Happy-Go-Lucky

Happy Go Lucky (Mike Leigh, 2008) [5]

I guess there are two ways to look at Happy Go Lucky. One would be to look at the film and its main character, Poppy, as a refreshing breath of cheerful optimism in a world overrun with dour, depressing news. The other way, in which I see the film, is that Poppy is such a grating character that it overrides any other feelings I have about the film. Her constant jabbering and bubbly persona aren't quite my favorite qualities in people or characters. My unlike for her hangs over everything that it's all that remains after the film is over. It's a bit of a shame because Sally Hawkins really does a great job, and her character is a nuanced character, not just a one-dimensional chatterbox that my earlier statements make it sound like. The other issue that plagues the film is Leigh rigs the film to create a conflict of characters. As Poppy is cheerful and talkative, Scott the driving instructor is dark, conspiratorial, and prone to fits of range. He role as a right-wing fanatical nut job who misunderstands the entirety of his relationship with Poppy is the crux of the film. I find it too highly contrived and constructed to meet the purpose it does. Again, it's a shame because there are plenty of moments where Leigh takes his time to examine these characters' lives. It those quieter moments, in that they don't revolve around Poppy and Scott's conversations, that work best. They just aren't enough to make the film any more tolerable for me.

Listening Post - April 2009

This will kind of serve as an updated listening post/live music review section of the month. Some interesting new releases so let's get them out of the way:

The Felice Brothers - Yonder is the Clock
Bonnie Prince Billy - Beware
Great Lake Swimmers - Lost Channels
Gomez - A New Tide
Woods - Songs of Shame

Even with the demise of Binghamton's only major music venue, The Magic City Music Hall, there has still been a surprising amount of good shows in the vicinity in the past few months. One of the highlights of the past month was the Gomez/Josh Ritter show in Ithaca. This may be biased since I'm a big Josh Ritter fan, but his set was one of the most enjoyable live music experiences I've had in a while. The show was switched to a smaller venue in Ithaca, The Haunt, and all I can say is thank you Upstate New York for the lack of general interest. All that resulted was an enthusiastic crowd in an intimate venue that made the night. Gomez, while formidable, really lacked in punch compared to the enthusiastic Ritter. Here's hoping Josh makes a stop in Ithaca or someplace nearby sometime soon.

The next week or so brings a slew of interesting shows to the area back to back to back. April 20 has Neko Case in Ithaca, the 21st has the Felice Brothers in Ithaca, and the 22nd has the Dead bringing it to Wilkes-Barre. Probably won't be heading to Ithaca but early word and listening on the Dead tour shows some promise. More on that later...

Pineapple Express

Pineapple Express (David Gordon Green, 2008) [4]

If this was just a little bit tongue in cheek in regards to its action sequences, I might be able to get behind it. Instead, what starts out as a fairly funny film tuns into a big, violent, pointless mess that wouldn't seem out of place in something produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Clearly, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are using the spectacular action feature as their basis but adding nothing more than having pothead protagonists. If there was some bite behind their structure, something that Trey Parker & Matt Stone do so well, it would actually be a good film instead of some funny moments in a forgettable waste. This is not to say this is a total waste however. The two strongest elements of the film are David Gordon Green's direction, which has some sly allusions to B-movie production and James Franco's performance. Franco plays a character with nuance and vulnerability, a drug dealer who loves his bubbe and wants to be a civil engineer. Rogen's character, on the other hand, is just another in the long line of loud man-children with type A personalities that I've had enough of in Apatow productions. I mean, there are laughs with these two in straightforward pot humor (look how high these morons are) but I almost feel ashamed that I would actually laugh at some of these antics. When the film moves towards its cataclysmic orgy of violence at the end, it would be hard to believe this was actually a comedy at some point. Considering who was involved, Pineapple Express comes as a disappointment. But after looking back, there isn't much here that makes me think I was going to like it very much in the first place.

