HiStory

So apparently the History Channel has this new mini-series called The Bible. Which is dedicated to, surprise, this thing.

I think everyone knows where this is going. I hadn't heard about it until today but the backlash is so amazeballs I just have to talk about it now. Having recently seen the first episode, I think that this series is pretty harmless. It's not as good as actually reading the text itself. But then again, how many picture adaptations of books are actually better than the books themselves? 

Except for this gem, that is:

This one made me want to punch walls.

This one made me want to punch walls slightly less.

There are people on one side saying that this is not history and holy crap, the History Channel has gone downhill and since when did the Bible become relevant and so on and so forth. Then there are other people complaining about how this series is completely inaccurate, bastardized, and spun into some kind of lame Hollywood epic that has nothing against Jesus Christ Superstar (not that anything much out there could beat Jesus Christ Superstar. Like good lord. Such a good musical). I have to admit, I am not an avid watcher of the History Channel, but I never really took it all that seriously in the first place. I mean, I'd watch it occasionally now and then when they broadcast their Ancient Aliens series. Because let's face it, who can resist aliens? 

William Shatner's Weird Or What is also amusing, as it discusses conspiracy theories as if they actually had any legitimacy to them. Also, who wouldn't watch William Shatner in just about, well, anything? And sometimes I tune into Secret Life Of..., mostly because I like the animated sequences and the acting is hilarious and sometimes the historians featured on that show are really attractive and sometimes a lot of gay stuff happens. Not between the historians, but the historical figures. Anyway, that being said, I never really took the History Channel all that seriously. It's history for people who don't have anything else to watch on a Monday evening.

So quite frankly, I don't really know how people thought the mini-series The Bible was going to be different from anything else. It's produced by the same guy who brought us Survivor and who said that he wanted to bring a new kind of Bible education to public schools everywhere. 

The Bible debuted with 13.1 million viewers, making it a massive hit. It consists of 10 scripted episodes, each of which dramatize important plot points and themes of the Bible. The forewarning before the first episode reads, "The program is an adaptation of Bible stories. It endeavors to stay true to the spirit of the book. Some scenes contain violence. Viewer discretion is advised." No one here is claiming that this series is based on a true story but the Bible can be read as many different things to different people. Upon watching the first episode, it seems like that discretion is quite accurate. The series is a literal translation of the events as they are described in the book. It's like the quickest summary of the Bible I have ever seen. I could get more detail out of a children's version of the Bible, to be quite honest. The series is well done from a technical standpoint though. I'm sure the budget for this was quite hefty as the set design is quite good as is the CGI.

I'll be frank right now, after watching the first episode, it seems like a fairly unthreatening series, and it definitely isn't something people should take personally, whether they are of the Christian faith or not. This is just an adaptation of fables from a religious book. And like any live action adaptation, it has its clichés. There are a lot of white people and a lot of racial stereotypes (as in that, Asian angel ninja) and there is little to no comic relief (which it could have surely benefitted from) and the acting sucks at times but hey, isn't everything we see on television like that to a certain degree? If you find that it isn't true to the spirit of the book or whatever it promises you, then you still always have the book itself. If you find that it isn't true to anything, then it's your choice whether or not to watch it. And if you say that it isn't history, then remind yourself that this is being aired on a television channel that also airs Outlaw Bikers, Counting Cars and M*A*S*H. The stories may not be considered truth to everybody, but it does belong to a culture that has had an impact on history itself. I would have preferred a series on the history of Christianity itself, or how the Bible was written and is now interpreted, as I feel that that would have perhaps been more relevant to a history network than a 10 episode dramatization of Bible stories.

Anyhow, this should be an interesting television series to follow. I'll probably end up watching it in between re-runs of Ancient Aliens.

50 Shades of Bret Easton Ellis

I have a beef

with Bret Easton Ellis.

