I started retweeting people complaining about welfare, food stamps, etc. and then following it up with a previous tweet of theirs that makes them look hypocritical/dumb/etc. I discovered that as I would retweet these, my followers would start @replying these people and let them know they were idiots. They would then delete their offending tweet. Well, I couldn’t let that happen. So, I screenshot away.
What Binder is very aware of is that Twitter is, by and large, a public forum. Anything that you tweet, unless your privacy settings are changed, can be read by anyone and everyone; my local Metro, and other newspapers around the world, have a section dedicated to them. This is something that people like Donald Trump often forget. As he mentions, once the tweets draw enough attention they are normally taken down. While this is unfortunate, screencaps serve to archive these tweets, and I’ve embedded a few for your viewing pleasure. The first two are a few of the more relevant ones, and the last is a wonderful showcase of hypocrisy:
In response to Korean pop artist PSY closing the American Music Awards.
Regarding a few Mexican high school marching bands and dancers marching in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.
Just one of the many, many tweet comparisons that highlight the plight of the privileged.
A lot of the “tweets of privilege” happen to be teens and twenty-somethings writing about employment and the economy. There’s a definite trend of people saying that the jobless are lazy, when only months before they were complaining about being unemployed. What Matt Binder is doing with his blog is exposing hypocrisy where it so often festers [the internet], while also helpfully reminding everyone out there to watch what they say. If you stick your foot in your mouth out loud, there’s a chance someone will hear it, but less that someone will actually record it. On the other hand, making a tweet in poor taste about someone’s dead brother online is really all it takes to get on the news. So let’s give a round of applause for this Tumblr and its creator, and for what it is on the internet: a shining light that unveils the words of the wealthy and unwise. You can follow Matt Binder on Twitter at, easily enough, @MattBinder.
EVAN: You said we should talk about food shows. Namely, the greatest food show of all time. Ever. In existence.
GORDON: Well, if we’re going to come up with the greatest food show in existence, we obviously have to take into account everything: from the high-class Iron Chef (and Iron Chef spin-off[s]) competition shows to the most rough and tumble [namely, Epic Meal Time].
EVAN: Ooh, dang, I hadn’t even thought of that last one. To be fair, though, thinking about it this week I came up with what I thought the basic structure of the ultimate food show would be.
GORDON: Shoot.
EVAN: I’m a man who loves his cooking shows, so my ultimate cooking show would involve, ideally, Top Chef Masters, MasterChef, and something like Surivorman.
GORDON:Survivorman?
EVAN: It’s like a Bear Grylls-esque show.
GORDON: The chefs have to hunt and skin their ingredients?
EVAN: I’m getting there-
It would have the insane challenges of Top Chef Masters, which calls for ridiculousness such as a gourmet dish made of licorice and sardines or something like that, coupled with the ability to appeal to different a wide range of different palates, a la the challenges of MasterChef, with a sprinkle of Survivorman for that added kick which, as you said, would be along the lines of hunting, skinning, etc.
GORDON: As much as I enjoy the concept of Mario Batali going mano-a-mano with a Yukon bull moose, I feel that there’s only so much you can cram into a cooking show- and it should be focused on the food itself.
EVAN: Well, let’s focus on my first two points then- some seriously difficult [and devious] challenges, as well as the added element of having to appeal to different palates.
GORDON: I can agree with that, only I would obviously like to see the show also grounded in some reality. Like dropping the chefs off in a college cafeteria somewhere and forcing them to work with what precious little is offered there, or an episode exclusively about ramen . . .
EVAN: A ramen episode would be awesome. I actually had the most amazing instant noodles this morning. It was Indonesian “mi goreng,” and it comes with sweet soy sauce, chili sauce, seasoning oil, seasoning powder, and fried onions.
GORDON: YOU HAD INDOMIE? THAT IS THE BEST RAMEN IN EXISTENCE! I WOULD KILL AN ORPHANAGE FOR A PACKET OF THAT STUFF!
EVAN: WE ONLY HAD TWO PACKS AND I ATE THE LAST ONE THIS MORNING. I NEED TO FIND MORE.
GORDON: But yeah, I think it’s important that the show not get too fancy.
EVAN: So we’ve gotta keep it pretty grounded, that makes sense. What I think would be really interesting, though, is kind of turning the whole thing over.
Because in gourmet restaurants, it’s never ever “the customer is always right.” It’s “the chef is always right.” So if we had a show where the chefs had to specifically cater to what people wanted, instead of them being all “I went to school for this I know what you want.”
