Preamble Works, Kubrick Retrospective, Dr Strangecoke, John Laws King Hit, South Park's brilliant lyrics.

PREAMBLE WORKS

I think the preamble actually sounds really good. It contains no "mateship", refers to all the important aspects of our history and refers to the indigenous people. While some have attacked it as not going far enough with regards to indigenous people, I would argue that it is better than the original version and also that this is the best possible preamble anyone could have hoped to get out of Howard. The whole republic and preamble question would've taken a different role with a Beazley PM and Costello opposition - but a few electors in marginal seats have denied a truly unique opportunity to come up with anything better. But still, you've got to be impressed with Howard. He's a committed monarchist and has kept his promises in regards to the referendum. But the preamble to me strikes me as concise and gets across "our" values without being as patriotic as the Americans. It won't be too hard for people to learn off by heart, so I can imagine that school kids will learn it as part of their education. Compromising can work, and it looks like the new Conservative-Democrat coalition is changing the shape of policy in Australia (that's an article in itself - the Democrats have made the Government look relevant and not as conservative as it did a few years ago).

KUBRICK RETROSPECTIVE HIGHLIGHTS GENIUS

I've always been a fan of Kubrick. The cinematic style was matched with an intellectual edge that made the movie accessable to many people but at the same time a work that would reward people who paid attention to detail and watched movies over and over. In fact, I would argue that Space Odyssey requires at least two viewings and comment should be reserved on that film until after multiple screenings. Full Metal Jacket is another example of a film that keeps on gaining more and more from viewing after viewing. The reason why people usually don't appreciate his longer films would not like it at first is that they are so differently tuned to more traditional Hollywood narrative. Who, for example, would shoot a sequence showing a battery being changed in space, or a man shadow boxing while doing exercise in the space craft? But scenes like that because they are "slow" are not slow by any visual standard. Anyway, I digress.Here are reviews of almost every one of his feature films:

THE KILLING, PATHS OF GLORY, LOLITA, DR STRANGELOVE, 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, BARRY LYNDON, THE SHINING, FULL METAL JACKET, EYES WIDE SHUT

DR STRANGECOKE?

Rudolph Pereira, otherwise known as Dr Strangelove, has been inspired by Eyes Wide Shut to reveal that his constant need for coke comes from a "repressed" childhood that continues to this day. His desire from this repression excises itself whenever he is amongst his fellow humans with the utterances "coke - need coke - need more coke." Professer Dumsign has been consulted by AV editors in order to ascertain the veracity of such a claim, and to see how much repression has resulted in this desire for "coke":

"We can see that desire comes from repression (in which knowledge forms itself as knowledge). When Focault said that criminality becomes a "repressed" so as to make "normality" exist (or the dominant term), so too can we say of Rudolph that his constant cries for coke, make us normal. But this doesn't go to the fact of HIS REPRESSION. For Freud, desire was primary to knowing - and it was connected to one economy of desire, one libido, and this was masculine - it was based on the phallus - its presence and its absence (castration). It's not surprising that Pereira would have this reaction after watching a Kubrick film - especially since he did see Dr Strangelove as well. But it is not Freud alone who termed desire in terms of presence and absence - Grosz points out that both cultural and philosophical history has this DESIRE emerging as a point of something being inherently lacking. So, because Rudolph has coke lacking in his childhood and perhaps in his own home (as Freud would say - the place of the mother/father battle and as I would say, the place where the castrating mother presides supreme), he is castrated so to speak, and craves for it whenever on group events. But then, one could say: "why doesn't he stop the craving when he drinks the ten litres or so every group meet"? Grosz says:

"For Plato, desire is a yearning for access to the good and beautiful which man himself lacks. This platonic model in which desire is a lack, an absence, a yearning for an object (in this case, a sugary drink), provides the most pervasive model of desire in the history of philosophy"

This platonic model therefore tells us that desire cannot exist without lack - and even when we have our desire satisfied, it is not satisfying fully (hence the success of materialism). Therefore this constant need for the coke. It can never be fulfilled - only to find the desire magnified in intensity over the period in which he can satisfy the unquencheable desire."

