For some reason I have been having this discussion over and over lately, the most recent being with my buddy the truly awesome musician Dan Clark about the problems of getting your band booked. Based largely on my experiences touring with Ego Likeness, here are some of my thoughts on the whole business of getting booked . . .

There are several problems with bands getting shows.

1. The most obvious, yet the least talked about: The band needs to be desirable. Does the band bring *anything* to the table, do they have a fan base? Most of the time the answer is no. And on the occasions the answer is yes, it’s best to assume it is smaller than you think it is.

1a. Most bands are far more interested in playing shows than making fans. Many bands believe they are good, and believe that because they are good people will give them a chance, and give them shows. I see a lot of bands trying to go on tour that are just not ready for it. I mean you can do it, don’t get me wrong, but chances are you will play a bunch of random bars, for no one. You might score a hit here and there, but more than likely you will just bleed money.

So lets say they manage to book a show in an unknown market. No one shows up, because no one local knows who they are, and the promoter loses.

If the band is lucky the promoter might set them up opening for a good local act, and they might get a toehold in that market. But as there are a ton of bands vying for that position it is difficult at best to acquire.

1b. So how do you go about getting a toehold? SPEND MONEY!! Make a good CD, with good songs, then when you manufacture it, send out 20 copies to any general club that might book you. Send T-shirts, stickers, anything you can, as much as you can. So lets say you send out 1,000 CDs, out of those 1,000, 100 get listened to, but it is something. That is your toehold. I am not talking about press kits, or digital downloads; I am talking about physical free stuff. Everyone has free promo downloads, but no one is going to download something from some random band they have never heard of. However, some people will put in a CD by a band they have never heard of, particularly if that CD looks nice and is accompanied by other swag.

2. There are few actual promoters who understand the business. If a promoter loses money on a show, it is their fault, period. They need to have a realistic (not what they want) understanding of the draw of any given act. They need to put that act in a room of the appropriate size and the appropriate cost. If the band wants too high a guarantee, don’t take the gig. If the only available show date is a Monday night, don’t take the gig. If you do take the gig, because they are your favorite band, be prepared to take a loss.

Actually that is a good rule across the board, always assume that any show you have will lose money. If it doesn’t, bonus!

It is always better to pack a tiny room than play in a 200 person room to 50 people.

3. Bands on the other hand need to be realistic about their guarantees. It doesn’t matter how popular you think you are or how popular you should be, because you are you and you are good, dammit. The reality is that, unless you have been around a very very long time, or have had a documented club hit, you should not be asking for a guarantee over say $100, if that.

Let’s say you have a tour and the average guarantee you ask for is $100; that’s really low, and most promoters can make that back. Awesome! Because the next time, hopefully you can ask for more. However, if you are a promoter’s favorite band, and you take advantage of that by asking $500 and the promoter loses money, they probably won’t have you back. The idea everyone involved needs to embrace is longevity, not any individual show or tour.

4. Bands, if you cant afford to tour without getting $3-400 a show, and you do not meet the above criteria, DON’T FUCKING TOUR!! Or trim your machine down to the point where you can do it for $100-200 a show, less if you can. More people in your band does not make a better band, it just makes more mouths to feed and, and a higher cost. This scene in particular is very forgiving of two people and backing tracks (we know from experience) *IF* that is you can put on a good show with good songs. No amount of gear or number of bodies on stage will help you if your songs are not good or you don’t somehow connect with the audience.

The audience does not care about your gear or the number of people onstage. They care about the band that loves making music, and loves performing no matter how many people are there.

If everyone involved has a reasonable understanding of what to expect, then a successful show is much more likely.

I guess what it boils down to is this.

Promoters

Don’t book shows that cost more than you can afford to lose.
Always assume that no one will show up, and you are booking the show for yourself.
Never assume you know what kind of numbers a band will draw.
No matter who the band is, you need to promote the hell out of the show.
Don’t let bands take advantage of you. If a band wants a bunch of rare alcohol or whatever, fuck ‘em. Requests like that tend to be insulting to all involved.

