Sunday, June 21, 2009

He's Just Not That Into You


Two hours flushed down the toilet. What a piece of crap. And it's not as if this movie ever had great potential--if it came within a mile of Sex and the City, I would have been stunned--but the fact of the matter is that these movies aren't that hard to make, so I expect cleverness admist all the usual cliches. But He's Just Not That Into You was written by chimps, so the movie was totally devoid of anything that thinking human beings regard as humor. Of course, it was still rife with cliches. Among them:

  • The vox populi, candid-camera shtick that many contemporary romantic comedies like to employ. Interview some woman sitting on a park bench about why you should never do such-and-such in a relationship, or why this-and-that quality about her husband bothers her. But again, this requires funny writing in order to be successful. This film just plopped a slew of walking stereotypes in front of the camera and thought that was sufficient--as if I'm supposed to laugh just because a fat black woman is riffing about past break-ups. Just a horrible effort.
  • The overly dickish wedding toast. I'm not an expert of weddings, and hopefully I will never become one. But people, especially people who are relatively sober, don't meanspiritedly and assholishly lash into the person being toasted, let alone that person's siblings. WTF Hollywood, stop.
  • Justin Long.
  • The bullshit group-of-friends la-la-land framework whereby there's always one hapless soul who's clueless with the opposite sex, and everyone else in the group is an expert who must impart the unofficial rules and regulations of dating and sex to him or her. Swingers, American Pie, SATC, Mean Girls, and now here. Few things annoy me more than group conversations where The Innocent One says "Well maybe I'll text him..." and the other five girls leap at her throat: "You never text a guy!"; "Always wait at least four days!!"; "Just poke him!!!"; "Texting exudes a lack of confidence!!!!"; "No! You wait for him for two days. Then, you may call him--but only call. If he doesn't pick up, you wait another hour, sprinkle some confectionary sugar on your cell phone, and then you may text. But the text must be just one sentence! You can't think you like him more than he likes you or else he won't like you like you want him to like you!!!!!" Get the fuck out.
  • The Gay Guy. He's on full display here. Hollywood's Gay Stereotype, however humorous, cannot possibly be helpful to GLAAD. Some people might think that the prevalence of homosexuals in cinema--from a flamboyant bit-part in Con Air to a full-fledged romance in Brokeback Mountain--is indicative of the increasing acceptance of gay culture. And certainly this is true to an extent. But not every gay role is Harvey Milk. Not even close. Instead, a plurality, and perhaps a majority, follow this simple rule: Gay guys do not talk about anything except purses and gay sex. That's it--those two things are their only reasons for living. And, to finally get to the point, this feature (read: bug) is applied lavishly in this film. There is a decent amount of screentime provided for the few gay characters, but I don't think a single one of them utters a word, let alone a sentence, that isn't bubbling around the edges with sexual innuendo. And of course one guy just blatantly says "I got hard!" after listening to Drew Barrymore's date serenade her via voicemail (because there are absolutely zero etiquette standards in place at gay-dominated workplaces). Invariably, this was a laugh line for girls who saw this in theaters, and I'm sure there was many a chortle among gays and lesbians themselves. But in the end, depictions like this--where gays are portrayed as sex-crazed pedophile creep queer fags who'd fuck an armoire if it was made of the right blend of oak and maple--probably don't help to fight Prop 8.
Mostly, He's Just Not That Into You suffered from being terribly written. A film like this, which is expected to be "bad" from the get-go, can actually turn out to be the good type of bad if ample wit is supplied throughout. But the opposite was the case here. Too high on the romance--which is especially bad in a movie that tries to foster believable relationships not only between Scarlett Johansson and Kevin Connolly but also Ben Affleck and Jennifer Aniston--and way, way too low on the comedy. I like Ginnifer Goodwin and Bradley Cooper, but neither of them are A-listers who can take a bag of shit and run it to the finish line. And, oh man. Jennifer Connolly has aged really, really badly. Her hotness graph from The Rocketeer to now is just a demand curve. The worst thing is, I can't even pinpoint what's wrong--besides the obvious fact that she's older. But the mixture of wrinkles and excessive thinness and more wrinkles makes for a very bad-tasting ice cream sundae.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Billboard's Current Top 10 Songs

The songs seem to have changed--for the most part--but the principal players haven't. It's still Black Eyed Crap, Lady GaGa, and someone who wrote a song called "Birthday Sex." I'm telling you, it is high culture.

10. Beyonce, "Halo"

This song is so old that if I try to opine on it, I feel I will come across as a clueless old guy who's out of touch with modern pop music. But I will anyway. It is very good. Beyonce, while she definitely accrues major benefit from her producers, is still a top-notch vocalist as far as mainstream artists go. I can't say I like or really understand the reason for the dramatic key downshift in the "didn't even make a sound" in the song's first verse. But that's nitpicking; the rest of the song, especially the synthesizer work in the chorus and the rolling piano track throughout, makes for a nice three-and-a-half minute party in my eardrum. (But come the fuck on with these lame, metrosexual stand-in boyfriends. This particular guy looks like he would start crying if you threw a cotton ball at him. And Beyonce is married to Jay-Z...)

9. Shinedown, "Second Chance"

It's pretty rare that I don't already know these songs in some way, since I go to a gym that proudly blasts all the latest crap ad nauseam. But I don't think I've heard this one, so I'll liveblog my experience watching the video: Guy looks like the Savage Garden singer plus 50 pounds. Hot girl works in a fish market--already stretching reality here. Dad beating the mom is obvious. Why is this guy in a cornfield? She's a ballet dancer as well? Awesome, the mom shakes utility bills at her. God it would fucking suck to grow up white trash. This singer seriously loves tall grass. Is he a one man band? Don't the other members object to their utter exclusion from the video? Here's the best thing about being a redneck: If, at any point in your life, at any time of day, you feel bored, you can go to any public bench in your hometown and within 10 minutes, a bus to New York will arrive. And people complain about U.S. mass transportation...

8. Sean Kingston, "Fire Burning"

Oh, it's this fucker--the guy who ripped off "Stand By Me" two years ago. I hate hate hate hate this sound. It's essentially "the Akon sound." Hyper-produced faux-Caribbean vocalist moaning on in his highest possible octave about getting "your body on the dancefloor" and how he's "gonna make you feel alright tonight," ad infinitum. Good thing he has a bunch of dancers, because there's no fucking way Sean is doing a squat, let alone multiple squats. To "his"--"his" being used as generously as possible, since there's no way he had any serious part in the construction of this song--credit, this song actually is just a few tweaks away from being catchy. As it stands, however, I have absolutely no qualms with immediately dismissing anyone who has searched for this on YouTube more than once, downloaded the song on iTunes, attended a club specifically to hear this song, or heard this on the radio and not switched ASAP. I would imagine that that bloc of people--which is quite well-populated, I'd imagine--is one the world would do better without.

7. Lady GaGa, "Poker Face"

I've already discussed this, so I can't be bothered to again. But this must be reiterated: Her dancing is beyond awful. She makes Britney Spears look like the lovechild of Savion Glover and Fred Astaire.

6. Jeremih, "Birthday Sex"

Yes, you read that right: Jeremih. Okay, so this guy's thing is that he looks like a mini-Kanye. Horrible. Again, it basically boils down to this: Anyone who voluntarily listens to this is a terrible waste of life. This guy is like 14 years old and talking up the merits of Birthday Sex (which appears to be something that inherently requires ample amounts of strawberries).

5. Lady GaGa, "LoveGame"

The pure and utter Eurotrashization of America. WHAT THE FUCK AM I WATCHING? I do like how cameramen always seem to avoid close-ups on Ms. GaGa unless she's dolled up like a 50s movie star. The reasoning is obvious: She's hideous New York trash. Granted, I don't dance and clubs are anathema to me, but how exactly do people dance to this? The song's popular, so I assume it's one that gets all the requisite screams and hoots when the opening synthesizer chords roll out. But why? Lady GaGa's entire schtick seems to be exactly this: Catch everyone's attention, but ultimately produce nothing of any substance--and in some cases (e.g., here), create irreparable auditory damage to anyone within a close radius. The problem for me and others of my incredible and inarguable level of musical sophistication is simple, albeit unavoidable: American adolescent girls are borderline retarded.

4. Pitbull, "I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho)"

This is eerily reminiscent of "Macarena." Except it's worse. Jesus, Hispanic rappers are uniformly atrocious. Every second I continue this video without clicking away, I am getting progressively stupider. And it seems clear that Pitbull was prescient in this regard, and anticipated that either he would singlehandedly induce spells of retardation or that dumbness would simply be inherent to his listener base. The reason this seems clear is because he felt the need to spell out the chorus for us: "I know you want me, you know I want cha." So either he doesn't think too highly of people who listen to Hispanic rappers, or he is under the impression that the intelligibilty of "I Know You Want Me" is on par with Finnegan's Wake.

