If they move, shoot 'em

So there's been some controversy around the latest installment in the Call of Duty franchise, Modern Warfare 2. Maybe you've heard about it. The developers decided to include a scene in which you have the choice to massacre a shitload of civilians in an airport. Yeah. I don't really have anything to say about that. Well, not yet, anyway. Maybe someday, when I've actually played the thing. Until then, Kieron Gillen over at RockPaperShotgun has weighed the scene and found it lighter than a feather. It's a great, if somewhat rambling, analysis, filled with justified rage (the best kind). Obviously both links are dipped in spoilers, so if you care about that sort of thing, stay your mouse-clicking. I think it's safe to say that the plot of MW2 is grade-A bullshit though, so it probably doesn't matter much.

A violent game I have played, however, got a sequel a few weeks back. Maybe you've heard about this one too? It's called Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and the only controversy surrounding it was of the console war kind (it's a PS3 exclusive. If you don't know why that makes it controversial, I envy you more than you'll ever know). The main character, the one you're controlling, is one Nathan Drake, dashing adventurer, charming thief, and sociopathic mass-murderer. That last part, however, isn't very clear until you start to think about what you're actually doing when you play him. Sure, this isn't the first game where you mow down seemingly endless amounts of enemies without if affecting as much as your haircut, in fact, if you play videogames once in a while you're probably used to it. After all, aren't games supposed to make stuff like murder and dismemberment fun? Isn't that the point of interactive entertaiment? What on earth would you do in a game, if you couldn't shoot shit to bloody pieces? Then it'd just be an interactive cutscene! A full-on QTE-fest! Oh no, the gayness!

..sorry, I'll stop that now. Anyway, sure, Indy shot some people in his day, no remorse needed, so why can't Drake? Let's look at some obvious differences between the original and the cardboard copy. First of all, Drake is a fucking cardboard copy, in case you just missed that sentence. He's as bland as heroes get, basically. He inhabits a bland (although pretty) world, has bland sidekicks, fights bland villains. Bland bland bland bland. He's a flat and boring character, he has the same dry, ironic, pretend world-weariness that all of these adventurers have had since the Last Crusade. Sure, some of his quips are funny, but they were more funny the first time you heard them, which was somewhere else, long ago. Second, and this is really just a follow-up to the first, Uncharted is badly written, and the violence doesn't fit with the (bland) story. Some silly South American gangleader has a bazillion goons who love nothing more than showering in gunfire? Really? Which, coincidentally, brings us to bullet-point number three: Indy may be a killer, but he's not a one-man slaughterhouse. In Uncharted you snuff out the precious life force of literally thousands of people, and Drakes rection is a weary sigh and dry comments along the lines of "oh dear, all this killing is making me sleepy". The whole thing is just downright silly. It doesn't so much break immersion as blow it to dust, vacuuming it up and emptying the bag into the Atlantic Ocean.

The thing is, this is videogame convention. Gamers are used to killing tons of dudes, it's just something we accept as part of the game. If we're to judge games on content, as opposed to mechanics, most simply fall short. Fallout 3 falls short. FarCry 2 falls short. BioShock, bless it, fucks up the atmosphere completely by having every resident of Rapture psychotically attack you on sight. The most common solution, of course, is simply filling your action game with monsters, demons, or robots, or setting the game in some sort of war. It works, but god damn it all, games are capable of more.

All of that said, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is one hell of an entertaining game. The combat mechanics are excellent, taking cover and popping some desperate shots at the ethnic diversity is exciting, and doesn't get old. But this doesn't make it a good game. It simply makes it a fun one.

Post in which I ponder the strange and inescapable mysteries of space/time and arrives at a shocking conclusion

Please forgive me for drawing your attention to an article in the Daily Mirror, about the actor playing Harry Potter possibly smoking a joint. "Harry Pothead", beams the Mirror, impossibly proud of itself. "The philosopher's stoned" it continues, while smirking contently at its own cleverness. Yes, those hilarious boys and girls at Britains most revered newspaper surely knows their way arund the words, don't they? I will use this occasion to direct you to a previous post I made on another Potter subject, using the same highly original pun for no apparent contextual reason. Obviously I was the first person in the world to ever think of this, and should sue the internet. Anyway, that post, rather bizarrely, segues into a short but concise analysis of the use of torture in 24. Why bizarrely? Because I am now (not so) hard at work writing a student paper on that same subject.

