Archive | June, 2010

New Layout. (Going for “Happy-go-Crazy”)

28 Jun


I choose this happy colour so that people will not be depressed just by looking at it. I now go for more cotton candy and vinegar. Hmm… “cotton candy and vinegar.”

My blog entries are really happy in it’s BS rantings, it was just the gloomy colours that gave the impression of death, destruction and depression. I was going for “happy-go-crazy” not “I’m so sad I want to cry and then spread my tears across the world. Bhu-hu” kind of theme.

Now this is going to change with this happy pink colour. I feel better already.

I may hate humanism, Dawkins (DAWKINS!), Knausgård (KNAUSGÅRD!), social porn, atheism, deconstructionism, feminism, naive positivism, materialism, shallowness, Hollywood, greedy rich people, people who moralize about being moralizing, post-modernism, PC censorship, terrorism, optimization, violence against woman, clichés (especially in daily human interaction), hipsters, religious people who believe and have faith only in their power to control others, trivialization of moral degradations, artsy-fartsy nonsense, better than thou-liberals, animal cruelty, serial-monogamy, communism, young know-it-alls, coincidence as explanation for everything, teen superstars, celebrity world savers (especially Bob Dylan, Bono Al Gore and John Lennon), Bob Dylan x2, John Lennon x2, Elton John, Mulla Krekar, politician of every personification, guilt tripping environmentalist, racism, homophobia, misogyny, intolerance, life in general, Paris Hilton (and all her imitators), Megan Fox (when her mouth is open), teachers, abortion, suicide as a solution, people who don’t like Rachel Ray, Akon, New Age, drugs, drug romanticizing or fronting (especially weed! The dullest of all drugs), hippies, video-games that are stupid, cancer, the vagina monologues, vulgar comedians who are not funny, depression, hypocrisy (especially when I’m get caught being it) capitalist (not capitalism), films that last for three hours, Israel on a rainy day, Palestine in the sunshine, HTML codes, people who claims to know the truth, bitching about blogging inn once blog, writing blogs in English just because you believe more people will read it and general badness…

…but I don’t hate you:)

Blog 2.0 - Changes is good. Who said it wasn't?

Piracy is a crime (that can save European cinema).

24 Jun

- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''-''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''- ''Piracy is a crime''-


Many moons ago I promised all my faithful readers that I should make a AMC entry about why pirate downloading of movies could save the European movie industry. I even wrote «from a historical perspective» to sound serious and intelligent.

Well, it’s time to tell the truth!

Piracy is a crime but Robbin Hood was a criminal we all could love. Why? Because he stole from the rich and gave to the poor, that’s why! When a person downloads movies, music and books from faceless huge multimedia corporation it’s a victimless crime.

Well perhaps not victimless, but at least the damage is minute. I am not a person who loves the independent cinema, or the European art films.

Hell no!

A still picture from AvP2: Requiem. . The Scream of Pain represents how Hollywood loses money because teenagers see this film for free. Taken from

But I think that much of the great movies that are American, are just stolen ideas from Europe, and that the mass production of Hollywood is too great of a competition (that are historically based on luck) that castrate the European cinema and perhaps the world cinema.

Here’s why:

The film history started in the 19th century Europe. Many believe it started in New York by Thomas Edison. That is a lie! Thomas Edison stole the idea from two French brothers called Auguste and Louis Lumière. What Edison did was patent the moving picture idea for the American marked so that no American could profit from films without Edison getting some for it.

Anyway… At this time there were silent pictures and the US and Europe where equal when it comes to marked and distribution. «Why is that?» you may wonder.

Because the movies were silent.

Since the films were text based the English speaking countries had no advantage over French, German even Norwegian cinema since text could easily be replaced and adapted to other languages. Besides; the visual imagery was international. Everybody understood the moving picture.

So what happened?

