In some ways I’ll tell you anything you want to know, but in others I’m quite guarded. I feel like there were compelling reasons to be so guarded growing up but I just know now that I can’t shake them off completely. There’s a part of me that still wonders all the time if I’m “allowed” to do certain things, if I’m “allowed” to want the things I want, if I’m “allowed” to be the person I am. It’s funny in some ways because my background wasn’t particularly religious but the parts that were I absorbed really quickly and unthinkingly – to the extent that I used to think if something bad happened (say, bullying for example) it may have meant I had done something wrong and God was punishing me. And in an odd way a part of me still thinks this way long after I stopped believing in a God. Like when I have to be somewhere and my car doesn’t start I’ll automatically slip back into a “What did I do THIS TIME?!” kind of thinking.

I actually have a great interest in religion despite not being a believer. I wholeheartedly believe everyone should have the right to choose whatever resonates with them. But by the same token I am acutely aware of how damaging my personal experiences have been to me, how religious ideas informed a particular world view that left me in turmoil for years. I still struggle to understand a theology of sin that suggests your only redeeming feature is your capacity to be loved by a supernatural being. I don’t know how a person can feel good about themselves within those parameters. Isn’t that just the worst kind of codependency?

I want to feel good about myself. I want to be proud of myself. I want to be able to operate as a human being without feeling guilty. There’s a lot to unlearn. There’s a lot to shake off. I hope I’ll get there one day.

I watched Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion earlier today. It’s a movie that really touches a nerve. Because at it’s heart it’s a movie about being good enough, about impressing people. If I’m being honest that is something that weighs on my mind a lot and dictates a lot of my actions. I want to impress people. Infact I find myself avoiding people – even people I really like – if I feel like I haven’t done anything impressive recently, and have nothing to report to them. I saw my old high school year advisor in an office supplies store last week. I should’ve talked to her, but I didn’t. I was worried that my response to the inevitable “What have you been doing?” question would be frankly uninspiring.

In the movie, the lesson is ultimately to be yourself. Everything blows up in their faces as Romy and Michele pretend to be successful business women (having invented Post-It Notes, no less). When their facade is removed, they decide to be themselves. They decide to confront the people who made them miserable. The whole social dynamic has changed. And everything works out happily-ever-after in true Hollywood style…

I’m not sure things will necessarily work out as well for you and I if we embrace our true selves. (Though it would be nice if some old high school colleague, now a millionaire, was romantically pining for me.) But it really speaks to the energy – mental, physical, emotional – that goes into keeping up appearances and constantly evaluating yourself from the vantage points of others.

I probably would’ve gone to my ten year high school reunion had I been able to impress people. And again you sort of have to wonder what the drive is to want to impress people you don’t even like…

I guess people are always casting expectations upon us. Sometimes we shake them off, sometimes we internalise them. We want to prove to others – but especially to ourselves – that the unkind aspersions are indeed untrue. Our concept of self can be a little murky. We might not be certain that it is untrue. We hope it is untrue. Our ego wants to demonstrate for all and sundry that is untrue. But what if (gasp) it isn’t…?

That doubt can make us crazy, and that doubt can be used to leavage us by unscrupulous people. Remember Romy and Michele didn’t look foolish being themselves, they only looked foolish when they felt so inadequate that they misrepresented themselves and were shown to be untrue.

A lot of ‘stuff’ is attached to social standing, to popularity. What does it ‘mean’ to be popular? What does it mean if you aren’t, or weren’t? What does that say about you? Of course it could mean anything you want it to mean. And it some ways it doesn’t matter what it means, or what you decide it means. It doesn’t have to have an obvious conclusion. It just has to introduce enough doubt to make you crazy. It just has to make you doubt your likability just that little bit.

So maybe it isn’t about proving them wrong. Perhaps it’s about affirming for yourself that you’re a worthwhile human being. It’s not that their opinion is particularly important, it’s just that that’s the origin of the doubt you’re trying to reconcile.

