I Will Say This... And No More

I do not like Glenn Beck. Ideological differences aside (and they are huge), I still can find nothing about him worth respecting. I do not like his smug, superior voice, which puts unnecessary emphasis on every single word. I do not like his conceited smile. I do not like people who fill other people's heads with fear in an effort to control them and obtain their support.

He insists "progressivism" is a disease. Well, Beck Man, I got news for you. Progressivism is how women in this country got the vote and how people of all colors can vote without having to submit to a "literacy test." Progressives control the flow of American destiny. When we really do have justice for everyone (cough cough gay marriage cough) we can finally say that progress has worked. What's so wrong about every law-abiding American having the same rights? According to Beck, it's cancerous to believe such a thing.

So I'd like to maintain a safe distance from Beck and all his venomous, hateful rhetoric that disguises prejudice and arrogance as the will of God. Let me ask you a question. Doesn't God have compassion for all people? God doesn't hate. God doesn't hold grudges, or care about opinion polls. God knows whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian (not that it really matters), and whether he was really born in the United States (and haven't we moved past that by now?!).

So enough already! If you've got nothing but violent hate and festering anecdotes, don't pass it off as fact. Glenn Beck doesn't need to reclaim America's honor-- he needs to claim some common sense!

An Important Aside to Xander Candor Readers and Perusers: Please don't forget to vote in Xander Candor's poll every month. The current poll (which you should be able to find at the top left of the blog) runs all through September. I look forward to your answers!

FAQ

In perusing the comments you readers leave on my blog, I occasionally discover questions you ask me that I, initially, wasn't too sure how to answer. Should I leave a comment on the post in reply? No-- good chance you wouldn't see it. Should I go to your own individual blog and leave a message in the interest of "reciprocity"? No-- not as easy to refer back to prior comments.

Finally, I settled on a method. I realized I've been fortunate enough to have people who actually read my random (and very leftist) ramblings from time to time. So I want to thank anyone who reads Xander Candor-- remember, without my readers, I'm just a crazy guy with a keypad and access to the internet. So thank you! And from time to time, I shall produce an "FAQ" post to not only answer questions, but also address some of the more interesting non-interrogative points.

Following my first "Worst Movies of All Time" list, I was asked how I first saw Twilight by a reader (you know who you are-- hi!) who, apparently, was a big fan of the books and refused to watch the movies. The A to that Q: I was being visited by a certain sister who decided to watch it. She had a certain infant son at the time, and without the crib, when his naptime rolled around, he had to be held by someone. That someone was his uncle. So for two hours, the nephew was asleep and I was stuck while that certain sister watched for the very first time Twilight. People holding sleeping babies, understandably, have very little mobility.

As for one of the other comments on that post... well, I simply think Stephenie Meyer needs to go away. I would prefer a secluded island somewhere where the world will never know what she's up to, except perhaps close friends and family members. But any words from this day on that leave her pen (or word processing software, as you will) will immediately be blasted by yours truly as more civilization-killing blandness.

And someone (or someones) keep leaving random snippets of profound statements on the comment posts. I have no idea who you are, but it's always very interesting to read. Thank you.

By the way, if you're not watching Futurama, you should be. It will remind you that there are gifted people working in TV and cinema these days... they're just getting quieter and less numerous.

Thank you for your attention.

Victory at C... California, That Is!

Congratulations, Judge Vaughn Walker. You helped strike a victory for justice, morality and decency this week.

I'm referring, of course, to his decision to overturn California's unnecessary, hateful, overwhelmingly phobic ban on same-sex marriage.

The ban (known on the ballot as Proposition 8) was passed with a 2% majority in the enormous southwestern state back in Aught-8. Of course, by democratic rules, a simple majority was needed. But 2% is a little nebulous, wouldn't you say? So thanks to its powerful backers (entirely religious-conservative, although I'm sure confusion over the wording of the proposition did contribute some) which included apolitical churches and fear-and-hatemongering politicians and pundits, hordes of loving, committed couples were no longer allowed to enter into the same holy sanctity of marriage shared by billions throughout history who were happily and successfully united. Also Henry VIII and Britney Spears.