3. Keri Hilson ft. Kanye West & Ne-Yo, "Knock You Down"

The paradox here is that it is Kanye West's mere presence which instantly lends this song the credibility it needs in order to become popular, but it is Kanye West's mere presence which (almost) completely detracts from my ability to see this song as anything other than same-old, same-old. Kanye: stop fucking singing about Louis Vuitton. You're not even rhyming it with anything. This chick isn't good-looking in the classical sense, but I like her get-up here. And certainly the melody here is fabulously good--tidal wave, seemingly-unending riffs (see: T.I.'s "What You Know") usually are. Man, awesome chorus. Love the vocal multitracking. FUCK. Ne-Yo... My God. Just flush this guy down the fucking music toilet. This is like a pretty good band at a bar mitzvah who decided to let the lead singer's three-year-old son sing a song for kicks. Except this isn't for kicks. It's an actual singing part in a real song. And it's ruining everything. Take off that goddamn hat you troll. The basic theme of this video appears to be alternating rolling wave motions with the hands with people falling down very slowly. Oh shit--Kanye rap solo. "So we could finally fly off into NASA." I don't really think Kanye knows much about public policy, or even what a spaceship does for that matter. This video continues to grow my appreciation for Ms. Hilson and rapidly shrink it for Kanye. I never had any for Ne-Yo, so I'm treating him as if he's dead. When the fuck has life ever "knocked Kanye down"? Okay, maybe when he was poor for most of his life, and then when he nearly lost his face in that car crash. But besides that.

2. The Black Eyed Peas, "I Gotta Feeling"

I still don't know what the conventional male wisdom on Fergie is. Ostensibly, it's acceptable to say she's a gross troll. But I'd hazard a lot of guys want to sleep with her. And the reason I assume this is because I think I'm one of those guys. I'm just not totally sure, because I feel like there's a tranny surprise lurking here somewhere. Oh, and because Poseidon was terrible. WILL.I.AM. He clearly has absolutely no idea what to do now that Obama is President. January 20th was probably Will.I.Am's darkest day. This song isn't that bad, actually, but I think that's all because of preposterously low expectations on my part. I do not know why they need four people to create this song, and I've never quite understood what the Asian guy does. Of course, as it's a BEP song, it devolves into a series of feel-good chants. But it works (at least sorta) in this specific case; I don't know what it is, as, on paper, everything about "I Gotta Feeling" seems to add up to a huge dose of horrible, but I'm actually kinda digging this.

1. The Black Eyed Peas, "Boom Boom Pow"

But nothing can make me dig this. It's as if someone had the unfathomably stupid idea of filtering Simpletext through a vocoder. "Unlistenable" is being generous. It's ear rape.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

6/17, Terminal 5: Metric

It is an interesting exercise to try and gauge just who comprises Metric's fanbase. On the outside, they seem to be a band that very few people would dislike. They make simple, eminently catchy, danceable music; their lead singer, Emily Haines, is seemingly very engaging and attractive--even more the latter if you are looking at her from a distance; and they always pack into their songs a coda or a chorus that is built for audiences to sing along to. But there are people that don't like The Beatles, so clearly it would seem logical to infer that the crowd at a Metric show would be rather narrow in nature. Indeed, it did turn out to be a very homogeneous slice of the New York City twentysomething crowd, but beyond that, it turned out to be primarily composed of people who I have no desire to be near ever again. Social retards, musical idiots, bottom-rung loiterers, the utter dregs of intelligent society. Worst of all, perhaps, was that--as per an on-the-fly judgement I plucked out of thin air--many of the concertgoers seemed to be not simply compelled by Haines and Metric, but singlemindedly obsessed with and devoted to them, treating the band as though it were on the brink of releasing OK Computer, curing breast cancer, and taking eleven Olympic golds. But Metric is totally not about to do anything of these things. I don't even think Emily Haines is that fast.

I decided to skip the show's two openers because, frankly, Terminal 5 is just an awful place to stand idly waiting for 25-minute blocks at a time, which is exactly what I would have been doing if I'd meandered in shortly after the doors opened. Instead, I wandered over to Hudson River Park, stepped over a homeless man (Get it together, Grouch), parked myself on one of the promenade benches, and started reading Jane Jacobs drone on in The Death And Life of Great American Cities about how unsafe urban areas can be if they don't have ample foot traffic. I scoffed at the idea. Then I got brutally raped.

Because of my innate timing abilities, I shuffled into Terminal 5, took a piss, and came out just as Metric was taking the stage. Okay, so with respect to my earlier rant, I need to get this across: For anyone sane, Metric is a guilty-pleasure band. I'll throw them a bone and say that among other guilty-pleasure bands, they are top-notch. But they emanate a vibe of rhythmic simplicity and immaturity that means they cannot exit, at least for the time being, the realm of guilt-causing pleasure music. Now, this is fine, as I like tons of music along these lines--Timberlake, Britney, Death Cab for Cutie, Lily Allen, Saves The Day, Rihanna--but it's fine only to an extent. And where that extent usually reaches the finish line is somewhere in the grey area in which studio albums transfer to live performances. I'm fine blasting "Sick Muse" in my room, through my headphones. But that's because a) I don't have to be around other people who like this song and b) I'm listening to the studio version.

A show takes these two very key aspects and flips them upside down. Not only are you hearing versions of the songs created outside the studio, but you are surrounded by a gazillion others who also enjoy this particular band. And pretty much inherent in the very definition of a Guilty Pleasure Band are two things: Excessive lameness of said band's fans, and a distinct lack of musical skill among said band's members. For the most part, this describes Metric to a tee. The latter quality is further exacerbated by the fact that while Metric's albums are loaded with heavy production, lush multi-vocal arrangements, and lots of multi-tracking, Metric is only composed of four members--one drummer, one bassist, one guitarist, and a lead singer who occasionally tinkles around on the synthesizer. But whereas a foursome like Led Zeppelin can use their serious instrumental talents to overcome their inability to rely on having three guitar tracks when performing live, a band like Metric cannot. So they have two options: Play the song as best they can with all the instruments and vocal power they can muster up. For a band that relies heavily on the provisions of a well-equipped studio--i.e., Metric--this option sucks. Alternatively, they can use all the instruments and vocalists that they have onstage and also supplement it with recordings of themselves playing or singing the missing parts. But this option also blows. I didn't pay money to have an iPod play me songs. I want to see them being played, live, on actual instruments and by actual people.

So this was a rather roundabout way of expressing my displeasure regarding this show. It was okay, but nothing great. If you like Metric, I'd advise that you see them, but only once. And generally, if you get out of a show and are somewhat glad it's over, that pretty much tells the whole story. Metric makes good bar and club music, but by and large, they're not a very special band. Certainly, I assumed this going in, so my reaching this conclusion doesn't shatter my preconceived notions of all that is right and wrong in the world. But the actual show only reinforced, and didn't offer much to disprove, my idea of Metric as an unserious band.

I specify "didn't offer much" because I have to say that the solo that James Shaw ripped at the end of "Gold Guns and Girls" was certainly one for the ages. Nearly worth the price of admission alone.

Robert Weiner: Drugs Are Bad, Mmkay?

In a remarkable piece of unfiltered, can't-believe-Rosenthal-allowed-it idiocy in today's New York Times, former drug czar spokesman Robert Weiner swandives into the retard pool:

To the Editor:

Drugs have not “won the war.” With a comprehensive anti-drug strategy in place, involving foreign policy, enforcement, education, treatment, prevention and media, America’s overall drug use has declined almost by half in the past three decades — from 14.1 percent of the population in 1979 to 8.3 percent now who used drugs in the past month. In addition, cocaine use, including crack — the source of much of the former record-high violent crime numbers — is down 70 percent. Want to go back?

Legalization would be a catastrophe. Nicholas D. Kristof uses the analogy of legal alcohol. But there are an estimated 15 million alcoholics in this country and 5 million drug addicts; do we want the 5 to become 15?