Bands

Do not charge more than you are worth.
Do not ask for anything from the promoter except items required for a quality show.
Do not mistake internet popularity for actual bodies.
Just because you made something doesn’t mean its good.
You probably have too many people in your live act, get rid of some.
For that matter, get rid of anything that you take on tour that does not make you money.
When you are pricing your tour, do not forget that promoters also have to pay for sound people, PA’s, venues, promotion, food, etc. The cost of a show is not just your guarantee.
Always assume that no one cares about what you do, and plan on living off the bare minimum.

Then if you are wrong, everyone wins. But going into any business situation assuming you are owed anything is fatal for everyone involved.

One of my favorite quotes that kinda puts it all in perspective: “Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered”

People keep asking me why I haven’t mentioned that Forrest Black and I have some of our photography of American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert in the current issues of Star Magazine and Rolling Stone, so I suppose I’ll mention it now. The internet has been abuzz for weeks now that Adam Lambert was going to “come out” in Rolling Stone issue 1081. So many publications were reporting that Rolling Stone was going to report that Adam Lambert says he is gay that Rolling Stone had to rush to put the digital image of the cover, lensed by brilliant top photographer Matthew Rolston, online well before the issue hit newsstands. Which seems very meta-something.

For some reason, a number of folks desperately wanted to be the primary source for settling speculation on Adam Lambert’s sexual orientation. Forrest Black and I photographed Adam Lambert kissing Brad “Cheeks” Bell. In point of fact, all of the supposedly scandalous images of Adam Lambert kissing a male were of him kissing the same guy, Brad “Cheeks” Bell. However, as many fans seems to find boy/boy smooching inconclusive and seemed to perhaps care about orientation, I didn’t want any part of anything which might hurt Adam Lambert’s chances of winning American Idol. I heart Alex Burton, my editor at Star Magazine, because the deal he and I made for the first round of images he ran was that there would be no outing of Adam Lambert in the issue and Alex Burton, my man of the Led Zeppelin tattoo, kept his word and kept the article classy and positive. Word is that Star Magazine offered Brad “Cheeks” Bell $2,000 to tell all and Cheeks declined, saying that he’d turned down higher dollar offers than that and he would only ever do a positive interview about Adam Lambert.

Unsubstantiated rumor is that Rolling Stone ponied up $50,000 for Adam Lambert to tell them his sexual preference first. Rolling Stone contributing editor Vanessa Grigoriadis, my fellow Wesleyan University alum, did a great job presenting Adam Lambert as a whole interesting person with visceral prose and probing but respectful questions. In the interview, Adam Lambert tells Vanessa Grigoriadis that he waited to come out in Rolling Stone because he felt he could express himself in context there. Some of the context, however, is that he didn’t lose his virginity (presumably to a man) until he was twenty-one and that he’d made out with girls while drunk at nightclubs and was now somewhat bi-curious about what it would be like to have sex with a woman.

Rolling Stone has always had some of the best, most incisive and most intriguing interviews of any magazine (and of course Wesleyan grads tend to be terrific writers), so it is no surprise this is a good one. But I’m left uncomfortable that the issue of a sexual label was such a big deal. I feel like we don’t have enough words to describe sexual orientation for the terms gay and straight to have much meaning.

If Adam Lambert suddenly got a girlfriend, after years of going out with the same sex, would that mean he did not count as gay any more? How about if he just occasionally fooled with really inspiring women who really got him as a person, but only had relationships with men? I realize that I travel in circles which are perhaps a bit ahead of the curve on sexual openness. But I know men who are gay-identified who sleep with women from time to time. I know women who are bi-identified who only have relationships with men but also have sex with women. I know men who are straight-identified who will have sex with men provided there is a sexual configuration of enough people for it to count as an orgy. Everyone can think of the prison example for same sex relationships among people who do not identify as gay or lesbian. Etc. I think that maybe 10% of the population is strongly hardwired to enjoy only the same gender and maybe 10% of the population is strongly hardwired to enjoy only the opposite sex. But most people, in the right situation, are more fluid than that. They might have a preference, even a strong preference, but, in the right situation, the preference won’t dictate their actions.

At any rate, I feel most human sexuality is too complex for a tidy label to be genuinely descriptive. I thought it was cool that Adam Lambert told Vanessa Grigoriadis and Rolling Stone, “I loved it that this season girls went crazy for me . . . As far as I’m concerned, it’s all hot. Just because I’m not sticking it in there doesn’t mean that I don’t find it beautiful.” There is a certain combination of flamboyance and rawness there which is the reason so many of my friends were rooting for Adam Lambert on American Idol.

