#Though some of the racism in the Lost World (also part of the children's classics set) also seems rather dubious

[the-busy-ghost]

British publishers seem to have a strange habit of classifying nineteenth century French novels as children’s books (a nebulous category I know- children are often more than capable of reading so-called ‘adult’ books but I find it odd nonetheless). 

Jules Verne is the first one that springs to mind, but the one that always confuses me is ‘The Three Musketeers’. Yes it’s got all the swashbuckling ingredients that make up a good boys’ own story, but I’m really not sure that it’s strictly a ‘children’s’ classic.

This brought to you by the fact that I’m trying to sort all my other Dumas books into order when I realised that the ‘Three Musketeers’ wasn’t among them, even though it’s part of a wider ‘series’, the other books of which are in my ‘adult’ books. But because my copy of ‘The Three Musketeers’ was part of a set of ‘children’s classics’, it’s languishing in a box somewhere, alongside The Railway Children and the Secret Garden (great books both, but very different in tone I think). I don’t want to break that set up but I also don’t see why the story of Milady de Winter is more child appropriate than the Count of Monte Cristo.

[elysian-entries]

One film, two visions; The Justice League

It’s 2017; the highly anticipated “Justice League” film, directed by Zack Snyder, is set to be released later in the year as a continuation of the DCEU.

A blockbuster movie showcasing the biggest DC characters uniting. Taking down the ultimate super villain; bound to fulfil millions of past and present children’s, as well as current adults and elderly dreams.

Then a fork in the road appears, Snyder and his wife, Deborah, step down from the colossal project due to the incredibly woeful loss of their daughter, Autumn. News hits the fans like a brick. Resulting in Joss Whedon and the Warner Bros. Studio stepping up to the mantle. Or at least attempting to.

Whedon's theatrical cut lost Warner Bros. Pictures approximately $60 million dollars. With overall painfully negative reviews and reception. Breaking the hearts of DC fans everywhere.

4 years, campaigns, hashtags, sky banners, petitions, and billboards later; I can’t say how many of us would have predicted receiving the holy gift that is the “Snyder Cut”, in its full 4 hour running time glory (in a 4:3 ratio, which somehow adds to the grandeur). 4 years of dedicated, passionate and determined people helping in any way they can for the cause. It was a journey to behold.

A large section in Snyder’s 4 hour venture is used to build dimension and depth in the characters. Making an absolute world of a difference. Something that was sorely lacking in Whedon's cut. The film had a completely different feel and atmosphere instantly.

There's no better example of increased depth in characters than Cyborg's (Ray Fisher's) narrative. I was engaged, and intrigued by his story. In Whedon’s cut, he isn't even given a second thought. His entire backstory was cut as well as his father's important role also being stripped. His scene where he sacrificed himself in order for them to find the mother box was gone. And it took away such an important, integral part in Cyborgs story, and in the film in general I believe and also realised having seen the two movies; the complicated but delicately developing relationship between father and son. And just the whole story in general made such a difference in Snyder's cut, it really is almost indescribable the difference it made. It just felt so much more genuine and heartfelt. Like a real developed and executed narrative.

In Snyder's cut we were shown detailed flashbacks that fully fleshed out his character, his morals and his relationships. Creating a much needed deeper connection with the audience. We experience his conflicting journey to accepting his responsibility, accepting the past, the "gift he has", and his purpose in the league. Leading into receiving closure. He was given great and meaningful importance and purpose in this cut.

Similarly, Ezra Miller's Flash was too given a largely more meaningful and impactful role that left quite the impression on me. His character was light-hearted and charming but still had those important, emotionally impactful scenes. Which were painfully lacking in Whedon's cut. I was left loving Barry Allen a lot more than I already did. Barry's scenes with his wrongly convicted father were hard hitting for me. They also play a large part in making later scenes more impactful. Like his detrimental importance during the final fight. In Whedon's cut his big hero moment was saving a Russian family. The overall the inclusion of the family was superfluous and extraneous, along with the robber at the start and many other things. Not only that but Whedon's cut gave the Flash a silly, attempted comical relief role. To be fair he attempted to give everybody a comical relief role. Which hardly worked because none of the attempts were actually funny and were at time agonizing. It ultimately lacked substance and came across as almost immature. The scene where Barry went on about brunch was painful. Leading me to ask, why? Why was this so important to film Whedon?

After re-watching Whedon’s version, I had gained a new found appreciation for Snyder's representation of Barry. '"Make your own future, make your own past"; he echoes his father’s words. "Your son really was one of them, the best of the best," as his theme "At the Speed of Force" plays in the background of this pivotal moment. A powerful scene reflecting Barry's ulterior motive, doing his father proud. Which invoked many tears. And still does whenever I re-watch the scene or listen to the song. As if it were the first time experiencing it. Thomas Holkenborg's soundtrack truly amplified emotion and made the scenes much more powerful, It makes for one of the absolute best scenes in the movie; I'd say one of, if not my absolute favourite.

His job in charging up Victor was completely removed and I have to wonder why. Instead Barry was left to participate in "bug duty" (bugs being one of his fears also). Barry's role in Snyder's cut, and that one incredible scene where he broke the rule was arguably better than Whedon's Justice League as a whole.

I think the only scene in Whedon's cut involving Barry that I thought was actually meaningful was where he was faced with his first real mission. And he was confronted with his fears of "obnoxiously tall" beings. He appeared anxious and frantic. Fearful. Communicating to us his inexperience. And Batman simply told him to just "save one". To which he then, without struggle, saved them all. And was also able to participate in the final battle. The "save one" scene made those achievements more meaningful.

The scene after they won the battle, showcases the victorious team standing proud; and Barry with a sweet, goofy, golden retriever-esque smile plastered on his face. What a loveable smile.

An interesting contrast is the scene in where Barry reveals to his father his new position at an “actual job”. In Snyder’s cut the father was absolutely over the moon, shouting at the top of his lungs, "his foot is in the door!" repeatedly in excitement. It tugged at my heart strings; his shameless pride in his son. Making me wonder how he would have shown his pride if he found out Barry saved the whole Earth and humanity. We can assume Barry had that unequivocally powerful underlying thought too. Contributing to his saccharine reaction. In Whedon’s cut the reaction was softer and more timid but nonetheless a sweet moment. Barry becoming bashful.

It was a sweet touch to have Cyborg and Flash finally fist bump during that victorious scene after Victor rejected Barry's initial advance in Whedon's cut. Ezra Miller improvising that “racially charged” line, acknowledging the possible racism attached to a fist bump I assume. The whole fist bumping being "racially charged" was not included in Snyder's cut. The grave digging scene was entirely different. Which I far more preferred. It was a group excursion. With a little positive interaction between the Atlantean and the Amazonian. And funnier, more light-hearted dialogue between Barry and Victor.

Aquaman’s contrast was interesting. In Whedon’s cut he actually sought out to obtain the trident to help the league (although he was always disagreeing with them). Compared to Snyder; where he was apprehensive and had to be hesitantly persuaded by Willem Dafoe’s character Vulko (who was completely absent from Whedon’s cut). This was also an importantly established relationship by Snyder. Arthur first makes his desire to help the the team known saving them from the water rushing from Gotham Harbour. He isn't acknowledged in the theatrical cut but in Snyder's cut Diana notices and takes a moment to take in his presence (I assume?). Then Barry asks who that guy is. And of course we all know, it's Aquaman.

I particularly liked how Snyder chose to include Barry asking for Arthur's opinion on military hats. It's an odd, minimalistic thing to include - the reasoning as to why I like it. I also thought it was quite charming.

A scene I think deserves a mention is when Aquaman is first introduced, and then rejects Bruce's offer, he then makes his way back into the ocean. A farewell song is performed. This was quite early in the film and I think the voices being hauntingly beautiful, yet slightly eerie/poignant set the perfect atmosphere. A well done scene.

His overall character was also contrasting. He became a genuine hero who was proved capable of more than water powers and silly moments. Including that god-awful lasso of truth scene. In the theatrical cut he was bitter, a bit of a joke, not caring too much about the events that were unfolding. He had more of a heroes’ sense of purpose within Snyder’s cut.

Gal Gadot did not gain too much from the extra scenes. Though different to the theatrical cut, Snyder had paired her with a repetitive character establishing theme. It could be referred to as ancient lamentation music. Hauntingly beautiful. Something I could only assume would be the battle cries of the Amazonian warriors and the Amazonian warrior inside Diana. In some ways possibly over used, though I thought it was brilliant. It has a special place in my heart because I love that type of soundtrack. The almost eerie, maybe poignant but overall emotion provoking type. Especially her introduction scene where she faces off against the terrorists )which was overall better in Snyder's cut) The haunting warrior moans fade into her classic theme to create an incredible atmosphere. And that atmosphere was definitely missing in Whedon's cut, in more than just that one scene. It was also sorely lacking the lamentation music. We also didn't get that sweet interaction between Diana and the little girl.

When Diana began detailing Steppenwolf and the mother boxes past to Bruce, the cuts were very strange and abrupt/awkward in some way. And it felt silly and rushed; and I think that perfectly describes the whole film.

Whedon's cut also included uncomfortable scenes. Almost forcing characters to be funny where it was just completely out of place and character. Or just downright inappropriate. To be fair, Whedon is known for the Marvel movies in which fourth wall dimension breaking and odd self ware/ironic jokes are heavily used. One of the main reasons I don't particularly enjoy them, but rather enjoy the darker, more meaningful DC movies. I say meaningful in the way in which we are completely transported into this universe; where it's taken seriously and has obvious effects and meaning to the characters. Compared to Whedon's Marvel films in which the threat is joked about and the characters make fun at their expense.

Another negative contrast is the colour grading and overall shots. A good example is the conversation between Lois Lane and Martha Kent. In Whedon's version the colour is poppy, reminiscent of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or The Office. As if it were an empty shell of a TV show. Lacking any artistic or symbolic aspects. Whereas Snyder's conversation between Martha Kent (who was actually Martian Manhunter) and Lois Lane was beautiful. The lighting was dim, with steam from their hot coffee creating a brilliant shot and conveying the perfect mood. Almost a piece of art. A lot of Snyder's cut looked as if it were ripped straight out of an incredible graphic novel. His talent when it comes to filmmaking is grandiloquent. Compared to Whedon's over saturated and flat scenes as if it were from a cliché sitcom.

Whedon also made the Justice League a lot more dysfunctional than it needed to be.

The scene where the team unanimously come up with the plan to revive Superman seemed really silly and lackluster in Whedon's cut. In Snyder's cut it was a genuine moment. A "wow" moment where the penny dropped. It gave me goose-bumps. The way it was implied, the explanation/analogy with the house, and then Cyborg creating a Superman visual as the team, standing around the table, stared at it in awe. All thinking the same thing. Without even having to say it (as Barry pointed out) It was a uniting moment. Whedon's version was just, disappointing. Lacking any impact at all. And it made the team seem disconnected in a way. Whereas in Snyder's scene the league's thoughts were in unison.

There was also an agonizing amount of Wonder Woman praise. I think praise is a...well...nicer way of putting it. It was more so adolescent boy humour, immature if you will; with her being the butt of the joke. To the point where it was little uncomfortable and borderline unnecessary. And to another point where Gal Gadot refused to do a scene, (the one where Flash lands on her) and Whedon insisted so much on still including it - that they used a body double. A scene so stupid and pointless it actually hurts. Why, Whedon?

Superman's main feature in this film is his moustache. Or, lack thereof. At the beginning of the theatrical cut, we witness the infamous Superman film scene, where we are introduced to his CGI moustache…then “Everybody Knows” by Sigrid plays as we see the aftermath of his death. I really enjoyed this scene, the song and the atmosphere. I think it was a strong start, setting the poignant mood. But of course it all goes out the window and downhill from here.

The biggest difference between the two Superman’s was the elimination of the godforsaken CGI removed moustache and the introduction to the “Recovery Suit” in Snyder's cut, which was a brilliant touch. We actually see Clark stumble upon the suit. A scene where various voices from his past, echo in his mind. An equally important and impactful scene; where he flied up into the universe, overlooking the Earth he is to protect.

I also really liked the whole, "Lois Lane is key" setup, with the eerie premonitions and glimpses into the “Knightmare”. Adding yet another deeper layer to the narrative. Setting the scene for Snyder's envisioned sequel.

In Whedon's cut during the first confrontation where Clark is confused immediately after his resurrection - the previous BvS battle is implemented more. With the "Do you bleed?" question being revisited. Giving us an unwanted closer look at the strange looking $3 million dollar CGI.

I liked Snyder's first confrontation better. It included more action and participation of all parties. And it was just a longer scene, making it seem more plausible and less silly. Before Clark reached Bruce he went through every member. Resulting in a little appreciated interaction between Arthur and Barry. I also thought Whedon’s scene showing Superman throwing Batman away like a ragdoll added to the ridiculous nature.

During the final battle. (Not mentioning how uncomfortable the colour grading was causing an unlikable atmosphere. Especially when it became daylight, taking away the exciting and intense atmosphere.) Whedon's Superman's entry was a little plain. Maybe cliché. Banging on about "truth" and "justice". Which isn't necessarily bad. It's just, maybe, too Superman? We then see the relieved faces of all the members. Batman's giddy smile was by far the best. It was nice to see genuine happiness and I think that played an important role in communicating to us Bruce's character arc. From lowest of lows, and his conflicting attitude towards Superman in BvS, to Superman giving him incredible hope. Though it slightly made me uncomfortable.

Snyder's entry of Superman was brutal in the best way. Appearing just before Cyborg was chopped to bits. Giving us that epic moment of 'He came.” Superman mercilessly rips into Steppenwolf for the next minute or two. No breakaways. Which was a great choice. It perfectly showcased his abilities. Though in the theatrical cut he was shown to be the only capable one of saving the world and being the real “hero”, in Snyder’s cut, especially The Flash, they were all shown to be powerful with meaningful parts to play.

Bruce Wayne appeared more guilty and conflicted about what happened in BvS in Whedon's cut. Though he was overshadowed in terms of writing by Superman and Wonder Woman. He also was the one who brought in the "big guns" a.k.a Lois Lane as a contingency plan in case the Superman resurrection went awry. In which it did. In Snyder's cut it was coincidence, or the doing of Man Hunter in that mysterious scene. Bruce was also quite tense and wasn’t too much a bright beacon of hope as he was in the Snyder cut. Even despite Snyder's vision of him being reminiscent and heavily inspired by Frank Millers version; darker, older, broken and violent in a way (which is brilliant) he still had this character arc. The lover’s tiff he suffered with Diana was irritating and what I thought was superfluous. Creating an unnecessary disconnect with the group. It wasn't an interesting sub-plot/complication at all .

Bruce's character arc (from the dark BvS time, to the hopeful present) was more thoroughly shown in Snyder’s cut compared to Whedon's. I briefly mentioned Bruce's schoolgirl grin when Superman arrived right on time. Though Snyder more effectively showcased this positive rise through his obviously increased in optimistic attitude. When the team are off the defeat Steppenwolf once and for all Alfred asks Bruce how he can be so sure of the Man of Steel’s arrival. And Bruce replies full of vigour, “Faith, Alfred, faith!” And in another instance Barry questions their strength against Steppenwolf due to the amount of demons he has won against. Bruce declares that, “He’s never fought us. Not us united.” It was a powerful statement that heavily elevated excitement for the final fight.

During this final fight, Batman basically goes out on a suicide mission. Then the rest of the league join him for a family reunion. The Snyder cut better represented this with an astounding freeze-frame, slow motion shot of the team. It nicely established the power of unity in this case.

The way in which Steppenwolf was defeated was vastly altered. Changed completely. Mostly due to Darkseid’s absence in the theatrical cut. Darkseid added an important extra layer of looming fear, and even gave Steppenwolf more depth. It gave him an important reason as to why he was doing what he wasy doing. As we saw his utter dedication to Darkseid. It alerted us of the larger dangers that were present. Steppenwolf’s death in Whedon’s cut was ultimately debilitated after seeing Snyder’s version. Instead of being anti-climactically eaten alive by his bug minions as the sun rose; (maybe it’s a personal preference but I heavily dislike the daylight, especially for action scenes) his head was chopped off, first horn by horn, then from the neck. His decapitated head thrusted back through the portal into his own world, landing at the horrifying Darkseid's feet, along with the terrifying parademons. Engulfed by a fiery hellscape. The horror that Earth could have faced. But still could face. It reveals the deeper and darker enemy, beyong Steppenwolf looming just beneath the surface.

A sinister tune plays, as we see the victorious Justice League looking back at them. The portal then closes. Although a victory, we can’t help but wonder what the demonic and powerful entities, far more powerful than Steppenwolf, have in store for Earth’s future.

The Knightmare vision being apart of that future. It's set up from BvS to the very end of Justice League. It's a very intriguing part of Snyder’s vision. The moment where you can link up and see the connections between all the post-credit scenes and the “premonitions” is an epiphanic moment. It’s a whole other narrative on its own that you can analyse, hypothesize and discuss. It’s a very intriguing/exciting concept to think of what would have been Snyder’s future movie where Barry (as we saw previously reverse time) goes back to warn Bruce that “Lois Lane is the key”, to avoid the whole disastrous scenario. We can gather that he is referencing what we see at the end of Snyder's cut, Superman turned evil. The death of Lois Lane, whose skeleton we saw Superman cradle previously, we can assume had a hand in that, and possibly the Anti-Life equation too. It's an incredible narrative, and there are few things I would love more than seeing the Snyderverse come to life on this epic scale again.

