My Favourite Film Volume 18

If I had to pick one film to show to an alien race to try and explain the concept of horror, specifically the horror film, I think I’d pick John Carpenter’s The Thing. It can be understood without any significant reading into the zeitgeist that produced it. You don’t need to be an American or have much understanding of the political climate of the early 1980s, you don’t need to have seen the Howard Hawks produced The Thing From Another World, of which Carpenter’s film was an ostensible remake, nor do you have to have read Who Goes There? the story by John Campbell, which both films take inspiration from. In fact you don’t need to know much at all. I was maybe 5 or 6 when I first saw The Thing and I connected immediately with its desperate characters and thoroughly enjoyed repeat visits to the cold Antarctic setting. As with Aliens, another childhood favorite, I could follow the action, enjoyed the brutality of both the heroes and the villain(s), the blunt poetry of the dialogue (casual swearing, a 6 year old's delight), the creature design, the relentlessness of the story and as I got older came to see it as a film so carefully designed and meticulously constructed that the idea of calling it a horror film doesn’t really do it justice. It is a story of paranoia, of loss, of Lovecraftian terror, of man’s multifaceted struggle with things he can only attempt to comprehend, of men trying to apply science, reason and finally common sense to the unexplainable. Though to be fair it is first and foremost the story of an alien lifeform that really wants to take over the bodies of twelve men trapped in an isolated location who in return really want to kill it. Because it is such a simple story, it’s possible to scour it for subtext (Vietnam, Reagan, AIDS and socio-feminist-related readings have all been offered) and while I think that’s a valuable and telling exercise, I’m going to simply judge it in terms of its place in the genre because it is in many ways the ultimate genre film.

The Thing
by John Carpenter

In the endless expanse of the Antarctic landscape, a helicopter and its two occupants chase after a dog. The dog looks back at them as they unload bullets and grenades feebly; it seems to be knowingly outfoxing them. The dog makes it to United States National Science Institute Station 4 before the two men can do much damage. The pilot accidentally blows himself and the chopper up with a grenade and though the survivor tries to explain himself to the Americans at Station 4. The only problem is he’s Norwegian and they don't understand a word he says. They understand when they’re being shot at however. When the Norwegian misfires and hits Bennings the meteorologist in the leg while aiming for the dog, Garry, the camp's lone military man. The guys take the dog in and begin wondering what it is that would have caused two men to want to kill a dog so badly. The men, besides Garry and Bennings, are Norris the geologist, Childs the mechanic, helicopter pilots MacReady and Palmer, physicians and biologists Fuchs, Blair and Copper, radio operator Windows, Nauls the cook and Clark the veterinarian. After stitching up Bennings’ leg, Copper opts to go find the Norwegian camp and gets MacReady to take him there. What they find is chilling, in every sense of the word. Looks like the fellow with one of Garry’s bullets in his crown got off easy - one of the men has cut his own throat with a straight-razor (but seems to have frozen to death before he finished bleeding) and another looks to have been burnt alive, though he doesn’t look all human either. They also find a big block of ice that looks to have lately held something big. They bring back the burnt man-like mass to camp where Blair attempts to perform an autopsy. Everyone watches in shock and horror as new discoveries are made but no one is more shaken than the dog. It’s almost as if he recognizes that burnt-up mass of flesh. When Clark the vet puts him in with the camp's other sleigh dogs that night, something rather unexpected happens. The dog quickly sheds it’s skin and becomes something unspeakably hideous and gooey and starts wrapping tentacles around the other dogs. The men burn it before it can lift itself into the rafters with the giant fists it sprouted from its back.

It takes some imagination on Blair’s part to discern what went on but considering that every man in the camp saw the transformation with their own eyes they’re willing to buy just about anything. Blair pulls the creature apart and finds evidence of it trying to look like a dog, like it was in the middle of imitating the camp dogs when they killed it. After inspecting some tapes they collected from the Norwegian base, MacReady and Norris head to the spot where they pulled the block of ice from the snow. Not only do they find where it was pulled out, they find the charred remains of a gigantic spacecraft buried beneath a hundred thousand years worth of ice. MacReady draws a timeline which the guys take with a grain of salt. He’s no scientist after all. The Norwegians thaw the thing out, it gets to some of their bodies, they try to contain it by killing whomever it touches (and themselves to prevent being taken over), but it gets out in the body of one their dogs, which tries to occupy other dogs. Though that makes a kind of sense, it’s hardly a comfort to the men at Station 4. How long before the man-thing defrosts and decides it would prefer, as the film’s slogan promises, a nice warm-blooded body to inhabit? And if it can imitate any organism it wants to, how will anyone know who’s human and who’s not? It’s either going to be a very long or a very short winter.

The Thing is John Carpenter’s best film, it is one of the best remakes of all time, one of the best genre movies of all time, features some of the best special effects of all time and one of the most terrifying and interesting premises of all time. Not bad for a little sci-fi/horror movie with three locations, is it? It is superbly crafted to ensure that every scene shocks and surprises and to make sure you never feel at ease. It is only on second viewing do you understand how loaded every gesture is (even the simple act of a dog licking your face becomes foreshadowing in the take-no-prisoner’s world of Bill Lancaster’s script and John Carpenter's direction). Every element that would ordinarily damn a film like this (simple sets, the odd bout of pseudo-science, the lack of female characters, the no-nonsense direction, a seeming reliance on effects over characterization [though under scrutiny this turns out to be false]) becomes a strength. The film had few allies upon its first release. If the critics of 1982 could see just what’s happened to some of the classics since Carpenter’s film, they’d perhaps have kept their mouths shut instead of trashing a film they didn’t understand. The problem was they were not willing to play The Thing’s game. They wanted a film that showed respect to them and to Howard Hawks’ original; Carpenter’s film does neither on its face. The Thing’s atmosphere is built in to every frame, the performances are invisible, everyone taking a backseat to the crisis on their hands, and the effects are quite gruesome. Carpenter’s characters are not exactly charismatic (though most are likable) and it's only when he kills them off at times you least expect it that you realize how much you like and depend on them. In some regards it seems like we have the makings of an Italian horror film. The scenes at the Norwegian camp resemble some gory painting halfway between Fulci and Argento, the Ennio Morricone music beautifully underscoring the action (of all his film scores that simple ‘dun dun’ theme gets the most impact with the least movement), even the characters seem drawn from an Italian film (Windows looks a touch like some Italian character actor, Fuchs like Richard Dreyfuss by way of Al Cliver in The Beyond, Bobby Rhodes made his career pretending to be as naturally cool as Keith David is here and thanks to all that hair Kurt Russell looks like a cross between make-up man Rob Bottin and Ray Lovelock in Let Sleeping Corpses Lie). Carpenter had shown his affinity for Italianate visuals and atmosphere in his previous film, The Fog, but The Thing manages to synthesize the visuals of his and his crew’s inspiration (Argento, EC comics, Lovecraft, Hawks, I detect shades of Jaws, but that could be because Spielberg and Carpenter were both students of first generation of film schools) and craft a language all its own.

Bottin’s visual effects are unrivaled, even today. He and Carpenter were both wary of staying away from H.R. Giger’s designs for Alien, still fresh in their minds when they began planning the film in 1981. I think it speaks volumes about their various successes that not only does The Thing not resemble Alien in anyway, it completely avoids seeming like a sci-fi movie. I for one have never really thought of it as anything in the universe of Alien as it speaks a different language (though check out the extra appendages on the queen at the end of James Camerson’s sequel; they’ve got Bottin’s signature writ large. That Stan Winston worked on the scenes with the dog thing I think could be seen as pre-proudction on Aliens). The stories have a lot in common, though Campbell covered the ground in Who Goes There? before Ridley Scott had ever read Dan O’Bannon’s script. First of all, Dean Cundey’s widescreen cinematography is half-business, half-mood, all great. The gorgeous snowy landscapes and the scenes of the camp at night have a kind of blue-collar poetry about them; this is truly the end of the world. And what was Ridley Scott trying to achieve with his space ship if not the kind of broken down and hopelessly average interiors that Carpenter’s characters dwell in? Also I think that Bottin’s creatures avoid looking earthly in a way no one’s ever seconded. For all the genius behind the design of Giger's titular Alien (of which there was plenty), it does retain a humanoid shape. The only thing human about Bottin’s creations is in their feeble attempt at looking human. The rest is so far from normal, so freakish and distorted that they become works of art in their own right. Everyone from Stuart Gordon to James Gunn has tried their hand at copying Carpenter’s work with Bottin but no one’s come close. The Thing was by Carpenter’s own admission all about the monsters. If they weren’t the most fucking awesome monsters you’d ever seen, the film wouldn’t have worked.

