Saturday, April 16, 2005

TBOGG

He's still good for laughs. Take this post in response to Rush Limbaugh's blowjob rant:

It would be easy to say that Rush has been injecting Hillbilly Heroin into his scrotum again, but that would be so unfair and, besides, who really wants to check him for track marks. Anyone? Anyone? (Sit down Guckert). So what really brought this on? One could make the case that this is a response to the stories that George W. Bush has been seeking advice from Bill Clinton lately ...

Then there is the Ben Shapiro defense that states that "although you've heard of one, you've never actually seen or experienced one". (I should note that this defense is often employed by men when confronted with the concept of the "clitoris", or as it is referred to at Liberty University's Med School: "anatomy's unicorn"). But it's hard to believe that Rush, and The Virgin Ben, could be so unfamiliar with the blow job when there is so much data available on the Internets. No. Really.


It's the parenthetical sentence that's the real slayer. Damn, man.

See also Wolcott's take.

***

Later, TBOGG fills out that chain-letter-esque book questionaire that's been passed around so much in the 'sphere. One of his deserted island picks is this collection of Pauline Kael's essays, which I also own and enjoy. Here's a quote from her essay on Dirty Harry that is short but perfect when you bear in mind that Kael thought the movie was "fascist":

Dirty Harry is a kind of hardhat The Fountainhead; Callahan, a free individual, afraid of no one and bowing to no man, is pitted against a hippie maniac...


I liked Dirty Harry as superfical fun, but I can also agree with Kael's analysis: if you take the film's message seriously, it's disgustingly Randroid -- which is to say, fascist.

(And no, that does not make me a cultural commissar. I can't think of a movie that genuinely pissed me off politically except Black Hawk Down, which was a jingoistic hunk of shit. As a rule, I don't make political judgements about movies unless they are historically or biographically based because, well, fiction as film is by nature usually far too ambiguous to ascertain the genuine "meaning" intended. Film is a collective artwork and as such is unlike literature, which is the product of a single consciousness; hence, a given film is subject to far greater, and diverse, interpretation than is a given work of literature. Put still another way, it's really fucking hard to be wrong about a film's meaning, no matter what you conclude about it. The pleasure in reading Kael is not in her finding any "truth" in her explanations of cinema, but in seeing how she saw the movies and reacted to them; how they got her gears turning. She had a fine mind.)

|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home