Professor Dumsign has also made the extraordinary link between freudian theory and Pereira's need for coke in a specific way:

"Freud always said that phallus as symbol identifies with power of father to avoid lack of mother. And this can be taken in the metaphorical context. The absence of coke in the Pereira household is like the absence of a phallus - and this coupled with "home" as the primary place of the castrating mother makes the trauma all the more apparent. Pereira therefore has an oepidal complex in that he wishes to enter the power of patriarchal society, and coke therefore becomes the object by which he can physically meet out his desire to exist within this sphere. One must therefore pity Pereira when he says "coke. need coke." It is a guttural cry that stems from this oepidal devastation. It is not surprising therefore that whilst watching films about desires, or films coded in Freudian imagery, that Pereira is able to come to terms with his coke desire. Indeed, one wonders whether his constant need for coke during a film is symptomatic of this hidden desire that has acted as a mask for so long. And in Eyes Wide Shut when Dr Bill sees his mask for all it is and sees that it is the mask that has been in the bed of his wife for so long, so too does Pereira begin to realise what is behind that real need, the real desire for coke - more coke."

The end result is the hope that we can all take time to understand the complex interplay between the Dr Strangelove and his coke. If we can all become understanding of the imbedded psychosis behind it, instead of sneering at it, we can see it for what it is - the arrested development of childhood paranoia and outdated philosophy.

SOUTH PARK REACHES BRILLIANT HEIGHTS

For a movie with crap animation, vulgarity on a scale that puts to shame the Farrelly brothers, swearing that puts to shame Tarantino, exaggerated sexual situations, depictions of violence, personal attacks on celebrities and irresponsible comments on celebrities, South Park is perhaps one of the year's most relevant, thoughtful and outstanding films. Behind this layer of sewer lies a message that needs to be said about the state of "censorship", the double standards that society places, and the culture of blame that runs rampant in today's society. For a film so "outrageous", this film has a heart that is extremely conservative in its outlook. It prides itself on individual responsibility and individual action - over what a society is responsible for. It locates responsibility in parents and not in the state. All of these thoughts are the staple diet of conservative ideology. But when it comes to censorship - conservatives tend to be the opposite of themselves. They advocate free trade and personal responsibility on economic matters - but with morality and the arts, there is this desire for control and societal action. It is a contradiction that comes out in South Park, as the parents go to the ridiculous lengths of blaming another country (and even funnier from anyone that knows the america/canada rivalry) Canada, for the vulgar film that has children speaking like crude adults. Apart from the multitude of visual gags in the film, and film references from Star Wars Ep I to Forrest Gump, and celebrity bagging, there is also some very interesting social comment. The frontline soldiers for the American army is really funny as satire, and so to is the Jar Jar quote (clearly telling us who they think Jar Jar is a caricature of).