The reason I think that The Thing manages to be unnerving when we aren’t staring down the snout of some hoary beast, is because for the first and last time Carpenter and co. had total control over the look of the film; he had it once again on Ghosts of Mars but that film wound up a pale imitation in this and every other regard. Your average cinemagoer in the early 80s had no clue what an Antartic research station looked like so both the drab interiors (with their indefinably spooky corridors and maw-like doors) and the frozen exteriors all set the viewer on edge. The outside looks like a jagged and macabre ice castle in the thick of the weather conditions and the effective but natural lighting design is all manufactured blues and oranges. The frame jumps with strange colours once the action picks up and never rests. The film’s final location, the generator room is a special creation, the camp’s own inferno where the final and most terrible monster of all dwells. It is here that Carpenter and Botton hark back to Harryhausen as well as every creature we’ve seen thus far. The lighting, all hellish chiaroscuro, compliments the final clash with the unknown perfectly just in time for Russell’s final put-down. The blue-collar angle I mentioned before is most evident in the dialogue. When not in Hawksian rapid-fire-yet-lackadaisacal conversation, the men sound conspicuously like a couple of bored, stir-crazy working stiffs. How often do people attempt and fail at that sort of thing? I think Lancaster understood that when ordinary people take on something, their fight becomes your fight in a way it doesn’t if you’re watching he-men or detectives or gladiators taking on something supernatural. Those characters are more likely to rise to the occasion because they've been written to do so. Carpenter’s guys don’t want the beast to win but mostly they don’t want to get killed. An impulse I think we can all understand. Even as paranoia mounts and no one’s sure about anything, their dialogue remains refreshingly human. The film’s best lines are gut reactions to some pretty horrifying images; I don’t know whether Keith David's Childs, Richard Masur’s Clark or David Clennon’s Palmer has the film’s best line, but almost everyone gets an instantly quotable zinger that would just be so much swearing in any other film. What’s more, upon further inspection, you realize that no line gets wasted. Take the petty argument about who’s going to search for Fuchs with whom. Knowing what we do about everyone involved and who turns out to be a thing, it makes perfect sense. The dialogue and Carpenter’s camera miss nothing. In other words the film wastes no time, no words, no glances and no energy. Everything helps the action along, everything contributes to the miasma of mistrust and the end soon comes hurdling at us at lightspeed. It is efficient, grisly and creepy, like the organism at the core of the story. And just like the thing of the title it gets under your skin. In other words, it is a horror film par excellence, full of writhing shocks and spider-legged creatures from another world. Like the best of Lovecraft it knows no master, plays by no rules and scares you to death, but in the end I keep coming back for more.

We're Still Screaming

A few years ago I made some snide comment about music videos on this very blog. In the comment section, I believe. Anyway, I've been made a fool of several times since then. I've even made a music video. So that in it of itself would be enough reason to feel I spoke rashly. I certainly don't need anyone else making a music video that obfuscates most of my unseen creative output. Well Goddamn Spike Jonze and Arcade Fire. I've been writing fiction and screenplays and this and that and the other thing for roughly eight years and everything I wanted to say is pretty succinctly presented in the music video for "The Suburbs." Not that it - the song, the video, both parties - aren't great, but it's a little aggravating to see one shot in a music video tell a story better than a hundred and twenty page script does. Anyway, enjoy this video, it's fucking amazing, the best of it's kind since "Black & White Town" by Doves.








A Dream I Had

I dreamed that there was a ladybug sleeping in the corner of a dusty windowsill. Upon waking up, she began to scurry to the other side of it. But draped down from the frame of the window were spiderwebs. So she got tangled in one, and I had to brush it away from her. And so it happened again, and at this point the tiny spider in his web was looking quite content. But, as the ladybug made progress past him, he became frustrated when he realised she was bound to get away. And eventually she did, crossing to the other side of the webbing. But just then, a much bigger spider--the size of my outspread hand--caught the poor ladybug in his thick ropey net and devoured her in a moment.

one more bittersweet song

Though it isn't Hazards of Love. Hmph..

"O, Dear, I don't know, I have to go and put my head to rest"

My Favourite Films Volume 17

Horror movies have always had champions over the years. In the 1960s small-time filmmakers like Roman Polanski and George A. Romero changed the discourse on the possibilities of the horror film. In the 1980 and 90s, all the taboos were shattered and the realm of post-modernism was opened up. In the 1920s, the makers of German Expressionism broke the mold but in the 1940s, horror had one innovator, one man who refused to make every other kind of ghost story or monster flick. Val Lewton and his division at RKO Radio Pictures turned American horror, which had already started to get stale by 1941, into something imaginative and artistic, akin to the work of Robert Weine and F.W. Murnau. With his protégés Jacques Tourneur, Robert Wise and Mark Robson, he crafted some of the most compelling fright films the world had ever seen. The first of his nine horror films is his best and remains one of the most daring and beautifully told stories we have.

Cat People
by Jacques Tourneur
Irena Dubrovna is a Serbian expatriate living on her own in New York City. She sketches a panther in the zoo but isn’t happy with the end result. When she throws her scraps away but misses the trashcan she hits the shoes of Oliver Reed. Oliver, a lonely young ship designer, approaches her and sweet-talks his way into an invitation back to her brown stone; Irena for her part seems more than happy to entertain the handsome Reed. She doesn’t have many friends in the city, in fact she insists on that isolation but Reed is different. He doesn’t demand anything from her is more than courteous and seems genuinely interested in spending time with the beautiful young Irena. A little time passes and Oliver and Irena are in love, but as Oliver is want to point out, they’ve never become intimate, they’ve never even kissed. Irena is grateful for the space Oliver has given her, but she insists she has her reasons. In fact the first time they met she outlined her fears in the abstract. Irena comes from a village that was raided long ago by King John, who threw out the Mameluks. The people in her village resisted Christianity and embraced devil worship so that when John showed up, he engaged in full-scale slaughter. Irena, though she’s reticent at first to talk about it, believes that she’s been cursed by her homeland, that she’s descended from said devil worshipers and that grave things await her should she succumb to her urges. The history is patently false but it’s exoticism was enough for audiences at the time to believe her inherited evil, and I surmise the story had more to do with Lewton and Tourneur’s own exile from Europe than anything else.

Oliver thinks its nonsense but he loves his wife dearly and a month of sleeping in different rooms after his marriage notwithstanding he’s going to help his beloved. His closest friend and co-worker Alice Moore suggests a psychiatrist, Dr. Louis Judd, to help Irena work out her beliefs and feelings. Irena only goes to one session before she starts questioning whether she wants the curse lifted or not. Judd thinks she ought to seek professional help following the revelation that Irena seriously believes that she’ll turn into a predatory cat if she’s aroused, Oliver is worried sick about his bride, and Alice is brought to tears when her friend confesses how sad he is. When Alice lets slip one day that she has more than friendly feelings for Oliver, things take an ugly turn. Oliver, conflicted about his feelings and the state of his marriage, does not tell Irena, but instead spends more platonic time with Alice. Irena stops working altogether and begins following her husband around growing more suspicious and paranoid by the day. Soon it seems the only thing that brings her comfort is visiting the panther in the zoo. It comes as little shock when Alice begins having run-ins with what appears to be a large jungle cat that always disappears before light can find it.
Jacques Tourneur and Val Lewton were kindred spirits. Both were expatriates, like Irena and Tourneur did his best work for Lewton as both saw the dramatic potential of shadow, light and insinuation. The first thing to notice about Cat People, before you’ve sided with anybody or got wind of the direction the plot will move is how deliciously stylized it is, but Lewton and Tourneur worked in an era before a fuss was made over these sorts of things. Lewton had very little money and the film is full of budget-conscious trickery that squeezes the most from its design. There’s the decision to make Reed a designer to make way for an endgame strategy (which, of course, relies on shadows). Tourneur and Lewton loaded every frame with feline likenesses and other strange objects. Then there’s the way the two men play with light. Take the first session between Irena and Judd; the way in which Tourneur frames her face is brilliant, if a bit unrealistic. Irena’s hair always sparkles with fill light and her face is never less than beautiful. Though she, like the audience, infers things that may or may not be true, she is still the victim and we must be able to sympathize with her. Enter the stalking scenes. A woman walks alone on a sidewalk at night. Suddenly, something horrifying lurking in the shadows jumps out at her…or does it. The scenes with Alice and Irena aptly playing a cat-and-mouse game set the standard for horror films for a half-century. When Alice starts suspecting that something is watching her, Tourneur works wonders by relying on the viewer’s imagination. Through expert sound design and, of course, those bold shadows some giddily frightening cinema results. The stalking scenes were copied by Mario Bava and Dario Argento, who then inspired hundreds of other filmmakers like Bob Clark and John Carpenter, who are still being copied today. Argento even ‘pioneered’ having a female antagonist in gialli, the genre he worked in at the start of his career. Lewton’s films, with their contrasting light and dark and heavy echoing footsteps, can also seen as brothers to American film noir (I’ve taken to calling them ‘noirror films’), except that they prefigure the majority of those films by a number of years. Tourneur himself would go on to contribute one of the best of the kind, Out of the Past in 1947 (he knew that the sight of a lot of swishing overcoats just made things more gripping). Cat People pre-dates the best-known examples of the genre making its creators all the more innovative.

It would be one thing if the horror and stylistic presentation were all that worked but Cat People is more than ominous sound effects. Dewitt Bodeen’s screenplay is even-handed and resists many of the temptations of horror films of the period. The dialogue is nicely downplayed so that the horrific moments really do come as a jolt. Though Cat People could be seen as an inversion of Curt Siodmak’s script for The Wolfman (the movie started as a title, after all, and there’s even a sly silver bullet joke in there), it also uses those elements it cribs in a much smarter fashion. Lawrence Talbot’s curse is always out in the open for us to see; Irena’s is, until more than two thirds of the way through the movie, uncertain. She also has emotion on her side. Simone Simon gives the performance of her life as Irena; if she weren’t so absolutely appealing, her descent into homicidal jealousy would not be nearly the blow to our expectations that it is. Cat People is one of the only films I’ve seen with the nerve to make their villain so patently adorable, but Simone Simon is so masterfully understated that everything she does works. She has a terrifically expressive face that expresses quiet menace or deep emotional wounds equally well. If she were not someone you wanted to take care of, this film would have fallen flat. Imagine if they’d used Jane Randolph in the lead instead of relegating her to the straight woman.
Then there are the other players. As leading men go, Kent Smith as Reed is actually quite impressive. As a doggedly patient husband, conflicted friend and cowering victim, he does great things. When he and Jane Randolph’s Alice are cornered in their office by a black panther, the fear in his voice is real. And then there’s Tom Conway. Conway is one of my favorite character actors and Louis Judd is easily his best role. He sinks his teeth into the part of sleazy confessor and sells it with everything he has; his elegant voice, his devilish facial features and finally his feline physicality; he leers like a housecat when probing Irena about the nature of her condition. Incidentally, Bodeen’s decision to make psychiatry just as large an evil as old religious beliefs is characteristic of both Lewton and Tourneur films, but consider that these are the days of the Hays Code and Bodeen’s script seems a trifle more scandalous. Similarly shocking is that bare shoulder when Irena cries in the bath after her first transformation and that our heroes are in love out of, in fact in direct opposition to, wedlock. That scene in the bathtub, that moment of vulnerability is rare in portraits of villains (especially in the 40s), but Cat People is about transformation and defying expectations. Irena may be the villain but she has tradition and new-age approaches to wellbeing to blame for her undoing. She has first her fears of a curse to contend with, then her husband’s abandonment and finally the rapacious lust of her psychiatrist. She is a victim as much as the people she terrorizes and I don’t mind admitting that I find her easier to sympathize with than the people she terrorizes. I think maybe it’s the combined effect of Lewton’s design, the acting and the set design. Knowing that sets were re-used from The Magnificent Ambersons and that the team working here would work together nearly a dozen more times, makes the whole thing feel like the work of a family (the lighting in the film also reminds me very much of my own home, or at least the one in my memory – this wonderful movie has a way of making itself a part of your unconscious). The thing about Cat People is that it has the look and feel of familiarity. The lighting and Nicholas Musuraca's camera remind us of noir and so the film already feels lived-in, though crucially not tired - after all, what other horror film could lay claim to such a clear-headed narrative and such style at the time? Lewton was a master stylist and the effect is that you feel you've known the film a lot longer than you have. I know that this film has worked it's way into my brain and is now as comforting to me as Christmas; it's a memory you never made but has always been there. Cat People is not average by any standards; its semi-gothic design, grim sweetness, subtle yet poignant style, believably ordinary (and lovable) protagonists, unique approach to horror and villainy, and story wrought with preternaturally complex emotional underpinnings are all the sort of thing that horror films as a genre never receive the proper recognition for. Between you and me, sometimes it’s fun to be one of the few people in the know.

So this one doesn't really count...


But I just found it on my computer and thought I should share! and get people excited and hopefully record some of their own stuff.
I made this one night right after I got home from Nick teaching it to me a few months ago. But I'm trying to learn another song now and besides, he's much better at it than I am. but I thought it was funny anyway, and look! my purple room!

First draft of presidential speech circa Spring, 2009

Sarah: hello, I'm Sarah Duff or "Dizzy Puff", depending on your mood, and this is Rachel "The Tiger Tafoya", and we have come up here to preach to you about how to save the environment while still supporting democracy (we may look like communists, but I promise you, we just like the color red). I assure you!

Rachel: Now, Sarah came here last year, and that may not seem like a long time, but she really liked what Solebury was about. She saw the heart of this place a-pounding with love and compassion and the desire to help everyone. She wants to help this place become a great forest of creativity. She is beautiful dancer and she can talk to animals. She is basically a mature version of Eliza Thornberry and who doesn't want to be lead by Eliza Thornberry. Come on.

Sarah: Oh ho ho ho (hug) you're too kind.

That right there is a difficult act to follow indulging laugh

Now, please allow me to introduce, Rachel, Tafoya, a truly beautiful soul and a role model for orphaned pandas everywhere. Seriously, I know. We both took ethics last year. Did you all know she’s the current junior class pre- cough cough CO president? I think she’s doing a GRRREeat job. She’s a writer, did you know that? Any of you read those twilight books? Hm? Hm? For realsies guys, who could take a pipe to that face?

Rachel, goddess, oceanographer, destroyer of worlds has been here at Solebury since the dawn of time. She knows what's what, yall.

Henri, our lovely companion, is part three of our ménage à trois. We are conducting a speeding train towards victory. Just make sure you're on board.

Rachel: Henri is really the backbone of this organization; we couldn't do it without him.

He has a perfect attendance record and he's gotten the Nobel peace prize (Sarah: Three times!) and he's been in the lead role of every play since he's been here.

Sarah: Henri gives me a reason to get up in the morning and really just motivates me day to day.

Rachel, while Sarah plays guitar: So, we gathered you all here to this assembly today because...well...we just really think you're all beautiful and we just love to look at you. We're just going to take a moment...to...aw look you at you all....

Anyway, we really think the environment is uhm quite the thing, ya know? We want to bring it to you all, in high DEF. we’re thinkin’ more trees, little bit more of that uh green stuffs. How bout one them compostes? Yeah you like that? Kyle rossi likes it. We like books, do you like books? Of course you like books, how about we get more books in that big building on the hill where hanna works? Wanna get more books?? Eh? Huh? Yeah? We should doooit. Let’s work on our…veganism because that’s a growing trend. We like our vegans, we like ‘em healthy. But we don’t wanna upset all the carnivores, YEAH YOU LIKE MEAT!

How many of you out there like cookies? Though we love cookies and wish to see the triumphant return of cookie day…

We don’t do those bribes.

We support magic of both the harry potter and the gathering variety (Sarah: we’re going to bring you magic) Hand motions.

In conclusions: vote for us and we’ll save all the polar bears.

Happy Birthday Dušan Makavejev!

Today is Dušan Makavejev's birthday. He directed Sweet Movie one of my all time favourite films, as well as Innocence Unprotected, one of the greatest movies about filmmaking ever made, as well as the charming Manifesto in the late 80s, the semi-autobiographical A Hole In The Soul in the mid-90s, and a number of excellent narrative films with documentary elements: Man is not a Bird, Love Affair or the Case of the Missing Switchboard Operator and finally W.R. Mysteries of the Organism, the film that got him effectively banned from his home country of Yugoslavia in 1971. He was a giant of cinema who has since fallen out of the spotlight, first because he was unable to secure financing for his ambitious political films (which is perhaps why Gorilla Bathes At Noon was made for so little money and was almost instantly forgotten), next because he often had to compromise and movies that veered toward commercial projects (both Montenegro and The Coca-Cola Kid started as loftier message films that were dulled into more general romantic fare, though there's a still a few great bits of surrealism and the director's own political imagination). He remains a giant to me and I wish to some day have a film an eighth as good as one of his. And even if people can't agree about his talent, they'll never deny his power: his movies have been banned, censored and cut worldwide and some people consider them truly monstrous. That doesn't happen to just anyone, especially when the opposition isn't nearly so articulate as his defenders. Sweet Movie is a film that changed the way I think about film, about the insignificance of the word obscenity and that sexuality can always be explored in new, challenging and beautiful ways. He is a hero of mine and I'd like very much to meet him if only to tell him that in person. His films made a difference.

To The Commenter Below

For a while I've tried to make it a point to answer every comment made on any piece of writing I've submitted here or elsewhere. I've had my say and you've been good enough to let me know how you feel and it's only right that I leave nothing unanswered if I can help it. Not too long ago an anonymous (semi-anonymous) comment was left under my story entitled ....then. It's still there if anyone wants to read it. And I just want to say right away that if anyone at all for any reason is offended by it, let me know right away and I'll take it down. I mean that seriously, not a joke or sarcasm, just let me know, leave a comment below this post, anything unambiguous and I'll remove it. This goes for any writer on the site or follower or anyone. The purpose of the piece was not to offend anyone and if you were offended by any one aspect I'm very, very sorry; you don't have to tell me your reason, just let me know if it's caused you anything resembling harm and I'll remove it immediately. You don't have to read any further if you don't want to but I wish you would. As I'll explain in a minute, any harm that was caused was completely accidental.

