Blogcritics Author: Bryan McKay

Music Review: Blood Ceremony - Blood Ceremony

Bryan McKay — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:25:18 EDT

Like a folksier Black Sabbath, Blood Ceremony plays music that taps into a deep wellspring of sound and imagery.
There are two touchstones that every press release or review regarding this album is bound by law to invoke: Black Sabbath and Jethro Tull. I figure that getting these inevitable references out of the way now is best for everybody involved. As cliché as it is to fall back on tired x + y comparisons, I still haven't hit upon a more direct way...

DVD Review: Dance Party, USA

Bryan McKay — Sun, 18 May 2008 21:55:43 EDT

In this film, the awkward house party is pretty much a way of life.
Dance Party, USA is not the rollicking good time that the title might suggest. Now I understand that this might lead you to believe that I did not enjoy the film. That perhaps feeling duped by the film's seriously misleading title, I tossed the disc into the garbage, fuming over the film's preposterous lack of dance party fun. Okay, so...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

China to U.S.: "Shut Up" About Military Spending

Bryan McKay — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:22:24 EDT

Chinese ambassador to the United Nations Office at Geneva Sha Zukang told a reporter yesterday that "It's better for the U.S. to shut up [about Chinese military spending]." According to an article from the Associated Press, the Chinese government, whose relationship with the United States has never been particularly amiable, has bolstered military spending with "double-digit percentage increases [...] every year for a decade."This alone doesn't seem like cause for concern. United States military spending has certainly increased, and we have boosted our efforts at "homeland security" following 9/11. There are valid justifications for increased defense spending, and perhaps with North Korea becoming an increased regional threat with their looming nuclear capabilities there is valid justification in this case. There is no justification, however, for being so tight-lipped regarding spending. While it's wise to play one's cards close to one's chest when discussing military defense strategies, it would probably be more of a deterrent to potential aggressors to disclose one's military capabilities to a certain extent. If an aggressor sees the nation as a formidable threat, the chance of conflict is lessened. (Although one might argue that 9/11 is an example of how this strategy doesn't always work, it's important to recognize that terrorists act out of very different motivations than national governments.)While telling the largest world power to "shut up" may be a diplomatic faux pas, it's relatively harmless, though the rest of Sha's quote is enough to give one pause. "Keep quiet," he said. "It's much, much better."Better for whom? one might ask. Though it's possible to interpret this as a veiled threat ("Shut up, it's for your own good"), I don't think the ambassador would be that tactless (but if he was so undiplomatic in the first place, it's hard to say). It's always possible that the issue can be one of language. The United States government has certainly never been known to employ a language of subtlety (obfuscation, perhaps, but not subtlety) and there is no reason to suggest that China would be any different. We should also keep in mind that the ambassador's remarks were made to a reporter, not in a traditional diplomatic setting, and shouldn't be taken to represent the official stance of the Chinese government. While he may have been selected as a representative of China in the UNOG, one man's diplomatic faux pas shouldn't be taken as indicative of an entire nation or even an entire government. He went on to say that "China basically is a peace-loving nation," and that the military spending is an act of "legitimate defense" and "is not threatening anyone." This might lend credence to the notion that they are simply bolstering their defenses against the remote possibility of a North Korean attack, but their spending has been increasing steadily over the past decade, long before we were aware of the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and the recent missile tests. This may be nothing to worry about in the grander scheme of things, but we should still take pause at these remarks. What is it that China doesn't want to tell us? Why is it "better" not to ask questions? That sort of attitude might work under the strict Chinese regime, but it doesn't fly with the rest of the world. In an era where Iraq can be "preemptively" attacked for refusing to comply with UN inspections, it doesn't look good for China to take a similar stance of non-disclosure. As I said previously, a government shouldn't feel obligated to reveal all of its internal secrets to the world, but these seem like simple questions to answer and there is something a bit fishy about the ambassador's response.Hopefully this was a misunderstanding that will be corrected in the future. I would hope Sha would, at the very least, receive a reprimand from his superiors in the Chinese government. Even if there is no real threat, it still doesn't look good for China to have this sort of representation in the rest of the world. In this era of increased globalization, it's important for nations to learn to cooperate with one another lest they be left behind in the "new world order."

Bryan McKay is the associate director of the Boston Underground Film Festival. He currently lives in Brookline, MA. If anyone would like to offer him a job, please do not hesitate to call. If you can't get enough of him, you are welcome to read his Tumblr and follow him on Twitter.

Does Suri Cruise Exist? (And Should We Care?)

