Monday, August 24, 2015

Thoughts On Sexuality (Defined and Undefined)


    (Just as a disclaimer: as someone who identifies as bisexual, you may discover that this article may lean more towards bisexual-related issues. But even so, I will try to discuss sexuality as a whole, and use my personal preferences when necessary.)
    Unless you have been living under a rock, gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. not too long ago. Obviously, this was a huge turning point for the LGBT community. And to be fair, in the last few years, it has achieved some pretty impressive things. With gays, lesbians, and the like becoming more visible, sexuality has diversified and certain orientations have been brought to the public attention. It is no longer an issue of "gay" or "straight", but rather an entire spectrum of sexual orientation. 
    Of course, there is nothing wrong with this at all. I personally don't care how you dress or who you love, it makes absolutely no difference and will most likely have no impact on my life as a whole. But, there are still some individuals who believe that the more visible the LGBT community has become, the more people are "choosing" to further bypass preconceived notions of sexual orientation and "twisting" it to the point where it becomes overblown, ridiculous, and "fashionable". That apparently it will corrupt the mind of innocents and the entire world will descend into a giant sinful orgy of lust before God comes and tears it apart.
   So I want to pose the question: why are fluid/non-heterosexual orientations so taboo?
   I don't want to bring this up as a simple question of whether being gay is okay; that has been discussed so many times I've lost count. Instead, I want to talk about the sexual orientations that are beyond gay and straight: bisexual, asexual, pansexual, etc. Now, these terms have only come to light fairly recently, which means that some people have been quick to dismiss them as being "made up" or just "trendy". So before I get into this a little more, here are their formal definitions. 
  Bisexual: A person who is attracted to both men and women
  Asexual: A person who does not feel sexually attracted to anyone (though they may still be romantically attracted to them). 
  Pansexual: A person who is attracted to another individual regardless of their gender (is not the same as being bisexual because pansexuals tend to be more transgender-inclusive). 
   There we go. Yes, all of these orientations are real, and they do exist. As I said before, I myself am bisexual; I have had far more crushes on girls than on guys, but I still find myself attracted to guys on occassion. For a good amount of time, I'll admit I did try to convince myself that I was "confused", but then I found out that bisexuality was a normal thing, and it was totally okay. Likewise, all of these other orientations are 150% okay. However, I want to discuss the fact that even the LGBT community has been slow to accept this.
   As a bisexual individual, I will say that there are people in the LGBT community who believe that we do not exist. (Yes, this is despite the obvious "B" in the name). I have heard that a big reason why gays and straights do not trust us is because they believe we want attention, but personally, I think they may just get uncomfortable with the fact that we aren't 100% on "their" side. It's also annoying when people assume that we're down for a threesome with two strangers simply because we go both ways. (Please note: "bisexual" does not mean "easy"). It's almost as if, since we have the ability to be attracted to both genders, then that means we'll apparently be more likely to cheat, or something. Or, we're just "confused" and eventually we'll come to identify ourselves as strictly gay or straight.
   This is also an issue faced by pansexuals, who, since they can be attracted to a wider range of genders, are sometimes assumed to be outrageously confused and insecure, or they don't see genders to the point where they don't inherently value the people that they date. With asexuals, they are seen as sexually repressed, or they may even be accused as having a sexual disorder. (Personally, I think that since our culture is hyper-sexualized, it's very uncommon for people to think that a person would not experience some form of attraction at any point in their lives). So yes, even in the so-called tolerant LGBT community, there are still cliques. It seems that society is still unable to shake off a bunch of preconceived notions about gender identity and sexual orientation, which, of course, is unfortunate. It really just blows my mind why people believe that anything beyond gay or straight is so "odd". Like, they can't put a solid label on you, so they just disregard you as a person. I am bisexual, but that doesn't make me greedy, and it doesn't mean I'm "confused" or more likely to cheat than anyone else simply because I've had crushes on girls and guys. 
   The saddest part about this issue is that bi-invisibility (something that can also be applied to pansexuals, asexuals, and so on) is so rampant in the LGBT community and society in general that people are forming perceptions of these more "fluid" individuals without even getting to know them. For example, a youtube video asked lesbians what they thought of bisexuals (Arielle Scarcella's channel, for those of you who are interested). I'll admit, a lot of their answers kind of offended me. They were calling bisexuals "confused", "odd", and "greedy", which automatically distanced themselves from the people they were describing. (By the way, what is "greedy" even supposed to mean? It's not like we want all the hot people for ourselves; attraction is a basis of personal preference anyway). I want to also point out that I was kind of irritated when I heard that the term "gold star lesbian" was a thing: for those who don't know, it generally means that a lesbian has only been with women, and never slept with a man at any point. Like, as if a person's past sexual history is the only way to gauge what they currently define themselves as. Why is it that a person is only really gay or straight if they've known for a long time already? Why is it so bad to switch between orientations if you want? Do gays and straights believe that we'll be "tainting" or misrepresenting the LGBT community if we cannot come up with a 100% clear-cut definition of who we are? Is it that important that we attach such a gigantic label to everything we like? Why must we be so concerned with who we're attracted to, and at what point we're attracted to them? 
    I get that many gays and straights are sometimes intimidated by "gray-area" orientations like bisexual and pansexual because it's more complicated to define us, especially since some of us tend to lean more in one direction than the other. I understand that many may view us as simply looking for attention because we don't have such a clear-cut answer as to who we may or may not like. 
    But the bottom line is: who fucking cares?
    It shouldn't matter who anyone is attracted to: all that matters is whether or not they treat their partner (or partners) nicely! Like, sure girl, I've been attracted to others in the past, but right now, my main focus is you. As of this moment, I am attracted to and want to be with you. And that is what should matter. Now, obviously, it is a problem if your partner is cheating, but that's NOT a issue regarding sexuality, but morals in general. 
   My sexual orientation is not the sole determining factor of who I am as a person. I just want to ask the general public and LGBT community in general to stop making assumptions at us and look at us as people, not "greedy" or "confused" fetishists who are looking for attention. I mean, honestly: how would you feel if someone said that about you (since gays have been called such things in the past)?
   Let's live and let live. Case closed. 

