2008
Directors/Writers Mark and Jay Duplass
With: Ross Partridge, Steve Zissis, Greta Gerwig and Elise Muller
Seen in theater
So the premise of the movie is that 4 underemployed actors are inspired by a low tech DIY art-house film that they had saw at a film festival. Convinced that they could do much better, they decide that instead of waiting to be cast in a movie that they instead would write and star in their own low budget vehicle.
This cracks me up, because clearly, Baghead is a low budget film identifiably so with its use of digital video cameras and easily accessed settings. It makes me wonder if this film itself was created under the same circumstances with the same goals and objectives.
There are some issues with the characters because no one is quite sure who want to be with whom romantically. Meanwhile, they decide that they would write this film at a vacation cabin in the woods. They go to the cabin and personalities, liquor and perhaps the lack of ambition get in the way of them writing the movie. One of the women has several apparitions in which she sees a man with a bag over his head that seems to be stalking her. With the anger and mistrust that many characters have now, it is not certain if it was really an apparition, one of the characters messing with each other or really a psychotic killer. The film keeps the audience guessing through out the whole thing.
So the film works as a comedy and also as a low key horror movie. It's a lot of fun to watch.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Redacted **
2007
Written and Directed by Brian DePalma
With; Rob Devaney, Izzy Diaz, Patrick Carrol, Ty Jones and Kel O'Neil
Studio; Magnolia
This is a war filmed LOOSELY based on an actual incident in Iraq in which a 15 year old girl was raped and murdered. While watching it, I kind of liked it, but after reading some reviews about it, I saw that reviews were largely mixed and that the majority were negative. Now my main source is The Chicago Reader (See links on this page) and they liked it with reservations. They liked that the film tried to take on a serious and timely subject. I liked it for that reason. I felt it showed both sides of the issue. It showed the Iraqis being abused and hurt and the soldiers' stressful lives that quite often lead to cataclysmic consequences - sometimes accidental and sometimes (as in the case of the rape) not.
So there is a large controversy over this film. Some people say it showed the soldiers in a bad light. But I disagree with that because it did not show all the soldiers in a bad light. Several soldiers tried to stop it and one only relented because a gun was pointed at him by one of the crazy soldiers. Interestingly enough, one soldier was there to video tape it and was therefore an accomplice because he was standing there watching the whole thing. His excuse was that he was there to document it so that the "truth" could come out. This scene represents an interesting and thought provoking idea about the role of the media and their responsibilities. Should media be there as an observer or should media get involved when necessary? This is certainly not a new question, but one that takes on more significance with the war being a current phenomenon.
And then there are the two "monsters". The instigators of the crime. They are portrayed as hideous and unmerciful, but there are enough clues here to show that even they might be victims from the stresses of war. I mean one of them is so crazy that his speech is almost incomprehensible. he also shoots a pregnant woman and her family because their car would not slow down or stop at a checkpoint. The soldier did wait to shoot until the car crossed a certain line. Protocol had been followed, and no one could argue that the soldiers shouldn't protect themselves. Though his attitude about it after wards was racist and disturbing. So the question that comes to mind is was he feeling remorse or was he a monster? The fact that he defended his action, while at the same time slurring the Iraqi people tells me he might have been hiding some guilt under the bravado.
To me, it is also an interesting commentary on American culture. The fact that our culture could allow people like these two thugs to flourish. You know, the macho, kick-ass attitude that men seem to need to have these days or otherwise they will be seen as less than manly. The same culture that makes men take steroids so that they can be bigger and stronger and faster (incidentally, that is a title of a documentary about steroids which came out this year that I strongly recommend). So even these two monsters are shown in a light that is gray and murky. One can not draw draw conclusions about them that are black or white.
The structure of the film is interesting, but many critics did not like it. Maybe I'm too unsophisticated but I liked it. The whole movie was shot from the point of view of different media formats. It was not a straight narrative. A large portion of it was "shot" by a hand held video camera that the soldier had which I previously spoke about. But many different media were also used. Part of the story was told in a faux French documentary with subtitles, in French because the men spoke English of course. There were also news reels and of course the Internet. The criticism was that it was too much and too distracting. But I think that it is directly related to one of the films themes. That the media is implicit in all this and helps drive the events in the war. For instance, in the disturbing scene of the soldier being decapitated, well, that demonstrates the power of the media whether we like it or not.
Some critics also said the acting was awful. Well, again, maybe I'm not too sophisticated and I did not notice it. Now I was not overwhelmed by the acting, but neither did I notice really bad acting. Perhaps they were speaking of the crazy soldier who at times was incomprehensible, but if he was crazy, his incomprehensibility would have been appropriate. Or perhaps maybe some of the actors might have overacted to the horrific events in the film, but there was nothing obvious that I saw.
I did notice the violence before I read any reviews, and DePalma is know for violent films. There's a concept that when artists display violence to show how awful it is, it quite often ends up being just as bad as the real violence it is betraying because it titillates the audience. Sometimes I did think the violence was over the top.
Some critics, many of them your average citizens, thought that this movie should not be shown simply because the soldiers had enough problems and that it would lower moral. I disagree with that completely. The "truth" must be shown (even though remember that this is a fiction). Besides, not everyone in the film were monsters. Some were quite heroic because they were doing what they thought was right under very trying circumstances.
The last criticism against the movie was that it did not have the facts of the case straight. This might be a valid criticism if this was a documentary, but it was a fictional film. DePalma himself said that the lawyers told him that the film had to be different from the real events. It was based on a real event, it was NOT a reenactment of it.
I could not find a trailer, but here is a clip. It's the part where it is supposed to be a French Documentary.
Written and Directed by Brian DePalma
With; Rob Devaney, Izzy Diaz, Patrick Carrol, Ty Jones and Kel O'Neil
Studio; Magnolia
This is a war filmed LOOSELY based on an actual incident in Iraq in which a 15 year old girl was raped and murdered. While watching it, I kind of liked it, but after reading some reviews about it, I saw that reviews were largely mixed and that the majority were negative. Now my main source is The Chicago Reader (See links on this page) and they liked it with reservations. They liked that the film tried to take on a serious and timely subject. I liked it for that reason. I felt it showed both sides of the issue. It showed the Iraqis being abused and hurt and the soldiers' stressful lives that quite often lead to cataclysmic consequences - sometimes accidental and sometimes (as in the case of the rape) not.
So there is a large controversy over this film. Some people say it showed the soldiers in a bad light. But I disagree with that because it did not show all the soldiers in a bad light. Several soldiers tried to stop it and one only relented because a gun was pointed at him by one of the crazy soldiers. Interestingly enough, one soldier was there to video tape it and was therefore an accomplice because he was standing there watching the whole thing. His excuse was that he was there to document it so that the "truth" could come out. This scene represents an interesting and thought provoking idea about the role of the media and their responsibilities. Should media be there as an observer or should media get involved when necessary? This is certainly not a new question, but one that takes on more significance with the war being a current phenomenon.
And then there are the two "monsters". The instigators of the crime. They are portrayed as hideous and unmerciful, but there are enough clues here to show that even they might be victims from the stresses of war. I mean one of them is so crazy that his speech is almost incomprehensible. he also shoots a pregnant woman and her family because their car would not slow down or stop at a checkpoint. The soldier did wait to shoot until the car crossed a certain line. Protocol had been followed, and no one could argue that the soldiers shouldn't protect themselves. Though his attitude about it after wards was racist and disturbing. So the question that comes to mind is was he feeling remorse or was he a monster? The fact that he defended his action, while at the same time slurring the Iraqi people tells me he might have been hiding some guilt under the bravado.
To me, it is also an interesting commentary on American culture. The fact that our culture could allow people like these two thugs to flourish. You know, the macho, kick-ass attitude that men seem to need to have these days or otherwise they will be seen as less than manly. The same culture that makes men take steroids so that they can be bigger and stronger and faster (incidentally, that is a title of a documentary about steroids which came out this year that I strongly recommend). So even these two monsters are shown in a light that is gray and murky. One can not draw draw conclusions about them that are black or white.
The structure of the film is interesting, but many critics did not like it. Maybe I'm too unsophisticated but I liked it. The whole movie was shot from the point of view of different media formats. It was not a straight narrative. A large portion of it was "shot" by a hand held video camera that the soldier had which I previously spoke about. But many different media were also used. Part of the story was told in a faux French documentary with subtitles, in French because the men spoke English of course. There were also news reels and of course the Internet. The criticism was that it was too much and too distracting. But I think that it is directly related to one of the films themes. That the media is implicit in all this and helps drive the events in the war. For instance, in the disturbing scene of the soldier being decapitated, well, that demonstrates the power of the media whether we like it or not.
Some critics also said the acting was awful. Well, again, maybe I'm not too sophisticated and I did not notice it. Now I was not overwhelmed by the acting, but neither did I notice really bad acting. Perhaps they were speaking of the crazy soldier who at times was incomprehensible, but if he was crazy, his incomprehensibility would have been appropriate. Or perhaps maybe some of the actors might have overacted to the horrific events in the film, but there was nothing obvious that I saw.
I did notice the violence before I read any reviews, and DePalma is know for violent films. There's a concept that when artists display violence to show how awful it is, it quite often ends up being just as bad as the real violence it is betraying because it titillates the audience. Sometimes I did think the violence was over the top.
Some critics, many of them your average citizens, thought that this movie should not be shown simply because the soldiers had enough problems and that it would lower moral. I disagree with that completely. The "truth" must be shown (even though remember that this is a fiction). Besides, not everyone in the film were monsters. Some were quite heroic because they were doing what they thought was right under very trying circumstances.
The last criticism against the movie was that it did not have the facts of the case straight. This might be a valid criticism if this was a documentary, but it was a fictional film. DePalma himself said that the lawyers told him that the film had to be different from the real events. It was based on a real event, it was NOT a reenactment of it.
I could not find a trailer, but here is a clip. It's the part where it is supposed to be a French Documentary.
The Brooklyn Follies ***
By Paul Auster
2006
Published by Henry Holt & Company
306 pages
Paul Auster is one of my favorite authors. This book is advertised as his most uplifting book. His other books do have darker subject matter. Not that this book doesn't have dark moments, it most definitely does, but everything turns out OK in the end. Every one is content. Not fabulously rich and famous - but content.
The narrator, Nathan Glass is a 60 year old divorced man, who has been diagnosed with a disease that would kill him in the year. So he moves to his childhood home of Brooklyn and decides to write all the little stories he could think of that happened in his life that, usually, humorously don't turn out quite right - hence Brooklyn FOLLIES. But then life starts to happen to him.
He meets up with his brilliant nephew, Tom, who is not doing as well as hoped and who is down in the dumps working in a used book store. His niece, is a wild and out of control girl who they are constantly worried about and they befriend the owner of the bookstore, Harry, who has a mysterious and shady past. Well Harry has a plan and the narrative takes off from there.
I really enjoyed this book, as I do all Auster's books. His characters are quirky and likable. And like I said previously, the story is pretty positive. I felt myself well up a couple of times, of course I am a sucker for long distance telephone commercials, so my welling up isn't saying much. But ti wasn't sappy. This book came at a good time in my life in which there is a lot of darkness in my life. I have been much more upbeat in the last couple of weeks (though I do have a tendency to enjoy wallowing in my misery). It helped me get to the point where I am ready to continue with my life.
So that last question I need to answer for myself is why is it not a 4 star book - A masterpiece. I am always a little suspicious of literature that is too easy or too light. I am not suggesting that this is a light book, but it is compared to Auster's other work.
2006
Published by Henry Holt & Company
306 pages
Paul Auster is one of my favorite authors. This book is advertised as his most uplifting book. His other books do have darker subject matter. Not that this book doesn't have dark moments, it most definitely does, but everything turns out OK in the end. Every one is content. Not fabulously rich and famous - but content.
The narrator, Nathan Glass is a 60 year old divorced man, who has been diagnosed with a disease that would kill him in the year. So he moves to his childhood home of Brooklyn and decides to write all the little stories he could think of that happened in his life that, usually, humorously don't turn out quite right - hence Brooklyn FOLLIES. But then life starts to happen to him.
He meets up with his brilliant nephew, Tom, who is not doing as well as hoped and who is down in the dumps working in a used book store. His niece, is a wild and out of control girl who they are constantly worried about and they befriend the owner of the bookstore, Harry, who has a mysterious and shady past. Well Harry has a plan and the narrative takes off from there.
I really enjoyed this book, as I do all Auster's books. His characters are quirky and likable. And like I said previously, the story is pretty positive. I felt myself well up a couple of times, of course I am a sucker for long distance telephone commercials, so my welling up isn't saying much. But ti wasn't sappy. This book came at a good time in my life in which there is a lot of darkness in my life. I have been much more upbeat in the last couple of weeks (though I do have a tendency to enjoy wallowing in my misery). It helped me get to the point where I am ready to continue with my life.
So that last question I need to answer for myself is why is it not a 4 star book - A masterpiece. I am always a little suspicious of literature that is too easy or too light. I am not suggesting that this is a light book, but it is compared to Auster's other work.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Best Cds of 2007
This last year has seen a reduction of the quantity of CDs I have bought. I am starting to realize that no one really has time to listen to all this music. In fact the summer of 2007 was the year of The Great Purge in which I sold 40% - 50% of my music. I wish I could say how many CDs I bought this year (I actually do count and compare from year to year) but its been over 7 months since I made that count. I would guess I bought about 80 CDs, which is down from the usual well over 100 CDs per year. With finances being really tight, I expect the number for next year to be even lower. Right now as of August 2008, I have about 40.