"Sanctity of marriage" is an abstraction, and in my mind, entirely personal. The institution of marriage, in my opinion, has no universal sanctity when it can be dissolved with a simple phrase as vague as "irreconcilable differences." And not when thousands of couples are drunkenly married in Vegas not knowing their spouses' names. Not when supermodels and "actors/actresses" have new wedded spouses every month. If you ask me, two married people create their own sanctity by their devotion to each other. A marriage isn't automatically better because it's between a man and a woman instead of two men or two women.

This, of course, applies only to civil marriages and marriages performed under faiths that embrace same-sex couples. Obviously, all religions are welcome to set their own standards for who is worthy of marriage. But with that right comes the responsibility not to interfere with those who choose love and equality. And yes, I realize that's a loaded sentence, because I don't believe discrimination against the GLBTQ is any better than discrimination against racial or religious minorities, or against women. Or men, for that matter-- no double standards today, thank you very much.

Quite frankly, the tidal wave sweeping across this country to make way for victory on this issue is the same that previously surged across America and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. It's called progress.

So well done, California. I await the results of the appeals. My advice to the ban proponents: Don't push it, please. Sometimes the world needs to change. This is one such time.

The Newest Plot by Extremist Wackos Masquerading as Concerned Citizens

I know that title line is a little dramatic, but let's face facts. Extremist nuts on both the left and the right are intent on utterly destroying this nation. This week, we hear from the right.

I read a letter to the editor of the Everett Herald on Monday suggesting that to help balance the state's budget by completely defunding Planned Parenthood. For those of you who don't know, Planned Parenthood is a clinic of sorts that provides all sorts of family planning and sex-ed services, including but not limited to: free STD screenings, contraceptive distribution, and even abortions.

My personal feelings on abortion aside, it is by no means the only service provided by Parenthood. Far more effort and attention are lavished on prevention, including educating people about the risks of sexual activity and all potential repercussions-- including pregnancy. People like the guy who wrote this letter would have us believe that Planned Parenthood is nothing but a baby butcher shop.

What happens when struggling, unwealthy young women and men (as Planned Parenthood serves both) need the kind of advice/counseling/education that they can only get from a place like Parenthood, and they find they can't get it because the platform has been yanked from directly beneath the organization? Contrary to popular fringe-wacko belief, if they can't find the services they need, they won't abstain from the dirty deed. They'll do it without protection and education if necessary. What happens then? Best case scenario, no negative consequences. Or there could be an unplanned pregnancy, which is likely to end in abortion or (billions of times worse!) postnatal abandonment. Or there could be a sexually transmitted disease. Without the kind of services and products that Parenthood provides, that burden may end up falling even harder on (you guessed it) the taxpayer when the party/parties concerned need cheap healthcare or possibly hospital attention due to childbirth.

Believing that abstinence prevails is a foolhardy idea that endangers millions of lives. Human beings seem to have a fair amount of control over their instincts and urges; but in most cases, it's still not enough. Which is why any doctrine (be it religious, political, or purely personal) that preaches abstinence and also condemns the use of contraceptives is a doctrine of death. Next time, the violently hateful people who sit in many positions of authority should try teaching instead of firing off. They might learn something themselves in the process.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the act of concerned citizens interested in maintaining the moral purity and low tax prices they've come to cherish. It sends the message that if you want to have sex before marriage, you deserve any ill fortune that befalls you. That's just rhetoric.

Still in the News?!

Several months ago (I believe roughly in the vicinity of September), renowned filmmaker (renowned strictly in cinematic circles) Roman Polanski was apprehended by authorities in connection with a 1977 child-rape case. I blogged about the event when it occurred, likening the media to vultures swooping upon decaying carrion, but also saying it's right and just that Polanski pay for his crime. And quite frankly, child rape is, in my opinion, one of the worst crimes of them all.

Well, people are still talking about it! There was an opinion piece in one of the newspapers recently calling for a boycott of Polanski's films.

You have got to be kidding me.

Let's all agree that the rape was heinous and disgusting. Rape always is. But what bearing does it have on the quality of a movie like Rosemary's Baby, which was released nine years before the crime was committed? Or Polanski's adaptation of Shakespeare's "Scottish play," which was released six years before?

I'm sure that proponents of the boycott will insist that, for instance, Rosemary's Baby reflected early signs of a troubled, potentially violent mind. The film's plot involves a young wife being drugged by her neighbors and dragged unconscious to a Satanic ritual wherein the living devil is conjured up, then proceeds to impregnate her. Disney fare it ain't. But before you boycott it, bear in mind that: (a) it is based on a novel written by Ira Levin, who has no other connection to the director; (b) it's purely fictional; and (c) the whole nine year thing!

Polanski's films exist in a world completely separate of his crime. It is not fair to the hundreds upon hundreds of other artisans who craft a motion picture together to boycott them because of one individual. If you object to Rosemary's Baby, object to the content or the thematic elements. Even object to the tacky 60s styles before the director! Polanski's crimes should be judged as criminal. His films? Purely as cinematic. Take OJ Simpson, for example. The man may be one of the worst actors in history, but that's how I remember his film work. And only how.

A Point of Clarification

I have recently learned that there are plans to build a mosque on Ground Zero. Naturally, this is very contentious. I happened to have a few thoughts on the matter.

My first comment concerns those who believe the mosque would be an affront to the memories, dreams, and survivors of the holocaust (note the lack of capital letter; this does not refer to the inhuman tragedy of WWII, but to that of September 11). I would say that these people need to understand what they condemn. When humans and other animals are wounded-- when our communities are deliberately attacked in such a wanton, premeditated, brutal, and devastating fashion-- the desire for revenge often overrides reason and intellect. But after almost nine years, are we still at that stage? Still salivating for vengeance and not caring whether the vengeance is misdirected as long as it hits "them"?

What I mean is, the true religion of Islam is one that teaches good, decency, and love. So is Judaism. So is Christianity. These three radically different religions, all born in the same part of the world, are really not so "different" at all. There is a "they" responsible for 9/11. But if you have decided that "they" means "all Muslims," you are wrong. The attack was sanctioned by a minority group of extremists who believed they needed to destroy all their enemies in a whirlwind of fire and blood. That group of extremists is responsible for 9/11.

I am, however, rather curious about why it was decided to build a mosque at Ground Zero. My theory is that the entity/entities who conceived of the idea believed it would be a symbol of peace and understanding. That is a worthy goal, certainly, but it completely ignores the truth of human nature: many humans won't tolerate peace and understanding because they'll take them for signs of weakness. Or because they live in a world removed from the two concepts and would rather see anything different die because it's not the same.

The only alternative to that theory is as sick and twisted as can be imagined considering the circumstances-- that someone thought of the idea directly to cause conflict, knowing full well that the angry and resentful would see it as an insult and a desecration.

In light of these thoughts, I really don't know what to think about this mosque. But I would hate to see one more hateful word spewed, or (infinitely worse) one more life taken because we human beings aren't ready for peace and understanding.

Where Evil Lurks, Part 2: And the Losers Are....

Here we are, dear readers. After much skimming over of lists detailing horrid films it couldn't be narrowed down any more than this. A tie between two films in the same franchise. Appropriately, movies this bad, this devious, and this painful to watch could only be about one character: the Antichrist.

