Chubby Checker Doesn't Want Your Chubbies Checked in his Name

In what has to be the day's most surreal headline so far, Guardian contributor Sean Michaels posts a brief story about Chubby Checker's lawsuit against Hewlett Packard for using his name for their new penis measuring app.

Apparently, it's all about the shoe size!

Here's the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/14/chubby-checker-sues-hewlett-packard?intcmp=ILCMUSTXT9385

Exploitaion > History = Django Unchained

Tarantino chose to make Django Unchained into a blaxploitation film.

Because he likes exploitation films more than History.

Despite the fact that slavery is already the vilest form of exploitation.

Does he not feel that the slaves were exploited enough the first time round?

Tarantino's Works the Word Nigger Like a Slave

I'm tired of "Lame Rationalization Game" Tarantino has been playing in defense of his (ab)use of the word nigger in Django Unchained.

It begs the question:

What exactly is realistic about a movie whose plot pivots on the cartoon contrivance of a bounty-hunting dentist who rescues a slave in exchange for help in identifying the principles in a particularly lucrative bounty. And if that weren't implausible enough, the beneficient bounty hunter (His name is Dr. King Y'all!)  offers to further assist by offering to teach said slave the fine art of gun slinging and to rescue his wife from the clutches of a leering Mandingo fight loving slave owner.

In any realistic movie Django would have been the bounty. Runaway slaves practically sustained bounty hunting business in the day, almost as much as they did the field of advertising. (but that's another story)

It seems disingenuous in the extreme to assume that in a film as contrived as candy floss, the word nigger is taxed with the burden of sustaining the realism of the film. That's a lot of work for nigger to do.

You could almost say that tries Tarantino works the word nigger like a slave!

While that fact may not be literally true, it is certainly literarily true: The word nigger was uttered 110 times in Django Unchained.

Are we supposed to believe that the number 110 was the actual result of some rigorous formula devised by Tarantino for tallying the exact amount of times the word nigger could be uttered in a 2h45 minute movie so that it corresponds "realistically" to the amount of times a that slave would have heard the word in hs day, month, year lifetime? Or is he just playing a lame rationalization game knowing that no interviewer would have the sand to stand up to him, like the guy from Channel 4 did. (Would that Tarantino had the sand to stand up to a major American Interviewer in that manner...in the weeks leading up to the release of his film...when the controversy was in full rage?)

Whatever his reason for exploiting the word as vigorously as he does in his film, it certainly couldn't be because of a preoccupation with the "real". Otherwise he wouldn't have stopped there and realism would have pervaded his production.

No. His lame excuse is just a rationalization for abuse.

What's the point of the being a "provocateur" if you lack the courage to cop to your deeds.

Zero Dark Thirty

I can't fathom how the critics could fall over themselves with love for Zero Dark Thirty. Besides being cowardly is a really banal cia military police procedural film, the directing is dull as dish water.

The script feels constrained and restrained of dramatic juice, interest, detail, character, insight, and isn't abetted one bit by the the cold mausoleum compositions that she feels the need to parade on screen incessantly one after the other, like the outtakes of a much more interesting film. AS IF the paucity of dramatic material substance juice  conflict, LIFE at the films core could sustain such hollow cinematic treatment. Hollow hollow film I tell you -- which is  a real shame because Bigelow used to have a great eye and direct her films with vigour and passion.

But at the end of the day, wihtout having something interesting inciteful important INFORMATIVE to say about the war on terror ZD30 ain't nothing more than a warmed over rerun of Homeland.

And lest that sound like an overly unreasonable or exigent request, just depict the events how they fucking happened, allow the transparency to be your aesthetic, allow translucency to be your statement or condemnation of events.

I mean you preach respect, you preach realism, you happily mawkishly to accept awards form making something other than an base action film (ooooh shudder the thought)  fine, stick to the fucking facts. Why in the name of fairness and accuracy in reporting, would diverge from the facts at such a critical moment in the narrative, in such a conspicuous manner within the narrative structure, with something as provocative and as weighty in your narrative as torture.

