Easy A (USA, 2010)


When you are waiting for a baby, sometimes you go to the cinema and watch low-stress high-school flicks. I like high-school flicks. This is one of them.

Premise is that Emma Stone’s character pretends for various reasons to have sex with a variety of young men, and is vilified as a slut. The A of the title is a reference to The Scarlet Letter. It’s an interesting enough premise – anything that takes on the hypocrisy around teens having sex deserves props just for that.

Reviews I’ve seen have been giving this three stars. That’s about right. It’s well-executed and smarter than most stuff aimed at teens but it’s off-balance. It’s a bunch of good bits but there’s something about the assembly that doesn’t ring true.

Way I see it, this film is hamstrung by the very culture war it ostensibly takes on. It ends up playing nice and moral, even though it’s dealing with the failure of conservative morality. It doesn’t allow itself any teeth, and it has to fake its structure in order to rationalise its set-pieces.

Like, the core of the idea? That’s a meaty premise. Power in there, and some uneasy truths. But the film can’t own them and has to get its story going using a fakey-fakey imaginary high school social scene. It works like this: main character, brainy normal ignored Olive, lies to say she’s lost her virginity. What happens after this is that the entire school gossip ferociously about her, and she becomes an instantly notorious celebrity.

This is, needless to say, Not How It Works In Reals. This is fantasy-adult version of high school. Which is in itself fine, it just means we’re in symbolic high school movie not representative high school movie. However, look at the way those symbols get lined up: one sexual encounter = reputation for sexual promiscuity. This is the Family Values view of reality, embedded within and framing a story that tries to attack that same view of reality. The whole film is a contradiction in terms; it’s no wonder it doesn’t hold together.

That faultline goes right through the characters. Olive is a great character, mouthy and smart and creative and self-possessed. All the other high schoolers are bland, at best, or empty caricatures, at worst. The film keeps referencing John Hughes’ films, but for all their faults Hughes’ teens always had character. This film: no. How can they feel genuine when they have to exist as part of a fakey-fakey social world? Instead, the well-written character mojo runs through the adults, particularly Olive’s parents and her favourite teacher. In their chipper, smart dialogue (all the most fun sequences in the movie involve these adults) we can see that the main influence on this movie isn’t The Breakfast Club or Say Anything; it’s Juno. But that just cycles back to that key difference again. Juno added up to a coherent argument. This film can’t allow itself to do that.

So, I wanted more from this film. I do find the core premise fully engaging: a girl who recognizes that sexual experience is status currency, positive for men and negative for women, and then proceeds to upend status relationships in the male hierarchy while subverting the negative consequences that are put upon her. But this film only toys with these ideas, and never really engages with them. And sure, I wasn’t expecting a Show Me Love*-style dramatic exploration of how normative sexual culture operates among teens. But I wanted something that had more to say than this, something closer to The Breakfast Club, to Fast Times, to Superbad, even to American Pie.

Now, that’s a lot of paragraphs of negative. I feel like I need to redress the balance here: I liked this film a lot. It entertained me. Watch it on DVD if you like high school flicks. Enjoy Emma Stone’s great starmaking turn. Laugh at the genuinely funny stuff all the adults get to do. But don’t think too hard about it, in case you end up making long rambly blog posts. Like me.

* I prefer the alternate title for Show Me Love, but I try to avoid setting off the internet filters at people’s workplaces so I have not mentioned it.

On Having A Girl

It is Monday and I am not at work and do not yet have a baby.

We are likely to have a girl-baby. Can never be sure: sister of my office-buddy was expecting a girl, but last week got a boy. Still, my brain is mostly pointing towards girl, and that – that! It has given me cause to ponder. And ponder’d I thus: it makes me glad that I know so many amazing women.

Like, for serious, I know some *amazing* women. Doing incredible stuff, selfless stuff, high-powered high-achievement stuff, visionary stuff, good friend stuff, generous soul stuff. Stuff in all directions. Women who make me collapse with laughter. Women who walk up to dumbness and kick it in the gonads. And, not least, women gone through tough times & come out firing on all cylinders.

(Needless to say my Cal is all over these. Women in my family also strongly feature, yo.)

