Archive for February, 2012

The Best Picture That Won’t Win the Oscar for Best Picture: Drive

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

The Academy Awards are tonight, but I am unable to take them seriously this year. Typically, I respect the choices that are made for Oscar winners and nominees. The Academy Awards tend to actually give out awards to nominees who deserve recognition. Other award ceremonies, like the Grammys for instance, tend to focus more on the popular than the profound and moving, with good music being ignored in favor of performances by shitty pop artists (see, for example, Chris Brown’s nominations and performances at the most recent Grammys). If the Academy Awards were to mimic this, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and the Twilight movies would be generating all the attention and the awards. Thankfully, the Oscars tend to go to movies that are legitimately compelling.

However, this year I am disappointed by the glaring absence of one particular Oscar-worthy movie: Drive. Even with the Best Picture being expanded from five to ten nominations in recent years, Drive still did not make the cut in a year that didn’t see its share of particularly good movies. Drive’s absence is conspicuous and jarring. Of the movies I’ve seen that were nominated, Drive is the far superior movie. It has the artistic visuals and symbolism of Tree of Life, but unlike Tree of Life tells an engaging story that does not make you want to kill yourself out of boredom. It is as heartfelt as The Help, given its heart-rending depiction of a budding romance torn apart by violence, but perhaps lacks The Help’s ability to make white people condescendingly feel better about racism by depicting white people doing their darndest to help those black people escape racism. And while Moneyball certainly tells an engaging and entertaining story, it is too conventional to be great, and in any other year would have been seen as a good movie but hardly worthy of any sort of laudatory recognition from an award ceremony. As for the other nominees, which I have not seen, I have a hard time believing they surpass Drive’s full suite of achievements, which encompass amazing visuals, great use of sound, interesting music selections, and solid performances all around, even from the unlikely, seemingly out-of-place casting of Ryan Gosling as a violent action movie star (but whose very out-of-placeness is what makes the character work so well).

Drive is a movie that deserves to be rewatched to be appreciated. It is easy to overlook its beautiful and intriguing cinematography, as well as its symbolism of hidden, unchangeable natures permeating almost all aspects of the film. The movie can be enjoyed simply as an action thriller if you are the type of person that does not want to think too deeply about a film. But reflecting on the movie’s choices rewards the patient, yielding a treasure trove of compelling themes. To name just a few, consider the use of reflections and masks in the film (the Driver is constantly seen in mirrors and reflections, and in one memorable scene donning a mask, hiding his inner nature), the interplay of this element of a hidden nature with the movie’s own hidden nature (it is an art-house movie masquerading as a big-budget, 80s style action movie), the ideas of unchangeable natures and self-destruction (the parable of the scorpion and the frog, the shark being a bad guy “because he’s a shark”), symbols of cleanliness versus dirtiness (the increasingly dirtied jacket, the dirty hands), and so on. There is a rich vein of symbolism running throughout this movie. And what little dialogue there is courses with meaning, something that is more appreciated on a second viewing (e.g., the theme of crime permeating and infecting all aspects of life, even family life, when Standard says “Wow, so it was illegal?” when his wife reveals she was 17 when they met). The visuals are beautiful and stunning, from the ending’s first-person view out the car’s windshield, Driver’s eyes seen in the rear-view mirror in flashes, his hand shining dark red with blood in the intermittent flashes of light, to the way the lights dim as Driver kisses Irene on the elevator in a long slow-motion effect, only to have time speed up to real-time as he fights the hitman on the elevator with him and stomps on his head (an odd reversal of the use of slow-motion that focused on the kissing rather than the fighting). And who can forget the sounds from this film: the brooding electronic music in Drive’s opening scene, the amazing 80s-style credit music, the sound of Driver’s leather driving gloves crunching as he makes a fist, the soft squish of a caved-in skull being stomped.

But enough about Drive. If you didn’t enjoy Drive, or liked it but don’t understand why it was great, then you should probably read my review. Or just take my word that it is a great film. I don’t mind so much that Drive’s greatness could be overlooked. What bothers me, however, is that the movies that are nominated in its place are simply not that good, at least in comparison with Drive. Had better movies taken their place, the Academy could be forgiven, but with this crop of so-so movies in a year that didn’t generate many great films, the fact that Drive is not nominated almost makes me angry enough to smash Oscar’s bald golden head with powerful stomps in a vicious rage while on a descending elevator.

