Review of the Aristocrats:

I'm currently in the process of transferring some old reviews I wrote for a website called J-Maddy the summer before last summer to this website, so here's The Aristocrats (2005):
Last night, I took the metro to Rosslyn, hiked over a mile across the Potomac River into Georgetown and down a ways to go see this movie because Georgetown Lowe’s was the only theater that was showing it, due to the fact that it was banned in the movie theater I worked at. The film I’m talking about is “The Aristocrats”, a really cool documentary where something like 100 comedians (a lot of them famous: Whoppi Golberg, Robin Williams, John Stewart, Kevin Nealon, etc.) are asked to tell the same joke. The documentary also throws in some commentary, interviews, joke swapping sessions, etc.

I know what you’re thinking: doesn’t the same joke get old if everyone tells it? Well, some people I talked to said it kind of did, they should’ve stopped at 50, but the point is, in general the answer is no. The joke is a really open-ended one that each comedian tells differently. Oh yeah, and it’s also a really dirty joke. Really, really dirty. The film takes your mind to new levels of dirtiness that you never even knew existed which is why it’s banned in like 46 states, and you feel kind of like a criminal watching it.

At the same time, that’s the point of the film: that everyone has a dirty place. If the film was made for any single purpose, it would be a crusade against censorship. I think they make their case best by the fact that in their film, the comedian behind the famously corny family sitcom Full House Bob Saget tells a version of the joke so dirty, that he probably had to flee the country immediately afterwards.

Even as you’re disgusted a lot of the time you’re laughing. I think I realized for the first time ever how liberating it is to rearrange your priorities for a couple hours where being politically correct takes a back seat to laughter. When that happened, I knew the film had accomplished its mission.

What's the difference between an alcoholic and a JMU student?

No, that isn’t a joke with a punchline. I actually am wondering what the answer to that question is.

In the news, Lindsay Lohan and Tara Conner (AKA Miss USA), are all over the news for their shameful alcoholic problems. As far as I can gather, Lohan and Conner’s only crimes are not being JMU students, but rather people stuck in a world of adult behavioral expectations. I imagine most JMU students probably look down at Lohan and Conner and think of them as alcoholics, but I seriously think Lohan and Conner would fit right in at JMU. If they’re alcoholics and actually needed to check into rehab (beyond the need for good PR), then wouldn’t half of JMU need to check into rehab?

Lindsay Lohan was lambasted last fall by Morgan Creek Productions for unprofessional behavior. She arrived late on the set occasionally from partying the night before, but consider that movie stars have to arrive on set at 5-8 AM, way earlier than when most JMU classes start. Tara Conner got drunk the night she won the Miss USA paegent: that sounds as good as an excuse to drink as any.

The National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse defines alcoholism by the following.

1. Craving -- A strong need, or compulsion, to drink.

2. Impaired control -- The inability to limit one's drinking on any given occasion.

3. Physical dependence -- Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety, when alcohol use is stopped after a period of heavy drinking.

4. Tolerance -- The need for increasing amounts of alcohol in order to feel its effects

Also www.about.com defines alcoholism as interfering with your daily life, so for people like Lindsay Lohan and Tara Conner whose daily lives are much more demanding, whereas our daily lives at JMU involve drinking as an almost mandatory 13^th credit.

Looking at these, someone exhibiting #4 tolerance is cheered, praised, and worshipped by his fellow collegians. You could go so far as to say that developing tolerance isn’t considered the sign of a disease as it is a training goal for a frequent drinker. But seriously, none of these are detectable if you are drinking every day, and the average JMU student has the opportunity to drink in a large social public setting at least 4 days a week: Main Street Wednesdays, Highlawn Thursdays, and Drunk Bus Fridays and Saturdays. Many JMU students do take advantage of all 4 of those in the same week, so if someone were to drink at a bar or in his apartment on the extra three days, who would notice?

My friend is a bartender and I asked him what an alcoholic is like, and he says you can tell who they are because they have a sort of tic when they walk into the bar before they get their drink. That’s more along point #4. If you have regular access to alcohol and you get your daily fix, who would notice in a million years if you were an alcoholic?

At JMU, you get more crap for not drinking enough than you do for drinking too much. I don’t drink too much, not for any major reason, but I can’t tell you how riled up people got at the alien concept of me being at a party on a Friday night and deciding not to drink. Drunk people would be in their quasi-friendly mode, put their arm around me, and yell with drunken breath: “Have a beer,” “Come on, have a beer,” “Now.” It’s really more obnoxious than friendly.

In fact, you could make the point that it’s pretty hard to avoid alcohol if you wanted to at JMU. Most clubs and productions don’t schedule things on Friday and Saturday night because they can’t compete with the drinking crowd. Perhaps, that’s why Campus Crusade has such a strong presence at JMU, because there’s such a large current to fight.

I’m not necessarily bashing alcohol use, that is the holy grail of JMU life and would be sacrilege to do so, but that’s just some food for thought.