Role Models

Role Models (David Wain, 2008) [7]
Despite its predictable story structure and ending, Role Models more than makes up for its deficiencies in laughs. And as I've said many times before in regards to comedies, all I really am asking for is to laugh, so this film more than meets my expectations. Yet, there is something about Role Models that goes a little deeper in that it really seems to care about its characters and not just using their idiosyncrasies to get laughs. The film has more than its share of crude, juvenile moments but in the end, it's never using its story or its characters for cheap laughs at their expense. In a film world where comedy is all to eager to have us laugh at losers or misanthropes at the expense of them being actually characters, it's nice to see a film actually think. Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott play two energy drink salesmen who are required to mentor some unusual kids as a result of Rudd's character having a meltdown. It's not so much Scott's character or his little person, a hilarious yet somewhat hollow Bobb'e Thompson as an obscenely foulmouthed child. It is Rudd as a coldly cynical adult whose dreams have been shattered and Christopher Mintz-Plasse as a totally insular geek that make the film worth its while. Rudd's character is actually tethered to reality, as someone who realizes what a shit hole life can be while Scott, playing the same exact character he almost always manges to play, the horny party boy, is uses as a counterpoint. But it is Rudd as Danny that actually gives the laughs some sting, as being in a dead end in a job and relationship isn't something that might not be that fun personally. The crux of the film is Mintz-Plasse as Augie, a loner lost in the fantasy world that plays a key role in the film. Never once do I think that the film uses Augie or this world for cheap laughs but instead actually takes the time to know about and care about a character such as this. It makes the film enjoyable instead of having cringe-worthy moments. Points shouldn't be taken away because the film follows such a predictable structure but it is surprising for someone like David Wain to make such a film seeing how Wet Hot American Summer was so all over. It may be all worth it.

Synecdoche, New York

Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008) [9]

Dense, confounding, mesmerizing, and fantastical could all be used to describe Synecdoche, New York. Yet through all of its meandering is a film that on the surface seems narcissistic and dour but in fact does some interesting ideas on love, death, creativity, and longing. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Caden Cotard, a local theater director in Schenectady, New York with a none too successful career and a failing marriage to his artist wife (Catherine Keener). When Caden's wife leaves him, it sets off a spiral of physical ailments and psychological loathing in Caden. These series of ailments sends Caden off into a creative fervor, moving to New York and creating an intensely personal theatre project about his life. It's from there that Kaufman's script weaves in an out of a series of events that have no definition as reality or fabrication, of a filmic world where characters and setting merge from the two worlds. Caden becomes involved with two more women (Michelle Williams and Samantha Morton in nice supporting roles) and eventually ages as his project grows and grows to worlds upon worlds. Characters in the film become characters in the play, and all in all, it leaves a product that's difficult to absorb on first viewing. But underneath all its miasma of ideas, the film really does have something to say about the creative process, as well as life and death, love and loss. It may seem like a confusing mess to some, but don't look for them in narrative. The film works in moments and seen like that, those ideas show through.

NCAA Tournament Picks Sure to go Wrong

This year's NCAA tournament means a little bit more because for the first time, my alma mater, Binghamton University, will be in the tournament. The picture above was one of the best of the championship game this past weekend, as fellow alumnus and PTI host Tony Kornheiser has mentioned the school numerous times on the program. It hasn't been all good news for the program, as a hatchet job story in the New York Times on the school cutting academic standards for basketball players in exchange for a winning program. However the situation may look and may be, there's no doubt Binghamton is the only school that has sacrificed some academic reputation for athletic success. As for my two cents, any good making the tournament gives is worth as much as any of the other allegations brought up in the Times. It's about time to realize that collegiate sports have nothing to do with the academic nature of a university and should be seen for the separate entity that they are.

