Americans love nothing more than condemning a politician that they view as immoral, and we all love nothing more than watching a powerful person’s empire crumble

Governor Eliot Spitzer may be pinned as the “ethical crusader” of modern politics, with his tough stance on white-collar crime and corruption, but he certainly wasn’t immune. His story is another tragic tale of a rising star whose ego-driven escapades led him to public humiliation and an end to his gubernatorial career. This past week, Mr. Spitzer was charged with patronizing an illegal prostitution ring and money laundering, after the FBI was asked to conduct a federal wiretap on the governor’s questionable transactions. Once the evidence came forward, a media firestorm was unleashed. Late-night shows and pundits alike chimed in as coverage of made its way across the Atlantic.

Eliot Spitzer was poised for greatness early in his career as a New York attorney, despite harsh criticisms of his temperament. Many of his former colleagues portrayed him as a dif- ficult man to get along with: aggressive and authoritarian, as he fervently tackled fraud in corporate America. Spitzer came across as a trustworthy and honest politician, with an approach to ethics reform that was almost “Obamaesque.” He won the praise of many of his associates and even made the front cover of Time. As a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School, this former prosecutor knew the intense scrutiny placed on prostitution rings. In fact, while in office, he established a law that would enforce stricter sentences for those involved.

Unbeknownst to his family and the public, Governor Spitzer kept a dirty little secret, involving several high-priced call girls and the illegal transferring of funds.What happened to the honest-to-goodness governor from New York? Did he really think that he was immune to any litigation? As far as I know, there isn’t one set of laws for the common people and another for the elite. Perhaps Mr. Spitzer dozed off in one of his classes in law school and missed that point.

It’s still unclear what truly motivated this man to commit adultery, trash his reputation, and put his family into years of therapy, but one can only assume that an individual of such a stature believed himself to be invincible and fully entitled to a little self-indulgence.

The governor has not been tried in court, but could face possible jail time if convicted. Many of his opponents have called for his impeachment, but as of last week, the governor stoically announced his resignation. It’s appalling to see how far some will go to remove this man from office when it’s obvious the crime doesn’t fit the punishment. With the U.S. military death toll looming at 4,000, millions of displaced Iraqis, a volatile economy with an imminent recession, and an out-of-whack immigration system, perhaps the ones who should be facing impeachment are George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Meanwhile, we have the luxury of sitting comfortably on our couches and watching the pundits tear Eliot Spitzer apart. There’s nothing more gratifying than watching a politician’s empire crumble to the ground, especially when there’s a sexual twist. Let’s face it—when a tempestuous scandal involving a prominent figure erupts in the media, we eat it up. Perhaps it’s the self-satisfaction we receive from knowing that even political leaders—as glamorous a life as they may lead—have fl aws and inner demons they must battle, Whatever the underlying reason, as long as politicians continue to screw up while in office (and trust me, they will), we’ll be there for all the drama.

In the media’s rabid rush to reveal all the facts, they were real assholes to Ashley Alexandra Dupré

It’s a rare occurence when our typically shock-obsessed media displays a touch of class. Earlier this month, when it was revealed (courtesy of everyone’s favourite sensationalist scandal-breaker, The Drudge Report) that Prince Harry was serving on the front lines of Afghanistan, many were also surprised to find out that the British media—from The Times to the multitudes of tabloids—had known about his deployment for over two months but agreed to keep it quiet so Harry could serve without becoming a priority target for Taliban operatives. As soon as the story broke, Harry was pulled back to England, having enjoyed being an average soldier.

It’s nice to see human decency from the media, who realized that certain stories should be hushed because publishing them would have near-universal negative consequences. Unfortunately, any nice cred the media gained from keeping mum on Harry’s deployment melted away this week.

Everyone loves an inflatable scandal, and moral crusader Eliot Spitzer’s sexcapades were sensationalistic schadenfreude. It was almost too good to be true—the Governor of New York, the golden boy of anti-corruption vigilantism, who had personally busted up prostitution rings, was caught employing a sex worker.