Another thing about this year is that I noticed that some of the CDs I have not listened to very much, which means I really don’t have a great idea of what they are about – A general idea but not a great understanding. So I expect that the ranking of the cds will be very loose, especially for the lower ranking CDs. So without any further ado, here is the best of 2007:
1. Beirut – The Flying Club Cup – This guy just doesn’t miss. In my opinion it’s a slight improvement over the last CD. Has a little more French influence, but the Eastern European is still there.
2. Great Lake Swimmers – Ongiara – While a tad on the softer side, there is some beautiful acoustic folk music here.
3. Grinderman – Grinderman – Nick Cave rocking out. I think that this is better than the Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! CD, though many critics disagree with me.
4. Jessie Sykes & The Sweet Hereafter – Like Love & Lust & The Open Halls of the Soul – A little more rocking than her last CD, yet still lush and haunting.
5. The National – The Boxer – Another Solid effort, though I still prefer Alligator.
6. Stax – 50th Anniversary Celebration – Now I’m not a fan of Rhythm and Blues, but the quality of song writing on this CD is unquestionable. If you don’t know what Stax is, thing Motown but hipper.
7. Iron & Wine – The Shepard’s Dog – I like his more recent work because it is a little more rockier.
8. P.J. Harvey – White Chalk – She plays piano instead of guitar. The results are spooky and beautiful.
9. Spoon – Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga – This one is a bit more minimalist than their others, but still some catchy tunes.
10. Monsieur Gainsbourg Revisited – Various Artists – Some nice renditions of classic songs.
11. Bright Eyes – Cassadaga – No new sound really, but there are some really good songs.
12. Chris & Carla – Fly High Brave Dreamers – I have not been able to get into this CD very much, though they are some of my all time favorite performers. I suspect with more listens, this would go up more in the rankings.
13. Bishop Allen & the Broken String - Bishop Allen & the Broken String – My Space Phenom. They release all their songs on My Space and than compiled their best songs for the CD. Great catchy pop songs.
14. Blanche – Little Amber Bottles – A Bit of a disappointment from their debut CD, but there are still some great songs on here. Maybe with some more listens…
15. Joe Henry – Civilian – A solid CD of Americanaish music. Very good song writing.
16. New Model Army – High – Solid Songs from punk Rock/Activist group
17. Andrew Bird – Armchair Apocrypha – While this one is good, I have not been able to get into this one as much as the previous CD. More listens needed?
18. Earlimart – Mentor – Good solid pop music. Kind of drags in second half .
19. Chuck Prophet – Soap and Water – Americana music but slightly more rockin’ than the typical for the genre.
And the bottom of the pile. Still good but perhaps they need more listens.
20. Cafe tacuba - Sino
21. Josh Ritter - The Historical Conquests of...
22. Bryan Ferry - Dylanesque
23. Pylon - Gyrate (rerelease)
24. Karen Ann - Karen Ann
25. Moby Grape - Listen My Friends (rerelease)
Another thing about this year is that I noticed that some of the CDs I have not listened to very much, which means I really don’t have a great idea of what they are about – A general idea but not a great understanding. So I expect that the ranking of the cds will be very loose, especially for the lower ranking CDs. So without any further ado, here is the best of 2007:
1. Beirut – The Flying Club Cup – This guy just doesn’t miss. In my opinion it’s a slight improvement over the last CD. Has a little more French influence, but the Eastern European is still there.
2. Great Lake Swimmers – Ongiara – While a tad on the softer side, there is some beautiful acoustic folk music here.
3. Grinderman – Grinderman – Nick Cave rocking out. I think that this is better than the Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! CD, though many critics disagree with me.
4. Jessie Sykes & The Sweet Hereafter – Like Love & Lust & The Open Halls of the Soul – A little more rocking than her last CD, yet still lush and haunting.
5. The National – The Boxer – Another Solid effort, though I still prefer Alligator.
6. Stax – 50th Anniversary Celebration – Now I’m not a fan of Rhythm and Blues, but the quality of song writing on this CD is unquestionable. If you don’t know what Stax is, thing Motown but hipper.
7. Iron & Wine – The Shepard’s Dog – I like his more recent work because it is a little more rockier.
8. P.J. Harvey – White Chalk – She plays piano instead of guitar. The results are spooky and beautiful.
9. Spoon – Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga – This one is a bit more minimalist than their others, but still some catchy tunes.
10. Monsieur Gainsbourg Revisited – Various Artists – Some nice renditions of classic songs.
11. Bright Eyes – Cassadaga – No new sound really, but there are some really good songs.
12. Chris & Carla – Fly High Brave Dreamers – I have not been able to get into this CD very much, though they are some of my all time favorite performers. I suspect with more listens, this would go up more in the rankings.
13. Bishop Allen & the Broken String - Bishop Allen & the Broken String – My Space Phenom. They release all their songs on My Space and than compiled their best songs for the CD. Great catchy pop songs.
14. Blanche – Little Amber Bottles – A Bit of a disappointment from their debut CD, but there are still some great songs on here. Maybe with some more listens…
15. Joe Henry – Civilian – A solid CD of Americanaish music. Very good song writing.
16. New Model Army – High – Solid Songs from punk Rock/Activist group
17. Andrew Bird – Armchair Apocrypha – While this one is good, I have not been able to get into this one as much as the previous CD. More listens needed?
18. Earlimart – Mentor – Good solid pop music. Kind of drags in second half .
19. Chuck Prophet – Soap and Water – Americana music but slightly more rockin’ than the typical for the genre.
And the bottom of the pile. Still good but perhaps they need more listens.
20. Cafe tacuba - Sino
21. Josh Ritter - The Historical Conquests of...
22. Bryan Ferry - Dylanesque
23. Pylon - Gyrate (rerelease)
24. Karen Ann - Karen Ann
25. Moby Grape - Listen My Friends (rerelease)
Monday, July 28, 2008
Rendition **1/2
2007
Seen on DVD
Screenwriter - Kelley Sane
Director - Gavin Hood
With: Omar Metwally, Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon,
Peter Sarsgaard, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin
This is a mostly well done film about rendition. - the practice of the U.S. government to take suspected terrorists to foreign countries because torture is not permitted in this country. There is some fine acting and some fairly big names.
The film has several story lines. There is a CIA agent who has to oversee the torture and of course there is the Egyptian-American who is being tortured. The agent is a bit"green" and is conflicted by what he sees (as well as the viewer, which I liked about this film). The victim is married to Reese Witherspoon's character, which shows how 'American' he is. Reese Witherspoon tries to find out what is happening, since the suspect is not allowed any phone calls. Apparently, the government has some phone records which show that the suspect's cell had been in contact with a known terrorist. At first he denies any knowledge of the phone calls and claims the information is mistaken. Then under duress, he "confesses". The film keeps the viewer wondering for a relatively long time what the truth of the matter is.
There is another subplot about a young man and his girlfriend. The young man is drawn to the radical Jihadist movement by past tragedy in his life. This line of narrative is criticised by the Reader as being unnecessary, though it does serve to tie in most of the characters. I tend to agree with the Reader, but I did like how this subplot messes with the narrative and ends up being sort of a twist which kept me off guard somewhat.
This is a well done political thriller, with nary a complaint against it. There's not much to say about it really.
Seen on DVD
Screenwriter - Kelley Sane
Director - Gavin Hood
With: Omar Metwally, Jake Gyllenhaal, Reese Witherspoon,
Peter Sarsgaard, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin
This is a mostly well done film about rendition. - the practice of the U.S. government to take suspected terrorists to foreign countries because torture is not permitted in this country. There is some fine acting and some fairly big names.
The film has several story lines. There is a CIA agent who has to oversee the torture and of course there is the Egyptian-American who is being tortured. The agent is a bit"green" and is conflicted by what he sees (as well as the viewer, which I liked about this film). The victim is married to Reese Witherspoon's character, which shows how 'American' he is. Reese Witherspoon tries to find out what is happening, since the suspect is not allowed any phone calls. Apparently, the government has some phone records which show that the suspect's cell had been in contact with a known terrorist. At first he denies any knowledge of the phone calls and claims the information is mistaken. Then under duress, he "confesses". The film keeps the viewer wondering for a relatively long time what the truth of the matter is.
There is another subplot about a young man and his girlfriend. The young man is drawn to the radical Jihadist movement by past tragedy in his life. This line of narrative is criticised by the Reader as being unnecessary, though it does serve to tie in most of the characters. I tend to agree with the Reader, but I did like how this subplot messes with the narrative and ends up being sort of a twist which kept me off guard somewhat.
This is a well done political thriller, with nary a complaint against it. There's not much to say about it really.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I Saw Her from Here / I Saw Here from Her **1/2
Christian Kjellvander
2007 Startracks
Recorded at Mission Hall Studios in Sebbarp Sweden
Performers:
Christian Kjellvander - Vocals, Guitars, piano, banjo
organs, percussion and mellotron.
Andreas Ejnarsson - Bass, backing vocals, piano synths
Per Nordmark - Drums and Percussion
Goran Kajfes - Trumpets
Tias Carlson - Guitar, banjo, backing vocals
Karla - Therese Kjellvander - Vocals, piano, mandolin
Daniel Frank - Guitars and backing vocals
Dan England - pedal steel
Mr. Kjellvander is the artist who made one of my all time favorite CDs, Songs from a Two Room Chapel. It had a slight Americana sound with some great and emotional vocals and an instinct for putting together a great pop hook. It is a near master piece if not a total master piece. So I have been waiting for more of his work to come from Sweden (his home). His next CD was called Faya and while pretty, it is a little too slow. It's more of a folk album. So finally in 2007 comes this one. I was a little reluctant to buy it because I was disappointed by Faya. My first impression was a relief. Some of his characteristic pop sound had come back as well as continuing the mellower folkier stuff. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. But after a few more listen (I try to preview casually a CD at least three times before sitting down seriously to review it) I realized that there were moments that sounded like an out right attempt to get commercial notoriety. He is better known in Sweden than here in the States, so there may be some pressure on him over there to do so.
Poppies and Peonies ***1/2 - This is typical of what I was expecting from him. It's a nice catchy song. It does start with some electronics similar to some of David Kitt's work. There's a nice guitar solo in the center of the piece. It's about love that can not be. At the end he finds a girl that needs him as well as she needs him and they are together like poppies and peonies (Do those two flowers usually go together?)
When the Mourning Comes *** - This starts with a banjo and is more countryish. So there is just the banjo and his voice. Then a little bass and a female backing vocal comes in. And it continues to build with some acoustic guitar. Overall, nicely put together. The lyrics are just another love song, saying that he'll be there. There is a feeling of travel, perhaps to meet his gal or perhaps they are drifting together. "Empathy and sympathy are sisters, are drifters like we." Also, "We can drive until daylight than I'll rest." This traveling might be some kind of metaphor for their relationship, even though he gets tired, "We can drive until daybreak, than I'll rest". He determined to be with her. It's more imagery than a story. A little horn comes in the latter part of the song which is nice.
Somewhere Else *** - It starts with a little acoustic guitar and his voice. It has a somber feeling to it. There is some sonic distortion that gently floats over the voice and the guitar. It's a very pretty and haunting song. The lyrics are darker too. "Too afraid to make mistakes and bleed". The song ends with a statement about death. "And I'm not afraid to die, the misconception swells, / but when I die won't be the first time I wish that I was somewhere else." Hence the title.
Two Souls **1/2 - This is a much more upbeat song. It's all very nice, but it sounds like an attempt at commercialism. But it's also hard to argue with his great voice and his songwriting. It only really annoys me in one short section at the end of the chorus. There are also some nice horns. In the middle there is a short flurry of guitar flash. They seem to be driving in this song - perhaps I smell a motif? His two souls are opposites. On will love her and the other one will cause her hurt. Perhaps the metaphor is too facile.
Bird Black Sky *** - It has a menacing name and it starts off with a menacing droning sound. The vocal is added and stays slow and steady. Then it picks up a little. A promising start.The chorus is much more upbeat with a some choppy piano playing. The drone continues to float across the whole song. This also mentions love but there is a kind of foreboding. "do you hear the bells ring? / Do you feel the sky blackening?"
2007 Startracks
Recorded at Mission Hall Studios in Sebbarp Sweden
Performers:
Christian Kjellvander - Vocals, Guitars, piano, banjo
organs, percussion and mellotron.
Andreas Ejnarsson - Bass, backing vocals, piano synths
Per Nordmark - Drums and Percussion
Goran Kajfes - Trumpets
Tias Carlson - Guitar, banjo, backing vocals
Karla - Therese Kjellvander - Vocals, piano, mandolin
Daniel Frank - Guitars and backing vocals
Dan England - pedal steel
Mr. Kjellvander is the artist who made one of my all time favorite CDs, Songs from a Two Room Chapel. It had a slight Americana sound with some great and emotional vocals and an instinct for putting together a great pop hook. It is a near master piece if not a total master piece. So I have been waiting for more of his work to come from Sweden (his home). His next CD was called Faya and while pretty, it is a little too slow. It's more of a folk album. So finally in 2007 comes this one. I was a little reluctant to buy it because I was disappointed by Faya. My first impression was a relief. Some of his characteristic pop sound had come back as well as continuing the mellower folkier stuff. I thought that this was a step in the right direction. But after a few more listen (I try to preview casually a CD at least three times before sitting down seriously to review it) I realized that there were moments that sounded like an out right attempt to get commercial notoriety. He is better known in Sweden than here in the States, so there may be some pressure on him over there to do so.