Tree of Life, for example, is beautiful like an abstract crystalline figure—it is something you can admire from a distance but too fragile to handle, something that seems so precarious that it could break simply by looking at it askance, that could be marveled at for a few moments but anything extending beyond a few minutes, let alone 139 minutes, would strain its capacities to induce enjoyment. I admit to taking nothing from this movie aside from a vague memory of children walking near wheat fields while someone hoarsely whispered barely audible non-sequiturs. The movie simply wasn’t enjoyable. No doubt it has a lot to say and also contains a wealth of symbolism, but the movie lacks any reason to try to pursue understanding that symbolism. It does not seem to tell an interesting story, and if it does, its interestingness is very well hidden. On the spectrum of artfulness, it is definitely on the extremes of artfulness, but it makes the mistake of seeing artistic integrity as totally removed from and incompatible with plot development or any sort of enjoyment. It is a movie that is too beautiful to be enjoyed, for fear that you will drop it and shatter it.

On the other hand, Moneyball, while a good, engaging film, simply lacks anything that makes it stand out from other good movies. It lacks greatness. Brad Pitt, and especially the surprising Jonah Hill, turn in good performances, but there is nothing particularly challenging about these roles. Simply put, there doesn’t seem to be anything unique here, or anything that could generate an interesting conversation about film (though it certainly allows for plenty of interesting conversation about baseball and economic undervaluation). Drive, on the other hand, is the sort of movie that produces all sorts of conversation-starters (Why is he so quiet? Why does he wear the mask? Why is he driving off at the end and not going to a hospital? What’s with the 80s aesthetic in a movie set in the present?), and as I’ve already indicated it has many markers of greatness. The Help suffers from the same problem as Moneyball. It is a good film, but there is nothing unique or great in it.

Of the movies I haven’t seen, The Artist appears to be the most interesting. A silent film released in 2011 is certainly an odd choice. But if we’re going to award a film for being silent, then Drive deserved at least a cursory nomination as well, as its introverted protagonist is every bit as silent as The Artist.

Drive – A Review and An Explanation

Sunday, February 26th, 2012

Drive is one of those films that divides audiences. One half of the audience will be vomiting in disgust while the other half cheers and gives a standing ovation. Many people who have seen this film are baffled by many aspects of the movie—its 80s motif set in modern times, the pregnant pauses in conversation, the driver’s decision to drive off into the night after being stabbed, the font used (oh my, that neon pink script font!), etc.—and consequently, they do not like the film. I believe, of course, that those who did not enjoy the film because it baffled them did not take the time to try to understand these baffling elements. The odd choices made in this movie are what make it great and give it a uniqueness that is not normally seen in a heist thriller. Some people, of course, will dislike Drive merely because of their knee-jerk repulsed response to violence, but the movie is not gratuitously violent, nor is it glorifying violence. As such, I will be using this review mostly to correct the half of the audience that finds this movie repellent, to show that its baffling choices are not really so baffling when you understand what is trying to be said, and to show that the violence serves its purpose in characterization.

The plot of Drive is simple enough. The protagonist is the unnamed Driver, an introverted (but not shy) auto mechanic, getaway driver, and budding stock car driver. The Driver is introduced in the midst of a robbery in which he’s the wheelman. He is calm and collected, wearing a retro 80s style white jacket with a scorpion emblazoned on the back, listening to a basketball game and a police scanner simultaneously, a toothpick jutting from his mouth. What ensues is a strangely subdued police chase, seen almost entirely from inside the car from the Driver’s perspective, his eyes flashing in the rearview mirror. He uses the police scanner to monitor the location of police, pulling over and turning off the lights to avoid one cop, calmly driving under a bridge and parking to avoid a police helicopter, and finally easily outpacing a pursuing police car and pulling into a stadium where a basketball game has just ended to blend in with the crowd. No crashes. No explosions. And only brief accelerations of his souped up car.