I'm assuming that Weiner thinks we should return to alcohol prohibition? That seems to be the only logical end one can deduce from this line of argument. Not to mention the fact that it is in many cases easier for a teenager to score drugs (illegal) than alcohol (legal). Just think about your own experiences as a 19-year-old. Getting your hands on alcohol was certainly not impossible, but it did require some effort, either in the form of an older friend or the procurement of a fake ID. On the other hand, it almost requires effort not to be exposed to marijuana; it is the picture in Merriam-Webster's next to "ubiquitous." In Nicholas Kristof's original piece, he offers up this anecdote from a police officer:

“I had arrested a 19-year-old, in his own home, for possession of marijuana,” he recalled. “I literally broke down the door, on the basis of probable cause. I took him to jail on a felony charge.” The arrest and related paperwork took several hours, and Mr. Stamper suddenly had an “aha!” moment: “I could be doing real police work.”
But legalization would really be a catastrophe. Weiner continues to sink to the bottom:

Hospital emergency rooms would be flooded, and crime would return to the crisis levels of the 1970s and ’80s, when drug use was at its highest. Domestic violence and date rape would be substantially higher. The majority of arrestees in 10 major American cities recently tested positive for illegal drugs, a remarkable indicator of a link between drugs and crime.
Okay. I'm not sure they ever discussed this at board-room meetings in the drug czar's office, but I'll spell it out to Weiner just in case: There is no "remarkable indicator" between drugs and crime. Violence was high thirty years ago and remains serious today because the fucking things were and are illegal. It would be quite shocking to think that someone of Weiner's experience doesn't realize this, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's willfully lying. Weiner bemoans this imaginary dystopia where those poor saps who have been infected by "The Reefer" are date raping everything in sight and beating their wives. In theory, those employed at the drug czar's office should have at least a modicum of experience with real-world drug use. I'll let Weiner in on a secret: The first thing that pops into someone's head after he's just taken a bong hit is not "Man, you know what sounds good right now? Date rape." It's hilarious to blame violence on the currently-illegal cocaine and marijuana when alcohol is assuredly the primary culprit in these types of crimes.

But I must quote this last sentence again:

The majority of arrestees in 10 major American cities recently tested positive for illegal drugs, a remarkable indicator of a link between drugs and crime.
Too funny for words. Honestly, the Times should print a retraction or something--it's that bad. Okay, Robert Weiner, I will apply your logic to a simpler example.

Let's say I am a model son. Great student, never do anything wrong, always do my chores. All of a sudden, my mom institutes a rule: No cookies upstairs. One day, she catches me with cookies upstairs. I have to go in time-out. Another day, she catches me with cookies upstairs. Same punishment. And again. And again. It seems as though every time I got in trouble, I tested positive for cookies. Indeed, there was a remarkable--truly remarkable, I say--link between eating cookies and getting in trouble. Clearly, the only logical response available to my mother is to crackdown hard on cookies and continue this policy ad infinitum.

Robert Weiner: Singlehandedly undermining the credibility of the National Drug Policy Office.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The International


One of the permeating, if unintentional, effects of Law and Order was to give the impression that it is incredibly easy to locate people in New York City. If you visit someone at home, they will be there; at work, they'll be there. If someone has no official residence or job, then simply hanging out around a grocery store, anywhere in the city, will result in the prompt discovery of said individual. You see this type of thing all the time (cf. the Bourne trilogy), but it is most prevalent in films where the cops are trying to nab someone. In The International, the plot evolves to a point where Clive Owen--an Interpol investigator--and some lowly NYPD grunts are in New York, looking for someone for whom they have no address or name. For awhile, the filmmakers chose to maintain the aura of mystery, making it seem as though it takes real work to locate random people in NYC--which it does. It was a pleasant, refreshing surprise, and I rather enjoyed the six or seven minutes of gumshoe work that Owen and co. were forced to resort to.

Alas, they soon slipped into full-blown L&O-derived retardation. You had to know it was coming, it's just The Way Things Are Done.
On some random afternoon, they happened by the address where a cab had dropped the suspect off a bunch of times, and of course it's only minutes before Joe Suspect trots around the corner. Goddamnit. It is really tough to find someone. Let alone in a city. Let alone New York City. Let alone a secret assassin. Come on.

On the plus side, I was actually pleasantly surprised by The International. I recall this initially being called The Bank in the first previews, and then maybe The International Bank in subsequent ones. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had ended up titling it Fuck It: It's Clive Owen--it really didn't look like it was going to be much of a flick. Turns out, I was kinda wrong. Kinda. Reasons for this:

  • Clive Owen is the man. I'm still shocked he wasn't cast for James Bond, and even more shocked after his role in The International--which isn't a Bond role per se, but which has all the Eurotrash aura and international intrigue of a Bond flick. When you combine this with Owen's no-fuckin'-around work in Shoot 'Em Up and his dripping machismo in Closer, the conclusion seems self-evident.
  • Any scene that occurs in Europe or the Middle East is instantly superior to its American counterpart. Think about it. The Jackal, Ronin, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, The Bank Job, Pan's Labyrinth, Schindler's List... None of these would've had the same pull had they been set in the United States. Can you imagine Schindler's List in Toledo? No? QED.
  • Holding a shoot-out in the Guggenheim is an awesome idea in theory. But it was actually executed well too; although it chose to utilize the can't-die-a-fast-enough-death cliche where a guy is shot, you think he's dead, and then--shock!--it turns out he had a vest on, the choreography, for a film of such low fanfare, was well done.
  • Naomi Watts appeared on screen very infrequently. This is assuredly a good thing, because had she been given any more lines, it would have nearly completely erased the goodwill she generated with me in King Kong. Picturing Naomi Watts as a big city lawyer in the D.A.'s office is difficult enough. Envisioning a reality in which she is performing ballistics tests at the scene of a major assasination and unearthing clues as to the rest of the whodunit is too much for me to bear. She comes off like a blathering moron, totally out of her league. You know the phase highschoolers go through where, amidst night after night of SAT prep, they start saying things like "Stop acting so lugubrious" and "Mom, you're being an iconoclast"? That's Naomi Watts in The International.
Go in with low expectations and you may end up being rewarded. Just be prepared for an ending that cannot possibly make sense to anybody living on this planet.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Twitter As News

Glenn Greenwald had an item yesterday remarking that we shouldn't be so quick to assume that the Western media's favorability to anti-Ahmadinejad candidates actually bears resemblance to on-the-ground realities in Iran. In the election aftermath, obviously Twitter--for technical but also ease-of-use reasons--has been in invaluable tool, and Andrew Sullivan has been all over the tweetosphere, leaping onto updates as they come. It seems as though most who are in-the-know are saying this is obviously a rigged election. And clearly, the videos and photos of real and brutal fascist violence in Iran not only lend credence to this argument, but create a whole new batch of humanitarian issues for I'm-a-Dinner-Jacket himself. But with all that said, the concept of Twitter as The Unquestionable Truth has yet to come to real fruition, principally because of the high degree of selection bias inherent in its users. Think about who uses Twitter in the U.S. It seems to be overwhelmingly liberal. Imagine a counterfactual both in which Twitter existed in 2004 and George Bush was reelected while losing the popular vote. To a foreigner relying solely on tweets for his information, he'd think it was rigged, that the country had given a mandate to Kerry and he had been denied it by fascist neocons, and that cops had been dispatched by Bush's forces and were taking clubs to protestors, like Chicago in '68.

Now, for innumerable obvious reasons, that clearly isn't a good analogy to what's currently happening in Iran, but it wasn't meant to be. The more general point still holds: Twitter, in its current form, is a deeply biased source. It is a incomparably useful complement to the MSM, but it is flawed beyond belief on its own.

With that said, this is certainly a teachable moment, with respect to news gathering and aggregation, for the MSM.

The Dirty Projectors' Bitte Orca And The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Of Music Reviews

The Dirty Projectors' Bitte Orca has been released to what can only be called a wave of unfettered praise. In the internet indie circle world, a 9.2 from Pitchfork is like getting a job recommendation from Obama. It's reserved for the Grizzly Bears, Radioheads, TV on the Radios, and Animal Collectives of the world. And by that I mean: It's reserved for specifically Grizzly Bear, Radiohead, TV on the Radio, and Animal Collective. It ensures that, regardless of what the sound is like when one pops in the record and hits Play, the band's shows will be sold out instantly and that 60% of the crowd will be sporting black jeans and Chuck Taylors. Hipsters will swarm the outer lip of the stage like a nestful of drone bees, pretending to know the lyrics when even the person who wrote the lyrics doesn't know them. If there's one thing in common with high-rated indie bands these days, it's that Lyrics. Are. Irrelevant. They're unintelligible 90% of the time and the other 10% you realize that that chorus you love so much goes "And the wolf cobbled her slippers" and you begin slamming your head into the wall repeatedly.

The thing about Bitte Orca is, well... Okay, here. I'll hazard a guess as to how my own relationship with this album will proceed:

1. Initiation listen, wherein I appreciation some verses and melodies, and even a song or two, but don't really feel a real connection. DONE.
2. Read Pitchfork review and Stereogum user opinions. Discover that everyone thinks this is better than Revolver. Stare at myself in the mirror for 84 minutes. DONE.
3. Give the record a second go. Find my foot tapping involuntarily at parts. Think, "Maybe I was wrong." Finish album. Think, "Nah, I'm right." DONE.
4. Start actually parsing the reviews of the people who love this album, and discover that these are the type of people who think that Panda Bear, Animal Collective, and The Field are the greatest bands of the 2000s; that Sticky Fingers is the Stones' worst album; and that any song that uses less than a 2:1 synthesizer-to-guitar ratio has failed completely. IN THE PROCESS.
5. In search for a win-win, execute the Harvey Dent Play. This move is simple, and it goes as such: Privately, not see anything special with the record and rank it considerably low on your totem pole of Things To Listen To; publicly, if or when someone inquires "Bitte Orca is the best of the decade, right?!", nod head ferociously. LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE PLAYS.

