Let’s Talk About Sex. Better Yet, Let’s Not.

Posted: August 13, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Quick show of hands: how many of us are actually comfortable talking about sex? I don’t mean in a roundabout way, or in a joking way, or even in a clinical way. I mean an honest, open discussion about the kind of sex that happens every day, maybe even the kind of sex we are having on a regular basis (if we’re lucky). I’m not imagining a lot of hands are up right now, even among the health teachers out there, and there’s a good reason for that. Well, not good, as such, but a well-documented one at any rate.

There’s a puritan taboo in the American culture and psyche regarding sex. We can discuss violence, death, psychological trauma, divorce, even Pauly Shore movies with minimal discomfort (well, maybe not Bio-Dome, that thing scarred me), but we simply can’t have a frank discussion about sex. I can laugh about it with my friends, dance around it with my mom ever since THE TALK, and never, ever admit it happens when my in-laws are around. If I turn to the one source of knowledge that informed my youth, television, I discover that sex consists of two people wearing pajamas kissing goodnight and sharing a bed, with a soundtrack of “oooOOOOOOooohhh!!!” If I rely on its younger sibling, the internet… you know what, I can’t even repeat what the internet showed me. I just need to go wash my eyes out. With industrial strength cleanser.

Obviously I can’t step outside of my own cultural baggage and experiences to say whether or not this is “unhealthy” or “bad” or “disturbing as all hell”, especially in comparison to other countries, where they seem to serve soft-core porn with the soft-serve ice cream. All I can say with certainty at this point is there has to be some better way, some sort of middle ground that neither glorifies sex nor demonizes it. There’s so much that sex can be, any discussion or portrayal of it is by definition going to be incomplete. However, I can take a look at some of the portrayals of sex in American popular culture (no, I will not now nor in the foreseeable future consider the internet to be “popular culture”) and see what common pitfalls there are and if I think anyone is getting it close to right.

First, I think most of the shows on HBO and Showtime today are getting it wrong. The sex is gratuitous, which I couldn’t care less about, but more importantly it is irrelevant. Every time I see sex show up in one of these shows it seems to exist purely for titillation, rarely if ever to drive the plot forward. That’s not to say the characters’ sex lives don’t drive the plot forward, but the portrayal itself adds nothing. In particular I am thinking of True Blood, Game of Thrones, and House of Lies. At least when they do violence or politics (medieval or office) on those shows they get it right.

On the other end of the spectrum is broadcast television, which in spite of the FCC has gotten to the point of acknowledging that people do, if fact, have sex. Not on camera, of course, but at least it does occasionally get discussed. Even here though it is oblique, rarely referenced except in the most banal and inoffensive ways for fear of some octogenarian degenerate somewhere filing a complaint just to get their jollies off by telling everyone else what to do. I would cite examples, but really, just watch primetime TV.

So what are some good examples? Not that I was ever a fan, but the few times I was forced to watch it, it seemed like Sex and the City got the balance right. The sex scenes, while sometimes graphic, always had a purpose and lent weight and credence to the situations and characters. In the same vein, I’m not loving Girls on HBO, but the few episodes I have watched have some very uncomfortable sex scenes that make very important character and story points I just can’t see being portrayed as clearly and compactly without just putting it out there, for lack of a better phrase. One show that I do like a lot that I think gets the balance right is Lost Girl on SyFy. Considering the protagonist is a succubus, there’s pretty much a guarantee of a lot of sex, but it is for the most part done tastefully and within context of the needs of the story. They don’t linger just for the sake of a few cheap thrills, but they don’t shy away either.

I don’t mean to give the impression that I’m some kind of prude who’s afraid or ashamed of sex. Not to go into too much detail, but I was once a twenty-something male with a credit card and access to the internet. There’s nothing wrong with cinema whose greatest contribution is the archetype of the Pizza Delivery Boy or the Pool Cleaner. But if that’s all you’re aiming for, then by all means don’t waste my time with dialogue and story. On the other hand, if you are attempting something a little more highbrow, don’t insult me by assuming I either can’t handle seeing naked skin or you have to have gymnastic bedroom exploits every five minutes. Focus on the story, and if sex is a natural part of that story, let it happen naturally. Maybe then we can start to treat it as something natural.

