I’d had a very interesting (almost wrote stimulating, but I deftly avoided the Freudian pun) conversation about Watchmen a couple weeks ago and meant to write about it, but got caught up with other things and forgot about it until now.
I’d never read the comic, so I didn’t have any knowledge of what to expect, nor had any discussions about it. I was a blank slate. So I don’t find it particularly surprising that I found the full-frontal male nudity a bit unexpected. When talking about the movie with friends afterwords, I semi-jokingly asked if it was adolescent to think there was a bit much blue penis in the movie, to which I got a surprisingly sharp rebuke that it indeed was. We proceeded to have a short (but very thought-provoking) discussion on the matter. It was pointed out that the movie only replicated the scenes in the comic, which I suppose is true but I think a fifteen second scene has a slightly different visual impact than a single comic cell – but that’s trivial. Also, I agree there was just as much female anatomy being shown, but I’ve never particularly cared for pointless nudity in movies. One of my favorite movies is Ghost in the Shell, in which the main character is nude in the opening scene. I thought the nudity to be so base and pointless (and in fact, I still do) that it led me to basically disregard the rest of the merits of the movie until I watched the TV series a year later.
The main reason I focused on the male nudity is that while I don’t particularly care for flagrant fan-service in movies, I’ve come to accept that is simply how Hollywood makes movies. Without passing any judgment on it, male nudity is just rarer in movies than female nudity, so when it does occur it is unusual and as such has a greater impact. I think that would be the reaction of anyone who is new to the story. I have a friend who is very familiar with the story and said he didn’t even notice the nudity in the movie until it was brought to his attention by a friend. I can buy that – going back to Ghost in the Shell, I don’t even notice how the Major dresses anymore. I accept that she’s a hyper-sexualized character, but I’m so familiar with the series now I forget how she must look to people who are new to the universe (as I was reminded when I showed the first episode of the TV series to a female friend of mine).
That being said, however, I think the reactions of the audience members made uncomfortable by the nudity of Dr. Manhattan actually makes the experience of the movie all the richer for their discomfort. It’s jarring to them – they understand at a more visceral level just how detached Dr. Manhattan is. That sort of emotional reaction just isn’t possible if our traditional cultural mores had been desensitized – I don’t think it’s meant as a challenge, not bringing our cultural conventions to the forefront in an attempt to get us to examine and get past them like so many other movies, but rather to rub a raw nerve precisely because of the reaction it’s suppose to provoke. And it’s a raw nerve that hasn’t been poked into numbness by Hollywood, so it’s particularly effective.
So I say, be uncomfortable with that giant blue penis – it’s perfectly natural.
I’ve been watching a couple new shows recently:
Life on Mars – based on a successful BBC series, it starts out as a typical cop drama. Sam Tyler is hunting a serial killer, and while chasing the suspect down is hit by a car. When he wakes up, he discovers it’s 1973. He walks into his precinct HQ, and discovers that he’s expected – as a recent transfer. Needless to say he’s very, very confused. At first he thinks it’s just a dream and treats it as such, but he never wakes up. It’s very surreal with elements of sci-fi, as frequently things will happen that acknowledge Tyler is from the future – a TV will go fuzzy and briefly show a broadcast from 2009, conversations with strangers will seem to indicate they know he doesn’t belong here, he’ll catch glimpses of odd things (the Mars rover, for instance) only to have his attention refocused. Then there’s the cultural disconnect – he’s a cop from the modern era of civil rights and political correctness suddenly working the streets of New York, pre-Serpico. Makes for some interesting situations.
But the real kicker is that the whole series is only a season long. I was watching last weeks episode and saw that the next episode is the last one. No milking of the franchise – they had a story to tell and now it’s done. In the age of Lost, Heroes and BSG, it’s nice to know that the writers seem to know where they’re going with the story.
Lie to Me – From the creators of House, this series revolves around Dr. Lightman, who’s an expert on body language. He runs a company that contracts itself out to read peoples reactions – usually to figure out if someone is lying or not, but also (in at least one episode) to help identify possible assassins at a wedding party. It’s interesting in that they go through the various visceral human reactions to various emotional situations, but I’m not sold on the characters yet. It’s a bit too early into the series to get into the characters heads, and the obvious similarity of the series to House (who’s central theme is “everybody lies”) gives it a bit of a knock-off feel, but, heck, knockoffs can be successful and fun too.
Kings – this series just started up, and it has really good production values. It’s basically a retelling of the story of King David, but placed in a fictional, modern setting. I’m really quite impressed with this so far (well, the evil corporation is a bit cliche and shallow, but I’m willing to put up with it). They have King Saul, the Philistines, Samuel, Johnathan – all the major actors. I do roll my eyes a bit at them making Johnathan gay (natch that they would embrace the modern homosexual theories of David and Johnathan’s relationship, regardless of established theology on the matter), but, again, I don’t think it’s enough to seriously detract from what’s turning out to be a fun show. There’s definitely some acting talent going on here. I’ll enjoy seeing the story unfold.