Besides Binghamton, the other team in this part of the country, Syracuse, is back after a two year absence. The Orange are on a roll after the epic 6 OT game vs. UConn but their last two appearances in the tournament have seen them out in the first round. Hopefully, this year brings a change. Here are my picks:

East Region

Final: Pitt over Villanova

Duke vs. Binghamton: I hope Binghamton can just keep it close. The only way they'll have a chance of beating Duke is if they make everything and Duke mysteriously can't shoot threes.

Upset Special: None unless you count Villanova over Duke

South Region

Final: North Carolina over Syracuse

Upset Special: Western Kentucky over Illinois, Clemson over Oklahoma

West Region

Final: Memphis over UConn

Upset Special: Utah State over Marquette and Missouri

Midwest Region

Final: Michigan State over Louisville

Upset Special: USC over Boston College, West Virginia over Kansas

Watchmen

Watchmen (Zack Snyder, 2009) [7]

All that I really asked of Watchmen is that it stay close to its source material and Snyder delivers, sticking almost religiously close, with the exception of a missing subplot and a modified ending. For the most part, I would recommend the film; it's not perfect but for those who know the graphic novel, it will suffice. For those who go in completely blank, will it work? I really don't think so. The film is just as pessimistic and uncompromising as it could have been, which scores it some points. But it is the film's complete devotion to the world it occupies which give critics an opening to call it closed-off or hermetic, a product of its own reputation. Those who know nothing going in may find it dark and unspectacular. For someone like myself, who wanted a faithful adaptation, it mostly works out.

Snyder's style isn't really my personal favorite but it doesn't overpower the elements of the film. The opening credit sequence is a phenomenal piece of filmmaking. The sometimes overly gruesome fight sequences, not so much. The film has its manic moments which could be toned down but Snyder does keep the film on a steady progression. The film is able to move through its dense web of flashbacks, back story, and alternative history to make every little element relevant to the murder mystery which operates as its central story. The character's stories weave in and out, some better than others. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach and Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan give the strongest performances. Their characters should as they both have central roles in the structure and storytelling in the graphic novel. On film, the other Watchmen come off as much weaker, either by lax characterization (The Comedian) or flat performances (Malin Akerman basically stinks as Silk Spectre). But as before, they're close enough to the source material that it as good as a representation that a fan could have asked for.

So even though I liked Watchmen, was it really worth it? I don't think the film hurts but it certainly doesn't approve on the graphic novel, which is a great piece of literature. What did I expect of the film? What I really wanted out of it is what I saw of the novel, a complete deconstructionist piece of work. How could you take comic books serious after reading Watchmen? I wanted the film to be something a la The Wild Bunch, a film taken to a place that a film of its sort would never seem relevant again. That film essentially killed the Western. I wanted Watchmen to kill the superhero movie. I didn't expect it out of someone like Snyder and I didn't expect the film to do what I wanted. When all is said and done, Watchmen is not exceptional, nor is it horrible. It's pretty much what I expected.

Monthly Listening Post - February/March 2009

Or whatever month it is. I really can't keep track anymore. Here's what I'm listening to:

Mark Olson & Gary Louris - Ready For the Flood (the long lost almost Jayhawks album I've been waiting for)
Phosphorescent - To Willie
Neko Case - Middle Cyclone
Miranda Lee Richards - Light of X
Ben Kweller - Changing Horses
M. Ward - Hold Time

Also some individual tracks worth seeking out: 'Aeon' - Antony & the Johnsons
'Take My Love With You' - Eli "Paperboy" Reed & the True Loves
'Are You Ready' - Catfish Haven
'So Far Around the Bend' - The National

A surprisingly busy and interestingly concert front is on the way for spring here in Upstate NY/NE PA, at least every place but Binghamton apparently. Ithaca has Josh Ritter & Gomez on April 1, Rhett Miller on April 11, and Neko Case April 20. Then there's The Dead reunion show in Wilkes-Barre on April. That will followed by the Snob's annual drinking and gambling binge in Las Vegas, just in time for the Kentucky Derby. Add in March Madness, Hunter Mountain's Summer Jam at the end of May and Bonnaroo, and the next couple months are full of enough diversions to keep my mind off my crappy job and the general destruction of our nation. Happy listening.

