Watchmen Porn

draft

For years I avoided seeing the Watchmen superhero movie, because I hated the graphic novel in the 1980s. A friend made me see it as part of our remedial superhero study group and guess what, I really hated the movie. But I was surprised that she would appreciate the rape scenes so much and the sexist representation of women if that is indeed what it is.

For me, it is the latex garter belt that really sells this outfit.  

Maybe there is hope after all.

Is the DC Extended Universe Also a Metaphor for our Civilization?

draft

This essay began life as an inquiry into whether the movies of the DC Extended Universe have the depth, integrity and metaphorical richness of their main competitor in the world of cinematic graphic novels and super heroes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I used two films as an entry point into the DC Universe, the Zack Synder Superman movie Man of Steel (2013) and his wildly disliked Badman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  But after viewing these two very strange films, I now realize that whatever is going on here is going to require more thought.

But lets start at the beginning.

It has been proposed that our cinema has moved beyond the "giant robot" to the comic book superhero as a metaphor for our civilization. Certainly a more nuanced metaphor would be hard to imagine than the classic American comic book with its superheroes, supervillains, women in spandex, alien menaces, and so forth. But not all superhero universes are created equal, and they are certainly not all translated to the big digital screen in the same way and with the same sureness of purpose. No doubt the Marvel Cinematic Universe has achieved a certain level of excellence, but can the same be said about the DC Extended Universe? On paper, the DCEU is every bit as good, if not better, than the Marvel one. Has it also self-consciously aspired to this metaphorical and cultural transcendence, or has it foundered on the jagged rocks of mediocrity in pursuit of commerce?

This were my organizing questions for my first analysis of this important, critical area..

But the two movies that I reviewed defy an easy analysis.  The first, Man of Steel (2013) is a very unpleasant movie about genocide from the point of view of the person who has it in his hands the power to either save his civilization or condemn it to a final and gruesome death.  And he chooses death for the civilization that created him.  In retrospect, it is a very grim movie with a horrible conclusion. Light hearted would not be the term used to describe this movie. It also completely ignores and dismisses all the unconscious themes of America from the 1930s through the 1950s that made the original Superman so interesting to a student of American history and culture.  It ignores the colorful villains of the Superman canon, retaining only one, General Zod, but it transforms Zod from a villain to a tragic hero, defeated at last by the criminal, mass murderer, Superman.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) was the most hated movie of this year.  And I can certainly see why as it turns its back on most of what made the two title characters entertaining to watch. Superman is a weirdo who murdered his people and is now a borderline psycho do-gooder who is hated for his mysterious powers and the collateral damage that he leaves at every turn. And Batman is a psycho, a vigilante, and by all definitions, a criminal who uses his vast wealth for his own purposes outside the law. Both see themselves as noble and doing good, but a lot of criminals and murderers in history also thought that.

Of the three leading psychopaths in our movie: Superman, Batman and Lex Luther, it is the latter who is by far the most interesting.

Lex Luther, Our Villain

Everyone hated this movie but me.  I liked it a lot.  It is a really sick film with a very interesting main villain and everyone's favorite lesbian/femdom popular culture icon, Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman from 1918

Any woman who dresses up in an outfit like that, or looks like Linda Carter or our modern version, the gender ambiguous Gal Gadot, immediately gets my respect and I am interested in anything she has to say whether its about fighting the Nazis or any other subject she may care to discuss.

Since this blog and other things I write often discuss the semiotics and mechanics of visual effects, these two movies are excellent examples of how irrelevant visual effects are to the filmmaking art in so many cases. The visual effects of both movies are very good, possibly even exceptional.  There is some very good design in parts of these two films and they are to be congratulated. They are not even completely excessive as they are in so many movies.  But that said, and I will go over some design elements to highlight them in another post, that while these two movies are helped by their visual effects, the effects are not decisive.  It is the casting, the story and the direction that sets the tone and everything else is in a supporting role.

Whatever these two movies are, they are not trivial, shallow comic book superhero films.  Whether they are a metaphor of our civilization like the more diverse and generally somewhat more pleasant Marvel films are, remains to be seen. But it is interesting that these two tentpole projects for the DC Extended Universe are so very and unrelentingly dark, violent, and without hope.

I think that we should also note that two of the main characters of the second movie, Batman and Lex Luther, are able to do what they do, whether we approve or not, because they are rich.  They may be talented as well, but at the very least these movies touch on the that great American theme, that wealth is required to participate in our society.  If you are without wealth, then I would not count on being permitted to do anything of value.

Eisenberg as Luthor, hamming it up

Although no reviewer or fan has mentioned this, so far as I know, it is the women of Batman vs Superman who steal this movie.  Even when they do not have a speaking part, they are by far the most interesting characters.  And let there be no doubt why I think so, and please don't hate me, its because they pretty much are all desirable, in one way or another.

