Kansas: Who's Your Daddy???

What does it mean to be a father?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/father

A male person whose sperm unites with an egg, resulting in the conception of a child.
A man who adopts a child.
A man who raises a child.

Ideally I think the first and third definitions of that word should be found in the same man. But for better or worse times have changed. Most children born to women under thirty are being raised in single parent (primarily mother only) homes. Women who are lesbian or bisexual are marrying each other and bearing children or, in states where such marriages are not recognized, living together cobbling together piecemeal, such legal recognition as they can get.

I generally don't care about such changes though I'm not completely convinced they're good for the children involved or for society as a whole. I'm somewhat conservative socially. But it's not my life and the kids involved aren't mine so whatever the adults want to do in pursuit of their own happiness is more or less just dandy with me, provided they and their kids keep their hands out of my wallet and do not try to tell me what to think.

Of course, biology being what it is, it isn't possible for anyone in a gay male couple to bear children or for anyone in a lesbian couple to sire children. Those actions must be taken with the help of others, i.e. often surrogate mothers or sperm donors. Presumably, unless you happen to be a polygamist looking to deepen his bench, two's company and three's a crowd. The surrogate/donor is usually not asked to be a part of the gay/lesbian couple's life or the child's life. The surrogate/donor might be asked to sign a document giving away rights. Everyone's different of course but many state laws do not recognize more than one mother and one father nor do they accept "gender neutral" roles for father and mother.

So far so good, right? Well not so fast. In Kansas, this brave new world hit a speed bump when the happy lesbian couple depicted above broke up. The woman who wasn't the biological mother of a three year old girl came down with an undisclosed illness that prevented her from working and thus providing support to this girl (they have others). So the couple did what thousands of people do and applied for assistance from the State of Kansas. And the State of Kansas did what many states do and looked for the nearest man to shake down for support. In this case that turned out to be one William Marotta, the man who was the sperm donor.

A lesbian couple who found a sperm donor on Craigslist three years ago never meant the man to be any more than just that, and they are supporting his fight against the state’s request he pay child support.

“We’re kind of at a loss,” Topekan Angela Bauer, 40, said Saturday, speaking on behalf of her and her former partner, Jennifer Schreiner. “We are going to support him in whatever action he wants to go forward with.”The Kansas Department for Children and Families has filed a child support claim against Topekan William Marotta, who provided sperm used to artificially inseminate Schreiner. Bauer and Schreiner, 34, placed an ad for a sperm donor on Craigslist in March 2009.

Marotta responded, agreeing to relinquish all parental rights, including financial responsibility to the child.After the couple filed for assistance earlier this year, the state welfare agency demanded they provide the donor’s name so it could collect child support. The state has that authority, court documents state, because the insemination wasn’t performed by a licensed physician, thus making the contract void.

Without the donor’s name, the department told the women, it wouldn’t provide health benefits to their now 3-year-old girl — something Bauer no longer can provide because a diagnosis has left her incapable of working and in and out of rehabilitation since March.“This was a wonderful opportunity with a guy with an admirable, giving character who wanted nothing more than to help us have a child,” she said. “I feel like the state of Kansas has made a mess out of the situation.”

LINK

Marotta, needless to say, wasn't overly ecstatic about the state trying to take money from him for child support. He may have tried to do the right thing but he didn't dot the i's and cross the t's. As far as Kansas is concerned, the music has stopped and he has no chair. The law is the law. Inspector Javert or Stannis Baratheon would understand but Marotta does not.

In the long run, I think this will be a good thing, but I'm the one getting squashed," Marotta said. "I can't even believe it's gone this far at this point, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it."#Though his attorneys, Benoit Swinnen and Hannah Schroller, are charging him reduced rates, Marotta said he expects the legal fees to eventually be more than he can afford. He is predominantly a mechanic but said he is currently working in a different field. He and his wife, Kimberly, have no biological children but care for foster children.#"I've already paid more than 10 percent of my yearly salary, and I don't know many folks who are willing to give up more than 10 percent of their yearly income," he said.#

The state contends the agreement between Marotta and the women is not valid because Kansas law requires a licensed physician to perform artificial insemination.#

"Speaking generally, all individuals who apply for taxpayer-funded benefits through DCF are asked to cooperate with child support enforcement efforts," Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Department for Children and Families, said in a statement. "If a sperm donor makes his contribution through a licensed physician and a child is conceived, the donor is held harmless under state statue. In cases where the parties do not go through a physician or a clinic, there remains the question of who actually is the father of a child or children.

LINK

This is a mess. Marotta never intended to be a father to the child and from what I can tell has not been. I don't think the law is designed for this unique situation. But I also know that once this is adjudicated, the state and/or Marotta's employer won't care about anything other than making sure an exact amount of money is extracted from Marotta's paycheck at least once or twice a month for the next fifteen years or so. I think that Bauer, the woman who can't work because of her medical issue, is the person the state should be going after. I don't think too many women who needed child support from a man would be overly sympathetic were that man to claim some sort of disability and resulting inability to work. More importantly I know the state wouldn't be too understanding. In fact the state might even do something as unfriendly as garnishing wages or other income or even put the man in jail until he remembered other funds he had. So why should this case be any different? This raises other questions.

