Just saw Clerks II. It was okay, something weird going on in it though. It wasn't nearly as funny as the original obviously. Granted it was funny, but Clerks is its own unique kind of funny, yeah that sounds dumb but that's how it is. Anyway, I've always felt Smith was really good at emotional stuff (Chasing Amy is his best movie, deal with it, Dogma is a close second). And this one had that but it felt forced, like he had this crazy funny self-aware sequel but he felt that since he's older he needs to make it mean something. That kind of thinking is fine by me, if it's organic. Why couldn't he just make a ridiculous clerks movie? I guess it would be pretty lame of him to make a movie that would only amuse him and a few of his friends (take that me). In all seriousness, the emotional stuff didn't work. And I say that as a kevin smith fan who likes the emotional stuff.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about that. I have a headache and we're going to start this movie soon, gotta get my shit together.
All I have left is a song...
your hand on his arm
the hay stack charm around your neck
strung out and thin
calling some friend trying to cash some check
he's acting dumb
that's what you've come to expect
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
he's wearing your clothes
head down to toes a reaction to you
you say you know what he did
but you idiot kid
you don't have a clue
sometimes they just get caught in the eye
you're pulling him through
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
now on the bus
nearly touching this dirty retreat
falling out 6th and powell a dead sweat in my teeth
gonna walk walk walk
four more blocks plus the one in my brain
down downstairs to the man
he's gonna make it all OK
i can't beat myself
i can't beat myself
and i don't want to talk
i'm taking the cure so i can be quiet
wherever i want
so leave me alone
you ought to be proud that i'm getting good marks
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
needle in the hay
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Friday, July 21, 2006
In defense of bashing M. Night Shyamalan.
I'm sure you are all sick of hearing my rants against M. Night Shyamalan. Yes, you know I think he's been downhill since Signs (Signs included, and I don't just mean a slight decrease of quality, he's crashed into the fucking mountain). Yes, you know the Sixth Sense is slow (and not the Terence Malick good kind of slow but slow as in lacking dramatic tension), ponderous, and cheap thrill scary until the final twist where you say, that doesn't make up for the suckiness of the rest of the movie. It is what it is, a twist. For a better example on how to use a twist ending see Unbreakable (his only good film, and a great one at that) there is a twist in which the story that preceeded it is cast in a new light. The twist makes it a different movie, a better one. And since most of the people who read this blog are out here in Idaho, I imagine this will come as no surprise to the two (maybe three) other people who read this thing.
Regardless, the reason for this is I wish to write a response to two (yes, two) articles I have read in the "prestigious" village voice and Slate.com both titled "in defense of M. Night Shyamalan. I thought to myself, why does he deserve a defense? What has he done to warrant this kind of heedless admiration from a publication as notoriously cynically impossible-to-please as the village voice? I'm sure you will all roll your eyes at this comparison but when Revenge of the Sith came out, even people who loved the movie went out of their way to tear George Lucas a new one (except for A.O. Scott of the New York Times, he's a certifiable hero). Since I've been basically writing a long defense of George Lucas article ever since this blog began, I need to point out that Lucas (and countless other filmmakers) have done what Shyamalan's done. Except they (Lucas etc) celebrate the sharing of their myths. Shyamalan celebrates himself as the creator of them. For further evidence, anyone who doubts Lucas as a director obviously watch Star Wars. But pay important attention to THX-1138 and American Graffiti as examples of a director who can impress a distinct visual style on two very different works of film.
Anyway, before I try to stuff 8 billion blog entries into one. Let me present some of the "evidence" in the Slate.com article and then present a few counterpoints to these claims.
"But Shyamalan's missteps have been interesting, his mistakes worth a second look, and his obsession with the integrity of his own artistic visions, however irritating, has distinguished him from nearly all his young-Hollywood competitors."
Ross Douthat (the writer) makes a fair point that a bloated ego and incomparable self love don't necessarily equal a filmmaker without vision, talent, or intelligence. My response to that is, narcissism does hurt a filmmaker when he allows his talent to become a showcase for it. His films become an excuse for his greatness, as Shyamalan's films do, not the passion that inspired them . Examine how his twists talk down to the audience, it becomes a sadistic game of simultaneously egging the audience on to figure it out by promising one and then slapping them down when you pull the rug out from under them with the twists of all twists. When this happens, your twists are the story and there is nothing else to the movie worth watching. Not exactly the mark of a good storyteller as Shyamalan wishes the masses to proclaim him. Shyamalan gets off on deception, on proving he can out wit his audience with trick-less tricks. If David Blaine were a filmmaker, he's be Night's best bud. But twists aren't the only problem with his films, there are more sinister forces at work here defending his garbage. Check this one out...
