George Lucas: Merchant extraordinaire

George Lucas and I have this love-hate relationship. Okay, so he probably doesn't know I exist. But I feel like he's had an influential role in my life. I mean, what would my childhood have been without the exciting escapades of Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones?

The amazing thing about George is his ability to stay "relevant" through several decades, despite his rehashing of the same old battered and overdone story lines.  When I think of his portfolio of films, he's really only told two, albeit long winded, stories  --   Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. Sure, George's ability to stretch the basic action/adventure premise of these two films into a run of more than ten films is nothing short of brilliant, if not only from a entrepreneurial point of view.

But the films were only the catalyst. There was also The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series, the numerous Lucasfilm video games, the Clone Wars cartoon series -- on and on it went. But looming largest of them all was: the toys. George knew the money was in the merchandise.

Part of the deal with Star Wars was that George got to hold onto the merchandising rights. And it paid healthy dividends. Thanks to these two franchises and their bountiful produce, my buddy George Lucas is worth an estimated $3 billion today.

I can't think of any film that capitalized on the untapped resources of childhood allowances more than Star Wars. Up until 1978, there simply wasn't a movie/toy connection. At least not on the level George had unleashed. And what's more, walk into any big box store today and you'll still find rows of these products lining the shelves --  packages almost identical to the ones launched over 30 years ago.

I worry that George has let the figurative merchandising genie out of the bottle. I don't think it's a grand Capitalist conspiracy by him or Hollywood to milk every child and parent out of their hard earned money. But I do see an explosion of movie and television related merchandise, started by George and championed by companies like Disney and Pixar (a division of Lucasfilm and now owned by Disney), that seems to brand everything in sight with the faces of our most beloved fictional characters.

However there is a more disturbing trend. This is the blatant and obvious use of entertainment for the sole purpose of promoting products to kids. Not to name name's, but the whole Beyblade phenomenon kind of worries me. As much as my kids love the toys, the show is nothing but a shameless self-promoting thirty minute advertisement with the sole purpose of enticing an emerging generation to buy their products.

In fact, the Japanese seem to have this corner of the market covered. The other two popular Japanese youth related products, Pokéman and Bakugan, are also heavily co-dependent on their related television shows. The onscreen world is simply an extension of the child's play world the products themselves promote, and vice versa. Maybe the nature of profit oriented societies like Japan or the US are more receptive to the intertwining of entertainment primarily for the benefit of commerce.       

This hypothesis leads me back to the concept of using a film as vehicle for merchandising. I suppose we've come to expect this activity to a certain extent. And the two essential elements -- film and its accompanying "stuff" -- are clearly going to be part and parcel in any new child oriented movie or television production for the indefinite future. But the deliberate blurring of this boundary between art and commerce, entertainment and consumerism -- is a fairly recent innovation and I believe, purposely understated.

Not that art and entertainment have been or have to be exclusive from commerce. That's not what I'm saying here. But I do see an emerging trend of specifically tailored advertising-oriented entertainment geared towards a younger demographic who aren't aware (or don't care) that they're being targeted.

Every generation of artists and entertainers have in general sought to be compensated for their works and effort. I'm sure those who witnessed Shakespeare's plays paid a pence or two to take in the performances, but the emphasis to this day remains the celebration of the art itself, not what can be capitalized or gained from it. To concoct a storyline in the name of "entertainment" for the sole purpose of selling associated merchandise seems a suspect activity in the least.

As Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In translation, let's call these things for what they are. I for one do not want to see the entertainment my family watches diluted by such meaningless dribble.

Where's Weiwei?

Weiwei: on a state imposed vacation. Copyright Ai Weiwei.

No doubt the great Chinese firewall has already flagged this blog and added it to the list of thousands of blacklisted no-go sites simply for featuring the name of this prominent Chinese artist and activist. For those who aren't familiar with the name, Ai Weiwei is the son of one of China's greatest poets, Ai Qing -- and an influential mind in his own right.