We also finally get a glimpse of Snyder’s joker. A very exciting moment for me. Seeing any new iteration of the Joker is an exciting moment. Could Jared Leto somehow redeem himself?

Well, it sure was infinitely times better than the Suicide Squad rendition. This Joker was actually eerie and unsettling. I felt almost uneasy watching these scenes, and his odd laugh caused shivers to form down my spine. Jokers comments about “boy wonder”, whom we find out was indeed Bruce’s adoptive son, were heartbreaking (I believe he was actually referring to Dick instead of Jason surprisingly as his grave was once seen in a previous movie) Leaving me holding my breath, wondering what Bruce would say next, or what other wretched thing Joker could say. Of course the "reach around" comment was a bit off, but I’ll just brush over that.

We also learnt of Arthur Curry’s death, Harley Quinn’s death. Proving that Snyder had such a colossal plans for all the characters, dead and alive.

It’s a poignant feeling; to see this incredible, vast narrative, just beneath the surface, unfold. Knowing that we won’t be able to see it fully developed. As of now.

While watching these two completely different cuts of the same movie; it occurred to me and I am sure many other people, that attempting to produce such an in depth narrative intensive movie on the small scale that Whedon attempted, will commonly end in a painful, empty and superficial representation. Or maybe that really was just Whedon's vision.

As the epilogue ended, the credits rolled. Hallelujah began playing, sung by Allison Crowe. And as they rolled, in big letters the words; "For Autumn" took center focus. White against black. Clear as day. Like a bus, it hit hard. The reason I was sitting on that couch finally having the great honour to watch such a film. The courage it must have taken to continue and finish such a project is beyond admirable, it's heroic. Also non-profit. It only further proves what we already knew, that the intentions were pure, as no one ever doubted.

Also acknowledging the giant billboard on one of the buildings promoting the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. A very important cause, especially to the Snyder’s. To date fans have raised over half a million dollars to the AFSP in honour of Autumn. A truly incredible feat.

When looking at the two movies side by side, it blows my mind to see the difference that I do. The emotion, meaning, the depth. It all just made sense in Snyder's cut. The emotion was palpable, absolutley unmistakable. Things mattered more. The people mattered more. There were reasons, and purpose. It was a genuine journey for every one of the characters, and I felt it. There were so many little scenes that made so much difference that added depth and meaning, emotion.

And I cannot say such words for Whedon, though I won’t put all the blame on him. Warner Bros. is about equally responsible. .

The true, original and intended Justice League; expatiated heroes, people, stories and journeys coming together on a grandiose scale, executed with passion and care. But also giving us a bittersweet taste of Snyder’s epic trilogy that could have been.

The end of the saga; and the rest of Snyder’s visions, are left unfulfilled; as of now. But regardless, remains as one of the things I hope to see come to life. Watching this movie, and the feeling I had during and afterward is indescribable. I want to say a massive congratulations to Zack Snyder. The film was beyond breathtaking. It really is so special and it will forever have an important place in my heart.

Though I think the most important thing to take away from the Snyder's incredible work is Autumn's story.

Thank you Zack Snyder.

For Autumn.

www.imdb.com/title/tt12361974/

[o-w-quinlan]

Action Comics Annual (2021) Review

A good story that sadly cannot escape the inherent classism of the fantasy tropes it uses. The best thing about it is the Superman of its era, Brandon Kent.

I think my favorite thing about it was the way it portrayed the importance of stories. In current times, Byla’s storytelling to the young Phaelosian children is portrayed as a way to hold on to not just their traditions, history and heritage, but onto the hope for a better tomorrow. In the House of El timeline, we see the difference between Brandon Kent’s reaction to the Phantom Zone (he reacts as if it was a mythical hell, long lost to legend but nonetheless real to him) and Ronan Kent’s (he reacts as if it were a piece of history, intellectually knowing it’s dangerous but not really that emotionally affected by it).

The Annual also fleshed out some of the characters from the House of El timeline beyond the vague outlines they were in Future State, particularly Alura, Khan and Brandon. The art does a very good job portraying just how in love Alura and Khan are, every bit the warrior couple we’re told they are (look at how excited Khan is when archvillain Pyrrhos crashes his wedding and challenges him to a real fight) and Brandon has this All Star Superman vibe of being the most relaxed, confident man in the world. He’s also very informal in what’s supposed to be ceremonial settings (my favorite is his comment on how Khan’s wedding gift to Alura of “every drop of blood running through his body” was the most Phaelosian thing ever), and the stubble adds to his whole aura. We see him treat the old elements of Superman lore (the Phantom Zone, Hank Henshaw) as both legendary and alive, a mythical legacy he does his best to live up to and that is so much more to him than just a history lesson. We see his leadership role in the group, his distrust of Henshaw over what he did hundreds of years ago (vindicated), but also his decision to free him from his punishment despite all that because no one deserves to be imprisoned forever. We see him as a father, his sweet relationship with his daughter Theand’r, how she’s starting to try to be independent but still can’t help but hide behind Brandon when danger arrives (until, of course, it’s her turn to save him) being all the more bittersweet in light of what we know their relationship was like in Future State. It was also a passing-of-the-torch story for him, since we see how much he holds onto the past and how he might be past his prime in the final fight, ultimately giving the title of Superman to Ronan. I can’t say I particularly liked that part (no offense to Ronan, but nothing he did in this Annual made him look like the best choice for a successor compared to, say, Alura), but it is what it is.

Speaking of characters, we also have Hank Henshaw here, his design implying he has met Clark (a legend who people doubt even existed in this time in the 30th Century) fairly recently. He has an entirely predictable arc of pretending to be reformed only to betray them in the end, though ultimately the House of El does pardon him from remaining in the Phantom Zone. He does the exposition on how the Phantom Zone has changed and even a nice moment where he describes Jor-El and Kal-El as having thrown every criminal they faced into this hellish dimension. Good to see even in the future he’s devoted to ruining Clark’s legacy as much as possible. Still not as good a “Superman shows Henshaw mercy in hopes of redeeming him” story as Action Comics 999.

Speaking of the Phantom Zone, we have the whole worldbuilding aspect of this issue. The Annual brings back Gerber’s idea of the Phantom Zone as the mind projections of a sleeping God, except now that God has awoken and warped it even further. Except for Henshaw, all of the prisoners we see have warped into Lovecraftian monsters, completely mindless beyond seeking violence or obeying the will of the Phantom Zone God. Some of these designs I liked (particularly the ones hanging from the ceiling when Henshaw starts his explanation), but the majority of them I found boring, the sort of tentacly mess that is way too overused when doing Lovecraft homages. Henshaw did speak of other prisoners who weren’t warped as much and retained their wills, even building villages (which we do see), so I hope we eventually see them.

As for the worldbuilding with the House of El… I’m not as big a fan, though it’s well-crafted. There’s this sense of royalty in almost everything the House of El does (starting with their name) that I don’t like as representative of Clark’s legacy. Speaking of which, these kinds of ceremonies would have to have started with Clark, Kara and maybe Lois and Jon, but none of those 4 are the type to want to do something like this. Kara presiding as the head of the House of El is pretty cool, but her floating above everyone else during the ceremony further emphasizing how above everyone else the House of El is just strikes me as wrong. I mean, it would be one thing if it were an OC, but it’s Kara. In the final scenes she does remain on the ground while finishing the “ceremony”, but that doesn’t change my distaste for the earlier scenes. I also didn’t like how she was easily defeated to make Pyrrhos more menacing. We had previously seen Pyrrhos be absolutely schooled by Clark, so this is implicitely putting her extremely below him in power, which I don’t agree with at this point in their lives. As for Pyrrhos… he was an 80’s cartoon villain here, not even the vague promise of something more in him like in Future State. We also have Alura’s name being Alura Van-El, which is interesting as far as speculating on the family tree goes (Alura, as in Kara’s mother, and Van-El, as in Clark’s son with Lyla Lerrol in the dream scenario in “For The Man Who Has Everything”), but also implies even this far into the future they’re still keeping the patriarchal tradition of women’s names including their father’s, something I had been hoping would change when Thao-La was introduced. We’re also told that Khan doesn't have a named house, which once again emphasizes the “The House of El socially uplifts a lower-caste man through marriage” theme that’s probably intended as progressive (they don’t care who they fall in love with!) but just comes across as classist. It also raises some questions as to current Phaelosians, because Thao-La presumably did have a House given the structure of her name. Is Thao-La's parentage more prestigious than it is implied for Khan? Are there people who do have Houses among the current Phaelosians and people who don't? Is that from Krypton itself, or something that happened over the years?

There’s also the whole imagery at the start with the dark-skinned Phaelosians being slaves constantly in chains, which is... well, troubling. I mean, it's been a thing in the past few issues of Action Comics, but never did it hit quite as hard as here, probably because there were also light-skinned Phaelosians in chains so it didn't feel necessarily racially charged. Not the case here. When PKJ said his run would adress things like racism, I did not expect this. Thankfully the vast majority features Ronan and Rowan instead, who being classical heroes are as far away from the "black person as slave" imagery as possible. Pity that still manifests as Khan, the Phaelosian representative in the future (the symbol of how far they've come) being light-skinned.

I just spend quite a lot of time complaining, but I did find it an overall good story. Even all my complains about the inherent classism has to acknowledge that it was a technically good, very multilayered portrayal of something I hate. I did like the theme of stories and legends and almost everything with Brandon and Theand’r, and despite my distaste for the classism I did like how Alura’s and Khan’s relationship was portrayed. Overall, though, it’s not as exciting as PKJ’s regular issues of Action Comics, and certainly more troubling than them in a lot of ways.

Here’s my favorite panels:

[lovejustforaday]

2020 year in review - honourable mentions

It’s year-end list season folks. I’m gonna be listing off my top 10 for this year with some tasty reviews, but I also wanted to make an appreciation post for a few albums that didn’t make the cut, so here’s a collection of mini reviews for five albums that almost made the top 10:

WEST OF EDEN - HMLTD

Main Genres: Art Punk, Glam Punk, Art Pop A decent sampling of: Dark Cabaret, Progressive Pop, Synth Punk, Post-Punk, Punk Blues

West of Eden is what I imagine what happens when a bunch of theatre kids become punk rockers. I had no idea who HMLTD were before I checked them out this year on a whim, and boy am I glad I did. This is very eclectic punk music with pop hooks and a lot of influence from cabaret and musical theatre. Definitely the kind of album where the artist throws everything at the wall to see what sticks, so it’s a mixed bag, but there’s a lot of pay off too. “The West Is Dead” is a wondrously flamboyant opener, and “Satan, Luella, and I” is a such a massive song, with a brilliant clash of aesthetics that is one part wild west, one part gothic, and one part broadway fanfare. Also I swear they’re sampling a vocaloid voice track on “Why?” so that’s something. Check this album out if you wanna get weird. 8/10

Highlights: “Satan, Luella, & I”, “The West Is Dead”, “Where’s Joanna?”, “To The Door”

FUTURE NOSTALGIA – DUA LIPA

Main Genres: Nu-Disco, Dance Pop A decent sampling of: Funktronica, Synth Pop

Ironically, 2020 has been a really big year for nu-disco even though we can’t go out to the clubs. Likewise, this somehow ended up only being my second favourite disco/pop crossover project this year, but this is still a great album and the singles are easily the best thing to dominate the charts this year. If Jessie Ware’s What’s Your Pleasure? is classy, sensual, and soulful, than Future Nostalgia is spunky and free-spirited, like the perfect soundtrack to a night out with the girls. Dua Lipa has really proven she’s a force to be reckoned with in the pop world, and I’m glad she’s starting to approach the level of stardom of artists like Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande who frankly I think she’s starting to really outperform musically. The last two tracks standout as easily being the weakest, although unlike some man-children I’m not mad at the lyrics of “Boys Will Be Boys”; it’s just a weak song musically, but not enough to make me forget how much the rest of this kicks ass. Honestly, it’s a crime that I can’t be drunk off my ass shouting the lyrics to “Hallucinate” in a gay bar right now as I’m writing this, but I digress. Very good album, proud of Dula Peep. 8/10 Highlights: “Hallucinate”, “Break My Heart”, “Don’t Start Now”, “Levitating”

SILVER LADDERS – MARY LATTIMORE

Main Genres: Ambient A decent sampling of: Post-Minimalism, New Age, Electroacoustic

I checked out this album because it was co-produced by Neil Halstead of Slowdive (my all-time favourite band), and I didn’t know what to expect from the process of a shoegaze giant producing an album of instrumental harp music. Thankfully, I’m happy to report that the end result is both unconventional and beautifully mesmerizing. Mary Lattimore’s Silver Ladders is a heavenly ambient album comprised mostly of just gently plucked harps, warm reverb, and the occasional addition of sparse bass and synths. Lattimore’s harp work is intricate but subtle, and the songs make a lot of good use of the space between notes, especially on the title track “Silver Ladders”, a haunting siren song that ends in a crescendo of shimmering echoes. I find the shorter ambient pieces on the album work a lot better than the two darker, longer pieces “Til A Mermaid Drags You Under” and “Don’t Look” which I find to be a tad bit dreary. Still, like all good ambient music, this entire project is a lot more than just ‘background music’ and it really captures the imagination of the listener. I want to get lost at sea listening to the cold air of Mary Lattimore’s harp, but I’ll gladly settle for listening to Silver Ladders on the bus ride home instead. 8/10

Highlights: “Silver Ladders“, “Sometimes He’s In My Dreams”, “Chop on the Climbout”

SHRINES – ARMAND HAMMER

Main Genres: Abstract Rap, Experimental Rap, East Coast Rap A decent sampling of: Conscious Rap, Hardcore Rap

Definitely my favourite album cover of the year, and it’s a completely real photo of an incident that actually happened so that’s pretty crazy. As for the music, Shrines is a hypnotic, cryptic hip hop album with hard leftist politics and very interesting production that sounds like the sonic manifestation of a head full of cynical thoughts. Billy Woods and Elucid spit rhymes with a lot of poetic frustration, expressing the feeling of utter disenfranchisement by the power systems of classism and racism that dominate their society. The first half of the album is mostly tracks that are energetic like the absolutely ferocious “Leopards”, while later tracks like “Flavor Flav” and “Ramesses II” are mostly mellow and bitter. The beats can be disorienting and confusing, and some of the tracks are kinda formless, so its definitely not an album to dance to, but Shrines is great for a more introspective listen on a late night walk. If I had to pick an album that captured the zeitgeist of 2020, this is probably it. Great music and important subject matter. 8/10

Highlights: “Leopards”, “Dead Cars”, “Flavor Flav”, “Pommelhorse”

ISLAND – OWEN PALLETT

Main Genres: Chamber Folk A decent sampling of: Art Pop, Modern Classical, Ambient

Owen Pallett is an indie folk artist who has had one foot in the sophisticated world of modern classical music for some time now. Likewise, Pallett’s 2020 concept album Island is grand and orchestral with distinct movements. Continuing the saga of his character Lewis from his 2010 LP Heartland, the new album is equally philosophical and complex, telling the story of Lewis being metaphorically stranded after killing his manipulator god at the end of the last album in the saga. The majority of this album is brilliantly nocturnal in a way that is neither creepy nor unsettling, instead conjuring the invigorating fantasy of a mysterious and enchanting night of a full moon. “Paragon of Order” is particularly enchanting, and while this album only sits at #11 on my year-end list, this one track in particular is probably in my top 3 of the year because it’s just so incredibly magical and captivating in a way that feels like it’s lifting me to a heightened sensory experience every time I listen to it. The last few tracks are a little confusing, especially “Lewis Gets Fucked into Space”, taking a somewhat abstract direction that deviates from the gorgeous imagery of the first half that I fell in love with. Nevertheless, Island is an album I’ll want to revisit on nights when I’m feeling excited or inspired. 8/10

Highlights: “Paragon of Order”, “--> (i)”, “Perseverance of The Saints”, “--> (iii)”, “--> (ii)”, “The Sound of The Engines”

[pfenniged]

Hi! I’ve been following you for a lil lil bit, but already you seem super smart and knowledgeable so.. what are some books or other pieces of writing you think everyone should read? Have a lovely day!

B’aww, thank you! <3 You too nonnie! <3

Just off the top of my head at three o’clock in the morning, and the qualification that you provided that its something that ‘everyone should read,’ I’m going to go for more books that I found changed me fundamentally, as a person, after reading them. That may be a self-help book; that might be a societal critique, that might be a work of classic literature. I tried to give a bit of everything. <3

 I’ll put a little copy-and-paste synopsis here for you for each book, and will elaborate if necessary in brackets. 

BEHOLD: LAUREN’S LIST OF LITERARY RECOMMENDATIONS:

From My (Non-Law) Bookcase (But still are about political issues):

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly: 

‘As women, we’ve been urged for so long to bottle up our anger, letting it corrode our bodies and minds in ways we don’t even realize. Yet there are so, so many legitimate reasons for us to feel angry, ranging from blatant, horrifying acts of misogyny to the subtle drip, drip drip of daily sexism that reinforces the absurdly damaging gender norms of our society. In Rage Becomes Her, Soraya Chemaly argues that our anger is not only justified, it is also an active part of the solution. We are so often encouraged to resist our rage or punished for justifiably expressing it, yet how many remarkable achievements would never have gotten off the ground without the kernel of anger that fueled them? Approached with conscious intention, anger is a vital instrument, a radar for injustice and a catalyst for change. On the flip side, the societal and cultural belittlement of our anger is a cunning way of limiting and controlling our power—one we can no longer abide.’

Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education by Jay T. Dolmage:

‘Academic Ableism brings together disability studies and institutional critique to recognize the ways that disability is composed in and by higher education, and rewrites the spaces, times, and economies of disability in higher education to place disability front and center. For too long, argues Jay Timothy Dolmage, disability has been constructed as the antithesis of higher education, often positioned as a distraction, a drain, a problem to be solved. The ethic of higher education encourages students and teachers alike to accentuate ability, valorize perfection, and stigmatize anything that hints at intellectual, mental, or physical weakness, even as we gesture toward the value of diversity and innovation. Examining everything from campus accommodation processes, to architecture, to popular films about college life, Dolmage argues that disability is central to higher education, and that building more inclusive schools allows better education for all.’

(This book strays into more academic categories, but it’s still really great that this sort of book is being written. I personally recognise its value as someone with mental health struggles and who has had to fight ironically in the legal sphere for myself in terms of finding support within my own career moving forward as a lawyer/legal academic. I think the fact that the narrative that disabilities are seen as the antithesis of secondary education despite claims of diversity is something that all university students need to guard themselves against, or at least educate themselves on, in order to work against some systems that even though they espouse equality, might not have their best interests at heart. 

I’ve ironically found this especially terrible in law, where my first term of law school I was told ‘girls like you don’t go to law school,’ followed by constant questioning by the community at large after graduate that any hint of mental weakness equates to being unfit to practice law. This is despite the majority of lawyers having mental health problems, if not full blown addictions. It’s honestly why I’m pivoting back to academia (law prof), or moving to practice for the government (which enforces union restrictions on how long a lawyer can actually work, where firms just actually work them to death without union protections ironically; ugh. My whole point is, I’m not ashamed of having mental health problems in a field largely categorised by achievements in secondary education. I feel no reason to hide it, even though people tell me to. If someone is ashamed of me over something I had no control over developing, then I probably don’t want to be involved with them, do I? (A good method I recommend; it may cut off some superficial ‘friends’/’opportunities,’ but it leads to those who truly understand what a mental health disability may entail, and how strong you are for overcoming it).

White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard to for White People to Talk about Racism by Robin DiAngelo:

The New York Times best-selling book exploring the counterproductive reactions white people have when their assumptions about race are challenged, and how these reactions maintain racial inequality.

In this “vital, necessary, and beautiful book” (Michael Eric Dyson), antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo deftly illuminates the phenomenon of white fragility and “allows us to understand racism as a practice not restricted to ‘bad people’ (Claudia Rankine). Referring to the defensive moves that white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively.

Two Mental Health-Related Books:

Do Nothing: How to Break Away from Overworking, Overdoing, and Underliving by Celeste Headlee:

‘We work feverishly to make ourselves happy. So why are we so miserable?

Despite our constant search for new ways to optimize our bodies and minds for peak performance, human beings are working more instead of less, living harder not smarter, and becoming more lonely and anxious. We strive for the absolute best in every aspect of our lives, ignoring what we do well naturally and reaching for a bar that keeps rising higher and higher. Why do we measure our time in terms of efficiency instead of meaning? Why can’t we just take a break?

In Do Nothing, award-winning journalist Celeste Headlee illuminates a new path ahead, seeking to institute a global shift in our thinking so we can stop sabotaging our well-being, put work aside, and start living instead of doing. As it turns out, we’re searching for external solutions to an internal problem. We won’t find what we’re searching for in punishing diets, productivity apps, or the latest self-improvement schemes. Yet all is not lost - we just need to learn how to take time for ourselves, without agenda or profit, and redefine what is truly worthwhile.

Pulling together threads from history, neuroscience, social science, and even paleontology, Headlee examines long-held assumptions about time use, idleness, hard work, and even our ultimate goals. Her research reveals that the habits we cling to are doing us harm; they developed recently in human history, which means they are habits that can, and must, be broken. It’s time to reverse the trend that’s making us all sadder, sicker, and less productive, and return to a way of life that allows us to thrive.’

(I just read this book lately and I love it; it’s really follows the history of how we’ve come to this point where we can’t shut off our brains, and we see ourselves in this really puritanical, commercialist manner: How we define ourselves by how much we produce, and if we fall short of this goal by being (ironically) human, we berate ourselves for it. This really has let me shift my mentality towards a much healthier, less ‘workaholic’ mode in my COVID downtime, and really helped me move towards a healthier lifestyle in the jobs I’m searching for now that I’ve left school. Recommended for anyone taking the big leap into the full time work world).

Chained to the Desk by Bryan Robinson:

‘Americans love a hard worker. The worker who toils eighteen-hour days and eats meals on the run between appointments is usually viewed with a combination of respect and awe. But for many, this lifestyle leads to family problems, a decline in work productivity, and ultimately to physical and mental collapse. Intended for anyone touched by what Robinson calls “the best-dressed problem of the twenty-first century,” Chained to the Desk provides an inside look at workaholism’s impact on those who live and work with work addicts—partners, spouses, children, and colleagues—as well as the appropriate techniques for clinicians who treat them. Originally published in 1998, this groundbreaking book from best-selling author and widely respected family therapist Bryan E. Robinson was the first comprehensive portrait of the workaholic. In this new and fully updated third edition, Robinson draws on hundreds of case reports from his own original research and years of clinical practice. The agonies of workaholism have grown all the more challenging in a world where the computer, cell phone, and iPhone allow twenty-four-hour access to the office, even on weekends and from vacation spots. Adult children of workaholics describe their childhood pain and the lifelong legacies they still carry, and the spouses or partners of workaholics reveal the isolation and loneliness of their vacant relationships. Employers and business colleagues discuss the cost to the company when workaholism dominates the workplace. Chained to the Desk both counsels and consoles. It provides a step-by-step guide to help readers spot workaholism, understand it, and recover.’

(I also just read this one, and it’s an older book edited to a third edition, and it shows. However, it also does the important work of demonstrating how workaholics should be treated in the same category as anyone else who gets any sort of ‘high’ from something, like drugs or alcoholism. It opens with the quote (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Workaholicism is the best dressed addiction.” It’s the one we’re rewarded for constantly, not matter what mental toll it takes on us. While I’m not exactly ready to sign up for a twelve-step plan (and some of the chapters are specifically for spouses and children), it still dishes out some really good advice about feeding other areas of our lives and how to not simply focus on work.)

From My Undergraduate Degree (Classics and Double Minor in English and German Literature, with a little World Literature thrown in for good measure):

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe: 

THINGS FALL APART tells two overlapping, intertwining stories, both of which center around Okonkwo, a “strong man” of an Ibo village in Nigeria. The first of these stories traces Okonkwo's fall from grace with the tribal world in which he lives, and in its classical purity of line and economical beauty it provides us with a powerful fable about the immemorial conflict between the individual and society. The second story, which is as modern as the first is ancient, and which elevates the book to a tragic plane, concerns the clash of cultures and the destruction of Okonkwo's world through the arrival of aggressive, proselytizing European missionaries. These twin dramas are perfectly harmonized, and they are modulated by an awareness capable of encompassing at once the life of nature, human history, and the mysterious compulsions of the soul. THINGS FALL APART is the most illuminating and permanent monument we have to the modern African experience as seen from within.

(This is a classic of African Literature, and what I wrote my world literature paper on in first year. It really is a story about the affect of a fall of one culture, where Okonkwo is the prime example of what a ‘man’ may be in this society, to how this society (and African societies as a whole) are affected by European colonialism. How one man can be seen as a paradigm of perfection at one point in time, and the scourge of the earth at another, when he stubbornly holds to his ideals, no matter how flawed they may be. It’s a book I remember reading the ending of, and it’s a theme for all three of these books, and just looking down and literally letting out an, “Ooooooooh~~~~” xD That’s really my ‘tell’ of a good book. I haven’t reread it since then, but it’s always stuck with me). 

Animal Farm by George Orwell:

‘Perhaps one of the most influential allegories of the 20th century, George Orwell's Animal Farm has made its way into countless schoolrooms and libraries, and has been the inspiration of several films. Written in 1945, before Orwell's conceptually similar 1984, Animal Farm's world consists of anthropomorphized farm animals as they attempt to create an ideal society--it becomes dystopian as the flaws of the ideology seep out. Like 1984, Orwell meant for Animal Farm to represent a Communist state, and to depict its downfalls. With a message that is not soon to be forgotten, Animal Farm reminds us that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."’

(It’s stereotypical and you’ve probably read it, but I still love this book to pieces and literally have an Animal Farm pin on my bag xD If you haven’t read it, read it: It also has the OhhhOOohhh~ effect xD)

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury:

‘Ray Bradbury's internationally acclaimed novel Fahrenheit 451 is a masterwork of 20th-century literature set in a bleak, dystopian future.

Guy Montag is a fireman. In his world, where television rules and literature is on the brink of extinction, firemen start fires rather than put them out. His job is to destroy the most illegal of commodities, the printed book, along with the houses in which they are hidden. Montag never questions the destruction and ruin his actions produce, returning each day to his bland life and wife, Mildred, who spends all day with her television "family". But then he meets an eccentric young neighbor, Clarisse, who introduces him to a past where people didn’t live in fear and to a present where one sees the world through the ideas in books instead of the mindless chatter of television. When Mildred attempts suicide and Clarisse suddenly disappears, Montag begins to question everything he has ever known. He starts hiding books in his home, and when his pilfering is discovered, the fireman has to run for his life.’

(What do I have to say by this point? Another Ooooh~ effect book xD)

[sinceileftyoublog]

Weekend Picks: 2/21-2/23

Big Head Todd and the Monsters

BY JORDAN MAINZER

There were no live picks for yesterday, but plenty for the weekend!

2/21: Objekt, Smartbar

Here’s what we wrote about Objekt’s Cocoon Crush when we named it our #6 album of 2018:

“An artist solidly known for his bold exploration of techno, Objekt now takes a plunge into a new kind of ethereal beauty on Cocoon Crush. A foray into ambient music, Objekt subverts a lot of what we have come to expect from him. The line between digital and analog is smeared. Tracks are ungrounded, punctuated still by percussion and synthesizers, but in patterns and textures that materialize in mysterious ways. And just as they appear, they stutter and morph in ways unexpected to the listener. The cold machinations of the dancefloor are still present; they are just stretched and masked in exciting and rewarding ways.”

Darwin and Flower Flood open.

2/21: Knuckle Puck, Beat Kitchen

We previewed Knuckle Puck’s set at Durty Nellie’s two years ago:

“Covering last year’s Riot Fest, I found Knuckle Puck the worst set of the festival, though I did remark that the band’s new, unreleased material had the crowd’s attention as much as their released material. As it turns out, the album versions of the songs are pretty good. Shapeshifter, released about a month later in October, was exemplary of what Knuckle Puck do best–write catchy songs with powerful melodies and hooks, enough to showcase the band’s more-than-capable instrumental prowess while avoiding the try-hard singing that plagues so many of today’s emo bands.”

Cleveland power poppers Heart Attack Man and Wilkes Barre hardcore band One Step Closer open.

Objekt; Photo by Kasia Zacharko

2/21: James McMurtry, Old Town School of Folk Music

We previewed James McMurtry’s show at FitzGerald’s two years ago:

“James McMurtry plays tonight as part of the 37th Annual American Music Festival at Fitzgerald’s, still touring strong off of Complicated Game (one of our favorite albums of 2015) like he was when it first came out. When we caught up with him last November, he said of new songs, 'I’ve jotted them down on my phone as I’ve gone along. That whole record was written on an iPhone3. Unfortunately, I dropped that phone, I don’t have the cool Notes app anymore.' Well, either he’s got a new phone or doesn’t need one, because late last year, he released 'State of the Union', a trademark jab at fascism and racism. It might not be as succinct as him telling us 'There never been a good Nazi a day on this earth dead or alive,' but at least there’s hope for more new material.”

2/21: Raphael Saadiq & Jamila Woods, Vic Theatre

Last year, Raphael Saadiq released his first album in 8 years (since the great Stone Rollin’). Jimmy Lee is named after, inspired by, and partially about his brother who died of heroin overdose after contracting HIV many years ago. As such, whether singing or inhabiting the character of his brother, Saadiq is at times uncharacteristically somber. He’s at the other end of a barrel of a gun on “Sinners Prayer”, reflecting on his wrongs, wondering whether it’s too late: “When a sinner is praying, God, will you hear it?” He wears a heavy burden on the funky, stomping “Something Keeps Calling Me”, the song’s wailing guitar solo in the bridge a mirror to his emotions. Saadiq calls out society, too, just as much as himself. “The people are mad,” he sings on “This World is Drunk”. The one-two punch of anti-mass incarceration jams “Rikers Island” and “Rikers Island Redux” presents the issue as simply as it should be put: “Too many n***as in Rikers Island / Why must it be / Set them free.” The former expresses its anger with upbeat piano and a simple refrain, the latter with spoken word over gentle guitar strums.

Best, though, are the reflections of grace that rise above the despair. On “I’m Feeling Love”, over a slower, more warbling funk, Saadiq, singing as his brother, is thankful for the little that he has. And on the skittering, rolling “Glory To The Veins”, he again distills his brother’s death to what matters: “I lost a brother to AIDS / Still, he laughed every day.” We’re lucky that as he gets older, reflecting on his life, and playing live reflecting on his career in Tony! Toni! Toné! and all the legendary artists like D’Angelo and Solange that he’s produced, Saadiq is willing to impart his wisdom.

Jamila Woods’ LEGACY! LEGACY! was one of our favorite albums of last year:

“Yes, Jamila Woods’ stunning LEGACY! LEGACY! is a tribute to important artists of color. What makes it stand out among other tributes, however, is the remarkable way Woods is able to present how each figure has guided her. Take opener 'BETTY', about funk artist Betty Davis, a woman married to a far more famous jazz trumpeter who gets his own song later on. Woods explores the gender and power dynamic in the relationship and uses it to make a personal and universal plea: 'Let me be, I’m trying to fly.' Fly, she does. On 'ZORA', over a hip hop beat, Woods succinctly declares in an all-time line, 'My weaponry is my energy', the drive and desire the catalyst in the noble goal to make her mark on the world as a black woman as opposed to while being a black woman. In various interviews surrounding the album release, Woods spoke about being inspired by black artists who perform and make art truly for themselves independent and often in spite of the race of the end consumers. 'Motherfuckers won’t shut up,' beings 'MUDDY', referencing Muddy Waters adoption of electric guitar because white audiences would talk over his sets; 'Shut up, motherfucker,' she sings inversely on 'MILES', 'I don’t take requests.' But the percussive, jazzy 'EARTHA' best encapsulates her aims of self-love and ultimate pride. 'I used to be afraid of myself,' Woods admits before stating, 'I don’t wanna compromise.' Ultimately, the refrain of, 'Who’s gonna share my love for me with me?' is the mindset by which Woods approaches relationships throughout the record and then life itself. You can be a part of it, but she comes first.”

DJ Duggz also opens.

2/21: The Wailers, SPACE

We previewed The Wailers’ set at Old Town School of Folk Music last year:

“Bob Marley might not be around, but his original band, containing many of the original members and their children, continues to play his songs. Seeing them in a venue as small as this is rare.”

Tonight at SPACE--an even smaller venue--they play two shows, an early and late one.

Joe Henry

2/22: Big Head Todd and the Monsters, Vic Theatre

We previewed Big Head Todd & The Monsters’ show at the Vic Theatre two years ago:

“The Colorado jam band that saw mainstream success in the 90′s is touring fresh off of last year’s heavy New World Arisin’. In 2016, as Big Head Blues Club (the band’s project with a wide array of blues legends like Cedric Burnside and Charlie Musselwhite), they released Way Down Inside. But for the full potential of Big Head Todd and the Monsters, go a few years back and try 2014′s Black Beehive, a rawer, more diverse blues record than you’d expect from the band who recorded 'Bittersweet'. What’s for sure is that live, they’ll lean heavily on the new material while not forgoing their more beloved classics.”

They haven’t released a new album since then but have released a new song every month as part of a series. They should play some of these live, including gospel piano ballad “Hard Times Come No More” and the funky, rollicking “Train of Storms”.

Nashville band Los Colognes open.

2/22: Todd Barry, Thalia Hall

We previewed Todd Barry’s sets at SPACE two years ago:

“So, this isn’t exactly music, but deadpan comedian Todd Barry is performing 2 stand-up sets in one night at SPACE. Commemorating his 30 years of being a comedian, he’s going on another crowd work-only tour like the one documented in his 2014 special Todd Barry: The Crowd Work Tour. From watching that and his most recent Netflix special Spicy Honey, Barry’s dry observational humor is effortlessly tailored to specific crowds and cities, making this one of the must-see comedy events of the year.”

Even if tonight isn’t crowd work-only, he should do some of his specialty.

Chicago-based stand-up comic Chelsea Hood opens.

Hot Snakes

2/22: Joe Henry, Old Town School of Folk Music

Since we last saw Joe Henry five years ago, he’s done quite a bit of production work and released two albums, 2017′s Thrum, and last year’s The Gospel According to Water. In between the two, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer; considering that, the latter takes on weight. It’s, first and foremost, raw, from the guitar playing on “Famine Walk” to the title track. But Gospel sports moments of beauty, too, as on the woodwind of “Mule” and rich vocal harmonies of “In Time For Tomorrow” and “The Fact of Love”.

Americana duo Birds of Chicago open.

Pissed Jeans; Photo by Ebru Yildiz

2/22: Tim and Eric, Chicago Theatre

Who knows what Tim and Eric will bring to their Chicago stop of their Mandatory Attendance tour, other than their purported "brand new spoofs, goofs and insanity” and “special surprises.” The last time I saw them, Dr. Steve Brule showed up and almost married Jan Skylar!

