Issue 9: Don't Bother Me, I'm Thinking
By Medulla Vesuvius

Nerd Revelation: KISS

You wanna know how I know I’m a nerd?

Last night I changed the channel from a KISS performance to catch the start of MythBusters instead.

And as I committed that seemingly treasonous act, the poignancy of it all immediately struck me. I decided that I had seen my fill of hairy, aging, make-up-wearing hedonists cavorting around on that huge stage as if they were youth and sexuality personified. In 2006, seeing KISS up there “rocking,” (and hearing Paul Stanley strain for the high notes), is no different than seeing an overly glorified dinosaur act like Foghat or Steve Miller. The comparatively staid, rational discourse found on MythBusters promised much more entertainment for me.
What kind of mixed-up parallel universe am I living in? Did I really just say that watching two guys mess around with ballistics gel and poke fun at the idea of free energy devices was more entertaining than watching KISS?

Well, yeah.

Let me put this simply. The KISS phenomena, with its “army” and all manner of toys and merchandising and pyrotechnics-fueled concerts, is the biggest amount of empty hype masking a mediocre product to ever darken the doors of American pop culture. As “musicians” or “artists,” (I use both terms very loosely), KISS put on display the perfect storm of style with no substance. Ever hear the phrase “polishing a turd?” I could throw a cinder block on any Friday or Saturday night and hit a bar-band with as much or more musical proficiency as the goons in KISS.

Take away all the pyro, the huge shoes, the make-up, the tongue-wagging, and the entranced women in the front row and just listen to the awful, clichéd blues-based guitar solos and Neanderthal harmonic progressions and it is just so obvious…what you are listening to is the product of highly-paid musical retards. If I was subversively presenting that level of over-hyped ineptitude to the general public, I’d hide my face with paint too.

But it’s not just their musical aesthetic that is weak. They also have nothing to say, lyrically, that is beyond the abilities of your average sensitive and/or horny junior high student:

I know a thing or two about her

I know she’ll only make you cry

She’ll let you walk the street beside her

But when she wants she’ll pass you by

Everybody says she’s lookin’ good

And the lady knows it’s understood

Strutter

So why do people still get excited for this swill? I don’t know. I’m still working on that one. Why do people get excited for all kinds of pop music putrescence that’s thrown at them?

In the case of KISS, I remember as a little kid how my brothers’ listening to this perverse music upset my long-suffering mother to no end. I think she honestly thought they were “devil’s music,” which says a lot coming from my hip and with-it mom. I’m pretty sure the “rebellious factor” secured their original audience as teenagers inhaled this stuff like so much weed. But why, thirty years hence, is there still an audience? Is it just a bunch of 40-somethings reliving their youth?

If you have gotten this far and think that I’m being a little harsh, I will concede this one point: the boys in the band at least seemed like they were in on the joke over the years. I have seen Gene Simmons talk in interviews about their lack of real musicianship and how they were the first band to really “sell out.” However, the testimony of a pompous ass of the magnitude of Simmons should not be considered as definitive in any way.

The crux of the matter is that last night I had a revelation of my own nerddom. The time has come to put away childish things. Down with KISS and all that they stand for. Up with the age of rationality and science.

I’m old.

Issue 9: Escaping Life
By Rascal Stallion

Rascal Stallion’s Quadrilateral of Horror

What Makes a Horror Movie Awesome?

I’ll tell you what makes it awesome. All you need are four things- scary, bloody, funny and boobs. That’s it. That’s really all you need. It should be so easy. Unfortunately the majority of movies manage to miss at least one of the marks. If you can find some way to include a combination of these four things then you, my friend, have made yourself a complete horror film.

