tried and erred

Last WOWs

(all apologies to Brandon's lovely wife, who does not deserve any of the imagery or associations that I subject her to in this post)

Alright, Brando, here's one last swing. I'll let you have the last word after this.

Re-reading my own post, I realize that my tone at the beginning is very combative before I mellow into a conciliatory tone. While we both enjoy ourselves some armchair pugilism, it bloodies up our faces so we can't see properly as often as it gives us that rush that makes everything seem so obvious... All I have to do is punch him in the face... Now!

As you know from our texts, I've clarified the point with you that I am not done with Film Club. I'm just done with my old blog. This is a symbolic move as much as anything else, signifying a desire to de-center movies in my total conversation on these here interwebs.

But you know I can't refuse a fight. So, let's circle around WoWS. Right now, I don't even think we're focusing specifically on WoWS anymore but on broader issues.

So, on with it...

First, dog torture and fornication.

I readily agree that they aren't the SAME thing. But I don't think that they are entirely dissimilar. But, yeah, I'm guilty of trying to bait you with one of the things that I know gets you worked up. Sorry about that.

Would you agree that there are worse things than (or at least as bad as) physical pain, even if you may not agree with me as to what those things are?

My point was only that both are sins on the part of the humans involved. I don't care about consent. Maybe the prostitutes (I mean "actresses") that Scorsese hired enjoyed every minute of it. Leo had a blast. Jonah doesn't regret a moment of it all. So what? It's okay because nobody got physically hurt? Is non-consensual physical pain the only thing that we can object to? Everything else is fair game? What about an extended scene of a realistic-looking simulated child rape with a lifelike doll and a real live naked adult male actor pretending to enjoy himself in the act? I'm pretty sure you'd object to that, but, based on what you've written so far, on what basis would you object to it? Everything is consensual and no one is physically hurt. What is your criteria for rejecting this? Because you are personally uncomfortable with it? But you like to see tits bouncing so what's the harm in WoWS?

Sorry to get graphic but I feel like I have to.

My objection is to the action of the actors and not having anything to do with my comfortability with watching or not watching anything, which is a separate issue. I'm also not speaking generally about nudity here which I also think is a separate (though certainly related) issue.

Simulation of a sex act is still a sex act. A real one.

I've got a proposal for a film I'm working on which will star my crazy friend Geoffrey Hovard. I was wondering if you could talk to Tara about acting in the film for me. She'd only be in it for about 45 seconds and we wouldn't even need to see her face. All she'd need to do is get completely naked and bend over to expose her backside so that Geoffrey could put a straw in her anus (it won't hurt) and pretend to snort out cocaine. But it's just pretend cocaine and she's just pretend naked, wink, wink, with his pretend hand on her pretend body but he doesn't mean anything by it. It's all for art. We want to challenge people. Hopefully the viewer will be shocked into awareness of this very real issue in our country and re-examine everything about their lives. And, oh yeah, since we don't see her face in that shot, we could probably get away with using her again during an airplane orgy scene! We'd pay her a little extra for that.

Anyhow, I'm glad you're cool with all of that.

Oh, wait. You're not? Even though she said yes? She's only doing it for the paycheck. Why are you getting upset? Oh, you want me to find someone else's wife, someone else's daughter, someone else's sister, someone else's mother, and have them take her consensual place. Ah, I see. You would try to put limits on the artistic activity of your wife.

Or maybe you wouldn't. I don't know. 

I'm saying that these activities are wrong. The women involved are wrong. The men involved are wrong. Scorsese, the ringleader, is ultimately most accountable.

Scorsese even made me tired of the word "fuck," a word I've defended in the past despite all of its abuses. I don't want to hear it again for a long time. So, if Scorsese's goal was to get people to act better, I guess he's succeeded in me. But, for every me there's a few others who just found new strings of profanity to delight in at their next keg bash.

We're both wrestlers. And we're even wrestling on the same team most of the time. These posts are vicious sparring sessions back at the gym. Even if we always have different techniques and different perspectives, there's no doubt that we're engaged in the same struggle on the same side.

Specifically regarding WoWS, I don't even know that we're that far apart. I'm willing to concede that it is one of the most spectacular demonstrations of film mastery that was offered this year, given to us by a master at the top of his game. But, you know what? That's not enough. Goebbels was also really damned good at his job. And Birth of a Nation is a masterpiece of its time and I'm finally ready to throw it away alongside WoWS. The problem isn't that the films are bad. The problem is that the films are too good.

Somewhat related, I just listened to a recent episode of Cinephiliacs and heard Keith Uhlich mocking stupid Wall Street brokers. Uhlich thinks that the Wall Street crowd that saw the film was too stupid to know that they were being satirized and that all of their hoots of approval just goes to show how stupid they are. Uhlich does not at all entertain the idea that maybe he's the one who has got it wrong. Maybe those brokers understand precisely that Scorsese is having some fun at their expense and they love every minute of it because it's damned fun, dammit, they know that every bit of it is true, that nothing can touch them and they can do whatever they please unless they slip up. And no wolfling anywhere thinks he's going to be that guy that slips up. It's always the other guy. That's part of the risk and part of the thrill of the game. 

Whatever his intentions, Scorsese has given Wall Street its own Scarface. Wolflings everywhere, rejoice!

(Again, sorry for bringing your missus into all this. My imagination failed me and I couldn't think of a better illustration for my point. Also, I confess that I giggled coming up with the name Geoffrey Hovard. Sorry. Still, I feel dirty imagining any real person in a WoWS scene, even for the sake of argument, which again illustrates my point that we distance these actors and don't let the very real documentary aspect of any film fully settle on us.)