What is that sound? Could it be the very fabric of my sanity has started tearing? Or is it simply time and space reconfiguring itself around bad puns and violence?

More on delicious torture soon, I suspect. Must prioritise exams over blog.

Pretty Offensive

Pretty Woman offends me on so many levels. It offends me as a misogynist, it offends me as a feminist, I even find it offensive that I thought it was funny and mostly enjoyable. Actually, that last part really pisses me off. I wanted to hate that movie so bad, but how could I? It's Hollywood at it's slickest and most manipulative, and by god, they're good at what they do. So now you're thinking, okay, you enjoyed it (you fucking faggot), then what's there to complain about?

I'll tell you what there's to fucking complain about.

It's a shameless fantasy for women, like a female Star Wars or Die Hard. That's not really a bad thing in itself, but it makes absolutely no effort to appeal to manly men like myself. Women want to be Julia Roberts (or rather, Vivian Whoreface or whatever her name is). She's disgustingly charming, independent and bright, but most importantly: She's seemingly calling all the shots. SHE never goes to HIM, not once (at least, I'm Pretty Sure of this), it's always the other way around. She changes him for the better, and while she also goes through somewhat of a metamorphosis, it's emphasized that she merely realizes her potential. He's transformed on a core level, he goes from a cold, rich bastard to a glowing humanitarian, and it's all because of her. So, while women want to be her, men don't really want to be him. He's worked his ass off, while she's just Pretty Charming. He goes to the opera and does other silly things instead of watching football and drinking beer, like all men dream of. In short, he's a pansy. Just to be clear: Beating up George from Seinfeld doesn't count as macho, okay?
Okay, so you get the picture. I'll put away the big brush for now.

Now, the feminist angle. It glamourizes her profession. Yeah, sure, modern feminists would probably say something like hookerism could be a way of affirming one's sexual power as a woman or somesuch bullshit. Me, I'm old-school, I see it as degrading yourself for money. Theres actually a Pretty Clever little comparison between his job and hers in the movie, but we'll just write that down to Hollywood professionalism, along with the mentions of dead hookers in dumpsters and crazy pimps on crack sporting switchblade skateboards and what have you. The fact remains, and I'm sure noone will disagree with this, Vivian's not a realistic character. She's simply not damaged enough, in fact, she's not damaged at all. If this all sounds a bit too politically correct for you, then kindly go fuck yourself. It's a fairy tale, who cares, right?

But still, there's this nagging feeling that all's not well in Alternative Feminist-ville. He comes to her in a dramatic gesture with a fire-escape and some bullshit, protects her from silly bald rapist lawyers, apologizes to her after pointing out her chosen profession, changes his evil ways for her and so on and so boring, while she smiles and pouts and sucks on his dick and looks pretty. But still, in a more profund sense, he rescues her from reality, removes her from the world. It's never, ever the other way around. Whether the man is rich and the woman poor or vice versa, it's always the man's world thats the ideal one (see Titanic for a contrasting example). I'm probably wrong about the "always" bit, at least I certainly hope so, but it's still the prevailing scenario. And people lap it up! How many women think that men should behave like this, with the big gesturing and the protecting and the crawling and the working? A show of hands, please, be honest now. And how many thought that the comparison to Star Wars was an unfair one?

Fuck it, I'll admit I have a Pretty Weak case here, and also, that joke was Pretty Awful to begin with and I have no fucking idea why I keep repeating it. As a fantasy, as pure escapist entertainment, I have no complaints against Pretty Woman. Just please, for the love of fucking god, don't consider it to be better than (or even different from) high fantasy or science fiction. In fact, in quite a few cases, I'd argue it's the other way around.

Well, I guess that's the root of my annoyance. Maybe I shouldn't use this blog as anger management. I don't really have a joke to finish with, sorry. I will, however, state that Naked Lunch is a fucking amazing movie and everyone should see it, but that's neither here nor there.

Exterminate all rational thought.

Embed Without a Cause

I must have seen this one a bazillion times in the last few days. The song is "Carol Brown" by Flight of the Conchords, from an episode directed by Michel Gondry..



..who also made this: