“Things never change, so why bother?” – GUEST POST!

Bringing you my first ever guest post! By Jamie Coughlan, of indie music zine overblown.co.uk.

***

There’s a public and very virulent epidemic in the western world. No, it’s not AIDS. It’s not alcoholism. It’s not ADHD.

It’s apathy.

It is encapsulated by the most abhorrent, pathetic and pitiful phrase you will ever hear in your life: “Things never change, so why bother?” If you ever hear someone confidently spout these despicable words with an ill-informed, patronising arrogance you should…what should you do? Should you turn your back on them and walk away? Should you acquiesce to their deluded and pathetic statement? Should you spit in their eye? No. You should stand tall, equally confident in the provable hope that exists in your rational and logical knowledge. As the speaker and his/her cronies cackle at the pathetic naïvete you display in your assertion that everything is changing all the time, you should take a breath and prepare. Don’t be cowed by traditionally accepted platitudes, and the clichéd non-thought of the morass of ignorance in your immediate presence. Straighten your back (which is admittedly against the wall) and calmly begin.

101 years ago, women were disenfranchised. Second class citizens by virtue of being born with a uterus. A 40 year old immensely brave woman named Emily Davison stepped in front of King George V’s horse Anmer at the Epsom Derby. and suffered injuries that four days later resulted in her death.

Did she do this because things never change? No, she did this because she believed in her cause and was hopeful that her statement would have a positive impact. Now, due to her sacrifice and the brave and hopeful work of the Suffragette movement, women in the western world enjoy rights that their foremothers could only dream of. They vote, they work, they own property, they run businesses and lead governments. There is work yet to be done, but I am brave and hopeful.

59 years ago, black people were second class citizens in the western world. They were regularly segregated into ‘black’ theatres and bars. Interracial marriage was seen as unnatural and disgusting, they were forced to drink from ‘blacks only’ water fountains, and frequently the subject of gross judicial injustice. Rosa Parks, a seamstress in Montgomery, Alabama, had worked all day and decided to get the bus home. She sat in the ‘black’ section of the bus towards the back, but in the first row directly behind the ‘white’ section. As the bus filled with white people, she was instructed to move. After her refusal she was arrested for violation of the Jim Crow laws.

Did she do this because things never change? No, she did this because she believed in her cause and was hopeful that her statement would have a positive impact. Now, due to her bravery and hope and the work of civil rights groups such as the NAACP, black people and other so-called “minorities” enjoy rights their foremothers and fathers could only dream of. Interracial marriage is no longer seen as disgusting, mixed race children are no longer dismissed as “mongrels”, and there’s even a black man in the White House, a thing that my father thought he would never see in his lifetime. There is work yet to be done, but I am brave and hopeful.

37 years ago, gay people were second class citizens around the world. In many places, the act of homosexual sex, degradingly referred to as sodomy in legislation, was illegal. They were seen as degenerates, perverts and a threat to society. In California, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay person to hold political office in that state. Did he run as an openly gay person because nothing ever changes? No, he did so because he believed in his cause and was hopeful that he could be elected without compromising who he was. In 1978, he and Mayor Mascone of San Francisco were assassinated by Dan White. While this was not directly due to Milk’s homosexuality, it was linked to White being refused reappointment to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors due to his conservative agenda. A more liberal appointment was deemed more desirable in that time of social change. Now, due to Milk’s bravery and hope, and the work of LGBT civil rights groups, homosexual sex is no longer illegal, gay people can legally marry and they can adopt children in many countries. There is work yet to be done, but I am brave and hopeful.

After you have finished sharing your hope based on fact, reason and logic, you can then focus on this adherent to archaic non-intellectual and ignorant thought before you, and say to them: how dare you teach such nonsense to your children. How dare you spread it among your peers and colleagues. How dare you attempt to diminish my faith in and hope for humanity with your ill-informed and cowardly apathy. The world is in constant flux, and over time there is progressive and positive change. I will never allow your apathy to infest my faith in and hope for humanity. We are a work in progress, and progress is hard, and progress is slow.

Things will never change if you’re apathetic, pitiful, and pathetic world view takes hold. There is work yet to be done, but I am brave and hopeful.

***

Jamie is a muso, teacher and writer from Ireland. He considers himself incredibly pretentious, though no one else does, resulting in either a full confirmation or complete cancelling out of the fact, I’m not sure. He’s bad with money, and loves beer gardens (hence being bad with money. Topiary addictions are niche and expensive.)