I am thankful for the privilege of knowing all these people, and being shaped by them, and seeing the world around me get shaped by them too. Because it reminds me that the bad is not insurmountable. That’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about over the last few months: the bad. Frex: the gender-coded socialization that doesn’t even bother to hide itself and will engulf the wee beastie in body-anxiety and social submission; I hope that the tools we give our daughter (if we do get a daughter) will help her not to breathe it all in.

Except hope isn’t the right word. Because of all these people I know, and because of the way I was brought up, and because I’m not doing this alone, I am confident she won’t breathe it all in. Hell, she might find a way to dodge the flood entirely.

We can do this stuff more-or-less right. I am surrounded by examples of doing it right, after all. And yes, I know they fcuk you up your mum and dad, but: it is my heartfelt intention to fcuk my little girl up in ways that run counter to the ways society at large is trying to fcuk her up. Society doesn’t need the extra help. (And besides, I’m a psychology nerd, and everyone knows psych-heads have a lock on finding new and unique ways to mess up our children.)

So what am I worried about? Like all these women I know, like her grandmothers and aunties, and like her mum, she’s gonna be awesome.

Unless she turns out to be a he. In which case, y’know, all bets are off.

—

Prompt for this post was Simon C linking to this TED talk about growing up as a man. “My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.” Strong stuff.

—

Also: paying tribute to women by no means diminishes the many men I know who are also awesome. Particularly the dads of daughters who are making a bloody good go of it. Nice one dads, I am taking notes.

Washing Machine Linky

So, if you didn’t already, you wanna go read Cal’s blog about the washing machine repairman. It’ll start your day off right.

The washing machine itself – well. I grump about design a lot, sometimes on this blog even, and there’s a reason for that: poor design creates problems. Case in point. Poor design here is not with the washing machine itself, but with the manual. We sent for a repairman because when I tried to follow the manual’s instructions to check a filter myself, I was stymied. Here’s the instruction they give :
(full manual here)

So I pull off the service cover and I see the round thingy on the right, like in the illustration, and I look for the hose on the left. No hose. Nothing at all. Featureless washing machine casing. What the hell?

Turns out – have you figured it out yet? – the round thingy on the right *is* the hose on the left.

(I actually suspected that it might be and tried to loosen it. But it was locked in there very tight, and didn’t want to create two problems if it was something else that wasn’t meant to come undone, and the problem might not be anything to do with this filter anyway. So I figured, let the repair guy deal with it. Maybe you would have unscrewed the hose with more confidence. Fair play to you, and good luck with your future warranty claims.)

[EDIT: no, Cal informs me this is still wrong – the hose is actually around the rear of the machine. The round thingy is a separate filter. You drain the hose *then* open the round thing. Or something. THE MANUAL IS COMPLETELY WRONG. My brain cannot comprehend why this level of fail is commonplace.]

Anyway, I don’t need to tell any more of that story. Poor design is a pain in the backside. That’s it.

So, linky!

Inception – all the dream layers, unfolding in time relation to each other

Regarding the same movie, a bunch of images and infographics.

From Theron, the Map of Metal, which is thoroughly metal. (NB: like YouTube, this starts playing automatically)

1930 article about a flea circus

Learn about the various Hulks on Twitter.

Via Craig Ranapia, papercraft Howl’s Moving Castle

Why the ghosts in Pac-Man behave as they do. Incredibly detailed; I didn’t read anywhere near all of it, but skimming it was fascinating.

More Star Wars as modern mythocultural iconography: Star Wars family portraits. Dr Seuss does Star Wars. A is for Ackbar.

Adam Curtis on behaviourism, class, and identity. Comments are really good.

I’m delighted to see, via Cat, that the Australian Museum website has a page about the Drop Bear. It’s about time this threat was given the scholarly attention it deserves.

On the IMDB, Spinal Tap is not rated out of 10, but out of a different, slightly higher number. Perfect.

Speaking of the importance of design – check out these magic wallets. They’re all very gimmicky, but’s there’s some extremely clever insights buried in these.

Mad Men characters on D&D alignment chart.

And speaking of D&D, how weird is it that this is a real thing: people cramming into a room to watch other people play D&D. The players are all geek celebrities, but that aside – playing D&D to an audience. We are in strange aeons now, dudes.

Did you like Anya out of Buffy? The actress, Emma Caulfield, is releasing her mockumentary Bandwagon in parts on YouTube. I love the self-sendup of LA industry types, and the Buffy cast/crew cameos. (That said, the foil character makes me uneasy.)

