Monthly Archive for April, 2009

Rush to the Past (part two)

For Rush to the Past (part one), go here.

Here’s a quick Moving Pictures story…

Early in my high school career, one of my hipper English teachers offered to work some rock n’ roll lyrics into her course on poetry. She asked the class for some recent rock records with good lyrical content. She’d put the candidates to a vote and then purchase the winner so that we could dissect it in class the following week. She did ask us to make sure that we were giving her something with genuinely good lyrics and she said, “try not to make it too heavy”. I (and a few others) suggested Rush’s Moving Pictures which had come out that same year. I don’t remember any of the other contenders at this point, but my friends from Canada carried the day when the vote was called. The teacher bought Moving Pictures that weekend, and in class the following Monday, she shook her head at us and said, “I listened to this thing over the weekend and, at first, I thought you were putting one over on me… This guy’s voice is weird.” Most of us had to concede that Geddy Lee’s vocal stylings are an acquired taste, but then she went on: “I sat down with the lyrics and read them all. Yeah, this guy knows what he’s doing”. It felt good to have a professional confirm something I already knew: Neil Peart’s lyrics were just about the smartest thing going at that time. The two or three days we spent going over the record in class stand out in my memory as being one of the most fun times I had in school. Paying serious attention to something I was already consuming in my everyday life was kind of a revelation for me. Art doesn’t necessarily have to be decades or centuries old to be appreciated intellectually. Sadly, I don’t remember that teacher’s name, but I tip my metaphorical hat to her now.

At any rate, it’s been more than twenty years since I listened to Moving Pictures in its entirety and my reasons for revisiting it now are the same as my reasons for trotting out Permanent Waves several days back: the music of Rush was prominently featured in I Love You, Man and seeing that film kindled a spark in me.

All in all, I’d have to say that Moving Pictures is a more fully-realized record than Permanent Waves, more nuanced and more mature (although, like its predecessor, it produced two Rock Radio staples: “Tom Sawyer” and “Limelight” — both of which are, I believe, featured in the aforementioned flick). Not only are the two perrenial tracks mentioned above terrific, “Red Barchetta” and “YYZ” (nominated for a Grammy for best rock instrumental) are really solid as well. The rest of the record is, on the whole, better than weaker stuff from “Waves”. In fact, the only thing that brings it down are some dated synthesizer sounds and, in the case of “The Camera Eye”, ponderous Rock Opera aspirations. Anyway, pretty much immediately after listening to Moving Pictures, I wanted to listen to it again. That’s gotta count for something.

Post Script:

A couple of nights ago, I was flipping around the TV dial, and low and behold there was a 2005 Rush concert playing on the HD music channel. I only caught the last fifteen minutes or so, but — apart from the addition of a couple of decades and some extra pounds — the guys were just as I remembered them the last time I saw them live. They were terrifically tight and clearly enthusiastic. Not too shabby at all for three guys who are (at least) in their middle fifties.

Hoosiers

[80s-palooza part 12.]

Hooisers doesn’t break the mold when it comes to sports movies –and it doesn’t have to. Provided you make films like this one with a baseline level of competence, and your story is suitably inspiring you stand a terrific chance of attracting a large and loyal following. As I say, there’s nothing here story-wise we haven’t seen before, but the production values are a good deal better than merely baseline. In particular, I was struck by just how terrific the cinematography is. Want an idea of what it was like to live in Indiana in the early 1950s? Watch Hoosiers — it not only feels accurate to the place and period, it’s gorgeous to look at. Since the filmmakers also had the good sense to throw Gene Hackman into the mix, Hoosiers manages to poke its head just over the top of the sports movie crowd. Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hackman is one of the finest American actors of our era — much better in many regards than contemporaries like, say, Jack Nicholson. When Gene’s onscreen, you’re looking at him — and it’s not because the guy’s jumping up and down and waving his arms (if anything, Hackman has a tendency to underplay). No, it’s because he’s really, really good; utterly believable in every regard. There’s certainly a such thing as a bad movie with Gene Hackman, but I defy you to find one where he’s bad. He’s that kind of actor.

The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:

  1. War Games
  2. The Sword and the Sorcerer
  3. Big Trouble in Little China
  4. The Beastmaster
  5. Buckaroo Banzai
  6. Dreamscape
  7. Excalibur
  8. To Live and Die in L.A.
  9. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  10. Top Secret!
  11. The Thing

Foundation

I’m mildly ambivalent about Isaac Asimov’s Foundation, though I think it’s a terrific piece of work in many respects. The book, as good as it is, is missing many of the core mechanics which I look for in a strong piece of fiction — with two “for instances” being highly relatable characters, and a  palpable sense of conflict (in either the strictly dramatic or the more literal sense). The book often reads more like a historical treatise than it does a proper novel. (Not surprising, I suppose, since it was inspired, so the story goes, by The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) In fact, Foundation is not really a proper novel at all, but rather a grouping of short stories held together by a common setting and a clever device for narrative progression (the overarching story, as loose as it may be, is the history of a particularly rough patch in the history of a galactic empire). Because of its structure, Foundation reminded me a great deal of Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles (which is also a book-length narrative made of loosely connected parts). Asimov’s book, however, lacks “Chronicles’” warmth. Bradbury is a much more poetic storyteller and his tales are rooted in nostalgia and human connections. Asimov seems to be more concerned with history and politics — so much so that I was often reminded of another book:  Frank Herbert’s Dune. For of all its political intrigue, however, Dune is still a more emotionally grounded work than Foundation. I see Foundation then as occupying a weird middle ground between those two other works — inferior to both in most important repsects, but a landmark of the genre, nevertheless. (Oh, did I forget to mention that, despite its coldness, Foundation is a very quick and enjoyable read? Guess I should’ve pointed that out before spending so much time ragging on poor, dead Isaac.)

The Thing

[80s-palooza part 11.]

Horror movies don’t come much leaner or meaner than John Carpenter’s The Thing. I find the film’s purity admirable: from the first frame, it’s unrelentingly nihilistic, and it never backs down from that position. I won’t give away the ending for those of you who haven’t seen it, but suffice it say the conclusion is a little short of puppy dogs and flowers. Along the way, we get a tight, closed-environment drama. The recipe is straightforward: put twelve guys in a remote location, make it clear that they can no longer trust one another, and then sit back and watch the fireworks. But what’s the reason behind the rampant paranoia? Only one of the scariest, most imaginative monsters in film history. The year was 1982 so, of course, we’re talking animatronics here, but the stuff really does hold up. The Thing himself (thanks to FX man Rob Bottin) is a Lovecraftian nightmare — and it has to be if the audience is to believe it when the aforementioned dozen guys go batshit crazy. Fortunately, Bottin and his crew were more than up to the challenge so suspension of disbelief is not a problem.

Mostly by happenstance, two 80s-palooza entries to date have come courtesy of John Carpenter. The quality of The Thing and Big Trouble in Little China make me want to check out other Carpenter efforts like Starman and They Live.

The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:

  1. War Games
  2. The Sword and the Sorcerer
  3. Big Trouble in Little China
  4. The Beastmaster
  5. Buckaroo Banzai
  6. Dreamscape
  7. Excalibur
  8. To Live and Die in L.A.
  9. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
  10. Top Secret!

Michael Chabon Goes to Mars

Wow, this is exciting. I’ve talked about Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter series here on the Cove a time or two. Now it looks as though the forthcoming Pixar-produced motion picture has got itself a new writer…

In yesterday’s item by Deadline Hollywood Daily about Michael Chabon switching agents, it mentioned that he was attached to write a script for Disney’s John Carter of Mars. Having never heard that before, I checked in with Chabon to see if it was accurate. The answer is yes.

“I’ve been hired to do some revisions to an already strong script by Andrew Stanton and Mark Andrews,” Chabon said. “I wrote my original screenplay The Martian Agent back in 1995 because I wished I could do [Edgar Rice] Burroughs’s Barsoom. So this is pretty much a dream come true for me.”

Disney got the option rights to Burrough’s 11-volume series in 2007 after the rights lapsed at Paramount Pictures. Andrew Stanton, the writer and director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E, is set to direct. It’s expected to hit theaters in 2012.

Source: The Amazing Website of Kavalier and Clay.

Chabon won the Pulitzer Prize for his novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. He also contributed to the screenplay for Spider-man 2.

The 11th Annual Film Noir Fest

Last night I had the pleasure of taking in a Film Noir double feature at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood (those of you who are fans of the show Entourage have seen the Egyptian’s marquee numerous times — the boys drive by it in the show’s opening credits). The American Cinematheque (which owns and operates the Egyptian) has been doing a festival of Noir films every year for the last eleven years. I’ve been going on and off ever since I arrived in Southern California almost nine years ago. Sadly, I never get anywhere near taking in the full program. The most I’m able to manage in any given year is a double feature or two. Despite the fact that I never go any deeper than the iceberg’s tip, I always have a great time and I always feel strangely restored afterwards. There’s nothing like seeing some poor sap get double-crossed and then plugged in the back by the girl he thought he loved (all in glorious black and white).

Last night’s double bill was While the City Sleeps and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt — both of which were from 1956 and both of which were directed by Fritz Lang and starred Dana Andrews. If I’m not mistaken, neither of these movies is on DVD which is another reason why the Noir Festival consistently rocks. For my money, “Sleeps ” was definitely the better of the two with a more solid premise and a terrific supporting cast featuring the likes of George Sanders (who was awesome in both All About Eve and The Jungle Book) and the immortal Vincent Price. The script was solid, the dialogue was often very pointed and there was some genuinely cutting humor. The first ten minutes or so of “Reasonable Doubt” strain credibility to a laughable degree, but the movie does eventually find a decent rhythm. The latter picture was Lang’s last American movie — he supposedly went back to Europe shortly thereafter, a bitter and angry old man. This shows in the movie to a degree. While it’s competently directed, there isn’t much in the way of style — disappointing from the man who brought us earlier classics such as The Big Heat, M, and the iconic silent picture Metropolis.

But, whatever the relative merits of the films, I find that I often have a better time at my worst Film Noir Festival outing than I do at some of my better modern screenings. Black and white images and rain-slicked streets are generally more appealing to me than giant robots and half-naked teens.

Well, more appealing than giant robots, anyway.

Top Secret!

“Your life will be worth less than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.”

Okay, so maybe Top Secret! isn’t as good as Airplane! or the better entries in the “Naked Gun” series, but it’s still pretty damn funny. It’s wafer-thin, this odd amalgam of Elvis flicks, spy movies, and Casablanca, but there’s something about it that just keeps you connected. You can’t help liking it for its scruffy charm and, of course, that patented Zucker, Zucker & Abrahams silliness. Anyways, I saw that it was on at 2am last night and I had to roll the Tivo on it. It had been years since I’d seen it last, and seeing it again brought back some pleasant memories.

[80s-palooza part 10 (unofficial entry)].

The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:

  1. War Games
  2. The Sword and the Sorcerer
  3. Big Trouble in Little China
  4. The Beastmaster
  5. Buckaroo Banzai
  6. Dreamscape
  7. Excalibur
  8. To Live and Die in L.A.
  9. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Rio Bravo

Rio Bravo is an odd movie — it’s meandering, largely stage-bound and way too heavy on the dialogue. Despite my affection for its stars, John Wayne and Dean Martin, I found myself developing itchy feet an hour or so into its nearly two and a half hour running time.  The characters are likable, but not enough goes on here to hold your interest. Honestly, thirty or forty minutes of this picture could have been trimmed and never missed. And then there’s the music… I guess it’s not too surprising that, since the cast features two popular singers of the period (Martin and a very young Ricky Nelson), there’d be a song or two. But man is it jarring when Martin starts to belt out a tune. All I could think was “Damn! That drunken cowboy can sing like a sumbitch!”

I guess it won’t surprise you when I say Rio Bravo’s not being added to the canon of my favorite Westerns. The Searchers this ain’t.

Fallen Prince

LotusFlow3r/MPLS Sound Cover

You know, I toyed with skipping this review all together. I believe I’ve mentioned on this site a time or two that the days of Prince being a Musical Genius and a vital force in the industry are long behind us. Hell, his last record (2007’s Planet Earth) didn’t move me sufficiently to even write about it here. (I listened to it twice and promptly forgot about it.) Sure, there was some promising stuff on the album before that and 2004’s Musicology tour was a true high-water mark, but it’s time to face facts: the dream is well and truly dead. Last week saw the release (exclusively through Target stores) of a new three record set from His Royal Badness — three discs for the bargain basement price of twelve bones. Well, actually that’s a little misleading — technically what you get is two Prince records and one disc featuring his latest female protege. I gotta be honest with you: I didn’t even bother listening to that one.

So, are these records actively bad? Is that what I’m saying? Well, no, actually. There’s still an undeniable musical proficiency and one of the discs is at least thematically consistent. What they are really is boring. I think my brother (who was also a Prince fan back in the day) put it best when he said “This new stuff sounds like someone imitating Prince. Badly.” Ouch. A chilling statement in some ways, but undeniablly accurate. One of the defining characteristics of Prince’s better records was that they were surprising. He never failed to take you to odd, quirky places that also happened to be musically rich. But those days are long gone now and I for one am ready to move on. Unless I see some ecstatic reviews for a future disc proclaiming the return of a fallen master, I’m done. Funny, but it only took me twenty some years to get here. I guess that’s a testament to how good a lot of that earlier stuff was (and still is).

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

“I don’t believe in the no-win scenario.”

I decided it would be a good idea to trot out my DVD of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan earlier this afternoon when I heard that this classic 1982 film had been used as a clever misdirect by Paramount Pictures. It would seem that the studio got a lot of people into a theater in Austin, Texas on the pretext of showing them a brand new print of “Khan” as well as ten minutes of the new J.J. Abrams relaunch. This was a bait and switch as it turns out — the audience saw ten minutes of “Khan” followed by the new flick in its entirety (introduced by no less than Leonard Nimoy). The cleverness of this ploy (as well as the generally quite favorable reviews I read for the new picture) got me, as I said, in a “Wrath of Khan”-y mood. Not a bad place to be as it turns out since you just can’t go wrong with this picture. If “Khan” has a fault it is that it is very BIG in places, operatic even, but that’s a quibble, really. Why is this movie remembered as easily the best entry in the film series (so much so that it was emulated badly by two or three of the other entries)? Is it because the action scenes are great and the story moves at a terrific clip? Yeah, of course, but that’s not it. What the poseurs missed when they tried to recapture the magic of “Khan” was that this movie is about something. It’s about coming to terms with aging and meeting death on death’s terms. It’s because that thread runs through the whole picture — placed there cleanly and expertly by director Nicholas Meyer and his writers — that all of that action and scenery chewing adds up to what it does. It’s also why the ending is still as affecting as it is.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a damn good movie.

[80s-palooza part 9 (unofficial entry)].

The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:

  1. War Games
  2. The Sword and the Sorcerer
  3. Big Trouble in Little China
  4. The Beastmaster
  5. Buckaroo Banzai
  6. Dreamscape
  7. Excalibur
  8. To Live and Die in L.A.

To Live and Die in L.A.

[80s-palooza part 8].