Well World War One (1914 – 1918) broke loose. A war the Americans had no interest in (since it wasn’t about oil or any other thing the US needed) and so while we (the Europeans) blew each other up ,the Americans could perfect their «art». In fact, not only did the Americans move forward in the cinema industry, the Europeans moved backwards since film reels where destroyed to make bombs and explosives.

Birth of a Nation. It's cinema gold (and it's racist as hell!)

The American film history got it’s first real advantage with the movie Birth of a Nation, by D. W. Griffith which film history records as the first real Hollywood picture. The Classical Hollywood Style (or narrative) were perfected in that movie with all their international appeal. It was just sound that was missing.

Then WWI ended but the American movie advances would not be easily fought back for the Europeans. So there was a great gap between a Europe in ruin and a untouched US. And while the rebuilding was first priority of the Europeans (art is something you enjoy when you can eat and have a roof. A luxury!) the Americans kept selling their classical Hollywood type movies to the Europeans.

After the roofs where build, and food was again served, the Europeans started to compete with Hollywood again. But the classic Hollywood style was too dominant and expensive to make become impressive so the Europeans tried competing in other ways. With soul. With being artistic.

Three constructive and important movement where then developed in Europe to compete with the US. French Impressionistic, German Expressionistic and Soviet Montage. These movement for collectively known as the Avant-Guarde, a military term to show that these were aggressive movements against Hollywood mainstream dominance.

The Hollywood Sign; Behind it European cinema is being tied down, raped, then killed.

Hollywood watch with amazement of the creative force the Europeans had. Of course Hollywood being the cowards they where never tried to experiment (as an experiment could blow up and become a Box office bomb) so what they did instead was steal all the European ideas that became successfully.

To make matters worse the talkies would soon emerge, a problem that would become apparent as Germans didn’t understand French, nor the French could understand Swedish (it was the Babel confution all over again!). But «everybody» understood English. USA had yet another advantage.

And the luck of the Americans would continue through the years. Then WWII would came, giving us Europeans lots of trouble that yet again was more or less left USA untouched. Not only that but many creative and intelligent people moved to America for fear of their lives. Leaving Europe yet again in ruin and now with fewer ideas too. This of course this is luck and therefore is not the US’s fault.

What is their fault is that they always looked for European creative people, and when the found them (ie. Hitchcock, Zwart, von Trier) they brought them to Hollywood. Leaving Europe to creatively starve time and again.

Alfred Hitchcock: Made some of Hollywood greatest movies. Oh, and he was British!

Here comes the truly horrible side of things! The profits that USA made from the European marked was just gravy as the American population was already bigger than any European country. The average Hollywood blockbuster, did and do, make enough money to be successful domestically.[1]

So that when the French cinema was more or less based in their own country, and Norwegians to theirs, USA could easily come to any one country and eat up their marked while still being self-sufficient in theirs. The consequence was/is that every European country had/has a small marked, that got/get’s smaller with American competition while Americans marked was/is far bigger AND got/having the advantage of having a big international appeal.

And so the story was written, and never really changed… until now! With illegal downloading of movies the US-European marked is shrinking. So now the problem for the US, that has always been the trouble for Europe, is that they get more and more reliant on their own domestic marked.

MPAA logo: This is the real logo for the illuminati (just kidding. I better or the MPAA is going to get me.)

That is the real truth about why the MPAA is fearful of Piracy. Not because they could loose money but because they could earn less. If the Europeans where selective (not that they are) in just downloading American produced movies then the European cinema can start to compete with the enormous entertainment industry that is Hollywood.

In conclusion, WE DON’T OWE AMERICANS ANYTHING! And they should stop being so bitchy since as history reveals they have had all the luck (yes, luck!). Hollywood can have enormous budget with fantastic effects, great actors and scenery since they can afford it. While Europe will have to make movies with smaller budget becoming less extravagant and appealing because of it. Like most of the US world relations, cinema distribution is unfairly balanced and the fear of piracy is far less of a threat than they want you to believe.

