And now for something a little out of the ordinary...

Singapore Sling....wow, I don't know quite what to say about this gem of a movie.

Once in a great while a film will impress me through it's pure innovation and creativity. This doesn't happen too often with most Horror/Exploitation films, because they tend to rely on standard conventions and clichés...I don't need to tell you what they are, any Horror movie watcher worth his or her salt already knows. I think it's especially egregious in slasher films.

Singapore Sling, though...this is a highly original film. Shot in beautiful black and white, it tells the story of a detective (who also happens to be a mute and an alcoholic) searching for a woman named Laura who's case he had been involved in. She disappeared from his life, and in the course of his travels he gets shot (this event is never really explained in the film, one of my few complaints) in the middle of a huge storm.

His story is intercut with the actions of two women, a mother and daughter duo, who are...how shall we say..."different". When they aren't having sex with each other or the mummified patriarch of the family, they're killing and burying their servants ("with aromatic flowers"). One of the most fascinating elements of Singapore Sling, in my opinion, is how often it breaks the so-called "4th Wall". The female characters address the audience regularly about their devious plans. To tell you the truth, I'm not exactly sure if I liked this or not; it certainly was unique, in any case.

Anyway, the man crawls wounded to the house where the two incestious lesbians live. That's when the movie takes a dramatic turn for the seriously deranged. The lesbians (who also happen to have a sadomasochistic streak, as it turns out) tie "Singapore Sling" (the name they give him) up, and proceed to do weird things with him, mostly involving electroshock and various bodily fluids. They also eat dinner with him (the dinner scenes in the film are probably the most spectacularly disgusting and bizarre dinner scenes I've ever seen) and have threesomes with him and other sick shit. There is also a particularly memorable scene involving a kiwi. I will say

no more!

On the negative side: the movie wears out its welcome a little bit near the end. It's almost two hours long; I definitely would have made it shorter. The print that they used for the DVD has burnt-in English subtitles for the parts that are in Greek, which are fuzzy, hard to read, and inaccurate. Synapse remedied this by placing their own subtitles over the old ones which are accurate and easy to read, as well as interpret the few lines of French in the film; however, their subtitles are encaptioned in big grey boxes that cover up a good deal of the picture, which is even more annoying than the original subtitles. There are no extras on the DVD to speak of. With this one, the feature presentation is petty much whatcha get.

Besides that, though, Singapore Sling is a pretty great film, combining exploitation, film noir, gore, a bit of Horror...you basically get the whole 9 with this one. Another thing that's great about it that I forgot to mention was the acting, especially by the mother and daughter in the film (as Singapore Sling himself never gets much chance to act). It's quite good.

All in all, I give Singapore Sling a solid 8 out of 10.

I'm a dishonest bastard.

I said I'd post something over my spring break, and I didn't. What a dishonest wanker I am....may God have mercy on my soul.

Anyway, since I can't think of anything else to talk about at the moment, I might as well talk about the book I'm currently reading, which is "Strike!" by Jeremy Brecher. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know the basics of labor history in the United States; it's written in clear language, and concerns very engaging, interesting subject matter (for me, at least).

I've always known that labor struggle had turned bloody more than once in the United States, but I never quite appreciated the extent of some of the conflicts; the struggle in Colorado and the Great Upheaval general strike of 1877 almost degenerated into straight up class warfare. Workers in 1877 in Pennsylvania were setting railroad yards on fire and firing at soldiers sent into break the strike. Supposedly, according to the soldier's testimony, police officers were also firing at them as they retreated! Talk about solidarity. It also reminded me of the dishonest tactics that business used by weilding the government as its henchman, such as in the Pullman Strike. The Attorney General of the United States at that time was openly alligned with one of the railroads that was losing money because of the strike, which was eventually broken with soldiers. The book also discusses some of the ideological motivations that many of the workers held.

It brings to mind just how much unions have lost their way. They used to have far reaching, democratic goals; now they just appear to be another cog in a gigantic, state crony capitalist machine, which is built on beauracracy and screwing the average worker. And it pains me dearly to say that, as I've been part of strikes and labor struggles myself. Rightly conceived, I think that organized labor could form a protective barrier against some of the more negative effects of capitalism, and more importantly it would emerge organically, as opposed to regulations pushed by the state.

Anyway, check it out, if you can; it's interesting.

Wow.

I haven't posted on this blog in a while!

I recently got back from vacation, but I've been paying attention to the news. How couldn't I?! It's so awful, yet at the same time, endlessly fascinating. Watching the election coverage has been like watching a horrific car crash in slow motion: so horrible you want to turn away, but you can't pry your eyes away.

So, anyway, I might post sometime in the near future about our glorious up-and-coming leaders and their illustrious plans for Change (yes, it's capitalized, like all imaginary deities). Or, I might write a movie review or a analysis of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", which I slogged through recently. Who knows.

With pepper spray and nightsticks for all

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-Copmisconduct_N.htm

Disturbing.

Fuck your politics, fuck your candidates, and fuck voting.

As we near the hallowed time where all good men and women of this country vote, it's worth reconsidering the voting process. Voting has become one of the strangest traditions in the United States. On the one hand, politicians are looked upon in this country almost universally as total scum, as Pyotr Kropotkin pointed out long ago. Well, not much has changed. But at the same time, people still take voting as something very, very serious. I've often heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results. If that's really the case, then voting may very well be the most insane institution in the country.

Voting is a big deal in the United States. People take it terribly seriously. Saying that you don't vote will get you shocked looks; it's often the equivalent of proclaiming that you hate Jesus. Because, you see, not only are we granted this self-indulgent privilege, but people died for us to have it! How can you be so selfish!

Well, I suppose I am selfish. But at least I'm not delusional.

