Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Neon Bible

Arcade Fire's eagerly anticipated follow-up doesn't disappoint. It doesn't contain anything so anthemic that politicians might use as intro music like "Power Out", but I kinda like how they didn't try to up the arena rock ante, instead going forward with strange arrangements -- Hungarian orchestra to a military choir. Impressively ambitious. Unfortunately, shunning their Quebec roots, the band didn't include a French song. Don't they know that everything sounds better in French?

After about ten spins, I'm partial to "Intervention" and "Rebellion"-esque "The Well and the Lighthouse", though "My Body is a Cage" is really growing on me. A couple of songs sound oddly like mid-80s Springsteen, and "No Cars Go" is a cleaned-up version of the EP track. Anyway, I'm pumped to see them at Coachella (Arcade Fire is playing on the same day as The Decemberists and The New Pornographers -- it's Indie Rock heaven on Saturday). Also, hardcore fans can listen to Arcade Fire's NY show on Feb. 17th on live stream courtesy of NPR. Save the date.
Speaking of The Decemberists, I might as well post my favorite albums over the past year. None of the albums I list are "perfect"; even the Crane Wife contained moments of prog-rock wankery that is quite inexcusable. But I'll kindly overlook that when it also includes the sublime "Yankee Bayonet" and "O Valencia". The rest of it looks embarrassingly wimpy, but it's been that kinda year.

01. The Decemberists - The Crane Wife
02. Cat Power - The Greatest
03. Neko Case - Fox Confessor Brings the Flood
04. Beirut - Gulag Orkestar
05. Girl Talk - The Night Ripper
06. Camera Obscura - Let's Get Out of This Country
07. Phoenix - It's Never Been Like That
08. Junior Boys - So This is Goodbye
09. Mates of State - Bring It Back
10. Voxtrot - Raised by Wolves [EP]/Mothers, Sisters, Daughters & Wives [EP]

HM: Clipse - Hell Hath No Fury; Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins - Rabbit Fur Coat; Destroyer - Destroyer's Rubies; Beck - The Information; The Pipettes - We Are the Pipettes.

Favorite shows: Coachella Day 1, April 29, 2006; Built to Spill @ Troubadour, June 29, 2006; Neko Case @ Henry Fonda, June 23, 2006; Massive Attack and TV on the Radio @ Hollywood Bowl, September 24, 2006.


Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Drive by reviews - Inland Empire, Bubble, Down in the Valley

Inland Empire (d. David Lynch): C+

* An inversion of Mulholland Dr. If the earlier film was the desperate starlet fantasy of a depressive never-was, this is the nightmare of a Hollywood has-been. Except Inland Empire, like Lost Highway before it (and unlike the more conventional Mulholland Dr.) annihilates narrative logic, collapsing dream and reality, past and future, backstory and story, actor and character. Everything's wrapped up in one. Or to put it more precisely: Inland Empire employs Lost Highway's radical anti-narrative-logic framework to get at Mulholland Dr.'s deeper emotional truths, the anguish culled from the dreams of those actresses destroyed or abandoned by the Dream Factory and left to rot on Hollywood Blvd.

It all sounds so awesome...in theory. And if Lynch had made this film with much greater care, instead of stringing together a host of individually awesome or tedious scenes (read: rabbit sitcom) into a frustrating mish-mash, this would indeed be the Lynch movie to end all Lynch movies. But as it is, it's an indulgent misfire, too visually ugly and incoherent to finally work as the kind of transcendental artistic experience its scores of supporters claim for it. As with Terrence Malick's The New World, Inland Empire is a signature piece that showcases its maker's singular talents -- and most glaring flaws -- in all their naked glory. Guess what I'm trying say is that there's such a thing as too much, and the movie's just too Lynchian.

* Look, I'm not one of those people who needs to have something "make sense". Both Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me floor you with the wtf? moments, but even when they're operating wholly on Lynchian anti-logic, they're visual-aural pleasures. Lynch is perhaps most audio-centric of the great stylists, and while his genius for sound-design remain evident in Inland Empire, his newfound obsession with low-grade DV imagery is really quite tragic. It's as if, in middle age, Vladimir Horowitz decided that he will perform publicly only on a Casio starter keyboard. Notably distracting were the careless, or perhaps deliberately artless compositions and sloppy camera movements, which suggests that the much touted "freedom" that DV provides might prove to be too much of a good thing.

