In recent days the marketplace has been overtaken by Beatlemania again, and instead of young girls screaming at the top of their lungs for the foursome from Liverpool, the adoration has come mostly from journalists of all sorts. Critics who pride themselves on their knowledge and dedication to particular fields of cultural production have, without fail, gave their approval the re-release of the entire Beatles catalogue as well as the release of the new Beatles: Rock Band. Both have been a long time coming, and both, for their part, are long overdue.

In respect to the catalogue, the last time the recordings were touched by a sound engineer was in 1987 – so 22 years ago. Having remastered tracks does often improve the sound, much in the same way there is a distinct difference between low-quality 128kbps MP3 varies from a 320kbps or FLAC file. Yet, ask many a layman, and they will testify to noticing very little in the way of changes. The improvement mostly comes for the audiophiles, and considering I have never met one in person, my guess has to be that they are a minority in the overall scheme of things.

Similarly, they redid the packaging for the albums, as well as created a massive box-set with all sorts of pictures, liner notes and other junk that feeds the inner consumer in all of us.

But beyond the technical and physical alterations to the collected works of The Beatles, their music remains much the same. It is as great, or as mediocre, as you remembered it last week – and the band’s status in pop culture will not have changed.  People already know if they like the band or not – and it’s not as if they doesn’t have enough books written about them already.

If anything, it seems that a measured response to this re-release was needed – a concerted effort on those in the critical community to acknowledge the importance of the Beatles, but to put that aside and reflect on the improvements made in the remastering, as well as in the packaging. That’s what was released, not anything else. Instead, what seems to have happened is the critics getting caught up on the fetishization of the band itself – to be drawn into the storm of adoration that flows not from the conscious mind but from the Ego. The need to keep the band that was put on the pedestal by the Boomers in its “rightful” place; to re-confirm what has already been said. “The Beatles were the best rock band in history” and “they created a catalogue of music that eclipses everything else since.”

This storm came to a head in a number of places, and not just with the re-release of the catalogue itself, but also with Rock Band: The Beatles. The New York Times, in its review of the new music game, said that the game “may be the most important video game yet made.” The writer, Seth Schiesel, felt that the game, which has only songs by The Beatles, and which is just a sequel to an already established franchise of video games, becomes a “transformative experience” because of the content, and not the mechanics of play. Basically, the game is special not for breaking any boundaries, rules or ground, but because it re-visits the cultural territory of the parents of most video game players. By uniting children and parents alike under the umbrella of a shared love of The Beatles, we might just turn out okay after all. Hyperbolic? You bet.

Ian Bogost, co-author of this year’s fascinating book about the Atari 2600 Racing The Beam (which I am reading right now), and assistant professor of Communication & Culture at the Georgia Tech wrote several days ago on his blog:

The Beatles: Rock Band represents the apotheosis of boomer nostalgia. It is memory created from scratch by their children, as if to affirm, “Yes Mom, The Beatles really are the pinnacle of music and culture, just like you always suspected.” It is a game that says, implicitly, “It’s still 1969 in everyone’s heart, even if we couldn’t all be there.”

…So I ask: must we appreciate The Beatles? Must we reminisce with the newly aged about their privileged lives as naive youthful radicals, and then later as greedy yuppie centrists, and then finally as truculent conservative majority? Must we give them their final thrill in the medium we popularized, and which they spent decades not only failing to understand, but also deriding as useless and insolent? Must we allow them to celebrate not through change, not through novelty, but through utter sameness?

Pitchfork, the oft-disputed, but still taste-making extraordinaire spent the entire week focusing on the re-released material, as well as running their own review of Rock Band. If you have looked at some of the reviews, it becomes rather clear that they too, were only reconfirming the myth of The Beatles. In the process no fewer than 6 individual albums received perfect scores – which isn’t to say that the albums aren’t good, but that the 10s, as well as numerous high 9s and 8s, all reconfirm something: The Beatles are untouchable.

Carles of HRO asked the introspective question “Does my life ‘make more sense’ now that PitchforkMedia.coms have reviewed the Beatles?”

My perception of the world finally makes sense. Like I finally ‘get’ music history since I can compare the Beatles to modern indie hits.

Since I have never heard the Beatles’ music, this is a huge relief. Now I have the opportunity to ‘accept them in2 my life’ since I know how 2 judge them appropriately.

Can’t believe ‘Yellow Submarine’ was a mediocre bust, sort of like a lackluster Of Montreal album or something.

I feel better about 2k9, like I know where the ‘best’ albums of the year stand [via in a historical context].
I finally know that ‘Let it Be’

is slightly worse that AnCo

but slightly better than

‘Everything in itz rite place.’ – the Radioheads singing a song about the world making sense”

At times like this the naked truth about criticism comes to bear, all of our tools of influence out for everybody to see. Ratings. Numbers. Colourful language and a developed knowledge of pop culture history. The Beatles aren’t a real band anymore: they are a nostalgia coated fetishized idol of that us critics keep running back to again and again. We don’t love the music or the people in the band insomuch as we love the idea of the band. It’s comforting because we “know” we’re right, but are we?

Originally, I was going to write about the fan-backlash towards the acquisition. I’ve decide to let YouTube speak for itself. Often it does the talking with a tremendous amount of infantile hatred, expletives and a low-neck visibility.

0:20 – What do you think of a man who mainly receives his news from other YouTube users?