I don’t think I’ve ever felt so conflicted about going in to see a movie as I was with the Michael Jackson concert, This Is It. The movie itself doesn’t dwell on the singer’s death, infact other than one line of text at the end (“Love Lasts Forever”) the entire thing feels like a run-of-the-mill behind the scenes music concert documentary. Only, the audience knows why they’re there sitting in the cinema. They know why they’re experiencing this concert in a cinema and not on the stage with Jackson in the flesh. I was filled with a terrible forboding feeling from the start, an ominous sense lingering around me in the cinema seats. It was as if I walked in to see The Sixth Sense and already knew how it would end. However, quickly you are thrown into the process of the production – picking dancers, interacting with musicians and the musical director, costumes, dance moves, music performances. At times you tap your feet with the music, at other times you held your breath, there were even times that my entire body tingled.

Everything was so spectacular, it would’ve been a truly breathtaking thing to behold had it made it to match Jackson’s vision. As it was the behind the scenes footage added a real earthy gritiness, and we were given moments to see Jackson as the appreciative, softly spoken man as well as the dancing, singing superstar. However because of what we know as the audience viewing this some time after its creation, the feelings are bitter-sweet. Every other line out of Jackson’s mouth takes on new significance. He talks about environmental destruction and how we haven’t much time left, and we’re really left with no doubt that this (one way or another) is true. But then there are sweet funny moments and you are brought back into the warmness of this experience with a chuckle. Scenes featuring Jackson trying out his cherrypicker and his apparent fondness for the choreography of air stewards are truly delightful.

It would’ve been easy to exploit the grief of fans, it would’ve been easy to become overwhelmed by the sometimes depressing messages contained within the songs (especially with overlay sequences as powerful as that used in Earth Song for example). But here we are given a really wonderful balance. It is a warm and honest tribute to a man as beloved by his fans as the people he worked with.

Admittedly I come to this film as a Michael Jackson fan. I am aware that some people have said things like ‘the dancing was interesting’ and ‘I found it kind of boring.’ Such comments astound me. For anybody who has been alive at any stage during the last forty years, here is an opportunity to see the final work of one of our greatest performers and creative talents.

The title of this blog posts alludes to one of the lesser known J. K. Rowling volumes… Seriously though, I had the opportunity to see both Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince and and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds this week. We’ll get to the much-celebrated Basterds in a moment, but first we – in the spirit of Professor McGonagall – ask, “What’s the matter Harry?”

[ad#adsense250]Voldemort Schmoldermort. That is the least of Harry’s and Ron’s and Hermione’s problems. This is puberty, not quite as I remember it. As if there hadn’t already been enough of an awkward love triangle between Harry-Hermione-Ron in previous installments of the franchise, now they have to contend with other people eagerly fighting for their affections. This kind of thing is difficult enough on The Jerry Springer Show, but in the world of Hogwarts spells make everything much more problematic. But truthfully watching the awkward romantic adventures and misadventures of the gang is quite adorable.

I should probably tell you that I’ve not read a single book in the Potter series, though I couldn’t help but think the whole function of the movie was just to faciliate one plot point. You know, that part of the tale where the important character dies. Yes, that character. A lot of effort goes into filling in the Voldemort backstory (his former life as Tom Riddle) but this didn’t particularly interest me. Dumbledore puts Harry to work to discover something it later seems Dumbledore always knew (or at least suspected), and in parts of the movie Dumbledore seems so far removed from the Dumbledore we knew and loved earlier. He seems whimisical, almost a parody of his former self. He confesses to loving knitting, and makes enquiries about Potter’s love life. And there were elements of the movie that became irritatingly familiar. It seems you can’t have a scene with Dumbledore in it unless he opens with, “You’re probably wondering why I’ve brought you here…” Similarly at the end of each film Harry declares boldly that he must go off into the wilderness and battle the Dark Lord alone, and Hermione and Ron roll their eyes and tell dear Harry that that won’t be happening. All in all an enjoyable form of escapism.