* How do you know if someone is a Lynch cultist-fanboy who will lap up anything with the David Lynch appellation? When they start to tell you how our nightmares are supposed to look exactly like the images captured by the Sony PD-150. It's one thing to say that the low-grade DV has interesting effects, such as stretching and flattening faces in close-up (though a wide-angle lens will give you the same gargoyle effect, no?) or the creepy mood evoked by the desaturated, pixellated imagery. But when you start suggesting that nightmares are supposed to look like low-grade DV, which includes not just the aforementioned (all of which can be replicated by a much better camera), but the poor color contrasts, the abysmally shallow depths of field, and just plain ugliness, you're in nutbar territory.

* How amazing was Laura Dern in this movie?



Bubble (d. Steven Soderbergh): B-

Back when I frequented the arcades, I'd always run into that one virtuoso gamer who wanted to show that he can kick my ass using every Street Fighter II character. He might challenge first with the unplayable Dhalsim, drilling me to death. Then this fucker might intentionally dump a match just to challenge again with a different character, maybe savagely piledriving my ass silly with the awkward Zangief. Can Steven Soderbergh really be taking his career cues from a 5'7" Vietnamese gamer? Consider Soderbergh's output since Y2k: (1) a solemn, demanding Tarkovsky remake; (2) a Dogme '95 guerrilla project that lampoons celebrity culture; (3) a jokey, star-studded Topkapi-style caper; (4) a self-referential, Lestereque goof disguised as a blockbuster sequel; (5) a simulacrum of a 40s Warner Brothers programmer; and this, an indie working class portrait by way of late Bresson. Eclectic doesn't do it justice. It's as if the dude wants to spend his life proving that he can do anything in any style, creating an oeuvre that recalls that chapter in Ulysses where Joyce imitates various historical prose styles from Chaucer to Gibbons to Dickens. But hey, if anyone can succeed as a chameleon-auteur, it's Soderbergh (surely before Winterbottom, anyway).

But while the rigor of Bubble is quite admirable, there doesn't seem to be a point except for the formal challenge of it. On a formal level, it's superb, a beautifully austere film, shot in a tableaux vivants style designed to minimize the degree of difficulty for the non-professional cast. And if you eat up exquisitely composed shots of factory work -- and I do (it's not for nothing that this picture is one of my all-time faves) -- this is a little slice of heaven. Those disquieting shots of the disembodied doll heads, held for three or four seconds, are especially memorable.

But I'm afraid that the S-man is in danger of becoming a jack of all trades and a master of none. The movie stumbles when it pivots from an observational slice-of-life mode to a thoroughly unconvincing murder mystery, in effect shifting into a half-assed L'Humanite (albeit a less retarded one but without Dumont's mythoreligious ambitions). Generally, a random, unmotivated murder in the 2nd act is a tell-tale sign of a project desperate for a point. Right on cue, Soderbergh trots out this old standby to get this formal gambit-in-search-of-story from A to B. Watching something like Bubble makes me more fully appreciate the Dardennes' movies all the more. Soderbergh observes these working class characters from a lofty perch, like a marine biologist studying the mating habits of sea cucumbers. But he doesn't really get these people. The Dardennes make movies on the ground level, blending astutely observed behavioral detail and motivated action into perfectly realized parables of underclass desperation. Go with the guys who know how to do it, I say. Also, I suppose there's the idea that the narrative turns into a kind of hear-me-roar from the most underexposed, oft-ignored American type, the overweight middle-aged Midwestern woman, casually dismissed by pretty young things at their peril. But color me unimpressed: remember when Kathy Bates performed this kind of "narrative seizure" in Misery? Not so awesome.

* Check out this weird, Bubble-like story, which is even more insane than the utterly batshit crazy astronaut love triangle story.