South Park begins with a hilarious almost sound of music type opening number where Kyle talks about the wonders of Southpark - this "little red neck" town. It borrows and parodies from the great musical traditions with the chorus' ending expanding after each singing. There are little visual touches and word turns that set you up for South Park, which turns traditional animation music on its head thematically. The boys then set out to go see the new Terrence and Philip movie "asses of fire" - the whole point of these two is that they fart - fart and swear - and the boys find it very funny. This is the first clue to the message - not everyone finds certain sorts of comedy or certain types of portrayals as funny or desirable or good. Anyway, the boys are not allowed in because it is "R" rated (or MA in Australian terms). So they pay the homeless man 10 dollars (also part of the social commentary in the first song of the film) to buy them tickets (R movies are like MA, you have to be accompanied by an adult). Now, the funny thing is that the same thing hapenned to us when we bought tickets to South Park film because we had a 14 year old. The attendant said something like this: "The movie is MA, it's not for children... it should have been rated R". And I'm thinking, how arrogant is that - surely responsible adults should not be told by some poorly paid nim wit what sort of film they can take children (14 year old ones at that) to see. A Grandmother, exasperated by the amount of patrolling, told the security guard at the door - "please don't give me that warning again." If only they had warned me about the dangers of "Blade" - maybe I would have reconsidered when taking my cousin into it. If we had been told that there were scenes of a vampire sucking blood off a human being, my cousin would have known not to go in - but alas, with the word Fuck, shit, arsehole, clitoris and a multitude of sexual references, it is a much higher standard. Having said that, South Park does push the barrier on swearing, on everything. It is deliberately crude. They did not make this movie for kids, they made it for adults - and if adults are discerning enough or stupid enough to let kids under 10 watch it, then that's a bi product of their stupidity. I mean, why should a 14 year old, who is intelligent and understanding of satire, humour and language be disallowed into this movie (in my opinion, the classification in Australia was right not to give it an R rating - even though if you look at Orgazmo, South Park amazingly escaped an R rating). It is in my opinion a great satire, and should be shown to mature children as an example of mob mentality over censorship issues (among other things). In and of itself it is funny as well. As Roger Ebert, the sharp cut between the content and the basic animation constantly surprises. And seeing children utter things like this is very naughty. And that a movie like this can shock us, shows how well brought up we have been. Movies like South PArk, Something About Mary, Dumb and Dumber, AUstin Powers are slowly attacking the politeness that has veiled much of our society - sometimes behind politeness lies ignorance and stupidity - so when it is brought to the fore, and characters say what they mean - we as an audience can realise our own prejudices. South Park does this as well. The references to Jews and the depiction of Saddam Hussein are really exaggerations of images society has had implicitly throughout respective time periods.

Anyway, without wrecking the plot, America calls a war on Canada, Hell and Saddam are "partners in crime" and Kyle Stan and Cartman have to save the world. It is the stuff of hollywood narrative - but again, done with brilliant musical numbers. The Les Miserable send ups are extremely funny (the le resistance pieces): the Devil's Disney send up is also outstanding (forget the words - how did they get it to sound just like a disney film): George Clooney's guest appearance (though not musical) and heaps of other things. This movie is perfect for its time, and the cleverest film of the year. The satire in this film hasn't been matched in film for a while yet. This movie setsout to be so bad but in the end affirms why film classification boards should allow parents to make choices for their children, and why personal responsibility should rest in the end on the individual first, rather than fingerpointing everyone and everything else.

87/100

LES MISERABLE, MUSICALS AND SOUTH PARK

Those familiar with the musical Les Miserable, will be in tears of laughter at the opening chords and notes and orchestrations of some of the tunes in South Park. Blame Canada, takes on the resonance of Do You Hear the People Sing, but the highlight of the Les Miserable references comes in the brilliant medley: LA RESISTANCE. Not only does Les Miserable do a rousing medley in its musical, mixing up all the themes, but even the opening words, vocal expression and key changes are almost identical to the musical style of the slower les miserable songs that build up in intensity. Bring Him Home is the one that sticks out, but if you have a Les Mis CD at home, you'll know straight away. By the end of the medley, when all six themes are going on, most if not all the audience will miss out on the lyrics the yardale boy sings. So here, from the beginning are the lyrics of this song, which quickly turn crude (mirroring the quickly turning crudity of the film after the "Sound of Music" like opening - including a Maria like turn from Stan on the pavement):

(yardale boy) God has smiled upon you this day
The fate of a nation in your hands
And blessed be the children
Who fight with all our bravery
Till only the righteous stand

you see the distant flames
they bellow in the night
you fight in all our names
for what we know is right
and when you all get shot
and cannot carry on
though you die - La Resistance lives on.

