Zombie Final - because MSWord is being dumb...

This is a speech I made about zombie films in my Art Criticism class I just took for the summer:


Anyone who is a seasoned horror film connoisseur, or has seen a new movie in American in the past ten years knows what a zombie movie is - the world has been suddenly and completely terrorized by a viral-induced epidemic of mindless, blood-thirsty automatons and humanity is near the point of extinction. Certain rules apply to the situation: Always stay close to the rest of your friends. "Don't bury dead, first shoot in head." And as always, try to avoid any fluid-exchange with the walking dead, as time and time again, the result is cannibalism of the lowest flattery. These rules are seemingly universal in zombie movies - which have spanned close to a century now, close to the introduction of moving film itself, and have appeared in countries all over the world. However, as the genre sets itself up to become repetitive and stale after the first few apocalypses, filmmakers have found alternative ways to breathe fresh air into the (literally) dead concept. In effect, the zombie genre has become a frame within which filmmakers have applied their own ideas. My personal interest in the genre has been with what American zombie movies have offered conceptually, and otherwise, compared to films made in other countries.

Zombie movies in America have always been rife with symbolism. Aside from the obvious impending doom inherent within the plots of these movies, we can observe different factors and different characters that convey different things. In George A Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, the main non-zombie characters are forced to take refuge in a modern-day (1978) shopping mall. Soon thousands of zombies begin to make their way into the commercial establishment, walking aimlessly through the stores and foyers. They symbolize the American ideal endless shopping – spending money on trivial objects. Romero illustrates America's materialistic ways in Dawn, but does not cease to use his Dead movies as a vehicle to comment about other social issues in our country.

George Romero is an interesting subject in the history of zombie flicks - he practically invented the genre as it exists today. The year 1968 was a tumultuous and radical time for America, as civil unrest over civil rights brought man, once again, fighting man in the streets. It was also the same year that Romero released Night of the Living Dead. In Night, Romero's violent hordes of zombies replicate the violent hordes of protesters, policemen, and residents caught up in the often public and anarchaic disputes during the Civil Rights era. The main protagonist - a white female - falls under the heroic shelter in the form of a black male, who takes control of the dire situation. Using "minorities" in leading roles that were designed to make the audience sympathize for the characters facilitated Romero's intention to give proverbial power to those who, at the time, had very little. It also offers satiric value in that when the world turns to utter chaos, those who will retain the power will be the downtrodden.

Now, it seems that the task of comparing zombie films produced in just the country of the United States to those made in the rest of the world appears to be boastfully America-centric and also incredibly generalizing. Well, I'll agree that it is. However, my argument would be that America was the original breeding ground for the zombie phenomena. As the great spike in number of zombie/horror movies being made occurred in the 70's and early 80's on an international scale, it is important to note that America had seen its first zombie movie in 1932! Aptly titled White Zombie and starring horror legend Bela Lugosi, the plot of the movie centered around a much different notion, and definitely less viscera, then its more contemporary brethren. The plot is set in the "exotic" domain of Haiti, in which the main characters soon experience the local trade of voodoo. The "zombies" in this film are a completely different monster than those that we've all come to know and love in later years - the main difference being that it was possible to bring the zombies back to their original "human" form. If I were to analyze this classic for concept, I would have to say that White Zombie represents the exploitation of America's perception toward different cultures - especially in the sense that this was set in Africa, which at the time, was often portrayed as romantically savage.

As the American portrayal of zombies has often been symbolized and often used as a vehicle for racial commentary, international filmmakers have taken different approaches in the genre. It is practically impossible not to mention Italy, and more specifically the Italian filmmaker Lucio Fulci. Fulci's first foray into the "zombie genre" came in the form of Zombi 2 - what would later be endlessly retitled internationally, and in the U.S., would be simply known as Zombie. Zombi 2 is a perfect example of what Fulci brings to the zombie movie. According to Patricia MacCormack in her essay about Fulci at sensesofcinema.com, Lucio Fulci would become infamous in making horror films "defined by flesh folded in new configurations which simultaneously folds the viewer in a visceral rather than conceptual way." Here is a rather encompassing quote from the same essay:

