90ways - Criticism

The following piece first appeared in the first installment of Neologisms Spoken Here, Criticism's new English word reviews.

From the British slang for buttocks and the Western compulsion to tack a "ster" onto a word to finish it.

Bumsters are low-cut pants, essentially hip-huggers. The term "hip-hugger" went out of vogue recently due to the fact that "hug" implies emotional involvement (too needy, even for denim) and hips are no longer considered a good thing. Also, the word "bumster" indicates a focus different from the earlier hip-huggers: the buttocks, or, specifically, the top of the butt crack called the butt-cleavage.

As Desmond Morris stated, breast cleavage is simply a false buttocks, up higher than the real buttocks so that one doesn't get confused and put one's pants over one's head. With the bumsters new focus on butt-cleavage within the society of the naked ape, push-up brassieres will have to compete aggressively to bring attention back to the chest. However, the term "push-up" implies physical effort, which might be at odds with the slacker generation. A new term must be found for that which lifts, separates, and otherwise deforms a woman's bosom.

Might I suggest "mamster"?

The following piece first appeared in the first installment of Direct-To-Video Movie Reviews.

The gift of Direct-To-Video films is that renters choose them with little or no expectation. And it shouldn't be ignored that many find a strange and shameful joy (shadenfreude?) in films 'so bad they're good'. This runs a cultural parallel to the experience of fast food (I'm thinking of McDonalds post-Super Size Me). In spite of our better judgment, we willingly indulge in what we know will be egregious material. I figured, while I was reveling in the egregious, I'd make that D-T-V a horror pic. After all, only porn is more excessive than horror and if you're going to have a burger you may as well have a shake too.

Shallow Ground, a horror flick about death and revenge in a backwater town, is lovingly bound together with tears and holes (puns intended). The title sequences sets tone uniquely by adding a bit of literate trickery to some traditional genre antics. In a sequence of constantly changing focal distances one can make out images suggesting word play: hooks intersect with eyes, worms writhe in holes and knives rest in gashes. The constantly changing visual terrain establishes the reality of the film as one of ambiguity, uncertainty, and latex.

Open-minded as I might seem, I can't ignore the poor traits of the film. Think of them like burnt fries in the happy meal: love them or leave them, they're part of the experience. Suspense in Shallow Ground does move at an acceptable pace. Foregrounding techniques, such as dissonant sounds and sweeping compositional intros, are constantly cuing you into material that you will learn has no bearing on anything at all. Ironically, this misplaced agitation slowly morphs into strain, causing one to question if this will be the time the tension pays off. Perhaps this is because the viewer has a great deal of access (egregious access, you might say) to unsettling visual material that eventually becomes comfortable to see. This is not wholly inappropriate, horror films do need to up the ante. The movie is trying to gross us out but one can't help noticing when restraint is lacking and restraint is the high road in the world of cheap movies; cheap horror films especially.

Like comedies, horror films tend to rely on a kind of punch line. The horror punch line serves to expose the underlying logic of the terror: e.g. why are people rising from the grave? Answer: they're looking for revenge! As you may have guessed, the quality of this punch line often dictates your feelings about the quality of the film. I suppose our expectations are never really as high as when we hear a bad horror punch line. Then the expression "I could write a better movie if I were drunk" is often intoned.

Though formally problematic, Shallow Ground does fulfill its agreement with the video renter. It's gory, it's about decomposition, and it will make you to cringe. Also, there are bare breasts. I suppose, when we really look at it, that's a fully stocked happy meal. With a shake. Provided that's the experience you're willing to have. And if it is, I'll be writing about Blood Angels next: they're the white-trash hoes of the vampire world and they're working their way up!

The relatively new Gmail system has made millions of dollars for the company's founders by offering a free email service that is miles above the rest. The genius of the system rests on the way Gmail does its advertising. Each email is electronically scanned, key words are picked up and advertisements are targeting accordingly.

For example, I had an email discussion about a man in jail who, having been wrongfully denied the right to clip his toenails while inside, had his trial postponed for a month. This conversation resulted in a helpful list of toe fungus removal products. A fight with a significant other will present links to relationship counseling. In what may well be Gmail's little joke, spam translates into links to spam recipes like Spam Confetti Pasta. The links are not always so clear and finding what words lead to certain advertisements can be a bit of a challenge. One which remains a curiosity is the link to the website "Why Hamlet delays, a revisiting of traditional analysis." What I consider key words in the email are the following: Swaziland, man purse, the economy of Chile, bloody Mary, and rock n' roll. Please send any connections you see to the editorial review staff at 90ways.com.

Upon learning of this system, many people's initial reaction is one of apprehension over the invasion of privacy. Personally, I love the Gmail advertisements. I love them so much that if Gmail actually asked me directly, I would invite them with open arms to invade my privacy so that I can be part of this distinct pop-cultural phenomenon. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons that Americans are so adverse to the idea of their emails being scanned.

The first is a matter of civil liberties. It is a principle tenant of American democracy that there is only so far the government can go to surveil us. True, G-mail is a private corporation not connected to the government (or is it . . .?), but the idea that the government could access it, could know the key words of our personal correspondence, makes many among us understandably uneasy. There has always been this tension between the individual and the state. Despite our forefathers' insistence that the progress of a government and its people are fundamentally the same project, America was borne of rebellion against authority. We view even potential infringements of our individual right to privacy as a testament to the decline of our nation. I understand this concern.

And so, to address concerns of government infringement of civil liberties, I offer a few suggestions for safe Gmail usage. First, when using your Gmail account, avoid discussing the following:
    1.  Your drug empire.
    2.  Your child prostitution ring.
   3.  Your intimate connections to the Chinese, Iranian, North Korean or Venezuelan governments.
    4.  Your plans to start the Revolution.
Second, on any other topic, I suggest you get over yourself, the government doesn't care.

The second concern which has many on the edge of their computer seats is the idea that they are being subject to consumerist spying. You are, you are indeed. And welcome to the world that you live in. Credit card companies sell information, grocery stores offer cards that give you discounts on your favorite foods as they collect valuable marketing information-- I could go on. When we notice these exploitations of our everyday consumer behavior, we view them a bit askance. But I personally am bored with always blaming the corporations. If our capitalist and democratic systems are based on the power of the individual, then let's exercise that power. I don't think it's radical to state that capitalism is about getting your product out, seen and bought. Methods that work in this aim will be used; methods that don't will be abandoned. It's the consumer who dictates what works, not the companies. This is as true with selling products as it is with marketing. If you don't like Shell's activities in Nigeria, ride your bike or walk to work. If you don't like the way that Gmail pays for your free emails, don't click on the ads. In fact, avoid the companies that advertise. They will stop and Gmail will realize that selling your information doesn't work.

The problem with this suggestion is the basic problem of collective action. There will always be people like me who thwart your goals by clicking on the ads even when they're not interested, just to let Gmail know I care. As Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to Washington, most people are neither statesmen nor philosophers. It's the problem with privileging the individual -- there are just so goddamn many of them, and the majority are shockingly lame. The alternative, then, is to reject the capitalist system altogether, to violently wrest power away from Gmail and other corporate whores and tell them that you would like to control what individuals are subjected to, not toe fungus removal companies. I will praise you in your efforts. When you tell them, though, be sure to use your hotmail account.