UHF vs. Wayne's World, among other things

I've had the chance to re-watch one of my all-time favorite movies: 1989s UHF. It was Weird Al's attempt at putting his Dr. Demento-inspired humor on the screen and breaking out of being a parody musician.

My friends who like this movie often compare it to 1992s Wayne's World. The plots are almost identical: down-on-his-luck hero and goofy sidekick take to the airwaves and make it big. Here's a rundown of both movies to see where the differences lie.

Casting/Characters
Ironically the low-budget UHF has a much better cast than Wayne's World. Weird Al stars alongside Kevin McCarthy, Fran Drescher, Micheal Richards (in fact, it was his first starring role before Sienfeld), and Sopranos David Proval. Each character, while not realistic or made to be believable, has a detailed personality and the actors really show a good range.

Wayne's World is headed by Mike Meyers and Dana Carvey, both Saturday Night Live alumni, and is backed up by love interest Tia Carerre, who would go on to do a god-awful prime-time Indiana Jones ripoff and be "that kind of hot Asian chick" in a lot of movies. Despite having major studio money behind it, Wayne's World has a pretty small cast and the SNL-style comedy of Meyers and Carvey is sort of expected.

Setting
While shot entirely in California, UHF has a very clear Anytown, USA feel. The setting isn't a place that exists anywhere in the universe, but is a collection of run down buildings, crappy apartments and suburban wasteland that could potentially be your back yard.

Wayne's World takes place in LA, and that is literally all you need to know. It is a direct parody of LA culture and values in the early 90s. While most people remember 1992 as the year Bill Clinton became president and the time just before the economic prosperity of the dot com bubble, it was a pretty bad time for musicians (which Wayne and Garth are in the movie). The entire aesthetic, from Wayne's basement to Cassandra's spartan loft apartment, coupled with the constant references to 90s heavy metal, create a very bleak, bland, and downtrodden feel.

Both  movies use the ambiguity (or lack thereof) of the setting to help with the...

Parody
UHF shines in its insane representation of television shows, from Stanley Spidowski's Clubhouse (where lucky children get to drink from a fire hose) to a Nature-type show which replaces a handsome, bearded woodsman with a Mexican animal hoarder who throws poodles out of windows.

Wayne's World is less a parody of the content of television than it is on the industry itself. It's far more subtle, more relevant, but much easier to miss. It also throws in some nice parodies of the film industry as well, such as this "Gratuitous Sex Scene."

Overall
Ultimately the question as to which is better comes up, but I say screw that, see them both. Each film remembers a time, not so long ago, when any schlub with a few bucks could get a cable access show and broadcast almost whatever he or she wanted to the neighborhood. Before Clinton (you heard me; look it up) gave the FCC and Clear Channel almost unlimited power to buy and regulate the price of access to radio, and before cable TV was carved up between Comcast, Verizon and a bunch of shitty satellite companies, the airwaves literally belonged to the people, and the people could use them. Nowadays, we still own the airwaves, but we better already have a couple million in the bank and an army of advertisers behind us if we want to use them for anything. Good news is that this has largely been replaced with the Internet, podcasts and You Tube, and it's easier than ever to throw together a blog, video or record yourself talking for an hour. But the Internet's great flaw is it's advancement - the instant gratification of watching anything you want at a few mouse clicks, and being able to switch content at a moment's notice or just on a whim means that any content with actual substance, length or quality (like this) is usually overshadowed by leave Brittany alone guy.

It also bears mention that Wayne's World director Penelope Spheeris also directed two utterly fantastic indie films (back when indie films were indie films, not the steaming, over-budgeted piles of cat sick like Eagle vs. Shark) called The Decline of Western Civilization and Suburbia. The former is a music-themed look at American in the 80s. The latter is a story of kids living in abandoned homes in a mid-western housing development, and while it does have the unholy taint of Roger Corman, it is thoughtful, heartbreaking, and has an ending that makes you yell, "Holy shit what the fuck just happened!?" in the best possible way.