"It's worth comparing Shyamalan's career choices, for instance, with those of Bryan Singer...Singer has essentially reinvented himself as a director of comic-book blockbusters, a man to be trusted with massive budgets and well-known franchises. He's been making movies for the studios, in other words, instead of doing what Shyamalan has tried to do—which is to persuade the studios to make movies for him."
"But this path comes with a price. You find yourself making sequels and franchise pictures rather than finding (or writing) new and unusual stories of your own...Shyamalan, by contrast, doesn't make sequels or franchises (he turned down a chance to script Indiana Jones IV). He doesn't adapt Dan Brown best sellers, or Robert Ludlum potboilers, or Disney theme-park rides. He doesn't rely on CGI, or even use it much."
I don't know wear to begin with this shit. First of all, Douthat calls Gore Verbinski versatile and talented. I guess that's how well you can gauge his abilitiy to judge talent. Second of all, just because you come up with original stories, doesn't mean they are any good. They can suck just as much or more than comic books or adaptations. I'm not bemoaning Shyamalan for sticking to his own material (we need more of it these days) I just think it's a massive stretch to ultimately label every thing that pops out of his brain gold. Shyamalan may write original screenplays, but he definitely follows a formula that's as tried and true as any brand name (in fact his films do come with a brand-name, ever notice his name above the goddamn title?) And this goes far beyond the twist ending bullshit I talked about earlier. All of his films are about ordinary men over come with some sort of inconceivable grief, who, through the power of the supernatural (and Shyamalan's self proclaimed story telling brilliance) find their way back to redemption and learn how to be better men through an acceptance of faith and belief. A certain kind of creepy christian domination is certainly none-too-subtle in some of his films, no wonder he and Mel got along so well. Now I understand that there is such a thing as a common theme uniting a director's body of work, but there is a serious difference between that and telling the same goddamn story every single time. Shyamalan's films don't represent a constant drive to understand the human condition, they represent a filmmaker high on his own gas, unable to come up with anything else. If you notice, nothing different ever happens to that thematic line. He never strives for a variation on it, he's content with setting em up and knocking em down every single time. I say that impulse, rather than a willingness to work with someone else's material indicates a death of originality. Shyamalan sold out to his own shit a long time ago. Also I believe the reason Shyamalan sticks to his own scripts all the time is because he doesn't think another writer is capable of topping or even countering his vision of cinematic prowess. Also, a personal note, if I hear one more so-called film theorist proclaim someone a genius because he or she doesn't use CGI. I'll let you fill in that blank.
"Shyamalan seems to be aiming for something, amid our summers of high-grossing superhero movies and our winters of little-seen Oscar-bait projects, that's increasingly rare these days: a marriage of entertainment and art, of mass-market tastes and elite sensibilities... So, Shyamalan deserves credit, despite his vanity and his missteps—not because he's succeeding, necessarily, but because he's willing to keep trying and unwilling to take his place with those timid, highly compensated directors who know neither victory nor defeat."
It's interesting how certain critics foam at the mouth when they get the ability to trash a film by Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, or even someone like Steven Spielberg. Because those are three directors (among others), who never make boring films. They always have a certain creative stamp that bears the mark of someone who is always exploring, always pushing the limits of his or her talents. And while crash and burn they sometimes do, I have yet to see a collection of articles such as these making an attempt to justify these failures. They often use the films they hate as impetus to suggest that "this" is proof that these directors never had any talent to begin with, or have subtly lost it along the way. People let Shyamalan off the hook with the greatest of ease. Possibly because unlike Lee and Stone, Shyamalan never says anything that pisses people off the way those two do. But beyond that, it's the one part of the Slate article, that I can't figure out. Why do people let Shyamalan off with such an easy pass when his movies have so obviously sucked the past couple of years? In the words of Elliott Smith, I don't think I'm ever gonna figure it out.
P.S. I wrote most of this while watching The Thin Red Line, which only added to my venom. People call Shyamalan a born filmmaker, no, Terence Malick is a born filmmaker. It's not even worth a comparison, but I need a good dose of Malick to offset this Shyamalanonsense. But you should all watch The Thin Red Line. It's fucking amazing.
Here is the slate article. Check it out if you feel I mis-represented it.
That's about enough...