This guy is a novelist and a screenwriter who just so happens to be queer/bisexual. I want to like him, I sincerely do. There aren't a lot of out bisexual icons or influential bisexual people out there. There are even fewer in the literature circle.

Imagine the kind of awe-inspiring, revolutionary writing that could happen. Imagine the possibilities for the developing of queer characters in books, on TV, in movies. IMAGINE BISEXUAL MEN AND WOMEN ACTUALLY BEING PORTRAYED PROPERLY FOR ONCE.

Which is why I want to root for Bret Easton Ellis. So badly.

But it is very hard to root for this man when he acts like a total dick on Twitter.

OK, maybe I'm being a little harsh with the "total dick" accusation. Let's just say that on The Twitter, Bret Easton Ellis comes across as a bit of an ignorant, clueless ass.

**When reading this post, please remember to read the Twitter tweets from bottom-top. Tweets are published newest tweet up. I know I'm asking you to read upside down and for that, I am truly sorry. Please bear with me. I didn't invent The Twitter**

I'll just say first of all that his use of the word "retarded" in this context is completely uncalled for and unprofessional. He is a published author and a grown man who has what I imagine to be a very wide range of vocabulary, certainly broader than mine. Times like these I wish Twitter had a political correctness check. God knows we need those nowadays just as much as spell checks and grammar checks. Because sometimes, the smartest people can act the stupidest.

Let me provide a little context before I dive straight into everything that is wrong with Bret Easton Ellis' Twitter. First off, he is tweeting about the casting of the film adaptation of the best-selling, most popular piece of shit series ever, 50 Shades of Grey. 

50 Shades of Grey is about a 21-year old girl named Anastasia Steele who meets this dashing, millionaire entrepreneur douche named Christian Grey, who seduces her with his good looks, his obsessive compulsive tendencies, as well as his dick, which apparently is as orgasm-inducing as the Elder Wand was to Voldemort.........for Harry Potter fans out there who want some kind of reference point in understanding why the hell this is one of the best selling series of all time.

I'm a Harry Potter fan and I'm constantly trying to understand why shit like Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey pass at all actually. No distinguishable heroes or heroines, no realism in terms of its characters and motives, no self-awareness, no noble attempts at inserting moral themes and thought-provoking social commentary.

Some books are meant to be shit, I get it. Guilty pleasures, right? But must these guilty pleasures be downright insulting to humanity in general? Must they be written so poorly that the writing itself detracts from the writing itself?

Books live forever, guys. Remember that. One day, our world will look back on us and define us by the literature we bought. Remember that.

And I don't exactly want to be defined as the generation that celebrated male domination over women in romantic relationships. I also do not want to be defined as the generation that got off on sexy words like "Oh jeez" and "Symptom of schizophrenia" and "Cool vanilla spell."

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis, who is a pretty well renowned and respected author, seems to care THIS MUCH about 50 Shades of Grey and its movie adaptation, is quite alarming enough.

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis is tweeting about how gay male actors cannot play straight male roles is just downright homophobic.

The fact that Bret Easton Ellis is queer makes this even worse. Now, I'm not saying that homophobia coming from heterosexual people makes it better. But when a member of the community is acting like he's some kind of self-righteous, judgmental, arrogant, ignorant asshole, then the message being sent stings that much more.

Matt Bomer is this actor right here.

He is a theatre, film and television actor and singer, widely known for his starring role in White Collar. He also happens to be gay. Does his sexuality affect his acting skills? No.

He plays a con man on White Collar. Matt Bomer is not a con man in real life. Does the fact that he isn't a con man affect his ability to play a con man? No.

Christian Grey is a woman abuser and a manipulative psycho. Matt Bomer does not abuse women and he is not a manipulative psycho. Will this detract him from accurately and effectively portraying Christian Grey? No.

All in all, there are many actors and actresses out there who are heterosexual. There are many actors and actresses out there who are not heterosexual. Does their sexuality, whatever it may be, have anything to do with whether or not they are good at their job? No.

Being a good actor is what makes a good actor. Who you're attracted to has nothing to do with acting. It doesn't even live in the same realm as acting. If we are to treat acting here as an art and a job (which it obviously is), who you do on your spare time is completely separate from what you do for a living. 

Long story short, people are not defined by who they fuck. Therefore, their jobs and their art should not be defined by who they fuck. Especially if you're an actor, seeing as your work is to play someone else, someone who is not you, someone who is nothing like you. When your specialty and your expertise lies in BECOMING OTHER PEOPLE, why should your personal life have any fucking thing to do with it?

Let me list the queer people in film history who have played straight people and have (SHOCKER) gotten away with it:

ROCK HUDSON

JUDY GARLAND

MARLON BRANDO

MARLENE DIETRICH

DIRK BOGARDE

BARBARA STANWYCK

MONTGOMERY CLIFT

ESTELLE WINWOOD

CARY GRANT

JOAN CRAWFORD

It's been done before, Bret Easton Ellis. IT CAN BE DONE AGAIN. ACTUALLY, IT STILL IS BEING DONE.

Here I list the names of actors who started their careers while in the closet, played straight people and fooled EVERYBODY.

MATT BOMER

CYNTHIA NIXON

NEIL PATRICK HARRIS

PORTIA DE ROSSI

GEORGE TAKEI

AMBER HEARD

IAN MCKELLAN

JODIE FOSTER

ALAN CUMMING

ANNA PAQUIN

DAVID HYDE PIERCE

Bret Easton Ellis then goes on to say that Universal would never hire an openly gay actor to star in 50 Shades of Grey, and calls people ignorant for thinking this.

Is it just me, or is Bret Easton Ellis being a grumpy grumps? Can't we look on the brighter side of things? Can't we give Universal the benefit of the doubt that they, unlike you, would not consider sexuality when hiring an actor? Can you imagine, just imagine, a film production company that is not as homophobic as you are?

Can you please, PLEASE, for my sanity and for my health, NOT call 50 Shades of Grey the biggest novel of all time??!!!!

PLEASE, SIR. THIS ONE STILL TAKES THE CAKE.

As does this one:

As does all three of these books:

As does only the most popular novel of all time:

As does the Chinese language dictionary:

AND OBVIOUSLY:

So Bret Easton Ellis, the next time you're tempted to call 50 Shades of Grey the best-selling book of all time, just don't. And remember to

It may be the best-selling book of all time in the UK.....but then again, this is the UK. They thought Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob would work as a logo for the 2012 Olympics. I wouldn't take their book purchases seriously.

Bret Easton Ellis goes on to defend his critics who are calling him out on his "self-loathing".....because he is a queer person who is being homophobic in his twittering. Fair enough. But, Bret Easton Ellis, there is a difference between being aware of homophobia in society and being homophobic oneself. Self-loathing is NOT AN UNDERRATED QUALITY. Self-loathing leads to things like body mutilation, depression, anxiety, confusion, suicide. Hating yourself and hating others like you is not going to do anything good for anybody.

I think Bret Easton Ellis, in a sad attempt to talk about homophobia in Hollywood, had to resort to being homophobic himself to show us......TO REALLY SHOW US WHAT THE WORLD IS ALL ABOUT. Now there is some delicious icing of irony that I just want to slather on a fucking birthday cake.

Dear Bret Easton Ellis, we already know how shitty society is towards people like us. We don't need you to perpetuate that. And we certainly don't need you to remind us of that AS WE ALREADY LIVE IT EVERY FUCKING DAY BY, YOU KNOW, BEING WHO WE ARE.

But no, he doesn't stop there. Bret Easton Ellis is just on a roll. It's like he found a shovel and some spongy land and just started digging all the way through the centre of the Earth and out the other side onto Chinese soil.

He goes on to talk about Neil Patrick Harris and how him being gay in real life and him playing a straight person on a TV show is somehow the TV show's way of mocking his homosexuality (in real life). 