Poppies and Peonies ***1/2 - This is typical of what I was expecting from him. It's a nice catchy song. It does start with some electronics similar to some of David Kitt's work. There's a nice guitar solo in the center of the piece. It's about love that can not be. At the end he finds a girl that needs him as well as she needs him and they are together like poppies and peonies (Do those two flowers usually go together?)
When the Mourning Comes *** - This starts with a banjo and is more countryish. So there is just the banjo and his voice. Then a little bass and a female backing vocal comes in. And it continues to build with some acoustic guitar. Overall, nicely put together. The lyrics are just another love song, saying that he'll be there. There is a feeling of travel, perhaps to meet his gal or perhaps they are drifting together. "Empathy and sympathy are sisters, are drifters like we." Also, "We can drive until daylight than I'll rest." This traveling might be some kind of metaphor for their relationship, even though he gets tired, "We can drive until daybreak, than I'll rest". He determined to be with her. It's more imagery than a story. A little horn comes in the latter part of the song which is nice.
Somewhere Else *** - It starts with a little acoustic guitar and his voice. It has a somber feeling to it. There is some sonic distortion that gently floats over the voice and the guitar. It's a very pretty and haunting song. The lyrics are darker too. "Too afraid to make mistakes and bleed". The song ends with a statement about death. "And I'm not afraid to die, the misconception swells, / but when I die won't be the first time I wish that I was somewhere else." Hence the title.
Two Souls **1/2 - This is a much more upbeat song. It's all very nice, but it sounds like an attempt at commercialism. But it's also hard to argue with his great voice and his songwriting. It only really annoys me in one short section at the end of the chorus. There are also some nice horns. In the middle there is a short flurry of guitar flash. They seem to be driving in this song - perhaps I smell a motif? His two souls are opposites. On will love her and the other one will cause her hurt. Perhaps the metaphor is too facile.
Bird Black Sky *** - It has a menacing name and it starts off with a menacing droning sound. The vocal is added and stays slow and steady. Then it picks up a little. A promising start.The chorus is much more upbeat with a some choppy piano playing. The drone continues to float across the whole song. This also mentions love but there is a kind of foreboding. "do you hear the bells ring? / Do you feel the sky blackening?"
Sons of the Coast **1/2 - This also has a slow start. It starts with a guitar and a keyboard. As the song progresses nothing much really happens. It picks up again and then gets softer. I think I like the softer part, which has a real subtle trumpet playing. The chorus is not very interesting, but has some nice female backing vocals. It's a pretty song with some nice touches but a tad ephemeral. The ending has a nice guitar / trumpet interplay, but doesn't last long enough. The song starts talking about evil men. He or they (there appears to be a brother) are not evil but ghosts.
While the Birches Weep ***1/2 - I like the title of the song. A muted tribal drumming starts the song. The voice sings along with the drumming along with some other songs. Some nice strings come in. I'm always a sucker for strings. The lyrics are difficult as usual. There seems to be a death as there are angels "trying to grab a hold of you" and that he buries her in the yard. The song builds up to a nice ending.
The Road ** - This is a more rocking song, and definitely less subtle that other songs. While his vocal stylings are nice to listen to, this is one of those songs that seem to be trying to get commercial interest. It has a more conventional structure. Not a bad song, but nothing special. The song is about being out on the road. Of course that's probably a metaphor. It might have more to do with escaping and living one's life. "It's easy living for today".
No Heaven **1/2 - This starts out slow. It starts out with a keyboard drone and then a struming guitar and vocals. Though slow, its a fairly haunting song. There's some melancholic imagary here: "Keep crying, it cleanses the soul"."'There's no heaven, only new highways and lonely men'".
Need Not Worry **1/2 - It starts with some bird songs and a minimal acoustic guitar and some static. I haven't really mentioned this much, but this is an example of the light electronics being used on the CD. This is another slow one. It's pretty but there in not enough movement for my taste, at least at first. Whoa! The last third of the song has a lambaste of piano and drum that slams through the song. It's a nice touch. Would have liked to see it last longer. The lyrics are quite difficult this time. There's a bird in the Russian winter. "A pocket knife beat in her chest / hearts may race and out pours sadness / As words spilled warm from her breast." So the bird's heart is a pocket knife and and the spilling warm words might be her song or perhaps her blood. Is she dying? The second half seems to be longing for days of youth and innocence. "Back before we became some body's mistress, / back when we were our father's princess."
Closer listenings always make me enjoy the a musical piece more, though I will not change my initial rating of two and a half stars. If I averaged the rankings, the CD would be closer to three stars. But there are moments that are too slow and there are moments when the artist seems to be "selling out", and the songs, while being pretty good for commercial music, are still too weak.
And now for some videos off his best CD - Songs from a Two Room Chapel. Compare them and see if you don't agree to the superiority of the music.
Shalimar the Clown ***
Author - Salman Rushdie
2005 Random House
pages - 398
This is the third book I've read by Rushdie. Previously, I read Fury and Houron and the Sea of Stories. It's interesting, because my conception of what Rushdie is about has continuously changed. First I read Fury. It started out as a modern book with modern problems, characters etc. Then one of the characters had started a doll business in which an entire universe had been created for the doll characters and large portion of the book was spent describing this fantasy world of the dolls. I loved Fury, but that fantastical portion made me rate the book slightly lower. I preferred the profane portions and less so the mythological portions. Houron is one long fairytale so it is pure mythology. So my view of Mr. Rushdie is someone who has love for Indian mythology. He seems most interested in that element of his writing.
This last book, Shalimar the Clown is also a mix of modernism and mythology. He has some American characters setting and behaviors, but in the portion of the book that is set in Kashmir, he spends much time telling the tales of Kashmirian tales and mythology.
So the book is separated in five chapters each main character getting at least one chapter, and one character gets two. It's an interesting way to present the material, though the other characters are certainly included in chapters besides their own, since they do have relationships with each other. There is:
India / Kashmira - She gets two chapters. She's the daughter of The Ambassador Max Ophuls(see below) and Boonyi (also see below).
Boonyi - She's the wife of Shalimar and the mistress of Max Ophuls.
Shalimar - The husband of Boonyi and the assassin of Max Ophuls.
Max Ophuls - Father to India / Kashmira
And yes it is a little complicated so at this point I should summarize the events in the story.
It starts out with the death of Max Ophuls who is assasined, and India, his daughter, witnesses it. So most of the story is told in the past. Then Rushdie talks about Boonyi and her lover/husband Shalimar back in Kashmir. Their village's main source of income is acting, so there is lots of opportunities for Rushdie to tell old folktales since the village performs these tales. I should say at this point that because ALL the myths and stories are completely foreign to me (Literally and figuratively) they tend to be hard to follow.
Then we find out Max's tale. He is a survivor of Nazi occupied France and eventually becomes Ambassador for the United States. On one of his diplomatic trips, he visits Kashmir and becomes smitten with Boonyi (he is married at this time). Boonyi has dreams of escaping her provincial town even though she is married to Shalimar and leaves her village to become Max's mistress. She gets pregnant and has Kasmira /India. Ophuls and his wife dispose of her and take her baby whose father is Max. Boonyi goes back to her village disgraced and she is considered dead to everyone.
Shalimar, Boonyi's husband is outraged. He avenges to kill her, but before that can happen, he learns to become an assassin by fighting with the Muslim militia during the conflict in Kashmir. A large section of this book does talk about the conflict in Kashmir. I don't think Rushdie ever takes sides. If he does, then it's with the people of Kashmir. He tells of atrocities on the Indian side, who are supposedly protecting the Kashmir people and atrocities of the Muslim side, who are backed by Pakistan. The people of Kashmir are both Muslim and Hindi (not sure of that) and they have always been able to live in peace. But during the confrontation, they begin to take sides. This section also gets a little complicated and hard to follow, but I was able to glean some basic knowledge about the situation there.
The last section of the book takes place after the killing of Ophuls. It's basically how India / Kashmira deals with her fathers death.
I think I have already mentioned some of the problems I had with this book. I say "I" because perhaps they may not be not problems for anyone else but me. The large quantities of folklore as well as some of the discussion about the conflict in Kashmir were too frequently incomprehensible. Now I like history, so normally a discussion about Kashmir would be interesting. But this history is told in a more unorganized and haphazard way. I'm not saying that's bad because this is fiction and it is not a history book. I would expect that it is more effective, in the author's opinion, to give the information when it is necessary to forward or relate it to the plot. But over all, I enjoyed this book immensely.
2005 Random House
pages - 398
This is the third book I've read by Rushdie. Previously, I read Fury and Houron and the Sea of Stories. It's interesting, because my conception of what Rushdie is about has continuously changed. First I read Fury. It started out as a modern book with modern problems, characters etc. Then one of the characters had started a doll business in which an entire universe had been created for the doll characters and large portion of the book was spent describing this fantasy world of the dolls. I loved Fury, but that fantastical portion made me rate the book slightly lower. I preferred the profane portions and less so the mythological portions. Houron is one long fairytale so it is pure mythology. So my view of Mr. Rushdie is someone who has love for Indian mythology. He seems most interested in that element of his writing.
This last book, Shalimar the Clown is also a mix of modernism and mythology. He has some American characters setting and behaviors, but in the portion of the book that is set in Kashmir, he spends much time telling the tales of Kashmirian tales and mythology.
So the book is separated in five chapters each main character getting at least one chapter, and one character gets two. It's an interesting way to present the material, though the other characters are certainly included in chapters besides their own, since they do have relationships with each other. There is:
India / Kashmira - She gets two chapters. She's the daughter of The Ambassador Max Ophuls(see below) and Boonyi (also see below).
Boonyi - She's the wife of Shalimar and the mistress of Max Ophuls.
Shalimar - The husband of Boonyi and the assassin of Max Ophuls.
Max Ophuls - Father to India / Kashmira
And yes it is a little complicated so at this point I should summarize the events in the story.
It starts out with the death of Max Ophuls who is assasined, and India, his daughter, witnesses it. So most of the story is told in the past. Then Rushdie talks about Boonyi and her lover/husband Shalimar back in Kashmir. Their village's main source of income is acting, so there is lots of opportunities for Rushdie to tell old folktales since the village performs these tales. I should say at this point that because ALL the myths and stories are completely foreign to me (Literally and figuratively) they tend to be hard to follow.
Then we find out Max's tale. He is a survivor of Nazi occupied France and eventually becomes Ambassador for the United States. On one of his diplomatic trips, he visits Kashmir and becomes smitten with Boonyi (he is married at this time). Boonyi has dreams of escaping her provincial town even though she is married to Shalimar and leaves her village to become Max's mistress. She gets pregnant and has Kasmira /India. Ophuls and his wife dispose of her and take her baby whose father is Max. Boonyi goes back to her village disgraced and she is considered dead to everyone.
Shalimar, Boonyi's husband is outraged. He avenges to kill her, but before that can happen, he learns to become an assassin by fighting with the Muslim militia during the conflict in Kashmir. A large section of this book does talk about the conflict in Kashmir. I don't think Rushdie ever takes sides. If he does, then it's with the people of Kashmir. He tells of atrocities on the Indian side, who are supposedly protecting the Kashmir people and atrocities of the Muslim side, who are backed by Pakistan. The people of Kashmir are both Muslim and Hindi (not sure of that) and they have always been able to live in peace. But during the confrontation, they begin to take sides. This section also gets a little complicated and hard to follow, but I was able to glean some basic knowledge about the situation there.
The last section of the book takes place after the killing of Ophuls. It's basically how India / Kashmira deals with her fathers death.
I think I have already mentioned some of the problems I had with this book. I say "I" because perhaps they may not be not problems for anyone else but me. The large quantities of folklore as well as some of the discussion about the conflict in Kashmir were too frequently incomprehensible. Now I like history, so normally a discussion about Kashmir would be interesting. But this history is told in a more unorganized and haphazard way. I'm not saying that's bad because this is fiction and it is not a history book. I would expect that it is more effective, in the author's opinion, to give the information when it is necessary to forward or relate it to the plot. But over all, I enjoyed this book immensely.
Thank You for Smoking ***
Seen on DVD
Based on Christopher Buckley's 1994 novel.
Adapted screenplay and director - Jason Reitman
With: Aaron Eckhart, Katie Holmes, Robert Duvall, Rob Lowe, William H. Macy
Sam Elliott, Maria Bello, David Koechner
This is a fairly old film (sorry, the date is not accessible at the moment), so it's no surprise to anyone who might be reading this that it is a good film. This is not new news!
It's not laugh out loud funny, but I could not contain my smirking and grinning through out the whole time. Basically, it's about a fast talking representative for the tobacco industry and the absurd and outrageous thing he says and gets away with.
Well, he has a son, who he takes under his wings and teaches him the trade so to speak. (interesting enough, in an interview on this same DVD, the son plays a much more minor role in the book. It's a Hollywood addition.) Having a son gets at the conscious of Eckhart's character (the spin man) but in ways that might be unexpected. I liked that, because it doesn't follow the audiences expectations. You would expect that Eckhart's character would come around and see the evil of his ways. That doesn't happen - exactly.
In Eckhart's defense of the tobacco industry, I was expecting something so tongue in cheek, that the opposite of what Eckhart said would be the lesson for the audience. But it's not so cut and dry. Definitely, that happens, but there are also some pretty sincere arguments for what he is doing and why - not too many, but it's not a pure lambaste on the tobacco industry.