GORDON: That would be cool- I recall us watching a cooking show episode where the contestants were judged by a whole bunch of kids. Vox populi; I like it
EVAN: Yep, that would be MasterChef. I loved how one guy kept saying he was a dad, and he knew what kids liked and didn’t like.
GORDON: I do think we need to cut something out.
EVAN: Yeah?
GORDON: That’s the judges screwing with the cooks:
EVAN: Really? I kind of love that.
GORDON: It doesn’t build tension- it’s just annoying.
I also feel that there should always be a judge from crazy far away. so there’s always a really different perspective.
EVAN: That’d be cool.
I know something we definitely need to remove.
GORDON: Yeah?
EVAN: Product placement.
GORDON:THANK YOU!
Yes- that crap gets chucked out. Unless. Unless it’s a genuine moment of the chef expressing that a certain thing has really helped him. I think that kind of endorsement is fair.
EVAN: Yeah, I mean, that’s valid.Like, there’s this guy, on MasterChef, who would say things like, “Let’s see what you cooked on your MasterChef TM Frying Pan.” It was painfully blatant.
GORDON: It was.
You good with three chefs?
EVAN: For a show? I don’t see why not.
GORDON: How many contestants? Two, à la Iron Chef, or elimination style, à la MasterChef?
EVAN: Wait, did you mean three judges?
GORDON: I did.
EVAN: I think two chefs, three judges.
GORDON: Are the judges all chefs, or do we include food critics and celebrities? I don’t care for the food critics too much. Too . . . exclusionary?
EVAN: I think food critics have their place. I think that celebrities can be . . . stretched. Like one time on Iron Chef: America one of the celebs was the guy who played Gunther on Friends. The guy who owned Central Perk.
GORDON: Bill Murray was on there, wasn’t he? Called Batali a princess?
EVAN: I think he was in the audience, haha. Which is hilarious.
GORDON: It was. I demand Bill Murray always be in the audience.
EVAN: You would torture the poor man.
GORDON: All in the name of the perfect cooking show, yes. But moving on . . . Secret ingredients?
EVAN: So are we going for more of an Iron Chef approach here?
GORDON: Yeah, but bear with me. I think we should include bonus points for making the food really, really big, à la Epic Meal Time. Decadence combined with technique, which is I believe how we first came up with Turduckens.
EVAN: See, I think we can have decadence and technique by having different rounds, each one hugely different from the one before it. Maybe you can create a Turbaconepic, but can you then create a tower . . . out of soup!?
GORDON: That sounds like an awesome idea.
So let’s see what we got here: two chefs face off, surprised by secret ingredients as they work in different rounds that require ingenuity on their part bordering on genius.
EVAN: Yep. Challenges that force them to keep on their toes.
GORDON: They are judged by three qualified individuals, always including one from a culture whose cuisine is extremely different from that being served. Judgement is quick and of course, accessible to the audience. The only thing we’re missing is the prize . . . I say a golden cauldron.
EVAN: How very Asterix of you.
GORDON: FULL OF THEIR FAVORITE FOOD!
EVAN: Haha, what?
GORDON: Think about it: You just won, you get food. What could make you happier? [That can be shown on national television.]
EVAN: I feel like chefs are pretty snobby about what they eat. Like whatever it is would have to be exactly to their liking.
GORDON: What would you fill it with then?
EVAN: I dunno, something expensive, but food related. Like truffles, or caviar. It’s so expensive it’s basically gold.
GORDON: Fair enough. But they have to eat it with their hands; that’s what the credits fade to.
EVAN: Sounds good to me.
GORDON: Theme song? Opening music?
EVAN: Oh man, uh. . . Something really epic . . .
GORDON:O Fortuna?
EVAN: Something scored by that one guy, Hans Zimmer.
GORDON: Works for me.
EVAN: So with that pretty much taken care of, what shall we turn our attention to next week? I do believe we’ve hit four TV-related E>s in a row.
GORDON: Let’s talk about literature.
EVAN: Alright. In what regard?
GORDON: Books that are coming out, or not coming out. I don’t rightly know. You wanna invent a new genre?
EVAN: Okay, that’s our new topic. That’s all for now, folks! Thanks for tuning in, and we’ll see you next week for Evan and Gordon Talk!