--

My broader point, I guess, goes something like this. Pitchfork (and other related sites, but mostly Pitchfork) has a very heavy hand in the way the indie rock landscape is shaped these days. If they like it, it's liked; if not, tough cookies. Now granted, there's a lot of selection bias going on here, and the relationship clearly isn't one way. Pitchfork attained clout because many indie fans agreed with the site's general "taste," so it makes sense to conclude that albums reviewed well on Pitchfork will receive significantly more praise from the usual lemmings--after all, they like the same types of sounds as Pitchfork! But I'd argue that there's a larger self-fulfilling prophecy going on here, whereby Pitchfork says an album is good, and, irrespective of whether or not it actually is, it becomes accepted as good by the larger masses.

The possible reasons for this are myriad, and not all have roots in some deranged theory of a rising Pitchfork-run fascist state. First is the simple conformist need that is inherent in everyone, albeit to differing degrees. It seems other people are liking Bitte Orca, so I must like it too, regardless of whether I actually do. Second is that Pitchfork offers incomparable self-justification in this regard. It's a back-up force, a mainstay of music journalism that lets any fan of Bitte Orca shout "Well, it got a 9.2!" to anyone listening. While nobody ever actually does that in real life, I envision that there's a significant swath of hipsters who are just dying for someone to say "What is this awful music?" To that, they have a canned response totally packaged and ready for shipping. Third is another weird one: People seek to be "on another level" than their friends. More musically sophisticated, if you will. While everyone else is digging the new White Stripes or Jay-Z, Pitchfork readers take it as a badge of honor to be able to claim that they listen to something as esoteric and unaccessible as The Dirty Projectors. I understand music more than you do. This Bitte Orca hyper permits himself to be the sonic Galileo, crucified by contemporaries but way ahead of his time. Fourth is perhaps the most reasonable and nondouchey of the reasons. Good reviews serve a purpose: They afford a band more attention than they would have otherwise received. Take Bitte Orca. Let's say I picked this record up in a vaccuum. I listen to it once, maybe twice, and decide "meh," and Recycle Bin it goes. Now let's say I picked it up and gave it a few spins, and then read a Pitchfork review lambasting it. Well now I have a second opinion, evidence of "widespread discontent" that offers me ample reason to affirm my ever-hardening thoughts on the album. But in the third and final reality, I listen to the album twice, read Pitchfork's 9.2 review, and then I listen to the album again. Why? Because There Has To Be Something There. After all, the site with one of the best noses for good music is in love with it. Maybe it's just one of those records that takes a few listens, would go the thought process.

Of course, there is simply the possibility that I'm the odd man out here, and that this really is a record that everyone honestly enjoys. But I prefer to concoct unfalsifiable fantasies to suit my own predispositions about Pitchfork's reader base. And this image is only burnished by the lunatic ravings of the hipster crowd:

Vampire Weekend’s Ezra Koenig, who toured with the Dirty Projectors at some point earlier this century, declares that Bitte Orca is "not Physical Graffiti for 2K9; it’s 2K9’s Physical Graffiti.”
Fuck. That.

It's Never Sunny In Holocaustia


If you take Hollywood conventions as undeniable facts, then you'd be under the impression that in Europe between the years 1939 and 1945, it was overcast every single day. It rained upwards of 65% of the time, summer didn't exist, and trees didn't opt to sprout leaves. It was as if Hitler gassed Mother Nature.

But seriously. This popped into my head when I was watching the opening scene of X-Men the other day, where a young Magneto loses his parents in the Holocaust. I got to thinking: Valkyrie, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Downfall, The Counterfeiters, Defiance, The Pianist, Sophie's Choice... Where the fuck did the sun go? It's gotten to the point where this chronically-dusk image of the Holocaust and WWII is so ingrained that movies that try to stray from the trend, such as Life is Beautiful, invariably come off as cheesy pieces of trash. (Yes, LiB is simply awful.)

I'm no meteorologist, but it seems fishy.

On a related note, this is a pretty good piece of Holocaust film cliches. I liked this:

5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter

Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

John Mayer, "Belief"

From an old Webster Hall performance. Great tune on the album, but done even better here.

The Taking of Pelham 123


It's called "Pelham 123" because it leaves Pelham Bay Park at 1:23 P.M., something I did not know.

Anyway. Ah, what to say, what to say. First, it should be noted that, although this is a Tony Scott film through and through, it is the least Tony Scott Tony Scott film I have seen in ages. I mean, we're talking about the guy who has brought us Deja Vu, Domino, and Man on Fire-- each of which take the kinetic, nu-film stylization trend to new heights--all within the past several years. In Pelham, Scott is more restrained, choosing to let the big city vibe and the film's incredible star power to drive what is at heart a fairly standard Hollywood plot. Well, I should modify that: He is mostly restrained. During the first five or six minutes of the film, Scott chooses to employ what I'm guessing is known in film circles as the "Epileptic Killer." I will deem it the most annoying fucking thing in world history. He takes Jay-Z's "99 Problems" and splices it, a la Girl Talk, with some other DJ scratch work, and then he just totally cuts up the song and stops and starts it at random intervals, all over a montage of New York City landmarks and subway goings-on. It's total film school freshman bullshit, and, were it not for my unalterable anticipation of seeing Travolta and Denzel go head-to-head for the Badass Crown, it would have put me into a fit of rage.

The movie: Travolta hijacks a train, and demands a lot of money before he starts pulling the trigger. Denzel is a hapless (er, maybe not) MTA subway controller, manning ship from the safety of a Midtown transit authority office. James Gandolfini is the NYC Mayor, who doesn't seem to be a bumbling fool, per se, but is nonetheless not a take-charge guy. You may be surprised to learn that John Turturro plays an Italian with a New York accent. I know I was shocked. He's also the NYPD's hostage negotiator, albeit not one in the kick-ass-and-take-names fashion of Kevin Spacey's character in The Negotiator. Luis Guzman is Travolta's sidekick, a criminally negligent former MTA motorman who went in on the job for one last score and ends up taking sniper fire in the cranium because of a subway rat.

Mostly, the film just rides on there being a megawatt movie star onscreen every second. I can't say there's anything compelling about the general storyline, which, when compared with Denzel acting the part of the Christlike, no-holds-barred protector in Man on Fire and the part of the, um, Christlike, wishy-washy detective in Deja Vu, doesn't offer much to differentiate itself from the usual suspects of Hollywood clichedom. For all the attempts to gin up twists--Is Denzel in on it? Are the cops corrupt? Is John Travolta--OMG--a former Wall Street exec?--the film is by and large straightforward in nature. There's not even a slam-bang chase scene for the conclusion; I wouldn't say the movie fizzles, but it's certainly no Bourne. Denzel essentially corners Travolta, and John goes on and on, in strict adherence to the trite conventions of the "crazed homocidal maniac" archetype, about how he and Denzel had this special bond, and how he became attached to Denzel and wanted to save his life, and so on. This ending sounds horrible on paper, and trust me--with any other two actors, it would be. But it's fucking Denzel Washington and John Travolta, two modern giants of the actiondramaporn genre, so eyes remain glued. And that's pretty much the way it is throughout the rest of The Taking of Pelham 123.

--

The previews were pretty good. Peter Jackson's District 9 offered a very brief teaser, which honestly came off like either a really mature or really retarded Independence Day. My Sister's Keeper, the movie which will go down in history as "the one in which Cameron Diaz shaves her head," seemed to be rapidly approaching release date, something I think every red-blooded guy in his twenties is in eager anticipation of. Public Enemies of course looks awesome, though more and more I fear it will fall the way of American Gangster (then it was Washington, Crowe, and Scott; now it's Bale, Depp, and Mann) and be good but totally unmemorable. Fingers crossed. There was a preview for Gamer, which is a movie about how you can play a "video game" where you control real-life characters who are on death row and being used as lab rats. Somewhat surprisingly, it looked like total shit. Aside from that, the film also serves as a vehicle for Ludacris to finally star alongside Michael C. Hall, which I'm sure a significant percentage of southernly hospitable gay funeral directors have been waiting for forever. Lastly, I finally caught a glimpse of the latest in a what-will-eventually-be-innumerable set of Scorsese/DiCaprio films, Shutter Island. Seems totally un-Scorsese (like M. Night Shyamalan rewrote Shawshank), and I can't say I would have given it much thought if it weren't for the names attached to the project. But it is Scorsese, and so, like a loyal puppy, I will dutifully pad his pockets with my $9.75.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

6/12, Studio B: Sunset Rubdown, Witchies, Elfin Saddle

The fear, of course, is that Spencer Krug will burn out. A member of four different bands, an unceasing writer, and a nearly-omnipresent performer--the biology just can't be in his favor on this, right? Right? Well, maybe. Certainly, no visible evidence of this decline yet exists.

