Jagshemash!
I need to get something up here - weeks have passed, months, and nothing! no movie comments - nothing! alas! This despite a pretty nice run of films lately, especially in the rep houses - Kieslowski, John Huston, Cocteau, Dreyer, Mizoguchi all turning up... One of these days I have to say something about those films - but for now, let's turn to the weekend just passed, which featured 2 very much anticipated releases. I bring you - Borat and Babel!
Borat: Cultural Learnings to Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Khazakhstan - the title is, in fact, almost longer than the film. This has been much hyped, especially on the web, and there was, I suppose, a good deal of potential for disappointment. High concept acts like Borat don't always translate well to longer forms - it's hard to sustain the act, it's harder to put it together into anything coherent. And I suppose this is somewhat true of the film - the plotline is old hat (Borat comes to America to make a documentary, sees Pamela Anderson on TV and heads off to California to make her his wife), and just an excuse to string together a bunch of typical Borat sequences.... still, it works. This is partly because the scenes with the plot are almost as funny as the other bits (the plot gives us Borat and his producer Azamat driving across the country in an ice cream truck with a watch bear, wrestling nude in a hotel room, then chasing each other through the hallways and elevators and into a conference, and a wonderful sick sight gag at the end) - the whole thing keeps moving and stays funny, damned funny.
Borat's act is certainly a provocative one - he's a caricature of old world/third world grotesquery, with his misogyny and racism and virulent (and ridiculous) anti-semitism - he takes this persona into situations and sees what he can provoke. A lot of it is set up as a TV crew shooting a documentary - sitting down to interview someone, taking a camera crew into a bar or store or TV station, maybe a dinner party or a revival meeting. Borat starts by acting ingratiating, then starts making offensive comments, pulling bizarre stunts - drawing reactions from people. Sometimes getting them to go along with his offensiveness, as in the famous "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song - sometimes pissing them off, like the equally famous rodeo stunt. A lot of what he gets out of people comes from their desire not to offend him: watch this segment (reworked for the film - reshot, I think), of Borat with an etiquette coach, and at a dinner - everyone tries to remain nice, as he behaves like a spoiled child... It's tempting to freight it with significance, to think he's revealing something about the fundamental depravity of the people in these segments, but I don't think that is quite right. Especially since the bits are put together after the fact - the editing can hide the extent to which the audience is on the joke, exaggerate the reactions he wants to emphasize and so on. It's tempting, too, to wonder what's "real" and what's fiction - but the point is that what we see is all fiction. Baron Cohen is staging everything - the character, the cameras, the situations he creates are all fictional before they start. His act is more about the role of the media, of media as a function in everyday life - the presence of cameras, our learned expectations about how to act on TV, about media as a cultural force - than about the underlying prejudices of people. And his act doesn't so much use reality to make fiction as point out how reality itself is fiction - normal, everyday life is a kind of collaborative improvisation, shot through with political and cultural ideas and images, a culture than speaks us. Stephanie Zacharek's excellent review in Salon notes, for example, the way Borat's character, his morality, comes straight out of folklore, with its shape-changing Jews and Gypsy tears. Borat's point, I think, is that all behavior, all morality, is rooted in things beyond us - in culture, in stories, images, ways of thinking. He turns TV into a kind of folklore... (I also think that Zacharek's comment helps explain why Borat is so appealing, despite his bad behavior (and Baron Cohen's bad behavior as well - jerking people around like that, sometimes with real consqeuences, isn't exactly admirable) - he's a figure out of a folk tale, a trickster, and tricksters are always the good guys, no matter how bad they act.)
Babel - if I were feeling perverse, I would note how much Borat has in common with films by, say, Abbas Kiarostami, or Mohsen Makhmalbaf - the mix of reality and fiction, documentary, improv, and scripted bits... I say that to segue into a more conventional art film, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu and Guillerma Arriega's latest, Babel. Which comes from a different strand of art film - actually comes pretty much uncut from Kieslowski. Babel, like their previous films, comes off a bit like 3 or 4 of the Dekalog films crammed into one film - 4 interconnected stories, told in something less than exact sequence, edited to echo one another... parents and children, lovers and strangers, those who rise to the moral challenges put to them and those who don't. It all works because Inarittu is one of the most inventive and skillful of directors - but it still feels contrived and hysterical and a bit pointless. There is no discernable reason why the stories are told out of order, except as an exercise. The situations are distressingly close to cliches. The politics is obvious and lazy - white Americans act like bastards, unless they are movie stars, and then only when one of them gets shot. Everybody else is just trying the best they can.... And there's way too much Brad Pitt and nowhere near enough Koji Yakusho.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
Music Again
Another simple list here. Stars and comments, when the spirit moves. Random Friday post:
1. Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Blues [One of the All Time Greats. On whatever short list I would be inclined to make, my friends.] *****
2. Bikini Kill - Tell me So [they can be sometimes a mixed bag, but this one really kicks]
3. Artist - Track 01... or, put another way: Cline/Shoup/Corsano - Lake of Fire Memoires [don't know where I downloaded this, but hey - not bad. Nice early morning eye opener, and today I needed one. Lots of squawking...]
4. Johnette Napolitano and Marc Moreland - Hurting Each Other [Carpenters tribute record, a nice cover in the usual style - feedback drone and someone singing it fairly straight]
5. The Kinks - Apeman ****
6. Carter Family - Where We'll Never Grow Old
7. The Clash - Spanish Bombs
8. Acid Mother's Temple - Hello Good Child
9. Isley Brothers - Footsteps in the Dark
10. Pere Ubu - Montana
I guess there's no real question what video to put up: Cash, from 59...
1. Johnny Cash - Folsom Prison Blues [One of the All Time Greats. On whatever short list I would be inclined to make, my friends.] *****
2. Bikini Kill - Tell me So [they can be sometimes a mixed bag, but this one really kicks]
3. Artist - Track 01... or, put another way: Cline/Shoup/Corsano - Lake of Fire Memoires [don't know where I downloaded this, but hey - not bad. Nice early morning eye opener, and today I needed one. Lots of squawking...]
4. Johnette Napolitano and Marc Moreland - Hurting Each Other [Carpenters tribute record, a nice cover in the usual style - feedback drone and someone singing it fairly straight]
5. The Kinks - Apeman ****
6. Carter Family - Where We'll Never Grow Old
7. The Clash - Spanish Bombs
8. Acid Mother's Temple - Hello Good Child
9. Isley Brothers - Footsteps in the Dark
10. Pere Ubu - Montana
I guess there's no real question what video to put up: Cash, from 59...
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
...the red haze of blood blood blood...
Happy Hallooween! I suppose I've got the wrong holiday - I think the record is really about Walpurgisnacht - but hey: who can resist witches on Halloween? Liars, baby - broken witch live:
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Horror Films, Best of
Joseph B. has a horror film meme started: probably not the only one. List of the best 15.
This is harder than it seems. Listing the best films in a genre raises the difficulty - do I rank them as films (that happen to all be horror films), or do I rank them for how good they are at being horror films? If I do the latter - don't I have to define the genre? What makes a horror film? Any kind of break down - "scariest", "most disturbing", "the films that scarred me for life" (using Joseph's criteria) - is basically a variation on the same problem. How shall I answer this difficulty? damned if I know. Probably in the most roundabout and inconsistent way I can.
1. Nosferatu - well this, at least, is easy, for this is the best of the bunch by any criteria. It's a great film, period - beautiful and perfectly put together; it'll give you shivers; and it's definitively a "horror film". It seems to me - the horror genre depends on the notion of the monster. (There's more to it - the sense of fear, say - but I'll try to work that in...) It depends on monster that play fairly specific roles. The monster in a horror film is either our Other - a thing we fear from outside ourselves; or our Double - something we fear about ourselves. Or - more commonly - they are both. The monster is a projection of our fears - it is a foreign thing that invades us, but is, in fact, a projection of ourselves. It is, very often, a projection of our fears and desires blended into one being. And the emotional effect of horror is, partly, the recognition of this - horror films evoke the Other, then show that it is in fact our Double - that the fear we seek to control is part of us.... In the movies, Dracula and Frankenstein are the definitive monsters. Dracula the seducer, our sexuality made into murder; Frankenstein's monster, perhaps, our fear of death, of helplessness, abandonment, of all the desires we can't rationalize. As the genre develops, they also evolve into a distinct approaches to language - Dracula is the articulate seducer, the talker, the whispering voice, beautiful (at least for the moment), self-aware, knowing what he wants and how to get it. Frankenstein is the silent, inarticulate threat, deformed and horrible, exuding raw anger and fear, cut off from love, from community, from humanity. Nosferatu dates from before this split became commonplace - Murnau's vampire is horrible, though still seductive - he is a force of power and desire, but he is unable to speak, to express his desire in anything but murder. This makes him more like the later Frankenstein model - and more like Mary Shelley's version of the monster, a character who covers the full range of possibilities, from silent, inarticulate, helpless, to an educated, sophisticated talker.
2. Ugetsu - this is more like a romance than a horror film. The woman is less monster than a temptress, in either case, not implicated in Genjuro's psyche quite the same. So despite being a ghost story, I'm not sure I'd call it a horror film. So it can't be number 2.
2. Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein - I will treat them as one, because magnificent as either one is, they are even better together. The better question is, why should they be second to anything? They aren't, as horror films - as films? They're still magnificent, but Nosferatu is - more than that, even.... They are the perfect horror films, especially taken together, and from a structural point of view. The monster in these films is set up to function both as a horrible thing for the audience to fear and loathe - and quite explicitly as an object of pity, to be identified with. The play between the monster as Other and monster as our Double is very clear in these films. Add to that the way they work together as a bildungsroman - the story of a boy becoming a man - matching the anxieties expressed through the monster with the experience of growing up. It's truly great stuff.
3. Dracula - and here's the other side. It's an odd film - lots of it is very stagy and awkwardly put toegther - but it looks absolutely gorgeous, cheap sets and all (thanks to Karl Freund, mostly), and Lugosi is spectacular.
4. Dead of Night - As a film, the structure, the slow steady buildup of fear, to the magnificent dummy sequence, and the general creepiness of the frame story, makes it a joy to watch. And I don't think I have to explain how ventriloquist and dummy stories fit my thoery of doubles and others.
5. Eraserhead - again, definitively - the monster baby, that is other and double, our child.... Children - the fear of parenting or the memory of the fears we felt as children - are also central to horror as a genre. (I won't be the first to suggest that the Frankenstein model revolves around children - fathers and sons, the monster, especially the inarticulate monster, as a child, etc.)
6. The Mummy - this is Karloff's chance to play the articulate monster. And he is more than equal to the task. He might even be better - he gets a lot more of the sadness of the character than Lugosi did (Shrek did to some extent, and Kinski nails it in Herzog's remake of Nosferatu.) The film overall, though, is marred by a really silly story and some flat direction and editing - though it looks beautiful, frame after frame - those Germans knew how to photograph things.
7. Don't Look Now - we revisit the role of children in horror - here, the loss of a child. The links between sex and death. The externalization of our fears.
8. Vampyr - another vampire film, this one animated by a very powerful dream logic, characters and objects and plots moving with a kind of symbolic association. Includes the quintessential expression of the fear of death - a character dreaming his own death, and POV shots from inside the coffin.
9. Nosferatu, Phantom of the Night - Herzog's remake of the Murnau film with Klaus Kinski as Orlock and Bruno Ganz as Jonathon Harker. Haunting and wonderful - those shots of the city, Isabelle Adjani moving through the empty streets.
10.Kingdom/Kingdom II - Lars van Trier taking on american television, ghost stories, soap opera, surrealism... with monstrous babies (who better to play a monster baby than Udo Kier?) and all the rest...
11. Bride of the Monster - wait: this isn't really a horror film. It's perhaps inexcusable to put an Ed Wood film in such an exalted position - I understand that, though the fact is, this film is this enjoyable. I suppose this is where the pure pleasure of watching a film overcomes a strictly dispassionate assessment of it - and yes, some of the pleasure is in the badness of it. On the other hand, you have Lugosi's performance - hunkering down for one last bit of acting. Martin Landau might have won the oscar, but he did it in part by imitating Lugosi, who is wonderful and damned near oscar worthy himselve - "home? I have no home".... But all that said - this really isn't a horror film. It's science fiction. So I have to pretend I didn't actually list it.
11. Evil Dead II - I suppose I could combine it with Evil Dead I like I did the others, but whatever. Modern horror films like this do tend to take away the sense of the monsters coming from inside us - well - this one does. Who cares? This is funny and thrilling and gory and perfect. Though all this talk about monsters - I don't know. There is nothing really horrifying about it. I am very tempted to rule it something else - a disguised adventure story (like Army of Darkness) - a Romance, in the old fashioned sense. I should, because that would let me put Reanimator on in its place. Reanimator has the same tone - the jokiness, the gore - but fits a lot better into the horror film scheme I have outlined. Sex and death - desires and fears - blended together, made explicit. It's a great film. And it's almost as funny as the Evil Dead ("who's laughing now?" vs. "more passion!") Parse this as you choose.
12. Night of the Living Dead - I'm not going to write a book on all these films. I've kind of made my point. This is less psychological than social though, which is an interesting twist that I plan mostly to ignore.
13. Suspiria - gorgeous film, creepy and cool...
14. Black Sabbath - beautiful movie, Bava's experience as a DP showing. Nicely covers the possibilities of Italian horror - an old fashioned ghost story, a giallo, and that magnificent Karloff vampire story.
15. Funny Games - Stunning post-modern horror film, the monsters infiltrating everyday life (the classic family—father, mother, son) and wreaking havoc. These monsters come from the TV. They also destroy everything. A very complicated film, really, though on the surface it is simply one of the most unsettling horror films I have seen in ages. This is one (and there aren't many) that gave me bad dreams - I dreamed it, a night or two after I saw it. Not to be recommended. In terms of sheer disturbing power, this might be the winner of the whole freaking poll.
This is harder than it seems. Listing the best films in a genre raises the difficulty - do I rank them as films (that happen to all be horror films), or do I rank them for how good they are at being horror films? If I do the latter - don't I have to define the genre? What makes a horror film? Any kind of break down - "scariest", "most disturbing", "the films that scarred me for life" (using Joseph's criteria) - is basically a variation on the same problem. How shall I answer this difficulty? damned if I know. Probably in the most roundabout and inconsistent way I can.
1. Nosferatu - well this, at least, is easy, for this is the best of the bunch by any criteria. It's a great film, period - beautiful and perfectly put together; it'll give you shivers; and it's definitively a "horror film". It seems to me - the horror genre depends on the notion of the monster. (There's more to it - the sense of fear, say - but I'll try to work that in...) It depends on monster that play fairly specific roles. The monster in a horror film is either our Other - a thing we fear from outside ourselves; or our Double - something we fear about ourselves. Or - more commonly - they are both. The monster is a projection of our fears - it is a foreign thing that invades us, but is, in fact, a projection of ourselves. It is, very often, a projection of our fears and desires blended into one being. And the emotional effect of horror is, partly, the recognition of this - horror films evoke the Other, then show that it is in fact our Double - that the fear we seek to control is part of us.... In the movies, Dracula and Frankenstein are the definitive monsters. Dracula the seducer, our sexuality made into murder; Frankenstein's monster, perhaps, our fear of death, of helplessness, abandonment, of all the desires we can't rationalize. As the genre develops, they also evolve into a distinct approaches to language - Dracula is the articulate seducer, the talker, the whispering voice, beautiful (at least for the moment), self-aware, knowing what he wants and how to get it. Frankenstein is the silent, inarticulate threat, deformed and horrible, exuding raw anger and fear, cut off from love, from community, from humanity. Nosferatu dates from before this split became commonplace - Murnau's vampire is horrible, though still seductive - he is a force of power and desire, but he is unable to speak, to express his desire in anything but murder. This makes him more like the later Frankenstein model - and more like Mary Shelley's version of the monster, a character who covers the full range of possibilities, from silent, inarticulate, helpless, to an educated, sophisticated talker.
2. Ugetsu - this is more like a romance than a horror film. The woman is less monster than a temptress, in either case, not implicated in Genjuro's psyche quite the same. So despite being a ghost story, I'm not sure I'd call it a horror film. So it can't be number 2.
2. Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein - I will treat them as one, because magnificent as either one is, they are even better together. The better question is, why should they be second to anything? They aren't, as horror films - as films? They're still magnificent, but Nosferatu is - more than that, even.... They are the perfect horror films, especially taken together, and from a structural point of view. The monster in these films is set up to function both as a horrible thing for the audience to fear and loathe - and quite explicitly as an object of pity, to be identified with. The play between the monster as Other and monster as our Double is very clear in these films. Add to that the way they work together as a bildungsroman - the story of a boy becoming a man - matching the anxieties expressed through the monster with the experience of growing up. It's truly great stuff.
3. Dracula - and here's the other side. It's an odd film - lots of it is very stagy and awkwardly put toegther - but it looks absolutely gorgeous, cheap sets and all (thanks to Karl Freund, mostly), and Lugosi is spectacular.
4. Dead of Night - As a film, the structure, the slow steady buildup of fear, to the magnificent dummy sequence, and the general creepiness of the frame story, makes it a joy to watch. And I don't think I have to explain how ventriloquist and dummy stories fit my thoery of doubles and others.
5. Eraserhead - again, definitively - the monster baby, that is other and double, our child.... Children - the fear of parenting or the memory of the fears we felt as children - are also central to horror as a genre. (I won't be the first to suggest that the Frankenstein model revolves around children - fathers and sons, the monster, especially the inarticulate monster, as a child, etc.)
6. The Mummy - this is Karloff's chance to play the articulate monster. And he is more than equal to the task. He might even be better - he gets a lot more of the sadness of the character than Lugosi did (Shrek did to some extent, and Kinski nails it in Herzog's remake of Nosferatu.) The film overall, though, is marred by a really silly story and some flat direction and editing - though it looks beautiful, frame after frame - those Germans knew how to photograph things.
7. Don't Look Now - we revisit the role of children in horror - here, the loss of a child. The links between sex and death. The externalization of our fears.
8. Vampyr - another vampire film, this one animated by a very powerful dream logic, characters and objects and plots moving with a kind of symbolic association. Includes the quintessential expression of the fear of death - a character dreaming his own death, and POV shots from inside the coffin.
9. Nosferatu, Phantom of the Night - Herzog's remake of the Murnau film with Klaus Kinski as Orlock and Bruno Ganz as Jonathon Harker. Haunting and wonderful - those shots of the city, Isabelle Adjani moving through the empty streets.
10.Kingdom/Kingdom II - Lars van Trier taking on american television, ghost stories, soap opera, surrealism... with monstrous babies (who better to play a monster baby than Udo Kier?) and all the rest...
11. Bride of the Monster - wait: this isn't really a horror film. It's perhaps inexcusable to put an Ed Wood film in such an exalted position - I understand that, though the fact is, this film is this enjoyable. I suppose this is where the pure pleasure of watching a film overcomes a strictly dispassionate assessment of it - and yes, some of the pleasure is in the badness of it. On the other hand, you have Lugosi's performance - hunkering down for one last bit of acting. Martin Landau might have won the oscar, but he did it in part by imitating Lugosi, who is wonderful and damned near oscar worthy himselve - "home? I have no home".... But all that said - this really isn't a horror film. It's science fiction. So I have to pretend I didn't actually list it.
11. Evil Dead II - I suppose I could combine it with Evil Dead I like I did the others, but whatever. Modern horror films like this do tend to take away the sense of the monsters coming from inside us - well - this one does. Who cares? This is funny and thrilling and gory and perfect. Though all this talk about monsters - I don't know. There is nothing really horrifying about it. I am very tempted to rule it something else - a disguised adventure story (like Army of Darkness) - a Romance, in the old fashioned sense. I should, because that would let me put Reanimator on in its place. Reanimator has the same tone - the jokiness, the gore - but fits a lot better into the horror film scheme I have outlined. Sex and death - desires and fears - blended together, made explicit. It's a great film. And it's almost as funny as the Evil Dead ("who's laughing now?" vs. "more passion!") Parse this as you choose.
12. Night of the Living Dead - I'm not going to write a book on all these films. I've kind of made my point. This is less psychological than social though, which is an interesting twist that I plan mostly to ignore.
13. Suspiria - gorgeous film, creepy and cool...
14. Black Sabbath - beautiful movie, Bava's experience as a DP showing. Nicely covers the possibilities of Italian horror - an old fashioned ghost story, a giallo, and that magnificent Karloff vampire story.
15. Funny Games - Stunning post-modern horror film, the monsters infiltrating everyday life (the classic family—father, mother, son) and wreaking havoc. These monsters come from the TV. They also destroy everything. A very complicated film, really, though on the surface it is simply one of the most unsettling horror films I have seen in ages. This is one (and there aren't many) that gave me bad dreams - I dreamed it, a night or two after I saw it. Not to be recommended. In terms of sheer disturbing power, this might be the winner of the whole freaking poll.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Le Temps Perdu?
Via Crooked Timber comes a time waster pur les ages - French mini games (Jeux Chiants.) As noted in the post, this - "Double Jeu" - is particularly cruel and addictive. Kind of like pong on a see saw. With insults.
Random Friday Music Post
Hooray hooray! Today's hits are:
1. PJ Harvey - Rid of Me [for all those cool new bands who seem to basically keep reworking this song over and over - The Kills, Yeah Yeah Yeahs - why not stick to Polly Jean?] (****)
2. Come - Orbit [though I wonder how much connection there was between 90s women post-sorta-punkers and Thalia Zadek?]
3. Johnny Cash - the Man Who Couldn't Cry [Loudon Wainwright song given the definitive Cash treatment.] (wasn't rated, but that was an oversight: ****)
4. Madonna - Rescue Me [surprisingly catchy Madonna tune, that outstays its welcome]
5. Sleater Kinney - Hubcap [there's that moment in this one that kicks in the whole band, singling, playing, hard - build and release at its finest!] (***)
6. Feelies - Slipping into Something [there aren't enough stars. That bit after the second verse, when the drums do a double take and the song accelerates - gives me shivers. Live, with the first part already going double time, it was heaven. I was addicted to the Feelies in the 80s, saw them every time they came to town, basically... And then there's the way Jonathon Demme uses it, uses that same moment in the song, to signal the tone shift in the middle of Something Wild - a movie that, these days, I don't hear much about - but should, for it is a masterpiece, and not just for the Feelies footage.] (*****)
7. Fairport Convention - Come All Ye (***)
8. Lone Justice - Working Late
9. Strokes - Electricityscape
10. Spiritualized - Electricity (***)
And, video? I can't find Slipping (into Something), and I posted that late 70s Crazy Rhythms video ages ago - but it's clearly a Feelies week: let's see - how about:
(Jonathon Demme directed I believe). And here's a live clip of Deep Fascination, with Bill Million churning away and Mercer doing some Lou Reed-ish wanking at the end...
But that said - I have to finish where we started: Polly Jean?
1. PJ Harvey - Rid of Me [for all those cool new bands who seem to basically keep reworking this song over and over - The Kills, Yeah Yeah Yeahs - why not stick to Polly Jean?] (****)
2. Come - Orbit [though I wonder how much connection there was between 90s women post-sorta-punkers and Thalia Zadek?]
3. Johnny Cash - the Man Who Couldn't Cry [Loudon Wainwright song given the definitive Cash treatment.] (wasn't rated, but that was an oversight: ****)
4. Madonna - Rescue Me [surprisingly catchy Madonna tune, that outstays its welcome]
5. Sleater Kinney - Hubcap [there's that moment in this one that kicks in the whole band, singling, playing, hard - build and release at its finest!] (***)
6. Feelies - Slipping into Something [there aren't enough stars. That bit after the second verse, when the drums do a double take and the song accelerates - gives me shivers. Live, with the first part already going double time, it was heaven. I was addicted to the Feelies in the 80s, saw them every time they came to town, basically... And then there's the way Jonathon Demme uses it, uses that same moment in the song, to signal the tone shift in the middle of Something Wild - a movie that, these days, I don't hear much about - but should, for it is a masterpiece, and not just for the Feelies footage.] (*****)
7. Fairport Convention - Come All Ye (***)
8. Lone Justice - Working Late
9. Strokes - Electricityscape
10. Spiritualized - Electricity (***)
And, video? I can't find Slipping (into Something), and I posted that late 70s Crazy Rhythms video ages ago - but it's clearly a Feelies week: let's see - how about:
(Jonathon Demme directed I believe). And here's a live clip of Deep Fascination, with Bill Million churning away and Mercer doing some Lou Reed-ish wanking at the end...
But that said - I have to finish where we started: Polly Jean?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Poll Results
Good lord! It's been a week since Andy Horbal's poll (best American fiction films of the last 25 years) ended - he's had the results posted for a week. I have been hopelessly remiss.
I shall rather arbitrarily quote the top vote getters: it's roughly a top 10....
8 Votes:
Goodfellas (1990, Martin Scorsese)
7 Votes:
Pulp Fiction (1994, Quentin Tarantino)
6 Votes:
Miller's Crossing (1990, Coen bros.)
Unforgiven (1992, Clint Eastwood)
5 Votes:
Blue Velvet (1986, David Lynch)
Dead Man (1995, Jim Jarmusch)
Fargo (1996, Coen bros.)
Groundhog Day (1993, Harold Ramis)
Mulholland Dr. (2001, David Lynch)
4 Votes:
Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)
Do The Right Thing (1989, Spike Lee)
My top ten (listed here, the first time) was:
1. Blue Velvet
2. Rushmore
3. Do the Right Thing
4. Brazil (is that considered American? maybe not.)
5. Full Metal Jacket
6. To Sleep With Anger
7. Mulholland Drive
8. This is Spinal Tap
9. Dead Man
10. Donnie Darko
Meanwhile, speaking of polls, and in keeping with the season, Joseph B. at it's a madmadblog is looking for horror movie lists: top 15, to be posted and discussed on or around all saint's eve.
I shall rather arbitrarily quote the top vote getters: it's roughly a top 10....
8 Votes:
Goodfellas (1990, Martin Scorsese)
7 Votes:
Pulp Fiction (1994, Quentin Tarantino)
6 Votes:
Miller's Crossing (1990, Coen bros.)
Unforgiven (1992, Clint Eastwood)
5 Votes:
Blue Velvet (1986, David Lynch)
Dead Man (1995, Jim Jarmusch)
Fargo (1996, Coen bros.)
Groundhog Day (1993, Harold Ramis)
Mulholland Dr. (2001, David Lynch)
4 Votes:
Schindler's List (1993, Steven Spielberg)
Do The Right Thing (1989, Spike Lee)
My top ten (listed here, the first time) was:
1. Blue Velvet
2. Rushmore
3. Do the Right Thing
4. Brazil (is that considered American? maybe not.)
5. Full Metal Jacket
6. To Sleep With Anger
7. Mulholland Drive
8. This is Spinal Tap
9. Dead Man
10. Donnie Darko
Meanwhile, speaking of polls, and in keeping with the season, Joseph B. at it's a madmadblog is looking for horror movie lists: top 15, to be posted and discussed on or around all saint's eve.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Music on Friday
Let's try something different - the usual method, iPod, randomly shuffling, 10 songs - but this time, from the "New Adds" playlist. So - new stuff, plus whatever I finally got around to putting on the computer in the last month. What does that yield?
1. Bad Brains - The Big Takeover
2. Velvet Underground - Rock and Roll [from the Quine tapes, which I finally copied to iTunes]
3. Jeremy Enigk - Dare a Smile [from the new record]
4. Heroin - Head Cold [like the Bad Brains, it's been sitting around the shelves for a couple years, but seeing American Hardcore made me pull it down and put it on the computer]
5. Velvets - Sister Ray/Foggy Notion - 28:42 of it.
6. Outkast - Hollywood Divorce [Idlewild soundtrack, a nice piece of work]
7. George Harrison - What is Life [I've had this for years too, All Things Must Pass, but never bothered to put it on the computer. Or rather - I put a couple songs on the computer, and never even listened to the rest of it. That's a hell of a record.]
8. My Bloody Valentine - I can see It (but I can't feel it) [that first record, which has been around for some time....]
9. High Rise - Cotton Top [had the live record on the computer; decided to put High Rise II on as well; serve your guitar wanking needs]
10. A Hawk and a Hacksaw - There is a River in Galisteo [another new record]
And video? Can't beat the Bad Brains.
1. Bad Brains - The Big Takeover
2. Velvet Underground - Rock and Roll [from the Quine tapes, which I finally copied to iTunes]
3. Jeremy Enigk - Dare a Smile [from the new record]
4. Heroin - Head Cold [like the Bad Brains, it's been sitting around the shelves for a couple years, but seeing American Hardcore made me pull it down and put it on the computer]
5. Velvets - Sister Ray/Foggy Notion - 28:42 of it.
6. Outkast - Hollywood Divorce [Idlewild soundtrack, a nice piece of work]
7. George Harrison - What is Life [I've had this for years too, All Things Must Pass, but never bothered to put it on the computer. Or rather - I put a couple songs on the computer, and never even listened to the rest of it. That's a hell of a record.]
8. My Bloody Valentine - I can see It (but I can't feel it) [that first record, which has been around for some time....]
9. High Rise - Cotton Top [had the live record on the computer; decided to put High Rise II on as well; serve your guitar wanking needs]
10. A Hawk and a Hacksaw - There is a River in Galisteo [another new record]
And video? Can't beat the Bad Brains.
World Series
I hesitate to post this. I remain perfect in the post-season, getting every single series wrong - though I said coming in it was the most unpredictable post-season in ages. The only series I actually thought I could call was the Yankees over Tigers, and even that was based on the assumption that the reason the tigers had been losing for the last month was that their pitchers were all worn out. Wrong!
The World Series, though, is not like that. The world series looks extremely easy to call. This poses a dilemma - when you're 0-6, you worry - is that a trend? I mean, even flipping a coin, wouldn't you come up with 2-3 wins? So if I call this one - is my luck going to hold? This is a dilemma because this si the first series since the Tigers-Yankees where I felt a strong rooting interest in one fo the teams - and the first anywhere that seems like a no-brainer. I'm tempted to call the upset, just to preserve the 0-7, but I don't think that would fool anyone.
So - the point of all this is that if these teams play to their abilities, this will be the third 4-0 AL sweep in 3 years. Yeah, maybe Carpenter can win a game or two - not much else is likely to get past the Tigers. Unless they're bored again. They have too much going for them - a deep starting rotation, deep bullpen, plenty of rest, fine offense that is playing well up and down the lineup, and both Tony LaRussa and Jim Leyland. The Cards have Carpenter and Pujols and seem to have forgotten most of the season - it's almost like they went into hibernation in May (like the Tigers did in September). But I don't think that can last. They almost lost to the Mets, who started Oliver Perez TWICE. So - I have to take the cats. They look as fat and hungry as this beast:
The World Series, though, is not like that. The world series looks extremely easy to call. This poses a dilemma - when you're 0-6, you worry - is that a trend? I mean, even flipping a coin, wouldn't you come up with 2-3 wins? So if I call this one - is my luck going to hold? This is a dilemma because this si the first series since the Tigers-Yankees where I felt a strong rooting interest in one fo the teams - and the first anywhere that seems like a no-brainer. I'm tempted to call the upset, just to preserve the 0-7, but I don't think that would fool anyone.
So - the point of all this is that if these teams play to their abilities, this will be the third 4-0 AL sweep in 3 years. Yeah, maybe Carpenter can win a game or two - not much else is likely to get past the Tigers. Unless they're bored again. They have too much going for them - a deep starting rotation, deep bullpen, plenty of rest, fine offense that is playing well up and down the lineup, and both Tony LaRussa and Jim Leyland. The Cards have Carpenter and Pujols and seem to have forgotten most of the season - it's almost like they went into hibernation in May (like the Tigers did in September). But I don't think that can last. They almost lost to the Mets, who started Oliver Perez TWICE. So - I have to take the cats. They look as fat and hungry as this beast:
Friday, October 13, 2006
Friday Music Post
I have to figure out a more interesting music meme to follow than this one, but I am headed out the door to a Kieslowski double feature, so I will stick to the tried and true. Maybe add a link - Andy Horbal takes on a Slate piece about 21st century fiction, wherein someone says movies have had no luck showing contemporary technological life, living on the net as it were. Andy doesn't agree. Discussion follows. And I suppose this ties back to music, because technology has always had a huge impact on how people experience music. How I experience it. I have noted, possibly on this blog, though I would have to dig and I am not going to dig for it, that the iPod has made me think of music in terms of songs - which, for me, is like going back to the 70s, before I got my own record player, and got all my music off the radio. All in terms of songs.
Speaking of which, here are 10 songs currently on my hard drive! When rated - I will include that - there's a variation for you.
1. Public Image - Flowers of Romance
2. Wire - Sand in my Joints [featuring one of the great guitar solos of all time - my tastes in guitar solos is very broad.] (****)
3. Television - See No Evil (live) [off one of those Mojo CDs; that reminds me - I saw 3 copies of Mojo in a news stand today, all of them with the CD gone. For $9, I want my CD!] [Anyway, this has a nice little guitar solo in it - but a great great song, I should say, before moving on. (*****!)]
4. Boredoms - Super Good [this is what I mean by becoming song oriented - Boredoms mutated, about the tijme of this record (Super Ae) from a song oriented noise band into an album oriented band - I love their records (this, Vision Creation Newsun and Sea Drum/House of Sun), but it is almost impossible to rate their songs - and somewhat unsatisfying to listen to their songs, the way iTunes brings them up. You need to listen to the whole record. A problem!]
5. Ramones - We're a Happy Family (***) [I am going to have to explain the ratings eventually, I think. Right now, Camera Buff is waiting so I better stop writing letters for every song.]
6. Yes - Perpetual Change [the guilt! the horror! there must be a mistake somewhere - this can't be mine can it?]
7. Hall and Oates - She's Gone (***) [That rating looks a little low, for primo Hall and Oates.] [I should rate the guilt factor associated with some of these songs, while we're at it.]
8. Ohio Players - Love Rollercoaster [That's better] (****)
9. Shonen Knife - Burning Farm (***)
10. Elvis Costello - What's So Funny About Peace Lve and Understanding? (***)
And video - the top rated song of the week!
Speaking of which, here are 10 songs currently on my hard drive! When rated - I will include that - there's a variation for you.
1. Public Image - Flowers of Romance
2. Wire - Sand in my Joints [featuring one of the great guitar solos of all time - my tastes in guitar solos is very broad.] (****)
3. Television - See No Evil (live) [off one of those Mojo CDs; that reminds me - I saw 3 copies of Mojo in a news stand today, all of them with the CD gone. For $9, I want my CD!] [Anyway, this has a nice little guitar solo in it - but a great great song, I should say, before moving on. (*****!)]
4. Boredoms - Super Good [this is what I mean by becoming song oriented - Boredoms mutated, about the tijme of this record (Super Ae) from a song oriented noise band into an album oriented band - I love their records (this, Vision Creation Newsun and Sea Drum/House of Sun), but it is almost impossible to rate their songs - and somewhat unsatisfying to listen to their songs, the way iTunes brings them up. You need to listen to the whole record. A problem!]
5. Ramones - We're a Happy Family (***) [I am going to have to explain the ratings eventually, I think. Right now, Camera Buff is waiting so I better stop writing letters for every song.]
6. Yes - Perpetual Change [the guilt! the horror! there must be a mistake somewhere - this can't be mine can it?]
7. Hall and Oates - She's Gone (***) [That rating looks a little low, for primo Hall and Oates.] [I should rate the guilt factor associated with some of these songs, while we're at it.]
8. Ohio Players - Love Rollercoaster [That's better] (****)
9. Shonen Knife - Burning Farm (***)
10. Elvis Costello - What's So Funny About Peace Lve and Understanding? (***)
And video - the top rated song of the week!
Saturday, October 07, 2006
More Baseball
While the NL series are still going, the odds are getting to be very good that I am going to go 0-4 in predicting the division series'. I can't say I'm disappointed. I did go on record saying I had no idea who was going to win - but better - seeing the Tigers win makes it all worthwhile. I am not surprised by the Yankees losing - they did look like last year's red sox, and met the Red Sox' end - though I thought it would come in the next series. But the Yankees are old and flat and aren't going to win again with this crew of players - once they started buying free agents instead of developing players, the end was at hand, and their regular season success has been a mirage for 4-5 years now.
The Tigers, on the other hand, aren't the first team to abuse the league all summer, fade at the end, then pick it up in the post-season. That's exactly what the White Sox did last year. The A's, meanwhile, might have knocked out the team I picked to win it all, but I can still half claim them - they seemed to me a coin flip, and they came up heads. The next series should be a pretty good one.
The NL is still going, though the Padres and Dodgers are on the brink. Pads showed some life I see. Dodgers, who knows. As for rooting interests here out - since the only one I really cared about was seeing the Yankees lose - I have to just go with the American League. Better teams. And I suppose I can stick with tradition and root against the Mets. I haven't got the heart for it really - too many guys on the team I like (Pedro, Glavine, Billy Wagner, Beltran and Reyes and even Cliffy Floyd), and nothing really to resent them for. Overpaying Pedro maybe, but on the other hand, now he's NY's problem, not Boston's. I wish he was around for this - if he were playing I would probably cheer for the Mets. That would have been unthinkable until 2 years ago. But now, I have forgiven them. In fact, I might be able to go back to one of my longest running traditions, cheering against the Dodgers - except they have Nomar and Derek Lowe and Greg Maddux.... I don't hate anyone in the post-season anymore!
Update: I see the A-Rod haters are having a field day. It is gratifying to see Yankees suffer, and particularly gratifying to see slappy suffer - but if old George decides to clean house - they can still get Manny for him! Hell yeah.
The Tigers, on the other hand, aren't the first team to abuse the league all summer, fade at the end, then pick it up in the post-season. That's exactly what the White Sox did last year. The A's, meanwhile, might have knocked out the team I picked to win it all, but I can still half claim them - they seemed to me a coin flip, and they came up heads. The next series should be a pretty good one.
The NL is still going, though the Padres and Dodgers are on the brink. Pads showed some life I see. Dodgers, who knows. As for rooting interests here out - since the only one I really cared about was seeing the Yankees lose - I have to just go with the American League. Better teams. And I suppose I can stick with tradition and root against the Mets. I haven't got the heart for it really - too many guys on the team I like (Pedro, Glavine, Billy Wagner, Beltran and Reyes and even Cliffy Floyd), and nothing really to resent them for. Overpaying Pedro maybe, but on the other hand, now he's NY's problem, not Boston's. I wish he was around for this - if he were playing I would probably cheer for the Mets. That would have been unthinkable until 2 years ago. But now, I have forgiven them. In fact, I might be able to go back to one of my longest running traditions, cheering against the Dodgers - except they have Nomar and Derek Lowe and Greg Maddux.... I don't hate anyone in the post-season anymore!
Update: I see the A-Rod haters are having a field day. It is gratifying to see Yankees suffer, and particularly gratifying to see slappy suffer - but if old George decides to clean house - they can still get Manny for him! Hell yeah.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Friday Random Ten
Once again:
1. Meat Puppets - Quit It
2. Brian Jonestown Massacre - Take it From the Man
3. Jay Farrar - Feel Free
4. Meat Puppets - Liquified (9000 songs,a nd 2 from the same record; as long as it's the Meat Puppets, can't complain)
5. Warlocks - We Need Starpower
6. The Who -Time is Passing (from the extended CD of Who's Next)
7. Bay City Rollers - Yesterday's Hero (nice to see perhaps the greatest family in rock represented on the list; might, given the choice, have taken the younger Youngs over George though)
8. John Lennon - Love (from the Acoustic record)
9. Big Star - In the Street
10. Guru Guru - Girl Call (a little krautrock always rounds out the day nicely)
And video? Can't find the two above, but here's a later Meat Puppets performance on Jon Stewart's show, in fine form:
1. Meat Puppets - Quit It
2. Brian Jonestown Massacre - Take it From the Man
3. Jay Farrar - Feel Free
4. Meat Puppets - Liquified (9000 songs,a nd 2 from the same record; as long as it's the Meat Puppets, can't complain)
5. Warlocks - We Need Starpower
6. The Who -Time is Passing (from the extended CD of Who's Next)
7. Bay City Rollers - Yesterday's Hero (nice to see perhaps the greatest family in rock represented on the list; might, given the choice, have taken the younger Youngs over George though)
8. John Lennon - Love (from the Acoustic record)
9. Big Star - In the Street
10. Guru Guru - Girl Call (a little krautrock always rounds out the day nicely)
And video? Can't find the two above, but here's a later Meat Puppets performance on Jon Stewart's show, in fine form:
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Playoff Predictions
...a real exercise in futility this year. It's been an odd year - no one looks dominant. The NL has been particularly ugly, with only one team winning 90, the Cards getting in with 83 wins - but the AL hasn't set the world on fire. The teams that would look like the clear favorites - the Mets and Twins - are missing key pitchers, Pedro and Liriano, and the Mets, especially, look like they are in trouble. Over it all, sort of, stands the Yankees - a team that looks remarkably like last year's Red Sox - they'll pound the bejesus out of all normal pitchers, but their own rotation is very shaky, and they'll probably disappear without a trace if they run into a hot pitching team. The problem is, they might not see any hot pitching teams.
But what the hell: might as well make some guesses. Though I'm already too late on a couple of them.
1) Yankees - Tigers: the yanks can hit. They have innings eating starters and Rivera. But they can be beaten. Maybe not by the tigers - though if the stripes pitching comes around, it could happen. They have some nice young arms - of course they also have Kenny Rogers and Todd Jones. They do have enough bullpen and hitting to get to the Yanks if they can get past the starters before Rivera is available. But that sort of thing could create a lot of 12-9 games, and odds are the bombers are going to win those. Still - you gotta hope.
2) Twins - A's: The Twins seem to me the most predictable team in the playoffs. (Them and the Cards, who are predictably awful.) They won't give up a lot - they have some pop, that should show up eventually. They are balanced, they have a great bullpen, they have Santana, and they have Gardenhire and a nice mix of veterans and youth. They were shut down by Zito I see - but that's not too surprising. The thing is, the A's are not predictable at all - they could be mediocre - they could be very good. If Harden has a good start? if some of the hitters like Chavez step up? (and by "step up" I mean "return to form.") They have a chance. I think they are pretty even with the Twins - the Yanks? it depends - if the pitching is on top of its game? they should win. If not? well - any team that doesn't pitch against the Yanks will lose. Twins still look like the (overall) favorites to me, but it's a lot closer now.
3) Padres - Cards: The Cards look like the Red Sox without Jonathon Papelbon. We all know where the sox are. I see Carpenter shut SD down today - I don't know if the rest of the rotation can do much, though. The Pads should stay in a lot of games, but they won't beat up on anyone - but if they give it to the Cards, the Cards will take it. And let's face it - if there's one player in this post-season who can win a series alone, it's Albert Pujols. I still think the Pads will sneak it out.
4) Dodgers - Mets. I see El Duque is hurt. Pedro is out. With Pedro, the Mets are the favorites - without him - not so much. Like their cross-town rivals, they can probably hit their way through most problems, but they seem even more vulnerable to any kind of opposing offense. And less likely to chew up decent pitching staffs the way the Yankees can. (You have to be outstanding to beat the Yanks. Decent - which most of the teams in this post-season are - is not going to do it. You need to get Zito, Harden and Haren, or Peavy and Wells, or Lowe, Penny, Maddux all at the top of their game to win. Santana, Bonser and Radke. I think we will see one of those things happen. That's usually how world series' are won. No one looks like last year's Sox, who had a dominant pitching staff - a couple teams are similar to the 04 Sox, with a dominant pitcher or two, and a couple guys with the track record to indicate they could be unhittable for a couple weeks. And a team or two - the Tigers, say - are a bit like the 03 Marlins - young and talented, who could click at the right time... But if no one steps up against them, the Yankees will swallow all comers.) But the Dodgers have a very intriguing team. Nice set of pitchers with very good post-season pedigrees (Maddux and Lowe), decent bullpen, nice collection of hitters, who also have some post-season experience (though not a lot of winning.) I think they can take the Mets and if they are playing well, might be the best team in the NL right now. Of course they might not play well. So...
Before today's games, I would have picked the Twins in the AL, but now, I'm thinking while they can still win - it's a toss up between them and the A's. I do think whoever wins that series will beat the Yankees. Though I dearly hope the Tigers take out the Yankees - I just don't believe it.
NL? I was leaning toward the Padres actually, but I think I will amend that. I think they will still find a way past the Cards, but I think the Dodgers might be the team to beat.
Over all? The Twins will win the World Series if they make it. The baggydome will tell. If not - if the Dodgers do win the NL, they should win the world series. Otherwise - I might venture a pick once the teams are settled: I have to see what happens in the other series' first. Right now, no.
As for rooting interests: there are plenty of interesting matchups, but only one really Vital Result to be hoped for. I hope it is not too hard to guess what it is. They aren't called the evil empire for nothing.
But what the hell: might as well make some guesses. Though I'm already too late on a couple of them.
1) Yankees - Tigers: the yanks can hit. They have innings eating starters and Rivera. But they can be beaten. Maybe not by the tigers - though if the stripes pitching comes around, it could happen. They have some nice young arms - of course they also have Kenny Rogers and Todd Jones. They do have enough bullpen and hitting to get to the Yanks if they can get past the starters before Rivera is available. But that sort of thing could create a lot of 12-9 games, and odds are the bombers are going to win those. Still - you gotta hope.
2) Twins - A's: The Twins seem to me the most predictable team in the playoffs. (Them and the Cards, who are predictably awful.) They won't give up a lot - they have some pop, that should show up eventually. They are balanced, they have a great bullpen, they have Santana, and they have Gardenhire and a nice mix of veterans and youth. They were shut down by Zito I see - but that's not too surprising. The thing is, the A's are not predictable at all - they could be mediocre - they could be very good. If Harden has a good start? if some of the hitters like Chavez step up? (and by "step up" I mean "return to form.") They have a chance. I think they are pretty even with the Twins - the Yanks? it depends - if the pitching is on top of its game? they should win. If not? well - any team that doesn't pitch against the Yanks will lose. Twins still look like the (overall) favorites to me, but it's a lot closer now.
3) Padres - Cards: The Cards look like the Red Sox without Jonathon Papelbon. We all know where the sox are. I see Carpenter shut SD down today - I don't know if the rest of the rotation can do much, though. The Pads should stay in a lot of games, but they won't beat up on anyone - but if they give it to the Cards, the Cards will take it. And let's face it - if there's one player in this post-season who can win a series alone, it's Albert Pujols. I still think the Pads will sneak it out.
4) Dodgers - Mets. I see El Duque is hurt. Pedro is out. With Pedro, the Mets are the favorites - without him - not so much. Like their cross-town rivals, they can probably hit their way through most problems, but they seem even more vulnerable to any kind of opposing offense. And less likely to chew up decent pitching staffs the way the Yankees can. (You have to be outstanding to beat the Yanks. Decent - which most of the teams in this post-season are - is not going to do it. You need to get Zito, Harden and Haren, or Peavy and Wells, or Lowe, Penny, Maddux all at the top of their game to win. Santana, Bonser and Radke. I think we will see one of those things happen. That's usually how world series' are won. No one looks like last year's Sox, who had a dominant pitching staff - a couple teams are similar to the 04 Sox, with a dominant pitcher or two, and a couple guys with the track record to indicate they could be unhittable for a couple weeks. And a team or two - the Tigers, say - are a bit like the 03 Marlins - young and talented, who could click at the right time... But if no one steps up against them, the Yankees will swallow all comers.) But the Dodgers have a very intriguing team. Nice set of pitchers with very good post-season pedigrees (Maddux and Lowe), decent bullpen, nice collection of hitters, who also have some post-season experience (though not a lot of winning.) I think they can take the Mets and if they are playing well, might be the best team in the NL right now. Of course they might not play well. So...
Before today's games, I would have picked the Twins in the AL, but now, I'm thinking while they can still win - it's a toss up between them and the A's. I do think whoever wins that series will beat the Yankees. Though I dearly hope the Tigers take out the Yankees - I just don't believe it.
NL? I was leaning toward the Padres actually, but I think I will amend that. I think they will still find a way past the Cards, but I think the Dodgers might be the team to beat.
Over all? The Twins will win the World Series if they make it. The baggydome will tell. If not - if the Dodgers do win the NL, they should win the world series. Otherwise - I might venture a pick once the teams are settled: I have to see what happens in the other series' first. Right now, no.
As for rooting interests: there are plenty of interesting matchups, but only one really Vital Result to be hoped for. I hope it is not too hard to guess what it is. They aren't called the evil empire for nothing.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Moving Furniture Around
Not a lot. A few new blogs on the sidebar - most notably, David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, which they have inaugurated with a swarm of posts. And I have to mention Andy Horbal's blog - don't forget to vote for the best American fiction film of the last 25 years! 170 plus comments on that post - and a ton of new film blogs to explore. And? A few tweaks to the profile, primarily some effort to fine tune the favorite films (it's now top 10 directors and top 5 contemporary directors) and bands. All that and a more cowboy-centric profile, if the right picture ever shows up. I might still monkey around some, but not tonight. I have to post before midnight.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Friday Random Music Post
Here we go - ten, random songs, off the iPod:
1. Pretenders - Stop Your Sobbing
2. Damon and Naomi - Ueno Station
3. At the Drive In - Lopsided
4. Xiu Xiu - Yellow Raspberry
5. Built to Spill - Wherever You Go
6. Wanda Jackson - Hard Deaded Woman
7. Nirvana - In Bloom
8. The Kinks - Love me til the Sun Shines
9. Audioslave - Gasoline
10. AC/DC - Let me put my Love into You
And today - the Pretenders on YouTube:
1. Pretenders - Stop Your Sobbing
2. Damon and Naomi - Ueno Station
3. At the Drive In - Lopsided
4. Xiu Xiu - Yellow Raspberry
5. Built to Spill - Wherever You Go
6. Wanda Jackson - Hard Deaded Woman
7. Nirvana - In Bloom
8. The Kinks - Love me til the Sun Shines
9. Audioslave - Gasoline
10. AC/DC - Let me put my Love into You
And today - the Pretenders on YouTube:
The Great White Satan of the North
Sorry for the politics, but - the world is starting to resemble a Michael Moore movie. And not the good ones: U.S. Arms Great Lake Boats! Treaty of 1814 no longer applies! We all know where this is leading:
(Via Interrobang.)
(Via Interrobang.)
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Evil that Men Do
I haven't been posting about the big torture bill before the senate. I am hard-pressed to come up with anything constructive to say. I see (via Glenn Greenwald) it has passed - 65-34 even. That's 12 democrats voting for it. The earlier vote on Arlen Specter's amendment to strike section 6 (which suspends habeas corpus) was closer - I'm not sure what logic led those who voted for the amendment to end up voting for the bill. Greenwald runs through some of the more agregious offenders: Specter claiming the bill sent us back 900 years, then voting for it anyway - that sort of thing.
It's a thoroughly depressing situation. There's lots of grumbling about the democrats, who, while most voted against it, have not exactly acted like they were all that exercised, really. Are they worried about being called soft on terror? What the fuck is that? How can you not have an answer to that? How can you be so pathetic you don't slap that shit down on contact? What does this have to do with fighting terrorism? What the hell is the point of fighting terrorism if you aren't willing to stand up for what your country is supposed to be about? No secret courts - every man can face his accuser and knows the chareges against him - basic stuff. And as for the torture parts of the bill (eliminating appeals to the Geneva convention, say) - why don't democrats insist on calling this what it is? Call this the Permission to our Enemies to Torture American Soldiers act of 2006. Because if the laws don't apply to us, they don't apply to them either.
Anyway: this does simplify things in one respect: any politician who voted for this has, or should have, forever lost any right to appeal to morality, ethics, the scriptures, the western tradition, decency, common sense, the law, or, indeed, any justification for anything except naked self-interest. (Not that self-interest or cynical utilitarianism justifies this - torture doesn't work and will cause the country more harm than it could ever save; stripping civil rights always comes around the bite the people who do the stripping - if you pass laws assuming that you will always be the ones enforcing them, you are in for a nasty surprise in a year or so.) They start quoting scripture, you can say, with 100% assurance that they are only pretending to morality for their own narrow partisan gain. They are hypocrites. This will no longer be a matter of opinion, it will have been demonstrated. Hell, you can use it on your friends - religious nut A starts bloviating about stem cell research or pharmacist rights to deny emergency contraception or how gay marriage is against god's word, you can ask them: what do you think of the Military Commissions Act of 2006? for or against? if they say for - you can, in all good conscious, tell them they can fuck themselves. If they are your friends, I suppose, you can phrase it more politely ("whatever dude") - but you don't have to consider their opinions worth a thing.
I don't know. The fact that the democrats are allowing the republicans to pretend supporting this shit somehow makes them tougher on defense - mind-boggling. The cfact that either party (let alone both) think supporting this bullshit will get them more votes than fighting it - mind-boggling. The fact that none of them seems willing to stake their campaign on convincing the public that this has to be repealed at all costs - not so mind boggling, but boy, I would like to see some of that.
It's a thoroughly depressing situation. There's lots of grumbling about the democrats, who, while most voted against it, have not exactly acted like they were all that exercised, really. Are they worried about being called soft on terror? What the fuck is that? How can you not have an answer to that? How can you be so pathetic you don't slap that shit down on contact? What does this have to do with fighting terrorism? What the hell is the point of fighting terrorism if you aren't willing to stand up for what your country is supposed to be about? No secret courts - every man can face his accuser and knows the chareges against him - basic stuff. And as for the torture parts of the bill (eliminating appeals to the Geneva convention, say) - why don't democrats insist on calling this what it is? Call this the Permission to our Enemies to Torture American Soldiers act of 2006. Because if the laws don't apply to us, they don't apply to them either.
Anyway: this does simplify things in one respect: any politician who voted for this has, or should have, forever lost any right to appeal to morality, ethics, the scriptures, the western tradition, decency, common sense, the law, or, indeed, any justification for anything except naked self-interest. (Not that self-interest or cynical utilitarianism justifies this - torture doesn't work and will cause the country more harm than it could ever save; stripping civil rights always comes around the bite the people who do the stripping - if you pass laws assuming that you will always be the ones enforcing them, you are in for a nasty surprise in a year or so.) They start quoting scripture, you can say, with 100% assurance that they are only pretending to morality for their own narrow partisan gain. They are hypocrites. This will no longer be a matter of opinion, it will have been demonstrated. Hell, you can use it on your friends - religious nut A starts bloviating about stem cell research or pharmacist rights to deny emergency contraception or how gay marriage is against god's word, you can ask them: what do you think of the Military Commissions Act of 2006? for or against? if they say for - you can, in all good conscious, tell them they can fuck themselves. If they are your friends, I suppose, you can phrase it more politely ("whatever dude") - but you don't have to consider their opinions worth a thing.
I don't know. The fact that the democrats are allowing the republicans to pretend supporting this shit somehow makes them tougher on defense - mind-boggling. The cfact that either party (let alone both) think supporting this bullshit will get them more votes than fighting it - mind-boggling. The fact that none of them seems willing to stake their campaign on convincing the public that this has to be repealed at all costs - not so mind boggling, but boy, I would like to see some of that.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
25 years
Andy Horbal is hosting a poll: what is the best American fiction film of the last 25 years?
His inspiration is this New York Times poll asking writers, critics and the like to vote for the best American fiction of the last 25 years. He asks: what are the five best films of the last 25 years? I do love my lists, though oddly I haven't posted all that many on this humble blog, but this is one I don't think I can resist. I'm tempted to take on the NYT category as well, and maybe veen the best American records too. (Not to mention all the films, books, records one might find outside the US. But that will have to be another post.) I will hazard the film poll:
1. Blue Velvet
2. Rushmore
3. Do the Right Thing
4. Brazil (is that considered American? maybe not.)
5. Full Metal Jacket
And if I can't have Brazil - I'll take, well - either Mulholland Drive, To Sleep With Anger, or This is Spinal Tap. That comes so close to being a top ten, I'll add 2 and do it: Donnie Darko and Dead Man.
Go vote at Andy's, but if you wanna argue here, go for it.
His inspiration is this New York Times poll asking writers, critics and the like to vote for the best American fiction of the last 25 years. He asks: what are the five best films of the last 25 years? I do love my lists, though oddly I haven't posted all that many on this humble blog, but this is one I don't think I can resist. I'm tempted to take on the NYT category as well, and maybe veen the best American records too. (Not to mention all the films, books, records one might find outside the US. But that will have to be another post.) I will hazard the film poll:
1. Blue Velvet
2. Rushmore
3. Do the Right Thing
4. Brazil (is that considered American? maybe not.)
5. Full Metal Jacket
And if I can't have Brazil - I'll take, well - either Mulholland Drive, To Sleep With Anger, or This is Spinal Tap. That comes so close to being a top ten, I'll add 2 and do it: Donnie Darko and Dead Man.
Go vote at Andy's, but if you wanna argue here, go for it.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Movies
This Film is Not Yet Rated - Kirby Dick taking on the MPAA. The film is split into two main devices: first, interviews, mostly with filmmakers who had run ins with the raters, augmented by various experts, and the whole thing sprinkled with damning footage of Jack Valenti and his like... And second, he hires private investigators to track down who the raters are. The interviews, on the whole, are what you would expect - a parade of indie filmmakers mostly, lots of women, lots of gay and lesbian films, sighing about their mistreatment. They run through a litany of atrocities that earned the NC-17 - Maria Bello's pubic hair; puppet brown showers; the word "felching". It's a story we've heard before - it's almost a commonplace - sex is rated more harshly than violence; gay sex more than straight sex; women's pleasure more than men's. Studio films get the benefit of the doubt - indie films get the high hand. It's a commonoplace because it's basically true - the case against the ratings board is often painfully simple to make.
But there's a more interesting argument being made in the film. The fact is, the ratings system usually works fine. (Not that anyone admits it in the film.) The system only really breaks in two places. The first is in the way NC-17 is handled. Newspapers won't advertise - Walmart and Blockbuster and the like won't carry.... This is bad - probably a bigger problem then the ratings are - but it's not quite Jack Valenti's fault. Maybe the MPAA could pressure newspaper and stores and exhibitors to show NC-17 films, I don't know. They should, at least, try to account for this problem. The second place the system breaks is at the edges. The fact is, nobody would have much room to complain if Nine Songs had gotten an NC-17. But at the edges - the second or two of pubic hair, the length of a woman's orgasm, the number of thrusts in a sex scene - balanced against questions like sex vs. violence, gay vs. straight, reality vs. fiction (one case study is the rating debate over Gunner Palace, a documentary about the Iraq war) - it gets very messy.
But even this - for all the talk about the actual decisions made by the raters, the real outrage, and the consistent point Dick is getting at, is the secrecy of the whole process. That is the point of tracking down the raters and naming them on film. That is the most viable suggestion being brought forward. This process should be overt. Raters should be accountable, there should be standards. As one of the interviewees says - we worry about government censors, but governments are accountable. Government boards are subject to judicial review. The MPAA should be subject to the same scrutiny. That's Dick's point, and I can't argue with it.
Murder by Numbers: speaking of IFC and documentaries, they've been running this consideration of the serial killer movie, directed by Mike Hodges (of all people.) It's surprisingly good. It's talking heads and film clips, but the talking heads - the likes of Gary Indiana, Amy Taubin, Mark Seltzer - are compelling, informative, and thought provoking, talking about the roots of the serial killer character, the history of the genre, the connections between serial killers and technology. That is the general argument, advanced by the commentary - that the serial killer is an idea inseparable from modern technology, the technology of film, of modern assembly line manufacturing and so on. The case is presented well, and it makes sense. A very interesting film.
Science of Sleep: Michel Gondry's new film, and the best film of the year, so far. I knew it would be pretty quickly - Gael Garcia Bernal stars as Stephane, a young artist with a French mother and a (recently deceased) Mexican father. He comes to Paris at the beginning of the film - riding in a cab. He gets out and goes to the door of his house, and the camera stays in the cab, as the car drives around the corner. I can't quite explain what's so wonderful about that, but it's something Gondry's films are full of, little details, that feel like you're just sticking your head around the corner to see something irrelevant. I can't explain it now. But I love it.
The film, anyway. Stephane goes to work, at a printer's. His mother promised him a creative job designing calendars - in fact, he's hired as a typesetter. His coworkers are sex and ski obsessed oddballs - though it makes them very useful in the upcoming dream sequences. His mother ignores him. Then a girl, Stephanie, played by Charlotte Gainsbourgh, moves in across the hall. She's cute. She has a cuter friend that Stephane thinks he wants to date. But Stephanie's also creative, whimsical, she makes things with her hands, just like Stephane. And so things move toward romance....
But not directly. There's the style, after all. The film starts with Stephane's dreams, and stays with them throughout - it stays inside his head. And he is not good at separating dreams from not-dreams. Or what is happening from what he wants or fears to be happening. And this gives Gondry the license to play - to create gorgeous, playful animations, low-tech, literalist (if time reverses, the film reverses - easy enough) animations and tricks. To further blur the dream/not-dream line, though, the things in his dreams also exist in the world - he is an artist, and he specializes in the kinds of things we see in the dreams: arts and crafts special effects, animated and refigured toys, disasters as kitsch art, songs played on the broken keys of a piano... So we go back and forth as easily as he does between reality and dreams (and between the represented dream and the representing film of the dream (etc.)).
