DS9 Season 7, Sex and the City, In Bruges

I've been watching Season 7 of DS9, and it's pretty good. Spoiler warning: I think it's a shame that Jadzia had to die, not because I care so much about her specifically (it's an ensemble cast, so the other characters can carry the show), but that it makes me sad that they put Worf through all of that. Also, it takes up valuable time in the first few episodes to transition from the old Dax to the new, and it could be better spent on (existing) character development or narrative, etc. Oh well. I still love DS9.

I saw Sex and the City today, and it was truly awful. There are movies that are bad, and then there are movies that make you wish that you could recover the precious time that you wasted watching it. This movie is not merely bad. The product placement would be bad enough, but the narrative isn't even well constructed. Gosh, there must be better actual commercials. There were lots of episodes of the show I liked (though I always thought it had a class and race problem). This movie flattens the characters and makes women seem whiny, materialistic, manipulative, stubborn, demanding... I don't hate NYC in general (and I like a lot about it), but this movie reminds me of the things I hate about NYC: the obsession with status, class and race segregation (there's a "black" New Years Party that the token black person attends). I really can't stand Carrie. Normally I don't mind Miranda but she's a real bitch in this. It's scary that Samantha's story ends with her realizing she loves herself more than anything/one else, and we're supposed to take that as some sort of feminist stand. Charlotte is, well, annoying. Anthony Lane's review of SATC actually made me laugh more than the film itself.

I also saw In Bruges, and it was OK. I know it's a cliche to see your work everywhere, but I really think a lot of what I've been talking about in my current chapter (the rough draft of which is pretty much done) applies to In Bruges. It's this palimpsest view of history, in this old medieval city. Everything converges on a film set; action is predicated on something false or absent or incomprehensible. Time and memory etc are rewritten blah blah... Hell has this particular sort of ontology: layers of inescapable history--that's why Bruges is hell, because you can't get away from the past. He needs a new start so in the last shot he's moved to this sterile environment, then it cuts to the credits. There's also a lot of relating the cinematic and dream experiences. Lots of inversions. Anyway, I'm not sure the film itself was entirely successful. I think it needed more story. It was kind of slow in parts and I found my attention wandering. Though after Sex and the City, it was a masterpiece.

Far Beyond the Stars, Thesis

I just saw the episode of DS9 "Far Beyond the Stars." It's really one of the best ones. Gosh, Avery Brooks is amazing, both as actor and director. There's a scene near the end that will have you in tears. It's really difficult to make an episode so "meta" but somehow they pull it off without being gimmicky. Watch it!

I've been thinking about why I'm having so many problems writing my thesis. It's hard to sit down and concentrate, but that's not the whole problem. I need more time to live with me ideas, and more time to develop them. What I have written down seems to me basically a list of interesting things loosely connected. If I were in grading mode, I would write "consequences? develop" in the margins. I am disappointed primarily because I think it could be quite good, but I probably don't have the time. If my fall job doesn't require me to have completely finished my degree, I think I may try to extend the thesis into the fall... Yes, it's time for me to leave school, but my thesis is really important to me, and I would hate to shortchange it.

DS9, Ideology, and Journalism

I was reminded last night of how complex DS9 really is. There are so many different parties with competing ideologies. We have the Federation (military arm = Starfleet), Cardassians (intelligence arm = Obsidian Order), Bajorans, Dominion (consisting of Founders, Vorta, Jem'Hadar), Ferengi, the Prophets, Klingons, Romulans (intelligence arm = Tal Shiare)... there are lots more but I suppose these are the main ones. Continuing from my last post, I've been thinking about dictators, and at one point Gul Dukat (one of the best villains ever, a Cardassian) is talking to the Vorta Weyoun about how they can secure a takeover of the Alpha Quadrant. Weyoun says that resistance will start at Earth, so the only solution is to eradicate its population. Dukat, on the other hand, says that Weyoun doesn't understand that what they have to do is get the Alpha Quadrant to love them, to welcome them as liberators, so-to-speak, because that's the only way to hold on to power. Before the series started, he was the head of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, and all he wanted was to be loved, to have statues and monuments to his benevolence. Of course, he also ran labour camps that were little more than concentration camps. The Bajorans are like Palestinians, but, you know, not so "othered." Hmmm...all this is a gross simplification, but you get the idea.

