Sunday, May 29, 2016

Peter FitzSimons and luvvie mates want us to keep the home fires burning

Whenever there's some potential change to current trade policies that means Australian arty types will have to compete on a more equal footing with their counterparts overseas, local lefties suddenly do a massive U-turn and get all patriotic on our arses. They say we Aussies need to protect "our culture" from being flooded by imports. We need to hear "our stories" told in "our voices".

This gargle from Pirate Pete Fitzsimons is an example of this emotive, disingenuous and self-serving line of argument. He and his earnest comrades in, er, arts are spooked by the latest proposal to change territorial copyright laws

It is, I grant you, a complex issue but the bottom line is this. It is our united view that, beyond all matters of commerce, it is the  duty of the federal government – be it the Turnbull or Shorten government – to support the Australian campfire where Australian stories are told, to Australians.

Jeez. Ya couldn't get more dinky-di Strayan than that now, could ya cobber? Fair dinkum, 'ken oath!

I always find this amusing because much of the rest of the time they're zealously advocating multi-culturalism, viciously and often falsely accusing non-lefties of racist thought-crime for not kowtowing to their politically correct demands.

If they sincerely believe the pronouncements they make when in peak luvvie virtue-signalling mode then surely they would welcome all stories, from all cultures, told in all accents, wouldn't they? 

Nope. Not when their massively inflated incomes are at risk of being lowered a tad by genuine competition, they won't.  

Monday, May 23, 2016

Elijah Wood's paedophilia claims run counter to MSM's anti-Catholic narrative

It's interesting that there's such a strong association between Catholicism and paedophilia these days. The way the MSM focuses on this issue and hounds prominent figures in the Catholic Church (such as George Pell) you'd think that this was where most of it occurs.

There's obviously long been a serious problem there. But is it any worse than in other denominations? The evidence seems to imply it isn't. It also appears that the priesthood in general is no more full of paedophiles than any other section of society.

I think it's fair to say that the perception that every second Catholic priest is a kiddy fiddler has much to do with the left-leaning media's enduring animosity towards Christians in general and Catholics in particular.

Which is probably why we have heard so little about how the scourge afflicts other sections of society, such as the film industry. If Elijah Wood's claims are to be believed Hollywood is chockas with child abusers who've been getting away with their crimes for years. Notably he compares this alleged massive, ongoing cover-up to the one that allowed Jimmy Savile to escape scrutiny for so long and ultimately escape justice.

Sounds plausible to me. The place is known for its decadence. And money is power, after all.

Politics is also a possible factor. Tinseltown movers and shakers are left-liberals more often than not. And this ideological bent aligns with the rest of the MSM in America. So it makes sense that high profile journalists wouldn't be too keen on venturing into Hollywood's secretive nooks and crannies in search of scuttling rock spiders. As a dutiful cultural change agent you wouldn't want to make your fellow travellers look bad, now would you?

Then there's the vanity aspect. If you're a big name reporter who gets known for shining a light on the film capital's underbelly you could easily become persona non grata amongst its elites. No more A-list parties for you! Given that ego drives journos nearly as much as it does actors, singers, dancers and directors this would be a significant discouragement to many of them IMO.

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Ghostbusters 3 is a toxic mix of PC feminism and corporate cynicism

This new ultra-PC version of Ghostbusters is stirring up an absolutely massive negative reaction. The trailer for it is the most disliked YouTube video in history. The rightier reaches of the blogosphere are getting stuck into it with gusto. And more than a few film critics are saying it'll be a train wreck without a doubt.

Needless to say, this criticism is met with howls of "misogyny!" from the usual suspects, and there are squillions of those. I'm sure that if the social justice warriors weren't so fired up about it, there'd be even more condemnation of the whole project, even from left-leaning cinephiles.

The desperation with which right-on feminist types are defending the project and attacking its critics is as pathetic as it is extreme. This is a good takedown of one of them, Marisa Kabas.