Imagine for a moment, the existence of two mythical lands: Acirema and Adanac. Imagine that you are a citizen of Acirema, living in a little town bordering Adanac. Despite your isolation, you’re just as patriotic as any another Acireman. You wave the Acireman flag, salute it, pledge your undying allegiance to the homeland, and swear to defend her against all attacks. You cheer on your Acireman compatriots competing in the Olympics. You stand up and applaud when they win, and howl with despair when they lose. As far as you are concerned, you are a proud Acireman, a citizen of the greatest nation on earth; you love your country just as every red-blooded Acireman is expected to.
And then it is discovered in an old, forgotten document that a century earlier your far-off neck of the woods was actually purchased by Adanac from some forgettable Acireman president. All this time the Acireman-Adanacian border was actually twenty miles further south, making your town and everyone in it Adanacian. What do you do? You were born in another country, making you a citizen from a country that has until now been foreign to you. Do you still salute the Acireman flag? Do you still cheer for the Acireman athletes? Do you still decry the metric system as a tool of the devil?
You probably get the point by now.
Nationalism, boiled down to its most basic components, is the idea that borders matter. That being born on one side of an imaginary line fabricated by affluent racists a few centuries ago should make you a different person than if you were born a few miles north/south/east/west of it.
Now we’re not exactly caught up in some series of Napoleonic conflicts, so why bring up nationalism as the topic for this week’s shame day?
“America remains the one indispensable nation, and the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office…”
Now let’s take a few minutes to reflect on the sheer arrogance of that statement.
Done?
Good, now let’s break it down.
According to the president, America, and only America, is the one necessity in the world. Brazil, we’re ok if that goes away. The UK can sink into the ocean. China, Russia, Nigeria, Japan, Italy, Laos- these places are “dispensable.” They don’t serve an important function like America does. America is “indispensable”- the one indispensable nation.
Now if this quote came from some goose-stepping splinter cell in Nowhere, Arkansas, we could probably ignore this. However, as it came from the single most powerful man on the planet, we’re probably not crazy for raising some concerns.
I mean, let’s assume the guy is right- America’s existence is the cornerstone of all stability and decency in the universe, and it is simply more important and valuable than all the other nations of the earth. Shouldn’t we then be concerned about damaging this sole stitch in the fabric of civilization? Puerto Rico, a US territory, is currently petitioning to become a state. If it does, will the America that Obama calls indispensable change in such a way as to unravel all of that? What about selling an acre of land in the south to Mexico, would that shift in the border constitute a change to this indispensable nation?
Or maybe it has nothing to do with borders- maybe America’s indispensable nature has to do with its people. Obviously to protect this, we must maintain things the way they are, and keep any immigrants from entering into the nation, or any Americans from immigrating out, lest we screw up the quota that makes us us. Or maybe it’s not about borders or people- maybe America’s unique nature as “indispensable” comes from its values- that’s why we need to never add or abolish any laws or rules or alter our culture or worldview in any way.
Let’s be realistic here. I’m an American, and I am not exceptional. God Almighty does not smile more upon me for have been born in square A than in square B. My blood is not somehow more precious than that of someone who lives a few feet across an imaginary line in the dirt. If a Mexican, a Canadian, and I were drowning in the ocean, you would not be more obligated to rescue me for either of them. I am not any less dispensable than any other human being on the planet by virtue of my passport or my heritage. This idea that we are somehow inherently divided as human beings on the basis of where we were born is unspeakably stupid. There’s nothing wrong with liking the unique things about the place where you live, or the good and courageous things that are being done, or have been done, or the noble values that your countrymen hold. But ranking these things- the unique things, the good and courageous actions, the noble values- as being less or more important on the basis of their proximity to you is just a flipping shame.
The Hobbit is due to touch down in theatres next month [yes, I watched the Grey Cup last night], and with it will come a new, full trailer for Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel. With all of that happening, I’m going to touch on . . . hm, maybe not the best choice of words. . . I’m going to write a little about the new suit we’ll be seeing in the 2013 summer flick.
On the right is what Henry Cavill is expected to look like as the Last Son of Krypton. Many fans have [as usual] expressed great displeasure in the loss of Supes’ signature undies, as can be read in the aptly titled “‘Man of Steel’: Is Superman’s new suit made of fanboy Kryptonite?”
What’s probably unknown to most of them, however, is that director Zack Snyder fought to keep the supehero’s look traditional. In an interview with the New York Post he said:
“The costume was a big deal for me, and we played around for a long time. I tried like crazy to keep the red briefs on him. Everyone else said, ‘You can’t have the briefs on him.’ I looked at probably 1,500 versions of the costumes with the briefs on.”
