Paranormal Activism: Reflections in Found Footage

There are a couple of movie franchises I periodically check in on. One of them is the Paranormal Activity series, which I was a big fan of for the first few years. Yesterday, I was made aware that the newest film, Paranormal Activity Not 5 or 6 Because We Botched Our Numbering System is due this October, with promises of answering all the questions the series has posed.

Really?

There are questions to be answered?

I was satisfied with the notion that the producers were making it all up as they went with no real coherency in sight. Frankly, I'm less than optimistic this final film is going to prove otherwise.

It's a bit telling that this 'endgame' announcement actually came four moths ago and I'm just now hearing about it. Somewhere along the way, I went from being an advocate of the series to exhibiting unbridled indifference to it. I've rented Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones twice and I still haven't motivated myself to put it in the DVD player. So what the hell happened?

Found Footage is a Gimmick

Just like 3D or stories told in real time, the 'found footage' approach to filmmaking is a double edged blade. On the one hand, you have a shortcut to getting your audience's attention. On the flipside, you give the audience inclination to judge your work not by the story content but by your technical creativity in pulling said gimmick off.

Found footage can work, although it's probably better in bursts; the intense opening to Strange Days comes to mind. If you're an independent filmmaker, the found footage horror film is an attractive genre, because it helps disguise a lot of production issues; such as the lack of set designers, fully realized scripts, a convenient justification for not showing the monster at the end, etc. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just very difficult to do it well.

1999 gave us that milestone indie film The Blair Witch Project, a movie which honestly hasn't held up over time. People praised it back in the day, probably because of their personal experience with the movie, and not the overall quality of the film. The characters were the girl who screamed the whole time, the guy who threw away the map, and the other guy.

I maintain that Paranormal Activity is the better movie because there were actual characters in a predominantly character driven piece. Katie Featherston may not have had the chance to demonstrate the talent needed to carry her into more mainstream roles, but she's quite convincing in this first film. I find myself invested in her character, and actually concerned with her outcome (kind of an important element). Without her, Paranormal Activity would simply be a uniform-motion equation to its climax. Featherston gives the story its arc.

Why Don't They Put Down the Camera?

In any found footage film, this question will eventually cross the minds of the audience. It's the responsibility of the filmmaker to satisfactorily resolve this issue. Blair Witch gave us a half-assed explanation by suggesting that Screamie could distance herself from reality by looking through the lens, and they could use the camera as a light source (which I guess only worked by hitting record?).

Paranormal 1 also gives us Micah Sloat, the apparent culprit in why the demonic activity gets progressively worse. He likes recording these things, and he's fascinated by all of the happenings. Sure, as the audience we can say "turn the camera off, moron!" from the comfort of our stadium seating, but for the purpose of the movie Micah's character works. It makes sense that he would keep filming. He's cocky, and never quite in touch with the danger he and Katie are in. He's not a bad guy, just overconfident.

Now, I'm going to put that thought on hold for a moment, but as we move into Paranormals 2 and 3, we get to points in the narrative where there is literally no reason for the characters to keep filming, and it cheapens the overall product. In 2 the problem occurs when the dad and the daughter get trapped in the basement. 3 is a little more ambiguous. The question arises, when do you have enough footage to do something about it.

More on that shortly...

The Story Isn't Moving Forward

I know several people who insist that the sequel is the best entry in the franchise, and I very much disagree. Problem one: the new characters just didn't do anything for me. Problem two: getting back to Micah's overconfidence, this movie undoes a really strong element of its predecessor. In Paranormal 1 we're led to believe that Micah creates his own demise by playing games with this invisible demon, and it's a great moral. But in the prequel/interquel/whateverquel it's established that Katie was going to get it no matter what, ultimately absolving Micah's influence on the events.

2 starts taking us into what the producers are calling 'the mythology' of the series, which translates as 'that stuff that we haven't really nailed down yet but we're booked in theaters this October'. We're not fooled. They're making it up as they go, and that rarely works out.