Casablanca

Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) [10]

Casablanca is more than likely the greatest film of the classic Hollywood studio system. What more can be said about a film that has so many moments and lines that have become iconic in the history of American film? It is perhaps all the fawning over it that has kept me from seeing it over all these years. Casablanca lives up to its reputation because all of its elements work so well together. The old studio system didn't always create a product as smooth as this, where everything from the casting of the stars to the screenplay perfectly fit together. Of course there's Bogart and Bergman but the supporting performances are just as memorable, especially Claude Rains as Captain Renault. The screenplay, which has received the status over the years as one of the greatest ever written, is great because it contains a little bit of everything. Adventure, exotic locales, romance, noir, and the memorable quotes make it something more than just the standard Hollywood product of the era. That the film has such an anti-Nazi overtone was a little bit surprising since that's very rarely mentioned when discussing the film. It's more the political and noir elements that make the screenplay work, above the romance between Bogart and Bergman. Bogart plays typical Bogart and Bergman isn't that great. If this had just been a romance about Rick and Ilsa, Casablanca would have been another forgettable feature from the 40s. It's well rounded nature has helped it thrive over the years and it stands as a gem from a bygone era.

Still Life

Still Life (Zhang Ke Jia, 2008) [8]

I wasn't overly impressed with Zhang's last feature, The World, but did find great moments within it. Here, with Still Life, he has created a poignant character piece as well as a greater story about the changing landscape of China. A man and a woman have both come to the the city of Fengjie, mostly submerged by the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, to find lost spouses. Zhang creates this dichotomy of telling personal stories against a visually impressive and imposing landscape as the Dam project and the demolition of the surrounding villages. These characters move through a constantly changing landscape, of boats and people coming and going, buildings being demolished, of people coming and going. There are some gorgeous images captured in the film that wouldn't be out of place in someone like Terrence Malick's work. Perhaps that's why I like it so much; instead of a film with a driven narrative, Zhang offers up moments of observation and insight into these characters, their attempt to find others and themselves in a vast, constantly changing visual landscape. The Three Gorges Dam is a massive project that has uprooted millions in the name of the greater good of the Chinese people, but mostly for the good of capitalism. Part of these character's existence is to rectify that their memories or nostalgia of the past are going the way of Fengjie, submerged in the name of progress. It's this meditative nature of the landscape, of the character's actions in this vastly shifting world, and the film's ability to subtly say all it needs about its setting.

Some thoughts on Watchmen

I've never been a fan of comic books or films based on comic books. I find the whole idea of "fan boys" as seriously depressing. Yes, I'm just as much of a loser as some would say these people are, but I have found other ways to express my obsessive tendencies. I have nothing against comic fans but I can think of many more other areas to be interested in than super heroes.

This is all meant to be a lead-in to how I actually read and really liked Watchmen. I was taking a class at Binghamton University called Crime Fiction, taught by a professor I much admired, Michael Sharp (he has a crossword blog here). Watchmen was on the curriculum, I had no idea what it was, and when I found out it was a comic book , I was less than enthused. But I gave Professor Sharp the benefit of the doubt and I was rewarded. Watchmen is a work that transcends the pulpy history of comics and deserves to be mentioned as a work of literature. Perhaps the reason I liked it so much was that it was meant to deconstruct the super hero narrative, to make these characters egotists, self-important, and perhaps even delusional. It broke down the myth of super heroes as Puritanical servants of the public good. Alan Moore created a world that infinitely more interesting than any Captain America or Superman story could possibly be, a work meant to confront the comfortable ideals of good vs. evil that comics have come to be seen. It might even be seen to question if super heroes are even necessary.