From there, the movie goes on to introduce several potential plot developments. He meets a young woman, Irene, and her child Benicio (who live across the hall from him), seeming to develop a romantic attachment. Irene turns out to have a husband, named Standard, in prison, and he unexpectedly returns and initially seems untrusting and cold to Driver. Driver’s boss Shannon goes to Bernie, a mobster, to be loaned money for a stock car to allow Driver to compete in racing. A more brash and seemingly violent mobster, Nino, also seems to be involved with Shannon somehow. All of these disparate plot elements seem to foreshadow different possible outcomes. Will this be a story of Driver’s success as a stock car driver, or of his failure as a stock car driver and subsequent issues with the mob? Will it be a story about his romance between Irene, or a story of her jealous husband’s revenge against Driver? The plot takes an unexpected twist in tying these characters together, though. Instead of what appears to be a jealous rivalry between Driver and Standard, Irene’s husband, they become friends and eventually partners. Standard is forced into robbing a pawn shop to pay back his protection debts from prison. He enlists Driver’s help as a wheelman. However, the job is botched by double-crossings. Standard is shot and killed during the robbery. A car mysteriously shows up to the botched job and Driver manages to escape after a high speed chase. After Driver finds refuge in a motel and learns that they have stolen at least a million dollars, the one surviving accomplice reveals that the job was a set up, that the other car was going to rob Standard and Driver and leave them to take the blame for the initial robbery. Hit men find the motel at this point, however, and kill the accomplice, but Driver somehow manages to kill the hit men, dispatching one by stabbing him with a shower curtain rod and the other by using the dead man’s shotgun.

It turns out that the mobster Nino, and by proxy Bernie, were involved in the heist, and that the money they planned to steal belongs to a rival East Coast mob. Nino and Bernie have no other choice than to kill everyone who knows about the money at this point, including Driver, Irene and her son, and his boss Shannon. Driver, however, has the same strategy, and sets out to kill everyone involved to protect Irene. He tracks down Cook, the guy who gave Standard the job, and threatens him with a hammer (Cook is eventually killed by Bernie with a fork in the eye and a knife to the chest). In one memorable scene, he kills a hitman by visciously stomping his head on an elevator. Driver dispatches Nino by donning a strange rubber mask (used by stuntmen to resemble lead actors) and ramming Nino’s car off a cliff overlooking a beach, and then slowly walking toward the weakened and injured Nino to drown him in the ocean in a scene eerily reminiscent of something from a Friday the 13th or Halloween movie. Finally, Driver meets the last player, Bernie, and agrees to give him the money for Irene’s protection. Bernie, however, stabs Driver in the guts, but Driver strikes back and stabs Bernie back, killing him and leaving him dead in a parking lot with the bag full of money. In the end, Driver is shown driving away into the night, his hand bloodied, presumably driving to his death.

The ending has seemed to baffle viewers the most. Why does Driver simply drive off into the night after being stabbed? Why doesn’t he go to a hospital? The answer is fairly obvious. Driver is choosing to die. He is driving into the night both literally and figuratively, as he expects to die and knows this is what he must do to protect Irene and her child. He knows he will be hunted by the mob for the rest of his life, and they will go after those he cares about to get to him. His only choice is to die. He also knows that he can’t change himself; he can’t become a “real human being” (to echo the haunting music that plays as he drives off) except through death, because he is poisonous, violent. He is like a scorpion, and it is in his nature to destroy. When he calls Bernie, for example, to confront him and offer him the money, he asks Bernie if he knows the story of the frog and the scorpion, saying “Nino didn’t make it across the river.” That parable, however, isn’t just about the frog being stung by the scorpion and dying. The scorpion dies, too, poisoning the frog it relies on to cross the river and essentially dooming them both to drown. Thus, Driver knows he is going to die. He calls Irene one last time and tells her “I have to go somewhere and I don’t think I can come back,” and on one level he is talking about how he can’t come back from the violence he is about to inflict, while on another he is simply saying that he is probably going to die. Even his last meeting with Bernie shows that Driver expects to die. As he’s deciding whether to give Bernie the money, the movie flashes forward to Driver leading Bernie to the car and being stabbed, then flashes back to Driver making the decision in the restaurant, implying that he knows Bernie will try to kill him. This is an expert use of flashback and flashforward to show Driver’s state of mind.

In essence, Driver is allowing himself to die to protect Irene from himself. He realizes at the end that he can’t change his violent nature, that he’s a scorpion in disguise and he’ll end up stinging whoever tries to help him, even if it kills him in the process. At first, Driver believes he can change, that he can straighten up and become a stock car driver, that he can have a relationship with Irene, but this is all shown to be an unrealistic fantasy. The movie is full of allusions to this theme of his hidden nature, his inability to change, and so on. The scorpion jacket he wears is perhaps the most telling symbol. At first, the jacket simply looks ridiculous, like some sort of gaudy retro thing straight out of the 80s, perhaps a set costume from the Karate Kid movie or something. The scorpion on the back is just some silly design, benign and signifying only a sort of retro fashion sense. As the movie progresses, though, the jacket becomes more and more dirtied. First it becomes covered in dirt, then blood from the people killed around him, and then finally it is pierced and stained with his own blood. This silly jacket can’t hide the fact that Driver’s hands are dirty, that he is steeped in violence. At first he wears the jacket only at night, only during crimes, and by the end he’s wearing it in broad daylight, unable to conceal his true nature. The scorpion itself becomes less of a mere design element and more of an accurate portrayal of Driver’s character: he poisons those around him with self-destructive v
iolence; he lashes out at enemies not with guns but with piercing weapons—knives, hammers, shower curtains—like a scorpion’s stinger; he tells the parable of the scorpion and the frog, a parable in which the scorpion stings the frog and dooms itself, with the message that a scorpion’s violent nature can’t be changed.

In fact, this explains the symbolism behind another of the film’s more bizarre moments: Driver’s decision to wear a stunt double rubber mask during his murder of Nino. Obviously, the mask is a symbol of hiddenness. Driver is trying to hide his violent nature. The first person Driver kills is the hitman in the elevator. He does so in front of Irene, but he tries to soften the violence by preceding the violence with a slow-motion, prolonged kiss. He doesn’t want to expose Irene to this part of himself; he wants to prolong the goodness. The scene itself doesn’t rely on visuals to portray the bulk of the violence, as it is communicated mainly through sound, the sickening crack and squishing sound of an obliterated skull being stomped on, and the end result is only shown for a brief flash. So to kill Nino, his second murder, Driver wears a rubber stunt double mask in an attempt to hide his violent tendencies behind the mask (interestingly, the mask is as affectless as Driver’s real face), and rams Nino’s car off a cliff. This is why so much of the film’s cinematography shows Driver’s face only in reflections—in the rearview mirror, reflected off car windows, reflected in the mirror in Irene’s apartment, etc—because we’re not seeing the thing-in-itself, the person within…we’re seeing a mere reflection, an empty exterior, a mask. In the beginning, the Driver is given a nondescript, common car but is told it has been given a new high powered engine. The stock car that Shannon buys for him looks dingy and used, and Bernie explains this away by saying, “It’s just a shell. It’s the inside that counts.” Even the Driver’s cars hide behind a facade of normalcy, but underneath lurks high speeds, danger, violence.

With this motif of hidden natures in mind, all of Driver’s bizarre actions can be easily explained, and the choices made in the film can be explained in just the same way. For example, the movie relies on 80s style synth pop as music, a retro pink scripted font for the title credits, and presents what seems to be a standard cheesy 80s action flick. However, underneath this exterior of a cheesy 80s movie (not unlike those Bernie says he used to produce) is actually an art house film embedded with deep symbolism (and, perhaps, like one critic had said of Bernie’s “crap” movies, a “European” style). The retro look is no accident. It isn’t a movie that is set in the 80s but the budget didn’t allow for a full conversion to the world of the 80s. The look is designed to hide its ultra-violence, its modernity, behind nostalgia—in just the way that the Driver uses his cheesy, white jacket.