Problem three: and this is the big one, Paranormal Activity 2 contracts a terminal case of 'we've seen this movie already'. Paranormal 1 was meant to be a one shot story, that unexpectedly hit the jackpot, leaving lots and lots of ticket buyers demanding more. Unfortunately we get more of the same. Nothing gets accomplished except to take us back to the climax of the first movie. It like listening to an engaging story and getting to that cliffhanger. "So what happens next?" "Oh, wait, I need to tell you what happened before that." "*sigh*...[two hours later] So then what happens?" "Oh! I need to tell you what happened to the kids back in the 80's." "&@#%!"

We NEED New Tricks

Well, I was going to throw in the towel when I heard Paranormal Activity 3 was going even further back, but then the reviews raved about the oscillating fan-mounted camera. I thought, "that might be fun". It nearly rescued the whole franchise.

The entire second act of this movie is devoted to the new toy, and the directors milk every creative use of the slow pan they can think of. Even horror movies need a fun-factor. And by default, the babysitter with the 80's hairdo becomes one of the few post-original movie characters to leave any kind of impression.

Well, there's also Dude, played in this film by a character named Dennis. He's Katie's mother's boyfriend who have a penchant for videotaping (how fortunate) and serves as the prequel Micah. Miquel?

Dude leaves an impression as well, but for the wrong reasons. He seems well-meaning enough, but unlike Micah, Dude never checks the important footage for the Holy Grail of activity that he's so determined to capture. Meaning, his whole purpose is to justify the presence of the cameras well beyond the point where he would have stopped.

Then the final act shifts locations because I-don't-care-anymore. Dude, again without checking his footage, goes to grandmother's house because the-producers-don't-care-anymore, and I submit that this is the 'jump the shark' moment for the series. Something about a coven and ghoulish old ladies and Dude still won't put down the camera. Finally the demon named Toby (just, wow) pries it out of Dude's cold, dead hands, and still nothing has been accomplished.

END!!! Damn it!

I was actually disappointed to find out Paranormal Activity 4 wasn't going to be set even further back, like the 1700's told entirely through oil paintings.

I honestly remember nothing about this movie and that's never a good sign for a horror film. The action FINALLY moves forward and it amounts to nothing. When the first movie ended, I was still hoping for some way out for Katie. But now that we've been through three more movies and a spinoff, I honestly don't think there's anything or anyone in this series for me to care about. Maybe if the demon starts making its own film.

Paranormal Activity never needed a complicated back story. The original was great because it felt like it could happen to anyone who happened to move into the wrong house. But once we go into 'chosen one' territory, it separates us from the action on the screen. Any traces of metaphor for consequences when one dabbles in things they know they shouldn't are long gone. Now it's just a plodding narrative about an extremely specific set of circumstances that doesn't really warrant a conclusion.

I'm not sure what they should have done differently. Probably scrapped the witch's coven thing altogether and just focus on possessed Katie. Give the demon a malevolently playful sense of humor. Have Katie seeking out people who are filming things. Maybe go on one of those ghost hunter reality shows. Or get a Youtube channel.

The bottom line is: this series started great. But the producers got too comfortable with their cash cow and never tried to build with it. Now, it's like walking through a spookhouse attraction the weekend after Halloween when the performers just want to go home. It's a pity, because I kind of feel like Katie deserved better.





Poem: Faeriesong/Cruel Tragedy

I actually have a few decades worth of poetry which is probably not worth posting anywhere, but every once in awhile I'm able to put something together that honestly feels complete. This pairing of poems is meant to be the finale to a one-act musical that I started working on back in the 90's and (maybe) got a third of it completed.


The musical is called In Vanessa's Room, and it follows the title character who is spending the night alone in a hospital. The other characters are all in her head, sometimes while she's dreaming and sometimes they're waking hallucinations. They include her catatonic mother, the monster in her closet, a trio of girls who act as her Greek chorus, a psychiatrist, and a faerie named Nathaniel.