Pundits were quick to condemn Spitzer, pity his family, and call for his resignation, but there was an elephant in the room—the high-class sex worker Spitzer hired. For two days, the Emperor’s Club’s “Kirsten” was a caricature to the world. A whorish homewrecker, known only through wiretapped phone conversation, she took thousands of dollars from a respected politician and family man, did unspeakable things with him, and treated it all as a casual business operation. She was praised, condemned, and imagined in a thousand different ways by a thousand different water-cooler news analysts. She was purely a creation of our imagination as an accessory of Spitzer’s crimes—and she should have stayed that way.

Then, on March 12, the New York Times, arguably the U.S.’s most respectable paper, published a link to Kirsten’s Myspace profile. The article identified Kirsten as Ashley Alexandra Dupré, a 22-year-old aspiring singer in New York. Instantly, millions of people had full access to Dupré’s entire biography. The next day, the same three pictures of her were splashed on front pages worldwide. Some respected columnists identified her as “Spitzer’s Whore.” Very few gave her the slightly more dignified title of “sex worker.” Most papers identified her as a prostitute, treating her in the most patronizing way imaginable, mocking her musical aspiration, describing her sound as “quaint” and “silly.”

Regardless, thanks to the Times and others, Dupré will now forever be degraded as Spitzer’s sex worker. Regardless of whether you think the sex trade is right or wrong, there’s a reason that the Emperor’s Club does its best to keep its employees anonymous: the sex trade is one that is looked down upon by the majority of America. From here on in, anyone who hits on Dupré—and trust me, there will be lots of piggish catcalls—will do so with certain expectations. Other moral crusaders will likely refuse to associate with her. If she decides to eventually have children, there’s no doubt that they’ll be ridiculed for being the children of a sex worker.

Dupré’s media exposure isn’t all bad—it’s likely to land her a record deal with thousands of supporters on Myspace. But she’s also gained the condemnations of countless more.

The media’s brush has painted Dupré into a corner, and while I certainly hope for the opposite, the stigma will not go away. To many, Dupré will always be “Spitzer’s Whore.”

Fun and games?

An English-language remake of Michael Haneke’s Funny Games (1997) directed by Haneke himself is perhaps the most unlikely major studio venture of the year. In the original, two sociopaths hold an upper-middle-class family hostage in their summer home, forcing them to take part in torturous psychological games. That film was bleak, brutal, nihilistic, and emotionally unsatisfying—exactly the sort of difficult fare that Hollywood generally avoids.

How could Haneke possibly find American financing? I assumed he would be forced to compromise his vision, similar to how George Sluizer had to tack an incongruous happy ending onto his Hollywood version of The Vanishing. Boy, was I wrong. The film Haneke has delivered is nearly identical to his 1997 original. Not only is the gloomy tone intact, but so is everything else, from the geography of the house right down to placement of the tables and chairs. Compared to this, Gus Van Sant’s shotby- shot remake of Psycho played positively fast and loose with its source material.

In the rare instances when foreign filmmakers have directed American remakes of their own movies, the boredom is usually palpable, yet the new Funny Games turns out to be every bit as good as the original. It’s still powerful, suspenseful, and absolutely merciless towards its characters and audience.

Seeing Funny Games for the first time is an ordeal. There were many walkouts when it played at Cannes in 1997, and I remember that fateful day when I watched it on DVD, thinking about how nice it would be to turn it off, go out into the sunshine, and reassure myself that the world wasn’t so terrible after all.

Haneke intended his film to be a dark satire of America’s glamorized presentation of violence. “In many American films, violence is made consumable,” says Haneke in the press notes. “I want to show the reality of violence, the pain, the wounding of another human being.” His point is that in being entertained by cinematic depictions of murder, we are on the same moral level as the murderers. At several points during Funny Games, the killers break the fourth wall and address the camera, as if conspiring with the viewer directly.

Haneke goes beyond attacking the viewer’s taste in movies: he attacks the viewer personally. I hated the contempt that Haneke had for his audience. Movies like Psycho and A Clockwork Orange trick the audience into sympathizing with their depraved heroes, but those films at least offer considerable entertainment value. Funny Games, on the other hand, is no fun at all. Frankly, I wanted a film that would reassure me that I was on the moral high ground. Why should Haneke make me accessory to the crimes just because I rented his movie?