At least that’s MY OPINION. Now I hope that MPAA do not read this entry and try to make me responsible for all the lost profit. I can not afford paying their next horror sequel, game-movie or romantic comedy with a happy ending. In real life, as Dawkins would support me in, Goliath kills David every time.. It’s survival of the fittest. Always.

Blog 2.0 - Will Not Cry for the US anymore!

Note: This is a simplification of film history to prove my point. Lot’s of people does this. I could for instance tell how Europe competed with the US by having quotas, and the British demanding a certain percentage of American movies that was screened in Britain to be made in Britain. But this would be distracting to my cause.

If you want to know more about movie history, there are lots of books to be found on the subject. My recommendation is Bordwell’s Film History (for the details) and Film by Andrea Gronemeyer (for the cliffnotes)

Look! It’s a picture!

21 Jun

So here’s a picture. Now let’s analyse it!

What can we say about this picture?

Well on a referential level, it’s a picture of a hole in the wall. We can see cracks running out of it and also lots of chipps that has fallen off.

Explicitly I would guess this is a picture of decay.

Implicitly this picture is probably a statement of our new found sexuality represented by the hole that is slowly disintegrating and widening over time. The blackness within the hole can give associations to void, darkness and horror, but in Asia the colour black is a colour of happiness (or so I heard at a drunken party once) so I think the choice of colour is rather ambivalent.

Symptomatically I would make the conclusion that this is not art as the picture is not in black and white, nor is it taken by a former super-model (or other pretty but dumb woman).

Blog 2.0 - Doesn't lie.

(blog update 24th of June: Many have written to me (no, not really) and asked me “Why are you calling this a movie comment when it’s just an analyse of a still picture?“. Well, dear reader, you have to remember that every movie is just a series of still pictures. Besides I use the analytical jargon given by Bordwell and Thompsons “Film Art“. There you have the answer!

Star signs (a challenge)

18 Jun

Here’s a challenge for people with little to do, or don’t want to do the things the need to do… if you follow?

I don’t believe in astrology, tarot cards or any other new age, alternative stuff.

Or I do believe… if it’s free.

I am just very sceptical to any spiritual truth that cost money. Capitalism and spirituality can go hand in hand, but they shouldn’t be lovers or become married.

What starsign am I?


I have now posted lots of blog entries and you can see a picture of me to the right so it shouldn’t be hard to guess if there were any truth to it. There are many hints spread across the blog, one time I even state it explicitly.

So have a guess and feel free to explain it aswell. If you don’t know what the different star signs entail then there are lot’s of websites dedicated to explaining them on the WWW. I won’t post any here as I don’t know who is right and who contain viruses. There are some explanation on wikipedia, but there are no general descriptions of the signs, only the factual (i.e. that there is something called a zodiac sign).

I find it fascinating how I have been out at night (s)talking to women and they always guess wrong even though I am almost a stereotypical version of my own star sign.

But no… I don’t believe in astrology and even less in horoscopes.

But who knows?

(Richard Dawkins does.)

Blog 2.0 - Like a prostitute, AMC and Blog 2.0 is open to anything.

PS: So you may wonder “How come you state that you are open to anything, but also that you don’t believe in astrology and then go on to say that you are a “a stereotypical version of my own star sign”?“.

Well I guess it’s the Libra in me. (Was that the answer?)


Richard Dawkins (DAWKINS!) is at it again like a whiny bitch child without a father. “IT DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT!”, he screams. “Why won’t you see it my way!”, etc.etc.etc.

But he has a point, like he has in everything, but the point is pointless because he sees them with cynical scientific eyes. We wants to understand darkness with light, emotions with logic and humanity with tools.

Richard Dawkins (DAWKINS!) stop your crusade, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Not everything is an equation, or at least… Not everything should be.

And about his “Lazy stereotyping” argument. Is Dawkins (DAWKINS!) against psychology and their grouping of personality types, mental disorders and the like?

No, of course not… or perhaps.

I don’t know.

Psychology is after all a soft science. But I do believe Dawkins (DAWKINS!) would acknowledge the effort, and the scientific-y demands makes it easier for him to falsify should it not fit his view.