The same thoughts that I had upon having to read Watchmen, I have now in regards to the upcoming film. To some extent, the book is unfilmable in its structure. That Moore is adamantly opposed to filmic adaptations of his work and that previous efforts (From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) have been lackluster show no real track record for this to be a success. Add on top of that that the Zach Snyder of 300 fame is the director and you couldn't have picked a set of circumstances that inspire less hope in me. Granted I haven't seen any of Snyder's films but he's already made an unnecessary remake of one of my favorite films (Dawn of the Dead) and 300 seemed to be all eye candy without any substance. But I'm willing to cut him some slack, seeing as articles have repeatedly stated how close to the source the film is staying, less one major subplot. I'm only hoping that Snyder doesn't try to cater too much to mainstream audiences by glossing over the film's social commentary. I'm really hoping the film succeeds, not in terms of box office or popular opinion, but in terms that it does the book proud. I won't be out to see it this coming weekend (you know, to avoid the fan boys), but a review will be in before the first week is out. And I secretly hope the mainstream going film person, not the serious fans of the book, really don't like it.

Frozen River

Frozen River (Courtney Hunt, 2008) [8]

Melissa Leo's performance is really that good, and if there's any justice, it should win her an Oscar tonight. But this is bleak, uncompromising film that is certainly all too depressing for some people. Leo plays Ray Eddy, a woman barely surviving in Upstate New York on the Canadian border. She has a lousy, low paying job, is trying to raise two kids in a dilapidated home, and her degenerate gambler husband just took off with their money for a new double wide. Ray is a woman at rock bottom, and Leo plays her with such a confidence and subtlety that she nails the character perfectly. Ray has reached a point of desperation so strong that she ends up in a smuggling operation of illegal aliens with a Mohawk woman (Misti Upham). It's a situation that is all but to certain to not end up pretty for Ray but that's what is to be expected. Give credit to Courtney Hunt for a story and characters that are true reflections of those living on the bottom of the economic spectrum. There are a few moments that feel a little too manipulative and crafted but it is really Leo's performance that help keep the film grounded in its realm. Leo and Upham are playing characters that have no other opportunities other than the solution presented to them and Frozen River pulls no punches in showing the toll poverty takes.

Blindness

Blindness (Fernando Meirelles, 2008) [6]

I've read Jose Saramago's novel and found it an astounding piece of work. The word 'unfilmable' also came to mind, as the lyrical nature of Saramago's is structured in such a way that a filmic adaptation would surely pale in comparison. So it was with that trepidation that preceded Blindness, and while the film isn't a masterwork, it's definitely better than some of the negative reviews it has received. The plot centers on an epidemic of white blindness that sweeps through an undetermined urban center. The sickness serves as a vehicle to examine the fragility of human nature and its subsequent breakdown as a result of the chaos the blindness creates. The focus is on a group struck early on, headed by an opthamologist (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife (Julianne Moore), who is hiding the fact that she can still see. They have to ward off an aggressive "king" (Gael Garcia Bernal) and make their way through the disorder that the city has become.

As a director with a history of visual extravagance, it's only fitting that Meirelles directed this. And it's only fitting that he overdoes it with his use of pure white or darkness. He is too much of a kinetic director, and his constantly shifting camera angles and style don't help the big ideas that are present in Saramago's writing. It's true that the film makes Saramago's ideas a lot more didactic and intensifies the gruesomeness of what the characters endure in the story. What were subtle examinations on human nature in the novel often comes across too simplified and action oriented. Still, these characters were meant to be put under horrific circumstances and they endure. For all his technical bravado, Meirelles and the script stay close enough to the novel that they are able to do enough right to make it effective some of the time. It's not perfect, but the end product is probably as close to as good an adaptation as Meirelles and company could do.

