hundreds of fake-breasted, airbrushed, aroused-to-the-point-of-myocardial-infarction pixels, all contorted into positions that would make an Olympic gymnast proud — before they have lain with an actual, warm-blooded woman. As Naomi Wolf noted in her article “The Porn Myth”:

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?

For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn.

I agree that the ubiquity of porn is causing problems in our sexual culture. Every time I walk past the recently installed Hustler store in my neighborhood, I look at the increasingly ridiculous sex theater costumes in the display windows and shake my head. None of it looks remotely sexy to me. Are people really so bored with their partners that they have to put all this strange decoration on them in order to make sex exciting again? When did we stop looking at each other and actually seeing the person standing there? When did we start seeing each other as tokens in our own personal playgrounds, whose continued presence in our lives depends on their utility in furthering our attempts at fantasy fulfillment? Continue reading

Voter Fraud Fraud

If you live in a state with a “Voter I.D.” measure coming up on the ballot, please vote no, and please tell your representatives you’d like them to stop wasting their time on this garbage. It’s bad legislation to “fix” a nonexistent problem.

I am a pragmatic independent. I’m tired of all this hype and fear-mongering. All it does is distract us from the real issues and give each side more excuses to dehumanize and hate those they disagree with. There is real information out there about this issue that anyone can take the time to look at.

Here is a searchable database of every accused case of election fraud in this country going back to 2000. It’s really neat – you can click on various narrowing criteria on the left-hand side and see how many cases come up.

It turns out that there have been about 10 convicted cases of in-person voter fraud that would have been prevented by these laws.

10 cases.

Since 2000.

That’s less than one case per year, for the entire country.

Is it really worth it for us to be paying our legislators to argue about this kind of irrelevant bullshit when we are looking down the barrel of another great depression? Don’t they have better things to do?

Oh, I forgot. All they care about is keeping their cushy jobs and climbing the ladder to K-Street heaven.

Maybe you don’t think it’s a big deal to have to show I.D. to vote, but let me ask you this: Do you believe a person should have to pay to vote? Because government identification is not free, at least not in Minnesota, where I live. So to require an I.D. is tantamount to a poll tax. There are a lot of people who simply cannot afford to put down $35 to buy an I.D., not to mention the fact that you have to take time to go to the DMV, which is open during normal business hours when lots of people are working.

Look, if there really was a big problem with in-person voter fraud, then I’d be open to looking at a voter I.D. law, but the facts just don’t bear it out. It’s not a real issue. It looks to me like a red herring designed to conveniently prevent certain segments of the population from voting.

Here’s a nifty infographic to put it all together.

Again, I am an independent, interested in seeing that everyone gets their say – even those I disagree with. These disingenuous “voter fraud” campaigns are bad policy and should be exposed for the bullshit, politically-motivated distractions they are. Don’t believe the hype.

The Obsolescence of the American Lawn

Lawns are stupid.

Well, let me step back and qualify that just a bit: Ornamental lawns that exist merely to serve as a framing device for houses and picket fences, that nobody ever walks on except to maintain, are stupid.

Think about it. How much time and energy do people spend manicuring their lawns? How much perfectly good water runs out of private irrigation systems and into the sewer grating? How many tons of unnecessary pesticides do the neighborhood lawn junkies of the world (okay, mostly of suburban America, if we’re gonna be honest with ourselves) spread on their yards – and eventually all over everything? How many men have been rushed to suburban hospitals in suburban ambulances because their suburban neighbors’ devil-may-care attitudes toward lawn maintenance have resulted in a dandelion-fuzz-induced suburban brain aneurism?

Lest you think these questions are a mere rhetorical device, here are the answers, respectively:150 hours per year, 7 billion gallons per day, 80 million pounds per year, and that last one, while a bit of a silly caricature, isn’t totally off-base: lots of people get hurt every year taking care of their lawns.

Why do so many of us do this?

Well, lawns have become important cultural markers. They started out as grazing meadows back in England, then morphed into safe play areas for children, and eventually they became a symbol of patriotism and The American Dream. Today, they seem to be mostly the subject of mindless worship and macho pissing contests.

You know, like this classic sketch from the 2007 movie The Ten. (I know, I know, it’s not about lawns. But it’s totally the same phenomenon. Only dragged hilariously past the point of absurdity.)

Continue reading

Headline of the Century: Secular Men Lament Dearth of Secular Women, Stupidity Ensues

Tonight, a blog post from the New Humanist came across my Facebook feed, via Secular Women, attempting to address the dearth of female participation in the secular movement. In the embedded video from an organization called the Secular Center, host Jacques Berlinerblau (That’s his name. Seriously. He has 23 subscribers. And apparently a soon-to-be-released book.) speculates that it must have something to do with the popular confusion of (friendly) secularism and (scary) atheism, which for whatever reason, women don’t seem to be all that into. He then talks about a strategy to highlight the overlapping goals between secular groups and women’s rights groups, in three points:

1. Reproductive Rights
2. Contraception
3. Let Women Lead

Fine. Great. I don’t wanna get too picky on the details, Mister Donut Blah, but really, those first two are really one issue. A big, important issue, no doubt, and I don’t at all disagree with your intention here. You want to get the word out that secularism is on our side. That’s awesome. I get it. But your list is clumsy. (And I’m feeling a bit feisty.) And number 3 is a little dicey. But more on that later.

The video ends with an ostensible invitation to converse on the subject in the comments section, which the blog post in question, written by someone called Paul Sims, purports to do.

As is the case with our pastry-loving friend, it’s obvious that this guy means well, but he’s at best tone-deaf on the issue.

I understand that there is a problem with the general public conflating secularism with atheism. This is not a strictly female problem. It seems to be a popular talking point for the secular movement right now. While I think attacking this phenomenon is certainly a valid use of time and energy, using it as a lens through which to view all related issues could obscure other important facets and approaches.

[Possibly relevant side note: I googled “Secular Center” and found this page. I’m not sure if it’s affiliated with the above mentioned YouTube channel, but if it is, these guys are stupider than advertised. With all the hubbub about secularism not equaling atheism, you know what their motto is?

Go ahead. Seriously. Go have a look. I’ll wait.

Continue reading

Bloggin’ Again…

Hello Blogosphere. How have you been?

I’ve been away for awhile. I’ve missed you.

I won’t bore you with any long explanation of my absence, or the gory details of the last few months’ work building this site (Okay, confession: I bought this damned domain last October. Ahem.) and how I’ve been staring at my empty homepage every time I open Firefox because I thought it would be better to have this as my homepage than Facebook (probably there was some masochism involved in that decision) and how I’ve been wringing my hands over whether or not blogging was really even something worth doing…

In any case, a few hours ago, I found myself, once again, being that asshole on Facebook. You know the one. We clog up your comment threads with our long-winded rants and musings. We overanalyze that nice little adage-in-a-picture post you shared because you thought the kitten in it was cute. We get all philosophical on your ass when all you wanted was a friendly conversation.

As I started typing a sixth or seventh paragraph into the little blue-framed text box, something in my brain said, “Hey. Jerkface. It’s time to stop bothering these nice people with your well-meaning but overwrought prose and go WRITE A FUCKING BLOG POST!!!!111″

So I did.