Kansas does not recognize gay marriages. In its zeal to take money from someone it sees as a "deadbeat dad", could it be on the verge of unintentionally recognizing gay/polygamous marriages? Kansas is saying that someone who is not legally married to the women and isn't acting as a father, nevertheless has responsibilities that would normally accrue to a father or ex-husband. Interesting. As two people of the same gender can't create life, are pro-gay marriage partisans willing to help update child support laws so that it would be crystal clear that sperm donors only agree to use of their sperm and freely divest themselves from any fatherly financial responsibilities?  But wait there's more!

Why wouldn't such new laws also be available to heterosexual men and women? This brings up the "choice for men" debate. Should a heterosexual man be able to stipulate to a heterosexual woman that he is only interested in sex? If a woman decides to carry any pregnancy to term, the donor would have no legal or financial responsibility. If a man can say that to a lesbian couple he's assisting, why couldn't he say that to a heterosexual woman he's seeing? Should we rework the entire child support system to make marriage (gay or straight) the only structure in which child support will be ordered and enforced?

Perhaps this Kansas situation is an excellent argument FOR gay marriage. If the women were legally married there would be less chance of an outsider being held responsible for child support. If Kansas prevails here, I imagine that there will soon be fewer or lower quality sperm donors to be found. But if you're trolling for baby daddies on Craigslist, quality is probably not your highest goal. Anyway go ahead, play Solomon.

Thoughts?

What's the right thing to do here?

Should sperm donation always be anonymous?

Should the man pay child support?

Should a man be able to donate sperm and forever avoid fatherly responsibilities?

Should the non-biological mother pay child support?

Movie Reviews-Django Unchained, Curse of The Golden Flower

Django Unchained
directed by Quentin Tarantino

Django Unchained is a great movie. A black man seeking  to rescue his wife is the hero. As Marv said in Sin City, this woman is worth dying for, worth killing for, worth going to hell for. Amen. Black heroes like this haven't been widely seen in American movies since the early seventies during the brief "blaxploitation" craze. For whatever reasons, and some people have written essays on this, in successful large budget movies aimed at mainstream white audiences, many black actors have often been relegated to comedic or sidekick roles. Getting the girl is usually out of the question. Heroes get the girl. Heck even if you're the hero, like Wesley Snipes in the Blade series, chances are 50/50 you won't get the girl, as Blade indeed did not. Three movies and Blade never got the girl. Weird that. Things HAVE changed of course, but not as much as I would like. I think everyone likes to see themselves reflected positively on the screen in a lead or important role. How do you do that when the historical and cultural narratives are so different? Francis Marion is a hero to some but not to me. My ideal movie about him probably wouldn't have looked like The Patriot.

Anyway, Django Unchained throws out the usual conventions about race and heroics. The hero kills many white people. Or rather I should write that he kills many slave owners and their supporters. Their whiteness is less important than their moral depravity. White people and black people die in many of Tarantino's movies. This film should be different? Django Unchained rejects the normal American slavery frame. In this film the slave owners and their minions are the bad guys. How many movies have been made where the hero is that supposedly common ex-Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and didn't believe in white supremacy? How many movies have been made where the slaves were all well fed, happy, and loyal to their white owners? How many movies have been made where slavery is kept off screen while the "true" tragedy of the (white) nation tearing itself apart or some southern belle being unable to find the the right man to accompany her to the soiree is put front and center?

Far too many.

Well Tarantino didn't make that film. His film still understates slavery's ugliness. It's not a documentary. But I don't think that in modern times, say last 20 years, there have been too many other films that show slavery's casual and essentially capricious brutality. Black people were property. Whites barely considered Blacks human. Whatever an owner wanted to do with or to his or her property was pretty much fair game. Anything that hinted at Black equality, from looking a white person in the eyes to speaking in a non-servile tone of voice, could be and was punished. Degradation was a key factor of enslavement. Slavery required violence and the constant threat of violence. The film shows some torture implements used.
Tarantino has an eye for cinematic mayhem so it's not surprising that he would make a film set during this time. I was surprised that he made one that was so darkly humorous and ultimately touching. I don't think that Tarantino does "message" films. So this is not some profound deeply moving serious film with slow reveals, silent screams and classical music that ponderously swells at just the right moment to bring audience tears. There are no long speeches aimed at the mentally slow explaining why slavery is bad. I think Tarantino considers that far too obvious to mention. There are other people who could make serious sober searing introspective films on American slavery and I hope they do just that. I'll certainly watch those movies.

In 1858, Django (Jamie Foxx) is a rebellious slave that has been sold for attempting to escape. Along with other slaves, he is being transported thru Texas by the Speck Brothers (James Remar and James Russo). An eccentric, linguistically precise and extremely polite German dentist named King Schultze (Christopf Waltz) stops to inquire if any of the slaves have seen three white overseers known as the Brittle Brothers. When Django replies in the affirmative, Waltz offers to purchase him. But the Speck Brothers don't like Schultze's easy way of speaking to black men and warn the dentist off.
But Schultze is not really a dentist. He kills one brother, incapacitates another and frees Django. The other freed slaves kill the other slave trader. Schultze is a bounty hunter with legal authority to retrieve the Brittle Brothers dead or alive. He prefers dead but he doesn't know what the Brittle Brothers look like. But Django will always remember what the Brittle Brothers look like. Django has personal history with them.

