Labels and Identity

Society has taught and indoctrinated into us the believe that unless people fit exactly into a box or archetype there's someone wrong with them.  In turn this leads others to judge them unfit and strange because they don't adhere to society's expectations.

Forgive me,  but what a load of shit if I've ever heard in my life.

Firstly let's look at certain type of labels that society deems we must be categorised into.  Some examples (not limited to these of course) are:

*gay
*straight
*bi sexual
*asexual
*trans*
*male
*female
*young
*old
*generation [x, y, baby boomers,  etc]

Admittedly most of these examples are related to sexuality and society's expectations that we must fall into one of these boxes.  But one can't disagree with the fact it's sexuality and the hetronormarative of society which causes the real fuck ups.

A good example is Chelsea Manning.  While we all know about her case,  the v response to her identification as a female borders on the offensive. With some media outlets still referring to her as Bradley,  they're also ignoring her attempts to find her own true identity.

It's our inalienable right to identify with whatever we want to be- not me,  our parents or even (God forbid) Tony Abbott- can tell us or force us to identify with what they want us to identify with.

If we don't have our own identity- free of labels and societal expectations- our we even bring true to ourselves?

A Rebellion is a Brewing!

Just a quick post to say that in a little over two months time; The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, is due for cinema release in Australia and I can honestly say I'm excited (but I assure you that I'm not Big Kev!)

After having reading the novel countless times I'm looking forward to see how they adapt this novel into the big screen. I saw The Hunger Games and then read the book afterwards so it was easy to contrast the differences. However, going into Catching Fire it's possible that I may have to contain myself (and no doubt other fans may need to) with our expectations on how we visualise the scenes in our mind, as well as how we already expect new characters to be, for example Finnick Odair.

I shall leave you with two opposing sayings from the series that are both quite lovely to both read and write from a writers perspective.

"Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favour!"- Effie Trinket; the slightly nutty but also sweet(ish) District 12 escort.

Compare this with the following spoken by our beloved heroine Catnip Everdeen

“Fire is catching! And if we burn, you burn with us!” 

Monster Pies

Director/ Writer: Lee Galea

Country and Year: Australia, 2013

Viewing: West Hollywood (Melbourne Queer Film Festival), Sun Theatre

Running Time: 90 mins (approx)

So about two weeks ago I volunteered at the West Hollywood event for the Melbourne Queer Film Festival. Various films were shown over the three day screening, but the one I want to talk about (and was lucky enough to finally see) is Monster Pies.

Directed by Lee Galea and filmed in the western suburbs of Melbourne, in its simplest form monster pies can be described as a story of teen love and its journey. But frankly, that would be over simplifying this wonderfully crafted story, which is a testament to Galeas’ talent.

Going deeper, the story is about the two lead characters having to perform their own take on the immortal work Romeo and Juliet. And going into the movie, a viewer can have a rough idea of what road the movie plans on taking; however it's an enjoyable journey seeing the details.

A lot of the success in my mind of this movie is based on the fact that there isn’t one particular element that is more effective then another, rather it’s the sum effort that ensures that the audience connects to both will and mike. the acting itself by both leads are brilliant, with both lead actors (Tristan Barr as Mike and Lucas Linehan as William) emoting their characters feelings in more than just words, including facial movement and hand gestures.

Tristan Barr as Mike and Lucas Linehan as William

There’s a scene in it where it’s so moving, it makes you go AWW, which is then juxtaposed with the shocking scene afterwards that will either make you cry or if it doesn't it will leave a big impact on you. At the screening I was at, the sold out session literally gasped with shock at the surprise twist.

One thing that I found interesting was the interesting choice of cinematography that was used. For a movie whose ending is (spoilers); well less than happy ever after, the entire movie was primarily shot with a pallet consisting of bright colours, primarily of blues. Occasionally darker hues were used, but ironically it was used to highlight the happier scenes rather than the darker scenes.

Normally my issues with gay themed movies are the same; that is they are either poorly written, full of clichés or rely on the old favourite of full frontal nudity (I’m looking at you Eating Out series). Admittedly while in certain parts I did think that Monster Pies was clichéd, I would still see it and I have to admit this would have to be one of my favourite movies of 2013 and also one of my favourite Queer movies of all time.

The DVD is scheduled for a November 12 release date through TLA Releases (date correct as of going to publish).

Rating: 4 stars

Star Trek: Into Darkness

I must start this review with a confession- I have seen this movie 4 times so far (as of 14th June), in both 2D and 3D, as well as on the IMAX screen and standard sized theatre screens. All of this would indicate that I thoroughly enjoy this movie- which hands down I do. But it has made me think of some very interesting points.

Before I go any further I must use the words of one River Song and provide the following warning "spoilers sweetie!"

One of many movie posters for Into Darkness

While I'm by no means an expert Trekker (unlike many others out there), I have noticed that despite J.J. Abrams' stating that he doesn't want to tired to the original Trek lore (as evident with no numeral in the title of this movie), I contend that either intentionally or unintentionally Abrams is actually following in the path of the original movie series

For example, in Star Trek II: The Wraith of Khan, according to Wikipedia (yes, I know not a scientifically accurate website, but hey a remarkable well informed starting point for matters such as this) not only do we see the distraction of the Enterprise, but we also see the passing of our beloved Vulcan-Human Spock. Compare this to Darkness, where not only do we see Kirk heroically "die" saving the Enterprise from a near fatal re-entry to the earth's atmosphere, but we also essentially see the destruction of the Enterprise from it's visually stunning encounter with a psychopathic Starfleet admiral, then the notorious Khan. 

(L-R) Spok, Khan and Kirk.

Speaking of Khan, do I really need to mention the obvious connection between the two films? Don't get me wrong- Cumberbatch was brilliant in his performance and he has a stage presence which is enjoyable (his voice is deliciously evil I must admit), but the fact that the second movies in both series has me asking some questions.

Is there a reason for this, or is it just one big homage to the original series? After all, the nod to Christine Chapel was a nice reference to fans (one that I had to look up, despite the fact it did ring some bells in my head).

Apart from those two connections, what else can I say about this movie?

Not much- except to say that personally, I found it a brilliant movie with an interesting plot, brilliant acting from the cast and the effects amazing as per normal.

I shall end this review by mentioning something Marc Fennel mentioned in his discussion about this movie on The Spoiler Guys podcast- what is up with the camera angles facing towards the actors faces? You very rarely see their tummies.

Until next time