That tells you all you need to know about her as a propagan...*cough*  i mean filmmaker.

And why are we harbouring her drippy lies when we know that boat don't float, and that she's just trying to market her leaky vessel as qualified conveyor of cogent facts.?

And why is she given a pass for flip-flopping on her priorities in making the film. One moment she's justifying the existence of her film by cowering behind the shield of realism, then when it suits  her she advocates for artistic license, cowering from the controversy that her artistic license provoked.


So blantantly,disingenuous...Fascinating that we just sop it up.

Cassano's Curious Crime

Cassano is an atavistic arsehole for saying what he said about gays in azzuri, but he is entitled to his opinion. And that (incidentally) is my opinion. See how that works? Everyone doesn't have to love everybody. You say can say stupid things if you want, but we have the right to criticize and vituperate in kind. We may even, at times, retaliate in ways that trespass the boundaries of those rights. And I say this as black male, who's withstood racist remarks from whites, and homophobic ones from blacks (despite my ardent heterosexuality).

As a society we do not have the right to dictate the content of the thoughts or beliefs that people espouse. Nor does a bigot have the right to harass any individual with their unsolicited opinion. However, answering a question honestly is not harassment.  Having said that we do have the right to ridicule, ostracize, banish in order to contain/curtail such virulent comments. And when racial abuse reaches levels deemed unacceptable to society, legislators can pass laws to ban certain offensive arrangements of syllables.

Fact: Being allowed to play football is a privilege not a right, but as a player, Cassano does have a right to free speech. Indeed it is not only his duty to express himself honestly, it is essential to future progress.

Consider this: how else are we to rehabilitate a bigot if they feel forced conceal their beliefs?

People are always cynical about post slur apologies but often the expression of such narrow thinking is demonstration of a certain lack of public awareness.  (He comes from a very insular society) And the backlash often acts as a sobering jolt to the system and makes them aware of the heinousness of their comments. And even if's pretending, its a start. You walk before you can run. You pretend before you become.


My point is that Cassano's right to express his opinion, when asked, is the first step in the process of his racial rehabilitation. A process, which could result in there being on less racists in the world. A preferable alternative to a scenario where we inhabit a perpetually edgy society populated with closet racists too paranoid to express their pernicious views.

Sensitivity to the various forms of unacceptable verbal abuse, is an essential trigger in the process of social enlightenment. But have we become overly sensitive (and i mean that in the counter-productive sense).  Process of progress is impeded when our sensibilities become too fragile for dialogue and discussion. An indication that a rethink of our tactics is in order.

The goal of mainstream racial tolerance will continue to elude us unless we are sane in our response to insane responses and maybe gradually the sanity would be contagious.

24fps Speed Limit

Critics always speak about our bias in favor of 24fps, as though it were just an arbitrary thing that we became accustomed to. Is it not possible that 24fps is the sweet spot that our visual cortex finds the most seductive. Is it not possible that flicker, dancing grain, motion blur, lower frame rate are candy to the eye? Is it not possible that 24 fps survived this long because of its inherent seductive qualities. Comparing film to video can be like comparing oil paint to gouache. Whatever it's virtues gouache doesn't have the same subtlety and seductive force of oil paint because it just isn't a supple a tool.

Django Unbrained!

DJANGO UNBRAINED!!!

I've seen the movie, and though I loved it, it is certainly not the film that a black filmmaker would have made, even one as obsessed with  the spaghetti western sub-genre trappings, as tarantino is.

The narrative power of the film is diluted by insistence of shoehorning a slave drama into the spaghetti western structure. It's not that the "low brow" sub-genre denigrates  the theme of slavery, it's just that the spaghetti western sub-genre  (in Tarantino's hands)  is too narrow a scrim to view a slave narrative through because it automatically (unnaturally?) limits the range of events that could potentially fit such a film.

