8/09/2010

Feckless Douche of the Week: Scott Lively and his Pink Swastika


I can't believe that the position of Top Douchebag has been so quickly usurped from Mark Williams, formerly of Tea Party Express. I believed at the time that Williams might well have bagged Douche of the Year.

But that was before I became acquainted with Pastor Scott Lively, president of "Defend the Family" and co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. He appeared recently in a segment on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Pastor Lively told Jason Jones, "Open homosexuals are distinct from everybody else, men and women, in being exceptionally brutal and savage....Adolf Hitler used homosexual soldiers because they were more savage than natural men," adding, "they didn't have the restraint a normal man has. It was easier for them to do some of the terrible things that the Nazis did."

Researching Pastor Lively, I discovered more interesting nuggets about Hitler and his cronies. The initial meeting of what would become the Nazi Party took place in a gay bar. Each young Brownshirt was matched up with a homosexual male adult to initiate him into the league of gay Aryan supermen.

So how to explain the extermination of gays by the Third Reich? Pastor Lively has a simple answer. "The Nazis did persecute homosexuals to distract public attention away from their homosexuality."

To be honest, I was shocked at the number of sites recommending The Pink Swastika as well-supported historical fact being suppressed by gay activists and even by the National Holocaust Museum. The book is now in its fourth edition due to nice Christian groups all over the internet plugging it almost as hard as they peddle the Almighty.

Then it started to make me ill. WWJB, people? What would Jesus blog? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't take to the Web in support of a book that advocates murdering homosexuals. I'm not talking about the Nazis this time: I'm referring to Pastor Lively's book, sermons and life's work. So I'd like to let Jason Jones take over and make light of this bizarre yet influential man.



Gay Reichs
www.thedailyshow.com



Lively lets us know he wishes this cup could be taken from him. "It's not easy to be a person who tells the truth when a large part of the population doesn't want to hear it. Frankly, I wish I'd gotten a different assignment....I woulda loved to just been hanging out on the beach someplace. But instead I got stuck with dealing with homosexual Nazis."

Pastor, you seem to me every bit as brutal and savage as the fantasy you promote as truth. Far be it from me to suggest that you tell this story to the next guy you see with a swastika tattoo. I'm sure he'd enjoy acquainting you with your feminine side.

But that wouldn't be very Christian of me, would it? Not that I'm Christian; I'm not. I just have a conscience. Since you most likely believe in an afterlife, though, allow me to paint you a picture. Fire. Brimstone. You, sucking Satan's balls for all eternity. Bon appetit!


More douches:
Feckless Douche of the Week: Mark Williams
Feckless Douche of the Week: Rush Limbaugh

8/05/2010

Magick Mini Movie Review: Bad Lieutenant


At Magick Sandwich, we watch crap so you won't have to!

To be honest, I never intended to watch Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. Some critics touted this "loose" remake as even more brilliant than Abel Ferrara's masterpiece starring Harvey Keitel as the original Bad Lieutenant. Others said it couldn't live up to its predecessor.

Which made me wonder: what are these people smoking? Bad Lieutenant was a terrible movie. I'm pretty sure that I've seen Harvey Keitel's penis more than his urologist. If the movie had been done in 3D, the audience could have given him a prostate exam. The highlight for me was Harvey naked in a crucifixion pose, his member bouncing up and down in a riveting penile tour de force.


My husband and I made up a little ditty as we watched. Every time Harvey did something awful, we'd sing, "He's bad! He's a lieutenant! He's a bad lieutenant!" It was pretty tuneless and a lot of jazz hands were involved, but it was still better than the movie.

Later, a junkie does a monologue explaining the meaning of the entire movie. While shooting up. On a toilet. Okay, so maybe that counts as brilliance in some circles. I was happy to be told what it was supposed to mean, just in case I ever had to tell anyone about it. Unfortunately, I forgot. Sorry about that. I think it had something to do with society.