2/22: Hot Snakes, Pissed Jeans, & HIDE, Empty Bottle

Music Frozen Dancing is upon us again, with suggested donations benefiting the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless! Go and donate!

We last listened to Hot Snakes from the medical tent at September’s Riot Fest. Since then, they’ve released the first two of four seasonal 7-inch singles leading up to the next LP: the burner “Checkmate” and wonderfully plodding laziness anthem “I Shall Be Free”. (The latter’s 7-inch has “A Place in the Sun” as an exclusive.)

Hot Snakes also play Sunday night at the Bottle with an opening set from post punk band Pink Avalanche.

Allentown hardcore band Pissed Jeans haven’t released anything since 2017′s Why Love Now, but they’re thankfully back to warm your pants before Hot Snakes. Maybe they’ll have some new songs to play?

Local industrial duo HIDE (artist Heather Gabel and percussionist Seth Sher) released their second album last year, the raw, disgusting Hell is Here. The drum programming and screaming is just as cringingly visceral as the recorded sounds of vomit hitting a toilet that end opening track “Chainsaw”.

Synth band Crash Course in Science, arty The Hecks, and local punk band Hitter also open.

[westmeathlibrary]

Need some inspiration for our #wmreads2018 prompt #2? Here are a few biographies that might be of interest : 

The diary of a young girl by Anne Frank Check the library : https://goo.gl/EiW76v Download the ebook : https://goo.gl/JE57L5 Today, The Diary of a Young Girl has sold over 25 million copies world-wide. It is one of the most celebrated and enduring books of the last century and it remains a deeply admired testament to the indestructible nature of human spirit. Anne Frank and her family fled the horrors of Nazi occupation by hiding in the back of a warehouse in Amsterdam for two years with another family and a German dentist. Aged thirteen when she went into the secret annexe, Anne kept a diary. She movingly revealed how the eight people living under these extraordinary conditions coped with hunger, the daily threat of discovery and death and being cut off from the outside world, as well as petty misunderstandings and the unbearable strain of living like prisoners.

I am Malala by Malala Yousafzai Check the library : https://goo.gl/jf4zd6 When the Taliban took control of the Swat Valley in Pakistan, one girl spoke out. Malala Yousafzai refused to be silenced and fought for her right to an education.  This book  is the remarkable tale of a family uprooted by global terrorism, of the fight for girls' education, of a father who, himself a school owner, championed and encouraged his daughter to write and attend school, and of brave parents who have a fierce love for their daughter in a society that prizes sons.

Angela's Ashes by Frank McCourt Check the library : https://goo.gl/DRGyuH Wearing rags for diapers, begging a pig’s head for Christmas dinner and gathering coal from the roadside to light a fire, Frank endures poverty, near-starvation and the casual cruelty of relatives and neighbors—yet lives to tell his tale with eloquence, exuberance, and remarkable forgiveness. Angela’s Ashes, imbued on every page with Frank McCourt’s astounding humor and compassion, is a glorious book that bears all the marks of a classic.

I know why the caged bird sings by Maya Angelou check the library : https://goo.gl/LWxA6L Sent by their mother to live with their devout, self-sufficient grandmother in a small Southern town, Maya and her brother, Bailey, endure the ache of abandonment and the prejudice of the local "powhitetrash." At eight years old and back at her mother’s side in St. Louis, Maya is attacked by a man many times her age—and has to live with the consequences for a lifetime. Years later, in San Francisco, Maya learns that love for herself, the kindness of others, her own strong spirit, and the ideas of great authors ("I met and fell in love with William Shakespeare") will allow her to be free instead of imprisoned. Poetic and powerful, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings will touch hearts and change minds for as long as people read.

When breath becomes air by Paul Kalanithi check the library : https://goo.gl/yCnqiR download the ebook : https://goo.gl/xbTsiE At the age of thirty-six, on the verge of completing a decade’s training as a neurosurgeon, Paul Kalanithi was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. One day he was a doctor treating the dying, the next he was a patient struggling to live. When Breath Becomes Air chronicles Kalanithi’s transformation from a medical student asking what makes a virtuous and meaningful life into a neurosurgeon working in the core of human identity – the brain – and finally into a patient and a new father.

Wild Swans by Jung Chang check the library : https://goo.gl/wT2eYg download the ebook or eaudiobook : https://goo.gl/UFGD5x Through the story of three generations of women in her own family – the grandmother given to the warlord as a concubine, the Communist mother and the daughter herself – Jung Chang reveals the epic history of China's twentieth century. Breathtaking in its scope, unforgettable in its descriptions, this is a masterpiece which is extraordinary in every way.

I was a boy in Belsen by Tomi Reichental check the library : https://goo.gl/RrB2J2 download the ebook : https://goo.gl/JMzj5A Tomi Reichental, who lost 35 members of his family in the Holocaust, gives his account of being imprisoned as a child at Belsen concentration camp. He was nine-years old in October 1944 when he was rounded up by the Gestapo in a shop in Bratislava, Slovakia. Along with 12 other members of his family he was taken to a detention camp where the elusive Nazi War Criminal Alois Brunner had the power of life and death. His story is a story of the past. It is also a story for our times. The Holocaust reminds us of the dangers of racism and intolerance, providing lessons that are relevant today.

A Time To Risk All by Clodagh Finn check the library : https://goo.gl/As9p4o Clodagh Finn has travelled throughout Europe to piece together the story of this remarkable, unknown Irish woman, meeting many of those children Mary Elmes saved. Here, in a book packed with courage, heroism, adventure and tragedy, her story is finally remembered.The children called her ‘Miss Mary’, and they remember her kindness still. She gave them food and shelter and later risked her life to help them escape the convoys bound for Auschwitz.

It's not yet dark by Simon Fitzmaurice check the library : https://goo.gl/r4VSxF In 2008, Simon Fitzmaurice was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease (mnd). He was given four years to live. In 2010, in a state of lung-function collapse, Simon knew with crystal clarity that now was not his time to die. Against all prevailing medical opinion, he chose to ventilate in order to stay alive. Here, the young filmmaker, a husband and father of five small children draws us deeply into his inner world. Told in simply expressed and beautifully stark prose - in the vein of such memoirs as Jean-Dominique Bauby's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - the result is an astonishing journey into a life which, though brutally compromised, is lived more fully and in the moment than most, revealing at its core the power of love its most potent.

Grandpa the sniper : the remarkable story of a 1916 Volunteer by  Frank Shouldice check the library : https://goo.gl/wSfMSj Drawing on prison letters, personal diaries and secret military and police files, Grandpa the Sniper retraces a remarkable journey by a reluctant hero. Part biography, part memoir, it offers readers a rare insight into one of the quiet men who gave their all for Irish freedom.

[insideanairport]

Patrisse Cullors' “When They Call You a Terrorist”

❍❍❍

A Black Lives Matter Memoir

After reading this book, you might find yourself so excited that you want to only read books by black women writers. The book is as exciting and informing as autobiographies of black radical activists such as Angela Davis and Assata Shakur. It reminds us of other works such as: Push Out, We Were Eight Years in Power, Long Walk to Freedom, White Fragility, Golden Gulag, and Revolutionary Suicide. It is written smoothly with a down-to-earth style of writing. She has a non-academic working-class tone that connects with everyone.

POPO

The ending of the book [Spoiler Alert] is very powerful with the birth of Patrisee’s child, the presidency of Trump, the rise of hate crimes, mentioning the names of victims of police brutality and the future of the Black struggle. On a #SayHerName-style, she brings to light the names of victims of police violence and white supremacy. She reminds us of the ordinary Americans who lost their lives due to police racism. People such as Tanisha Anderson, Miriam Carey, Shelly Hilliard, Rekia Boyd, Shelly Frey, Aiyana Stanley-Jones, and Kathryn Johnston. The reason for this imperative is that women are often left out when the histories of white supremacy, slavery, and genocide are told.

”These few names are only part of a long, terrible list, but, like the horrific history of lynching in this country, when the story is told, women are often left out of it even as we are lynched, too. And some of the women are pregnant at the time of the lynching. And maybe because our movement is being led by women, Queer and straight, cisgender and Trans. And maybe because so many of us have family who have been harmed in jails and prisons but that harm has not become part of the broader public discussion about the bind, torture, kill that is part and parcel of the American system of incarceration.”

Colonial Structures

In chapter 15, Patrisse identifies the United States as the country of borders and walls. As a first-generation immigrant, I completely agree with this description. I don’t take this description only literally. This definition of the United States as the country of borders and walls does not only apply to the brutal border regime with concentration camps for children, deportations, and criminalization of asylum seekers. It also applies to the European mindset which is always preoccupied with congealing definitions and categories. It prevents people to accept each other for who they are and making an effort to understand cultural differences and historical trauma in order to heal the previous wounds inflicted. 

Historically speaking, white supremacy has a tendency to define and categorize everything outside of itself as the “other” or “minority” or “abnormal”. When I was living in the United States, I thought this solely applies to the North American mindset. However, If we look into European societies as well as European settler-colonial states around the world, we see the same type of mentality reminiscent of colonial enlightenment which still hasn’t been flushed out of the systems.

Patrisse has lost close friends and family to police brutality and white supremacy. She is telling the reader, if her dead body was found in police custody, we should know that the police have killed her. Her position is not only from a radical black perspective, but it is also within the black queer tradition.

We know historically that women often do the work and men get the credit for it. And living in patriarchy means that the default inclination is to centre men and their voices rather than women and their work.

She skillfully takes the reader into the “world" of the working-class black community in America. In some instances, she takes us even deeper into the community of queer activists of color. The non-black reader should naturally understand the reality of ethnic profiling targeted towards the black and Latinx communities. The history of police in the United States is founded upon white supremacy, slavery and defense of public property. 

Today, if we step out of North America, we see similar patterns of police brutality emerging increasingly in Western and Eastern Europe. European societies as the so-called defenders of Western democracy and civility are turning into deportation regimes and in some cases semi-apartheid Islamophobic regimes. Although they are spending tremendous energy in hiding the data from the international community and presenting themselves as civil and superior to North America, they increasingly see themselves vulnerable to the new generation of BIPoC activists and organizers. 

The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) after releasing its 4-year report in 2018, noted that hate crimes that target racial and ethnic minorities are on the rise and need immediate actions to be prevented. Yet, only one-third of the 24 member states have guidelines, policies, and instructions for the police in documenting the hate crimes. If that doesn’t sound right to you, you are not the only one. First of all, the question comes to mind what does the other two-third think about hate crimes? and the second question is that “Are you designating the police in charge of documenting the hate crimes, even though a good portion of hate crimes might actually come from police themselves? The report also shows that the police do not take reports of racist crimes seriously or they do not believe the victims of racially motivated crimes. (1) 

Turns out that Stephen Lawrence and Emmanuel Chidi Nnamdi are not the only people in Europe to be the victim of hate crime. (2) Recent reporting shows that London recorded 1,652 antisemitic incidents in 2018, an increase of 16% in one year. (3) Meanwhile, in the United States, the FBI reported that in 2018 alone, 8,646 people were victims of hate crime in 7,036 single-bias incidents. Almost 60% of these incidents were motivated by race, ethnicity, and ancestry. (4)

Another EU survey in 2015-2016 showed that 14% of respondents with different ethnic minority and immigrant backgrounds have been stopped by police in the 12 months preceding the survey. (5) In France, according to the results of a national survey of more than 5,000 respondents, Arab and African men are twenty times more likely to be stopped and searched than other males groups. (6) In England and Wales, black people were nine and a half times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. (7) All these are excluding the Algorithmic profiling that has been vastly problematic across Europe due to its preexisting structural racism. 

When Silicon Valley first emerges, it might as well be a Nordic country for all its homogeneity. Even today, its diversity has not yet found a way to reach into the communities of those who were legally and willfully excluded.

ENAR Shadow Report 2014-2018 (1)

In occupied Palestine, we see the same techniques of systemic killings being exercised towards Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, police, and settler-colonialists. That might be one of the reasons for the huge solidarity between Palestinians and Black activists in Ferguson when military tanks started to appear on American streets. (8) Today, beyond Angela Davis’s pro-Palestinian activism and support for the BDS movement, we see a broader unification of forces between black & brown activism with Palestinian liberation.  

Susanville, incorporated in 1860, was named for the child of the man who laid claim to founding it at a time when founding something was a euphemism for manifest destiny and homesteading and all the blood and death both of these wrought. “Founding,” a term like the phrase “collateral damage,” the use of which was ratcheted up in the 90s so they didn’t have to say dead Iraqi children.

Formerly incarcerated mothers, organizers and activists at the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., after performing a play highlighting Black-Palestinian solidarity on September 3, 2018. (Will Johnson) -972mag (11)

Governmental Terrorism

“There’s a difference between abuse and torture. Both are horrible, often unbearable, and both leave scars. Neither can be minimized. But I make the distinction here in order to explain that while abuse may or may not be intentional, and is often spontaneous, torture is always intentional. It is always premeditated. It is planned out and its purpose is to deliberately and systematically dismantle a person’s identity and humanity.”

Patrisse recalls a day when his brother Monte gets into a car accident with a white woman, and she calls the cops on him. LAPD arrives and arrests Monte after tasing him brutally. Patrisse's brother gets into trouble simply because he has a mental problem and he is black. Later in the book, she asks herself: why cops never seem to understand that black people can also have mental illness?

She criticizes the classical racist “War on Drugs“ policies that were basically “War on Black and Latinxs peoples”. Even Nixon’s domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman admitted that the purpose of these laws was to target black peoples and anti-war students. (9) The laws were written so broadly that it made otherwise normal daily activities illegal. It gave police a nice opportunity to arrest those who targeted. These policies are similar to the strategies used on indigenous peoples which have resulted in spending more money on erasing their language rather than saving them. (10) The War on Drugs was the campaign to start the prison industrial complex targeting Black and Latinx peoples. And these laws were so ineffective, that for example in Los Angeles between 1990 and 2010, about 10,000 people died.

As of this writing, three of the organizers from Ferguson, DeAndre Joshua, Darren Seals and Edward Crawford, have all been found shot dead in their cars. The cars of two of the young men, DeAndre and Darren, were burned, which destroyed forensic evidence, and Edward’s death was ruled a suicide—even as he had just started a new job and had secured a new apartment, hardly the action of someone looking to die.

BLM

After reading this book, if a non-black person [anywhere] doesn’t see the police brutality as something real toward black and brown communities in the United States, then I guess there is no way to have a discussion with that person. If after reading this book, someone doesn’t comprehend the urgency and magnitude of the Black Lives Matter movement, then I guess there is no way to have a discussion with that person. 

There are many white folks who decide to stay neutral amidst the rise of far-right racism and xenophobia. “White Silence is consent” was a slogan introduced by the Civil Rights activists in the ’50s and ’60s. Today, after Trump’s presidency and impeachment, amidst all the human rights violations that the United States government is inflicting upon humanity, remaining silent is taking the side of white supremacy.  

“…while I know the basics of what he experienced the first time he was sent to LA County Jail in 1999, a jail run by the sheriff’s department, it will not be until 2011 when I read a report issued by the ACLU of Southern California that I fully understand what was done to my brother there. This is to say that Abu Ghraib was first practiced on this soil, in this America. And before the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Before the second Gulf War. The skills to torture people were honed in this nation on people who were not terrorists. They were the victims of terrorism.”

Culture Issues

Patrisse Cullors talk about her memory when her white classmate invited her for dinner. She accepts the invitation. When they are eating at the dinner table with the family, the father is asking Patrisse questions such as "have you thought about what you want to be when you grow up?". She tells herself: “It is incredible. Who asks children such things and over a well-set table where all the family has gathered to eat, converse? I’ve only seen that in movies, on the TV shows I love, 90210. But this is real life and here I am.” And then she asks herself: "Have I ever known such a moment in my own home?"

White people’s economic and money-oriented mindset is well known around the world. White parents like to talk about money during mealtime, even when kids are around. In contrast to this first-world behavior of homo economicus, the majority of non-Western cultures highly value the eating time as something important if not sacred. It is the designated time for the family and loved ones.

Bib.

1. racism, european network against. ENAR Shadow Report 2014-2018. s.l. : ENAR - European Network Against Racism aisbl, 2018.

2. Pianigiani, Gaia. ‘Racist’ Killing of Nigerian Asylum Seeker Stuns and Saddens Italy. nytimes. [Online] July 7, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/world/europe/racist-killing-of-nigerian-asylum-seeker-stuns-and-saddens-italy.html.

3. Staff, Algemeiner. UK Jewish Communal Body Reports Record Number of Antisemitic Outrages During 2018. algemeiner. [Online] 2 7, 2019. https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/02/07/uk-jewish-communal-body-reports-record-number-of-antisemitic-outrages-during-2018/.

4. (UCR), The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting. 2018 Hate Crime Statistics. United States Department of Justice. [Online] 2018. https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics.

5. Rights, European Union Agency for Fundamental. Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) . Luxembourg: Publications Of ce of the European Union : European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2017, 2017.

6. defenseurdesdroits. Enquête sur l’accès aux droits Volume 1 - Relations police / population : le cas des contrôles d'identité. s.l. : defenseurdesdroits, 2017.

7. Mijatović, Dunja. Ethnic profiling: a persisting practice in Europe . Commissioner for Human Rights. [Online] 2019. https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/ethnic-profiling-a-persisting-practice-in-europe#_ftnref5.

8. Ahmed, Nasim. A new civil rights movement unites Palestinians and Black Americans. middleeastmonitor. [Online] April 5, 2019. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190405-a-new-civil-rights-movement-unites-palestinians-and-black-americans/.