Faeriesong is the last song of the musical which Nathaniel sings to Vanessa towards the end of the night when she finally manages to fall asleep completely. As the song's writer, I can promise that there IS actually a coherency underneath the absurd lyrics; I figure faeries would take too much delight in playing with the sounds of the language to notice that they're not really making sense.


Cruel Tragedy is a spoken piece by Vanessa when she wakes up the next morning. It's one of my favorite things I've ever written.

Faeriesong

There's a car in the bar with a fender in the tire
And the render is a liar as they pry her free
And they leer when they hear there's a siren in remission
While the iron clad ignition clutches half her key.

It's some high finances when you gamble with your chances
And your missed romances leads to rambling glances
And your ambled askances make you shamble in the stances
And the dance is disarray.

 It'll be okay.

That's the words they say.
 And if the voices in my head have spread their dead cliché

In a silent plea
 Who would set us free?
 There's an empty space for our saving grace
Can the trace embrace a place for me?

If you don't want to merely bask
Then there's no reason not to ask.
Some are against you. Go and task

It anyway.

It'll be okay.

There's a girl who's a pearl being scouted on the beaches
And she's out of any reaches in her skin tight teal.
See her rant when they chant, though her slant is meant to cater
But I can't really hate her 'cause her ........ are real.

There's no resurrection to assure protection
Of the soul's infection of a poor rejection.
Insecure dissection of demur complexion
Makes reflection MIA.

(Piaget...ha ha)

It'll be okay.
Sipping Cabernet.
You know the goddess wears the bodice of her protégé.

Never place your bet
On a fool's regret.
We share a prayer to fair despair
That's barely happened yet.

I'd rather cherish my defeat.
It keeps my savage incomplete.
We'll find somewhere for us to meet
Along the way.

It'll be okay.



And as we wander
Through this vacuum we call love
We feel the tears, the fears, the sears the heavens
Threw out from above.
One day we say the question.
One day we even try.
One day we learn the worth we earn
Is founded on a lie.

But we're together in the nether
When we heal, when we betray.
Some are shattered. Some are tattered.
Some have battered their ballet.
In all its vision surely Fate
Can find a burrow for a stray.
A heart of stone would die alone
In one known.

One

 Way.

Tell me why we deny there's a tie of desperation
To defy our desolation where the moonbeams set.
And I speak like a freak. Could I send it in a letter
To amend the Irish Setter that I didn't pet.

It's my one obsession that I need expression
So my full confession doesn't breed possession
And I plead discretion could impede regression
And refreshen time for play.

It'll be okay.
Our cabriolet.
Why should the Seraphims forget and let the truth decay?

In our final bow
Would we wonder how?
If we kiss and tell, if we miss in hell
Can't our last farewell impel us now?

I know that greatness of the mettle isn't in my destiny
It doesn't mean I have to settle for this mediocrity.

And if the stars should realign
Their chords are bound to intertwine.

So if you stumble over mine.
Let it stay.

 Cruel Tragedy

Sometimes it's hard to get out of your bed.
Sometimes the power goes off in your head.
Sometimes your underwear loses elastic.
Sometimes decisions appears rather drastic.

Sometimes you scatter a mixture of waxes and soar to the floor with a bruise.
Sometimes you've stretched all your threads to their maxes, your temper incited to lose.
Sometimes the world isn't quite on its axis, its central rotation askews.

Sometimes the rainbows are shaded in grey.
Sometimes you simply have nothing to say.
Sometimes the sunflower curses the sun.
Sometimes the time is reluctant to run.

Sometimes you enter a lift moving downward when you had intended to rise.
Sometimes you think there's a step at the bottom and practically shatter your thighs.
Sometimes you haven't a thing to believe in but desperately cling to the lies.

Some times. Some places. Some where and some when
Because life isn't perfect. It never has been.
What a waste. What a crime. What a cruel tragedy.
To expect every sect in effect to agree.

Sometimes the traffic is backed up to Maine.
Sometimes you drop rubber bands down the drain.
Sometimes your very last nerve has been shot.
Sometimes you're worthless.