That isn't always helpful, not the characters in the film. They don't know how to act, exactly - at any given moment, are they dreaming or not? There are times that Stephane starts to come off as just a bit too willfully nutty - it starts to slip into an annoying romantic comedy cliche, the man-child fuckup saved (or not) by a more grounded woman. Those moments don't last - or we are reminded that the film is completely subjective - we are in Stephane's head, all the time. (This is a lot like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is also completely located inside the lead character's head.) These are not, quite, films about damaged boys being saved by motherly girls - they are films about about damaged boys thinking girls (who are apt to be as damaged as the boys) are going to save them. But even this is too small an idea for the film. There's more. Running through the film are references to Stephane's parents, especially his father's recent death (which never quite gets blamed for his troubles, but is still there, to be dealt with) - though increasingly to his mother's relationship to his father, and Stephane. And their relationship starts to invade Stephane and Stephanie's. "You never finish anything" he tells Stephanie - the same thing he said about his mother (though he probably got it from his father). In essence, then, his story is their story - the film blends them, as it blends reality and dream, film and story, and presumably Gondry's own stories and the stories told. It earns its depths.
But there's a more interesting argument being made in the film. The fact is, the ratings system usually works fine. (Not that anyone admits it in the film.) The system only really breaks in two places. The first is in the way NC-17 is handled. Newspapers won't advertise - Walmart and Blockbuster and the like won't carry.... This is bad - probably a bigger problem then the ratings are - but it's not quite Jack Valenti's fault. Maybe the MPAA could pressure newspaper and stores and exhibitors to show NC-17 films, I don't know. They should, at least, try to account for this problem. The second place the system breaks is at the edges. The fact is, nobody would have much room to complain if Nine Songs had gotten an NC-17. But at the edges - the second or two of pubic hair, the length of a woman's orgasm, the number of thrusts in a sex scene - balanced against questions like sex vs. violence, gay vs. straight, reality vs. fiction (one case study is the rating debate over Gunner Palace, a documentary about the Iraq war) - it gets very messy.
But even this - for all the talk about the actual decisions made by the raters, the real outrage, and the consistent point Dick is getting at, is the secrecy of the whole process. That is the point of tracking down the raters and naming them on film. That is the most viable suggestion being brought forward. This process should be overt. Raters should be accountable, there should be standards. As one of the interviewees says - we worry about government censors, but governments are accountable. Government boards are subject to judicial review. The MPAA should be subject to the same scrutiny. That's Dick's point, and I can't argue with it.
Murder by Numbers: speaking of IFC and documentaries, they've been running this consideration of the serial killer movie, directed by Mike Hodges (of all people.) It's surprisingly good. It's talking heads and film clips, but the talking heads - the likes of Gary Indiana, Amy Taubin, Mark Seltzer - are compelling, informative, and thought provoking, talking about the roots of the serial killer character, the history of the genre, the connections between serial killers and technology. That is the general argument, advanced by the commentary - that the serial killer is an idea inseparable from modern technology, the technology of film, of modern assembly line manufacturing and so on. The case is presented well, and it makes sense. A very interesting film.
Science of Sleep: Michel Gondry's new film, and the best film of the year, so far. I knew it would be pretty quickly - Gael Garcia Bernal stars as Stephane, a young artist with a French mother and a (recently deceased) Mexican father. He comes to Paris at the beginning of the film - riding in a cab. He gets out and goes to the door of his house, and the camera stays in the cab, as the car drives around the corner. I can't quite explain what's so wonderful about that, but it's something Gondry's films are full of, little details, that feel like you're just sticking your head around the corner to see something irrelevant. I can't explain it now. But I love it.
The film, anyway. Stephane goes to work, at a printer's. His mother promised him a creative job designing calendars - in fact, he's hired as a typesetter. His coworkers are sex and ski obsessed oddballs - though it makes them very useful in the upcoming dream sequences. His mother ignores him. Then a girl, Stephanie, played by Charlotte Gainsbourgh, moves in across the hall. She's cute. She has a cuter friend that Stephane thinks he wants to date. But Stephanie's also creative, whimsical, she makes things with her hands, just like Stephane. And so things move toward romance....
But not directly. There's the style, after all. The film starts with Stephane's dreams, and stays with them throughout - it stays inside his head. And he is not good at separating dreams from not-dreams. Or what is happening from what he wants or fears to be happening. And this gives Gondry the license to play - to create gorgeous, playful animations, low-tech, literalist (if time reverses, the film reverses - easy enough) animations and tricks. To further blur the dream/not-dream line, though, the things in his dreams also exist in the world - he is an artist, and he specializes in the kinds of things we see in the dreams: arts and crafts special effects, animated and refigured toys, disasters as kitsch art, songs played on the broken keys of a piano... So we go back and forth as easily as he does between reality and dreams (and between the represented dream and the representing film of the dream (etc.)).
That isn't always helpful, not the characters in the film. They don't know how to act, exactly - at any given moment, are they dreaming or not? There are times that Stephane starts to come off as just a bit too willfully nutty - it starts to slip into an annoying romantic comedy cliche, the man-child fuckup saved (or not) by a more grounded woman. Those moments don't last - or we are reminded that the film is completely subjective - we are in Stephane's head, all the time. (This is a lot like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which is also completely located inside the lead character's head.) These are not, quite, films about damaged boys being saved by motherly girls - they are films about about damaged boys thinking girls (who are apt to be as damaged as the boys) are going to save them. But even this is too small an idea for the film. There's more. Running through the film are references to Stephane's parents, especially his father's recent death (which never quite gets blamed for his troubles, but is still there, to be dealt with) - though increasingly to his mother's relationship to his father, and Stephane. And their relationship starts to invade Stephane and Stephanie's. "You never finish anything" he tells Stephanie - the same thing he said about his mother (though he probably got it from his father). In essence, then, his story is their story - the film blends them, as it blends reality and dream, film and story, and presumably Gondry's own stories and the stories told. It earns its depths.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Friday Randomness Again
To hold us over another day til I can work up a more substantial music review post: new records from Pere Ubu! Yo La Tengo! TV on the Radio! Mars Volta! my last trip to the record store was a happy one. I shall have to comment, one of these days.
For now though:
1. REM - Undertow
2. The White Stripes - Forever for Her (if over for me)
3. Flying Burrito Brothers - Wild Horses
4. Captain Beefheart - Steal Softly Through Snow
5. Rolling Stones - Midnight Rambler (live)
6. Matthew Sweet - Don't go
7. Carter Family - This is like Heaven to Me
8. George Michael - Father Figure [That's a sequence you arewn't likely to see very often]
9. Jimi Hendrix - Third Stone From the Sun
10. Devo - Jocko Homo
Worth noting there are 2 "*****" songs on that sampling, and a "****" - and that was before realizing I hadn't rated most of the songs on the LP referenced in the subtitle of this happy blog. Good luck figuring out which songs got those gaudy ratings.
Though it makes today's video choice obvious:
For now though:
1. REM - Undertow
2. The White Stripes - Forever for Her (if over for me)
3. Flying Burrito Brothers - Wild Horses
4. Captain Beefheart - Steal Softly Through Snow
5. Rolling Stones - Midnight Rambler (live)
6. Matthew Sweet - Don't go
7. Carter Family - This is like Heaven to Me
8. George Michael - Father Figure [That's a sequence you arewn't likely to see very often]
9. Jimi Hendrix - Third Stone From the Sun
10. Devo - Jocko Homo
Worth noting there are 2 "*****" songs on that sampling, and a "****" - and that was before realizing I hadn't rated most of the songs on the LP referenced in the subtitle of this happy blog. Good luck figuring out which songs got those gaudy ratings.
Though it makes today's video choice obvious:
Friday, September 15, 2006
Music Friday, Randomized
Yes, it's time for another Friday Random Ten! made it with three hours to spare, even.
1. Pogues - Sickbed of Cuchulan
2. Ghost - Images of April
3. Radiohead - Idioteque
4. Mission of Burma - Let Yourself Go
5. Deerhoof - After me the Deluge
6. Eric Dolphy - Eclipse
7. Feelies - For Now
8. REM - Man on the Moon
9. Pere Ubu - Codex
10. Asian Dub Foundation - Digital Underclass
And for video enjoyment, howsabout Andy goofin' on Elvis?
And Shane and the boys on TV, ending up in a serious time space anomoly:
1. Pogues - Sickbed of Cuchulan
2. Ghost - Images of April
3. Radiohead - Idioteque
4. Mission of Burma - Let Yourself Go
5. Deerhoof - After me the Deluge
6. Eric Dolphy - Eclipse
7. Feelies - For Now
8. REM - Man on the Moon
9. Pere Ubu - Codex
10. Asian Dub Foundation - Digital Underclass
And for video enjoyment, howsabout Andy goofin' on Elvis?
And Shane and the boys on TV, ending up in a serious time space anomoly:
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Movie Catchup
It's a posting frenzy! what's this, 4 in 3 days? ANyway, here's a roundup of films, most in brief, but a couple expanded.
Talledega Nights - finally got around to seeing it, and very happy I did. Will Farrell as a Nascar driver.
La Moustache - a neat little French mind-bender about a man who shaves the mustache he's had for after 15 years - or did he? Starring Vincent Lindon and the ever magnificent Emmanuelle Devos, sleek and intriguingly made. It makes explicit something about fiction, and especially about film - that there is no necessity that what happens next in a story needs to proceed logically from what happened before. In a film, the only rule is the flow of images - everything can change from shot to shot, and it will be assimilated into the story. It's a very intersting movie.
Half Nelson - good solid indie drama about a young white guy (Ryan Gosling) teaching at a mostly black brooklyn school. He is a fine teacher - popular, funny, challenging - but otherwise, he is a fuckup - a dope fiend and an asshole. He interacts with a dope dealer (Anthony Mackie, who's damned good), who is, in his personal life, together and responsible - and with an 8th grade girl (Shareeka Epps) who watches them both, and thinks about her life. Gosling's teaching is based on dialectics and the film is too - the tension between good teacher and fuckup, between Mackie's loyalty to his friends, his general decency to people - and the fact that he is a dope dealer, who wants to recruit a 13 year old girl into it. The irony of the mother who works, but works so much she loses her daughter, and so on. That's the biggest problem - that the film slips from dialectics to irony too often, and it's a preachy irony... But it is, basically, what Crash wanted to be, and does it right. Twisting cliches, turning scenes inside out - it's a nice piece of work.
Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles - a strange case: Zhang Yimou film coming out (which is good, the benefits of being Zhang Yimou, I guess) with almost no fanfare at all (which is bad: the disadvantage of making more than one kind of film, maybe). This is in Zhang's neorealist soap opera mode, like the Story of Qiu Ju or Not One Less or The Road Home - this follows the same general shape, someone stubborn marches off across the miles to do something sentimental. Comic relief and officious pricks are encountered and overcome, and then help the hero reach his goal. Tears are shed on screen; the music swells: tears may be shed in the audience. This one has an old Japanese guy (Ken Takakura) filming folk opera for his dying son. Comic peasants, annoying officials and cute kids appear on cue. These films (Zhang is a major perpetrator, though world cinema seems overrun with them) are as predictable and efficient as a Ramones song, and in the right hands work as well as a Ramones song. Zhang knows his business, though he can't seem to help throwing in the string section, which has the same effect here it would have in a Ramones song. That's all I can really say against him: his eye, his sense of pacing, putting together a film, getting acting from pros and amateurs and everything in between, are all outstanding. Sometimes his films feel like he is trying to hide the soap opera material until it's time for the tears to flow - this time, he seems a bit more willing to acknowledge the contrivance of the whole thing. He seems constitutionally incapable of telling a story straight - in place of the layers of plot and narration in his recent martial arts epics, he comes at this one through a host of images of translation. Translators themselves (Takakura has a girl guide who is a real translator; a village guide who knows a smattering of Japanese and English - she leaves, but the man stays to help him, but can't translate - he writes things down then calls the girl...) - plus video, letters, voiceovers, and all the doubles, masks and mirrors you could ask for. Takakura wants to connect to his son through opera - the opera itself is a mask that frees the emotions - he is Japanese in China, dependent on translators, who need to translate for one another - he wants to film the opera, and makes videos arguing his case to the officials. When he gets close to what he wants he decides to effect a reunion between an opera singer and his son, a transparent mirror of his own desired reunion with his own son. I hope I'm not spoiling too much to say it works, though it requires more mediation. And oh yeah - technology: cel phones, with and without without signals, video, opera, digital cameras, Chinese banners, etc., all serve as communication devices.... Doubles and substitutes and compensations abound...
Something Like Happiness - one of two films I caught from the Boston Museum of Fine Art's new Czech film series. The other is Lunacy, the latest film by legendary animator and director, Jan Svankmajer. Judging from these two films, and the posters for the ones I didn't see, this was almost a Pavel Liska film festival - he stars in Lunacy, is the second lead in Something Like Happiness, and seemed to be in all the other films as well. Who is he? An actor, bearing an uncany resemblance, in looks and sometimes performance, to Matthieu Amalric - a bit of a sad sack, who still comes off cooler than anyone around him... In Something Like Happiness he is opposite an actress named Tatiana Vilhelmová, who bears a certain resemblance to the young Holly Hunter - they play childhood friends (more than friends, when they were children) trying, as adults, to get along in a nasty looking town somewhere in Bohemia. He is living in the family manse - in fact, a crumbling farm house next to a factory; she lives with her parents, works at a supermarket, and waits for her boyfriend in America to call. They both get sucked into the disaster one of their friends, a single woman with 2 children, has made of her life... The film works, intermittantly - there are some wonderful scenes, drunkenness around Christmas - some moments when Liska and Vilhelmova are together - but there's also a lot of melodrama, some of it quite improbably - and a kind of slogging confusion about a lot of it. It does not add up to more than the sum of its parts - the parts are often wonedrful; overall, it's a somewhat tedious soap opera.
Lunacy, meanwhile, is a somewhat disjointed gloss on Poe and DeSade, but full of dark humor and some striking imagery - and funny, clever animation (meat, brains, tongues, crawling into skulls and the like...) Quite fun.
Finally - one of the local theaters is running an Almodovar retrospective - I finally saw Women on the Verge of Nervous Breakdown, wonderful high camp melodrama - a great delight.
Talledega Nights - finally got around to seeing it, and very happy I did. Will Farrell as a Nascar driver.
La Moustache - a neat little French mind-bender about a man who shaves the mustache he's had for after 15 years - or did he? Starring Vincent Lindon and the ever magnificent Emmanuelle Devos, sleek and intriguingly made. It makes explicit something about fiction, and especially about film - that there is no necessity that what happens next in a story needs to proceed logically from what happened before. In a film, the only rule is the flow of images - everything can change from shot to shot, and it will be assimilated into the story. It's a very intersting movie.
Half Nelson - good solid indie drama about a young white guy (Ryan Gosling) teaching at a mostly black brooklyn school. He is a fine teacher - popular, funny, challenging - but otherwise, he is a fuckup - a dope fiend and an asshole. He interacts with a dope dealer (Anthony Mackie, who's damned good), who is, in his personal life, together and responsible - and with an 8th grade girl (Shareeka Epps) who watches them both, and thinks about her life. Gosling's teaching is based on dialectics and the film is too - the tension between good teacher and fuckup, between Mackie's loyalty to his friends, his general decency to people - and the fact that he is a dope dealer, who wants to recruit a 13 year old girl into it. The irony of the mother who works, but works so much she loses her daughter, and so on. That's the biggest problem - that the film slips from dialectics to irony too often, and it's a preachy irony... But it is, basically, what Crash wanted to be, and does it right. Twisting cliches, turning scenes inside out - it's a nice piece of work.
Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles - a strange case: Zhang Yimou film coming out (which is good, the benefits of being Zhang Yimou, I guess) with almost no fanfare at all (which is bad: the disadvantage of making more than one kind of film, maybe). This is in Zhang's neorealist soap opera mode, like the Story of Qiu Ju or Not One Less or The Road Home - this follows the same general shape, someone stubborn marches off across the miles to do something sentimental. Comic relief and officious pricks are encountered and overcome, and then help the hero reach his goal. Tears are shed on screen; the music swells: tears may be shed in the audience. This one has an old Japanese guy (Ken Takakura) filming folk opera for his dying son. Comic peasants, annoying officials and cute kids appear on cue. These films (Zhang is a major perpetrator, though world cinema seems overrun with them) are as predictable and efficient as a Ramones song, and in the right hands work as well as a Ramones song. Zhang knows his business, though he can't seem to help throwing in the string section, which has the same effect here it would have in a Ramones song. That's all I can really say against him: his eye, his sense of pacing, putting together a film, getting acting from pros and amateurs and everything in between, are all outstanding. Sometimes his films feel like he is trying to hide the soap opera material until it's time for the tears to flow - this time, he seems a bit more willing to acknowledge the contrivance of the whole thing. He seems constitutionally incapable of telling a story straight - in place of the layers of plot and narration in his recent martial arts epics, he comes at this one through a host of images of translation. Translators themselves (Takakura has a girl guide who is a real translator; a village guide who knows a smattering of Japanese and English - she leaves, but the man stays to help him, but can't translate - he writes things down then calls the girl...) - plus video, letters, voiceovers, and all the doubles, masks and mirrors you could ask for. Takakura wants to connect to his son through opera - the opera itself is a mask that frees the emotions - he is Japanese in China, dependent on translators, who need to translate for one another - he wants to film the opera, and makes videos arguing his case to the officials. When he gets close to what he wants he decides to effect a reunion between an opera singer and his son, a transparent mirror of his own desired reunion with his own son. I hope I'm not spoiling too much to say it works, though it requires more mediation. And oh yeah - technology: cel phones, with and without without signals, video, opera, digital cameras, Chinese banners, etc., all serve as communication devices.... Doubles and substitutes and compensations abound...
Something Like Happiness - one of two films I caught from the Boston Museum of Fine Art's new Czech film series. The other is Lunacy, the latest film by legendary animator and director, Jan Svankmajer. Judging from these two films, and the posters for the ones I didn't see, this was almost a Pavel Liska film festival - he stars in Lunacy, is the second lead in Something Like Happiness, and seemed to be in all the other films as well. Who is he? An actor, bearing an uncany resemblance, in looks and sometimes performance, to Matthieu Amalric - a bit of a sad sack, who still comes off cooler than anyone around him... In Something Like Happiness he is opposite an actress named Tatiana Vilhelmová, who bears a certain resemblance to the young Holly Hunter - they play childhood friends (more than friends, when they were children) trying, as adults, to get along in a nasty looking town somewhere in Bohemia. He is living in the family manse - in fact, a crumbling farm house next to a factory; she lives with her parents, works at a supermarket, and waits for her boyfriend in America to call. They both get sucked into the disaster one of their friends, a single woman with 2 children, has made of her life... The film works, intermittantly - there are some wonderful scenes, drunkenness around Christmas - some moments when Liska and Vilhelmova are together - but there's also a lot of melodrama, some of it quite improbably - and a kind of slogging confusion about a lot of it. It does not add up to more than the sum of its parts - the parts are often wonedrful; overall, it's a somewhat tedious soap opera.
Lunacy, meanwhile, is a somewhat disjointed gloss on Poe and DeSade, but full of dark humor and some striking imagery - and funny, clever animation (meat, brains, tongues, crawling into skulls and the like...) Quite fun.
Finally - one of the local theaters is running an Almodovar retrospective - I finally saw Women on the Verge of Nervous Breakdown, wonderful high camp melodrama - a great delight.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Beams Not Falling
What's odd is, looking for links for that 9/11 rant, I found this post at the Poorman's site - and thinking, what is he on, posting three cool no wave videos, and then pissing about it? I can do better: look! DNA! or, going abroad, we can find something really abrasive - Keiji Haino! And then, among the search results for Keiji Haino - we get the best thing I have ever seen on YouTube: someone has compiled train and car shots from Yasujiro Ozu's career. Dunno where Haino fits with that, but I'll take it.
Oh god.
Oh god.
9/12 Rant
Writing about the 9/11 anniversary is very difficult - I do not want to politicize it. Yet - it is well and truly politicized already. Nothing gets gained by unilateral disarmament here. So I held off a day - but now, you get the rant.
The attacks themselves were devastating - they put the fear of god into me, personally, and into most of us. But I have to bring out that Hammett quote again: we adjust to beams falling - and we adjust to beams not falling. Even the day of the attacks, I remember thinking, in the back of my mind, I will not always feel this way. The fear will pass. We get over devastation; we deal with consequences and move on.
Or not. The problem is that this attack happened while we were governed by a fool, who is surrounded by villains, who saw the attacks as an opportunity for a series of power grabs, at home and abroad. In doing so, they have seriously undermined our position in the world - and seriously undermined the strength and stability of our political system. And this villainy has warped what happened on 9/11/2001 - there is no way to talk about the attacks without talking about what they were used to justify, and how badly things have gone since. Most of the villainy - the war in Iraq, the attacks on the constitution, on international law - has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks themselves. 9/11 led directly to the invasion of Afghanistan (which seems inevitable and right, though it has turned into a failure, almost as much as Iraq); it led to some pretty unwholesome laws (the Patriot Act, notably.) Otherwise though, most of what has happened - Iraq, our use of torture, secret prisons, Bush's claims of unlimited executive powers - had no direct relationship to 9/11 - it was used as an excuse, as emotional blackmail.
Politically - we have entered a dark period in our history, and one that is completely unnecessary. Terrorism, hitting us, is a bad thing - but it is a small thing, that can be controlled, if we take it seriously. Terrorists can't do anything to undermine our "way of life" (a thing that get bandied about quite a bit in these times.) They can kill us, cost us money, but they can't challenge the foundations of our society. (Unlike, say, Germany and Japan in WWII; or the USSR during the cold war.) If we are going to undermine our freedom, we have to do it ourselves. To our shame, we have. And undermined our international prestige, our reputation for being good guys, not to mention our reputation for invincibility. Our policies over the last five years have revealed our weakness, lack of seriousness, unwillingness to take risks or accept consequences for anything we consider valuable. The invasion of Iraq stands as a crowning example - the only explanation anyone can come up with that makes sense is that we wanted, simply, to make an example of them: we wanted to hurt someone real bad, so everyone else would cower before us. And to do that, we picked someone no one liked, someone who could not threaten us in any way - Iraq. And yep, we beat the shit out of them (their army at least): but then what? Once in there we couldn't walk away - and what has happened since - increasing violence, chaos, the whole thing hanging on the edge from civil war with god knows what consequences - was pretty damned predictable.
All of it, furthermore, not just unrelated to the "war on terror" (an idiotic phrase: christ, it's embarrassing to have to type it), but significantly counterproductive to the war on terror. Taking men and material out of Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was still lurking, even after our invasion) to go after Iraq - and create more ill will than we could dream of, as well as killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis. It is vile.
And going back to 9/11: there was never much to be said about the attacks. They were an act of raw cruelty, for nothing - our mistake was probably to take the political pretensions of the terrorists seriously. It wasn't a meaningful attack - it said nothing about us as a country, other than that we're big. (Which makes calling the day "Patriot Day" doubly annoying - it wasn't about the US as a country. It was about the US as a target.) It had no meaning - what meaning it had (political or otherwise) came later. What we did about it, and how we explained it.... The right likes to make fun of the left for worrying about "why they hate us so" - but they are just as eager to explain it, to make the attackers seem coherent and serious. All that talk about how they hate our freedoms, all the dire warnings against radical Islam, or Islamism, or Islamic fascism - or just plain Islam, Arabs, whatever - is blather, self-inflation, making our enemy seem important, Important - World Historically Important. We had to make it meaningful: to find political motivations for the attacks, whether by wringing our hands about how awfully we’ve treated the world, or by imagining Bin Laden as a Supervillain in his Secret Bin Laden Cave, secretly infiltrating Your Neighborhood in the person of Mexicans and the Arabs who own the Red Apple on the corner. Rather than accept that a gang of thugs attacked us in the hopes of provoking a response they could use to enhance their own political ambitions, the right insists on inventing an enemy that will make them feel stronger for fighting. But by not treating them as the gangsters they are, by treating their political claims as if they had some validity - as if Bin Laden represented someone other than himself - we've done more harm, in the political* sense, than the attacks could.
And a big part of this is keeping the pain of 9/11 raw. We have to live in fear: they thrive on it. They need it - the GOP has made hash of the country - they need 9/11 and fear of terrorism (You thought Snakes on a Plane was scary - imagine the sequel! Shampoo on a Plane! Arghhhh!) as an emotional excuse to stay in power. It's all they have left. They are bound to ride it hard.
* In the literal sense too: Invading Iraq has killed a lot more people - none of whom on either side bear any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks - than the attacks did.
The attacks themselves were devastating - they put the fear of god into me, personally, and into most of us. But I have to bring out that Hammett quote again: we adjust to beams falling - and we adjust to beams not falling. Even the day of the attacks, I remember thinking, in the back of my mind, I will not always feel this way. The fear will pass. We get over devastation; we deal with consequences and move on.
Or not. The problem is that this attack happened while we were governed by a fool, who is surrounded by villains, who saw the attacks as an opportunity for a series of power grabs, at home and abroad. In doing so, they have seriously undermined our position in the world - and seriously undermined the strength and stability of our political system. And this villainy has warped what happened on 9/11/2001 - there is no way to talk about the attacks without talking about what they were used to justify, and how badly things have gone since. Most of the villainy - the war in Iraq, the attacks on the constitution, on international law - has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks themselves. 9/11 led directly to the invasion of Afghanistan (which seems inevitable and right, though it has turned into a failure, almost as much as Iraq); it led to some pretty unwholesome laws (the Patriot Act, notably.) Otherwise though, most of what has happened - Iraq, our use of torture, secret prisons, Bush's claims of unlimited executive powers - had no direct relationship to 9/11 - it was used as an excuse, as emotional blackmail.
Politically - we have entered a dark period in our history, and one that is completely unnecessary. Terrorism, hitting us, is a bad thing - but it is a small thing, that can be controlled, if we take it seriously. Terrorists can't do anything to undermine our "way of life" (a thing that get bandied about quite a bit in these times.) They can kill us, cost us money, but they can't challenge the foundations of our society. (Unlike, say, Germany and Japan in WWII; or the USSR during the cold war.) If we are going to undermine our freedom, we have to do it ourselves. To our shame, we have. And undermined our international prestige, our reputation for being good guys, not to mention our reputation for invincibility. Our policies over the last five years have revealed our weakness, lack of seriousness, unwillingness to take risks or accept consequences for anything we consider valuable. The invasion of Iraq stands as a crowning example - the only explanation anyone can come up with that makes sense is that we wanted, simply, to make an example of them: we wanted to hurt someone real bad, so everyone else would cower before us. And to do that, we picked someone no one liked, someone who could not threaten us in any way - Iraq. And yep, we beat the shit out of them (their army at least): but then what? Once in there we couldn't walk away - and what has happened since - increasing violence, chaos, the whole thing hanging on the edge from civil war with god knows what consequences - was pretty damned predictable.
All of it, furthermore, not just unrelated to the "war on terror" (an idiotic phrase: christ, it's embarrassing to have to type it), but significantly counterproductive to the war on terror. Taking men and material out of Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was still lurking, even after our invasion) to go after Iraq - and create more ill will than we could dream of, as well as killing thousands of Americans and Iraqis. It is vile.
And going back to 9/11: there was never much to be said about the attacks. They were an act of raw cruelty, for nothing - our mistake was probably to take the political pretensions of the terrorists seriously. It wasn't a meaningful attack - it said nothing about us as a country, other than that we're big. (Which makes calling the day "Patriot Day" doubly annoying - it wasn't about the US as a country. It was about the US as a target.) It had no meaning - what meaning it had (political or otherwise) came later. What we did about it, and how we explained it.... The right likes to make fun of the left for worrying about "why they hate us so" - but they are just as eager to explain it, to make the attackers seem coherent and serious. All that talk about how they hate our freedoms, all the dire warnings against radical Islam, or Islamism, or Islamic fascism - or just plain Islam, Arabs, whatever - is blather, self-inflation, making our enemy seem important, Important - World Historically Important. We had to make it meaningful: to find political motivations for the attacks, whether by wringing our hands about how awfully we’ve treated the world, or by imagining Bin Laden as a Supervillain in his Secret Bin Laden Cave, secretly infiltrating Your Neighborhood in the person of Mexicans and the Arabs who own the Red Apple on the corner. Rather than accept that a gang of thugs attacked us in the hopes of provoking a response they could use to enhance their own political ambitions, the right insists on inventing an enemy that will make them feel stronger for fighting. But by not treating them as the gangsters they are, by treating their political claims as if they had some validity - as if Bin Laden represented someone other than himself - we've done more harm, in the political* sense, than the attacks could.
And a big part of this is keeping the pain of 9/11 raw. We have to live in fear: they thrive on it. They need it - the GOP has made hash of the country - they need 9/11 and fear of terrorism (You thought Snakes on a Plane was scary - imagine the sequel! Shampoo on a Plane! Arghhhh!) as an emotional excuse to stay in power. It's all they have left. They are bound to ride it hard.
* In the literal sense too: Invading Iraq has killed a lot more people - none of whom on either side bear any responsibility for the 9/11 attacks - than the attacks did.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Anniversary
I feel as if I should write something about the 5th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It is not easy - the problem is that I cannot separate the attacks from the things that have happened because of the attacks. But it is important to separate them. What happened, in all its evil immediacy, deserves to be remembered, the dead mourned, the survivors celebrated. It is important to keep politics out of it - at least at a distance from it. The infamy should not be erased, and politics tends to do that.
I still don't have much to say about the attacks. We probably don't need to say much. The anniversary should be marked - lower flags, take that moment of silence (as suggested in the otherwise rather embarrassing proclamation of today as "Patriot Day" [there's so much wrong with this - the name - can't they even come up with a name that's not taken?]) - mourn the dead, celebrate the survivors. And then get back to whatever we were doing. The attacks were devastating - but humans get over devastation. We adjust to beams falling; we adjust to beams not falling. That's less comfort than it should be while things are bad - but it is important to remember it. We - human beings, as individuals, communities, as all of us - absorb damage and move on.
Unfortunately, we also make political hay out of suffering. But I'll wait until tomorrow to get too far into that...
I still don't have much to say about the attacks. We probably don't need to say much. The anniversary should be marked - lower flags, take that moment of silence (as suggested in the otherwise rather embarrassing proclamation of today as "Patriot Day" [there's so much wrong with this - the name - can't they even come up with a name that's not taken?]) - mourn the dead, celebrate the survivors. And then get back to whatever we were doing. The attacks were devastating - but humans get over devastation. We adjust to beams falling; we adjust to beams not falling. That's less comfort than it should be while things are bad - but it is important to remember it. We - human beings, as individuals, communities, as all of us - absorb damage and move on.
Unfortunately, we also make political hay out of suffering. But I'll wait until tomorrow to get too far into that...
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Weekend Top Ten, then
Not much more to say at the moment. So here's a regular feature to tide us over.
1. Thelonious Monk - Nice Work if You Can Get It
2. Warren Zevon - Lawyers Guns and Money
3. The Blue Aeroplanes - Big Sky [off a Mojo bonus disk - who are they?]
4. Joy Division - Day of the Lords
5. Nico with Cale and Reed at Bataclan - No One is There
6. Funkadelic - P.E. Squad/Doo Doo Chasers (instrumental)
7. Red Crayola - Free Form Freak Out
8. The Band - When I Paint my Masterpiece
9. Asian Dub Foudation - Assassin
10. Television - See No Evil (live)
Since we live in a video age: howzabout some Monk? didn't find video of the song appearing above, but a substitute seems fair.
If you absolutely must have Gerswhin, though, will the Sun City Girls do?
1. Thelonious Monk - Nice Work if You Can Get It
2. Warren Zevon - Lawyers Guns and Money
3. The Blue Aeroplanes - Big Sky [off a Mojo bonus disk - who are they?]
4. Joy Division - Day of the Lords
5. Nico with Cale and Reed at Bataclan - No One is There
6. Funkadelic - P.E. Squad/Doo Doo Chasers (instrumental)
7. Red Crayola - Free Form Freak Out
8. The Band - When I Paint my Masterpiece
9. Asian Dub Foudation - Assassin
10. Television - See No Evil (live)
Since we live in a video age: howzabout some Monk? didn't find video of the song appearing above, but a substitute seems fair.
If you absolutely must have Gerswhin, though, will the Sun City Girls do?
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Gone and Missed (old and new)
I am not sure how I missed this news: the death of Arthur Lee, August 3. I did though. I suppose it wasn't covered all that widely outside the music press, and I read more movie news, on a day by day basis. Music news I tend to get from Mojo, which is where I saw this, a month after the fact. I had seen the stories that he was very ill...
I can't say he was all that central to my conception of music - I discovered Love late, in the last 4-5 years, and it wasn't an exactly earth shattering discovery. I liked them - good, brilliantly crafted pop songs, like a lot of the music I liked. (Beatles, Beach Boys, the Byrds.)... But for a while, the last few months before I got my iPod, I was obsessed with Love, and stuck one of their songs on every compilation CD I made. (For a while there was banging them out 3 a week.) Which is one of the things that makes Love more significant to me than they might seem - their versatility was, even by the heady standards of the High Hippy 60s, damned impressive. Sweet pretty folk pop (though always with an edge), garage rock, early Pink Floyd style experimental folk (though always with that edge: "they're locking them up today, they're throwing away the key. I wonder who it'll be tomorrow, you or me") - guitar freakouts. And even more than the Beatles, maybe even more than the Who at the best - all in the same song. This one, notably:
Enjoy.
(I was going to add something about Steve Irwin, but Lee got the better of me. There is some temptation to snark about Irwin - all that crocodile hunter crap, the way he built a persona on monkeying around with big mean animals. But I won't. I can't say I was too surprised to see that headline - I'm not too surprised when mountain climbers or race car drivers meet their end in the pursuit of their careers. It's actually more susprizing when someone living a dangerous lifestyle lasts past the dangers - see Mr. Lee, above, or Syd Barrett. There's frankly not much difference, when you think about it: wrestling crocodiles - wrestling acid. Arthur Lee (and Syd) made the world a better place. And I suppose Steve Irwin did too.)
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Random Ten, Next Day Edition
Another quick list:
1. Sleater-Kinney - Wilderness
2. Minutemen - Storm in My House
3. The Who - Long Live Rock (from BBC sessions)
4. Jay Farrar - Damaged Son
5. The Byrds - Mr. Spaceman
6. Grateful Dead - Mountains of the Moon
7. Minutemen - Joy Jam [repetition? probably the least surprising repeaters on the iPod, since I think they are the champions in terms of pure song titles]
8. Velvet Underground - Murder Mystery
9. Velvet Underground - European Son [back to back velvets? though they're well represented on their too]
10.Radiohead - Pyramid Song
1. Sleater-Kinney - Wilderness
2. Minutemen - Storm in My House
3. The Who - Long Live Rock (from BBC sessions)
4. Jay Farrar - Damaged Son
5. The Byrds - Mr. Spaceman
6. Grateful Dead - Mountains of the Moon
7. Minutemen - Joy Jam [repetition? probably the least surprising repeaters on the iPod, since I think they are the champions in terms of pure song titles]
8. Velvet Underground - Murder Mystery
9. Velvet Underground - European Son [back to back velvets? though they're well represented on their too]
10.Radiohead - Pyramid Song
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Round and About
With nothing too important to say, let's cast an eye across the world...
Sport! That is, Red Sox! that is - what a peaceful, sweet sensation it is to experience once more their patented Late Season Collapse. It's been so long! Now - there are many opinions about what led to this disaster, but I think the cause is clear enough: they're running out of players. I said back in June that Jon Lester was going to save the season - by that logic, I'd say now, losing Tim Wakefield doomed their season. Having 4 decent starters, they were doing fine - down to three, and one of them a rookie and another with an ERA over 5, plus a bullpen full of rookies and incompetents (and Mike Timlin's 40 years) - you could guess where things were headed. Now, of course, the hitters are dropping like flies... so.... Myself, I don't think this indicates anything sinister for the future - underachievers like Coco Crisp and Josh Beckett seem more likely to be better next year than not; all those rookie pitchers will be a year older, smarter and tougher next year; heck, they'll even have Matt Clement back (or turn him into something useful) - bad as he's been in Boston, he's still useful, especially if he's closer tot he end of the rotation. So I can stand it. I'd stand it better if they could get a young starting pitcher somewhere, but hey...
Meanwhile, 'round the blogs - Lawyers, Guns and Money offers up abuse of the Electoral College, along with abuse of Mickey Kaus and lamentations regarding the Bosox. I'm with them on this one - the EC is a ridiculous, anti-democratic anachronism. Get rid of it! For all the reasons cited there, and because it gets in the way of the elegance of the divided government. What should happen - the House Representatives should consist of people elected directly by local districts; the Senate should consist of people elected directly by whole states; and the president, the Federal government, after all, should be elected directly by the entire country. But no! While on the subject of voting - Making Light cites interesting research into Senate voting patterns: they're almost all driven by economic interests, runs the conclusion. Dems vote for the interests of more people who control less money - republicans vote for the interests of fewer people who control more money.
Finally, on Whiskey Fire, Thersites stares into the bad writing abyss: Ann Althouse, banally blogging about the Emmys - or the completely unreadable Maximos - writing about - something. Liberals, I think. It really is a thing of - uh - what's the word? I have to provide a sample:
Sport! That is, Red Sox! that is - what a peaceful, sweet sensation it is to experience once more their patented Late Season Collapse. It's been so long! Now - there are many opinions about what led to this disaster, but I think the cause is clear enough: they're running out of players. I said back in June that Jon Lester was going to save the season - by that logic, I'd say now, losing Tim Wakefield doomed their season. Having 4 decent starters, they were doing fine - down to three, and one of them a rookie and another with an ERA over 5, plus a bullpen full of rookies and incompetents (and Mike Timlin's 40 years) - you could guess where things were headed. Now, of course, the hitters are dropping like flies... so.... Myself, I don't think this indicates anything sinister for the future - underachievers like Coco Crisp and Josh Beckett seem more likely to be better next year than not; all those rookie pitchers will be a year older, smarter and tougher next year; heck, they'll even have Matt Clement back (or turn him into something useful) - bad as he's been in Boston, he's still useful, especially if he's closer tot he end of the rotation. So I can stand it. I'd stand it better if they could get a young starting pitcher somewhere, but hey...
Meanwhile, 'round the blogs - Lawyers, Guns and Money offers up abuse of the Electoral College, along with abuse of Mickey Kaus and lamentations regarding the Bosox. I'm with them on this one - the EC is a ridiculous, anti-democratic anachronism. Get rid of it! For all the reasons cited there, and because it gets in the way of the elegance of the divided government. What should happen - the House Representatives should consist of people elected directly by local districts; the Senate should consist of people elected directly by whole states; and the president, the Federal government, after all, should be elected directly by the entire country. But no! While on the subject of voting - Making Light cites interesting research into Senate voting patterns: they're almost all driven by economic interests, runs the conclusion. Dems vote for the interests of more people who control less money - republicans vote for the interests of fewer people who control more money.
Finally, on Whiskey Fire, Thersites stares into the bad writing abyss: Ann Althouse, banally blogging about the Emmys - or the completely unreadable Maximos - writing about - something. Liberals, I think. It really is a thing of - uh - what's the word? I have to provide a sample:
Liberalism, then, has, upon its own presuppositions, no rational, consistent basis for opposing that which even the darkest minds realize is despicable and base. That most liberals do oppose it is a credit them as persons, and a shame to their professed dogmas. Liberalism’s consent problem, then, is this: an absence of a rational basis for a moral prejudice all sane persons recognize as being of the essence of civilized norms of behaviour, combined with a tacit invocation of the very values with which its entire theory is at war: authority and the necessary expression of authority, responsibility. One of the many necessarly expressions of the authority and responsibility of adults towards children just is to refrain from sexualizing them, either as objects of desire or as objects of “enlightened” educational policies intended to mold them into specimens of liberated humanity. Liberalism wishes to retain the form of the obligation while evacuating its substance; in order to preserve itself from the obvious consequences of its dubious theories, it must make an unprincipled exception: traditional authority and decorum are pernicious, except when we say they are not.That - I mean, golly! What's going on there? it's like one of those magic eye pictures (autostereograms!), where you're supposed to star until your eyes go out of focus and you see the picture. Except you can't see anything! Oh, it's there, you're sure of it - your friends keep pointing at it and it and telling you, "look! there it is! it's a mountain lion! look! and an eagle, on a crag!" but you can't see it. I mean - well, I can sort of see a straw-liberal in there, but even that, I can't keep in focus... I can't even figure out what set him off, though I'm guessing it has something to do with this California law. The usual nitwits are up in arms. Whatever, man.
This, in case any should wonder why I have troubled to express thoughts upon so loathsome a subject, will be the ultimate reason - coupled, of course, with its affirmation of homosexuality, which includes a manifest cult of youth, and finds its probable origins in the traumas of youth - for the inability of liberalism to resist the furthest, most debauched consequences of the sexual revolution which now labours to overthrow the institution of marriage. Liberalism lacks a principled basis for stopping at the final frontier of depravity, and eventually, determined passion will overcome the absence of reason. It always does.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Movie Reviews
Been a while. Two weekends out of the country and all that. So this is covering a stretch of time - but that's all right I guess.
Get it out of the way first, I guess: Snakes on a Plane! After all the hype and the anticipation, this turns out to be exactly what it should be: a no-nonsense exploitation picture, that tells you what it's going to do and does it. Samuel L. Jackson, a host of character actors, and snakes on a plane - all of it delivered at a nice clip, at least after a slow start, all of it executed with plenty of laughs, some chills, all the snakes you could ask for, hissing and spitting and biting and slithering and swallowing and squeezing to their hearts' content. It offers pretty much exactly what you want in a cheap disaster movie - nods to the classics, cheap laughs, kids in peril, pricks humbled, the clock beaten, with something to shiver over - snakes on a plane!
Little Miss Sunshine: this seems to be the indie hit of the summer. People seem to like it. For good reason. It's standard fare, I suppose - dysfunctional family takes a road trip, wackiness ensues. You've got Greg Kinnear, playing a failed success guru; Toni Collette as his Long Suffering Wife (who, of course, pays all the bills). Alan Arkin as his father, living with them because he got thrown out of the old folks home for being a junkie. Paul Dano as a 17 year old who's taken a vow of silence because of Nietzsche, and Abigail Breslin as a junior beauty contestant. Throw in Steve Carrell as Toni Collette's suicidal gay Proust scholar brother - you can see the wackiness coming a mile away. They head off to a beauty contest in a rattly old van - not just wacky, but zany! hijinks are sure to come... But it works. In a way, it's not too different from Snakes on a Plane - it's perfectly generic, it lays out its ingredients plainly - and then delivers. It is, in fact, wacky - zany even! It also has an underlying generosity, to the family at least (and a few outsiders). For all their posturing and raving, they all seem to like one another, and they all come through when they are tested. And the performances are all you could hope for. It's as good a cast as you could imagine - and they are without exception excellent. Carell and Arkin are what they are - ringers - surpassingly brilliant, stealing corners of the film without trying, and without stepping on anyone else's toes. (Carrell's scenes with Paul Dano work particularly well.) Kinnear and Collette hold down the center, she sensible, he deluded; and the kids match them. It's a nice little film. When I started seeing trailers for it, the beauty pageant plot put me in mind of Michael Ritchie's Smile - the films aren't that similar, in the end - but it's still a good comparison. Little Miss Sunshine isn't far from Ritchie's blend of satire and pathos, and that's very high praise.
The Oh in Ohio: a bit of a disappointment. With Parker Posey and Paul Rudd as a married couple frustrated by the fact that she has never had an orgasm, plus Danny DeVito and Mischa Barton as the beneficiaries of this split. It's amusing, the characters are sympathetic, the cast is excellent and all doing very good work - but it still feels thin... too bad. I don't mean to complain too much - it's enjoyable and clever and all, but never gets past "amiable"....
Get it out of the way first, I guess: Snakes on a Plane! After all the hype and the anticipation, this turns out to be exactly what it should be: a no-nonsense exploitation picture, that tells you what it's going to do and does it. Samuel L. Jackson, a host of character actors, and snakes on a plane - all of it delivered at a nice clip, at least after a slow start, all of it executed with plenty of laughs, some chills, all the snakes you could ask for, hissing and spitting and biting and slithering and swallowing and squeezing to their hearts' content. It offers pretty much exactly what you want in a cheap disaster movie - nods to the classics, cheap laughs, kids in peril, pricks humbled, the clock beaten, with something to shiver over - snakes on a plane!
Little Miss Sunshine: this seems to be the indie hit of the summer. People seem to like it. For good reason. It's standard fare, I suppose - dysfunctional family takes a road trip, wackiness ensues. You've got Greg Kinnear, playing a failed success guru; Toni Collette as his Long Suffering Wife (who, of course, pays all the bills). Alan Arkin as his father, living with them because he got thrown out of the old folks home for being a junkie. Paul Dano as a 17 year old who's taken a vow of silence because of Nietzsche, and Abigail Breslin as a junior beauty contestant. Throw in Steve Carrell as Toni Collette's suicidal gay Proust scholar brother - you can see the wackiness coming a mile away. They head off to a beauty contest in a rattly old van - not just wacky, but zany! hijinks are sure to come... But it works. In a way, it's not too different from Snakes on a Plane - it's perfectly generic, it lays out its ingredients plainly - and then delivers. It is, in fact, wacky - zany even! It also has an underlying generosity, to the family at least (and a few outsiders). For all their posturing and raving, they all seem to like one another, and they all come through when they are tested. And the performances are all you could hope for. It's as good a cast as you could imagine - and they are without exception excellent. Carell and Arkin are what they are - ringers - surpassingly brilliant, stealing corners of the film without trying, and without stepping on anyone else's toes. (Carrell's scenes with Paul Dano work particularly well.) Kinnear and Collette hold down the center, she sensible, he deluded; and the kids match them. It's a nice little film. When I started seeing trailers for it, the beauty pageant plot put me in mind of Michael Ritchie's Smile - the films aren't that similar, in the end - but it's still a good comparison. Little Miss Sunshine isn't far from Ritchie's blend of satire and pathos, and that's very high praise.
The Oh in Ohio: a bit of a disappointment. With Parker Posey and Paul Rudd as a married couple frustrated by the fact that she has never had an orgasm, plus Danny DeVito and Mischa Barton as the beneficiaries of this split. It's amusing, the characters are sympathetic, the cast is excellent and all doing very good work - but it still feels thin... too bad. I don't mean to complain too much - it's enjoyable and clever and all, but never gets past "amiable"....
Friday, August 25, 2006
Random Ten Returns
Without much preliminary:
1. Ramones - Glad to See You Go
2. Mahavishnu Orchestra - Vital Transformation
3. Public Enemny - Rise
4. The Kills - The Good Ones
5. Roxy Music - Whirlwind
6. Abba - Voulez Vous (sounding very Chic)
7. James White and the Blacks - (Tropical) Heat Wave
8. Dinosaur Jr. - Severed Lips
9. Stooges - Death Trip
10. Jacques Brel - Les Marquises
And this week's video: the kills.
1. Ramones - Glad to See You Go
2. Mahavishnu Orchestra - Vital Transformation
3. Public Enemny - Rise
4. The Kills - The Good Ones
5. Roxy Music - Whirlwind
6. Abba - Voulez Vous (sounding very Chic)
7. James White and the Blacks - (Tropical) Heat Wave
8. Dinosaur Jr. - Severed Lips
9. Stooges - Death Trip
10. Jacques Brel - Les Marquises
And this week's video: the kills.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
I Return
Given my erratic posting habits in the best of times, you probably can't tell when I have been away and when I'm just lazy. Well, this time, I have been away. I have been abroad, as it were, though a rather tame form of "abroad" - our neighbors to the north. I was, however, completely off the grid for a week - a novel experience indeed. It was a vacation indeed - I did nothing but eat sleep read a book or two and chat with various cousins and uncles and aunts and the like. Drank a lot of tea. Walked around looking at fields that used to be houses (and a lot of houses on what used to be fields and brushland.) And looked at nature. For example: birds - primarily seagulls, such as this example:
Though also these hummingbirds (my inaugural YouTube upload, for that matter.)
UPDATE: I changed the pictures a bit, stripped them down a bit more, because it was starting to get realy slow loading. I hope that was the cause. Sometimes I have to pay attention to the tech stuff, I guess. Learn the damn code.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Friday Ritual
Yes, it's time for the random ten - still Friday, even! Here goes:
1. Deerhoof - Sealed with a Kiss
2. Wilco - The Late Greats
3. Jay Farrar - Vitamins [I see the iPod is playing games - Wilco and Farrar back to back?]
4. Grateful Dead - New Speedway Boogie
5. John Cale - Outta the Bag
6. English Beat - Save it for Later
7. Byrds - Time Between
8. Sunny Day Real Estate - J'Nuh
9. Jacques Brel - Sans Exigences
10. Jacques Brel - Orly [uh - how does this happen?]
11. Stereolab - Bonnie & Clyde [had to include that - 3 French songs in a row?]
We'll have to return to the original for our video treat: Serge and Brigitte, in all their cool majesty.
1. Deerhoof - Sealed with a Kiss
2. Wilco - The Late Greats
3. Jay Farrar - Vitamins [I see the iPod is playing games - Wilco and Farrar back to back?]
4. Grateful Dead - New Speedway Boogie
5. John Cale - Outta the Bag
6. English Beat - Save it for Later
7. Byrds - Time Between
8. Sunny Day Real Estate - J'Nuh
9. Jacques Brel - Sans Exigences
10. Jacques Brel - Orly [uh - how does this happen?]
11. Stereolab - Bonnie & Clyde [had to include that - 3 French songs in a row?]
We'll have to return to the original for our video treat: Serge and Brigitte, in all their cool majesty.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Kids
Well - here's an interesting post. Pandagon, picking up on Alas, A Blog, picking up on The Daily Mail - on how kids are boring, and making your life revolve around your kids is a recipe for having a dull tiresome and pretty much useless life. And how this is primarily a problem for women: men can opt in or out as they will.
I suppose it's a kind of heresy but, yeah - they're right. Kids are b0ring. Or, more accurately, kids are fun some of the time, but boring most of the time - though some are boring 24/7. The needy clingy ones, especially. The truth is - the other side of this is - that adults are also boring, to kids. They were when I was a kid. It was fun, now and then, to join the grown ups for a game of dominos or hearts, or shooting baskets, or getting an adult to hit you fly balls - but grownups generally don't want to sit around playing with toy cowboys, and when I was a kid, that's what I lived for. Not so much now. Now I want to sit around with the other grownups and watch the Red Sox. (Actually, one of the weirdest things about the kids I know is that they don't want to sit and watch sports. What is wrong with them? communists!) Doting on kids, running every inch of their lives - that can't be good for anyone.
I suppose it's a kind of heresy but, yeah - they're right. Kids are b0ring. Or, more accurately, kids are fun some of the time, but boring most of the time - though some are boring 24/7. The needy clingy ones, especially. The truth is - the other side of this is - that adults are also boring, to kids. They were when I was a kid. It was fun, now and then, to join the grown ups for a game of dominos or hearts, or shooting baskets, or getting an adult to hit you fly balls - but grownups generally don't want to sit around playing with toy cowboys, and when I was a kid, that's what I lived for. Not so much now. Now I want to sit around with the other grownups and watch the Red Sox. (Actually, one of the weirdest things about the kids I know is that they don't want to sit and watch sports. What is wrong with them? communists!) Doting on kids, running every inch of their lives - that can't be good for anyone.
Politics
I haven't been writing about politics much lately, but sometimes... two big stories to comment on: there's the terror plot for one. And the defeat (though not yet the end) for Holy Joe Lieberman, Connecticutt senator and all round jackass. The former is an odd tale. It's always good to hear about these things being foiled, but I'm not always sure I trust the reaction. Security changes for instance. There may be good reasons for it - but isn't the point that the plot was discovered? I don't know - I don't know enough about what happened to say. I just get the impression sometimes that a lot of the reaction to terriorist plots and acts is just that - a reaction, more about appearing to do something than about actually stopping them from happening. That's obviously not true of every security measure, but it's true of enough that you wonder about others. (The temptation to post about the security barricades office buildings put up - just run of the mill office buildings, nobody special, not one any terrorist is going to blow up, not even one a disgruntled employee is all that likely to want to start any crap in - is very strong. I'll resist. I wouldn't want anyone to think I don't take the war on terror seiously.)
There's some of that ocming out of the Lamont v. Lieberman race. Roy Edroso has rounded up some of the right's reactions to Lamont's win (and the terrorism plot) - a miserable spectacle; two miserable spectacles. There's the sad tale of one Brendan Loy - who can no longer "cling to the label of Democrat" now that Joe Lieberman has lost his primary. This Loy person is your basic "9/11 changed everything" type, but for some reason, it took him 5 years to change. And that, friends, is incomparably freakish. I suppose there is some logic in becoming a hawk after 9/11, and thinking the republicans were more hawkish than the democrats - but it's been 5 years! You should have picked up that just about everyone became a hawk after 9/11 - it's only whenn the GOP went off message (and went after Iraq instead of terrorists) that the dems and the left in general dug in their heels. But more to the point, and to the point that giving up on the dems now is just plain freakish - the GOP has completely failed. Their foreign policy has been a miserable failure for years. Going into Iraq was an abandonment of the "war on terror" in a meaningful sense; it was an immoral war, that served no discernable national security interest - and it has been a wretched failure.
So - if Lamont won because Lieberman continues to support the war as uncritically as it is possible to do - well - that's because most of the country has pretty much come to see the war as a failure as well. It's the majority position in the country and not just in liberal Connecticut. At this point - why would even a hawk support Bush? What good is an aggressive foreign policy if it is that badly applied?
There's a lot of wailing in the pundit classes and on the right just now. Holy Joe's defeat has them unnerved - maybe because they realize they are in the minority, and have to ratchet up the noise to get people to forget what a disaster GOP rule has been. They certainly waste no time seizing on the thwarted terrorist plot as proof of something - usually something about the need to kill more Arabs, once you get through the details. I don't know. Holy Joe himself won't be missed: it ain't just the war, it's the whole package. Can't say we'll miss him.
There's some of that ocming out of the Lamont v. Lieberman race. Roy Edroso has rounded up some of the right's reactions to Lamont's win (and the terrorism plot) - a miserable spectacle; two miserable spectacles. There's the sad tale of one Brendan Loy - who can no longer "cling to the label of Democrat" now that Joe Lieberman has lost his primary. This Loy person is your basic "9/11 changed everything" type, but for some reason, it took him 5 years to change. And that, friends, is incomparably freakish. I suppose there is some logic in becoming a hawk after 9/11, and thinking the republicans were more hawkish than the democrats - but it's been 5 years! You should have picked up that just about everyone became a hawk after 9/11 - it's only whenn the GOP went off message (and went after Iraq instead of terrorists) that the dems and the left in general dug in their heels. But more to the point, and to the point that giving up on the dems now is just plain freakish - the GOP has completely failed. Their foreign policy has been a miserable failure for years. Going into Iraq was an abandonment of the "war on terror" in a meaningful sense; it was an immoral war, that served no discernable national security interest - and it has been a wretched failure.
So - if Lamont won because Lieberman continues to support the war as uncritically as it is possible to do - well - that's because most of the country has pretty much come to see the war as a failure as well. It's the majority position in the country and not just in liberal Connecticut. At this point - why would even a hawk support Bush? What good is an aggressive foreign policy if it is that badly applied?
There's a lot of wailing in the pundit classes and on the right just now. Holy Joe's defeat has them unnerved - maybe because they realize they are in the minority, and have to ratchet up the noise to get people to forget what a disaster GOP rule has been. They certainly waste no time seizing on the thwarted terrorist plot as proof of something - usually something about the need to kill more Arabs, once you get through the details. I don't know. Holy Joe himself won't be missed: it ain't just the war, it's the whole package. Can't say we'll miss him.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Friday Randomness
Actually put some content up between fridays this week - I am so proud of myself! Anyway, as customary, here is your Friday Random Ten:
1. PJ Harvey - Electric Light
2. Johnny Cash - I don't know where I'm bound
3. Rod Stewart - Mandolin Wind
4. Earth - Crooked Axis for String Quartet
5. Jimi Hendrix - Rainy Day, Dream Away
6. Doc Watson Family - I heard my mother weeping
7. Peter Laughner - Amphetemine
8. Patti Smith - Revenge
9. Captain Beefheart - Alice in Blunderland
10. The Waterboys - The Thrill is Gone
Not having much luck turning those songs up on YouTube - so to compensate, here's the Waterboys doing Pagan Place, somewhere in their early years...
1. PJ Harvey - Electric Light
2. Johnny Cash - I don't know where I'm bound
3. Rod Stewart - Mandolin Wind
4. Earth - Crooked Axis for String Quartet
5. Jimi Hendrix - Rainy Day, Dream Away
6. Doc Watson Family - I heard my mother weeping
7. Peter Laughner - Amphetemine
8. Patti Smith - Revenge
9. Captain Beefheart - Alice in Blunderland
10. The Waterboys - The Thrill is Gone
Not having much luck turning those songs up on YouTube - so to compensate, here's the Waterboys doing Pagan Place, somewhere in their early years...
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Avant Garde Blogathon
...underway, as we speak! hosted by Girish, who has a post up about Joseph Cornell, an artist I like very much. The only film of his I have seen is Rose Hobart - a fascinating film constructed out of clips from East of Borneo - no slouch itself in the surrealism department (I refer you to Guy Maddin's review for the Village Voice.) But for a movie geek like me, Cornell's art has cinematic qualities - using cinematic source material (Penny Arcade Portrait of Lauren Bacall), but also all those grids and repetitions reminiscent of film strips, or Mubridge. (A quality he shares with Warhol.) Look at that Bacall box: the grids, repeated images, even the holes around the boxes at the top, enough like sprocket holes for me. The formal elements - grids, repetitions, etc. - are fundamental to Cornell's work, and hard not to associate with film. The "window" box at the bottom here - would make a pretty good strip of avant-garde film.
I wish I had more to offer to this blogathon - check it out, there's some good reading there.
I wish I had more to offer to this blogathon - check it out, there's some good reading there.
Halfway Home
It's rather late for this sort of thing, a halfway report, I should have posted something like it about a month ago. But it's worth a shot. What are the best films I've seen so far in 2006? New films, I mean - in theatrical, commercial, release, in Boston, in 2006? As usual, it's mostly last year's best foreign films - decent domestic films generally come out in the fall. But it's not a bad crop:
1. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu - easily the best, one of the best films of the decade
2. L'Enfant - the excellence one expects from the Dardennes brothers.
3. Three Times - Hou Hsiao Hsien revisiting his life and his career in a ravishing three part work.
4. Cache - "an examination of guilty consciences and the unexpected results of casual, careless cruelty, and just a hint of Duck Amuck..." (I'm rather proud of that line)
5. Clean - Olivier Assayas making the most of two brilliant performances from Maggie Cheung and Nick Nolte
6. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - a powerful conclusion to Park Chan-wook's vengeance trilogy
7. Pulse - holy crap! I thought the American remake had disappeared without a trace - but no! it's up for release next week! Anyway, Kurosawa's original is a haunting and masterful work.
8. A Scanner Darkly - Philip K Dick brought to the screen...
9. Tristram Shandy - another adaptation, one less suited to the direct approach - which Michael Winterbottom and company handle by making the film as much about adaptation as the book is about writing. Quite enjoyable, and not requiring the facility with 19th century prose style as the novel.
10. Bubble - somehow feels as though it has been forgotten already, but deserved a better fate. Interesting experiment, and very well made.
Honearable mention to Army of Shadows, which at 37 years old is too much for me to list, even though it was released this year. Also to Cafe Lumiere, L'Intrus, Regular Lovers, Good Morning, Night, The President's Last Bang and Innocence, all of which played somewhere, once or twice maybe, but should have been given a halfway decent release, and need to be seen, however you can find them. Still - I suppose it is something of a joyful miracle that The Death of Mr. Lazarescu got a straightforward commercial release (and drew a modest crowd - better than some films I would have expected to draw, like Pulse). But it would be nice.
1. The Death of Mr. Lazarescu - easily the best, one of the best films of the decade
2. L'Enfant - the excellence one expects from the Dardennes brothers.
3. Three Times - Hou Hsiao Hsien revisiting his life and his career in a ravishing three part work.
4. Cache - "an examination of guilty consciences and the unexpected results of casual, careless cruelty, and just a hint of Duck Amuck..." (I'm rather proud of that line)
5. Clean - Olivier Assayas making the most of two brilliant performances from Maggie Cheung and Nick Nolte
6. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - a powerful conclusion to Park Chan-wook's vengeance trilogy
7. Pulse - holy crap! I thought the American remake had disappeared without a trace - but no! it's up for release next week! Anyway, Kurosawa's original is a haunting and masterful work.
8. A Scanner Darkly - Philip K Dick brought to the screen...
9. Tristram Shandy - another adaptation, one less suited to the direct approach - which Michael Winterbottom and company handle by making the film as much about adaptation as the book is about writing. Quite enjoyable, and not requiring the facility with 19th century prose style as the novel.
10. Bubble - somehow feels as though it has been forgotten already, but deserved a better fate. Interesting experiment, and very well made.
Honearable mention to Army of Shadows, which at 37 years old is too much for me to list, even though it was released this year. Also to Cafe Lumiere, L'Intrus, Regular Lovers, Good Morning, Night, The President's Last Bang and Innocence, all of which played somewhere, once or twice maybe, but should have been given a halfway decent release, and need to be seen, however you can find them. Still - I suppose it is something of a joyful miracle that The Death of Mr. Lazarescu got a straightforward commercial release (and drew a modest crowd - better than some films I would have expected to draw, like Pulse). But it would be nice.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