"In order to evoke the powers of Fulci's best films I must first reconfigure the seemingly given paradigms of cinema. Here I ask the reader to variously rethink or forgo these concepts as necessary for cinematic pleasure. This involves letting go of: narrative as a temporalisation of viewing pleasure which accumulates the past to contextualise the present and lay out an expected future; images as deferrals to meaning, signs to be read or interpreted; characters as integral to plot, both in film in general and horror in particular as that which must be conceptually characterised in order to be meaningfully killed off or destroyed; narrative as intelligible contextualiser of action; exploitation as gratuitously existing for its own sake or to affirm and intensify traditional axes of oppression in society; gore as demeaning or a lesser focus in the impartation of visual expression; pleasure as pleasurable; repulsion as unpleasurable; violence as inherently aggressive; horror as dealing only with notions of returned repression, infantilism or catharsis. I ask the reader... to shift their address from why or what the images mean to how they affect."

In this interpretation, Fulci is painted as less of a writer who uses metaphor and allegory, and more of an artist who uses the camera lense as a means to create pictures. I believe this is a fair assessment; as I've mentioned, 1979's Zombi 2 represents the end to this visual means. The plot of Zombi 2, aside from being a tacked-on unofficial sequel to Romero's Dawn of the Dead (a notably Italian tradition in cinema apparently - where filmmakers will make sequels to movies they were not originally involved with, and given the Italian label of figlia), involves the protagonists traveling to a Pacific island in search of a lost family member - a scientist who, of course, had his surgical gloves elbow deep in zombies. This is pretty much where the plot ends and the visual stimuli begins - eyes are slowly gouged oozing from cranium, intestines ripped from the bowels, and most importantly, zombies fighting sharks. As the lack of symbolism and plot-heavy, twist-induced writing is traded for goraphilic eye masturbation, Zombi 2 is still what it aims to be - creepy as hell. Fulci would go on to make other zombie movies in the same vein - focusing more on environment and immediate reaction to the senses.

Fulci's Italian take on the zombie genre, as I've explained, is more akin to a painting - more about the art of making a zombie film. Is this the European take on the genre - zombies as art? Well another European example of zombie cinema is the more contemporary 1994's Cemetery Man (aka Dellamorte Dellamore) directed by Michele Soavi. The plot revolves around the main character Dellamore, who is a seemingly emotionless caretaker for a cemetery - mainly due to the fact that he must deal with walking corpses on a daily basis, as zombies rise like clockwork. One night, he meets a girl visiting her dead lover, and falls in love. Soon however, she too falls victim to the grasp of death, leaving him to long for his eventual zombie love. Here we have a zombie romance - a product of a postmodern reappropriation to the traditional zombie genre that has been a contemporary concept. This brings me to the 2004 zombie comedy Shaun of the Dead from England directed by Edgar Wright and starring/written by Simon Pegg. In Shaun, the protagonist is lulled by his modern life of the dead-end day job, bar visits, and Playstation. Soon, however, his everyday lifestyle is met with the sudden outbreak of zombies (like any great zombie movie, sudden is the keyword), and he is left with his friends and his wits to fend for his life. The result is very comedic, as time and time again, the general population of modern-day England is juxtaposed next to zombies with shocking similarities (which was met with equal appreciation in the U.S. as the same cultural plights apply). Shaun of the Dead represents a stray from the art-house stylings of major zombie films in Europe in the 70's and 80's into a more crafted storyline.

In Asia, the "zombie genre" is something completely different. Asian filmmaking and general storytelling has always been grounded in tradition and extending the traditions through the passage of information to further generations. In this sense, the "zombie film" is replaced with tales of spirits that come back from the netherworld. Rotting corpses are replaced with re-embodied ghosts who are able to touch and interact with the living world - often with violent and murderous results. Obvious recent examples of such "spirit films" have been the Ringu series and Ju-On, both of which were later exported and re-written to fit American cinema. Another film from Singapore, called The Maid (from 2005), is about a girl from the Philippines who is sent to work as a maid for a family. It is the seventh month, which is the month in which the gates of hell are open, and citizens must make daily offerings to the spirits in order to not get murdered. This tradition is what appeases the dead and prevents them from appearing in the physical form, in leu of the zombified counterpart.