And that is the source of Dawkins (DAWKINS!) hatred isn’t it… Religions lack of falsifiability. Since religion isn’t build upon the scientific criteria of testing Dawkins (DAWKINS!) can never really prove any kind of spiritual “truth” as false. And it probably annoys the hell out of him.


You deserve it you ignorant fuck!


Suicide blogs

13 Jun

Dear Internet,
as you may already know AMC is the kind of blog about the lighter sides. A sort of shallow, trivial, happy-go-lucky, whimsical and innocent fun that gives you a well deserved break from everyday life. This entry is of no exception. Today I am going to write about…

Suicide blogs.

I’ve read the worst kind of social porn blogs. The blogs that state suicidal ideation. I feel my skin crawl as people state their plans toward committing suicide. I won’t get into details of how I found them, but basically it’s just a bunch of hypertext clicking on wordpress.

Depression - Through colours I've tried to explain depression to the emotional numb person.

First, it’s so personal I really feel uncomfortable reading it. It’s like I have no place being in that realm of their world. It’s waaaaaay to personal. Still they post it, so someone where suppose to read it.

Secondly, I feel the need to say something. It’s like you walk towards a bridge and you see someone standing on the wrong side of the fence, you can’t just walk away, can you?

Of course you can… but it isn’t very nice.

So what can one say to a person who wants to die? I don’t know. I really don’t. I could say that “it’s probably just a chemical unbalance in your body that could be adjusted with some exercise and perhaps some medications“, or be casual and happy and say “Cheer up”.

I choose the latter, but I’m not sure that would help. I think the best thing to do when someone writes on-line suicide notes is to ask them to take contact with a psychiatrist or healthcare professional (I know that there is a debate whether psychiatry helps or not, but it helps more than overlooking a problem or pretending nothing is wrong).

Non-depression or ''happiness'' also through colours.

I remember once there was this guy who streamed from a web camera who stated that he would kill himself at a certain time. According to the news, people gathered around the computer and did nothing except stare and some even cheer . No one called the police, no one did anything until he finally murdered himself. (YOU SEE WHY I HATE HUMANISM? YOU SEE? NO?)

I’ve made a promise to myself that I will not fall for the bystander effect, and therefore will not just stand idly by when someone says they’re going to kill them self or they collapses in the street or what not.

But the problem is… everybody got their problems, and we can not help them all. So I don’t google the internet for suicide blogs to try to help every depressed teen or alienated individual. I would guess that that would be a 24 hour a day job. There are lots of people with problems…

But if you want to kill yourself please don’t. I won’t lie and say that everything will work out. That life is so great and fascinating that in and of itself it’s worth doing, or some other happy naive nonsense.

So why shouldn’t a depressed person kill them self?


There’s always hope?

Blog 2.0 - Doesn't have all the answers I'm afraid, but perhaps that's a good thing?

(Blog update 14th of June 2010:

It’s on! (KNAUSGÅRD)

10 Jun

So as you may have noticed I am a grumpy young (relatively speaking) man who murmurs about lots and get’s easily irritated by much. This again leads to many enemies and hatred towards others. These enemies of mine are often personifications of a movement, ideology or cause. Their movement, ideology or cause. Of course the hatred is rather one sided since I hate them because of what they represent, while they don’t know who I am as I’m a nobody (BUT THEY WILL FEEL MY WRATH ONE DAY!)

The list of people I hate have become long through the years as many have been added but few have been removed. Often my annoyance have started with an institution that has then gotten a spokesperson. For instance I have hated atheism, but I have not hated a single atheist before Richard Dawkins (DAWKINS!) but I have also hated humanism, but there isn’t a face there to be hated.

There is a movement that I hate, that is close to post-modernism and other nonsense, which is called (de)structuralism. Now there have been many spokespeople for that movement, but many died of AIDS before I got born or got an opinion of my own, so my hatred where never personified before.

