Killing the Undead Is Hard

Sometimes, when I watch a movie, it's a little harder than usual to suspend my disbelief. I like zombie movies. I know that technically, a zombie is a living person enslaved in the same manner after the soul has been magically removed. A zombie is a "will-less slave"(at least according to Random House dictionary). And I know that, colloquially speaking, when someone refers to a "zombie", one means a reanimated flesh eater, who feasts on the flesh or brains of the living (that's all due to George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead). I know that the big controversy these days among fans of the zombie genre has a lot to do with the latest crop of "fast" zombies ala Danny Boyle's are-they-really-zombies flick, 28 Days Later and Zach Snyder's 2004 re-make of Romero's Dawn of the Dead. But something that has always been gnawing at my craw is the fact that so many characters in zombie movies seem unmoved by the act of shooting other people. Allow me to explain: In the original Night of the Living Dead, Barbara goes catatonic within the first ten minutes of the film. Why? Well, Barbara goes out to lunch after being nearly feasted upon by a truly creepy looking zombie who not only attacks Barbara, but also kills her brother Johnny and comes after Barbara with a rock after Barbara seeks refuge from the attacking undead. By the time that Barbara makes it to the deserted farmhouse and meets up with Ben, the Coopers, and the young couple, Tom and Judy, mentally speaking, Barbara is orbiting somewhere near Jupiter. When the horde of zombies makes its way into the farmhouse, Barbara does nothing to defend herself. She is swarmed and consumed by the flesh-hungry ghouls. Although Barbara is one of zombidom's most memorable characters (and the object of one of horror's most famous lines, "they're coming to get you, Barbara"), a character like Barbara hasn't been seen since 1968. Most of the characters you'll see in zombie movies take to firearms like infants to the bottle. Even the most gun shy character (like Sarah Polley in Dawn of the Dead) is able to point a gun and shoot other people without even so much as wincing. It's not just the fact that characters in zombie movies so readily take to shooting other people with unflinching ease, it's the fact that the characters are uncannily accurate in their sharpshooting abilities. I know that, statistically speaking, there are enough guns in America to supply every man, woman,and child with their own individual firearm. But, as we know, a nation of guns does not necessarily make for a nation of marksmen. We know that it is impossible for every person who shoots a gun is capable of firing a kill shot every time they fire a weapon. It is difficult for even the most skilled gunmen to strike a person's head, yet, zombie movie characters are able to shoot and land head shots with an accuracy that can be attributed to a gun full of magic bullets. In Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, newly zombified Steve Marcus is shot right in the middle of his forehead by a character who, before then, had never indicated that she possessed the gun skills to coolly and calmly shoot an oncoming zombie between his eyes. But it isn't just the stunning accuracy of the shooting that is bothersome. The fact that characters in zombie movies are so able to shoot their fellow humans is quite disturbing. I know that a common refrain in zombie movies is that the newly reanimated are not the people that they once were, they are no longer our friends and family, but when you shoot someone in the head, whether that person is living or newly dead, the brains fly out of their heads the same. The person still drops to the ground. The person is dead. That's got to affect the way that you think about pointing a gun and shooting someone. Police officers who are involved in the shooting of suspects often say that the act of taking a life is extremely traumatic, and is something that sticks with you for the rest of your life. Yet, with the exception of Barbara, very few characters in zombie movies express any feeling other than Rambo when dealing with the undead. Most point, shoot, then make a joke afterwards.