Bryan McKay — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:40:28 EDT

There's an Internet rumor floating around that Suri Cruise, the child of actors Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, doesn't exist. (Or at the very least, there's something freakishly wrong with her.) Now, Tom Cruise might be a real freak, but why in the world would he have a reason to lie about the existence of his child!?What this comes down to are the pathologies of the American (and perhaps global) pop culture consumers. We've been raised on this sense of entitlement to a celebrity's personal life. As a public, we have no damn right to see Tom and Katie's baby, but we feel like we do. If it hasn't appeared in the press, it can't possibly exist, can it? It can't be that maybe Tom and Katie just want their child to have a little bit of privacy? Where did this voyeurism come from? The tabloid press and the paparazzi feed the frenzy, but there has to be some sort of existing demand or else these rags wouldn't be so popular. (The desire may be a manufactured one though, and if so, where did it come from? How? Why?) Is it just America that is this gossip crazy? I don't think this is a global phenomenon (outside maybe the UK) but I really have no idea. Where else are celebrities worshipped on the level we worship them here?But it might be unfair to call it worship. There's this odd contradiction we strike here between hero worship and slanderous gossip. People idolize celebrities like Tom Cruise, but at the same time there is this conflicting desire to tear down their celebrity status. We want to see that celebrities are "just like us," but we also elevate the banal activities of celebrities to the status of entertainment. And reality television fits right into this schema. We make celebrities out of average people and we get off watching them do next to nothing. When Baudrillard talks about the elevation of the banal to the status of art, we could just as easily substitute fame or celebrity. When we elevate the banal to the level of celebrity (or the celebrity to the level of the banal) is celebrity meaningless?Back to Suri Cruise, why should we care? It's ironic that they would keep their child out of the public eye to avoid unwanted publicity and intrusion into their private lives, but by doing so they've probably spawned more discourse and nasty gossip than they would have otherwise. Is there any way celebrities can live under the public radar when living under the public radar simply pushes one further into it? (i.e. Why is Harper Lee's absence from the literary world after publishing To Kill a Mockingbird more interesting to most people than the book itself?)

In Defense of The Searchers

Bryan McKay — Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:09 EDT

Stephen Metcalf at Slate writes that John Ford's The Searchers is wildly overrated, calling it "the worst best movie." While Mr. Metcalf is certainly entitled to his opinion, he pulled off the neat trick of managing to alienate me completely within the first few paragraphs, calling it (derisively) "a film geek's paradise" and sneering at "film studies" (which he inexplicably surrounds with scare quotes) as a "discrete and self-respecting academic discipline." Hey, what's wrong with a little self respect? Anyway, Metcalf does his best to skewer the film's reputation, but it's clear that he's not interested in anything more than a straightforward shoot-em-up Western. I would recommend Stagecoach to him, but seeing as how film geeks seem to love that one too, maybe he'd better steer clear. Apparently Metcalf also has an axe to grind with cultural studies, throwing up those old scare quotes again around the word "problematized" and regarding race and gender issues with what amounts to an outright dismissal. He also has a problem with using the word "subvert," which, again, he surrounds with scare quotes and claims is a "film studies byword." Are film scholars the only people to ever mention subversion in art, culture, media, etc.? It's clear that Metcalf has a problem with "film geeks." I'm not sure how he manages it, but he interprets John Ford's quote "My name is John Ford. I make Westerns" as the most "laconic a kiss-off to one's nerd-cultists [...] one could imagine." Maybe I'm missing something from the original context, but where's the kiss-off, Metcalf? Overall, his tone is extraordinarily dismissive of film studies and academic scholarship in general. This seems to be a common problem; popular critics like Metcalf have little concern for 'problem films' and are rarely willing to engage the flaws of a work in a meaningful fashion. Often these flaws, over time, become the most intriguing and endearing parts of a text. He seems to be right on the same page with the commenter over in the discussion forums who thinks Vertigo is overrated and not entertaining. Maybe it's just because I'm a discrete, self-respecting film scholar, but you'd have to be an idiot to dismiss one of the greater films of the 20th century because it's not as "entertaining or properly constructed" as other works. Apparently only popcorn movies with tight, conventional structures deserve the critical accolades. Well, I'll take my small, challenging films any day over a piece of commercial fluff. Let me endure three hours of von Trier's torturously beautiful melodrama; let me stew over Godard's intentionally distanciating and difficult pictures; let me take all these films off your hands, Metcalf, because I'm guessing they weren't meant for you.

