Archive for the Politics Category

The Glinner

Posted in Interactive, Politics, Television with tags , , , , on June 27, 2020 by dcairns

download (1)

Since I simply HATE sport, and Twitter insists on giving me sports headlines, I’ve set my Twitter location to New York, because at least that way I get notifications on sports I know nothing about and which don’t automatically annoy me.

I woke up this afternoon and found Graham Linehan trending, and knew it wasn’t going to be for anything good.

Graham Linehan has been banned from Twitter. He’s the one who actually got me onto WordPress and then Twitter, but we’ve only had one brief exchange in recent years. I was kind of concerned about his mental health, since the once-brilliant comedy writer who used to offer links to amusing things found online, was now obsessively monotopical, only able to talk about trans rights issues from the point of view that trans rights are bad.

I asked him why this subject devoured all of his entire attention and he replied in all caps that it was because nobody else was talking about it. I gently pressed him on this, and he admitted it was a slight exaggeration. I do try to maintain a civil tone online. It occasionally helps.

The Glinner’s pronouncements on trans rights varied from reasonable-sounding to frothingly insane. Reasonable people, I think, could respectfully disagree about whether trans women should compete in female sporting events or whether some kids are being rushed into gender reassignment procedures before they’re ready. I’m not trans, I’m not a parent, I’m not a child, I’m not a woman, I prefer not to force my way into these arguments, but for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, Linehan was certain this was his fight, his hill to die on.

He wrote an article about how he couldn’t write comedy in a world where expressions like “female penis” were taken seriously. Which is a weird thing to fixate on. My impression is that some trans people enjoy the apparent incongruity of the phrase, find it sort of humorous as well as useful, and anyway, so what? Words are always changing their roles (like people).

In a much earlier conversation, Linehan had talked about getting into production (I hoped I might get a job out of him one day) because he didn’t expect his creativity to last into late middle age — I’m not sure why he thought this, but it’s at least better than blaming a decline in comedy ideas on trans people. Any conspiracy theory that suggests that The I.T. Crowd is not as brilliant as Father Ted or that Count Arthur Strong, despite its wonderful central character, is not nearly as good as either, because of continuing advances in LGBTQ rights, seems to be operating (poorly) on a false basis, to say the least.

There was also the fact that Linehan’s entry into the debate followed a trans-based subplot on The I.T. Crowd, which seemed like the product of lazy, out-of-date thinking more than a coherent, retrograde or political stance. Linehan was criticised for it, and I believe admitted it was a mistake. (A character embarks on a relationship with a trans woman, having misheard her revelation that she used to be a man. When he finds out, he throws her out a window. It sounds worse on paper, actually, but it’s… not great.)

What made Linehan’s Twitter rants dangerous is that he could seem quite reasonable on the surface, at times, before plunging into transphobic vileness. A sincere, I presume, belief that women were being put in danger, could be used to justify anything — distorting what people said, for instance. When a teacher said that their grad students could bring up subjects in seminars that they couldn’t discuss with their parents, Linehan quote-tweeted this with the single word comment “Grooming.” Does Linehan know that grad students are adults or does this not matter to him? Likewise, how is it grooming if the students are the ones raising the subject? Why was Linehan following this person anyway?

At some point my attempt to believe Linehan was a well-meaning person who had different beliefs from me disintegrated completely. There seemed to be a toxic, Twitter-fuelled admixture of politics, ego, neurosis, anger — did the man’s surviving testicular cancer feed into this in some bizarre way? Or is it just the way the internet can turn everything into a war? The word “transphobia” certainly seems well-designed, because fear lies under the hatred, pretty clearly.

Twitter allows people to communicate together in an apparently consequence-free way, people who would not normally seek out each others’ company. It’s a bit like granting a populace the power of invisibility. Hi-jinks ensue. Then there are pile-ons and public shamings and these don’t typically transform the offenders into better people. Prejudices are fed.

Linehan would slide from sounding concerned about women’s rights being infringed, to making snide and nasty comments about specific trans people, reserving the right to deadname anyone he didn’t like, to sounding like a “harmless” fuddy-duddy who didn’t like the way society was changing… I imagine some were drawn in by the concern or “concern,” and ultimately seduced by the hatred. In a way, perhaps he was too. Twitter was slow to act.

