All Aboard the Censor-Ship, The Interview Edition

I really wasn’t sure I was going to get to another Bad Shakespeare post before the New Year. I’m busy preparing for my jaunt across the pond, which it turns out is an actual ocean which leads me to believe that “across the pond” is being used ironically. I just wrapped up my first semester as an English Graduate Student, which meant no final exams but a LOT of writing. I’ve probably written more on Charles Chesnutt than I ever thought I would. (Also, I didn’t know who Charles Chesnutt was before this class. So there’s that.)

But then, yesterday, something happened that I had to write about, because it tackles three of the things that I write about: movies, bullying, and censorship. Unless you’ve been living under a rock or paying attention to the much more important news about improved relations with Cuba, you’ll know that the film The Interview, in which Seth Rogen and James Franco play a pair of stoners/TV show stars who attempt to kill Kim Jong-Un, has been pulled indefinitely from theaters following an unprecedented hack in information and threats of violence against the theaters that would dare show such a film.

Personally, if you’re going to attack a Seth Rogen Film, I’d hope that it would be The Green Hornet. But hey, that’s just me.

I like Seth Rogen and James Franco, despite the fact that they pretty much just make the one film over and over (and it works). We have been treated to them playing stoners running from the law in Pineapple Express, or stoners at the end of the world in This is The End. I personally felt that, as much as I like Danny McBride, what was missing from Your Highness was Seth Rogen working with James Franco as stoners that are trying to save the princess. I’m really looking forward to their next film, which hasn’t been written yet but should totally be Seth Rogen and James Franco playing the actors Seth Rogen and James Franco who make a movie about killing the leader of North Korea and are forced to go on the run when hackers shut down the movie, and they try to get it distributed. Oh, yes, and they’re stoners. (Gentlemen… call me…)

In any event, as the story goes, Sony pictures, the multi-billion dollar corporation that owns about half the things in my house as well as not letting Marvel use Spider-man in the Avengers movies, managed to be hacked because apparently their password was PASSWORD1 (The 1 held together all of the security for them, apparently) and everyone laughed as emails from the higher ups in the company delightfully revealed the fact that even in Hollywood people were as snarky and talked behind the backs of people just like in your office, they just got paid a lot more. 

This is the kind of disturbing twist in the cyber thriller that we have been living in for the past couple of weeks. For a while, it was difficult to turn on the news without seeing some new hacked email or some new revelation about what was going on inside Sony right now. And we all laughed, shared it on our Facebook timelines, retweeted it. We were all complicit in this information leak for a little while, because at the time, it seemed harmless. It wasn’t like it was the nude pictures of a young star or bank account information, it was just a few emails, and I’m sure any of us, if you go back far enough, will find some email that we wish we hadn’t sent, or one that’s in our drafts right now. 

The problem came when specific threats started going around this one movie, The Interview. The subject was a bit “controversial” yes, but it’s not he first time there’s been some kind of controversy involving a movie like this. The remake of Red Dawn got delayed by several years because of the “enemy” in that, and not the fact that technology had advanced to the point that a sneak attack in Colorado would be nearly impossible unless they had Predator type technology. There was the multiple kerfuffles about South Park, attempting to show Muhammad not once but TWICE on camera, and getting censored in episodes, ironically enough, about censorship. Matt Parker and Trey Stone did get some threats but hey, they were used to it, as they get a lot of threats about their show. 

You all know the rest that broke less than 24 hours ago: a few theater chains (re: ALL the theater chains) refused to carry the movie, then Sony said, “eh… we just won’t release it. Go see Annie instead. It’s produced by Jay-Z”. And, presumably, features a lot less political assassination. 

And, as you know, I’m against all censorship. The old adage goes something like freedom of speech isn’t to protect safe ideas or popular ideas, but dangerous ones. It's easy to censor things we "don't like." It's hard to stand up and say "let's discuss it anyway."

Should Seth Rogen and James Franco have made a movie that featured the attempted (or possible… I avoided spoilers) assassination of a world leader? I don’t know. I don’t know anything about world politics except that Canada is putting way to many of their population along their border, if you know what I mean. I know a few things, but I don’t know enough to know if this was seriously that big of a deal. Granted, I just watched a movie by Finland which featured Sarah Palin as the President who was really a lizard person, so maybe foreign leaders aren’t really all that off limits. Quentin Tarantino literally changed history by having Adolf Hitler shot to death in a movie theater. And let’s not forget that there have been TWO movies about sitting presidents in the past 20 years that did not paint either of them in a positive light. 