Down in the Valley (d. David Jacobson): B

* I'm probably overrating this cowpoke-in-the-Valley story, as it gets pretty stupid down the stretch. Can anyone provide a good rationale for turning Ed Norton's ingratiating cowboy into Travis Bickle? Anyone?

* On one level, the genre self-consciousness is kind of annoying. Undoubtedly, Jacobson has a sophisticated understanding of Westerns, and how the genre will often dramatize a central thematic conflict (among them, individualism v. community values, urban v. rural, civilization v. the "wild", authority v. rebellion/liberty) as a battle between models of masculinity. Think Red River, The Man from Laramie, or The Lusty Men. And I appreciate that he's trying to show his understanding not by blogging about it, but by actually making a weird, contemporary movie stocked with interesting Western tropes. But it doesn't quite work. What's the point of pitting two psychos against one another, a face-off between David Morse's gruff, authoritarian child-abuser vs. Ed Norton's flaky charismatic wacko? Is Jacobson making a critique of father figures, suggesting that the Western's lionization masculine role models is lame? If that's the idea, the movie fails by giving in to sentimentalism. And the My Darling Clementine setpiece? Less said the better.

* But Jacobson's direction is quite superb, nailing the hollowed-out mallscape and the lazy rhythm of the San Fernando Valley -- an ironic endpoint of manifest destiny -- without quite descending into snark. Flanked by endless rows of tract housing and framed in gorgeous CinemaScope, Norton's dress-up cowboy seems almost heroic, like Gary Cooper in Man of the West as he rides into a ghost town. A widescreen movie with visual authority of an Anthony Mann Western? That I like.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Beantown Boobs Duped by Toon

Taking an afternoon stroll, you notice a few Lite-Brite things that look like little Kool-Aid Men scattered about. See video for more:



So what do you do? If you're the retarded mayor of Boston, you shut down the city and send in the bomb squad. Afterwards you blame everything on the guerrilla marketing team from the "Aqua Teen Hunger Force", calling them terror hoax perpetrators, when the city could've saved all that money and inconvenience to Bostonians just by asking any reasonably savvy young person what the heck is up.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Drive-by reviews - Miami Vice, The Prestige

Miami Vice (d. Michael Mann): C+

Every year, there's one or two "visual reverie" type films I'd love to play on a silent loop on a wall-mounted LCD flat-screen. Last year such luminous motion paintings include 2046 and The New World. This year comes The Intruder, Three Times, and Miami Vice. The last one, though, is the only one of these I wouldn't want to watch again with the sound on.

Reg'lar folks can't stand this movie, if my experience is any guide. But movie nerds and critics? An altogether different reception. It finished higher than Babel and Little Miss Sunshine in the definitive highbrow poll, for example. And some of my favorite critics list this as one of their year-end favorites. That Miami Vice would generate this kind of schism is, I suppose, not so surprising. Genre machinery that gleans with personal style and crafted by a brand name auteur is exactly the thing that appeals to a certain kind of cinéaste. And Mann's one of the undeniably great directors on the scene today; I can watch those shots of florescent neon reflecting off dark waters all day. But what about the stuff everyone's complaining about, the idiotic story and the scowl-and-pose acting? Why, that's minimalism, boy. Mann's harkening back to the existential genre pics of Monte Hellman, or maybe the stripped-down Westerns of Budd Boetticher, or don't you know?

Maybe. But however you cut it, the throwaway story is retarded, and the acting sucks. As achingly beautiful as it is -- the movie's splendorous lighting is worth many extra looks (just check out the still on the right borrowed from the always excellent Bryant Frazer's top ten write-up) -- the regular moviegoers are closer to being right than the cinephiles.

The real problem? Mann's fatal flaw, self-importance. In some up-is-down formulations, the unearned "gravity" somehow gives this film meaning -- the movie's erstwhile stupidity is by design, woven into this movie's supposedly fascinating minimalist fabric. Who cares if the angst of these D&G-garbed cyphers were utterly contrived -- standard oh-did-I-cause-her-death, oh-how-do-I-tell-her-the-truth nonsense? Doesn't anyone care that Mann lards a TV-show adaptation with gobs of emotional anguish, without any devotion to the characterizations or fleshed-out relationships to match? I could be missing the point. Guess it might be passé to prefer one's Handsome Boy Modeling School cheese without all the calories.

* Bonus: I got my hands on a top-secret tape showing Michael Mann and Colin Farrell rehearsing before principal photography begins; for the benefit of you fortunate souls, I will transcribe it:

Michael Mann: Shooting starts tomorrow, Colin. You ready?
Colin Farrell (excitedly): Yeah, Michael. I think I finally have Crockett down.
Mann: That's great, Colin. Remember, Crockett's filled with fuckin' anguish. He's caught between the woman he loves and the fuckin' cops he's deeply loyal to.
Farrell: I know, man. Look, check this out. [Farrell tilts his head slightly. He squints, looks out into some indeterminate middle distance, purses his lips, and, with his face turned at a 3/4 angle, begins to mumble in a deep monotone]: "I'm gonna do every scene just like this."
Mann: Excellent! I can feel your anguish, man. So much fuckin' anguish!
Farrell, still squinting and holding his pose, mumbles something.
Mann: What? What did you say?
Farrell (breaks out of character): Let's do a few lines!
Mann: Yeah, sure. Let's see. [Thumbs through script] Yeah. This scene is the emotional center of the whole fuckin' movie. I spent countless fuckin' hours laboring over these lines. Let's give it a shot...
Mann [In a "Tubbs" voice]: "Are you ready for this?"
Farrell [squints, looks out into some indeterminate middle distance. He turns his face towards no one in particular and mumbles in a low monotone]: "I absolutely am not."
Mann [out of character]: That's perfect! Perfect! You're gonna make people forget that motherfucker Don Johnson ever existed, Colin!

The Prestige (d. Christopher Nolan): B+
Not every movie needs to be "about" something, but some movies are impressive chiefly due to the movie's meaning. This is a textbook case. Really, this movie is so rich in subtext you can pick and choose from the following interpretations [VAGUE SPOILERS WITHIN]:

(a) The necessity of illusion: or, how people learned to stop worrying and learn to lie to themselves. The idea here is that scientific materialism -- the so-called "real magic" represented by Tesla's "multiplier" device -- is so horrifying that we'd rather believe that the whole thing is all some kind of optical illusion. Magic is one of the many ways in which the audience would rather accept lies than to face up to the meaninglessness of "scientific truth", which calls into question even the very idea of the "miracle of life", the generally accepted proposition that each and every life is special and unique. This compliments Nolan's Memento, which is also about the lies we tell ourselves in order to give our lives meaning. Mike has more precise reading in the same vein: "that only extreme self-sacrifice can rescue us from our dawning certitude that science has eliminated all mystery from the world".

(b) An allegory of early and late capitalism. Set during turn of the Twentieth Century, the movie links the cutthroat competition between Edison and Tesla with the can-you-top-this? antics of Angier v. Borden. Unlike some magician films, these magicians aren't so much interested in the "art of magic" as they are consumed with winning in the marketplace. Neither one cares much how he tops the other guy; just that he does. In doing so, each one engages in the kind of tactics you find in your daily business page: employee poaching, sabotage, swiping trade secrets, deceptive marketing, etc. In effect, the magicians play out a lose-lose scenario you find in non-zero-sum game theory. Since becoming much more interested in business decisions/business news the last few years, what I found most fascinating was the contemporary echoes in the competition between Borden and Angier, which, like the one between Tesla and Edison, the film suggests, is a battle between the innovator (Borden/Tesla) and the popularizer (Angier/Edison). Borden invents the "transported man" but Angier's was able to steal the idea and popularize it through superior presentation/marketing -- at least until the Borden started exploiting the "bugs" (the drunken Angier look-alike). It's like the paradigmatic battle between Apple and Microsoft -- the better product vs. the more opportunistic and vicious business.

(c) The wages of obsession. The movie depicts the self-sacrifices that fuel obsession. A fairly obvious theme that I won't dwell on, but this also recalls Memento.

(d) Duality vs. Multiplicity. I'm sure someone can offer a good reading for this, but you won't find it here.

Even ignoring the subtext, what you got is one of best kinds of stories, the tale of the dueling magicians. See, e.g., the real story of Ching Ling Foo vs. Chung Ling Soo. If I'm not higher on this movie, it's only because I'm resistant to movies with twist endings, especially one involving devices you find in daytime soaps, like [CENSORED BY SPOILER POLICE]. Also, there's something nutty about the Tesla machine that bothers me, too many implications that the movie ignores. But still, I expect I'd dig this even more on second viewing.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Atheists 52, Moderate Christians 14

If the polls are to be believed, atheists are among the least popular people in the United States. So it's somewhat surprising that two recent atheistic treatises, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, have been so popular, mainstays on Amazon's bestseller list (though maybe the persecution complex is what's driving atheists to pick up these books).

With the exception of a sojourn earlier this year, when I argued in a movie nerd discussion group (don't ask) against Dawkins' thesis that science can theoretically prove that God doesn't exist, I'd been taking a long vacation from these debates. Religion is bad, their foundational myths have been disproven, the probability of God's existence (at least a God who actively interferes with the affairs of people) is close to nil, the moral teachings are suspect and contradictory, etc. -- I've heard it all before. The anti-religion arguments are mostly right, but sometimes the atheists are so frustratingly literal-minded and dogmatically rational that they turn me off. Frequently, atheists too easily dismiss the non-rational -- the spiritual or mystical experiences that often enrich human lives. People end up talking past one another, wasting everyone's time.

After browsing a few book reviews, I had dismissed Sam Harris as one of these literal-minded atheists who's obsessed with using scientific evidence to reject Biblical passages. These guys always miss the point of religion. So when Andrew Sullivan, self-professed "doubting" Catholic (whatever that means), started posting links to an ongoing internet debate on Belief.net with Harris on his blog, I didn't even bother. But yesterday one passage grabbed my attention and so I checked it out: lo and behld, Harris is just dead-on. He doesn't just debunk myths; he gets at the *moral failing* of religion, and does so without dismissing spirituality. Sullivan, professional pundit and a sharp debater, can't so much as muster a whimper in response. It's a wholesale rout. Check it out.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Promises, promises

Believe it or not, there will soon be some serious movie-blogging on this site. Before that commences, though, just a few thoughts on the Oscar noms this morning. Everyone knew Dreamgirls will walk away with Best Picture, right? Isn't that what all the "experts" predicted?
AMPAS not only threw the pundits for a loop, what's shocking is that the "surprises", both moderate and shocking, were actually so damn pleasant. My favorite helming and performance of the year both nominated? Ponies for everyone.

* The best directing job of the year belonged to Paul Greengrass, whose United 93 hovers far above any other American film I've seen all year. After being shut out of the guild awards, everyone kind of wrote off United 93's chances for anything. Nobody wanted to actually sit down and watch this movie, it's been explained. Well, I guess the directing and editing branches did finally pop in the DVD. And perhaps they found themselves enthralled by not only by Greengrass's superior craftsmanship, the detailed recreation of that fateful morning, but also by its artistry. Misunderstood as either well-made atrocity porn or as an indictment of Bushie neglect, United 93 above all captures a change of a collective state of mind -- it depicts, with harrowing intensity, that five hour transition from the pre-9/11 world to the post-9/11 world, when Americans' entitled sense of invulnerability and innocence gave way to a new violent world where there are no safe harbors.

* Half Nelson (about which I hope to post something this week) is much more than just a Ryan Gosling showcase. But I can't complain about this mildly surprising Oscar recognition for Gosling's extraordinary if decidedly un-Oscar performance. At every opportunity Gosling eschews the scene-stealing histrionics that command Oscar attention in favor of portraying something far more unexpected and truthful (see, e.g., the confrontation with Mackie; the scenes in the teachers' lounge; going to his date's pad at 3 a.m. and high). If this nod, for my favorite performance of the year, calls attention to this remarkable movie, cool.