9. LoBianco, Tom. Report: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies. CNN. [Online] March 24, 2016. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html.

10. Nagle, Rebecca. The U.S. has spent more money erasing Native languages than saving them. newsmaven. [Online] Dec 6, 2019. https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/opinion/the-u-s-has-spent-more-money-erasing-native-languages-than-saving-them-qh2w3-wqPUCNqrGcblbHQg.

11. Taylor, Jen Marlowe and Je Naé. From Palestine to Ferguson: Reflections on shared grief and liberation. 972mag. [Online] Oct 1, 2018. https://www.972mag.com/october-2000-killings-black-palestine-solidarity-play/.

[mermaidsirennikita]

August 2017 Book Roundup

Last month was not a good reading month for me, partially because work and depression make reading hard and partially because the books themselves weren’t that great.  There are times when a ton of new, exciting books get dropped and they seem to swing around the spring (people beginning buying for the summer?  Beach reads?) and the fall (obviously, in preparation for Christmas).  The one book I really super enjoyed was A Map for Wrecked Girls by Jessica Taylor--a tale of sisters getting shipwrecked on an island (with a boy, but he’s not super important) and working through the fact that one is borderline psychopathically manipulative and they hate each other.  Also, sibling codependence.  There were decent books aside from that one, but nothing that gripped me quite as much.  (Ratings and mini reviews below.)

Stolen Beauty by Laurie Lico Albanese.  3/5.  In World War II era Austria, Maria Altmann’s world is turned upside down as her Jewish family attempts to flee.  In the process, the Nazis snatch up portraits of her beloved aunt, Adele Bloch-Bauer, painted by the renowned artist Gustav Klimt.  As we follow Maria from the turmoil of World War II to her twenty-first century struggle to regain the paintings, a parallel story is told--that of Adele and her relationship with Klimt.  While this book was pretty accurate as far as I could tell--I’m no Klimt expert--it could have done without Maria’s story.  This is better told in the Helen Mirren movie “The Woman in Gold”; here it’s pretty flat, and distracts from Adele’s much more engaging journey from impetuous young wife to immortalized muse.  Maria’s narrative becomes a fairly standard--I hate to say it--World War II story.  Adele’s is far more interesting and unique, and the book would have been much better had the author stuck with that.

Severed: A History of Heads Lost and Heads Found by Frances Larson.  4/5.  Larson takes on the topic of severed heads, from those captured during war, to those decapitated by royal decree, and those belonging to saints.  Morbid curiosity and the recommendation of Caitlin Doughty drew me to this book, and it’s both well-researched and quite interesting.  I thought it would be largely about the heads lost through the decapitation of living people, like those who would become “shrunken heads” and famous people like Anne Boleyn. While a couple of chapters are devoted to such subjects, Larson also discussed people decapitated after death, as well as the topic of life remaining after decapitation.  It’s a pretty thorough book, and while some topics were more interesting than others and it was certainly all a bit gruesome at times, I was impressed by the fact that Larson even went into the topic of decapitation in art.  Overall, a good read if you’re in the mood for something niche-y.

The Good Daughter by Karin Slaughter.  2/5.  In the 80s, sisters Sam and Charlotte (later Charlie) undergo a horrific event together that leaves their mother murdered and both deeply traumatized.  Thirty years later, Charlie--an attorney, albeit not one as controversial as her “defend any client” father--witnesses a school shooting, and is compelled to help defend the shooter, a teenage girl.  The subsequent events will bring up the truth about what happened to the sisters that night, as well as the truth of who they became after.  I really enjoyed this book at first--even though the beginning is quite harrowing and not for the faint of heart.  But there’s “not for the faint of heart” and “this makes me actively uncomfortable because I don’t think it’s being handled well”.  This might act as a spoiler, but honestly it’s a theme throughout the novel and, well...  The topic of rape is not handled the way it should have been, in my opinion.  Lots of people will feel differently, and I’m sure some will have valid reasons, but I could not get behind this book.

The Life She Was Given by Ellen Marie Wiseman.  2/5.  As a young girl, Lilly is sold to the circus by her mother.  She hasn’t even had much experience of the world, locked away by her parents to keep her albinism a secret.  In a parallel timeline, 20+ years later, nineteen-year old Julia learns that her estranged mother is dead, and she has inherited the family horse farm.  Returning home, she stumbles across Lilly’s story, and becomes wrapped up in the mystery of what happened to her.  Obviously, this story is interesting--but I think it might be time for me to stop trying these parallel narrative historical fiction novels.  They just aren’t for me.  Furthermore, the simplicity of the writing and the characters was off-putting.  It felt like I was reading about Lilly and the Good People versus Cartoon Villains.

Happiness: A Memoir by Heather Harpham.  3/5.  Upon finding out that she was pregnant, Heather Harpham soon realized that her boyfriend, Brian, loved her but wasn’t sure about the idea of fatherhood in his forties.  She went through her pregnancy alone, gave birth without him--but things became even more complicated upon the discovery that their daughter, Amelia-Grace, had a blood disease that would quite possibly kill her before she hit thirty.  “Happiness” is the story of not only Amelia-Grace’s treatment and the fight for her life, but Heather and Brian’s journey towards finding each other.  It’s at times frustrating, as many memoirs are; I really don’t know that Brian and Heather are people I would identify with if I met them, and some of their decisions were... questionable.  But the writing is lovely, and I really felt for what was an incredibly human story.  It’s a well-done memoir.

A Map for Wrecked Girls by Jessica Taylor.  4/5.  Shipwrecked with her sister Henri and a virtual stranger, Alex, Emma has little hope of being found or rescued.  Complicating matters of survival is her fraught relationship with Henri, ruined by recent events.  Parallel narratives tell the story of the three teens’ attempts to survive, while also revealing what happened between Henri and Emma.  This book is extremely gripping and interesting, and while there is a romance that largely serves to develop Emma’s character, the crux of the story is her relationship with the magnetic, manipulative Henri.  Henri is the kind of character you love to hate, and so is Emma in a way.  Their codependency was extremely compelling, and while a couple of the later “twists” weren’t the strongest, they didn’t dull my interest in the sisters and what happened to them.

Too Fat, Too Slutty, Too Loud: The Rise and Reign of the Unruly Woman by Anne Helen Petersen, 3/5.  This book is a collection of essays on women who Petersen--someone who got her doctoral degree on celebrity gossip, essentially--terms as “unruly” for a variety of different reasons.  Petersen, who wrote for Buzzfeed, does know how to write a thinkpiece, and in an engaging manner.  It’s definitely a quick, fun read.  Nothing she says here reinvents the wheel if you’re already engaged in feminist theory, but most of it isn’t actively wrong and it’s good to read.  But she does write as a straight, cis, white woman (as she acknowledges). She’s conventionally attractive; she isn’t fat.  So there is a part of me that’s like “ugh, I wish someone who could speak from personal experience about what she’s writing had written this book”.  She’s not even old, like Madonna (the subject of her “Too Old” essay).  But that’s not really something Petersen can help.  What she can help is the manner in which she overlooks the ridiculousness of Caitlyn Jenner’s political views, barely mentioning them in the “Too Qu**r” essay.  Really, Petersen acknowledges that Jenner doesn’t embody that label; so why not discuss another woman like Laverne Cox or Janet Mock over Jenner?  And I know she’s capable of criticizing her subject, because she does so in the aforementioned Madonna piece (though she doesn’t get into exactly how problematic Madonna’s rearing and presentation of her black children has been; that’s not the point of the piece).  The Lena Dunham piece is similarly shortsighted.  She doesn’t discuss many of the reasons why lots of people--including many feminists--hate Dunham.  She doesn’t get into her racism, her troubling discussion of her relationship with her sister.  If Petersen didn’t want to get into these issues, there are plenty of “unruly women” who coincide with her topics and aren’t loaded with ugliness, for lack of a better term.  So while I liked the book--it could have done with more women of color, by the way--a couple of the essays I side-eyed.

The Devil’s Lady by Deborah Simmons.  4/5.  When Aisley de Laci (yes) is forced to marry--but given the option to choose her husband--she chooses Piers Montmorency (yes) otherwise known as the Red Knight (YES).  Fierce and mysterious, Piers is said to have a made a pact with the devil, and doesn’t allow Aisley to see him in the light.  If you think this means they have a lot of sex in the dark, fuck yeah it does.  This is a classic sort of romance novel, made better by the fact that the heroine has a lot of agency in terms of her sexuality for a romance novel written in the 90s, and the guy isn’t a total douchebag.  He kind of is at first, but he’s not put in the best situation so....  One of the most appealing parts of the story is dealt with in a manner that was way too easy for my taste, and the ending was all a bit rushed, but that wasn’t the point.  The romance was.  And it was good. 

Shimmer and Burn by Mary Taranta.  2/5.  After an attempted escape from their guarded city, Faris is left alone, her love murdered and her sister enslaved.  Desperate to free her sister, she enters into arrangement with the king’s executioner and a the Princess Bryn--who wants to become queen--to slip out of the kingdom and transfer magic and honestly that’s all I got because this world was so badly explained and constructed.  It was one of those worlds that naturally doesn’t appeal to me, where magic is a substance and you can, like, put it in your body with a syringe?  Which made me think of an addiction plotline on the rise and addiction + magic is something I hate and even if I did understand this world, which I didn’t because the writing didn’t explain it to me, I probably wouldn’t like it. Then there were little things, like the king’s executioner being a teenage boy (was there... not someone a little older) and Faris streetfighting~ to earn her keep.  Cliche.

[trueloveisrarelyafairytale]

20 Banned Books you've probably read

Banning books from schools and libraries is a form of censorship that predominantly hurts the people that would benefit most from keeping the book(s) available. It is not up to a few to say what book is available to who. Making a choice for a group of people based on the decision of a small group is morally wrong in my opinion. There is a difference from a book being challenged, which probably happens to just about every book at one point, and banning, which is when the book is actually removed from a library or school. The following is a list of some of the best books ever written that were banned at one time or another.  

1. The Scarlet Letter by: Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) A woman has an affair with a man of the church which results in a love child. As a punishment for her transgressions, she has to wear the scarlet letter “A” for Adulterer.  There were some that felt the author was too lenient in the character Hester and that she didn’t get what she deserved. There was complaint of immoral content and sympathy to the sins committed. Considering the time this was written, this one isn’t too surprising.   2. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1865) My wedding was Alice in Wonderland themed so this is obviously one of my favorite books. This has had some controversy because of suggested drug use (eating mushrooms that change your size, a caterpillar smoking a hookah…) as well as speaking animals which is considered evil or something. It was banned in Hunan China for that reason in 1931 because of the way the animals acted like humans. The Censor General feared children would see animals and humans as equals and also believed allowing the animals to speak was offensive to humans. I have also read something about the author’s sexual preference, but that refers to Lewis Carroll, not the story.   3. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by: Mark Twain (1884) I enjoyed this book quite a bit growing up. I was oblivious to the racism in it as a child, but ultimately that is why it was banned. Now, of course racism isn’t ok, but during the time the story takes place (and at the time it was banned oddly enough), racism was a very large part of everyday life. Jim was Huck’s friend and seeing the way he was treated was cruel. Though, I personally feel it was showing the intensity of racism many feel like the book itself was racist. While it may have been called “trash”, it is now considered an American classic.   4. The Tale of Peter Rabbit by: Beatrix Potter (1902) When I saw this book was banned, I couldn’t think of a single thing that would do it besides the fact that Peter’s father was killed. That wasn’t it. This book was banned for portraying “Middle class rabbits”. Yep. I don’t even really know what that means, so while I technically know why the book has had controversy, I’m still really confused.   5. The Great Gatsby by: F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925) This was fairly recently made into a film that did well, and it’s a favorite of many readers, but this novel has had its fair share of complaints. The novel contains a sexual affair (which is never portrayed in detail), bad language, and violence, which is the formula to set people off. The novel is set during the prohibition where the drinking was heavy and the partying described was also considered uncomfortable to some.   6. Winnie the Pooh by: A.A. Milne (1926) Pooh? Pooh was banned? This one was a little all over the place. The talking animals being against God is brought up with this one as well. Piglet being a pig had some controversy over if it would offend Muslim children. One thing that blew my mind, was apparently pooh wore a swastika and was seen as a Nazi supporter. It’s been awhile since I’ve read it, but I don’t remember that.   7. Gone with the Wind by: Margaret Mitchell (1936) This is the only book on this list that I have never read, which is horrible considering I am a romance writer. I will remedy that soon, but that is neither here nor there. The book was primarily banned because of the racism and the way they treated slaves. Like I said, I haven’t read it, but I’m pretty sure slaves were never treated well, hence the name “slave”. As an author I strive for authenticity, and while slavery has never been acceptable, it did happen. Slaves were, in fact abused, so reading about it isn’t going to be pleasant.   8. Of Mice and Men by: J.D. Salinger (1937) I remember the effect this book had on me the first time I read it. While it was intense I still don’t feel as if I was too young to be reading it (around 12). A major complaint was that this book didn’t fit in with the age group it was being taught to in schools. There is bad language and violence, but another problem was that the book glorified euthanasia. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but ok.   9. The Catcher in the Rye by: J.D. Salinger (1951) The Character Holden is often compared to number three’s main character Huckleberry Finn. The book follows a teenager who has a pension for drinking (Underage) and a potty mouth. Those were two large reasons the book was banned combined with sexual content. While the book still faces controversy, it has come back from being banned and continues to have an influence on teenagers all over the United States.   10. Fahrenheit 451 by: Ray Bradbury (1953) Yeah, a book about burning/banning books was itself banned. No irony there. Yes, there is bad language, blasphemy, as well as the bible being burned, which is what lead to the banning, but I think the message of this one was lost on more than a few.   11. Lord of the Rings by: J.R.R. Tolkien (1954) This was another beloved book that spawned multiple, wildly popular films. One issue with this book is the smoking. The characters do smoke, from a pipe mostly, but if we ban all books with smoking in them… that is a lot of books. The magic involved is seen as witchcraft and un-Christian. What I find interesting is that apparently, J.R.R. Tolkien was not only a Catholic, but the book are said to be symbolic to Christianity. Similar to The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis (with whom he was actually friends).   12. Lolita by: Vladimir Nabokov (1955) When I first heard what this book was about, I was shocked that it was put into print, but later found it was done so through a pornographic press.  When my curiosity got the best of me and I read it, I was stunned because it was so beautifully written. Yes, the story is about a pedophile that makes my skin crawl, and is infatuated with a twelve year old, but the truth is, it was so tastefully told that it didn’t make me as uncomfortable as it would have otherwise. Humbert Humbert was the narrator, and I hated him, but still, I loved the book. France, United Kingdom, Argentina, New Zealand and South Africa have all banned it for its obscenities and is was temporarily so in Canada.   13. Green Eggs and Ham by: Dr. Seuss (1960) I thought for sure we would have more talking animal issues, but the only complaint I have been able to find is that portrayed “early Marxism”. Dr. Seuss was open about the fact that he wanted kids to question their government. From what I can gather (because I had no idea what that meant), Marxism is a belief that our social class system, and the constant conflict between upper and lower class, is responsible for the way history has turned out. And apparently that’s why it was banned, but the ban has been lifted since the death of Dr. Seuss.   14. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by: Ken Kesey (1962) This book is pretty crazy. There is a lot of sexual material and has been called “pornographic”. Many parents and school boards have fought to get this removed from shelves. It was said to glorify immoral activity and the profanity, torture, and death was seen as inappropriate for high school students. Let me just say, the story is told by a character who is mentally ill, which I always saw as unique and eye-opening and is set in a mental hospital so it isn’t going to be gumdrops and unicorns.   15. Where the Wild Things Are by: Maurice Sendak (1963) The fact that any childhood is without this book is sad to me, but when I saw why this book was banned, I had to laugh. Because Max was sent to bed without his supper, apparently his hunger sent him into hallucinations of monsters, and is “psychologically damaging” to young children. Really? Because he missed one meal? The book made it clear that Max has an active imagination and was rambunctious hence why his mother called him “Wild Thing”.   16. Where the Sidewalk Ends by: Shel Silverstein (1974) This book is a fantastic compilation of poems that often have the message to not listen to everything you are told, and use your imagination. A lot of parents and teachers don’t like that message because they believe it teaches them to be disrespectful. It was also accused of having references of suicide, Satanism, and drug use. There is one poem called “Dreadful” about the baby being eaten and the narrator burps at the end insinuating he ate the baby. Ok, maybe it’s a little disturbing, but children are just going to find it funny and amusing, not resort to cannibalism as some parents were concerned would happen.   17. American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis (1991)  In Australia, the book may be purchased by someone over the age of eighteen, but at one point in the State of Queensland sale and purchase of the novel was illegal. The story is of a man who is extremely concerned with how the world sees him is also a sadistic killer. It was a concern that the book would bring about violence. Simon and Schuster dropped the title three months before the book was scheduled to be released because of a lot of pushback from the media. The problem people had was with the inner dialogue of Bateman, but when you write, the characters become their own entity in a sense. That was who Bateman was, and being true to the characters and their story is the art of storytelling.      18. Harry Potter Series by: J.K. Rowling (1997 -2007) The most common problem with these books, is the fact that the characters are good witches and wizards that perform magic. Since religious teachings say witchcraft, demons, sorcery, etc. are a sin against God, they feel this is confusing to children because the [main] characters are seen a good. The themes in the book can get somewhat dark and there were concerns that it would be too intense for children. However, the millions of adolescent Harry Potter fans would probably disagree. Another problem is the fact that Harry and his friends lie, sneak around, steal, and break other rules to accomplish what they are doing in the story. Parents were upset that he never got in trouble, but that’s probably because the headmaster was in on it half the time.   19. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by: Stephen Chbosky (1999) This is a novel about teenagers coming of age. The sexual content is the main concern, especially the witnessing of date rape. There were complaints by parents for drug and alcohol use…did I mention the book was about teenagers? The mention of masturbation was reason for some controversy (Again…teenagers). What really got me, is the fact that people were appalled that homosexuality is even mentioned in the book. Like homosexuality is some terrible thing. You want to talk about offensive… and this was published less than twenty years ago.   20. Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy (2011-2012) Compared to the other books on this list, this isn’t exactly surprising, but I primarily read and write within the same genre as FSOG, and this book is like the training wheels for the genre. I kind of have to wonder what these people would say about books like “Captive in the Dark”. It was taken out of libraries for immoral content and sadism. They don’t want pornography or erotica in their libraries, and there were also concerns of the character’s religious views. It’s no secret what these books are about (Hot young Billionaire + Virginal young woman + mild BDSM= Book), so if someone wants to read it should be available for them to do so.   These are the books that have shaped us (Well, maybe with the exception of number twenty) and if these books aren’t safe, I don’t know that any books are. I am a proud reader of banned books and will do my part to fight censorship in any way possible.   *What would you add to the list? Did you enjoy this post? I would love to hear from you!     Charity B.