"I need some sleep
Time to put the old horse down
I'm in too deep
And the wheels keep spinning 'round
Everyone says I'm getting' down too low
Everyone says you just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go"
Regardless, the reason for this is I wish to write a response to two (yes, two) articles I have read in the "prestigious" village voice and Slate.com both titled "in defense of M. Night Shyamalan. I thought to myself, why does he deserve a defense? What has he done to warrant this kind of heedless admiration from a publication as notoriously cynically impossible-to-please as the village voice? I'm sure you will all roll your eyes at this comparison but when Revenge of the Sith came out, even people who loved the movie went out of their way to tear George Lucas a new one (except for A.O. Scott of the New York Times, he's a certifiable hero). Since I've been basically writing a long defense of George Lucas article ever since this blog began, I need to point out that Lucas (and countless other filmmakers) have done what Shyamalan's done. Except they (Lucas etc) celebrate the sharing of their myths. Shyamalan celebrates himself as the creator of them. For further evidence, anyone who doubts Lucas as a director obviously watch Star Wars. But pay important attention to THX-1138 and American Graffiti as examples of a director who can impress a distinct visual style on two very different works of film.
Anyway, before I try to stuff 8 billion blog entries into one. Let me present some of the "evidence" in the Slate.com article and then present a few counterpoints to these claims.
"But Shyamalan's missteps have been interesting, his mistakes worth a second look, and his obsession with the integrity of his own artistic visions, however irritating, has distinguished him from nearly all his young-Hollywood competitors."
Ross Douthat (the writer) makes a fair point that a bloated ego and incomparable self love don't necessarily equal a filmmaker without vision, talent, or intelligence. My response to that is, narcissism does hurt a filmmaker when he allows his talent to become a showcase for it. His films become an excuse for his greatness, as Shyamalan's films do, not the passion that inspired them . Examine how his twists talk down to the audience, it becomes a sadistic game of simultaneously egging the audience on to figure it out by promising one and then slapping them down when you pull the rug out from under them with the twists of all twists. When this happens, your twists are the story and there is nothing else to the movie worth watching. Not exactly the mark of a good storyteller as Shyamalan wishes the masses to proclaim him. Shyamalan gets off on deception, on proving he can out wit his audience with trick-less tricks. If David Blaine were a filmmaker, he's be Night's best bud. But twists aren't the only problem with his films, there are more sinister forces at work here defending his garbage. Check this one out...
"It's worth comparing Shyamalan's career choices, for instance, with those of Bryan Singer...Singer has essentially reinvented himself as a director of comic-book blockbusters, a man to be trusted with massive budgets and well-known franchises. He's been making movies for the studios, in other words, instead of doing what Shyamalan has tried to do—which is to persuade the studios to make movies for him."
"But this path comes with a price. You find yourself making sequels and franchise pictures rather than finding (or writing) new and unusual stories of your own...Shyamalan, by contrast, doesn't make sequels or franchises (he turned down a chance to script Indiana Jones IV). He doesn't adapt Dan Brown best sellers, or Robert Ludlum potboilers, or Disney theme-park rides. He doesn't rely on CGI, or even use it much."
I don't know wear to begin with this shit. First of all, Douthat calls Gore Verbinski versatile and talented. I guess that's how well you can gauge his abilitiy to judge talent. Second of all, just because you come up with original stories, doesn't mean they are any good. They can suck just as much or more than comic books or adaptations. I'm not bemoaning Shyamalan for sticking to his own material (we need more of it these days) I just think it's a massive stretch to ultimately label every thing that pops out of his brain gold. Shyamalan may write original screenplays, but he definitely follows a formula that's as tried and true as any brand name (in fact his films do come with a brand-name, ever notice his name above the goddamn title?) And this goes far beyond the twist ending bullshit I talked about earlier. All of his films are about ordinary men over come with some sort of inconceivable grief, who, through the power of the supernatural (and Shyamalan's self proclaimed story telling brilliance) find their way back to redemption and learn how to be better men through an acceptance of faith and belief. A certain kind of creepy christian domination is certainly none-too-subtle in some of his films, no wonder he and Mel got along so well. Now I understand that there is such a thing as a common theme uniting a director's body of work, but there is a serious difference between that and telling the same goddamn story every single time. Shyamalan's films don't represent a constant drive to understand the human condition, they represent a filmmaker high on his own gas, unable to come up with anything else. If you notice, nothing different ever happens to that thematic line. He never strives for a variation on it, he's content with setting em up and knocking em down every single time. I say that impulse, rather than a willingness to work with someone else's material indicates a death of originality. Shyamalan sold out to his own shit a long time ago. Also I believe the reason Shyamalan sticks to his own scripts all the time is because he doesn't think another writer is capable of topping or even countering his vision of cinematic prowess. Also, a personal note, if I hear one more so-called film theorist proclaim someone a genius because he or she doesn't use CGI. I'll let you fill in that blank.