Yes, there were threats. Sony, as much as I’ve spend time mocking them, were in an impossible decision. Show the movie and nothing happens, great. Pull the movie, and they’re cowards. Show the movie and someone dies (terrorist related. If they die from laughter, then that’s a bigger box-office draw!) then they ignored a big threat. So I do feel for them. But I don’t feel they should have caved into this threat… it only sets a bad precedent that threats like this will make a studio cave. 

There’s no shortage of controversial topics that can come to the theater, and they get protested, all the time. They get threats and theaters get attacked. The Last Temptation of Christ was so controversial at the time that theaters were burned down, resulting in injuries. But that didn’t stop people from showing it. We can’t be so afraid that we’re not showing movies now, and all this says is that the best way to get a movie banned is to threaten the right people, at the right time. You don’t even have to show power, beyond leaking a few emails to the press.

i get that there’s no easy answer. But at the same time, it just makes me sad to see a piece of art censored - and love ’em or hate’em, stoner comedies are Seth Rogen and James Franco’s art - and make no mistake, this is censorship through the threat of terrorism. This sets up a chain that can and will affect the future of bold filmmaking. Yes, they could have easily slipped in a fake dictator and we’d already be hearing reviews about how it wasn’t as funny as This is the End. But they chose not to. They chose to put in a real world situation for comedic affect? Because they felt like it? Who cares, it’s what they did. We can’t censor art because of a threat. It’s only going to get worse until the point that there are three movies in the theater, each one more inoffensive than the last. 

As a film lover and a censorship hater, I want to see The Interview back in theaters. I want to see Seth Rogen and James Franco do what they love best: making movies that make us laugh. Or at least are supposed to make us laugh. I love you guys, but they’re not all winners. And i want us to not be so afraid that we’re willing to compromise our art, for any reason. Rest assured, if the movie gets released, I’ll be there opening day to watch it. If it gets leaked online, I’ll go ahead and stream it, if for no other reason that the movie deserves to be seen. 

Do You Wanna Build A Controversy? Over Nothing?

Recently, a blog that I will not link to because I don’t want them to get any more clicks then they’ve already gotten, came out (see what I did there) with the complaint that Frozen, the newest Disney film about the bonds of sisterhood (ya-ya!), hid a secret pro-gay agenda that was slowly warping children’s minds. Because, of course, reasons. Some of those reasons being the terrifying premise that the hit song sung by former Wicked Witch and... lady... on.. Rent.. playing (not all iconic roles are easy to put into words) “Let it Go” was all about gay people and being gay and whatever, and not an uber-ballad sung to let us all know what was going through the mind of a character that was supposed to be sympathetic who had just frozen her entire town and abandoned her sister. All because her sister wanted to marry a man she just met. 

Quick side note, I kind of wish the sister in Frozen were around to help out Snow White. I really feel that she should have ended up with Doc instead of the handsome Prince, and she could have helped that happen. That movie was all anti-Dwarf propaganda. 

Of course, the other reason I feel that basically the other blogger realized that Frozen was doing pretty well in the box office, then when a few other controversial topics didn’t fit the storyline she wanted to push out, she decided on “the gay agenda” and a really slow news day allowed her blog to be picked up. I wish I were that smart, as I’m posting this after the Olympics and we’re finally getting new episodes of Parks and Recreation, which means no one is going to pay attention to this. 

But they will when I reveal the real secret meaning behind Frozen. You see, the snowman, Olaf, secretly represents man, who is constantly praising Summer, which represents God, and he doesn’t realize that finally finding God will destroy him, much like us who all worship a nuclear weapon that will destroy Earth and send the Apes back in time to when they can wipe us all out. 

That may have been the plot to Return to the Planet of the Apes. I’m not really sure, but it’s THAT easy to invent a controversy, everyone. It’s that easy. 

As I’ve said before on this blog, I have no issue with anyone’s sexual orientation, and I’m not sure why so many people want to make a big deal out of, at the end of the day, what is really no one else’s business. And blogs like the one posted kind of make me a little angry, not only because it’s trying to find a reason to be offended where there isn’t any, but because it’s being posted like some kind of authority on the subject when at the end of the day the person posting the blog has just as much ability to talk about Frozen as anyone else who’s seen it. Including me. I’ll still tear up a little at “Do You Want to Build A Snowman?”

Speaking of which, what is up with the Pro-Snowman agenda in this movie, like it’s normal for them to be staring at us with their dead coal eyes, judging us for not having carrot noses.... I’ve got my eye on you, Olaf.