1:16 – Cadence… of voice… so… patronizing…

2:25 – Can you castrate the company which produced: “Elektra” and “Punisher: War Zone?”

3:15 – Actually the company that makes Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck owns DC comics. That brand has never been the same since the Dark Knight was recut to feature Yosemite Sam, instead of Heath Ledger. WELCOME TO THE SPACE JAM.

3:52 – Normally, air-punching would seem weird. But this is how Ocp004 closes all of these fascinating lectures.

Preamble: Can’t even tell if this is performance art or if this guy is aware he emotes like a queen.

BONUS: Left side of the screen…. is that a recurve bow?

1:00 – Why do all of these video bloggers want to remind me what properties Marvel publishes? Would it be important if I didn’t know or cared?

1:23 – Cats will birth snakes, Disney will buy Marvel, and Taco Bell will refuse to serve me without a shirt on! These are the signs of the apocalypse!

1:31 – Why does this guy know what preteens smell like?

2:02 – Obviously the new female, African-American  Wolverine is going to gut a bunch of ninjas, and then someone will scream THAT’S SO RAVEN!?

3:07 – DON’T BE SURPRISED when dcigs closes this video by lurking for cartoon pornography. DON’T BE SURPRISED when he concludes that there isn’t enough satisfying bukkake material for the pantheon of Disney characters.

(Just to re-iterate, in a lower-calorie format.)

Has the world gone crazy? Or is Techy900 the last sane man alive?

2:24 – Wait for it… I need a minute to compose the rest of this non-sequitur rant.

4:37 – In an act of intellectual revolt, Techy900’s webcam and microphone stop recording and destroy themselves.

Thank you.  Next.

What if there was no god? No Marvel comics?

0:06 – A baby is punched.

0:24 – A good start.

0:40 – Warner Brothers has stolen all of the creative integrity behind Mortal Kombat, creating endless spinoffs and… wait…

0:45 – EYES BULGE – Market greed!

1:00 – I guess the “president” of Marvel Comics sues his company all the time.

0:06 – I would hope you can’t have that much disposable income.

0:40 – Nerds: your king demands that you STAY CALM.

1:36 – GRUNT.

1:40 – The major point of contention is the buyout of power rangers? Wait… you mean the major point of contention amongst those with Aspergers? Or the major point of contention for those who still fear reprisals for wearing the Trek uniform to the first day of school?

3:48 – Stan Lee is not the president of Marvel comics, nor the founder, nor the sole creator of most of its characters.

I’m fucking undecided on this video.

0:03 – VIDEO = FACEPALM

0:56 – Old corporations shouldn’t exist. Obama knows this. He is creating death panels now, to solve this problem.

1:00 – Actually, Marvel didn’t exist before World War 2 all of its properties were owned by TIMELY comics.

1:43 – GAWD, yous companies always buyin’ shit out. I mean, COME ON. When are Slim Jim’s gonna buy Combos, so I can have a Slim Jim combo? Come on corporate america! Give me something I HUNGER FOR.

1:47 – It’s as if the New Yorker AND The Atlantic were to be merged, where would I get my short non-fiction from? Literature would be doomed!

0:01 – I think I’ve utterly wasted my life, writing about this garbage when I could be drinking heavily under an overpass.

0:20 – All of my Freudian childhood fears have been realized, and father still turns away when I kiss him on the face!

0:41 – I’ll bet you five dollars, that if you can sit through this video without crigning, you also believe Axe deoderant will get you laid.

I realize that this is only the tip of the new media iceberg. Maybe Huxley is right, if new media is doing anything to this culture it’s forcing us to listen to the ranting of idiots, making us watch their memorial video montages and clips from Warcraft set to black metal. Thank god for fascism.

I was floored by it – maybe more as a fan of science fiction than as a cultural critic. It is a film on a level beyond most summer blockbusters, falling into the realm of classic sci fi and begging questions about the human condition that go far deeper than the amazing action scenes and excellent acting. It is a true classic, and it combined with films like Moon and Children of Men will enter into the lexicon of Films You Have to Watch Even if You Don’t Like Science Fiction. I truly believe this. [WARNING: Spoilers follow]

Ebert gave the movie a warm reception – but as a critic who cut his chops writing about science fiction when he was a budding film critic – he was sure to point out its shortcomings. As he noted, Does it have some? Yes. Yes it does. He finishes his review with the comment, concerning the alien race known as the “prawns”, saying

I’ll be interested to see if general audiences go for these aliens. I said they’re loathsome and disgusting, and I don’t think that’s just me. The movie mentions Nigerian prostitutes servicing the aliens, but wisely refrains from entertaining us with this spectacle.

Ebert, who would be the first to admit that he is not a specialist on the study of race and its long history of portrayal in popular culture could be faulted for his words, but he might be on the mark.

But the Internet is full of many things, and yes, and there are many a sociologist, anthropologist and dare I say it, post-colonial historians out there. And many people have voiced their distaste, or at least disappointment with, District 9 for its supposed racist over and undertones. Ebert’s particular criticism about the aliens’ dislikeability is just one of the many reasons that they dislike the movie. This is most interesting, because as many have noticed, it’s intended as an anti-racist film. How can a film that at its centre has a goal of showcasing the problems of humanity in relation to race and other binary distinctions, be inherently itself, racist?