The stock market will tank on Monday after it digests the latest plan from Obama. Honestly, this is the logical extension of the bans on bonuses, as the obvious reaction of those getting bonuses confiscated would be “to hell with this” and find work at non-bailout banks. This is the crux of the problem with government micro-management – generally no one realizes the full implications of the governments actions – and those implications tend to be much larger in scope than originally intended.
Recently, people like Amity Shlaes and Jonah Goldberg are publishing books showing the problems with FDR’s New Deal (six years after his election one in five were still unemployed). It seems, unfortunantly, we haven’t learned from history as we’re repeating the mistakes of Hoover and FDR. I have my doubts that the economy is going to recover anytime soon.
UPDATE: Wow, was I wrong. I guess the markets liked the new that the government was pumping $1 trillion more into the financial markets over the expansion of government regulation of executives.
I’ve always gotten so very tired of the digs at Bush and Republicans about being “anti-science”, especially as it pertains to embryonic stem-cell research (I still think Bush’s speech on the subject was one of the most thoughtful to date on the matter). Here’s Bill Clinton’s views on the matter (shamelessly stolen from Hot Air):
Gupta: Let’s talk about something you talked a lot about in the early part of your presidency, stem cells. There was an order today providing federal money for embryonic stem cell research. First of all, let me just ask you, as someone who studied this, is this going to always be as divisive an issue as it is now? Is this going to be the abortion of the next generation? Or are people going to come around?
Clinton: I think – the answer is I think that we’ll work it through. If – particularly if it’s done right. If it’s obvious that we’re not taking embryos that can – that under any conceivable scenario would be used for a process that would allow them to be fertilized and become little babies, and I think if it’s obvious that we’re not talking about some science fiction cloning of human beings, then I think the American people will support this….
Gupta: Any reservations?
Clinton: I don’t know that I have any reservations, but I was – he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they’re not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research….
But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don’t want a big storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those….
But there are values involved that we all ought to feel free to discuss in all scientific research. And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they’re not going to fool with any embryos where there’s any possibility, even if it’s somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.
Tell me that isn’t just plain ignorant.
The Telegraph has a piece on the recent diplomatic flap, blaming the administration’s carelessness as being ‘overwhelmed’ with domestic concerns. According to sources cited by the broadsheet, Obama seems to be trying to take on too much at once and simply isn’t able to keep up with it all. Buried in the story, however, is an explosive charge:
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”
Wow. Now, Obama being stretched too thin, I can understand. He has a lot on his plate. But the State Department’s sole focus is diplomatic relations. Who has Obama staffed it with that would say something like that?
LikeCOOL is just a blog that features neat things. Such blogs can be hit or miss depending on the taste of the person running them, but in general I find this one interesting and pretty unique – it’s not just posting the same stuff that can be found at dozens of other websites. I will warn you, however, not everything there is work-safe.
From The Daily Mail:
As he headed back home from Washington, Gordon Brown must have rummaged through his party bag with disappointment.
Because all he got was a set of DVDs. Barack Obama, the leader of the world’s richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films – a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks.
Mr Brown is not thought to be a film buff, and his reaction to the box set is unknown. But it didn’t really compare to the thoughtful presents he had brought along with him.
Marking the special relationship: The Browns put a lot of thought into their gifts for the Obamas – but the gesture did not seem to be reciprocated
The Prime Minister gave Mr Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet.
The unique present delighted Mr Obama because oak from the Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880.
Mr Brown also handed over a framed commission for HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.
Now, I’m not the biggest fan of Gordon Brown. I thought he wasn’t as serious about the Special Relationship or Islamic Extremism as Tony Blair. But I have to admit, his gifts his gifts were stunningly symbolic of the relationship between America and the US, and showed a great deal of thought and effort. It’s not like there are slivers of the HMS Resolute just lying around everywhere. Considering that one of Obama’s first actions in the White House was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill loaned to Bush by Blair - in spite of British offers to continue the loan – attempting to match Brown’s impressive gifts with a DVD set of the greatest American movies (not even Bluray!) is at least clumsy, and at worst insulting. Given the nature of DVD’s, I hope Obama was at least thoughtful enough to get Region 2 PAL discs needed to play in Britain rather than the Region 1 NTSC discs that only work in America.
Given that Gordon Brown is a Labour Prime Minister (so one would think they share a lot of ideological common ground) on the ropes, you’d think Obama would show a little bit more grace and class.