There might be real places where trans rights and women’s rights are partially at odds, where some creative thinking might be required, where the natural tendency of people of all genders and sexes and persuasions to get excited about issues which deeply affect them might be stopping them getting together and building something positive that’s for the common good. I strongly suspect the solutions will not be devised on Twitter.

Linehan was always nice to me. I want to think that he’s redeemable. A man having a very protracted, public nervous breakdown rather than an evil bigot. This might be wishful thinking. But getting off Twitter might be good for him.

Gone Gone

Posted in FILM, Politics with tags , , on June 16, 2020 by dcairns

I’m anti-censorship, but the moment the American president namedropped GONE WITH THE WIND in a speech as a dog whistle to his base, the writing was probably on the wall.

I’m broadly in favour of putting warnings and disclaimers in front of films — I’m in favour of introductions generally, opportunities to add context and educational value. And I’m struck by the mindset of those who find them ridiculous, offensive, unnecessary. I know the good people who run the unofficial Talking Pictures TV Facebook page, and there’s been a lot of discussion there on this subject. TPTV have had occasional complaints upheld for showing material without warnings, so they tend to play it safe and put advisory notices in front of anything that could conceivably offend anybody, to the purple-faced apoplexy of some viewers.

An advisory notice isn’t much of an issue for most of us: it’s quickly over, and then you can enjoy the film, uncensored. I have a hunch about why people get so annoyed.

For a percentage of audiences — I don’t really know how large or small a percentage — old movies are not just nostalgic because they offer a (tinted) window on the past, but they offer a chance to wallow in outdated social attitudes and pretend they’re not outdated. The crowd cheering Fuckface Von Clownstick were largely indifferent to William Cameron Menzies’ skill or Vivian Leigh’s charisma, they were really cheering (a) a time when American cinema could celebrate the Confederacy and (b) the Confederacy. When he went on to mention SUNSET BOULEVARD, they went silent and blank.

Since the pleasure for this brand of time-traveler is projecting themself into the past and enjoying the racist jokes and stereotyping and celebration of white privilege and telling themself that this is the way it ought to be, the appearance of a statement at the start saying, in effect, “These were the bad old days,” must be incredibly irritating and stressful. A tub of vaseline that’s nine parts sand.

Of course, some members of such audiences may well be also enjoying the artistry and beauty and certainly the entertainment value of the films. There’s some overlap. But for my kind of movie-lover, dubious racial or sexual politics or an insulting role for Snowflake or Willie Fung are groan-inducing or discomfiting but useful reminders of bygone attitudes. But it’s quite possible to love the films, but not love certain aspects of them.

Of course, HBO removing GONE WITH THE WIND achieves very little. But I can understand any corporation wanting to be able to say, unambiguously, “We’re not endorsing this film’s nostalgic view of a slave-based economy.” They’re just protecting themselves.

I do want old movies to be available, and ones that people may have heard of are useful gateway drugs to movie appreciation. But I share HBO’s discomfort at the idea of people uncritically consuming racist movies to coddle their own worst leanings. To hell with those people.

Stick a warning in front of it.

HBO, of course, could quietly have stuck a warning in front of GWTW without taking the film down or making any announcements — how long does it take to craft such a thing? –clearly, they wanted to perform an act of public disavowal. It’s a little cynical, in fact. But, so long as there are racists, any public gesture that reminds those people that their views are beyond the pale, unacceptable, obscene, is a little bit of a public service all the same.

America, Heck Yeah

Posted in FILM, MUSIC, Politics with tags , , , , , on June 4, 2020 by dcairns

vlcsnap-2020-06-04-10h38m41s956

Well, I was hardly to know a week ago, as I swiftly watched and wrote up WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? (1945) for Forgotten By Fox, that the US’s fundamental relationship to its armed forces would have changed by the time of publication, was I? But I’ve never been fond of flagwaving so I don’t find anything embarrassing in the piece, even though you might not be in the mood…

Still, when I say this pageant/farce is scripted by the Marx Bros’ Morrie Ryskind and has songs by Kurt Weill and Ira Gershwin, you might be… intrigued? And you can play two of the musical numbers, over at The Notebook.