But sometimes you're not.

Imagine a place with no pressure or struggle.
No pleasure to measure or stressors to juggle.
No waking forsaking the aching of feet.
And every direction is never retreat.
The summer is tepid. The winter a breeze.
With limits unblemished confliction agrees.
No clashing of tension, consention to strain.
Not one comprehension to mention of pain.

No shimmer. No sparkle. No glisten or gleam.
Where all is in balance and nothing extreme.
The surfacing ripples are just what they seem.
No reason to wonder. No reason to dream.
No reason to dance and no reason to sing
And allusion's conclusions aren't worth anything.
Where the sanctity's easy and danger is low
And you don't learn a thing and you don't ever grow.

Now...

Given the option of living in jars
Or a lifetime of trials and woe

I'll handle the strain and I'll handle the scars
And I'll leave here with something to show.

And maybe there's meaning and maybe there isn't
And maybe there's nowhere to go.

But people are people
And voices are voices
And reason is reason
And choices are choices.
Who ever you are
And what ever you say
And what ever you do
Is your personal way
But until you step out
Of the world you perceive
And accept separation
From shelters naive
To determine what's real
From the still you believe
Then you can't really know

What you know.

Disney's Extended Family: The Pixar Films

I keep thinking I'll go back to doing the ensemble Disney film reviews and something else always seems to come up. I didn't plan on doing the Pixar films because I really don't have anything to add to the discussion, but as Inside Out opens this weekend, I thought it might be worth doing quickie reviews (appetizer platter style).

Here's the deal about Pixar from what I understand. They were their own thing. They did their movies, Disney released them and stuck their logo on the product, and the revenue went straight down the several-acres-of-grey-area middle. It was the cinematic equivalent of An Uncharacteristically Good Book by James Patterson & The Actual Author.

The Little Mermaid started Disney's renaissance which carried it through Tarzan, although the real goldmine arguably ran out with The Lion King, i.e. the Frank Wells period that Michael Eisner was getting credit for. Post Wells, Disney's monopoly on animated films was starting to show its fatigue, mostly as each progressively more disappointing direct-to-video sequel was painting a picture that Eisner really didn't understand the nature of the company he was driving.

DreamWorks was showing signs of life but not quite emerging as a challenger. FOX was beginning to dabble, and every once in a while Don Bluth would do...something, but it wasn't until Pixar came out on the playing field that anything interesting started to happen. And when Disney began dropping the ball, Pixar was there to recover it.

It was an interesting experience working at Disney World in the early 2000's, in part because I got to see the inside the mouse house reaction to Pixar's rise to prominence. Cast members were turning against their own company on this issue, insisting that Pixar was a totally separate entity from Disney, and a much better (pretty much infallible) one at that. This of course was a reflection on Eisner's administration more than anything else, but between how perfect Finding Nemo was and how worthless Home on the Range was, it's difficult to remember which opinion held the most passion among Disney employees (only one of which is valid, by the way).

So let's scroll through the Pixar menu and see if the company really is the four star restaurant it's credited to be. I'll be skipping non-Toy Story related sequels, as Cars 2 left no impression and I never bothered with the Monsters prequel.

Boy Story

This movie was going to be a hit regardless of its quality. It was visually stunning before we all got used to computer animation. Yes, the story was lifted from 1986's Jim Henson production The Christmas Toy no matter how much Pixar doesn't want to admit it. But what really holds this movie together is how solid the characters are. Woody has a good heart, but he's also allowed character flaws. He feels pain, jealousy, guilt and despair, all without ever losing the audience's sympathy. This is one of those movies where I really can't think of a weakness.

A Bud Lite

I've never heard anyone refer to A Bug's Life as their favorite Pixar film. It's entertaining enough, but Flik never comes across as particularly well defined protagonist, more of a trope. And none of the other characters stand out either apart from their most basic identifying traits. Antz may have been nothing more than a dick-move from DreamWorks, but I have to say their characters were much stronger. Although A Bug's Life has to get credit for Hopper's death by cute chicks. Note: this was the first Pixar movie to have that god-awful trend of fake outtakes that forced parents to take their kids to a second viewing.