I ran into this discussion by the way of Racialicious, and ran smack dab into the guest post that came via pageslap, titled, aptly enough, District 9 is racist. Tough talk!

The primary justifications for this argument are as follows:

The apartheid allegory is faulty – This is because the aliens are not easily “relateable” in any sense, they instead are are appalling and gross, as Ebert said, and deserve to be locked up in a giant camp. Nicole Stamp first thought of this as not being hugely offensive, but upon further thought reconsidered (based upon the knowledge that the film draws its inspiration from the forced clearings of the infamous District 6 that was in Johannesburg), and thought that this link meant that with all the “gross” depictions of the aliens, we are “forced” to agree that they aliens deserve their place in District 9. That the limited intellect of most of the aliens, despite the flourishing and human relatability of Christopher Johnson and his son, pigeonholes the entire race as a flawed stereotype.

The depiction of the Nigerian gangsters in District 9 was racist – This stems from the fact that not only were they gangsters, they also partake in consuming the flesh of the aliens, as well as humans, under the instruction of a mystical Witch Doctor. In other words Nigerians gangsters = allegory for African superstition and savage violence.

Both are pretty reasonable critiques to level, but on both I prefer to disagree with this interpretation (I say this understanding that as a white male, I might not always be qualified to make such judgements, but I still believe that it’s worth articulating). While I often am the first among my many friends to point out racism where I see it, I feel that finding the touchy or more controversial aspects of the film as outwardly racist could be folly – and lead to a slippery slope that I would hate to see extended elsewhere.

As for the first one commenter Frere Freire on Racialicious says:

Um…I may be a complete blockhead here, and I haven’t seen this remake (I did see Blomkamp’s short film _Alive in Joburg_, which District 9 is an extension of), but I think the point of the original short–and it would seem the full length feature–is that no sentient creature “deserves” oppression, no matter who they are or what they do. When you start to enter into the question of who does and doesn’t “deserve” oppression, you are automatically taking the position of the oppressor, who is the only one who has the power to make that choice. The oppressed never have that power themselves. The very logic the author uses in what would be a “correct” anti-apartheid film is the same logic used in Uncle Tom’s Cabin–that people who conform to the oppressor’s idea of “good” and “virtuous” deserve to be left alone–and those who don’t, well, deserve what they get. It’s nobodies business how someone else behaves. If there *were* humans who were disorderly, violent, considered horrible to look at by other humans, and not very intelligent, would they deserve to be put into a ghetto? Would they deserve to be exterminated? I think you know what the answer to that question is.

Simply enough, this is the best articulation of the concepts that I feel were being communicated by Blomkamp – the film’s portrayal of the prawns in District 9 is that they might be living in squalor, poverty, filth and any number of other things, but that they do NOT deserve to live in such ways, no matter how much “crime” or “deviant” activities they partake in. Fundamentally, their culture, no matter how different or destructive from humanity’s, doesn’t deserve to be shoved and forced to live in a few square miles of trash and dirt. The workers might not be the smartest or most civilized like Christopher Johnson, but they are sentient beings on the same level as humans, yet treated as a sub-human species.

The Apartheid allegory stands up if we acknowledge that the Affrikaans government considered Blacks in similar terms – viewing all activities that were considered destructive and inhuman as gross, vile and most importantly, anti-social. The same terms upon which Stamp argues that we as the viewers are “supposed” to read them. Instead, could it be that we are supposed to read against this grain – to possibly see outside of our own particular views of what destructive and anti-social behaviour is? Our contemporary conceptions of what makes for “civilized” society mark our own interpretations of the Prawns in the same ways that bigots in the Afrikaans majority viewed the Black populations of South Africa.

But it seems that the most controversial aspects, and the more ambivalent, would be those that deal with the Nigerians. And rightly so! I know that when I saw the film for the first time I was immediately struck by some of the similarities I noticed to films like Black Hawk Down or 300 – which is to say imagery that denotes dark savages that exist in a cultural space that is “evil” and backward. It struck me as an interesting twist in the film’s fiction – something that was included to add significant depth to the overall story. But was it racist, or perhaps just an addition that without a detailed lecture on the history of Africa would be difficult to defend?

The imagery is touchy, but there are enough parallels with mysticism and cultural practices that fall outside of “mainstream” conceptions of civil society that could set off the racism alarms of those who are not familiar with African society. Many sociologists and anthropologists are familiar with the “the other” and how Western imagery and popular culture have had a significant influence on how we perceive the third world – often associated with theories of Orientalism. But we also must be wary of any theory or ideology that places all supposedly “negative” images depicting people of colour as being explicitly racist or reactionary in intent. Often times cultures with such a rich and storied history, such as the many nations of Africa still partake in practices that are considered backward in the Western world (and therefore to showcase them might be considered racist by some) – such as polygamy. The current president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, for instance, has two wives, and more than one fiance. While polygamy is no longer as popular as it once was due to hundreds of years of evangelicals running loose around the continent, it is still practiced and not considered out of the ordinary in many parts of Africa.

Similarly, there are many different ways of seeing the world and they vary from where people come from, and often they are fundamental views of the world that are utterly alien to those ideas which dominated Western thought for thousands of years. They might be considered “backward” and “savage” by some but are completely rational from the point of view of those who partake in them. In Kenya in 1952 the Mau Mau insurgency began, led mostly in part by the Kikuyu, and was a conflict that would last for 8 years. It also was a puzzle that British Empire had one hell of a time trying to solve; one that seemed to the colonial masters as a completely irrational action to take part in but one that inside the cultural context of Kikuyu society was rational.