Then of course, there’s the brand new complaint during the song “Let it Go” when the ice-princess is singing her ice-song that celebrates the fact that she no longer has to hide the fact that she’s got awesome superpowers (right before her sister barges in and tells her that her awesome ice superpowers doomed an entire kingdom), she has the gall to put on **gasp** a gown. A GOWN FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY WHY SHOULD SHE? WHY?

The answer is, of course, that the writer of this other article didn’t have anything else to write about, and probably went to the movies a few hours before deadline. Good for you for figuring out how to get your work done while slacking off.

You know I could solve this by not going to see Disney Princess movies. As I like the songs, it’s probably not going to happen.

Then there’s the rest of the planet, that saw a decent musical about the bonds of sisterhood and why Ice-Man was really the best X-Man if he would just use his powers more freely. It’s a nice reminder that Newsflash: Not everything is out to offend you.

This Post is So Good It's Illegal

                 So, now that we’ve explored the different angles of Banned Books Week (well… three. I only have a week and writing for this website is a part-part-part time gig) It’s time to think of action. So, what can you do to be a proper rabble-rouser and ensure free access for all and that banning books are a bad thing? Bad Shakespeare is here to help.

                -The most obvious, of course, is to not ban a book, or complain when you see someone reading a book. I mean, getting a book banned is a very deliberate act, you aren't going to do it accidentally. So I guess this falls under the universal guide for living, “Don’t ruin it for everyone else.”

                -Read a banned book. You may be disappointed to find that they aren’t as salacious as you would like. See the television show South Park for an excellent example of just how disappointing banned books can be when it comes to sex and violence.

                -Give someone a banned book. “The Hunger Games” is on that list. Chances are that you have given someone a banned book without even knowing it. But go deeper. Actively give someone a banned book and say, “hey, this is so good it’s illegal.” The second you make something illegal, it goes way up in demand, if my time at the Economics Department at George Mason has taught me anything.

                -Support your local library. I know, I know. Right now you don’t even have to leave your couch if you want to watch a movie and get a pizza. Google will provide you with a billion pages on the subject that you are looking for. Kindles, Nooks, and Ipads (sorry Kobo users) create a world where you can literally download any book, ever, and a lot of the classics are free. But libraries aren't just about books, they’re also about a sense of community of going to a place and learning something. These are the places that are under attack when you hear of a book being removed from the shelves for being “too awesome” as I've proven with my previous two statements.

                -Keep an open mind. This means completely open. This means not just supporting the crazy, wacky ideas that you love, but also supporting the crazy, wacky ideas that you hate. The First Amendment wasn't created to protect popular speech. Everyone can nod their head and get behind me when I say that Firefly may have been the best show ever created. But when someone says, Firefly sucks, that is the person that needs protection, because they are taking the least popular view. Our Founding Fathers (and noted Firefly fans) loved their free speech. In fact, that was the first thing they thought of when founding our country. Minds are like bear traps. The second they close, they become deadly.

                -Speak up against censorship. Earlier this year, a group called “One Million Moms” spoke out against one of my favorite comic books, because it dared to show a gay man as a superhero (THE HUMANITY!) Throwing aside that there aren't anywhere close to “One Million” of them, I wrote a rather nice piece about how I felt this changed nothing about the Green Lantern. I did this because I had a forum. I try to reach as many people as I can with this blog, and I will continue to do so until I can no longer type, or the machines cut off access to the internet before the Robot-Human war. That’s one way I will continue to speak against censorship of any kind. You find your way to do it. It can be as simple as attending the PTA meeting to talk those out of censorship. Just do something. Those Firefly Fans I mentioned that started this country did so because they took an active role.

                -Be respectful. I can talk a big game, but just be nice to each other. There’s no need to resort to name calling or hateful speech because someone disagrees. Remember, no one sets out to say, “I’m going to ban this book today.” They are banning something they are afraid of, and we have to respect that before we can talk to them, explain that not everyone will have the same reaction as them. It’s easier to see eye to eye with someone if you’re not trying to shout over them.  Bill and Ted said it best: “Be excellent to each other.”

The Most Powerful Word Ever... Apparently... For Some Reason... (By Special Guest Word)

Hello, I’m the word Fuck, and I’d like to say… what the me?

            There is a town outside of Massachusetts that has decided to ban swearing. Anyone who says me can get fined up to $20. This isn’t the only place in the country, either; there are bans all over the place. I think in Virginia beach there’s even a sign that has a few nonsense characters with a line through it to tell people: Don’t swear. (I don’t know for certain. I went there once with the word Felt once, but we spent all of our time at tourist traps.)

            Well, to all of those people making these laws, I just want to say: Me them.