I strolled around Brooklyn for a bit, so I missed the first opener, Elfin Saddle. Witchies were next; they seemed to epitomize the type of band that is all good and fun in a small club, but not deserving of any listening time otherwise. But sure, I'll admit I found their ability to thread the needle between "good band" and "indie rockers du jour who just make a lot of noise" quite well. Witchies actually had legitimately foot-tapping songs, even though their drummer looked like a lab-created mutation of Machinist-era Christian Bale and Chris Cornell and the frontman evoked wanted-to-be-forgotten images of the cueballesque lead singer of The New Radicals. Creators of unapologetic rock that works in synth background harmonies incredibly well, The Witchies seem to pride themselves on creating a melodic mix of keyboards and jangly guitar that is so immediately accessible that one wonders why it hasn't been created before. Unfortunately, the lyrics and singing do little to back up these initial salvos, but I can't complain.

It almost didn't matter which songs Sunset Rubdown chose to play. They could've done a set purely of rock versions of Bach and it would have had the audience reeling. Spencer Krug has a level of captivation over his subjects that is hard to find analog to in modern, non-mainstream rock; to quote Austin Powers, "Women want him, men want to be him." A musician's musician and a songwriter's songwriter, Krug is certainly most well-known as one of the frontmen for Wolf Parade, but his work with Sunset Rubdown, whose sound can easily be found at the foundation of Wolf Parade's songs, is far from unremarkable. Indeed, with the imminent release of their new title, Dragonslayer, Sunset Rubdown may indeed be on the verge of leaving large swaths of modern rock in the dust.

I complained (well, that might be excessive terminology) earlier this week that The Decemberists' live show didn't deviate from their album versions. Well, much the same can be said for Sunset Rubdown. But here is where the comparison diverges: Sunset Rubdown already incorporates these moments of experimental spontaneity into their songs. If you want to develop an Advil addiction, spend a few minutes trying to wrap your head around the sheet music for "Mending of the Gown." The number of tempo changes in any given S.R. song makes a simple recreation of the studio version an impressive act in and of itself. And the songs on Dragonslayer only serve to enhance this idea; with the possible exception of "Nightingale/December Song," nearly every track is not a song, per se, but rather a collage of several songs, stitched together into a fabric using Krug's knack for the musical transition. As he often exhibits with Wolf Parade, Krug has what can only be rightly deemed an obession with the multi-song song. The process would seem to go as such: He has an idea for a super catchy rhythm or riff, and so, instead of trying to extrapolate a full-blown song from it, he--smartly--simply attaches it on to an existing song. Call it the modern effect of "Stairway to Heaven." It's precisely the reason that, with many of the best Wolf Parade tracks--"Animal In Your Care," "Soldier's Grin," "I'll Believe in Anything"--and most of Dragonslayer--notably "You Go On Ahead (Trumpet Trumpet II)" and "Black Swan"--the best part always lies at the finale. And that's not to shortchange the entire song. But if you took the latest Sunset Rubdown album and cut off 90 seconds from the back half of each track, you'd find yourself with a record of seriously diminished quality.

And mention must be made of Sunset Rubdown's musical prowess. Like I said, they're not playing "Louie Louie" and "Chopsticks." Simply watching the drummer sent shooting pains up by biceps. Their guitarist, who often lingers in the background, has many moments of manic virtuosity and frenetic fret-work. Camilla Wynne Ingr, who mans the back-up keyboards and adds a little soprano to offset Krug's vocals, is utterly uncontroversial and a total necessity; many of the band's most endearing refrains come courtesy of the intermingling of the male and female singing parts. And Krug himself, obviously, is king. "Keyboardist," which he is often described as, is understating things quite severely, like calling Michael Jordan a "basketball player" or Mick Jagger simply a "frontman." "Keyboardist" seems to evoke imagery of some guy on the side, mashing ivories on every downbeat. That is so not what Spencer Krug does. His keyboards are Sunset Rubdown. The band's entire sonic foundation is composed of synthesized notes, sometimes at the forefront of the melody, other times waiting patiently and blending in with the rest of the musical scenery. And last night, Krug and his companion "keyboards" were in top form, acting as an unabating, pulsing force throughout the entirety of the show. Song in and song out, they are the first to turn the lights on and the last to leave, and what makes them all the more special is how accessible they sound. Accessible in a way that you'd think it would be easy to find good bands to compare Sunset Rubdown to; "You'll like S.R. if you like x, y, and z."

But inevitably, x, y, and z are all other Spencer Krug ventures. Which is a testament, not only to his prolificness, but to his originality as well.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

6/10, Radio City Music Hall: The Decemberists, Robyn Hitchcock and The Venus 3

Thank god for The Hazards of Love. No, really.

In the weeks running up this show, I kept bouncing back and forth predictions for it in my head. An unending argument of sorts.

"Okay, The Hazards of Love is probably their worst album."
"Yeah, but it's The Decemberists."
"And they'll probably play predominantly Hazards songs."
"Yeah, but it is still The Decemberists."
"Touche."

I am a world-renowned expert in Parliamentary Debate, you see.

It turns out, of course, that I was quite mistaken about many things. But I'll get to that soon enough. I hadn't been to Radio City since maybe the early 1990s, for a Rockettes show, so I was naturally excited to see my first actual "show" in such an esteemed venue. The acoustics of the place were certainly fabulous, and the architecture and interior designs certainly lived up to reputation--although the latter distinctly reminded me of the Borgata. Moreover, the place is obviously huge, and yet still it preserves a degree of intimacy that--obviously--stadiums and arenas lack. Plus, my seats were terrific.

Robyn Hitchcock, of Rachel Getting Married fame (well, fame might be a stretch), and The Venus 3, his R.E.M.-drawn back-up crew, opened the night. They were fairly rocking and fun, despite Robyn's innumerable failed attempts at garnering laughs from the audience. R.E.M.'s Peter Buck was looking a bit haggard--picture the unwashed lovechild of Christopher Hitchens and Mona Lisa (the model or the painting). But they certainly yanked together some tight rhythms, evoking something along the lines of a modern Yardbirds, or a less musically-adept Dire Straits. Just good and solid, with some nice guitar interplay between Hitchcock and Buck.

The Decemberists stormed the stage after only a short break, and it quickly became clear that this was going to be a Hazards-centric show. The Decemberists typically alternate between folksy anthems about sailors and the English countryside and blood-pumping prog rock epics about weird shit going on in Colin Meloy's head. The Hazards of Love, however, is a bit different; a concept album in the truest sense of the term, it constantly repeats riffs and codas, rambles on incessantly about topics I can't afford to devote more than scant attention to, and weaves--without pause--in and out of country hymns and Zeppelinesque guitar crunchers. Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Dream Theater, Rush, Queensryche, The Wall--it's all there, in one way or another. Now, The Hazards of Love isn't bad, per se. It's not even mediocre. It's just that the two albums preceding it--Picaresque and The Crane Wife--were so good that the response to Hazards becomes similar to those of Beatles fans, who were used to Revolver, Abbey Road, and The White Album, having Let It Be dumped in their laps. Hazards is the epitome of the "if any other band had done it..." record, a good album that suffers immensely from expectations.

The show, for me, worked in diametrically opposite fashion. Because of the permeating aura of meh surrounding Hazards, my expectations were lowered. And low expectations is the foundation upon which many of life's most enjoyable events occur (US version of "The Office"; Role Models; Korean BBQ; White Blood Cells). Of course, as you can probably discern by now, I thought the show was awesome. They played solely Hazards songs before the first intermission, came back and did a few of their earlier, more well-known numbers, and then rocked out in an explosive finale with their perennial closer "Sons and Daughters" and a cover of Heart's "Crazy in Love."

Okay, so, the bad: I don't think they performed a single song from Picaresque, and they didn't do either of the epic eponymous jams from The Crane Wife. They avoided "Odalisque" and "The Legionnaire's Lament," both of which are gorgeous and both of which I was anticipating hearing, perhaps delusionally. They also don't differentiate from their album versions much, and are--by design, of course, as a concept-album band--very scripted. They had a few moments of fun spontaneity--first where Meloy divided the crowd and assigned different sections vocal instructions, like chorus practice, and then when he invited two stragglers on stage to duel off in the worst game of real-life Guitar Hero ever--but for nearly the entirety of the rest of the show, every note, chord, fill, and lyric was simply a replica of the studio version. And this, I believe, is partly because not a single member of The Decemberists is all that skillful a musician, broadly speaking. They just don't have the chops to go off on random tangents of improvisation. Granted, it is the rare band these days that does--Dave Matthews and co. certainly stand as an aberration in this regard--but I think it's still worth noting nonetheless. The Decemberists would seem to be a band, from a genre standpoint, whose music is highly conducive to occasional bouts of unscripted mania. But it just doesn't ever seem to happen.

HOWEVER, the principal and unavoidable strength of The Decemberists' entire catalog is this: they are phenomenal songwriters. They rarely, if ever, produce clunkers; Picaresque and The Crane Wife do not contain any songs worth skipping. Meloy, aside from having a great rock voice, just has an amazing knack for melody--be it uplifting or melancholy. This is an exceptionally good characteristic in 90-110 minute live shows, where it's often possible or even likely for the audience to start looking at their watches because the song being currently played just isn't up to snuff. With The Decemberists, this is a nonissue, as those songs don't exist. Moreover, I quickly learned that the fact that Hazards was going to be the source of the majority of the songs that night was hardly a detriment. And this is because its songs, simply put, are stifled by studio walls. Now, one might argue that all acts are better live, and--to an extent--this has a large degree of truth to it. But, after last night, I can only conclude that listening to The Hazards of Love through headphones in one's room does a marked disservice to the songs, from "Isn't It a Lovely Night?" to "The Wanting Comes in Waves/Repaid" and "The Hazards of Love 4." There's a feeling of total sonic immersion one gets from seeing these songs performed live (and in an acoustically awesome venue) that is not only not present but is replaced by a permeating sense of passivity and distance on the album itself. Part of this, as I said, is simply the unavoidable fact that most bands are more fun to hear live than recorded. But there's something to be said for The Decemberists' stage presence, and, specifically, for that of the wonderful female additions, Shara Worden and Becky Stark, for the Hazards album and tour.

For perhaps the majority of the pre-intermission set, I was no less than mesmerized by Becky Stark. She was dressed in a elaborate white gown of some kind, and looked like a cross between Cinderella and Sophie Marceau's Princess Isabelle in Braveheart. She had a certain majestic air bout her, which was certainly not diminished in the slightest by her dancing. In overly sexualized and sultry fashion, she slunk, shook, crooned, and made scoliosis-inducing waves with her spine--all in constant rhythm with the music. Her voice, which is a noticeably beneficial addition to the album, simply exploded into mellifluous harmony at Radio City, ricocheting off every wall. And no less can be said about My Brightest Diamond's Shara Worden, who, in true Aguilerian fashion, unendingly shocks everyone with an Arethaesque set of pipes. Both of their contributions, as the chief drivers of the band's stage energy and supreme vocalists in the truest sense of the term, were enormous; without them, I could easily have had a much lesser opinion of the show. Indeed, their aforementioned cover of "Crazy on You" highlighted all of this--the singing prowess, the dancing, the rock stardom, and, if you'll allow me to project here, the ability to hold rapt the eyes of every male in the room--to the fullest effect possible. Alternating verses and choruses, their performances, which were supplemented by a tight arrangement on the part of the rest of the band, evoked memories of the greatest guitar face-offs (Lynyrd Skynyrd, Clapton and Allman, Petrucci and Satriani). It's a rare breed of "indie rocker" that can hit the Wilson sisters' highest notes.

Rare, indeed.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Shorter Politico: MLK Jr. Was A Positive Figure, Critics Say Otherwise

Constantly-awful Politico has a piece today that displays, to full effect, the horrible results of practicing deliberately contrarian journalism and giving voices to opinions that don't deserve them.


"Critics say the Obamas are pushing a 'nanny state on steroids.'"

Now, there is a credible argument to be made against our food and health policies--namely, corn subsidies. But of course that isn't what Politico is doing, since that would require actually knowing something about policy.

So, "the Obamas" are pushing this nanny state? Was this a single-family coup d'etat on the part of this black family, hoping to spread their "pro-health" propaganda across the nation? Seems like it clearly was. Look at Michelle! She has the audacity to garden. And My God--Barack isn't toiling over white papers all day, he's playing fucking basketball. On the taxpayer's dime, no less. A disgrace. What good, wholesome, white, Christian, rural, old-school family has time to exercise?

Of course, leaving aside the idiocy of that part of the caption, there's of course the latter half to deal with as well. This "nanny state on steroids"--Politico seems to imply that it's a very widespread, mainstream position, and one that deserves full credibility. Let's dig into the article:

To some, it smacks of a “nanny state on steroids” — but for others who fret that America is turning into one big Overeaters Anonymous meeting, Obama’s prescription is like a low-fat dream come true.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

6/8, Webster Hall: Amadou & Mariam, Piers Faccini

"I got, like, a workout."
"Didn't I tell you?"
"So, so awesome."

The comments on the way out said all that needed to be said. Failing that, the constant, permeating haze of pot smoke that showered the room from the opening bongo fill let me know that I was certainly in the right place last night. Undoubtedly one of the best concerts I've ever seen. Maybe the best.

I consider myself a fairly big albeit recently-developed Amadou & Mariam fan. Welcome to Mali was certainly one of my two or three favorite albums of 2008; Dimanche a Bamako is simply a few notches below it; and Wati and Sou Ni Tile are both immensely enjoyable--despite lacking the bombastic production of the former two--and rife with great licks. But having said all that--I wasn't sure what the show would be like. First, would the intense studio work that is responsible for much of the greatness of their latest album carry over poorly into a live setting? Check out "La realite." Without knowing better, intuition would tell you it's hard to replicate that in a small club. Second, would the crowd be into it? Ostensibly, this is one of the danciest bands there is; they're made for moving. But it's also an old African couple, both of who are blind. And frontmanship, for lack of a better term, is important (see Plant, Robert). And this brings me to my last inquiry: who, exactly, would be in the crowd? Amadou & Mariam are from "French Africa," yet they make what is called "world" music, which is ostensibly accessible to the entire globe. Now, despite how big I am on A&M, I didn't think the entire world would be there. But I did think, given that I was in New York City, and the group was African, the crowd would be predominantly African-American. (Not that this fact had me "worried" or any nonsense like that, although it did lead me to recall the time that a friend and I saw the undeniably spectacular cinematic adventure Life as the only white people in a packed theater. You get stares.)

But of course, I forgot about all this until I had been standing in Webster Hall for 25 minutes. First up was Piers Faccini, who seems to be an English singer-songwriter with heavy African themes and overtones. I thoroughly enjoyed him--especially this song, "A Storm Is Going to Come." Very bluesy and straightforward, no frills per se; think of Robert Plant's Raising Sand fused with the guys who Robert Plant ripped off to create Raising Sand. Although, toward the end it became obvious how reliant his--Faccini's--live act was on simple, accessible, and good melodies, as he closed with a clunker and just didn't have the stage presence to make it work.

It was at this point, during the set change, that I surveyed the crowd. My grand hypothesis was patently retarded: Everyone was white. Of course, if I had used a shred of logic in my initial theorizing, I could have come to this conclusion too. Tickets went very quickly, which means they were sold primarily on the internet (pro-white bias); tickets, for GA, weren't cheap (pro-white bias); and the show was located at 11th and 4th (um, yeah). So I began sitting, er, standing, there, mostly in eager anticipation of the show, but also in apprehension about whether the crowd was going to be as raging as it might be if it looked like something other than a Palin rally.

The initial theatrics--flashing lights, some egregious stagehand fuck-ups, more flashing lights, thumping bass drum, and then the grand procession that led the blind Amadou & Mariam to the forefront of the stage--put to rest any concerns about audience energy. Put differently, the place went fucking nuts. And it stayed that way for the next 110 minutes, with only a 90-second break before the encore. The place was jumping like mad--and logically so, because A&M is awesome. My production worries were for naught as well; despite the fact that some like to bag on Webster Hall's acoustics, I'm not sure I've ever heard a better-sounding live act. Drums from the gods, a nonstop wall of synthesizer and keyboard chords, congas and bongos that make your fingers bleed even as a listener, and a guitar--Amadou's--that seems to rival those of Jimmy Page, Mick Taylor, and John Petrucci. And the motherfucker wielding it is blind.