This starts a partnership that will see both men journey across America, killing criminal fugitives. Django hones his gun fighting and tracking skills and sartorial sense. But this isn't a road trip movie. Django is haunted by a quest. Django must find and rescue his wife Broomhilda (named incorrectly after the Valkyrie from the Ring Cycle). In flashback we see that Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and Django were both captured trying to flee their plantation. Django was forced to watch and beg as his wife was stripped and beaten by the Brittle Brothers (whom Django has since sent to hell). Broomhilda was sold to the hellish Mississippi plantation known as Candieland. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his sister Lara Candie (Laura Cayouette) rule here. They mix sadistic brutality with a classy facade. Calvin's hobby and side business is slave fights. Black men fight to the death while white men watch and wager. There are black women around to attend to a white man's more intimate needs. This latter is implied, not shown.

Django and Schultze decide to pretend interest in the fighting game, overpay for a few fighters and then purchase Broomhilda as a seeming extra. Django's cover is of a free black man who is a slaver, a role he finds unpleasant to play. One black man who is not playing a role is Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) an odious house slave whose loyalty to the Candies and hatred for all things black is exponentially greater than his minimal self-respect. He resents (as do all of the whites in the film) seeing Django ride a horse. He swiftly intuits that there is something off about Django's and Schultze's stated mission. Stephen is, as Malcolm X once joked, a black man who so thoroughly identifies with his oppressors that if the master gets a cough, Stephen will ask "What's the matter boss, we sick?" Stephen is very proud to be a slave.

There is a tremendous amount of violence in this film and some brief nudity. Obviously, racial slurs and profanity abound. This is not a film for children. Blood spurts and flows. There are a few broadly comedic killings. You really have to see the film to understand what I mean by this last statement. You kinda had to be there and I wouldn't care to spoil it for you.
This movie touches the same core American cinematic themes of stylized violence, protecting your family, standing up for yourself and getting some righteous payback that animated such movies as Shane, Death Wish, True Grit, The Brave One, Rambo, Taken, Braveheart, Death Sentence, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Sons of Katie Elder, and virtually any 80s Steven Seagal flick. The only difference in Django Unchained is that the good guy (well the main good guy anyway) is black while almost all the bad guys are white.  It is, as this blogger and this writer pointed out, unusual for American cinema. Will whites support this film? Well the initial returns suggest they will. We'll see how it looks in a week. Some racists conservatives are already sniping at people like Toure for applauding the deaths of slaveowners.  /Sarcasm on/ How dare he??? /Sarcasm off/ Obviously some people never read their Fanon. That's a pity. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, even black slaves then and black people today.

Besides explicitly pro-Nazi writers I simply can't recall too many people criticizing the deaths of Nazis in Inglorious Basterds or the depiction of Nazis as bad guys in most WW2 movies or claiming that Schindler's List was anti-German. But there are some people who are arguing that this movie is "anti-white". And THAT remains the central problem in American film and society. There is too often an inability or unwillingness by the majority to imagine itself temporarily in the minority's place, and so identify and understand every one's common humanity. If you're a minority, you must do this if you intend to enjoy more than a small sliver of artistic creations. Some Black folks loved Scarface despite no black leads and some regressive messages. Other Black people are crazy about A Song of Ice and Fire or The Lord of the Rings regardless of a paucity of black characters. I could love a film like 300, even though the conservative writer was rather obviously race baiting (Persians that look like West Africans???) because I could appreciate the deeper message of fighting without hope of victory because it's the right thing to do. So if I can enjoy those movies there is absolutely no reason why any white person who's not a member of Sons or Daughters of the Confederacy couldn't enjoy Django Unchained if they are normally a genre fan. If you're a white conservative watching this film and identifying with slave owners, well, that's a personal problem, friend. Get help.

Perhaps movies like Django Unchained will cause us to rethink why people like Robert E. Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest are still considered revered heroes in some circles while people like Nat Turner and John Brown are considered murderers and terrorists. 

I think the film limits itself by making Django's quest so personal. Django can only rely on himself and Schultze. Django isn't leading an anti-slavery crusade. The movie plays with dynamite by interrogating exactly how whites are able to maintain black submission. It's easy to look back and say what Jews/Blacks needed to do in death camps/plantations and dismiss them as unworthy if they didn't survive or avoid enslavement. Candie does just that. Real life is different. Most people aren't heroic. They will try to stay alive. Death before dishonor is rare in reality. You don't know what you would do to survive if someone has a gun to your head (or your husband's, your wife's, your brother's, your sister's, etc) You might like to think that you'd toss off a pithy one liner, defy the bad guy(s) and go down fighting, leaving a mound of dead scumbags behind. You might. But I wouldn't bet money on it. This could be one area where a black director would have done things differently. 

