Dumb reasons to have kids

Some people have kids because they want to experience the joy of raising fellow human beings, others have kids because they want to have human properties to exploit. A good reason and a vile reason to have kids.

Then, there are also the dumb reasons.

People believe having kids is good for our legacy, our country’s development and, most importantly, mankind’s survival. And yes, I think they are dumb reasons.

Let’s start with legacy. We have children, our children have children, their children have children…. and repeat until our genes outlive our children’s children. Okay, then what?

Does it improve our current quality of life? Does it improve our current physical and mental well-being? Obviously, the answer is to both is NO.

You are so enamored by the idea of legacy, you mistakenly see it as a basic human need; you mistakenly believe it is just as important as eating and breathing.

It also doesn’t make sense. If you are all about leaving legacy, why do you choose genes? Not only they won’t make people remember you, they will also be “diluted” with others’s anyway. Surely, being a historically significant individual leaves more visible and lasting legacy. You are going to be remembered for a long time, regardless whether you have passed your genes or not.

If that’s your goal, you should focus on being extremely highly accomplished. You can be a statesman, a mass murderer… or both.

As an Indonesian, I find the idea of having more people can help developing our society is laughably overtly-simplistic. Indonesia is an extremely populous country. The most populous in Southeast Asia and the Muslim world, the fourth most in the entire world.

But, while it does have progresses, no one thinks it is a highly-developed country; it is still a developing one. In fact, in this regard, Indonesia is defeated by Singapore, a country which population size is about 3% of Indonesia’s (I hope I get my math right), which area size is only slightly bigger than Jakarta’s. Even Malaysia and Brunei, other smaller Southeast Asian countries, are more developed. In fact, there are many other countries on earth which have less people than Indonesia and “somehow” are more developed than it.

That’s because it is a matter of quality, NOT just quantity. Those other countries have higher quality human resources. What’s the point of having lots of people when they are poorly-educated and poorly-skilled? If anything, such arrangement can be burdensome.

And that segues to the topic of humanity’s survival.

Because of our ability to transform and exploit nature to fulfill our needs, many of us forget or refuse to accept that we are a part of nature, NOT above it. If we hurt nature, we hurt ourselves.

Let pollution ravages and the water will be too dangerous to drink, the air will be too dangerous to breathe in. Destroy the biodiversity and we will make our food supply even more vulnerable, which can negatively impact our health.

Nature can exist without us. But, we cannot exist without it.

If we let our fellow human beings to be environmentally destructive apes, our populousness would actually threaten mankind’s survival. Once again, it is not just the quantity of the humans, it is also about their quality.

Unlike the people who procreate because they want to have children as assets, those with aforementioned reasons are not driven by malice.

But, because they think too highly of their overtly-simplistic “thinking”, they are still infuriating to deal with.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Reminded of my national identity, in overseas museums

About two months before I started writing this blogpost, I visited the US with my mom and sister. Specifically, NYC and DC.

I am thirty-one and this was my second time visiting the US. The last time I was there, I was seven. My extended family and I visited Universal Studio and Disneyland in LA, Lake Tahoe and San Reno; in fact, I celebrated the 2000 new year’s eve in LA Disneyland.

Now, my preferences have changed. Unless the theme parks are unique, I am no longer interested in them. I prefer museums, especially art history ones.

While I did really enjoy my visit to Metropolitan Art Museum in NYC, I had more fun in DC.

For one, almost none of the Smithsonian museums charge entrance fees and very few of them require bookings. My hotel was also near the National Mall, where many of the museums are located; despite DC having worse walkability than NYC, I was able to spend entire days walking from one museum to another, no cars and public transit needed.

Now, about the title…

Metropolitan Art Museum have artefacts from all over the world and various time periods, including ones from Ancient India and the Muslim world. Unsurprisingly, the Freer and Sackler galleries in DC – which specialise in Asian arts – also have similar collections (yes, I know who the Sacklers are).

