The Progressive Puppy

Sinful Cinema Sunday: The Devils

In 1634 in priest named Urban Grandier was tortured and then burned at the stake after being falsely accused of seducing an entire convent of nuns at Loudun, France.  Aldous Huxley wrote a well-researched book about the incident called The Devils of Loudon.  Another scholarly work was written by the eminent French historian Michel de Certeau.  His book was titled The Possession at Loudon.  Both of these books make for grim reading.  (I almost couldn't finish Certeau's slim tome.)  Then in 1971 British filmmaker Ken Russell got hold of the material and created a disturbing movie - hailed as art by some, heresy and smut by others - that was condemned by the Pope and banned in many Catholic countries.  Even in Great Britian, not known for censorship, Russell was forced to cut some scenes before his movie would qualify for an "X" rating.  Surprisingly, The Devils racked up several awards at an Italian film festival despite being banned in that country.  The story of Father Grandier and Loudun's Ursuline nuns illustrates how religious hysteria compels people into bizarre actions.  It is a political story above all else, with French King Louis XIII and the notorious Cardinal Richelieu playing major parts in the proceedings. 

This first clip shows director Ken Russell defending The Devils and talking about censorship (and it includes some provocative scenes from the movie).  The second clip is a scene from the film that wasn't shown in England or America until many years after The Devils' original release.  (Not recommended for those who might take offense at a demented nun's sexual imaginings.  It's not porn, not by a long shot - but many will consider it profoundly sacrilegious.  I do myself, and I'm as heathen as they come.)  There's no way this film would be made today, even though it's based on historical facts.  You can't rent the movie through Netflix but some Blockbuster stores still carry it, or you can order it online.

Move over, Robin. There's a new gay superhero in town...

... and he's not a supporting character!

Stan Lee, the guy who breathed life into such characters as Spider-Man, Iron Man, The Hulk, The Fantastic Four and X-Men, is using his considerable influence and reputation to launch the world's first mainstream gay superhero.  Enter Thom Creed, a high-school basketball player who is forced to hide his sexuality as well as his superpowers.  (There's no word yet on exactly what powers Creed will be, ahem, endowed with - but whatever they are, I imagine religious fundies will be thrown into Hypertension Drive.)  The Independent reports that an hour-long TV special is being filmed and that one television insider is quoted as saying, "It was only a matter of time before we had our first gay superhero. And if there is one man who can make him a success it is Stan Lee.  There’s a real buzz among comic book fans."   Digital Spy has disclosed that Superhero Thom Creed will premier on the US cable network Showtime, although no production dates have yet been announced.  

Lee, the former head of Marvel Comics who was recently awarded the National Medal of Arts in Washington, D.C., says he developed the idea of a gay character from the award-winning novel Hero by out author Perry Moore.  On Moore's website you'll see a photo of him and Stan Lee, arms flung around each other's shoulders.  Moore writes:  You can tell in the picture just how in awe I am of Stan, one of the greatest, most generous beings I've ever had the pleasure to work with.  Keep your fingers crossed for a HERO adaptation soon.  If Stan has anything to do with it, I believe IT WILL HAPPEN!

If this show ever gets aired, you can expect right-wing radio hosts to absolutely sizzle with indignation.  The American Family Association will be frantically posting ACTION ALERTS (to no avail, since Showtime doesn't depend on commercial advertising), Bill O'Reilly will fume and sputter, Rev. Rick Warren will weep over Melissa Etheridge's latest album, and OK Rep Sally Kern will probably fall into a dead swoon.  I. Can't. Wait.

Life Imitating Science Fiction - A World Without Children

British playwright Oscar Wilde famously wrote, "Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life."  But does life also imitate science fiction?  P.D. James' chilling novel, The Children of Men (adapted into a 2006 film starring Clive Owen), is set in an inhospitable future where humankind has lost its ability to procreate.  Although James doesn't dwell on the reason why no more babies are being born, there are vague inferences that global pollution is to blame for worldwide sterility.

Now scientific research is showing that a polluted planet might actually cause males of every species to lose the ability to sire offspring.  The report, which draws on more than 250 scientific studies from around the world, "waves a red flag" for humanity and proves that evolution itself is being disrupted.  (This shouldn't bother Christian fundamentalists since they don't believe in evolution anyway.)  