Killing Zombies Comes Easy

Just Look Outside

I read an article awhile back about the movie The Social Network. The article was about how the movie was misogynist in its portrayal of women and how, with the exception of the characters: the bitchy ex-girfriend, the psycho girlfriend, and the newbie lawyer who says close to nothing during the entire movie (I think the only time she speaks is when she offers "Mark Zuckerberg" part of her salad), the movie was nominated for a batch of Oscars, nabbing one for its woman-hating script. The author of the article also said that, in addition to the movie being almost entirely vacant of positive female characters, the movie has nearly no one who isn't white in it. (I looked and I only saw 2 African-Americans in the movie. Only one actually spoke). I know that the article's author wasn't saying that real events, when adapted for the cinema, need to be so tinkered with so that the subsequent film in no way resembles what actually happened (although there were plenty of people who made the allegation that the movie had done just that), but I think what she was getting at is that there were actually more than just white guys involved with the events, and at least there ahould have been some sort of nod to that reality. Of course, this complaint/allegation isn't new. Even for a David Fincher film. Way back when Fight Club was released, there was a lot of to-do about the slightly more than misogynistic undertones of the all-male fight fest that was the creation of Tyler Durden and his alter ego, Tyler Durden. In the movie during a scene that takes place in a bathroom, real Tyler (Edward Norton) and imaginary Tyler (Brad Pitt) discuss how manhood has been treating them. When Real Tyler tells imaginary Tyler that his father's advice was (after Tyler had gone to college and gotten a job) to get married, imaginary Tyler tells real Tyler, "We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need?" I consider myself generally fairly difficult to offend, but even I got a little miffed by what seemed to be the anti-female tone of the book and film. I suppose that, when you analyze Fight Club, there are all sorts of psychological and philosophical reasons why the movie comes off as anti-woman, but nonetheless, it's difficult not to notice that the men seem a little hostile towards the fairer sex. Of course the criticisms that the article's author leveled on The Social Network wasn't all about what you saw in the movie, some of her criticisms were also about what you didn't see, namely, anyone who isn't caucasian. The same thing happened a few years ago with the TV shows Seinfeld and Friends. Both shows take place in New York City, perhaps one of the most racially and ethnically diverse cities on earth, yet if you watched either show and hadn't been to or heard of New York City, you'd never know anyone lived there who wasn't white and reasonably well-off. Likewise, as a fan of the USA Network TV show Monk, I've noticed that Adrian Monk's San Francisco is strangely devoid of Asians and gays, two groups that are entirely unmissible in the real San Francisco. But that's just the two headed nature of fiction. Of course we want to see things that look like real life in movies and TV, even if the fiction itself is far from plausible (I know that The Social Network is supposed to be based on actual events, but my theory is, once a series of true events is played out before a camera, it's all fiction). The tip is that whatever the film is, even if it's supposed to be based on true events, it's still the product of a writer, a director, and the actors who play the parts. I seen pictures of Jesse Eisenberg and the real Mark Zuckerberg, and if they were standing next to each other, you'd never mistake the two for identical twins. Ultimately, if you want to see reality, you need to go outside and look around at all the people around you. Even if there is not another Asian or African-American person ever on TV or in a movie, they'll still be plenty out on the streets, in restaurants, and everywhere else there are actual people hanging out in the actual world.

It Used To Mean Happy

The Williams Institute just released the results of a study they conducted on gays in America. According to the numbers, the number of gays and lesbians (adults) in the United States is approximately 9 million, that's about 3.5% of the entire population of the U.S. When you hear that the number of homosexuals (those who are willing to admit that they are) is only 3.5% of the number of people living in the country, the natural reaction is to think that 3.5% is not a significant number; that is until you remember that, according to the 2010 census, the number of Asian-Americans in the U.S. is around 4.6% of the population of this country. When you think abut it that way, the number doesn't seem so small.

I know that the intention (at least I hope it's the intention) of the study is to show that yes, there are gay people among us, and that the number is not, when you take it into perspective, so small as to be ignored. Of course, the famous Kinsey study pegged the number of homosexuals at around 7%, and for years I remember hearing it said that approximately 1 in 10 Americans is either gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. No matter what the real number actually is (one can suspect that since homosexuality carries such a social stigma, until we're done with homophobia we'll never really know the true number), the fact is, there are indeed gay people who walk among us. They're our neighbors, mail carriers, our favorite celebrities, even our elected officials... get used to it.

Of course, there are bound to be those who will insist that the purpose, or at least the unintended result of this study is to pound on an issue that is already controversial enough as it is. There are people who ask why is it necessary that the public needs to know how many gay people are in the country? The fact that we dwell on the percentage of gay Americans, they argue, only serves to reenforce fears of "the gay agenda" or that knowing how many gays and lesbians are in the country is important at all. They say that we need to get past all this putting people into categories and labeling people because it's all counterproductive to getting past discrimination.

That's true. There's some logic to the argument that the more we dwell on how people are different, the more we think of people according to those differences. But you can also put it this way: if you feel that you're the only gay person that you know, and you fell isolated, it might help to know that you're not alone -- that there are 9 million other people out there who are dealing with the same thing you're dealing with. They might not all be just like you (meaning their lives and circumstances are different), but there's a chance that at least you'll have someone to date.

I remember when I was in high school, my best friend was gay. I remember that he used to get a lot of shit for being gay (it was quite obvious that he was). Now, I was the straight girl who people thought was gay (there are too many reasons why people thought I was to go into), and I remember when he and I got to know each other, that he said one reason why he wanted to be my friend was because he had heard that I was a lesbian. He said that he needed to be friends with someone that understood what he was going through. Luckily, I've always been gay friendly, so we became fast friends. But the thing is,before we met he felt alone. He didn't know how many or even if there were other gay kids at school. I always felt like an outcst because I wasn't like the other black kids, because i wasn't this or that, and I know how much that absolutely sucked. I wouldn't wish that feeling on anybody.