I am a Muslim from Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country. Between Islamic and Ancient Indian artefacts, many would assume I would have emotional attachments to the former.

Nope.

While I definitely can appreciate the beauty, I don’t have any sense of nostalgia for them. For me, they are just as alien as the Greek and Roman artefacts. But, do you know what elicit emotions within me? The Ancient Indian ones.

It is not just the sculptures’ natural stone colour (as the paint eroded with time), it is also the (mostly) Sanskrit names and Hindu and Buddhist imagery which evoke familiarity for me.

I have yet to get tired of explaining this: even though Indonesia is indeed a Muslim-majority country with Middle Eastern cultural influences and which Arab-Indonesian population is bigger than the Indian-Indonesian one, our national symbols are of Hindu and Buddhist origins. Not only the establishment embraces them, many of us do take pride in our ancestral Hindu and Buddhist roots.

Many of us also believe we can be Muslims without becoming Arabs. In fact, I don’t think there are that many Arab-Indonesians who can speak Arabic.

I already had this realisation long before I visited those museums. But, I didn’t expect to experience it for a second time… and I certainly didn’t expect to occur while I was abroad.

This realisation also exposes a knowledge gap of mine. Before I elaborate, let me go on a tangent first.

As expected, art history museums categorise their exhibitions geographically and temporally (not to be confused with temporarily) and the Asian art galleries in DC are no exceptions. But, these ones in particular also have a few exhibitions summarising the entire continent.

Well, tried to summarise. Let’s face it: it is a continent of more than forty countries and territories, some of which are very culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse and a handful of them are transcontinental. You simply cannot summarise it, you can only create blanket statements.

In one of the exhibitions, there was also an interactive screen discussing symbolism in Asian cultures. I was a bit annoyed that it claimed peacock was culturally important throughout the Muslim world; I thought it was just another stereotyping of Muslims, as peacock was not symbolically important in my country.

A Smithsonian employee was tasked to ask visitors about their opinions of the exhibitions. When he approached me, I told him what I just wrote above.

About two months later, I told my experiences to a Facebook friend of mine, a Canadian who lived in Indonesia throughout the 70’s and 80’s and probably left before I was born. After I told her about the peacock thing, she rebuked me, saying I was wrong.

She showed me quite a few examples of peacock motif on batik. I google searched them by myself….. and I found even more examples of them….. in various styles.

I am embarrassed and confused. Embarrassed because this is one of the times when foreigners actually know about my country probably more than I do. Confused because I don’t know why peacock was not one of the animals I associate with Indonesian identity.

Growing up, when I think of quintessentially Indonesian animals, ones which remind me of our national identity, I think of tigers, elephants, rhinos, komodos, birds-of-paradise, anoas, barking deers, orang utans, cassowaries, cockatoos, sun bears and arowanas. Not once I thought about the cocky peacocks.

I wonder: would it make any difference if I grew up attending good schools, surrounded by traditional artists and artisans or even simply grew up in a place where peacock motif on batik is common? Or would I remain ignorant? Even though I am at fault for not learning enough, I also refuse to let my surroundings off the hook.

But, one thing for certain: even though peacock isn’t the most popular animal symbol in my Muslim-majority home country, it is certainly more symbolically significant than I thought.

And the fact some foreigners already knew about this… is humiliating.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Extroverts who believe they care about your well-being

I saw this at two different media news outlets: readers asking advice columnists about how to make their introverted children “extroverted”. One is on Slate, an American news outlet, and one is on Guardian, a British one. This also reminds me of a reddit post in which a man claims he wants to help his coworker overcoming her “shyness”.

Those people believe they have the other people’s best interests; they are being pushy because they don’t want their children and coworker to get trapped in their shells and missing out on life.

But, I haven’t told you some “interesting” details.

In the same letters, the parents also acknowledge their children are very active in group activities. In the same post, the redditor also acknowledges her coworker interacts with others in the office*.

And I have similar personal anecdotes.