And finally… all of Billy Joel’s hits played at once!

no i dont know either

Wikileaks Addendum: Sex Charges

Just want to add – while I have srs reservations about the sex assault/rape charges against Assange, and the way in which they have been handled (which reeks of politicisation) and reported – I’m not in favour of minimising the allegations. Let the justice system do its work. Even if the handling has been awful, I have faith in the courts sorting stuff out effectively.

Smearing the complainants = not good.

Wikileaks: Infowar

It feels like a long time since I posted about Wikileaks five days ago. Things have gotten pretty serious, pretty fast.

It’s a complex business, and unsurprisingly, the main media channels aren’t keeping up. That’s part of the point, actually – d3vo commented to me in email that what’s driving the Wikileaks furore is the failure of the media over the last two decades. I think it’s undeniable that he’s right. Wikileaks has the power it does because the fourth estate has become part of the power apparatus; it is the culmination of the idea that distributed communications technology itself forms a fifth estate to keep the other four in check. Dylan Horrocks wrote a powerful open letter to journalists imploring them to step up and cover this effectively – definitely worth a read.

From my perspective, the main line of the story is the U.S-led assault against Wikileaks. It is many-pronged and conducted through back-door pressure or through outright illegality. Assange and his team have been preparing for this for a while and are fully prepared to exploit the internet to make a laughing stock of these shutdown attempts. But still, the scope of the attacks is shocking.

Greenwald gives a good overview. In just a few days, private companies and banks have withdrawn Wikileaks’ DNS record, site and file hosting, and bank and payment accounts. All of these have cited breaches of “terms of use”, while giving other clients a pass for the same sins. All are the result of backroom pressure, whether imposed from without or conducted voluntarily in solidarity with the wishes of power.

As Greenwald points out: Wikileaks has broken no laws. It has done nothing illegal.

More: sex charges against the face of Wikileaks. Charlie Stross goes over the evidence and makes it seem like these are trumped-up, to say the least; certainly the fact that charges were levelled, then withdrawn, then levelled again is cause for doubt. [EDIT: subsequent post about this]

And of course prominent political voices in the US openly using the word “assassination” in respect of Assange, or alluding that way with phrases like “any means necessary”.

This is a taste of a new kind of war – an information war, conducted on two fronts: within the global infrastructure, and within the court of public opinion. There will be more of these. (Some might predict that we’re heading towards a state of perpetual infowar. Lets hope not.)

This war is happening RIGHT NOW. It will have huge consequences not just for Wikileaks but for every organization that speaks up against power. Right now, the USA and other govts are training themselves to control information dissent. These lessons will not be forgotten. The next organization to make itself a target is unlikely to have the resources or wide support of Wikileaks – and it will be hard-pressed to survive this kind of assault.

Here’s another aspect of that infowar: the botnet. Wikileaks was hit hard by a botnet, which is a global network of infected “zombie” computers. Ordinary home computers with a virus are secretly using their internet connections and computing time to serve the goals of the botnet; mom-and-pop at home just wonder why their computer runs a bit slow sometimes. Usually botnets just send spam, but this one has been trying to destroy Wikileaks by overloading it. In the linked article it says this botnet wasn’t particularly large, but the possibility is certainly there that it was deployed by a state actor, perhaps even the US itself, to shut down Wikileaks.

Think about that for a second. There is a distinct possibility that right now your mum’s computer has been secretly weaponized by the United States of America.

(No, seriously. Here’s a 2008 article in the Air Force Journal saying that the USA should invest in a botnet. This response to that article says that if intelligence agencies don’t have botnets already, they really should. Google will reveal many more such discussions.)

If you’re only gonna read one thing about Wikileaks and related issues, then, make it this piece by Clay Shirky. Here’s the bit that both Dylan H and I identified as the money quote:

I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here’s what I’m not conflicted about: When authorities can’t get what they want by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is that they can’t get what they want

What’s going on with this matters. It matters far more than the latest juicy revelations in the diplomatic cables – those are, and always were, a sideshow. Really at stake is the landscape for international information freedom.

So, even more than usual, don’t accept the mainstream media framing of the Wikileaks story. There’s more going on, and there’s far too much at stake.