The myth of the so-called "rational voter" is a pretty widespread one. Candidates mount platforms, give speeches, throw fundraisers, and do their little dance for the American people, all while spewing feel-good platitudes about freedom, the American way of life, God (that one is essential-you must be best buddies with Jesus if you are to get anywhere close to the throne of power), and how America is the greatest country in the world. They try desperately to appear like they have the answers: I KNOW what the economy needs! Or they can try a different tactic-fear. This one is just as, if not more, effective than giving Americans the proverbial "stroke". Fear tactics range from, "We have to stop the homos from gettin' married", to "the terrorists want to come over here and take away our freedom", and everything in between. Many times it's used as a wedge, to divide one part of the country from the other. For all the nonsense about being "nonpartisan" and "reaching across the aisle", politics exists solely as a function of people disagreeing, and is by nature divisive.

Ultimately, though, few people are rational voters. Irrational voters range from people who are shameless partisan hacks and love to tow the party line, to people who only vote on one issue, to people who vote for what they feel will benefit the country, but in reality lacks any sort of empirical evidence of any kind to support said assumption. I won't even go into the media's role in all this, as they are to easy of a target.

My personal reasons from "voting abstinence" are numerous, but there are two major points: 1) States, like corporations, exist to perpetuate the so-called "bottom line". In this case, the bottom line is to obtain power, and to perpetuate power. This is why I chuckle at people like Ron Paul. Deny this and you ignore history at your own peril. 2) About half of the eligible voters in the U.S. actually vote. Out of this 50%, usually about half of the half vote for their respective parties. This means that around 26% of the country is imposing their views on the other 74%. I find this repulsive, and it contradicts everything I believe in. I try to practice what I preach, and I preach the holy message from my ideology, leave-me-the-hell-alone-ism.

Now, am I saying that voting in all cases is unacceptable? No, I'm not. I'm perfectly reasonable about voting for improvement on the local level. I'm even open to the theory that voting can be used as a mechanism of self-defense by an oppressed class. But voting for president is a great folly, is totally pointless in my opinion, and is the equivalent of flipping pennies into a wishing well. A whole mystical aura has developed around the voting box, an irrational cult around an object not unlike the Old Testament idols. And I find it repugnant. I will end this polemic with two quotes.

Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet." - Benjamin Tucker

Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven. - H.L. Mencken

and finally,

The Fathers who invented it [democracy], if they could return from Hell, would never recognize it. It was conceived as a free government of free men; it has become simply a battle of charlatans for the votes of idiots - H.L. Mencken

Vote, citizen, and be part of the problem!

EDIT: I just noticed this on LRC. It seems to be from a member of the High Cult of Ron Paul. Anyway, it's brief and worth reading, and presents a different opinion: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/maccallum3.html

Crimethinc: Hippies fighting for a future!

"Your politics are boring as fuck."

This is the famous proclaimation from a group known as Crimethinc. I've heard of Crimethinc for some time, although had never really looked into the group or their "politics". Now that they are releasing a new book, I figure I might as well comment on this...eh, organization? What the hell can you even classify Crimethinc as?

According to Crimethinc's FAQ, the group was started in the 90s, which correlates well with the rise of Post Left anarchism in some circles. Thus far, their new book, "Expect Resistance", will be their third book to date. As to what exactly Crimethinc actually IS, well, that's a little difficult. Their explanation of what Crimethinc and its goals in their FAQ is so tortured it whoever wrote it should be charged under the Geneva Conventions. Basically, though, Crimethinc is a decentralized body dedicated to what they call the pursuit of a freer and more joyous world. How is this accomplished, you ask? Amongst other ways, by being poor, unemployed, shoplifting, dumpster diving, spray painting shit, etc. etc. You get the point. It's lifestyle anarchism, in a nutshell. Of course, trying to live "off the grid" isn't very productive, in my opinion. If you really want to do some damage to capitalism, it's going to take a lot more than feel good hippy nonsense like scrounging for bread scraps in the bottom of a dumpster and feeding off the scraps of capitalism and consumerism. It's Escapism, pure and simple, just like the hippy movement of the 60s was. Although hippies were iconic of the 60s, overall their numbers were pretty insignificant and small, and didn't really accomplish anything of value. Why? Because real change is going to come at a much bigger level than a dirty commune or squatted building. Their desire to distance themselves from established "Red anarchist" groups is a little strange as well. Hell, even Anarcho Capitalism has roots in Left Anarchism (Murray Rothbard was a fan of Goldman and Tucker, agorism, etc.)

Their critique of themselves is incredibly annoying as well. Many times they pretty much openly admit that the whole thing is merely a feel good organization. They try to be mysterious and vague about the organization and its aims whenever possible. Just take a look at the description for their latest book:

"Our third book is an exploration of the complex relationship between ideals and reality; a field manual for a field on which all manuals are useless.."

WTF?!

I don't know why anyone would claim allegiance to this group.

Ronald McDonald: Just as bad, if not worse, than Stalin.

I know I'm a bit (OK, make that a lot) behind the ball as far as reading Fast Food Nation goes. I've read one of the author's other books (Reefer Madness, I recommend it, if for nothing else than the fascinating section on the porn business).

Basically, what Fast Food Nation reminds me of are those old progressive works chronicling some kind of misdeed due to capitalism. FFN isn't alarmist, though. I think it chronicles pretty well what exactly the fast food corporations do in order to achieve their fantastic influx of cash. Even if you're an ardently anti-corporation (which I am, pretty much), you can't help but be impressed by the pure business savvy of corporations such as McDonalds.

I made the mistake of watching the movie before reading the book (the movie, by the way, is nothing like the book). If you ever get a chance to see the movie, take my advice and don't. I'd call it a train wreck, but it's to slow to receive that dignified title.