I see you trying to be a smart ass, conspiracy theory weaving hipster, Bret Easton Ellis.

OK FIRST OF ALL, Neil Patrick Harris was not out when he was cast in How I Met Your Mother. We can safely assume then, that there was no ulterior motive made on part of the casting crew and producers to make fun of a gay man by casting him in a non-gay role.

SECOND OF ALL, Jason Segal could never play Barney Stinson. NO ONE BUT NEIL PATRICK COULD PLAY BARNEY STINSON.

THIRD OF ALL, he's claiming that it's totally fine when Neil Patrick Harris is hosting the Tonys, but it's not totally fine when Neil Patrick Harris is playing Barney Stinson. Are you saying that gay people are only allowed to do stereotypical gay things, Bret Easton Ellis? Are you saying that it is only when they are doing these stereotypical gay things that they are respecting their gayness instead of poking fun at it? Are you saying that certain roles have sexual orientations and Neil Patrick Harris must choose the role that suits the way YOU see him? Are you also trying to compare a hosting job to an acting job??!! I rest my case. His argument is flawed already. 

FOURTH OF ALL, I think you're the one creating your own paranoia, Bret Easton Ellis. The reason you can't get into the show is because you can't seem to remember that television (even reality shows) IS FICTION. Gay actor playing straight character? WHO CARES, IT'S FICTION. THE WHOLE POINT OF FICTION IS GETTING YOURSELF ABSORBED IN THE STORY, THE CHARACTERS, AND NOT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF ONE OF THE LEAD ACTORS. Good Lord, you would think this is all Bret Easton Ellis ever thinks about. 

Remember the dig to China? Well, Bret Easton Ellis has now gone so far he's broken through our atmospheres and can confidently count all the craters on the moon.

He goes on to critique shows like The Big Bang Theory and Modern Family for not being progressive and for being too gay.

This coming from a guy who just moments before said Neil Patrick Harris was too gay to play Barney Stinson and Matt Bomer was too gay to play Christian Grey.

FIRST OF ALL, there are no gay characters in The Big Bang Theory. The closest thing we could get to a queer character on The Big Bang Theory is Sheldon, who is not even gay but very likely asexual. I don't know where Bret Easton Ellis is getting all the gay out of this show.

SECOND OF ALL, for a comedy, I'd say that Modern Family is pretty progressive. The gay characters are not a) Murderers, b) Perverts, c) Dead, d) Defined by their sexuality. It may not be a perfect show, but it's portraying gay characters on even level with the way it portrays its straight characters. You could say that the two gay leads are ridiculed in the show. But everyone on the show is being ridiculed. It's a comedy. The genre sticks.

THIRD OF ALL, there is no difference between a homophobe and a misanthrope. A homophobe expresses hatred or bigotry towards queer people. A misanthrope hates all people. Saying you're a misanthrope is not helping your case, Bret Easton Ellis. It simply does the opposite. Someone who is a misanthrope is a homophobe. 

FOURTH OF ALL, Bret Easton Ellis says that he hates the way homosexuality is presented in our entertainment culture. I agree with Bret Easton Ellis. Yes, I hate it too. I also hate the way you model homosexual representation in our entertainment culture through your Twitter. You've identified the problem that we were all already very well aware of, but you're also part of the problem.

I like that Bret Easton Ellis then changes his mind and says that it is "imperative" that Christian Grey be played by a gay actor. As if to either make his readers happy or throw their criticism in their faces in a "fuck all" type attitude.

WRONG, Bret Easton Ellis, WRONG. Christian Grey should not be played by a straight actor. Christian Grey should not be played by a gay actor. Christian Grey should be played by whatever actor impresses the casting directors. He should be played by whatever actor has the most chemistry (or lack thereof, depending on your interpretation) with the actress who will be playing Anastasia Steele. Straight or gay, it doesn't matter. We're not auditioning the actor's sexuality. We're auditioning his acting.