Not only has his work been featured at the Tate Gallery in London, The Venice Bienalle and dozens of other well known galleries across the world, but he also had a hand in designing the Bird's Nest Stadium that featured prominently in the Beijing Olympics. (Go here for a more in depth profile of Weiwei) 

Most of us figured Weiwei was "protected by pictures" as one article on the artist put it, his fame and artistic legacy creating a bulwark against any ill intent from the governing authorities. But alas, the Chinese authorities have finally succeeded in "disappearing" Weiwei and silencing, at least for the mean time, one of China's most outspoken intellects.

According to Al Jazeera, the whole thing went down when Weiwei and his assistant attempted to board a flight to Hong Kong. I can only imagine his surprise at being approached by a gang of plain clothes police officers, being ushered into a sterile, fluorescent lit interrogation room and told to shut up and be quiet.

Apparently police then raided his house, pillaged his personal belongings and computers, questioned his wife and closest acquaintances-- and left without giving any information as to what was actually happening.

Reading between the lines, I say something Weiwei said rubbed someone in Communist Central the wrong way. I suppose Weiwei or some of his closest friends may know exactly what that was-- but more likely it was an accumulation of "subversive" activities that triggered the state sponsored kidnapping.

Weiwei is quite well known for his criticism of the Chinese government in its handling of the 2008 Shichuan Earthquake, as well its culpability in shoddy school building standards which resulted in the huge number of child casualties. In 2009, as a result of ties to an investigation into the school collapses his blog was shut down, and he was so severely injured by a police baton later that year he required emergency brain surgery.

Perhaps the most ominous sign of his impending disappearance was the escalation of Chinese anti-Weiwei activities. Not only had his international travel privileges been revoked, but earlier this year his studio was demolished in a high profile act of retribution by "local authorities."

What is clear is that Weiwei's disappearance bears a striking similarity to those millions of disappearances perpetrated throughout modern history. Interestingly, Weiwei's father was also disappeared to a labour camp during China's Cultural Revolution in 1958. However, this isn't all that surprising.

Intellectual, academic and artistic elites in such societies usually bear the first wave of violence under such brutal regimes. The Khmer Rouge followed this route, imprisoning and executing not only the previously mentioned, but also primary and secondary teachers as well.

It was also commonplace in the satellites of the former Soviet Union. Deeply ingrained in the mind of those who lived behind the Iron Curtain was an understanding that if radical thoughts became outwardly manifest -- either in a meeting, published in an underground newspaper or what have you -- the footsteps of the secret police may not be far behind. Knowledge of the dreaded Gulags and what went on there wasn't exactly a state secret -- and that's exactly the kind of control those in charge wanted. 

Freedom of speech is something we in the modern democracies consider a given. Political correctness and minority rights may limit expression in certain social circles or positions of authority, but for the most part we participate in it without constraint and without realising it. In my mind, freedom of speech is the same as freedom of thought or freedom of conscience. It is tied in with those other cherished "rights" like the freedom to practice one's religion without fear of retribution, or vote based on one's deeply ingrained beliefs.

Without this freedom -- as is so obviously apparent and common in these controlling hegemonies -- fear runs rampant. Fear is what keeps the public in step with the ideals of the republic. It threatens imprisonment or torture for those who would dare "subvert" the party line and prevents the open and transparent sharing of ideas that allow others to make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps the most obvious byproduct of fear is a lack of freedom, period. The box in which human behaviour has to operate in such societies is unnaturally bland and unnecessarily limiting. Totalitarianism has its own oppressive flavor, and it is only magnified when coupled with Asia's conformist corporate mindset. But this doesn't excuse the Chinese government from locking away one of its greatest thinkers.

How will history look back at those who perpetrated such acts? My guess is that those who write this chapter will just make that little bit of info disappear as well.

Terry Jones and the Mob of Kandahar

When Rev. Terry Jones torched a copy of the Qur'an after a bizarre show trial condemning the Islamic holy book, he touched off a firestorm of protests across the Muslim World. The most violent reaction was in Afghanistan, where a violent mob attacked and murdered 10 UN workers before being repelled by compound security guards.

This left me pondering how one event led to the other. What does an attack on UN workers have to do with a book burning in Florida? And what rationale drives such extremism?