Without going too deeply into the specifics, the Kikuyu fighting in the forests were fighting for something intangible, manhood and a place in society, as well as tangible, political rights, increased freedom to plant cash crops and eventual Independence. Many took specific oaths – which spiritually bound them to fight against their repressors and others who they deemed immoral, no matter where they found them, and without remorse. When the British finally won the conflict it was because they used a culturally specific method of “spiritually cleaning” the guerrillas from their actions using religious leaders to conduct the ceremonies, as well as addressing some, if not all, of their political grevences.

Ultimately what I’m trying to show is not that the Nigerians are identical to an ethnic group from a completely different part of Africa, but that African society can, at times, seem very detatched from Western norms, and when shown, can and will seem very alien to some. While I know this might sound like the traditional “well to show such savage behaviour is okay because it DOES happen sometimes,” it should be made clear that it’s not a free-pass. Maybe there was another road that could have been taken in regards to the Nigerians that made less use of somewhat tired narratives like cannibalism, but I think that it wasn’t veering into bigotry. The Nigerians were cast as a antagonist group, and any piece of popular culture that decides to have people of colour in this position will catch flack for that. Whenever a person from an outside community attempts to show their version of what the world looks like, it will always fall short of the complexities of reality, and Blomkamp’s is no exception. I don’t think the movie is racist, but it does have some problems that should be discussed.

But technology came and made the work day shorter. At least for farmers, and then, with time (and pro-union legislation) for the extremely small middle classes and proletariat. Everybody had 4 or 5 hours to kill every day before they went to bed as the workday was cut down to around 9 or 8 hours. And you had two weekends instead of one! Luxury! Books had classically been the pastime of choice for the literate and upper classes, and as education quality and availability increased (again, thanks to social legislation), more and more could read and write, and as such, enjoy a good book or two.

But technology was on its unstoppable modernist march, and in the late 19th century, we got the telephone, the radio and film. And as with all new things, lots of people were very scared of them. Young people? No problem. They wanted more phones. Phones for everybody! Rotary dials here we come! And young people are the test of the future, and those social reactionaries who feared the new technologies went the same way as all those today who raise their collective voices over the horrors of sexting. “Our children are horny and using technology to express that? The horror!”

By the time 1931 rolled around the world had enjoyed one of the greatest periods of economic growth ever, as evidenced by the wonderful excess of the roaring 20s. Everybody just loved credit! So things expanded, and technology got more sophisticated and cheaper. There were movie theatres everywhere and by the time the stock market crashed, nobody cared, at least, when it came to movie viewing. Thus dawned the golden age of film – maybe people wanted to escape from the harsh realities of life or maybe they just really liked movies. Point is, people by this time, even with the worst economic climate in history, were still taking part in leisure that was ultimately, a cultural distraction – and they were probably on the poverty line!

In this same year, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, a novel about, among other social degradations, our society being in love with leisure. Huxley’s biggest worry is that instead of an outside repressive force overwhelming democracy and ruining all the fun and freedom and subversive books, it would be the opposite – we would so fall in love with our leisure and pleasure that nobody would be around to read the subversive books. We wouldn’t care. As the ultimate result of liberal economics and social policy, “Fordism” would order the day. We would be so doped up on drugs, sex and super-awesome movies called “feelies” that the idea of doing anything challenging or subversive would be… well, pretty crazy. Why bother, you know? It was dystopian… but very ambivalent.

The reason I’m talking about all this technology and Huxley is because of this interesting illustration by Stuart McMillen that took the concepts presented by Neil Postman’s polemic work (that I have seen quoted, and discussed, but never read) Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of show-business. The main thesis of the book? That instead of the totalitarian nightmare of Orwell’s 1984 (full of groupthink, censorship and violence), we get a world of mindless pleasure (stunted intellectual growth and mass culture). This is a theory that gets parroted rather often in various forms, most often by anti-globalization theorists, critics of mass culture, and sometimes social reactionaries.

From the forward:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions’. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right. — Neil Postman, 1986.

What’s interesting is that this book is often hailed as the a 21st Century book written in the 20th century. Postman was primarily discussing the prevalence of television as this all encompassing box; The Tube. As a dominating technology it was supposed to envelop our entire mind. Strangely, it seems that technology has outpaced The Tube. Advertising space on television is slowly losing its value (much like all adspace these days). Hell, last year the much coveted Superbowl slots are didn’t sell at the rate they used to (to be fair, that might have just been the recession talking) – and for the most part they had lower production values, and more duds than ever.

No, it’s the Internet and mass media that is the new opiate – the new means by which our “infinite appetite for distractions” will be fed. Right now you reading this post shows this… or does it? The argument for that says we waste our time on the Internet is mostly associated with the pitfalls of tabloid journalism, video games, social networking etc. All those stupid quizzes everybody takes now on Facebook? Badly put together and pointless they may be, but not any more harmful than paying a palm reader to tell you about your future.

So yeah, we waste time.