There are a few familiar names here, including but not limited to Don Johnson, Tom Wopat, Bruce Dern, Jonah Hill, Michael Parks, Walton Goggins, Franco Nero, Tom Savini and Robert Carradine. The film is just under 3 hours but never dragged. Tarantino is far too hyperactive for that. But cutting 15-20 minutes wouldn't have hurt. Visually this is a spaghetti western so it was nice that genre star Franco Nero had a role. It's paced like those old school Saturday afternoon kung-fu movies.
Should or could a black director have made this movie? Arguably one did already. John Singleton's 1997 Rosewood, about the 1923 real life racist white attack on a black Florida community, did poorly at the box office. But as the electorate has changed since 1997, perchance so has the ticket buying public. Maybe Django Unchained's success will help Danny Glover's Haitian Revolution project get greenlit. Maybe we'll see epic tales about real life black tough guys like Bass Reeves, General Maceo, or General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas.  Or maybe a white director can go places a black one can't. Time will tell...

TRAILER
100 Black Coffins (from soundtrack)




Curse of The Golden Flower
directed by Zhang Yimou

I saw this movie because of the two leads. Chow Yun-Fat is one of the coolest actors alive while Gong Li remains one of the world's most beautiful women and a skilled actress. But even these top thespians are almost lost in the visual lushness of Curse of The Golden Flower (COGF). Make no mistake, this movie looks like American epics of the fifties and sixties before the studio system broke down and a more realistic grittier style took over. Even if you watch this without subtitles/dubbing and don't understand a word of Mandarin, this is a MUST see. I'm not kidding about this. If you're any sort of movie fan get this flick. See it. It has the majesty of every extravaganza you've ever seen or heard about. The colors literally drip off the screen. You're pulled into a majestic tapestry of the T'ang period of Chinese history. Well it's a fictionalized story set during that time. And even though it's an EPIC it still clocks in at less than two hours. Imagine that. Someone actually made a complex film full of drama, intrigue, backstabbing, and hidden love stories and did so without bloating to three or four hours.

It's hard to share much of the story with you because there are some very critical plot twists and surprises that you must not know about before watching. So this will be a very bare bones description. As I mentioned upthread we are all humans who should be able to put ourselves in each other's places from time to time. No matter where you go on this planet the dance is going to be the more or less same around power, relationships between men and women, relationships between parents and children, etc. We all have love, lust, hatred, honor and revenge and several other emotions both base and noble twirling around in our heads as Herman Cain might put it.

COGF is a story about a very dysfunctional royal family and the internal and external struggles for power and revenge. Obviously although everyone involved and depicted is Chinese, this is a universal tale that reminded me of such stories as King Lear, Ran (itself an adaptation of King Lear), Hamlet, Sundiata, A Game of Thrones, Elizabeth, Macbeth, and The Tudors.

Without giving too many spoilers the basic plot is as follows. The Chinese Emperor (Chow Yun-Fat) comes home from his latest military campaign with his second son and top general, Prince Jai (Jay Chou). There is a holiday to celebrate and the Emperor intends for everyone to party and enjoy themselves, whether they want to or not. One person who doesn't want to celebrate and is not overly fond of the Emperor (the feeling is definitely mutual and that's all I can say here) is the sickly Empress (Gong Li) in a role that is equally stunning for its layers of deceit and pathos and its decolletage. The Empress has taken a lover. But whether from laziness or pure spite she hasn't looked outside the family tree. She is the Emperor's second wife. She's rolling and tumbling with the Crown Prince Wan (Liu Ye), the Emperor's heir and oldest son by his first, now deceased wife. Both Wan and the Empress have other secrets and plans they aren't sharing with each other. The Emperor's youngest son Prince Yu (Qin Junjie) probably knows more than people realize but like his mother and half-brother he keeps his own counsel. A court doctor and his daughter serve both as a Greek chorus and a way to link various subplots together.

The trailer is sort of a bait and switch. I wouldn't call this an action movie though such elements come to the forefront at the film's conclusion. If you like classic drama you must see this film. It has a good story and truly sublime visuals. If the film has a weakness it's that the visuals and set pieces are so stunning and attractive that you might overlook a few misfires in the storyline. But I didn't care. Glorious. People are both pits of vindictiveness and mountains of selflessness.

TRAILER

Movie Reviews-The Hobbit, Supernatural: Season Four, Lust for a Vampire, Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead

The Hobbit (An Unexpected Journey)
directed by Peter Jackson

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is a very very very long movie. Interminable. And did I mention it was long. Look let's be honest here. If you are a Jackson or a Tolkien fan you're going to see this movie no matter what anybody writes. You're a Tolkien junkie and you need your fix. I am too so don't try to kid a kidder. If you're not a Tolkien fan, well just be aware that this is a lengthy film that simultaneously takes a lot of liberties with the source material but still attempts fidelity to its spirit.
I was a little worried when I read that Jackson's producing and writing partners, Phillippa Boyens and Fran Walsh, disapproved of the lack of any women characters in The Hobbit and changed things so that there would be some female energy. They added a few scenes with the elf Queen Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) that weren't in the book but I didn't mind that much. I didn't like the implication that Gandalf had to report to Galadriel. Saruman yes, but not Galadriel. Anyway that was minor. Blanchett IS Galadriel and Galadriel IS probably the most powerful elven leader still in Middle-Earth so it's all good.