Useless Film Snob Book Report - The Wrecking Crew

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule (Thomas Frank, 2007)

Frank's last book, What's the Matter with Kansas? was one of the most fascinating and interesting political books that I've read. That examination of how the Republican party had convinced many people to vote against their economic interests in favor of fanning the fires of the culture wars was well researched and smartly done. The Wrecking Crew comes off as an extension of the ideas present in that previous book. Since conservatives concocted a majority with their inflammation of cultural issues, it would make since to analyze what they've done since gaining power.

Frank paints a fairly bleak picture, how the conservative movement's cynicism, general dislike of government in general, and their slavish devotion to the idea that the free market will fix everything, was a fairly calculated effort to break government. Conservatives have created a federal government so corrupt and inept that it's created a permanent cynicism in the citizenry that government can do nothing right. To Frank, this was a precise plan meant to disable liberalism's ideas of government as an ally of the people as well as a way to have the market(s) become the central governing factor of this nature. Frank gives a history and analysis of the conservative movement's rise to power, starting with the Reagan's presidency and continuing to the work of George W. Bush's administration. Some of the more egregious acts are but not limited to: naming department secretaries who are often enemies of that department, hiring incompetent and under qualified cronies to important positions, politicizing jobs that were never before, and more broadly, creating a government so inept and deficit-ridden that it ties the hands of its Democratic inheritors. For a liberal, it adds up to a series of events that are crass, cynical, shocking, and yet, not that all surprising to someone who's been paying attention to Republican rule for the last 25 years.

Frank's work is well-researched and in-depth, but it all comes off as a bit too wonkish at times. There is a little too much inside baseball, as dry explanations of Saipan and the Jack Abramoff scandal show. There's also a little bit less interesting stories as What's the Matter with Kansas? The one here that sticks out the most is how the conservative movement has supported some horrendous groups and governments over the years in their defense of "freedom" and free markets. The apartheid government in South Africa, Jonas Savimbi and his brutal, wreckless civil war in Angola, and Central American death squads all received support from Conservative organizations in the past. And yet through despicable actions like these, conservatives have mostly succeeded in creating a government beholden to the free market and corporate interests. Frank is bleak in assessing the future, saying that it will take a immense change in Washington.

Two Films by Aki Kaurismaki

The Match Factory Girl (Aki Kaurismaki, 1990) [8]/Lights in the Dusk (Aki Kaurismaki, 2007) [6]

Kaurismaki's films deal with downtrodden people, lonely, desperate, and yet all too sympathetic. These characters exist as solitary figures against a expansive, industrial metropolis. Kaurismaki handles his characters in a deadpan, minimalist style that lacks much of anything: emotion, dialogue, hope. Yet through his style comes character studies that are finely attuned with the members of society that no one would really care to make a film about.

The Match Factory Girl may be the best example of all of the attributes listed above. There isn't a line of dialogue spoken until twenty minutes in and not much there after either. Kati Outinen plays Iris, a factory worker constantly browbeaten by her parents and yearning for some kind of human contact. She finds it in a one night stand only to become pregnant and being rejected by the callous man. All this creates a series of crushing events where Iris has no choice but to seek revenge on all those who've made her life miserable. Kaurismaki makes all the points he needs to without exerting much of any emotion or speaking. By simply moving through scene after scene, a portrait of how miserable Iris's life is becomes all too clear. The opening sequence of the match factory at work lays the setting for the monotonous workings of the film. The film never tells, it shows, and that's its greatest strength. Even with its minimalist style, Kaurismaki is still able to create a film that understands its central character.