Disappointing Delights

Posted: July 30, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , , , , | 2 Comments

I’m a huge fan of guilty pleasures. Whether it’s the horrors of eighties hair bands or watching cartoons from my childhood just for the pure nostalgic value of them (“…and knowing is half the battle!”), I feel neither guilt nor shame for indulging myself in these decadent delights. What I do regret however is when I delve into what should be a guilty pleasure and find that it doesn’t live up to my expectations of it. Such is the case for two pleasures I have tried recently, only one of which I will go back for again and can recommend to others.

The first is Burger King’s Bacon Sundae. You heard me right. I actually tried that monstrosity, and damn proud to say it. Why shouldn’t I? It’s everything I should love in a desert: bacon, vanilla soft serve, bacon, chocolate fudge, bacon, caramel, and best of all it’s got bacon. Nothing that has bacon can be all bad, right? And that’s the worst part: it wasn’t all bad. It was meh. I’ve had better, I’ve had worse. I should not be able to walk away from any sundae and think “sure, it was okay, but I could have had a vanilla cone”, let alone one with bacon.

To be fair, I didn’t eat it right as the guy handed it to me because I got it from the drive-thru, but seriously, who’s gonna eat this monstrosity in the restaurant with everybody watching? I will say this for it, though: that first bite was a special kind of magic. I may just have to get some bacon powder and sprinkle it on my next bowl of vanilla ice cream, or maybe even bacon bits. Or both. Mmmmm, bacon. All things considered, I would give this one a pass.

The other recent disappointment for me is Aaron Sorkin’s The Newsroom. I had high hopes for this one at the outset. The writing seemed sharp, witty, and vibrant, the characters seemed fully realized, and the idea of challenging the status quo of both right and left Big Media™ by Taking a Stand and Speaking Truth to Power actually appealed to me. Sure, I was aware going in that Sorkin was the brainchild behind The West Wing, arguable the most lefty show on the airwaves in the past twenty years that didn’t star Jon Stewart or Bill Maher, but a guy can dream. Then I actually watched the show. I won’t criticize the politics of the show, but you can read an interesting piece I mostly agree with here that does. I will however address its other shortcomings.

Despite all the desperate defenses and protestations to the contrary, the show is one-sided. Balance in news coverage is not (or does not have to be) equivalency, despite Sorkin’s assertions in this show; it is simply the admission that not everyone believes the same thing and giving reasonable people a chance to air their opinions. There is no balance here, and I’m not suggesting there should be, although when you say things like (and I’m paraphrasing) “we’ll include intelligent opposing views” in your very first episode but you never do, the implication is that either (a) you don’t believe there is such a thing as an intelligent opposing view, or (b) you are unable to even acknowledge opposing views. Both are common flaws in major media today, but I was really hoping for something more. That same lack of balance makes all the characters horrible caricatures. The good guys are shining good, the bad guys might as well be twirling their mustaches. It borders on being clown shoes.

Which is a damn shame, because despite all of that, it’s still a damn good show. The actors rise above the source material to deliver powerful, compelling performances. I actually care about their characters, and I want to see them grow. When they aren’t busy lecturing me (although I do love to hear them lecture each other) they manage to be witty, or tragic, or just fun. There are more moments that make me laugh, cry, and cheer in one hour than a whole night of network television. Most of all, there is sex and violence and foul language, but it is tasteful, meaningful, and drives the plot rather than being driven by it. There is nothing gratuitous here; I am shocked, not by the simple fact that Sam Waterston’s character dropped the F-bomb, but by the fact he would have the gall to stand up to his boss in that manner. And that is compelling television.

My advice to Aaron Sorkin is set your politics aside and do what you do best: write witty, adult television. Until he does, my advice to everyone else is to set your politics aside, just like I do, and watch The Network so you can get a dose of witty, adult television. Best case scenario, everybody else gets the message and it raises the bar. Worst case scenario, you see some good TV.

