Issue 3: Don't Bother Me, I'm Thinking
By Medulla Vesuvius

Brokeback + x = Instant Humor

This year, the gay cowboy movie was up for eight Academy Awards, by my hasty count. Regardless of the fact that it only took two Oscars home, (more accurately, “the people that worked on the film only took home two Oscars”), I will remember this film not for it’s social significance or for the discussion of homosexuality that it has encouraged, but for another reason– its’ ability to worm it’s way into the American humorous psyche.

Here’s the deal. I have increasingly witnessed the word “Brokeback” used for comedic effect. For instance: “Brokeback Bowling” or “Brokeback Cancer Check” or “Brokeback to the Future.” Apparently the humor potential for this compound word is off the charts. This could be the next “Just flew in from (blank) and boy are my arms tired!” or “Let me tell you the difference between black people and white people…”

I think this film should be commended, if only for its’ ability to affect the humor of culture far removed from Hollywood. It’s no easy task to embed into the joke-consciousness of average Americans. Not for a lasting time anyway. That’s why I’m really pulling for this “Brokeback” business. In twenty years, I hope that we’re still using the word “Brokeback” as a funny synonym for “gay cowboy.” That would be such a coup. Here’s why: Brokeback Mountain is a monumentally sad movie.

I’m sure I’m not ruining it for anybody when I say that one of the characters is killed for who he is and the other is left living alone in a small trailer in the middle of nowhere. You see in this movie how the forbidden desires of two people have far-reaching effects, spinning off into the lives of other people–wives, families, kids. There are no free choices, no choices without dire consequences. This is a movie full of dread building up over what is supposed to be years. And that’s probably why it’s obviously respected amongst the motion picture tastemakers like The Academy and critics.

But those kinds of “artistic” or “dramatic” movies aren’t supposed to influence the national humorscape. That’s supposed to be the job of comedies, especially those made by Mike Myers. Think of all of the funny catchphrases that have come about from the Austin Powers series: “Do I make you horny baby?” “Someone throw me a frickin’ bone here!” “Yeah, baby, Yeah!” And let us not forget Wayne’s World: “NOT!” “We’re not worthy!” “Schwing!”

Let’s try a little experiment: “Schindler’s Bowling.” “Million Dollar Cancer Check.” No, the humor’s just not there like it is with “Brokeback.” But Schindler’s List is monumentally sad, too. It’s got a much higher senseless body count, both on-screen and as a sub-text. It’s a Best Picture winner, just like Million Dollar Baby. These are respected movies, just like Brokeback Mountain. Why aren’t they funny to us? What’s the difference?

Gay people.

They’re just funny to us for some reason, even if in an uncomfortable way, to a certain strand of people. You want to talk about a “million dollar baby”, place a swishy gay male character in your movie and hilarity is bound to ensue, right? But, strangely, The Birdcage, which is full of homosexual characters, didn’t even make a blip on the humor radar screen. Neither did To Wong Foo…Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar. Neither did Dwight Ewell’s performance as Hooper X in Chasing Amy, surprisingly. These are comedies with gay characters that you never hear about. No one goes around talking about how someone is “soo Hooper.”

But this “Brokeback” is something else entirely. What makes these brooding, gay cowboys so well suited for humor? Maybe I just answered my own question: gay cowboys.

Until now, the cowboy has been an archetype of rugged, stoic, manliness in the American unconscious. The Duke. Eastwood. These were individualist characters that were too busy kicking butt and setting the world to right to fool around with love and “feelings.” The idea of a cowboy in love with anybody, much less someone of his own sex, was kind of hard to swallow. Maybe the comedy we derive from gay cowboys is a kind of nervous laughter resulting from messing around with the assumptions of the masses. Until now, the idea of a homosexual cowboy has been an oxymoron, a combination of mutually exclusive terms. Faced with such a contradiction, the human mind can either break down into madness or laugh at the absurdity.

And so Brokeback Mountain has inspired us to laugh.

Addendum: Woe unto Douglas McCombs, the creative force behind Thrill Jockey Records band Brokeback. Even though he’s been making beautiful albums under that name since 1997, he is certainly facing an uphill struggle if he wants to carry on with his career since his band name has become a joke. Sorry, Douglas. Maybe I Wish I Knew How to Quit You is still open for a band name.

Issue 3: Escaping Life
By Rascal Stallion

My Hot Date

I had a really good date last night.

I think I’ve really found a good one this time. Not only is she way beautiful, she’s crazy funny, too. Her name is Anna and she’s got a combination of looks and wit that’s so powerful she should have to register herself in every new state she visits.

She’s the kind of girl that makes the rest of the world cry “foul!” She’s just not fair.

Typically, the only time someone takes the time to develop a great personality is when they’re so ugly they have to do it to survive socially. The pretty folks have attention served to them on sterling platters so they never have to go through the anguish of learning to be enjoyable. They can exist with their minds being vapid wastes, serving only to remind them when to breathe and whatnot. The best sense of humor a pretty person can typically hope for is to regurgitate whatever movie or SNL sketch is popular at the time.

Conversely, the fatties and bagheads usually learn early on that if they are to be popular or successful they will need to rely on their wits. They sharpen their social skills every chance they get. They know that in order for someone to like them, they need to be likable.

Can’t you just picture some goofy looking kid getting shut down as he asks his crush to the big middle school after school dance? He slinks home with his tail between his legs, packs a bag and retreats to a cabin on an isolated Russian mountainside to train. Once there, he’s practicing parlor tricks, rehearsing anecdotes and studying David Letterman’s early years.

Think about it, are there any funny comedians who are actually good looking? Not any of the good ones. Normally, funny folks fall into two groups. You’ve got the hefties (guys like Farley, Gervaise and Belushi) and the odds (guys like Eugene Levy and Larry David.) If you’re really funny, the best that you can hope for, looks-wise, is to simply be average or normal looking.

Worst of all are the clods who are just lazy and bitter about their lot in life. These louts are neither fun to talk to nor look at. It’s sort of an endless cycle they find themselves trapped in. They are a foul looking lot, bitter and angry about no one liking them. Unfortunately, no one likes them because they are bitter and angry. They will forever be trapped in their dismal state unless they choose to make themselves more acceptable (or, as movies would have us believe, a beautiful young lass sweeps into their life, looking past the rough edges to rescue the gem hidden beneath the filth.)

I realize I may have digressed an eensy bit so I’ll try to work my way back on topic.

A girl like my Anna is so rare you could only hope to find one like her in the land of golden sun and promises: Hollywood. And this brings me back to last night’s date.

I got some KFC and then we settled in on the couch and watched “Scary Movie 2.” Anna was dazzling. Her comedic timing was excellent. Her gentle features and silky black hair mesmerized me. I couldn’t take my eyes off of her. Near the end of the film she suggested we take our friendship a little bit further and she blew my mind when she proposed we act out our innermost fantasies. Not too long after that she was stripped down to her underwear and a trip to at least 2nd base seemed all but inevitable. Unfortunately, nothing more happened and she was redressed before I even realized what was happening.

The worst part of our date was its brevity. Eighty-three minutes from start to finish simply was not enough time to spend with my new girlfriend. If I could change anything about our date I would have liked for it to last a little longer.

Well…that’s not entirely true. If I could have changed ANYTHING about the date I would have preferred to have Anna Faris in the same room with me instead of just on the screen. All in all, I still think it was a pretty successful date, though, and I really look forward to this weekend when we get together again. I’m going to make sure this one lasts a little longer so this time we’re going to grab some Chinese take-out and then watch a double header of “Lost in Translation” and “Waiting.”

Issue 3: Sydney Brown's Sixty Seconds
By Sydney Brown

Sydney Brown’s Sixty Seconds

This is Sydney Brown and welcome to the inaugural edition of Sydney Brown’s Sixty Seconds, quick looks at films you may have overlooked in the theaters or on your video store runs. Let me give you the ground rules and we’re off and running:

• All reviews can be read in under sixty seconds provided you at least have the reading ability of a fourth grader.
• All films (with a minor exception here or there) must NOT have been a huge blockbuster film (no Star Wars, no Lord of the Rings, no Narnia.) I’m focusing on the lost films, the ones that may have fallen through the cracks.
• All films must be available on Netflix.

Let’s get to the films:

City of God (2002): ****

Excellent film about the slums and crime lords of Rio told through the eyes of a young man wanting to be a photographer. The storytelling is some the sharpest of any film in years with a mind-blowing pace that seems to cram so much into two hours, you’d swear it was much longer. Portuguese with English subtitles, but don’t let that scare you away. Visually stunning stuff with scenes and characters that will stay with you for a long time. If Martin Scorsese paid his dues at MTV, you’d have what this film delivers. Based on real life events.

Primer (2004) ***

Film made for $7,000 about two men who accidentally create a time machine in their garage, and after testing it discover unforeseen consequences (and not the obvious one either.) Incredibly complex plot that DEMANDS repeat viewings. If Donnie Darko or The Usual Suspects left you confused, don’t even bother. This is a movie that will help if you pay less attention to what the characters say and focus more on what they do. But get up during it, and you’ll never find your way back. One hint: The beginning of the film may not NECESSARILY be the beginning of the film………

Lost in La Mancha (2002) Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp: **1/2

So you wanna make a movie, eh? Interesting yet less than riveting documentary about the attempted film production of Don Quixote by noted director Terry Gilliam. A film where everything that could go wrong DOES go wrong should make for high comedy, but instead we are left sympathizing but little else as cast members take ill, stages are too loud, planes are everywhere, and then it rains. Main problem with the film is that while the sets and designs look amazing, what we see of the script and dialogue is anything but. This is more a series of scenes than an actual film. Worth seeing, but don’t expect anything epic.

My First Mister (2001) Leelee Sobieski, Albert Brooks: **1/2

Leelee plays an alienated teen. Brooks plays, well, Albert Brooks in a May-December-like “romance” where each character needs the other to make it through the day. Starts off dopey, picks up when Brooks enters the picture, and after a strong and very funny forty-five minutes or so, COMPLETELY falls apart when the “message” of the film kicks in. Carol Kane makes the most of her role as Leelee’s mother. Banter is great between the leads, but plot kills it dead in the last forty-five minutes. Hit STOP when the drama begins.

And this edition’s “If you haven’t seen it, it’s your Homework Assignment”:

Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Adam Sandler, Emily Watson: ****

Love-it or hate-it film from Paul Thomas Anderson where neurotic Adam Sandler meets possibly insane Emily Watson in this beautiful yet quietly unsettling movie. Sandler is Barry Egan, a novelty toiletries salesman with a penchant for cheap pudding who falls in love with Emily’s Lena Leonard. You’ll enjoy the film more when you realize both characters are completely insane. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is great too in what is basically a glorified cameo. And I dare you not to get the soundtrack stuck in your head.

Until I write again……

Issue 3: Life in Space
By Mr. Atoz, The Librarian

Don Knotts (1924-2006)

How do you write a eulogy for someone you knew from a distance?

Easy answer: you don’t.

I have to admit that as big of a Don Knotts fan as I am, I don’t know much about the man or the twists and turns of his career. I only know his face and his voice. He didn’t make me feel any certain way. He simply made me laugh. That is really all I can say.

More interesting to me is what the death of someone you grew up with means. Whether it be a celebrity or someone you personally knew, it’s a marker for the passage of time. It’s a reminder that you are getting older. My dad told me this week that Don Knotts’s close friend and colleague, Andy Griffith, had been at Knotts’s side at his death. He was particularly despondent about his friend’s death in various interviews.