Tolstoy 2

If you don't know, this was meant to be a direct-to-video sequel. Then somebody realized it was good enough to be released in theaters (an adulation that later was mistakenly bestowed onto the Peter Pan and Jungle Book sequels), which led to some real tension between Pixar and Disney (read: Eisner) about their contract fulfillment. Fun stuff. Anyway, the Toy Story sequel is the perfect example of what a sequel needs to accomplish in order to match and/or top its predecessor. It develops some of the favorite periphery characters and deftly throws the spotlight around so everybody gets their moments. New characters are introduced so flawlessly that the original film now feels their absence. And Jessie's back story still makes me cry to this day.

Matisse ITC

This one was creative, but a tad overrated. There's a charm, and it's a really fun ride. Yet somehow I just never attached to the characters the way I was essentially told to. Perhaps it was a misfired idea to have Boo played by an actual infant instead of a child actor, because her character comes across more as a plot device than a real character. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a really good movie. But I've always felt the heart of it is being told to us instead of shown, and the dialogue is almost compulsively snappy and hyperactive that the movie keeps us out of it.

Finding Waldo

This was where the cracks in Pixar began showing and nobody in my circles wanted to admit it. Dory was a great character, and I loved Nigel the pelican. Nobody else in the movie really came across as anything more than merchandising, least of all Marlin. This is problematic, because we're talking about Albert Freaking Hank Scorpio Brooks. 'Worried dad' is not an inherently strong archetype, but Marlin never conveys anything beyond that. By the end of the movie I've learned nothing about him that wasn't in the opening scene. The animation is drop dead gorgeous, but the (huh-huh, yeesh) hook isn't really there.

The Uncreditedables

There are a lot of ideas in this movie that don't really play together well. A superhero having to fit in with office life is really interesting, and Syndrome's motivations are pretty impressive, but I just never cared about the super kids or the evil lair or all the damn robots. It starts off with the promise of actually being about something but gradually devolves into a typical superhero story with very little to distinguish it from an entry in the Fantastic Four. I don't get why people are so fond of this movie.

Carbs

As much as I wish the character of Mater had been erased from the hard drive, Cars wound up being one of my favorite Pixar films. A lot of it really had to do with the climax, which made Lightning McQueen's journey up to it way cooler. McQueen isn't an inherently selfish character, he's just on the high of a winning streak. When you're on top of the world, it's easy to forget that the world wasn't made for you. And it's not until that climax, when everything that he didn't realize he was learning, all coalesces into a beautiful lesson to teach kids; some things are more important than winning.

Rigatoni

The Toy Story franchise was a series of buddy pictures, but it's ultimately Woody's story. Monsters Inc. was Sully's story. Ratatouille can't make up its mind, and it hurts the overall picture. I think if they had picked one (probably Remy's story) to be the driving force, and abbreviate the other the movie would have been much stronger. But they tried to have it both ways, and the story just felt cluttered. The Anton Ego story arc was well done. That could have benefited from a bit of an upgrade.

WILE-E

This is another one with the same problem. It starts as one movie and then becomes a different one after the first act. WALL-E's story was just fine on its own. I don't know why it had to turn into this massive allegory about human birth. They could have done one of two things: either solidify one damned story arc to serve as a single backbone, or do an anthology film around the central theme of the future wasteland. Yes, the robot's cute. That's not enough to ignore the glaring chasm in development.

Yup

This one honestly feels like it's for the adults, and there's a magic here that I've only seen in a few Miyazaki films. Now in all fairness I don't know how necessary it was to have a villain in the picture, but that aspect was really just an excuse to explore the metaphor of holding on too tightly to the past. Carl Fredricksen may be Pixar's most complete character to date, and Up is one of those films that just stays with you even when you don't realize it.