Driver is a man who is trying to redeem himself. To cleanse himself. To repair things. He is a criminal at night, but a repairman by day. His hands are dirty, but he doesn’t want to dirty other people’s hands. He is constantly seen tinkering with motor vehicle parts. He tries to let Irene and her son escape the depravity of LA by taking them to a hidden creek in the heart of the city, but he has to drive through an empty, barren waterway to do so. He goes to the auto repair shop to have his wounds stitched up. He associates his love interest with car repairs—he meets her when her car broke down, meets her again when she takes her car to his shop, goes on dates where they simply drive around in his car, holds her hand while resting his hand on his car’s stick shift—only to later realize love isn’t something you can fix up like a machine. He kills one hitman using a shower curtain rod, a device that implies hiddenness and cleanliness. He kills Nino in the ocean, trying to wash away his sins, wearing a mask normally associated with his perfectly legal day job as a stunt driver. He threatens Cook with a hammer, a tool of repair taken into the realm of violence. But in the end, he can’t repair himself. Even his legitimate actions are full of danger. In the first scene depicting him as a stunt driver, he is asked to sign a waiver in case he dies. And his job in the auto repair shop is only a front for providing cars for getaway services. There is no repairing or fixing his true nature, which is violent and poisonous.

In one particularly telling scene, Driver is sitting with Irene’s son, Benicio, watching cartoons (another way in which he tries to hide his subversions—by reverting to childishness, to a 1980s aesthetic that probably existed during his own childhood, to the long silences and cool introversion commonly seen in children, and Benicio himself, who aren’t burdened with the socially-constructed idea that they must be constantly speaking, etc.). The dialogue as they watch the cartoon says it all:

DRIVER: ““Is he a good guy?”
BENICIO: “No.”
DRIVER: “How can you tell?”
BENICIO: “Because he’s a shark.”
DRIVER: “There are no good sharks?”
BENICIO: “No. I mean, just look at him, does he look like a good guy to you?”

There are no good sharks, and there are no good scorpions. And if you look at Driver by the end of the movie—covered in blood and dirt—you can just look at him and know he’s a bad guy, and he knows the only way to redeem himself is not to try to change but to destroy himself.

The sad realization of the movie, however, seems to be that Irene and Benicio won’t be redeemed by the Driver killing himself after all, for they, too, have natures that can’t be changed. Irene has a tendency to surround herself with criminals and violence, in spite of her innocent exterior. She marries a man who is in prison for something “shameful.” When her husband describes meeting her for the first time, she admits she was only 17 at the time, prompting Standard to exclaim, “Wow, so it was illegal?” Even an innocent, romantic first meeting is seeped in crime (and it’s no coincidence that Standard affects a misleading, heavy latin accent when he meets her for the first time—more evidence of the theme of evil lurking behind facades). When Standard returns home and Irene throws a welcome home party for Standard, she is seen sitting outside in the hall when Driver exits his room. She apologizes for the noise from the party’s music, and he jokingly says he’ll call the cops. But Irene’s response seems a bit too serious when she says, “I wish you would.” This is a woman whose nature is to fall in love with the bad boy, the criminal, and Driver doesn’t seem to realize that his death won’t change that. Even worse, the movie seems to foreshadow Benicio’s growing up to become the second coming of the Driver: he is silent and introverted, but not shy, just like Driver; he tries to emulate Driver by taking a toothpick; he is constantly being draped in the white scorpion jacket as a blanket; he witnesses his dad being beaten, knows his dad has been killed by the end, and adopts a vacant, affectless demeanor like Driver. Benicio isn’t seen at all for the rest of the movie once the Driver goes on to seek violent revenge, and that’s because the child inside him has been killed. Just as the childish demeanor of Driver, in his 80s-era fashion and long pauses and simple speech patterns, are unraveled by his descent into violence. We also have to remember that Benicio is a product of his father, a convicted criminal. I don’t think Benicio is going to grow up to be a good guy. He’s going to be a shark.