You may get stabbed in the head
With a Dagger* or a Sword
You may be burned to death
Or skinned alive or worse
But when they torture you
You will not feel the need to run for
Though you die, la resistance will live on!
------
(kyle's mum starts)BLAME CANADA;
(army men) Tommorrow night our lives will change;
(Satan) Up there;
(terrence and philip) Shut your fucking face;
(kyle and co) Why did our mothers' start this war, what the fuck are they fighting for;
(kyle's mum again)When we win this war, No more Celine Dion (Kyle's mum):
-------
(yardale boy) They may cut your dick in half
and serve it to a pig
and though it hurts you'll laugh
and your God's* a dickless chick
but that's the way it goes
in war your shattered lung
though we die, la resistance lives on!

Other musical references include a parodying of the Disney musical style - including the key change and the over-exaggerated ending of Up There. Even the way Satan staggers before his first note evoke the Beast from Beauty and the Beast, and even the songs of the Hunchback of Notre Dame. By playing on the Disney musical style, it makes Satan's personality even wierder than already presented (just like animated kids who swear is funny, just like fart jokes and toilet humour canadians are funny - think Jim Carrey). The ending of up there though, suggests also making fun of the way "popular" singers interpret Disney songs. I usually like the way the animated characters sing it, not the mariah carey or big star version. The music in SOuth Park should surely be the frontrunner in the score category for the oscars next year. I suspect it will be overlooked for the work of Disney, the very studio it makes fun of. but wouldn't it be funny for Trey Parker and Marc Shaiman to pip Phil Collins (Tarzan) for best song at the oscars.

EXCLUSIVE SNOW REPORT FROM THE LUXURY OF THE THREDBO VILLAGE

JOHN LAWS KING HIT For those of us who thought that the end of the days of Stuart Littlemore would bring an end to the Media Watch we loved had our fears almost completely allayed last night as John Laws took one of the mightiest blows of Media Watch since Channel Seven's fake Spain footage. Media Watch showed that John Laws had changed his tune on the banks (from outrage to now positive remarks), not only for over a million dollars, but that it was he who came to the banks with the proposal. The question everyone would want to know therefore would be was John Laws being so harsh on them to get the advertisment - and if so, did he bribe or blackmail them - albeit in an underhand understated way?

John Laws, who makes a segment called "the whole story" on his show every day, is PAID 1.2 million dollars a year by the banks to provide the "whole story" about banks. I listened to the John Laws show with utter amazement and laughter when he said "banks are made of people too... so there" (or something like that). The amazement was because Laws had been one of the most outspoken critics of the banks on his show - which reaches up to 2 million Australians - most of them older Australians angry with the banks for the exhorbitant fees they charge for over the teller deposits, non-bank ATMs and long waiting queues in banks. It was obvious to me that it was an advert because when he says "my friend at" - that means it is a paid advert. So - "my friend at Toyota" means that he is getting paid by them to do that sort of stuff. It is something Laws gets paid personally to do because his personal endorsement of a product is done with that John Laws touch. Now to me, it was funny to see how quickly his views had changed because of the paid advert - but this to me was nothing knew. Laws had called John Howard almost a political whore because Howard favoured Alan Jones (breakfast announcer) over him during the election campaign. No surprises that he has changed his mind since then. Even with advertisers, it's up to the highest bitter - no wonder then he changed from Morteinn to Raid in adverts. And if anyone has read Philip Adams book on the radio Kings, he calls Laws the least with principles because he doesn't have any. Back then, Adams had made these amazing little observations that are now entering the mainstream:

"Laws is an undeniably talented communicator.... It's a voice paid to fame by Mortein (dated - he has switched to "the better product") and Valvoline, now beloved of Optus and Toyota and an incalculable number of well-satisfied advertisers. His poise is such that he can hold a 'spontaneous' 4 minute conversation on the merits of a flower shop, or appear on TV with 11 of his motocars pligging their lubricator, and keep a straight face." Seeing him talk to a listener about how beut the Toyota Camry is (Has he even driven one?) is always a highlight. Anyway back to Adams: "Laws's 2UE salary of about 3 million plus proit share, only opens the bidding on his annual take. His resonant live ad "reads" bring him $150 a pop, or $24000 for the 160 reads he averages each week on 2UE alone - not taking into account any payment for reads broadcast on the 78 syndicates. (Adams notes he also has country music collections, top selling poetry). On the strength of all this, 2UE showcases Laws's 9.00am to noon program as 'The Fortress of Knowledge', a semi tonge-in-cheek apellation which both recognises his impregnable position on the airwaves and flouts his desired commercial reputation as the last bastion of truth in a silly, silly world. Aided by his 'hand maidens', Laws is able to tend to any inquiry put to air, rolling out answers, editorials and ads in a seamless drawl of beguiling certainty. As the end of this book may suggest it's a dangerous brew in the wrong ears."