Harry Potter 7a (UK/USA, 2010)

The above scene does not appear in this film, because it is being held over for Harry Potter 7b.
This one is Harry Potter 7a: I’m In A Tent.

Saw this at weekend. First reaction: bloody pleased they didn’t release it in 3D. The last thing this film needs is 3D. (Of course, they will release it in 3D soon, perhaps before 7b gets its release in the middle of next year, in 3D.)

This is the last of these films and of course you know what you’re in for, you’ve either seen the earlier ones or otherwise. The main drawcard for me continues to be “watching the young actors growing up” but shortchanged by the focus on the lead trio at expense of supporters – at least Neville gets a line. The lead trio do a creditable job, with Rupert Grint in particular finally seeming settled into his role and holding the screen like a proper-type actor. It’s funny, actually, all three of them prove to have marvellous screen presence when they’re not delivering Rowling-dialogue. There’s a sequence at the piano, and a sequence dancing, where the “young actors performing dialogue” becomes “authentic characters on screen”. In short, the material doesn’t help them, which is easy to forget given the greatest performing talent in the world is filling even the bit parts all around them. (Several major actors die off-screen and are quickly forgotten, because there’s another two dozen super-thesps still to get through.)

So I enjoyed the film as I’ve enjoyed all of them since part 3 – the young actors are older, there’s lots of incident, the uneven rambling style of the novels makes for oddly-structured films that are almost refreshing as a result.

The test of this one, story-wise, was whether they would find a way to sell the biggest mis-step in the original novel. The trio is tested, and found wanting, leading one of the three to abandon the other two. In the book it’s poorly motivated, unrelated to greater themes, and generally unconvincing. In the movie they find nothing to rescue the sequence. There’s enough fuel there to spark a disagreement, and Rowling’s original version at least approaches something meaningful, but the film-makers can’t find a way to adhere to the source material and yet make this crucial emotional beat make sense. It is the absolute heart of the film in many ways, and it just generates roll-eyes.

Also, Dobby the house-elf is still an annoying git.

Anyway. It’s exactly what you expect it to be. So you don’t need me to tell you anything about it.

[So, smart guy, what would you do differently with the breaking of the trioship? Okay, I’ll have a go. MINAR SPOLIERS: to be honest I’d ditch Rowling’s source material and rework it and let everyone bray about it if they wanted. Fromt the start, Ron should be making some recommendation about what to do or where to go that fits his character (he’s representative of emotions/heart); Harry should refuse for reasons that fit his character, like early commitment to a purpose; Hermione should see both sides but using logic she’ll consistently side with Harry. As his jealousy over a perceived attraction between Hermione and Harry grows, and no other plan is working, Ron would restate his original suggestion more forcefully. Harry still refuses, but for the wrong reasons – because he lacks Ron’s emotional sense and he’s unable to let go of his initial plans easily. Hermione still agrees with Harry, also for the wrong reasons – because she’s afraid of the risk to Ron if she says yes, maybe, especially after he already got hurt. Faced with this, Ron walks out because *he feels like he’s not contributing anything useful*, as well as suspicions and pride and so forth.

To me that reads as much more coherent a motive than what we read/see, which is Ron (corrupted by Sauron’s ring) expressing frustration that there’s no plan and also I’m jellus. First reason just seems petty – is obvious cover for second reason which just isn’t enough on its own to convince.

If JK Rowling then said “nooo you must use my words exactly” then I’d do exactly the same thing but I’d do it entirely as subtext. Rupert Grint could sell it. Clever editing would help Emma W and Daniel R to do the same.

Solved! And that’s why I’m in Hollywood making movies and not sitting in NZ writing a blog. Oh wait.

Xmas Gift Idea: JAAM 28

The latest issue of JAAM has been out for a few weeks. JAAM is a literary journal containing poetry and prose and varying amounts of non-fiction essays, photos, illustration, interviews… This time it also contains something by me. So naturally, a blog post telling you to buy it. That’s how these things work.

JAAM has been published out of Wellington since ’95, when it launched at the same time as a Victoria University Writing Club – the product of Mark Pirie’s enthusiasm and drive. The club lasted a few years before dissolving into a loose network of friends, but JAAM has published regularly since ’95. Currently an annual publication, edited by Helen Rickerby and Clare Needham (who were both in that original Class of ’95), this issue has the theme of “dance”.