As well as illustrating the falsehood and nastiness of her attack on popular film critic James Rolphe, it has a good summary of the motivations of the movie's defenders:

What’s fascinating with criticisms of new Ghostbusters vs SJW defenders, is it’s all projection from the defenders. People defending new Ghostbusters believe people hate it because gender, and can only defend the film based on gender. Criticisms are based on how the jokes are bad, how the effects are bad, how it’s a cheap cash in on a much loved classic. SJWs are absolutely obsessed with identity politics to the point that they project their obsession onto everyone else. They don’t listen to criticisms, they don’t consider Occam’s Razor, they jump straight to the conclusion that all those down votes, all the negative reaction videos and comments, are based on the literal hatred of women.

Bang on the money!

Look at everything else the PC Left are arcing up about and you see the same primitive psychology at work. They simply cannot see people as individuals. They see only group identities. (Gawd. What a sad, stunted view of humanity!) So they think that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing the same thing from another direction. Consequently they are doomed to perpetuate the very bigotry they so often falsely accuse others of inflicting on society.

Both the production of Ghostbusters 3 and the vicious sliming of those who criticize it are motivated by this rigid ideology. But there's another toxic ingredient in the mix: corporate greed. Clearly, Hollywood money men (and women) thought it was time to rehash this classic. It had a ready made brand that could be leveraged for sure fire bucks. But that soulless goal is why so many people are saying it has "turkey" written all over it:

The reaction to the “Ghostbusters” reboot is the unsurprising, and dare I say long overdue, response from a generation of fans that have repeatedly watched their most iconic childhood memories cut up and sold for parts. Directors, producers, and writers are more focused on the shiny new reboot or sequel, dishing out forced fan-service callbacks with the belief that success is intrinsically tied to more of the same, that a feeling cannot be replicated without replicating that which brought on the feeling in the first place.

Movie lovers resent being taken for granted. And they're saying so now. Their displeasure will also be expressed in low box office figures, I suspect.

Actually, the whole phenomenon is a bit like local conservatives who are really pissed off about Turnbull and his, er, malcoholics seizing control of their party and steering it leftward. Vote whisperer Mark Textor says these people don't matter. But they have different ideas. Just as film fans will probably stay away from Ghostbusters 3 in droves, a large percentage of the Liberal Party's traditional support base will not vote as its strategists predict, I reckon.

Monday, May 2, 2016

SJWs seem intent on destroying the craft of acting

Social justice warriors are everywhere, of course. But one area they've long been very active in is the arts. Really depressing, because art is the very definition of self expression. And you'd hope that in a truly free and open society you can be true to your artistic vision and create whatever the hell you want.

But nup. Those right-on finger-waggers are there to tell you what's acceptable and what's not. Take that Nina Simone biopic. The perpetually offended arced up because even though the character was played by a woman of colour, she wasn't, er, colourful enough! 

As this article about the furore makes clear, this wasn't the only recent film casting decision to enrage the cultural commisars:

The furor over Nina is the latest in a series of Hollywood controversies over not just race but sexuality, gender and biological status. Hollywood has seen the pro-gay film Stonewall boycotted for marginalising people of colour, the transgender film The Danish Girl criticised for casting a non-transgender actor as its star, and the upcoming Marvel film Doctor Strange blasted for giving the role of an Asian male to Tilda Swinton.

A common element in many of these complaints is that the actor himself shouldn't be allowed to play a character whose political identity he doesn't share in real life. And this standard isn't just being applied to movies being made now. Classic flicks from the past are now being dissected along these brutally simplistic lines.

Take this piece about how the casting of a memorable female character in James Cameron's classic Aliens was "problematic":

Aside from Ellen Ripley herself, the most badass character in James Cameron’s action-packed sequel is Private Vasquez, the tough-as-nails Colonial Marine who is almost always holding a big gun and leading her fellow Marines into battle with the Xenomorphs. When we first meet Vasquez, she’s doing pull-ups straight out of hyper-sleep, and when we last see her, she dies one of the most heroic deaths in the entire franchise. In between, Vasquez spouts off one-liners and blasts away Xenomorphs like it’s going out of style, and it’s no secret why she became one of the most fan-favorite characters in the movie.

