Aaron Sorkin Doesn't Understand Where Meat Comes From
I didn't vote for Palin's team (nor Obama's), and I didn't think she was qualified to be vice-president (nor do I think Joe Biden is, nor do I think Obama is or was qualified to be president).
Now, that we've gotten that out of the way, I can get back to making fun of Aaron Sorkin.
Does he think meat originates in those little plastic-wrapped packages in the grocery store, or does he think an actual living cow, pig or chicken was involved in the whole deal at some point? Because he has a really dippy piece on the Huff Po about some scene on Sarah Palin's reality show where she killed and dressed a Caribou (I think that's the term -- dressed -- although it always calls up for me a picture of somebody stuffing the thing's back legs into a pair of lacy granny panties).
Here's Sorkin:
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.
The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.
I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.
Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.
Aaron -- you aren't better than Palin if you just eat them.
And, by the way, my friend, food columnist Ari LeVaux, one of the sweetest men on the planet, kills deer with some frequency and makes some really delicious deer sausage out of them, which he feeds me when we have adjacent booths at alt weekly conferences. I can't say for sure, but I bet Ari does a little jig when he bags a deer. I sure would. Of course, in real life, I don't cook; I heat; and I can barely drag my ass to the supermarket, let alone the North Woods (besides, I'd have to wear really ugly shoes).
Although Sorkin's little piece here is ridiculous in many ways, here's what jumped out at me:
First, he's upset at "[Palin's] snotty quote..."
Then, he writes one of the snottiest sentences I've ever seen:
" ... I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem ..."
What the heck is that? He has such little regard for his audience that he can't imagine they know what visceral means? It's not exactly an uncommon word. Jesus, to what kind of idiot is he addressing his article? Oh yeah ... Huffington Post readers. Disregard.
whistleDick at December 9, 2010 12:50 AM
So elitist hypocrisy trumps proletarian honesty?
That's basically what he's saying - trumpeting they coy sidestepping of reality that typifies his political class.
Ben David at December 9, 2010 1:11 AM
Oh, come on - don't you know that the pigs all hand over the pork chops willingly and smiling? Besides, when you buy meat in the supermarket, the animal is already dead, so no point in not eating them. Makes perfect sense. If you're either 4 years old or a complete idiot.
Then again, that's not really fair. My 4 year old kid is way smarter than that.
Jesper at December 9, 2010 1:34 AM
> He has such little regard for his audience
> that he can't imagine they know what
> visceral means?
That jumped out at me this afternoon, too.
But try to understand what this guy's life is like. Things like this happen to him:
He's been working ever since. His last movie, the Social Network, made a bunch of money and is said to be a strong contender for Best Picture, even though its history and intimate treatment of the subject is palpably bogus. In real life, there are things not to like about Zuckerberg: Therefore, Sorkin pdepicted him as brutal to women and gays. 'Cause, y'know, it's the internet, man. And those geeks are animals.
That's how it goes in Hollywood. If you're making money, there are people in your life who will work to convince you that the world is conforming itself to your beliefs. This will help you get the next project done, so everybody makes more money.
If Aaron Sorkin wants to mock you for not knowing what "visceral" means, who are you to object? Huh? Who are you?
See ya on Oscar night, ya little punk!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 2:14 AM
And wouldn't it be great if Sorkin's wealth were on this list, next to Zuck's?
____________________________________
The infantilism of the left is at work also in the cyberattacks on Palin's personal accounts these days, assaults coordinated or at least covalent to the ones on Mastercard, Visa and Paypal. She's not even in government anymore and certainly wasn't in the federal government when these cables were composed. So why is the hate spilling onto her?
Because she's a big meany, that's why!
And if you have the moral comprehension of a child, or the moral comprehension of a teenage hacker who doesn't get laid, or the moral comprehension of a Hollywood producer, then it's all the same: Mean people suck!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 2:22 AM
There was a time that I was very opposed to hunting. And then I grew up. While I have no desire to go out and kill my food, there are people who do. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but while incredibly silly at times, she was always honest about who and what she is. She is an outdoorsy woman who hunts. I don't know why people are acting surprised or offended. Mr. Soorkin should head upstead New York every fall to see the hordes of men in camoflauge looking to bring home a deer. Many come home empty handed but the ones that don't tell their buck stories for years and years. Maybe they don't do a little dance, but they certainly are animated when talking about their kill.
Kristen at December 9, 2010 5:22 AM
"I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart."
Does he not grasp the very definition of hypocrisy? If the articles on huffpo got any more absurd, the internet would burst into flames. I am no PETA fan, but at least the vegans aren't hypocrites.
momof4 at December 9, 2010 6:27 AM
Oh, now, see that just makes me want to throw an animal carcass on his lawn.
Here's the thing a lot of those Hollywood liberals forget: hunting controls animal populations and ends up being more beneficial to the animals as a whole. We have, unfortunately, eradicated or displaced many natural preditors of deer and caribou, so their populations often soar beyond what is sustainable. And anyone who has lived in the intermountain west can tell you...the damn deer are EVERYWHERE. As are the caribou in many parts of Alaska. Hunting is regulated, and all the hunters I know (many family members included) are very respectful of nature, and of the animals.
And as we say in our family, don't kid yourself. If those caribou had a fully functioning frontal lobes and opposable thumbs, they'd hunt YOU in a heartbeat!
UW Girl at December 9, 2010 6:44 AM
>>In real life, there are things not to like about Zuckerberg: Therefore, Sorkin depicted him as brutal to women and gays...
Crid,
That's an astonishingly crass comment from you.
The film Zuckerberg is a genius and a clod with a fascinatingly self-serving grasp of business ethics. Sorkin's brilliant script gives us a far more nuanced anti-hero of the Facebook saga than simply a guy who is "brutal to women and gays...".
It's not possible, is it, that you haven't actually seen the movie?
(It would be great if Sorkin stays off the drugs so he can one day gives us Palin - the Movie. He'd be perfect!)
Jody Tresidder at December 9, 2010 7:10 AM
Typical Progressive failure of empathy. He can't imagine hunting, so everyone who actually hunts must be defective in some way.
brian at December 9, 2010 7:33 AM
In my region (soggy Pacific NW of the US of A). deer are a pest species. More deer die from being hit by vehicles than from hunters. There are no natural predators of deer around here any longer.
I have no desire to hunt. I also have no desire to wreck my car from a damn deer on the road. I am glad people are willing to hunt and eat deer because otherwise they would be even more of a problem.
What should you think when you see a deer crossing the road? ... "Where are the other two?" The sneaky bastards always trick you into swerving to avoid the first one and then stragglers get you.
Deer jerky is delicious, btw. If you can coax some from a generous hunter.
LauraGr at December 9, 2010 7:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796093">comment from LauraGrPer what Laura says, a friend of Gregg's has this problem. Blogged it last month, with him joking that elk just jump right into his BBQ:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/22/i_prefer_mousse.html
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 7:46 AM
After reading the rest of the article I see that he is confused as to the difference between Palin and Michael Vick. His attempt at sarcasm fell short. Until Palin is filmed electrocuting animals I'd say someone needs to give Soorkin a reality check.
Kristen at December 9, 2010 7:47 AM
No sympathy for Sorkin? It's got to be tough for a drug addict to find something to feel superior about.
MarkD at December 9, 2010 7:53 AM
I had to force myself to keep reading after the words "look it up". Had I read it in a magazine, I'd have stopped, written to the magazine, told them I was unsubscribing, and that I won't pay to be insulted by their authors assuming I don't know the meaning of the words I was reading.
Anyone who would pay for that dubious privilege deserves exactly what they're paying for.
He's an idiot, he's a hypocritical jackass, and he's not worth paying any serious mind to.
Robert at December 9, 2010 8:09 AM
What does this guy think factory farming is? Not the prettiest way for an animal to go. If I were an animal that was going to be eaten, I'd really rather live my life out in the wild (except for the snow and the predators.. and oh, I guess I'm happy I'm not an animal) than be in a cramped pen before someone comes along and kills me. Besides, hunting is quick and humane, ideally, so I respect it a hell of a lot. People who abhor hunting but still eat meat are silly. Even when I didn't eat meat, I still thought hunting was a great thing. This guy probably just really doesn't like Sarah Palin and decided this was what he would pick on.
Angie at December 9, 2010 8:15 AM
Also, my brain is doing this funny thing.. where when I see his name (Sorkin) all I can think is "forskin"... I don't know why, but since this guy seems like a bit of a dick, it seems appropriate.
Angie at December 9, 2010 8:16 AM
Ahhh.. FOREskin.. I do know the correct spelling, I swear.
Angie at December 9, 2010 8:18 AM
"(I think that's the term -- dressed -- although it always calls up for me a picture of somebody stuffing the thing's back legs into a pair of lacy granny panties)"
The more precise term is "field dressed," although just "dressed" can be used if the context is clear.
silverpie at December 9, 2010 8:19 AM
"I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. "
I have no evidence Palin is a sloppy hunter that left her kill wounded and struggling for hours. THAT is torture. A quick clean kill is absolutely humane. Field dressing (yes Amy, you did get that term correct) is absolutlely necessary to preserve the meat from being spoiled by the contents of the intestines. It is probably done somewhat more gently than the mass-processed cow that goes through the slaughterhouse and is ripped & stripped.
I certainly don't subscribe to Mrs. Palin's politics, but I don't think I can question her skills as a hunter. Mr. Sorkin needs to get out into the real world a bit more and learn just a little more about hunting & farming.
Peter at December 9, 2010 8:22 AM
What the heck is that? He has such little regard for his audience that he can't imagine they know what visceral means? It's not exactly an uncommon word.
That's where he unintendedly reveals that in his world, visceral is a ten dollar word.
leon at December 9, 2010 8:46 AM
Chances are the ground chuck you had last night wasn't tickled to death.