I can't believe I just shat 2.5 days worth of feelings towards this writer in this one post.

Here's what I have to say to this whole fiasco:

1. Matt Bomer should not play Christian Grey. Not because he's gay, but because he's too good for this shitty series.
2. Christian Grey, for strictly marketing purposes, should probably be played by a straight actor. Not because the straight actor would provide a more convincing performance, but because the female readers and the fans are more likely to become infatuated with an actor if they see themselves as having the slightest chance of hooking up with him in real life. It's kind of like how I feel towards Amber Heard. She was hot when I thought she was straight, but she's even hotter now that I know she isn't. Because there's that one voice in my head that says, "She wouldn't be completely repulsed by me. I HAVE A CHANCE." It's a ridiculous sentiment, the outcome being impossible, yet let's face it, many of us can't help but think these thoughts. The production companies involved will definitely be thinking about promotion and marketing. They will likely choose an actor who is ideal in that his personal life can be conveniently displayed on magazine spreads and he can be photoshopped just enough to look good on the poster. They're basically searching for the next Robert Pattinson or Gerard Butler. To be honest, I think that'll be the extent to what they will be looking for in their leading man.
3. It's possible that Bret Easton Ellis tweets like this because he is an attention-seeker, and not because he truly believes in this. Regardless, I still think it's equally douchey. He's still putting this kind of negativity and hatred out there. He's still choosing to categorize, characterize and limit people.
4. Bis deserve their role models - people who will properly represent them, write about them and for them, and speak with compassion and understanding instead of bigotry and distaste. Self-loathing is definitely not underrated and it definitely has no place in the queer community - or in any community for that matter. We need to be in a constant state of motion in which we seek to make a better life for our friends and for the new generation that will emerge. So some a lot of pride would be good.
5. Frank Ocean is our real bisexual boyfriend, by the way. Bret Easton Ellis could learn a thing or two from him.

Also, Frank Ocean actually knows how to tweet:

If only more writers used Twitter for poetic purposes instead of 50 Shades of Grey purposes, I feel like the world would be a better place.

RyanAirhead

WHY HELLO HELLO HELLO THERE, GOOD LOOKING.

                                   


This post is an excuse to display my collection of One Direction gifs in all their glory. It is also an excuse to rant about fucking Glee fucking fuck.


OK, I'm done. I am so done. Ryan Murphy, I'm kicking your fucking ass to the curb of my culturally rich and pretentious neighbourhood because you insult me, Ryan Murphy. Your lack of taste and the way you destroy ART makes me SICCCCK.


NO ONE, and I repeat NO ONE, covers One Direction and expects to be respected for it.

As you can clearly see, Glee has this thing they do, where they take amazing, legendary songs and turn them into piles of highly effective fertilizer SHITTTTT.


I was able to take their cheese for three whole seasons. THREE SEASONS. 


Butchering One Direction is the last straw, I swear. I remember telling myself, oh so long ago, that if Ryan Murphy so much as touched those boys, I would wring him by the neck and throw my television out the window. Sure, he could turn Gotye's song into an incestuous ode. Sure, he could ruin "The Rain in Spain" and thrust it into the plotline like the worst fuck in the world. I could even sort of take him using "I Kissed a Girl" as a coming out anthem (if it was all meant to be the last joke told before the end of the world).


BUT PLEASE, NOT ONE DIRECTION NNNOOOOOOOO.


And now he's done it. He just had to do it. 

Gahhhhh, somewhere in this world, a bunch of cute bunny rabbits just died. And you can thank Ryan Murphy.


OK, I've admitted this before and I'm not afraid to admit this again.

I am an avid One Direction fan. And I don't really care who knows about it.

I mean, you'd be mindless not to love them. They're a very well fabricated/managed/constructed group of kids who sing decently manufactured pop music. On top of that, they have amazing style and a lesbian wardrobe I want to steal.