Inglourious Basterds left me feeling… well I don’t know what it left me feeling. I wanted to lose myself in this film in the same way I lost myself in Harry Potter. But it just isn’t possible. Every thirty seconds Tarantino does something to remind you that you’re watching a movie. I realise this is what Tarantino is known for and celebrated for. But it was all a bit too clever for me. It is such a bastardised popular culture romp. The music has no sense of time or place. Important footnotes to the story are provided by Samuel L. Jackson voice overs. Lines and captions are attached to notable Nazi figures in scenes. At one point a plate of cream gets its own gratituous close up. Yes, the cream is thick and rich. Yes, there is a connection between the two characters in the scene and French dairy farmers. But the whole thing is laboured and perplexing and completely distracted me from an otherwise emotionally-charged moment in the film.

The story itself is superb. A fable certainly, but an engrossing one at that. The performances are brilliant. I particularly want to make mention of Mélanie Laurent, who plays Shosanna, the feisty Jewish cinema owner, and Christoph Waltz, who provides us with an oddly charismatic ‘Jew Hunter’ in the form of Colonel Hans Landa. At times you recoil in horror, at times you laugh (Brad Pitt’s “Italian” accent is a comedic device in and of itself), and at times you celebrate. And this left me feeling really quite uncomfortable. I would look around and see my fellow movie-goers reacting in horror to an act of German violence, and then applauding acts of violence towards Germans. (But then life imitates art; we watch violent acts on the big screen, then we watch Tarantino’s characters watch violent acts on Shosanna’s big screen. And they applaud and squirm at different places too. It’s quite surreal.) Aren’t we beyond that? Isn’t all violence abhorrent? Or have I been riding Cat Steven’s Peace Train too long? Wasn’t American-sponsored propaganda as vile as German-sponsored propaganda?

But that was Monday. I wasn’t angry on Monday. I was, however, angry on Tuesday. I was furious truth be told. And by this point I wondered if Tarantino’s violent reimagining of history didn’t serve some purpose. Infact it reminded me of the way after being bullied in high school I would come home and take my frustrations out on the characters in the shoot ‘em up game Doom II. At worst, simulated violence has to be better than real violence. Will this movie provide catharsis for anyone who lived through World War II? Frankly I have no idea… but it was thought-provoking nonetheless.

So recently Facebook unveiled their vanity URLs and I got the default for my name (so feel free to send me a friend request if you’re so inclined). The thing that surprised me was how enthralled I was in the process of getting that vanity URL. The suspense was spectacular! I closed down other applications – especially anything sucking bandwidth – determined not to jinx my efforts by having applications crash on me or my connection mysteriously evaporating. The whole thing reminded me of my eBay addiction. The constant refreshing as the countdown got smaller and smaller, the hope that at the end of the process you would be the champion. (Sometimes I would get so competitive in the throes of an eBay auction that I found myself bidding for things I didn’t particularly want just to see if I could get them or at least make the final purchase more expensive for my opponent. Online auctions don’t necessarily bring out the best in me.)

But here’s the thing… I don’t really use or like Facebook. I have an account because um… I’m not entirely sure, to be honest. I guess because people who don’t really use webservices use Facebook and you never really know who will come out of the woodwork. I just find Facebook really quite insular. People [*cough* @silkcharm *cough*] sort of instilled this great fear within me that I should keep Facebook a closed system with the greatest privacy settings available to me. So I did. Infact at one point the security was so intense my own Facebook friends couldn’t leave messages on my wall. That seemed kind of pointless. I like the idea of a private ecosystem just between me and my nearest and dearest, but when it comes to online privacy I am acutely aware that anything I share anywhere is only a screen capture (or download) away from being shared with the world. So I personally just start with the understanding that I don’t put anything online unless I am content with the world seeing it.

And actually the vague curiosity that keeps my Facebook account open (the uncertainty of who is online, vying in the shadows) is sort of the same thing that breeds my mistrust in the web service. The way that person from high school who barely had anything to say to you ten years ago adds you as a ‘friend’ and still has nothing much to say to you. There is something about Facebook that breeds nostalgia that may have never existed in the first place. I don’t know if it is just a desire to populate your friends list or the romance of rediscovering something (someone) who was lost to you or just a forgetfulness or revisionist streak that comes with age.

