...Because Fish #@%& In It!

It's hard to concentrate on movies or blogging when all you have are thoughts of copulating sharks in your head. Such is the problem when Discovery Channel's annual Shark Week rolls around. It's not my fault that they devoted an entire documentary to The Science of Shark Sex! But then the filmmakers spent 45 minutes of the show not talking about shark sex at all, but instead showed the drooling scientists roaming about the water around three islands posting all sorts of monitoring devices in their attempt to capture the mating habits of some grey reef sharks. But once the magic moment arrives -- BUCK-A-WHANG! It was so freaking graphic, with all of this descriptive talk about penetration and thrusting, that I wasn't sure that I hadn't fallen asleep earlier and missed the whole plotline involving the great white pizza delivery boy and the randy nurse shark cheerleader.

The scientists made a big deal about how they had been waiting their whole careers to capture such a moment on film, and I thought "Well, that's great...!" I'm happy for them that their hard work and pervy diligence has paid off, but then, not two hours later on a different documentary, the same sort of "wham-bam-pass-your-clam" shark orgy was shown amongst a group of whitetips! And the filmmakers were totally casual about it, like it had been on film a zillion times before! But the Shark Sex show was supposed to be a brand new doc, so either the scientists were misguided in their belief that they were the first to film such an act, or they were actually shark fetishists and could only get off on the carnal pursuits of reef sharks that were grey. My, my, my... how very specific. What's next? Shark-milking videos with nurse sharks? Dogfishy-style assplay?

Frankly, the act seemed the same, whether between greys or whitetips: wet, nasty and dirty. The scientists were quick to point out that the males had two such appendages, but only "one was used for penetration". Seems like the sharks are missing an angle here. And despite the appearance of the act, the narrator also noted about the male shark's pair of claspers that "these aren't like the erectile penises" that mammalians possess. Hey, claspers or a whatchamacallit... whatever you want to call your junk due to your own species preference... a dork is a dork. Hell, humans can't even decide on the proper look of their own penises, cutting off this bit or that according to religious ceremony, or adding a Prince Albert or a tattoo or what have you, or even sometimes splitting portions of it for some ungodly reason. Why should we castigate the sharks for their equipment, especially when it seems to dwarf even that of John Holmes? If the appendages aren't erectile, they certainly give the impression that they are, and they fulfill the same purpose as a penis. Something is inserted into something else, and ultimately, semen is delivered to fertilize eggs. Besides, the act was remarkably similar, and the closeup action could have come from any hardcore human video, minus, perhaps, the presence of some fat idiot's hairy ball sac bouncing up and down (I'm talking about you, Mr. Jeremy). Strange what you can run into on basic cable in the middle of a Saturday morning.

A co-worker was telling me the other day about their need to sit their son down for "the talk"... you know, regarding the so-called facts of life. Seems to me you can just switch the stations to the Discovery Channel after they've finished watching The Backyardigans, and then make them wonder why the animals on the first show are wasting their time stupidly singing and dancing when they could be doing what the animals on the other show are doing: roughly biting and banging away at each other. (Think about that the next time you watch that little penguin and moose on The Backyardigans... or is it now The Backdoorigans?) 

Either make the the kids watch the Shark Sex episode, or watch it yourself and then describe it to your kids: "Well, first Mommy and Daddy zip about in boats between three islands and plant their buoys into the floor of the ocean so that we can triangulate a monitoring signal..." Perhaps the kids should just watch the last fifteen minutes of the show for some hot grey reef shark-on-grey reef shark-on-yet-another-grey reef shark action. Oh... I didn't mention it was basically a shark gangbang?

Ah! Those naughty, naughty sharks... If they weren't already in the water, they'd need a shower.

Of course, W.C. Fields would never agree with that. He never drank water, you know, for a very particular reason...

Recently Rated Movies #12: Drowning Open Water

Those of you who know me well out there will be shocked by this news, but I disliked Open Water. 

It is widely known that I am a shark enthusiast. Not to the point where I want to make out with one of the fearsome but lovely creatures, but I do love them. Shark Week is much anticipated every season in my household ( I, and I only, am the target audience of Shark Week); if I am cruising with the remote and I happen upon some random show with a shark in it, no matter how horrid, even if it starred the Olsen Twins in all their troll-like pre-pubescent horror, I would stop and watch the damnable thing; and the only person that I know that has seen Jaws more than I have is my buddy Tony. If I see that Shark Attack, Shark Attack 2 or Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (where a 60-foot shark swallows an entire boat!) are showing on the Sci-Fi Channel, especially all in a row, then I am staying on that station for the duration, no matter how truly terrible all three films actually happen to be. The execrable Jaws: The Revenge? A mere walk in the park for me.

So, you would think that Open Water, a film about an annoying couple who get left behind in the Caribbean by their dive boat and then are left in the open water for hours facing the dangers posed by sharks, jellyfish, hypothermic exposure and dehydration, would be a natural film for me to love. The problem is that, while this is based on a true incident that happened off Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the story behind the making of the film is far more intriguing than what actually ends up on the screen. My favorite part of the DVD was the behind-the-scenes documentary, and I kept watching the film thinking about what Hitchcock could have done with such a scenario.

This is actually pretty unfair to think regarding a filmmaker making only his second film; really, its unfair to compare any young director to the Master. And I do think that Chris Kentis has some legitimate talent and certainly a lot of chutzpah (I will be interested to see what he comes up with next), but his film never really got me caught up in the two main characters (which is bad because, outside of the sharks that torment them, they are the only two actual characters in it). If you are going to be stuck watching two people for eighty-odd minutes, and pretty much two people only, you have got to be engaged by at least one of those people. Surprisingly for me, the male is the more sympathetic of the two (I tend to take the side of women in most films, because men really are, as a gender, assholes), but he is whiny, and I didn't like him even if he is the only person who seems to watch Shark Week as much as me. And his female counterpart? Well, she's a movie producer, so she is a lost cause from the start.

As for the shark scenes, they are well-staged, and are the strongest element of the actual film (apart from the short running time); but because of the organic nature of the film (no CG effects; live sharks baited or fed to react in certain ways), one expects the suspense level of the shark attacks to be amped up a little more due to the rule of "less is more," that being a way of expressing that the more that is left to the viewer's imagination, the more effective the thrill delivery level. Perhaps it is the somewhat amateurish acting, perhaps the overall staging of certain scenes, but I never really bought into much of what occurred in the story, even with live actors splashing about in the ocean with a bunch of actual sharks. It is entirely possible that because I had heard so much about how the scenes were made, that it sunk the picture for me. Perhaps I would have liked it more if I had seen it in the theatres as soon as I heard about it. (I did have plans to see it at one point, but they were quashed at the last minute.) Consider it a lost opportunity...

Numerous people have asked me for my opinion of Syriana. This is all you need to know, and you will have my answer in a nutshell: I hate cars. I hate car culture. I believe that anyone who even thinks about buying a Hummer should be castrated to prevent their further propagation. I believe our country would be better off with monorails and increased bus systems. I believe in the immediate and focused development of any cleaner burning and more eco-friendly energy sources. And I despise all oil companies, and those individuals and institutions who line their wallets with "soft monies" and political "contributions" gained from their time spent making out with these companies in the backs of air-polluting, gas-guzzling automobiles. Too extreme? Too bad.

Now, ask me again what I thought of Syriana.

The Ratings:

Syriana (2005) - 7; The Matador (2005) - 7; Kaze no tani no Naushika [Nausicaa of the Valley of the Winds] (1984) (TCM) - 8; Open Water (2003) (DVD) - 5; The Machinist (2004) (DVD) - 6; Cat People (1982) (DVD) - 6; Tenku no shiro rapyuta [Laputa: Castle in the Sky] (1986) (TCM) - 8.