Toy Storage 3

Okay, credit where it's due. The fact that this movie came together at all after such a long wait is impressive on its own. And there are some standout moments that really make an impact (Barbie and Ken, Woody's fight with the monkey, the incinerator climax). But something about this sequel never entirely won me over. It may have been the character of Lotso. The pain he was carrying was understandable, but I felt his transition into straight up villain was a little forced. I also think there were a few too many new characters thrown in. Toy Story 3 is a good movie, but I politely disagree with the people who say it's the best of the series.

Brava

I've got to get this off my chest. When you do a movie with a female protagonist, just DO the movie. Quit shining every spotlight on how progressive you're being. With that out of the way, I felt about Brave the way I felt about How to Train Your Dragon; I remember feeling very positive about the movie experience but I don't really remember much about the story. The Merida/Elinor relationship was really well done, and I liked the witch, but none of the other characters came across as more than just placeholders for the plot. I'd file this one under the 'worth watching' category but probably not the 'worth owning'.

Insidi-Ous

And finally, the film of the evening's drive-in. First off, the short before the movie (Lava) was the first Pixar short that I can honestly say was dumb. Don't believe me? Watch it again and pretend it's from any animation studio other than Pixar. Yeah, see? Power of the name.

Now the real movie. I thought it was absolutely beautiful, and I say that knowing full well that I'm agreeing with what everybody is already saying; non-conformity is too hard anyway. I think anyone who goes through the process of therapy is going to be referring back to the concepts so cleverly metaphor-ized in this impressive story. Emotion is everything in story. Even when nothing is at stake, it has to feel like something is at stake. Inside Out hits all the right buttons at all the right times, arguably making this the best written story from the artists at Pixar.

In conclusion: Pixar is still the one to beat in animation. No, they don't always hit a home run, but the overall quality of their films hasn't exactly diminished either. Even overlooking the ideas lifted from other sources, Pixar maintains a solid creative energy that puts the film elements together in a fresh way. Here's looking forward to seeing their take on We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story.

Giving Katherine Heigl A Left-Handed Compliment

Last week Ginny and I were catching up on our John Oliver videos when Katherine Heigl's name came up. As a punchline. Of course as a punchline. It's the only reason anyone talks about her.


Now I'm not bothered by Oliver's writing staff for going there, but I couldn't help but wonder why Heigl is still such a viable comedic target. Inadvertently, she seems to be continuing a wave surf of being 'cool to hate on'. And you know what? I think it's unfair.


Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan. I don't understand why she ever broke the A-list market. I've always assumed it was based on her looks. Her only two pre-Knocked Up performances that I've seen are Wish Upon a Star and Bride of Chucky and she just seemed...lost. Both times. And for most of her work since then (with which I'm familiar) she really seems to be phoning it in. So either her talent as an actress is noticeably limited or her personal drive is.


But, whatever. That's not really enough to hate a celebrity with the fervor that Mama June consciously stirred up. So why exactly do people hate her so much? Well let's go through the common issues that always seem to come up.


1. She has a reputation for being difficult to work with.


And? Okay first off, anyone who has been through high school knows how unyielding a 'reputation' is no matter where it falls on the unearned/inaccurate spectrum. And Hollywood has a 'reputation' of being professional high school, so I don't trust this argument. I also notice how general it is. What makes her difficult? Is she late a lot? So was Marilyn, and generations later look how revered she is. Does Heigl make demands? Maybe. Probably. I don't want to veer off subject too much, but the men in Hollywood never have that cloud looming over them.


Maybe she is a pain in real life. We don't know. We're the peasants in the movie theater, we're not on set. This shouldn't affect us. We only accept this vague evidence because we want to. It's like we want her to be the bad guy.


2. Her movies suck.


Some of them do, yes. I saw The Ugly Truth and I hated every damn thing about it. I found the movie insultingly sexist and tediously unfunny. Is that Heigl's fault? Was she on set demanding her character's likability be edited out? Did Gerard Butler get the same flack for his flawless impression of a pig?