From The Independent:   It also follows hard on the heels of new American research which shows that baby boys born to women exposed to widespread chemicals in pregnancy are born with smaller penises and feminised genitals.  "This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," says Gwynne Lyons, a former government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, who wrote the report...  Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping.  It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.  And sperm counts are dropping precipitously.  Studies in more than 20 countries have shown that they have dropped from 150 million per millilitre of sperm fluid to 60 million over 50 years.

The chemicals causing these drastic changes are called endocrine disrupters - or "gender-benders" - because they interfere with normal hormones. The compounds are commonly used in food wrapping, cosmetics and baby powders; flame retardants in furniture and electrical goods; PCBs (a banned group of substances still widespread in food and the environment); and many pesticides.

A Really Good Idea: Netflix for Books

It's difficult to think of any one thing or activity in life that is 100 percent positive.  Everything, no matter how seemingly wonderful, has a downside, doesn't it?  If asked to name something free of drawbacks, some might offer "friends" as an answer and granted, friends wouldrank pretty high on the list of life's greatest aspects, but then there's always that one pal who wants to borrow (and never return) your garden tools.  So, moving on.... How about "love?"  Nah, the dark side of that is all too obvious.   Sex?  Even that, has its non-ecstasy side (to say nothing of the potential consequences).  Children? Aaccckk! Even my beloved canines are not completely without some negatives (chewed up sneakers, to name but one).

But I find there is one thing that is ridiculously pleasurable, very inexpensive, mind-expanding and while certainly addictive, not medically threatening.  Reading. I am willing to pronounce that there are noreal disadvantages to reading.  (Yeah, yeah, if you read too much, you might not get your bathrooms clean or neglect dead heading the spent blooms on the petunias, but all in all, you must admit: Reading is the penultimate pastime. (No disrespect intended for sports, employment, dining, sleeping or any of the lesser endeavors of life).

Given this honored status as life's best activity, one must always be on the lookout for ways in which to increase one's own reading as well as to promote reading among the masses. One of my all-time favorite methods of snagging a cache of new reading material on the cheap is to find one of those articles in the newspaper entitled something like "What the authors are reading?" or "Ten top smart people share their favorite books."  From these articles, I invariably find 5 or 6 titles that pique my interest.  And then, the hunt is on.  I look at prices on Amazon.com as a starting point.  Then move to Half.com and other used book sites.  Finally, I check out Ebay.  My goal is to purchase all the books (including shipping) I've targeted for less than the full boat retail price of just one book (usually about $20 to $25).  Almost without fail, I can roundup an armload of reading in no time.

I used to want to keep a copy of every book I read. Silly me, I expected to be re-reading and referring to them constantly.  The house got crowded. Fast. Even the floor to ceiling bookshelves were imploring me to stop acquiring. So now I freely share the best reads with friends and resell or give away the others. 

And once I renounced my possessive ways, I learned to love the cheapest of all ways to feed a reading habit: a library card.  The advantages to libraries, beyond the price, is you get to handle and inspect and read snatches at random before bringing the books home.  A visit to a library will always result in more and more importantly, differentbooks than you would get for yourself online. Libraries make one's book selections more expansive, I think.  You walk down one aisle, headed for the newest Toni Morrison and you pass the nonfiction American history section and the gilt lettering on the spine of "Founding  Brothers" calls to you.  Never have I left the library with just the book(s) I came to find.

However, libraries do have some negatives.  Popular books often are waitlisted (and patience in this case is not one of my virtues) and then there's that "return date" thing. And the late fees. I read a lot, but not on a time schedule so I don't take kindly to having to return books by a particular day. 

So, imagine my delight in discovering a whole different way of feeding my reading habit. BookSwim and Booksfree are online book rental and delivery services. Here’s how it works: Readers order books online and receive them through the mail. They can choose among plans that would allow them to receive from two to 11 books at a time. These books can be kept for as long as the reader likes with no late fees.  When finished with at least two books, the reader sends them back in a pre-paid return bag that comes with every shipment.  Readers who fall in love with their books have the option to buy them. (About a third of the books shipped out are brand new – the others are “pre-read.”)

There are different membership levels, depending on how many books you want to have out a one time.  $20 a month will get you three books at a time and you can return them for new titles as many times a month as you'd like.  Obviously. the more you read, the better the deal this is.  Bookswim seems to have many more titles in hardback and paperback, while Booksfree concentrates on paperbacks and audio cds. You can buy memberships as gifts and BookSwim plants trees for every gift card sold.