This "dangerous brew" of mixing editorial, ad and answer was exposed in full eloquence by Media Watch on Monday night as Laws appeared to be nothing short of bribing the banks. He allegedly (according to the bank association confidential memo) approached the association saying that he could provide more positive editorial if they support his whole story segment. Laws has admitted that the banks do support that section of the show - but he has maintained that the banks approached him. That he approached them is shocking - as I say, it looks like blackmail. But either way, having a paid advert in between "the whole story" segment - no matter who approached who, is disgusting and shows yet again how easily Laws can be bought by anyone. If anyone is a radio whore, it is Lawsy in the morning. Unfortunately many of you don't watch his show, so below is a link to Adams's book of the way Laws mixes conversation with advertisement. They are hilarious and as Adams says, don't need any parodying. But what Laws did with the banks was more sinister - the problem is the banks have been in the spotlight publicly over their failure to provide adequate services to the most vulnerable of customers - pensioners and the poor. That Laws is popular amongst these people makes the whole exercise even more distasteful and cowardly. Laws of course will survive this one - but the mainstream coverage (except in the daily tele - I'll get to that in a sec) of the expose will be a lesson to media announcers to exercise their care. Why should anyone trust Laws on any matter if he thinks this arrangement is OK? The problem is, the stupid fools who are unable to come to grips with such an ethical dilemma will support laws and get caught up in the dangerous brew of editorialadverstising. Even with Toyota, Valvoline and Optus it was very dicey what he was doing ethically - but now, as part of a "dream teamm", he can hold many people to ransom through his views only to change them when they cough up enough dough. And 1.5 million dollars is peanuts to the association when a positive word is put in during the "whole story" (he reads the daily piece brilliantly - and there are some really good stories - the type that make listeners proud to be aussies and by association more open minded about why banks lob 2.50 over the counter charges - because yes, they are made up of "people" just like the church). Is it any wonder he doesn't see anything wrong with his bank editorials because he doesn't see his relationship with them any different from Toyota, Optus, grass growing company, coffee companies, restaurants, etc. - they're all just mates, so long as theey keep paying up.

CLICK HERE for funny Ad-Conversation excerpts from Talkback: Emperors of Air

PS. I said I was going to mention the Daily Telegraph. Well, don't be surprised if the story hardly makes an appearance in that paper until Laws okays it (with the editors in that paper right behind him - watch out for Piers Akerman to do an anti-ABC pinkocommotrotski's piece in the coming days saying that Laws has done nothing wrong). So far, it has been out of the limelight in Murdoch press whereas all the networks I've seen have had it as a major story (including Today Tonight's lead). Why? Well, Laws is not only a columnist for new limited Sunday Telegraph BUT he is also the front for the Foxtel (news corp part owned) show that he hosts. I also wouldn't be surprised if Lawsy's trouble was also not reported on the nine network - or not very prominently. The Nine Network's owner also has a substantial share in Foxtel (it could be half - though I'm not entirely sure). Anyway, this is very interesting - and something to look out for in any editorial or news story to be published in any Murdoch papers. One of the problems with such a concentration of media ownership is that things like this would be even harder to become public knowledge when there is such power held by one player. If seven, ten and nine were not separate to newspapers and radio, God only knows how much harder it would be for the media watch expose (and with ABC cuts, who knows what could happen).

return to archives

return to main page