Daniel Moler: media

The New Superman yawn

10:55 AM

So, here it is. The latest picture of Henry Caville as Superman for Warner Brother's latest DC Comics film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. I don't normally write and critique anything in regards to pop culture, unless it really rubs me raw, such as the writing of Frank Miller. So, before we move forward with my rant, here is the pic:

First off, I expected this. For me, Man of Steel was a disappointment. It was too dark and somber for me to care about the story and then nothing but destruction porn at the end. Plus, I was one of those many viewers who brought their kids, hoping and expecting to give them the same inspirational experience I received when watching Christopher Reeves in the theaters with my dad.

Let's get down to it. It's not that Superman killed. It's that my children watched Superman snap Zod's neck. It's that every aspect of the story was weeping, moping, and the gritty nature of this dejected alien calling itself Clark Kent. When I got home with my dad back in the day, I tied the bed sheets around my neck and jumped off the couch saving people from harm. When my kids got home, they told me they didn't want to be like Superman. There was absolutely no appeal to be like the character they just got drilled into their heads for three hours.

The inspiration of heroes is gone.

I haven't shared my disappointment regarding this new WB/DC reboot of trying to kick-start their own Marvel-esque franchise (despite their denial otherwise). But, some of the comments that have come out this morning with the new image has stirred something within me . . . not the critiques of the pic and movie, but the critiques of the critiques.

Such as:

What I have to say is this (my apologies for my FB friends for seeing a repeat of information):

Why does Superman "need" to evolve? Who established somewhere in stone that this character needs to be anything other than what he is, that he needs to be a darkened bore in order for a modern audience to relate to him? Are we really that dull? Do we really need to take that stance because some studio exec or marketing rep told us that we need a "new" Superman for a "new" world?

I don't buy it.

Superman is a mythological symbol, and symbols don't need to change, they are timeless. They are timeless not because someone says so, but because the original concept inspired someone so much that that symbol was carried on through the generations. Athena hasn't turned into some foolhardy, reckless teenager in order for her significance to be relevant. She is about wisdom and precision, and always will be. She is the symbol for that, which will always stand true. Superman is a symbol of light, of inspiration, of hope, of doing what it takes to help others. There was none of that in Man of Steel, and as we can see we won't be getting any of that in the foreseeable future.

Anytime I hear someone say Superman "needs" to change I just get the feeling they are trying to justify watching a guy with super strength beat shit up and destroy things. They want explosions while eating popcorn.

And don't give me that creative license crap. If someone needs to turn a character completely away from its original idea (so that if you changed the costume you wouldn't even recognize them) then they aren't being creative . . . they're going for shock value alone, because they know it sells.

Things can change, they can be "new", but you don't always have to dismantle the old in order to make it happen. You can maintain the integrity of idea and still move it forward into new and uncharted territory. Warner Brothers and Zack Snyder do not know how to do this, apparently. The only thing that NEEDS to change is the notion that something has to be grim and gritty in this society in order for it to be taken seriously. There is a way to make something of quality for both children and adults, that doesn't have to be overloaded with gratuitous violence and sexuality.

And thus the crotchety parent inside of me surfaces.

Interestingly enough, this same day DC Comics decided to release a new "selfie" image of Superman from their comics line, perfectly embodying the iconic lightness of Superman contrasted by the darkness of Batman. Gratefully there are still those out there who appreciate having fun over blowing shit up.

art

Blinded By Hatred: A "Holy Terror" Review

10:47 AM

I very rarely take the time to write an absolutely negative review. I usually give every artist/writer the benefit of the doubt that their work may not be appealing to me, but possibly to others. I had to force myself to finish this book, not because I was offended, but because of that most frightening of sentiments, the bane of the creator: bored.

For those that need background, Holy Terror was initially supposed to be Frank Miller's latest Batman project. This excited many geeks (like myself) in the comic world, as Miller was responsible for some of the greatest Batman comic stories that defined the genre of the grim and gritty Batman: Batman: Year One and Dark Knight Returns. Miller is also responsible for some of the latest Hollywood hits such as Sin City and 300. He is somewhat of a legend in the comics biz, so most people were highly intrigued to see what Miller would do. When everyone found out Miller would be doing a Batman versus Al-Qaeda story, most had doubts, but we all chimed the bells of nostalgia to keep us interested: "Well, Captain America fought Hitler so, this is just Miller harkening back to history, right?" When DC dropped the project with Miller, perspectives changed. It was probably the only good move DC made in over 10 years. Miller had to rework bits of the art, etc. to make the characters non-DC characters in order for him to release it on his own. However, it's very clear what this is . . . it's Frank Miller doing his version of Batman taking revenge on Al-Qaeda.

Like most, I've always enjoyed Frank Miller's work, even its most kitsch elements . . . he has always been able to provide an edge to the campy that made it work in a very delicate balance between the hyper-serious and the not-so-serious. But, this . . . this book was just dreadful. For a multitude of reasons, but primarily:

A. THE ART: I had no idea what was happening in almost every single panel. The opening sequence was so messy with ink I could barely make out who was who and what was really happening. All I could do was try in vain to make out a semblance of story through the "HEFF"s and "HUMPH"s in the narration boxes. The opening sequence was overloaded with brushwork, but for nothing . . . nothing happened in the first few pages. After that, Miller went totally lazy, like he got tired himself and just wanted to finish it . . . so the fancy brushwork stopped and everything was drawn in simple lines that took so little effort I wonder if he even made any kind of layouts or even forethought as to what he was putting down. Dreadful, because Miller's grim and gritty style defined a genre, and now he thinks he doesn't have to deliver anymore. I almost felt like his tone was: "Look...it's me, so you must like it anyway, even though I'm just scribbling scenes that make no sense." Miller needs to reread Will Eisner's Comics & Sequential Art because there was nothing sequential about any of this jarringly fragmented Jackson Pollock display of ink blots.

B. THE WRITING: Basically, trite. There was not a single interesting thing about what was happening. Here, let me give you the story: superhero guy called The Fixer (who is really just Batman) teams up with cat burglar girl (who is really just Catwoman) after they are chasing each other, have sex, then terrorist bombs go off and they chase down Al-Qaeda and kill them all. That's it. You have the whole story right there. No intriguing subplots, no mystery, no characterization, nothing. And, it's hard-pressed to make believe this isn't really just Batman we're talking about here, since most of the time you can see pointy ears on Batman's cowl covered up lazily with a black blot of ink. So, in that vein (or even not) there is nothing that makes sense. The Fixer is chasing this woman in the beginning because she stole a diamond necklace. There is some brief talk about his moral stance, how he does what he does to protect the innocent without any reward. We're supposed to believe he is somehow moral. Then, when Al-Qaeda attacks, it all goes out the door. He lowers himself to Al-Qaeda's level: he steals, he tortures, he kills. And he does all of this gladly, often chiding whichever person's skull he happens to smashing in: "So Mohammed, pardon me for guessing your name, but you've got to admit the odds are pretty good it's Mohammed." Miller spends the whole time trying to tell you how barbaric and unmerciful "they" are, when the "heroes" in the book are just as barbaric and unmerciful. No one person is likeable in any way, and nobody has any depth so there's no reason to give a shit anyway.

C. THE SENTIMENT: Muslims bad. That's what Miller's trying to say. He may just mean Al-Qaeda, but Miller doesn't make the distinction between the two. His consistent jabs toward anything Islam is insulting . . . not because I'm Muslim or I care (which I do, but that's beside the point), but because it's insulting to my intelligence. If Miller did indeed write this book, he got in touch with his inner American 13 year-old small-town redneck. It is so ignorant and boorish, it's boring. So, Frank Miller's mad because of 9/11. Guess what? We are too. And not just white, non-Muslim Americans, Mr. Miller. There are plenty of Muslims (and unfortunately Indians and Sikhs) that have suffered needlessly because of the uneducated, hyper-emotional intention of revenge that pumps through the blood of the brainless. This book may have had some sort of credence in the wake of 9/11, when most Americans were blinded by rage and sorrow. But, it's obsolete now. People understand the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. And for those who don't, their days are numbered. That's what doesn't make this work. This book is about taking revenge. It's not about justice in any way.

There is a whole global culture of people who will no longer tolerate bigotry. We are in the prime of equality protests and mass shootings, a war going on between hate and tolerance, between ignorance and understanding. If there is anything we can learn about modern history, it's that the good will win: slavery ends, women can vote, the framework of equality continues to grow. Comic books used to be a place where one could go to watch good guys fight bad guys without themselves being bigots or lowering themselves to the level of the bad guys. That's what makes characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Captain America, etc. into icons instead of just freaks in spandex. As Spidey's Uncle Ben used to say: "With great power comes great responsibility." That means good guys aren't just good guys because they fight bad guys. Good guys are good guys because they are, in fact, GOOD! They believe in a better way of being, they believe in NOT killing, NOT torturing, they believe in living toward a higher set principles and values that are, frankly, tough to live by in tough circumstances. That's what makes a good guy a good guy.

Frank Miller, you gave us a bad guy fighting bad guys. I can watch cable news and get the same thing. You forgot about one of the greatest things comics provide to the world: escapism. I want to go a fantasy world where people have a higher set of ideals. I can't do that in your world. So, Mr. Miller, I'm done with you.

comics

Presidential Conundrum

10:50 AM

agriculture

My Own STATE OF THE UNION

9:39 AM

community

Beauty Behind Barbed Wire

8:41 AM

commercialism

RED MASS Advertisement in latest issue of Evolving Magazine!

9:33 AM

art

The RED Insurgency Is On Its Way!

8:11 AM

art

Tripland, Episode 3

8:48 PM

community

Won't Back Down

10:27 AM

culture

"Chemo or Cannabis: How Would You Like to Treat Your Cancer?" Published in Cannabis Culture!

8:10 AM

I wrote an exclusive interview with Len Richmond, director of "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer" and it has been published in Cannabis Culture Magazine. I want to thank Rob "Sage" Amerine and Connie "Crash" Humiston for opening the door and giving me the opportunities that lead to this publication. I could not have done it without them. Here is the full interview (or follow the link): http://cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/01/27/Chemo-or-Cannabis-How-Would-You-Treat-Your-Cancer

It is one thing to kill a cancer cell, but the real question wracking science’s collective brain is: can you survive the treatment?

This is the central concern regarding how we approach cancer, the plague of modern times. Len Richmond’s documentary “What if Cannabis Cured Cancer,” narrated by Emmy award-winning actor Peter Coyote, is a well-researched account of the chemical benefits of the cannabis plant. Interviewing a multitude of doctors and researchers across the world, “What if Cannabis…” explains how certain compounds in cannabis, including THC, attack only cancer cells while actually protecting healthier ones. And here is the real kicker: with incredible results! However, its healing effects are not limited to just cancer. Cannabis contains compounds that work holistically with the entire human body on such conditions as epilepsy, bipolar disorder, glaucoma, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, depression, leukemia, and more.

The documentary also outlines the misinformation campaign by both government and media as to the ill effects of cannabis on users. For instance, it is an eyebrow raising revelation that not a single recorded death has ever been attributed to cannabis, while it remains a Schedule I drug—along with heroin and meth—under the Controlled Substances Act.

But, it’s not just the plant that’s having a tough time in the world. Len Richmond has tried earnestly to get the medical community to be involved in the amazing amount of research he’s uncovered in his film:

“I contacted the John Wayne Cancer Institute,” he says. “To offer researchers a chance to look at my film. The PR guys said I had to write to the individual researchers. So, I got all their information, emailed them, and offered them a free copy of the documentary. There was not a single response. Weeks later, I sent a follow-up email, again offering a free copy of the film and asking “Are you really so sure that you're right that you're not even open to entertaining an alternative point of view?’ Well, then I got a response: ‘Don’t you email us again! We’re not interested!’ It’s crazy! Chemo therapy is hurting people. It makes me angry. It’s a scandal, the way cancer is being treated in this country as a profit-driven industry. “

Despite having sporadic acceptance in the mainstream medical arena, Richmond’s film is gaining an enormous amount of success in the medical marijuana community. People are excited about the evidence contained in his documentary, and with good cause. “What if Cannabis…” creates a convincing argument on how and why marijuana should be seriously considered as a cancer-curing agent. To get a little more to the heart of the issue, I talked to Len from his home in L.A. for an in-depth look at how the film came to be:

Len, why don’t you tell me a little bit about yourself?

Well, I’m a sixties hippie who, among other things, marched against the Vietnam War. I started smoking dope in the sixties, of course. I remember how I first started, I was dating this woman because I was trying to be straight and fit in. On our first date, she held out a joint. I told her I didn’t wanted to do anything that might make me lose control, but she said, ‘This stuff will change your life, it will open your mind! You'll discover things about yourself.’ I thought, ‘What?’ I couldn’t understand the concept at first. But, of course, she was right! A few months later I came out.

I later moved to London to be with a boyfriend and started writing sitcoms for BBC and British television. There was one particular sitcom that I decided to put all of my sixties radicalism in it, marijuana, making fun of religion, and gay liberation. It was called “Agony” because it was about a “Dear Abby”-type of advice columnist who could fix everyone else’s problems but could never fix her own. It was very popular, very funny, and was one of the first shows to depict the main characters smoking marijuana casually and celebrating healthy gay relationships. Later, CBS bought the rights to it and broadcast an American version called “The Lucy Arnaz Show” but it was terrible. The CBS writers took out everything that made Agony so good: the gays, smoking pot, the radicalism, the left wing politics. It was soon after that I got heavily into the Gay Liberation movement. I started promoting gay rights – and getting laid a lot.

What inspired you to make “What if Cannabis Cured Cancer”?

My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer and wouldn’t let the doctors do anything to her. Of course, this freaked me out, along with the rest of family. But, she did a lot of research and found various herbs that she felt would help her. So, after four years of treating herself, by focusing on a vegan raw food diet and using anti-cancer herbs like Mistletoe, she had actually shrunk her tumor! I was amazed! So, I got inspired to make the documentary film “Everything Bad is Good: Healing Yourself in a World of Medicine Gone Mad,” where I interviewed people who had cured themselves of cancer with natural remedies. This is when I started to really get into the idea of natural healing outside of the medical world. Through my research on this film, I stumbled onto a few cases where marijuana was used as a curing agent and just dug deeper. As I soon discovered, there was quite a bit of evidence beginning to surface.

Some of the things going through my mind were, ‘Am I going to get attacked? Are people going to want to destroy me because I'm raining on their parade? There is a whole industry and makes a good living off the drug war.’ Well, it’s been exactly the opposite! People are complimenting the research . . . the evidence is there! I've become a bit of a working class hero taking on the establishment. My early hippie dreams of making a better world are coming true!

For instance, just the other day I was emailed an old article titled “Smoking Marijuana Causes Testicular Cancer.” I started investigating the research done on the study and even the doctor was who hired to conduct the study said don’t read too much into it, the results aren’t conclusive, the amount of people in the study were so small it is difficult to even pinpoint a correlation, and of course we don't know if the control group was telling the truth about their past drug use. But that's not the way the press reported it. And, of course, the study was funded by the folks who wanted to prove that pot is bad for you.

In your film, it is discussed that the primary compounds in cannabis that work as the curing agent are the endocannabinoids. Can you tell me a little bit about endocannabinoids and how they may be able to treat cancer?

The first guy I interviewed for the film, Dr. Jeffrey Hergenrather, started treating patients with cannabis and they started to get better. And what he told me was, whether you smoke marijuana or not you have marijuana-like substances in your body. It is naturally in your body, you are born with it, and it is called the endocannabinoid system. I thought, ‘What? I need to find out more about this!’ Endocannabinoids are found in our nervous and immune systems and have an almost identical structure to cannabinoids found in cannabis. These two compounds act as a sort of lock and key for each other in your body—a chemical reaction—that becomes beneficial, forming into modulators of good health. Endocannabinoids act as tumor regulators, mood regulators, anti-depressants, anti-inflammatories, and the list goes on.

What is being discovered is that some people do not have enough endocannabinoids in their system. You see, you get a massive dose of endocannabinoids in your mother’s milk, if you’re breast fed. It’s one of your immunity boosters as a baby. What Professor Robert Melamede (in the film) believes is that there are endocannabinoid-deprived people and there are endocannabinoid-endowed people. Those that are endocannabinoid-endowed have healthy systems, are more adaptable to change, and therefore are more open-minded. In the same way, those that are endocannabinoid-deprived have weaker systems, therefore more fearful of change to their environment. So, endocannabinoids are not just interesting in how they can heal the body, but are also indicators into how one lives their life! This is a whole new field of information I didn’t even get to touch on in the film. But I will in my next.

Here is the main reason we need cannabis. We are overwhelmed with toxins in our environment: chemicals, pollution, even our own thoughts. The endocannabinoids that we are born with need help. The cannabinoids and endocannabinoids find each other and are like, “Oh . . . Hi bro!” and they hook up and are stronger in fighting diseases. It is a more protective way to survive from all the things that are in an onslaught against us. Cannabis stimulates your survival mechanism. Really, cannabis smokers can be the luckiest, happiest people on Earth!

What I remember from the film, and what you have eluded to here, is that endocannabinoids are holistic as well. They are not just for fighting tumors, correct?

For one thing, they are mood lifters; they lift you out of depression. When you’re not busy being depressed, it helps you to survive. So, endocannabinoids are all about survival. The threat, I guess, is all the pharmaceuticals we would put out of business. If you can do so many healing things with this one plant, it’s an enormous threat to our pharmacy system. Almost every drug I’ve researched comes with an enormous amount of side-effects, some of them even fatal. You put yourself in the situation of a catch-22. Get rid of such-and-such symptom but accept the risk of a host of others. The only side-effects with marijuana are you may lose a little short-term memory for a while and you may bump into some things while walking around at home.

Amidst the compelling evidence, why is the mainstream media not jumping on this? And why in the media, is the reporting on the research is mild at best?

We have to acknowledge there's a lot of fear out there about cannabis. People are afraid of losing control; particularly religious people. They have to control everything in their life, or the house of cards falls apart. Marijuana is a threat, it’s unpredictable. And, cannabis makes you question why you wouldn’t want to do anything that doesn’t make you happy. It does get you to leave jobs, leave marriages, to make moves and changes in your life that you aren’t usually willing to make.

Other countries seem to be where the cutting edge of research is being done on cannabis treatment of cancer. Is cannabis a big legal issue in other countries or is cannabis seen as a viable alternative?

It’s much more accepted in Spain, than many other countries. It’s not really treated like a criminal offense; they are very liberal about it. Italy, on the other hand, is a whole different story. I have a friend in Italy who has cancer, but can hardly get marijuana at all because he is scared of being arrested. Most of the countries are still treating it like a serious criminal offense. I can say most of the foreign orders I get for my film are from Canada. They are a huge pot-smoking country. I also get a lot of overseas orders from the Netherlands, obviously.

One direction for the pro-cannabis movement is to get cannabis removed from the Controlled Substances Act. What is your perspective to getting this done?

One thing I am going to do is to get copies of my film to members of Congress. I got Americans for Safe Access (ASA) to agree to hand-deliver them to one hundred Congressmen and Congresswomen; they are just waiting for the right time, what with the latest election and change in seats. My hope is that there is a Congress person out there who knows someone with cancer—a relative they love— and it becomes a life or death issue, instead of just an issue about an illegal drug. Basically, I think that if we can get one well-known person who has cancer to treat themselves with cannabis instead of chemo and they survive and prosper, then maybe that will begin to wake the country up. But, you know, it probably has to be a celebrity or nobody will give a damn.

Do you see the recent failure of Proposition 19 in California a set back?

No, because a fair number of pro-marijuana people didn’t want Prop 19 to go into effect. It criminalized some things that weren’t criminal before. Such as, there was a bit in there about having to get written permission from your landlord to smoke cannabis in your rented home. I don’t want to have to ask permission from a landlord to smoke in my own backyard!

One sentiment expressed in your film is that if cannabis is legal there is less money in it. So if it is more lucrative when illegal, should it ever become legal? Given what the pharmaceutical industry could do to such a product, would you even want it to become legal?

Look, I’ve been busted for smoking pot in England. I’ve been arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed. And at that time even the police woman who arrested me said if I wouldn’t have smoked on the street, I wouldn’t have been arrested. ‘Do it in your own home,’ she said. I don’t want a police woman, who has no idea of the benefits of cannabis to tell me how to conduct my medical treatment. The people who are rabidly enforcing cannabis laws are scared little people. Marijuana gives them the perfect excuse because they are fearful of freedom and change and use us as a scapegoat. So, yes, I say please legalize it. It would be nice to have that paranoia gone. I think it will definitely be legalized before too long because a lie can’t live forever.

Really?

Yes, because the older generation will soon be gone. And I say this as a member of the older generation. 7 out of every 10 people I know smoke pot. And not just the kind of person who you would think smokes pot, but neighbors, coworkers, normal people. It’s like the gay lib thing . . . come out, come out, wherever you are!

What other kinds of activities are you involved in regarding the issue of cannabis legalization?

Just using my film. Getting the documentary out there; getting it to lawmakers and the establishment medical community. Now I have a weapon I can use. I’m not really the kind to go out and picket with signs. My film is my weapon I use to affect change.

“What if Cannabis Cured Cancer” can be purchased on Amazon.com and followed on Facebook.