Obviously, there is much in this movie that plays with the idea of whether we can change our true natures or hide them from others. In the end, the film seems to be saying that we can’t, but the best we can do is try to destroy ourselves if it is in our nature to destroy others. I also know that much of what I’ve taken from this movie isn’t what the writer or director probably intended. I’ve heard it said that there might be a sequel, and frankly I would be pissed off if they did that. So much in this movie points out the necessity of Driver’s death—if not the physical reality that being stabbed in the gut during the day and then driving until the night would entail enough blood loss to induce death, then at least the symbolism and dialogue should at least seal the Driver’s fate as a dead man.

Even if you don’t enjoy hunting around for symbolism in movies, Drive still offers a lot to the moviegoer. The use of sound is impeccable, from the crinkle of Driver’s leather gloves when he makes a fist, the cracking, squishing sounds that imply a stomped-in skull, to the use of cheesy-sounding, out-of-place music that somehow fits the mood perfectly. The visuals were also frequently stunning. I won’t soon forget the scene where Driver drowns Nino on the beach, with Driver approaching slowly in a rubber mask, the beach dark and beautiful and intermittently shot through with light from a quickly rotating lighthouse. I won’t forget the way love and violence were interestingly juxtaposed in the elevator scene, where you would expect a quick kiss followed by a slow-motion ass-kicking, but we are instead treated to a slow motion kiss followed by a largely unseen ass-kicking doled out in real time. I also enjoy the fact that this movie puts together so many plot points and doesn’t go where you’d expect at all, and still manages to tie up all those plot points at the end. So even if the choices made in the movie did baffle people, I still wonder how they could consider it a bad movie. It is beautifully shot and every scene serves its purpose. All I can say is that if you did not like Drive, you need to rewatch it, keeping in mind the theme of hiding one’s true nature, and you’ll see that so much of the cinematography, so much of the dialogue, and so many of the character choices perfectly fit with this theme, that the violence is necessary to underscore just how much has been hidden from the viewer by Driver’s benign appearance. Everything eventually makes sense if you simply take the time to try to understand. But who knows…maybe it’s just in your nature to not enjoy this movie.

Episode 11 – The Whole Dog and Abortion Show!

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Welcome to Saint Gasoline Podcast episode 11, in which I discuss the following:

  • Susan G. Komen for the Cure fights Planned Parenthood to the death and is promptly handed its ass.
  • The Republicans are now waging a war on birth control. They claim the pill is hoarding WMDs and filling mass graves with millions of dead sperm!
  • The Westminster Dog Show was yesterday. I watched it and was outraged that Fifi, my Doberman Pinscher friend on Facebook, did not win. Instead some encephalitic, febrile midget with hip dysplasia and a severely mutated face won. Why do dog shows encourage deformity?
  • Drive is a good movie, but I’m unsure how being really quiet and smiling awkwardly attracts women. For Driver, though, it seems to work. It probably doesn’t hurt that he’s also Ryan Gosling.

Site News

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

I have some very important news! The second season of the Saint Gasoline podcast is starting up this week!

First of all, you’ve probably noticed there are new blog entries. This means that, yes, I will be blogging again.

But what about the podcast? Well, there will also be a podcast! The podcast will essentially be an extended version of my blog posts for that week, with slight improvisations and additional content/musings from yours truly. So the podcast will be just a slightly extended version of the blog posts, with additional crap coming out of my mouth as filler! Yum! Crap filler is my favorite!

What this means is that you can choose to either READ the content or LISTEN to the content. Everyone wins! Except people who are blind and deaf. Then…well, that just sucks. I’ll try to work on creating a tactile version of the podcast for you blind/deaf folk, but that could prove uncomfortable for both of us.

TL;DR: Now you don’t have to hear my voice if you hate my voice, and you don’t have to read this font if you hate this font! Right on!

The Susan G. Komen Race Away From Our Organization for the Cure

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

Typically, the only way to damage the image of a breast cancer awareness organization would be to prove that it had once strangled several puppies and then damaged many priceless works of art by flinging said puppies at the art. (Flinging the puppies at art is essential, as merely strangling puppies could be justified simply by shouting “We save lives!” to distract people and then wildly brandishing pink ribbons at them.) But Susan G. Komen for the Cure—an organization renowned for giving those with breast cancer hope that anything is possible—has indeed shown us all that anything is possible by causing a deluge of anger without even strangling one puppy. The outrage resulted from Komen discontinuing funding to Planned Parenthood for their breast cancer screenings, with the rage mainly spread by the many women who use Planned Parenthood for healthcare services and by pro-choice advocates.