Admittedly, I am not as socially active as those kids and coworker. I also have moments of tactlessness and awkwardness. But, I am still able to interact with my fellow human beings.

I have interacted with my relatives, my mom’s friends and acquaintances, my classmates, my teachers, the staff at the veterinarian’s clinic and even complete strangers with ease. In fact, surprising for a borderline wallflower with emotional issues like me, senior high school is the most social period of my life. To say introverts are hermits is an exaggeration.

But, that doesn’t stop people from pressuring me to socialise more.

Now, for extroverts out there:

Before you help those loners, you should ask this first: do any of them need actual help?

If you have personally witnessed them thriving in social settings and yet, you still believe they are anti-social simply because they enjoy solitude, you are making a problem out of nothing.

Despite seeing evidences to the contrary, you believe solitude is a deranged state of being which deprive us of our ability and desire to bond with each other. You believe love and appreciation of solitude is an anti-social behaviour, a sign of mental illness. You refuse to believe that not only solitude is harmless, it can also be beneficial.

If a harmless and possibly beneficial state of being triggers you to no end, it is obvious you are the one with problems, not the loners you keep harassing.

Maybe you suffer from some sort of mental disorder. Or maybe, you just need to learn to accept fucking trivial differences and accept life is not that black-and-white.

Just like introverts need to socialise, extroverts also need to appreciate solitude; how can you be contemplative when you can not be alone with your own thoughts?

Oh, and as the COVID pandemic has shown, one’s inability to be alone can be deadly to others. Don’t pretend those party animals didn’t help spreading the virus.

.

.

*Instead of one about an extrovert harassing an introvert, it can be argued the reddit story is more of a case of an older man harassing a younger woman. Personally, I believe it is both.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Jiří Trnka’s The Hand: not falling for the other side

If it wasn’t for my Intro to Animation class, I would have never heard of this stop-motion animated masterpiece.

To summarise the plot, it tells the story of a harlequin whose impoverished yet contented life of flower pot-making is disrupted by a literal and seemingly-omnipresent hand who demands him to make hand sculptures instead, compelling him to constantly fight for his freedom. Unfortunately, near the end of the story, he dies when one of his pots accidentally fell on his head (seemingly foreshadowed by the recurring accidental pot-breaking). He is given a lavish funeral by the hand.

One can guess why I love this short film.

It is an allegory of censorship enforced under authoritarianism. It sublimely evokes the terror of living as an artist and entertainer in such condition, amplified by the fantastical elements and the atmospheric percussion-oriented soundtracks. In fact, both Wikipedia and IMDB categorise this film as horror.

Unsurprisingly, I picked The Hand as one of the animated shorts I analysed for the final essay. My writings were even abysmal then. Thankfully, I lost it. But, I remember having a great time analysing every single one of them.

While analysing it, I found two peculiarities.

First thing first, the funeral. Why would the hand hold a state funeral to a rebel? Surely, shouldn’t he be demonised as an enemy of the state in the end?

Well, I found an article (forget which one, cannot find it again) about how the USSR and its satellite states honoured their artists posthumously, regardless of how obedient or disobedient they were; the writer said even Trnka himself was given a state funeral.

As I am too lazy to do more research, I cannot confirm or debunk the article’s factual validity. But, as the hand symbolises an authoritarian government (I cannot think of any other interpretations), what the article is saying makes too much sense for me to dismiss.

This reminds me of the legendary and ideologically-dissenting director Andrei Tarkovsky (can’t stop referencing him). After his death, the Soviet authorities regretted that he died in exile. Yes, linking Trnka, a Czechoslovakian puppeteer and animator with, to Tarkovsky, a live-action Russian director who loved exploring the metaphysical aspect of humanity, is far-fetched. But, I can’t help myself.

Oh, and the hand.

At first, I noticed the hand was a left one. I assumed it represented the far-left government of Czechoslovakia. But, when I took a greater look, the hand was not always left.