Rescue Me and the Rape Fallacy

Bryan McKay — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:03:11 EDT

Last week's episode of FX's hit show Rescue Me has generated a great deal of controversy across Internet message boards. The episode, which contained a scene of rough, forceful sex bordering on rape, has signaled to some viewers that the show has pushed the envelope too far.In the scene, Denis Leary's character, Tommy Gavin, forces himself upon his soon-to-be ex-wife, Janet. While the scene certainly begins like a rape, it ends with Janet submitting to the act and perhaps even enjoying it. One can read the scene one of two ways: either Janet has simply resigned herself to what is happening and is just going to grin and bear it, or that she "secretly wants it."If the former is true, then it's hard to object to the scene. It remains brutal and cruel, but it's in the context of fiction. The writers are hardly condoning the act. In the previous week's episode, we saw Tommy beat his own brother nearly to death; this is not a character we are meant to root for. We might sympathize with him occasionally, but we are also expected to realize that he is a deeply flawed and emotionally damaged human being. His character has always been portrayed as misogynistic, and while sometimes this is played for laughs, it is more often presented as a true character flaw. It's all right for a viewer not to like the character, but to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, we can't judge a work of art by some ideal of "morality." Tommy Gavin isn't a mouthpiece for the show's writers; he may act immorally, but his actions aren't necessarily being endorsed. The dramatic actions of a deeply flawed and complex character are hardly valid grounds for criticism of an entire work. This is like saying we can't appreciate Schindler's List because some of the characters are Nazis. When put in this context, it's an absurd argument and holds no credibility whatsoever.But the latter proposition -- the idea that Janet wanted to be raped -- is the one that's stirring up the most trouble. "It's a sick male fantasy that rape turns a woman on," writes 'judibrowni' on the Huffington Post, "and perpetrating that fantasy encourages rapists, the idea that men should use force to get sex, and the idea that women don't mean 'no' when they say 'no.'"Well, yes and no. It's true that there is a myth held amongst many men that rape does turn a woman on. While this may be a common fallacy, this does not automatically mean the opposite must be 100% true either. One can't assume that all women experience sexuality -- even rape -- in the same monolithic fashion. For Janet's character, perhaps, in this situation, she really did want it. That idea may be related to this male myth, but by the same token, a work of fiction does not purport to speak for every experience. The show is focused on a handful of characters and the experience or attitude of one female character does not represent all females. In general, women don't want to be raped, but could it be possible that this woman, in this situation, with this person, did want to have sex and submitted to it consensually? Another HuffPo commentor, CaptainQuahog notes that "this was what their sex life was like, rough, passionate and physical. I can understand how some people could misunderstand this scene as it was by itself, but this was how their relationship has been since the beginning of the show."Also, I'm not entirely sure how this scene "encourages" rapists any more than a scene of gun violence "encourages" gun violence, especially as the interaction didn't appear particularly gratifying to either party. I know that rape isn't "about" sex, but Tommy really didn't get much else out of the transaction. Any power he may have held over Janet was fleeting. In this week's episode, Tommy lost more than half his furniture and belongings to Janet in the divorce settlement.Before I wrap things up, I think it's really important to stress that I'm not trying to be dismissive of the controversy. All this dialogue is important and there should be more of it. A work of art is meant to make people talk and think. If the show managed to do that, I'm not sure why so many viewers are turning their backs on it. Most people aren't used to things like this on television (with the exception of HBO) and the episode may have come as a shock, but the show hardly jumped the shark. Art is sometimes difficult and confrontational, shocking its audience with the intent to provoke and encourage thoughtful discourse. It is this thoughtful discourse that separates real art from most of the trash that passes for entertainment. Rescue Me clearly got people talking -- now what's so bad about that?