I grew up on a small farm with a half dozen head and was quite accustomed to my burgers having a first name. It was consistently the best meat we could get, though venison was up there.
We took care of our animals and they lived a good life. It was a good deal for us, as the meat was high quality and we got the enjoyment of raising them. It was good deal for them, as they got to life a secure, happy life with guaranteed food, water, shelter and unlimited sexin'. Maslow isn't just for humans. The arrangement was symbiotic for early humans and the ancestors of our currently domesticated animals, otherwise they would've have become domesticated.
Hunters tend to want to kill their animals humanely (i.e.: quickly), if for no other reason than a poor shot spoils the meat.
I'd love to see this guy's reaction to a few episodes of Ted Nugent's 'Spirit of the Wild.'
phillip traum at December 9, 2010 8:48 AM
argh... live, not life.
phillip traum at December 9, 2010 8:53 AM
Chances are the ground chuck you had last night wasn't tickled to death.
Hilarious.
Also, regarding "visceral," I was insecure in my 20s, and would frequently drop big words (not that visceral is a real toughie for most people). After I stopped needing to impress people with my vocabulary, I started trying to write in the simplest language I could, because my goal started to be communicating, not showing off.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 9:17 AM
"I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead..." on the other hand, it is very difficult to eat a live elk. Perhaps Sorkin should try this some time.
alittlesense at December 9, 2010 9:22 AM
We had chicken-fried venison last night. The meal was accompanied by a very funny story about how Steve the hunter had to swim after the doe because she ran into a pond after he'd shot her.
I believe Sorkin thinks hunting is only for rednecks, so proclaiming that it's cruel and making fun of those who do it will surely make him more popular with elite liberals.
The population of deer in the neighborhood directly across the highway from me is so large that the suggestion has been made to bring in sharpshooters to pick them off. When I go running over there, I can almost walk up to them and touch them in people's yards.
ahw at December 9, 2010 9:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796120">comment from alittlesenseYou guys* are funny today.
("You guys" is a midwesternism.)
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 9:25 AM
I doubt that Sorkin has a well developed position on hunting. He's just taking the opportunity to bash Sarah Palin.
Palin is the Emmanuel Goldstein of Progressive fantasy land.
I'm not necessarily a Palin fan, but the creepy hate cult that's developed against her is 10X worse.
jen at December 9, 2010 9:26 AM
No, he doesn't. Like far too many progressive types, he's perfectly okay with letting someone else get their hands dirty while feigning moral indignation and looking down upon those whose dirty work make his world function.
Like absolutely everybody he knows. Gotcha.
Conan the Grammarian at December 9, 2010 9:32 AM
Pricklypear and I were talking about humane kills on another thread. And yes, most hunters do their field dressing as quickly and gently as possible. BF usually leaves the entrails for the scavangers (coyotes, foxes, etc.).
As far as Sorkin goes, he seems to me to be some kind of loose cannon, but why he picks on Palin is beyond me. There are FAR worse out there than her.
Flynne at December 9, 2010 9:40 AM
It would be such delicious irony if he were driving and hit a deer.
Speaking of delicious, West Cost deer taste so much better. Due to their diet on diff plants.
Joe at December 9, 2010 9:48 AM
Yes nothing wrong with a good clean kill and prompt field dressing...elk is good stuff. But newbie bowhunters can make an awful mess of things. One guy I know shot a pheasant and the thing flew off with the arrow still stuck through its body.
Anyway, the obsession with Sarah is the mirror image of the old obsession with Hillary. Is a female president so inevitable that it creeps everyone out?
carol at December 9, 2010 10:00 AM
I am not vegetarian and I am not a die-hard PETA member. However, I can understand Sorkin’s comment. I think it has less to do with eating meat and more to do with hunting itself. As opposed to killing for the sake of food, Palin is killing for the FUN and the “sport” of it, which is abhorrent. It is an activity that she obviously enjoys. I’ve never understood how people can have fun and feel “one with nature” when they shoot and carve up a carcass. A lot of hunters feel “manly” and “strong” when they kill an animal, when really, what is so difficult about it? They’re at a completely unfair advantage with a technologically advanced weapon against a defenseless animal. Let’s see how tough you are if it comes down to between just you and the animal, without the cheat of a gun.
izzy at December 9, 2010 10:19 AM
Why anyone cares what Sarah Palin says or does is beyond me. She's not even a has-been. She's a never-was-and-never-will-be. Her only value is as comedic fodder and a bludgeon that liberals can use to beat conservatives with. "See what the conservatives tried to put into the V.P. office?"
Patrick at December 9, 2010 10:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796139">comment from izzyLet’s see how tough you are if it comes down to between just you and the animal, without the cheat of a gun.
Anything bigger than my Yorkshire terrier could probably kick my ass.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 10:31 AM
> Sorkin's brilliant script gives us
> a far more nuanced anti-hero
After all these years –and it has been years, Jody – you still take my breath away.