Oh, and get me some vanilla ice cream with bacon sprinkles while you’re at it.

 

UPDATE: SInce I mentioned 80s cartoons, this seemed like the best place for this, even if it is a bit of a downer. I just found out that Roger Slifer, a major creative force in a lot of 80s cartoons including “The Transformers”, is in a bad way. If you are interested in helping, they are accepting donations here.

The Greatest Stand-Up of All Time

Posted: July 9, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Humor | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

There’s an old joke that goes “dying is easy; comedy is hard.” Having tried (with mixed success at best) to do comedy on stage, on the printed page, and on the electronic screen, I can attest to this fact. The hardest of all is doing stand-up. When you do stand-up you’re putting yourself out there, in front of the audience, with no script, no character, nothing separating you from them except for the common decency and respect that we all have for each other as human beings… and they’re all a bunch of rowdy drunks looking for a good time, and they don’t care if it’s at your expense.

When you do stand-up, you put it all out on the line, every time, and dealing with hecklers isn’t the hardest part of the job. Dealing with the raw reality of it, baring your soul to a new crowd of strangers and making it funny, insightful, and compelling each and every time, keeping it fresh and new for them even when you’ve done it a thousand times before – that’s the hardest part. I have nothing but love for good stand-up, and nothing but respect for great stand-up comics. Each one has to create their own unique style to stand apart from a sea of others, a special and compelling character that is both individual enough to be recognizable and familiar enough to be relatable.

For my money, these are the best stand-up concerts of all time, and are must-see items for anyone who likes to laugh.

Best Classic Stand Up: Bill Cosby – Himself

The heart of stand-up is not telling jokes, it’s telling stories. Funny stories, poignant stories, stories that pull you in or let it all hang out. The greatest storyteller of them all is Bill Cosby, and this is the concert where he is at the top of his game. He manages to combine words, gestures, running gags, and most of all just the character of Bill into a tour de force performance that doesn’t require anything except him to keep you enthralled. The most magical moment for me is a single story that (if I recall correctly) takes over ten minutes to get from point A to point B, and by the time he gets to the end he’s already covered more comedic ground than many comics can do in an hour… and then comes the punch line that actually references back to something he said a half hour before. Pure comic gold.

Best Underrated Stand-Up: Christopher Titus – The Fifth Annual End of the World Tour

“If it was a good show that got canceled way too young, it must have been on Fox!” That should be the slogan for the network that canned Titus (along with everything they’ve ever touched by Joss Whedon, but that’s a different rant.) Fortunately I discovered this stand-up special by Christopher Titus many years later and was able to see that his particular brand of dark, cynical, and yet still somehow hopeful comedy is still alive and well. Covering a wide range of material in a frank, honest, and mature fashion that is distinctly unfashionable among most comics, Christopher Titus walks a very fine line that manages to be both wildly entertaining and deeply thought-provoking, as well as more than a little moving on occasion.

Best Angry Stand-Up: Dennis Leary – No Cure for Cancer

I love Dennis Leary in pretty much everything I see him in, but for my money this is and always will be his defining moment. His humor is at best irreverent and at worst vulgar, but it is always challenging: challenging the status quo, challenging what is acceptable, even challenging just how far you can push the boundaries of bad taste. He is a thinking man’s angry comic, critiquing modern society even as he criticizes  it.

And to all the Sam Kinison fans out there, let me be the first to say, and I’m pretty sure Sam would agree with me when I say this, fuck Sam Kinison. He was a no-talent hack, the shock-jock of stand-up who got by on a little humor, a lot of screaming, and a willingness to say absolutely anything. That’s not comedy, that’s Tourette’s syndrome.