The good news though is that Facebook is not high school. There is no obvious reason to keep up pretenses. If you don’t want to associate with someone simply do not accept their friend request. (Though I did look at one person’s friend request for months before I decided to deny it.) And every now and then Facebook does something truly wonderful like suggesting a friend ‘you may know’ who is actually someone you know and wish to reconnect with. This happened to me just this morning.

What’s your Facebook experience been like?

Much of Australia is currently on fire. The worst of the fires seem to have engulfed Victoria. Entire towns have been reduced to ash, people have lost their homes, properties, livestock and in the most severe cases their loved ones. At the time of writing I believe there have been 65 people confirmed dead and that number is expected to rise. Some of the pictures are truly surreal. The Courier Mail has a gallery of photographs documenting the event. The one that is permanently etched into my mind is one in which the entire frame of the camera is filled with smoke, it seems more like the legacy of a volcano than a bushfire. In the middle of the frame there’s a tiny little black dot. It turns out that little black ‘dot’ is actually a 737 airline. It really gives you a sense of the scope of this ‘thing.’

Ironically elsewhere in the country, we are subject to floods.

My friend John in Minnesota had heard about the fires on BBC Radio and wanted to make sure I was okay before wryly adding, “Any quips about melting will be interpreted literally hence.”

I was fine. I am fine. All I had to contend with was a growing sense of guilt for having complained about how hot it had been.

Elsewhere other people hadn’t been so lucky. Not just people unknown to me either. YouTube personality ChrisOnTV88 (who I got to hang out with late last year in Sydney) became uncomfortably close to the fires. Last night he posted the following video.

Chris is the consumate comedian. I’ve never seen him this serious – or this worried. A little while after posting this he regained his sense of humour, tweeting Billy Joel lyrics. “We Didn’t Start The Fire” no less.

His whole twitter feed (@ChrisOnTV88) reads like a disturbing short-form novel.

I’m going to try and get the family in the car again
about 19 hours ago from web

ITS RAINING GOD YES
about 18 hours ago from web

still wont leave though
about 18 hours ago from web

Okay now there is lightning … more fire is being started
about 18 hours ago from web

Our house is like 100 meters away from the golf course and the fire destroyed it.
about 15 hours ago from web

Still worried about friends though. Haven’t heard from a lot of them.
about 15 hours ago from web

100 people estimated dead.
about 1 hour ago from web

Image Credit: Melbourne Bushfire Smoke #1 by Drew__
Licensed under the Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
(Image will not appear in RSS Feeds.)

I realise I haven’t been posting very much this year. There is actually a reason for it, too. Although in the interests of mystery and intrigue I cannot tell you what it is… yet. Right now I should be editing a video, but since my inner procrastinator feels the need to instead write, here I am.

Are you familiar with the work of Catholic Priest, Social Commentator, Podcaster and Radio Host Father Bob? Tonight signals his return to Sunday Night Safran on Triple J with John Safran. Some of you might not know that Father Bob also has his own podcast show, the aptly named Father Bob Show, on the Podcast Network. And recently I was mentioned on the show… twice!

I am a huge fan of the work of Father Bob and was thrilled beyond words to discover he had been reading my comments on his website. If I am being completely honest with you, I sent a SMS message to someone the second I discovered my name in his most recent podcast (#112 – The Old Bastards).

The comments I made that he references in the show are as follows.

From Back To Basics:

Is there an opportunity for the Catholic church (and potentially other churches) to sell some of their assets and act as a tool of wealth redistribution?

And moreover isn’t there a great need to empower the poor with the tools to engage in society at all levels (including wealth building and other monetary concerns)? Give a man fish… teach a man to fish… kind of proposition.

I appreciate your commitment to the poor though I get the feeling from the frequency and tone of these posts that your current strategies for servicing them aren’t working. Time to think out of the box?

From The WWW of Wisdom, Worship and Work:

Philanthropy needs a better market place. There are people with wealth they would like to share and needy charities which would appreciate an injection of funds or other non-monetary forms of support. We need somebody with the foresight to create a mechanism where demand can meet supply in a meaningful and simple manner. Technology might yet hold the answer.