Maybe a result of this study will be to embolden people. For those people out there who are still too shy or afraid to come out and tell people that they're gay to be able to tell those people who think homosexuality is wrong or abnormal that there are 9 million reasons why being gay or lesbian or transgendered is perfecty normal and more than ok.

Hopefully.

By Comparison

A few days ago, I read an interview with Khloe Kardashian. I usually make it my business to avoid that family, as they say, like the plague, but the topic of the article was interesting. The interview was about the Kardashian sisters and how Khloe is supposedly the "ugly" sister (as we all know there has to be at least one). She said that it's difficult to maintain a healthy level of self-esteem when she is subject to a constant stream of negative comments. In fact, I recall hearing (I think it was on The Soup) someone call Khloe Kardashian the Hulk, meaning that she is a big monster.

Of course, Khloe Kardashian isn't the first female celebrity to be criticized for her looks (or perceived lack thereof). It's still cool to take jabs at Hillary Swank, Nancy Kerrigan, and Sarah Jessica Parker for looking like horses (Maxim magazine actually had to issue an apology to Sarah Jessica Parker for calling her Barbaro, the famous race horse who was put down after suffering a leg injury). And there have been many actresses and women of note who have been subject to insult because they're not "attractive" or don't fit the "ideal" of beauty.

We know that things aren't going to change anytime soon, no mater how much we challenge the prevailing wisdom or how much Lady Gaga attempts to redefine beauty with self-acceptance anthems like "Born This Way" and her ideal of the ugly-beautiful, we're still going to judge people by the way that they look. It sucks, but it's true.

This, ugly truth (if you will) of course, got me thinking... for every Khloe Kardashian, who is penalized because of her looks, there seems to be more than a few famous types who a given a free pass despite their looks. Ok, right off, I realize that the free pass primarily refers to men. Somehow, a dude can be the type of guy that, when you see him, makes you think of freight trains and dirt roads, but as long as he doesn't favor Joseph Merrick, he's got a chance of making someone's hot guy list.

My example of this phenomenon is the actor Adrian Brody.

By the way, Joseph Merrick is better known as "the Elephant Man".

I remember watching some old footage of Rolling Stones fans back in the 60s, who said that the members of the band were so ugly that they were cute, kind of like how one thinks of a shar-pei, a dog so hideous you can't help but think it's adorable. Those fans got me thinking... maybe that's what's it. Maybe the thing is, is that there are some people who are, objectively speaking, not so good looking, that are made good looking by what they do. It's not the clothes that make the man, it's his occupation. Our looks are enhanced by what we do.

Last month, while watching the Academy Awards, I cheered as nine inch nails frontman, Trent Reznor, picked the Oscar for best original score for The Social Network. Now, as a decades-long nin fan, I am more than well aware that Trent has been (and probably still is) the object of many-a-fan's prurient fantacies. But as I watched, I thought, this guy is a dude whose looks got a boost by what he does for a living. Really. Not to cast stones at anyone's glass houses, but objectively speaking, Trent Reznor is no George Clooney. I'm sure if he worked in any other industry other than the music industry, say, for Fed-Ex or for the city planner's office, I seriously doubt that he'd have made anybody's sexy guy list. To be honest, if I saw a sparklett's man who looked that pissed off, I'd be afraid to open my door to let him pick up my empties. But it's not just him, it's alot of guys in the music business. Likewise, Barry White made his name as a sultan of love, but if he did anything other than sing and make sexy music, I'd bet big bucks that he would have had a hard time getting dates.

Hot dates, anyway.

Alas, the looks enhancing properties of one's occupation seem only to apply to men. As of yet, I have not seen a woman whose "looks" were enhanced by what she does. Which brings me back to Khloe Kardashian. She's right. It is really messed up that she's compared to her "better" looking sisters. I think that the more "unconventional" beauties like Khloe Kardashian, Lady Gaga, and Angelina Jolie (remember her looks were considered "unconventional"?) say they're beautiful, too, the more we'll get past the narrowly defined parameters of the (supposedly) ideal aesthetic. I'd like to think that eventually we, as a culture and as a species, will learn to move beyond mere aesthetics and mean what we say when we say that true beauty is on the inside.

