Solipsistic

Sopranos

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:52:00 +0000

Maybe I'm too forgiving. Maybe I forgive The Sopranos too much because of it's sterling quality for so many seasons. That being said, I thought the finale was very good. Not knock your socks off incredible, but a satisfying and fitting conclusion.

Tony still has mother issues. He has not grown. He is a sociopath to the finish. Will he be killed? Sent to prison? Who knows, but the show ended on a subtly tragic note. Tony will grow old and die as Junior. He will always live in fear of death, prison, and he will never arrive. He will always have to jockey for position with the next Phil. Tony is in a hell of his own making. Stasis.

Would the series have been better with Tony holding a bullet-ridden Meadow/Carmella/AJ in his arms bemoaning his life of crime and where it got him? No. It certainly wouldn't have been The Sopranos. Tony will continue to lose those lieutenants, live to fight for survival another day, and someday fade as Junior has.

David Chase was clearly screwing with fans in the final moments. Preparing us for eminent tragedy. Setting us up for the ironic montage of death and loss while Steve Perry wailed hopefully in the background. And that didn't happen.

Chase avoided the obvious and chose stasis. For those who tuned into The Sopranos for the whackings this episode was surely anger inducing. I found it nearly pitch-perfect, although maybe the ending was a bit too meta, too aware of its own finale-ness.

Still, loved the episode for its quiet moments and extra helpings of the fantastic Tony Sirico. A satisfying ending to one of the two best series in television history. The other being The Wire, course.

On Chesil Beach

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:51:00 +0000

It's 1962 and two young lovers enter their honeymoon suite, one eager and the other dreadfully anxious. The two are sexually inexperienced and come from a culture in which sexual function and dysfunction are only understood through practice. This first encounter and its aftermath are the subject of Ian McEwan's new novel On Chesil Beach which should quickly move to the top of your summer reading list.

As the two lovers prepare to consummate their marriage, the narrator takes us on a journey through the characters' pasts, from their childhood to courtship. It's a fascinating journey, finely drawn and intimate in more than just its romantic detail. Though the book does contain some frank descriptions of sex, these moments are more straighforward--and at times hilarious--than erotic.

Surprisingly, in this morally laissez-faire age, the book is very much a moral tale about the fragility of love. McEwan asks us to be aware of the small moments and to take care of those to whom we entrust our bodies, secrets, and hopes. Physical intimacy can strongly bind two individuals, but also tears down their defenses and leaves them vulnerable to one another. McEwan understands this and crafts a story about the importance of caring for those with whom we share intimacy.

A great short novel that stuck with me long after I finished it.

A Death in the Family

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:58:00 +0000

My Accord has been running a little sluggishly lately. Now I know why.

Perving it up on your DS

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:52:00 +0000

The biggest thing to hit the Nintendo DS in Japan is...well...pretty damn horrible.

Maybe it's a giant sting operation and they're going to arrest anyone who purchases this game. This story would certainly be great fodder for Dateline or Oprah.

The post Memorial Day malaise

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:29:00 +0000

The news cycle really slows down in the summer.

Faux News

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 20:21:00 +0000

As most of you have probably heard, Fox News--while covering the indictment of William Jefferson (D-LA)--mislabeled African-American Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) as Jefferson.

Because to Fox News, all Democrats look the same.

The Higher Power of Lucky

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:27:00 +0000

Prepping for a children's library position, I have been reading some picture books and novels for children. This year's Newberry winner The Higher Power of Lucky has garnered some controversy for the use of the word "scrotum." (This word appears on the first page and this location more easily leads to snap judgments of the work.) Some libraries have banned the book and many parents have asked that the book be banned in their school and local libraries because of the word.

My judgment? Well, I found the use of the word to be frank and appropriate, but you might decide this is not something you want your child reading. The main character Lucky frequently eavesdrops on twelve step meetings and overhears one man's story of his bottoming out, his lowest moment. In this story, the man's dog is bitten by a rattlesnake in the scrotum and he is too drunk to help the dog. Lucky becomes fascinated by the word, but the book is not about scrotums. I find the controversy to be a little ridiculous, especially after reading this excellent book.

The book's title refers to the 12-step goal of finding your "higher power." Lucky doesn't quite understand the 12-steppers and their terms, but she is seeking answers to larger questions and latches onto their verbiage and oragnizing principles. She spends the book trying to decode them and make them her own. She desires to make a moral inventory and find a higher power. This quest takes place during a traumatic period in her life. She has lost her mother and is living with a guardian who may or may not be temporary.

The book is surprisingly poignant and works on two levels. Children will be sucked in by the adventure of the book--Lucky lives in the California desert and has to contend with its sometimes dangerous conditions--while parents will immediately understand that the book is about Lucky's attempts to come to terms with grief and an uncertain future. Given the few moments of frank language--Lucky also encounters the word "sperm"--and complicated themes, parents will want to read this book along with their children. Both parent and child, however, will be rewarded by this rich, humorous, and touching story.

MPAA

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:13:00 +0000

The MPAA just sunk further into irrelevance by ruling that in the near future any movie that features cigarette smoking--the legal kind--will be given an R-rating. This is so incredibly ludicrous and is, given the power that ratings really can have over a film's success, censorship. Want to have a PG-13 action film to open over the 4th of July, better not feature your hero or villain smokoing.