Before these events unfolded, Komen was perhaps best known for its sponsorship of strange, sadomasochistic events called “Race for the Cure” in which apparent masochists endured grueling foot races that could make even a breast cancer patient wince and be glad the chemo prevents her from engaging in such self-destructive, painful, and irrational behavior. Komen was also known for plastering pink ribbons everywhere, and some have argued that Komen is less a breast cancer charity than a factory for ribbons. They’ve put their little ribbons on cereal boxes, football jerseys, car bumpers, cans of soup, soup itself, dog houses, dogs, wild animals, domesticated animals, mules, etc. In their efforts to raise awareness of breast cancer, they have drowned our country in breast cancer awareness. Whether you’re eating a bowl of soup, visiting a petting zoo, knitting, or participating in a healthy game of shuffleboard, you cannot avoid being reminded of breast cancer. Even if you’d rather not think about breast cancer for one second, there is no avoiding these dreaded pink ribbons, which lurk around every corner on every object to constantly remind you that terrible things, like cancer, happen in this godless, empty universe that is devoid of purpose or meaning and that ultimately death awaits us all. And sometimes you’d rather not have these thoughts while petting a goat at the petting zoo. But Komen, with its surplus of pink ribbons, does not care if your child is crying and terrified of getting breast cancer in an uncaring universe because it was reminded of death by seeing a pink ribbon pinned through a goat’s skin. All they care about is that their organization is known, that it gets donations, and that people for some reason think that cancer can be cured by running marathons. However, owing to Komen’s disastrous decision to defund Planned Parenthood, Komen is now best known for taking away healthcare services from the underserved and needy—the women who rely most on Planned Parenthood—rather than for being a ribbon factory that sponsors charity runs. Now the only race Komen will be sponsoring is the Komen Race Away from This Organization for the Cure half marathon, a race for which record speeds are expected.

When the news first broke, Komen insisted that the decision was not politically motivated. “We decided to defund these baby-murder factories that train women to become slutty whores for totally apolitical reasons,” said a Komen spokesperson. “Our organization had recently instituted new rules for funding eligibility, which were: 1) The organization could not be under congressional investigation, 2) the organization could not have murdered countless babies in a holocaust of the unborn, and 3) the organization could not pass go and could therefore not collect $200.” However, the reason given for defunding Planned Parenthood, that the organization was under congressional investigation, was quickly challenged by everyone online who happened to run a blog or a podcast, which was ostensibly everyone. It was noted, for example, that Komen gave money to Penn State, which is also under investigation as a result of the infamous Paterno/Sandusky debacle in which it was revealed that Penn State secretly offered coaches a Minor in minors. It was also revealed that the current vice president of Komen, Karen Handel, is a failed politician with a known pro-life stance and grudge against Planned Parenthood, preferring parenthood to be completely unplanned because after all, it’s not as if something as important as bringing a new life into the world is a decision that should be made with lots of planning, and is instead a decision best made while drunk and lustily throwing yourself at a guy you just met in the parking lot of the bowling alley.

As these facts emerged, Komen was roundly and swiftly criticized all over the Internet. Even worse, after suffering a terrible blow to its image among pro-choice advocates, Komen then reversed its decision and decided to restore funding to Planned Parenthood, thereby pissing off the pro-life contingent that had been their only remaining supporters.

For now, Planned Parenthood will receive the funding from Komen, but it isn’t clear that this will continue in the future, owing to the fact that Komen is run by pro-life fucktards who may pull the funding at any time for silly politicized reasons that ultimately harm women’s health. Komen’s funding of Planned Parenthood could also be jeopardized by the fact that in another six months Komen will probably have no money left to give out as funds, and will instead be out on the street pandhandling, assuring passersby that they just need some spare change, even pennies will do, so they can catch a bus and visit their five very ill children and in no way will this money be spent on liquor or their terrible addiction to ribbons.