I Need to Explain Myself

I should probably explain myself.


I've read over my last post several times. There is at least one thing that should be completely evident to you: I wrote that post while intoxicated. It's my first intoxicated post on this website and if you're lucky, it won't be the last. Yes, it's been a while since I've been here, but I've been extremely busy. Look I don't want to fool you into thinking that I've been busy in the traditional sense. I've been busy in the drunk graduate student sense. Don't fault me for it. I've got friends that are leaving, I'm leaving, people are graduating, I'm not graduating, though I should be, it's fucking hot outside, and for some reason I thought it would be good to include D'Angelo on the mixtape I'm listening to right now. A lonely single heterosexual man should not listen to D'Angelo. It only depresses you.

Let's get to the point, the reason I'm writing. There was a statement in my last post that I didn't back up, but I nonetheless stand up to. I stated that Forrest Gump is a better AIDS movie than Philadelphia. I still think this is true and this is why. Philadelphia is a great movie with a great performance by Tom Hanks. Yes, I think he deserved a nomination for that movie. But here's the thing. What is the most important relationship in that movie? Denzel (Tom's Lawyer) and Tom? or is it Tom and Antonio Banderas (his partner)?

Look, the point is that Philadelphia does something that actually ends up hurting HIV/AIDS patients, and that is that it medicalizes them and politicizes them. And though legislation and medicine play an important role in curing HIV/AIDS, they do not, nor should they, play a role in the treatment of HIV/AIDS patients. With the advent of extremely successful drug therapies, HIV/AIDS is really no longer a medical issue, it's a social issue. And Philadelphia doesn't exactly focus on that issue. AIDS becomes an issue that is argued by a legal system based on semantics and antiquated ideas of equality. So while Philadelphia certainly fulfills a certain role, it is not the quintessential HIV/AIDS movie.

So now we come to Forrest Gump. What on Earth would possess me to say that it's a better AIDS movie than Philadelphia? Well, let me revise my initial statement a little bit. I don't think that Forrest Gump is the best AIDS/HIV movie. It isn't even really mediocre. But it does something really really well. It highlights the relationship between Jenny and Forrest. And when Jenny dies of AIDS, it isnt' important that she dies of AIDS, but it is important that love is lost. Forrest loses his love and Jenny dies just after she is able to express her love for Forrest. HIV/AIDS is not only a disease, it is about relationships, relationships made and lost. And Philadelphia forgets that. Tom becomes a court case, and within that court case, he becomes a medicalized subject. His true relationship with his partner played by Banderas is pushed to the side in favor of a legal relationship between him and his lawyer. In the end, Philadelphia is just too medicalized and legalized for me to swallow. I don't sympathize for the love lost between two lovers. I rejoice in the success of a suit even though the protagonist dies. And that is sad.

Word.

Hard Sun, Beatin' on Me

If you haven't seen this move yet, you need to. Not because Sean Penn has turned out to be some sort of phenomenal director, but because it's an important story. I haven't cried at a movie since Forrest Gump (I know, but no one has done AIDS as close to Americans as Forrest Gump, and shit, man, he was in love with Jenny for his whole life. Have you ever been in love for that long? Not me, but I can only imagine what it is like and cry about it.). Regardless, Into the Wild says a little bit more than the what it sets out to say. It's about more than abandoning our society for something better. It's about trying to find happiness, and unfortunately, McCandless doesn't figure it out until it's too late. But regardless, he has said something about what it means to be against.

He is a man that was completely against. And though he wasn't able to survive, he was able to live as a person outside of the system. And he was able to do more than just survive, he was able to live. That means avoid death, that means live when there is a
possibility you might die.

In that vein, I've been listening to Eddie Vedder's "Hard Sun." So I've done a little research and there are no technical reasons the song shouldn't have been nominated for best original song. The movie was released in time as evidenced by the supporting nomination of Hal Holbrook who was ridiculously good. As good as Javier, probably not. But anyway, there's something I must attend to.


So why wasn't Eddie Vedder's "Hard Sun" nominated for best original song? The movie certainly made it in time. All of the music Eddie wrote and performed was original fo the movie.So it couldn't be defaulted as the music for "There Will Be Blood" was. Eddie wrote it specifically for the movie, and it was released with the movie, as the official movie soundtrack. So I am left to ask you. What happened? We can never really be sure, but we can now one thing for certain, the Bourne series is the best trilogy to be released since the Brosnan Bonds. I don't know what Bond is planning to do, but I do know that they are sort of doing a continuation of the last one. Meaning, he's still getting over Jasper and Mr. White isn't quite dead yet. I mean there's still info to get out of him. And then, of course, he has to drive the Jag away. And then move on to the Aston Martin (which has one more year in terms of contracts before re-negotiations.) Make it happen.

None of my incoherent ramblings make any sense. Just like it doesn't make any sense that "Hard Sun" was nominated instead of all that other shit from that one movie that nobody watched.

And people will argue that AIDS was done better in Philadelphia, but I will disagree with them for a myriad of reasons. But mostly because it's a political movie, a legal movie, and it attempts to humanize Hank's character, but he can't help but be anything but a walking, talking piece of evidence in the court room.