Sometimes, it appears as a right one. In fact, the first hand sculpture to appear in the video depicts a right hand.  So, I quickly dumped the interpretation, dismissed it as reading too much into things. But then, I remembered the funeral scene, where the hand can be seen making a salute eerily similar to the Nazi one; I could hear my classmates’ shock.

I was more baffled than shocked, as Czechoslovakia was a communist country, not a fascist one. Due to my slowness, it took me days to realise the film criticises authoritarianism in general, not just the communist Czechoslovakian government.

The film also subtly warns us to not fall for any forms of extremism. Your suffering under a far-left government cannot morally justify your support of a far-right government… and vice versa. One form of  zealotry does not justify the other.

I write as if I grasped the thematic depth immediately. I didn’t. Back then, my mind only thought about the Far-Left vs Far-Right.  It took me years to realise how the message is also applicable to any kinds of extreme dichotomies.

Yes, I know I seem to be reading too much into things again. The nazi salute may not be one after all and I don’t know enough about different types of salutes. I also cannot prove that extreme dichotomies in general were what Trnka had in mind.

But, you have to admit: the film does not target a specific ideology. My interpretation fits really well into the narrative.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

The overtly-polished Casey Neistat style

I call it the Casey Neistat style because that’s how others call it (even though some people think the style predated him) and I don’t have an alternative name for it.

From the title, you can easily tell I am not a fan.

Okay, I am not saying I hate the aesthetic. I actually think it looks beautiful and proves every image can look pretty when captured by the right person. But, that’s also my problem with it: it looks TOO beautiful.

Before I was immersed in Youtube cultures, I had already watched arthouse films like Andrei Tarkovsky’s and Ingmar Bergman’s. They are visually stunning and narratively compelling (for me), exposing me to cinematic art works.

Also resulting in my high expectations of vloggers like Neistat.

It is already ingrained in my mind that good cinematography HAS to be accompanied by compelling stories. But, vlogs don’t tell ‘profound’ stories (mind the quotation marks), even when they showcase out of the ordinary events or the lives of perpetual travellers.

If anything, those vlogs feel pretentious. The polished cinematography seems to do nothing but overcompensating the passable narratives.

Oh, and when I said that vlogs are not narratively profound, I meant it as a compliment. Because they are supposed to narrate Youtubers’ semi-personal lives, I always expect raw and mundane storytellings; that is what I find attractive about vlogs in the first place!

I actually do enjoy some Neistat-esque vlogs, like the ones of Evan Edinger, Terry Song and Adam Neely. The difference is theirs are more stylistically restrained, allowing a greater presence of rawness and mundanity.

Thanks to its participatory nature, Youtube has opposites for almost everything. For Casey Neistat style and the likes, there are content described by Nerd City as post-ironic.

I cannot make myself enjoy the works of Youtubers like Filthy Frank, MaxMoeFoe and IDubbz (his Content Cop videos are an exception). Apart from the crassness which I find extreme (even for a relatively crass person like me), I am also anxious about the blurred lines between irony and sincerity.

But still, despite my inability to relish such content, I cannot help but respecting those creators for their unsuppressed mockery of the insincere and synthetic charm endorsed by the establishment. While I admittedly do embrace some of the establishment’s ideals, I also despise the idea of venerating them.

Thankfully, despite the increasing pressure of uniformity, the platform still has a sizeable freedom to dissent, something those employed in the ‘traditional’ media can only dream of. Therefore, almost every imaginable type of content has a place on Youtube*.

Whether it is aesthetically and thematically extreme** or middle-of-the-road, you will definitely find it.

.

.

*Obviously, there are restrictions to what can and cannot be uploaded. But, it is no secret Youtube content policing is both ineffective and misguided. ‘Lawful’ videos can get taken down and ‘unlawful’ ones stay. Supposedly, people have found porn on the site; while I do have found softcore films, I have yet found hardcore ones.