It is truly a difficult task to convey the sonic greatness that is Amadou's guitar. Not only does A&M have a very limited song selection available on youtube, but even the songs I would choose from the album to illustrate my point aren't nearly as awesome in the studio as they are live. Sure, there's some nifty multitracking stuff pulled off on Welcome to Mali that could not be done last night without inviting a veritable guitar fleet onstage as a back-up band, but the sheer skill and inventiveness apparent in the solos more than allayed any issues I had with that. A&M is deemed "world music," but a more apt description might be "African Dream Theater." It's sonic overindulgence turned up to eleven, and man, does it work. There isn't a single bad track on Welcome to Mali--indeed, there are probably no fewer than 10 stellar ones--but again I must reiterate, you haven't heard it until you've heard it like I did last night, amidst a pulsing, sweating, and shrieking crowd and inescapable, unending wafts of pot smoke, all while Amadou, incapable of actually seeing the people whose day--nay, week... fuck it, month--he is making, ripped off solos that had Jimi Hendrix's corpse moving his feet.

Beyond essential. I had an hour to kill after the show so I decided to take a walk. Before I knew it, I had gone 60 blocks on pure musical adrenaline.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Paul Blart: Mall Cop


I'm still wondering how this movie got greenlighted. It's of no societal value. Its best moments are still retarded. It borrows cinematic ideas from 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain. It's socially unacceptable for any human being over the age of 11 to admit they enjoyed it.

And I loved it.

Well, "love" is too strong. This is a film about an obese mall security guard from New Jersey who, in the midst of trying to get the chick that everyone seems to want (and for good reason--Jayma Mays is really cute), encounters a Black Friday from hell where a band of high-tech ninjas try to rob a mall. Something about credit card codes and the Cayman Islands. It's not a gripping plot.

But Paul Blart is still, somehow--let me really stress the "somehow" part; I seriously have no fucking idea why I liked this--a devilishly fun romp. Kevin James is mostly just awesome, and the film is bleeding all over itself with innocence. In the run-up to the release date, it seemed as though this would be another goofball, dirty joke comedy in the typical Adam Sandler vein. But it's really not that at all. It's essentially a family movie. Now, I would draw up a firm set of judgments about any family I saw at Paul Blart on opening weekend--no college degree; cabinet full of SPAM; one child who's at least 240 pounds; McCain voters--but it's still a family movie in the truest sense of the term. It's not raunchy or high-brow (hard to believe, right?), and it's rife with cheap slapstick that sits right, smack dab, front court center in an 10-year-old boy's wheelhouse.

And so I guess I'm 10 years old.

My Bloody Valentine


Imagine if in Scream, the killer had killed Drew Barrymore in a store that made latex Halloween masks, the final "killer-revealed" scene occurred in a store that made latex Halloween masks, 80% of the locals were employed at the store that made latex Halloween masks, and the ongoing subplot of the film was whether or not Neve Campbell was going to sell the store she inherited from her father--the store that made latex Halloween masks.

That is pretty much what happens in My Bloody Valentine. Only the above movie would have looked like Amadeus comparatively.

"Suck" isn't the right word, but it's the first word that comes to mind. The reason it isn't the right word, of course, is that My Bloody Valentine is much, much, much more egregious an act than can be summed up by a mild shrug. "Suck" is like a moving violation. Maybe theft. This movie was a triple rape. It makes Beverly Hills Ninja, The Ruins, Don't Be a Menace and The Ladies Man look like the Criterion Collection. It's an abomination, a violation of every American principle, and a war crime. The only thing that prevents me from erupting into unspeakable rage over it is the fact that the ending makes very, very clear that there will be a sequel, so I will reserve my energy for that time.

But enough about the bad. I loved how:

  • Of course, in the oh-so-standard way that horror movie "chase" scenes operate, women always have unbeatable strength. The same woman that would burst out in tears and demand an ER visit if she tripped off the bottom step or got hit in the chest by a lightly-tossed tennis ball now turns into a blend of Superwoman and Jacqueline Chan, successfully fending off serial killers and using her surroundings (desk, mop, roast beef) to do it. And that, obviously, goes along perfectly with the Golden Rule of horror films: Female protagonists cannot die. Because that would be gay.
  • Early in the film, when the team of miners finally gets down to the scene of the newest murder, the first thing one minor does is check the victim's pulse. Normally, this would be appropriate. However, not 38 seconds earlier, we--everyone watching the screen--just saw the killer chop at the victim's body 40 times with a pickax and remove his heart. So maybe it's a waste of time to check his pulse.
  • The town where everything takes place ostensibly has a population of about 84. It's Bumfuck's veritable epicenter. It's a bunch of miners and a bunch of people that make coffee for the miners. It seems they have a town-specific paper, though it's not clear why, since it doesn't seem that they have any local government (somewhere in the midst of the slew of horrific murders, the mayor might have at least made his presence known). Okay, but back to topic. Pretend you're the head sherriff of this town. And everyone is getting killed, left and right. Am I crazy, or is this generally a spot where state and federal authorities are called in? Why is it always the case that a 3-man Nickelodeon operation is fending off a sprawling, rural village from a crazed murderer? From an efficiency standpoint, it just doesn't make much sense.
  • Small as it may be, the town still has a black person. He is a police officer. He fulfills all the duties of your normal African-American in a teen slasher film: He is somewhat hip, always deferential to his white superior, pegged as a possible suspect multiple times, vindicated in the end, and ultimately really fucking awful at his job. Go Obama.
  • The acting is at an oh-my-god level in My Bloody Valentine. "Bad" doesn't describe it. The supposed hero cop dude seems to fancy himself as the rightful heir to the throne of Freddie Prinze, Jr. The female protagonist is neither good-looking enough, non-vapid enough, or unique enough (yeah, yeah, usage error) to warrant a second glance, let alone praise. She would need the combined powers of Drew Rosenhaus and Ari Gold to even get a role in the sequel. The guy who turns out to be the killer took an... interesting acting route, stylistically speaking. He seemed to think it was appropriate to alternate between his Ryan Phillippe impression and his Darth Vader impression. I did not.
  • There is a scene in the beginning of the movie--trust me, you can't miss it--where a girl is running around naked for 5 minutes, first just because that's apparently what people do when they're bored in flyover country, but then because she's actually trying to evade a very bloody death. (She doesn't succeed.) More to the point, during this scene I remembered that this was touted as My Bloody Valentine 3D, and so I started wondering what this scene would have looked like through 3D goggles. And then I started wondering what the whole movie would have looked like through 3D goggles. And meanwhile, I'm sitting there watching it on a normal screen. Maybe, with the appropriate $1.50 3D goggles available at any 5-and-10, this movie becomes the brilliant lovechild of John Carpenter and Wes Craven. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Probably not. Yeah, not at all.
One of the worst things I've ever seen. I'd advise that you skip it, but then you'd miss it, which, perhaps sadistically, isn't my intended goal.

Gran Torino


I think I was half expecting a rather obvious deus ex machina at the end of Gran Torino. Little Asian kid saves the day, sniping away from the top of a... bell tower somewhere. It did not play out that way, but, to be honest, I was rather pleased with how Eastwood concluded the film--sacrificing himself for the greater good and all that jazz. It's pretty much akin to jumping on a live grenade or driving directly into the trajectory beam of an alien warcraft, but the way it was done here was rather subdued and reserved, and it meshed well with the overall mood of the film.

Gran Torino is carried entirely by two things: Clint Eastwood's previously-accumulated stature, and Sue, his teenage Hmong neighbor. The first is unavoidable; while some of Clint's growls and stares are utterly overwrought, he still is an imposing force on the screen, commanding attention simply by his very presence. Few others could have pulled off this role, if only for the reason that so much of the role's backbone is made up of characteristics external to the film itself. What I mean by that is this: Much of Walt's clout is derived from Eastwood's own cinematic history--first as a no-holds-barred, kick ass cop and cowboy, and then as a brooding, serious, and less violent man of few words in a string of roles ranging from thief to Secret Service agent. So when the flocks of 40-, 50-, and 60-something men drove to see Gran Torino, they were seeking to both relive earlier memories of their own lives (Dirty Harry's one last bang!) and justify other parts (Yeah! Jap, gook, zipperhead! Go! Go! Go!).

The young Asian girl, Sue, really serves to tie everyone together--between the young and the old and between the Asians and the guy who loathes Asians. Her character is constantly forced to put up with crap, be it from her family for inviting Walt around, or from Walt for being Asian, or from black guys for hanging out with a white guy. Her life pretty much sucks, and yet she deals with it admirably at every step, always politely pushing the envelope, like a secretary who just gets screamed at all day and chugs on regardless.