In conclusion, I feel that zombie films in America fulfill a certain amount of conceptual value that most American filmmakers have been programmed by Hollywood to incorporate into their films. This has been achieved with various results within Hollywood, with the obvious example of the new Indian Jones movie as the end of the spectrum. However, with the films of George A. Romero, as I feel he is practically the master of zombie cinema in the U.S., the zombie genre has been brought from a cliche, to what is considered these days as a valid outlet for artistic expression - in writing and in film. As history has shown, the zombie genre has been replicated to fit into other cultures. But, I feel that as a social commentary, the zombie movie is best suited in the USA, where our daily routine of television, fast food consumption, and 9 to 5 work ethic is the cosmic force that continues to walk the earth mindlessly.


Biblio:
Patricia MacCormack, "Lucio Fucli", http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/04/fulci.html

King of Kong!

In today's America, where more and more it is becoming cool to be liberal or just indifferent, I find it hard to distinguish what is "good" and what is "evil" (obvious George W. Bush nodding aside). Gone are the days in which the evil ruler has kidnapped the maiden and it has fallen in the hands of the daring hero to rescue her - the symbol of purity in a time of otherwise impure entities. Gone is the romanticism of the uncharted times and in its place we find the tediously gray minutia of our 9 to 5's in our cubicle systems. Oh how much we have progressed...

That is how I felt, until I saw Seth Gordon's 2007 documentary
The King of Kong.

I am a self-professed avid documentary seeker and watcher - I love them, especially if they are about something odd or something that I am interested in. The King of Kong fulfills both of these requirements, as it tells the story of two guys who share a passion for video games - old school video games specifically. They also share the passion to be THE BEST.

Steve Wiebe (pictured above) is a middle school science teacher who, after tragically being let off by his former employer, Boeing, picked up the hobby that many nerdy 30-40 somethings and nerdy Nintendo freaks have come to know and love as DONKEY KONG. The movie tells Wiebe's story in a way that makes him seem as if the world had left him in the cold, time after time after unforgiving time. It also made light to the fact that Wiebe was something of a savant, as all through his life, he had excelled abnormally at anything he was involved with - basketball, drumming, science...How has the world been so inaccessible to someone who seemed destined to succeed? Well, sure enough, where the "real world" had left him high and dry, the gamer world had suddenly gained interest, as it seemed Steve Wiebe was about to do what many believed impossible - beat the all-time high score on Donkey Kong with a score of 1,000,000.

Everything seemed to be looking up for Steve, that is until a dark force peered its head from the gaming underworld.

Billy Mitchell (whose name alone was enough to set him up for life to be a child icon, or a character from Leave It To Beaver) was a sort of video game "superstar" in the 80's. At the age of sixteen, Billy (pictured below) was featured in LIFE magazine as part of a "greatest gamers" article, as he was the holder of the top score for Centipede - another equally legendary arcade game. Since then, he has devoted his life to eagerly and unapologetically becoming the center of attention at his pursuits - namely arcade games. In the documentary, Mitchell, who has now become the owner and operator of the Rickey's World Famous Restaurant chain and, respectively, Rickey's World Famous Sauces, is portrayed as, for lack of a better word, a complete jackass. This wasn't hard to do on the filmmakers' part, as it is apparent from Billy's own dialogue, as well as his unrelenting self-promotion and incredible sneaky and calculating planning to do so (seriously, I didn't think people like this exists outside of fiction). The movie also makes you believe Billy Mitchell has figured that being an ass and being famous for it is a lot better than feeling normal, conscience-driven emotion and living in anonymity. Anyway, at the time of the documentary, Mitchell has learned of Wiebe's achievement and the apparent fame he had started to garnish (mainly within the fanboy, internet-surfing, D&D in your mother's basement crowd) and with a proverbial "Hell no!", sets out to show the world (of nerds) that he is the superior nerd-specimen - with a means that is just inexplicably evil in nature.

The film, aside from making a seemingly unimportant subject into a competition to DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE WORLD, being well-edited, and well-written (is this the right term for a documentary?), succeeds, in my opinion more importantly, in another area - it portrays the last outlet in which GOOD is pitted against EVIL in our modern times. What better arena for this timeless clash stemming from the gods, as far back as the apparent creation of humanity, then behind the joystick of an arcade cabinet? I certainly cannot think of one. Even the obvious example of war - our current pitiful meanderings in Iraq and the rest of the middle-eastern to eastern world comes to mind - has lost touch of the struggle of "good vs. evil" - in it's place, the struggle for money and power between corruption vs. corruption.

This film will remain an example of chivalry in an otherwise cold and concrete modern America - a film that I feel will be one of the defining moments of the technological era, along with iPods and talking toilet seats.

Oh Snap! - my review of the Snap Judgments show at the Brooks...

The show currently on display at the Brooks Museum of Art in Memphis is called Snap Judgments, a collection of photographs and digital media with its focus aimed on modern Africa. I personally am rather devoid of background information on the particular artists within the show - their race, gender (for the most part), age, or formal training are all potentially important in such a cultural-centric display, but have not hit my psyche in a way that affects my opinion. What has hit me are the images within - for better and for worse.

Africa, according to these images, is a shitty place - decadent (but not in a romantic way), impoverished, and full of crime and political/social restriction. Portraits show the struggling working class, homeless children sleeping on floors, and generally worn and weathered people. Landscapes are once-grand establishments diminished to crumbling shells, rooftops as homes, streets, factories, and other rustic urban vistas. In this sense, I didn't like this show as an all-encompassing window into "Africa." Where is the rest of the COUNTRY? Why is there only slums in South Africa? And on that note, what was the curator trying to say with these images - that Africa is falling apart, or that it is impressive that these people can wake up every day and not kill themselves?

Interestingly, one artist being shown in Judgments took pictures in the middle east, and played a DVD, on loop, of images of a mid-eastern sacrifice and ritual - set to techno music (?). The other images from this artist were of equal depressive side effect as those from Africa - women cry after a bombing, a family sits at the dinner table with an AK-47 next to the eastern dishes.

Apparently, there was also a section that had images of modern "African fashion." We were kicked out of the museum before I could see what that was all about, but from what I've heard, it was in stark contrast to the rest of the show - very glitsy and Americanized, and less about "Africa."

If I were to describe this show overall, I'd say that the theme was tragedy - that Africa remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and that there was a big art show about it, especially in Memphis.

Viggo Mortensen

We all can't forget the harrowing portrayal of that one guy with the long hair in the indie film series called Lord of the Rings. Or how about that crazy guy in A History of Violence...I mean Eastern Promises? Well folks, its important that you know this actor - his name is Viggo Mortensen. Oh, and guess what - he's an artist.

What kind of art does Viggo do? Well, he takes photographs, he writes music, and he even paints pretty pictures. Yes, he does all of these things! Let me stop the fun right there...

I'd like to talk a little more about his paintings, or really just one painting, but that's all that is necessary to understand how Viggo paints.
Gulf Stream is the title of the painting at the top of these words.

It's beautiful isn't it? Like a nice piece of stationary - oh it's even got little words delicately scribbled on it! I really wonder what it says - thanks internet for another pixellated image of artwork. However, I feel that knowing what the text says wouldn't add very much. In fact I'm willing to bet that it would actually make this painting worse.

I think the oddest thing about Gulf Stream is that I get the feeling he had his 12 year old daughter paint this. I hate to generalize simply because it makes me sound like a jackass, but this painting is little girl art - I've seen it already 8000 times. I mean this painting is the epitome of top-shelf best-sellers at Lady's Home Furnishing Depot - even its very nature is attractive to 40 year old women - beaches, seashells, GULF STREAMS.
Gulf Stream...If it had not been painted in 2002, I would've guessed Viggo jumped aboard the SS Katrina-boat like the rest of America's designers, implementing his sympathy for the battered coast, as well as calculating the placement of a fleur-de-lis upon the canvas.

And why is this shit being praised? Who is interested in these terrible paintings? I'm seriously asking! Is Mortensen getting away with producing these terrycloth washes simply due to his notoriety as an actor? I think so. If this sad fact was not the case, then why are so many women and girls (strangely, east Memphis comes to mind) stuck at home, painting more or less the same paintings with little to no attention from the "art" world?

It's a sad day in America, that the ladder of celebrity also dictates the ladder of bullshit...or are those both the same thing?

Dawn of the Dead:

Media and politics during such a time of rampage
It starts at around the time just before
its not safe to stay and watch whats going on
on your television in America
insanity sets in
first thing that happens – races pitted against each other
the grey race – solid face automotons
de-evolution

the shopping center
lost in instinct – what they used to do
looks like a free lunch
don’t knock it – it’s got its own key
we turn evil
we turn lawless
you’ll probably hear some shooting
slow bunker crawl space
the walls are closing in
the walls are closing in
firm action battle stance arena
no champion
null people
master marksman
this is a rush that’s never been felt by sane folkss
Buddha succombant
Buddha walker
Guns are first

Creeping in through the cracks
The shadows walk but aren’t there
Nonstop
Hands clawing glass
Mortality cutting victim flesh
We’ve really got it made here
Let’s drink some whiskey
Tribal sounds – African chants
Monkeys
Elephant guns – we’re going on a hunt
Are these cannibals? – these creatures cannot be considered humans
After Christmas sale

You’re not just playin with your life – you’re playin with mine
They must be destroyed on sight!
Short nerve
Blunt word
Democracy
Medical anomily
Cloudy grey sky
Blood red dawn
Makumba/Vomit
Take what you want

Damn! - or Why T. REX Rocks So Hard

In my perfect utopian opinion of the world, I find that everyone has, at the very least, a song/album/artist that moves him/her in a way that is undeniable, uninstinctive, unconscious, and unlike anything else. For me, hands down, I have got to say this cosmic force comes in the visage of T REX - one of the most underrated bands from the late 60's through the 70's. Fronted by the genius musical wizard Marc Bolan, and in later inclinations (during the peak of their greatness), the odd yet perfect addition of bongo-player Mickey Finn, T REX is an example of a band whose "maturity" actually yielded successful results. Bolan has also been deemed the father of "glam-rock" (however you'd like to take that label), leading the way for other "glam" rockers as the New York Dolls, or this one guy a couple people know as David Bowie.

So why do I think T REX rocks so hard? Well it's hard to define Rock and Roll especially these days. But, I think that T REX is as close a definition as I can imagine. Go out and BUY Electric Warrior and listen to it on repeat FOREVER. Its songs are what "rock and roll" should be - simple, jamming, licking guitar phonics, throbbing, catchy rhythm - just ridiculously powerful for its apparent economy.

Radiohead - a show 12 years in the making...

It has been about twelve years since the random gift of Radiohead’s The Bends fell upon my ears like a rainy dusk – a somber and powerful experience, until the stop button popped up and I had to flip the tape, SIDE B an even more vicious howling cold of digital psychadelia and beautifully composed guitar physics. I must admit that my then nine year old eardrums had not witnessed ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC that sounded this hard, but with such beautiful and “soft” elements (cue Thom Yorke’s falsetto whine and Johnny Greenwood’s ability to make his undistorted guitar sound like a squelching wood splinter). Ever since then, I’ve been a pretty steadfast Radiohead fan (and I wore the hell out of that tape).

It has been for this reason that I have also wanted to see Radiohead, live in front of my face – surely just as awesome a spectacle as was heard in what I would later find to be a varied, and most importantly, a continually progressive and, dare I say, fresh offering of albums spanning their career ever since The Bends (NOTE: Pablo Honey has its moments, but, to me, fails to fit in with the rest of Radiohead's catalogue, not to mention the unapologetic disregard for this early work by the band in shows and in print). Anyway, I finally had the chance to see them in St. Louis on the 14th - three days after my birthday as I bought tickets as a birthday present to myself. I was also able to record a little over an hour of the show, which was about HALF of the whole show. As you may or may not know about Radiohead live, they tend to play a good bit of music for quite a long time....Hm, makes sense doesn't it?

So, the best way to express my feelings is probably to give a run down of what I saw...

I was surrounded, as expected, by thousands of nerdy, white socialatti ranging from high school dregs to the thirtysomething it's-hip-to-be-square...but-I'm-still-hip-because-I-listen-to-Radiohead-
at-my-cubicle crowd. The venue (of a thousand names), Verizon Wireless Ampitheatre, was a surprise to me, as I would expect Radiohead to choose bigger places to play, rather than what appeared to be a small stage surrounded by a carnival of beer salesmen and funnel cake vendors (what?). My seats, bought from Jesus...I mean eBay, resided in lucky row NN, right at the edge of "right-center." This was cool, as lawn seating is equivalent to watching a show with cataracts in your eye and Seran wrap over your face. Overall, my view of the band was just far enough that I couldn't make out any detail in their faces, but I could still see Thom Yorke flailing about.

Hot off the tail of the infamous In Rainbows, released for "whatever you feel like paying" online back in October of 2007, it was natural that the band would want to "pimp their new shit." So, right at the start, they played two songs off of Rainbows. All I could think was "holy shit it's Radiohead!" Then they pulled out an old-school joint, Airbag, from probably their most recognized album OK Computer. At that point I thought, "Yes! Old and obscure! Can't wait to see what they play next!" Unfortunately, it was mostly more new material from Rainbows. I've been casually browsing other BLOG ENTRIES and reviews of the same show, and most others agree that Radiohead's older (pre-Kid A) material was rather astutely misrepresented, or for the most part, not represented at all.

Don't get me wrong - I think In Rainbows is great, but it's nowhere near what I found in The Bends, OK Computer, or even Kid A and its sister album Amnesiac...Hell, even Hail To The Thief offered more substance! Maybe I am corrupted in the sense that Radiohead has released such monuments in the past that they now seem to overshadow present-day offerings.

Rambling aside, this fact of the show would prove to be tiny, annoying, nagging disappointment number one.

The second qualm I had with the show was the fact that the Jumbotron screens that were installed all over the ampitheatre were not used AT ALL, a fact made clear by the literal message displayed shortly before the performance upon the said screens that said...well, that they were not going to be used. This was obviously due to Thom Yorke and crew's newfound sympathy for the environment, which also explained the LED light-powered projections, and the overpriced T-shirts made from plastic bottles - I know, sounds ridiculous. So, in effect, the only people who actually SAW the show ended up being those lucky fans who sleeplessly stayed up for days endlessly refreshing the Ticketmaster website in order to grab pit tickets - or those of you who paid $500+ on eBay after the fact. Thankfully, I didn't have lawn tickets or else I would've had to have been stoned to have a good time. That being said, my seats, as I've said earlier, were so-so.

Callous bitching aside, and these minor discrepancies aside, it was still a great show. Radiohead, as a band, are a tightly-paced, well-oiled machine - they were ON POINT...maybe a little too on point. Radiohead live admittedly sounds like Radiohead in the studio - I would've liked to see more spontaneity and improvisation, moreso than was offered I think. But hey, I can't complain - at least they didn't suck.

A better review of the St Louis show(?)

Set list taken from this site:

All I Need
Jigsaw Falling Into Place
Airbag
15 Step
Nude
Kid A
Weird Fishes/ Arpeggi
The Gloaming
You & Whose Army?
Idioteque
Faust Arp
Videotape
Everything in Its Right Place
Reckoner
Optimistic
Bangers ‘N Mash (<- I ran out of video space here, unfortunately, and Thom was on drums!!)
Bodysnatchers

Encore:

Exit Music (for a Film)
Myxomatosis
My Iron Lung
There There
Fake Plastic Trees

Second encore:

Pyramid Song
House of Cards/No Surprises (stupid wrong-ass website!)
Paranoid Android

download it all here(!)

Sweeney Todd - Burton's downfall?

I admittedly have a lot of respect for Tim Burton. I feel that he has offered a new and unique aesthetic to the “film industry”, and film history for that matter – a detail I tend to levitate toward when it comes to FILMMAKERS or more specifically, DIRECTORS. Tim Burton has directed what would read as an introduction to modern American cinema, as well as Johnny Depp’s resume. Just to round out my feelings of deep respect for Tim Burton, I have to mention that his first “full-length” feature was a little film that insiders have come to know as PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE – a big adventure indeed. This is like Biggie’s READY TO DIE, or for those of you who aren’t into good music, (something else that was an incredibly accomplished “first” work that I can't think of at the moment). This schoolgirl gushing is what I’d like to think is my inspiration in knowing that a Tim Burton film would yield genius results. A little film called Sweeney Todd, which I have recently had the opportunity to sit through, sadly has made me question such pretenses.

Musicals...hmmm.

That's really all I've got to say about the particular genre - I really don't understand why they still exist. If I wanted to be sang a story, I'd go listen to Trapped In The Closet again like any other god-fearing American. My personal bias aside, I have to admit that I was willing to dismiss the fact that Todd was a musical, solely due to my respect (and expectations) of Tim Burton. On that note, I was also willing to disregard any and all product endorsement spawned from the movie, which meant averting my eyes away from Hot Topic every time I went to the mall. So when I approached the film, I believed that the Burton charm would shine through and deliver at least what I thought would be a new offering to the "musical genre."

Tragically, it seems that Tim Burton has seen too many Nightmare Before Christmas t-shirts, and like the computer from Pi, he became aware of his own (theatrical) being. Sweeney Todd is a reflection of this once-profound director's modern self-awareness, or awareness of how everyone would expect Tim Burton to make a movie. We are presented with an ultra-gothic, ultra-campy version of Victorian England - everything in a sopping wet grey, even Johnny Depp's melancholic cheekbones. Let me ruin it for you - Johnny Depp is the killer. Oh, sorry. He plays the role of Sweeney Todd - the barber who has redefined himself after years wasting away in prison. Todd used to have a lovely Victorian marriage, with wifey and little baby bugger in tow. That is until that guy who plays Trent Reznor in those Harry Potter movies came along and, well, threw him in jail, destroying what was once his entire life - his family. At that point, Todd is pissed, and he wants vengeance - so he sings about it for two hours.

Really, this was all just TOO MUCH for me...or should I say too little? You see, the best thing about Tim Burton's work is that he creates these alternate universes in which reality has a role, but its often just as an extra wandering in the background. Watching films like Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Beetlejuice, you are brought into this world, that seems to be normal, then something comes to pervert our perception. It's like being drunk - everything is skewed and eventually it becomes dizzying. Sweeney Todd lacks this important Burton-view, and replaces it with gothic masturbation fodder. Maybe that is why it won Best Art Direction at the Oscars - it had a strong and consistent aesthetic. Unfortunately, the aesthetic alone is not something that could keep my attention on this movie for two hours. I can't believe I watched the whole thing (cue the alka-seltzer fizzle).

I also feel I must mention that Danny Elfman was, for whatever reason, NOT in charge of scoring this - A TIM BURTON MUSICAL. Good idea.

Anti- Commercials

I love TV – who doesn’t? How I’ve long sat in front of the tube, like a man waiting for a bus that never comes. How it has kept my attention! How I love moving objects and sound, given to me in an easy to swallow 30 minute serving. What a great and marvelous friend my TV is to me! That is until it starts hiccupping consumer diarrhea in my face in the form of COMMERCIALS – the variable raisin in my snow cone.

Commercials suck. They punctuate our favorite shows. They control our daily routine, dictating when you eat, when you sleep, when you go to the bathroom, when you do your homework, when you get on the internet to watch people make asses of themselves. Most importantly, commercials suck because they aim to do one thing – sell you something. Whether it’s vacuum cleaners or car insurance, the evil that has interrupted my Saturday morning cartoons wants me to buy their shit. Hell, these commercials even tell me to buy into NOT buying drugs, and since the late 90’s that has included cigarettes. It’s bad enough that I should be drinking Budweiser to be funny and score hot chicks, and now my TV is saying that certain undesirable things will occur if I “get high”, or incidentally, steal pills from my grandmother. In that regard, I ask those evil makers of American commercials to MAKE UP THEIR MINDS. Unfortunately, that is not my main quarrel with these so-called “anti-“ whatever campaigns.

The main purveyor of the anti-drug commercials in America is ABOVE THE INFLUENCE, the commercial product of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (according to their website, AboveTheInfluence.com, “a program of the Office of National Drug Control Policy”). Their website claims “Our goal is to help you stay above the influence. The more aware you are of the influences around you, the better prepared you will be to stand up to the pressures that keep you down.” Ironically, it seems that they realize that their word is just as valid as, say, the word of a crack dealer when they state, “You might even consider this Web site an influence.” That’s all well and good, AboveTheInfluence, but how do your commercials stand up?

For a while, they hired a four year old to draw a couple cartoons under the instruction that “they look cute dammit!” These cartoons were comprised of a group of Sharpie doodles that told a short story about Anonymous Pot-Smoker and the response he’d get from such invaluable real-world influences as his girlfriend, or his dog, or ALIENS. As you can figure out (or have witnessed if you still watch cable TV) the response is always of disgust, prompting Mr. Smoker’s once loyal entourage to leave his ass on the curb to smoke a blunt by himself. Although this offering from the AboveTheInfluence campaign is so squeaky-clean simple and effectively aimed straight for the elusive K through TWEEN demographic, they all fail where they ought to succeed – us young adult twentysomethings want to roll a doobie and fire up a couple of these ads on the ol’ youTube for an hour and a half. All these commercials are lacking is Bob Marley’s No Woman, No Cry playing in the background.



Recently, the campaign has aimed to make a more psychologically charged caliber of propaganda. The basic equation for these appears to be one awkward pre-teen to 12th grade burnout subject, add a backstory of a night gone too wild (of course when someone brought the weed to the party, those damn kids), and subtract the friendship of one or possibly multiple friends who have witnessed how much of a jackass the subject is when he’s “hopped up on goof balls.” Hmm…does this sound like a familiar story?

Repetitiveness aside, the this-could-happen-to-you scenario only works on those who let the television dress, feed, and bathe them as well, or to put it another way, people who are INFLUENCED by TV (dun dun dun!). Again, I am left with a poignant desire to change the fucking channel, and oddly, go do some crack.

William Basinski - The Disintegration Loops

The Disintegration Loops is a series of albums that Basinski constructed from a number of tapes he had made twenty years prior. All the tracks are essentially ten to twenty minute loops of keyboard chords – all extremely ambient. The detail that makes these unique is the fact that as Basinski was re-recording these tapes that he had found again, they started to literally disintegrate, causing each tape to warp and crackle, changing the sound completely. The result is an eerie soundtrack to decadence.

In order to describe the auditory aesthetics of The Disintegration Loops, one must think of atmospheres. When I hear each album, I feel like I’m traveling, slowly, from earth up to space. Each track feels like different pressures upon my sinuses – endlessly looping. I also feel like I’m being showered by soft neon lights. As I near the end of each atmosphere, the air starts to change – it starts to become harder to breath. This is how each track sounds as the tapes begin to fall apart – like they are struggling to breathe, gasping for air until they finally fade into oblivion.

ouch!

Jay Dilla - The Shining (Instrumentals)

Jay Dilla’s masterpiece of beats entitled The Shining (namely the instrumental version) is in the truest sense hip-hop to its core. Released posthumously, The Shining serves as the pivotal moment in the short-lived career of Detroit-native Dilla in which beatsmithing became the composing of music. The original version of the album includes guest MC’s that include Common, Madlib, Guilty Simpson, Black Thought (from The Roots), Talib Kweli, along with others and boasts a silky blend of rhyming and soul stanzas – definitely a different beast on its own. However, I think that the instrumental version – the strictly Jay Dilla-ness of the album – is a consistently tight soundpiece that exhibits the producer at his peak. One may consider these beats to be too simple, too bare bones, as Dilla has, in fact, composed the collection of beats with very little. Yet, I feel that there is nothing left to add to any of these tracks; Dilla has crafted each piece with his keen (emphasis on ‘keen’) sense of loop selection as well as signature pounding drums to create a complete production of music unheard of in the likes of most facets of hip-hop. At times, it sounds like every element of the track was recorded straight from the source in a studio with a microphone, rather than from samples no doubt ripped from his extensive catalogue of vinyl. I can only describe this morsel of hip-hop mastery in one way – completely raw.

woops!

If you don't feel like breaking the law that much just listen to this and you'll be alright:

5/12/08 - Lecture 1

Outlines for first day:

Paper Due
Readings
Blog Entries

My three favorite Books, Music, and Films - a tough question...
For books:
Survivor - Chuck Palahniuk
Assault With A Deadly Weapon: The Autobiography of a Street Criminal - John Allen
A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
Music:
Jay Dilla - The Shining (Instrumentals)
Notorious B.I.G. - Ready To Die (especially remastered version with extra tracks)
T. Rex - Electric Warrior
(Boards of Canada - Geogaddi & Twoism)
Film:
Toxic Avenger
Pee Wee's Big Adventure
Gummo

death_of_painting

death of painting 4/16/08

About my final...

Well, as I've presented earlier, I have loaded all the clips I felt that I needed to my project. I've also added the ending/crash. The real big issues that I still have with it is the appropriate way to attach my sound files to the code and the ending, which to me still feels unresolved. I originally would have liked to attach sound in the same fashion that I've attached the movie clips - where the user would be able to go back and forth via the navigation bar, frame to frame. However, it seems there is no way to do this in flash. I've tried a handful of different other ways to attach the sound, but none of the solutions seemed to work for me. As it remains, the scenes are still soundless. The ending still has a very weak effect compared to what I originally imagined - I still really don't know how to remedy this. Also, I've shown this piece to a lot of different people, and I've found a couple of things to be consistent - everyone gets stuck at the start screen playing with the hexagon, and everyone sort of loses interest after about the 10th clip. I just would like to work on it more.