J.R.R Tolkien's The Hobbit was mostly written for children. Tolkien had conceived of some back story but not all of it and wasn't sure if or how it would be connected to The Hobbit. So the book is a light short romp about a well fed, relatively incurious hobbit of The Shire (a virtual stand in for pastoral England) who is accidentally drawn into a quest to restore a dwarfish kingdom and defeat a dragon. During his adventure he encounters wizards, dwarves, elves, trolls, a lonely cave dweller with a magic ring, greedy merchants, evilly intelligent giant wolves, nasty giant spiders, human heroes, goblins, and of course a rather sarcastic dragon with an ego that matches his size. It's only at the end where there's a huge battle royale over gold and revenge that the book's tone briefly changes to something a bit more majestic and darker.

In paperback The Hobbit is maybe 300 pages. Maybe. It's shorter than any of the three separate books that make up The Lord of The Rings. So there was really no reason to make The Hobbit into a sprawling three movie series. But when you have consistently produced the creative and commercial success of Peter Jackson and his crew, much like another popular creator of mythic beauty I could mention, you probably enjoy a slightly different relationship with editors than your average artistic person.

If you liked Jackson's LOTR visual style you will definitely love what you see here. Pains have been taken to establish continuity. Initially the film stays faithful to the book's puckish nature. The film's Shire looks almost exactly like the edition shown in an illustrated version I read decades ago. We see Bilbo Baggins' (Martin Freeman) well fed and somewhat lazy sense of propriety. Left to his own devices he would be content to eat, drink and smoke pipe-weed all day long. This won't happen though. When the friendly but imposing wizard Gandalf The Gray (Ian McKellen) stops by to talk to Bilbo one morning, Bilbo realizes that Gandalf is trying to entice him into an adventure. So he tells Gandalf good morning and quickly retreats into his safe, comfortable, dry and clean home. But it's too late. Gandalf has left a mark upon Bilbo's door. 

Later that night, a number of dour, hungry and ready to party dwarves stop by Bilbo's home. They are all either kinsmen or countrymen of their leader, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), exiled King Under The Mountain. He's a rough but charismatic dwarf with an overdeveloped sense of vengeance, who yearns to lead his people to reclaim their kingdom, stolen by the dragon Smaug. For reasons that aren't exactly clear even to him, Gandalf has led the dwarves to believe that Bilbo is a skilled burglar and someone who will be of use to them in their quest. Once everyone meets it's very obvious that this isn't the case. The dwarves are getting very angry with both Bilbo and Gandalf, when Gandalf, showing flashes of annoyance and temper that really define his character, explains that he has reasons for his decisions and Bilbo will be useful in ways no one even knows yet. This is a really cool scene as simply by his vocal resonance it becomes apparent that Gandalf is not human. Strictly speaking, Gandalf is a lower level angelic being bound in human form, sworn to help and heal free peoples, but not to rule or dominate them like the Enemy. I imagine that a being of massively greater power and intelligence would occasionally get annoyed with so-called lower life forms. It happened a LOT in the books and I liked Jackson's take on it here. 

Obviously Bilbo does accompany the dwarves. This is where the film goes a bit off track. Everything is drawn out and the level of violence/action is increased immensely from the book. 2 hours and 49 minutes later, we are only about 1/3 to 1/2 way thru the book. Many scenes that were only referred to in the book or in The Lord of the Rings appendices are added. Other scenes are completely made up. I liked how the film depicted the Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch). That was honestly somewhat unnerving. The film doesn't really have a standout star but if it did it would be Richard Armitage, who's got the brooding bada$$ thing down pat. Radagast (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard who is more concerned with plants and animals than elves, dwarves or men, makes an appearance. He's more comic relief than I expected but it's ok. The film's other star is the land of New Zealand. 
Andy Serkis is back again as Gollum and if anything his characterization of the pathetic hobbit like creature is both more empathetic and more wicked. The Dragon Smaug is never shown completely. It's a more effective trick than you might think. I liked the flashback to the desperate battle that showed how Thorin Oakenshield got his name. I didn't care for the movie's invention of a nemesis for Thorin, one that in the books, had already been put down long ago by one of Thorin's cousins. I think the filmmakers wanted to make Thorin more personally heroic for people who hadn't read the books.

This is not Oscar material but again if you are any sort of Tolkien fan you will see it. Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving and Ian Holm reprise their roles from the LOTR movies.  The movie's music is almost the same as that in LOTR. Conan Stevens, who you may remember as The Mountain That Rides from S1 of HBO's Game of Thrones, was originally cast as one goblin leader but ended up playing another. I may have to watch the movie again (just kidding) to see if he was in this film or will show up in the sequels. Someone really needs to talk to Jackson about editing.

TRAILER



Supernatural Season Four
created by Eric Kripke

When last we left the Winchester Brothers, Sam (Jared Padalecki) was desperately seeking a way, moral or not, to save big brother Dean (Jensen Ackles) from going to Hell. But some things are beyond the abilities of even the Winchester Brothers. A deal is a deal. Sam could only watch in horror as invisible extradimensional hell hounds ripped Dean apart and carried his soul off to Hell. Season Three ended with Dean being tortured on meat hooks in Hell and calling out in utter desperation for Sam. Dean's nemesis, Lilith, tried to kill Sam too, but was shocked to find out her powers didn't work on him. She fled her host.