[rolandfontana]

Eight+ Things to Read About China and Other Things, Part 20

This is the twentieth episode in our ongoing Saturday series on eight+ things to read about China and a lot more. We constantly get emails from readers asking what to read on China and all sorts of things related and even barely related to China and this series is intended to constantly and consistently answer these questions.

As we said in our initial post on this, our plan is to list out eight (or so) articles we benefitted from reading and think you our readers would also benefit from reading, along with a very brief explanation as to why the particular article was included. More specifically:

The articles will likely include many on China and on Asia and a few on international trade, international politics, Spain and Latin America, economics and really just anything else we believe might benefit our readers or even that we just want people to read. We do not plan to choose articles that push our or any other political agenda or any other agenda for that matter, but having said that, we are not objective and our views may creep through. Our goal though is to focus on articles that are important or helpful or — most importantly — that make you think. Our posting of an article will NOT mean we agree with all of it or even any of it. Most of the articles will be from the week preceding the post but we will also sometimes throw in older articles (classics if you will) as well.

Please do not hesitate to comment at the end of this or any other post. We cannot tell you how much we appreciate your comments, good, bad and indifferent.

Here we go, in absolutely no particular order.

1.  A Mysterious Pencil Factory Sharpens Focus On Tariff Scams. NPR. Because tariff abuse is incredibly rampant in large part because many do not realize that it can and does lead to jail time. Because our international trade lawyers worked on a case that led to a $62.5 million settlement against a subsidiary of Univar for allegedly “mishandling” the location from which it was getting its saccharin. Because there are going to be a ton more of these cases in the next few years and companies need to know that skirting U.S. tariffs is a bad idea. Because there is money to be made by reporting your competitors for illegal transshipping. See How To Get Rich From Your Competitor’s Illegal Transshipping: Moiety and the False Claims Act

2. An acclaimed French chef is suing over a lost Michelin star. It all started with a cheesy allegation. Washington Post. Because we live in the age of ranking services. Because the validity of nearly all ranking services are overrated but because of that, they can matter for your business. Because I spent two years of my life living in France (Aix-en- Provence and in Tours) I totally grasp how unbelievably insulting it is to be accused of having used cheddar cheese in a soufflé. Quelle horreur!

3. All-Time Player Rankings: NBA’s Top 50 Revealed. Bleacher Report. Because for a large chunk of my life, basketball was everything. Because with the exception of relegating Pistol Pete Maravich to an honorable mention and not ranking Elgin Baylor high enough it does a pretty good job.

4. Harvesting organs to serve a thriving global market. Quartz. Because where there is constant smoke there is nearly always fire. Because the world needs to know.

5. Nasdaq cracks down on IPOs of Chinese companies. Because even though President Trump has said he is backing down from blocking Americans from investing in Chinese companies it is going to get increasingly tougher for Chinese companies to list on U.S. stock exchanges or even to remain listed.

6. Mapped: The World’s Largest Exporters. Virtual Capitalist. Because the graphic is way cool and super revealing. Because the only countries to export more than 500 billion dollars in product a year are the China ($2.5 trillion), the United States ($1.7 trillion), Germany ($1.6 trillion), Japan ($738 billion) The Netherlands $723 billion, South Korea ($605 billion,  and Italy $547 billion). Oh, and Hong Kong shows up at $569 billion, but much of that is really from the PRC. I am shocked Germany is so close to the U.S., that Italy is so high and that India is so low (at $326 billion). I am delighted Spain shows up so high at $345 billion because we have offices there and because a bunch of our lawyers will be speaking in both Madrid and Barcelona in early November.

7. Chinese citizens must pass a facial-recognition test to use the internet as part of Beijing’s social credit system. Daily Mail. Because nothing need even be said about this.

8. Five Charts That Will Change The Way You Think About Racial Inequality. Forbes. Because “most Americans assume the wealth gap between white and black families with post-graduate educations is virtually negligible. The truth is that black families with post-graduate degrees are still only worth about 30 cents to every white families’ dollar.” Because most Americans believe that racism has pretty much ended and then completely ignore that holding people back for hundreds of years does not immediately mean they are at the same starting line as everyone else. Because if you truly look at these charts it likely will change how you think about racial inequality.

9. Goldman Says Up to $4 Billion Moved From Hong Kong to Singapore Amid Unrest. Bloomberg. Because there are still some people who insist Hong Kong will be just fine. Because my law firm’s immigration lawyers are seeing an increase in all sorts of people fleeing Hong Kong for the United States and the EU.

10. Zika Was Soaring Across Cuba. Few Outside the Country Knew. New York Times. Because it shows a government’s ability to keep things quiet. Because I went to Cuba with my family while Zika was raging instead of Oaxaca because I was concerned about my two daughters.

11. Why Chinese and U.S. Stakeholders Should Listen Carefully to What PLO Lumumba Has to Say. The China/Africa Project. Because Lumumba does have a lot to say and for many who fail to listen it will be at their peril. Because whatever China giveth with the one hand as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, it taketh with the other hand. See, e.g. It Doesn’t Matter if Ecuador Can Afford This Dam, China Still Gets Paid.

12. The teenager married too many times to count. BBC. Because sex trafficking is bad enough, but when done by religious clerics to children as young as nine years old and all the while justifying it on religious grounds, it seems even more horrible.

Please share any of your thoughts on the above as a comment below.

Eight+ Things to Read About China and Other Things, Part 20 syndicated from https://immigrationattorneyto.wordpress.com/

[richmegavideo]

We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV

This article originally appeared on VICE Canada.

Last week, a right-wing extremist gunned down 50 Muslims at two different mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. In his 74-page manifesto, the attacker said he was inspired by President Donald Trump who once said “Islam hates us,” French anti-immigration writer Renaud Camus, and Candace Owens, a right-wing social media pundit who predicts that Europe will soon become a Muslim majority continent with Sharia law.

Add this political rhetoric to the depiction of Arabs and Muslims in popular culture.

For decades, movies and TV shows have portrayed Arabs as villains, terrorists, misogynists, barbaric, or just plain incompetent. Arabs are not a monolith but are routinely painted as such. Jack G. Shaheen, an Arab American scholar, found that Hollywood projects “all Arabs as Muslims and all Muslims as Arabs” even though just 12 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arab and about seven percent of the Arab population is either Christian or Druze.

From 1943 to 2012, Shaheen archived nearly 3,000 moving picture records including movies, cartoons, news clips and television and found a pattern of “hateful Arab stereotypes that rob an entire people of their humanity.“

Consider the original lyrics from the 1992 Disney classic Aladdin: “where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face, its barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” Or the 2000 war film Rules of Engagement in which Yemen is portrayed as a radical anti-American country where even the children are “gun-toting killers.” On small screens, shows like Homeland and 24 are full of Muslim character that are either “duplicitous spies or bloodthirsty terrorists.”

These depictions have real-life ramifications ranging from the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes to unfavorable policy positions, and even violent hate crimes. One way to combat the narrative is for Arab entertainers to tell their own stories.

Stand-up comedian, Dave Merheje, is doing just that with his comedy and acting roles. Merheje, born and raised in Canada, is the son of Lebanese Christian parents. He recently won the Juno Award for Comedy Album of the Year for his comedy album Good Friend Bad Grammar. His latest role is on Hulu’s new show Ramy, which follows a first-generation Egyptian American who works at a failing tech startup in New Jersey as he navigates his complicated Arab, Muslim, and American identity.

Merheje plays “Ahmed,” one of the main character’s best friends. Seldom, if ever, do we see funny, nuanced young Arab men on American television, let alone see them as subjects of a coming-of-age story.

While Merheje ‘s primary goal is to make sure people have a good time, he also hopes to tell stories that matter and “create something that moves things forward.” Much of his comedy is inspired by his own life with bits about how his mother still babies him, how his dad was called a “camel jockey” at work, and his awkward sexual moments with women.

I recently spoke to Merheje over the phone about his comedy, upcoming Hulu show, and why representation matters.

VICE: You just won the Juno Award for Comedy Album of the Year. What does that mean to you? Dave Merheje: It feels great, especially for all the people who worked on the album with me. That award wasn’t even around; they stopped giving it out in 1982 and recently brought it back. As a Canadian Lebanese guy, I am just trying to share my experience. My dad was in the audience so it was really special.

How did you get into comedy? As a kid, I remember playing with my sister Mary and my cousin Danny, we would make tapes, record imitations or jokes, we would try to do scenes from TV shows and play them back to each other. I would diss my aunt in front of my mom, I didn’t even know it was a diss but I thought it was a joke and I realized I would get a laugh. My uncle Brian introduced me to comedians like Andrew Dice Clay, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, and I was like ‘what is this thing?’ And around 14 years old, I told my best friend at the time that I wanted to be a stand-up and, at 19, I did an amateur competition. I lost.

Where does most of your stand up material come from? My life. I try to talk about my family and it’s actually like everyone else’s family. We have these issues like everyone else. I talk about my upbringing and my experiences.

Do you think about representation when you write material or perform an act? If I think something will harm my culture, then I don’t want to do it. I want to do things that are comfortable for me but also things that I think are dope. I have gotten into arguments with my managers and agents about roles I don’t want to take. If I can shed some positivity on my culture then I will do that. There are certain roles I won’t even audition for. And I am not knocking anyone else who decides to take those roles, but I’m personally not comfortable with them.

Have you been the victim of any stereotypes? I have a beard so people think I am Muslim. People don’t even know there are Lebanese Christians. So I’ve had people heckle me and say racist things about Muslims at shows and then I educate them, sometimes on stage and sometimes off stage. I remember this kid going to school in Windsor, he turned around to me and said, “tell your dad to stop bombing my country.” I think he was referring to Saddam Hussein. As you get older, you understand better how respond and say positive things to those people. When you’re young, you’re scared and don’t know how to handle it. Back then, I would be hurt and more vulnerable, now I can say “nah man, that’s not right” and inform them that racism is wrong no matter who it’s directed to.

Can you tell us about the role of Ahmed on Ramy ? I play one of Ramy’s Muslim friends who is there for Ramy in different ways at different points in the show.

Why did you agree to being on the show? It’s a funny, smart, dope project that I love being a part of. I respect everyone behind the show. I think it’s a unique story that will shed some light on a culture that typically gets a lot of negative treatment. I am really excited and proud to be part of the positive experience the show highlights.

In your opinion, why do you think a mainstream outlet picked up Ramy? I can’t say for sure, but I am guessing it’s because it’s just a really good story—a unique, interesting, and positive story. I think when you tell a story in an honest way, it resonates with people.

What’s the goal of comedy for you? I think Richard Pryor said something along the lines that he wants to be remembered as a good person and a good time. I am probably misquoting him, but I just want people to remember that I was being myself and telling my truth. They may not know me off stage but I want people to feel that I am being authentic. If my work happens to be informative and smart, that’s a bonus.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Samar Warsi on Twitter.

The post We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV appeared first on .

The post We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV appeared first on .

from WordPress http://www.richmegavideo.com/we-talked-to-stand-up-comic-dave-merheje-about-arab-representation-on-tv/

[richmeganews]

We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV

This article originally appeared on VICE Canada.

Last week, a right-wing extremist gunned down 50 Muslims at two different mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. In his 74-page manifesto, the attacker said he was inspired by President Donald Trump who once said “Islam hates us,” French anti-immigration writer Renaud Camus, and Candace Owens, a right-wing social media pundit who predicts that Europe will soon become a Muslim majority continent with Sharia law.

Add this political rhetoric to the depiction of Arabs and Muslims in popular culture.

For decades, movies and TV shows have portrayed Arabs as villains, terrorists, misogynists, barbaric, or just plain incompetent. Arabs are not a monolith but are routinely painted as such. Jack G. Shaheen, an Arab American scholar, found that Hollywood projects “all Arabs as Muslims and all Muslims as Arabs” even though just 12 percent of the world’s Muslims are Arab and about seven percent of the Arab population is either Christian or Druze.

From 1943 to 2012, Shaheen archived nearly 3,000 moving picture records including movies, cartoons, news clips and television and found a pattern of “hateful Arab stereotypes that rob an entire people of their humanity.“

Consider the original lyrics from the 1992 Disney classic Aladdin: “where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face, its barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” Or the 2000 war film Rules of Engagement in which Yemen is portrayed as a radical anti-American country where even the children are “gun-toting killers.” On small screens, shows like Homeland and 24 are full of Muslim character that are either “duplicitous spies or bloodthirsty terrorists.”

These depictions have real-life ramifications ranging from the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes to unfavorable policy positions, and even violent hate crimes. One way to combat the narrative is for Arab entertainers to tell their own stories.

Stand-up comedian, Dave Merheje, is doing just that with his comedy and acting roles. Merheje, born and raised in Canada, is the son of Lebanese Christian parents. He recently won the Juno Award for Comedy Album of the Year for his comedy album Good Friend Bad Grammar. His latest role is on Hulu’s new show Ramy, which follows a first-generation Egyptian American who works at a failing tech startup in New Jersey as he navigates his complicated Arab, Muslim, and American identity.

Merheje plays “Ahmed,” one of the main character’s best friends. Seldom, if ever, do we see funny, nuanced young Arab men on American television, let alone see them as subjects of a coming-of-age story.

While Merheje ‘s primary goal is to make sure people have a good time, he also hopes to tell stories that matter and “create something that moves things forward.” Much of his comedy is inspired by his own life with bits about how his mother still babies him, how his dad was called a “camel jockey” at work, and his awkward sexual moments with women.

I recently spoke to Merheje over the phone about his comedy, upcoming Hulu show, and why representation matters.

VICE: You just won the Juno Award for Comedy Album of the Year. What does that mean to you? Dave Merheje: It feels great, especially for all the people who worked on the album with me. That award wasn’t even around; they stopped giving it out in 1982 and recently brought it back. As a Canadian Lebanese guy, I am just trying to share my experience. My dad was in the audience so it was really special.

How did you get into comedy? As a kid, I remember playing with my sister Mary and my cousin Danny, we would make tapes, record imitations or jokes, we would try to do scenes from TV shows and play them back to each other. I would diss my aunt in front of my mom, I didn’t even know it was a diss but I thought it was a joke and I realized I would get a laugh. My uncle Brian introduced me to comedians like Andrew Dice Clay, Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, and I was like ‘what is this thing?’ And around 14 years old, I told my best friend at the time that I wanted to be a stand-up and, at 19, I did an amateur competition. I lost.

Where does most of your stand up material come from? My life. I try to talk about my family and it’s actually like everyone else’s family. We have these issues like everyone else. I talk about my upbringing and my experiences.

Do you think about representation when you write material or perform an act? If I think something will harm my culture, then I don’t want to do it. I want to do things that are comfortable for me but also things that I think are dope. I have gotten into arguments with my managers and agents about roles I don’t want to take. If I can shed some positivity on my culture then I will do that. There are certain roles I won’t even audition for. And I am not knocking anyone else who decides to take those roles, but I’m personally not comfortable with them.

Have you been the victim of any stereotypes? I have a beard so people think I am Muslim. People don’t even know there are Lebanese Christians. So I’ve had people heckle me and say racist things about Muslims at shows and then I educate them, sometimes on stage and sometimes off stage. I remember this kid going to school in Windsor, he turned around to me and said, “tell your dad to stop bombing my country.” I think he was referring to Saddam Hussein. As you get older, you understand better how respond and say positive things to those people. When you’re young, you’re scared and don’t know how to handle it. Back then, I would be hurt and more vulnerable, now I can say “nah man, that’s not right” and inform them that racism is wrong no matter who it’s directed to.

Can you tell us about the role of Ahmed on Ramy ? I play one of Ramy’s Muslim friends who is there for Ramy in different ways at different points in the show.

Why did you agree to being on the show? It’s a funny, smart, dope project that I love being a part of. I respect everyone behind the show. I think it’s a unique story that will shed some light on a culture that typically gets a lot of negative treatment. I am really excited and proud to be part of the positive experience the show highlights.

In your opinion, why do you think a mainstream outlet picked up Ramy? I can’t say for sure, but I am guessing it’s because it’s just a really good story—a unique, interesting, and positive story. I think when you tell a story in an honest way, it resonates with people.