Saturday, August 22, 2015

"Sinister 2" Film Review



    Before I say anything, I would like to point out that I really enjoyed the first Sinister. Though it was far from perfect, and it did rely on some been-there-done-that horror clichés, it was still subtle enough to moderately scary. So, after hearing that it was getting a sequel, I was psyched.
   And I have to admit I was sorely disappointed.
   There is nothing, I repeat absolutely nothing subtle about this movie at all. The sequence of events was beyond predictable and the jump-scares became so repetitive that you could totally tell when they were going to happen. Even my siblings could point them out, and they don't like horror movies in the first place. This was a major problem for the sequel to a movie that gained its reputation due to subtlety. I was also annoyed by the fact that pretty much every single fucking jumpscare was in the damn trailer. Seriously, you have no idea how much of a pet peeve this is to me. And even when the Super 8 films (AKA the "scariest" parts of the movie) came up, they weren't all that unsettling and didn't come off as any more disturbing than a standard episode of Law and Order.
   In terms of how the characters were constructed, I felt that they weren't so much characters as they were thin cardboard cutouts of tired caricatures. The mother didn't come off as damaged as she should have, the conflict between the brothers was pointless, and even the abusive father didn't come off as believable. It would've been better if they took a more psychological approach to his abuse, but instead they just wrote him as this cocky asshole with no real context to his behavior. When he was shoving mashed potatoes into his son's face, I didn't find myself caring. I could only think, "What does this have to do with anything?" The mom's inner struggle kind of floated on top of the overall conflict and she appeared very much disinterested about everything. The relationships between her sons and the other characters were not very well-developed and little context was presented to back it up to make it in any way believable. The characterization of the two brothers felt extremely half-baked, and the "evil" brother didn't come off as that sadistic in the first place. I mean, he is built up to be stronger and less emotionally damaged than his younger brother, so why is he able to turn against the family so easily? We aren't really given much context to their situation other than the fact that their father abused them, but even so, since it was the younger brother that was abused more severely, wouldn't it have made sense for him to do the killing? It seems kind of unrealistic that a kid would agree to kill his own family "just because".
   Which brings me to the villain: they took what made him scary in the first movie and completely destroyed anything interesting about him. He just kind of stands around in such an obvious manner that his presence is far more annoying than disturbing. His evil "minion" children were the complete opposite of their fresh and subtle counterparts in the previous film, because in this case, their interactions with the two boys made everything far too obvious and boring. They didn't really seem that scary, and as a result the villain didn't seem that scary, either. Now, the movie wastes a lot of time trying to give backstory as to why he exists, but it doesn't really reveal much or establish any kind of motive. I mean, what is his motive? What does he want? Beats me. Children? Even though that would apparently be the case, the way that they execute this in the movie is really vague and confusing. For example (spoiler alert), the older brother eventually gets what's coming to him because the demon gets mad and touches his shoulder, causing him to crumble into gray dust. I believed that this moment demolished a lot of the movie's logic because it implied that he could just do this whenever he felt like it. Therefore, why doesn't he? Why does he need all the freaking Super 8 films when he can simply go around and take the soul of a child if he wants? And before people start arguing that this may only happen if he starts to make a movie but he doesn't finish (exactly what happened in this movie), keep in mind that the story gives the implication that he can only gain the children's soul if they watch the movies and then make one to add to the pile. So if he can only gain possession of their souls upon receiving a completed film reel, then how does it make sense for him to eliminate this rule by just grabbing the soul of the kid anyway? Kind of discredits a lot of what the movie was trying to say.