I mean, seriously, look at that lesbian wardrobe. It's beautiful. #icantwithlouisandhissuspendersomg

Ryan Murphy, I am officially severing myself from that excuse of a television show you call a revolution for teen and musical theatre culture. As much as I love Glee, it suffers from the following creative diseases:


-inconsistent writing and character development
-zero follow-up to mildly intriguing character development
-zero sensitivity to characters' actions and behaviour, often leading to the destruction of once likable characters
-constantly introducing stereotype characters despite preaching uniqueness and diversity
-too many characters, too little character development
-one dimensional characters (such as Kurt. All he seems to talk about is how talented he is and how gay he is. WE KNOW)
-lazy use of other characters (such as Tina. Why is she even there. It's like no one recognizes how talented Jenna Ushkowitz is)
-changing the ages of characters on us
-attempting to write around the music instead of letting the music decorate the writing
-covering mostly popular radio music in order to up record and iTunes sales
-unfunny jokes that are oftentimes just offensive
-racist despite preaching multiculturalism
-homophobic and biphobic despite preaching acceptance and tolerance for people of all sexual orientations
-misogynist despite preaching girl power feminism
-perpetuating the male gaze on women of all sexual orientations
-trivializing queer women (queer women erasure)
-not excusing Mr. Shue's often pedophile-like and pervy nature
-not excusing Finn's inconsiderate and disrespectful behaviour; constantly putting him out there as the hero of the story when he is really just being a bully and a douchebag and a derping derp
-trying to pretend that Finn is actually a good singer (HARDEE HAR HAR DERP DERP)
-being dramatic for the sake of being dramatic
-being campy for the sake of being campy
-trivializing serious issues such as teen suicide, domestic violence and transgender people
-throwing in references to current events without any follow through
-taking lightly serious subjects and using them as comedic punchlines, such as gay teen suicide (once again) and mental and learning disabilities (such as Sugar, who self-diagnoses as having Asperger's syndrome)

(Yes, I know. You would think that these writers know what second-hand embarrassment means but obviously they do not).

and last of all....


RUINING ONE ERECTION'S DIRECTION'S PERFECT MUSIC!!!!

So Ryan Murphy, I am breaking up with you. Not that I ever really liked you in the first place. You put yourself out there as making the most daring show on television for teenagers. You say you're going to encourage kids to be who they want to be, to do what they want to do. Yet everything you say, you and your writers end up doing to the opposite effect. For your information, Degrassi has been around since the '80s, and it has portrayed teenagers more realistically than your show ever could. Teen pregnancy? They showed the options, they followed through with the character's decisions. Domestic violence? They did it honestly. Rape? They actually addressed it properly. Teen sex? They didn't trivialize it. Bullying? They showed the consequences. Drugs and alcohol? They didn't make it funny. Depression? They took it seriously. Racism? They actively addressed it. Queer relationships? They did it realistically. Transgender teenagers? They did it first.


I know it's probably a little unfair to compare Glee to Degrassi. For one thing, Glee is a campy musical show and Degrassi isn't. Glee is American and faces more censorship than Degrassi does in Canada. Degrassi has done many things that most shows for adults in North America won't do. Degrassi actually follows plotlines that last a full season, unlike Glee whose plotlines are so attention deficit they only stay with them for half an episode or a full episode at the most. So really, both television series are on completely different levels. But I think my issue with Glee is that it tries to preach while still remaining campy. You can't be talking about domestic violence and then joke about it and then sing a song about it. It doesn't work that way. Glee is suffering from what I like to call television bi-polarity. It can't decide whether it wants to be fun or whether it wants to be the second coming of Jesus. As long as it tries to straddle both sides, the messages that it tries to convey will never be effectively portrayed. 


Which is why the show is an official waste of my fucking time. 

Harry's hair agrees.

I will end this post on a good note, with One Direction's "One Thing." I know it's meant to be a positive love song, but I would like to dedicate this song as a FUCK YOU to Ryan Murphy and his writers.