Our Israeli socialite looking demure.  He has no idea what he is in for.

So what do we have here?  Superman is a stuck up, maladjusted, genocidal piece of unemotional beefcake, and I could not care less about his character.  Batman is a psychopath and a rich kid who looks nice in a suit.  Lex Luthor is at least interesting if a spoiled self-indulgent rich kid. Wonder Woman is fabulous and is what a superhero comic book movie should be about.  Alfred, the loyal butler is an accessory to the crimes of the Batman and always looks like he just came off a long weekend at the bars or being dissolute in some excessive way.

Check out the expression our Wonder Gal as she wields her mighty sword

Whatever else can be said about these movies, they are not light hearted.  Whether they amount to more than the sum of their parts remains to be seen.

Man of Steel (2013) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3

Why is Helena Bonham-Carter Always Falling Out of Bed?

This post is rated X due to comments about the "rubber/latex glove".

I just saw for the first time that epic tome on weird psychology, Fight Club (1999) by David Fincher. There are many theories about what it means, what happened, and so forth and so on. But none of these discussions of theories of masculinity or the lack thereof addressed the issue most important to me. Ms. Bonham-Carter appears to play a character that is always falling off the bed.

Ok, so she isn't always falling out of bed, but she is at least twice, and twice is enough to convince me that it means something.

First we have....

And then we have ...

If we add the great, even famous line, “That was the best sex I have had since grade school”, I think we have some sort of implication that falling out of bed indicates, well, a fallen woman, a woman who gives herself over to sex, or sexual pleasure.  Note for example the subtle use of a latex or rubber glove being worn by Brad Pitt.  Fisting perhaps?  Anal sex? 

Is this the role of women in Fight Club? Is this all that women are good for? Going to 12 step therapy sessions and hopping into (and off of) bed?

_______________________________________________

Biography of Helena Bonham-Carter on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000307/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Feminist Shaving Theory and Internet Porn

Warning: the following post is rated R and discusses sex on the Internet

Our research confirms that the sex drive is strong in mammals.   Even Steven J. Gould said so and he should know.   In its small way, the Internet has helped reveal this enduring truth by providing easy access to a vast amount of pornography of all types, as well as commentary on this porn deluge by outraged or not so outraged consumers.

Porn is one of the boom industries of our civilization.  It is international, multicultural, omnipresent and profitable beyond the wildest dreams of the most exploitative or idealistic of the pornographers. Very few industries can compete with it in scope and economic importance.

We recently came across a commentary on the phenomena of Internet pornography by two feminist authors on the New Statesman web site.   What particularly caught our attention was the free expression of commentary on the editorial by readers who felt the need to share their reaction and personal experiences with us.

That hussy!  Shaving again!  Has she no shame?

The authors, Rhiannon Cosslett and Holly Baxter of Vagenda Magazine, bring up a number of topics in their essay  "The Big Question that the Generation Raised on Porn Must Answer",   It begins with the provocative statement: 

        Porn often shows a submissive woman, stripped of all of her body hair, undergoing ritual
        humiliation in the name of sexuality, and twenty somethings must ask whether that has
        wider implications about how our peers view us socially, politically and professionally.

Apparently the whole issue of who shaves and who does not is an important feminist issue.   But we do wonder if the authors have looked at the broad range of porn that is out there, or perhaps have focused on one particular aspect of it.  But nevermind, the helpful Internet, with its social networking and online commentary, comes to their rescue.

One man wrote in response something along the lines of: he personally watches a lot of pornography on the internet and it generally involves big hunky men doing nasty things to other big hunky men and he absolutely guarantees that there are no women involved, shaved or otherwise.

Then a woman commented that she likes watching pornography of shaved women being used by big hunky men and so do a lot of her friends and is this editorial saying that they should stop watching it because that isn't bloody likely.

A second man wrote in to share with us that he felt that this editorial was absolutely correct and that men were being awful here and that if she wanted to step all over him with her boots in punishment or maybe spit on him, that would be ok with him because he certainly deserved it.  All men deserved to be beaten by women, he seemed to be saying.

But here is the coup de grace: many people felt that this last comment (on being abused by women) was "creepy" and made them uneasy. In other words, their sexual preference was ok, but his... well, not so much.

At Global Wahrman we want to go on record to say that we are happy to hear that people are enjoying themselves and want to encourage this type of behavior as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and takes a shower afterwards.