You've been had. Bought and sold. You sound like a tagline from the movie poster, or a full-page January plea for the love in Variety/THR:
More later. Someday you're going to have to explain how you push my buttons this way.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 10:46 AM
Right. Her freezer is full of elk meat that she hunted for "sport". Idiot.
It was Man's invention of weapons that allowed us to stop being scavengers.
And as far as a white tail deer, they aren't all that big, and a human could probably take one down with nothing more than a rock or a knife.
Again, the failure of empathy - since you can't understand it, it must be abnormal.
brian at December 9, 2010 10:49 AM
I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons. But I've never understood why people who AREN'T vegetarians get worked up about other ways of getting meat... like people will say to me, "In China they eat dogs!" because as a veg I'm supposed to get more worked up than other people, but I just nod and think , "But... you're wearing a cow..."
Anyhow, I find hunting much more humane than factory farming. If I were going to eat meat, I'd rather eat hunted meat.
That said, dancing around about it sounds tasteless.
NicoleK at December 9, 2010 10:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796146">comment from NicoleKpeople will say to me, "In China they eat dogs!" because as a veg I'm supposed to get more worked up than other people, but I just nod and think , "But... you're wearing a cow..."
You're all making me laugh a lot today. Loved that.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 10:53 AM
>>More later. Someday you're going to have to explain how you push my buttons this way.
If you do decide to make good on your "more later": I remain curious Crid; Have you personally watched "The Social Network" yourself?
(And I mean properly: not using fast-forward, which was - if I recall rightly - how you viewed the sublime "Burn After Reading" before declaring it disappointing or whatever!)
Jody Tresidder at December 9, 2010 10:58 AM
And if Norks were pandas...
Well, actually, if Norks were pandas, Sorkin still wouldn't give a rat's ass, because Kim Jong Il's not nearly as dangerous as Sarah Palin.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 11:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796152">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Anybody eaten a panda? I would think bear, in general, is a bit tough.
Also, let me take this opportunity to complain about Whole Foods' chickens. I don't shop there due to the economy, but Gregg sometimes picks stuff up there for dinner at my house, and we never get cooked chicken from there because their chickens are on some Pritikin-like diet and exercise plan that makes them pretty-well fat free. Blech. Dry, tasteless.
My second favorite chickens are the $7.99 ones from grocery store I refer to as The Ghetto Ralph's.
The best chickens, however, are the $4.99 ones at Costco. Huge, juicy, filled with fat. As chickens should be to taste like something that you can differentiate from reformatted particle board.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 11:07 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796153">comment from Amy AlkonBy the way, my favorite vegan is a researcher named Diana Fleischman, who I had a conversation with at an evolutionary psych conference (in between eating Swedish meatballs). She asked if I care about the animals' suffering. "Not enough to not eat them," I said. She said something like, "Well, at least you're not a hypocrite," and we started talking about something else. I can't remember the joke she made on somebody's Facebook page, but unlike many vegans, she has a wicked sense of humor. I like that in a pleather-wearing tofu sufferer.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 11:10 AM
"After graduation, Sorkin returned to New York City expecting immediate fame in front of the footlights. Instead, he joined the horde of aspiring actors for whom no job is too odd. He delivered singing telelrams, drove a limo, toured Alabama with a children’s theater company, and donned a moose head and handed out fliers promoting a hunting-and-fishing show."
How far he has come.
Source: http://sumagazine.syr.edu/archive/summer01/features/spotlight/
smurfy at December 9, 2010 11:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796157">comment from smurfyI worked as a bike messenger, a mover (for a day) for an all-girls moving company, and spent a day working as a chicken (handing out fliers). The life of a struggling writer.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 11:33 AM
> mover (for a day) for an all-girls
> moving company
No.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 11:35 AM
oh yeah izzy, because it's so sporting of us to raise meat and then use a bolt gun to kill it while it has been moved into a holding chute in a factory...
or is it MORE sporting to PAY someone else to do it for you, so that you can act like you don't know what is going on? Neither you nor Sorkin ever "meets the meat" as Douglas Adams would say... and yet you agree with Sorkin that somehow you are better than Palin because you pay someone else to do the dirty work.
every living thing has to eat, it's part of the deal. how disingenuous is it for a guy who says that he eats meat to get his panties in a bunch over someone else who eats meat PURELY BASED ON POLITICAL AFFILIATION? Or is it because women shouldn't hunt? Or is it because he is incapable of hunting and feels inferior?
The name for this is Palin derangement syndrome, in this case underpinned with a likely aversion to guns, no matter their purpose.
"Why anyone cares what Sarah Palin says or does is beyond me." Patrick.
and yet you always comment on it... you are not bludgeoning the conservatives with her, because only progs find what she does laughable. Many people shrug and nod their heads... because she doesn't seem all that different from people they know or work with. Even if they don't agree politically with her... they aren't afraid of her to the point that they are deranged.
Honestly, if people like Sorkin and Patrick and others would stop reacting to every little thing she says, she would probably fade from view.