We love leisure – but isn’t the Internet more about information than leisure? My pal Alex Hayter at Society Eye posted on how information always wants to be free – and the Internet is the ultimate tool for communication and information. Sure, some people might only use the Internet for streaming video and other meaningless pursuits, but at the end of the day isn’t it about information? I remember going on the Internet 10 years ago and if you Googled something, you had better have hoped that it was a website or a news story – because anything as obscure, as say, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, was pretty much a no go. At that time the best you would have found would have been a geocities site made by a 13 year-old for a class project. Seriously. Now there is a surprisingly accurate account of the mans life and political intrigues on Wikipedia.

So is all this fear that we are wasting our time just another moral panic? Was Huxley just an old fart afraid of the future? As it happened the world had to have its run-in with totalitarian repression before it would come to what we have today – so he was sorta half-wrong, and Orwell’s fears were based on the concrete fascist reality that he had seen the world sink into.

Or is it, (as I think) that our current preoccupation with leisure is just another step in the ongoing change of our culture, one that is neither better nor worse than the previous. It seems to me that we are just finding new ways to spend all that free time we found ourselves with a hundred years ago. All too often it seems, people seem to see some golden age of human society in those that preceded them, and conveniently miss all of the problems and social insecurities those very generations had themselves.

TV didn’t destroy us, and neither will the Internet.

Battlefield Heroes then, is the evolution of modern game design sensibilities. It strips out a lengthy single-player segment of the game. This is crucial, considering the single player portion of any linear game is probably the least cost effective. The linear portions of many games often prevent players from enjoying the content created by developers which intended there to be a compelling middle and end to a single player experience. By comparison, a multiplayer game focuses on reusable assets, a finite number of resources which are replayed infinitely. The recyclable nature of multiplayer gaming is the reason why some of the most popular online game have such a long shelf-life. Battlefield Heroes is a solid example of this genre, encapsulating balanced combat and satisfies the idiom: easy to learn, difficult to master.

Ultimately, the crux of any free game (with micropayments) are the transactions (or lack of them). In Battlefield Heroes, the transactions provide cosmetic changes and improvements to back-end game mechanics. Battlefunds, the currency of BF:H allow players to level and gather bonuses faster, rather than earn more powerful weapons or armor. The philosophy, at least in the early stages of the game’s release (seems) to focus on benefits which provide no direct bonus to player versus player combat. This approach provides some satisfaction to objective driven players, who want to power-level their avatar. On the upside this system does not penalize players for refusing to hand over their wallets.

However: do these bonuses provide a meaningful reason for players to spend money? Obviously in any competitive sense, it would be a terrible decision to give players tremendous combat bonuses.  But how does buying into the system improve your relationship with the game?

On the one hand, paying for upgrades spoils the value of a free game. On the other, if you love the game, why not pay for more? Many players already shell out monthly for the same game, ad-infinitum in MMO’s. Given that the core mechanics of a solid shooter are already present, Battlefield Heroes is the gaming equivalent of the pay-what-you-like scheme for music.

.

One burning question remains: If Battlefield Heroes constitutes a free game, what does that say about EA’s other games? Battlefield Heroes will eventually include advertisements, something which has been present among many of EA’s titles. Amongst other things, players already pay for cosmetic changes, expansions and game play modifications for their favorite titles. EA may have let the genie out of the bottle, if this is what passes for free these days.

The address of the gallery is 12 Ossington, located conveniently at Ossington and Queen. The opening begins at 7PM and lasts until 10PM, and if you can’t make it for the opening event the show will be up for the remainder of the weekend.

Thankfully, this seems as though it’s not going to be the case. Walmart has recently announced its plans to develop what they call a Sustainable Product Index – check out their website for all of the juicy details as well as a video capture of the entire meeting in which the idea was presented. Walmart also outlines its ultimate goals to be supplied 100% by renewable energy and to ultimately create zero waste. It seems as though the company is not pussyfooting around the issue and has instead chosen to hop on the environmental train full-force.

Reading about Walmart introducing a sustainability index reminds me of a scene from the film Food, Inc in which executives from Walmart make a visit to an organic farm in a bid to get their products onto Walmart shelves. The farmers happily inform the executives that they’ve never even set foot inside one of their stores, and it seems that this is the behaviour that Walmart seeks to rectify.

Sure, the positive changes in Walmart’s stores are entirely profit-driven – the reason they have introduced organic and vegetarian-friendly items into their retail locations is to appease a larger segment of the market. Even Shopper’s Drug Mart has an organic/veggie section now, and I think these are important steps for large corporations to take when one considers the risk involved. These changes should not be ignored and pushed aside because ‘big corporations are evil’ or any similarly dogmatic ideology. Just because Walmart hopped on the bandwagon a bit late (all things considered, quite early for a big business) does not mean they are deservant of the consumer’s scorn.

Walmart’s actions may not appear to be genuine when one considers the claims made in The Corporation as well as The High Cost of Low Price, but does it really matter if Walmart’s new behaviour is motivated by money or humanitarianism? Regardless of Walmart’s reasoning, the sustainability index they propose is going to be the first of its kind. Since Walmart is a global entity the system could shift perceptions of consumption and implement an emphasis on sustainability worldwide. It is a brilliant business move from one of the few companies in the world who actually has the ability to make a significant impact on the global marketplace.

They are going to receive accolades for being the pioneers of this Index, since Walmart is allowing the system they develop to be used absolutely anywhere without restriction. They are setting a revolutionary precedent. In his book Stirring It Up: How to Make Money and Save the Planet, perhaps Gary Hirshberg articulated the state of things most effectively: “In one of those ironic twists that make life so interesting, the same boundless thirst for profit that got the planet into trouble can also get us out of it.”

