Dispatches from the Coronavirus Days #5

And the Dumbest MF'er Quote Goes to: Ohio resident Bradley Sluder currently on Spring Break in Florida vowed to keep partying despite the global pandemic. "If I get Corona, I get Corona. At the end of the day, I'm not gonna let it stop me from partying."
This wise sage isn't alone either. A whole gaggle of dumbasses has vowed to keep up the frivolity, ignoring all CDC warnings to the contrary.

Dumbest MF'er First Runner up: Indiana resident Atlantis Walker ---yes, you read right, he's named after the fabled lost continent --- got all social justice on the virus's ass by saying, "This virus ain't that serious. There's more serious things out there like hunger and poverty. We need to address that." Wow. A truly in-depth analysis of our society. So what if a viral pandemic could conceivably make those issues worse. Not to worry, though. Bradley and Atlantis are not alone in their abject stupidity.

Seems Pricey but your Hiney Will Thank You: Speaking of lowrent, profiteering scumbags, a man in Canton, Michigan was caught selling cases of toilet paper from his trunk for sixty dollars each. Even better, he was in a Meijer parking lot when he did it! For those that don't know, Meijer is a massive Michigan-based department store that has spread into other parts of the U.S. A disgusted man took video of the incident and it has been shared over 1000 times online.
(Source: WXYZ Channel 7- Detroit)

Now it's a Tragedy, Now it's so Sad to See: Those words, first rapped by Yale University Poet in Residence Marshall Mathers,certainly ring true in two significant ways. First, Donald Trump's untrue insistence that he always saw Covid-19 asa  pandemic when he clearly dismissed it as a hoax early on. Second, now that a member of congress has been diagnosed, it somehow matters even more. Florida Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart is urging people to take the virus very seriously, yet Florida continues to host the morons mentioned above on some of their beaches.

A Brief Herstory of Naming this thing: Covid-19 has moved so fast, jumping from animal to human and then to humans, that scientists didn't have time to give it a sexy name before the majority assumed it was "THE Coronavirus" despite there being many such as SARS and Swine Flu, and others throwing "China" into all references as a way to demonize an entire nation of people. While all indications are that it did indeed originate in China, referring to it as "The Chinese Coronavirus" as Donald Trump has or the "Wuhan Virus" as Tucker Carlson has serves no one except those seeking to create divisions among people. By the time the scientists came up with the semi-catchy name "Covid-19," the various deeds were done. Yes, we know it started in China and yes, we know the Chinese government probably lied about the infection and death rates. But blaming China accomplishes nothing good. For example:

Cotton Picking Fights: Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton wants to kick that mean old virus's ass 'Murica style. In typical flaccid rhetoric, Cotton said, "We will hold accountable those who inflicted it on the world." So watch out, Blofeld! 007 comin' for dat ass!

Can't Spell Dirty Triflin' & Evil Without "DTE": This one could have been posted two Dispatches ago but I waited in the hopes that even a wicked utility company might do the right thing. Well, they haven't so far and there's no indication they're going to. I received emails from such disparate companies as AMC initially stating that would be limiting theaters to 50% capacity before wisely choosing to follow the governor's directive to close. Banks have sent emails insuring the safety of customers and their empoyees. Well, Detroit Energy (DTE) sent an email, too. It was heartfelt and reassuring for anyone who might need help with their accounts right now. I know I'll always remember the day I read those three magic words:

  PAYMENT DUE REMINDER

Feel the love, everybody. 

Feel the love.

More to come?

Read Previous Dispatch here.

The Sequel to Top Gun: Playing Devil's Advocate.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who is more excited about the "Top Gun" sequel than me. I still remember sitting alone in that theater surrounded by an enthusiastic audience, watching what would become one of the defining movies of my generation. Obviously, I loved it. Still do. I even bought the soundtrack, I rented the VHS, and I re-watched it often. In fact, it was probably my most watched non-science fiction film until I saw Oliver Stone's "Platoon," which I consider the defining film of my generation.