Making fun of her doesn't make her go away, it keeps her in everyone's mind, AND it polarizes people's opinions because it divides the world into the group that thinks the snark is funny, and the group that feels the snark isn't.
oh, and? amusing t-shirt... "meat is murder... tasty, tasty murder"
SwissArmyD at December 9, 2010 11:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796163">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]It was horrible. I have the wrists of a 5-year-old and the arm-strength of a sickly 8-year-old. But, I was desperate.
Amy Alkon at December 9, 2010 11:52 AM
"donned a moose head and handed out fliers promoting a hunting-and-fishing show." Smurfy
THAT'S IT!! He is having bad flashbacks, and thinks she is going to shoot him and eat him...
SwissArmyD at December 9, 2010 12:01 PM
@izzy,
So are you just as indignant about the fruits and vegitables you put in your mouth? Did it ever occur to you that the strawberry you're chowing on was probably picked by an exploited person who isn't paid minimum wage, works 16 hours a day, and lives in third world conditions?
When you consider how much of our produce is planted and picked by (illegal) migrant workers, or shipped in from South America where the working conditions are more than likely worse....well, suddenly hunting isn't looking so inhumane, is it?
Look, ideally we should all pause occasionally to think about how our food got to our plate, but we live in a day and age where we've advanced to a point where we don't have to do that. And you know how all that time not spent thinking about how to get the meat and plant the crops is now spent? Finding cures for cancer and better, faster ways to communicate. seriously. If we all had to sit around giving serious thought to where our food was coming from, we wouldn't have time to fix much, much bigger problems.
Hierarchy of Needs, anyone??
UW Girl at December 9, 2010 12:59 PM
"As opposed to killing for the sake of food, Palin is killing for the FUN and the “sport” of it, which is abhorrent." So you know for a fact that Palin throws away the carcass - she does not eat the meat or give it to others to eat? Otherwise, yes she does it for the sake of the food, dumbass. Who cares if she also finds it fun? Why is that any more abhorrent than my really, really enjoying eating the meat?
KarenW at December 9, 2010 2:48 PM
> an astonishingly crass comment
Nope, haven't seen the movie... Because it's not for real: That's the point.
Lessig knows more about Facebook and Harvard (and apparently Sorkin) than I do, and reports:
I only read that this afternoon. It echoes a Silicon Valley media source I trust deeply (Laporte & Co.)– This film is mostly about Hollywood's resentment toward a tech-savvy youth who not only makes more money than filmmakers can dream of, but who touches young hearts more personally and more deeply.
(Who would you rather be, Marissa Mayer or Sherry Lansing? It's no contest.)
(More)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 6:04 PM
Well, Hollywood movies have always been bullshit... That's why people buy tickets. Important details in stories are twisted so that disinterested moviegoers can readily imagine themselves to be heroes, or at least to be superior to two-dimensional villains. This has been the case with almost every film you've ever seen, certainly with those that claim to be based on real people and events.
But a favorite example from the past is a wonderful passage in "The Right Stuff" –the book, not the movie– where Yeager is appalled by the beliefs about transonic aviation that have been turned into common wisdom by a British film. (Of course, in the award-winning film treatment of Wolfe's book this is excised entirely, allowing time for shots of Barbara Hershey bouncing through her blouse during a horse chase.)
For the current example, "The Social Network", Jeff Jarvis put it like this: "It was trying to take those of us who see value in the internet and try to dismiss that value, and dismiss one of its architects. And I think it was in that sense lazy. It didn't try to dig in to what Zuckerberg truly is or why he does what he does, because it didn't understand what he has done."
(And remember, in Zuckerberg's world, the product can be endlessly tweaked to answer a customer's interests; Google is said to update their search algorithm an average of something like 1.3 times per day. But Sorkin can't rewrite scenes in movies he's already s released to make them more popular. Sorkin thinks Zuck is cheating.)
The problem apparently persists in films yet to be released.
If you're willing to elide important details, a narrative can always be made more compelling and more salable. You can make stuff up with no penalty! Pouty, childish stuff. Sorkin can say that Zuckerberg had no girlfriend and no women at the center of his enterprise (even though he's had the same sweetheart even since those days). Sorkin can say that Palin's a bloodthirsty meat-eater (even though he doesn't have the balls, let alone the skills, to kill his own fatty dinner). He's a child writing for an audience of children: Neither party wants reality to intrude on their emotional fulfillment.
Whatever the costs to my own career that this encroachment of video games and social interaction has brought upon Hollywood machinery, the internet is worth it.
> Have you personally watched "The Social
> Network" yourself?
Nope. But I'm told the costumes are just darling, and the craft services were to die for!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 6:06 PM
Anybody eaten a panda? I would think bear, in general, is a bit tough.
A couple guys I worked with used to train hounds and hunt black bear (not the panda bear, darn it.). The meat was delicious, but they say there's a trick to cooking it. Trim the fat because they're uber-greasy.