Watching Lights In the Dusk, I get the feeling that I'm almost watching the same film again. Koistinen is a desperately lonely security guard, beaten down by his job and life. He meets what he thinks is a affections woman, who is really only using Koistinen to rob the shopping plaza where he works. It sets up a series of events that end up having Koistinen take the fall for the crime. After being released prison, Koistinen's life is just another series of unfortunate events. It all feels a little too close to the film above, all the way down to Koistinen deciding to exact revenge on all those who made his life miserable. The only real difference is that the film throws in another woman, Aila, who has feelings for Koistinen, which he chooses to ignore. Because of Kaurismaki's style, the repetitious nature of Lights In the Dusk compared to The Match Factory Girl makes the film seems stuck in its tracks. Most of it boils down to the characters of each. Iris's situation involved the acts of others towards her. It seems here that Koistinen's troubles are a result of his actions. It makes it harder to be a sympathetic character when you choose the road you take.

Best Bonnaroo Lineup Ever.

Bonnaroo just handed every other American music festival its ass this morning. I've been to five Bonnaroos and this is by far the best lineup top to bottom that I've ever seen for any festival, let alone Bonnaroo. Best group of headliners since '06. Best overall lineup since '04. Phish will bring out the more sketchy element of the jamband scene but it's worth it to hear Springsteen, Wilco, Bon Iver, Yeasayer, Todd Snider, Jenny Lewis, Neko Case, and Okkervil River among many others. If the weather stays nice for that weekend in June, I will guarantee this will be my favorite 'Roo.

Check out the full lineup here.

The Wrestler

The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky, 2008) [9]

I believe I've said this before but I believe the right performance can overshadow any detriments the story or film as a whole may have had. This is certainly true of The Wrestler, as Mickey Rourke's performance casts a huge shadow over everything else about the film. It should. Rourke's performance as Randy "The Ram" Robinson is near flawless in almost every way. It's an astounding work of physical acting as well as making Randy a sympathetic character. Every part of Rourke's performance oozes pathos and it's not just because he's playing a has-been wrestler trying to make ends meet. It really boils down to the fact that you recognize that experience and you become invested with Randy as a character, no matter what you're opinion about professional wrestling is. The film and Rourke's performance cut through the world of wrestling and gives a character study of a man who does what he does because that's all he's really good at. As for the film itself, it does create a series of events or moments that funnel the film to that central theme to Randy's existence. I felt that Marissa Tomei's character is used too much in this way. That's not to say that I didn't like her performance; it's very good, but it's clear she's there a lot to push the story a certain way. The same can be said of Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), Randy's daughter. All that doesn't really matter because the performances of all elevate beyond what they could have been. It's a great compliment for a film and a filmmaker that he or she knows how to rise above some of the lesser elements of the story. As for Aronofsky, this is nothing like his prior efforts, and the film is better for it. His showboaty camerawork and editing would have definitely sunk the gritty realism that is on screen here. It results in a film that works because he knows the strength lies in the characters, and not his overwhelming visual style. The Wrestler is a change for the better.

Monthly Listening Post - January

Welcome to an expanded monthly music feature. In addition to posting the newest releases that I'm listening to, I'll also get more into other music news as well as concert and expanded album reviews. So here it goes:

Coachella's lineup is out today (finally) and it's pretty much what I expected. There are plenty of solid acts in the supporting slots but as usual the headliners don't do much. Paul McCartney, The Killers, and The Cure don't make me want to go anymore than the quality of acts below them. Bonnaroo's announcement is Tuesday and the rumor mill is buzzing of two nights of Phish and Bruce Springsteen as headliners. I've never been much more than a casual fan of Phish and have seen them live (they're not bad) but I'm skittish about them at Bonnaroo. It's surely going to bring out the young fans who have never seen Phish before are going to come out, which in turn will bring out the drugs, and those who don't know how to handle themselves. I'm not against drugs, you can do 'em if you want, but I have no sympathy or patience for those who take more than they can handle. Still, if Springsteen is on the bill, it's an automatic go. And I hope some of those bands on the Coachella bill come to Tennessee in June.