Well…why not? Isn’t great art supposed to challenge us? Haneke has said he wants this remake to reach the multiplex crowd that supports the torture porn genre, but he is most skillful in challenging his own bourgeois art house audience. Most of his films paint lessthan- flattering pictures of the upper-middleclass lifestyle (in Funny Games, the family’s elaborate gate keeps them from escaping), and in interviews he has said that this film was not meant as a rebuttal to lowbrow horror flicks, but to the work of Palme d’Or winner and critics’ darling Quentin Tarantino.

Watching his Funny Games, already knowing everything that was to come, I could appreciate just how meticulous Haneke is as a filmmaker. His decision to not use non-diegetic music deprives us of one of the medium’s most reassuring artifices. Watch how he creates a stifling, claustrophobic atmosphere by frequently focusing the camera away from the characters that are talking. Look for moments where Haneke subverts the conventions of the typical thriller (near the beginning, the camera lingers on a knife, presumably to establish its importance. When the knife finally reappears towards the end, it’s as a cynical joke). And of course, keep in mind that most of the violent acts takes place off screen, something I didn’t even realize when I first saw the original.

So what’s new in the remake? Well, very little. In fact, the few times where dialogue has been dropped or shot constructions have been altered will stick out like a sore thumb for anyone with a good memory. Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, and Brady Corbett now play the four central roles, and they fit their parts so perfectly that memories of the original actors rarely arise. Pitt in particular gives a great, creepy performance that deserves comparison with Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange.

If you’ve seen the original Funny Games, do you need to see the remake? Maybe not. But then again, if your first reaction was as negative as mine, you may find that another viewing can be a revelation. I certainly didn’t “enjoy” either version of this film, but they both made me rethink many of the violent films I’ve enjoyed. And for that alone, Funny Games is invaluable.

Kingwell takes on the city

In conjunction with the inaugural University of Toronto Festival of the Arts and the University of Toronto Art Centre’s exhibition of John Hartman’s Cities, Mark Kingwell delivered a lecture entitled “The City as a Work of Art” on March 13.

Kingwell, a philosophy professor at U of T, is the author of 10 books. The consummate Toronto flaneur had no problem filling every seat in the University College lecture theatre.

The city—from civitas, civilized life and citizenship—intrigues Kingwell, and his love shows. In his lecture, he made the case for the city as a work of art, using New York City and Shanghai as his primary examples. Cities, according to Kingwell, cannot be easily defined as one thing or the other, but rather as a confluence of things that collide together to create a sense of embodied consciousness— very much like the people who inhabit them.

He takes his cue from Heidegger, who asserted that “the mere object is not the work of art” but rather the space created by the object for reflection and contemplation. For him, the “city of the imagination,” more than the actual environs of the city, helps to justify the city as a work of art. More than the concrete that surrounds us, the city assimilates into our consciousness. His rejection of teleological ends and grand urban planning recalls the late Jane Jacobs.

Kingwell’s excellent conception of cities, which any city-lover would agree with, testify that the city is an organic, growing thing, though it is not biological. It represents the ultimate Freudian conquest of our natural environs: a centre of creativity and culture. A city, according to Kingwell, is not a symphony but a jazz riff—many parts coming together to make excellent music. And, just as his artful city is more a jazz piece than a concerto, Kingwell shone brightest in the Q&A, easily elaborating on many points.

Whether each person agreed or disagreed with Kingwell’s analysis, the lecture provided each of us with food for thought—just what city life should do.

Blue Hour is beautiful

Leave it to David Mamet to elevate mundane, everyday American English to the level of poetry. The UCDP’s production of The Blue Hour truly blew me away—the lights alone would have been worth watching, but when talented acting and skilful direction bring a masterful text to life, it is truly a treat. The play was presented as part of the ongoing inaugural University of Toronto Festival of the Arts.

The play is a series of vignettes set in New York City about a time called, funnily enough, the blue hour, that time just after sunset where the sky is a perfect, beautiful blue. The interaction between actors Sonia Lindner and Thomas Davis in the opening scene was hilarious, as was the following scene with Lindner and Gwynne Phillips in a closing department store.

The scene between JP Bevilacqua and Davis as two businessmen forced into awkward conversation on a commuter train was perhaps the most resonant— expressing the annoyance at dealing with those you could not care less about.

Most touching however was the concluding scene between Bevilacqua and Davis. The loneliness of the two men in a subway station was so understated and tense that the audience was dead silent until the scene faded to black, the theatre erupting in applause.

My only regret is that I did not have time to see the other shows, Methusalem: Or, the Eternal Bourgeois and Bully, that ran with The Blue Hour. If this show indicates of the level of talent in this year’s UCDP batch, I would no doubt have been delighted.

Space oddity

Stephen Chow’s attempt to conquer the American market continues with CJ7, a whimsical, effects-heavy, sci-ficomedy. Chow, “the Jim Carrey of Asia,” has starred in over 40 films and directed eight, but few of them—heavily dependant on Cantonese wordplay and unspeakably broad comedy—have made an impression outside Hong Kong.

With Shaolin Soccer (2001) and Kung Fu Hustle (2004), Chow replaced much of his colloquial sensibility with universally accessible material: special effects, elaborate action sequences, and over-the-top visual comedy. He was rewarded with strong reviews and worldwide box office receipts, but CJ7 won’t do much to broaden his appeal. While Chow’s vivid imagination is still on display, this time his sloppiness gets the better of him.

Chow’s screen-time in CJ7 is surprisingly minimal. The real star is child actor Xu Jiao, who’s a cute little kid. He plays Dicky, the oft-bullied son of a poor construction worker named Ti (Chow). Dicky wants a high-tech toy called a CJ1, and is dismayed when Ti can’t afford it. Later that evening, during his daily search through the local dump, Ti finds a green egg deposited by a nearby spaceship, and gives it to Dicky, calling it a “CJ7.” But wait, it gets better—the egg hatches and CJ7 turns out to be a green, squishy, super-dog from outer space.

Chow has trouble maintaining a consistent tone. Silly scenes and moments of cloying sentimentality clash jarringly, and when the inevitable tragic situation arises three quarters of the way in, it’s hard to care. Characters never extend beyond broad archetypes. And while Kung Fu Hustle intentionally pushed aside story for rapid-fire comedy, in a film with “heart” like CJ7, the script is undercooked.

Like Chow’s last two films, CJ7 uses CGI to a hyper-stylized, downright cartoonish extent. The CJ7 character is entirely computer generated, and it’s fun to watch. There are moments where CGI is used to create truly excellent gags, as CJ7 pulls a little toolbox out of nowhere, and makes Dicky a pair of high-tech shoes. Still, Chow is a hit-and-miss comedian, and this time his odds are off. Typical joke: one of Dicky’s schoolmates is a girl played by a massive, 250-pound man. Ho ho. This is the type of goofiness that goes over big in Hong Kong and doesn’t travel well overseas…except to kids.

But will kids see this? Sony Pictures Classics is making the drastic mistake of marketing CJ7 to art house audiences instead of families. A subtitled version is opening in limited release, the trailer attached to the beginning of The Counterfeiters of all things. Strange tactics, because the grade school set might like it. But it’s no Kung Fu Hustle; it’s gentler, less chaotic, and, frankly, less enjoyable.

Listen Up!

Listen Up!

What to rock and what to not

Jordan Bimm, Rae Matthews, Suzannah Moore

Sally Shapiro – Remix Romance Vol.1 (Paper Bag)

On the heels of her October North American debut Disco Romance (Paper Bag), Swedish princess Sally Shapiro presents us with a subtly sweet remix album that is energetic and lowkey at the same time. Owing to her slot on Toronto’s Paper Bag Records roster, this record pours on the Canadian remix talent featuring workouts by Holy Fuck, Woodhands, and The Cansecos, as well as Rhode Island’s The Juan MacLean and Germany’s Tensnake. Mixing trance-like electronics with the occasional funky disco beat, the record lacks sonic cohesion but remains consistent in quality. These are dance tracks, but they rely more on their sensuality and bittersweet lyrics than kinetic, throbbing beats. Not that anyone’s examining the lyrics, especially once she starts singing in French, but there are occasional tracks that bend the listener’s ear. Her spoken word song, “Jackie Junior” (fi ttingly remixed by Hamilton’s Junior Boys), showcases Shapiro’s adorable accent as she recites what sounds like a monologue from a student play. Shapiro’s voice is mostly sweet and sometimes sexy, complementing her beats, which are intense but sometimes soft.—RAE MATTHEWS

Rating:

No No Zero – Rough Stuff (Signed By Force)

Every once in a while, I come across a record that’s so bad it’s good. Rough Stuff by local garage punks No No Zero defi nitely falls into this category. Channelling the Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, and The Ramones, No No Zero’s sound is loud and full of fuzzy distortion. The vocals are often mixed lower than the guitars and drums, with most songs wrapping up in under two minutes (the 16-song offering is only 27 minutes long). The low vocals may be a mixed blessing, as most of the lyrical content on Rough Stuff sounds like it was penned by a horny 13-year-old psychopath. For example, on their song “Ass Commando,” singer Pius Priapus offers the following insight, “ass commando, ass commando, get into the ass undetected, you’ll never know, how I come and go, your ass can’t last, detonate ass blast.” Genius? Not a fucking chance. Hilarious? Yes, defi nitely. Pretty much every song has some explicitly sexual overtone, “Screw,” “She Jerks,” and “Why Won’t You Let Me Fuck You?” being the prime examples. They also have a song entitled “Brown Shower,” which I’m scared to even speculate about thematically— suffi ce to say that the only lyrics to this three-minute slowmo epic are “Brown shower, bend and devour, taste the power.” Enjoy your nightmares.—JORDAN BIMM

Rating:

The Populars – A Pill for Everyone (Kindling)

It’s hard to say which is worse, the title of the album, or the album itself. The aesthetics of the cover photos for Prescott, Ont.’s The Populars come across as a bright American Apparel ad, as the band members sport fl ashy colours while jumping and smiling at you. The back of the album features a shelf of pills (get it?), selling the band as an enthusiastic, anti depressant advertisement for the wannabe preteen population. Their lyrics are obvious, overly simplistic, and repetitive, the only shock being how comfortable they are with blatant clichés in song titles such as “Teenage Party Girl” and “Weekend Warrior,” perfect fodder for a ninth-grade pool party. This album fails on account of their awkwardly contradictory image and their mediocre instrumentals. Their live show would probably be endurable, most likely the opening band that gets instantly upstaged by a mediocre headliner.—SUZANNAH MOORE

Rating:

Pettigrew tells china to ‘open up’

Last Saturday, U of T held its third annual China Conference to discuss the country’s rose and its swiftly growing economy. The conference held panels on trade, fi nance, social responsibility, education, and the environment. Close to 200 people attended to hear presentations given by some of the leading experts on China.

The conference is organized yearly by the U of T Forum of China Development, a recognized student club.

This year’s conference featured former Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Pettigrew delivering the keynote address. While minister, Pettigrew played an instrumental role in the signing of an important bilateral trade agreement that eased the path for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001.

This year’s conference was titled “Made in China” to highlight “the myriad social and political issues” that surround the country.

Pettigrew named the emergence of China as one of three critical world issues for the 21st century, the others being internal struggles within Islam, and the way the U.S. uses its influence.

“A country like Canada needs to engage China,” said Pettigrew. “Because the complimentarity between Canada and China is absolutely huge, China is a resource-hungry country […] and we’re resource rich,” he said.

Pettigrew also chastised U.S. presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for speaking out against NAFTA. “Given the rise of China […] NAFTA needs to be stronger, otherwise it will become irrelevant. I agree with Obama that we need to renegotiate NAFTA, but we need to renegotiate it to deepen it, make it stronger.” Pettigrew’s mentioned that at some point China will have to open up politically if its economic success is to continue.

At one point during the Q&A period a student attempted to ask Pettigrew three separate questions, much to the ire of the audience. Someone in attendance angrily shouted out that other people were in the room and the student did not ask his third question.

“This [the conference] is a really good medium to provide exchange and gather people from diverse backgrounds, but who all have this common interest,” said Jennifer Dong, cochair of the UTCC.

“Our goal is to let people know about these issues and hopefully now that there are a lot of Chinese Canadians who have received a Western education, they know about democracy […] hopefully the students of this generation will bring some of these ideas back with them to China,” Dong said.