You can find more of Jamie’s work at his site Overblown at the link above. Follow him on Twitter @OverblownZine.

What do you think about Jamie’s view of apathy? Post a comment below – if anybody would like to respond, it would be interesting to host another piece on the state of apathy…continue the train of thought!

Jon Snow Returns From Gaza: Channel 4 News

Jon Snow returns from Gaza and has this to say to all viewers, media makers and citizens.

REVIEW: Joe

Joe has been described as a ‘return to form’ for Nicolas Cage. Though most critics are praising his acting chops, it can also be understood as an acknowledgement of his ability to ‘do crazy’ terrifyingly well. Cage’s latest foray into crazy is certainly one of substance, and, luckily, every one of the leading performances here follows suit. With equally skilled direction, much of this unique and rattling picture hits the mark dead on; perhaps, then, it’s the basis of the novel that predated it that stunts this otherwise complex story of masculinity in crisis.

 

The film can confidently claim its success as a mainstream picture, carefully toeing a line between box-office thriller and arthouse meditation, allowing for widely appreciable receipt which I don’t doubt it will get. It is more complex than its trailer betrays; though its the spine that allows for wider exploration, at its centre it is not about Joe being a father figure to an abused boy (Gary, played by an exceptional Tye Sheridan,) and/or very occasionally shot at, which is what lured most people in. The essence of the film is an examination of whether vices and violence preclude one from being a ‘good person’. Joe’s tendency to violence is the focus of this conflict between good-or-not, and his vices facilitate both his restraint and his violence. The foregrounding of prostitution, alcoholism and smoking, however, present ambiguous messages to the audience, and a series of morality-chicken-and-morality-egg considerations.

 

The big question at its heart is one of good, evil and human nature; how and why, and indeed, is Joe a good man? Will Gary be?

 

I’m assuming it was purposeful that the eponymous character was constantly in conflict with the audience; Joe’s behaviour bounces between repulsive, parental and adolescent. Without any comic relief it was difficult to feel identification with someone so inconsistent; though, of course, it rang true. The parallel between Joe and Gary was made explicit initially, but generally left alone throughout to allow for an assumed connection between them, and a comment on neglect, abuse and the cause and effect of both in adulthood. The ties to class here were interesting; the film is centered entirely on working and under-class characters, and very much focused on the ravages of alcoholism and poverty within their lives. The characters who did not drink (at least on-screen) were happy and friendly in the main, with a great sense of camaraderie, compassion and connection as a community. These were incredibly interesting characters, who could certainly have given the film even more depth. Unfortunately, there was no attempt at a wider comment on the economic situation or history of anyone; this was not a radically-minded film, but one which, as usual, seemed to leave most of the characters’ traits, behaviours and habitats to be assumed as an innate part of their ‘bad’ character.

 

Ultimately, the film is about what it means to ‘be a man’, and it’s as layered, frustrating and contradictory as that sounds. Thematically, Joe is intriguing; an archetypal story of good and evil, implicitly reflecting on class and identity and surreptitiously providing insight into the human self and our beliefs about those selves. Though, once again, an essentialist ideology about ‘being a man’ pervades this work; Joe does not challenge prevailing stereotypes about masculinity, but rather resigns itself to them. It provides more insight into the chronic clichés of classical characterization than it does into humanity or our potential to challenge the failures of those clichés.

 

For all the complexity and nuance, stereotypes of masculinity are glaringly present. Though the connection between them is implied, it is unclear whether we are supposed to understand Joe as having an abusive upbringing similar to Gary’s. Without allusion to it, Joe’s obsession with violence and protection of the innocent (which, naturally, includes women, as long as they will have sex with him) appears to come from his oh-so-manliness; one so tied to his base desires as a human that in order not to kill someone a brothel pit-stop, facilitated by his dog killing their guard dog so he can get in for a quick blow-job, is necessary, before he can finally soothe his roaring male-ness under the weight of a tank of whiskey and a few beers.

 

He then proceeds to let a first-time-drunk Gary drive him around. Granted, there is a mild comedy and a deep tenderness to the boys’ road trip to find Joe’s dog (who, incidentally, is female…) and in the context of their connection as damaged children, it works. The derailment of Joe as a father figure is successfully implied, and in addition he loses his endearing nature and it almost signals his end; not only in the narrative but also as a champion-able protagonist.