Let’s examine the four categories a little more closely:

Scary
The cornerstone of all horror movies is its scare factor. If a horror movie isn’t scary then it’s not really a horror movie, is it? It’s more of an actiony thriller movie or something. Scares are typically wrought through one of the methods. Let’s look at some Stephen King adaptations for examples. The first route to scary is artful direction resulting in suspense that keeps the viewer on edge. This can be found in Misery as James Caan is sneaking around and you just know Cathy Bates is going to catch him at any moment and make his ankle all floppy. The second is through plot circumstances that remind us that what we’re seeing could happen to us and tear our world apart. An example of this is Cujo. It’s not too far fetched to imagine being assaulted by a rabies-afflicted beast. The easiest route to scary is the jump out. If you’re especially ignorant and can’t think of an example of this just watch the ending of Carrie. The lesson here is that the methods aren’t important so long as the end result if terror.

Bloody
To me, this is the least essential of the quadrilateral. I believe a horror movie requires at least a scene or two that makes me squirm or cringe but if I had to go without at least one of the four this would be the one I omit. That said, when people are discussing movies around the watercooler or at the cafeteria lunchtable these are usually the scenes they are talking about. These are usually the first scenes to come to mind when you are reminded of a horror movie. Think about it, what scenes do you immediately think of when I mention movies like Cannibal Holocaust or Alien?

Funny
The funny is absolutely necessary. If you have an hour and a half of straight tension you would have a stroke and die. Even if you could, why would you want to? There is an art to building up the suspense, breaking it and then building it up again, just a little bigger than before. The great ones do this seamlessly, subtly moving us through laughter and fear. An example of this can be found in Bruce Campbell’s performances in the Evil Dead movies.

The comedy doesn’t even have to be intentional to be effective. Some movies are so campy or the characters so stupid that they provide us with laughs even when they don’t mean to. For instance, take a look at a movie like Troll 2. The plot, acting, and effects are so terrible that it is much more of a comedy film than horror.

Boobs
There’s no way to discuss this section without coming across as a pig, so I’m just going to avoid the pretense and speak frankly here. A flash of boob here or there in a movie inherently makes it better. I’m not looking for porno levels of skin or even a gratuitous amount of nudity. Just give us a little. Throw us a bone, so to speak. The movie should, at least once or twice give us an answer when we wonder to ourselves, “What’s she look like under there?”

This is where the new breed of horror movies got it all wrong. Scream came out and really revitalized the industry. We were so hungry for horror that we flocked to it. Unfortunately, when they skipped the nudity that had become a staple of horror in decades past and we supported it anyway, the message the studios got was that it was ok to leave the boob shots out. Scream’s success encouraged many other films to follow suit, such as the I Know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legends movies. In those three franchises alone we were denied nudity of Heather Graham, Sarah Michelle Gellar (twice), Drew Berrymore, Rebecca Gayheart (twice), Tara Reid, and Jennifer Love Hewitt (twice.) Yep, good thing Rebecca Gayheart didn’t show her boobs and cause her career to fizzle out.

As you can see, many movies blend various combinations of these elements; but it is the very rare movie that finds a way to successfully include them all. The most recent movie to nail the mark was Eli Roth’s Cabin Fever. Here’s how:

The plot focuses on a group of friends in the woods, (the isolation of the rural wooded area provides an extremely fertile setting for horror), as they are exposed to a horrific virus. The story is scary because it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envision a deadly virus sweeping across the country.

This virus is very destructive and leads to some ghastly wounds and decompositions. We’re given all the gore we could want, (provided our name isn’t Peter Jackson.)

James DeBello as Bert and Guiseppe Andrews as Deputy Winston provide ample laughs to ease the growing tension as the virus spreads.

Finally, we are given multiple views of the tasty body of Cerina Vincent. Sure, she’s shaving the flesh off of her legs in one of them but we really can’t be choosy. Somewhat disappointing is that Jordan Ladd refused to bare her goodies but then opted to do so in her very next movie. Oh well, c’est la vie. (I don’t even know what that means but it seemed fitting.)

Now, don’t be mistaken. There are many great horror movies that fail to meet one or more of the critical criteria. These films are especially disappointing because they could have reached pantheon level with just a little more work.

Of course, you could argue that the inclusion of whatever was missing would have detracted from the movie. Maybe you’re right, but good luck convincing me that Sleepaway Camp wouldn’t have been better with a little nudity, or The Shining wouldn’t have benefited from more comedy.

Some movies have to use sequels to hit all four categories. This, of course, is not a successful fulfillment of the quadrilateral. A good example of this is the A Nightmare on Elm Street series. The first movie hits scary, bloody and funny like Hiroshima, but we aren’t delivered a single nipple until later in the series.

Feel free to use my system to evaluate horror movies from now on or even develop your own system. Perhaps, if enough of us start using my system, we can really grow and form a grassroots coalition that will become large enough for the movie studios to take notice. They will begin to meet our demands for better horror and stop just releasing neutered remakes of the beloved classics.

Who will join me? Who will stand my side and declare that we will not go quietly into the night until our desire for fright and gore, balanced with a touch of comedy and completely unnecessary nudity has been satiated?

Issue 9: Sydney Brown's Sixty Seconds
By Sydney Brown

Sydney Brown’s Sixty Seconds

Well, it’s that time again, and provided the rapture didn’t hit (6/6/06), I’m Sydney Brown with another edition of Sixty Seconds. And man, if the rapture DID hit, well then, boy is my face red. That’s what I get for mocking Satan and his minions.

No crazy intro this time, I really got some goodies for you. Of course, then again, I try to. I don’t want to waste your time- which any sentence in this paragraph after this will do. So…..

Capote (2005) Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, ***

Fact-based film about Truman Capote’s research for his 1960’s book In Cold Blood, in which two drifters murdered an entire family. Hoffman gives a great performance, (Oscar winning), and the subject matter is fascinating. Capote’s research drawing him so close to the killers that he almost sympathizes with their plight sounds like a great film idea, but in all honesty, Capote is such a self-centered egoist, it’s often difficult to know when he’s actually caring about his subjects and when he’s “playing for the camera,” (which appears to be a non-stop problem for him.) A very good film, but not quite what I would call great, though it is certainly recommended.

George Washington (2000) ***

Slow-moving, yet realistic-feeling film about poor children in the South, and a terrible accident that occurs over their summer vacation. Difficult film to describe, and possibly even moreso to appreciate. (I’ll admit, much of it went over my head.) Key character is a young boy whose skull never quite fused together and must always wear a helmet, and the lengths to which he goes to help others in need. Some great dialogue makes up for some of the slower passages. Definitely not for all tastes.

The Shape of Things (2003) Paul Rudd, Rachel Weisz **

Disappointing Neil LaBute stage-play-turned-film about a female artist falling in love with a nerdy museum worker. Two problems hinder the film: too much stilted pop-culture dialogue that just sounds like off-off-Broadway schtick, and a “twist” ending that all but gives itself away an hour into the movie. Rudd gives a great performance and there’s a terrific scene between him and Gretchen Mol, but the message and point of the film is a waste of one’s time, (which, in essence, could be the point.) Film DOES, however, contain perhaps the most ridiculous pratfall in recent cinema history.

Gates of Heaven (1980) ***½

Wonderful and quirky documentary about pet cemeteries in California. What’s astonishing is how captivating so much of the film is, despite much of it having little, if anything, to do with cemetaries. If anything, the film is more about the American dream, the afterlife, and our relationships with each other. An old lady in the span of five minutes steals the entire film with a brilliant rambling monologue that couldn’t be anything but off-the-cuff in what is quite possibly one of the greatest scenes I have ever seen. Emotionally touching, strangely funny, and quite brilliant. Documentary debut of Oscar-winning director Errol Morris.

Modern Romance (1981) **** Albert Brooks

Easily one of the greatest films I’ve ever seen, Albert Brooks pretty much explains why neurotic people can never be happy as he spends the entire film breaking up with and getting back together with his girlfriend. Countless classic scenes ranging from Brooks’ rebound date to an infamous sequence involving a George Kennedy movie to the greatest Harlem Globetrotter cameo ever to the Incredible Hulk’s footsteps. If you’ve ever been even the SLIGHTEST bit neurotic, this is an absolute MUST-SEE. One of my 10 all-time favorite films.

Yeah, I’m building up Modern Romance big time. I say that because if you ever see the DVD cover, you’ll think I’m a lunatic for thinking so highly of it.

That’s all. Back with more, I don’t know, maybe in a month? Maybe?

Issue 9: Spotlight on Technology
By Dr. Roger Korby

Fon - Wi-fi Everywhere

Wi-Fi – the wireless networks that your computer can connect to and surf the web. Some times it’s free (possibly at your home, at work, at certain businesses like Panera Bread) other times there’s a charge (like at Starbucks). Fon is a new movement of broadband subscribers that aims to create a world-wide Wi-Fi network that is free for all those that participate by adding their broadband access to the overall network. As an aside, it’s pronounced like “phone”, but has pretty much nothing to do with telephones. In this issue of Spotlight on Technology I’ll discuss the details of the Fon system, how you can “join the club” and a few of my hesitations and questions.

One interesting note about Wi-Fi in general is that the word, “Wi-Fi,” is not actually short for anything. From what I’ve read, it seems the term found its origins in the phrase “Wireless Fidelity”, but the people who invented the term (the Wi-Fi Alliance) now discourage people from making this connection.

The Fon system depends on some special software that is installed on your Wi-Fi router (the device that transmits the network signal through the air). Currently only one wireless router is supported (the Linksys WRT54G) but Fon is planning on supporting more as development continues. This software allows other Fon users (they’re called “Foneros”) to connect to the wireless network that extends outside the walls of your house (usually for 100 feet or so) using a username and password supplied by Fon. They are calling each of these routers Fon hotspots. The plan is to have enough of these hotspots spread out across each city to create a seamlessly connected world-wide Wi-Fi network.

Besides the hardware, the other main component of Fon’s world-wide movement is a really slick mapping system, based on Google maps. Their maps show the locations of all registered Fon hotspots, so if you plan on traveling you can find out what parts of town will have Fon access before you leave. On your next trip to Europe or Asia, you wouldn’t have to worry about paying exorbitant hourly rates for Internet access… just find a Fon hotspot and log in. This mapping tool makes finding Fon hotspots so simple that I imagine this feature alone will account for Fon’s eventual success.

To become a Fonero and get in on the action, all a person needs to do is get the supported wireless router, install the router software and register at http://www.fon.com. Once registered, your hotspot will show up on the map. Fon states that your privacy is protected, but, ultimately, this was one of the reasons I have not signed up yet. It may be a while before I’m really comfortable advertising my address, even anonymously, to the rest of the world.

Currently in Nerd County (OKC) there are only about 6 Fon hotspots – hardly thorough coverage. However, in bigger metropolitan areas (such as Dallas) there are quite a few more, and the movement is still relatively young. Below is Fon’s map of the Dallas area.

I came really close to signing up for the $25 router (which has apparently dropped down to just $4 as of June 2^nd) and registering for a Fon account. In the end though, I have not yet done this. Besides the privacy issue mentioned above, I was also reluctant to sign up because 1) I’m almost certain my contract with Cox (my Internet Service Provider or ISP) does not allow sharing my bandwidth with individuals outside of my house and 2) I don’t really want people doing illegal things on my bandwidth.

Any website visited by a Fonero using my router would, from Cox’s perspective, look as if I were the one visiting this site. Fon’s system is not totally anonymous – anyone using my Fon hotspot will have logged in using their Fon username and password. Fon states that this lack of anonymity will deter people from doing illegal activity over someone else’s Fon hotspot. However, I’m not really convinced – even though people log in with a username, once they are on my network, I don’t think Cox can differentiate between their Internet activity and mine.

There are several ISPs around the world that are cool with Fon so maybe Cox will eventually come around and allow users to share their bandwidth. One alternative, I believe, would be to get Cox’s business-at-home service which is about $15 more a month but allows you to do more with your account.

If Cox were to allow bandwidth sharing, I would probably eventually talk myself into joining Fon. The potential of having Wi-Fi readily available everywhere is really appealing, especially if this network were built from a grassroots movement such as Fon.