But "Platoon" wasn't fun or cool. Okay, it was kind of cool to teenagers because we knew next to nothing about Vietnam, but overall it was tragic and emotionally draining, as were"Hamburger Hill" and, for those who liked it, "Full Metal Jacket." "Top Gun," on the other hand, was fun.

Described by its director as rock 'n roll in the air and by one of its producers as "Star Wars on Earth," the Tom Cruse star vehicle captured the Reagan era zeitgeist better than any other film of the time. And while I recognize that isn't necessarily a good thing in retrospect, it was nearly impossible to not get caught up in some part of it if you were there. Was it a masterpiece? I suppose that depends on how one defines the word in relation to moviemaking but, for what it was and what it was designed to do, I would say yes.

It was.

This may seem like a specious comparison, but in many ways the film reminds me of "Casablanca." Not because of its story or plot but because of its cultural relevance and inherent re-watchability. The two movies couldn't be more different regarding subject matter but they both feature two conflicted male protaganists struggling against external and internal forces and a strong female protagonist whose love both complicates and compliments his struggle.

It's also about a guy who has to make an all-important choice at a critical moment and makes the right one in the end when it counts. Imagine if Rick hadn't decided to help Ilsa escape Casablanca or if Maverick (Cruse) wasn't able to overcome his PTSD during the aerial combat scene at the end and Iceman had been left to fend for himself. They would have been two very different, possibly more realistic movies that probably would only be remembered by cinephiles. However, Rick and Maverick both do what's right when it needs to be done. Despite all my cynicism and desire to write darker-themed stories, I still recognize the need for the occasional crowd-pleasing moment.

Then there's the love story. Normally, I am turned off by love stories in movies because the vast majorty of them feel tacked on, mere audience manipulation based on market research. The love

story in "Top Gun" is integral to the plot. It's part of what helps Maverick grow up and realize there is more to life than just his "need for speed." It also feels like a genuine attraction between two people who were destined to meet but not necessarily destined to stay together. Respectively, the audience never truly knows if Rick and Ilsa ever reunite after the war, nor whether or not Maverick and Charlie (Kelly MCGillis) truly get back together at the end or simply spend a little time together before once more going their separate ways.

In a time when movies were usually designed to tell one story and then end, sometimes ambiguously, this was not a setup for a sequel but rather an ending designed to create speculation and discussion. And that is the magic of a single movie with no follow-ups. When the elements of a film come together beautifully, it's rare that a sequel is able to recapture the magic.

And that's why "Top Gun: Maverick" has a bit of a steep hill to climb. What made the first movie great was its ambiguous ending. Life went on, Maverick was in a better place emotionally, but whether or not he remained a Top Gun instructor or "got the girl" was left up to the viewer to decide. With this sequel coming out next year, we now know he did not do either of those things. We don't know why yet but does it really matter?

The glorious, up-in-the-air, Casablancaesque ending will now be replaced with a new story that may or may not exceed or equal the first one. And since it is a sequel, it will most likely feature a relatively definitive ending, especially considering how many years have passed between films. 

Again, I'm mostly excited to see it. In fact, I can't stop watching the trailer. A part of me always wanted to know what happened to Maverick even though the final minutes of the film appeared to make that pretty clear. Perhaps I'm a little upset because what I inferred from the original film is no longer true. All the decades of assumption and comfort are now gone, maybe even rendered pointless. 

Even writers need to be reminded that that's how art works. I get emotionally invested in things, too.  The idea of a "Casablanca" sequel is loathsome, even when thinking about it happening when the actors were still alive. This is in spite of a damn good novel by Michael Walsh that proved it was indeed possible! So there is a small part of me when it comes to "Top Gun" that says, "You nailed it on your first go-round. Why tempt fate?"

Still, I'll be helping them do exactly that next year when the film is released so it must not bother me that much~