Disclaimers

I'd like to say that, for the record, I don not support terrorism. Let me repeat: I DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM. But there's something really annoying that happens whenever you tell someone, or rather, whenever I tell someone that I don't agree with our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or our current foray into Libya, I'm accused of "loving terrorists" or hating America. For the record, I neither love terrorists nor do I hate America (I hate some Americans, but I hold no animus towards America in general). But I've grown sick and tired of adding a disclaimer to what I say every time I give my opinion about Islam, Muslims, or the Middle East. Case in point: this idiot preacher who burned the Koran. Now, I'm not saying that what happened in Afghanistan (angry mobs attacked and killed UN workers) was a good thing -- it's not. There is no reason in the wordl that would excuse attacking and beheading people just because some ass half a world away pissed you off. But -- if you burn the holy book of a religion that has adherents that don't take kindly to insults, you know exactly what you're doing when you decide to burn their sacred texts. You wnat those people to react. More importantly, you want them to react violently. You want them to react like the crazy, America-hating Muslims. Unfortunately, if you tell someone that you feel that this idiot preacher bears some moral responsibility for what happened as a result of his Koran burning, you're likely to be accused of supporting Muslim extremists who behead innocent people. Look, I know that there is not just one type of Muslim. In fact, most of the world's Muslims (who happen to be Indonesian) are peaceful people who are no more inclined to attack their fellow man than a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist. Likewise, I know that pastor Terry Jones is not an accurate representative of Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who feel that Mr. Jones' actions are not only irresponsible, but dangerous. I would like to think that, whenever I tell someone that I know that not every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting, I wouldn't have to add that I love America, that Christians are good people, and that I hate Saddam Hussein.

Just Be A Queen

I've noticed something: there are a lot of straight people who watch (supposedly) gay-oriented programming. They do.

I know that it's probably politically incorrect somehow to say that I am a fan (and I am by no means the only one) of Logo's RuPaul's Drag Race, but I really enjoy watching 12 drag queens duke it out for the title of America's next top drag queen. I think that a part of the appeal (for me) has to do with being a fan of John Waters' Pink Flamingos, and that in some way, the pursuit for the top drag queen title reminds me of Waters' cinematic competition for the title "the filthiest person alive". I once heard a person say that the programming on Logo was no more than the gay equivalent of a minstrel show. He said that it's nothing more than a confirmation of the worst stereotypes of gays and lesbians served up as entertainment.

I know what the guy was saying. And I can imagine that someone who may not know any gays or lesbians may see the programs on Logo and walk away thinking that all gays are "like that". But, really I think that the kind of people who watch Logo's programming aren't the type to think negatively of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

But then, that's another discussion for another day.

What I've been thinking about is Drag Race. In particular, I've been thinking about the on-going argument over what a drag queen is. Now, for starters, I'm not gay. And secondly, I'm not a drag queen. I enter the discussion as a complete outsider. Ok, so for anyone who hasn't seen the show, much of the to-do is centered on a contestant who goes by the name of Raja. Some folks have taken to referring to Raja as a "boy in a dress". (I think that this is a reference to the the character Chi Chi in the movie To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, who is described as a "boy in a dress").

Anyway, some people don't think that Raja is drag enough to consider herself a true "drag queen" (I suppose nevermind that she's been doing drag for over ten years). Her look, some claim isn't drag but club kid. I'm no expert on what drag is, nor do I claim to be, but I think that what Raja does is exactly what drag is all about. If the idea of drag is the idea of "genderfuck", then Raja is exactly what the term is about. He doesn't look like a "man" (because he's not dressed according to the masculine ideal), but he doesn't look like a woman, either. He's is neither and both. He's fucking with gender.

I remember watching an interview with the late Van Smith, the man behind the look of the late drag icon Divine, and he said that the idea behind Divine's look (which included scars and celebrating fatness) was confrontational. Divine challenged to conventional ideal of what a drag queen is supposed to be. The idea wasn't to pass as a woman or to look like a pretty girl, it was to create a character that was a "drag terrorist", to create crimes against the conventionality of drag.

That's why, I think, some of Raja's fans so militantly defend her. They understand that every-so-often, the standards need to be challenged. To think that Raja has to toe some official this-is-what-drag-is line is ridiculous. If a drag queen is all about style, we should appreciate that styles change, and that really, there is no way to find one drag queen that truly represents every style of drag (this would make as much sense as picking out one person to represent every African-American in America. saying "all black people are like this person" of course neglects everyone who is not like that person. for instance, if someone were to pick me as the representative of all African Americans, they'd think that every black American listens to goth music and watches TV shows about drag queens, which clearly is not the case).

I might not be on Team Raja, but I appreciate the fact that she does her own thing. If every queen on the show looked the same, we'd be complaining that there was no one on the show who looks different. That's the reason why there are many of us that are glad that all music doesn't sound like Mozart. Sure, Mozart is great, but there's other stuff out there to listen to. And really, not everyone will like everything. Some people like The Cure, some people think that it's the worst crap they've ever heard. But the thing is, it even though The Cure doesn't sound like Mozart, that doesn't mean that it's not music.

Same goes for drag queens.... I think.