As the lovingly recreated Sergio Corbucci and Sergio Leone inspired scenes unfurl on the screen in all their gleaming recycled freshness, we are in equal measure delighted by the director's aesthetic largesse, as we are deprived by the inherent stinginess of the director's approach. Our minds lag behind, detained by some throwaway detail on the periphery of a scene, or distracted by some interesting narrative event that raises issues that director didn't deem fit to explore beyond the need move the story forward, leaving the audience to weave our own speculative narrative parellel to the one on the screen. 

Indeed, the rigidness of the any container serves to define what resides within it as well as what resides without. And even as Django and Shultz traverse the arid sun scorched landscapes typical of spaghetti westerns,  we, as an audience, thirst for more detail on the texture of slave life -- the plantation politics, the mechanics of fleeing a plantation, and underground railroad, etc. In short, anecdotes and scenes that were more morally provocative in their depravity and brutality than just ones that lent themselves to a splashy presentation. In that sense the film just was not deep enough -- even for an exploitation film.

Apologists would say that there is no way that Tarantino could have fit more of these evocative details without compromising the flow of his film. A false claim that  brings us to the other problem of the film: it's bloated running time. 

Clocking in at an inflated 165 minutes this Spaghetti Western less pasta and more push-ups. Rambling dialogue scenes (which the director uses increasingly as a narrative crutch in lieu of narrative event) go on interminably and should have been truncated. There is nothing in this film, despite what amnesiacs in the critical community say, that is as good as Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction, though all of the actors acquit themselves admirably. (Jamie Foxx's understated performance is film's best)

Adding further to the empty calories are the films extraneous endings. Would that the script were tighter and ended in the first shoot out at the plantation house. Indeed, one feels that the these scenes were tacked on not for narrative reasons, but to indulge Tarantino's need to serve more desert after the desert had already been served. Those precious minutes could have been used to depict Hildy's thirst for freedom, her courage craftiness in fleeing the plantation, and the tragedy of her eventual recapture. 

That may have robbed us of the narrative punch of the hotbox surprise, but it would also have added some honestly earned emotional weight the story. 

Given priority Tarantino places on the spaghetti western tropes over the narrative content, however, it is not surprising that subtlety is sacrificed for surprise in this instance.

That being said, if with Django Unchained Tarantino has served up a spicy but rather modest repast instead of the sumptuous holiday feast that we expected, it's probably because this spaghetti western could have used a little less red sauce and a lot more meat.

Zero Dark Dirty

I don't claim to have seen the film. 

In fact there is nothing that I  abhor more than the idea of reviewing a work that i haven't seen. Having said that, there a number of statements made both by people who have seen the film and people who have not (including the filmmakers!),  regarding not just the politics of THE film, but regarding politics and political interpretation on film in general that were false at best misleading disingenuous at worse. So much so that it seems appropriate to engage in a discussion regarding the discussion of the film.

it would seem that after nearly a century of serious political, sociological, film studies, we have forgotten how to approach politics in film, how it works, how to interpret, who has the last say etc. Reporting on film seems to have plunged to the low standard of reporting in all disciplines. Instead of trying to discover the truth about a film through empirical, logical analysis and investigation, we tend to take words from the filmmakers mouth as gospel as though their stated intent,is the only factor that weighs in the political interpretation of their film.

So when filmmakers say that the film isn't intended to be political, should we believe them? 

 When they say that they tried not to be biased, how credible is that stance given that it is an american movie on the topic of foreign policy?

Can any american movie on the topic be free of political bias?

Indeed, Bigelow and Boal's use of the word political in their statements seems so ridiculous that one feels forced to challenge their understanding of the word. Indeed, Boal and Bigelow reveal their political bias precisely in their denial of a political bias, because such a gainsaying reveals a narrow (biased?) view of the term 'political' that they seem to employ as a tacit synonym for the word 'partisan'. So when filmmakers say that the film is not political, what they really mean that the film is bi-partisan. As though that is any real indication of moral balance or political impartiality. Then again maybe given their wealth and status, they can afford to be aloof. 