**Post-irony is extreme due to its depictions of life as an inherently ugly entity. But, I would argue overtly-polished aesthetic is also extreme for its overtly beautiful depictions of life; once one is accustomed to it, acknowledgement of the ugly reality feels taboo.

A bit of tangent here:

Andrei Tarkovsky said he utilised both colour and monochrome scenes in his films because those shot entirely in colour felt like animated paintings for him and therefore, felt ‘too beautiful’ to be realistic.

I never thought that I would reference Tarkovsky’s philosophy while discussing Youtube.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Literacy increased, thanks to the internet

Media literacy, not literacy literacy. I cannot help but noticing how prevalent it is among Millennials and Gen Z, who are arguably the biggest internet consumers.

Okay, I am not saying that we are one hundred percent literate in the media. We are not. But, compared to the older generations -who consume the internet a lot less-, we are far less easily duped by internet content.

We are more reactive to clickbaits and we have great eyes for photoshopped images. We also can get belittling and even hostile towards ‘fakeness’.

Yes, my words are anecdotal. But, the generational disparity is hard to ignore and I had been noticing this for quite a while; I was even more convinced of its existence after watching a Danny Gonzalez video, in which he doctored his own photo to make himself look like someone else and his Instagram followers immediately knew it was photoshopped. He succeeded only after an impressively-meticulous planning.

(Note: I have to mention that the much younger internet consumers are also relatively gullible. But then, it has less about their internet experiences and more about having less developed brains.)

Personally I credit our relatively high media literacy to four factors:

1. The participatory nature of internet cultures

Unlike ‘traditional’ media, the digital one allows its consumers to be its content creators as well and many embrace the opportunity.

Inevitably, many internet consumers know the behind-the-scenes process of content creation; they have learned how to doctor images, edit videos, do sound design and write scripts and/or blogs.

2. The unintentionally educational nature of certain content

Some Youtubers I have watched love to make videos about having fun with photoshopping. Those who make commentaries constantly call out deceptiveness of online content creators; sometimes, even ‘traditional’ media is not free from their ‘wrath’.

Consequentially, many of their viewers will end up becoming more vigilant for doctored images and overtly-manipulative choices of words, video editing and sound design, even without any prior experiences in said activities.

If you are a Twosetviolin viewer (or one of a similar channel), you would probably be able to detect fake musical performances in films and TV shows, even without any prior experiences in musical performances.

3. The awareness about public personas

Youtube fans are becoming more cognisant about public personas.

They know how Youtubers behave on camera do not always represent their true selves and they have learned to differentiate the masks from the true faces. The fact that some Youtubers constantly switch personas in the same videos force viewers to be attentive of the behavioural changes.

Yes, idiots who easily fall for personas still exist. But, I notice their presence has waned for the past few years.

4. The embrace of irony and post-irony

I previously said that internet consumers can be hostile towards ‘fakeness’. Well, that is not entirely accurate.

‘Enjoying things ironically’ is a thing and online, it is very widespread. It is socially acceptable to enjoy things because they are aesthetically-bad and, consequentially, some content creators love making content that is meant to be enjoyed ironically.

Scripted vlogs are one of those ironically enjoyable things.

Vlogs are meant to be unscripted accounts of the Youtubers’ lives and any scripted moments easily stand out, thanks to their glaringly plastic quality. But, as long as the creators do not claim their works to be factual, the viewers will be able to enjoy the artificiality.

Post-ironic content is as popular as the ironic one, if not more. While it still involves irony, it also thrives to blur the lines between it and sincerity, forcing the viewers to work harder to separate the two.

I was introduced to the concept of post-irony by Youtuber Nerd City, who asserted that post-ironic aesthetic on Youtube was meant to defy the saccharine and overtly-manufactured one approved by the Youtube establishment. While I was never a fan of creators like Filthy Frank due to the borderline transgressive nature of their works, I cannot help myself from holding their rebellious intent in high esteem.

So…?