But you know you just can't keep a good man down. When Season Four starts Dean is buried six feet underground. ALIVE! He breaks out. He is surprised to find himself alive and with his body whole and unmarked. Well almost unmarked. Dean finds a hand shaped burn mark on his left shoulder. He hears mutterings and high pitched noise that is enough to cause pain and break glass around him. Dean calls friend, mentor and substitute father figure Bobby Singer, (Jim Beaver) who thinks the call is a sick joke and hangs up.

Eventually however, Dean meets up with Bobby and Sam. After he's convinced them that he's real, they are of course relieved and happily surprised. But as Bobby Singer would say let's not just stand around giving each other love wedgies, ladies. There's work to do. And this season things are different.
In Dean's absence, Sam has become close, really close, with the demon Ruby (Genevieve Cortese-Padalecki's real life wife). Ruby wants to help Sam develop his hellborn powers in order to exorcise and kill demons. Ruby says she's not like other demons. Dean despises and distrusts Ruby. But Dean and Sam put aside this disagreement long enough to visit Pamela (Traci Dinwiddie), a psychic, to learn what broke Dean out of Hell. There is one class of being powerful enough to rescue Dean from the Pit. This being is so magnificent that glimpses of its true form blind Pamela. Undeterred Dean and Bobby summon this creature. It turns out they didn't summon it so much as it wanted to come. It's an angel. The angel Castiel (Misha Collins), manifesting in a nondescript devout man, casually informs Dean that he saved Dean from eternal damnation because God has plans for him.

And the series enters a new level of awesomeness and strangeness. The religiously minded Sam is delighted to learn God exists. But Dean is upset both by Castiel's seeming callousness about having blinded Pamela and the fact that Castiel, although nice enough as angels go, makes it crystal clear that humans should obey angels and not ask questions. Dean is offended that the world is as messed up as it is, given that God exists. Dean also has a well hidden sense of self-loathing that he tries to dull via alcohol and other earthly pleasures. He can't quite believe that God actually cared enough about him to send Castiel to rescue him from Hell. Castiel's orders are to get Sam and Dean's assistance to prevent Lilith from breaking 66 seals and thus bringing about the Apocalypse and Lucifer's release from Hell. If need be, Castiel and the angel Uriel (Robert Wisdom -Bunny Colvin from The Wire) are prepared to sacrifice many humans in this fight. The angels may be the "good guys" but kind and cuddly they're not. Following orders is their highest good. Whether that means saving someone from Hell, healing the sick, raining fire and brimstone down on a city, or killing all the firstborn, it is all the same to them. No one is going to mistake them for Gandalf. 

So Season Four has five major themes:

A) The Winchester Brothers grow increasingly distant from each other. Dean is unnerved by Sam's growing psychic abilities and Sam's bond with Ruby. Sam is curious about Dean's time in hell and later hurt and angry that Dean won't share what happened in Hell. The Angels know but they aren't talking.
B) Sam's powers are growing immensely but he also has ugly secrets that he keeps from Dean.
C) The War between Heaven and Hell is growing closer as more seals are broken.
D) The lines between good and evil aren't as clear as the Winchester Brothers thought they were. Humanity's interests don't necessarily align with Heaven's. Light is not always good.
E) Dean's gotta get some. Frequently. As often as possible.

This was a much darker season but there were still some hijinks and laughs. There is a campy episode shot in black and white in which the brothers confront monsters drawn straight from the Universal and Warner Bros. classics. Chuckles are also had when macho Dean gets infected with a disease that causes him to have excessive paralyzing fears of almost everything. He won't stay in a second story motel room for fear of falling and runs in terror from a shih-tzu. Dean remains a chauvinistic horndog with heart. He knows exactly what women need and is eager to give it to them. His brother Sam cautions him that women may not like being called a certain name. Dean raises an eyebrow, calls a woman he's flirting with that certain name, receives a very positive response and smirks at Sam. In fact Dean's got so much game that even female angels are curious about the Dean machine. Although Dean may be a sex freak, he's otherwise a relatively moral and ethical man, much more so than Sam this season. Sam is breaking all the rules. As Dean tells Sam in one confrontation, "If I didn't know you, I'd be hunting you." Sam's behavior and relationship with Ruby have not gone unnoticed by the angels, who order him to stop or else. Dean runs into a few demons who remember him from Hell, especially the smug, smarmy, and incredibly self satisfied Alastair (Mark Royston), Hell's chief torturer. Alastair looks like a boss I used to have.

Season Four also shows in flashback that Sam and Dean may have been cursed even before they were born. They thought that their father was the first supernatural hunter in the family, drawn into it by their mother's untimely death. But that wasn't the case. Ever wished you could change the past or meet your parents before you were born? In the world of Supernatural that might not be such a good idea. This season has more of rage filled Sam than emo Sam. The actor gets to show more range. Although he's the younger brother, Sam is bigger and stronger than Dean and not someone you want to upset. In some respects Season Four was a chess match between Heaven and Hell in which the Winchester Brothers were just pawns. But their Daddy didn't raise them to be anyone's pawns...