The only film that really grabbed me by the balls was Graphic Sexual Horror. Difficult to ignore and hard to say in public, it is quite possibly one of the most compelling film titles I have heard in a while. The cinema was entirely packed to the brim with eager spectators, waiting to see a film that documents and seeks on some levels to explain the hardcore BDSM and torture porn website Insex.com – which bragged 35,000 members when it shut down in 2005.

There was something unique about Insex’s approach, something equally genuine and terrifying. The films featured on Insex seem more like serial killers’ home videos than the typical falseness and overacting that is involved in most pornography. Insex videos are gritty, very lo-fi, filled to the brim with elaborate torture contraptions and real screams. The most repulsive thing about typical pornography is its obvious fakeness, and a brand of exaggeration that is in no way convincing or alluring. What BDSM fetishists find appealing about Insex is its pure unadulterated reality – I suppose that’s what you get when you ignore limits and safe words.

Graphic Sexual Horror was an interesting piece of film to behold – shocking, humourous, and illuminating in the way that few questions are truly answered. It featured a great deal of material from the Insex archives (which have been sold to a European company), and since PD, the head honcho of Insex, was required to get this essential material for the documentary, one wonders if he was allowed to have the final say on what exactly was allowed to be shown or said. Regardless, the producers of Graphic Sexual Horror interviewed numerous Insex models and riggers, all very different people in their own right and their reasons for involvement with the site were as unique as the people that held them. I feel as though there was enough material for two films, at least – perhaps three, but then again I am quite the curious individual and feel as though things can rarely be over-explained. The environment Insex employees worked in was so complicated and multi-faceted I feel as though I have only brushed the surface – an allegory of the cave sort of experience.

Upon the film’s conclusion I was unsure if what I had just seen was a documentary about a snuff manufacturer who had somehow emerged scot-free. Sure, no one was killed, and all models signed releases stating that they understood they might undergo physical pain or injury during filming. Some models would even get paid four thousand dollars per day of filming – a sure motivator to bite the bullet and ignore that whatever limits you had were just thrown out the window, all for another few bucks. Complain, and you weren’t asked back – which may explain why some models returned again and again despite the discomfort and in some instances rape.

There’s a certain mentality shown – evident in both the girls and the producer – that because money is involved (a large amount of money, at that) limits disappear. While some models in the documentary admitted they would have paid PD for the pleasure of being tortured by him, it was obvious that others simply endured necessary pain and kissed his ass because of the financial compensation involved. Exploitation is another ball park entirely – who exactly was exploiting whom? The models, after all, had chosen to be there, but surely since PD (at the height of his subscribership) was making two million per month (35 thousand members paying 60 bucks per month) he could afford to pay girls more than four grand per near-death experience.

Lately Graphic Sexual Horror has been making the festival rounds, and to my understanding it is unavailable to purchase at the time being, though a DVD version is in the works. The film has won tons of awards and received many well-deserved accolades, so if you have the opportunity to see it I would strongly encourage you to do so. Yes, even if you do have a weak stomach – see it. You’ll be glad you did.

Hey, if nothing else, it’s a conversation starter, right?

A few of you film buffs, like myself, may have already been exposed to such information, but were the rest of you aware that there we were almost given a much different Watchmen film than the one they gave us? Did you know that at different points during the movie’s conception, John Cusack was slated to play “Nite Owl”, Keanu Reeves was to take on “Dr. Manhattan”, Thomas Jane could have played “The Comedian” and Jude Law was maybe “Ozymandias”? Yeah, think about what kind of experience that would have been.

Whether it would have been better or worse that the final product we were given, we will never know, but what is for sure is that superhero movies always seem to have the greatest “almost castings” in the entire film world. So, in honor of the Watchmen that we could have seen, I present to you the very first “List Off”, counting down the greatest “could-have-been” superhero roles.

1. Bill Murray as “Bruce Wayne/Batman” in Batman (1989)

We have to start of with a bang here and what better way to do so than to begin with the movie that changed the course of film forever. The very first true Batman film was a landmark in cinema history. It was the first successful film to tie in its corporate symbol and cash in on all the merchandise that we are now aware of in today’s film world. Before Batman was released, there were rarely T-Shirts or Ball Caps that came along with the movie’s image. There were no special drink sponsors or toy-lines at McDonalds. Warner Brothers was able to capitalize on director Tim Burton’s film to gather every penny that it could.

One has to then wonder how exactly this would have been different had any of the other actors considered been cast in Michael Keaton’s place. Before Burton came on board, the likes of Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks, Alec Baldwin and Daniel Day-Lewis were considered for the lead role in their film. Before they made any sort of decision on which direction the film was to be taken though, they considered simply making a camp version, similar to the 1960’s TV Series starring Adam West. It is here, ladies and gentlemen, that the casting of Bill Murray came into play. The Saturday Night Live alumnus was in the running to take on the gray and blue body suit and fight the baddies with a “Zing!” and a “Pow!”. I think that Murray would have pulled it off too, but I do believe that I speak for most when I say that I’m glad they went in another direction.