   Speaking of which, I could not for the life of me try to understand how this movie was trying to set itself apart from the other films. It relied on the exact same scare tactics as the first movie, but other than that, it didn't even feel connected to the first Sinister very much at all. The most "recent" ghost girl from the last movie does not make an appearance, and none of the other dead kids from the previous film show up either. (Do not even attempt to understand why this is, because the movie does not offer any explanation for this nor address at any point.) I understand the point of an "indirect sequel" but this felt so disconnected from the previous movie that nothing was coming off as that interesting, or at least rooted in some type of context. There was nothing to back up anything credible or terrifying about this movie, and as a result it was paper-thin and lukewarm to the maximum. I feel it is also worth mentioning that this movie had the worst fucking cop-out of an ending that I have ever witnessed in a horror film.
   Simply put, this movie was a piece of shit. It was not scary, it was not interesting, and it was completely and utterly half-assed. It should really be called "Sinister Poo" instead of Sinister 2 because it has as much value as the rat shit that makes an appearance about 15 minutes in. Do not waste your time; please find a better movie to watch. I have dozens of other summer movies I could recommend, just look at the list I posted the other day. What's really scary, though, is that it is actually the second worst movie I watched this summer. That is the only thing that puts a chill down my spine. Other than that, nothing else.


Overall rating: 4.5/10

Friday, August 21, 2015

A List Of Everything I Did This Summer


  1. Graduated with an Associate's Degree from OCCC
  2. Went to my friend's graduation party
  3. Went to the Hoboken International Film Festival for the first time (even though the movie we saw really, really sucked and we all left early, it was still a fun night) 
  4. Saw over 50 movies (here's the link to the list
  5. Made 3 short films (a visual poem, and EPK, and a Survivorman parody) 
  6. Saw my favorite band, Rush, for the last time
  7. Vacationed at Ocean City, MD and won a huge moon as a carnival prize
  8. Watched "I Am Jazz" on TLC
  9. Watched "The Seventies" on CNN 
  10. Watched "Sharknado 3" 
  11. Sold over $400 worth of stuff on ebay...and still went $260 over-budget this summer
  12. Celebrated the full moon for 4 months
  13. Shot a commercial for Friyo
  14. Dyed my hair several times
  15. Bought a mermaid fin and swam with it
  16. Did a crapload of paperwork and requirements for Purchase college
  17. Talked to my soon-to-be roommates 
  18. Visited Obscura and Chinatown 
  19. Stayed up until 3AM on most nights watching YouTube
  20. Took down info on the presidential candidates
  21. Watched the GOP debate on TV 
  22. Finished my soda tab dress
  23. Made more riot grrrl jewelry
  24. Read a crapload of books like "Tank Girl", "Blue Is The Warmest Color" and "The Feminine Mystique"
  25. Made a bunch of outfits for my Blythe doll and posted it on her blog
  26. Went dorm shopping
  27. Went to Woodstock
  28. Edited my book (somewhat....I was lazy with this)
  29. Learned German on Duolingo
  30. Became a fan of David Bowie and Amanda Palmer
  31. Watched my mentor become a first-time father
  32. Finished my crust punk pants
  33. Became friends with someone I've always wanted to talk to 
  34. Invited people over for a going-away party (which technically hasn't happened yet but I'm posting it anyway) 