That was until now…

Now a bearded Norwegian has taken a stand! He drew the line and his name is Karl Ove Knausgård (KNAUSGÅRD!). Ugh! What a horrid person! I could write endless pages about how I hate him, why and when.

So since I am a nobody and few gives a shit about my opinion, I tend to share my rants with my friends. «I hate Richard Dawkins… that smug British fuck», «God, those stupid birkenstock wearing feminist. Why wont they just suck a dyke and die!» and the like can be constantly heard when I walk the cities with my friends.

Karl Ove Knausgård. Look at him. Ugh!

They hate my rants!

So one day… Today… My friends E (not the drug), Smidth, the writer of En kopp kaffe ved midnatt (see link at the sidebar—>), and I was walking along one of the many streets of Oslo. Oslo is the kind of place I could write countless pages about how much I hate, but that is not the point.

The point is I was ranting about Karl Ove Knausgård (KNAUSGÅRD!) and how much I hate his «deconstructing liberal nonsense. His brown «that just the way it is» books about the next depravity. Oh, and he’s ugly too».

Of course I made a better case in Oslo. The stench hole of Oslo gave me inspiration to put into words the depth less idiocy, moral hatred and anomic destruction of anything for the sake of nothing that Knausgård (KNAUSGÅRD!) and his deconstruction leads to.

So Smidth got tiered of my rant. I don’t know why as anyone with half a brain could understand Knausgård’s (KNAUSGÅRD!) agenda here since there isn’t one. He is just another emotionally retarded pervert with nothing to do but fart and make us all smell it.

Anyway… Smidth got annoyed and said «Have you read the book?».
She was referring to his début novel as I have ferociously ripped it apart with my prophesy of doom. The book, «Out of the World», is basically a book about a teachers fucking one of his 12-14 year old students, and I could not for my mind understand why it could be critically acclaimed by anyone other than a over sexual whore master.

I said «No», to her question about reading it and added «do I need to
«Yes», she claimed as she was tiered of hearing my foundationless arguments about moral deprivations and how she believed that the book must have some other aspect of it other than breaking moral code to make it great.
«So I have to smoke harsh too then to be against it?», I said patronizing.
«No», she said «but you have to know what your talking about».
«Okay», I said, «I will read his book»

And now it’s on!

And now IT’S ON!

I will read that God damn book! I will read it and have all my biases confirmed. I will find his book so fucking pointless and blandly vulgar that I will probably only bother reading half (to the first old guy and teen fuck fest) and then BURN the book.

Well, not burn it as I will have borrowed it from the library so I would have to pay for it. BUT IN MY MIND… I would burn it so hard!

But what if I like it? Perish the thought. What to one do when you hate someone and then suddenly realize they weren’t that bad?

Well, fortunately this will not be the case with Knausgård (KNAUSGÅRD!) as I know that he’s just another…

Blog 2.0 - It never ends!

An unfinished entry

6 Jun

I wrote this entry a couple of weeks ago, really inspired… but then I just stopped caring… still… Here it is.

Two series. Two problem. Writing and Casting on Fringe and V.

So I’ve been watching two series the last couple of months named Fringe (2008) and V (2009).

This is Phillip Broyles's only expression during the entire series of Fringe. Oh, and he has a limp. Great (!)

I hate those series, but I also enjoy them. I like the series for many reasons, but I hate them mainly because of two reasons; the writing and the casting.. In this blog entry I will try to analyse why the scripts sometimes are bad, and why the casting sometimes seems wrong in two series that had, and in many ways, still have potential.

First Fringe.

The Pro’s of Fringe:
I like Fringe because it’s storyline is consistent, some surprises are believable and even foreseeable while still being surprising. The character of Walter Bishop is fascinating and the effects are great. I also like how the storyline sometimes thematically touches upon very current issues of religion v. science v. world.

The Cons of Fringe:
I hate the writing. Especially in season one. Painful dialogue like “You got exactly 12 minutes” and “You wanted my father, now you’ve got my father. Which falls into the category be careful what you wish for [pause] sweetheart. “. Ugh, and it’s not even camp writing, it’s just horrible!