Off the top of my head, I can think of two nice things to say about To Live and Die in L.A.:

1)  There isn’t much to date it back to 1985  apart from the cars (and, of course, the soundtrack by the band Wang Chung). “L.A.”  looks and feels as though it might have been made yesterday. Excepting of course we don’t get many movies like this in this day and age. Mid-budget flicks with no stars and no giant robots are pretty tough to get through the system.

2) While I was watching it, I wasn’t sure that all of the dots of the plot were going to connect properly. Afterward, when all of said dots had successfully connected themselves, I decided that this was a good thing. Any movie that keeps me guessing is doing something right, and this tight little crime film from director William Friedkin (The Exorcist and The French Connection) does quite a bit right. Not only does the storytelling keep you on your toes from a beat-to-beat narrative standpoint, there’s a shocking twist near the end of the picture that will knock you on your ass if you’re not ready for it. How many movies can you say that about?

The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:

  1. War Games
  2. The Sword and the Sorcerer
  3. Big Trouble in Little China
  4. The Beastmaster
  5. Buckaroo Banzai
  6. Dreamscape
  7. Excalibur

A New Tag…

A Theme for All Seasons:

Did you ever notice the little blue hyper-links in my postings just below the title of the post and the attribution/date/comments line? These are the “tags”, a way of grouping things together by similar subject matter. There’s a “Tag Cloud” in the right hand column that shows all of the tags I’ve created with the larger sized entries being the entries with the most number of postings under that particular heading. As of this writing, I’m sure that the “Movies” tag is by far the largest in the cloud. Why the primer on tags? Well, in going through the postings I’ve done so far this year, I’ve noticed a trend — a great many of the postings I’ve done since January 1st have a nostalgic bent to them. Being a fan of things like classic cartoons, the pulp stories of Robert E. Howard and old movies means I’ve always got one foot in the past. But the backward-looking posts seem to be more prevalent this year than in years prior. I’m not sure why this is — perhaps, at 42, I’ve entered into some sort of semi-benign mid-life crisis. Whatever the case, I’ve decided to embrace the trend by giving it its own name and its own tag: Nostalgia Trip ‘09!. Why not make this a year of looking back fondly (and sometimes not so fondly) on the things I enjoyed in my youth? What possible harm could it do? I mean apart from sending me into a morose and despondent pining for the proverbial Good Ol’ Days from which I may never return.

Anyway, here’s to Nostalgia Trip ‘09! My first real theme! Can you feel the excitement? I for one am pumped! PUMPED!

And While We’re on the Subject…:

Remember the post I did a while back referencing all of the live action shows I watched as a kid on Saturday mornings? Well, it turns out some of the those shows are on DVD and I decided to Netflix a few. First on the agenda? Space Academy. What can I say about this one other than “P.U.”. I made it through exactly one and a half episodes before yanking out the disc and sending it back. Clearly, what a ten year old will sit through and a forty-two year old will sit through are not one and the same thing. Sure, this show was made more than thirty years ago and it was aimed at kids, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t stinky. Because it was. Major league stinky. Looking back on it now, I think the only thing that may have gotten me to watch it in the first place was the crush I had on actress Pamelyn Ferdin — a fairly ubiquitous child star of the period (her other most famous gig was a guest role on the original Star Trek, but she also played “Lucy” in at least one of the Peanuts animated specials). If you were around at the time, I’m sure you’ll recognize this face… So, yeah, Space Academy was lousy. Will that stop me from checking out Star Trek the Animated Series or Jason of Star Command on DVD? Oh, hell no. Although I do have every expectation that they will blow as well.

Rush to the Past (part one)

Well, thanks to Paul Rudd, Jason Segel and the movie I Love You, Man, I bought myself a couple of Rush albums — the first I’ve ever owned in the newfangled digital format that the kids’re listening to these days. (Back when I bought the records originally, they were pressed onto plastic discs the size of hubcaps.) I hadn’t listened to any Rush — outside of the odd appearance on rock radio — in something like fifteen years. During my high school days, these three guys from Canada were one of my favorite bands. Not only were they (to invoke a phrase I heard many years ago) “tighter than a gnat’s asshole” musically, the lyric’s by Neil Peart were thoughtful and articulate. (Then, as now, I was something of bookish loner.)