"Shyamalan seems to be aiming for something, amid our summers of high-grossing superhero movies and our winters of little-seen Oscar-bait projects, that's increasingly rare these days: a marriage of entertainment and art, of mass-market tastes and elite sensibilities... So, Shyamalan deserves credit, despite his vanity and his missteps—not because he's succeeding, necessarily, but because he's willing to keep trying and unwilling to take his place with those timid, highly compensated directors who know neither victory nor defeat."
It's interesting how certain critics foam at the mouth when they get the ability to trash a film by Spike Lee, Oliver Stone, or even someone like Steven Spielberg. Because those are three directors (among others), who never make boring films. They always have a certain creative stamp that bears the mark of someone who is always exploring, always pushing the limits of his or her talents. And while crash and burn they sometimes do, I have yet to see a collection of articles such as these making an attempt to justify these failures. They often use the films they hate as impetus to suggest that "this" is proof that these directors never had any talent to begin with, or have subtly lost it along the way. People let Shyamalan off the hook with the greatest of ease. Possibly because unlike Lee and Stone, Shyamalan never says anything that pisses people off the way those two do. But beyond that, it's the one part of the Slate article, that I can't figure out. Why do people let Shyamalan off with such an easy pass when his movies have so obviously sucked the past couple of years? In the words of Elliott Smith, I don't think I'm ever gonna figure it out.
P.S. I wrote most of this while watching The Thin Red Line, which only added to my venom. People call Shyamalan a born filmmaker, no, Terence Malick is a born filmmaker. It's not even worth a comparison, but I need a good dose of Malick to offset this Shyamalanonsense. But you should all watch The Thin Red Line. It's fucking amazing.
Here is the slate article. Check it out if you feel I mis-represented it.
That's about enough...
"I need some sleep
Time to put the old horse down
I'm in too deep
And the wheels keep spinning 'round
Everyone says I'm getting' down too low
Everyone says you just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go
You just gotta let it go"
Monday, July 17, 2006
I am the man who heard voices
So getting back to my initial frets about the Israel/Hezbollah (Hizbollah, I've seen it spelled both ways) conflict. I should probably amend that to include Hamas/Palestine/and Lebanon, and if I really wanted to break out the big guns, I would throw in Syria and Iran, the boogermen.
I'm no middle eastern expert, I'm sure everything I say has been said better and more eloquently by somebody else out there in the world wide web. I'm sure people opposing and agreeing with me would tear me down in a second for my naive and bias views.
With that all out of the way, this concerns me because the neocons seem to dusting off (or reloading) their torches and pitchforks, calling for the heads of the leaders of Syria and Iran. Well, I shouldn't say they are going to be using those weapons, they will call on some poor uneducated minority to do that. And if they can't get them, they'll just go with the white supremacists. Or this. Either way, the people who want this war will be doing everything in their power to avoid fighting it.
Check out Glen Greenwald's blog. In his words he makes an extremely relevant point about the lack of honest debate about the Israeli lobby influence over U.S. Foreign policies. Definitely check out the washington post article he links to, it's long, but the detailing in it of the inner workings of AIPAC and other organizations is pretty revealing. Anyway, Greenwald's point is that if anybody tries to question Israeli policy, they are usually labeled anti-semites or coupled with some other extremist group. The lack of honest debate has led this country down some really dark paths in the past (Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq). Engaging in a new conflict with anybody and everybody that poses a threat to Israel seems like another aggravatingly weak justification for war that some of these assholes seem to be drooling for.
It seems to me that Hezbollah and Hamas are capable of extreme violent actions, considering they struck first. Israel is right up there with them, everybody is capable of extremes and sometimes peaceful democracies like Israel act out of a violent desire to swing their military might and prove their worth to the rest of the world. Why we excuse this kind of foolhardy aggression is beyond me, other than only to say we participate in the same kind of cowboy macho bull shit. See, it's the male gender's fault, we should attack them, I mean us. I don't wish to slant this in anyway, but both sides are at fault. It's just that Israel seems to be goading us into a full on cluster fuck. That really sticks in my crawl.
Hopefully the voices of reason will outweigh the hawks, and with Iraq looking the way it is now, I can't believe there are people out there who want to spread this all the way around the rest of the middle east. Also, to all the Gingriches and Kristols out there, don't give me this shit about the sacred mission of protecting Israel human life. I have one word for you, Africa, well maybe another one, oil. Maybe that's for another post, to be continued.
