So, this comment really got me thinking about the state of the cultural divide in this country. It's quite interesting, and at Brookelyn's advice I checked out Relevant Magazine.
It's interesting and well designed and really seems to represent a demographic, and I fucking love the politics, but... but what? Well, as much as I like what I'm seeing, and as exciting as it is, I still get the feeling there's some work to be done on the cultural tip.
An object example: tonight after watching my new reason to love America, The Daily Show, Dan whipped out Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. It's a pomo, low-budget goofball comedy and oddly likable commercial for the (in)faimous hamburger chain in the name, and surprisingly I kind of liked it. I liked the messages. It made me laugh, and it contained a great deal more wisdom that American Pie.
So it's serindipidy that I stumble over to this progressive christian magazine and see this: a review by Linsday Goodler. She didn't really dig it, and the terms she used were, I think, a little harsh.
This particular part of the film shows just what White Castle tries to accomplish: It makes wicked things seem beautiful and morality seem ugly. It's interesting that the ugliest character in the entire film was someone who was actually helping them. It's also intriguing that his wife, one of the most beautiful characters in a physical sense, was willing to commit adultery with two men while her husband was standing outside and pictures of saints and Jesus on the walls of her home seemed to watch her.
It's a raunchy scene, you can imagine, but I think Linsday is missing the point, and really jumps the shark when she says the point of the movie "makes wicked things seem beautiful and morality seem ugly."
The scene is also pretty misrepresented to make it seem much less comic and far more ugly than it was. The kids loose control of their car after Harold forces Kumar to speed away from the girl that he has a crush on. They're lost and in the woods, when a tow truck appears. They're glad to be saved, but the driver's really a character. He's covered with pussy boils, has a wild pentacostal attitude. His friends call him "freakshow" and the boys are terrified of him.
They get to his house and he mentions they can "fuck his wife," who turns out to be beautiful, fell for "freakshow" because of his voice in choir practice (we hear him break into another song; sounding genuinely enthused) and loves him in spite of his boils and has been married to him for years. After a moment of confusion she asks the kids if they want to fuck her or what, which they're adolescently excited about. Turns out they got more than they bargained for when she demands them both at once, and then Freakshow returns and rather than being angry suggests a four way.
Like I said, it's a raunchy scene, but it's quite funny and the only nudity is a brief gratuitous but not un-tasteful topless moment. And I think the message is positive! Freakshow and his life love one another -- chior practice is a good place to meet good women -- and they know how to have a good time. You're reminded not to fear ugly people, or those lead a different lifestyle from you. You're taught to be careful what you wish for when it comes to sex. All these things are great for people to see.
Personally, I think the film was relatively intelligent, definitely daring, and above average both in terms of quality and message from a social standpoint. The intellectual content of the film is about the pursuit of happiness, its ideosyncracies, false paths, and eventual merits. The film is essentially about living up to your potential, which I think is a basically good message to have.
So is there a cultural divide? I don't know; the only substantive difference seems to be over vulgarity, which to me is really more an issue of style than anything else. I think we can work thorugh differences of style, though it's hardly a trivial. I think we're all relevant in the future.