Best Dirty Stand-Up: Eddie Murphy – Raw

In 1987, Eddie Murphy had nothing left to prove. He was at the top of his game. That was the year Beverly Hills Cop II was released, for crying out loud. So what on earth possessed him to do a stand-up film in a skintight purple leather suit? Pure genius, that’s what. This is Murphy at his best, and he lives up to the title of the film all the way through, in every sense of the word. His language, his subject matter (you’ll be saying “I want half!” for hours afterward), even his gestures are all direct, honest, and completely uncensored. It’s not for every audience, but I highly recommend it for everyone who can get behind it.

Best All Around Stand-Up: Eddie Izzard – Dress to Kill

I named this my best all-around for two reasons: first, because at the end of the day I just can’t pin down how else to define Eddie Izzard; second, I have almost as much fun watching other people try to describe his show as I do watching it, which is (for me) the mark of great comedy. He covers so much ground, and with such style and panache, if I were to try to say “this special is about this” I would miss about 90% of what it’s about, and that would miss the point anyway. What it’s really about is watching Eddie Izzard be Eddie Izzard: funny, frenetic, charming and delightful.

Honorable Mention for Lifetime Achievement:

Chris Rock

Honestly, I can’t pick out any one stand-up special by Chris Rock and say, “you must see this.” Just pick one, any of them will do. They’re all good, and for me he’s the best of a lot of great comedians who all seem to do the same brand of comedy. He just does it with that little extra bit of je ne sais quoi. I might even go so far as to say that Chris Rock is the new Richard Pryor.

George Carlin

No, I’m not focused on George because of his seven dirty words. To be honest I don’t think it’s all that great of a bit, although I do love him for doing it. I more love Carlin because he had such a great character about him, and while I didn’t agree with his politics, I think every aspiring comedian should be required to study him to understand timing and delivery.

Let’s Hear It for the Freaking FCC

Posted: June 25, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

Recently the FCC got slapped, although not spanked (and certainly not tied up and paddled on primetime television) by the Supreme Court. Well, yippee. I know I should be more excited by this, especially considering my vast love for the First Amendment in all its forms, but the truth is this ruling was about as mamby-pamby as any I’ve ever heard out of the Supreme Court, which considering it was a unanimous ruling in a strongly divided court isn’t much of a surprise. Still, at least we got a little something, which is to say a small shred of common sense in government: hey look, you can’t just decide post facto that something is indecent and levy fines here but not there for the same activity.

But why shouldn’t we be grateful for the FCC? I mean, after all, won’t somebody please think of the children? If it weren’t for the FCC, public television might look more like cable, what with the sex, violence, and bad language. And we all know nobody actually wants to watch shows like The Sopranos, Sex in the City, True Blood, or anything like that. And even if there were a few sick bastards out there who did, the rest of us would be helpless in the face of their Vast Media Empire. It’s not like we could, I dunno:

  • change the channel
  • turn the TV off
  • go read a book
  • play outside
  • go for a walk
  • build a model
  • play a board game
  • call a friend
  • go to the theater
  • look at lolcatz on the interwebs
  • read a blog

So yeah, we’re pretty much stuck looking at the same handful of channels, making sure we all have the same culture. One might even call it “popular culture.” Not because it’s all that popular, but just because everyone is familiar with it, and because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, and it never challenges us. If we didn’t have that, if our entertainment somehow became fractured, we might not all have the same basic outlook on things, and what would that do to our society? Our politics? Our country?

We might all start finding things that appeal to our deepest beliefs rather than the muddy middle, and then we’d have to go one of two ways. The one would be a cultural and political revolution, but in a good way: we would have to honestly start to engage with one another, and stop pretending that father knows best, admit eight isn’t enough, and we just can’t leave it to beaver. We would need to go to a place where everybody doesn’t know your name, and start to lean each other’s’ names, as well as each other’s hopes and dreams and deepest beliefs. Then we would need to work out our conflicts in a meaningful way, and not just try to force our own ideas of what’s right and wrong on each other, either through blatantly through the political machine or subtly through the mass media.

The other would be a disaster: some sort of bipolar system in which we become horribly polarized, swinging back and forth politically and socially until the entire system cracks apart from the stress because we keep talking past each other instead of talking to each other. But that could never happen, right?

Right?

Newer Entries →