RANGER AGAINST WAR: Men and Their Bitches <

Tuesday, January 08, 2013

Men and Their Bitches

I've waited so long for school to be through
Paula, I can't wait no more for you
My love, my love 
--Hey, Hey Paula, Paul and Paula

Now your vict'ry is complete
And your battles are all won.
Your enemies and foes are all stacked up in rows,
Eliminated one by one 
--Mr. Big Man, The Kinks 

You hiss and groan and you constantly moan
But you don't ever go away
That's because
All you need is me 
--All You Need Is Me, Morrissey 

It is said that people often choose their dogs based upon their likeness in appearance and personality.  Perhaps this egotism manifests in many life choices.

A trifle, but mentioning Tarantino's "Kill Bill" in the previous piece (Totenkopf) brought to mind the complete egoism of its director, Tarantino, in the selection of his muse, Uma Thurman.  Note the shared wide-set eyes, brow ridge, nose, lips ... Though Thurman is a better-looking woman than he is a man, it would take little digital manipulation to morph Tarantino into her.

Tarantino, successful B-movie aficionado, has done as much as any director to socialize us to bloody gore-fests and we pay handsomely for the onslaught, but all in good fun as it's only pulp fiction dontcha know?  And we are all well-balanced adults feeding on that dross, right?  Kind of like living on Pepsi and Doritos won't harm your body, a mental diet of dreck will not affect your brain, eh?

And then thoughts of the ill-fated lovers General David Petraeus and Paul Broadwell came to mind, because of the same general facial symmetry and probable self-love -- note the forehead, skin tone, eyes, pecs, deltoids ... Sans Paula's liberal dosing of the pancake and 20 years off Mr. Petraeus, you have forbidden brother-sister love. But you be the judge:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Blogger FDChief said...

Not sure whether I have a dog in this fight, so to speak, other than to observe that people who love themselves (and it would be hard to imagine either Tarentino or Petraeus without a pretty good dollop of self-love) seem likely to choose partners or collaborators based on things about them that the person finds appealing, and that may well include looks.

But on the specifics of Tarentino despite his claims and Uma's looks she runs a slow second to Zoe Bell who has been in four of Tarentino's films to Thurman's two. Or Sam Jackson, for that matter, who has been in five out of the nine...

Based purely on his imagery, tho, I suspect that Tarentino is drawn more to Uma's feet than her head. The guy has a straight-out foot kink.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 4:26:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

Thank you for your perspective. Granted, far more digitization would be needed to make the Jackson - Tarantino meld.

I do think the former vid store geek looks at Uma and thinks of what might've been, had he had an academic father, had he been fairer to look at, etc. I think it's a Pygmalion thing.

At a Friars Club roast (2010), a comedian said to T,

"‘You changed the face of cinema. I just wish cinema would return the favour.’"

T. was reported to have said, it hurt, but not too much -- I mean, what would a tough guy wanna-be say?

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 7:14:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

Truth told, I enjoy the guy's flicks for what they are; ridiculous over-the-top male fantasies (from a guy with a foot fetish). But "changed the face of cinema" seems a little over the top, too. Changed it more than Sam Pekinpah?

Hollywood remains what it was; the "dream machine". And our dreams are drenched in ridiculous, over-the-top fear, lust, anger, and greed. Since the end of the Hays Office our movies just reflect this more openly...

I know I've said this before, but I'm not sure that violent movies mean a "violent culture". Humans have always been violent, but when you factor out the increased ability to kill and maim people brought about by industrial war, our record seems LESS violent now than throughout much of history.

So QT may make Django Unchained...but where's the REAL slavery now?

Where are the great pogroms in the Western world? The genocides? The barbarian invasions?

On the movie screens, rather than in real life.

I can't say I love that we still seem to love that butchery on the screen, but if we have to trade that for the real Mongols riding in? I'm kinda more okay with it.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 1:55:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


Yes, but you KNOW they are ridiculous films. I think Tarantino is far more mainstream than Peckinpah, but it was just a slippery slope getting there.

Granted, the summation of people killed in gun sprees is rather small; still, one wonders the warping that allows for them at all.

We may not be Ghengis Khans, but the least twerp with a weapon thinks he might be a giant via slaughter -- what is the impetus? I'm sure it is manifold, but I think we sell ourselves short to say (though correctly), "Well, life's a lot less brutal than it has been."

It seems those now calling for the facile solution -- strict gun control -- are not happy with the knowledge that their life is better than it was under the Mongol hordes ...

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 7:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger FDChief said...

It seems those now calling for the facile solution -- strict gun control -- are not happy with the knowledge that their life is better than it was under the Mongol hordes."

Those calling for the "facile solution" ARE happier that we don't have to worry about controlling Mongol hordes, largely because I think they understand that such hordes are beyond simple "control" in the same way that cholera and typhus epidemics are. They are something that requires a massive and systemic change in human societies.

On the other hand, simply instituting simple restrictions on what hardware human beings can lay their hands on is relatively simple, and do-able if we have the political willpower. I'm not saying EASY; getting the level of armament in civil society down to a sane level will be anything but easy. But it's possible.

That's WHY these folks are suggesting that we can hand back the semiautos - in a world without Mongol hordes it's actually practical. You don't NEED that Streetsweeper or that AR-15; the Mongols ain't coming.

Hence the connection.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 6:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


I am not a gun absolutist, and do agree with you in asking why people need semi-autos. However, I also know that we are a society awash in weapons, therefore, there is no easy solution to the thing which plagues us at this moment (according to those who are calling for gun control) -- spree shootings.

If we are truly concerned with the phenomenon of spree shootings, we need to look at more than limiting access to any particular group of weapons; there will always be weapons.

It is not the easy thing to do, but we need to look at those committing the sprees, often on school grounds. Most of the shooters have been on psychotropics; most have been bullied. Those, too, are problems which could be dealt with, but are not, even in the face of every warning sign.

For ex.: Cho at VA Tech left a long trail of danger signs. Only one instructor -- poet Nikki Giovanni -- had the guts to eject him from class and to make administration aware of the problem. Nothing was done.

The easy thing we CAN do is to control the manner in which responsible gun owners secure their weapons. The latest round of spree shooters should never have had access to weapons.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 7:49:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...


p.s. --

I argue that, like cholera and typhus, our society IS in need of "a massive and systemic change". I do not know that banning semi auto weapons will effect the change that is needed.

Friday, January 11, 2013 at 7:51:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home