And it is a flamboyance and rawness which utterly transcends sexual orientation. I think that general America is far more afraid of that rock star counterculture essence than they are of male homosexuality. Senior Blue Blood writer Will Judy made the excellent point that, although Adam Lambert was runner-up to Kris Allen, rather than winner, on American Idol, “Lambert got to live my ultimate superdream from 5th grade though. Fronted Kiss AND Queen in the same night. (And KILLED, of course)” which is a really fine summation.

As you all probably know, the HBO series True Blood, based on the Charlaine Harris novels, was one of my favorite new shows this past year, maybe my very favorite. The new season is kicking off with fun altmodel cam boy and local vampire blood dealer Lafayette Reynolds possibly in trouble and more murderous whodunit and more surprisingly well done and extended sex scenes. I’m not sure the first True Blood Season 2 teaser pics and True Blood Season 2 promo photos really do the show justice.

I am sure that a bunch of the product placement tie-in billboards and suchlike around Los Angeles are a bit cringe-inducing. There are billboards for motorcycles, cars, automotive insurance, and and Gillette razorblades and other not terribly vampy products. (I don’t necessarily want to give tons of bonus exposure to silly things advertised this way, but I have to give Gillette a shout-out because years ago I worked the product launch for the Gillette Sensor and it was the most awesome and creative technical theatre gig I ever saw.) Pale-skinned dark-haired vampy femme fatale Dita Von Teese says, “I don’t understand this vampire bandwagon. Just saw a billboard advertising razors that “vampires prefer”. Vampires don’t have to shave!” I could get into a dissertation about the necessary equilibrium between enjoying the success of what you love verus avoiding having what you love co-opted. But really this brings me to another much more pressing and vital concern about the new season of True Blood.

What is up with vampire hair on Alexander Skarsgaard? In the season opener, big wig vampire sheriff and nightclub impressario Eric Northman, played by the always charismatic yet unsettling Alexander Skarsgård had foils in his hair. Like he was bleaching highlights in. It appears that he will be wearing shorter hair for Season 2. It is too early in this portion of the series to get into much philosophy of prejudice, or presentation of sexuality and sensuality in media, or the nature of the erotic, so I can’t help turning over and over in my head whether I feel like vampires should have to deal with hair growth. It would suck to have hair chopped off in a battle with another vampire if it could not grow back. If no regrowth were the case, then all vampire altercations would look like hair pulling catfights. It would suck to be turned on a day your hair dye was not fresh or you hadn’t shaved your shavable parts. Hair and nails do grow a bit after death, but not much. Would vampire hair just regrow to the length and/or shade it was at time of death?

Should the fictional undead require hair dye and razors? How do you want your media to handle vampire hair growth?

Singer/songwriter Lady GaGa appears on the cover of the current issue of Rolling Stone. The cover is shot by photographer David LaChapelle. David LaChapelle has shot many Rolling Stone covers, is known for his bright colors and elaborate sets, and started in photography taking naked pictures of club kids. Lady GaGa went to an Upper West Side high school and became a New York club kid. Maybe I am biased because I enjoy Lady GaGa’s work and I enjoy David LaChapelle’s work and I’ve spent a fair amount of time inside edgy nightclubs, but I don’t get what all the fuss is about.

Rolling Stone has certainly run nakeder covers than the Lady GaGa one. Anyone remember the full nude of model Laetitia Casta on a bed of petals? It is not like you’d find artistic nudes likes these on PukingOnPenis.com. Seriously don’t click that, but you get what I mean. Today, in a world where all sorts of depravity is a click away, why does a teensy bit of authentic club culture make so many people hyperventilate?

Although a certain sort of bohemian club culture has existed since time immemorial and that artistic counterculture has always made some people uncomfortable, is it really that big a deal? Or is the problem that we have come to expect pop stars to be the best-looking possible actresses hired by management teams with songwriters and stylists and something which came about more organically now seems wrong? Lady GaGa is widely credited as having written on songs for Akon, Britney Spears, Fergie, Pussycat Dolls, and oddly enough New Kids on the Block. Although I’m not sure how or if Lady GaGa is credited in ASCAP, I’d be happier if I could find her songwriting credits. Still, I tend to believe that she actually writes songs. Even if you don’t find bluffin with one’s muffin as entertaining as I do, surely the combination of artist and performer is still better than solely artist or solely performer. At the very least, it is not worse, is it?

From my point of view, the most controversial thing about the David LaChapelle Rolling Stone cover featuring Lady GaGa is that New York fashionistas credit the whole bubble outfit look to designer Hussein Chalayan. Although neither a bubble dress or bubble corset appear on the web site for Hussein Chalayan’s 2007 collections, I’ve seen credible photos from his runway show stuff for that year. The designer was reportedly disappointed that Lady GaGa knocked off his design, rather than wearing the original.

So, if you’d like to recreate Lady GaGa’s Rolling Stone look, you now know where to commission your own bubble outfit, if you don’t feel crafty enough to make one. Then all you have to do is round up a bunch of your naked and barely-clad friends and get wet and messy. Photos optional.

Rolling Stone #1080 is on newsstands now.

Have you ever felt you should get a pass for misbehaving because of your extensive zombie experience? Heck, we’ve all felt that way. But Woody Harrelson is doing something about it, with his tried and true Mistaken for a Zombie Gambit. Allow me to illustrate.

Forrest Black and I photographed special effects artist André Freitas (pictured) in his AFX Studios by Atlanta, Georgia for a feature in Skin Two. At the time, his most current project was developing a scary wrestler character. His most recent project has been makeup on the scary special effects for a movie called Zombieland. The movie is directed by Ruben Fleischer and written by Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese who previously worked together on the Joe Schmo show. Although Zombieland reportedly just wrapped filming, it is still technically in development, so the final cast list is still more rumor than confirmed. For sure, André Freitas’ special makeup effect must have been really damn scary.

It is known that Woody Harrelson is in the Zombieland movie. According to IMDB, Woody Harrelson plays a character named Albuquerque. According to the Sony Pictures publicity department, Zombieland will not be in theaters until a Halloween-ready release of October 9, 2009, but they believe Woody Harrelson plays a character named Tallahassee. It seems a safe bet that Woody Harrelson is at least somewhat in a movie called Zombieland and does play a character named after a city. Based on posts on the director’s site, principal photography for Zombieland took approximately two solid months and was completed the middle of this week.

According to Alan Duke reporting on CNN, Woody Harrelson finished shooting Zombieland on Wednesday in Atlanta, Georgia and he and his daughter landed at La Guardia Airport that night. I know that personally, if I had to make a list of times I would least like to be photographed, when I had just landed at an airport after working in Georgia would be very high on my list. Allegedly, Woody Harrelson broke a camera belonging to a photographer/videographer who was trying to film him and his daughter. After this alleged incident, the photographer went on to bust out a cell phone camera or some other smaller snapshot deal and shot more video of Woody Harrelson and his daughter. The photographer alleges that Woody Harrelson assaulted him in the ensuing scuffle. Although a police report was made, no charges against Woody Harrelson have been filed at this time.

Woody Harrelson did, however, issue a statement which I believe clears the whole thing up. The actor explained, “With my daughter at the airport I was startled by a paparazzo, who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie.” Quite understandably. Mistook for a zombie. Could have happened to anyone.

CNN and others are reporting that Woody Harrelson plays “the most frightened person on Earth” in Zombieland. In point of fact, had any of them managed to check with Sony, they would have learned that Jesse Eisenberg plays the most frightened person on Earth in Zombieland. Jesse Eisenberg is perhaps best known for his role as Jimmy Myers in Wes Craven’s Cursed, where he spent the movie trying to escape werewolves. Apparently there is something about Jesse Eisenberg which makes monsters want to chase him. Then again, CNN used the usually reliable IMDB as their source and IMDB reports Jess Eisenberg’s character is named Flagstaff, while Sony Pictures publicity department calls him Columbus. Still, once again, both names are cities. Not that big a difference in a name.

The big difference is that Woody Harrelson’s city-named character is actually the bad-ass in the movie. to be specific, the Sony Pictures press releases on the movie states, “Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) has made a habit of running from what scares him. Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) doesn’t have fears. If he did, he’d kick their ever-living ass.”

Given that anyone who has seen Natural Born Killers (which is everyone I know) can see what a convincing dangerous bad-ass Woody Harrelson is, I can only conclude that paparazzi don’t get to the movies much. Or read magazines. Apparently there is something about Woody Harrelson which makes paparazzi want to chase him. Another paparazzo is currently suing Woody Harrelson for allegedly attacking him outside Hollywood nightclub Element in 2006. (Although it might have changed ownership since then, the last time Forrest Black went to this particular venue, he complained of having to endure watching a performer flog a balloon, as opposed to a hot girl. But I digress.) At any rate, Woody Harrelson has made it clear that, like anyone, he does not love having strangers up in his face with cameras at all sorts of annoying times. Unlike just anyone, he has already made it clear that he is prepared to defend his privacy strenuously. Unlike just anyone, he is also the son of a man serving multiple life sentences for contract killing a Federal judge. Does a famous actor have to actually kill a paparazzo in self-defense before people back off?

Even if common decency fails to stop paparazzi from non-consensually photographing Woody Harrelson, you’d think common sense might kick in. As I don’t even like to lift a camera to my eye until a model release is signed, the whole paparazzi phenomenon really kinda baffles me. I don’t think harassing a man, when he is exhausted from gainful employment and travel in service of same, is what the founding fathers had in mind when they guaranteed us freedom of the press. There are areas of scandal where I feel the newsworthiness of a public figure is relevant, but I don’t get what is newsworthy about what an actor’s daughter looks like after a plane trip. Then again, Woody Harrelson is an activist for marijuana legalization, so maybe this will make the press take up his cause in the hopes that he will become a little more chill.

The real good that will come out of this unfortunate incident, however, is that, from now on, I am going to excuse all hostile behavior by explaining that I was startled by someone who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie.

So right now FUSE is playing a block of Nelly videos. I find Nelly ridiculously hot. Hot like sexy, not hot like kindling. I’m not even sure if I like his music, but I certainly enjoy his videos. They’ve got productions values! (Bonus cool points to anyone who gets the movie reference there.)

So I was sitting there, letting the purple hair dye set in my hair, watching the Hot In Here video, and I suddenly realized that at least part of the video was shot inside a particular nightclub on Hollywood Blvd. Specifically, it was shot inside the Basque nightclub a couple blocks from me which burned down a day ago. Holy firemen of irony, Batman!

I was all trying to go to sleep at like six in the morning and I couldn’t figure out WTF was up with all the helicopters. I mean, my neighborhood has been a little weird lately, but this was just ridiculous. Turned out they were all the news copters shooting the fire and the literally two hundred and ten firemen and countless arson investigators and other officials dealing with the fire. Apparently, the building’s core was super old and had like poisonous resins or something on some of the burning wood. Not the best air quality where I live in Los Angeles for the past day.

But I really think the copters should have been blasting Nelly singing Hot In Here while they flew over my place. That would have totally made it all okay.

It’s kind of funny that I love love love the aesthetic of the new Captivity movie, yet I’m kinda not cool with the subject matter. I’m not too comfortable with it being censored either, though.

I know people have been complaining, since before I was born, about violence in movies being okay, while sexuality is censored. But I have to say, why is it that if someone puts their cock in a beautiful woman’s mouth, the movie is probably going to get an X and thus limited distro and thus limited financing and production values? But dismember the same woman slowly and the discussion becomes R or NC-17? Is it really okay to broadcast horrors, the likes of which most people will never ever see in person, to seventeen-year-olds, but healthy sexuality, of a sort most people will experience, takes another year of maturing for audiences to be able to handle it? What kind of a society are we going to have when we show teenagers torture porn like Hostel before we let them see, if you can forgive me for invoking normalcy, normal sex?

Full disclosure: Obviously, you all can’t have missed the advertisements Captivity bought on a number sites I work on, including this one. And, yes, if you went to the premiere party at Los Angeles meat market Privilege, you probably spotted around half a dozen hotties you recognized from BlueBlood.com, along with various other contributors.