When it comes to bad movies you can only blame an actor for not trying. Men in Black II was a bad movie, but Will Smith was really trying to rise above the material, and before we lost him to that thing that we all know we lost him to he was a truly admirable Hollywood star. Heigl has never proven herself to be admirable. But should we hate her because her horrible movie earned back its budget five times, or should we hate ourselves?


3. She abandoned Grey's Anatomy to pursue a film career.


So what if she did? I loved John Oliver on Community but I'm happy he's got a successful HBO show now. Is this one even worth addressing?


4. She bit the hand that fed her by calling Knocked Up sexist.


This is the big one that is probably going to follow her for the rest of her career. It gets treated like Judd Apatow really did Katherine Heigl a HUGE favor by casting her in his masterpiece and then she had the sheer audacity to throw up all over it on her way to the bank. We found a witch (or something similar)! May we burn her?


Look, here's the quote as best as I can track it down from slate.com. She said Knocked Up was "a little sexist. It paints the women as shrews, as humorless and uptight, and it paints the men as lovable, goofy, fun-loving guys. … I had a hard time with it, on some days. I'm playing such a bitch; why is she being such a killjoy?"


It sure sounds like she's making a valid point. Maybe her use of the word 'sexist' isn't the best way to go about it but it's not like she's completely out of line. I suspect Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen may have assumed the word was directed at them personally instead of at the larger issue plaguing too many Hollywood scripts.


Here's what I think happened. Katherine Heigl is a passable actress. Her range seems to be limited at best but whatever, Hollywood is the last place where people get what they deserve. So she happened to catch a good wave and now she and her mother think she's a professional surfer. And for a while Hollywood fed into it, because studio executives are predominantly trend followers anyway. That's not a reason to hate her.


Yes, she's annoying beyond the scope of her talent, but her talent is still there. It's not the A-list talent she's managed to get paid for, but that's a problem with the system. There are INCREDIBLY talented street performers who never get off the street, any of whom could run circles around a decent percentage of Hollywood. But for whatever reason, Heigl is talented enough and appealing enough to land that major gig. And that seems to be the only real reason she's hated in the industry.


So I think we need to agree on one of two things. Either we demand that all performers who make it big on a 'just enough' level of talent get the same amount of hate (in which case I'm calling for Jimmy Fallon's resignation from comedy; not The Tonight Show mind you, but comedy in general) or we give Katherine Heigl a long overdue break and accept that One For the Money was actually a pretty good movie.

This Week's Shiny Object: Caitlyn Jenner

So, I don't know if you heard about Bruce Jenner because the story went relatively unnoticed, but recently he's come out as transgender, gotten breast implants, and has revealed her new identity as Caitlyn in the recent issue of Vanity Fair. Like I say, totally under the radar.

I've been reading a lot of opinions online about who is wrong for using which pronoun and what the definitions of 'judgement' and 'hero' are, and I've stayed out of the conversation because my experience has been that it's rare anybody says anything sensible in the first wave of a burning topic. But here in the confines of my thoroughly-comment-free blog site I find myself still thinking about some things that I want to express. So here they are in list form, since that's how cracked.com readers such as myself become primed to organize our thoughts.

1. Transgendered people need a voice

This is really the big issue that should be on the public table. What does it mean to be transgender? What is the biological component? What is the difference between transgender and merely relating more strongly to the opposite sex? What makes a transgender individual feel like an outsider? These are the discussions that we should be having, and probably will once we get past this magazine cover.

And therein is the first thing that's gnawing at me. Caitlyn Jenner is the most high-profile transgender face we've ever seen, but she's a terrible voice for this issue. We're talking about the world of E! reality television which is more removed from reality than GTA Online. You have Kris Jenner, history's most successful pimp, as the alpha matriarch with her revolving door of pinup/sex tape daughters; who I'm sure have no sense of personal identity anymore. Nothing relatable is ever going to come out of this fictional world.

2. Social media is doling out undeserved credit

You want breasts, you can afford them, you buy them, you have them. Good for you, it's your body. That is all that's at stake for Bruce/Caitlyn. There's no threat of losing the public's respect because that happened a decade ago. But people are calling her a hero, and preemptively adding that suggesting otherwise is being judgmental.

Yes, there are different ways to be heroes, that Schoolhouse Rock song about the number zero solidified that as canon. But there's also a difference in me saying "Weird Al is my hero" (a personal emotional statement that no one can dispute) and "Weird Al is a hero". Well, technically, if Weird Al is a hero to one person, then yes, that makes the statement true. But there's a counterable side that can and will be invoked. Has he served his country? Rescued a hostage? Taken a bullet for a lost kitten? It's understandable why a fairly notable percentage of people might feel the word 'hero' is being cheapened is this use.

Caitlyn Jenner is not in danger of losing her job or being dragged into an alley and beaten. There is no risk to her for undergoing surgery. And while it's unfair to say that this is all 'just a publicity stunt' Caitlyn is getting a reward that no other transgender person has ever gotten or possibly ever will. If someone transgender wants to come forward as say "Caitlyn Jenner is my hero" that's the opening line to a personal story that's worth hearing.

I'm not a journalist so I haven't been doing more than a passing bit of research on this story, but has Caitlyn Jenner done anything to reach out to other transgender people? Is she going to? Or is she just going to ride the 'look at me' wave for as long as it lasts?

3. I resent being told how to feel

The biggest problem with the way this story is being presented is that there are multiple issues on the table, and there's been a call to an either/or mentality about all of them as a package. I've seen people online who are comfortable dividing it into two pieces (I embrace Caitlyn but I don't like the media portrayal). Yeah, Vanity Fair doesn't give a shit human issues, they want to sell magazines. That's business. And this is a step in the discussion, but we're not there yet.

Here's what's left over. "We should embrace people of transgender (I fully agree), and as such we should accept Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn (wait, hang on) and besides, she looks stunning on the- (I said hang on, damn it!)" 

I'm from Louisiana. In revealing that to some people in more northern states I've occasionally been asked about swamp related anecdotes. I get the connection because that's the image of Louisiana with which most outsiders are familiar. But truthfully, I've never set foot in a swamp. I've seen them from the sanctity of the interstate (Louisiana does have interstates you know) and I mostly tune them out. Yes, the state has swamps, but so do other states. We also have, like, cities. With movie theaters and prostitutes and stuff. 'Louisiana' and 'swamp' are not interchangeable.

Likewise, 'transgender' and 'sex change' are two separate topics. There's an understandable overlap, but embracing the former does not automatically require one to accept the latter. The notion of whether or not Jenner is really a woman now is an ambiguous subject. It has the potential to be one of those unresolvable questions like "when is an unborn fetus technically a baby?" It's worth discussing, but not with the expectation of EVER producing a one-size-shuts-everyone-up answer.

Right now I feel like I'm being told (by the loudest voices) that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, and that by saying otherwise I'm being judgmental and/or closed minded. I think for that to be true, one would have to equate 'open-minded' with 'unquestioning', and 'non-judgmental' with 'lacking an opinion'. In other words, no, I don't have to agree that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and it doesn't make me any less supportive of transgender people.

I don't pretend to have answers, but I believe what I believe based on the information that I have, interpreted through what makes sense to me. 'She' is a pronoun I don't have any trouble using, but that doesn't make me believe Caitlyn a woman. If this is the identity Bruce Jenner wants now, that's entirely up to him, but I honestly believe that Caitlyn is not a real person; she's a character Bruce Jenner is playing. And I also think I have every right to believe it is completely ridiculous.

I can't help but wonder if Michael Jackson is watching this media frenzy from the afterlife thinking "Where the hell was this support when I bleached my ski- I mean, when my skin uniformly lightened on its own?"

Thinking Without Portals (page 3 of 3)

And finally part three. If you're coming in late, part one is here and part two is here.

Thinking Without Portals (page 2 of 3)

Here is page two of the Portal tribute. In case you missed it, page one can be found here.