Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Satire
Just a quick note about this cover. Of course it's stirred up a maelstrom of controversy - well, umbrage, at least. It seems neither pundit nor politician can move quick enough to take offense.
Jon Stewart made an excellent point, as he is want to do, when he noted the irony in the television pundits' outrage for pushing false, meritless rumors, when that's what they do on a daily basis. "Was it a pound? A fist bump? A terrorist fist jab?" - courtesy of Fox news.
So, to summarize, at the risk of being redundant, this cover, courtesy of Barry Blitt, conveys all of the most outlandish rumors attributed to Barack and Michelle, rumors disseminated to the public primarily via the 24 hour news networks, only for those same networks to feign disgust. Perhaps, each rumor one at a time is news, but lumped together in a single cartoon is unacceptable. This is irony. Good. We've covered irony.
But the argument made in defense of this cover is that it is satire. Um...actually, I hate to break it to you, but no. It isn't. Satire is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc." (I copied that from dictionary.com - just so we're all on the same page.) The reason this cartoon is not satire is because it says nothing - it neither exposes, denounces, nor derides. It merely depicts. There's no higher message, no lesson to be learned, no...point. It shows us all the rumors and lies, but makes no judgment on them.
The only possible satire one might discern from the cover is contextual. Because these Right Wing smears appear on the cover of the stereotypically liberal New Yorker, one would likely infer that the magazine's editors are not supporting the images but must be making a statement against them. And so shouts of "satire" ring out from the rafters.
But what is the statement that is supposedly being made? Where is the satire? Merely being on the cover of the New Yorker is not sufficient.
It is precisely because this cartoon fails at its proposed purpose of satire that it is offensive. Instead of sending up these outlandish attacks as the absurdities that they are - absurdities that should no more be paid attention to than one would pay attention to claims that gay marriage would tear apart our families and destroy our civilization - the cartoon merely reprints and repeats them. The title of the cartoon could easily be, "This is what Some People are Saying." No rebuttal. No counterpoint. Just, "this is what some people are saying."
Awesome. Thanks.
Lies become truth through repetition. You tell one story over and over again, it doesn't matter what really happened. All this cartoon does is perpetuate the right wing smear narrative. By showing Barack in traditional Muslim garb or Michelle as a militant, the cartoon is enforcing, rather than denouncing, such attacks. It's putting an image to a lie, but saying nothing of the lie. We all heard the lovely folks in West Virginia tell us they didn't vote for Obama in the primaries because, "Blacks cause too many problems," and they've "had enough of Hussein," and they don't like them no Muslims. (Well, something to that effect.) Do we really need to keep putting gas in that engine?
While everyone in the media claims to be offended by the images that they helped perpetuate, I'm mostly just offended that The New Yorker doesn't even understand satire. If they did, they would have avoided this whole mess and, perhaps, actually said something worthwhile, besides "This is what Some People are Saying..."
And it wasn't even funny.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Dancing Around the World
This video is lovely. I've been trying to copy this guy's dancing style for hours, but I can't quite get it.
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Happy Memorial Day
If I haven't mentioned this before, I LOVE Stereogum.
Why? Because Stereogum loves me. And you. And everyone who loves music.
Need proof? Go download your memorial day mixtape right now!
Languish in the tunes brought to you by the good people (Brandon Stosuy, I am your disciple) at Stereogum.
God, if only I were a legitimate blog. I want nothing more than to bestow mix after mix upon you four readers.
This will have to do for now. And let's be honest, it probably far surpasses anything I could give you anyway.
(Side note: Does anyone know what "woot" means? Is it SMS speak? I'm confused.)
Why? Because Stereogum loves me. And you. And everyone who loves music.
Need proof? Go download your memorial day mixtape right now!
Languish in the tunes brought to you by the good people (Brandon Stosuy, I am your disciple) at Stereogum.
God, if only I were a legitimate blog. I want nothing more than to bestow mix after mix upon you four readers.
This will have to do for now. And let's be honest, it probably far surpasses anything I could give you anyway.
(Side note: Does anyone know what "woot" means? Is it SMS speak? I'm confused.)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS*
M83
Saturdays=Youth
8.5
Things to do this summer:
- Read at least five books
- Work on my lats
- Cure cancer
- Watch all of John Hughes' eighties comedies
- Listen to M83's Saturdays=Youth incessantly
Molly Ringwald, I fucking get you.
*I've stopped counting.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Young @ Heart
Thursday, May 15, 2008
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS
Portishead
Third
8.0
Probably the most anticipated album of the year, Portishead returns after an 11 year hiatus to give us Third. Stunningly it's unlike any Portishead you've ever heard, actually darker than their previous outings, however jettisoning the trip hop of Dummy and Portishead. This is a band that has matured and changed and brought their music with them. The lonely ukulele driven "Deep Water" takes the prize for most unexpected song of the year. While the album is interesting and introspective, it's, I think, a grower that has yet to really grow on me. Enjoyable to the end, but never addicting.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS
Beach House
Devotion
(8.4)
Imagine a house. On a beach. At sunset. The waves lapping the shore. The warm air blowing through your sun dress. Yeah, it feels like that. Take your shoes off. Grab a glass of wine. You won't be going anywhere for a while.
Of course, I could be wrong. Allmusic.com writes, "Their music is so lonely, so haunting, that the only beach house it evokes is a deserted one, stranded on a winter night so desolate that summer isn't even a memory."
Maybe it just depends on your mood. But god damn is it good stuff.
Beach House - Gila
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Number 5
Usually when people ask me what my favorite movie is, I decry the question as impossible and annoying. However, I do enjoy keeping a rotating list of five movies that, at a given point in my life, could be described as favorites. I don't list them in any order. They're just five favorites.
Recently I rediscovered the graduate. (It should be noted, I mentioned this to someone and they said, "You just discovered the Graduate!? Goodness, Senator.") No. The operative word being "REdiscovered." As in I own the movie, knew it was great, but at no point in my life prior to my most recent viewing had I understood it to be so sublime a masterpiece. At this point in my life, it is perfection. And so I stuck it into my top five.
However, upon reexamination of my five, I decided to remove a couple films. Putting me at four with an open spot needing to be filled.
The current four are:
Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
Punch Drunk Love
The Squid and the Whale
The Graduate
The two now reside in a certain state of ambiguous limbo:
(These movies are still in the running, but have weakened, at least temporarily, from the top five postion)
Amelie -
Obviously, I love this movie. For years it held the coveted top five spot. But I fear that I may be over it. Perhaps it's time to put something else in its place.
Me and You and Everyone We Know -
a film quite unlike any I have ever seen. Bursting with sweetness and pure unfiltered emotion. But when it comes down to it, I don't know that it's a strong enough film to be in such a coveted position.
Other movies in the running:
I'm Not There
Children of Men
The Royal Tenenbaums
Fight Club
Good Will Hunting
Man Bites Dog
Movern Callar
But I'm not yet sold on any of these so I'm asking for your help in picking a fifth. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I'm looking forward to filling that number 5 spot.
Thanks.
Recently I rediscovered the graduate. (It should be noted, I mentioned this to someone and they said, "You just discovered the Graduate!? Goodness, Senator.") No. The operative word being "REdiscovered." As in I own the movie, knew it was great, but at no point in my life prior to my most recent viewing had I understood it to be so sublime a masterpiece. At this point in my life, it is perfection. And so I stuck it into my top five.
However, upon reexamination of my five, I decided to remove a couple films. Putting me at four with an open spot needing to be filled.
The current four are:
Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
Punch Drunk Love
The Squid and the Whale
The Graduate
The two now reside in a certain state of ambiguous limbo:
(These movies are still in the running, but have weakened, at least temporarily, from the top five postion)
Amelie -
Obviously, I love this movie. For years it held the coveted top five spot. But I fear that I may be over it. Perhaps it's time to put something else in its place.
Me and You and Everyone We Know -
a film quite unlike any I have ever seen. Bursting with sweetness and pure unfiltered emotion. But when it comes down to it, I don't know that it's a strong enough film to be in such a coveted position.
Other movies in the running:
I'm Not There
Children of Men
The Royal Tenenbaums
Fight Club
Good Will Hunting
Man Bites Dog
Movern Callar
But I'm not yet sold on any of these so I'm asking for your help in picking a fifth. If you have any suggestions, please let me know. I'm looking forward to filling that number 5 spot.
Thanks.
For Procrastination's Sake
Go to Slate's Special Procrastination Issue and put off whatever it is you're putting off by coming to this ridiculous blog.
But if you only read one article, read "Letter to a Young Procrastinator" by Seth Stevens.
But if you only read one article, read "Letter to a Young Procrastinator" by Seth Stevens.
Monday, May 12, 2008
When You Live Next to a Waterfall...
A 7.9 earthquake just hit China killing at least 9,000 people, and that number is rising. A few weeks ago, a cyclone in Burma killed over 100,000 people and dead bodies continue to wash up on those shores. Tornadoes have killed hundreds in the Midwest in the past week. Genocide rages in Darfur, still. Violence continues to escalate in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worldwide inflation is forcing worldwide economic depression. The list goes on.
But what I’m most afraid of is the fact that we’ve become anesthetized. The apocalypse is upon us and we can’t even get up the energy to notice. After eight years of devastation, destruction, and death we’ve become completely numb. When the Twin Towers fell, it was all I could do to stay in school and not rush to my beloved New York to help. When the tsunami crushed Thailand, I rushed to the bloodbank and when the Red Cross told me that they actually had a surplus of blood, because everyone was donating, I sent money. When Hurricane Katrina hit, I donated more blood. More money. The day I graduated from college, I drove 700 miles to Washington, D.C. to take part in the Darfur rally. Later that year, I rallied for Darfur in Central Park.
And now? I see the news and I change the channel. I read an article, the news barely registers, and I move on to the next one. They say that when you live next to a waterfall, you stop hearing it. I know, from having lived in Iowa, that it only takes a few days to stop smelling the shit. If you close one eye, you can see your nose. But with both eyes open, your brain just ignores that piece of perpetual information. It’s our body’s natural defense mechanism. We learn to ignore too much of the same stimulus. That makes sense, of course. How else would we be able to go on living our lives if we let ourselves be crushed by the daily horrors of the world? After five years, we’ve grown tired of the Iraq war. People are still dying, but with no end in sight, the news media just kind of stopped caring. Ho hum, 300 more dead in Iraq. But did you hear what Rev. Wright said!?
A recent study found that Conservatives are happier than Liberals. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Liberals’ modus operandi is outrage – at injustice, at war, at inequality, prejudice, etc. Their belief tends to be that we can help those people who can’t help themselves. But is anyone surprised that so many of the liberal, idealistic activists of the Sixties and Seventies grew into wealthy conservatives? How long can someone be expected to fight without seeing results? Eventually, exhaustion kicks in and people get tired of being angry. They get tired of fighting. The conservative mindset is a solipsistic one of isolation where the most important fight is for one’s own prosperity. Now that’s a fight that can be won. You might not be able to single handedly end genocide, but you can probably put your kids through college. Who can’t empathize with that? After the past decade, who can’t see the value in that mindset, if for only survival’s sake?
My conservative parents used to gibe me that if you weren’t a liberal as a kid, you didn’t have a heart, and if you weren’t a conservative as an adult, you didn’t have a brain. It’s obvious, of course, that the current batch of Republicans have neither brains, hearts, nor souls, but you’d be hard pressed not to at least understand that sentiment. We only have so much energy to give. Still, I’m writing this today to remind anyone that has become numb to the world, that sometimes it’s important to close one eye, stick that newly visible nose in the shit, then go out to take a look at the waterfall. I know we’re tired, but we have to avoid letting our fatigue turn into indifference. At some point, we need to remember what it was that made us rush to the blood banks and dig into our wallets. If we can’t work up the energy to be outraged, we at least need to remember why we were outraged and understand that there are still things worth fighting for, even though it feels like the fighting may never end.
You can click here to donate to the Burmese monks, which is about the only way to guarantee that aid reaches the people of Burma, since the government would rather pocket your money than use it to help its people.
But what I’m most afraid of is the fact that we’ve become anesthetized. The apocalypse is upon us and we can’t even get up the energy to notice. After eight years of devastation, destruction, and death we’ve become completely numb. When the Twin Towers fell, it was all I could do to stay in school and not rush to my beloved New York to help. When the tsunami crushed Thailand, I rushed to the bloodbank and when the Red Cross told me that they actually had a surplus of blood, because everyone was donating, I sent money. When Hurricane Katrina hit, I donated more blood. More money. The day I graduated from college, I drove 700 miles to Washington, D.C. to take part in the Darfur rally. Later that year, I rallied for Darfur in Central Park.
And now? I see the news and I change the channel. I read an article, the news barely registers, and I move on to the next one. They say that when you live next to a waterfall, you stop hearing it. I know, from having lived in Iowa, that it only takes a few days to stop smelling the shit. If you close one eye, you can see your nose. But with both eyes open, your brain just ignores that piece of perpetual information. It’s our body’s natural defense mechanism. We learn to ignore too much of the same stimulus. That makes sense, of course. How else would we be able to go on living our lives if we let ourselves be crushed by the daily horrors of the world? After five years, we’ve grown tired of the Iraq war. People are still dying, but with no end in sight, the news media just kind of stopped caring. Ho hum, 300 more dead in Iraq. But did you hear what Rev. Wright said!?
A recent study found that Conservatives are happier than Liberals. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. Liberals’ modus operandi is outrage – at injustice, at war, at inequality, prejudice, etc. Their belief tends to be that we can help those people who can’t help themselves. But is anyone surprised that so many of the liberal, idealistic activists of the Sixties and Seventies grew into wealthy conservatives? How long can someone be expected to fight without seeing results? Eventually, exhaustion kicks in and people get tired of being angry. They get tired of fighting. The conservative mindset is a solipsistic one of isolation where the most important fight is for one’s own prosperity. Now that’s a fight that can be won. You might not be able to single handedly end genocide, but you can probably put your kids through college. Who can’t empathize with that? After the past decade, who can’t see the value in that mindset, if for only survival’s sake?
My conservative parents used to gibe me that if you weren’t a liberal as a kid, you didn’t have a heart, and if you weren’t a conservative as an adult, you didn’t have a brain. It’s obvious, of course, that the current batch of Republicans have neither brains, hearts, nor souls, but you’d be hard pressed not to at least understand that sentiment. We only have so much energy to give. Still, I’m writing this today to remind anyone that has become numb to the world, that sometimes it’s important to close one eye, stick that newly visible nose in the shit, then go out to take a look at the waterfall. I know we’re tired, but we have to avoid letting our fatigue turn into indifference. At some point, we need to remember what it was that made us rush to the blood banks and dig into our wallets. If we can’t work up the energy to be outraged, we at least need to remember why we were outraged and understand that there are still things worth fighting for, even though it feels like the fighting may never end.
You can click here to donate to the Burmese monks, which is about the only way to guarantee that aid reaches the people of Burma, since the government would rather pocket your money than use it to help its people.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS
The Dodos
Visiter
(8.1)
From San Francisco. Self-described “Happy hardcore.” Imagine Animal Collective at its pop best on acoustic guitar and stuttering drums without the less appealing avant-garde experimentation that usually invokes a press of the skip button. This was the first album of the year that I was genuinely excited to buy. I went to the record store five times before they got it in stock. Before the album came out, I was obsessed with songs, “Jodi,” and “Ashley,” which mix sweet folky melodies with euphoric rampage. Unfortunately, the rest of the album doesn’t match the heights of those songs. Still great, though.
The Dodos - Jodi
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Speed Racer (Blind Review)
I haven't seen Speed Racer and have no intention of seeing it. Here's my review:
The Wachowski Brothers continue to outdo themselves in their quest to make the worst movie of all time. Unfortunately, they may have set the bar too high with their Matrix sequels. Reloaded holds the crown, but I've heard Revolutions was worse. So we'll just call that a tie. V for Vendetta was hilarious in its horridness - I still have fantasies of kissing the plastic mask of the emotionless girl of my dreams. At least Spiderman was gracious enough to pull the spidy-spandex aside.
With Speed Racer, the Wachowski Brothers succeed in making a movie worse than V, but, unfortunately fall short of the Matrix stink bombs. Sorry, guys. Maybe next time.
Good news for you readers. I've come across some dialog from a pivotal scene in the movie:
Waitress: So your name's Speed, huh?
Speed: Yeah! You wanna race?
Waitress: Not really. I just thought that was a funny name.
Speed: Let's drop acid and race!
Waitress: Um. No thanks.
Speed: I love to race. And drop acid.
Waitress: Hey. That sucked how you died at the end of that Wild movie.
Speed: It didn't suck half as much as this movie.
Waitress:
Speed: Wanna race?
Smart People
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS (give or take 41 words)
THE MOUNTAIN GOATS
HERETIC PRIDE
(7.8)
John Darnielle eschews the autobiography of his last two albums and returns to weaving stories of characters in his imagination. While far superior to his previous outing, Get Lonely, Heretic Pride doesn’t hold up to his masterpieces (see: All Hail West Texas, Tallahassee, Sunset Tree). Of course, it would be unfair to hold him to such lofty standards on every album. The record is full of gems – its title track is one of the best songs of his career. For that matter, every song on the album that’s meant to kick ass, does. I just wish he’d quit with the sappy falsetto crap (feel free to skip “So Desperate.”) He’s so much more effective when he’s angry, sarcastic, or funny. This record also has the heaviest production in his catalog – that’s not always a good thing (but it’s frequently quite good).
HERETIC PRIDE
(7.8)
John Darnielle eschews the autobiography of his last two albums and returns to weaving stories of characters in his imagination. While far superior to his previous outing, Get Lonely, Heretic Pride doesn’t hold up to his masterpieces (see: All Hail West Texas, Tallahassee, Sunset Tree). Of course, it would be unfair to hold him to such lofty standards on every album. The record is full of gems – its title track is one of the best songs of his career. For that matter, every song on the album that’s meant to kick ass, does. I just wish he’d quit with the sappy falsetto crap (feel free to skip “So Desperate.”) He’s so much more effective when he’s angry, sarcastic, or funny. This record also has the heaviest production in his catalog – that’s not always a good thing (but it’s frequently quite good).
Friday, May 9, 2008
RECORD REVIEWS IN 100 WORDS OR LESS
MAN MAN
Rabbit Habbits
(8.0)*
Wandering band of hobos from Philadelphia put out their tightest record to date, maintaining the old-timey saloon sound, this time with a little less anarchy. While early leaked singles, Hurly / Burly and Top Drawer are fun for a while, the standout tracks are the back to back 7 minute epics that close the album, meshing heartbreak, harmony, and acid and boasting lines like, “I don’t see what every body sees in your sexy body. All I see is a shallow grave trapped inside a pretty face.” Note: They’re not actually hobos. They are actually awesome. Buy this record.
Top Drawer
*New scoring system. A la pitchfork. I'm not original.
Rabbit Habbits
(8.0)*
Wandering band of hobos from Philadelphia put out their tightest record to date, maintaining the old-timey saloon sound, this time with a little less anarchy. While early leaked singles, Hurly / Burly and Top Drawer are fun for a while, the standout tracks are the back to back 7 minute epics that close the album, meshing heartbreak, harmony, and acid and boasting lines like, “I don’t see what every body sees in your sexy body. All I see is a shallow grave trapped inside a pretty face.” Note: They’re not actually hobos. They are actually awesome. Buy this record.
Top Drawer
*New scoring system. A la pitchfork. I'm not original.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
John Mayer Actually Does Something Good
So last year, some friends and I went up to San Francisco to go camping and attend Neil Young's Bridge Benefit concert for autism. The concert featured Tegan and Sara, Metallica, minuscule sets by Tom Waits and Neil Young, an amazing set by My Morning Jacket, and one of the most offensive sets I've ever seen by John Mayer.
Here's what happened: John goes through his set, eschewing his shitty radio hits (for the most part) in favor of solid bluesy songs with impressive compositions and some stellar guitar play. Nearing the end of his set, we all felt a little different about John. Perhaps we shouldn't rag on him so much. Perhaps his puke inducing songs "Waiting on the World to Change Because I'm Too Lazy to Actually Do Anything Pro-Active" and "Your Body is an Overpriced Amusement Park That Leaves Me Tired, Angry, and Disappointed" don't actually encompass all that is John Mayer. Then, for his finally, he took us out with Tom Petty's "Free Falling." You can feel the energy in the crowd of a few thousand people, all waiting with bated breath to scream the chorus. "Here it comes...here it comes...oh, oh," and we yell "AND I'M..." And you know what John Mayer does? He decides, "Fuck the anthem. I'm gonna shit all over the chorus. You know, really take it down about 50 notches. Make it smooth. Calm." Can you imagine? He gave an audience of over three thousand people the worst fucking case of blue balls. Every time he got to the chorus, we wanted to SCREAM, while he changed the chords and took it down to a whisper, that son of a bitch. After he left the stage, the crowd started singing Free Falling the way it's supposed to be sung - with anthemic, cathartic, Jerry Maguire-like yelling. I've hated John Mayer twice as much as I ever did since that night.
Which brings me to this. After watching this, I kind of don't hate him anymore. In fact, I kind of wouldn't mind hanging out with him. I still don't want to listen to his music, but this is actually very very funny. There's always a place in my heart for self-deprecation.
Here's what happened: John goes through his set, eschewing his shitty radio hits (for the most part) in favor of solid bluesy songs with impressive compositions and some stellar guitar play. Nearing the end of his set, we all felt a little different about John. Perhaps we shouldn't rag on him so much. Perhaps his puke inducing songs "Waiting on the World to Change Because I'm Too Lazy to Actually Do Anything Pro-Active" and "Your Body is an Overpriced Amusement Park That Leaves Me Tired, Angry, and Disappointed" don't actually encompass all that is John Mayer. Then, for his finally, he took us out with Tom Petty's "Free Falling." You can feel the energy in the crowd of a few thousand people, all waiting with bated breath to scream the chorus. "Here it comes...here it comes...oh, oh," and we yell "AND I'M..." And you know what John Mayer does? He decides, "Fuck the anthem. I'm gonna shit all over the chorus. You know, really take it down about 50 notches. Make it smooth. Calm." Can you imagine? He gave an audience of over three thousand people the worst fucking case of blue balls. Every time he got to the chorus, we wanted to SCREAM, while he changed the chords and took it down to a whisper, that son of a bitch. After he left the stage, the crowd started singing Free Falling the way it's supposed to be sung - with anthemic, cathartic, Jerry Maguire-like yelling. I've hated John Mayer twice as much as I ever did since that night.
Which brings me to this. After watching this, I kind of don't hate him anymore. In fact, I kind of wouldn't mind hanging out with him. I still don't want to listen to his music, but this is actually very very funny. There's always a place in my heart for self-deprecation.
Monday, April 14, 2008
We've Finally Discovered What Sank the Titanic
According to the New York Times, "weak rivets" are to blame for the demise of the Titanic.
And all this time we thought it was a glacier! Ha! Fuckin' rivets. They'll get you every time.
And all this time we thought it was a glacier! Ha! Fuckin' rivets. They'll get you every time.
The Idea That McCain Is Anything But A Right-Wing Republican Is Absurd
This article from the AP, today, outlines the myriad of ways McCain has consistently lobbied and voted for fringe right policies. Worth a read, but I assume, as my friends, if you're reading this blog, you don't need someone to tell you that McCain tows the line.
However, I'm posting this because I found this little quote to be funny:
In February, McCain said, "I am pro-life and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world."
The rights of women, on the other hand...
However, I'm posting this because I found this little quote to be funny:
In February, McCain said, "I am pro-life and an advocate for the rights of man everywhere in the world."
The rights of women, on the other hand...
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Question from Kazekiel
Kazekiel asked, "Is that your real hair? Because it kind of looks fake."
What the hell are you talking about? What hair are you referring to? If you're asking about the carpet and the drapes, don't worry. They match. And it's real. Most of it.
But I have a question for you, Kazekiel. Is that your real name? 'Cause that must have sucked in elementary school. And then high school. College. Job market. Bachelor life. You're a bachelor, right? With a name like Kazekiel, I would assume so. However, maybe you should take a trip to Renaissance Festival. I can definitely see you hooking up with some spiked mace wielding, horse riding, no silver ware eating, black plague fighting, 14th Century wench.
Or perhaps you could check out Amish country in my home state of Pennsylvania. They do dudes named Ezekiel all the time, so Kazekiel shouldn't be a far stretch. Sure, the chick's got 6 fingers, but that's a good thing. Trust me.
What the hell are you talking about? What hair are you referring to? If you're asking about the carpet and the drapes, don't worry. They match. And it's real. Most of it.
But I have a question for you, Kazekiel. Is that your real name? 'Cause that must have sucked in elementary school. And then high school. College. Job market. Bachelor life. You're a bachelor, right? With a name like Kazekiel, I would assume so. However, maybe you should take a trip to Renaissance Festival. I can definitely see you hooking up with some spiked mace wielding, horse riding, no silver ware eating, black plague fighting, 14th Century wench.
Or perhaps you could check out Amish country in my home state of Pennsylvania. They do dudes named Ezekiel all the time, so Kazekiel shouldn't be a far stretch. Sure, the chick's got 6 fingers, but that's a good thing. Trust me.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
So sorry for the delay in posting...
But I'm actually holding out to see Sweeney Todd before writing my year end movie list. I know I said I'd write it after There Will Be Blood, but, um, I lied.
In the meantime, feel free to send me questions or topics in the comment page which you would like me to answer or comment on in a witty fashion.
That should be fun.
In the meantime, feel free to send me questions or topics in the comment page which you would like me to answer or comment on in a witty fashion.
That should be fun.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is Great (Right?)
Let me start by saying that Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is an excellent film. It’s superbly written, superbly acted, and superbly directed. I start with this disclaimer of sorts, because, like most Sydney Lumet films, I walked out of the theater logically justifying its greatness, while feeling in my gut that it was ultimately innocuous. As with most emotions we come across in life, there is a rational and an irrational response. Usually, we can look at our feelings, be they love, anger, hatred, or envy and, if we possess an adequate amount of emotional maturity, decide how much of our emotions are irrational. From there, we can make a mature decision for how to proceed. It is with this in mind that I tell you, rationally, that Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is a fine film of the highest caliber.
Unfortunately, films, like the human spirit, don’t solely operate on the rational or the logical. And even while every character in this film about a robbery gone wrong acted without that rationality governor, I too find myself trying to maneuver around the film’s inescapable, seemingly irrational, nagging disappointment. Disappointed at not being on the edge of my seat. Disappointed at actually wondering when the film would end. Disappointed at not caring. And I felt the same way the first time I saw Dog Day Afternoon. So if you loved that movie, then don’t listen to me. You’ll probably love Before the Devil Knows You’re dead. It is a great film.
I think one of my problems was that Sydney ratcheted up the intensity level to a solid 9 right out of the door and never let up. So after about an hour of being at a steady 9, I grew tired and a little numb. The story starts with a jewelry store robbery that goes horribly wrong. From there, we look at every character involved in the robbery in a haltingly non-linear narrative, going back in time to see every angle leading up to the robbery. Eventually we see all the angles of the aftermath as well. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke play middle-aged fucked-up brothers, each in need of money, and each sharing the same, perpetually nude, and surprisingly stunning Marissa Tomei, who plays Hoffman's wife. Women her age shouldn’t look so good. It’s unfair to everyone else. Hoffman and Hawke are actually convincing as brothers, despite their rather stark differing physical appearance, and that, I think, is a testament to their acting, as well as the casting of mother, small, svelte Rosemary Harris, and father, the wonderful, puffier Albert Finney. While the story starts with a jewelry store robbery, and uses this robbery as the narrative structure, the film is about the destruction of a suburban American family. Not the American Beauty brand of destruction – think more like Hamlet style destruction. Homicide. Patricide. Matricide. Fratricide. If it has a “-cide” it’s not only possible in Lumet’s 44th(ish) film, it’s likely. Every scene is packed so tightly with emotional intensity – Hoffman turns out yet another stunning performance, as if we should expect anything less at this point, and Finney’s performance, the heart of which doesn’t come until halfway through the movie, is so heartbreakingly devastating you practically want to rip your own heart out and give it to him – that by the time we get to the film’s bloody denouement, my nerves were frayed. I was worn out.
Without the rather complex structure, there might not be a film. At least, not nearly as interesting a film. Reminiscent of the structure of Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the result of taking us back in time to learn each character’s own unique cause to their combined effect made for a powerfully nuanced story. Unlike a film that might start with a big event then rush back to the past to show how we got to this point, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is about the characters, not the event. By using this form, Lumet, along with writer Kelly Masterson, do a magnificent job of juggling this layer cake story and extracting from every character, everything he or she’s worth. It also makes the film seem rather long. It seemed like every time the story was picking up momentum, we’d be whisked back in time to watch another character come to the same point, move a little beyond it, and then we’d switch again. It was the difference of taking city streets to taking the highway. There’s definitely more to look at if you don’t mind stopping at all those stop lights and getting to your destination about a half hour later. At 2 hours and 3 minutes, the film isn’t inordinately long, rationally speaking. It just feels that way.
And that’s really what it comes down to. I could argue the merits of this film for days, hours at least, but I probably wouldn’t be too invested in that argument. In any case, it really was great to see an excellent film built on nothing but writing, acting, and directing. There was nothing flashy, nothing grandiose. No feats of cinematography. No extravagant sets. Even the transitions were implemented with simple, rudimentary flash cuts. The kind a film student could make on a cutting board with tape and a razor blade. Function over form – words to live by in almost every endeavor. The form never took on the role of spectacle precisely because the story never called for it. That’s the sign of a true master.
There I go again. Arguing its merits. What can I do?
Unfortunately, films, like the human spirit, don’t solely operate on the rational or the logical. And even while every character in this film about a robbery gone wrong acted without that rationality governor, I too find myself trying to maneuver around the film’s inescapable, seemingly irrational, nagging disappointment. Disappointed at not being on the edge of my seat. Disappointed at actually wondering when the film would end. Disappointed at not caring. And I felt the same way the first time I saw Dog Day Afternoon. So if you loved that movie, then don’t listen to me. You’ll probably love Before the Devil Knows You’re dead. It is a great film.
I think one of my problems was that Sydney ratcheted up the intensity level to a solid 9 right out of the door and never let up. So after about an hour of being at a steady 9, I grew tired and a little numb. The story starts with a jewelry store robbery that goes horribly wrong. From there, we look at every character involved in the robbery in a haltingly non-linear narrative, going back in time to see every angle leading up to the robbery. Eventually we see all the angles of the aftermath as well. Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke play middle-aged fucked-up brothers, each in need of money, and each sharing the same, perpetually nude, and surprisingly stunning Marissa Tomei, who plays Hoffman's wife. Women her age shouldn’t look so good. It’s unfair to everyone else. Hoffman and Hawke are actually convincing as brothers, despite their rather stark differing physical appearance, and that, I think, is a testament to their acting, as well as the casting of mother, small, svelte Rosemary Harris, and father, the wonderful, puffier Albert Finney. While the story starts with a jewelry store robbery, and uses this robbery as the narrative structure, the film is about the destruction of a suburban American family. Not the American Beauty brand of destruction – think more like Hamlet style destruction. Homicide. Patricide. Matricide. Fratricide. If it has a “-cide” it’s not only possible in Lumet’s 44th(ish) film, it’s likely. Every scene is packed so tightly with emotional intensity – Hoffman turns out yet another stunning performance, as if we should expect anything less at this point, and Finney’s performance, the heart of which doesn’t come until halfway through the movie, is so heartbreakingly devastating you practically want to rip your own heart out and give it to him – that by the time we get to the film’s bloody denouement, my nerves were frayed. I was worn out.
Without the rather complex structure, there might not be a film. At least, not nearly as interesting a film. Reminiscent of the structure of Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the result of taking us back in time to learn each character’s own unique cause to their combined effect made for a powerfully nuanced story. Unlike a film that might start with a big event then rush back to the past to show how we got to this point, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is about the characters, not the event. By using this form, Lumet, along with writer Kelly Masterson, do a magnificent job of juggling this layer cake story and extracting from every character, everything he or she’s worth. It also makes the film seem rather long. It seemed like every time the story was picking up momentum, we’d be whisked back in time to watch another character come to the same point, move a little beyond it, and then we’d switch again. It was the difference of taking city streets to taking the highway. There’s definitely more to look at if you don’t mind stopping at all those stop lights and getting to your destination about a half hour later. At 2 hours and 3 minutes, the film isn’t inordinately long, rationally speaking. It just feels that way.
And that’s really what it comes down to. I could argue the merits of this film for days, hours at least, but I probably wouldn’t be too invested in that argument. In any case, it really was great to see an excellent film built on nothing but writing, acting, and directing. There was nothing flashy, nothing grandiose. No feats of cinematography. No extravagant sets. Even the transitions were implemented with simple, rudimentary flash cuts. The kind a film student could make on a cutting board with tape and a razor blade. Function over form – words to live by in almost every endeavor. The form never took on the role of spectacle precisely because the story never called for it. That’s the sign of a true master.
There I go again. Arguing its merits. What can I do?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Obama wins Iowa!
Big night, guys. This guy won the Iowa Caucus. I mean, duh. How could you not vote for a sexy man like that? It'd be like that time I ran for Smartest Senior at my high school. I put up naked pictures of my girlfriend all over the high school. Sure, I got expelled, but you know who won? Senator Murphy, that's who. Because of the sexy. I should run for president. I think I still have some of those pictures. I'll teach that slut to leave the Smartest Senior for the Quarterback. I have a blog now! She's toast.
Hey! There Was Blood!
It's almost impossible for me to be objective when it comes to Paul Thomas Anderson. Punch Drunk Love is one of my favorite movies of all time. I fucking LOVED the plague of frogs and the full-cast Aimee Mann karaoke in Magnolia. And those were two movies that disappointed critics. His newest “greatest movie of all time” (and P.T. really doesn’t seem capable of operating under lesser terms), There Will Be Blood is only his second in 8 years. Only this time, it actually is being touted as a “masterpiece,” not divisively, like his past films, but nearly universally. In fact, the only part of the film that seems to give any reservations, is the end of the film – a big, bombastic showdown between Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis), the film’s oil-drilling protagonist and Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), Plainview’s antagonist – the Western town’s precocious prophet. Both megalomaniacs, mirroring each other, and anchoring the film’s American thematic story line of profits vs. prophets.
I’ve been looking forward to this film since I read an early draft of the script almost 3 years ago. (By the way, let me advise against ever reading the script of a movie you want to see ahead of time. So much worse than reading a book before its cinematic adaptation, the script tells you almost everything that’s going to happen. It’s the ultimate spoiler.) When I read the script, I was a little disappointed, and a little skeptical. There Will Be Blood had none of the magic realism that wowed in Magnolia or Punch Drunk Love. It didn’t have the lightness or excitement that made Boogie Nights so enjoyable. It was a little too much Citizen Kane, or perhaps The Godfather trilogy – an epic about a man who will stop at nothing in his dogged pursuit of wealth and power in the perpetual competition that is the American Dream. But I had faith, and more than a little curiosity. In Anderson’s hands, with Robert Elswit at the lens, Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood composing the score, and Daniel Day-Lewis controlling the screen, I had faith that There Will Be Blood would feel familiar in only the most basic sense of the epic American film.
I wasn’t exactly right. The film did feel, in many ways, like a rehashing of what Orson Welles practically turned trope with one film. That’s not to say Anderson’s epic, masterpiece or no, wasn’t stunning. It was. And at almost two hours and forty-five minutes, it felt faster than some ninety-minute films I’ve seen. From the opening title, as Plainview mines for silver in abject solitude with nothing but Greenwood’s discordant strings saturating the tension, until the final prophetic line of the film, I was on the edge of my seat, rapt from the spectacle of this turn of the century Western. Most importantly, I would see it again in a heartbeat, confident that its richness and even its audacity would not be distilled.
The story, loosely based on the John Updike novel "Oil!," follows Daniel Plainview, a man incapable of seeing beyond the pursuit of wealth, who goes from mining silver to drilling oil during California’s oil rush at the onset of the 20th century. He uses his adopted son, H.W., to portray himself as a family man in an effort to buy land from lowly Western settlers who neither know the value of the land they sit on, nor how they might tap the wealth beneath their feet. Plainview’s perspective on “family” is debatable. His son is his partner, and a cute face to help him sway sellers. However, it seems evident that Plainview does genuinely care for his boy, and for about the first half of the film, he is quite likeable. But his competitiveness, and his hatred for mankind, rise to the surface and eventually explode like the oil from one of his derricks. In a moment of revelation, one of very few, Plainview tells his brother, who appears out of the woodwork when he hears of Plainview’s success, “I have a competition in me that wants no one else to succeed…I hate most people. I look at them and I can’t see anything worth liking.”
Daniel Day Lewis’s performance is one of the most terrifying and stunning performances you’re likely to see for some time. It’s a tour-de-force that, for my money, is scarier even than Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men, perhaps because Chigurh is not a man, but a killer, a psychopath. He’s the boogieman in the closet, the monster under the bed. Daniel Plainview is a product of the American Dream, a man so driven by greed and competition that he has no room left for any other emotion. Day Lewis treats the character with such intensity that, accompanied by Greenwood’s score and Elswit’s frame, my heart was practically trying to escape the prison of my ribs.
All the pieces come together at their most sublime when an oil well explodes in flames, injuring Plainview’s son. The monolith of fire and oil is the centerpiece of the film, violent and beautiful, and the very kind of cinematic bravado with which Anderson excels. The fiery tower illuminates the barren landscape through the night, silhouetting Plainview who watches in subdued ecstasy while his son suffers in the mess hall. It may be the finest single scene of the year. Certainly, the most spectacular.
While paling in the brilliance of Day Lewis’s Plainview, and who wouldn’t, Paul Dano takes a big step from his role as the angsty teenager in Little Miss Sunshine, injecting Eli Sunday with a certain smarmy pomposity that actually seems to make him more despicable than his terrifying counterpart. Still, I can’t help but wonder if another actor wouldn’t have been able to take that character a little further. Dano wasn’t always convincing as the town’s bombastic spiritual leader, nor did he seem vile enough to illicit Plainview’s murderous ire, but I’m hard pressed to think of an alternative. There just aren’t many (any?) strong enough actors for this role that can play a 15 year-old, or, as I’m sure Anderson would have preferred, someone even younger. Rumor has it, though, that Dano was the second choice. The first actor cast in the role of Eli Sunday was literally scared away by Daniel Day Lewis’s legendary on and off set intensity. And so Dano was cast. And he really did do a fine job.
The most divisive moment of the film is the final scene set in a private bowling alley, decried as over-the-top, and even as the moment, where, according to David Denby, "some part of [Anderson] must have rebelled against canonization." Um, OK. Well, Denby writes for the New Yorker so I’m not about suck down any of his condescension. What has he ever done with his life that’s so great? But I can see how the explosive finale, which is in parts disturbing and hilarious, would turn off some viewers. While the entire movie basked in the expanses and loneliness of the old West, the big finale, propelled by alcohol and self-destruction, takes place in a small private underground bowling alley. It’s like any number of Anderson’s greatest scenes but it’s injected here, at the end of a film that has, for two and a half hours, eschewed humor, lightness, for that matter, a film that has reserved itself in a relative stoicism, a patient drilling into the ground, into, if you will, a heart of darkness. I don’t want to give away anything from the scene, but I think this is when the well exploded. And when that happens, you can’t blame it for getting a little messy.
There Will Be Blood was a definite departure from P.T. Anderson’s past work. For that matter, it was a departure from that magical excess that made me love Anderson in the first place. There’s no denying that it is a masterful piece, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a piece that only Anderson could have made. That is, I think, where the film falls short. From its conception, this film was geared up to be a masterpiece, a great American epic. Ultimately, it became so self-aware that it risked feeling formulaic. I think that’s why I enjoyed the final scene so much. That seemed like the one move that was undeniably Anderson’s, the one scene that no other director could have pulled off. And it will be argued for years, I’m sure, whether or not Anderson did. The quality of this film, however, really does seem to surpass any debate. It, in itself, is a stunning fiery tower, and a film to be reckoned with, like it or not.
I’ve been looking forward to this film since I read an early draft of the script almost 3 years ago. (By the way, let me advise against ever reading the script of a movie you want to see ahead of time. So much worse than reading a book before its cinematic adaptation, the script tells you almost everything that’s going to happen. It’s the ultimate spoiler.) When I read the script, I was a little disappointed, and a little skeptical. There Will Be Blood had none of the magic realism that wowed in Magnolia or Punch Drunk Love. It didn’t have the lightness or excitement that made Boogie Nights so enjoyable. It was a little too much Citizen Kane, or perhaps The Godfather trilogy – an epic about a man who will stop at nothing in his dogged pursuit of wealth and power in the perpetual competition that is the American Dream. But I had faith, and more than a little curiosity. In Anderson’s hands, with Robert Elswit at the lens, Radiohead guitarist Johnny Greenwood composing the score, and Daniel Day-Lewis controlling the screen, I had faith that There Will Be Blood would feel familiar in only the most basic sense of the epic American film.
I wasn’t exactly right. The film did feel, in many ways, like a rehashing of what Orson Welles practically turned trope with one film. That’s not to say Anderson’s epic, masterpiece or no, wasn’t stunning. It was. And at almost two hours and forty-five minutes, it felt faster than some ninety-minute films I’ve seen. From the opening title, as Plainview mines for silver in abject solitude with nothing but Greenwood’s discordant strings saturating the tension, until the final prophetic line of the film, I was on the edge of my seat, rapt from the spectacle of this turn of the century Western. Most importantly, I would see it again in a heartbeat, confident that its richness and even its audacity would not be distilled.
The story, loosely based on the John Updike novel "Oil!," follows Daniel Plainview, a man incapable of seeing beyond the pursuit of wealth, who goes from mining silver to drilling oil during California’s oil rush at the onset of the 20th century. He uses his adopted son, H.W., to portray himself as a family man in an effort to buy land from lowly Western settlers who neither know the value of the land they sit on, nor how they might tap the wealth beneath their feet. Plainview’s perspective on “family” is debatable. His son is his partner, and a cute face to help him sway sellers. However, it seems evident that Plainview does genuinely care for his boy, and for about the first half of the film, he is quite likeable. But his competitiveness, and his hatred for mankind, rise to the surface and eventually explode like the oil from one of his derricks. In a moment of revelation, one of very few, Plainview tells his brother, who appears out of the woodwork when he hears of Plainview’s success, “I have a competition in me that wants no one else to succeed…I hate most people. I look at them and I can’t see anything worth liking.”
Daniel Day Lewis’s performance is one of the most terrifying and stunning performances you’re likely to see for some time. It’s a tour-de-force that, for my money, is scarier even than Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh in No Country For Old Men, perhaps because Chigurh is not a man, but a killer, a psychopath. He’s the boogieman in the closet, the monster under the bed. Daniel Plainview is a product of the American Dream, a man so driven by greed and competition that he has no room left for any other emotion. Day Lewis treats the character with such intensity that, accompanied by Greenwood’s score and Elswit’s frame, my heart was practically trying to escape the prison of my ribs.
All the pieces come together at their most sublime when an oil well explodes in flames, injuring Plainview’s son. The monolith of fire and oil is the centerpiece of the film, violent and beautiful, and the very kind of cinematic bravado with which Anderson excels. The fiery tower illuminates the barren landscape through the night, silhouetting Plainview who watches in subdued ecstasy while his son suffers in the mess hall. It may be the finest single scene of the year. Certainly, the most spectacular.
While paling in the brilliance of Day Lewis’s Plainview, and who wouldn’t, Paul Dano takes a big step from his role as the angsty teenager in Little Miss Sunshine, injecting Eli Sunday with a certain smarmy pomposity that actually seems to make him more despicable than his terrifying counterpart. Still, I can’t help but wonder if another actor wouldn’t have been able to take that character a little further. Dano wasn’t always convincing as the town’s bombastic spiritual leader, nor did he seem vile enough to illicit Plainview’s murderous ire, but I’m hard pressed to think of an alternative. There just aren’t many (any?) strong enough actors for this role that can play a 15 year-old, or, as I’m sure Anderson would have preferred, someone even younger. Rumor has it, though, that Dano was the second choice. The first actor cast in the role of Eli Sunday was literally scared away by Daniel Day Lewis’s legendary on and off set intensity. And so Dano was cast. And he really did do a fine job.
The most divisive moment of the film is the final scene set in a private bowling alley, decried as over-the-top, and even as the moment, where, according to David Denby, "some part of [Anderson] must have rebelled against canonization." Um, OK. Well, Denby writes for the New Yorker so I’m not about suck down any of his condescension. What has he ever done with his life that’s so great? But I can see how the explosive finale, which is in parts disturbing and hilarious, would turn off some viewers. While the entire movie basked in the expanses and loneliness of the old West, the big finale, propelled by alcohol and self-destruction, takes place in a small private underground bowling alley. It’s like any number of Anderson’s greatest scenes but it’s injected here, at the end of a film that has, for two and a half hours, eschewed humor, lightness, for that matter, a film that has reserved itself in a relative stoicism, a patient drilling into the ground, into, if you will, a heart of darkness. I don’t want to give away anything from the scene, but I think this is when the well exploded. And when that happens, you can’t blame it for getting a little messy.
There Will Be Blood was a definite departure from P.T. Anderson’s past work. For that matter, it was a departure from that magical excess that made me love Anderson in the first place. There’s no denying that it is a masterful piece, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a piece that only Anderson could have made. That is, I think, where the film falls short. From its conception, this film was geared up to be a masterpiece, a great American epic. Ultimately, it became so self-aware that it risked feeling formulaic. I think that’s why I enjoyed the final scene so much. That seemed like the one move that was undeniably Anderson’s, the one scene that no other director could have pulled off. And it will be argued for years, I’m sure, whether or not Anderson did. The quality of this film, however, really does seem to surpass any debate. It, in itself, is a stunning fiery tower, and a film to be reckoned with, like it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)