What most did not realize at that time, and what many still haven’t figured out, is that Vasquez, a Latino woman, was played in Aliens by Jenette Goldstein, a freckle-faced white actress. It’s a testament to Goldstein’s acting abilities, to say the very least, that most never caught on to the fact that Vasquez was not played by a Latina actress, but what’s worth discussing here is that Vasquez was, well, not played by a Latina actress. In an effort to appear less white, Goldstein was outfitted with dark contact lenses to hide her blue eyes and yes, she was even covered in full face-and-body makeup to cover her white skin.


Which makes you wonder about what the ramifications of all this social justice activism are for the craft of acting. Hell, it has make-believe at its very core! When you play a role that a writer has dreamed up you become what you are not. And the measure of your skill is how thoroughly you can convince the viewer that you are that person -- and a real, living, breathing one at that!

But now in many cases daring to do that is deemed discriminatory by the diversity police. And if these doctrinaire numpties have their way, it may even become verboten.

Gawd. What a strange world we live in. It's like being in a bloody movie ...

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Now that the gender binary is a drag, acts will have to catch up!

I've long found it amusing that drag gets a pass from the thought police. It's parodying women -- holding them up to ridicule -- after all. Clearly this omission has much to do with the fact that it's a gay genre. So the usual rules don't apply, natch. So silly ...

Back in the nineties in Melbourne I used to know several bolshie women who would get all het up if they saw "misogynous" hetero blokes frock up (like on The Footy Show). Then they would go out to drag shows in gay bars and cheer the acts! They had the whole situation completely arse about, as usual.

By definition hetero blokes desire women. They are in awe of their beauty. Women are the mysterious, compelling other that they want to attract towards them. And it's women's feminine otherness that is their most powerfully intoxicating attribute.

So when straight men wear women's clothes it's usually a big joke to them (and most women, too). They revel in the grotesque awkwardness of their new appearance, often acting even blokier than usual. They're mocking themselves, mostly. But gay drag, in holding femininity up to ridicule, seems inherently more misogynistic IMO.

Well, however you choose to look at the performance genre, it depends very much on that eeevil gender binary doesn't it? And given that so-called social progressives have now officially deemed this to be a divisive weapon of oppression wielded by the patriarchy, and replaced it with a whole new paradigm of "gender fluidity" this could prove, er, problematic for screaming -- or rather, miming -- queens who cross dress for cash, don't ya think?

Neeedless to say, social justice warriors who live to demonise straight white males will go easier on the "gay community" in the short term. But they've been eating their own with increasing frequency of late (take what's happened to gay leftie Stephen Fry on a couple of occasions, for example). Could only be a matter of time before we read about the gender equity police throwing their usual (double) standards out the window and chucking massive tanties over the acts of certain prominent gay drag performers, I reckon.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Lawrence Mooney review spat reveals the shifting sands of social justice

Up until now, social justice warrior (SJW) attacks have followed a pretty clear pattern. A tiny-minded feminist, say, decides to falsely accuse a prominent white male of misogyny. Then all her shrieking frightbat mates join the ambush on social media. Fellow travelling journos report on the issue in an outrageously biased way. The victim is painted as an abuser and he just can't get his side of the story across. His reputation in ruins, he ends up grovelling for forgiveness for a wrong he never committed!

This is of course a bad strategy for him to choose because it just confirms the attackers' narrative. Rather than saying all (or even some) is forgiven, they go in harder and demand his resignation -- if he hasn't been sacked by his spooked organization already, that is. With no support behind him and no other options available, he usually complies. Pumped from their victory, and with another bloody scalp to wave at other potential targets, the odds of his victors' launching another, more brazen attack are greater still...

But this kinda bloodsport has been going on for so long, and rampaging thought police have destroyed so many careers, that people are starting to resist them. Some are actually lefties themselves who have been unfairly targeted, or who have come to the defence of friends who were attacked. So the whole paradigm of social justice war seems to be shifting somewhat...

And here's a current local example involving Aussie comedian Lawrence Mooney that seems to confirm this development. As a prominent white male, he's a potential target. (Though he is a leftie himself, decreasing the odds of an attack.)