The story was written in two pieces, the first when I was in high school when everything was fresh in my memory and I went around feeling persecuted and more than a little superior. I was at war with everyone for reasons beyond their control. I disliked wealth, I disliked anyone as pretentious as me and I drew lines where there needn't have been any. Maybe some people helped me draw them but I blame no one but myself for my anger and bloated sense of self-importance; it'd be ridiculous to think anyone could have made me act that way. So when I began writing it, it was just an extension of the self-important cloud I walked around in. I felt like lashing out and this was my way of doing it. Then when I saw what it had turned into, the first half of the story, I put it away and didn't touch it for nearly three years. Then, in a time of emotional turmoil I pulled it out again because once again I was angry and alone and afraid and felt like lashing out. It was either go back and finish the story or cut off all my hair. I think the commenter would have preferred the latter of the two but anyone who has to spend time with me should be glad I finished the story. They can choose not to read it but they would have had to look at my giant mohawked head for the months it took for my hair to grow out again. I can assure you this was the less painful way. Not because I don't think that someone could read it and think I was taking potshots at them, but because it's fiction, by this point, all of it and you can choose to not read it and I beg you not to take it seriously as it's not meant to be. The idea that I remember anything clearly enough to pass off as something that happened in high school is fantasy. I couldn't if I wanted to and I don't want to. The people in this story are not anyone I know; they're fictional constructs that my angry, confused and shallow brain created. It's arrogant, it's angry, it's hateful, it's pretentious and overall it's dreadful, and I know it's all fake. Anyone who thinks they recognize themselves in this story didn't do anything that happens here. It's nonsense, a farce; just look at the ending. It's all fiction. I'd never dream of calling it anything else. I didn't hold grudges in between starting and finishing the story; by the time I finished it these were no longer people I knew, they were overblown caricatures all from my fevered ego, but all the same if I've offended you, please, please, please just tell me.

One word below and I'll remove it because I intended this as something for the ten people who come here regularly to laugh at or sympathize with or critique or talk about. It's not meant as a condemnation of any one person or group, nor is meant to retroactively win arguments I had with the world while I was in high school. That would be counter-productive. The story is a purgation of violent feelings inside me brought out by a bad time in my life that passed in a shorter time than it takes to read this nonsense. We all have them and this was how I responded. I then let it sit for almost another year before cleaning it up, taking out the grammatical mistakes and putting it online to get it off my harddrive and out for people to read and judge so that it wasn't sitting around reminding me of its constant presence. I didn't hide it but all the same I didn't expect any but maybe the seven followers on the sidebar to read it. As I'm sure you know, blogs don't exactly come with world-wide readership. But I'm not married to the piece. It means so little because it's simply a work of delirious pretend. The things I am proud of are the thousands of references to works of fiction, films, obscure historical events & figures, paintings and pieces of music, but I'm not so proud that I can't see how insignificant this is. After all the moral of the story is not to be small-minded but the story itself is also small-minded in that it presents a right and a wrong viewpoint and places cartoonish personas on one side and slightly more developed characters on another. Frankly the people I depict as heroic are too short-sighted and cynical to be so entirely, anyway. And furthermore even if you, commenter, are someone who thinks that the story is one long slight (presumably you know exactly who I am based on the temporary name you chose) I don't want at all to chastise you for things I think you may have done. If you hadn't done something that my brain turned huge in imagining, I wouldn't be me, would I? We're all shaped by our experiences and my grossly overreacting and invention in response to your behavior made me in part who I am. I know you might not but I rather like who I am and I owe it to anyone and everyone who's ever made me angry, even if you've done nothing wrong. There are hundreds of people I've been angry with for no reason at all and everyone in this story is one of them and I don't suggest that you're monstrous or evil or cartoonish. You are not in this story, there's only me in this story. I'm only railing against myself and I owe you a great deal of thanks for continuing to be yourself so that I could evolve and get over myself and be able to purge all of my vicious and nasty feelings out in one long rambling story that makes sense to maybe three people. If many of my close friends don't understand half of what goes in there, what chance did I think someone who I never really connected with (for lack of trying on my part, admittedly) would get them. I'm not trying to sound condescending but this story is the contents of my brain fired against a wall and no one should feel offended or hurt because I needed to pull the trigger. Not that I consider your pain or offense minor or insignificant because they're not.

By this point I'm sure you've thought that I've simply rambled off incoherently again and for that I apologize. I was never very good at making a concise point. But I'll reiterate, don't lose an ounce of sleep over my silly story on some little-read blog. I write about antique sex movies and Filipino women-in-prison films for fun, I have no moral high ground and I don't pretend I'm a better person than anyone else. I'd happily discuss it with anyone (that's why I put it up after all) but if you don't find yourself willing to talk or simply have no desire to, you just need to put the word "Stop" in the comment section on a borrowed screen-name that you can then delete. I won't pursue matters further, I won't try and figure out who wrote it, I'll respect your wishes and remove it. I'm not so proud that my story is worth more than someone else's piece of mind. If you meant your comment as simply a slight and have no intention of coming back or posting again, I can understand that, as well as you most definitely saw the piece as a slight, for which I apologize as it's not. And please understand that I'm being as sincere as I know how to be, and though your memory of me might not allow for that to mean much, I'm trying so hard to be sympathetic and put myself in your shoes, I just ask you to try and do the same for me. I'm not writing to hurt people. I'm not who I was in high school and if you don't want it up it will go down.

My Favourite Films Volume 16

Obscenity is a term that has dogged cinema for a long time. In fact for every development made in technology or form there have been two steps back thanks to religious posturing and political illogic designed to provoke fear and votes. Every country in the world has had, at one time or another, a pretty harsh censorship board in charge of what people see, and I'd put money on all of these people seeking something other than just piece of mind by being there. But what no one has ever been able to define is just what makes something obscene. Never once have I encountered a satisfactory explanation of why and where the line is drawn. In fact there seems to be no rhyme or reason at all. The Hays Code and the Video Nasties Scare (just two of the more famous censorship benchmarks) demanded cuts and considerations left and right but if you look at the films that were altered under each, they have almost nothing in common. If someone were to look at each movie banned by the BBFC in the 80s, you'd be forgiven for thinking that anything scary was pornographic. When lines are drawn only for similar images, forgoing a look at content, what you do is essentially give terrible movies and great ones the same power because they happened to feature naked breasts or a graphic murder or two, the former of which half of every person on the planet has, the latter of which happens everyday. Yet restrictions of realistic depictions of the violence of warfare went uncontested, ditto drug use, misogyny/objectification in films, commercials and music videos, gun violence in westerns, nudity in sex comedies or depictions of racism or homophobia, both unflinching and 'comedically' overblown. Look at it this way, think back to your days on the playground: how many boys said they wanna grow up to be a cowboy/soldier vs. how many say they wanna grow up to be a serial killer based on what they saw on tv? Even someone as impressionable as me didn't identify with the many, many horror films I watched. Sure I may have pretended to combat some of the shit I'd see in horror films (even something as terrible as An American Werewolf in Paris, which I only ever saw the trailer for) but I never identified with the villain. None of us did. Mere exposure taught us that they were not to be identified with. That's why you rarely if ever find kids willing to be the indian. They're the other and movies made us see racism as ok, gun violence, smoking and drinking as necessary and cool, and caused many of us to parrot slurs we didn't understand because we saw them in films. I'm using my own childhood as an example here but it can't be unique. And yet there was never any kind of decree about institutionalized racism (incidentally I'm not for any kind of censorship. I happen to think that extreme cases, like hate speech, should be kept off of screens because of their active violence. It's one thing to depict violence, quite another to call for it against a whole ethnic group or religion). What can't you see on tv? Naked breasts. The very things that nourished you as a child. When you show something, it normalizes it, when you censor it, you give it power it never had before and you make it taboo. Why should all women feel they are born with something indecent on their bodies? And this is all the more jarring when you consider what a splash pornography, both soft and hardcore, made in America and Europe in the early 70s. You can't see women naked on tv, but your parents could go downtown and watch them blowing a guy in Deep Throat, Behind The Green Door or some imported blue film. Today porn makes up so much of the digital cable spectrum it almost outnumbers regular film channels. And yet? You can't say fuck or look at a penis but Pat Robertson's got his own show where he gets to say that feminists make women hate their children. It's exactly this kind of lunacy that Dušan Makavejev was thinking of when he made Sweet Movie in 1974. You like violence and unsimulated fucking, huh? Well, then, this should pose no problem at all. Except it did and he didn't make another film for almost ten years. Let's figure out why.