Predictably, my husband and I agreed to skip the new version with Nicolas Cage. By now everyone knows Nicolas Cage is batshit insane. He named his son Kal-El, had a pet octopus, lived in a fake castle, bought a dinosaur skull and declared he only eats meat from animals who have "dignified sex." He eats fish and fowl, but no pork. What does Nicolas Cage know about pig sex that I don't?

Also, his hair and teeth freak me out a little.

But then he appeared on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and was miraculously coherent. Charming, even. And a chink appeared in my armor. He seemed pretty normal. Should I give the movie a chance? Werner Herzog directed it and he's no slouch, right?

You may recall Herzog as that guy who got Christian Bale to starve himself for Rescue Dawn. That's not a great achievement, though. Bale will skip food for any crappy role. Did you see him in The Machinist

I think Bale's career may be an elaborate cover for an eating disorder.

I remember Werner Herzog best as the director who made the documentary Grizzly Man and then withheld the final scene of the subject being devoured by a bear. He said it was too disturbing. I'm sure it would have haunted my dreams, but why does Herzog get to claim the moral high ground by not showing it? After all, he's the one who chose to film someone who was clearly mentally ill instead of putting the camera down and getting the guy some medication. That would have been less exploitative...but less award-winning.

 

Anyway, back to the bad lieutenants (lieutenti?). Cage's cop, like Keitel's, lives in a rollicking world of perversity. But neither film rises to the absurdity of Showgirls, a flick so awesomely atrocious it's now a cult hit. Friends of mine--women!--used to leave bits of dialogue on each other's answering machines. "I have my period: check" was a popular choice. My favorite bit was when Elizabeth Berkley pulled a switchblade and then immediately vomited, but that was hard to translate into a phone message.

In case you decide to watch Showgirls--no judgment--check out how the camera always cuts away from Berkley's ass when she's spinning around the pole. For a normal girl, it's a fine ass and Berkley's looks great in still photos, but in motion, it's like two wobbly bags of suet. I have no problem with women being whatever size and shape they want. But using an actress with a less than perfect ass to play an idealized movie version of a stripper makes no sense to me.


Okay, I know nobody cares. If you're watching her spin on a pole, you're probably not concentrating on camera work. This is like pointing out obviously fake breast implants; all guys see are boobies.

Speaking of which, Eva Mendes and her bodacious mammaries are frequently on display as the prostitute who loves Cage's twisted cop, Terence McDonagh. But no full frontal from Mr. Cage, who chooses instead to enhance his performance with a shocking lack of sideburns. (I know I mentioned it already but the creepy hair deserves to be revisited.)

I have a couple of  fundamental problems with this movie. First of all, Terence stops a young couple, steals the boy's drugs and rapes his girlfriend against the side of their car, grunting while asking her if her daddy never went to her school plays and so forth. That's not the bad part. The angle is all wrong. She's shorter than Cage and standing flat-footed on the ground the whole time. As anyone familiar with the realities of vertical sex knows, this is just not possible. I'm offended that this supposedly gritty drama can't be bothered to get a simple thing like that right.

Second, this movie delves deeply into the world of drugs. When Terence snorts something and  yells, "Fuck!" it's natural to wonder if he's accidentally tooted up some drain cleaner. But then he shows up at his prostie girlfriend's palatial digs, tells her what he'd thought was coke was heroin and does she have any blow because he needs to report to work. This is perfectly reasonable. Of course he needs coke to counteract the heroin. That's just science.

But when he smokes crack, he laughs and laughs, showing every gigantic tooth in his head. He brays like a demented pack mule. This extended hilarity sprints well past the capabilities of any known substance and slides into the realm of a psychotic break. As Whitney once said, "Crack is whack," but it's not full-tilt bozo crazy.


If crack is this much fun, why does anyone try to stop smoking it?

*****

And there you have it. For a "mini" review, that felt like forty miles of bad road. But I liked it. I hope it was good for you, too.

More reviews:
Magick Mini Movie Reviews
Magick Mini Movie Reviews #2