Given the subject of the film, the context of the times, the nationality of the filmmakers, the way the filmmakers admit that despite their claims of realism, they manipulated facts, (cinema is confection after all) this anti-bias stance beggars belief beyond the point of penury.--taking for granted as they do: 

That the only political meaning/positions to be taken from the work are the ones that state explicitly by the filmmaker or characters in the film. 

That the political intent of the film is always equivalent to its political impact or meaning.

That no implied meanings hover around the periphery of a film, or leak through cracks along the edges of a film etc.

That the very act of an american director making film about the capture of Bin Laden could be anything but political. 

That deeming 'operation to kill Bin Laden' as something worthy of examination or celebration isn't a biased political act in and of itself. 

That Homeland Security would have been cooperative had they suspected a heavily critical approach to the material by the filmmakers.

That 40 million dollars would have been invested for a very critical film.

That political means partisan and that as long as the film doesn't appear to be supporting one of the binary political parties, that it isn't political.

All of these factors and more would contribute to a definite political bias, IN ANY FILM

But we know that political analysis of film have more to do with whether the filmmaker is supporting one political party vs the other, don't we? Doesn't political analysis of the film also involve examining the construction of the film: narrative weight given to certain events, identification of certain characters vs negative portrayal or  exclusion of others. You know white hat cowboys vs black hat cowboys. Such question of inherent political bias  that can be simply swatted away by a filmmaker by saying we just tried to make it realistic as possible.

That line is a red herring. ALL FILMS ARE ARTIFICE. ALL FILMS ARE CONSTRUCTS EVEN DOCUMENTARIES. 

Filmmakers always make specific choices in order to conform their material to the big screen. That means a lot of truncating and a lot simplification, a lot of glamourizing, a lot of make-up and a lot of light.  And it is precisely in examining how this is done, how the resources are marshalled, specific choices made, deviations made from reality, that a filmmaker's political bias can be detected. 

And according to the filmmakers themselves, some crucial deviations WERE made, despite their extensive research.(good tool for propaganda)

For instance, Boal and Bigelow have stated that they say that the film doesn't endorse torture, that they wanted to stick the facts and just depict the process as realistically as possible.

If that is the case, why did they choose to depict events in their film suggesting that torture techniques were useful in leading homeland to Bin Laden's courier, when individuals involved in the intelligence community say that it wasn't a helpful tool in this PARTICULAR case.

Realism, huh? Why did they choose, among all of the possible scenes/sequences in the movie, where deviation from their realism would have been less conspicuous, less telling,? Why did they allow their dedication to realism to waver in this instance, opting instead for dramatic manipulation, in such a thematically conspicuous juncture in the film? where it would have the most dramatic weight, where it could skew the documentary truth of the process that led to Bin Laden's capture?

Because folks, (and keep in mind that i haven't seen the film) that is a clear example of what and implicit political bias would like (if that is in fact what takes place in the film). Bigelow and Boal don't necessarily have to depict characters spouting patriotic dialogue espousing virtues of torture in voice over, to be endorsing of torture. That can be achieved in the 'language' of the film narrative, and its manipulation.

It doesn't even have to be conscious on the part of filmmakers, certain film genres are inherently political even when not depicting a political milieu, per sei. And we know that spy movies involving homeland security, are as political (both big P and little p) as you can get..

What ensues is a flurry of of critical commentary, forcing the filmmakers to pipe up when you expected them to shut up. (betraying principles not to elucidate the film almost as quickly as they purportedly abandoned strict path of realism  mentioned earlier)

Isn't it interesting how filmmakers who essay a serious political issue, and posit a kind of pusillanimous let-the-film-speak-for-itself impartiality,  INVARIABLY pipe up when they feel that their film is being misinterpreted, or when the discourse gets a little unwieldy. What did they think would happen? I thought that you wanted to stay above the fray: like 

The only thing more cowardly than abandoning your position not to clarify the points in your unbiased movies, is being too cowardly to express a political opinion in or surrounding your own political film

Why would a political filmmaker demonstrate such self-disdain as to renounce the political content of their own film?

Does the filmmaker adopt that stance as a shield to protect them from the political implications/fallout of their own work?

