Criticism. Essay. Fiction. Science. Weather.
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.