The Goth Club

But only because Vince Colosimo can’t speak around fangs.

Something that a whole mess of people don’t realise is that sometime last financial year, a rather large swathe of our tax dollars got was released as a vampire movie. It was an Australian vampire movie, with most of the cast of Neighbours as terrible extras, and Sam Neill pushing something a bit more than just red meat. But for all the terrible acting, the cinematography and actual script, plot and concept of the movie are astoundingly good. Unlike the extraordinarily large precedent set before it by almost every Aussie film I can think of that had to get government backed financing, however, this movie didn’t actually suck. Only the characters in it… and *Vince Colosimo’s acting.

How anyone could confuse this for a shot from the Matrix is totally beyond me...

The idea behind the film is that in about a decade’s time, vampirism sweeps the land. Like zombieism to some degree, as everyone is now either vampire, or an industrially kept sack of fluids and vampire nutrients that are kept in large farming towers to have their vitals tapped somewhat reminsiscent of the way that we’re all currently powering The Matrix. Of course, the problem with this is that in reality, people confined to such conditions are most likely going to die due to muscles being kept immobile. Their muscles would atrophy, the body would become less and less healthy, and then simply cease to sustain its own life. This is precisely what’s happening to the human farms in the world Daybreakers, and the stock of free range humans that the vampire military can find is rapidly running out. This is highly problematic, as all the blood substitutes that the large vampire corporations are attempting to cook up simply don’t have the… desired effect.

Aperature Science - We do what we must because we can...

Generally speaking, when you go and eat something, if it makes your head explode instead of nourishing you, that’s what the current pharmaceutical industry calls “undesirable side effects” (as opposed to Viagra, which was originally intended as a heart medication, having a side effect that was way better than what it was intended to be primarily used for).

It forgot to put the lotion on its skin

As the blood becomes scarce, vampires begin to riot out of panic. Why? Because if they don’t get human blood, they devolve into bat like animals that attack anything, but look way cool thanks to WETA. Dog blood won’t do. Can’t have coffee. Must be people, but not Soylent Green! It’s a brilliant commentary on energy crisii type situations, and no doubt the future food shortages we’re likely to experience as the temperate zones move further towards the polar regions.

Eventually, a cure is found, which in turn causes complications. In yet anotherdig at modern day situations, a cure is no good because there’s no money to be had in a cure. The large corporation within the film is only interested in a human blood substitute, so that everyone must become a long term client. As pharmaceutical companies in real life are similarly disinterested in cures, but rather treatment regimes, as cures do not provide long term customers.

And for good measure, there’s also a couple of fascist dictatorship references. Fun!

The entire film is dark, set with a cool filter over every scene that takes place in the city to emphasise how cold and dark is the night. Sadly, the city isn’t terribly memorable or impressive… It’s Surfer’s Paradise after all (not exactly a place that screams “Vampires live here!”). To counter that, every scene shot in the country regions where not-blood-cow humans escape to is warm and sunny, made more so thanks to a rather obvious warm colour filter. A more critical person would say that the juxtaposition is also there to show how unnatural city living is and that it’s the death of us all as we devolve and feed on our fellow man but that’s the kind of wankery one picks up after having done a semester of film analysis at university… *cough*… Whilst this kind of videography is pretty standard for modern vampire films, it really hammers home the (intended to be) subtle messages of the film.

"My guess is he died of boredom watching WogBoy 2" - "HahahaHEY!"

Willem Dafoe was actually rather week in this film, I felt. He plays “Elvis”, the vampire that somehow manages to cure himself (and in turn becomes a weak, pathetic human again). Dafoe normally has this seedy hyper activity about him, like Steve Buschemi on crack but with nice teeth. He seemed rathe flat and lifeless in this film, which, considering he’s actually alive again, should be the exact opposite of his characterisation I feel. To make matters worse, this isn’t even the first vampire role he’s been in. He was Max Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire, the archetype for what the vampires in Daybreakers basically turn into without blood, and yet he was off the walls in that film. A bit of a disappointment to my mind.

Ethan Hawk manages to ensure that this isn’t the massive let down it could be though. He plays Edward Dalton, Hematologist man! It’s his job to find a cure for vampirism… or at least a substitute for blood. But he also happens to be a filthy human sympathiser! With clouded thoughts of “perhaps humans are people, too” this sick deviant not only saves a pack of the filthy things, he actively goes to live with them for a time to discover his cure! Degenerate filth!! And he’s believable in this sort of characterisation. You genuinely believe he feels sorry for the fact that people are no longer human, and that he actually thinks of them as an endangered species, rather than what he used to be. There’s a kind of sadness about him, until he basically fucks over Sam Neill.

"Now if they eat more meat, their blood will have more iron and be tastier... I have an idea!"

Sam Neill is rather convincing in his role as Charles Bromley,  an evil bastard in charge of an evil pharmaceutical company. Perhaps this is based on his many many roles as a self absorbed narcissist that happens to be better off than those around him, or maybe it’s a side effect of all the meat he’s been trying to get kids to eat lately. I’ve got to say though, having seen this film, it really does all make sense now.

All up, I give this film three and a half swinging blue cocks.

*No, he really wasn’t so bad in this. It’s just that I hate Colosimo for some reason, and the bar has been set pretty low on Australian actors that aren’t Sam Neill. Name me one other local actor that’s pulled out their own eyes. That’s commitment to a bit!

Spread the hate

I was reading the newspaper again today. It’s a bad habit, I know, as there’s nothing more depressing than knowing what’s going on… well, other than maybe having to sit with a bunch of models going on about how fat they are at 5′11″ and 52kg, when you’re 6′0″ and getting close to three digits.

Why is her mortarboard white?

However, The Age newspaper posted an article on how university students are more likely to be depressed than other people “their age”.

Never mind the obvious fallacy that there’s some magical age for a university student, considering that many people in the second half of their lives are still going on to tertiary education. The obvious implication here is that they’re talking about undergraduates doing their first run. 18-25 year olds. Ok, that’s fair enough. But why are they more depressed and stressed out than other 18-25 year olds?

The obvious suggestion is that study is hard… Especially now that the student unionism no longer being compulsory means many campuses no longer give out free beer on a regular basis. And without all that beer, a lot of students simply aren’t getting the kilojoule intake required to keep functioning correctly! Seriously though, I highly doubt that. Even if it is somewhat less than a regular full time job, a university lifestyle does provide structure, eeps you occupied and keeps your brain nice and elastic while you find the time to make new positive social relationships and generally have fun. Exams and assignments may be stressful, but often less so than accidentally nailgunning a friends hand to a beam as an apprentice carpenter (although that does turn into a “You had to be there” anecdote later… I assume *cough*).

I’m going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess by saying that the reason why university students, particular those cited in the article as being in the Medicien or Law faculties, are actually in that band of people of higher intellect than those that are not students. Numerous studies have shown correlations between higher intellectual capacity and rates of anxiety and depression. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence too. Even in Sweden! And how could anyone be depressed there?!

Oh, and let's not forget the obvious

Even before empirical method for research was a standard practice, this was basically a truism. Ernest Hemingway, who is noted as one of the finer writers of the modern era blew his brains out with a shotgun. Vincent Van Gogh shot himself too. Nikola Tesla died of heart failure that many believe to have been caused by a drug overdose. Alan Turing, one of the people instrumental to ensuring the freedom of the world we know and love today, scoffed down an LD of cyanide. Virginia Wolfe decided to go for a swim… with her coat on… with the pockets filled with rocks…

It goes on and on. Smart people off themselves all the time. Why is for another discussion entirely, although my personal theory on the subject is that smart people can actually see that a) things are not ok b) they’re frustrated by the fac tthey’er aware they’re powerless to stop it and c) they perceive everyone that is less intelligent than they are to be ok with the fucked up situtation that they find untenable… with the occasional d) consistently being mocked for not lowering themselves down to the average (this one is most consistently seen in primary & secondary school, but also in the workplace. Indeed, tertiary education is one of the few places this is rarely an issue). The point is that perhaps all of these university students are depressed and anxious simply because they actually know what the fuck is going on around them and wish it were different.

Is there a solution to their depression?

Ohhh... THAT'S why her mortarboard was white!

Fucking… For guys this is an obvious one, but it seems for women, exposure to semen makes you happier. That’s right ladies, being the proverbial cum dumpster is a road to happiness… No wonder all those prostitutes are so unhappy!

I’d say medication… Fukitol, or Brain Candy. Something that makes you feel good and numb and absolutely not caring about anything or their moral implications. Oh wait, that’s Prozac! Failing that, there’s always booze. After all, there does seem to be a noticeable correlation between the rates of university student depression and the lack of free alcohol on campus. Or maybe just not being covered in semen, like this guy.

But what the fuck would I know? I dropped out of uni and now rant to a crowd of mostly strangers on a Tuesday night about what me and a tentacle got up to on the weekend under the influence of inebriating substances as my therapy.

Spread the hate

… Only the very poor and downtrodden really needed religion, to make their laborous lives more bearable…  Happily for the governing class, a well-formed faith also kept people from seeking recompense in the here and now, through riot, insurrection or revolution. A temple was worth a dozen barracks; a militia man carrying a gun could control a small unarmed crowd only for as long as he was present; however, a single priest could put a policeman inside the head of every one of their flock, for ever.

Iain Banks – Matter

"It'll filter out THIIIIS much!"

But what if you could do away with the religion as well by using technology?

If there’s something we’ve learnt from Senator Conroy’s Macarthy-esque paranoia about anyone using the internet being a pro-kiddy-fiddling, Google loving terrorist, or the previous Liberal government’s insistence that over $16,000,000 was well spent on a filter that a 14 year old with only intermediate computer skills was able to bypass in under 45 seconds, or city councils insistence on dry suburbs or pub-curfews, or the continued illegality of commercialization of sexual favours in all but two US states, or the still non-legal status of homosexual life partnerships the world over… *deep breath*… it’s that governments of all stripes love to legislate morality and social correctness.

And they would love nothing more than to be able to put a chip in your head (or, for those that love a good conspiracy, chemicals in your water supply), that would do this job for them and make us all good, happy and obedient people living free of vice of any kind.

So what would happen if they could?

In the amazingly awesome cartoon version of Aeon Flux, the episode titled The Purge sees antagonist Trevor Goodchild implanting a violent (Australian) criminal with a robotic conscience. Within the context of the show it worked by wrapping around his nervous system and forcing him to behave in the most moral and selfless manner one possibly could. The character becomes such a good samaritan that at one point he cuts off his own arm for a small boy to take. Aeon and Trevor then proceed to have a surreal argument during a gameshow about the morality of Authority enforcing morality on its citizens, or if free choice should include the right to act in an antisocial, criminal or violent manner if that is what one so chose.

The video game Syndicate Wars presents a utopia for its citizens. This is done by implants that actively alter citizens perception of reality, so in place of the real dystopia they live in they are presented with an ideal 1950s world of fluffiness and apple pies. Living in such a state of contentment, the citizenry has no reason to commit crimes or behave “immorally” (which makes it doubley as fun when you blew them away).

After all, crime is a symptom of discontent, and morality is a system of social control (and generally polite behaviour). Direct control of contentment = direct control of crime and social behaviour.

But can this sort of control be exerted over people with today’s level of technology?

The short answer is no… at least not your ability to make moral decisions without interference outside of lab settings. But various behavioural science labs are keen to change that, if only to understand the workings of the human mind and social interactions en masse.

Various experiments have been successfully carried out on the direct control, via implantable devices, of the motor functions of lower order mammals. The results are applicable to humans after some tweaking for differences in the motor cortex. That’s only direct motor control that can already be manipulated… But if someone else is controlling you and you’re aware of it, will you feel morally responsible for actions committed by your body? You’ll certainly experience any psychological traumas that may happen as a part of it.

Further experiments have also revealed a basic understanding of how to disrupt people’s ability to think coherently, alter choices in what the experimental subjects considered in accordance to their moral principles, and even to some extent completely alter the choices that people would normally make under certain circumstances to those that are opposite. This is simply with electrodes placed on the correct spot and / or magnetic fields around the head of the subjects. We haven’t even spoken about the potential of post hypnotic suggestion (say, potentially as part of primary school curriculum) or chemicals known to alter decision making processes.

Wrap the three together in a nice little brainbox and you’ve got the perfect device for citizen control.

If they don’t like their reality, chemically reinforce that they do like their reality or alter their perception until a sunny disposition is reached whether they want it or not.

Sure this technology isn’t currently available in a form that’s subtle enough for people not to notice it being done to them. But we are getting there, and much like the bionic eye, there is human level testing already taking place with “promising” results.

So given that we know that every government basically runs off somewhat Machiavellian principles, some questiosn arise:

1. If the devices can be used to alter the way you feel about certain decisions, are you morally responsible for any decision you make in the future? Or are you simply acting in accordance to the general whim of the programmer?
2. Considering the nature of current wireless communication tech, it’s a safe bet to assume that if these devices were put into use they’d be wirelessly controlled. Which would leave them open to hacking. How far would hackers go in controlling other people?
3. Are we likely to see entire armies of what are effectively mindless drones? After all, you could put these on prison populations, and no one would care much. BAM! Instant mindless army that’ll do what it’s told.
4. 

   "They installed this brain box on me, and gave me cool lazors! PEW PEW PEW!"

   If there were tax benefits for having one, would you get one installed? And does it come with free Foxtel or a chocolate hamper?

5. Do you honestly think you’d be able to recognise these devices for what they are in a near future where people are seriously considering having neurological interfaces to computers and/or networks installed into them ala Ghost in the Shell?

Spread the hate

I was reading an interesting article in The Age the other day about how and why  (opinion mouthpiece, ex-catholic ranter and supposed comedian) Catherine Deveny got fired. Oddly enough, it wasn’t over the photo pasted right below this paragraph. Yeah, I’m surprised too.

Hot damn! That sure is alluring!

At the Logies, perhaps the most subprime example of how far the Australian TV industry has its head up its arse, she tweeted the sorts of things that one would normally lean over and drunkenly whisper to the other people on the table. But because she tweeted it, it got out into the public and came back to bite her in the arse. Now I’m not going to bother analyizing this or explaining in greater detail waht happened. Read the related coverage for yourself.

But it did get me thinking that this stuff actually is permanent. It’s still there on her feed, and will be permanently. And then I thought about my friends who have recently become parents and actually already created social network pages for their kids… yeah, you thought it was bad enough when they showed your new boyfriend your baby photos in albums. (more…)

Spread the hate