Florida Bans "Revisionist History" in Public Schools

Bryan McKay — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:55:37 EDT

Straight from the tip of America's wang comes the report that the Florida state government has officially banned the teaching of "revisionist history" in public classrooms. Well, not quite, but the bill, recently signed into effect by Governor Jeb Bush, maintains thatAmerican history shall be viewed as factual, not as constructed, shall be viewed as knowable, teachable and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence.Aside from a missing serial comma (which, while technically not incorrect, always tweaks me a bit), let's examine just what's wrong with the above statement.First of all, American history, as pointed out by Zimmerman in the above article, is necessarily constructed. He points out what should have been obvious to the lawmakers: A factual account of history is conceptually impossible. The best we can do is - wait for it - construct a logical and relatively objective account based on the available testimony and records. It is practically impossible to understand history as separate from this process of construction. The idea behind "revisionist history" is that historians revise and update our recorded history based on new ideas and knowledge. (Not unlike the bit of revisionist history that occured during the 2000 election, eh?)Oh, but maybe this is all a big fuss over a few words that didn't even end up in the final phrasing of the law. The actual law printed above did carry the declaration that the teaching of American history "shall not follow the revisionist or postmodernist viewpoints of relative truth." Ah, now it gets interesting! Is this law aimed at history or contemporary philosophical thought? Boy, those conservatives really hate that crazy liberal postmodernism. Let's forget all about terrorism for a moment, for it's clear that the real threat to homeland security comes by way of Lyotard, Baudrillard, and Jameson.But let's not think about that for a moment. After all, those words never made it into the final bill, right? Someone along the line obviously realized that these anti-intellectual rumblings weren't really getting anywhere and the bill was then revised to disguise the real intent of the lawmakers!Now back to the law itself; what's this deal with the "knowable, teachable and testable" bit? What makes history knowable or unknowable? Or teachable or unteachable, for that matter? If one means knowable in a strictly literal sense, then I suppose history can never be truly knowable without having lived through it. We can make assumptions and inferences from the historical texts at hand, but we can never really know what the past was like. And as far as the second matter goes, isn't anything essentially teachable? Maybe middle schoolers won't grasp the finer nuances of some "postmodernist" (re)interpretations of historical events, but we're talking about all public education from kindergarten through the upper levels of state universities. If a concept isn't teachable, by definition it can't be taught. Only a state like Florida would manage to pass a law banning the non-teaching of unteachable material.And what was that last thing? Testable? Oh, well, now it makes more sense! Jeb Bush is simply following in the Shrub's footsteps in this "no child left behind" thing. All knowledge should be quantifiable in a one-hundred question multiple-choice test. I'll take the essay option, please! It's so much easier to make things so there is one right answer than to explore and interrogate the subtle nuances of history and revisit and reevaluate our primary source material.History is a constant process, not a definitive set of facts. It's maybe even a bit more verb than noun. To deny teaching the aspects of history that contribute to the making of history is incomprehensible. In order to train a new generation of competent historians, they need to understand how the stories that make up our histories are crafted. Equal parts anthropologist, investigative journalist, and storyteller, a good historian should have the tools required to refine and expand our understanding of the past. In our lives, we aren't consciously "making history," we're simply living out the events that constitute our existence. No, history is what we do when we sit down and try to sort things out and make a bit of sense from them, and sometimes that takes more than one try.

Academic Papers to Be Published Under Open Access Guidelines?

Bryan McKay — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:26:05 EDT

A new bit of proposed legislation -- the Federal Research Public Access Act -- may grant all citizens the right to access government-funded research papers. As of now, most academic journal articles are available through individual subscriptions or subscribing institutions, thus leaving most scholarly output accessible only within the dark walls of academia.Many organizations whose income is derived from academic publishing have begun protesting this legislation (.doc). The 66 dissenters include major scholarly publishers (Blackwell, SAGE), university presses (Columbia, Oxford), and organizations that publish regular journals (American Psychological Association, the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine). The case against the Act rests mainly on financial terms; running an academic publication is often a losing venture and offering open access will diminish the already minuscule returns on the investment of publishing.As far as I'm concerned, there is little reason for the publishers to be so up in arms. They still retain first publication rights and the articles won't be available in the public database until six months after the initial publication. Even more important, this research should be available to the public. It is funded through our tax dollars and often contains important and relevant findings. While most of this research is often summarized and reported in mainstream publications, it is important that inquiring minds have a place to go to see the original data and find out for themselves just what their tax dollars are paying for.On the side of academia, I don't understand just what these people are fighting so hard against the plan. Academics have a hard enough time being taken seriously by the general public and this would present a welcome opportunity to engage with the populace. There is no reason that scholarly articles, specifically those of relevance to the citizenry-at-large, should be so unattainable. This is a vital opportunity for scientists and scholars to communicate with an audience outside the academic sphere and this sort of accessibility should be a goal for all fields. In a field such as anthropology, where the goal is to communicate about culture, it seems almost absurd to close off channels of communication with the cultures you are trying to study. As for scientific articles, this may open up all sorts of new channels for peer review that were otherwise unavailable and may lead to more accurate and informative scientific research and data.While the majority of American citizens probably would never take advantage of such an open access database, it is important for us to see where our tax dollars are going. Furthermore, as with the Freedom of Information Act, it is important for information to be easily accessible. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to do something as basic as learn. This legislation would help bridge the gap between academia and the public -- theory and praxis -- and would open up new and bold opportunities for research applications.