For another more amusing slant on the issue of sex from what may be a feminist point of view, consider In Defense of Bad Sex by Laurie Penney

The Repressed Lust of the CIA Analyst in ZDT

[revised 11/24/2013]

I just saw ZDT, or Zero Dark Thirty, that controversial film by Kathryn Bigelow. I expected to hate it, but I actually loved it and I believe, modestly, that most people have misunderstood this movie but that I understand the director's vision.

This is not a movie about Osama Bin Laden, terrorism, torture, or any of that.

This is a movie about the repressed lust within obsessed CIA analysts.

This is a beltway bodice ripper ¹ about Maya, the waif-like, strong yet vulnerable, intelligent yet feminine, CIA analyst who single handedly finds the bad guy and saves the world. Why don't you men just listen to me?, she seems to be saying. I am woman! I am strong! I wear a conservatively tailored suit!

But deep inside that slender, athletic, neurotic, nearly anorexic female form lurks a hot volcano of repressed sexual desire.

In the shadows of the secret hanger, surrounded by 30 or so alpha males any one of which could rip her apart like a fried chicken wing, Maya is turned loose by her long-suffering CIA bosses to tell these bearded, athletic, casually dressed, men what their secret mission is.  

Does our angry CIA analyst enjoy the intense attention that these men pay to her?   They *do* pay attention to her, in the hanger, in the desert and God only knows where else.

And Kathryn Bigelow knows only too well what men like our Seal Team 6 find attractive: sports, stealth helicopters in secret hangers, and intense 26 year old repressed redheads.

Completely deadpan, the total professional, she basks in their attention and explains where she believes Bin Laden is hiding.   The men are gruff, uncertain, hostile.   A mistake could land them in Pakistani prison for a very long time.

But her confidence wins them over.

Notice how much more relaxed she appears after spending a week or two "training" with her men in the desert.   There in the desert the M-to-F ratio is probably about 75 to 2 or 3.   If that.   She could have her pick of the litter.   

She looks more relaxed and happier, somehow.

ZDT on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790885/

____________________________________________________

Notes

-1.  The sequence of the briefing of the Seal Team by Maya is also a brilliant example of an explanatory scene, the highest form of filmmaking.  In explanation cinema, the characters just talk to each other and explain things, no actual action is necessary.   In this case, notice how the Special Forces guys make the context switch between thinking they are there for a mission in Libya to the much more interesting project of taking out UBL.   Their reaction is very amusing and is one of the reasons that I think that this movie has value.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kG4k21PoCs

0.  The day that this post went live my blog received the single largest number of views / hits of any other single day in its life.  Proving one more time that sex sells.

1. A bodice ripper is a type of romance novel. Wikipedia has a good introduction to the categories of the genre and how it has evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_novel

2.  Has "Beltway bodice ripper" been used before?   Did I just make it up?   The Beltway, for those who don't know, is the term locals use for Washington DC.

Predicting the Future of 3D Printing: Sex, Killing People and Stealing

Predicting the future can be straightforward if you follow certain rules.   They are more guidelines than rules, actually, as I will expound upon later when we get to discussing one of the pioneers in this field of prognostication, that well-known 16th century writer of entertainment fiction, Nostradamus.  One approach to this art of prediction is to apply certain constants in human nature to otherwise unrelated trends.  Whatever it is, you can be pretty sure that people will find a way to apply it to the themes of sex, killing people and stealing.  Its almost guaranteed.   Airplanes? Internet? Automobiles?  It doesn't matter, people will use them for sex, killing and stealing.

So lets apply this approach to the emerging field of 3D printing.

3D printing is hot, it is not only in our future, it is in our present. People are printing out parts for their vintage cars already.  As always it helps to have a lot of money because then you can have access to printers that can print stuff that is really hard and very precise, but even the cheaper printers are fun.

So, first sex, then killing, and finally stealing.

In the area of sex and 3D printing an obvious approach is to consider the impact on sex toys.  I know very little about sex toys I admit, but I once employed an animator who was very involved in collecting items made in Bakelite (the classic original plastic) and other plastic items on Ebay.  She was particularly fond of Hello Kitty sex toys.  If she had a 3D printer today, she could print her own and possibly reveal a whole  new dimension to her already formidable creativity.  So it is easy to predict new and creative forms of sex toys unleashed with 3D printing, no problem.

Notice adorable Japanese color choices of their Hello Kitty sex toys.  Why are they all in the "on" position?

How about using 3D printers to print semi-automatic weapons?   Again, no problem, it is already being done.  See this excellent link to a hardworking pioneer in the field and his discussion of how the topic is regulated on various 3D printing sites.

As a technical addendum to this example, I should point out that the history of modern weapons since before WWI has been to design a very reliable, accurate and functional weapon that can be produced in quantity.  The standard infantry weapon of most modern armies can be made out of a remarkably few pieces of stamped metal.   The author of the post referenced below, as a student of firearms, was well aware of this.  