 

This also provides insight into whether or not the film really provides a critical edge when it comes to power relations that aren’t between men. The exploration of masculine violence is constant, but reads as more of a fascination than a critical examination of how violence is used. Desperate attempts at retaining unequal power imbalance, an unstable ego, and a facilitation of greed at others’ expense are all present in the film; all complex portrayals of the roots of violence. These subtle hints at the nature of violent relationships are commendable, and remain foregrounded throughout, but the focus of the narrative, and thus its power, remains with the enacters of violence, and not those abused. There is no unease in Joe’s visits to the brothel and the general use of prostitutes, and his relationship with Connie, while illuminating both his gentleness and his rejection of intimacy, results in a pretty flat plot strand. There were numerous females present throughout, though none were developed and all were passive (except the wonderful woman whose birthday it was – we never found out if anyone made her a cake.) All of these gender dynamics could have allowed for a greater determination of what exactly is meant and felt by ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’, and the power relations between the two. The opportunities having been lost, they left only underwritten female characters in their wake and yet another cinematic foregrounding of woman-as-commodity.

 

The character of Gary was a blank slate, and rightly so; lost but full and played perfectly by Sheridan, his rescue of his sister was a triumphant and satisfying end to his arc, but not hers. It was yet another conflict in message, mired in imbalances that were perhaps lost in favour of the exciting climax shootout. For a film that was so tender, well-played and -directed, the shortcomings of Joe in its themes about masculinity, class and violence were frustrating. Joe’s final showdown with his nemesis could perhaps be read as a comment on the futility of violence, and that if ‘good’ men succumb to it, they will be destroyed, but it also provided a conveniently quick and neat ending. As a comment on masculinity, Joe is not a radically transformative one, and while insightful in many ways regarding the expectations and pressures on young boys to be stereotypically (destructively) masculine, it speaks more about vice and its relationship with violence.

 

As a meditation on abuse and an exploration of what it means to be a good person, especially what it means to misunderstand and abuse oneself whilst attempting to heal, it is full of contradictory but fascinating messages. And ultimately, these contradictions may ring true as a reflection of the complexity involved in human desire, and the lottery of life. The last line of the film is “Joe was a good man…”. People are not as simple as good and evil, and I hope that audience will come away understanding that; I have faith that this was Joe’s aim.

I’m on Overblown! Fandom: What’s Up With That?

I was recently asked to write for (very very super cool) new music zine Overblown. Founder Jamie and I discussed what I could write about, and we quickly deliberated that I new very little in the way of solid facts about music theory or history.

So I wrote an article about everything I don’t know about music. And out of it came a hearty piece on fandom.

There’s so much more to say on the topic, but these were my initial thoughts on the magic of beats, rhymes and life. I guess I’ll have to do a few more to cover everything I’m unsure about, and have no concrete knowledge of.

http://overblown.co.uk/fandom-whats/

Jay & Silent Bob Get Old: Bristol REVIEW

Last night, Jay & Silent Bob came to Bristol! SNOOTCH! I have no idea what that means. But I will be saying it all day.

For those unacquainted with Kevin Smith’s second career, the writer/director (known for creating the View Askew-niverse: the Clerks series, Mallrats, Dogma etc.) has taken to building a podcasting network. The ‘Smodcast’ empire houses a total of 34 podcasts at Smodcast.com, some archived and some broadcasting weekly, and incorporates regular characters from Smith’s life; his wife, Jennifer Schwalbach; his daughter Harley (yes Batfans, Harley Quinn); friend, editor and long-time collaborator Scott Mosier; Jason Mewes, who inspired (and plays) the recurring character ‘Jay’ to Smith’s ‘Silent Bob’; Brian Johnson, friend and inspiration for Clerks co-lead character Randall…the list of contributors is long, and they all have interweaving narratives in Smith’s life and work. And the frequent interweaving relationships, stories and anecdotes that arise in the ‘casts – some long, complex and dramatic, and some short, spontaneous, gross, and as unsettling as they are intimate – are one of the Smodcast Network’s particular assets.

 

Last night’s show (2nd July 2014) was a special, intense, and fortuitous one to attend, and held particular significance for Mewes, Smith and many in the audience. The amount of podcasts that the teams produce is impressive, and having been operating for just over four years, one might think the contributors (or at least Smith, the most prolific) would get a little tired of the format, yet with Smith’s shows revolving around the dynamics of his relationships, opportunities for spiritual uplift and meaning are as rife as those for dick jokes, and this night exploded with both.