Ultimately the studio [as usual] had their way, and the iconic red briefs were done away with. There are a few reasons why I think they should’ve stayed, though, and they have nothing to do with the iconic depictions of the character.
The first reason, if you look up, is staring you right in the face. It’s- well, it’s distracting to say the least, and was actually a problem when suiting up Brandon Routh for the 2006 Superman Returns. From what I can tell, costume designer Louise Mingenbach had her hands fu- sorry . . . had a lot to deal with when it came to the suit. The film’s IMDB page tells us:
According to an article in the 12 September 2005 issue of Newsweek, the biggest question concerning Superman’s costume involved the size and shape of the bulge in the front of his tights. Costume designer Louise Mingenbach finally decided on a bulge that wasn’t too big. “Ten-year-olds will be seeing this movie,” she explained.
A less reputable source [The Sun], told second-hand via KillerMovies reports that a source had this to say about the film:
“It’s a major issue for the studio. Brandon is extremely well endowed and they don’t want it up on the big screen. We may be forced to erase his package with digital effects.”
The current costume design is definitely not doing them any favours in that department, and if anything calls even more attention to Superman’s unmentionables.
My second point has to do directly with design. As archaic and old-fashioned as the red shorts over tights are, they were great in breaking up the blue of the rest of the costume. Although the golden belt buckle attempts to do that in Cavill’s costume, it ultimately fails, and in fact draws added attention to my first point.
In the above design Superman’s midsection is broken up by the two red lines and the golden buckle, which form an incomplete belt. This, along with the darker blue of the costume’s sides does wonders in not making it feel like the character is simply wearing a full set of blue tights and a cape.
I suppose we’ll have to wait until next summer to really determine whether or not the new suit works. Until then, these are my thoughts
Not “frightening stuff,” mind you- horror. There’s a distinction, you see.
Fright is the simple biological jolt you get when something startles or surprises you- a door being slammed, a discordant note blaring out of nowhere, and so on. Tragically, the title of “horror” gets slapped on things (typically movies) that merely have “jump-scares.” Horror on the other hand, is anticipation and dread at the perception of something threatening on a fundamental level.
So why talk about this? Because despite the outcry of some, horror- especially horror movies- holds a special place in our culture. Indeed, horror holds a special place in all cultures, and has since the first Cro-Magnons huddled around some arctic fire and whispered about strange and terrible things lurking just outside the circle of light. What we’re afraid of tells just as much about us as what we admire; a perfect example being Evan’s post on the remake Red Dawn. Evan cites that one of the reasons the new version doesn’t work is because the concept of the US being invaded is today laughable (especially by North Korea, whose entire population could fit into LA county with room to spare), whereas in the 1980s, the fear was far more realistic, or at least, believable.
Now I’m not here to analyze the past decade’s better horror movies and tell you what it is that we seem to be afraid of (not right now, anyways). In this post I’ll just be breaking down the three basic kinds of horror we seem to be responding to.
Fear For Self
First, we have the fear that attacks our egos- not “egos” as in pride, but “egos” as in the psychological term for you. This fits into the greater psychological element of “external anxiety,” meaning the stress we feel as a result of outside factors, such as school, our jobs, hunger, pain, and so on. When we’re afraid for our safety, or empathizing with characters in a movie or TV series who are fearing for their physical safety, we’re looking at this “fear for self” kind of horror. A good example would be any serial killer or monster movie- Psycho or Jaws being the best examples. Now usually we tend to botch this kind of horror, because the protagonists in movies or stories do things we would never do (blonde female college camper running through the woods at night, I’m talking about you). However, when it’s pulled off well, it leaves a noticeable mark on us. It has been said that Jaws created a significant drop in beach-goers after it was released, and you are a dirty liar if you say you’ve never once looked behind the curtain when you go into the bathroom.
Fear Of Self
Just as we have anxieties that stem from external factors, we have stresses and fears that come from within us: “Internal anxiety.” It was theorized by early psychologists, Freud in particular, that our mental issues were a result of us denying or repressing elements within us, most notably the “id”- that part of our mind with all the bloody, vicious, sexual animalistic drives that typically didn’t mesh well with Victorian (or any) society. As with the ego, horror works on this pathway as well- our fear of ourselves. All that madness and evil that we, for the most part, pretend isn’t there. The most obvious examples of this would be werewolf movies and vampire movies (obligatory “**** you, Twilight“) and most any film depicting a change or evolution the protagonist- see Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Wolfman, Dorian Grey, etc.