Beyond that, the film was entertaining enough--if only because seeing Clint Eastwood beat a bunch of minorities is entertaining--but not, ultimately, very powerful. It's easy to see why it got shunned from the Oscars; it just doesn't speak to anything bigger. And while I appreciated the middle part of the film, where Eastwood and his newly-discovered Asian apprentice, Thao, co-opt racial slurs as part of some melting-pot-based friendship, a lot of the scenes felt very contrived, a la Crash. I might be totally desensitized to ethnic slurs--something that, perhaps ironically, is the result of growing up among white kids in suburbia--but I can still, generally speaking, appreciate their weight. Gran Torino was probably a World War II vet's dream film, with "gook" and "swampfish" being thrown around a mile a minute, but at times it seemed very forced to my ears. The reason race-obsessed comics like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle can get away with the routines they do is because "nigga" is actually uttered very frequently. It's part of the lexicon. And yet it's still an 800 lb. gorilla in the room for many white people. But 80-year-old Korean War veterans who haven't evolved since the Jim Crow and "Fuck the Japs" eras aren't that common anymore, and those that do exist mostly aren't living amongst a sea of Asian immigrants, ripe for mockery. So Gran Torino just doesn't carry the same realism that successful race-centric depictions or commentaries do. And "go for the gold" moments--where someone says something like "Well, fuck you, you cheap, hook-nosed, raghead-loving Jew boy mick gook!"--are so dissimilar from anything that occurs in reality that it's hard to react normally.

Worth seeing, but not entirely unproblematic.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Brad Stone: I Need An Analyst To Tell Me Whether The Sky Is Blue

This article features a super-duper pet peeve of mine (and one showcased everyday on every page of every newspaper):

To maintain its advantage, Apple must preserve the impression that it is far ahead of rivals when it comes to the capabilities and the “cool” factor of its devices.

“If they start making products people don’t want, and start losing users, then Apple’s strategy will run into problems,” said Benjamin Reitzes, an analyst at Barclays Capital. “If they continue to have an aura where their products are seen as defining the marketplace, they are going to be fine. But that’s going to be the challenge and the opportunity for Apple.”


Mainstream journalists do this all the time. They tap "their guys"--be it a Congressional staffer, Wall Street strategist, media analyst, pollster, whomever--and then quote them giving the most banal and blindingly obvious statements imaginable. Let's say someone is writing an article for The New York Times about Sotomayor's nomination. So they write something like "With nearly 60 votes in the Senate, Sotomayor's confirmation would appear to be a virtual certainty--but some Capitol Hill aides say it would be wrong to assume this. "If a story comes out, where she was found beating a baby with a wrench in an alley, this could pose problems for her confirmation," said a top Republican staffer. Yeah. No fucking shit.

This is exactly what Brad Stone does in the above case. Stone is talking to an analyst at Barclays, and the best line he could get for the front page of the Business section was, essentially, "If Apple starts making things people don't want, then their sales will decrease, and people, like, won't be buying stuff, so that wouldn't be a good strategy--you know, the strategy where they make things that people don't want." Why does Stone need to say this at all, let alone outsource it to some analyst? This is the type of thing that is standard operating procedure in newspapers and on cable news, but very rare on blogs. And blogs have unlimited space, whereas in the newspaper, the word count is decidedly finite. So it would seem to behoove Stone and his fellows if they stopped quoting people saying stuff that any dolt already knows and did some actual reporting instead.

Not Bad, Not Bad

K-Lo shows us the new Newsweek:

Andrew Sullivan: I Only Like Speeches If They're Deeply Christian

I am and always have been of the 20% fact-based/80% conjecture-based opinion that Obama is not really that religious. His entire ascent into the Christosphere seems to have been purely political; indeed, this was one the reasons the Wright controversy made little sense--Obama seems to have attended church, even in his days as a normal citizen, quite infrequently. And of course this goes for many politicians. No major league politicians are self-identifying atheists. And all campaigns are filled with deliberate or inadvertent references to the magic of Jesus. But it seems intuitive, if purely from a numbers perspective, to assert that many of these self-described nonsecularists are, in fact, pretty much meh on the whole religion thing. George W. Bush was obviously living fat in Jesus' pocket. But Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan all seemed to be wielding religion more or less for political ends. The same goes, I believe, for Obama.

Andrew Sullivan thinks otherwise. In fact, one of the reason he claims to like the current president is because Obama embodies "real Christianity," and not the Bush-Cheney abomination of it. Indeed, Sullivan has taken it upon himself to redefine modern Christianity through Obama's speeches.

In response to last year's race speech:

But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime.
In response to this year's Notre Dame speech:

I found his Notre Dame commencement speech deeply Christian.

In response to yesterday's Cairo speech:

It was a deeply Christian - and not Christianist - address; seeking to lead by example and patience rather than seeking to impose from certainty[...]

I think the sooner we get away from describing anything and everything in religious terms, the better off everyone will be.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Humpty Dumpty

  • SCOTUSblog has been invaluable in the week since the Sotomayor nomination, and this post on the actual politics of the choice and the coming confirmation battle is worth reading. Though I must wonder, perhaps in insanely retarded fashion, as I've been wont to do--why has the press been asking Jeff Sessions if Republicans are going to mount a filibuster? I know Sotomayor needs one Republican vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to come to a full up-or-down vote on the main floor, but I just don't even see any reality in which Republicans could filibuster her appointment. Even assuming Franken isn't seated by the time of confirmation (which is a huge if), Sessions still needs all 40 Republicans in the Senate to vote for a filibuster. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, sitting pretty in a state where Obama raped face, are going to actually vote for that? Laugh.
  • This is a nice, lengthy case study on health care in The New Yorker by Atul Gawande.
  • Harlem Shakes, "Strictly Game"--Catchy song, but the rest of the album, Technicolor Health, is even better. Seeing them in July; they seem to be relatively "light," a la Vampire Weekend, but nevertheless very apt at what they do.
  • Handsome Furs, "Evangeline"--Proving Spencer Krug's hypothesis that Wolf Parade is a breeding ground for pervasive, all-encompassing awesomeness, Dan Boeckner created something really special with this year's Face Control. Also seeing them in July.
  • A Michael Crowley piece worth reading in The New Republic about the trials and tribulations confronting those tasked with actually closing Guantanamo.
  • I just read Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine, about the Rehnquist court, principally focused on the 11 years between 1994 and 2005 in which no new justice was appointed. It was pretty good, for fairly light reading. The apportionment of pages given to each judge reveals just how difficult it must have been to squeeze factoids out of Clarence Thomas--it's almost as if the court has eight justices and Scalia's votes count double.
  • Okay, this has been pissing me off. I saw a sign today on someone's fence saying "Please close, por favor." The family living there is white, as is everyone in the neighborhood. It was clear they had Hispanics doing some landscaping, painting, or what have you. Moreover, I've seen this before. On blackboards in elementary school, when teachers didn't want their work erased by the janitors overnight, they'd often right "No erase, por favor," or something in that vein. My question is: What the fuck? Every single American person who isn't on a permanent feeding tube or living in a glass bubble knows what "por favor" means. And most of them have not taken organized Spanish classes. Who are these Mexican guys who live in America and don't know "please"? Presumably this is just the result of some hybrid blend of white guilt and over-the-top, politically-correct foolishness on the part of yuppie suburbanites, but any actual effort put into looking at this issue would reveal that translating "please" into Spanish is unnecessary. And if it's not unnecessary, then there are far larger problems looming than whether the gate is left open or someone's geometry proof is erased. I'm no Tom Tancredo, and the idea of a national language is just retarded, but come on...
  • I'll recommend another Michael Crowley piece, this time from New York Magazine, on Janette Sadik-Khan, NYC's Transportation Commissioner, and her efforts to erase the stain of Robert Moses on the city's huge transit and traffic problems by closing down Broadway to automobiles and doing some other cool shit. Having walked up around Times and Herald Square a few times recently, I must say these seem to be pretty cool from a pedestrian's perspective. Although some of the arguments presented--namely, that about making Times Square safer for walkers--seem to be stretching it. Anyone getting hit by a car in Times Square deserves prime retail space on that year's Darwin Awards.
  • I also just read David McCullough's The Great Bridge, about the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. Fairly epic. Very interesting, I found, was the degree to which actual corruption (Tweed-related) and merely the aura of corruption surrounded the bridge nearly the entire time it was being constructed. But obviously the real eyeopener in this book is the methods Roebling (the bridge's chief engineer) used to sink the caissons, which hold up each bridge tower, into the depths of the East River. And to think they did this 140 years ago! Indeed, the most architecturally impressive aspect of the bridge is the part that's underwater and that virtually nobody knows about. Kind've a fucked-up legacy, when you think about it.
  • Sunset Rubdown's new album, Dragonslayer, is absolutely amazing. Best to date for them for sure, and certainly one of my favorites of the year thus far--in a year that has seen It's Blitz, Fantasies, Veckatimest, Checkmate Savage, My Maudlin Career, and, yes, Relapse. Spencer Krug is god; every song on the album is just a massive cannonball being pushed out the window of a penthouse suite and absolutely refusing to ever reach terminal velocity.