* "Treat FBI officers like mushrooms -- feed'em shit and keep 'em in the dark." Mark Wahlberg, after years of getting treated like an FBI officer, finally gets some much-deserved Oscar attention with the help of The Departed's screenwriter William Monahan, who created the poet laureate of profanity in Dignam. Monahan's nod's not a surprise, but his work better not lose out to that steaming dysentery shit castle Little Children (where the method of the storytellers is tell and show and then tell and then show the same thing again, in case the explanatory voiceover, the Taboo-sketch, and PowerPoint presentation making the same point failed to get through).

* Cinematography, Children of Men. Of course. In last year's The New World, Emmanuel Lubezski's delighted the senses with shafts of light illuminating untouched earth. In stark contrast to Malick's lush pastoralism, here Lubezski creates an equally vivid world, but one that's been utterly corrupted by the creations of men. Lubezki's jittery compositions and desaturated greys brilliantly imposes a kind of Holocaust-doc grimness and determinism onto the Big Brother dystopia envisioned by Cuaron and his art director (where's the art direction nod, dammit?). The result is a crackerjack concept, sci-fi realism, flawlessly executed. And yes, those trick shots -- esp. in the car with Julianne Moore and in the war zone -- were fucking awesome. But one gripe: While I'm sure not enough voters ended up seeing Agnes Godard's characteristically amazing work in The Intruder, did the cinematography branch also skip the shimmering nightscape of Miami Vice, easily the most beautifully shot movie of the year? And pity poor Steven Soderbergh, whose unfairly maligned The Good German was, if nothing else, a technical marvel.

* Unfortunately, the underrated Prestige didn't get recognized by the writers for the year's most profound screenplay. To my shock the Academy didn't overlook the dueling magician movie's art direction and cinematography, which had been undervalued even among movie nerds. Our focus on Nolan's narrative and thematic hocus-pocus mostly blinded us to the care with which Nolan constructs the visual design. Good job Academy actually paying attention to the cinematic properties.

* Other hits: Penelope Cruz in Volver. Not a surprise, but given Volver's rather stunning omission in Foreign Language, I'm glad she was able to hang on. And this just in: the Iwo Jima diptych is pretty damn good.

* Other misses: Sasha Baron Cohen. Come on. Ken Watanabe, I suppose. Haven't really caught up with the big Oscar-baits (still on tap: Pan's Labyrinth, The Queen, Dreamgirls, Babel, Notes on a Scandal, possibly Little Miss Sunshine), so kinda hard to gripe just yet.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

the end of high fidelity

Towards the end of this piece detailing Apple's irritating (and shortsighted) "crippleware" practice (rigging iPods to play only songs purchased from iTunes and vice versa), we're offered a vision of the near-future:

" Eventually, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, he predicts, all portable players will have wireless broadband capability and will provide direct access, anytime, anywhere, to every song ever released for a low monthly subscription fee. It’s a prediction that has a high probability of realization because such a system is already found in South Korea, where three million subscribers enjoy direct, wireless access to a virtually limitless music catalog for only $5 a month."
Is another music revolution in the works? It sure looks like a good bet, doesn't it? The technology is already here, and we're basically just short on the wi-fi infrastructure. Sadly, once this last technology leap takes place, that comforting world of proprietary music collecting will vanish. Today's children may never know the pleasures of rifling through a record bin, or scanning through a dorm-mate's CD collection for musical affinity. (Though admittedly, college students have MySpace and last.fm to scope out a new acquaintance's taste, which is both more effective and creepier, since you can do it surreptitiously.) Physical music collecting was already on the wane in the age of the iPod, of course, but what happens when music becomes a collective good, when any song ever recorded can be called up anywhere and at anytime with a click or a voice command? It would be, well, awesome -- that's undeniable. But where does this leave my wideranging, erudite collection of recorded music, ranging from Bach's Cello Suites to J-Dilla's last album, goddammit? Are my years -- nay, decades -- of careful, tasteful acquisitions, my entire music library that serves as a monument to my tremendously cultivated taste and fine breeding...can that now be rendered obsolete?!? Oh, please kill me now.