Obviously, you don’t have to turn future generations into internet addicts. Schools can simply start teaching basic communication and media skills.

The problem is I don’t know which specific skills that should be taught and how they can be integrated into existing curricula. I am also unsure about the necessity of theoretical media studies in this case.

Oh, and I doubt many will acknowledge the importance of media literacy. Persuasion is also an issue.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I support monarchism because…

*puts on a mask*

Being a monarch is a hard-earned job!

If you have to compare between a person who gets his/her high-earning and high-ranking job by working all the way from the bottom and a person who gets her/his because of his/her lineage, it is obvious the latter is hardworking one!

It is just common sense that the former is a sign of laziness and the latter is extremely hard to achieve! Most of us have never made any efforts to be born into the right families and monarchs are the only ones who have achieved such high accomplishment!

It is frustrating how this thing needs to be said in the first place!

The monarchs make me feel happy!

Who cares about the education, healthcare, economy and political stability?

The only things that matter are my feelings! The purpose of human existence is to make ME happy!

And the only ones who can make ME happy are the monarchs!

They make ME feel extremely good about the world we live in, making ME forget about how fucking shitty the world we live in!

They are literally Gods!

Nepotism is everywhere!

It has been established that the ethical and moral legitimacy of an action is determined by its popularity among the masses. Appeal to popularity is literally a principal accepted in logic and ethics!

That’s the reason why logicians and ethicists support monarchism: because it is based on nepotism and nepotism is literally everywhere!

I mean, literally every person has settled that murder and rape are ethically and morally-acceptable because of how their societal prevalence!

If we have settled that, why can’t we listen to the experts and settle that monarchism is not only acceptable but also good for our political establishments?

*takes off the mask*

 

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How to condemn the Hong Kong protesters?

*puts on a mask*

Instead of condemning them for violence and vandalism, condemn them for the followings:

Condemn them for hating prosperity

Hong Kongers would never know how it feels to be wealthy if it wasn’t for their generous and clearly-more civilised cousins from the mainland. I mean, literally every person in the world knows Hong Kong transformed into a rich city literally after the handover. Literally!

Literally the morning after the handover, money started literally raining on Hong Kong, high-rises literally started appearing out of nowhere and foreign investors started flocking in, seemingly for no reasons.

LOL! Seemingly! We all know China told them to!

The footage that supposedly shows olden days Hong Kong is literally fake. The cars and high-rises were not real, they were CGI created by the CIA!

How do I know? Uncle Xi and the internet said so!

Condemn them for disrespecting China’s sovereignty

Contrary to popular belief, sovereignty is not arbitrary. It is something that has been decided by the universe since long before earth’s creation!

It has been decided that the People’s Republic of China will always be the highest ruler of the people of Macau, Taiwan and yes, even Hong Kong! Hong Kongers don’t have the right to make decisions for themselves!

Condemn them for pissing on humanity

Seriously, do I even fucking need to explain this?

Do I really need to explain that only monsters love liberty? Do I really need to explain that real humans love it when any or all of their freedoms? Do I really need to explain that literally every human is destined to be slaves of the emotionally-fragile establishments?

If you really are a human being, you would love being abused 24/7.

Trust me. My methods are waaaay more effective!

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I don’t know exactly why they exist. But, they intrigue me

 

I am talking about the opening ceremonies of multi-sports events. Considering I am too lazy to do some research, I will make my own obviously-invalid conjecture about how they came into being.

It seems the elaborateness started on the 1980 Summer Olympics held in Moscow. I assume the USSR tried to compensate for its human rights violations and impoverished populace by bringing out the ‘positivity’ that was the opening ceremony.

I have that assumption because it is no secret countries all over the world, even ones more well-off than the USSR, actively bearing deceptively friendly and warm facades on the international stage. No matter how free and peaceful their countries are, they all need propaganda… and opening ceremonies of multi-sports events make a really good one.