Sorkin is full of it. We're not supposed to enjoy hunting and fishing? He's high on hillbilly heroin, the damn fool, and he blew the Facebook movie, too. Total jive. Just like Palin. She's a jive-talking turkey. I'm surprised they're not married to each other.
Jason S. at December 9, 2010 6:36 PM
Haven't seen "The Social Network", but I do know that the two episodes of "West Wing" that I've seen were among the most sanctimonious pap I've ever had the displeasure of watching. Based on that experience, I seriously doubt that Sorkin has ever had an original thought in his life.
Cousin Dave at December 9, 2010 6:57 PM
I saw "The Social Network." Mark Zuckerberg and I share the same undergraduate alma mater. While I think it's a great movie if you consider it as a piece of fiction, unconnected to reality...when you bring in the context of reality, I lean toward Crid's (and Lessig's) take on the matter.
One little note that sticks with me: In the movie, Zuckerberg is an outsider jealous of those hunks who row crew. In real life, Zuckerberg rowed crew at Exeter, one of the most exclusive prep schools in the world. Etc. Sorkin crafted a fascinating story, but millions of people are going to watch it and decide that it's The Real Story of Harvard/Facebook/Zuckerberg and...it's not. I loved "The West Wing" seasons 1-4 (aka the Sorkin years) even when I rolled my eyes at its politics. "Somebody's Going to Emergency, Somebody's Going to Jail" is still one of my favorite hours of TV (and one that even Crid might enjoy). I wanted to love "The Social Network," and I enjoyed parts of it, but overall it left me uneasy.
As for Palin, if a vegetarian wants to lecture me about eating meat, I'll accept his/her moral superiority. But anyone else who complains about people hunting non-endangered animals that they then consume should be forced to work on a factory farm for a year.
marion at December 9, 2010 7:57 PM
> I loved "The West Wing" seasons 1-4 (aka
> the Sorkin years) even when I rolled my
> eyes at its politics.
Never saw the show, but I thought "Charlie Wilson's War" was a sweet little film... One which, for whatever reason, kept the repellent leftazoid politics under control. (But it would be fun to read a critique of Hanks' accent from a native Texan.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 8:14 PM
>>Nope, haven't seen the movie... Because it's not for real: That's the point.
Then next time, Crid, say so right from the start.
Make it clear that you are simply selectively regurgitating (without attribution) what others have said about a movie, even though you didn't catch the flick yourself.
Btw, who exactly were you quoting then, when you wrote about this film you haven't seen: "In real life, there are things not to like about Zuckerberg: Therefore, Sorkin depicted him as brutal to women and gays."?
That was specifically the bit of your comment I described as astonishingly crass. It still is. It's a really perversely misleading statement.
Look, it's still on general release. The opening monologue (by 'Zuckerberg')is worth the price of admission alone!
(Oddly, this discussion reminds me of many pointless debates about "Brokeback Mountain", of all movies! That film was also controversial, got tons of bums on seats and awards - and the people who couldn't stop furiously yapping about it were mostly those who refused to see it on principle!)
Jody Tresidder at December 9, 2010 8:46 PM
Borrowing a paraphrase from Cam & Company's show apparently "Sorkin believes that those nice little packages of hamburger, steaks and pork chops that show up in the grocery store come from the meat fairy."
No animal had to die for it.
Then as far as the vegans and especially organic food advocates -- what is more organic than caribou, deer, beer, rabbit, etc that are killed by a hunter. The animals have been wandering around the woods eating natural foods such as acorns, pine needles, woods grasses, berries, etc.
Even cows raised on hay and corn -- tell me how much truly organic corn still exists? And tell me how many buffalo (a close sister to a cow) eats corn? Probably somewhere next to zero.
I heard about a farm in Australia that raises their livestock (cows and sheep) in fields that are covered in wild garlic, onions, parsley and sage. Apparently the meat is for all intents "pre-seasoned".
This is just a level of hypocrisy that Sorkin can't think through.
Jim P. at December 9, 2010 9:04 PM
I won't.
Conan the Grammarian at December 9, 2010 9:17 PM
As an aside -- I was always split on the the West Wing -- but I always will love this comment to a Dr. Laura type that was visiting the White House:
Granted the source for this quote does its best to discredit the comments -- they are sort of addressed in answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080506030149AAX7Rmh.
The point being that beating someone up with religion after being a hypocrite just confirms it.
Jim P. at December 9, 2010 9:25 PM
> Then next time, Crid, say so right
> from the start.
Christ, you're a smug little goofball. How 'bout this: I'll say whatever I want in whatever order I like, consulting whatever sources I see fit. M'kay? And if, in your sodium-addled popcorn zombiehood, you feel poignantly stroked by Sister Act II or Birth of a Nation or Brokeback Mountain (or Dicksuck Isthmus), then that's just ducky... You go ahead and be the most credulous, sincere, receptive little filmgoer you can be.
And if you feel that there's something that others have missed, you can go ahead and share exactly what was "worth the price of admission"... And how it excuses a huge array of distortions, without so much as Citizen's Kane's worth of fig leaf transformation. Be forewarned that the rest of society doesn't suffer your teenage hunger for simpledon characterization, pat narrative, or (in this case) resentments of declining empire.
> it's still on general release.
Are you, in fact, financially interested, or just out of your mind?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 9:50 PM
Hahahaha! Get 'em, Crid!
whistleDick at December 9, 2010 11:18 PM
I just don't see what she's getting at... Apparently if we all get pouty and head-tilty in a movie theater, and learn to weep over imaginary gay cowboys, we'll all come to understand that Sarah Palin is a problem.
Meanwhile, I can't wait to try this out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 9, 2010 11:30 PM
Wow, Crid. That's a pretty interesting article. Thanks for showing it to me.
I would come to different conclusions, though. The conservatives didn't respond to the "gaze cues" because they just sat in front of the computer with the same vacant stare they always have on their puss.
Awww, just having a little fun. I love my conservative friends.
whistleDick at December 9, 2010 11:51 PM
As well you ought.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 1:40 AM
Yep. By the way, Crid, I consider you one of the best posters on here in terms of writing ability and solid logic. I always enjoy your posts.
whistleDick at December 10, 2010 1:49 AM
You're a tough nut to crack, Whistles....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 2:29 AM
"if a vegetarian wants to lecture me about eating meat, I'll accept his/her moral superiority."
I won't. They might not be a hypocrite, but you don't have to be a hypocrite to be a fucking idiot. Its not "moral superiority", to be stupid.
Humans are a species of apex predators. We are meant to consume meat, yes we are capable of eating other things, but as has been pointed out before, those things have been bred into becoming more palatable and desirable to humans, long long long ago, eating almost anything but meat would have been unpleasant at best.
Robert at December 10, 2010 2:30 AM
>>And if you feel that there's something that others have missed, you can go ahead and share exactly what was "worth the price of admission"...
Crid,
Maybe I'm overly suspicious, but I'm not convinced your invitation here is entirely sincere?
It might be easier if you tootled over to the website Rotten Tomatoes - where they highlight loads & loads of key quotes from film reviews? ("The Social Network" gets an average rating out 9/10 based on 256 reviews. Hey - and get this - the reviews are from folk who have actually seen the movie! Neat or what!)
Here's a taster: "Despite the fun of the parties, the intrigue of the legal wranglings and the humour of the dialogue, Fincher and Sorkin never let us forget that we're complicit in their story (or at least 500 million of us are)...."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/
Delighted to see, by the way, that after all this time, "Brokeback Mountain" still chaps your ass!
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 6:37 AM
As a vegetarian, I am very pro-hunting because it's much more natural and humane than factory farming and also helps with population control, especially with deer. Criticizing hunting while still eating meat yourself is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. It reminds me of the pro-choice women who get all bent out of shape when pro-lifers want to show aborted fetus pictures. I'm pro-choice myself, but I think we should recognize abortion for what it is and not try to sugarcoat killing babies.
Shannon at December 10, 2010 8:29 AM
>>I think we should recognize abortion for what it is and not try to sugarcoat killing babies.
Totally, Shannon. Sugarcoating leaves a horrible taste:)
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 8:41 AM
> Maybe I'm overly suspicious
Nope, you're right. If you want to keep your cinematic critique to yourself, that'd be OK. Here's how this one shakes out:
> after all this time, "Brokeback Mountain"
> still chaps your ass!
Truly not. But I must say, my feelings about that one actor have improved tremendously in the last twenty months or so... He hasn't been saying stupid things. (Drugs! Second time in this comment stack. Hmmmmmmm....)
The chapping comes from adults who think the wide-ruled, purple-felt, margin-doodled, incoherent "poetry" of a pre-menarche sixth-grader (as manifest in idiot entertainment and in more important realms, such as politics) should be a guide to social progress.
A lot of these poetic young women will resent Sarah Palin because she's made so much of her life... Including a loving –if imperfect– family, with a loyal marriage to a sex-toy husband, a jut-jawed independent businessman with firm titty muscles who runs the Iditarod for fun and who doesn't mind changing diapers in his late forties.
And she did it without a bucket of government help. She did it so well that eventually, her friends (taxpayers all) asked her to go over and mop up the Statehouse. Hers is a daunting example.
I'm cool with that.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 12:02 PM
>>Here's how this one shakes out:
Me: Sorkin's foolishness can be foretold by his station; The inexcusable distortio...
Horsefeathers, Crid.
You've been merrily rumbled!
You didn't see a box office hit movie, but you did scan some of the critical press.
Then you mashed up bits and pieces of these borrowed opinions - and concocted this very specific indictment of the movie you hadn't seen.
"In real life, there are things not to like about Zuckerberg: Therefore, Sorkin depicted him as brutal to women and gays."
Unfortunately, your critical concoction is crass nonsense.
Which you would know if you had seen this terrifically entertaining movie.
Still, I've had fun.
(And I did think the "visceral" aside in Sorkin's Palin's piece was horrendous.)
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 12:23 PM
> terrifically entertaining movie.
"Terrifically entertaining" does not equal "work of integrity." You don't want to defend your appraisal, you just want to count on my not putting money in Sorkin's pocket.
Good wager.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 12:27 PM
Crid,
I'm sure you have excellent reasons for not going.
We should all be so discerning, I expect!
My only worry is that you may be avoiding this movie for quite the wrong reasons entirely!
Though it's hardly a tragedy! There will be another must-see movie along any moment during this busy bit of the year! So, Happy hunting!
Jody Tresidder at December 10, 2010 12:56 PM
thanks to all the people who called me an "idiot" and "dumbass" for my thinking that hunting is stupid. i think that just puts into perspective the type of people that do support hunting (ie, people that voted for Bush - those were a great 8 years thanks to you!).
i readily admit that i eat meat and i know exactly where it comes from and how it got there. i've seen my uncle chop the head off a chicken and i still ate it that night for dinner without a second thought (before you get all up in my butt for being a "hypocrite," this was on a farm in vietnam, where we didn't have supermarkets with plucked chickens). like i said, i understand that you have to kill an animal to fill your plate for dinner.
my stance here is between the people who kill for sport versus people who kill for food. thousands of years ago, hunting was necessary, i get that. but now that it isn't, especially in a country like America, hunting is obviously looked upon as a type of sport/activity. who really needs 50 lbs of jerky? of course palin wouldn't just leave the dead animal there, and it makes sense that after killing, she would put that meat to use. but my point here is that the purpose of her hunting is for FUN and a side product of that is meat that she puts away. it's not like her and her family will starve if she doesn't hunt down a caribou for dinner that night.
and i'm not directing this just at palin, but all hunters. i personally know a guy that goes hunting with his dad and proudly mounts the heads in his living room, boasting about his kill. he acts like he's such a tough guy, when all he did was point and shoot. It's that type of mentality that makes me have no respect for hunting and hunters (and for people who call me names as a means to an argument).
so there, brian and karen w, you doody-heads!
izzy at December 10, 2010 1:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1796759">comment from izzyi think that just puts into perspective the type of people that do support hunting (ie, people that voted for Bush - those were a great 8 years thanks to you!).
Oh, how silly.
I didn't vote for Bush, Obama, or McCain, and I don't think hunting is stupid; I'm just grateful that I don't have to do it; that I can go to the grocery store and buy packaged meat.
Amy Alkon at December 10, 2010 1:52 PM
Hi Izzy,
I don't hunt. I don't have anything against it either. It's just not part of my family's tradition. However, I love to fish and have fond memories of long days bonding with my father out on the boat. I also have fond memories of taking my children fishing.
I grew up in a pretty fortunate family where we could have bought our fish from the supermarket. Nonetheless, we enjoyed eating the by-product of our fishing excursions. Catch and release is something I'll never understand (you've got a fresh and delicious dinner in your hands, why let it swim away?)
Am I a monster?
Why don't people have the same visceral (look it up :) reaction to fishing that they do to hunting? It's not fair either. I don't hold my breath, dive in, and swim around the fallen trees to wrestle the fish into the boat. I use a rod and live bait. I prefer using minnows (little fish). A lot of fish die for my meal.
Who cares? It's a goddamn fish -- and their fresh and delicious.
whistleDick at December 10, 2010 2:13 PM
Farmed trout tastes different fresh trout.
Stores dont sell deer or elk or buffalo or bear.
Ranchers dont raise deer or elk or bear or moose.
Izzy hunting does take skill, you have to track the animal, look for signs of its pasing and pressence, hide yourself in such a manner that it can neither see you, hear you, or smell you.
I'll agree that long range rifle vs deer isnt really all that sporting, but there really arent many ways to get certain kinds of animals
lujlp at December 10, 2010 2:44 PM
> So, Happy hunting!
Could it be any clearer that you're more concerned with being entertained than with seeing the world as it is? If so, could you go ahead put it in a sentence? If it was a friend (y'know, one of your faces) who'd been maligned by such an industrial power, would you still be so contentedly amused?
In recent weeks, the internet has convinced me that the bad things happen to women for whom the first big achievement of life is baby-making. The horizon of their comprehension shrinks to a distance of about seven yards– The range of hazards in a well-lit shopping mall. And within that radius, they imagine their best function to be that of a scold. Apparently, after a few years mopping up apple sauce and smeared windows, a soul never grows out of it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 3:06 PM
And re the earlier cite about this, comes this.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 4:13 PM
It's fun to know that one coulda pissed off Foucault, if only there'd been an opportunity.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 10, 2010 5:42 PM
Hey now,are you calling my
hunting shoes ugly???
Ari LeVaux at December 12, 2010 6:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/09/aaron_sorkin_do.html#comment-1798594">comment from Ari LeVauxAri! Thanks for dropping in, and for all the great times (and gourmet food) at AAN conferences, and congrats on the latest production.
Amy Alkon at December 12, 2010 9:15 PM
Leave a comment