So to anyone who is reading this, I know that you probably already heard all the buzz on this film when it originally came out. This writing will just be a friendly reminder to go see it if you haven't had a chance. It's by the same director as Juno, so it would be interesting to compare.
Based on Christopher Buckley's 1994 novel.
Adapted screenplay and director - Jason Reitman
With: Aaron Eckhart, Katie Holmes, Robert Duvall, Rob Lowe, William H. Macy
Sam Elliott, Maria Bello, David Koechner
This is a fairly old film (sorry, the date is not accessible at the moment), so it's no surprise to anyone who might be reading this that it is a good film. This is not new news!
It's not laugh out loud funny, but I could not contain my smirking and grinning through out the whole time. Basically, it's about a fast talking representative for the tobacco industry and the absurd and outrageous thing he says and gets away with.
Well, he has a son, who he takes under his wings and teaches him the trade so to speak. (interesting enough, in an interview on this same DVD, the son plays a much more minor role in the book. It's a Hollywood addition.) Having a son gets at the conscious of Eckhart's character (the spin man) but in ways that might be unexpected. I liked that, because it doesn't follow the audiences expectations. You would expect that Eckhart's character would come around and see the evil of his ways. That doesn't happen - exactly.
In Eckhart's defense of the tobacco industry, I was expecting something so tongue in cheek, that the opposite of what Eckhart said would be the lesson for the audience. But it's not so cut and dry. Definitely, that happens, but there are also some pretty sincere arguments for what he is doing and why - not too many, but it's not a pure lambaste on the tobacco industry.
So to anyone who is reading this, I know that you probably already heard all the buzz on this film when it originally came out. This writing will just be a friendly reminder to go see it if you haven't had a chance. It's by the same director as Juno, so it would be interesting to compare.
Friday, July 18, 2008
For Emma, Forever Ago ***1/2
Bon Iver
2008 Aprilbase Publishing
Recorded by Justin Vernon in the hunting cabin, Northwest Wisconsin
Label - Jagjaguwar
Justin Vernon - Most sounds on CD except:
John Dehaven - Trumpet on "Forever"
Rudy Pingrey - Trombone on "Forever"
Christy Smith - Drums and sang on "Flume"
This CD has been getting lots of critical acclaim. I listened to it at a listening station before buying it and I said to myself, "Maybe". I wasn't sure because it is a pretty mellow CD. At least the snippets I heard were pretty mellow. The problem with listening to snippets of music is that it is hard to get a good feeling for the music that you would get when listening to the entire piece. I imagine I might have passed up on some great music just because I couldn't engage suffieciently enough in the 30 seconds allotted time per song.
Normally I stay away from the real slow stuff. I kind of like my music to be mid tempo. Not too mellow, but not too rocking. I like a fuller sound with a variety of instruments. I'm not a big fan of a guy and his guitar and I have outgrown the real rocking stuff. But even though this was mellow, it sounded "catchy" enough to not disregard it immediately, and I put it back in the rack for further consideration. The great reviews kept coming in and with coupon in hand, I told myself, "Why Not?" It would make good music to go to sleep by.
Here is the story. Apparently, Justin Vernon, a musician with another group which I can't recall, had broken up with his girlfriend and retreated to his family cabin in Wisconsin. This CD is the result of his pain. While it's mellow, the songs are still catchy enough and there is enough instrumentation, though minimal, to keep my interest. It reminds me of Micah P. Hinson with a higher voice or even of Bonnie "Prince" Billy with his ability to write engaging songs. I am definitely satisfied to have bought it.
I finally figured out how to add music. The videos are nothing - just lisen to the music.
The Songs:
Flume **** - It typically starts out with an acoustic guitar. There are some sounds scattered through out the song that are background and add to the music without being distracting. A little bass drum kicks in. One of the best cuts on the CD. There is an interlude of some noisy sound effects. Not sure why that was put in there, but it is short lived. The lyrics are fairly oblique. There is no story here, but the imagery and language is beautiful. It's about love, it's about his mother, "I am my mother on the wall, with us all". There is a nice alliteration too, "lapping lakes like leery loons". What ever that means.
Lump Sum **1/2 - This starts out wit a little choral piece, almost medieval. Then the the guitar and bass drum kicks in. It has a kind of repetitive, shuffling sound. It is faster paced than the previous song. The lyrics are almost impossible to decipher here also. It starts out with the narrator "selling" some things.
Skinny Love **** - This starts with more acoustic guitar. He sings the lyrics in a interesting catchy way. Then the drum (bass) kicks in. A very catchy start to the song. The chorus is kind of a departure from his other singing. Most of it is sung in his high voice, but the chorus where he sings, "I told you..." is sung with more emotion. It's effective. Skinny love is a love that is not strong. While this one's a little easier to figure out what he's saying, it's still not easy. Seems to be an angry, bitter song - "staring at the sink of blood and crushed veneer". Most probably, it's a song about his breakup.
Wolves (Act I and II)*** - This one starts out slower. Just a slow, acoustic guitar. The vocals are sung in harmony or at least it seems that way. With his high voice it I could be hearing wrong. According to the credits, there is no one else singing on this song. Of course it could be studio magic. The first half of the song stays pretty mellow, but pretty (probably act I). As I write this the pace does start to pick up (probably act II). Lyrically the song is about his pain and blame (I assume his old lover) and the wolves are around her perhaps protecting her, or perhaps she is unaware of how bad the new people around her are. Or at least that what he thinks.
Blindsided ***1/2- Starts with some electronic noises then a rhythmic guitar comes in. The song slows down for a chorus? (not really sure if it is a chorus, but it definitely changes tempo and and has chorus like catchiness. The lyrics seem to refer to his being blindsided (duh) but he also seems to be trying to see what is happening, yet unsuccessfully, so he is blind to what is happening."I crouch like a crow / contrasting the snow / for the agony, I'd rather know / cause blinded I am blindsided". Apparently the evil he knows is better than the evil he does not know as the saying goes. Again a very nice song. Mellow yet one can still tap their toes to it. For all my eclectic tastes in music, basically, I still need something to which I can tap my toes.
Creature Fear *** - This starts with vocals, a kind of 50's "oooh, ooh, ooh" though prettied up and with elongated oohs. Then the song changes to guitar and voice with a little snare drum. Suddenly, the most rocking part comes, briefly. So it looks if this is going to be one of those slow / fast cycle songs. The fast part is probably the catchier part ( I know, I am over using that word). The creature fear seems to be about their relationship.
Team **1/2 - This song is a little harder. I swear I hear some bass, though there are no credits for it. It could be his computer. I even hear an electric guitar. The bass carries the rhythm, and the drums have a kind of marching sound. This is an instrumental except for some whistles. Nice over all.
For Emma**** - This is also a more up beat song, with some horns and apparently a complete drum kit. This song is written as a play with characters.. There's the narrator, him and her. Though it's a very short play - no more than 12 lines. Her seems to be complaining. "Go find another lover...". The instrumental has the horns taking some nice solo parts.
Re:Stacks**** - This is the longest song coming in at about 6:30. It starts with guitar. This is one of those pretty ones. The chorus is quite nice with some rhyming language that he sings quite nicely, "On your back with your racks as you stack your load" He kind of sings it quickly and the 'ck' sounds have a percussive sound.
I had to change my original rating from 3 to 3 1/2 stars. As I listened to it, I realized how beautiful it was. It's not party music. It's music to chill out to, to spend a lazy day with your favorite girl. I think it's earned all the hype it's gotten.
2008 Aprilbase Publishing
Recorded by Justin Vernon in the hunting cabin, Northwest Wisconsin
Label - Jagjaguwar
Justin Vernon - Most sounds on CD except:
John Dehaven - Trumpet on "Forever"
Rudy Pingrey - Trombone on "Forever"
Christy Smith - Drums and sang on "Flume"
This CD has been getting lots of critical acclaim. I listened to it at a listening station before buying it and I said to myself, "Maybe". I wasn't sure because it is a pretty mellow CD. At least the snippets I heard were pretty mellow. The problem with listening to snippets of music is that it is hard to get a good feeling for the music that you would get when listening to the entire piece. I imagine I might have passed up on some great music just because I couldn't engage suffieciently enough in the 30 seconds allotted time per song.
Normally I stay away from the real slow stuff. I kind of like my music to be mid tempo. Not too mellow, but not too rocking. I like a fuller sound with a variety of instruments. I'm not a big fan of a guy and his guitar and I have outgrown the real rocking stuff. But even though this was mellow, it sounded "catchy" enough to not disregard it immediately, and I put it back in the rack for further consideration. The great reviews kept coming in and with coupon in hand, I told myself, "Why Not?" It would make good music to go to sleep by.
Here is the story. Apparently, Justin Vernon, a musician with another group which I can't recall, had broken up with his girlfriend and retreated to his family cabin in Wisconsin. This CD is the result of his pain. While it's mellow, the songs are still catchy enough and there is enough instrumentation, though minimal, to keep my interest. It reminds me of Micah P. Hinson with a higher voice or even of Bonnie "Prince" Billy with his ability to write engaging songs. I am definitely satisfied to have bought it.
I finally figured out how to add music. The videos are nothing - just lisen to the music.
The Songs:
Flume **** - It typically starts out with an acoustic guitar. There are some sounds scattered through out the song that are background and add to the music without being distracting. A little bass drum kicks in. One of the best cuts on the CD. There is an interlude of some noisy sound effects. Not sure why that was put in there, but it is short lived. The lyrics are fairly oblique. There is no story here, but the imagery and language is beautiful. It's about love, it's about his mother, "I am my mother on the wall, with us all". There is a nice alliteration too, "lapping lakes like leery loons". What ever that means.
Lump Sum **1/2 - This starts out wit a little choral piece, almost medieval. Then the the guitar and bass drum kicks in. It has a kind of repetitive, shuffling sound. It is faster paced than the previous song. The lyrics are almost impossible to decipher here also. It starts out with the narrator "selling" some things.
Skinny Love **** - This starts with more acoustic guitar. He sings the lyrics in a interesting catchy way. Then the drum (bass) kicks in. A very catchy start to the song. The chorus is kind of a departure from his other singing. Most of it is sung in his high voice, but the chorus where he sings, "I told you..." is sung with more emotion. It's effective. Skinny love is a love that is not strong. While this one's a little easier to figure out what he's saying, it's still not easy. Seems to be an angry, bitter song - "staring at the sink of blood and crushed veneer". Most probably, it's a song about his breakup.
Wolves (Act I and II)*** - This one starts out slower. Just a slow, acoustic guitar. The vocals are sung in harmony or at least it seems that way. With his high voice it I could be hearing wrong. According to the credits, there is no one else singing on this song. Of course it could be studio magic. The first half of the song stays pretty mellow, but pretty (probably act I). As I write this the pace does start to pick up (probably act II). Lyrically the song is about his pain and blame (I assume his old lover) and the wolves are around her perhaps protecting her, or perhaps she is unaware of how bad the new people around her are. Or at least that what he thinks.
Blindsided ***1/2- Starts with some electronic noises then a rhythmic guitar comes in. The song slows down for a chorus? (not really sure if it is a chorus, but it definitely changes tempo and and has chorus like catchiness. The lyrics seem to refer to his being blindsided (duh) but he also seems to be trying to see what is happening, yet unsuccessfully, so he is blind to what is happening."I crouch like a crow / contrasting the snow / for the agony, I'd rather know / cause blinded I am blindsided". Apparently the evil he knows is better than the evil he does not know as the saying goes. Again a very nice song. Mellow yet one can still tap their toes to it. For all my eclectic tastes in music, basically, I still need something to which I can tap my toes.
Creature Fear *** - This starts with vocals, a kind of 50's "oooh, ooh, ooh" though prettied up and with elongated oohs. Then the song changes to guitar and voice with a little snare drum. Suddenly, the most rocking part comes, briefly. So it looks if this is going to be one of those slow / fast cycle songs. The fast part is probably the catchier part ( I know, I am over using that word). The creature fear seems to be about their relationship.
Team **1/2 - This song is a little harder. I swear I hear some bass, though there are no credits for it. It could be his computer. I even hear an electric guitar. The bass carries the rhythm, and the drums have a kind of marching sound. This is an instrumental except for some whistles. Nice over all.
For Emma**** - This is also a more up beat song, with some horns and apparently a complete drum kit. This song is written as a play with characters.. There's the narrator, him and her. Though it's a very short play - no more than 12 lines. Her seems to be complaining. "Go find another lover...". The instrumental has the horns taking some nice solo parts.
Re:Stacks**** - This is the longest song coming in at about 6:30. It starts with guitar. This is one of those pretty ones. The chorus is quite nice with some rhyming language that he sings quite nicely, "On your back with your racks as you stack your load" He kind of sings it quickly and the 'ck' sounds have a percussive sound.
I had to change my original rating from 3 to 3 1/2 stars. As I listened to it, I realized how beautiful it was. It's not party music. It's music to chill out to, to spend a lazy day with your favorite girl. I think it's earned all the hype it's gotten.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
City of God **
Directors - Katia Lund and Fernando Meirelles
Based on novel by Paulo Lins
Seen on DVD
I was fairly excited at first. The opening of the movie, when they flashed back to the beginning of the gangsters story and their childhood, reminded me a lot of Luis Bunuel's Los olvidados. Except the flashback made it seem more nostalgic and innocent. In Los olvidados, it is not a flashback. The film takes place in contemporary times, though to us it seems a little nostalgic because the film was made so long ago. I think there have been a few gangster movies that start out with the childhood lives of the characters. Once Upon a Time in America is one example I can think of. And that's the thing about this film. It its references would have been more like Los olvidados instead of gangster movies like Scarface, I think it would have been better.