 Or is it the pose of the artiste, swathing themselves artistic pretension that they hope would elevate them above fray of political debate?

More likely it is because the film itself (as well as the filmmakers) are the product of an extremely polarized political climate, fuelled by the reactionary relativism of fox news and tea party, that endeavours to shoehorn any political issue, no matter how morally repugnant to the human project  (be it slavery or torture), into simplified system of binary choices,  as with two competing consumer brands, reducing the exchange of ideas to the status of a commercial transaction, paving the way for the possible acceptance of any policy, regardless of how repugnant or retrograde, or repressive.

It is a form of reactionary relativism resulting from persistent pressure from wealthy corporate interests,  capable of purchasing the platform necessary to elevate  their material and financial interests, so that they achieve a status that is equivalent to the basic human needs and concerns that actually preoccupy the population at large:  the people who have to struggle to eke out a living with increasingly diminishing returns. Unless this problem is addressed, reactionary relativism will always overlay every public issue like a glaucous film diminishing our political perspective. And if the filmmaker's timid comments are anything to go by, the cumulative effect of all of this reactionary relativism is that it reduces the political artist to a pusillanimous political patsy lacking the the fortitude to promote the political implications of their own political work.

Not only is this stance cowardly, it is disingenuous and hypocritical to for the filmmakers to feign bemusement at all of the political noise that their film has elicited, when surely Boal and Bigelow chose this material because it was provocative and political. And how disingenuous for them to believe that we would believe the homeland security would have offered any assistance at all, unless the depiction was fair, (i.e. tolerant) of the methods, and his fair depiction in this case really fair..to everyone, or is that in itself a bias?

Apologists will say that this cowardliness is really a canny tactic that is conducive to maximum commerce, a compromise designed to avoid alienating viewing public.

Fair enough...

But then don't take credit for having the courage to have done something that you really didn't follow through on. 

Even as the filmmakers continue to forge this timid path in heavily partisan political landscape, effectively balancing themselves out of any meaningful discourse, they are also reaping accolades and awards for their artistic courage that they never necessarily showed.

Does the all of this talk of impartiality void any political (progressive or otherwise) value that the film may have? Does absence of an explicit political viewpoint in the film, despite the 40 million dollar budget, despite access to classified information, despite the seriousness of the topic, and despite recreation of Bin Laden's compound to the last detail, (filmmakers are sticklers for visual realism, socio-political, not so much) reduce her inflated confection to just another slick  hollow thriller to go alongside those that almost exclusively populate her filmography. Or do we just need filmmakers that are brave enough to stand by their vision?

WAS IT WORTH IT?



All war is terrorism
It Imposes on Life
A calculus of Death
Qualitative human values
Substituted for quantitative ones...
...And zeroes
Weaponized Xs and Ys
Confuting Life with Profit
Health with Stealth
Victims with Victory
Death with debit
In which The predictable result
Of the equation
Remains the same:
A procession of Coffin Clad Casualties

Lone Lightbulb in the Darkness

Finally! A prominent cultural critic (Armond White) addresses the topic of the precipitous plunge in standards and rigour that has blighted mainstream cultural criticism over the past decade.  In the case of movie criticism the case has become egregious. The flagrant complicity between the critics, their editors, and the Hollywood studios has become so complete, that the critic has become an apologist for the poor product that Hollywood peddles. The result: a cannily constructed consensus/critical reality, where critics employ a skillful blend of euphemism and rationalization to praise awful movies variously as: exciting-but-pointless, great-offensive, dumb-but-fun, derivative-yet-original, not-so-bad, ect. javascript:void(0)

Armond White is a tough, articulate film critic who brings to bear a wealth of (god forbid!) knowledge of film aesthetics and film history to his reviews - a proclivity that foments controversy and conflict within the critical community. He took a lot of stick for his negative review of the ill-conceived/misguided District 9; as though a black critic would be blind the inherent racism of the premise of that film.