Sweet Movie
by Dušan Makavejev
The first thing we see is a chair, not unlike the ones you'd find in a dentist's office (or an OB/GYN) as it makes it's way to the Miss World Pageant. Hold on a second because whatever you were thinking that meant is way off. As our TV commentator and host tells us, the purpose of the Miss World competition is to find a wife for the world's richest man Mr. Abdemel (or Mr. Dollars as he's listed in the credits). The winning girl is set to inherit his billion dollar fortune, all she has to do is impress his mother, who's throwing the competition. The criteria for winning is simple. Dr. Littlefingers, a gynecologist and obstetrician, has to examine each girl's hymen and decide whose is the best, for lack of a more descriptive term. Miss Southern Rhodesia seems like a shoo-in, especially after the tawdry display by Miss Yugoslavia, but when Miss Canada walks in, the show's over. To a light and beautiful string arrangement, she walks out in furry knee-high boots and when she reveals that she doesn't have any underwear on, there almost doesn't seem to be any point to examining her, but when he does Littlefingers is confronted with a heavenly, golden glow springing from her loins like the briefcase in Kiss Me, Deadly. Let's meet her new husband.

Mr. Abdemel is a brash, cartoonish billionaire who wants to pay to have Niagara falls shut off and who thinks Karl Marx shot archduke Ferdinand. The reception waiting for them at his house is nice enough, a hippie band bearing flowers, a beautiful estate (for a lout, Dollars has nice taste in homes), and a honeymoon that seems to be ripe for intimacy and genteel married sex. That is until Dollars starts rubbing Miss World down with alcohol and pulls out his gold-plated penis and starts urinating on her. Our heroine draws the line there, even with a billion dollars at stake She wants to escape but that won't look good for the mogul so his mother has her shipped off to France in a suitcase (after an interesting period of naked captivity with Jeremiah Muscle, her gigantic black servant). When she gets there she runs into all kinds of mishigas involving a singing Spanish heart-throb, a tryst on the Eiffel Tower that almost ends in tragedy, a stint in an actionist commune and finally as a model for a chocolate commercial. I should point out that we occasionally flash to Anna Planeta, the captain of a barge headed down the Seine with Karl Marx as the bearded figurehead. She takes on a soldier, a deserter from the battleship Potemkin, as her lover. She welcomes children aboard first enticing them with candy and then appears to seduce them. Before the police raid the boat, you realize that her commitment to an ideological extreme drove her more than a little mad, at least in the eyes of outsiders.

And that incidentally is what most people thought of Makavejev when he released Sweet Movie. They thought that like Anna Planeta, his incendiary brand of socialism had driven him off the deep end and Sweet Movie was just excess unchecked. In one sense he is the captain of a great ship headed through a country that had once held so much promise and now seemed so quiet and conformist. He was looking for survivors and his movie was meant as a kind of password between members of the underground, but it seemed like he stood utterly alone. The most popular response was to simply stand aghast at the things presented, as if there was nothing else to the movie but nudity and baffling set-pieces. It's been described as a love it or hate it movie, though I don't think that's true. I certainly love it but I think that even if you didn't like the things you were being shown you could absolutely love the cinematography, the lush production design and the beautifully underplayed score, just as a for example. Pierre Lhomme's photography really is astonishing. Makavejev had said that he wanted Sweet Movie to be a love letter to colours and Lhomme was only too happy to oblige. Every room and person Miss World encounters has such a well defined and fun palette it's like the movie is set in FAO Schwarz (Otto Muehl, the leader of the commune, later called the movie pure kitsch, but the depiction of his group ought to have shown him otherwise). And because they're so clear, when we enter darker spaces, the colours become textures just like the wood inside the bowels of Anna Planeta's ship or the walls of the Therapie Kommune, when Lhomme's camera is noticeably handheld. There is something almost magical about these scenes and they're certainly ahead of their time. I remember watching these and being totally hypnotized, totally in awe of the fact that so much of this film could have been made yesterday. There are so many scenes that are enchantingly shot, especially when contrasted with the flash of the opening competition or the sight-gags that serve as the introduction to the sailor. The reason I think they work so well is because they make us feel like the cameras are spectators as much as we are; we're just observing this behavior and that's crucial in the Kommune scenes. If he'd properly lit and framed vomit and shit, we'd probably all puke ourselves. Instead the effect is that of a whirlwind of senses and events that no one is in control of and everyone is experiencing like an outsider. It's an intoxicating style that greatly helps one to get lost in this sea of political imagery and strange behavior. In fact it wasn't the revolutionary ideas that initially struck me initially about Sweet Movie. I remember the first thing that stuck out as being completely unforgettable was the song that Ann Lonnberg sings when we first meet Anna Planeta. That's the thing that always grounded every bizarre ass thing that happens in the realm of storytelling and film, rather than of weird-for-the-sake of weird. No one actually depraved could have gone looking for a song as perfect as this. And no one could have found so much beauty in hopelessness.
Sweet Movie as a list of obscene set-pieces dares you to take it seriously, but in practice it's something much different. Sure there's sex, violence, implicit pedophilia, unsimulated pissing, shitting and vomiting but in the proper context, that is to say with an open mind and a little help from a sympathetic political viewpoint, Sweet Movie is more than the sum of its bodily functions. The thing I love about its portrayal of sexuality is that it's so unsexy. There's enough skin to satisfy anyone in a raincoat but not one encounter is without baggage. Take the two stories' climaxes. On board the survival a final tryst takes place in a vat of sugar and ends with a rather sudden burst of violence. It's so conflicting and beautiful and otherworldly that by the time you have a fix on things, it all changes. In Miss World's story, she writhes naked in melted chocolate. It's fascinating as hell but it's far from exploitative and I wouldn't even call it sexy. So, yes, it hits the beats of a sex film but then it runs right past them until 'decency' and 'sexiness' have to be pretty seriously re-evaluated. I love reading negative reviews of this film because their problem stems from their being unwilling to look at things that everyone of us does every day. I admit that the vomiting is the one thing that will occasionally send my eyes to the corner of the room depending what I've just eaten but there is absolutely nothing in this film that I would call obscene or gratuitous. And I can't tell you how important that distinction is in a film like this. Intent is everything and Makavejev wasn't trying to offend anyone (their sensibilities, sure) but he was trying to wake people up and he seemed to know that this was the last chance he'd get to say anything so he made sure to say it all. In fact the movie's reputation became so great that Anna Prucnal, who plays Anna Planeta, was actually banned from her home country, Poland, for so long that she missed the death of her mother. This is why I so love film. What album or book has had this kind of impact in the last fifty years that was also artistically satisfying? People go crazy when confronted with the truth and in the cinema, they can't escape it; Makavejev blocked all the exits and lit the place on fire.

Dušan Makavejev was one of the first generation of Yugoslavians to have access to cameras and film schools and is one of the only people to ever break into the international scene in any meaningful way. He made four films in his native country (the best of them, Innocence Unprotected, is one of the best films about film ever made) before finally getting himself effectively evicted. The film that did it was W.R. Mysteries of the Organism, a kind of slavic I Am Curious that fuses documentary footage of sex therapy and sexual curios with a free-form narrative a la Godard about a woman who takes a break from hammering home Marxist dogma to seduce a figure skater who's the pride of the nation. His movies all drew lines between fascism and modern life and poked fun at Yosip Broz Tito's government with a knife. After W.R. pointed out that in practice nazism, Tito's communism and Nixon's republican government were not really all that dissimilar, the government film board gave him his pink slip and he went looking for money elsewhere. It didn't take him long to find it and before long he was using French, Canadian and English money and a cast of outsiders like Sami Frey, Pierre Clementi and Carol Laure. But needless to say it didn't go down quite so easily. Where W.R. had excited the international film scene and was the reason he so easily secured financing for another film, Sweet Movie made most people avert their eyes out of shame. Reviews were unkind enough that it waited almost thirty years for a DVD release and thanks to its showing the human body doing what the human body does it's still banned in England. Makavejev may have made other films after this, but none so unflinching and none as good (though Manifesto really is quite excellent). The reason no one wanted Sweet Movie is because the spirit of 1968, every new wave the world had produced and all the revolutionary fervour that had so captured the heart of everyone under thirty had failed. It was business as usual as far as everyone was concerned and they didn't need some foreign eccentric shitting all over their blissful conformity. All the strikes and rallies and progressive candidates were dead and Makavejev was one of the few people actively grieving. Hence the film's one foray into documentary footage, that of the Germans discovering the bodies of dead Poles in Katyn forest. You may have moved on, he seems to say, but these people are dead and injustice is still everywhere. Sweet Movie is thus a big, New Orleans-style funeral for idealism. Unsurprisingly attendance was low.

As a statement it's perfect and I couldn't ask for anything more from it. Everything, down to the posters and trinkets that hang on Anna Planeta's boat like some Maoist TGI Friday's, have meaning to them. Nothing was accidental. To look at but a few almost imperceptible things that have no effect on the story. The sailor who boards the Survival is a cast away from the Potemkin. "Isn't that the revolution that failed?" she asks him. It is, but it's also the name of the flagship film of Soviet montage of which Makavejev was a fervent disciple. Soviet Montage influenced his first four films heavily and this is especially fascinating when we realize that Tito's government had broken from the soviets in Makavejev's lifetime. Makavejev went looking for inspiration in the culture of a national antagonist at a time when the man running the country wasn't above burying his enemies in quicklime. It's a small gesture, I suppose considering how new and insignificant the film schools in the country were when Makavejev was starting and by 74 he saw that his revolution, too, had failed and had only managed to get him ejected from his homeland. Battleship Potemkin is about one sailor causing a rebellion on a great ship, Sweet Movie is about the same soldier boarding a smaller one and being eaten alive by his own ideals. The authorities show up at the end of both movies and find revolutions in progress, except one is led by a woman alone surrounded by the bodies of her allies. And again, this is just in one piece of wardrobe and one line of dialogue. When you realize that such things appear every thirty seconds, you see why I'm so in love with this film's theory and design, to say nothing of its assaultive content.
I found Sweet Movie at a crucial time in my life. I'd landed at Temple University after having not been offered enough scholarship money to go to my first choice, Emerson College. I had, however, resolved to get into Emerson again and nothing was going to stop me. My time at Temple was short, cold, lonely and pretty disappointing. I couldn't function there; the classes were huge, no one, least of all the other kids, cared for my anarchic "do whatever feels right" attitude toward filmmaking, everyone was wary of everyone else, and I had few friends but it wasn't without its high points. I had already decided that I needed to be somewhere a little less hostile but I was also going to take advantage of everything here. I got to know Final Cut, the editing software, intimately, I wrote a lot, fine-tuning the script that would grant me entrance into Emerson and also writing a 350 page war film I don't have the heart to look back at. But the thing I'm most grateful for at Temple was their mammoth DVD library. I took out ten films at a time and watched all of them before returning a few days later to get more. I watched nearly everything the Criterion Collection released to date and began exploring the lesser films of some of my favourite directors. They also bought most new films and so when I started reading about Sweet Movie's release I knew I had to see it. And when I did, I instantly fell in love. Along with The Battle of Algiers, Playtime, The Human Condition, Children of Men, Au Revoir Les Enfants and If.... it filled me with contempt at all the broken promises made by past generations. How had we failed so spectacularly? Bush was still president and I was at a school where seeing a stretcher dispatched to collect a rape victim somewhere on campus wasn't uncommon. Where the fuck did the future go? I was filled with indignation and that kept me motivated enough to get out of North Philadelphia and into a school that I thought I deserved to be in. The intervening years have proven Emerson a place just as stubbornly resistant to my attitude as Temple and I'm still a disrespectful malcontent but these films, If...., Children of Men, Sweet Movie, keep me in check when nothing else does. If graduating gets me a step closer to making movies riddled with Sweet Movie's influence, then I'll write anything and happily listen to someone telling me there is one right way to make a movie. Makavejev had so much more to contend with that my problems frankly don't exist in the grand scheme of things and I can't wait to get my chance and blow it by asking just what the fuck happened. Why did the world get together and agree to forget him and his questions. Sweet Movie is a film that to love it means not settling for the violence of the modern world. Not settling for conformism, misogyny, racism and censorship. It means trying to love people and everything they do, committing to revolution so that we can make the world a little nicer, a little more sweet.

It's Anna Karina's birthday

"Nicholas Ray is cinema"
-Godard
By extension, Godard, his most ardent fan, plagiarist and follower is cinema.

No Godard without Karina. He did his best work with her (Contempt excluded)

Anna Karina is cinema.

The Phenomena of Verizon Wireless

I went to the Verizon store today to pick up a new phone before going off to school. My old phone was destroyed, probably in a fit of rage against the horrible company that is Verizon (but also certainly not).

First, upon entering the store, I had to ask about getting a new phone. My mom had to provide a whole bunch of personal information, such as her SSN, in order to confirm her account. You think that as a gigantic evil company, Verizon would have some of this stored for easy access. I guessed not. I then went to look at their selection of a dozen or so phones. This was made unnecessarily difficult by a clerk who kept badgering me about all their selection, and suggested I buy an Android after I explained I wanted something very basic. Their entire selection consisted of two main flavours: QWERTY-keyboard flip phones, and some horrible touchpad phones.

All of their selection was terrible designed, unwieldy, and flimsy. There was no exception or alternative to this. When I finally found something that looked half-decent, I was told I needed a $30/month internet plan in order to use it at all. I don't think my cable line at home even costs that much. I can only imagine that all that money goes toward vials of fairy-dust and bathtubs of leprechaun gold. After I remarked about the ridiculous price to the man behind the counter, he suggested I buy a Blackberry. "If you're going to get the internet package," he explained, "you may as well get the very best phone for it. It can even save money on texting, since you can send messages to any friends with Blackberries for free". I don't think I have ever met a single person with a Blackberry, with the possible exception of the abhorrent lifeform called Brendan Nerny.

I eventually settled on the most basic phone available. While we were checking out, I asked about transferring information from my broken phones to the new one. He explained I could only take information off of one, as they could not merge the information. I asked if he could somehow send me the data in some other form (as it should be computer accessible), perhaps over email. He did not respond to this inquiry at all. He eventually transferred all my contacts, but no text messages or images.

A woman in the line next to me then asked if she could access ringtones she bought for her old phone through her new one, which was denied. Why should a person not be able to retrieve such data if it was 1. purchased digitally though a retrievable account and 2. cost $3 and a monthly media access fee?

It's a good thing I had this distraction, since the person helping me was simultaneously talking on the phone and too a very confused man whose new phone was broken the week before he left for Disneyland (I don't think they resolved that issue either, by the way). After about 20 minutes I left with a shitty fucking phone that cost a billion and a half dollars. The end.

Cymbals Eat Guitars

So, I've already told you about this series and showed you Superchunk covering The Cure. Well here's Cymbals Eat Guitars covering Superchunk. I did a poorly shot interview over coffee with CEG last Fall and they were incredibly nice and played a tremendously loud show at Boston University. Enjoy this! It's awesome!

Cymbals Eat Guitars cover Superchunk

Photograph from a Moving Train



What are things that will make you realise?

I call this, what are things that will make you realise? Days are empty, everything is insipid and distant. When things are real, they are too real, they are overwhelming, they are devastating. It is so difficult to pull back, from pain or numb, and remember what it means to be myself.

What are things that will make you realise?

  1. someone telling you "I love you", when it is someone you really want to hear that from them
  2. taking a bath while looking at a book you love but don't want to read again any time soon
  3. sitting on a comfortable chair that you can sink into, in a dimly lit room with steady ambient noise (fan, white noise, noise generator, anything) to block out anything but your own thoughts
  4. lying on your back lost in the woods, looking up at the trees and listening to them creak; especially when it is too hot and humid, or too cold and dry, and you can sit there long enough to forget those things
  5. remembering all the wonderful things, all the things that brought you here, for better or for worse; don't remember in words, look at photographs and walk through your childhood spots and smell old books that were loaned to you because then you will remember that person's faint smell and well as the pleasant odor of stale pages
  6. remember the times you cried, and how things got worse but eventually things went away; especially if you can't cry right now
  7. make long lists of everything you're going to need when you finally run away and nobody will know where you went; did you ever think of running away when you were a small child? what did you decide to bring? better bring it this time, too
  8. think about your enemies from long ago and realise that they weren't so bad after all
  9. think about your enemies from long ago and realise how wonderful things are now that you don't have to worry about them anymore
  10. look at your old drawings, notebooks, read your dream journals, recipes, free verse poetry, look at the doodles you drew in your textbooks and old magazines you kept for one article you liked; be happy that you're sure these things happened
  11. find all the nick-nacks and little things your friends and parents have given you to commemorate something, as a souvenir, as a way of saying, "this reminded me of you"; think about the things you've given
  12. read old love letters, feel your heart flutter again
  13. right now, write down anything that will remind yourself of things that will make you realise.

Superchunk covers The Cure

The A.V. Club, the media review site affiliated with The Onion, has been doing this thing for a couple of months where they ask bands into a round room in their offices to play a cover song from a list they compiled. I've liked a few of them but this one might be my favourite because it Superchunk, the band covering, sound like Supergrass and the song they're covering is one of my favourites, "In Between Days" by the Cure.

Superchunk covers The Cure

100 Great Films From the Naughts -2000-2009

This is only the faintest outline of the right order. These are all great films; the top ten is roughly in the right order.

1. Let The Right One In
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. There Will Be Blood
4. The Beaches of Agnes
5. Hunger
6. A Lake
7. A Single Man
8. Red Riding: 1974
9. Children of Men
10. A Serious Man
11. Y Tu Mama Tambien
12. Gomorrah
13. Punch-Drunk Love
14. The Pianist
15. Diving Bell & The Butterfly
16. Zodiac
17. The Road
18. Vincere
19. Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World
20. 28 Days Later
21. Gosford Park
22. The House of the Devil
23. Sweeney Todd
24. Inland Empire
25. The Devil's Backbone
26. Murderous Maids
27. No Country For Old Men
28. Synecdoche, NY
29. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
30. Bright Star
31. Lady Vengeance
32. Of Time And The City
33. [Rec]
34. Lourdes
35. In The Mood For Love
36. Coffee & Cigarettes
37. Memories Of Murder
38. The Escapist
39. My Winnipeg
40. Time of the Wolf
41. Encounters At The End Of The World
42. Water Lilies
43. Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
44. Paranoid Park
45. Happy-Go-Lucky
46. Bronson
47. Il Divo
48. Birth
49. Che
50. Where The Wild Things Are
51. Elephant
52. 3:10 To Yuma
53. Silent Light
54. Man On Wire
55. Broken Flowers
56. Before Night Falls
57. Brick
58. The Wind That Shakes The Barley
59. A Prophet
60. Up
61. Black Dynamite
62. Rachel Getting Married
63. Wolf Creek
64. Red Cliff
65. Brokeback Mountain
66. Wall-E
67. Drag Me To Hell
68. The White Ribbon
69. A Very Long Engagement
70. Youth Without Youth
71. Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance
72. The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford
73. The New World
74. Best In Show
75. Ju-On
76. Fido
77. Go-Go Tales
78. Angel-A
79. Revanche
80. Flame & Citroen
81. The Lives Of Others
82. Changeling
83. American Gangster
84. Fear(s) Of The Dark
85. Margot At The Wedding
86. Traffic
87. Lorna's Silence
88. District 9
89. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou
90. Star Trek
91. The Ring
92. The Others
93. Sexy Beast
94. The Baader-Meinhoff Complex
95. Kairo
96. Capote
97. Vinyan
98. Batman Begins
99. Zombieland
100. The Libertine

Supergrass Is Dead! Long Live Supergrass

So perhaps I'm a touch behind as news goes but then again I'm not actually a journalist, so...but I'm here to talk you folks about a band I love, though now I suppose I'll have to start talking about them in the past tense. For Supergrass is no more. Their blend of Britrock spanned genres and more than a decade but they've called it quits. There is reason to hope that all is not lost, but more on that later. Let's start at the top. Gaz Coombes and Danny Goffey were in a band called the Jennifers in their mid to late teens which fell apart in 92. They left an indelible impression on the few who heard them gigging in Oxfordshire, their hometown. Bassist Mick Quinn, a co-worker of Coombes, joined them in 93 and after messing about with a few named settled on Theodore Supergrass. The prefix would go in the weeks after their first good reviews came in. Their history isn't crucial and to be honest I don't know a good deal about their personal journey but I know their music like the back of my hand. One of the first records I bought and felt like I was on my way to being a proper music aficionado was their 2002 record Life On Other Planets. Frequent guests here will know that it wound up very near the top of my best albums of the decade.
The band's sound is steeped in the history of British popular rock music and indeed their evolution almost uncannily mirrors that of The Who. They started with uber-catchy and very English early material (I Should Coco/The Who Sing My Generation), got a bit bigger and a little more expansive and loud (In It For The Money, Supergrass/A Quick One), way more conceptual and a little less cookie-cutter but with a distinct and beautiful personality (Life On Other Planets, Road To Rouen/The Who Sell Out) and finally a big rock sound that was a little low on the kind of magic that characterized their best records (Diamond Hoo Ha/Tommy, Who's Next). Evidently I wasn't the only one who saw the Who connection. Coombes sang "Bargain" with Pearl Jam at the VH1 Rock Honors celebration of The Who, one of their least interesting songs just before Coombes was to release his least compelling record to date just as The Who would venture into all-too-familiar rock territory after their 60s heyday (the 70s killed off some of our most impressive bands by turning the volume up and the creativity down; Imagine if The Stones had never stopped trying to make records like Second Request). In fact It's also tempting to think that Supergrass might have done a splendid little reversal a la David Bowie, who at first fell pray to the allure of early 70s musical trends but pulled himself out of his glamrock nose dive in time to make a soul record, a kind of indefinable spacy funk record and then define Post-Punk before Punk was in its death throes. The proof: Hot Rats. Springing out of their time alone following Mick Quinn's sleepwalking injury in 2007, Coombes and Goffey released a cover album earlier this year called Turn Ons, produced by Nigel Godrich, he of Radiohead production fame. The record was largely 60s, early 70s rock though there are exceptions (notably a pretty catchy cover of Gang of Four's "Damaged Goods" and the Beastie Boys "Fight For Your Right To Party", which as a reviewer pointed out sounds exactly like The Who's "I Can See For Miles"). Why this leaves me feeling hopeful for the now defunct Supergrass is that they managed to trot out the kind of rock music ruined by the 70s and make it sound both understated and alive. The Velvets, Pink Floyd, The Kinks, The Doors, Roxy Music, Squeeze and David Bowie are given a kind of Devil's Advocate production, alternately turned up and down hinting at what those bands might have done without the times shelling out money on studios. Bowie's "Queen Bitch" for example benefits from a soaring string arrangement over the verses. It's exactly the kind of momentum that the song always needed, though no one would have ever said so. That's why I love the guys in Supergrass, they answer to no one. And they can also make me appreciate The Doors. Their cover of that worthless misogynistic band's "The Crystal Ship" feels weighty and important and fun all at once, something The Doors never managed to convince me of divorced from the images from Apocalypse Now. It was also good to hear Coombes ripping apart his guitar as on recent Grass records he'd taken to big riffs with little virtuosity called for. It didn't used to be that way.
"I'd Like To Know" the first track on their debut record I Should Coco, is all furious muted picking, overdubs and high-flying tone. Coombes, who was barely 19 at the album's release, lets his youthful energy take the track around the block a number of times. He might not be Jimmy Page but he lets his guitar eat up a good deal of the track. Quinn and Goffey are just as impressive. Quinn whose stance hasn't changed much since the band's early gigs, has John Entwistle's stamina, mastery of tone and does just as impressive a job on the backing vocals. Goffey's speed and thunderous sound put him in good company as well though it would be a few albums before their ability would be given its full breath. The youth of the band is evident but there's clearly a maturity to the group's sound, which is astonishing considering their age. The penultimate track, "Sofa (Of My Lethargy)" is a great example of their preternatural skill with a studio. Not only did they get the kind of madcap, Richard Lester style irreverence of 60s British but they also had moments that aped the likes of Floyd and Black Sabbath. The sound wasn't the most unique thing in the world but it was fun and knowing and fleet of finger and besides, the best was yet to come.
In It For The Money, their sophomore record is bigger, louder and a little more fierce. The opening onslaught of the titular opener, "Richard III" and the horn-laden "Tonight" perfect encapsulate their manic energy at its unchained best. Catchy, riddled with distortion and a winking sense of themselves. These are songs to fall in out and of, pulp rock music. It's not hard to imagine Grass in 1997 filling up bonus discs with silly covers of "Hall of the Mountain King" and "The Batman Theme" as The Who did at this point in their career. Though Coombes' depth also began to shine through as on the Golden Agey acoustic led "Late In The Day." Though even as their capacity to take themselves seriously burgeoned, they could still cut themselves down to size on as on the muzak interlude on "Going Out." The album is a bit more of a whole then Coco, and the use of disparate sounds and expansive instrumentation would be put to full use on their best album.

1999 saw their second brush with big time exposure. Coco had spawned a couple of hit singles and for a minute or two the band were on top of the world. Steven Spielberg even approached them about possibly producing a Monkees like TV show which proves both their irreverent and their timeless credentials and when they said no that cemented their reputation as a band that viewed music more seriously than the fame that often accompanies it. They weren't above the odd video (it was the 90s, after all) but ultimately it was the music that drove them. Britain has churned out its fair share of run-of-the-mill pop groups but it has plenty of iconoclastic rock stars to its name as well. For every Paul McCartney or George Michael there are also a few Syd Barretts and John Lydons. Coombes and Co. have the ability to put out something as hooky as The Kinks or any of Britain's New Wave acts but their progression from fun-loving pop group to record label nightmare is important if we are to appreciate them fully. They'd always caused trouble for Parlophone and indeed wound up splitting from them but my guess is that the real trouble started in 1999. With the release of their self-titled third album came the Jim Henson Studio helmed video for "Pumping On Your Stereo" which made them (once again) an overnight sensation. They would never see this level of success again. The album that "Stereo" sprang from is quite a good collection of pop tunes with the swagger of a rock album.
Opening with another indelible string of brilliant songs, "Moving" sets the tone for the record, moving from a floating verse to a stomping chorus. The first time the organ starts creeping through before the chorus kicks in, ooh it's sweet. They unleash a number of awesome choruses on this record making this possibly their best car stereo album. "Your Love" pulls off the same trick but somehow the chorus is even more awesome. The overdubs and harpsichord help distract you sufficiently so that when the chorus comes in it hits you even harder. "What Went Wrong" has an instantly compelling verse if a little less impressive a chorus, but the real meat of the record is for me the next track. "Beautiful People" The pre-chorus and the chorus itself are screaming, gripping bits of pop genius. Tightly constructed and highly satisfying, it's the best the record gets. The rest is good, "Shotover Hill" capturing that sunbaked feel they supply on "Late In The Day", "Eon" a preview of the sort of spacey momentum they would perfect on Life On Other Planets. "Mary" and "Born Again" have a kind of slinky Station to Station feel. "Faraway" and "Pumping on Your Stereo" are instantly catchy. "Mama and Papa" is one of the few songs that seems to have any real personal meaning for Gaz Coombes, songwriter, who slows down and speaks up for the first time.