Season Four Intro



Lust for a Vampire
directed by Jimmy Sangster

I've discussed previously how Hammer Films, once the paragon of British Gothic Horror, eventually deteriorated into virtual softcore nonsense, that didn't really scare anyone. There's a fine line between using revealing dress and/or nudity in an artistic way that makes sense for the story and using such tools only to appeal to the lowest common denominator of obvious prurient interest.
Lust for a Vampire doesn't even try to do the former. Almost everyone involved understood that this movie was by definition exploitative and aimed at the cheap thrills crowd. Everyone understood that with the unfortunate exception of the movie's lead actress, Yutte Stensgaard. Stensgaard was a young Danish actress who was still naive and ambitious enough to believe that she had been hired primarily for her acting abilities and not her more obvious attributes. There is one story of the guileless Stensgaard asking the director what was her character's motivation for getting out of a carriage.

This should have been a better movie, but outside of seeing the delectable Stensgaard in various states of undress, there's not much here. The movie was born under a bad sign. Ingrid Pitt turned down the lead role. The original director quit. And Hammer icon Peter Cushing, who brought several films undeserved gravitas, left production to attend his dying wife. 
The story is a rewrite of Hammer's previous Karnstein movies. Mircalla Karnstein (Stensgaard) a vampire immune to daylight, arrives at a Styrian finishing school to enroll as a student. Of course a vampire's gotta do what a vampire's gotta do and before long young girls are dying. Two different male teachers both have the hots for Mircalla. This is evidently before sexual harassment law was enforced. There is the creepy Giles Barton (Ralph Bates) who is known by his students to sneak around outside their rooms spying on them. Barton knows all about the Karnstein history and aches to serve a real Karnstein. The other male teacher is the dashing Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson). The girls generally like this younger, liberal man. Johnson doesn't believe in vampires. Mircalla gives the strong impression that men are not her first choice for love or food but there's something about Richard.

Stensgaard likely did the best she could but her acting abilities were less than her beauty.  And even if she had been Meryl Streep she could not have done much with the script. Bates hams it up as he tries to play Renfield to Stensgaard's vampire queen but that makes things worse. And Johnson gives the impression that he wandered in from a Pride and Prejudice outtake. He's just in the wrong film. A subplot with a corrupt greedy headmistress and a female teacher (Suzanna Leigh) who suspects odd events goes nowhere.
Bates once said that Lust for a Vampire was among the worst films ever made and he regretted having anything to do with it. I don't know if I'd say it's quite that bad but that's only because Stensgaard was easy on the eyes. An honest unbiased appraisal must indicate that this was an unambiguously horrid film. A cheesy pop song was dubbed over a key scene between Stensgaard and Johnson. What should be intense or at least erotic becomes laughable.The director is accidentally seen on camera near the end. This film should only be watched late night if there's nothing else on or by obsessive completists who want to watch and possess every single Hammer film ever made. The trailer was trying for fear and shock but it just seemed schlocky to me. 

TRAILER



Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead
directed by Gary Fleder

Why is it that in so many movies, especially crime movies, that there's always One Last Job that never goes as it seems? I mean does anyone ever do One Last Job with no problems and waltz away into the sunset? Usually not. Although the One Last Job is a cliche or trope, what is true is that there is no story without some conflict. One Last Job is just a useful technique to introduce that conflict. The characters can then either grow, mature and improve their lives OR they can falter and in crime movies, be forced to move off the planet. Maybe that's because in real life there is also no growth without conflict.

So you've definitely seen this movie before with slightly different actors and actresses. The only reason to watch it is that you like the setting or the particular actors involved. I did. YMMV of course.

Denver is not usually considered an organized crime setting but in point of fact Denver did and does have criminals like any other major city. One former criminal is Jimmy The Saint (Andy Garcia) -presumably playing a made Mafia member though it's not really clear. In real life once you're in the Mafia you don't get to retire but showing that in the movie, just like not having One Last Job, would mean there wouldn't be a movie.

Jimmy The Saint is a man who's put a few people underground in his day but he's retired from crime. He's moved into a rather macabre business, in which terminally ill people record messages and advice for their loved ones. This business isn't doing very well. Jimmy is in debt to loan sharks. It's nothing he can't handle but it's not a small amount either. Jimmy is adamant about paying his debts, playing by the rules and keeping to the straight and narrow. He looks out for the proverbial hooker with the heart of gold Lucinda (Fairuza Balk), who has a serious crush on Jimmy. He also is pursuing a serious relationship with a beautiful classy woman Dagney (Gabrielle Anwar). So Jimmy is very surprised when he is picked up by his former boss' goons and taken to the boss' home. The boss, only known as The Man With The Plan, (Christoper Walken) is a quadriplegic who was made so in an assassination attempt. 

Since he can no longer do anything physically his only joy comes in spoiling his creepy pedophile son, Bernard (Michael Nicosoli) or ordering pain for other people. He has a job for Jimmy. Jimmy refuses but The Man With The Plan reveals that he's bought up Jimmy's debt. So this isn't really a request. Bernard is despondent because a college co-ed rejected him for a new boyfriend. Jimmy is to arrange a minor beating of this boyfriend. The boyfriend is not to be killed or hurt too badly. The girl is not to be harmed or see any violence.
Jimmy puts together his old crew, Easy Wind (Bill Nunn), Franchise (William Forsythe), Pieces (Christopher Lloyd) and Critical Bill (Treat Williams). Critical Bill got his nickname because anyone that ever went up against him wound up in critical condition. These men don't all like each other but they respect each other and are 100% loyal to Jimmy. Of course something goes wrong with the job. 