I swore I wouldn’t see another episode after the pilot as the dialogue, plot and most of the characters annoyed the hell out of me. Especially Peter Bishop. He only works as a background character and in every episode that he gets alot of playing time I get annoyed.

Peter know all kinds of stuff. Who taught him hard science? Life did and a year with his father of course.

There is something completely unbelievable when Joshua Jackson tries to be bad ass. I just can’t believe it as I think I could beat him in a fight (no promise). I don’t know if it’s bad casting or bad writing that makes me hate the character of Peter Bishop but I would guess it a little of both.

But I kept watching because John Noble’s interpretation of Dr. Walter Bishop as this was the only character that didn’t seem one dimensional and was original, funny and fascinating. The character of Oliva in the beginning was also dangerously uninteresting, as was the villain corporation of Massive Dynamic and the Lance Reddick character Phillip Broyles was and is so clichéd, uninspired and disgustingly “cool” that it borders on racism.

Let's shoot a gun inside a morgue to get the adrenaline running. Yeah, that's believable!

One of the worst parts of the writing is when it’s time to be emotional. The scenes where we are supposed to get to know the characters seems forced. This mainly because of how the dialogue is build. In the Fringe universe there are no problem reading the other persons feelings. “You acted like you wanted to [something], but I understand now [their real psychological motives].”

In real life there are people that can read other people like books, but not after one year and not out of the blue and not everybody at any time. That’s why it seems forced as there doesn’t seem to be any clear motivation, nor reason for one character to know the other characters emotions, other than the writers need to express them.

In TV this is a normal problem as all TV shows need to be entertaining and not to difficult to understand for anyone who fell into it when aired. This, in tv terms, is called flow and glance where the producers of a show need to keep the audience hooked to the show, while “knowing” that the average tv-viewer don’t pay attention all the time.

This affects the writing of tv by the need for constant recap of the events that happened before, dialogue that states clearly what kind of problems their are in and where they were going before commercial. The problem is of course to make this seem probable and not forced a task Fringe often fails in.

The problem with bot series boils down to this. I like them, but I HATE parts of them. And it makes me annoyed but hopeful for salvation. Every episode that sucks I think “Please be better next episode. Please be believable and interesting. Not unbelievable and bland.” So I’ll keep watching them but hopefully I will not be punch in the face as much as the first season of Fringe and V.

Soft-social porn (let’s complicate, divide and analyse some more!)

1 Jun


A friend of mine posted a link on my social-networking profile asking me (as I am a guru to all my friends) “Sensei, is this social porn?”

A dog taking a ''pooh'' blurs the edges of what's called entertainment! Remember in the future this is all anyone is willing to produce. No fiction. No beautiful lies. Just bland reality! It's cheap, it's easy and so every idiot in the world can understand. A dog taking a ''pooh''. That's life! That's relevant!

The video he posted was some nonsensical overproduced videoblog about everyday life to some irritatingly normal and fantastically uninteresting people. I won’t even bother posting the video as an example here as it’s horribly idiotic and will only advertise for it.

What fascinated me about that video (and many others) is that although it was boring as hell with no plot or meaning many people still watch them. Why?

Because it’s the new and exciting genre of soft-social porn.

The soft-social porn genre satisfies many of the same needs as regular social porn but has none of the bitter after tastes. We get to watch other peoples lives, that satisfies our voyeur nature, but don’t get any provocative information.

The one video I am now writing about, but I refuse to post here, had gotten 170.699 viewers, with lots of approval but was basically a video about a guy taking his dog out for a walk talking about I don’t know what and showing pictures of his dog taking a shit with a strategically edited composition.

And this brings me back to my favourite rant!



People are willing to watch a guy talking nonsense and watching his dog taking a dump and even APPROVE of it and YOU believe in humanity?

Blog 2.0 - May go far away. May go astray. But will always return one day... To how much it hates humanism!