2. Nicolas Cage as “Clark Kent/Superman” in Tim Burton’s Superman

Oh you did indeed read that correctly ladies and gentlemen. Nic Cage and his weirdly hypnotic changing hairline nearly played the Man of Steel in a Superman reboot that director Tim Burton was going to make in the late 90’s. Any Kevin Smith fans out there might recall that he was brought on board to do a doctoring of the script that they already had but it was thrown out due to a now rather famous (and hilarious) exchange between he and Burton. But yes, adamant Superman fanatic Nicolas Cage was in fact set to star in his own fantasy, but for the relief of audiences every where, it was shelved and never saw the light of day again. Instead, Ghost Rider apparently seemed like a worthy consolation prize. What happened to you Mr. Cage? You used to be able to show you had talent.

3. Tom Cruise as “Tony Stark/Iron Man” in Iron Man (2008)

Well, considering the artists of the comic book series began to draw Tony Stark to look more similar to Cruise when rumors of an Iron Man movie began to surface, in retrospect it did in fact seem like a fitting choice to take on the role of a womanizing, smart-alec billionaire. But once Robert Downey Jr. got his chops locked into that helmet, there was no other choice that even came close to him. He was witty, he was charming, and he fit right into the middle of director Jon Favreau’s overall vision of the movie. Tom Cruise is a big action star, yes, but a superhero he just doesn’t seem to be. Oh, and just so everyone is aware, Nic Cage was also considered. Yeah.

4. Dougray Scott as “Logan/Wolverine” in X-Men (2000)

The movie that made it okay to make superhero movies again almost had an entirely different leading man. Right before production was about to begin, Dougray Scott had to leave due to commitments to another project. Now, a lot of you are probably asking, “who?” Well, his films include Ever After, Deep Impact and the movie he had to do re-shoots on, Mission: Impossible 2. Yeah, it was pretty much a case of bad timing to be tied down by another, less spectacular action movie, don’t you think? Anyway, Hugh Jackman obviously took over the role, starred in a phenomenal sequel (and two others that we don’t really care to talk about) and Scott went on to play the villain in the reboot that no one asked for, Punisher: War Zone. Oh Dougray Scott, what could have been for you…

5. Vin Diesel as either “Matt Murdock/Daredevil” or “Bullseye” in Daredevil (2003)

The only other instance that I can recall an actor was considered for both the hero and the villain of a comic book movie is that of Cillian Murphy in Batman Begins. Of course, we all know that he wasn’t cast as Batman, so, they gave him to role of Jonathon Crane/Scarecrow instead. In that case, the movie really did benefit. In the case of Daredevil though, I’m not so sure that Diesel fit either role. I must first state that the entire movie itself is a mess from beginning to end. Ben Affleck wasn’t necessarily miscast, but he also wasn’t perfect by any means. He was, however, better than the proposed Diesel would have been, don’t you think?

Imagine, the gruff voiced, very stern browed Diesel attempting to be blind and convincing as a modern day lawyer/eccentric costumed antihero. He didn’t have the essence to pull it off. Saying that whole film was a mess though, doesn’t mean that the bad guy was a complete waste. For what it was trying to be, I thought Colin Farrell did a great job as Bullseye. He got the crazy amount down pat and looked pretty bad-ass doing it. Diesel on the other hand, I can’t picture being crazy and bad ass at the same time. Unless it’s a comedy. The Pacifier anyone?

6. Ashton Kutcher as “Bruce Wayne/Batman” in Batman Begins (2005)

That’s right everyone, everyone’s favourite TV moron Michael Kelso was considered for the role that made Christian Bale a household name. Along with the likes of Hugh Dancy, Jake Gyllenhaal, Bill Crudup and Cillian Murphy (see Daredevil entry) Kutcher was considered and apparently auditioned for the coveted role. I think that is enough for us to think about for this entry.

7. Ryan Reynolds as “Barry Allen/The Flash” in Untitled Flash Movie

I’m somewhat cheating with this entry here, as the proposed Flash movie is still in active development. However, it’s been about two years since it was first rumored that the man who played Deadpool in Wolverine was to switch over to DC in order to play the fastest superhero around. With the most recent news being that Reynolds has been cast as Hal Jordan aka The Green Lantern in that proposed film, I think it’s safe to say that his chance of being The Flash now are slim to none. It’s a shame. He’s going to make a decent Green Lantern, but it was near perfect casting for The Flash. Then again, I guess it’s better he play Lantern than that of Justin Timberlake. Yeah. JT was in the running for it too!!

8. Marion Ross as “Aunt Mae” in Spiderman (2001)

How about that? The Mrs. Cunningham was nearly the most famous elderly figure in the entire Marvel universe. How weird would that have been? I am certain that I wouldn’t be the only one sitting there, just waiting for Richie Cunningham to come in as Spidey to complain about how he just can’t seem to beat the Green Goblin. He would have to enlist the Fonz to do it for him. Oh, Happy Days. How hilarious you could have made Spiderman.

9. The rest of the cast of Tim Burton’s/Joel Shumacher’s Batman Franchise

I don’t really care if you think this is a cop out, it’s funny and interesting none the less. There are just too many “almosts” within this series to go unmentioned, so just get a load of some of these doozies.

For the very first and original film, Sean Young was cast as Vicki Vale, but unfortunately broke her collarbone and had to pull out. Kim Basinger got the part which then launched her to fame. In Batman Returns the role of Catwoman was to be played by Annette Bening, but she got pregnant and couldn’t. Before Michelle Pfeiffer immortalized the role, Sean Young, at a rather pivotal point in her rapidly declining career, begged for the role, but alas was left shut out and in the cold.