There is a lot of gratuitous violence, which some critic have complained about. What is interesting, and I doubt that the critics had a chance to see it because it is on the DVD, is that there is a documentary about Brazil and the slums of Rio de Janeiro. The documentary supports what the film is showing. There is a culture of poverty and violence that just grows and grows and feeds on itself. The children in this documentary were so hardcore and fearless and obsessed with guns and violence it was scary. They show little remorse for killing and claim they would do it again in a heartbeat. I suppose that it's possible that the children were playing up for the cameras. Besides, they are children, and children like to shock adults.
So, one could argue that the the gratuitous violence is appropriate since it shows a reality. On the other hand, Spike Lee was able to show poverty and violence in Do the Right Thing without resorting to that type of exploitation. Of course his film had a much more positive outlook on life than this one and it wasn't a gangster film.
Oh yeah, the plot. If you haven't figured it out, it's about gangsters and the wars over turf. It does take place in the 1960's and 70's. The main character tries to find a way out by becoming a photographer and documenting these wars.
The story is well told and there are some interesting techniques used in the film. In one montage, the film maker shows with dissolves how a home becomes a drug dealer's home, with the various changes of ownership due to drug wars and casualties. There's lots of jump cutting. which shows the same action repeated sometimes from various angles and sometimes to reemphasize a point in the narrative.
The message is supposed to be about the cycle of violence. When one of the major gangsters gets shot dead, there is a group of kids poised and gloating and ready to take the reins.
Based on novel by Paulo Lins
Seen on DVD
I was fairly excited at first. The opening of the movie, when they flashed back to the beginning of the gangsters story and their childhood, reminded me a lot of Luis Bunuel's Los olvidados. Except the flashback made it seem more nostalgic and innocent. In Los olvidados, it is not a flashback. The film takes place in contemporary times, though to us it seems a little nostalgic because the film was made so long ago. I think there have been a few gangster movies that start out with the childhood lives of the characters. Once Upon a Time in America is one example I can think of. And that's the thing about this film. It its references would have been more like Los olvidados instead of gangster movies like Scarface, I think it would have been better.
There is a lot of gratuitous violence, which some critic have complained about. What is interesting, and I doubt that the critics had a chance to see it because it is on the DVD, is that there is a documentary about Brazil and the slums of Rio de Janeiro. The documentary supports what the film is showing. There is a culture of poverty and violence that just grows and grows and feeds on itself. The children in this documentary were so hardcore and fearless and obsessed with guns and violence it was scary. They show little remorse for killing and claim they would do it again in a heartbeat. I suppose that it's possible that the children were playing up for the cameras. Besides, they are children, and children like to shock adults.
So, one could argue that the the gratuitous violence is appropriate since it shows a reality. On the other hand, Spike Lee was able to show poverty and violence in Do the Right Thing without resorting to that type of exploitation. Of course his film had a much more positive outlook on life than this one and it wasn't a gangster film.
Oh yeah, the plot. If you haven't figured it out, it's about gangsters and the wars over turf. It does take place in the 1960's and 70's. The main character tries to find a way out by becoming a photographer and documenting these wars.
The story is well told and there are some interesting techniques used in the film. In one montage, the film maker shows with dissolves how a home becomes a drug dealer's home, with the various changes of ownership due to drug wars and casualties. There's lots of jump cutting. which shows the same action repeated sometimes from various angles and sometimes to reemphasize a point in the narrative.
The message is supposed to be about the cycle of violence. When one of the major gangsters gets shot dead, there is a group of kids poised and gloating and ready to take the reins.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Hungry Saw ***
Tinderticks
2008 - Beggar's Banquet Records
Recorded 2007 at Le Chien Chanceux, Eastcote and Olympic Studios
Produced by Stuart A. Staples
All Songs by Bug Music
Performers:
Thomas Belhorn - Drums and Percussion
David Boulter - Piano, Organ, percussion and guitar
Terry Edwards - Trumpet, Saxophones and Brass arrangements
Jeanne Fraser - Flute
Caroline Hall - Trombone
Sally Hibbert - Violin
Calina de la Mare - Violin and string arrangements (track 6)
Dan McKinna - Bass guitars and Singing
Andy Nice - Cello and solo cello
Suzannae Osborne - Singing
Louise Peacock - Violin
Julian Siegel - Bass clarinet
Stuart A. Staples - Singing, acoustic guitar and percussion
Lucy Wilkins - Lead violin and string arrangements (track 6,7,9, &13)
Sarah Wilson - Cello
CDs are difficult to write about. I tried once before and I was not able to keep up. First of all, I tried to write about every song and it was time consuming. Secondly, It is really difficult to describe music with words. So, I'll try to be less wordy (and consequently repetitive) when I describe the songs but I will at least try to "rate" each song. For those of you who care, you can go to I-Tunes or whatever and download, what I think are the best songs.
My plan is this. I want to listen to each new CD I buy casually at least 3 times to get a general impression of the CD. Then when I actually write about the CD I will listen to each song as I write it. I may have to change my initial rating which comes from my initial impressions, but I plan to do that before publishing the actual piece. Another thing to keep in mind is that, quite often, the parts don't add up to the whole. For instance, If I rate a CD four stars, that would mean that the large majority of the songs would have to be four stars, which would be very difficult to do. So I am also looking at cohesiveness and that certain je ne sais quoi. (I don't know).
The Hungry Saw seems to have no low spots. All the songs are at least good if not great. On the other hand, I haven't as of yet recognized any great or "masterpiece" songs. There are a handful of cuts that are typical "Tindersticks" songs and there are also some rockier songs, that seem a little more conventional relatively to other work of the band. The drums come in stronger and seem to follow a mostly 4/4 rhythm. I know that there has been some major personnel changes. The only people I recognize (I admit, I haven't paid too much attention to names in the past) are of course Stuart A. Staples and David Boulter. I don't recognize the drummer's name so I assume he is new, hence the rockier sound.
The Songs:
Intro ***1/2 - Usually intros are kind of throw away pieces, but I really like this. It starts off with a very simple and choppy piano and some background noise or static. Then some more piano comes in at a more regular rhythm and the two lines are playing at the same time. Then there is a little bass and other instruments chime in. A spatter of a little xylophone or other similar instrument. It is very beautiful and spooky.
Yesterday's Tomorrows **1/2 - This is kind of a rockier song. The guitar is choppy playing a single chord every half beat. Which is simple, but the texture of the song is complex. It is a complete wall of sound. Some other instruments I can hear are horns, maybe a flute. The drums are keeping time with a 4/4 beat. Not a stand out song, but well done. The ending kinds of builds into a repetitive trancy thing, but still being rocky at the same time. Sheesh - it's hard to write about this stuff. Lyrics are not entirely inspiring. Something to do with the passing of time and getting older.
The Flicker of a Little Girl *** - This has more of a "typical" Tindersticks sound. Not quite as rocky, with a nice strummy acoustic guitar, some horns of course and it sounds like some flute. It almost has a hippyish sixties sound. It's nice and melodic, but the hooks don't hit you over the head. I'm not so sure about those "woo hooo ooo" harmonies I hear, but I can live with it. The lyrics are a little hard to decipher, but the little girl seems to be the narrator's lost youth. "It's so easy to be beautiful when you are young", and it seems to be lost.
Come feel the Sun ***1/2- Starts out with some very beautiful piano and then Staples voice joins in. Then some beautiful violin. Portions of the violin are standout. The lyrics are requesting some one to "come out" and to not wallow in their misery from all the hurt but to "exact revenge". This is a typical Tindersticks song and belongs in the oeuvre of great songs. My only compliant is that it's 2 minutes and 25 seconds. Not long enough!
E-Type **- This does not start out slow, but it is noisier piece. I think I even hear a little distortion (or is my Ipod at the wrong levels?) There are some nice horns ( I think I hear a little saxophone too!) and a little bit of background singing. I want this go somewhere interesting, but except for the horns (which I am always a sucker for) it doesn't go anywhere I want.
2008 - Beggar's Banquet Records
Recorded 2007 at Le Chien Chanceux, Eastcote and Olympic Studios
Produced by Stuart A. Staples
All Songs by Bug Music
Performers:
Thomas Belhorn - Drums and Percussion
David Boulter - Piano, Organ, percussion and guitar
Terry Edwards - Trumpet, Saxophones and Brass arrangements
Jeanne Fraser - Flute
Caroline Hall - Trombone
Sally Hibbert - Violin
Calina de la Mare - Violin and string arrangements (track 6)
Dan McKinna - Bass guitars and Singing
Andy Nice - Cello and solo cello
Suzannae Osborne - Singing
Louise Peacock - Violin
Julian Siegel - Bass clarinet
Stuart A. Staples - Singing, acoustic guitar and percussion
Lucy Wilkins - Lead violin and string arrangements (track 6,7,9, &13)
Sarah Wilson - Cello
CDs are difficult to write about. I tried once before and I was not able to keep up. First of all, I tried to write about every song and it was time consuming. Secondly, It is really difficult to describe music with words. So, I'll try to be less wordy (and consequently repetitive) when I describe the songs but I will at least try to "rate" each song. For those of you who care, you can go to I-Tunes or whatever and download, what I think are the best songs.
My plan is this. I want to listen to each new CD I buy casually at least 3 times to get a general impression of the CD. Then when I actually write about the CD I will listen to each song as I write it. I may have to change my initial rating which comes from my initial impressions, but I plan to do that before publishing the actual piece. Another thing to keep in mind is that, quite often, the parts don't add up to the whole. For instance, If I rate a CD four stars, that would mean that the large majority of the songs would have to be four stars, which would be very difficult to do. So I am also looking at cohesiveness and that certain je ne sais quoi. (I don't know).
The Hungry Saw seems to have no low spots. All the songs are at least good if not great. On the other hand, I haven't as of yet recognized any great or "masterpiece" songs. There are a handful of cuts that are typical "Tindersticks" songs and there are also some rockier songs, that seem a little more conventional relatively to other work of the band. The drums come in stronger and seem to follow a mostly 4/4 rhythm. I know that there has been some major personnel changes. The only people I recognize (I admit, I haven't paid too much attention to names in the past) are of course Stuart A. Staples and David Boulter. I don't recognize the drummer's name so I assume he is new, hence the rockier sound.
The Songs:
Intro ***1/2 - Usually intros are kind of throw away pieces, but I really like this. It starts off with a very simple and choppy piano and some background noise or static. Then some more piano comes in at a more regular rhythm and the two lines are playing at the same time. Then there is a little bass and other instruments chime in. A spatter of a little xylophone or other similar instrument. It is very beautiful and spooky.
Yesterday's Tomorrows **1/2 - This is kind of a rockier song. The guitar is choppy playing a single chord every half beat. Which is simple, but the texture of the song is complex. It is a complete wall of sound. Some other instruments I can hear are horns, maybe a flute. The drums are keeping time with a 4/4 beat. Not a stand out song, but well done. The ending kinds of builds into a repetitive trancy thing, but still being rocky at the same time. Sheesh - it's hard to write about this stuff. Lyrics are not entirely inspiring. Something to do with the passing of time and getting older.
The Flicker of a Little Girl *** - This has more of a "typical" Tindersticks sound. Not quite as rocky, with a nice strummy acoustic guitar, some horns of course and it sounds like some flute. It almost has a hippyish sixties sound. It's nice and melodic, but the hooks don't hit you over the head. I'm not so sure about those "woo hooo ooo" harmonies I hear, but I can live with it. The lyrics are a little hard to decipher, but the little girl seems to be the narrator's lost youth. "It's so easy to be beautiful when you are young", and it seems to be lost.
Come feel the Sun ***1/2- Starts out with some very beautiful piano and then Staples voice joins in. Then some beautiful violin. Portions of the violin are standout. The lyrics are requesting some one to "come out" and to not wallow in their misery from all the hurt but to "exact revenge". This is a typical Tindersticks song and belongs in the oeuvre of great songs. My only compliant is that it's 2 minutes and 25 seconds. Not long enough!
E-Type **- This does not start out slow, but it is noisier piece. I think I even hear a little distortion (or is my Ipod at the wrong levels?) There are some nice horns ( I think I hear a little saxophone too!) and a little bit of background singing. I want this go somewhere interesting, but except for the horns (which I am always a sucker for) it doesn't go anywhere I want.
The Other Side of the World *** - This song starts out calmly with a soft electric guitar, and then a drum rumble/ roll and the strings kick in. I would say a fairly typical song for this group. The song is mid paced, not too mellow, but not too rocking. The lyrics are again fairly oblique, but basically it's a love song. His woman is an island. And there is some sort of reference about escaping this island, though it's not clear if that is what he wants or if he has or not.
The Organist Entertains *** - The first audible instrument is of course the organ. It has a low rumble bass while the clef portion of the organ is lilting and European sounding, like at a bohemian night club. The strings come in to complement the organ.
The Hungry Saw **1/2 - This is the title track. It starts with an electric guitar and a shuffling drum track. It's interesting drumming, but the song is fairly conventional in that there are not many changes in tempo. There is more choral singing, and like the previous song, I'm not sure I like it that much, but I can live with it. The hungry saw is the tool of the devil, and the narrator of the songs blames it for his drug use and promiscuous behavior. The saw gets to you by way of your heart, perhaps implying that the heartbreak you have is caused by the Devil's hungry saw.