I’m pleased to have a story in there because I really have a lot of love for JAAM, and its relaxed and unaffected sense of style. Also because, as mentioned in my author bio in the issue, I was there in ’95 when the club began and the journal was announced. It took me a very long time to submit something.

The story printed is one of the dozen short pieces I wrote last year in my short story binge. I sort of dread reading it in printed form because nothing makes you see all the limitations in your own craft like being published. But people have been very kind and it did get accepted in the first place, so. (In the JAAM-linked writing group there was a running joke that was also partly serious, where you’d always preface sharing your new work with a comment about why it sucked and you hated it.)

Anyway, even though I talk about me in this post, I’m only a few pages of a wide-ranging and nimble collection. The Xmas gift idea suggestion is a genuine one. This is good stuff, to be enjoyed.

JAAM is (or soon will be?) available at Unity Books in Wgtn and other places like that.

Friday Linky Time

It’s Friday link-y time, it’s Friday link-y time…
(sung to the tune of the Howdy Doody song.

Lord only knows how I know the Howdy Doody song, this show never came anywhere near NZ as far as I can tell.)

An outstanding new vid from local YouTube sensation, Griffin Point. The opening bit is nice but then it steps up a gear:

Following my review of the show earlier, here’s NASA’s online document archive for the Apollo 13 mission.

Winners of the 2010 Interactive Fiction competition. Most of them you can play online, including top-placing game Aotearoa.

Comedians do charity remake of We Are The World. Intro by Kurt Russell (!) is tops, song is worth sticking with just for the Weird Al bits because Weird Al is awesome.

This week’s Star Wars bit: Star Wars posters for non-Sci Fi movies

Fraser Carson of Wgtn comms outfit Fresco looks at what World Vision are doing with their charity dollars and is unimpressed – is costly old media the best option for charity marketing?

Wire fans: Andre Royo plays Bubbles again in this short vid where he meets another trolley-pushing character called Bubbles (from a show called Trailer Park Boys that I’ve never even heard of before). The cognitive dissonance you experience watching this is because Royo is cleanshaven and, well, clean.

The 10 most beautiful public libraries in the US. I’ve been to three of these, actually.

Kermode & Mayo’s Cinemagoer Code of Conduct:

Theirs is the only podcast I listen to every single week.

And finally… OK GO’s Danimal takes on the Muppet drummer Animal in a staring contest. Best bit is when Floyd tries to psych the human out.

Wikileaks: No thoughts

Jon wondered why I hadn’t commented on the new Wikileaks “cablegate” affair. A fair question, especially given the last Wikileaks thing turned this blog into a genuine internet sensation (for about 3 seconds) (and not due to any editorial effort on my part, I literally just cut and pasted from their twitter feed, go figure).

Answer is: I don’t know what to make of it. This is clearly a more complex action than previous Wikileaks releases. My instinctive feeling is that this is a good thing as a one-off targeted at a country that rationalises itself as a global policeman, but in general this is a dangerous precedent. Diplomacy needs to function out of public view, and losing that assurance of discretion is certain to have a limiting effect on positive as well as negative efforts.

But I find it hard to feel bad about this if it puts the UK govt’s handling of Iraq in the pooh. My fury over that whole affair remains undimmed, seven years on.

So ultimately – I don’t know what to say. I’ll wait to see how things shake out. Assange is clearly a tosser, and yes he may be a sex criminal too but that doesn’t mean he’s not doing good work.

Jon’s own post on the matter is well worth a read – a good summary I think.

Making Light do some good coverage of the issues, particularly the response of the US media.

Glenn Greenwald has been getting a lot of attention for this firebreathing attack on the US media coverage of Wikileaks and what it says about the state of the fourth estate in the USA.

But the most interesting thing I’ve read yet is this article that looks at Assange/Wikileaks’ motives. Short version: Assange’s stated view is that authoritarianism must inevitably rely on a conspiratorial approach. The contradictions between authoritarianism and conspiracy provide a vulnerability that can be exploited by wikileaks. So the point of the cablegate affair is not the cables themselves, but the response they force in the US government.

All these articles give me some interesting starting points but I don’t feel I’m anywhere near understanding the depth of what this affair means. Too complex, too soon, too something. I dunno. Opinions & interpretations welcome.