It bums me out, on a number of levels, that the premiere party was billed as ground-breakingly outrageous and nasty. This seems to show a simultaneous lack of respect for the performers and desire to profit from them. Although the cigarette smoke-stained off-white interior of Privilege generally plays host to more vanilla smutsters, Los Angeles has seen tattooed hotties doing BDSM once or twice before. In point of fact, the club is essentially a tent erected by where the Coconut Teazer nightclub used to stand. So that very location has probably been host to more than its share of tattooed hotties with fetish gear over the years. The most ground-breaking aspect was probably that it is unusual for a movie to not screen at its own premiere.

Anyway, both the MPAA, which rates movies, and a variety of watchdog groups have objected to Captivity’s presentation well before they started planning a premiere. After Dark Films pulled thirty of their billboards from Los Angeles and more than fourteen hundred taxi cab adverts, the creative for which featured the slogan “Capture, Confinement, Torture, Termination.” over very beautiful stylized photos of a very small portion of a scene involving a woman. I can’t emphasize enough how great the color scheme of those advertisements was. Meanwhile, the MPAA jerked the movie company around on when the film was even going to be rated. After Dark Films co-founder Courtney Solomon claims the MPAA rigmarole with Captivity is just about the MPAA maintaining their position of power. “They needed a whipping boy. They’re not about protecting parents or kids. They’re about keeping their power in Hollywood.” The upshot of this was that a schedule May 18 release date became a July 13 release date. While releasing a horror flick on Friday the 13th is always nifty, any organization which can keep audiences away from a product is scary. And not scary in an entertaining way, scary in a bad way.

A quick history lesson: The Motion Picture Association of America was founded in 1922 as a trade association. Although the initial industry concerns it dealt with had more to do with copyright and contract standardization, over the years, it has become almost synonymous with the ratings system it devised. Many industries choose to police themselves, partly out of decency, and partly out of a desire to take care of it internally before outsiders do it for them. So the MPAA ratings board determines whether a movie will receive wide release as a PG flick or the financial death knell of an NC-17. Representatives of the six major studios sit on the board. These studios includes Disney, Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Brothers.

Now, the opening weekend gross for Captivity was only a bit over a million bucks, which is pretty terrible for a major studio release and brought the movie in at a ranking of #12 for domestic releases that weekend. In all fairness, the flicks Captivity was beaten out by were Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Transformers, Ratatouille, Live Free or Die Hard, License to Wed, 1408, Evan Almighty, Knocked Up, Sicko, Ocean’s Thirteen, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Had the movie been able to open as planned, if the MPAA had not hung them up, then it might have been able to do better against the movies opening that weekend. Although a $1.4 mill opening is lackluster for any theatrical release, especially a heavily advertised one, had Captivity opened May 18 with the same total, it would have ranked #8. Then again, maybe it would have gotten its ass kicked by Shrek and Spider-Man, just like everybody else.

Part of the difficulty I have parsing out my feelings on the brouhaha is that it is difficult to figure out whether an After Dark Films release counts as a major motion picture or a plucky little guy trying to make it. Captivity is “co-released” by Lionsgate, but Lionsgate leaves all the responsibility for potentially problematic promo on After Dark’s doorstep. I’m not sure what “co-releasing” means exactly, but Lionsgate has a market capitalization of one point three five billion dollars and an estimated four hundred full time employees. Which I would not categorize as small or independent. I think it is important to note that the distro on a partner-produced movie like Captivity is a microscopic portion of the business of a behemoth like Lionsgate, which is responsible for very enjoyable and successful projects such as the Academy-award-nominated The Cooler and innovative DVD packaging and distribution for projects ranging from cutting edge fare like Weeds to cult classics like King of New York. Then again, if you inflicted the Care Bears movie on your kids, that is partly Lionsgate’s responsibility too.

According to the New York Times, Courtney Solomon, who put himself on the map by optioning Dungeons & Dragons and parlaying that into a much-lambasted directorial turn, “persuaded the director of Captivity, Roland Joffé, the much-honored filmmaker behind The Mission and The Killing Fields, to undertake reshoots. These added explicit torture, including a so-called “milkshake” scene that involves body parts and a blender, to a picture that was largely psychological in its thrust when After Dark acquired the rights to it.” Both to the New York Times and in other media outlet, Solomon chortles about what a freakshow his premiere is going to be and how upset he hopes women’s groups get about his movie. The National Organization for Women said, on the record, that they were not going to protest to give him press.