The other big news for me in the music department is the Spring reunion tour for The Dead. A lot has been posted at Jambase among others complaining about the high ticket prices. It's the same old bitching and moaning by some in the "jam band" scene that if anything doesn't adhere to what some mythical standards are, they are labled corporate and a sellout. This has been a standard complaint of Bonnaroo, that they have sold out or gone MTV (which is complete BS) because they've moved beyond the base. This is reason number one why I've lost almost all my interest in that style of music, with The Dead the only real exception to that. The simple fact is that there is a demand for tickets. They have certainly earned the right to charge whatever they want. There are people willing to pay that price. I did. I was only fourteen when Jerry Garcia died, I never got to see the Grateful Dead live. This is the closest to that experience I could get. I will gladly pay the ticket price for that opportunity.

Enough with the ranting, here are the albums:

The Gaslight Anthem - The '59 Sound (Every year there is one album that I discover after posting my year-end list. This album, had I found it earlier, would have been a probably top ten album.)
Animal Collective - Merriweather Post Pavilion
Bon Iver - Blood Bank Ep
Derek Trucks Band - Already Free

Useless Film Snob Version 3.0

I have mostly kept this site up as a way to write about film and other topics on a fairly regular basis. The lack of any consistent readership and continuing irrelevance of some review have made it difficult over time. I know this site exists solely for myself and even posting this is a egomaniacal act of some delusion (yeah everyone out there who doesn't come here, let me tell you what I'm going to do). Anyway, to sum things up, I've decided to head to grad school to get my MFA in creative writing. I am taking the time to get my non-blog writing up to a standard that I feel is of a level to be considered. This will be mean less posts and a revised form of operation here at the site. The new rules are as follows:

-I will no longer review every film I see. This will mean less reviews but hopefully the reviews I do decide to write will have a bit more focus and examination to them.

-I will try my best to review more films during their theatrical release. I've said this before but in a place like Binghamton, seeing what I want to see in a timely manner isn't always possible. I know the possibility of torrents are out there, but I can barely operate blogger let alone figure out and take the time to download torrents. Older films will still be covered, but only if I feel I have something significant to write about them.

-There will be more "bloggy" posts, for lack of a better word. These will be treatises, ramblings, and other personal views on film, music, and political issues. I never really wanted this site to boil down to personal ramblings all the time so I will try to have an intellectual argument to what I post.

Over the past few months, I have picked up thoughtful comments and feedback from people, which is greatly appreciated. Even if it is a small number, after years of toiling away for practically nothing, to have someone take the time to post a comment, I thank you.

Liebestraum

Liebestraum (Mike Figgis, 1991) [4]

Liebestraum is still the only major theatrical film to be filmed here in Binghamton, which is perhaps why the film is more a curiosity to me than anything else. It's hard to objectively review a film when you're picking apart each scene for every landmark and other signifiers of the town. I give Figgis credit for this at least: he's made a film that an overwhelming majority of people in Binghamton would be positively bored watching. All that said, this is a film where style definitely trumps story, a sort of neo-noir full of interesting shadows and light but bogged down by an all too predictable story with too many clunky scenes. An architecture writer (Kevin Anderson) comes to a small town to visit his ailing mother only to run into an old friend (Bill Pullman), planning to demolish a historic cast iron building (the crux of filming this in Binghamton was that we have one of the few cast iron exterior buildings left standing in the world). Nick, the writer, becomes embroidered in the standard noir role, thrust into extraordinary circumstances, falling into a relationship with his friend's wife (Pamela Gidley) and uncovering a murder mystery that happened in the building years earlier which is some how connected to him. The problem with the story is that it all comes together too neatly in the way you expect it to, with a resolution and ending that is all too obvious too early. A lot of scenes become bogged down in clunky dialogue and dream sequences that would only be considered avant-garde to those who never leave the multiplex. That all combined is probably too much for the film to overcome but Figgis certainly gets his lighting and shadows down pat for a noir. It's by far the most interesting aspect of the film but only in a few cases can style overshadow substance. It's also a little too slick and polished for me, missing the gritty, dirty look that I find engrossing about film noir.