All The Movies I Watched This Summer

  1. The day the earth stood still
  2. Kill Bill Vol. 1
  3. Kill Bill Vol. 2
  4. Jennifer’s Body
  5. Becoming Chaz
  6. Life of Pi
  7. The Exorcist
  8. Batman: Assault On Arkham (YouTube)
  9.  Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
  10. American Beauty
  11. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
  12. Blue Velvet
  13. Kagemusha
  14. Jesus Camp
  15. Nightmare On Elm Street (Original)
  16. Snow White And The Huntsman
  17. Generation Um
  18. The Dark Side Of Love
  19. Camp Takota
  20. Following
  21. Enter The Void
  22. Jurassic World  
  23. All About Eve
  24. Clueless
  25. The Virgin Suicides
  26. Citizen Kane
  27. Interstellar
  28. Inside Out
  29. Silver Linings Playbook
  30. Electrick Children
  31. Tiny Furniture
  32. The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged
  33. Metropolis
  34. Frances Ha
  35. Sharknado 3
  36. Leon: The Professional
  37. Anchorman 2
  38. Jiro Dreams Of Sushi
  39. Moonrise Kingdom
  40. The Darjeeling Limited
  41. Rushmore
  42. Birdman
  43. The Thing
  44. Being John Malkovich
  45. Rise Of The Guardians
  46. It’s Such A Beautiful Day
  47. The Devil’s Rejects
  48. What Is Cinema?
  49.  The Bicycle Thief
  50. The Dark Knight Rises
  51. Whiplash
  52.  Foxcatcher
  53. Boyhood
  54. Labyrinth

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

My Top 10 Guilty Pleasure Movies

  Every once in a while, even those of us who heavily critique movies still admit that there are a few motion pictures that we know are substandard, yet we cannot stop watching them. So, I am not ashamed to admit that these are the films I tend to watch over and over again, regardless of how well they did with the critics or the box office.


1. Sucker Punch   


Is the story really inconsistent and terribly ridiculous? Yep. Is the acting a bit substandard? You bet. Are the messages so mixed up that you can't figure out if it's feminist or anti-feminist? Absolutely. But hey…every once in a while, it's good to cut loose and have fun. This movie has it all: hot chicks, guns, explosions, robots, ass-kicking, and an awesome soundtrack. It's all good. 

 
2. Atlantis: The Lost Empire


I will admit that even though I really love Hunchback Of Notre Dame, I have a soft spot for this underrated Disney adventure. Yes, the story is a bit flat, and there were some things that needed a bit of  polishing. But the side characters are hilarious, the cinematography is unique, and overall it's quite the experience. Sure, it may not make it onto the "Top Ten Disney Films" list, but it would most certainly be on mine. 


3. Dirty Girl



While this movie did tank at the box office and wasn't really a hit with critics, I stumbled across this film on Netflix and instantly fell in love. The main characters are hilarious, and they have such great chemistry that it makes the whole film really seem like the epic road trip it is trying to be. And sure, it may not be that gigantic in terms of the overall experience, but it's still enjoyable, and worth the time. 


4. 47 Ronin


I don't think it's a big secret that in terms of Keanu Reeves, this was not really one of his better movies. While the story is interesting, the characters are pretty typical, and even then they aren't that compelling. But I will admit, upon watching the behind-the-scenes bits for this film, I felt that they did put a lot of effort into it. If you analyze it in terms of cinematography and effects, it does come off as pretty well done. Which is why I have no problem popping in the DVD once every so often. 



5. A Series Of Unfortunate Events



With the book series now being turned into a Netflix miniseries, I looked back and realized that this film may have been a little underrated. Sure, it feels rushed, and lacks some of the depth that made the books interesting, but I still felt that this adaptation was at least a noble effort. Jim Carrey's portrayal of Count Olaf will most certainly never be matched again, and is really what makes this film worth your time. 