What’s the goal of comedy for you? I think Richard Pryor said something along the lines that he wants to be remembered as a good person and a good time. I am probably misquoting him, but I just want people to remember that I was being myself and telling my truth. They may not know me off stage but I want people to feel that I am being authentic. If my work happens to be informative and smart, that’s a bonus.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Samar Warsi on Twitter.

The post We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV appeared first on .

The post We Talked to Stand-Up Comic Dave Merheje About Arab Representation on TV appeared first on .

from WordPress http://www.richmeganews.com/we-talked-to-stand-up-comic-dave-merheje-about-arab-representation-on-tv/

[theconservativebrief]

Over the past 23 years, the animation studio Pixar has become one of the country’s most consistent purveyors of film, growing steadily since it released Toy Story, the first computer-animated feature-length film in history, on November 22, 1995.

From superhero adventures to lonely robots on a post-apocalyptic Earth, its movies have earned plaudits for being artistically adventurous and for telling stories ostensibly aimed at kids that have just as many adult fans. Even Pixar’s less notable works still provide solid entertainment. (Well, except for a couple.)

Naturally, the release of Incredibles 2, the studio’s 20th full-length feature film, meant it was time for your friendly neighborhood Vox staff to rank all 20 of those films so far. Should you have any quibbles with the results, please note that our rankings are 100 percent accurate. We’re glad to put the old debate of which Pixar movie is best to rest.

If you want to see our rankings of all of Pixar’s short films, go here.

[embedded content]

The best thing about Cars 2 is that its release came after a long, unbroken string of Pixar dominance that had lasted for the company’s first 11 features. (Even the first Cars, while obviously the weakest of those films, is an entertaining movie with something on its mind.)

Thus, the company was due for a backlash, and it almost seemed as if it released this film in an attempt to schedule that backlash and get it over with as quickly as possible.

The neat idea here is that of an international spy saga starring cars; the movie was essentially only greenlit because the first one sold so much in the way of toys and merchandise, so why not use it to experiment with what a Pixar film could be?

Sadly, its more overtly action-oriented trappings don’t really work, and the film lacks any deeper themes or ideas. The result is an unfortunate example of the one thing so many other studios’ films aspire to but Pixar films usually seem to transcend without blinking: a somewhat tolerable way to keep the kids entertained for a couple of hours. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

A troubling phenomenon that’s started to creep up on Pixar in recent years is the sense that all of its films are constructed from elements of other films. This is no big surprise; all films draw inspiration from somewhere, and Pixar revisits the same general ideas and themes over and over.

But in the past five years, the studio has seemingly gotten much worse at transforming those influences into something all its own, which is how we arrive at The Good Dinosaur, a visually stunning feature that lacks soul — the one thing a Pixar film must have above all else.

There are some potentially interesting ideas in The Good Dinosaur about overcoming fear and the importance of family (the latter being a Pixar staple), but they’re subsumed by an episodic story that’s full of false starts and never figures out what it wants to be. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Cars 3 is by no means a great movie, but it’s also not a bad one, and if you only compared it to its immediate predecessor, you might conclude it was the finest film ever made. Cars 3 tries to expand the world of the Cars films, and it does so to what’s essentially the breaking point. (In one scene, a character alludes to what amounts to car racism and a car civil rights movement. Sure.)

Where Cars 3 ultimately succeeds is in its interest in exploring a time-honored Pixar theme: the slow passage of authority from one generation to the next. Lightning McQueen is getting old, and now that he’s threatened by a new generation of race cars with better technology, he has to find a way to compete. Would you believe that he learns along the way that he has value to the world, even if he’s no longer the fastest race car of them all? Would you similarly believe that he thus completes a journey vaguely set up in the first Cars movie?

The Cars films are one of Pixar’s least fruitful cul de sacs, but Cars 3 at least provides a largely bittersweet sendoff to them, provided this is the last. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Originally pitched as The Yellow Car, the first incarnation of Cars told the story of an electric car in a gas-powered world. Little appears to remain of that story (except the fact that the characters are cars); instead, the film stars Lightning McQueen, a brash, bright red race car. Stranded in a long-forgotten roadside town called Radiator Springs, Lightning learns a lesson in humility from a cast of “folksy” automobiles after running afoul of the law.

A hit with younger audiences, the film sets a fairly straightforward path to Lightning’s redemption and introduces one of Pixar’s more annoying sidekicks in the process: Mater the talking tow truck. Far more interesting than Cars’ main story are its secondary themes of buried history and authenticity, though like many parts of this film’s legacy, they’re largely lost in the flash. —Agnes Mazur

[embedded content]

The prequel to Monsters, Inc. brings the story of Mike and Sully back to its unlikely origins. As college freshmen, the two characters — who perfectly embody the jock/nerd archetypes — are forced to work together to compete in the annual campus Scare Games (think American Gladiator, but with more spikes and teeth).

Though it’s laden with college movie tropes ranging from stolen mascots to fraternity hazing, Monsters University still manages to give the pair’s unlikely friendship the room it needs to grow. A notable twist near the end of the film keeps it from being too predictable, and the sheer variation and number of monsters populating the world reflect an animation team with a zeal for detail. Even the movie’s promotional materials, which include a full Monsters University website, brim with the color and character of a true Pixar production. —Agnes Mazur

[embedded content]

Pixar’s second feature-length film is a kinda-sorta remake of the samurai classic The Seven Samurai (already kinda-sorta remade as The Magnificent Seven), but starring bugs. The studio is clearly still feeling out its process in this one, which is good but not yet impeccable. Still, it boasts one of Pixar’s most entertaining ensemble casts, thanks to an elaborate bug circus that poses as a fearsome army.

In the lead role is Kids in the Hall and Newsradio star Dave Foley, who’s so good as a Pixar everyman that it’s somewhat amazing he hasn’t been added to every film the studio’s made since, John Ratzenberger–style. (Ratzenberger, the former Cheers star who’s been part of every Pixar movie to date, stars in A Bug’s Life as the owner of the circus.) —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Thirteen years after Finding Nemo premiered in 2003, its sequel, Finding Dory, swam eagerly into theaters, trying to recapture the immense heart and sweetness that made Nemo such a success. Ellen DeGeneres reprised the role of Dory — the lovable blue tang fish with almost no short-term memory — backed by a largely new all-star cast featuring Ed O’Neill as a surly octopus and Kaitlin Olson as an enthusiastic whale shark. Together, they bring new life to Pixar’s underwater universe by building a franchise that kept the earnest spirit of the original movie alive.

And while Dory’s determined adventuring through a marine life rehabilitation center doesn’t quite have the same magic of Nemo’s open-ocean travels, the sequel manages to stand on its own by diving deep into what makes the thoughtful, forgetful Dory such a truly special fish. —Caroline Framke

[embedded content]

Describing Brave as a “redheaded stepchild” might prove a bit too literal, given its hero Merida’s long, crimson locks, but it’s a worthwhile film that’s too often overlooked in retrospectives of Pixar’s best work. The first film in the studio’s history to feature a female protagonist (seriously, it took that long), Brave sometimes feels assembled from 17 different screenplay drafts. However, it has at its center a tremendously compelling story of how our relationships with our parents evolve as we age into adolescence.

Scottish princess Merida is struggling with the notion that she’s meant to choose a husband — she wants to do no such thing — which leads to her and her mother being cast out into the wild, forced to care for each other and come to a new understanding. Most refreshing: There’s no perfunctory love interest in sight. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Pixar’s first sequel (though, sadly, not its last), Toy Story 2 was changed at the last minute from a direct-to-video feature to a theatrical release. Surprisingly, this doesn’t show, as the film revisits its predecessor’s themes of friendship and finding one’s purpose, then shoots them through with a hefty dose of melancholy at the thought of children eventually growing up and leaving childish things behind.

It cannily reverses the original movie’s dynamics, with cowboy Woody now the one who’s unhappy being a toy and Buzz Lightyear having to pull him back from the brink. And when Woody gets a chance to attain immortality thanks to a toy collector, he’s seriously tempted, only to be reminded of his true calling.

Toy Story 2 has no reason to be as good as it is, but it adds substantially to the franchise’s mythology (such as it is). It also features a Sarah McLachlan song that will destroy you, guaranteed. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Something Pixar doesn’t get enough credit for these days (possibly thanks to its recent focus on sequels) is the economy of its world building. Watch the first 10 minutes of Monsters, Inc. and you’ll understand, more or less, everything you need to know about the universe it operates in — while still having your mind blown by the beauty of said universe (the factory floor!) and being tickled by its wit.

Monsters, Inc. is also Pixar’s first attempt to do something radical, asking children to identify with parent figures, in this case Mike Wazowski and Sully, as they try to care for and protect a creature they love but don’t entirely understand. Boo awakened parental feelings that 13-year-old me had never felt before, and have been stirred only rarely since. —Dara Lind

[embedded content]

Up is not just the first Pixar movie to make me cry but the first movie to make me do so as an adult. Its famous opening sequence, in which a married couple experiences some of the highs and lows of their lives, is one of the most blunt depictions of growing up and letting life pass you by that I have ever seen in a film, animated or otherwise.

But this introduction sets the stage for a movie that at its core promises it’s never too late to go out and accomplish what you want; after all the disappointment we witness in the first few minutes, from the loss of a potential child to the death of a loved one, an elderly man quite literally defies gravity to finally take the trip to South America he and his wife always dreamed of. —German Lopez

[embedded content]

In so many ways, Incredibles 2 is Pixar’s most dazzling achievement. It’s true that computer animation doesn’t age as well as hand-drawn animation, thanks to continued technological leaps. It’s also true that the original Incredibles no longer looks as spiffy as it did in 2004, and, thus, it’s not hard to imagine this sequel looking similarly wrung out in (ye gods) 2032.

But goodness does director Brad Bird know his way around an action sequence! So much of Incredibles 2 offers some of the most visually inventive, most astonishing superhero sequences in all of moviemaking, and it’s hard to conceive of those losing their punch when all is said and done. That those sequences are also wrapped around a surprisingly complex and intriguing story about ideas of exceptionalism, justice, and community makes it sort of an ur-text for everything Bird has been obsessed with for his entire career.

The story perhaps lacks some of the emotional heft of the first film, and it occasionally cuts awkwardly between its superhero-driven main story (starring Elastigirl!) and a domestic comedy subplot about Mr. Incredible having to be a stay-at-home dad. But both storylines are tremendous fun, and when they finally converge in the movie’s second half, it takes off to join some of Pixar’s best. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

So many of Pixar’s movies are a tale of two halves. You’ll be watching the first half of the movie, wondering if it’s going anywhere, only for the second half to sock you in the gut with unexpected emotional payoffs. Or, in the case of a handful of the studio’s movies, a terrific first half is followed by a second half that gradually deflates.

Coco belongs to the former category, with a slightly tedious first half that feels like the studio repeating itself in its themes of family and community and even mortality. Sure, the visit to the Land of the Dead (as depicted in Mexican mythology) is visually stunning, with a bright neon glow unlike anything else in the Pixar canon. But so much of that early going feels rote and familiar. It gets by with this by being a mystery, more or less, as young boy Miguel investigates several family secrets after accidentally landing in the afterlife. But it’s hard to escape the feeling of having been there and done that.

And then the second half hits, and you realize just how much Coco has been playing you. As Miguel finally uncovers the sadness at the core of his family, the movie becomes effortlessly transporting and, finally, in its closing sequence, incredibly moving. It’s the only movie on this list that might make clicking a “Remember Me” box on a website’s login screen make you tear up. —Todd VanDerWerff

[embedded content]

Toy Story 3 might not be the best film in the franchise, but it’s the one that hits you the hardest. There’s always been a Velveteen Rabbit–like quality to the Toy Story movies — they’re thoughtful pieces of art that make you question what it means to be “real” or “loved.” And in Toy Story 3, Buzz, Woody and the rest of the toys just want to be loved as Andy heads off to college.

Their yearning sets them on a voyage to a day care from hell, where they clash with a maniacal teddy bear named Lots-O-Huggin’ and end up in one of the most emotionally devastating scenes Pixar has ever produced. —Alex Abad-Santos

[embedded content]

Ratatouille is Pixar’s ode to the infectious joy of making art. The plot is a standard (if sprightly) tale of genius overcoming limitations: Would-be gourmet chef Remy is the genius, and the unfortunate fact that he is a rat is the limitation.

But in all of the movie’s truly indelible passages, cooking is just a symbol for any creative endeavor — say, filmmaking. Remy’s first adventure in combining one type of food with another (a bit of cheese with a strawberry) is a jazzy bit of synesthesia, and the joy that Pixar’s animators felt in illustrating it just leaps off the screen.

Later, the film’s final act, involving the skinny and therefore deeply suspicious restaurant reviewer Anton Ego, offers a moving bit of wish fulfillment: Every creator would love to turn the heart of his harshest critic. —Dara Lind

[embedded content]

This underwater tale opens with a jarring, devastating loss that sets the charge on the emotional minefield that is parenting, making clownfish Marlin’s paranoia for his son Nemo’s safety sting that much more. And once Marlin’s worst fears are realized, the two embark on parallel journeys that make them face their fears head on.

Between the schools of fish, (mostly) friendly sharks, slightly stoned sea turtles, and misfit aquarium inhabitants they encounter along the way lie some poignant lessons about life. But the true beauty lies in Finding Nemo’s gorgeous animation and the enduring love of family. —Caroline Framke

[embedded content]

Pixar has mastered the art of telling children’s stories adults can relate to. But this year, the studio showed it can also do the opposite. Inside Out, about a tweenage girl named Riley, feels like a story for grown-ups that’s wrapped in a candy-coated, kid-friendly shell.

The film explores what it’s like to feel listless, to face the inevitability and pain of growing up. And while Pixar’s movies have certainly dealt with heavy topics in the past (a lost parent in Finding Nemo, the loss of love in Wall-E and Up, etc.), Inside Out transcends its cinematic cousins to tackle a more pronounced ache and sense of sadness — feelings the movie beautifully depicts as a crucial part of life. —Alex Abad-Santos

[embedded content]

A trash-collecting robot is an unlikely protagonist for any movie. But Pixar managed to win over audiences with a wide-eyed waste compactor named Wall-E who’s assigned the thankless task of cleaning up the heaps of trash humans have left all over Earth.

Wall-E stands out from other Pixar movies thanks to its general lack of dialogue, as the title character only utters a few words throughout the entire film — including his own name and that of EVE, the sleek white robot he courts in a whirlwind romance. Wall-Eshows what Pixar can do with a minimal approach, and the result is solid: a tearjerker of a movie that appeals to viewers of all ages. —Sarah Kliff

[embedded content]

There’s no talking about Pixar’s brand without talking about Toy Story, the studio’s first full-length movie that remains one of its best, even 20 years later. The story of a boy, his imagination, and his toys that come to life the second he leaves them alone set the tone for everything Pixar has done since.

The development of an unlikely bond between cowboy pull-toy Woody and intergalactic superhero Buzz Lightyear is pure silliness on its face, but Toy Story comes to life just as swiftly as its toys thanks to the wit of a zippy, heartfelt script (the work of several different writers, including Finding Nemo’s Andrew Stanton and Buffy’s Joss Whedon).

As Woody and Buzz dodge toy-breaking neighbors and grapple with playroom politics, Toy Story imparts lessons about friendship, grief, and growing up without ever losing its brilliant sense of humor — or, more importantly, its earnest sense of wonder. —Caroline Framke

[embedded content]

Our choice for Pixar’s very best film is this action-packed superhero comedy that doubles as a story about a family splintering apart, then coming back together and/or — depending on your political/philosophical leanings — a weird defense of Ayn Rand’s theories of objectivism. (The Incredibles contains the line “If everyone’s special, then no one is,” which has one context in a superhero story and quite another everywhere else.)

What’s clear in every frame of this film is that Pixar is at the top of its game, dishing out hilarious jokes (like costume designer Edna Mode’s rant against capes), top-flight action sequences, and genuinely touching moments. It was the first film made for the studio by Brad Bird, whose future contributions would include 2007’s Ratatouille. —Todd VanDerWerff

Correction: This article originally said that Wall-E only says one word throughout the course of Wall-E. His vocabulary is limited, but it’s not that limited. We’ve corrected the error.

Original Source -> All 17 Pixar movies, definitively ranked

via The Conservative Brief

[legalroll]

FICTION vs. FACT: Real Law in To Kill a Mockingbird

"Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy . . . but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird"*

Warning: When referring to the movie, the blog below refers to the sensitive language used in the movie. This includes racial slurs and allusions to sexual and non-sexual violence.

Classic courtroom dramas engage us all. These movies portray the courtroom as a fascinating place where skilled lawyers never ask meandering questions or stumble over their words. The characters of the lawyers are often highly developed and is usually what drives the movie forward to an often dramatic conclusion. Who can forget the climactic scene in A Few Good Men,1 in which Colonel Jessup, played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson, shouts back to the Military defence lawyer, Lt Kaffe, played by Tom Cruise: “You can’t handle the truth!”?

Unfortunately, though, if the “real world law”2 were superimposed over the fascinating court scenes, the modified movie would be much less compelling and even a bit dull. Thank goodness that creative licence is taken to keep the court room scenes as thrilling as they would otherwise not be. Take for example, the movie To Kill a Mockingbird.3

The film follows the days of Atticus Finch, a lawyer, and his two children, Jem and Scout. The movie is set in Alabama during the depression, when racism was endemic. Not so for Atticus. One evening while he was sitting on the outdoor swing, the judge came and asked him whether he, the judge, could appoint him to represent Tom Robinson, a black man charged with raping a white girl. He agrees without a second thought. When his daughter asks him how he can defend a n-----, he replies, with his chest uplifted, “I was appointed to represent this man and that is what I am going to do.”