Thoughts on Global Feminism and Sexual Inequality

Bryan McKay — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:15:29 EST

In a sample of 13 African countries between 1999 and 2004, 52% of women surveyed say they think that wife-beating is justified if she neglects the children; around 45% think it's justified if she goes out without telling the husband or argues with him; 36% if she refuses sex, and 30% if she burns the food. And this is what the women think.The above statistics come from Steven D. Levitt over at Freakonomics. In light of my college's Take Back the Night week, I couldn't have come across this statistic at a better time. We ought not to forget that women's rights issues are global issues. It is very important to deal with these issues at home (wherever home may be for those of you reading this), but we cannot forget our fellow men and women around the globe. Women need to stand in solidarity with each other against the abuses of male supremacy. And men too must be part of the movement - men must stand up and tell their brothers that the power they (we) continue to wield and abuse is unjustified, inhuman, and cruel.Levitt goes on to remark that "We live in a strange world." But there is nothing strange about these facts. American women face abuse and oppression every day and we choose to blind ourselves to it. We look down our noses at the "bizarre" or "strange" or "exotic" customs held in other countries and ignore the fact that similar things are going on in our own neighborhoods - maybe even in our own homes. We cannot just blame these problems on the "strange world" we live in. The world only remains "strange" when we let it.But what can we do about it? There is a fine line between promoting and defending human rights, and cultural imperialism. How can we educate, inform, and spark interest without simply enforcing "our" way of doing things? We cannot export Western notions of feminism to foreign cultures monolithically, but we can spark movements and debate. We cannot, however, attempt to lead or control these movements. Women in Africa and other postcolonial regions need to find their own power within their own cultural space, but this does not mean that we cannot respectfully support these movements.This is not charity. This is not aid. We ought to do this not because we want to help others in need, but because these others are also ourselves. Their freedom is our freedom. And when I speak of "our" freedom, I speak not as a woman (for I cannot), nor as a man (for I choose not), but as a human being who sees oppression and realizes that when even one person is oppressed, we are all oppressed.I am reminded of a beautiful quote (of unverifiable attribution) which I came across the other day and has stuck with me: If you have come to help me, please go home. But if you have come because your liberation is somehow bound with mine, then we may work together.

DVD Review: Wholphin No. 1 (DVD Magazine)

Bryan McKay — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:50:30 EST

Packaged with the latest edition of McSweeney's Quarterly was a wonderful surprise: The first issue of a new DVD magazine called Wholphin1.As one would expect from the publishers of McSweeney's and the Believer, Wholphin is full of quirky, inventive, and often (bizarrely) touching content. The short films included have not managed to find major distribution, and sometimes it is easy to tell why; despite the cleverness of the films, these are not all entirely marketable products. J. Lisa Chang and Newton Thomas Siegel's The Big Empty (an adaptation of "The Specialist," first published in McSweeney's 11) is the story of a "little woman with [a] big empty." The titular mystery centers around a large, frozen wasteland contained within the body of a young woman named Alice (the surprisingly talented Selma Blair). I won't spoil the surprise gimmick that this premise hinges on, but I assure you that it's unlike anything you've ever seen before.While some films, like the aforementioned The Big Empty, were produced on larger budgets by professional crews, other films like Scott Prendergast's hilariously strange The Delicious and Spike Jonze's remarkable documentary profile of Al Gore are presented in a much more of a guerrilla style. Yes, you did read that properly. There is a remarkable documentary profile of Al Gore, one which editor Brent Hoff suggests "might have wiped away [...] Gore's reputation as a robot." Perhaps the film wouldn't have "changed the world" as Hoff goes on to say, but it certainly is a revealing bit of filmmaking.Other highlights include excerpts from David O. Russell's Iraq documentary Soldier's Pay and conceptual artist Jeroen Offerman's mind-bending backwards-sung rendition of Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" (Stairway at St. Rose). There are also animations (including a surreal 1970s Iranian production), an instructional video from the 1950s, and an episode of a Turkish sitcom complete with six different subtitle tracks (one original and five written especially for the DVD). To round out the collection, there is also a brand new short film written by Miranda July and starring John C. Reilly entitled Are You the Favorite Person of Anybody. Although I'm not sure about labeling it "haiku-like," it certainly is a fun and engaging short piece.The package is completed with an informative booklet featuring director interviews and/or artist's statements and three separate DVD menu designs, each blossoming into a stand-alone short film after a few seconds. It is an elegantly designed product and is packed with strange goodness. Future installments promise short films from the writers of the Daily Show and the Academy Award-nominated animation The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello. If the successive discs are as good as this one, I will certainly be more than willing to shell out the $10 per issue. As a cineaste, a resource for short films (outside of the festival circuit) such as Wholphin is truly indispensable. 1. What is a 'wholphin,' you ask? According to the accompanying booklet, a wholphin is "a cross between a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin." And yes, they are real, and no, it doesn't matter.