Much of the mainstream news reporting I witnessed was extremely subjective in its condemnation of Jones. But it was more disgust at the 'hater' then anything else.  As far as I know he was simply expressing his First Amendment rights and didn't violate any state or federal laws. But everyone acted as if we were all going to reap the whirlwind of radical Islam.

The first time he threatened to pull this stunt everyone freaked out too. U.S President Obama begged him not to do it. One guy even offered to buy him a car.

But I guess even the allure of a shiny new Chevy Cobalt couldn't sway Mr. Jones from his ultimate goal. For Muslims around the world, the burning was the gravest of insults. For the Obama administration, it was feared the event would fire up the Taliban and make their task of converting Afghanistan to a democracy all the more difficult. 

It's not like this is the first time Islam has faced a bit of blasphemy. But I imagine the memories of the 2005 "Muhammad with a turban bomb" Danish cartoon riots got everyone worried. Those events resulted in the deaths of over a hundred people -- all over a few ridiculous drawings. 

If I were Mr. Jones, I'd be taking lessons in dodging radical Islamic assassins from Salmon Rushdie. Apparently even Hezbollah has joined the fray and put a $2.4 M bounty on Jones's head.
 
But it's almost laughable to think about an outrage like this happening in the West. In fact, it just wouldn't. Not that there's a lack of things to get offended about. For starters, there's Charlie Sheen's unscripted Violent Torpedo of Truth tour with its potential throng of the dissatisfied, disillusioned and refund hungry fans. 

And although mobs anywhere are prone to irrational and near instant expressions of violence, something else is surely at work prodding and directing such seemingly irrational behaviour. What is so insulting to the Kandahar mob that they would slit the throats of persons unrelated to the offender himself?

I guess in their minds it is all related. Given, an attack on a UN compound to avenge a perceived religious slight involves a fairly substantial leap in logic -- one I'm certain wouldn't stand a test of law. But in that part of the world honor killings, blasphemy and sacrilege are grounds for justifiable homicide. Somehow insulting a dead prophet or the burning of a sacred text is worthy of bloodletting, even if the target isn't Jones himself. In this case, any Western-ish person or institution would seem to suffice as a legitimate target.

As with the 2003 Canal Hotel bombing in Baghdad which killed 22 UN staff, the violence in both cases seems misdirected and wasteful. But deep seated grievances and hatred are not always rational.

However, this leap in logic is not limited to the uneducated and impoverished
hordes of Kandahar. I remember feeling the exact same sense of disconnect when the neo-con hawks of the Bush administration began constructing their case for war in Iraq back in early 2003. It seems that if you can whip up enough righteous indignation, sprinkle it with a little fear and disinformation and pitch it passionately to the masses -- you may just get away with murder, or something like it.   

I'm not about qualifying levels of intolerance, or trying to understand the madness of the masses, but I'm certain actions that result in the killing of innocents should not turn a book burner into a scapegoat -- no matter how "intolerant" his views are. 

Ironically, the only thing that saved one UN worker from certain death at the hands of the Kandahar mob was his ability to recite verses from the Qur'an.

Perhaps both sides should focus on setting aside their religious zeal and intolerance and base their opinions on actual religious teachings. After all, Jesus' own teaching (who Jones claims to represent and Islam claims as a prophet) states: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."

Our Uncle, North Korea

If North Korea was a relative, it would be that drunk neurotic Uncle the cops pulled over for running a red light and not wearing a helmet on his moped. Not that I actually have one of those.

Then he disappears for a while and goes underground, and life doesn't feel quite as fulfilling without him around. Somehow we've come to miss all those bizarre antics and unfiltered outbursts.

But sooner or later he's bound to show up again, probably at some family picnic sporting a completely new hairdo and wearing a silver polyester tracksuit. And life begins to get its flavour back.

With recent world headlines commandeered by events in Japan and Libya, it appears our favourite Uncle has disappeared once again. So what's going on in that tiny isolated corner of the world?

I always thought it would be interesting to visit North Korea, or the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) as they like to call it. Apparently only a handful of people get issued North Korean "travel" visas every year. And from what I've seen of the DPRK (based on the limited media sources that have gotten into the country), the regime is very keen to present a carefully crafted image of itself.