Netflix for books. What a great idea.  Read.

Tween Girls Love "Twilight" - and critics, well, not so much.

Filmmaker Catherine Hardwicke's Twilight may have broken records as the most profitable opening ever for a female director - and, the most successful release to date from fledgling studio Summit Entertainment - but movie critics across the country have been less than impressed with the smoldering vampire romance. Based on the first of Mormon Mom Stephenie Meyer's popular novels, this chick flick with teeth raked in over $70 million in theaters across the county, knocking last week's winner, Quantum of Solace, from it's Number One spot.  So what's up with all these curmudgeonly critics?  Let's look at snippets of some of their reviews:

Roger Ebert:  If there were no vampires in "Twilight," it would be a thin-blooded teenage romance, about two good-looking kids who want each other so much because they want each other so much.  Variety:  The result is a supernatural romance in which the supernatural and romantic elements feel rushed, unformed and insufficiently motivated, leaving audiences with little to do but shrug.  Slant Magazine:  In essence, what we have here is a laughable, sex-free gothic tweener variation of those dime-store page-turners featuring Fabio on their cover.  Newsday:  Meyer's novel at least had a sense of humor, but the film version is deathly serious about its silliness.  Film Journal:  Of course, none of these complaints will matter one iota to Twilight's devoted fanbase, who, to be perfectly honest, would probably have been completely satisfied if the film just consisted of a shirtless Pattinson reading the book aloud for two hours.  Film Threat:  With his yearning eyes and tortured past, Edward is the romantic ideal for most 13-year old girls (and some boys) - he’s androgynously gorgeous, has a dope ride, and doesn’t want to do anything but talk about your feelings and snuggle. It would appear that in addition to robbing his brood of their need for blood, Carlisle also removed their balls.  USA Today:  Despite questionable casting, wooden acting, laughable dialogue and truly awful makeup, nothing is likely to stop young girls from swarming to this kitschy adaptation of Stephenie Meyer's popular novel. 

Even if that's true.  Even if tweenage girls comprise a disproportionate percentage of those queueing up for Twilight, it won't come as a shock to studio heads who have long recognized the puchasing power of the Hannah Montana set.  They know that these young moviegoers can create blockbusters as easily as the frequently cited 18-34 male demographic.  Amy Biancolli at the Houston Chronicle probably sums it up best:  "Among the hordes of pubescent fangirls in line to see Catherine Hardwicke’s long-awaited vampire-on-human romance, not a one cares a fang what I think of it." 

As Woody Allen famously wrote, "The heart wants what the heart wants."

O'Reilly's War On Christmas Bumper Sticker (almost free!)

Silver bells, bright ribbons, festive wreaths, colored lights, chestnuts roasting, people who would normally cut your throat for a parking space smiling and waving you on...  It's the Holiday Season!  Or, in Bill O'Reilly Universe, it's the time to whip paranoid evangelicals into that frenzy of righteous victimization called (gulp!) The War on Christmas.  Bible beaters with nothing better to do - like, say, house the homeless - have, at O'Reilly's prodding, turned The Season of Giving into A Reason To Whine because, ya' see, some folks and businesses prefer to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas."  Jason Linkins writes on HuffPo:  Bill O'Reilly has been, on a yearly basis, one of the most fervent and shrill public figures, wailing about the supposed War On Christmas, because he is precisely dumb enough to believe that Christianity, which has enjoyed an unprecedented run of absolute, total success in the United States - such that every single person who's run the country has been a Christian (and such that it's the only religious holiday in the world that's allowed to put their decorations up TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE) - is actually fundamentally threatened each time a shop clerk opts to say "Happy Holidays." ... this has been a persistent fetish of O'Reilly's, and it never fails to make a mockery of people all over the world who truly are experiencing genuine religious oppression.  Linkins goes on to note that O'Reilly is not above making some extra Xmas cash with his breathless call to arms, offering a Free Christian Christmas Bumper Sticker to anyone foolish enough to buy his new memoir, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity.  (Surely Bill-O isn't referring to himself in that title.)      

I do find it odd that these bright red bumper stickers are decorated with two Fleur de Lis, symbols traditionally used to represent French Royalty (and also integrated into the official emblem of the creepy Priory of Sion).  But I suppose in O'Reilly's Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity world, oddities abound.