When The Omen (1976) was first conceived, it was a very different movie than it became: tasteless, obvious, and heinously irresponsible. Fortunately writer David Seltzer and director Richard Donner came to focus on the power of faith as a theme rather than the existence of evil, making the original Omen film a staggering story of a man forced to come to terms with the nature of God when confronted with the ultimate challenge to the survival of goodness: the birth of Satan's son. Many Christian groups (including the Vatican) praised the film for helping to bring wayward Christians back to their various churches. But it succeeded with more than just the message: it allowed Fox to recover from a serious financial drought, and some of the profits were used to make George Lucas' most popular film, Star Wars. A sequel was guaranteed.

Sadly, neither Donner nor Seltzer returned for Damien: Omen II (1978).

Set some six or seven years after the original, Damien focuses on the title Antichrist as a whiny pubescent brat played with supreme obnoxiousness by Jonathan Scott-Taylor. It depicts his discovery of his true identity and an attempt (very similar to that in the first film in terms of story structure) to destroy him spearheaded by his wary uncle (William Holden) and (perhaps unwittingly) thwarted by his suspiciously overprotective aunt (Lee Grant). It's formulaic, in other words. It's no spoiler to tell you that Holden's character dies at the end after failing to eliminate Damien. Nor to tell you that anyone who even tries to solve the mystery of his identity meets an untimely end.

But those untimely ends represent what is majorly, glaringly wrong with the film. The original used subtle, virtually bloodless means to dispatch its victims, and the audience never saw it coming. In the sequel, however, the writers ridiculously decided to vamp up the violence and gore. One character falls several stories in an elevator and is subsequently sliced in half by a live cable from the ceiling. Another has his/her eyes picked out by ravens and is subsequently bowled over by a conveniently located, nonchalant semi truck. It's absolutely sick. Sick and unintelligent.

Perhaps worse than the gruesome deaths is the acting. Laborious, budget-busting director Mike Hodges was replaced early on by schedule and budget-friendly Don Taylor, but Taylor was obviously so concerned with finishing the picture on time that he neglected to procure passable performances from his cast-- even the great Holden is listless, lifeless and bored. Even Jerry Goldsmith's music fails, though not as spectacularly. Without a doubt, Damien is the worst sequel of all time.

Remakes, however, are another matter.

The Omen franchise survived through one more theatrical movie (infinitely better than the second), a cheesy and preposterous TV "movie," and an inexplicable NBC pilot that had nothing to do with the real Omen. When 6/6/2006 rolled around (thirty years to the day since the release of the original), Fox once more trotted out one of its most puzzlingly uneven franchises with a remake of the original film, once more written solely by David Seltzer.

Seltzer uses exactly the same plot. Gone, however, are the cheesy 70s haircuts, the subtlety, the fantastic and effective music, and any hint of originality. The deaths are bloodier and one has been completely altered, all done to cater to the moviegoing crowd of the year 2006. Liev Schreiber (a capable enough thespian) stands in the role originated by Gregory Peck and is no substitute. Julia Stiles takes over from the late, incomparable Lee Remick in the role of the mother and wife-- she was in Save the Last Dance, which speaks for itself. Mia Farrow plays the evil nanny once played brilliantly by Billie Whitelaw, and even she is terrible, as are Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon, and that irritating new kid playing five-year-old son-of-sin Damien. Instead of crafting an innovative or at least useful score, as Goldsmith did, Marco Beltrami uses what sounds like modern stock music. And instead of the subtle terror of the original, the "director" uses sudden appearances by mysterious masked figures (which look like they escaped from a bad M. Night Shyamalan flick) to keep the audience on edge.

The point is, how dare they remake a classic like that?! Fortunately, their marketing ploy (6/6/06) didn't work, and the loose excuse for a film will forever stand on its own. Fortunately, we have at least one great Omen movie to look back on and preserve as an American cultural milestone. Next thing you know, they'll be remaking Star Wars.

And that concludes XC's list of the 10 worst movies of all time. Okay, 11, my mistake. If you ever get curious, you can check them out (if you haven't seen them already), but now you've been warned. Heed the omens (hee hee hee) and escape while you still can!

Footnote: The world is a joke, in case you've been following the news, or in case you haven't.