Jack Nicholson of course, gave one of the most solid performances of his career playing Jack Napier/The Joker. Nicholson was reluctant to sign on however, and the role went to Robin Williams. Once Nicholson got wind of such a transaction, he took the bait, accepted and the rest is history. Williams didn’t take kindly to the move though, and when it came to casting The Riddler in Batman Forever, Williams was sought after, but ultimately was still soar from the previous backstabbing and declined.

One of the most amazing turn downs from the first Batman film was that of Ray Liotta being the first choice as District Attorney Harvey Dent. Liotta unfortunately had a prior engagement with Goodfellas, which in retrospect, was indeed the better choice. Chris O’Donnell played the role of Robin in the final two films of the series, but originally, the character was set to make his first appearance in the second one, Batman Returns. The man who was supposed to play him? Marlon Wayans of Scary Movie fame. That’s right, he even got paid as they decided not to keep the character in the film by the final cut.

The wonderful Rene Russo was supposed to be Michael Keaton’s love interest in Batman Forever, but once Tim Burton was dropped as director, and Joel Schumacher took the series in a new direction with a new Batman at the helm, Russo was deemed too old for Val Kilmer and was replaced by Nicole Kidman. Mel Gibson apparently declined the role of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, for the film as well, making us wonder if any man could have made the role more ridiculous than Tommy Lee Jones had.

The fourth, and absolute worst of the series, Batman and Robin brought forth one of the most hilarious casting suggestions ever. Despite Arnold Schwarzenegger creating one of the most unintentionally hilarious character’s ever, Schumacher’s second choice for the role was none other than Sylvester Stallone. You don’t think that could have been the worst thing that could have happened? Hulk Hogan was his third. Sometimes I just sit and thank Christopher Nolan for making forget the Schumacher Batman’s that almost ruined my childhood.

10. The rest of the cast of Chistopher Nolan’s Batman Begins Franchise

How fair would it be to not address some of the other casting choices from the obviously superior Batman series that we have been given? Not that fair I don’t think.

So, the role in which Liam Neeson plays was in fact originally thought for Daniel Day-Lewis or Viggo Mortenson. Neeson was good, but I feel as though either of those guys could have drove home an equally great interpretation of the role. The same sort of thing goes for the role of Lt. Jim Gordon, as Chris Cooper, Dennis Quaid and Kurt Russell were both thought of. Those guys have proven themselves before, and this role really seems to be right up their alley.

Of course, the really fun rumours were abound once talk of a sequel came into play. Everyone was speculating who was going to be The Joker and who was going to be Harvey Dent. Fanboys alike, all offered up their opinions, citing Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Live Schreiber and my choice Guy Pearce to all be phenomenal Harvey Dent’s. Josh Lucas actually threw his name into the open, publicly announcing he was interested in playing the eventual Two Face. Alas, Aaron Eckhart won the rights, but not many people know that Matt Damon actually turned it down first. That could have been interesting as well, I feel.

As far as the Joker casting went, no one named could have possibly done as good a job as Heath Ledger made it out to be. Sean Penn, Adrien Brody, the voice of the animated Joker and Luke Sjywalker actor Mark Hamill and again, my personal fave Michael Keaton (how great would that twist casting have been) were all rumored for the roles, but ultimately, Nolan got his first choice it seems.

We should all take this time to now think about who we will be getting for Nolan’s inevitable Batman 3. Oh, what a fun time it is between fantastic film and sequel!

I think we can all pretty much agree that this summer has been pretty good (barring my personal experience with being sick at the start of it) – especially when you compare it with the kind of weather that, say, Texas got (too hot for an already too hot place) or New York City (too rainy). For us, we’ve had some rain, but overall lots of sun and that’s a good thing. It’s not too hot either! Though we still do have some things to complain about.

But one thing to not complain about is the music. And porch sitting. And drinking. Porch sitting and drinking. And for aforementioned activity, you need some chill, sunny tunes. In fact, compared with the summer of 08, which had its fair share of sunny tunes (and you know, blog house), the whole surf-revival thing that seems to be happening is just making this summer that much better.

////////////////////

This track just hit the internet today, with Nathan William’s blog (where he expresses his love for video games and pot) Ghost Ramp tellin us that it’s an old track but “jam on it n-e-wayz.” I will Nathan. And so should you. It’s awesome.

Wavves – Mickey Mouse

///////////

Rainbow Bridge fell onto my radar via Chris at GvB and, keeping with the beach theme, is all about, well, surfing. I can’t surf. But I think maybe, aesthetically, the idea of surfing is cool. At least in the 1970s (Dogtown and Z-Boys) sense and not the contemporary OC-Hollister wearing kind. It’s this kind of music that makes me think we are in the middle of a cultural movement similarly informed by the ideals of the mid 1970s (or what we think we “know” about them anyways) – at least in music garnering the most critical acclaim with today’s taste-makers. Anywho, check it y’all.

Rainbow Bridge – Big Wave Rider

\\\\\\\\\\\\

Torontonians Little Girls‘ recent release Thrills continues to impress me – and at some point I hope to sit down and have a chat with these guys and get their name out there some more. Because they deserve it; because their music is awesome. Easily some of the most post-punk-y stuff I have heard in a long time. Check out their more upbeat track from Thrills “What We Did.”

Little Girls – What We Did