The new Night movie comes out on friday, and from all forecasts, it's looking pretty shitty. I don't want to sound like an asshole and say something like I want him to fail (i save that bile for Eli Roth and Brett Ratner, maybe Paul Haggis now). It's just that he's been obsessed with his own brand ever since his shit took off. He's openly admitted he's out to start pop culture phenomenons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pop-culture's job not some wannabe Spielberg/Hitchcock mis-mash. Also I think it's really interesting that he has all but ignored his first two films (Wide Awake and Praying With Anger) two religious comedies that didn't feature twists endings or pretentious supernatural allegories. I think the reason behind that is they didn't make any money. That's my other big problem with him, he equates his worth as a filmmaker with how much money they bring in. He could have directed Battlefield Earth and as long as it made money, he would have thought it was this century's citizen kane. It will be interesting to see how Lady in the Water does, hopefully it will be such a colossal crash and burn that Night will re-think his career and maybe stop making movies about how brilliant he is.
I might try to see it because I think Night's career has been very interesting in how each movie has gotten progressively worse (except Unbreakable, good shit) and just when I thought he couldn't get enough of his own hubris, he tops himself, it's kind of like how not to be a filmmaker, I should pay attention. I guess all I can say for him is that, like the Mel Gibson character in his mean, facist religious movie Signs, Night is not beyond redemption. He probably doesn't want it though, he's an asshole.
That's it for now, see ya in the funny pages.
"I'm a connoisseur of roads. I've been tasting roads my whole life.
This road will never end. It probably goes all around the world."
I'm no middle eastern expert, I'm sure everything I say has been said better and more eloquently by somebody else out there in the world wide web. I'm sure people opposing and agreeing with me would tear me down in a second for my naive and bias views.
With that all out of the way, this concerns me because the neocons seem to dusting off (or reloading) their torches and pitchforks, calling for the heads of the leaders of Syria and Iran. Well, I shouldn't say they are going to be using those weapons, they will call on some poor uneducated minority to do that. And if they can't get them, they'll just go with the white supremacists. Or this. Either way, the people who want this war will be doing everything in their power to avoid fighting it.
Check out Glen Greenwald's blog. In his words he makes an extremely relevant point about the lack of honest debate about the Israeli lobby influence over U.S. Foreign policies. Definitely check out the washington post article he links to, it's long, but the detailing in it of the inner workings of AIPAC and other organizations is pretty revealing. Anyway, Greenwald's point is that if anybody tries to question Israeli policy, they are usually labeled anti-semites or coupled with some other extremist group. The lack of honest debate has led this country down some really dark paths in the past (Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq). Engaging in a new conflict with anybody and everybody that poses a threat to Israel seems like another aggravatingly weak justification for war that some of these assholes seem to be drooling for.
It seems to me that Hezbollah and Hamas are capable of extreme violent actions, considering they struck first. Israel is right up there with them, everybody is capable of extremes and sometimes peaceful democracies like Israel act out of a violent desire to swing their military might and prove their worth to the rest of the world. Why we excuse this kind of foolhardy aggression is beyond me, other than only to say we participate in the same kind of cowboy macho bull shit. See, it's the male gender's fault, we should attack them, I mean us. I don't wish to slant this in anyway, but both sides are at fault. It's just that Israel seems to be goading us into a full on cluster fuck. That really sticks in my crawl.
Hopefully the voices of reason will outweigh the hawks, and with Iraq looking the way it is now, I can't believe there are people out there who want to spread this all the way around the rest of the middle east. Also, to all the Gingriches and Kristols out there, don't give me this shit about the sacred mission of protecting Israel human life. I have one word for you, Africa, well maybe another one, oil. Maybe that's for another post, to be continued.
The new Night movie comes out on friday, and from all forecasts, it's looking pretty shitty. I don't want to sound like an asshole and say something like I want him to fail (i save that bile for Eli Roth and Brett Ratner, maybe Paul Haggis now). It's just that he's been obsessed with his own brand ever since his shit took off. He's openly admitted he's out to start pop culture phenomenons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that pop-culture's job not some wannabe Spielberg/Hitchcock mis-mash. Also I think it's really interesting that he has all but ignored his first two films (Wide Awake and Praying With Anger) two religious comedies that didn't feature twists endings or pretentious supernatural allegories. I think the reason behind that is they didn't make any money. That's my other big problem with him, he equates his worth as a filmmaker with how much money they bring in. He could have directed Battlefield Earth and as long as it made money, he would have thought it was this century's citizen kane. It will be interesting to see how Lady in the Water does, hopefully it will be such a colossal crash and burn that Night will re-think his career and maybe stop making movies about how brilliant he is.