Supergrass kissed the video/radio play route goodbye with Life On Other Planets. The record spawned a few singles, none of them chart burners, in the states but after making Life On Other Planets, the most conceptual and unique of their albums to date, they went into making grounded and mature rock music that doesn't play well with teens (Diamond Hoo Ha was a bit of a relapse but it was also their downfall apparently). "Grace" the first one that made it's way here, was my first proper introduction to the Oxfordshire natives. I'd heard "Pumping on your Stereo" a dozen or so times but frankly half the record is better than that song, so I wasn't totally won over. "Grace" was different. Short, sweet, charming, effervescent, and catchy as sin. I saw the video, I believe, before I bought the record. It was as cute as the song required and I believe after a week straight singing it to myself I downloaded it and played the hell out of it. Weeks after that I found the host album, Life On Other Planets, at Siren Records, which I remember distinctly being a first of a few different orders. One of the first proper records I bought with my own money, one of the first I played until it was scratched beyond use, one of the first I remember thinking was among the best albums of all time. "Grace" was the window (and for once the single was as good as the rest of the record) and the house I climbed into was lavish beyond compare.

I've already spoken about Life On Other Planets' greatness here so I won't rehash those same points again. I'll simply say that the record is like a fantastical literary and sensory journey, a kind of grand festival that harkens to the highest highs of 60s british music, everything from King Crimson to The Creation. It's ranked among my favorite albums since buying it, which I've had to do several times because I kept damaging the discs. Bookended by meandering organ, Life is all about transporting the listener and bringing to someplace strange and new but still somewhat familiar. The songs are wholly new for the band and there isn't a bit of filler in the lot of them. None of the singles really dented the stateside charts and the band would never see them again.
Their better-than-average best-of followed two years later complete with a live bonus album. The real treat however was the single they recorded to commemorate ten years of being Supergrass. "Kiss of Life" is a bouncy and vibrant song that showcased the expansion of their sound. The next record would realize their more experimental tendencies spectacularly. When the band played "Kiss of Life" on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, I recorded and watched it easily two dozen times before I had that particularly illegal DVD stolen by my then math teacher - I think he liked Pearl Jam's cover of "Masters of War" too much to part with it and told me it'd just been lost. And I think I got a C that year....fucker.

The year after they came out...well, blazing isn't the right word, considering the total lack of fanfare that greeted the release....one could almost sense Parlophone losing confidence in the band as they, like Wilco before them, gravitated away from what had made them consistent sellers in the past. The Supergrass who'd so gleefully played "Caught By The Fuzz" on Later With Jools Holland were no more. Sadly the public didn't respond as well as most critics, and even those reviews often missed the point. I remember buying Road To Rouen like it were yesterday. I was at a Sam Goody that was closing for good and picked it out of the few records worth buying still left (a testament to the album's performance overseas, even with its priced slashed no one had touched it). The quote on the sticker read approximately: "Ry Cooder meets Franz Ferdinand." It's not that that doesn't work (though it's unfairly narrow) but Franz Ferdinand had been around not even a year and already they were being treated as the elder statesmen, as if Supegrass were some bland teenaged brit-pop act like The Kooks or Razorlight, trying to sell you a sound you'd heard a hundred times before and a hundred times better. Granted, to anyone who's heard their influences Supergrass had hardly reinvented the wheel but they brought to it a new vitality and an undying charm and warmth.
Road To Rouen starts with one of their best songs and certainly one of their most interestingly produced. "Tales of Endurance (Parts 4, 5 & 6)" starts with a minor arrangement on the acoustic guitar joined by damp vocals and a slowly building orchestration complete with muted horns, piano and finally the stomping, sneering Grass we've come to expect. Next comes the soft, intriguing "St. Petersburg" that finds Coombes at his most world-weary. He sells his entanglement as wistfully as possible, helped by a heavy dose of vocal reverb that makes it near impossible to tell what the hell he's saying; that you still feel for him makes it that much more effective. "Roxy" is big and has the stature of mid-70s Bowie or early Roy Orbison. When it finally comes to a halt, we're greeted with arguably Supergrass's most fun song. "Coffee In The Pot" is welcome as the band have just spent four songs taking themselves seriously (albeit to great effect) and this is a reminder that their sense of humour hasn't deadened, it's just gotten sophisticated like the rest of their elements. The song's gypsy jazz feel and Rimsky-Korsakov like chorus are a hoot and it's pretty hard to feel down whenever I hear this song. Then it's right back to the rocking. The title track is rock but in a mood closer to "Kiss of Life" than any of their previous efforts. "Coffee" and "Road To Rouen" highlight how inventive a songwriting guitarist Gaz Coombes can be, as well as how hard Goffey and Quinn work at the rhythm. "Low C" is another departure, a little too mellow to be called typical, a little too happy to be called bluesy. "Fin," the album closer, is a spacier riff on "Mama & Papa" with a distinctly "Planet Caravan" vibe. "Sad Girl" and "Kick In The Teeth" are the two classic Grass tracks and would fit in on either In It For The Money or Supergrass, call it a shout-out to the hometown crowd. Take those two out and this may have been even more startling than Life On Other Planets.

It is my strong opinion it was Road To Rouen's performance that paved the way for Diamond Hoo Ha, the band's final official album. Granted the band hadn't ever sounded quite so official, or shiny, but the songwriting went nowhere the band hadn't tread before and though there are catchy moments (the title track is impossible to hate), Diamond is just not the record I expected and wanted after the climb offered on the previous two albums. Like the descent the Decemberists took after their nerd-rock masterpiece The Hazards of Love, the previous Grass records promised something that Diamond Hoo Ha couldn't deliver. For starters it's called fucking Diamond Hoo Ha. Secondly Gaz and Danny went on tour as their alter egos The Diamond Hoo Ha Men playing minimalist versions of the new tunes or covers like "Beat It" while pretending to be drunken idiots. Coco-era grass could have gotten away with that. 14 year old Supergrass seemed a little like older men who'd lost touch with what people wanted. That'd sort of be like David Bowie following up Low and "Heroes" with Diamond Dogs (though some people will tell you that Lodger was an unworthy successor to the other Berlin-era records, I think it holds up ok, but I digress). "Bad Blood" is ok, sparklier late-90s Grass, "Rebel In You" feels like straight T. Rex and the rest of the record rarely strays too far from that. There are saxophone solos and the odd ballad but really it's a pretty predictable album. There's a comfort I suppose in that but I was just not pleased with its lack of ambition. Evidently, I wasn't the only one as the band parted ways over "musical differences" in the wake of the record's mediocre reception.
It's always a bummer when good things end. When bands break-up there is a sense of frustration, of what could have been. The band's final album Release The Drones was slated for a January 2011 release. With a name like that, who can say what the band were up to before they left. A more conceptual album, further adventures in well-worn psychedelia, perhaps a Kid A-like aberrance. Unless they release it will never know whether they peaked with Life On Other Planets. Maybe they needed to stop. Maybe all creative endeavors have a half-life. It begs the question, do all artists have logical stopping points that they can choose to heed? Do we all have those moments. Do we all have a Life On Other Planets in us? I hope so. Until I figure that out for myself I have the output of one of my favourite groups to refer to, find solace in and explore over and over again.

Hello loves!

Ok! SO!

lots of people (two AT LEAST) are on senior project right now and that's very exciting and there's blogging happening so I think everyone needs to go read those blogs PRONTO!
Thanks very much,
Sarah

http://sarahsawesomeseniorproject.blogspot.com/
AND
http://soleburyschoolseniorproject.blogspot.com/

P.S. Miss you guys!

New Blog and all that

Friends! Like Shelular before me I too realized I was bogarding the blog with my video installment jobs and so bought meself a proper website like! It's Honorszombiefilms.com and it's pretty neato. I'm gonna put all my video stuff up there henceforth. Thanks terribly for being so patient with me. And here's one last video you've probably all seen by now: