A feminist bone to pick with BRANDED Magazine

My word, it has certainly been awhile since I’ve written a blog post. This time I write because I have a bone to pick—with Branded Magazine. Language is used to communicate a need, and I have to say that after two weeks, this article is still bothering me and so I need to communicate why—to you Internet hive and to you, Branded(I'm anxious for your reply).  

For those of you who live in Calgary you may have heard of Branded. It’s a new magazine –one that just debuted earlier this month. I picked it up, immediately drawn in by the cover art and flipped past a few pages of ads before I got to an introduction from the publisher and co-founder, Mandy Balak. She is holding up a sign that says, “The future of Calgary is in good hands #get branded”. Mandy Balak, I repeated to myself. Mandy Balak. Mandy Balak. Mandy Ba—I lit up! Mandy Balak is also the creator of “It’s Date Night”, an online resource for date ideas in the city of Calgary for whatever your feeling ranging from the “Athletic Date”, “The Stay At Home Date”, “The Pizza Date”, “The Group Celebration Date” and the adorably earnest, “The I’m Sorry Date”. I myself have used it many times, though thankfully not the “I’m Sorry Date” quite yet. I’m sure my time is coming. Already I’m excited. I read on. What I would call their “mandate” reads as follows:

“Branded is curated to show the young people of the city why Calgary is   awesome. We represent the future of the young people who are making a difference. We feature the voices that aren’t afraid to disrupt mediocrity. Branded is a representation of all that we can look forward to in Calgary and it is a platform for the new breed of talented Calgarians to share their stories…Calgary is bold, sexy, and thriving—and so are the young adults within it…Branded is the young professionals guide to an exciting, fresh and successful life in the city. We are here to celebrate everything Calgary is and everything Calgary is becoming. We share a common interest in city life, fashion, relationship advice and dining.” 

Again, I feel a certain elation because I perceive I am being included as an audience member or as a part of this thriving group. I am a young person, I think Calgary is awesome, I want to make a difference and damn it I am bold, sexy and thriving—why not! But more than that, I love the focus on locality and community building. Besides a strong mandate, the language used is casual, yet intelligent and full of underlying wry wit. And so I was in.

“Hear ye, hear ye!” I cried, “Let us have another locally and young person focused media outlet akin to FFWD, yet let you have a more engaging layout, but also be less concerned with news, and more concerned with leisure! Here he, here he!”

And I really did enjoy reading the magazine. I read about doing good in my hood and I learned about Evan Wooley (Councilor for ward 8). I learned about the Americanization of Sushi, body language and they have this very cool segment where every issue they’ll feature a photographer that captures Calgary in a unique way.

The dramatic turning point is when I got to the relationship section of the magazine. Before I confront the article I'm about to, I will say that other articles in this section of the magazine were not sexist or slut shaming. There were great examples of non-cliché couple costumes and a compelling article on how online dating is essentially turning people into expendable products. Squished in between these two pages that I looked favourably upon, was the relationship advice column titled, “He Said, She Said”.

Woman, 24, dating asks,

“I went on a first date with a 32 year old guy who is a firefighter. The energy was amazing. We hooked up on the first night.  After our date, he’s called me twice—but that’s it! No emails, texts, facebook messages…nothing. I have called him several times since the last time he called me but he hasn’t been answering. On our date he told me he as interested so I don’t know sorry understand why he doesn’t try to contact me now. I did email him to say that if he wants me to stop calling, then I wouldn’t appreciate him letting me know. He hasn’t replied. I don’t know if he’s just really busy with work or what, but I really like him. Why hasn’t he responded?”

I mean, fair enough, that’s annoying and inconsiderate. Let’s see what the hes and shes (alternating respectively below) have to say about it:

“Here’s the main problem, you didn’t really let the relationship evolve to a hot steamy level. You pulled the kettle before it was really hot by sleeping with him on the first date.”

“If you want to know if a guy really likes you, really wants you or actually wants to get to know you, then don’t sleep with him on the first date. Actually date him.”

“Here’ is a tip for women: If you want to hook up and have fun on the first date? No problem—do it! If you want a relationship that lasts longer than 20 minutes, you need to hold off. Make the guy work for it.”

“Next time he says he really wants to get to know you on the first date, smile, cross your legs and kiss him on the cheek and plan the second date.”

& my personal favourite,

“Who knows, if you hadn’t hooked up, there may have been a good relationship here. Your vajayjay is the carrot leading the donkey; don’t let him eat it too soon or he’ll just go looking for another.”

Apparently this advice is pulled from gendertalk.com. However, I looked it up and couldn’t find it in its archive. But that doesn’t seem so unusual because what you’re about to read is a pretty hetero concern. Gendertalk focuses on transgenderism, crossdressing and transsexualism. It discusses topics like transgender affecting marriage, gender activism, bisexuality, feminism, education, hate crimes, indigenous issues and so on. Even if I entertain the idea that this is from gendertalk.com, it is still not okay to have these ideas published without further context or comment from the writers. If I don’t say anything after a statement I have made –if it’s a quote from someone else—I effectively am advocating that statement.

If I said, “John Doe said that racism has long since been a non-issue in the United States”, and if I didn’t follow with “That’s a pretty reaching and incorrect generalization” everyone would be right in assuming that I believed that racism has long since been a non-issue in the United States.  On that note, Mississippi just abolished slavery in this past year.

This advice is wrought with backwards and misogynistic ideas. And by publishing them without further comment, these ideas are being endorsed as common sense advice. All of the advice given is basically saying the same thing: You shouldn’t have slept with him on the first date and it’s your fault the relationship isn’t developing. Next time close your legs and he will want you more.”

It is wrong to outright condemn sleeping with someone on the first date. If there was chemistry, there was chemistry! Go ahead: fulfill your mutual desires by expressing your sexuality with one another! There should be no prescribed rules on how to “successfully” date someone. Relationships are nuanced and complicated and cannot be boiled down to a standard “how to” instruction.  But what’s worse than trying to control the progress of a relationship, is how that responsibility and expectation is placed on the woman. (And if this were placed on the man, I’d be writing a different, yet equally impassioned post).

This woman is being blamed for the failure of this potential relationship, yet the man does not receive any blame at all. What is being reinforced here is the much-adored adage,  “Boys will be boys”.  We give permission for “boys to be boys” because we exempt them from responsibility. We whittle it down to their biology or their “natural” cognition. It is perfectly normal that a man would sleep with a woman on their first date. But if a woman does the same thing we wonder if she really thought it through. Was she thinking about her future in this? Women are not allowed to let go and follow their sexual instincts and desires in the same way men are. Women are taught to preserve themselves because women are taught that they’ll be somehow ruined, worth less or dirty if they don’t. This dates back to many still perpetuated myths on purity. By placing responsibility on women, we excuse men to do whatever they like without judgment. We set these rules for women to follow. And if they choose not to follow? Often, they’re met with shame. Branded, you’ve participated in publicly shaming this woman for expressing herself sexually because you’ve endorsed the idea that women must show restraint and men simply cannot help themselves. This idea damages men and women. It teaches women to equate their personal worth with their sexual conservation. It teaches men that they don’t need to learn how to be responsible, both sexually and morally. And what is being taken away is empathy—an ability for men and women to relate to one another honestly about sexuality. If the roles of sexual pursuit are being clearly divided, there’s no need to attempt to navigate that together. If the idea is that men pursue something that women in turn, “give”, when will the occasion be that men will “give” or women will “receive”? When do we stop talking about sex as something that is being taken?

There is an assumption here that a woman’s sexuality and purity are her power and should be used to manipulate men in the traditional, acceptable ways. Make him work for it, make him wait, suffer, sweat, beg for it. Build it up. And to have men say that this is what they want, suggesting that this girl failed some sort of test, that she wasn’t hard enough to “get” or “possess” and therefore wasn’t what, intelligent enough?—is appalling. Should a certain amount of time pass before women are allowed to express their sexual desires? Because apparently all men are whores who cannot help themselves, they only want one thing and once they get it they won’t want you anymore and guess what, it’s your fault as a woman that you let that happen. It’s your fault that you gave in and “let” him have sex with you. As if this was something that happened to you and not something you are experiencing at the same time. Women are not the gatekeepers of sex. Mutual desire and consent are the gatekeepers of sex.  Why are these men fetishizing a sexually manipulative woman? Women are being seen as trophies to be won. And boy, it should be a challenging trophy to attain or else it wasn’t worth having on his shelf. But on that note, it shouldn’t be too challenging, because that woman would be labeled a cold prude. When we view women as vessels that “hold sex” we view them as objects for pursuit and gratification. And I just do not understand what the turn off is. Why is it not attractive that someone you want to have sex with wants to have sex with you? Is it that she’s not relationship material because it happened so quickly/easily and she’s likely to cheat because she apparently just follows all her sexual desires on a whim? Men are taking themselves out of the equation. They must be reminded that they had sex too, and if they think it was too soon and they’d like to take things slower, they should say so because they are equally responsible in the act of having sex. There is no ground to blame a woman for not being more conservative, virtuous, pure or whatever other antiquated terms are still clearly permeating our discussions surrounding female sexuality.

So women, 24, dating, here’s my advice:  Maybe there weren’t actual fireworks for him. Maybe he really was busy. Maybe we all need to relax and calm the fuck down about the future of things or trying to prescribe how things should go. And if the reason that he didn’t want to see you again is because you slept with him “too soon”, he’s a prick who will milk that “boys will be boys” adage until something significant happens in his life that causes him to grow up into an actual man and empathetic human being.

And there was one piece of advice given by a “she” that I agreed with,

“If a guy really wants you; his arm could be ripped off by a pack of wolves, blood gushing, phone 20 feet away and he will crawl to his phone ad text you with his other hand.”

People acting out of love or desire will move mountains. And this feeling is not something we can create—it’s either there or its not. It’s ephemeral and hard to understand, but that is also part of its beauty.

Media is important. It shapes how we see and perceive our world and ourselves. We begin to define what is normal by comparing what we see around us. “Boys will be boys” is a popular saying, because we made it one. And so the only way to change that and to change the way we talk about sexuality is by talking about it in a different way and spreading new messages. We use media to spread our ideas and this kind of shaming shouldn’t be tolerated in conversation, let alone be published as advice.

It is hard for me to believe that in this new, contemporary for the young folk magazine that such an article exists. Should I be surprised? I do live in Calgary, after all, and for all of its growing, it is still a very conservative city. But I had hoped that I wouldn’t find such a page in a magazine geared towards young people who again have hopefully been educated on sexism.  I am further in awe that young professionals are writing this magazine and that a young professional woman is spearheading this magazine. Yet, the page stands. The advice published may have just been meant to titillate its readers. But what it is actually doing is perpetuating harmful ideas about sexuality. And maybe if I were writing to or about Cosmo, this wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference, but I’m hoping that Branded cares enough to be more conscious of how they speak about relationships in the future. And I’m hoping that we all become more conscious of the media and material we consume, that we are constantly questioning the meaning an idea holds and ultimately that we can see how our lives and the lives of others are being affected by these ideas and seemingly “harmless” words.

To music made by souls, not autotune.

Alright readers, this entry is far long overdue. The Calgary Folk Music Festival was from July 26^th-29^th and for four glorious days I listened to music, enjoyed Prince’s Island Park,  took dips in the Bow River and ate way too many mini-donuts than is healthy in a 96-hour period.

And what’s even crazier than all this, is that I did all of that for free. The Festival costs about $65 for a single day pass and something like $200+ for the whole four days, but I didn’t pay a cent. And I’ll tell you why: volunteering. Do it. And try to do it often, a couple times a year at least. Because even though you’re not getting paid in actual cash, for the Folk Fest as an example you get entry (that doesn’t include lineups!) into the grounds, free meals twice a day, unlimited access to snacks and drinks (not alcoholic…like lemonade and the like), access to the after parties with the artists and a pretty bad ass badge that you can waive at security guards and feel quite important. Volunteers for Folk Fest are important. The whole event depends on them. Only seven positions of people who work for Folk Fest are paid. Seven. So why do people do it? To support and promote artists and events like this one that makes our community in Calgary so vibrant.

And you’re doing it green. All the garbages at Prince Island were taped over and sealed. Virtually everything could be recycled and composted. You had to buy a plate for a toonie whenever you got food and when you returned it, you got your toonie back. There were no water bottles sold onsite. Everything sold at the Market is from a local business.

You + music + park + good vibes + amazing food = Folk Fest. 

So what could you volunteer to do? There are many, many positions you could sign up for: security, beer gardens, artist liason, artist transport, chef, stage crew, merchandise, recycling, photography, etc. etc. I worked a crew called “Side Stages” and what we did is set up the stage for the artists to play on it. When the stage was set up, we could watch the show and just had to make sure we came back in time to set up for the next one. Or we could have stayed backstage and made small talk with Shad or Cold Specks or whichever other act was there to play on your stage next. Pretty good deal!

Even if I had paid the $200-odd dollars I wouldn’t have had that kind of experience. And that’s what it’s about, experience. So often when you live in the city, or maybe in the 21^st century in general you buy material junk you don’t need (a t-shirt in a slightly different shade of yellow with a slightly different neck-line). And you do this for other people: birthdays, Christmas, Valentines Day, Easter, anniversaries! Gift-giving is so hard isn’t it? What should I get them, what do they need? Or when people ask you when your birthday rolls around: what do you want? And again, for me at least, I am paralyzed by these questions! Gift-giving is the worst! And not because I’m an ungenerous Grinch, but because I don’t want any more useless things to crowd my closet or apartment and I don’t want to do that to someone else either. So if you’re gonna buy someone something, buy them an experience: like Folk Fest (if they’re not gonna volunteer!) or theatre or art classes or what have you. Or buy them a beer. That can definitely be an experience. And so often we always have to focus on a million different things at once. We live in an age of multi-tasking as survival. But out here on the grounds for the majority of the four days, I listened to music. I sat on the grass and I listened to music. Music made by souls, not autotune.

And I heard new music! I love that feeling. When you’re hearing a song for the first time, you close your eyes, bob you head and tap your foot and think, “What is this? What have I been missing?” When the four days were over I had about 20 things I needed to download on my computer right away.

I don’t know if you went to Folk Fest this year or any other or maybe you even volunteered! (Again, if you haven’t, and you love music, do it. You can apply to be a volunteer every March on the website!) Or maybe neither and you already know these artists and their songs. But if not, here are the top ten artists (in no particular order) that were new to me this year, along with a song. Enjoy! 

Sarah Jarosz: Come Around 

Cold Specks: Blank Maps

Little Scream: Cannons

Del Barber: Love Is Just a Wrecking Ball

Lindi Ortega: Use Me

Reuben & The Dark: Love Is Not A Pretty Word

Three Metre Day: Stay That Way

Mark Berube: Looking For Another 

Shad: The Rose Garden

Joy Kills Sorrow: Wouldn't Have Noticed

Eat your heart out. Or something.

There's this book that I've picked up which until recently has sat in a stack of thirty or so books that I bought from Chapters before I quit. It has reached my hands and I can tell you dear readers that for all my delight in its contents, it is quite stupid that it has taken so long to look at it. The book is called Soul Pancake and it's by Rainn Wilson (yes, that guy who plays Dwight Shrute in The Office). Inside is much visual art, photography, poetry, essays, fiction, questions and activities that intent to get your brain working and chewing on life’s big questions. The first page after the introduction is “HOW DO YOU DEFINE TRUTH?” Yep. Big question alright.

This is what this book does to you:

It really gets you going. The questions are provoking and are certainly not of the what-is-your-favourite-colour variety. The book started as an internet project and became published as more of a working journal/activity book/magazine for people to write in and play around with.  But while the book you can physically write in, the website is updated more frequently and you can visit it here. 

Anyways, the book is very skilled at linking supposed dualties, such as faith and reason and greying the matter. It splits off into sections:

-Life, Death & Living
-Science & Technology
-Love, Sex & Relationships
-Introspection, Reflection & Identity
-Virtues & Vices
-God & Religion
-Experiences & Emotions
-Art & Creativity
-The Brain & The Soul

You can complete the book in or out of order. I choose in because I find it more disciplined and persevering a direction!

I kept wanting to when I was answering questions or doing activities, I keep wanting to share this book with the people in my life. And since I have, I've had some very interesting, enlightening and surprising conversations with these people. But it's also about having a conversation with your own brain in a way. Because no doubt, you may have had a Philosophy class before or maybe years ago you had a definite answer to one of these questions. But people change, and so have your views probably. You must trick your brain into letting go of any previous notions and think of something new. And that is challenging. But the answers, once you've found them (even if the answer is "There is no way to determine truth.") reflect who you are now. And that's also pretty rewarding.  

The Cinnamon Challenge

Alright so this is nothing profound, but my sister showed me this video on youtube and I want to share it with everyone I know. It is called the 'Cinnamon Challenge' and apparently this was an internet meme that I was completely unaware of. Humans are not built to eat cinnamon. Yes, we put it on toast, we put it in our tea and maybe we get very adventurous and put it in our curries or tabouleh salads (so good). But you can’t eat it on its own, not even a teaspoon of it. It does not dissolve in the saliva of your mouth. And because it isn't soluble, you can’t physically swallow it and you will choke until it is ejected from your mouth. But it’s cinnamon right? Remember how we put it in our food and so it doesn’t sound so harmless! So lots of people on the internet have taken the “cinnamon challenge”—to try to swallow a teaspoon of cinnamon. And no one has been able to.  Despite how we are witnessing what is likely a near-death experience, these videos are still hilarious. I feel almost as terrible a person as when I watch It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but if you press play, you’ll understand. This woman is particularly delightful because she is very confident (obviously hasn’t watched other cinnamon challenge videos) and because she doesn’t just take one teaspoon, she takes an entire ladle. 

Rise! Rise! Rise! Fall.

Here it is. Another Batman review. Fast Forward, Calgary's alternative News and Entertainment Weekly Newspaper covered the story and said, "There's nothing left to say about The Dark Knight Rises". I really think that there is. 

"Should we be excited for the release of The Dark Knight Rises this weekend? Unless we’re all a bunch of total dickheads then yes, yes we should." or....

"I’m sure there are idiots on the Internet who hate on Nolan’s films, but I’m also sure they are ugly virgins who post on their Tumblrs about the latest flavour of Toaster Strudel. Just eat Pop Tarts, you pretentious jackasses."

So at the risk of sounding like a pretentious ugly virgin (low blow FFWD) , I'm going to admit something potentially socially stigmatic: I didn't enjoy The Dark Knight Rises. 

If you haven't seen the movie, I don't suggest you read this blog post because there are spoilers and I wouldn't want to influence you before you went and saw the movie for yourself. I am not going to say that people shouldn't watch this film. They should. They should see it and think about where it fits in the Trilogy and what it is as a piece of cinema. I'm not going to discuss the stunning visual quality of the movie, the music  or the production of this film. Yes, all those things are rave worthy. But they don't make a movie matter. What made Nolan's movies an elevation of the superhero genre was that they were both entertaining and very, very, intelligent. This time around, the plot construction and execution was half-baked and thoughtless. 

Let me identify myself as a fan of Nolan's previous two Batman movies. I was really excited for Dark Knight Rises. I had heard good things from people whose opinions I respect and admire, the trailer made me squeal and I arrived several hours before the theatre opened to secure a good spot to see it. I also walked in with lower expectations. I knew it wasn't going to be The Dark Knight (what could be?), just like how I know that every Pixar movie isn't going to be Wall-E. But Pixar's other movies are smart and innovative even if they aren't perfection. Well except for Cars 2. And really, Dark Knight Rises is the Cars 2 of Pixar's cannon.   When I was in the theatre I was observing my own reaction and questioning it, "Why aren't I feeling more giddy? Am I...bored?" I often found myself covering my eyes, palming my forehead, crossing my arms and steadily sinking deeper into my chair as the rest of the theatre stared on with doe-eyed enthrallement. 

Okay, okay, I didn't like it. Why? 

It doesn’t matter if you haven’t read the comics and you see this movie. Because either way, it doesn’t make any sense. There are too many plot holes. The characters are soulless and underdeveloped. I just didn’t care about any of them. I was bored by the pseudo-witty dialogue whose punchline falls flat even among a theatre of die-hard fans of the trilogy. 

Let's get specific for a moment. Here are your spoilers.

Bane is the new villain of the movie, masquerading as an anarchic liberator of Gotham ('liberating' the working class and poor of Gotham, thus raising an army) who robs the stock markets and blows up sections of the city in a frenzy and plans to blow the rest of it up at a later date with a timed atom bomb that he says he's given to a random citizen.  This random citizen can decide to blow up Gotham. The idea with this bomb was that these people live in fear because someone in he city has the trigger. It was similar to the boat scene in The Dark Knight—where the goodness of people is tested. But then it turns out that Miranda Tate has the button all along and this is a set-up and then I care quite a bit less because the morality is lost. During this time of fascism, you never see Bane run Gotham. If this was a story about Bane wanting to run Gotham city and change it, then okay. But it's not. He is just a crazy person who wrecks shit up with no character motivation backing him up. Don't let his schmoozy-British-impossible-to-understand-speech spoken through a mechanical voice box apparatus fool you into thinking he's a round character. And I hope you don't think he's cool just because he pulls on his suspenders like he’s in a rap video. 

Selina Kyle, Catwoman played by Anne Hathaway is cool and clever and provides some comic relief, but her appearances are also pretty brief and fleeting and it becomes pretty hard to believe that she and Bruce Wayne become a romance. But for what Hathaway was given in the script, she was great. 

Miranda Tate/Talia Al'Ghul is woefully underdeveloped considering that she is the actual villain of the movie. Apart from her painfully stoic and unlikely sex with Bruce Wayne, the reveal of her identity falls something very short of spectacular. This movie takes great leaps with its characters that haven't been earned. They don't make sense and their emotions are disingenuous. The Miranda Tate/Talia conundrum provides a shock factor almost equivalent to Joseph Gordon Levitt's Blake turning out to be Robin. While the Talia Al'Ghul plot is relevant to the story, Robin being squeezed into the movie is not. But it's shocking (I would also like to insert 'spirit fingers' here). For the average movie-goer I imagine it created a spark of recognition. They think "Robin! Yes I know that name! He's part of Batman. Nolan just slipped him in! How genius! How BAD ASS."  The Dark Knight Rises relies on shock factor of this reveal as many others in the movie to keep the audience 'happy' (while infuriating others. Really just me and Cathryn) and trick them into thinking that they're oh so clever. Relying on something so trivial and sensational are a part of action movie conventions that I thought Nolan was above.  

Batman is sent to a prison in another country on the other ed of the world where the inmates speak their own made-up language and are--despite the grime that may discolour their complexions--all white and British. Nolan, we understand that you like hiring British Actors. You've got Caine and Hardy already, but for the sake of your fictional middle-eastern hell-hole, you would think that you'd branch out a little. He was brought there by Bane (who was born and grew up here) to be tortured by the inmates. Yet, they help him find his way out of the gaping hole at the top of the prison and as they in their gibberish yell "Rise!" and Batman climbs his way out, I thought that this surely must be one of the cheesiest, overwrought scenes I have seen in not just any Nolan film, but it any movie.  

Batman is able to travel from this place back to Gotham City to save the day despite having no superpowers like let's say flight (which you smart reader, already knew), no money, none of his handy gadgets and I assume no accessibility to this place. But whatever right, it's a comic book movie. 

But here is the kicker: back to the bomb. Batman decides to take the atom bomb in his flying machine over the ocean and away from Gotham, sacrificing himself but saving the lives of millions. After the explosion and the brief funeral for Bruce, we see  him and Selina Kyle in Florence sitting in the same café as Alfred and the credits come up. The theatre clapped. I buried my head between my knees and muttered “WHY?” over and over again under my breath. He’s supposed to die people! Part of Batman’s appeal is that he is a regular guy (apart from being a Billionaire who can pay someone to make his gadgets). In the comics, dying was humanizing, it was recognition, it was an act of sacrifice, it was a grownup movie for our Hugh Heffnerian protagonist. It really was something to get weepy about and call heroic. And yet that doesn’t happen here. He sits having a drink, raising a toast Alfred. Happily Ever After. 

The logics of how he survived that was he supposedly ejected himself just in time and let it run on autopilot. The camera stays on the vehicle. It keeps panning to Wayne in the vehicle. And then it blows up still on the screen. If he ejected, we would have seen it. Did we see the vehicle crash into the ocean and potentially cause a earthquake or tidal wave? No. Christopher Nolan, if it’s not a actually an ATOMIC BOMB, don’t call it one. Because even if he ejected, he would have died. If he flew into the air via parachute or landed into the ocean he would have died. It's an atomic bomb.

So there I was with my head between my knees, enraged and disappointed and Fraser leans over and says "You can't be mad! It's still Batman!" And people, this isn't an excuse. You must be smarter than that. Because you stamp "Batman" on something it doesn't make it immune to criticism or even dislike. "It's badass! It's Batman!" Come on. I'm not going to get caught up in the action scenes and not pay attention to plot or structure or (this is probably no big deal) character. My panties aren't so wet that I'm oblivious to what makes a good story when sensation is excluded. 

And I think that people are praising this film because it's what’s expected. It’s Nolan. He delivered with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Did he fucking ever. And maybe it’s easier to praise something mindlessly without processing what a massive disappointement the movie is.

Again FFWD...

"Whatever issues you have with The Dark Knight, you’d be crazy not to respect its ambition. It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce and never pandered to the lowest common denominator. Nolan created new expectations for what a big summer blockbuster could be. And we loved the hell out of it. So you don’t need Reel Talk to tell you why The Dark Knight Rises is significant. You’re probably just as sick of hearing about it as I am, you just want to sit down in your seat with some Maltesers and an enormous iced tea and enjoy the final installment of one of the greatest achievements in pop cinema of our time."

Yeah. I was really hoping I could. And now using an equally large iced tea and the previous two films, I will wash the stain The Dark Knight Rises has left in my brain. 

I just don't know about you, Stampede.

The Calgary Stampede is over. I personally am  exhausted. To go to that workshop on Lasqueti Island, I sold my soul to work the Stampede.  Now that it is over (again, hoorah!) I slept until noon today and I do not regret it. I imagine theyre are many livers that are in recovery at this very moment.   The Stampede is largely stupid. It makes a ridiculous amount of money on things like “Monster”  hot dogs (as Stephen says, really just the size of a regular hotdog) for $6.50 or deep-fried butter for the same price. Some rides cost over $40.00, but each ride is generally around $6.00. To see the Chuck Wagon Races and potentially see 3 horses die in one go is $65.00 dollars and the poncho you can buy when it’s raining and you’ve realized you’ve gone to the grounds in a tanktop and shorts is $5.00. It’s a money making machine. In a moment of sheer hunger desperation, I even paid an outrageous $3.00 for a single churro. I have a friend who worked as a live statue for the stampede and can now pay for five months of his rent. . In ten days the restaurant I work at made just under $300,000 dollars. The most money I made in one shift was $350. 

The stampede makes a lot of money, but it's also really expensive. It’s unethical: note 8 horses died this year during the Chuck Wagon races. And it’s kind of trashy: I’m not sure if it’s considered statuatory rape if I happen to see a short-shorted, bra-as-top fifteen year old strutting around in my field of vision. And I shudder to imagine what all the tourists who come for this outdoor “show” might think of the city when they leave. 

But at the same time, it was nice to see the city so alive. I liked walking down Stephen Avenue and seeing a magic show and being given free Jugo Juice, Jollyranchers, and the new IceBreaker mints. I liked getting off work at 1:30 AM and seeing people still hanging around and having a good time outside. I liked being able to sit on a patio until 3:00 AM. 

A lot of theatre artists get hired for Stampede. And I recognize that as a theatre person, it would be really great to have a paying gig like the Stampede every year.

And most importantly, I liked being able to pay $16.00 to see Mother Mother and have them sign a vinyl case for me. 

Oh the moral dilemmas of our age.