I might try to see it because I think Night's career has been very interesting in how each movie has gotten progressively worse (except Unbreakable, good shit) and just when I thought he couldn't get enough of his own hubris, he tops himself, it's kind of like how not to be a filmmaker, I should pay attention. I guess all I can say for him is that, like the Mel Gibson character in his mean, facist religious movie Signs, Night is not beyond redemption. He probably doesn't want it though, he's an asshole.
That's it for now, see ya in the funny pages.
"I'm a connoisseur of roads. I've been tasting roads my whole life.
This road will never end. It probably goes all around the world."
Sunday, July 16, 2006
A Skin Too Few
A pretty interesting idea from a poet named Nick Drake.
Live Air by Nick Drake
The deserted second hand record exchange;
Just a bald guy and his ponytail
Guarding the memory palace of dead vinyl;
Multiple copies of Rumours and Blue
And the Carpenters' Greatest Hits in brown and gold;
Pink Moon's playing on the sound system,
Nick Drake's last LP; soon he would die
On the night Lord Lucan disappeared, Miss World
Lost her crown as an unmarried mother,
And the sun's November mercury slipped
Off the indigo horizon at 4.04 pm...
I browse the bins, and luckily I find
Fruit Tree, the deleted posthumous box set -
Five Leaves Left, Bryter Layter, Pink Moon;
Three big black discs, acetate ammonites
Coded for ancient technology.
I offer Bela Lugosi my credit card;
He stares at the name, my face, then up
To the shivering strip light and the obscure ceiling
Where sound waves collide with dust to conjure
Nick's sad ghost in the live air, whispering:
Know that I love you, know that I care,
Know that I see you, know I'm not there
Then the song fades to recorded silence -
The hushed acoustic of his after-life -
Before the static, the perpetual heart-beat trip
Round the record's inevitable zero...
Lugosi looks from the dark vacancy,
The tangled wires, the drifting motes
In the creaky auditorium of dust
Where the ghost had sung and disappeared; he grins;
"Oh man, oh man, I thought you were dead..."
Right on.
Live Air by Nick Drake
The deserted second hand record exchange;
Just a bald guy and his ponytail
Guarding the memory palace of dead vinyl;
Multiple copies of Rumours and Blue
And the Carpenters' Greatest Hits in brown and gold;
Pink Moon's playing on the sound system,
Nick Drake's last LP; soon he would die
On the night Lord Lucan disappeared, Miss World
Lost her crown as an unmarried mother,
And the sun's November mercury slipped
Off the indigo horizon at 4.04 pm...
I browse the bins, and luckily I find
Fruit Tree, the deleted posthumous box set -
Five Leaves Left, Bryter Layter, Pink Moon;
Three big black discs, acetate ammonites
Coded for ancient technology.
I offer Bela Lugosi my credit card;
He stares at the name, my face, then up
To the shivering strip light and the obscure ceiling
Where sound waves collide with dust to conjure
Nick's sad ghost in the live air, whispering:
Know that I love you, know that I care,
Know that I see you, know I'm not there
Then the song fades to recorded silence -
The hushed acoustic of his after-life -
Before the static, the perpetual heart-beat trip
Round the record's inevitable zero...
Lugosi looks from the dark vacancy,
The tangled wires, the drifting motes
In the creaky auditorium of dust
Where the ghost had sung and disappeared; he grins;
"Oh man, oh man, I thought you were dead..."
Right on.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Go Haunt Someone Else
Very exciting news, Kevin Devine's new single is up. Listen to it here.
You have to click on Show #99 to here it. It's the first song in the program, you shan't be dissappointed.
He has a new album coming out in October, kind of bummed only because I thought it was coming out in August. Dramatic turn of events, I know, but I still, I wanted me my Kevy Devine now. Right now. Anyway, the new single is good. I wish I had a better quality cut of it but he seems to be making an interesting transition to a more traditional method of songwriting. I'm not chastizing him for this in anyway, but I know he signed onto a major label so it will be interesting to see how his DIY style will meld with the whole Major Label thing. He definitely has the smarts and the integrity to withstand whatever creative pressures come with a major label. I say, give 'em hell.
A lot of stuff has been going on recently that's very troubling. I will elaborate on this further, I just need to bulk up my knowledge a little bit more. Plus it's late and I can barely type this post coherently. I am not talking about anything personal, I mean in the area of Global Conflicts, okay I'll just say it. The Israel Lebanon/Gaza thing, it's really starting to get me worried. Anyway I'll let you all sleep on that, sorry, I'm a bastard I know.
Good Night...
"And it's fucked up, fucked up
And this is fucked up, fucked up
This your blind spot, blind spot
It should be obvious, but it's not.
But it isn't, but it isn't."
You have to click on Show #99 to here it. It's the first song in the program, you shan't be dissappointed.
He has a new album coming out in October, kind of bummed only because I thought it was coming out in August. Dramatic turn of events, I know, but I still, I wanted me my Kevy Devine now. Right now. Anyway, the new single is good. I wish I had a better quality cut of it but he seems to be making an interesting transition to a more traditional method of songwriting. I'm not chastizing him for this in anyway, but I know he signed onto a major label so it will be interesting to see how his DIY style will meld with the whole Major Label thing. He definitely has the smarts and the integrity to withstand whatever creative pressures come with a major label. I say, give 'em hell.
A lot of stuff has been going on recently that's very troubling. I will elaborate on this further, I just need to bulk up my knowledge a little bit more. Plus it's late and I can barely type this post coherently. I am not talking about anything personal, I mean in the area of Global Conflicts, okay I'll just say it. The Israel Lebanon/Gaza thing, it's really starting to get me worried. Anyway I'll let you all sleep on that, sorry, I'm a bastard I know.
Good Night...
"And it's fucked up, fucked up
And this is fucked up, fucked up
This your blind spot, blind spot
It should be obvious, but it's not.
But it isn't, but it isn't."
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
I am Jor-El, master of scheduling!
I was watching a new show on mtv called Why Can't I Be You with nate (the new director as he should be called) and a thought occured to me that kind of bummed me out. It had to do with how shallow and harsh we are with each other (don't worry, I'm included in this condemnation.)
This reality show has to do with someone wanting to experience life through somebody else's eyes for a few weeks while MTV makes it all happen and documents it. They in essence become somebody else, as the title indicates. At first I thought this was a step in the right direction for MTV, they were documenting a positive experience in a person's life rather than watching them puke for cash or make out with a stranger in a drunken haze while puking, for cash. In this episode a cheerleader wanted to break down the fear and stereotyping she created around another student who seemed to be following the goth-punk scene or a hybrid of the two if no such singular scene exists. Anyway, the cheerleader initially showed a real commitment to learning about a life she had previously cast off with the greatest of ease. I thought this was a show that would bring people together.
I learned later on in the show that it actually pulls us further apart. I know you are probably all thinking, it's an MTV show, what did you expect. Or that I shouldn't get so worked up about something that's designed to solve a life time of problems in thirty minutes. I agree with you on all that, but bear with me, I don't write in this thing very often.
Anyway, the show, through its various machinations proceeded to suggest that high school can only be survived if you find a particular fad, trend or niche and dedicate yourself to following the strict rules of that group at all costs. But also that human beings (especially teens) are ONLY defined through their exteriors (clothes, hair, piercings, carefully coifed mowhawks). It was interesting to watch the punk girl because that whole act is heavily immersed in notions of anti-conformity, anti-establishment, and anti-everything that's not punk. If they are anti-conformity, then why do they all dress the same? Why are people who are part of the punk scene so easily identifiable as such. They all conform to a set of standards that are just as shallow and surface obsessed as the cheerleading group. And whether they want to admit this or not, they are just as dismissive and judgemental of outsiders as everybody else is of them. What's especially upsetting about this (for the punk kids) is that none of them will look like this in ten years. The style to which they so heavily cling right now will be nothing more than a memory as they quietly sell out like everybody else and adopt a set of standards that will allow them to keep a steady job.
I don't mean to be cynical and I don't mean to direct all my questions towards one particular group. I don't even like using the term punk because it has so many connotations that probably don't apply to what I'm talking about. I might as well start calling them the grunge kids. It's just for the sake of simplicity, it's the best way to describe the group I saw on this show.
It upsets me that bright, creative, and passionate kids are stunted like this into defining themselves through such irrelevant and temporary means. It's like nobody wants to take the chance and express something about their personality, they would rather have their clothes do it for them. Maybe I can take comfort in the fact that punks and cheerleaders share the same kinds of anxieties and neuroses that will maybe bring them together when they least expect it. Don't get me wrong, I take no joy in other people having anxiety, I just want them to get together because of it. Stereotyping is probably the easiest thing a person can do, and nothing sucks more for a young mind then trying to figure yourself out while somebody else (or yourself) has already got you pegged. When people act in a way they think they SHOULD be acting, they never live up and it can be kind of a drag.
I don't know how this ends, I don't really have any solutions. I hope this all even makes sense, I guess I just hope everybody finds their way. That's what I call a glib, self-serving solution to everyone's problems. I knew I had it in me.
"Stop light plays its part so
I would say you've got a part.
What's your part? Who you are.
You are who who you are."
This reality show has to do with someone wanting to experience life through somebody else's eyes for a few weeks while MTV makes it all happen and documents it. They in essence become somebody else, as the title indicates. At first I thought this was a step in the right direction for MTV, they were documenting a positive experience in a person's life rather than watching them puke for cash or make out with a stranger in a drunken haze while puking, for cash. In this episode a cheerleader wanted to break down the fear and stereotyping she created around another student who seemed to be following the goth-punk scene or a hybrid of the two if no such singular scene exists. Anyway, the cheerleader initially showed a real commitment to learning about a life she had previously cast off with the greatest of ease. I thought this was a show that would bring people together.
I learned later on in the show that it actually pulls us further apart. I know you are probably all thinking, it's an MTV show, what did you expect. Or that I shouldn't get so worked up about something that's designed to solve a life time of problems in thirty minutes. I agree with you on all that, but bear with me, I don't write in this thing very often.
Anyway, the show, through its various machinations proceeded to suggest that high school can only be survived if you find a particular fad, trend or niche and dedicate yourself to following the strict rules of that group at all costs. But also that human beings (especially teens) are ONLY defined through their exteriors (clothes, hair, piercings, carefully coifed mowhawks). It was interesting to watch the punk girl because that whole act is heavily immersed in notions of anti-conformity, anti-establishment, and anti-everything that's not punk. If they are anti-conformity, then why do they all dress the same? Why are people who are part of the punk scene so easily identifiable as such. They all conform to a set of standards that are just as shallow and surface obsessed as the cheerleading group. And whether they want to admit this or not, they are just as dismissive and judgemental of outsiders as everybody else is of them. What's especially upsetting about this (for the punk kids) is that none of them will look like this in ten years. The style to which they so heavily cling right now will be nothing more than a memory as they quietly sell out like everybody else and adopt a set of standards that will allow them to keep a steady job.
I don't mean to be cynical and I don't mean to direct all my questions towards one particular group. I don't even like using the term punk because it has so many connotations that probably don't apply to what I'm talking about. I might as well start calling them the grunge kids. It's just for the sake of simplicity, it's the best way to describe the group I saw on this show.
It upsets me that bright, creative, and passionate kids are stunted like this into defining themselves through such irrelevant and temporary means. It's like nobody wants to take the chance and express something about their personality, they would rather have their clothes do it for them. Maybe I can take comfort in the fact that punks and cheerleaders share the same kinds of anxieties and neuroses that will maybe bring them together when they least expect it. Don't get me wrong, I take no joy in other people having anxiety, I just want them to get together because of it. Stereotyping is probably the easiest thing a person can do, and nothing sucks more for a young mind then trying to figure yourself out while somebody else (or yourself) has already got you pegged. When people act in a way they think they SHOULD be acting, they never live up and it can be kind of a drag.
I don't know how this ends, I don't really have any solutions. I hope this all even makes sense, I guess I just hope everybody finds their way. That's what I call a glib, self-serving solution to everyone's problems. I knew I had it in me.
"Stop light plays its part so
I would say you've got a part.
What's your part? Who you are.
You are who who you are."
Monday, July 03, 2006
Here's to the state of mississippi
I found this on the Nation website. It's a speech Frederick Douglas gave on July 4th 1852.
Granted, in this context he is specifically talking about slavery.
I still feel a lot of what is uttered in this speech applies today regardless of the specifics.
Happy 4th of July...
WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE 4TH OF JULY
by Frederick Douglas
This...is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom.... It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act.... Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance.... The principles contained in [the Declaration of Independence] are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost....
Fellow-citizens--Pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?... Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions!... But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.... This Fourth of July is yours, not mine....
I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future....
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the every-day practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....
Fellow-citizens, I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing and a byword to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement; the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice....
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country.... While drawing encouragement from the "Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference.... A change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.... Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.... No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light.
Granted, in this context he is specifically talking about slavery.
I still feel a lot of what is uttered in this speech applies today regardless of the specifics.
Happy 4th of July...
WHAT TO THE SLAVE IS THE 4TH OF JULY
by Frederick Douglas
This...is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom.... It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act.... Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance.... The principles contained in [the Declaration of Independence] are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost....
Fellow-citizens--Pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?... Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions!... But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.... This Fourth of July is yours, not mine....
I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future....
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the every-day practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....
Fellow-citizens, I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretense, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing and a byword to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement; the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice....
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented, of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country.... While drawing encouragement from the "Declaration of Independence," the great principles it contains and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference.... A change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.... Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.... No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)