            I mean, seriously? What’s so bad about me? I’m a word, just like any other. I’m in the dictionary for me’s sake! Of course, some people have even tried to ban the dictionary because I’m in it.  Why are people singling me out? Don’t they know that I’m only a “bad word” because people keep saying I’m a bad word? It’s a nasty cycle. Someone says me, then someone reacts, and then I get banned.

            There is literally no difference between me and let’s say the word “Giraffe.” Now, I know Giraffe, he’s a nice word, but seriously? What if I got angry and screamed, “Giraffe you!”? Or if I call someone a giraffing idiot? It’s the same thing. Giraffe may have a more innocuous meaning, but honestly now… we are both words. So who decided that Giraffe was ok, but I’m not?

            Banning speech (namingly me) in public is just a strange step toward a stupid future like in that dumb movie that stars Sylvester Stallone where when a word that has been deemed as “offensive” is said they get fined. Also in that future: Taco Bell is the only restaurant still around, and Wesley Snipes is terrorizing everyone with his fake bleach blonde hair! That’s not a world I want to live in! (Although as mentioned, I wouldn’t be welcomed there, anyway.)

            So take a minute, and realize that a ban like this is stupid. And I don’t hang out with that word often. By elevating language to something taboo, we create barriers that make it impossible to communicate. And words mean things because we give them that meaning. There aren’t any “swear words.” There are words that someone decided that were wrong, so everyone got scared of them for no other reason than someone wanted to create a bad word.

            I’m not sure I have much of a point. Being a banned word gives me some advantages. I mean, I’m mostly used for effect, I’m not really required to hold up a sentence like some other words. (That The guy is so me’d.)  But it also gives me a power that I don’t really have. I don’t change lives. I don’t cause illness or Satan worshipping. I don’t cause crime or teenage birthrates or the ears of toddlers to suddenly collapse. I don’t sit in a hollowed out volcano trying to think about destroying the world. You know why? Because I’m a word. And I only have as much power as people give me.

This post is rated "T" for "Totally Awesome!"

I have talked to great length about censorship with young adult novels. Yes, it’s sorta going to be one of those posts again. Turns out there is a lot to cover when talking about censorship. Buckle up.

    The most recent is the proposal by a few “concerned citizens” to start rating young adult novels. You know, like movies, TV shows and video games are rated now, to great effectiveness. (side note: that was sarcasm. You can tell by tone of my typing.) These ratings help us determine different things, like how harmed the children will be by seeing scenes of smoking, or mild cleavage. (both real things that will people are concerned about, apparently.)

    Of course, this was brought on by a concerned citizen who took the time to count the number of swear words (by their definition by the way) that we like to pretend that kids don’t say in several young adult books. Like the recent documentary, “Bully” being rated R for language to help protect the kids from seeing naughty words. No one really batted an eye at the irony of the fact that these were kids saying the naughty words. (I don’t know why I used the word “naughty.” I am a 33 year old man.)

    Look, it never really hurts to know the content of what kids are reading. Labeling them based on one groups set of standards is never going to work, because you will be forcing that morality on someone else. If you really want to take a look at the content of what your kids are reading, pick up the book, and read it with them. You may be surprised at the content, yes, but you’ll be even more surprised that you can talk to them about it, and learn something about them.

All Aboard the Censor-Ship!

            As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, I am in class right now. We have received our final projects, and it’s on… wait for it… banned and challenged books. What I like about this professor is the fact that he encourages us to think not just about teaching, but how our teaching is going to impact students in the long run. I haven’t gotten that in all my classes.

            You might be able to tell, I’m against banning books. This post could easily turn into a long screed against banning books and the dangers of allowing kids to attend debutante balls. (The original draft of this veered WAY off topic.) But I’m not going to do it all in one posting. This is my opening post in a conversation that will last a while.

            Banning books is a horrible concept. But it’s been done in every society since the printing press was invented. Books were blamed for horrible tragedies (there were no video games back then), they were seen as an upper class enjoyment not fit for the lower class, they would spread ideas that ran counter to what the ruling class wanted everyone to believe.

            Doing it today under the guise today of “protecting children” is even worse. Protecting them from what? Bad language? Violence? The S-E-X word? Different ideas of a world than the one they live in? Banning books has never turned out well for anyone.

            This is where I cut myself short, before I get on a soapbox. There will be more to come regarding this, in a series of posts that will involve my thoughts, and maybe yours, on banning books. Have any ideas or any angles you’d like to talk about? Mention it in the comments, or email me at shakespearebad@gmail.com.