Much of the story is told in flashback by Joe Heff (Jack Warden), a grizzled truly retired old gangster who was a friend of Jimmy's. Joe explains the criminal lingo. This was a good drama with a bittersweet ending. Steve Buscemi, Jenny McCarthy, Don Cheadle, Tiny Lister, Glenn Plummer, and Bill Cobbs also have roles.
TRAILER

The Office Christmas Lunch/Party

This is the time of year when many corporate offices/teams have the annual Christmas party or lunch.

I hate this.

It's nothing personal of course but I would just as soon not go to lunch with most of the people I work with. And I have even less desire to attend an official "FUN" event with them. My basic outlook on work is "Let's just keep it arm's distance shall we? Mmmmm-okay". I've been told on and off the record countless times that this attitude is a personal failing that limits my upward mobility. Well that's tough. Even if I wanted to I'm not changing primal personality traits at this point in my life.

There are a number of reasons I dislike the Christmas lunch/party. I usually attend out of a baseline sense of politesse and career protection but honestly I'd rather not. Why do I feel that way?

1) People are nasty. Yes it's true. We all have just oodles of bacteria, viruses and parasites living meaningful lives (or in the case of viruses semi-lives) on/inside us right this moment. This can't be altered. It's part of human life. But I'd rather have a choice as to whose invisible little nasties I'm exposed to instead of being forced to share eating space and a table with someone whom I know for a fact does not wash their hands after using the bathroom, or furtively picks their nose/teeth/ears in status meetings, or like a cat or dog, thinks that their saliva is nature's WD-40 and can be used for just about any daily problem they encounter. No don't pass me the breadsticks, Typhoid Mary. I'll get them myself.

2) People have different standards of propriety. I was raised that you don't double dip. That's even among family for goodness' sake.Your food is your food. My food is my food. Unless we are intimate that's just the way it's gonna be. And even then chances are I'll prefer some level of separation when it comes to eating. So you can imagine my horror at one Christmas luncheon, when having declined the dishes ordered by my co-workers and ordered myself a platter of steak fries, I saw the fellow next to me reach his grubby little hands into my meal, pour ketchup on the fries and start eating. In the ensuing "discussion" I learned that in his country it was usual for people to share such items and he learned that in my country you better not touch my food unless you like having your hand forked to the table.

3) People get a little too festive. Hey you made it another year without getting terminated. You might have some alcohol in you. You're probably about to be off for Christmas break and may even have some bonus money coming your way. So you're feeling good. Now MUST be the time to make your clumsy but long planned move on that flirtatious married blonde in legal who wears the tight sweaters. Right? Wrong. There is nothing worse than seeing people do or say things that they otherwise wouldn't dream of just because they're buzzed and/or it's Christmas. Now is not the time to sidle up to me and ask me what do black people really think about topic x or how come I never asked you out. In either case, if I wanted you to know...you WOULD know. 

4) People over share. At one Christmas luncheon a co-worker ordered a particular type of meat. The co-worker's boss was sitting next to that person and started a long diatribe about how bad that meat smelled, why they never liked it and how could anyone eat it. Now if your boss does that once, ok. But I wasn't surprised when after ten minutes of this nonsense the co-worker gave up trying to eat in peace and called for a doggie bag. What is really bad for me is being trapped next to a talkative person who simply won't stop droning on. When you're at the same table there really is no place to run. It's pure torture. Short of telling someone "Why won't you shut the f*** up?!!!", there's not much you can do. At another holiday party a boss decided it would be the perfect time to let me know how lazy their spouse was and if they didn't straighten up and fly right divorce would be imminent. Ok. Now that I know that what do I do? Yet another boss thought that all of her direct reports attending the Christmas lunch had to be informed (repeatedly) that she really really really hated her boss. Unsurprisingly, that information got passed on to said boss and blabbermouth was shortly removed from her position. Co-workers should know that if I didn't ask I probably don't care about your personal problems. This goes double if you are a boss. Too much personal information can only make things uncomfortable for both of us. ARM'S DISTANCE folks.

5) People state the obvious. If I had ten dollars for every time I've gone to some Christmas lunch or party and some mensa member has told me "You're quiet", I'd be retired already. "Yes, Sherlock I'm quiet. Incredible discovery. How long did it take you to ferret that out? Next you'll be telling me that the sun rises in the East!!!" I don't really do small talk well. I've learned the hard way that discussing things like politics, religion and other sensitive topics with people who sign your checks or evaluate your work is not really an intelligent thing to do. So sports, traffic, cars and weather are about the only things I discuss at work. Once those subjects are exhausted I'm pretty much tapped out. I don't talk for the sake of talking which from my pov appears to be about what 99% of the discussions at office parties/lunches really are. So....how about those Detroit Lions eh?

Does your organization have Christmas parties/lunches?
Do you always attend?
Did you ever embarrass yourself?