As soon as I fired up Permanent Waves (1980) on the ol’ iPod, I entered into a sort of nostalgic bliss — probably because the album’s two best tracks, the tracks that continue to get airplay, are the first two songs on the record. “The Spirit of Radio” is a thoughtful, if ironic, meditation on the radio business and how, despite its crass concessions to business, great music can still emerge. It’s clear that Peart had no idea just how badly the music industry would falter in the years following the release of Permanent Waves, but a great song (naive-sounding or no) is still a great song. “Radio” is followed by “Freewill”, a no-nonsense meditation on Peart’s apparent agnosticism. Again, a terrific song that also just happens to be thought-provoking.

After those first two tracks, the news isn’t quite as good. There’re only two more songs under five minutes in length and, while they’re certainly alright, they’re not as strong as our openers. It’s the two magnum opuses, “Jacob’s Ladder” (seven minutes and twenty-six seconds) and “Natural Science” (nine minutes and seventeen seconds) that’re the letdowns. I guess I went in for the Rock Opera thing back in my misspent youth but today these songs remind me a little too much of Spinal Tap. The music’s still good, but the lyrics and the vocals are too grandiose for my now  forty-something self.

The “bum” tracks notwithstanding, I still enjoyed Permanent Waves quite a bit. I’m glad I picked it up if, for no other reason, than to have “The Spirit of Radio” and “Freewill” occasionally come up on “Shuffle”.

Learn Programming Now!

I’ve wanted to learn how to program computers for a while now — not because I have any burning desire to do the work full-time, but mainly because of a longstanding God complex. I like the idea of making machines do cool stuff. I’ve dipped in and out of the subject off and on many times over the last few years making very little headway. In fact, to be blunt, I would invariably devote a little bit of time to it, get frustrated quickly and then bail. The reason for that each and every time was that there are no good books on the subject. People that know how to program either don’t know how to write or they don’t know how to teach (and, often, both in equal measure). I realize, of course, that I’m generalizing, but I’ll come back to that in a moment. The truth is that, in literally decades of checking, I failed to find a book that didn’t go from zero to sixty in the space of three chapters. Programmers (or at least the programmers I have met) have an arrogance and a lack of patience that I think informs their work when they attempt to instruct. They literally forget that the prospective student doesn’t know as much as they do and they begin rolling out the big guns early. You would think that that arrogance would come with a corresponding meticulousness, but sadly, this is not the case. The other thing I have found in looking at books on programming over the years is that nearly all of them are shot through , to varying degrees, with errors. I’m talking about actual inaccuracies in the codebase (from which, remember, the reader is supposed to be learning) that cause the program not to run. It’s been my experience a few times that I knew I was learning when I began recognizing these errors and fixing them myself. In a strange way, I felt as though I was making progress, but is this really the best way to learn?

At any rate, I’ve got time on my hands here lately (long story) and I’ve decided to fully commit and learn programming come Hell or high water. I’ve elected to go about doing this via Microsoft’s XNA. To sort of nutshell it, XNA is a modified version of the C# [pronounced "See Sharp"] language via which you can write games for your XBox. This struck me as a palatable means of entry and C# has many applications beyond the aforementioned games. The first book I used to crack the nut of XNA was Learn Programming Now! XNA Game Studio 2.0 by Rob Miles. I’m going to give it up for Miles right now: though he hasn’t completely redressed the sins of Programming Books Past, he’s come the closest to date. In fact, it takes him almost ten chapters to get to sixty from zero and, by then, I knew enough that I could (kind of) muddle through. I suppose I’m paying “Learn Programming Now!” a good compliment when I say that I’m referring to it fairly often now that I’m reading my second book on XNA/C# — a book shot through with inaccuracies, poor explanations, and just-plain typos.

Deja vu.