So, having delved into the issues involved, here is my summary take on it. First, if After Dark Films is looking for a modern audience for their movies, it is a bit antiquated to act like BDSM and tattoos are outrageous fringe culture. I’m sick of this sort of marginalizing nonsense from people who would like to make a dollar off of my scene. Secondly, because of the major studio makeup of the MPAA, I feel it can’t really be objective. I like having ratings on things as a viewing guide, but I dislike the way the ratings system leads to unwarranted limitations on distribution and I particularly dislike the way the current rating system encourages violence against women in place of human sexuality. It will be a chilly day in Hellywood before I deliberately view torture porn like Captivity, but I don’t think a project like that should have its success determined by whether or not its producers can convince a half dozen really biased businesspeople that violence against women is appropriate viewing for teens. Thirdly, although I kind of liked the Captivity billboards, I was personally revolted by the Saw signage at the San Diego Comic Con and I think movie producers, and everyone really, should pay attention to what they put in an advertisement people will not be able to avoid. I do not want strangers telling me what I can see in my media. I deeply believe that that becomes a slippery slope to total destruction of the free speech rights granted to all Americans by the First Amendment, but I also do not want strangers forcing me, or forcing children, to see things they do not wish to see or should not see. This means that adverts, in public places, for potentially upsetting products, should be honest about what the products are, without ramming the product down the throats of the unwilling.

I admit that, although I loved Elisha Cuthbert’s performance and character in the surprisingly awesome The Girl Next Door, I loathed her Kim Bauer character she played on 24. I thought about kicking off this article with a joke about how I thought Kiefer Sutherland’s Jack Bauer should have just let her be kept captive and tortured. Heck, that was probably the inspiration for Captivity. For me to want to watch that, however, it would really have to be one of the dungeons on Fucking Machines, where the action is consensual and female pleasure might actually be involved too.

I think it’s unfortunate that one of the down sides of living in pretty much any interesting area or city is that, if you are there long enough, the notion that it just isn’t as cool and fun as it used to be is nearly inescapable. It’s really difficult not to fall into a bit of a rut when you see stores you used to enjoy close down, clubs you used to have a great time at are gone, friends that used to be the life of the party have settled down or just become such monumental losers that you don’t want to see them anyway. It’s hard not to feel like you should just uproot yourself and move to greener pastures sometimes. I know I’ve felt like that in a number of areas I’ve lived. Lately, a lot of my Los Angeles friends have been sharing their general ennui on this subject as well. So, I thought I might share one technique that I’ve found that can kind of help shake things up a little. Just pretend you are visiting. Give yourself a week to do all those things you’d only do if you were actually from out of town. Read the local weekly paper and actually go to everything that piques your interest. You’ll be surprised at just how much fun is actually going on right around you.

Just the other day I was feeling kinda bleh and decided I better just get off my butt and take a walk around my own neighborhood and I ended up having a really fun time. Stopped by the Frolic Room on Hollywood Blvd. and had a beer with their usual crazy assortment of odd characters. Wandered over to the notoriously crusty gay hangout that is the The Spotlight Lounge over on Cahuenga to check out Joanna Angel’s Porny Monster release party. Ran into a ton of people I know but wasn’t really expecting to see. James St James, Author of Disco Bloodbath/Party Monster: A Fabulous But True Tale of Murder in Clubland, was there too, so that was cool. Then I wandered down to Sunset and Vine(ish) to check out Cardinal Sin’s new Dark Pink club. Had a really pleasant time there, met some really cool people. Had a suprisingly interesting conversation about leisurely scenic walks in the World of Warcraft with a couple of nurses while getting to enjoy Wednesday and Darkfiend spinning some of my favorite music. Stumbled home in the wee hours.

Now, obviously, not everybody lives in my neighborhood, but the point is that there actually are more interesting things going on around you than you probably realize, and sometimes it really pays off to just stop by some bar you’ve never been inside, go see a band you’ve never heard of, take a fish printing seminar at the local museum. Amelia has a really cool collage on the theme of government’s inherant indifference to the plight of man that she did not long ago over at the Getty. There is a lot to do, so treat yourself to a kind of random sample from time to time. It’s totally worth it.