Fear Of No Self
Lastly we have stress and anxiety attacking (or coming from, depending on how you look at it) the “superego”- that element of our mind consisting of our real or imagined nobility, propriety, decency, etc. Here we encounter “existential horror,” more often called “cosmic horror.” This particular form of horror can be found in movies where the protagonists are fighting a losing battle against some massive, all powerful being- typically otherworldly in nature. Alien invasions and zombie uprisings are both good examples. Here we’re confronted with the fear that we are, in spite of all of our strength, morality, charity; in spite of our humanity, we are actually inconceivably small and insignificant. Ants who have just become aware that there are beings in the universe of incomprehensible magnitude whose simple existence negates everything about them. That unique feeling of powerlessness is separated from “ego fear” in that this form has a distinct hopelessness, rather than helplessness, attached to it.
Of course, every horror story has all three of these elements in it, but what kind of horror story it winds up being depends entirely on what is emphasized. Take AMC’s The Walking Dead– you’ve got your physical fear of the zombies, your id-based fear at what this new world is bringing out in you, and the general horrific despair at the absolute hopelessness of your situation, both in the face of zombies and the truth of human nature. What you wind up being afraid of depends on which element really gets pushed (survival, rationality, hope) and of course, what you individually, and we as a society, find most terrifying.
So what do we fear as a society right now?
Well, with the rampant popularity of zombie stories, and “disaster” films such as Cloverfield, Skyline, and even the whole “Slenderman” craze; it seems to me that we’re torn between physical and existential horror. And perhaps in an economic depression, that’s understandable- after all, we’re confronted with the physical job of keeping afloat in a rough time, and as the crisis drags on and on, the general feeling of hopelessness with regards to our general situation. We respond to characters whose immediate needs are threatened and characters who are struggling to maintain themselves in the face of cosmic nothingness.
At least, that’s my take on it. Feel free to debate me in the comments, and stop by tomorrow for another Shame Day installment.
I don’t normally get that angry about things. Disappointed, sure. Upset, often enough. But really, truly angry? That emotion is normally reserved for pure, undistilled racism.
Yesterday I wrote about the production history of Red Dawn, and mostly talked about how the plot was immensely improbable and how the film industry is all about money, et cetera. What I did not at all dwell on was the potential of the film to bring out racism in people, similar [but not at all comparable] to the abuse of Middle Eastern Americans after what happened on 9/11.
On Facebook Racebending.com directed me to Tumblr user manilaryce, who compiled a number or racist tweets by people who had just watched Red Dawn. I have embedded the image below and on the right.
The following are a few of the tweets that particularly stood out to me:
Kinda wanna kill some Asians right now and defend the homeland, thank you Red Dawn for sparking some patriotism in me
The only reason Im going to see red dawn is cause there’s sexy ass guys running around with guns killing Asians my type of movie;)!
I now hate all Chinese, Japanese, Asian, Korean people. Thanks. #reddawn #amazingmoviedoe
Red dawn was sickkk..just another reason why to hate asians.
One of the tweets, by @elysse223, reads “I usually love Asians, but in Red Dawn I found them terrifying.” After reading that I almost immediately felt worse, like both me and everyone else like me had been transformed into inhuman movie monsters.
The only consolation I can take in all this is that the film is being almost universally panned. Liam Lacey, reviewing the film for The Globe and Mail, says “Red Dawn panders to the worst kind of racist and jingoist impulses, though the movie is so preposterously insincere, it feels like those adjectives should be in air quotes.” Over at Indiewire Gabe Toro describes the film as “stitched together with scotch tape and falling apart at the seams, letting casual racism and misanthropy to spill out the sides.”
I honestly don’t have a lot to say except that I’m angry, hurt, and somewhat unsurprised that this is what audience members all over America are choosing to take away from this movie. I am Asian and I am not evil. I do not want to take over America. I do not want to ever feel like this:
I was going to write about comics helping people, or about how a Swedish toy catalogue acknowledged that girls can play with Nerf guns too, but I ultimately decided to focus on a wonderful Tumblr account I found recently. It’s called Public Shaming, with the subtitle “Tweets of Privilege.” Creator Matt Binder sums up the gist of his blog with the following:
Today, I’m going to talk about horror.
Culture War Reporters 