Later at school, some children taunt Scout about her father’s client (remembering, of course, this is Alabama during the depression.) Atticus, as a good father and a good lawyer, subsequently has this exchange with Scout:

“There’s been some high talk around town to the effect that I shouldn’t do much about defending this man. It’s a peculiar case – it won’t come to trial until summer session. John Taylor was kind enough to give us a postponement…”

“If you shouldn’t be defendin’ him, then why are you doin’ it?”

“For a number of reasons,” said Atticus. “The main one is if I didn’t, I couldn’t hold my head up in town …. and I couldn’t even tell you or Jem not to do something again.”

On a good day, criminal defence lawyers similarly feel pride in what they do, which is often difficult after being a called a crook or a shark or bottom feeder. Many lawyers, in fact, feel it is an honour to defend the downtrodden – just as Atticus Finch does.

Half of the film (the first hour) elapses before the courtroom part of the film, but that part is, not surprisingly, the most interesting to lawyers. Of course, the screenwriter takes creative licence; for example, all of the witnesses are sitting in the front row, and the girl’s father testifies first, followed by the complainant, whereas in the real world, there would be an order excluding witnesses, which means the witnesses would be asked to leave the courtroom so they can’t hear each other’s testimony before theirs are given. This is, however, a minor deviation from what would be true in a real court situation. As we shall see, there are far more significant differences as the film proceeds.

Throughout the film, one is struck by the sheer elegance of Atticus’s cross- examinations. He draws out evidence gently, but doesn’t connect it with the other parts of the case, leaving that part to argument or for the jurors to make the connection together in the jury room. For example, in an attempt to undermine the father’s contention that his daughter’s physical injuries were caused by the accused, Atticus imperceptibly moves the father to confirm that, yes, his daughter was indeed hit on her right side, and she had fingertip bruises all around her throat, facts that Atticus ultimately uses to suggest the father’s culpability.

It’s at the end of his cross examination where Atticus is at his best. He asks the father whether he can read and write. When the father replies yes, he is handed a pad of paper and is asked to write his name on it, which he does. It first appears that whether he is literate or not is significant in some way, but it isn’t. Rather, it is significant for another reason. With this exercise, Atticus, in a sleight-of-hand way, demonstrates that the father is left-handed. Atticus could have just asked, but the cleverness of his examination would be lost.

Atticus resists the almost irresistible urge to point out that injuries on the right side of someone’s face, just like those on his daughter’s face, are usually caused by a left-handed person. As tempting as that would be, he might get an answer that he doesn’t expect.

The best example of the danger of asking that one question too many is often attributed to Clarence Darrow, an American criminal lawyer. Whether it was Darrow or not, the anecdote goes like this: His client was charged with biting the complainant’s nose off. The defence counsel carefully developed his approach and without emotion had the complainant agree that the witness was far away from the accused and his victim and that the lighting was poor, thereby confirming that the witness’s opportunity to observe was limited. Now, unable to leave the matter alone, just as Atticus would have, the defence lawyer asked, with much aplomb, “So how on earth were you able to see my client bite off the victim’s nose?” The witness replied, “I didn’t see him bite it off, I saw him spit it out.”

But Atticus never makes that mistake. There is so much elegance and subtlety in the way Atticus builds his case, revealing no emotions at all. He gracefully lets the evidence float from the witness. He deliberately leaves the dots unconnected.

When it becomes time for Atticus’s cross examination of the complainant, he asks her whether her father ever hit her. “No,” she replies. “Not even when he has been drunk?” She denies it. Despite the complainant’s negative answers, the impression that her father has done so remains. Atticus then appeals to her sense of propriety, and she agrees that the accused had only been inside her gate once, to chop tinder or fix a door. Later on in her cross-examination, however, he lures her into agreeing with him that, in fact, the accused had been inside the gate many times. The complainant becomes flustered and confused about what she had just agreed to: a southern white woman, of this era, allowing this black man into her home...her credibility now left in pieces.

At the start of the accused’s examination, Atticus throws a glass to him, asking him to catch it, which he does with his right hand. Atticus asks him whether he could catch it with his left hand. “No,” the accused replies – because of a farming accident, his left arm is not functional. Atticus leaves alone the connection between this evidence and the contention of the complainant and her father that the assailant had left fingertip bruises all around her neck, which would be impossible with only one hand; a lesser lawyer wouldn’t be able to resist drawing the straight line between those two facts. To describe Atticus’s style as subtle would be a gross understatement.

Atticus necessarily brings out two ultimately damaging pieces of evidence. First, he asks the accused how he felt about the complainant, and he replied that he pitied her, without a family and alone in the house. The courtroom reacts with sheer indignation that a black man would ever pity a white woman. Of course, it only gets worse when Atticus asks the accused what happened just before he was accused of rape. He testifies that the complainant asked him to reach up to get a box, which the accused couldn’t see. He then describes how the complainant grabbed him around his legs, asking him to kiss her. The courtroom reacts with shock and incredulity, as does the jury. Both pieces of evidence support Atticus’s narrative, but the town cannot accept it because of their prejudice.

At the conclusion of the trial, belying his calm demeanor during the proceedings, Atticus passionately addresses the jury, including the plea, “For the love of God, do your duty.” After the recess, the jury returns, predictably, with a guilty verdict. Atticus is certain that they would win on appeal, but the appeal never takes place. All that it left is Atticus’s grief.

The trial proceedings in the movie present an elegant demonstration of nearly perfect examinations; the viewer is left spell bound. In the real world, however, this trial would have proceeded in an entirely different way.

First off, regarding Atticus’s appointment, a judge would never have spoken about a case outside of the courtroom and certainly not without the presence of the prosecutor. There are never “off the record” conversations between the judge and counsel. Not properly at least.

The biggest “real world” problem in the movie, however, can be defined by looking at an old English case: Browne v Dunn.4 This rule that emerged from this case compels a cross-examiner to put all of their known facts and theory to the witness before the defence calls its own evidence, allowing the witness to react to the suggestion and explain themselves. The purpose of this rule is to produce a fairer result, but if it had been applied to a movie like To Kill A Mockingbird all the drama and suspense would be lost.

For instance, in that movie the theory of the defence is that the victim attempted to seduce the accused and the father walked in and found out about it. In his rage, the father, perhaps drunk, beat his daughter on the right side of her face, with his dominant left hand. Also, the father leaves a ring of fingertip bruises around the victim’s throat, which we know could not have been left by the accused, who had only one functioning arm. Perhaps to explain the victim’s injuries, and to restore propriety, the victim and her father allege rape.

Also, when Atticus is cross-examining the father, he would not, in a real courtroom, have been able to leave the impression that the father beat his daughter, perhaps after finding out about his daughter’s attempted seduction. He would have had to put the allegations directly to the father in such a way as, “I suggest to you, witness, that drunk or sober, you have beaten your daughter in the past and on this occasion you beat her again and you caused her injuries.” The father would then deny it incredulously, assuring the jury that he did not.

Additionally, Atticus would have had to suggest to the father that the reason he beat his daughter, something the father had already denied, was because he found out about his daughter’s behaviour with the accused. Again, likely his response would be loud and emphatic…and convincing.

If the real law were superimposed on the film, then, Atticus would not be able to insinuate conclusions; he would have to put the conclusion to the witness directly. The courtroom watchers might complain that by accusing the father of wrongdoing, he was on trial, not the accused.

Now Atticus’s cross-examination of the victim would have led to a similar observation by the courtroom watchers: who is on trial anyway? In a real trial, Atticus would have had to suggest to her that in her testimony, she had lied about the number of times the accused was inside her gate and, in fact, was in her home. She would also be confronted with the fact that she lured the accused into her house to reach up to get a box that wasn’t there. Atticus would then have had to suggest to her that she was the one who had tried to seduce the accused and that he never raped her, no doubt astonishing the courtroom that such a suggestion could be made.

Finally, Atticus would have had to accuse her directly of lying about the rape and making up the story to explain the injuries her father had left on her body. One could only imagine what her emotional responses would be in the context of the film: admitting the truth of her dishonesty would be impossible because she then would be forced to admit to attempting to seduce a black man.

Thus, by the time Atticus called the accused to the stand, the jury would have had already heard the story and heard it denied passionately by the prosecution’s witnesses, if Browne v Dunn was in effect. Atticus’s examination would have be bereft of any subtlety and, instead of being elegant, he would appear clumsy and awkward.

Of course there is one last thing that would be different if this was real life: although in the movie we heard Atticus’ final address, since he called the accused, the prosecutor would have addressed the jury last, which meant that the prosecutor could say almost anything he wanted about Atticus and the accused, without Atticus having the right to reply.

So in the real world, the verdict would likely be the same, but the trial would be duller than the movie is, and the elements of Atticus’ conduct during the trial, his elegance and subtlety, would have been swept away. But fortunately for the audience, we don’t have to superimpose real world law on it, and we can enjoy it as the masterpiece it is.

* Chapter 10 in Lee, Harper. (2006). To kill a mockingbird. New York :Harper Perennial Modern Classics,

Endnotes

1 Reiner, Rob et al. A Few Good Men, ed (United States: Columbia Pictures, 1992).

2 By “real world law” I mean that I will only be applying Canadian law.

3 Harper Lee & Horton Foote. To Kill a Mockingbird, ed (United States: Universal International Pictures, 1962).

4 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (HL).

FICTION vs. FACT: Real Law in To Kill a Mockingbird published first on https://medium.com/@SanAntonioAttorney

[djrelentless]

“Black Like Me: What It Means To Be African-American To Me”

June 28, 2015 at 6:21am

There's an old saying that I learned a long time ago back in Florida. "I like my racism out in the open." Meaning that in the south (and I know most don't consider Florida the south, but…it is), racists are very clear and you can spot them immediately. Any black person from the south can spot a good ol' boy who hates niggers from ten paces. It's not that obvious or clear once you travel to the north. Racism can be dressed up in kindness and double talk where it can be missed and even forgiven.

Trying to explain this to black people who did not grow up in the south can be very difficult. They often believe they know the experience of Confederate Flag realness, but really have no idea at all. The textbook meaning of racism only skims the surface of how deep the hatred and entitlement runs in their veins. You are taught from the very beginning that you are not as good as a white person. You are made to feel like you are second class and white people will always be in charge and more important (at least this was my experience growing up in the 70s). It seems there's this "academically black" way of thinking about racism and I tend to question it.

So, I recently watched an HBO documentary called "Southern Rites". What was supposed to be a story about a desegregated prom turned into two stories. One about a white man shooting a black boy and the other was about a black man who wanted to be the first black sheriff of his small town. Both stories were controversial. Both had interesting details, but the first story had the most complicated twists.

What would you do if you were disabled and in bed, awakened by a strange noise and the lingering smell of marijuana? You have a gun because you're an older person and you feel like you need protection for you and your teenaged daughter. Then you get up to investigate. You discover that there are two boys in your house. You order them to get dressed and go sit on the couch. Words are exchanged and the boys make a break for the door. You fire one shot (perhaps to scare them). One of the boys lunges towards you. You fire a second shot. The guy is hit. Both male figures make it out of the house. You follow in pursuit and fire more shots but you don't hit either again. The injured one falls. You call 911 and describe what happen and tell them to send someone.

Now….let's erase color and race from this situation. For this instance, let's think about this neutrally. Let's just make it about the facts of the case. Let's just say these are just people…..everyday people. The back story of this situation is that the daughter of the awakened man invited the two boys over for a hook-up. The boys hid their car across the street from the man's house. The man was sentenced one year for the death of the boy. Now…I'm not sure one year is sufficient for the taking of a life, but I definitely don't believe that this man was in the wrong in this situation.

Now….let's come back to reality and the people of this day and age. Let's explain that the daughter of this white man is a biracial child of a niece that he adopted. So, it doesn't seem to me that race plays a big part in why this man shot this black boy in his home.

The other story of the black sheriff pretty much went as I expected it to. He lost to the more affluent and powerful white candidate. Mysteriously after being told he was ahead by about 251 votes, he lost by 100 votes when it was all said and done. The really interesting thing about this documentary was showing these two stories side by side. I'm not sure if the filmmaker wanted to create this obvious look at how the race card is played, but I definitely saw it. Watching how race determined the outcome of both stories really makes you examine how you would react and what would you have done?

My unpopular opinion about when the race card is used and becomes a mentality makes me a bit of an outcast. I often ask the question what was so-and-so doing when the cops stopped them? I often ask why was someone asked to leave a bar or club? I often ask was there a criminal record for so-and-so when this person was being chased? These are the questions that aren't being asked. Yes…. there are bad racist cops out there. Yes, there black men being racially profiled and killed for no reason at all. Injustices are happening all over the world everyday.

The obvious question is what circumstances brought these black men to commit crimes or behave disorderly? Perhaps the absence of a positive male figure in their early lives? The constant oppression and poverty that most black men have to endure? And because we can't all be sports figures or rappers, what are the main images that black males are forced fed through the media and television? And the vicious cycle of racism, prison and fathering more children just seems to keep the black man in his place and in the stereotype.

So, it's no wonder that black people from the south know and understand the ways of the confederate flag oh so well. It is a tough habit to break when you have been conditioned from a child, but it can be done. I didn't know any better or any different until I left Tampa, Florida. New York City was definitely a great place to get my bearings and learn the other side of being black in America. And going to Europe really put everything in perspective. It always cracks me up when I listen to blacks from other places than the United States speak about American Black Culture. They have some interested ideas of what it means to be black in America and what blacks in America are really like. If you go by music videos and television shows I'm sure you would think that most black men have some seedy past with drug dealing and have kids all over the place. Black women are always angry and feisty with a quick comeback. Sure there are many black families in the middle class, but what we are shown and fixated on are the ones who are "keeping real" and dropping the word "nigger" in every other sentence. Why? Because in my opinion this is the new oppression. Let's glorify the latest "ghetto fabulous" and call it entertainment.

When I shared my opinion about this documentary on facebook, a black female friend chimed in with this post "You say some shit sometimes, I just can't with you." I inquired what bothered her and gave an example of how black people cheered when O.J. Simpson got off on a technicality (just as Norman Neesmith did) except I believe O.J. was a murder. She replied "What the hell does that have to do with this? You're need to be extraordinary negro is kinda ridiculous." When she recounted watching the documentary she recalled the Justin Patterson (the boy who died) as being shot while he was running from the man's house. But the truth was that Justin was shot inside the house. I pointed out that this would be a classic example of "Stand Your Ground" (even though this was in Georgia, not Florida). I guess the comparison of Neesmith's case to the Zimmerman's case in the death of Trayvon Martin offended this reader. Her last post ended with "It's embarrassing and sad for me to see you talk this shit but it's your page and your opinion.Thanks for always being so clear about where you stand so no one has to wonder." (as if I were wrong for questioning what were the circumstances that this boy got shot).

Many probably wonder why I share my opinions and blogs online. I do it because I hope that perhaps a different perspective might lead to some different thinking. Maybe ideas will be exchanged and people can learn from another experience than their own. Lord knows I have learned plenty by some of the discussions I have had online. Being an American who married a Canadian I have a really different experience in Canada than the black people who were born here or immigrated from somewhere else. So, many assume that I think like they do because we share the same skin color or we both identify as black. But the truth is that my experiences have made me who I am. Just as each person's experiences makes them who they are. I've been spit at, rocks thrown at me and called "nigger" from a moving car while walking down the street. How many black people in Canada today have had this experience. I have spoken about watching my grandmother getting spit on in a grocery store and she couldn't do anything about it. The humiliation and shame that was on her face haunts me to this day. That's generations of racism.

So, with all this talk of removing the confederate flag from the state capital building in South Carolina. I'm sure many people of all colors are wondering how can these black people live in a town where they have a constant reminders of their place in society (with streets named after confederate generals and that damn flag everywhere). I guess the same question could be asked of all those white folks who live in the mid-west where tornadoes are very common. If you don't know any other life than you don't know any better. You accept your life and you live.

It seems unconceivable that in 2015 there would be a white woman pretending and passing for black. Rachel Dolezal gave the classic movie "Pinky" a new twist and reboot. The idea that a white woman could not only pass for black but also become the president of the NAACP of Spokane, Washington just seems like a movie script or something. But you cain't write this shit! Most say that this is the ultimate cultural appropriation, but is this a sign of the times that some white people have changed their views of black people? I mean…I remember about a decade ago there was the term "wigger". I wasn't thrilled about it, but than again I have many issues with the use of the word "nigger" in today's youth lexicon anyway. Because I am a DJ I am forced to deal with Hip Hop lyrics and white people on a daily basis.

I found it really interesting that the filmmaker chose to interview Daniella (the biracial adopted daughter) last. It was tough watching the pain in Justin's parents' eyes when they talked about their son. It was kinda weird listening to the mother of Justin's child talking about what a good father he was when he was out at 3 AM to hook up with another girl on the night he died. And listening to Daniella talk about the necklace that Justin gave her and how her father is really a teddy bear in personality really showed the complexities of being biracial in the south. When she said that she believes that her father would have gotten a longer sentence if he were black just about summed up the entire southern black experience.

All I know is that if we are going to take the step towards fixing race relations in the United States, we need to pause and think about the other side. Talk about your relationship with other races. Are you open to having relationships with other races (be it friends or something more intimate)? Then how many different races do you interact with on a daily basis? The beauty of a city like New York is that you are kinda forced to be around as many different races and cultures everyday. And I actually loved that. Plus you just never knew who you might meet. There's a whole wide world out there. Why limit yourself to just your neighborhood?