Having never been there myself, I must live vicariously through other's experiences in order to cobble together an image of this unique country and its people. The best examples of these "snippets" that I've come across were featured on the Canadian travel show Departures, and the Vice Guide to North Korea on the website VBS.TV.

Both share common experiences. The difficulty in entering the country, the mandatory government sponsored "chaperone", the mandatory government travel schedule, the Communist indoctrination sessions featuring a lecture on the evil Imperialist aggressors -- all culminating in a visit to a bizarre and barren gift shop.

And what struck me the most about these visits was the emptiness... Everywhere these tourists went they were alone (besides the regime babysitter). The few highways were empty, the streets and museums deserted, even the gift shop. It was as if North Korea was nothing but an automatic and self-propelling construct -- devoid of any form of life and spontaneity.

But I suppose this isn't too far from the truth. In an attempt to control its own population and to prevent the infiltration of anti-communist ideas from the outside world, the regime has instilled a most thorough and effective mind control program. State propoganda begins at an early age and appears to pervade all sectors of North Korean culture.  It shows up in schools, work places -- even on state concocted comedy television shows -- all with the aim of "enlightening" the masses and turning Kim Jong-il and his Juche ideology into all encompassing, self-reliant gospel.

I'm not sure where the people went, but the World Food Program assures us that the masses do in fact exist. Not only do they sprawl the countryside tilling away at the dusty earth, but they face serious food shortages as well. A Nov. 2008 WFP post shows a staggering 8.7 million people (out of a total population of 24 million) needed food assistance, but chronic drought and collective farming issues continue to dog the nation.

According to Wikipedia:

In 2006, Amnesty International reported that a national nutrition survey conducted by the North Korean government, the World Food Programme, and UNICEF found that 7% of children were severely malnourished; 37% were chronically malnourished; 23.4% were underweight; and one in three mothers was malnourished and anaemic as the result of the lingering effect of the famine.

Even though the regime in Pyongyang are the recipients of the first fruits of any harvest, I don't think they are ignorant about the suffering of their people. Nor do I think they willfully propagate it. But arcane economic policies and paranoid self-imposed isolation have certainly amplified North Korea's troubles. Perhaps only Cuba has held onto Communist ideals as long as the North, and faced similar US sanctions to boot.  But if the Arab revolution has taught us anything, it has shown us that a country's identity is not its leadership or dogma, but its people.

So how about a North Korean revolution? Could an Arab style upheaval be in the cards for this geographicaly isolated soap opera of a nation?

Not likely, I'm afraid. Kim Jong-il and his cronies seem to have a death grip on any information that enters and exits the North. This includes the Internet (the primary weapon of the Arab revolution), phone communications, radio and TV. It doesn't help that the North Koreans' most influential neighbour China is equally as tight fisted in its approach to personal freedoms.

Recent sabre rattling from the North, exemplified by the sinking of the South Korean warship ROKS Cheonan (and subsequent fiery dialogue), is a portent that regime change is afoot. The hope is that cooler heads will prevail when Kim Jong-il steps aside, that somehow the creepy dynastic succession of the Il family would be put asunder -- but this is probably not going to be the case. As in most dictatorship successions, the moderates rarely succeed in getting their point across. The military power behind the throne usually wins out at the end of the day, leading to more of the same policies and paranoia.

What is obvious to us outside the bubble  -- the manipulation and oppression of the people in the "Hermit Kingdom" by the Korean Workers' Party and Il regime  -- is that our awareness usually doesn't translate into anything more than snap judgements and detached voyeurism. The military action in Libya is the result of world empathy for the suffering of Libyans at the hands of their own ruler.

Now I don't see how the silent suffering of the North Korean people is any different, but I do see how intervention in Northern Asia would be extremely costly and likely quite detrimental to everyone involved.

But from time to time we do catch a rare glimpse behind the curtain, a glimpse of what our dear Uncle could be like if he just reformed his ways and smartened up a little. A vibrant and thriving South Korea is just such an example.

And even though we'd all like to slap him with a wet noodle and shake some sense into him, I suppose we'll have to resign ouselves to the fact that he has to make the journey back on his own.