Here's the link to Armond's thought-provoking article.

http://cityarts.info/2011/09/13/light-bulb/

Gunners Shoot Blanks or The Proper Etiquette Guide for Sore Loosers

Robin Van Persie is a ball-faced liar - pun intended.

In the post-game press conference, Van Persie said that he didn't hear the referee's offside whistle. The audacity of that statement is only matched by it's mendacity. Maybe his lame excuse would fly in the age of radio, but anyone with half an eye and one firing synapse can see as clear as HD that he was having a go.

As you well know by now, the controversy started in the 56th minute of Tuesday night's Champions League clash between Arsenal and Barcelona, when Van Persie received a perfectly weighted pass from Fabregas that split the middle of Barcelona's defensive right at the edge of the penalty box. The referee whistled Van Persie offside before the ball even touched the striker's foot.

Upon receiving the ball a second later, Van Persie ingnored the whistle, stopped short, and whipped a hard (but lazy) shot into the side netting - with guilt and frustration written all over his body like a tattoo.

The strange thing is that instead of moving forward to challenge the goalie, Van Persie stops short (as though he'd heard the whistle) and fires a hard but half-assed shot into the side netting.

See the clip below.





Guilty say I, because under normal circumstances, a centre forward of his calibre - who really hadn't heard the referee's whistle - would have challenged the goalie with more ardor, and dribbled himself into a more accommodating shooting angle - rather than squandering the opportunity as he did. And it's a good thing that he was in fact offside, if not, such a feeble attempt on goal in such an important match would surely have been worthy of a throttling from the head coach.

To tell the honest truth, when I saw the event live, I was struck by the insolence of the gesture and the utter disregard for the whistle that it indicated. Whether or not it was harsh expulsion is debatable. And it was a harsh. But what isn't debatable is the fact that Arsenal where roundly outplayed in the match.

The stats don't lie:

Barcelona enjoyed 68% of possession of the ball to Arsenals 32%
Barcelona had at total of 17 shots on goal, whereas Arsenal had none.

Here is a mind blowing stat:

Out of the 1295 sides to have played in the Champions League, this Arsenal side is the only one not to have recorded a single shot on goal during the match. In fact, Arsenal were gifted their only goal of the match courtesy of Busquets' own goal in the 53rd minute.

Those are the numbers, but if we must moan about referees, it could be argued that Arsenal, not Barcelona, benefitted from the lion's share of poor calls by the refs - in both legs! The Catalans had a legitimate goal disallowed in the first leg, and an OBVIOUS penalty disallowed in the first half of the second leg.

Would that Arsenal showed as much fight in the game as they did in their post-game interviews and tweets. The gunners were listless and lacking in ambition during most of the match. And Wenger erodes his credibility and stature as a coach every time he cries conspiracy when his team fails to deliver the goods: losing to Birmingham in the Carling Cup Final, failing to put away Leyton Orient in the FA cup, failure to beat Sunderland over the weekend to creep within 1 point of Manchester united, and the list goes on and on....as do Wenger's excuses.

A word of advice for Mr. Wenger (from one sore looser to another) on the proper etiquette of losing poorly: The next time your team loses due to a bad call by the ref, Keep your mouth shut. Nobody wants to hear it. Or at the very least, do what i do:

1- Give fulsome praise to the opposing team i.e. catalogue and recite, in exhaustive detail, every single positive play, gesture and respiration performed by the opposing team.

2- Ask for permission to moan about the referee.

3- If permission is granted, then proceed.

Conversely, if your team wins the match due to the ref's poor call, do the following:

1- Praise the performance of the opposing team.

2- Allow the interlocutor to vent at their frustrations at the referee's decision

3- Agree with your interlocutor (while defending the quality your own teams performance). Because admitting that the opposing coach was right, doesn't change the result now does it?

This is a fool proof way of saving face after a bad loss. You're so likely to be riled up over the bad call that torpedoed your own squad that you'll be blind to the myriad bad calls that affected the opposition during he match...and the thousands of other bad calls that have affected all of the sides in every other match dating back from big bang to the present day...

Bad calls are a part of the game and the best insurance policy against them is to perform well.