6. Diary Of A Wimpy Kid



If some of you saw the title for this movie and decided to keep reading, thank you. The reason this movie is on this list is because I loved the Wimpy Kid books when I was younger. But even though I wasn't that excited about the film adaptation, I did end up finding it pleasantly entertaining. It's not trying to be this grand, epic masterpiece or anything; it's just a simple, cute little comedy film, and that's all you really need to enjoy it. 



7. Twilight


I will be honest in saying that I tend to like this film the most out of the entire franchise. Yes, the acting is terrible, the dialogue is laughable, and the story is pretty one-dimensional and ridiculous. But even so,  there's a sense of nostalgia that I associate with this film. I do feel like this was the one film that was trying really hard to be what the fans wanted. And sure, it doesn't go beyond that at all, or try to be something more. To be clear, though, that's all anyone asked for, so there. It's still somewhat entertaining, and holds up in terms of nostalgia. 



8. The Stepford Wives



With all the problems that this film had during production, it's a miracle that it even ended up being made. Critics still ripped it a new one, and I will admit that there are certainly more than a few problems with it. But having grown up in the type of suburban nightmare portrayed in the movie, I guess you can say that I find this film way more interesting and funny than I probably should. Say what you want about it, but if I ever need a satirical representation of my hometown, I always turn to this movie. 



9. I Love You, Man



Even though Rush was the only reason why I watched this film in the first place, I did end up liking it. This of course came as a surprise, because I don't usually enjoy "bro" comedies. But kudos to this movie: the characters were smart, the jokes were fresh, and it did really feel like it had a heart. So with all things considered, I usually watch this film as a pick-me-up, because it never fails to make me laugh. 



10. The Brass Teapot 



Much like Dirty Girl, this was another Juno Temple film that failed to be a critical or commercial success. And similar to Dirty Girl, I still really enjoyed this movie. While predictable, it's still entertaining to watch the sequence of events play out, and there's room for some pretty funny gags along the way. All in all I do find it entertaining, and it's certainly a nice little comedy to pass the time with. 

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Artist Spotlight: Andy Warhol


    Where to begin with one of the most well-known artists of the latter half of the twentieth century? Born in Pittsburgh, Andrew Warhola was born to second-generation Slovak immigrants and raised in the Byzantine Catholic faith. Due to frequent childhood illnesses, he was confined to his bed most of the time and became a social outcast, but used this time to listen to the radio and draw pictures. 
   Originally, Warhol intended to be an art teacher, but that fell by the wayside once he enrolled in college and studied commercial art instead. After being involved with dance programs and editing the school art magazine while in college, he moved to NYC and became an illustrator. 
    Warhol's rise to fame began in the 1950's, when he began to exhibit his work in galleries in New York and LA, with the LA exhibition signifying the emergence of pop art on the West Coast. In the 1960's, he painted some of his most famous works, mostly popular American icons ranging from Campbell's soup cans to Coca Cola to Marilyn Monroe. As his pop-art influence began to gain more ground, he surrounded himself with a group of other artists and musicians (including Edie Sedgwick, Ultra Violet, and David Bowie) and opened his studio, known as "The Factory". Collaboration became an important part of his career, especially when he completed his works as an advertisement illustrator. With "The Factory", Warhol produced dozens of films, sculptural pieces, paintings, silkscreens, and illustrations. On the personal side, Warhol was consistently unique for the time as he was not only Catholic, but also homosexual. Although he produced many male nudes that were criticized, he also volunteered at homeless shelters, went to church regularly, and produced several religious works. 
   The 1970's saw a quieter time in Warhol's career, with his work becoming more entrepreneur-based. He founded the NY Academy of Art in 1979 with his friend Stuart Pivar. Warhol continued to socialize and grow his ever-expanding group of eccentric bohemian friends until his death in 1987. In keeping with his legacy, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts was established. Since leaving this realm, Warhol has continued to remain a major pioneer of the pop-art movement, and he has been portrayed in several movies and documentaries. 

Sources: 
http://www.warhola.com/biography.html
http://warholfoundation.org/legacy/biography.html
http://www.economist.com/node/14941229