Mother Dear **1/2 - Some more organ starts out this song accompanied by a bass drum. It's one of those haunting organs that play long, sad notes. The song stays pretty mellow. but a discordant electric guitar slashes though the layer of sound every once in a while. Midway through the song the electric guitar becomes more prominent for a short solo.The last minute changes tempo a little and we get some strings. The lyrics are almost indecipherable. Something about love and cradles and protection, "...and reached out and pulled you near and would catch you from any fall". Though it's not clear if the mother is doing the protecting or needs the protecting. After all there is a "wolf that escaped from your dreams". The "you" in this case is the mother since this song is addressed to the mother.
Boobar Come Back to Me **1/2 - This starts with an acoustic guitar and some tambourine playing. The song is fairly consistent with not great changes of pace. It is a song that does builds. I can't really figure out who Boobar is. I have the feeling that it is his muse. He wants it to come back to him, and the lack of muse makes it painful, though he acknowledges that maybe the muse is feeling pain and that's why the muse won't come back. Perhaps it was that time that they "sold themselves out".
All the Love **** - An acoustic guitar and a triangle starts this song out pretty softly. When the vocals start, it's clear that this song fits into the Tinderstick's profile. Staples has his usual mumbly singing style. The background singer I like better than previous attempts. Most likely because it's a woman and it's very pretty. The lyrics are pretty much a statement of love - a love song. There is really no story here. It is very poetic. the metaphors are not cliche. A little cello is played about midway through the song. A beautiful song. One of the highlights of the CD.
The Turns We Took **** This starts with electric guitar and strings. Fairly conventional drumming/rhythm but I like how it starts. This is the last song and the song is about the long hard journey that has taken us to where we are now. Musically, the song starts to build a little (it didn't start out slow so there is not much room to build). Another highlight of the CD
While typing this up, I noticed some patterns. The first is that the lyrics are fairly oblique and difficult to understand. As far as I know, this is the only CD in which the band actually published the lyrics. On other CDs/albums, fans have notoriously played the game of "What did he say?" The lyrics are not stories so much as images and tend to be more poetic. I have never been to good at deciphering poetry. Perhaps I am too impatient. But I did kind of enjoy figuring out what they meant in the 2 or 3 minutes I had while listening to the song.
I also tended to start out describing each song with the instruments I heard at first. Obviously I would not be able to continue that through the whole song and that would be boring. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the music might sound like. Knowing what instruments are involved might help.
Last words: I really like this CD. But I like all of their CDs, so that's not a surprise. Will I change my initial rating? No - I think I will stick with my original rating. The ratings of the individual songs more or less average out to the rating i put at top. I know earlier I said that there were some immeasurable factors that go into deciding what is a great piece of art, and this CD has some of those factors, but those factors are not strong enough to raise the total rating of the piece.
On Chesil Beach **
Author - Ian McEwan
2007 - Nan A. Talese / Doubleday / Random House
pages - 203
Ian McEwan is one of my favorite authors. This is the 5th book I've read by him. While I don't consider him to be a master (meaning he creates masterpieces), I do think he is very good and always a solid enjoyable read. Of what I have read so far, Atonement would be the closest to masterpiece if not an outright masterpiece. The book that won the Booker Prize, Amsterdam, was underwhelming to me, though I did enjoy it.
I am discussing all this to demonstrate the variation of quality in his work, because I would consider this a minor work. I am guessing that it is something he ripped off in a relatively short time. There are several reasons I come to this conclusion just by looking at the book's physical presence. It's short (about 200 pages) and the dimensions of the page are smaller than most books. The margins are wide and the text is fairly large. I get the feeling that the publisher was trying to make this relatively small text appear meatier by using the above mentioned techniques famous to all students trying to stretch out a short paper. So it's a minor work.
It's concept is kind of limited also, though it is a very interesting concept. Most of the action happens on the night that a young couple are about to consummate their marriage. It is problematic because the couple are virgins and the time is 1962, when society was a tad more chaste to begin with (though the book does show the beginning of society growing into a more open society). There are flashbacks which describe the characters families and how they met, but I feel there is limited character development. I wouldn't call that a flaw as the main idea of the book is what happens on the wedding night. It is kind of a concept book, not a fully fleshed out piece of literature. It could almost be a short story.
What's interesting about this idea, is that this chaste setting and background further exacerbates the feelings of the bride. She is repulsed by physical touch, yet she knows it is her responsibility and duty to consummate the marriage, and she understands that, which adds to her guilt. After this fairly disastrous night is over, the author briefly describes what happens to the future of this couple and the regret and loss which occurs from things not said or done.
This is a very English books, and McEwan spends a lot of time describing the idyllic settings, which made it slow reading at times. Perhaps I could not relate because I am unfamiliar with these settings. I was not able to place myself in one setting or the other. They all seemed to blend together.
And here is someone else's much more articulate and informing book review.
2007 - Nan A. Talese / Doubleday / Random House
pages - 203
Ian McEwan is one of my favorite authors. This is the 5th book I've read by him. While I don't consider him to be a master (meaning he creates masterpieces), I do think he is very good and always a solid enjoyable read. Of what I have read so far, Atonement would be the closest to masterpiece if not an outright masterpiece. The book that won the Booker Prize, Amsterdam, was underwhelming to me, though I did enjoy it.
I am discussing all this to demonstrate the variation of quality in his work, because I would consider this a minor work. I am guessing that it is something he ripped off in a relatively short time. There are several reasons I come to this conclusion just by looking at the book's physical presence. It's short (about 200 pages) and the dimensions of the page are smaller than most books. The margins are wide and the text is fairly large. I get the feeling that the publisher was trying to make this relatively small text appear meatier by using the above mentioned techniques famous to all students trying to stretch out a short paper. So it's a minor work.
It's concept is kind of limited also, though it is a very interesting concept. Most of the action happens on the night that a young couple are about to consummate their marriage. It is problematic because the couple are virgins and the time is 1962, when society was a tad more chaste to begin with (though the book does show the beginning of society growing into a more open society). There are flashbacks which describe the characters families and how they met, but I feel there is limited character development. I wouldn't call that a flaw as the main idea of the book is what happens on the wedding night. It is kind of a concept book, not a fully fleshed out piece of literature. It could almost be a short story.
What's interesting about this idea, is that this chaste setting and background further exacerbates the feelings of the bride. She is repulsed by physical touch, yet she knows it is her responsibility and duty to consummate the marriage, and she understands that, which adds to her guilt. After this fairly disastrous night is over, the author briefly describes what happens to the future of this couple and the regret and loss which occurs from things not said or done.
This is a very English books, and McEwan spends a lot of time describing the idyllic settings, which made it slow reading at times. Perhaps I could not relate because I am unfamiliar with these settings. I was not able to place myself in one setting or the other. They all seemed to blend together.
And here is someone else's much more articulate and informing book review.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Love and Hate in Jamestown - John Smith, Pocahontas and the Start of a New Nation ***
Author - Price, David A.
Published 2003 - Hardcover - Alfred A. Knopf / Random House, Inc.
2005 - First Vintage Books Edition
Pages (readable) 247
OK, this is more like it. This book gives the story behind the facts and details. It probably helped that John Smith took many notes and published several books when he returned to England (That's a story in itself - He was sent back to England because basically he was not very diplomatic and did not get along with the leisure class who were also his superiors, though he very much wanted to return.) . Hence, there are a lot of details to help create the story. The whole story of how Pocahontas saved Smith is told very well.
These are some general impressions or what I learned from the book. The peace with the Native Americans was always shaky. When I read about this event in my 5th grade text book, I get the impression that when there was peace, it was absolute. Not the case. John Smith was only the President for one short year. He of course was very involved in the very first initial years of the colony before becoming president, but in total he only spent a handful of years there. His job was basically dealing with the Indians. He used a balance of intimidation and an understanding and respect of the culture to get what he wanted. Others who dealt with the Natives were far less successful. Smith came from a lower strata of society and therefore, though his skills were appreciated, he was never accepted or liked by the upper class. Partially because he didn't "know his place". He kept telling them how they were wrong in many of the decisions they were making and of course they were. That's the reason they forced him out of Jamestown. In fact at the very 1st arrival of the English, Smith was imprisoned on the ship and accused of trying to start a mutiny on the ship. It was probably not true, but the upper class gentlemen, who of course were not very pragmatic and didn't like to do manual labor,needed to get rid of him. The fact that he was able to become president was a testament to his skill as a leader.
There was nothing between Pocahontas and John Smith. She may have admired him, for his leadership qualities and his manly abilities of making war, hunting etc. But Smith saw her as a young teenage girl. He of course was grateful that she saved him and grew to have an affection and a friendship with her, but that was as far as it went. In fact, Pocahontas ended up marrying John Rolfe, a plantation owner who perhaps was not quite as manly as Smith would have been, which the book suggests she liked because she was tired of that macho attitude from the men of her own people.
After the portion of the book during Smith's era, it gets a little harder to keep track of things. There are a succession of presidents and the troubles with the Native Americans are in a continual flux. Yet there are still some interesting tales to tell. During this time there was a great massacre by the Indians. There was a presumed peace and the natives were allowed to go in and out of the colony as they pleased. This turned out to be a mistake, and the colonists were surprised. The colonists of course retaliated.
This latter time period covered by the book was a longer time period, so there are of course more presidents and events. So while reading this section, events tended to blend into one another and become less distinct. I don't think that is a failing of the writer as he was still able to maintain interest in these later stories. Besides, I think he made a decision to focus on the John Smith/Pocahontas era as he should have done. Even if he wanted to go into more detail of the latter era. there were probably less resources and less was known about that era. Remember Smith had published several books about his travails. On the other hand, it could have been simply a less interesting era.
The author uses much original sources and publishes them in the book. I think that was very successful, except some of the times these quotations were difficult to follow because the language is so different from modern English. He did paraphrase some, but I believe a little more would have been better. On the other hand, too much would have destroyed the fluency of the book.
Rating this book was difficult. When I think of fiction books, I am looking for something profound and prophetic. In a history book, that would be a little difficult to find. So I suppose my standards are a little lower for non-fiction books. I mean, a piece of fiction can touch people (if it is truly a great piece of fiction) in personal ways that can affect their very lives. I don't see a history book doing that. In a history book, I am looking for readability - a book that it is well written and enjoyable to read. I also want a piece of history to be able to draw conclusions - to synthesize the material and come up with its own ideas. This book does that to certain extent.
Published 2003 - Hardcover - Alfred A. Knopf / Random House, Inc.
2005 - First Vintage Books Edition
Pages (readable) 247
OK, this is more like it. This book gives the story behind the facts and details. It probably helped that John Smith took many notes and published several books when he returned to England (That's a story in itself - He was sent back to England because basically he was not very diplomatic and did not get along with the leisure class who were also his superiors, though he very much wanted to return.) . Hence, there are a lot of details to help create the story. The whole story of how Pocahontas saved Smith is told very well.
These are some general impressions or what I learned from the book. The peace with the Native Americans was always shaky. When I read about this event in my 5th grade text book, I get the impression that when there was peace, it was absolute. Not the case. John Smith was only the President for one short year. He of course was very involved in the very first initial years of the colony before becoming president, but in total he only spent a handful of years there. His job was basically dealing with the Indians. He used a balance of intimidation and an understanding and respect of the culture to get what he wanted. Others who dealt with the Natives were far less successful. Smith came from a lower strata of society and therefore, though his skills were appreciated, he was never accepted or liked by the upper class. Partially because he didn't "know his place". He kept telling them how they were wrong in many of the decisions they were making and of course they were. That's the reason they forced him out of Jamestown. In fact at the very 1st arrival of the English, Smith was imprisoned on the ship and accused of trying to start a mutiny on the ship. It was probably not true, but the upper class gentlemen, who of course were not very pragmatic and didn't like to do manual labor,needed to get rid of him. The fact that he was able to become president was a testament to his skill as a leader.
There was nothing between Pocahontas and John Smith. She may have admired him, for his leadership qualities and his manly abilities of making war, hunting etc. But Smith saw her as a young teenage girl. He of course was grateful that she saved him and grew to have an affection and a friendship with her, but that was as far as it went. In fact, Pocahontas ended up marrying John Rolfe, a plantation owner who perhaps was not quite as manly as Smith would have been, which the book suggests she liked because she was tired of that macho attitude from the men of her own people.
After the portion of the book during Smith's era, it gets a little harder to keep track of things. There are a succession of presidents and the troubles with the Native Americans are in a continual flux. Yet there are still some interesting tales to tell. During this time there was a great massacre by the Indians. There was a presumed peace and the natives were allowed to go in and out of the colony as they pleased. This turned out to be a mistake, and the colonists were surprised. The colonists of course retaliated.
This latter time period covered by the book was a longer time period, so there are of course more presidents and events. So while reading this section, events tended to blend into one another and become less distinct. I don't think that is a failing of the writer as he was still able to maintain interest in these later stories. Besides, I think he made a decision to focus on the John Smith/Pocahontas era as he should have done. Even if he wanted to go into more detail of the latter era. there were probably less resources and less was known about that era. Remember Smith had published several books about his travails. On the other hand, it could have been simply a less interesting era.
The author uses much original sources and publishes them in the book. I think that was very successful, except some of the times these quotations were difficult to follow because the language is so different from modern English. He did paraphrase some, but I believe a little more would have been better. On the other hand, too much would have destroyed the fluency of the book.