Now he's been given a pretty ordinary review of one of his recent comedy shows by an Adelaide journo. While the write-up included a bit of right-on hand-wringing about domestic violence it didn't qualify as an outright accusation of "thought crime" IMO.

In any case it provoked an outraged response from the comic on Twitter. My personal feeling is that he overreacted. But he does have the right to fire back. Critics have got to learn to take criticism too -- even if it's roughly worded.

But because of her gender and his tone he's now upped the ante. Sob sister SJWs have a likely candidate for their next target. There's a chance that the clash will result in a stupid, extended frightbat campaign to severely damage his career. If this does occur, and he does apologize down the track, well, I won't be surprised. But if the Aussie frightbats do declare open season on him I hope he doesn't back down and keeps launching salvos at them.

I think that's what he'll do if that scenario develops because, while the issue trended on Twitter and has received MSM coverage, he hasn't yet apologized as far as I know. Not only that, but some other comics have lent their support. This is quite interesting given the gender and levels of influence of the two protagonists.

And I found this quote significant:

Mooney later told BuzzFeed: “What made me angry was her contention that I’m not a comedian just a funny guy under a spotlight,” he said.

“I’ve had much more brutal reviews. The quaint difference between a comedian and a funny guy. I’ll leave it there.”

It was almost as if he was being the SJW since he was practising a bit of, er, language policing. His accusation wasn't that she was politically incorrect, but professionally incorrect.

Well, whatever occurs subsequently it seems to me that the lines are blurring substantially. This episode, along with others, shows that the nature of the social justice war is changing. People are not just defending themselves against accusations, but launching pre-emptive strikes. If vicious PC bullies in social and mainstream media find this upsetting, it's all good as far as I'm concerned. Great to see them cop some of their own medicine -- particularly from those on their own side!

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Chet isn't the only faker. His feminist critics are too

Aussie performer Chet Faker's stage name is a play on the real name of the iconic tragic jazz great and is therefore meant to make him seem post-modernist and ironic and all. But frankly I think it's accurate in a WYSIWYG kinda way -- at least as it pertains to his political beliefs. He resembles so many sneering hipsters in the arts world these days in that he presents a right-on facade to stay in the good books with the meeja. To be fair, he doesn't really have that much of a choice, as a recent Twitter ruckus illustrates.

See, feminist journo Erin Riley, who spends most of her waking hours looking for things to be, er, lefteously indignant about, discovered that the private school "Chet" attended had produced an inordinate number of Triple J Hottest 1000 winners. This fun fact involved obvious white male privilege and gender disparity and was therefore gold for an SJW hoping to lift her profile. She must have been delighted when a twitstorm ensued after he fired back at her with tweets implying that he wasn't that privileged after all. She earned some free publicity for herself and got to play the victim, the twin goals of most feminist behaviour these days.

She also had a clear win before all her adoring frightbat fans because the eeevil white male backed down after his initial self-defence and offered the usual boilerplate BS about equality, etc. Seems pretty clear he was only saying it to put out the social media fire that resulted form his initial reaction.

Riley's response to the muso eating crow was interesting:

Ms Riley retweeted the apology on Wednesday morning.

She told Daily Mail Australia that his tweets were 'very gracious'.

'I was impressed by his willingness to admit his mistake. That being said, the torrent of abuse and vitriol that came from other people - which was clearly in no way his fault - at a simple fact was very concerning.'

Eh? So he's not to blame for the reaction of others. That's a direct contradiction of the usual PC line, which is to sheet home as much blame to influencers as possible. She might have to swot up on her tactics.

Also, was it really a "torrent of abuse and vitriol"? Maybe she got some snark in e-mails. But if you search her name and handle on Twitter there seems to be little if any of negative reaction to her. Try both kinds, and you'll see what I mean. Not saying that she didn't receive any at all. But her choice of words seems to be hugely OTT by any rational measure.

Also, on the subject of private school, did Erin attend one herself? She has a very entitled air about her. I suspect it's likely, although I'm happy to be corrected on this.

Seems to me both the muso and the, er, critic in this case should check their privilege -- not to mention ease up on the fakery.