They are the only propaganda I willingly fall for. They are the only reason why I care for some sporting events and they also successfully instil suspension of disbelief into my mind; every time I watch the ceremonies, I am willing to pretend that the host countries are all-perfect, albeit temporarily.

I have made reviews for the opening ceremonies of Asian Games and Para Games 2018 (simply because I am an Indonesian, obviously). Don’t know why it took me a long to review the summer olympics ones.

I will focus on the ones held in Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro, in that order. They are the summer olympics openings I have watched in their entirety.

I know I could have waited for the Tokyo one. But, I want to write this down now.

2000 Sydney

There are three things that I love about this edition: Deep Sea Dreaming segment, Nature segment and James Morrison’s Jazzy fanfare.

I love the two segments because the combination of playful and colourful visuals with soothing orchestral soundtracks result in an ethereal spectatorship. I love the fanfare because of how its energetic sounds compliment the atmosphere of a sporting event.

But, the rest of the ceremony is tacky and problematic.

In contrast to those two specific segments, the others seem to be designed solely to hype up the audience. The segment titled Arrivals even goes so far to exhibit extremely sparse visual and prefers to give spotlight to the kitsch upbeat techno music!

One of my media studies lecturers also pointed out the whitewashing in the Tin Symphony segment. Instead of showcasing the hardship of the British convicts sent to Australia, it only depicts happy early European settlers.

I also pointed to her that throughout the ceremony, one can see the Aboriginal performers observing the performances from afar. It can be interpreted either as a commentary of how Australian Aboriginals are excluded from their country’s festivities OR as a subtle middle finger to them.

It might not be ill-intentioned. But, combined with the historical whitewashing, it can send a wrong message.

2004 Athens

The conclusion unfortunately feels cold and I think the use of trance music during the parade of nations emits an off-putting vibe of self-indulgence. But, at the same time, it is the most artistic and thought-provoking opening ceremony ever… and I said that without any sense of exaggeration.

The Allegory segment really does live up to its name. It is a dream sequence (and I am a sucker for dream-like atmospheres) which features a giant, floating Cycladic head sculpture breathtakingly arising from the body of water with geometric imagery projected onto it. Then, the sculpture breaks into pieces, revealing a more sophisticated sculpture of a human torso inside… which breaks again, revealing another human torso sculpture. A white cube also arises from the water with a man tries to balance himself on it, all while images of human beings and humanity’s achievements projected onto the sculpture’s broken pieces. The segment ends with the pieces land on the water, representing the Greek islands.

Basically, it is an allegory about the evolution of human civilisations and present-day Greece is one of the starting points. I adore this segment for its skilful storytelling with no expositions needed. Anyone with basic knowledge in history will easily get it.

The Clepsydra segment is also a unique segment. It depicts Greek history and mythology. But, how they are depicted struck me. It took me some time to realise the moving things on those carts were not animatronics, they were actual people with painted bodies who deliberately moved like animated sculptures!

It is refreshing from the usual routine of performers wandering all over the venue. It feels less like watching an entertainment show and more like visiting a museum; for someone who loves visiting museums, it is certainly a strength.

I always wonder about the performers: were they dancers, actors or models? I thought about those three professions because they clearly require mastery of our body languages.

The presence of Björk, a musician known for her intense musical exploration, surely bolsters the event’s overall artistry as well.

2008 Beijing

I know people will rip me for this (as if my essay will ever blow up): this edition is too overrated.

The more mature I get, the more I see how tacky it is. In fact, it is as tacky as the Sydney one. No regard for aesthetic, only for the audience’s desire for eye candy.

Okay, it is a bit unfair. The Beijing edition is certainly more grandiose and therefore, requires more discipline from the performers. Disciplined enough to work as a large collective, but still manage to look like humans instead of robots.

2012 London

Aesthetic wise, I am not that impressed. Many of the choreographies (excluding the one in the 7/7 tribute) are either awkward or basic. The one in the children’s literature segment looks like it was created by an amateur.

The event is also another pander express. It chooses to showcase the United Kingdom’s most famous aspect of life: pop culture. Of course, I do understand why the focus is not on British heritage or history; the former may be boring to non-Brits and the latter is associated with colonialism and must be executed with great tact. Pop culture is a safe choice. But, it makes the entire ceremony feels like a commercially-produced British TV show.

Strangely, I also think it has emotional profundity lacking in the other editions. The joy, the grief, the sense of wonder, they don’t feel artificial. They feel sincere.

I wonder if it has something to do with the nature of British entertainment.

From what I observe, American and Indonesian ones (especially when one talks about ‘reality’ TV shows) can be forceful with the emotions; they love to dictate the audience on what to feel. British entertainment, on the other hand, prefers to let them speak for themselves and it is always transparent about their absence.

Obviously, my statement is too simplistic as exceptions does and will always exist. But, from my personal experiences, Indonesian and American entertainment constantly annoy me with their overt-sentimentality which always comes across as insincere; British one barely annoys me like that.

2016 Rio de Janeiro

I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with this edition.

It has eye-catching visuals, it has upbeat music… and yet, it feels anaemic. It reminds me of a person who tries to put a lively and energetic facade when deep down, he/she in favour of calmness and quietness. I have such observation because the calmer segments work rather well.

My God, the environmentalist message. Why does it have to be so on-the-nose? When will people realise that blatant messages in the arts and entertainment are fucking off-putting? How will this make people accept that humans are a a part of nature and not above it?

The only thing I like about the ceremony is the acknowledgement of Brazil’s history of slavery. I love it because such acknowledge is refreshing to any countries… and because it is actually goddamn subtle and not dependent on any fucking bullshit expositions!

Which editions are my favourites?

The Athens and London ones, if you can’t tell.

Instead of completely pandering to the masses as the creative director of the Athens edition, Dimitris Papaioannou maintained his identity as an artist. Creators must be commended for that because, whether we want to admit it or not, the members of the audience were benefited by non-escapist and artistic presentations and having their horizon widened even further. Considering the global significance of the olympics, Papaioannou did millions of people a favour by compelling them to stay ‘switched on’, albeit only for a while.

And yes, I am making a big deal out of the London edition’s emotional sincerity. It is just that I am deeply revolted by the synthetic emotionality which many creatures prefer over the organic one; they prefer the former because they think being obvious equals being sincere. Running into the latter is such a nice, rare treat.

But, do you what is nicer? Fusing both strengths into one.

Can you imagine watching an opening ceremony that makes you think and feel? Right now, I can only yearn for such gratification.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

 

Turning them female and not-white

When I say ‘them’, I am referring to fictional characters. And I am against changing their gender and race.

But, not for the reason most people have.

I don’t give a fuck if the changes defy the original ideas. If it is acceptable for white actors to portray actual non-white historical figures, then it SHOULD be acceptable to change the gender and race of fictional and definitely not real characters!

I am opposed to the change because it is insulting to racial minorities in the west and women.

If the studio executives really do care about being inclusive, they would demand the creations of new and original hero characters which women and non-white actors can portray. They would never hand them roles that are basically leftovers.

If anything, it shows how they don’t have the desire to respect identities that are not white and male. It shows how they are entirely motivated by profit instead of genuine sense of social inclusivity. It is all about lucrative pandering.

Admittedly, it is not as bad as the tokenism in which they create non-white and/or female characters mostly as punchlines or sidekicks and barely have compelling stories of their own. It is dehumanising to be seen as nothing but money-generating pigeon-holed props.

I acknowledge it as a leap forward. But, considering it is only a few inches forward, it is not worthy the celebration.

This celebration is akin to me patting myself on the back for exercising and having strict diet just for one day.

It is akin to perceiving Saudi Arabia’s decriminalisation of women drivers as a catalyst for the Muslim world when the rest of the Muslim world never ban them from driving in the first place.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.