Rating this book was difficult. When I think of fiction books, I am looking for something profound and prophetic. In a history book, that would be a little difficult to find. So I suppose my standards are a little lower for non-fiction books. I mean, a piece of fiction can touch people (if it is truly a great piece of fiction) in personal ways that can affect their very lives. I don't see a history book doing that. In a history book, I am looking for readability - a book that it is well written and enjoyable to read. I also want a piece of history to be able to draw conclusions - to synthesize the material and come up with its own ideas. This book does that to certain extent.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Margot at the Wedding **1/2
2007
Writer / Director Baumbach, Noah
With: Nicole Kidman, Zane Pais, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, John Turturro (cameo)
Seen on DVD
This is more of a character study than a real narrative. Basically, two sisters reunite at the wedding of the hippyish / free spirit of Leigh's character. after a long and icy separation. Nicole Kidman is the visiting sister who is controlling and neurotic. Leigh's character is going to marry a slacker played by Jack Black. And that's pretty much it! Sure there are the hillbilly neighbors that terrorize the family especially the little boy played by Pais. There is Nicole Kidman's upcoming divorce etc.
The story is the characters and the actor do a very fine job with them. They are a dysfunctional family, perhaps more dysfunctional than any family truly is. ( I ttake that back, there are probably real life families that are more dysfunctional than this. Think of the many uneducated who have drunken or drug addicted parents and criminal children. Or perhaps that is a different species of disfunction that goes by a different name.) The actions of these characters make the viewer squirm. It makes the viewer say to him/her self, "My that person is screwed up!"
Jack Black is of course there for comic relief. But he doesn't overplay it. He plays the darker side of his character much more convincingly. He really is not that funny, and when he tries to be, it is kind of disturbing, almost violently scary, which I think is appropriate to show how dysfunctional he is.
There are lots of hints that some sinister things have happened in the past, but they are never spelled out for us. For instance, we don't know why Kidman's character wants a divorce. The two sisters refer to something bad that happened with their father, but also said that the other sister (who never shows up and might have some sort of developmental delay or psychological problem) got the worst of it. These things are never explained, but do add to the characters personalities. I like that they were never explained. It made me have to think about whatmight of happened.
So over all, I enjoyed this a great deal because of the acting. I also liked it's darker, angsty edge. It can get a tad tiresome sometimes. Sometimes you just want to shout at the character to not be so stupid.
Writer / Director Baumbach, Noah
With: Nicole Kidman, Zane Pais, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, John Turturro (cameo)
Seen on DVD
This is more of a character study than a real narrative. Basically, two sisters reunite at the wedding of the hippyish / free spirit of Leigh's character. after a long and icy separation. Nicole Kidman is the visiting sister who is controlling and neurotic. Leigh's character is going to marry a slacker played by Jack Black. And that's pretty much it! Sure there are the hillbilly neighbors that terrorize the family especially the little boy played by Pais. There is Nicole Kidman's upcoming divorce etc.
The story is the characters and the actor do a very fine job with them. They are a dysfunctional family, perhaps more dysfunctional than any family truly is. ( I ttake that back, there are probably real life families that are more dysfunctional than this. Think of the many uneducated who have drunken or drug addicted parents and criminal children. Or perhaps that is a different species of disfunction that goes by a different name.) The actions of these characters make the viewer squirm. It makes the viewer say to him/her self, "My that person is screwed up!"
Jack Black is of course there for comic relief. But he doesn't overplay it. He plays the darker side of his character much more convincingly. He really is not that funny, and when he tries to be, it is kind of disturbing, almost violently scary, which I think is appropriate to show how dysfunctional he is.
There are lots of hints that some sinister things have happened in the past, but they are never spelled out for us. For instance, we don't know why Kidman's character wants a divorce. The two sisters refer to something bad that happened with their father, but also said that the other sister (who never shows up and might have some sort of developmental delay or psychological problem) got the worst of it. These things are never explained, but do add to the characters personalities. I like that they were never explained. It made me have to think about whatmight of happened.
So over all, I enjoyed this a great deal because of the acting. I also liked it's darker, angsty edge. It can get a tad tiresome sometimes. Sometimes you just want to shout at the character to not be so stupid.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Water for Elephants **1/2
Author - Gruen, Sara
Published 2006 Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill/Workman Publishing
This is a best seller, which I normally try to stay away from. I tend to stay away from them not because I don't think that they would be good, but because I like to find out what else is out there besides the mainstream fare. What are the alternatives? Besides, many mainstream/best seller books are bad. Though certainly not all of them. As it is, I had to read this for a book discussion.
It's a story about a young man about to graduate from veterinarian school, when the bottom falls out from under him and he finds himself alone and hopeless. So he joins the circus. And, with out giving up the story, there's a love interest and of course an obstacle to said love interest. There is also discussion of circus politics and perhaps most interestingly, a discussion of how circuses operated during The Great Depression. This last theme shows the circus to be a gritty, violent place.
Another interesting theme is the author's concern for the animals' welfare. A large part of the narrative is based on how the animals are treated. After all, the protagonist is a veterinarian and his love interest is one of the performers who work with the animals.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and read it in a time span of 3 or 4 days (which is quick for me with all my other obligations - kids, work, hobbies etc.) So why was this book not rated higher? Remember, if you look at the ratings definitions, 2 stars is a good book and 3 stars is an excellent book. So 2 1/2 stars is not a bad rating. To reach the upper echelons of 4 stars, I feel that a book has to have more substance or more significance to reach masterpiece status. While this is a thoroughly enjoyable read, I have to ask myself what are the underlying important themes from which the reader can ponder and come to his/her own conclusions? Where are the lessons to be learned for the reader and society? Where is the philosophy? There might be some of that, but if it is there, it's so subtle and delicate that I was not able to discern any but the ones I have described above. In other words, the profundity of the book is limited, and a large profoundness is what is needed to be a masterpiece (in my opinion).
It should be interesting to see what topics of discussion come up in our book discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit this book after the discussion to see if there are any topics of conversation that I hadn't thought of.
Published 2006 Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill/Workman Publishing
This is a best seller, which I normally try to stay away from. I tend to stay away from them not because I don't think that they would be good, but because I like to find out what else is out there besides the mainstream fare. What are the alternatives? Besides, many mainstream/best seller books are bad. Though certainly not all of them. As it is, I had to read this for a book discussion.
It's a story about a young man about to graduate from veterinarian school, when the bottom falls out from under him and he finds himself alone and hopeless. So he joins the circus. And, with out giving up the story, there's a love interest and of course an obstacle to said love interest. There is also discussion of circus politics and perhaps most interestingly, a discussion of how circuses operated during The Great Depression. This last theme shows the circus to be a gritty, violent place.
Another interesting theme is the author's concern for the animals' welfare. A large part of the narrative is based on how the animals are treated. After all, the protagonist is a veterinarian and his love interest is one of the performers who work with the animals.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and read it in a time span of 3 or 4 days (which is quick for me with all my other obligations - kids, work, hobbies etc.) So why was this book not rated higher? Remember, if you look at the ratings definitions, 2 stars is a good book and 3 stars is an excellent book. So 2 1/2 stars is not a bad rating. To reach the upper echelons of 4 stars, I feel that a book has to have more substance or more significance to reach masterpiece status. While this is a thoroughly enjoyable read, I have to ask myself what are the underlying important themes from which the reader can ponder and come to his/her own conclusions? Where are the lessons to be learned for the reader and society? Where is the philosophy? There might be some of that, but if it is there, it's so subtle and delicate that I was not able to discern any but the ones I have described above. In other words, the profundity of the book is limited, and a large profoundness is what is needed to be a masterpiece (in my opinion).
It should be interesting to see what topics of discussion come up in our book discussion. Perhaps I'll revisit this book after the discussion to see if there are any topics of conversation that I hadn't thought of.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull *1/2
Produced by George Lucas
Directed by Steven Spielberg
With Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett
Seen in Theater
Hey, the price of admission was three bucks and it got from mediocre to good reviews. So why not?
Not surprisingly, this is a check your brain in at the door film, but it is good clean fun. I mean let's attempt to look at the plot. The bad guys are trying to get this skull that has something to do with some lost conquistadors that were searching for El Dorado. This skull of course has special powers and the bad guys want it (actually they want to return it because that is how they get the special powers) and Indiana Jones and pals are reluctantly helping them and fighting them. Apparently, when staring in to the eyes of the skull, it can make someone insane as it did to one professor that they were trying to rescue. But when Indy tried it, it affected him deeply (supposedly made some sort of connection between him and the crazy professor). yet ten minutes he's back to normal. Yeah - and the power is that they will be able to control and read people's minds, which is perfect for the bad guys because they are Russian communist who want to take over the world with their ideology (which is of course a true goal of communism).
What ever! It is all kind of besides the point. It is all about the action and the personality of Indiana Jones. And there, with all the resources of Hollywood and George Lucas, the film delivers on that part.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the film is the opening sequence which takes place in Atomic City - You know, the fake city that the U.S. Army constructed in New Mexico(?) to see the results of what would happen if an atomic bomb landed on a real city. Indiana is of course trying to outrun or out smart the atomic bomb, and (i don't think this is giving anything away) he does.
What makes me wonder is why they can't do a film like this with out all the hokum. Why can't the bad guys be trying to get incriminating papers or an existing, real weapon? Why does there have to be supernatural beings and aliens from outer space? You could still do the same action and comedy. In fact that opening sequence described above had vary little hokum and I thought it was particularly interesting. I guess since Indy is an archaeologist, his world is the world of legends, tales and cultures. (That too was interesting when he was explaining the characteristics of some cultures.) I mean that not too many bad guys are going to become ruthless killers to obtain a shard of pottery or an ancient chicken bone which is what archaeologists really deal with , if they are having a good day.
Then there is a new character to deal with. It appears that his character is to fill the shoes of Indy, since he is aging after all. But Indy has to be charming and I did not find this young kid to be charming at all. I thought he was kind of irritating - but he was a teenager so maybe that was the point.
So, while there is no hurry to run out and see this movie, it would surely make for some iteresting television watching. Or if perhaps you find the DVD in the clearance sction (that woulds be quite a while - but then there is no hurry is there?)
Directed by Steven Spielberg
With Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett
Seen in Theater
Hey, the price of admission was three bucks and it got from mediocre to good reviews. So why not?
Not surprisingly, this is a check your brain in at the door film, but it is good clean fun. I mean let's attempt to look at the plot. The bad guys are trying to get this skull that has something to do with some lost conquistadors that were searching for El Dorado. This skull of course has special powers and the bad guys want it (actually they want to return it because that is how they get the special powers) and Indiana Jones and pals are reluctantly helping them and fighting them. Apparently, when staring in to the eyes of the skull, it can make someone insane as it did to one professor that they were trying to rescue. But when Indy tried it, it affected him deeply (supposedly made some sort of connection between him and the crazy professor). yet ten minutes he's back to normal. Yeah - and the power is that they will be able to control and read people's minds, which is perfect for the bad guys because they are Russian communist who want to take over the world with their ideology (which is of course a true goal of communism).
What ever! It is all kind of besides the point. It is all about the action and the personality of Indiana Jones. And there, with all the resources of Hollywood and George Lucas, the film delivers on that part.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the film is the opening sequence which takes place in Atomic City - You know, the fake city that the U.S. Army constructed in New Mexico(?) to see the results of what would happen if an atomic bomb landed on a real city. Indiana is of course trying to outrun or out smart the atomic bomb, and (i don't think this is giving anything away) he does.
What makes me wonder is why they can't do a film like this with out all the hokum. Why can't the bad guys be trying to get incriminating papers or an existing, real weapon? Why does there have to be supernatural beings and aliens from outer space? You could still do the same action and comedy. In fact that opening sequence described above had vary little hokum and I thought it was particularly interesting. I guess since Indy is an archaeologist, his world is the world of legends, tales and cultures. (That too was interesting when he was explaining the characteristics of some cultures.) I mean that not too many bad guys are going to become ruthless killers to obtain a shard of pottery or an ancient chicken bone which is what archaeologists really deal with , if they are having a good day.
Then there is a new character to deal with. It appears that his character is to fill the shoes of Indy, since he is aging after all. But Indy has to be charming and I did not find this young kid to be charming at all. I thought he was kind of irritating - but he was a teenager so maybe that was the point.
So, while there is no hurry to run out and see this movie, it would surely make for some iteresting television watching. Or if perhaps you find the DVD in the clearance sction (that woulds be quite a while - but then there is no hurry is there?)
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Sacred and Profane Love Machine ***
Murdoch, Iris.
1974 1st Published Great Britain - Chatto & Windus
1974 1st published in U. S. - Viking Press
1976 Penguin Books
A little bit about the author first. She's British and she passed away in 1999. She is a favorite amongst hipsters (as far as I can tell). A friend of mine's wife (an aspiring author) claimed her to be one of her favorite authors and she was also recommended to me and other participants on a Tindersticks forum. Surprisingly, my local library branch had no copies of her books on the shelves even though she has written some 20 odd books. So that says something about her NOT being a mainstream author.
This is my second book by her and the patterns I see (granted reading only two books do not make much for extrapolating patterns) are that she tends to write about relationships between family members. These tend to be dysfunctional families.
What is interesting about her writing is that she really gets into the heads of her characters and she waxes philosophical. At the same time she writes these passages with some lovely poetic language. I like that in a book. I like that a book will follow a tangent and bring up some larger ideas to think about as opposed to a book that just follows the narrative. As long as the tangents don't get too out of control and confusing. Murdoch rarely does this. These passages are for the most part easy to follow and enjoyable to think about. There are some occasions where she goes a little overboard, and I do get a little lost, but those occasions are few. That would be one of my minor quips with the book. She does tend to go very slightly overboard on her tangents.
So this story is about this guy, Blaise, who has a wife and a mistress. The mistress is of course unhappy and wants Blaise to end his marriage. Eventually, though Blaise is afraid of the consequences, the wife finds out because Blaise tells her. Instead of being angry the wife forgives him for his transgressions because she knows that there are kids (both theirs and one that came from the relationship with the mistress) involved. Knowing that Blaise has commitments to both the mother and his second son, she agrees, no insists that Blaise spend time with his second family. Blaise's wife, Harriet, even tries to make friends and socialize with the other woman/mistress (Emily). But Blaise changes his mind after a while and goes back to Emily and then gets tired of being with Emily and tries to reconcile with Harriet his wife. It goes back and forth like that for a while. Basically, Blaise can't make up his mind, and everyone gets hurt. Meanwhile, Harriet has eyes on the second boy (son of Emily and Blaise) because her own son is a teenager and is withdrawing from her emotionally. So she see the other boy as a solution to this problem.
Well, the summary seems to get more confusing as I write it so I'll stop there, knowing that of course there are many details missing. One of the interesting parts of the story is why Harriet is so insistent about keeping the both families together. Apparently it is about control. (A feminist theme here?) If she runs the show, then she's in charge and she has control of the situation. That's her rationale. But when Blaise decides to run back to Emily (and live with her), Harriet changes. She seems at a loss, but she refuses to allow Blaise back into her life, even though that is of course what Blaise wants.
I am always intrigued by the author's point of view and how it relates to gender. Murdoch is woman writing during the seventies. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that being a woman from that time period that her writings have feminist undertones. If we look at the characters there is some proof of that. She doesn't exactly male bash, because all the characters are seriously flawed, but her female characters do come off a little better. For example:
Male -
Blaise - He's weak. He's grateful for his wife's and mistress' forgiving of him. He can't make up his mind what he wants. He allows Harriet to take control of everything.
David (Son of Blaise and Harriet) - He's lonely and weak also. When given an opportunity to hook up with a beautiful teenager, he's too scared and runs off. He's sullen and off putting.
Monty (neighbor of Blaise and Harriet who gets mixed up in all this) - True he's gone through a major trauma of his wife dying and his suspect role in it, but he is rude and callous to most of the people involved. One of the female characters calls him cold.
Luca (son of Blaise and Emily) - He's an eight year old boy with emotional problems. He won't speak to his parents and is almost mute, though he will speak to some other people.
Edgar (friend of Monty's who gets involved) - He's a hanger on. He sticks around when no one really wants him. He falls in love first with Monty's wife and then with Harriet but that love is unrequited. He's fat and an alcoholic.
female -
Harriet - She's missing the days when her son was young and she was able to be demonstrative with her affection. As discussed earlier, she tried to take control of the situation (Flaw or strength?) but when things fall apart she ends up throwing herself at both Monty and Edgar.
Emily - Blaise fell in love with her because she seemed more his type - more intellectual. Plus there was the physical relationship, which hints at some rough play. As time goes by though, she becomes bitter and shrew/ She's argumentative and always concerned about the worst happening. Of course she may have good reason to.
Sophie (dead wife of Monty) - She was cheating or at least claimed to be cheating on Monty. It made Monty very jealous of course. They were very argumentative even on her death bed.
Pin (Emily's friend and boarder) - She's one of the stronger characters. She rose from a simple char woman to a more middle class status. But she was conniving and there is always the impression that she was up to trouble.
Kiki - (friend of Pin's who made life difficult for Emily when she was Emily's student) - Young , beautiful and perhaps a bit of a schemer, or in the very least her youth makes her unable to empathize with others. She's also one of the stronger characters, but she's minor.
So which gender is painted worse? Maybe the males, but not by much. With the female characters, I see that all of them were strong in some ways, flaws and all.
A feminist book? A question I always like to ask. Another question I always like to think about is how would the characters be different if the book was written by a man. It always intrigues me how authors of the opposite sex treat those characters.
There is one last flaw that keeps me from rating this book a little higher. It gets a little repetitive. Especially with Blaise going back and forth between women. Sure there is a subtle change each time he changes his mind, but his rational is always the same. For Harriet it was how good she was and how calm and loving she was. How comforting she was to come home to. For Emily it was always his guilt. She had waited so long. She deserved her chance. She was always the one. His love for Emily was a "true" love. He simply could not make up his mind and wanted both. But the point is that it was a little repetitive, especially from Blaise's point of view.
1974 1st Published Great Britain - Chatto & Windus
1974 1st published in U. S. - Viking Press
1976 Penguin Books
A little bit about the author first. She's British and she passed away in 1999. She is a favorite amongst hipsters (as far as I can tell). A friend of mine's wife (an aspiring author) claimed her to be one of her favorite authors and she was also recommended to me and other participants on a Tindersticks forum. Surprisingly, my local library branch had no copies of her books on the shelves even though she has written some 20 odd books. So that says something about her NOT being a mainstream author.
This is my second book by her and the patterns I see (granted reading only two books do not make much for extrapolating patterns) are that she tends to write about relationships between family members. These tend to be dysfunctional families.
What is interesting about her writing is that she really gets into the heads of her characters and she waxes philosophical. At the same time she writes these passages with some lovely poetic language. I like that in a book. I like that a book will follow a tangent and bring up some larger ideas to think about as opposed to a book that just follows the narrative. As long as the tangents don't get too out of control and confusing. Murdoch rarely does this. These passages are for the most part easy to follow and enjoyable to think about. There are some occasions where she goes a little overboard, and I do get a little lost, but those occasions are few. That would be one of my minor quips with the book. She does tend to go very slightly overboard on her tangents.
So this story is about this guy, Blaise, who has a wife and a mistress. The mistress is of course unhappy and wants Blaise to end his marriage. Eventually, though Blaise is afraid of the consequences, the wife finds out because Blaise tells her. Instead of being angry the wife forgives him for his transgressions because she knows that there are kids (both theirs and one that came from the relationship with the mistress) involved. Knowing that Blaise has commitments to both the mother and his second son, she agrees, no insists that Blaise spend time with his second family. Blaise's wife, Harriet, even tries to make friends and socialize with the other woman/mistress (Emily). But Blaise changes his mind after a while and goes back to Emily and then gets tired of being with Emily and tries to reconcile with Harriet his wife. It goes back and forth like that for a while. Basically, Blaise can't make up his mind, and everyone gets hurt. Meanwhile, Harriet has eyes on the second boy (son of Emily and Blaise) because her own son is a teenager and is withdrawing from her emotionally. So she see the other boy as a solution to this problem.
Well, the summary seems to get more confusing as I write it so I'll stop there, knowing that of course there are many details missing. One of the interesting parts of the story is why Harriet is so insistent about keeping the both families together. Apparently it is about control. (A feminist theme here?) If she runs the show, then she's in charge and she has control of the situation. That's her rationale. But when Blaise decides to run back to Emily (and live with her), Harriet changes. She seems at a loss, but she refuses to allow Blaise back into her life, even though that is of course what Blaise wants.
I am always intrigued by the author's point of view and how it relates to gender. Murdoch is woman writing during the seventies. I am going to assume (correct me if I am wrong) that being a woman from that time period that her writings have feminist undertones. If we look at the characters there is some proof of that. She doesn't exactly male bash, because all the characters are seriously flawed, but her female characters do come off a little better. For example:
Male -
Blaise - He's weak. He's grateful for his wife's and mistress' forgiving of him. He can't make up his mind what he wants. He allows Harriet to take control of everything.
David (Son of Blaise and Harriet) - He's lonely and weak also. When given an opportunity to hook up with a beautiful teenager, he's too scared and runs off. He's sullen and off putting.
Monty (neighbor of Blaise and Harriet who gets mixed up in all this) - True he's gone through a major trauma of his wife dying and his suspect role in it, but he is rude and callous to most of the people involved. One of the female characters calls him cold.
Luca (son of Blaise and Emily) - He's an eight year old boy with emotional problems. He won't speak to his parents and is almost mute, though he will speak to some other people.
Edgar (friend of Monty's who gets involved) - He's a hanger on. He sticks around when no one really wants him. He falls in love first with Monty's wife and then with Harriet but that love is unrequited. He's fat and an alcoholic.
female -
Harriet - She's missing the days when her son was young and she was able to be demonstrative with her affection. As discussed earlier, she tried to take control of the situation (Flaw or strength?) but when things fall apart she ends up throwing herself at both Monty and Edgar.
Emily - Blaise fell in love with her because she seemed more his type - more intellectual. Plus there was the physical relationship, which hints at some rough play. As time goes by though, she becomes bitter and shrew/ She's argumentative and always concerned about the worst happening. Of course she may have good reason to.
Sophie (dead wife of Monty) - She was cheating or at least claimed to be cheating on Monty. It made Monty very jealous of course. They were very argumentative even on her death bed.
Pin (Emily's friend and boarder) - She's one of the stronger characters. She rose from a simple char woman to a more middle class status. But she was conniving and there is always the impression that she was up to trouble.
Kiki - (friend of Pin's who made life difficult for Emily when she was Emily's student) - Young , beautiful and perhaps a bit of a schemer, or in the very least her youth makes her unable to empathize with others. She's also one of the stronger characters, but she's minor.
So which gender is painted worse? Maybe the males, but not by much. With the female characters, I see that all of them were strong in some ways, flaws and all.
A feminist book? A question I always like to ask. Another question I always like to think about is how would the characters be different if the book was written by a man. It always intrigues me how authors of the opposite sex treat those characters.
There is one last flaw that keeps me from rating this book a little higher. It gets a little repetitive. Especially with Blaise going back and forth between women. Sure there is a subtle change each time he changes his mind, but his rational is always the same. For Harriet it was how good she was and how calm and loving she was. How comforting she was to come home to. For Emily it was always his guilt. She had waited so long. She deserved her chance. She was always the one. His love for Emily was a "true" love. He simply could not make up his mind and wanted both. But the point is that it was a little repetitive, especially from Blaise's point of view.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Book: The History of Venezuela *1/2
Tarver, H. Michael & Frederick, Julia C.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
2006 (Hardcover) Palgrave Macmillan (paperback - this edition) Palgrave Macmillan
(nonfiction)
Ok - so probably not too many people stumbled upon this website looking for this book because this book is not a book someone would seek out unless they were interested specifically in the history of Venezuela. But I read it and I am reviewing it here anyway. Remember, this is more a personal journal that I just happen to be sharing with a broader community.
First, what was my purpose for reading it? Well, summer is here and my plan is to read some history and to also concentrate on the fiction of Paul Auster. I read this particular book because I am a teacher (5th grade) and every year our school does a unit of study on Spanish speaking countries of the world. This year I chose Venezuela. But this is an adult book, so why bother? There are plenty of informative children's books that I could have used. Well, this is my rational:
While lecturing/discussing topics of history with my students, I noticed something about the textbook. It was really boring. No wonder the kids are less than enthralled with Social Studies. Here is a paraphrased (and inaccurate - it's based on my memory) excerpt from the text about the Puritans in colonial New England and the decision of some dissenters to start there own Christian branch separate from the Church of England and consequently founded new colonies:
There was a trial about the dissenters beliefs and one person decided to start a colony in Connecticut...
Where's the story? What happened at the trial? No, all that is mentioned in a couple of sentences are these basic little facts about what happened. The story, which is what draws people to History is missing. I'm sure there is an intriguing and interesting story in there. But it's too general and vague.
Now I notice that when I add interesting detail to our discussions (ie. - how the Puritans punished people in the stocks and how incredibly intolerant they were to other religions even though they themselves were seeking religious freedom) the students seem to be more interested. When they write what they have learned, I see that this added information sticks with even the lowest students even though they quite often have confused some of the facts.
So I chose to read this book to enhance my knowledge of Venezuela and so that I could share interesting stories with my students. Well, I certainly did learn more about Venezuela, but there were few interesting things to share with the students. It has been about 2 weeks since I read this book and nothing comes to me that is "memorable". It, like the text books, is written in very broad terms. Perhaps it's because the topic is so broad. And maybe because there were many presidents, too many presidents to keep track of, because of the violent way that Venezuela, like many Latin American countries, changed governments.
Quite frequently, the information was basic. They would name the new president, list (not describe) his programs, his compadres, achievements and his beliefs. I was going to take a quote from the book to demonstrate this, but I don't have permission and I don't want to run the risk of copyright infringement. Needless to say, this book may have lots of information and facts, but it is written (relatively at least) in an academic style. It's not a well written story. It doesn't make me want to stay up all night finding out what happens next. I find that problem frequently with nonfiction and especially history. Much of it is not very well written (I don't mean grammatically, but that it's not very interesting to read). The content of the book has to enough to satisfy the reader's thirst for knowledge. In a perfect world, the book has an interesting content AND is well written at the same time. I know it is possible. I wanted to list some of those books, but then I would have to describe them here and that is beyond the scope of this entry.
To be fair, there were some interesting discussions that appeared more in the latter half of the book as Venezuela became a more modern nation. Some of those portions are when Venezuela becomes more democratic. They were able to maintain a single president for a longer time, so that perhaps there were more details to write about. The time period of the Cuban Revolution was interesting because it had a direct influence on Venezuelan politics. The book also ends with an interesting discussion Hugo Chavez. Is there anyone out there that think he is a good man? I ask that, because this books seems to be very anti - Chavez. Of course there may be a good reason for that, but someone must think he is good for something.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