Charlie Sheen: TV's 24 Hour Golden Shower

Ok. Let's be honest. The past few weeks have been absolute torture for some TV heads. I mean having to endure a ceaseless stream of 24 hour news cycles chronicling the sex & drug fuelled implosion of one of Tinseltown's most talentless tools is enough to make any viewer's ears and eyes bleed (those persons more intimately involved may complain of bleeding from other orifices!). Having said that, as a piece of smutty sur-reality tv, Charlie Spleen's traveling circus of tiger blood and strookers has been hoot!

We love it when the freak precedes the show and we love it even more when one of our paid clowns slips and busts his crown one of his own guilded turds. The response from most professional pundits has been predictable, and they have been quick to condemn Charlie Sheen's behaviour as depraved and immoral, branding him a lunatic and a menace to those close to everyone within earshot.

But are the pundits right in their rush to judgment? Are we really diagnosing the situation correctly? Or are we performing the autopsy before the body is even dead, killing the patient in the process? Self-aggrandizing pronouncements and malevolent tone aside (yeah, i'm rolling my eyes too), I've been struck by the lucidity and wit of Charlie Sheen's dope-box rants.

Given the conservative tone that pervades in most of what passes for pop culture in America today, it's certainly possible that Charlie Sheen is being misrepresented in his own words in the media. Maybe we are so caught up in the spectacle of the morbid exhibitionism that we might actually be three monkeys  (deaf dumb mute) to what Charlie Sheen is trying to say. 

If Sheen's epic attempts to BOTH fulfil AND justify his ambition to snort and fuck himself out of existence, aren't worthy our admiration/envy/awe - then MAYBE at least it is worthy of a closer look. I mean the man may be putting his sack on the line for what may be one of the best self-reflexive pieces of performance art since Andy Kaufman implosion in the 70s. Or maybe not. Who knows? Sometimes the best way to the bottom of a sticky question like this, is to ask a ton more questions. So here are a series of questions that we hope are as loaded as Charlie is.



LOADED QUESTIONS


• Is Charlie Sheen really a maybe-not-so-unwitting post-modern moralist, self consciously regurgitating the very same tepid TV pap that's been accumulating in our collective guts for the past decade -  like some 6 year old tv-addled sugar junkie reciting lines from his favourite sitcoms and commercials to show mommy and daddy that tv does make you smart? In other words aren't half-baked catch phrases like Tiger Blood - Adonis Gene - Drug Called Charlie Sheen - already Naked Lunch on the Pop Cult menu.


• Or is Charlie Sheen basically holding up a wobbly coke smeared mirror, reflecting our own depraved dependency on that daily fix of salacious celebrity smack, and morbid media trash that permeates the airwaves, effectively exposing the codependent relationship between his addictions and our own…and vice versa? And If so, does our gawking at the spectacle validate his view that we'd all be doing what he's doing if we had his resources and (ahem) 'Adonis Blood'. After all, ideas are the mother of all actions, are they not?


• Or is this Lenny Bruce-like meltdown some kind of entropic one man po-mo sideshow designed to remind us that it takes two to do the TV town tango and that the inevitable consequence of outsourcing our dreams to Hollywood is that you often receive dreck in equal proportion to the dreams? 


• Or is Sheen like some coked-up stunt double of his previous bad boy self, ripping through the hollywood landscape like a ball of fire, blowing up bridges, blazing up 3 oz crack rocks, battering starlets, and biting the hand that signs his checks, all while putting a bullet in every foot in sight except his own?


• Or is Charlie Sheen just the latest in a long line of sociopathic hollywood gas sacks bloated with a hot dose of crack vapours and a sense of entitlement, spewing his toxic tirades into the airwaves like some atavistic cult leader fresh out of the cryogenic deep freeze and trying to con us into swallowing the same lethal dose of laissez-faire libertarianism and ubermensch twiddle twaddle that his kids wife ex-wife and strookers seem lap up like cool aid?



What do you guys think? I look forward to hearing your comments on this.