What I really appreciate about Father Bob Maguire is his commitment to social good. He has such an inclusive approach when it comes to helping people, which is often a far cry from the some of the more ‘conditional’ aid work spread across the world. Perhaps best exemplified by this parody video offered by The Onion.

Don’t forget to tune into Sunday Night Safran tonight, or grab the podcast from tomorrow.

Happy Sunday!

Ah, yes, the ‘coming of age’ teenagers on a road trip genre has become a staple in recent years. And normally I would be the last person on the planet to welcome another movie to a category of film populated by the likes of the American Pie franchise. But, actually, Sex Drive is a surprisingly funny, impressively written and executed movie.

Sex Drive follows the misadventures of Ian (Josh Zuckerman) as everyone around him (including his fourteen year old brother) appears to have better luck when it comes to love and life than he does. Frustrated with the lack of interest local girls express in such a ‘nice guy’ he adopts a more aloof persona online and is lured across the country to a woman by the screen name of ‘Ms. Tasty.’ Ms. Tasty appears to be the only person inclined to help Ian lose his ‘virgin’ status and with the insistence of his friend Lance (Clark Duke) they steal Ian’s brother’s car and go off in search of Ian’s destiny.

There is a fairly predictable love triangle to be had here. But what sets the film apart is two-fold. Firstly, the very quirky and refreshing performances provided by Ian, Lance and Ian’s ‘best friend’ Felicia (Amanda Crew). Secondly it is the great humour inherent in the script. It is superbly written. Having Seth Green play an Amish man with a penchant for sarcasm and a talent for repairing cars was truly inspired. While it does verge off into the kind of juvenile American Pie territory (and there are enough gay jokes in this movie to comfort now unemployed Focus on The Family staff), the narrative doesn’t get bogged down in amongst its own gags.

One of the most interesting films is the correlation between youth culture and internet culture. It becomes a reoccurring gag that any embarrassing occurrence may be recorded and live forever online. Certainly there is great truth to this idea. But there is also a great truth expressed here about the mixed messages that are sent around the subject of sex itself. Provocative dancers are used to lure unsuspecting boys to a talk on abstinence. Felicia assures Ian that girls really want ‘nice guys’ despite having no interest in him and more interest in Lance who, as one character put it, has ‘no respect for bitches.’ Sometimes the gulf between what we want and what we think we want is considerable, as demonstrated by this film.

I was also very excited to see Natalia Reagan (who I was recently in a YouTube video with) make an appearance in this film. I can honestly say that I’ve never seen anyone on the big screen that I have (kinda, sorta) known before. It was very thrilling.

Finally, if you do go and see this movie, hang around and watch the credits for a very amusing sequence between Fall Out Boy (who play in the movie) and Seth Green. Incidentally both Seth Green and the actress behind ‘Ms. Tasty’ (Katrina Bowden) have appeared in Fall Out Boy music videos.

Oh… did I mention for the most part Ian wears a donut suit?

Doctor Who actor David Tennant revealed recently that he was leaving the tv show and has hinted that his co-star Billie Piper would be a worthy replacement. The first time I heard this part of me cried, “God No!” (In actuality, QiRanger, on Twitter, exclaimed “No. That is just wrong.”) My objection is not because she is a woman because I actually think it would be wonderful to see a woman in the role. It is just that we have already seen Billie Piper on this show in another role. A role in which she seemed to have romantic feelings for the Doctor. Would she, post-regeneration, continue having feelings for him… or herself? But perhaps I protest too much…

Younger Doctor Who fans probably aren’t familiar with some of the sillier applications of Timelord Regeneration. Take for example Romana, the doctor’s one time traveling companion and fellow Timelord. In ‘The Armageddon Factor’ actress Lalla Ward plays Princess Astra. In the same episode Romana (Romana I for clarity’s sake) is played by the extraordinarily beautiful Mary Tamm. When Romana regenerates she is rather mysteriously recast to be played by Lalla Ward.

So clearly there is already a precedent for taking an existing actor and character and ‘regenerating’ them as casting requirements dictate. And, curiously, despite the success of the show it is not really a role that anyone seems to want to assume for any prolonged period.

I confess I am disillusioned with the newer series of the show. The show isn’t bad, but I find myself watching it occasionally and not feeling the way the ‘classic’ series made me feel. The classic series was filled with great mystery, the new series with great conspiracy. (Even gross reworkings of Doctor Who lore – such as the destruction of Galifrey – are barely explored.) The classic series had a variety of people as traveling companions who all related to the various incarnations of the Doctor differently. They all had unique motivations and personalities. From what I’ve seen of the newer series the Doctor no longer has traveling companions so much as sycophants; women falling over themselves vying for his attention. Where is the spunk of, say, Leela or Ace I wonder?

So I have two questions for you:

1. Who was your favourite Doctor?
2. Who was your favourite Companion?

Personally, like many of you, I have always had a special affection for Tom Baker as the fourth Doctor, characterised by his inexplicable affection for the human race while possessing some delightfully odd quirks.

As much as I enjoyed watching the exploits of so many companions (Leela, Romana I, Romana II, Nyssa, Ace) Adric was my favourite. I mean how can you NOT like a kid from a gang who comes complete with own his badge for mathematical excellence?!

I’d love to hear what your favourites are.

The Duchess purports to tell the story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, and her husband William Cavendish, Duke of Devonshire. And Georgiana’s lover, Charles Grey, who goes on to become Prime Minister of Britain. And The Duke’s lover, Bess Foster, who goes on to become his wife. His second wife. Confused? I know I am. Truth be told this is a profoundly odd movie. I’m not sure if that is a reflection of the historical material being dealt with here or as a result of the screenplay and performances.

Georgiana (Keira Knightley) becomes married to the Duke primarily to facilitate the creation of a male heir, something her mother stands to benefit financially from. The Duke himself (Ralph Fiennes) appears to be a misogynistic, self-centred bore of a human being. While Fiennes goes to great lengths to allude to possible reasons to explain the Duke’s personality quirks, the whole process becomes painfully laboured and contrived. The Duke comes across as two-dimensional and incredible. At times I wondered if his actions and behaviours had been exaggerated to create additional sympathy for Georgiana, the movie’s protagonist.

Perhaps it was just the strangeness of the arrangement between Knightley and Fiennes’ characters that made their performances seem so much larger-than-life. Hayley Atwell, who plays Bess Foster (the Duke’s lover), and Dominic Cooper, who plays Charles Grey (Georgiana’s lover), offer much more rounded and credible performances. Grey exists as a stark contrast to the Duke. He is passionate, idealistic and sensual. And sadly remarkably naive. It becomes apparent that what is good for the Duke is not also good for the Duchess. In a moment of confrontation the Duke reveals why he acts the way he does; simply, because he can.

It is interesting to draw parallels, thematically, between this movie staged in the 18th century and more recent history. The Duke and Duchess’ attempts for a male heir reminded me of China’s One Child Policy. Differences between social class, economic reality and opportunity were apparent throughout. There was a particularly amusing exchange between Georgiana and Sir Peter Teazle (Bruce Mackinnon), as Teazle explains how he is extending the right to vote to more people – but not to everyone!

Georgiana: I fail to comprehend how far we are fully committed to the concept of freedom.
Sir Peter Teazle: Freedom in moderation.
Georgiana: The concept of freedom is an absolute.

Mostly though the movie stands as a reminder of the dangers of catering to the expectations of society ahead of your own personal desires and ambitions. Although the Duke’s powers and freedoms seemed infinite compared to Georgiana’s, even he felt compelled to act in a manner expected of him. The marriage is a very uncomfortable facade and yet it must be maintained, not for the children, not for the participants, but for the benefit of The Duke’s constituency.

I saw this movie essentially because I wanted to watch something more thoughtful and thought provoking than Disaster Movie. Certainly it worked on that level. I couldn’t help but feel that this movie offered little insight or understanding of what it would’ve been like to exist in this period of history – and even less insight into the dynamics of this bizarre arrangement. Somehow – and for reasons that weren’t apparent to me – Georgiana makes peace with the arrangement. Yes, this is a very odd movie.