There are numerous contributors to the Smodcast Network, but Smith’s broadcast schedule reads:

Monday: Hollywood Babble-On with Ralph Garman

Tuesday: Smodcast with Scott Mosier

Wednesday: Jay & Silent Bob Get Old with Jason Mewes

Thursday: Fatman on Batman (with special guests)

Friday: Plus One with Jennifer Schwalbach

 

Podcasts hosted by Smith revolve around anecdotes from his grassroots-to-Weinstein career, which is unsurprising since he’s collected plenty of them during his arguably ideal rise to success. He began by taking the huge risk we all want to take: developing and self-funding a passion project, his first and immediate-breakthrough film Clerks; after taking it to a filmmakers market in New York, it got surprisingly quick interest and was accepted by Sundance months later. Since then, he has worked prolifically to mixed reviews, yet almost all his films have achieved an enviable balance of cult and mainstream success. Smith openly and frequently mocks his flops (Cop Out, Jersey Girl), but one cannot deny that Dogma, for instance, and the more recent and sober Red State (which, to the uninitiated, appears to contain no hallmarks of the Askewniverse) are impressive works containing strong political messages. From the guy who brought us Golgothan the Shit Demon and the Fuck Rap.

 

The reason last night’s show was so special, was that (unbeknownst to most, but not all of the audience) 2^nd July 2014 was Jason Mewes’ 4 year anniversary for sobriety after a decade or two of assorted-drug abuse. Jay and Silent Bob Get Old centers usually around lurid drug and sex tales, which in Mewes’ awe-fuelled cadence transmit as genuinely sweet and funny – the foundation for this is that the podcast acts as an intervention for Mewes, who checks in each week with how many sober days he now has and is provided with a regular opportunity to discuss his past and current life. That this usually emerges as stories about shitting himself on a comedown, or an animated reenactment of the previous night’s attempt to make love to his wife whilst she brushes her teeth, is probably a great thing. He appears enormously happy to be constantly connecting with people, and spoke effusively about how much support he gets from listeners and fans as a result of the show. In reference to a gift he’d been given from a Bristol audience member (more on that later), this morning he tweeted:

 

Thank you everyone for all the kind words! i sincerely appreciate youse all!!!! i eat puss like a NINJA …NOOOTCCCCHHHHH!!!!

 

Nootch indeed.

 

What was a genuinely touching evening, interspersed with bro slang and discussions of repulsive sexual acts (the Tea, Crumpets & A Rusty Trumpet being thoughtfully tailored for the British audience in Mewes’ recurring ‘Let Us Fuck’ segment) was the perfect example of why Smith’s work, and the Smodcast Network particularly, has an important yet overlooked place in the digital cultural landscape. Mewes’ casual yet rampant misogynistic outbursts were openly discussed, with Smith happy to acknowledge this. He talked about the dynamic between his characters’ views and his own, and while further discussion about the wider effects of casual words of discrimination wasn’t to follow, Smith and Mewes were game to discuss it without defensiveness, which is rare. While numerous elements of the Askewniverse are frequently crude, gross and apparently pandering to the superficial adolescent laugh, the Smodcast Network has shown its simultaneous dedication to more wholesome and urgent subjects than gross-out comedy. While maintaining its comedic foundation, Smodcast recently aired an interview with Jamie Walton, a former victim of sex trafficking and founder of The Wayne Foundation, a half way house for victims; airs Edumacation, a podcast in which Smith tries to learn something new each week under the tutelage of The Smartest Guy He Knows, Andy McElfresh; and Plus One with his wife Jen Schwalbach, about their experience of married life.

 

During the Q&A, members of the audience frequently requested hugs, all of which were granted as the discussion went on, and one dedicated listener approached the microphone to acknowledge:

 

“We knew this was Jay’s 4 year anniversary, and we’ve been on a bit of a journey with him; we got you a present…”

 

While Smith continued answering audience’s questions, the audience burst into cheers and applause as Mewes hugged the anonymous fan in receipt of his ‘Makes I Laaff’ t-shirt from Beast, a clothing manufacturer  instantly recognizable to all Bristolians. While Mewes refused to accept that the t-shirt read anything other than “I Eat Puss Like a Ninja”, I couldn’t help but feel immensely proud of him, and the entire venture.

2.5/3 stars for feminism, 5 stars for genuine love and positive intentions.