Addendum
While many people like the humor of Wayne's World and the punk feel of Decline..., Suburbia went largely under the radar. If you read this and decide to see it, fair warning: there are some seriously gratuitous, violent and deeply disturbing scenes, one of them in the first five minutes. It is not for the faint of heart.

Politirant - Abortion Edition

10 states down in the primaries and already I'm sick of it, but what's surprising is that the sinking feeling that it's essentially the three same candidates and one crazy old guy fighting it out hasn't hit the rest of the populace yet.

When you think about it, what difference is there between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum? All millionaires, althought the other two are not quite as millionairey as Romney. All bending to the will of extreme minority of Americans who want war with Iran and further tax breaks for people other than themselves in the same of American exceptionalism. All take the same hard-line conservative view of social issues (again, at the behest of the 30% or so of people who still identify as conservatives and believe capitalism is the best system of government available).

News flash: 30% might win a primary, but it's not winning any elections. If the turnout in the primary states so far is an indication, I would be worried.

But there is another on which I wish to harp. A few weeks ago, Santorum appeared on Piers Morgan and the two discussed abortion. Well, it was less of a discussion and more a stunned British interviewer watching the embattled candidate double and triple down on his position with an internal fire that would make 17th century Spanish inquisitors jealous.

At some point, Morgan says (paraphrase), "If your daughter was raped, and became pregnant as a result, you would have her carry her rapist's baby to term?" Predictably Santorum says yes, but it's not for the reason you may think.

Sure, the guy is a religious fanatic, but the fervor by which he comes to this conclusion about his daughter's theoretical violent childbearing is fueled as much by economics as it is sheer mental retardation. Let's say that this exact thing does happen - his daughter is raped, becomes pregnant and carries the baby to term.

Does she have to worry about medical expenses? No.

How about the cost of raising a child? Daddy makes my yearly salary in one speaking event, so no problem there.

What about schools? Well they can send this kid to whatever school it wants.

Emotional issues? Already got the best psychotherapy and home care money can buy.

Is this going to be another child of violence, beginning life with a severe disadvantage and being thrown into an overcrowded inner city school with no psychological, emotional or financial outreach? Of course not.

My point in saying all this is that an unwanted or unexpected child of any kind is the ultimate nightmare for most of us, but not for Rick Santorum and family. Everything is paid for already. The family won't have to weigh the decision of selling their house to buy daipers or pay medical expenses, nor will the parents have to take extra jobs to pay for the daycare they need because they work an extra job, just to save a few pennies on the side. They aren't going to have to sell their furniture to make a car payment because all of their money goes toward the new, adorable, smooshy-faced financial black hole in the back room.

The situation I've described is one that is all too real, and one I've seen happen many times to people who, frankly, don't deserve it. Kids are great an all but they fuck you up and they fuck up your check book even worse. Especially if you were raped and now have a pudgy little reminder of basically the most intense mental trauma one can endure crawling around your ankles and demanding food. But as I said, if it ever becomes an issue, Daddy Santorum can pay for that too.

Always remember that one's economic situation often trumps any beliefs they may have. Not always - but mostly. And saving people from personal financial ruin is specifically why we have contraception, morning-after pills and yes, abortions. While the Santorums can give any kid of any origin every advantage in the world, too many kids sit down to a dollar menu dinner with a heaping side of post-partum depression as it is. Adding more people with super shitty lives to the pool of people who already have super shitty lives is not the goddamn answer, and it isn't just Jesus saying so.

The hypocrisy comes full-circle when you find out Santorum's stance on social outreach, which is basically standing on top of its bloody corpse with a great spear lodged in its still-twitching spinal column. The life of the unborn is sacred, but once they're born, fuck 'em. It's a subtle way of saying, "It's your fault for not being rich or at least well-off enough to take care of an unexpected child." Or in a more direct way, we'll call it the "Fuck the Poor" policy.

Of course, very little of this is actually surprising, but the lesson is that I don't think it matters who gets the 2012 nomination because they're three versions of the same asshole. Ron Paul ever remains the exception but, yeah.

Come on.