"Gunsmithing with a 3D Printer, Part 1" on haveblue.org
http://haveblue.org/?p=1041

AR-15 rifle, minus barrel and stock, with .22 magazine attached

Finally, how do we use 3D printers to steal money?   One way of course is to use the weapon you just printed to rob a grocery store.   Simple, clean, and yet very stupid.   After armed robbery the first approach that comes to mind is the low-quantity counterfeiting of valuable art objects, collector's items of one type or another, including objects from antiquity.  The feasibility of this depends on how the choice of materials evolves with 3D printers and how clever people can be with emulating the characteristics of objects made of other natural materials as well as how clever they can be in emulating that feeling of antiquity at the surface of the object.  Of course none of this would fool an expert, we are just talking about fraudulent items on Ebay in this scenario, I think.  It would take a very precise "printer" indeed to sculpt out of metal a simulation of a rare Roman coin, perhaps a counterfeit Sumerian cone would be more amenable, though less valuable on the current market.     But whatever the future of art fraud is with this technology, I have no doubt that the biped mammals will make me proud and find ways to use this technology to steal.

Only time will tell if I am right or not, but I am optimistic about this.

Defamation, Employment Contracts and the Case of "El Naschie vs Nature Publishing"

How lucky we are today to have our first legal judgment on Global Wahrman !

In this case, we have the case of El Naschie vs Nature Publishing regarding an article published in Nature which El Naschie claims/claimed was defamation.

Apparently El Naschie, if I read this correctly, started his own academic journal, and then set himself up to review his own papers,  which he had submitted to his journal.   It certainly makes sense to me that one would like one's own papers, don't you agree?    This is a peer-reviewed journal and by definition the author of a paper is his own peer.  This principle was definitively established by von Strindberg and Broadway  in their 1948 paper in Transactions on Publishing entitled "On Self-Peering".   [Editors note: this is Michael's idea of a joke, he is being sarcastic, just in case you didn't notice.] So what is the problem?    It just seems like a very efficient way to get a lot of papers published.   Anyway, these picky academics: always complaining about something. Nature published an essay about the situation and was quite clear and opinionated about the ethics of starting a "peer-reviewed journal", then personally writing most of the articles, and acting as his own peer-reviewer for those articles before publication.  As a result,  El Naschie sued Nature for defamation.

Defamation has been on my mind recently because of various contracts for employment that I have reviewed and which have "strong", or at least strongly-worded,  anti-defamation clauses.  Defamation, though, is a legal term that has a meaning slightly different from its use in the vernacular.  To the courts, "defamation" refers to the act of saying something about somebody that hurts their reputation, as you would expect.  But to be defamation, these statements also need to be  (a) not true and (b) intended to cause harm.   If the nasty thing you say about someone or some thing turns out to be true then it isn't defamation by definition.

It is also not defamation when you express your opinion as opposed to asserting something as being a statement of fact.   So for example, if I say that "such-and-such company has, in my opinion, a ridiculous employment contract that will cause them trouble in the long run because I think it will discourage people from working with them", that is not defamation.  That is just me expressing my opinion, as I am legally entitled to do.

If however I say that "so-and-so is wanted for felony assault in the State of NY and is a well-known pederast who got booted out of his home town because of his sexual proclivities," and if  that was not true, then that would almost certainly be defamation.

Why do these employment contracts have such odd and apparently unnecessary anti-defamation clauses?  I am told by my Oxford / Harvard Business School friend that it is to scare immature 23 year olds and keep them from spraying their self-righteous phlegm all over some social media web page when they get pissed off about something the company has done (e.g. for laying them off or something).   Such clauses should be unnecessary of course because defamation is illegal.   Contracts do not need to contain clauses that say "the employee promises not to have kinky sex with underage women," because sleeping with underage women is illegal in this country, whether kinky or not.  It even has its own well-defined term in the vernacular, jailbait, which is really a wonderful word when you think about it.   (And what a good example of a Germanic languages' process of creating a new word by concatenating existing words together.)    Thus no such clause is necessary in any contract, and if it were, it might be covered by a boilerplate that might say something such as "all parties agree to obey the law".  I mean really, that seems like an unnecessary thing to say, but I guess it might be worth reminding people of that general guideline in the fast-paced world of internet startups.

Now that I think about it, isn't there some large software company in Redmond, Wa. that routinely used to violate anti-trust law ?   Maybe we should have a clause in the contracts of corporate executives requiring them to obey the law in the execution of their duties.   Its just a thought.

Anyway, this case is full of juicy charges and counter-charges, nasty emails from mysterious people, and a lot of biped mammals acting very immaturely, if you ask me.   I think it is worth a look.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html

Here is the first page of the judgment.