I can only imagine the feeling: someone with whom you have journeyed through life is no longer there. I believe the Empty Nest Syndrome is not exclusive to parents. I maintain that it is shared by all humans. What will you feel when your parent, spouse, sibling, or close friend has gone “home”, and you’re left to travel on? I think about not only my parents, but my siblings and my close friends and how long I have known them. When someone you’ve known for 60 years is no longer there, what will it feel like? How loud will the silence be?

Farewell to Don Knotts and all other fragments of familiarity that find their way home before we do.

Issue 3: Spotlight on Technology
By Dr. Roger Korby

Has CGI Ruined Cinema?

The question of whether CGI (computer generated imagery) has hurt or helped cinema is a little complicated. It’s easy to point out the cheesy and not so special “special effects” that plague so many movies and say, “Yes, CGI has ruined movies.” But I think that overall, CGI has done more good than bad. First, let’s split movies that use computer special effects into four groups.

The first group is comprised of movies that rely solely on their use of CGI and are just spectacularly bad:
An example of this type of movie is Spy Kids 3D. It’s not the best example of this because it’s a kids’ movie, but I think kids deserve quality entertainment just as much as adults. The only reason I know anything about this is that it was showing on a flight I took back from Hong Kong a few years ago. Everything about it was just so agonizingly bad that I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. To be fair, I probably needed to be wearing 3D glasses to get the full effect, but I bet the first two Spy Kids movies were just as bad in their use of CGI and they were not 3D movies.

The second group is made up of movies that spend more time and attention on CGI than on anything else and suffer because of this myopia. Examples of these kinds of movies are The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and the last two Matrices. These weren’t the worst movies I have ever seen; there was just something off about them. I remember reading about Attack of the Clones that almost everything besides the actors was done with computers, including the sets. Watching the movie you could tell there was something kind of strange and unnatural about the way the characters interacted with the world around them… it’s because that world wasn’t there while they were filming. Maybe I’m just not a big enough fan, but I only have one good memory each from Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. The first is where Ben Kenobi sees the robot thing outside the window in the high-rise building and instantly dives out to grab it. That was really surprising and cool. The second is when Anakin goes ninja on the sand people that killed his mother.

The third type of movie relies solely on its use of CGI and is actually pretty good. I couldn’t think of too many examples of this kind of movie. I’ve never seen Toy Story, but I hear it’s pretty good. One movie that I have seen that fits in this category was The One with Jet Li. This is just a mindless action movie but it does the whole mindless action thing really well and I don’t regret the hour and a half I spent watching it. Another good movie that relies heavily on its’ special effects is Shaolin Soccer.

The fourth type is a movie in which the use of CGI complements what is already a good story. Examples of this are the first Matrix, the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The Matrix is probably the CGI gold standard for movies. My favorite scene is the lobby gunfight. My senior year in college, if my roommates and I didn’t watch this scene at least once a month we would start going through withdrawals. The battle scenes of the LotR trilogy could not have been made using conventional techniques. The logistics of hiring and managing hundreds of thousands of actors are in the realm of the impossible. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has tons of great effects but my favorite (possibly of any movie) is the scene where they are standing in the house as it falls apart around them. There was just something sadly beautiful about it.

One of the most attractive things about CGI is actually the root of its’ problems — it’s relatively cheap and easy to make special effects with CGI. About 8 years ago I got a hold of a copy of Bryce3D and was rendering stuff on my PC in my dorm room within minutes. Granted these were still shots and not animated, but with more powerful computers, I could have put together something that I could try to pass off as a movie. CGI has made it easier for today’s mediocre filmmakers to take on grander projects than in the recent past. The movie industry winds up saturated with movies that are not good and ruin CGI’s reputation.

Creating special effects in movies has always been about filmmakers’ innovation and pushing the limits of what they can do with the tools available at the time. The tools used for special effects today (mostly computers and complicated rendering software) are quite different than those used in the early days of cinema, but CGI artists are still innovating and pushing their computers to their limits. CGI special effects have created some truly amazing moments that don’t cheapen their respective films as a whole and I think even just a few of these good moments outweigh all the bad.