I read the Globe and Mail every morning, but sometimes I wonder why. I do like the feel of a real newspaper. I like sitting at my kitchen table with my coffee (in the summer, iced coffee) and breakfast and taking some to turn pages physically...I spend so much time on the internet. My most hated columnist is Margaret Wente (more on that whenever her next column comes out), but today there was an editorial by Lorna Dueck that was, frankly, shocking. I've read her Christian essays before--they have her write something every once in a while--but this was the worst. Most of the time her articles are about how people need to bring a spiritual dimension into their lives, and how Christian ethics should inform policy, etc. This one was about parenting. Here are some choice quotes: "I could write a book about my childhood--a lot of us could--but here's the baffling truth: We're born with sin our genes and it takes a lifetime to evolve to good." She is talking about the need to discipline your sinful kids, and how parents are sinful as well: "Sin has no limit of age and if there is any reason to involve the state over family discipline issues, it happens because we are spiritually sick." She ends with, "It's not the state that's needed, it's not even religion, it's just me knowing what to do with the sin." I cannot believe that a publication that touts itself as Canada's national paper would print such garbage. I can imagine the letters to the editor will be flooding in--I'm interested to see which make it onto the editorial page. The Globe and Mail is really not a good newspaper...but I don't see how the Montreal Gazette or The National Post would be any better. One good thing about moving to the States (if I must, eventually) will be American media (seems like a funny thing to say!). Print media, more specifically, is infinitely better south of the border. The Globe Style section is pretty awful...I don't see how Leah McLaren is paid to write such drivel. This is not my "militant" atheism talking: I do think it's abusive to tell a child he or she is inherently sinful. And how is sin defined anyway? Is extra-/pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or masturbation sinful? What about abortion? What a great way to maintain a religion--tell everyone that they're sinful and that adhering to the religion is the only way to some sort of paradise (so don't be afraid of death as long as you're religious).

Inaugural Post!

I am starting this blog because I spend way too much time on the internet and my mind wanders, and I figured a blog would be a good way to get all my thoughts down and hopefully focus them in the process. I found myself posting things on Facebook, which would go into my friends' news feeds, and I would much rather not bother everyone with things I find interesting. This way, only people who are actually interested in what I think about things (which may be no one!) will be burdened. This will really be less of a "what's happening in my real life" blog than "what's happening in my dilettante life." For the most part, I imagine I'll talk about TV shows and movies, books and music, but also politics and perhaps even some more philosophical musings. Haha! Reader beware!

Right now I'm trying to write the second chapter of my thesis, and because I'm such a scatter-brain, it's taking quite a bit longer than I anticipated. I've been re-watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and it's still really good and relevant. I started again because I was thinking about how John McCain said that the US could be in Iraq for another hundred years, and on the surface that doesn't seem like such an unreasonable thing to say. There are still American troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, and other places, but not in combat roles. However, it does seem that the conflicts that led to those long-term deployments were quaititatively different than what's going on in the Middle East right now. What's good about DS9 (and other STs too, but this one does it best) is isolate certain elements of different cultures and then explore them in depth, over many episodes. Indeed, most of the series is the same war, and the bad guys aren't totally bad, the good guys often do unethical things.

The other thing I've been thinking about, not extensively though, is what's going on in Zimbabwe. I saw an episode of DS9 in which a former Federation officer turned terrorist/freedom fighter tells Captain Sisko that the Federation is worse than the Borg, because at least the Borg tell you up front that you're going to be assimilated and that resistance is futile. The Federation makes you think that you're advancing the cause of liberal democracy and egalitarianism, but they're really incorporating you into their ideology. Whatever you think of that (the Federation utopia seems pretty good), it's an interesting thing to consider. Isn't that what Zizek is always going on about? His new book (In Defense of Lost Causes) seems to be about that, at least in part, in terms of the perils of liberal democracies. Mugabe holding elections, and forcing people to vote, seems to be an extreme version of this: I'm not going to be your run-of-the-mill dictator, I'm going to make you endorse me. Of course, if you don't have a purple finger to show you've voted (really only one name is available), you'll be punished. Does it somehow make you nostalgic for the good old days when dictators didn't need such validation?

Why am I writing this blog instead of my thesis? Well, sometimes everyone needs a break. Though mine seems to have lasted 3 days. I ought to do some research tonight at least...anticipate the next chapter!