Ludicrous and insulting.

UPDATE: The MPAA is not irrelevant as I first said. In fact, they are very relevant and can help doom a movie with an R or NC-17 rating. I just found their ruling to be a little clueless and needlessly reactionary. The whole idea of a punitive ratings system is ridiculous. Parents should be reading reviews and checking the websites that list possible offending elements in a film. Parents who are worried about a particular film's content should watch it themselves first.

Smoking makes good short hand for showing that a character is dangerous, impulsive, unhinged, anxious, or very relaxed. It can be a great and humorous shortcut for showing that two characters have just had sex. Smoke curling out of a cigarette--correctly lit--can make wonderful images. It would still be ridiculous, but telling parents that a movie features smoking would be a less punitive and more useful warning.

And what are we worried about here? Children being encouraged to smoke. Is this more dangerous than showing a character picking up a handgun, knife, or sword? But then all action movies be rated R and this would wreck the summer movie season.

The Prez

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:28:00 +0000

Via Atrios:

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

Atrios reminds us that, of course, Iraq was also a soveriegn nation prior to our invasion.

Bush's speech to Coast Guard Academy

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:24:00 +0000

Yesterday in a commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, the President revealed that bin Laden--whose capture the White House hasn't exactly made a priority--spoke with al Qaeda bigwig Zarqawi about using Iraq as a training ground for further attacks against the United States.

And...?

If this intended to a be a justification for the war, it's a bit of the old bait and switch and proves the anti-war talking point that invading Iraq would make it a more fertile ground for terrorist activity.

Lost

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:19:00 +0000

Pretty great finale. Who knew that Lost was going to have a similar ending to Return to Gillgan's Island?

SPOILERS AHEAD

Likely explanation of conclusion is that future Jack made a deal to get off the island and come back for the other castaways, but upon return home cannot find his way back and this crushes him.

Feel free to use comment section to discuss and trade Lost theories.

I was toying around with the idea that the island is like the infamous Stanford prison experiment. Thoughts?

Year of the Dog

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:19:00 +0000

Some spoilers ahead.

More than a few critics have blamed the new Mike White film about a pet owner who loses her way with pulling its punches. But how refreshing to have a comedy that's about love, care, and a search for meaning that doesn't reach the sad, cynical conclusion that it's all BS to begin with. Sometimes a bracing satire where everything falls apart and a character's life spirals into total destruction can be invigorating, but at this point it's de rigeur for indie films. How much more subversive it is to make a film where happy endings are possible and love is not a pipe dream.

All this to say, I enjoyed Year of the Dog. It's great to see Molly Shannon (SNL most notably as schoolgirl superstar Mary Catherine Gallagher) again and her performance is extraordinary. It's a difficult role that asks us to be at times sympathetic toward and simultaneously horrified with her character. She refuses to turn her animal loving heroine into a caricature. The film also features a great supporting cast including John C. Reilly, Regina King, Peter Saarsgard, and Laura Dern.

A very solid film worth checking out.

New Fall shows

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:10:00 +0000

The networks unveiled their Fall schedules last week and TV Week posted the clips of the new shows. Be sure to watch Cavemen. Looks really bad.

Where I've been

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:38:00 +0000

Having just finished school, I've been on vacation and looking for work. So I haven't been on the internet much. Stay tuned for updates.

28 Weeks Later

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:13:00 +0000

A tight, thrilling, horrifying scare machine. I haven't been this scared in a theater since The Exorcist.

Not for the faint of heart or gore-averse.

For everyone else, go see it now.

Once

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 10 May 2007 15:26:00 +0000

Once, the Audience Award Winner at this year's Sundance Film Festival, is a gem of a movie. I had the pleasure of seeing the film last night at the Tivoli Theater with the film's leads and director in attendance. Hoping for great word of mouth, they are touring around the country with their film answering audience questions and performing songs from the film.

Once is a musical but not as you might expect. There are no scenes of passerbys bursting into song and dance as the leads fall in love or swelling string sections as the lovers embrace. Rather, director John Carney fashioned a stripped down, more "realistic" musical where the songs emerge from the leads as they perform on street corners, for friends, and in recording studios. Carney informed the audience that the film was made in only seventeen days and for only $150,000. The leads are professional musicians, but have never acted before. No one will mistake this for a big budget feature, but in the rawness of its presentation and performances the film gains extraordinary power.

Carney's film--which he also wrote--is a love story about waiting and deferring gratification. It's about the struggle of making ethical decisions when caught up in the fever of new love. Musicals are frequently larger than life odes to seizing the day and falling in rapturous love, so much so that you can't help burst into song. Carney subverts our expectations of the musical and presents a film about quiet, reserved lovers-to-be who struggle with the consequences of what a rapturous affair would mean to those they love.

But don't think the movie is a bore. Rather, it is a spellbinding and fantastic romantic film. Glen Hansard, lead singer of The Frames, stars alongside Czech singer and Dublin resident Marketa Irglova. Their musical performances are raw and powerful. Their harmonies are otherworldly and fantastic. The music is reminiscent of Damien Rice. Hearing them perform live after the film, I realized how little the recordings we hear in the film have been altered. Fans of Rice and singer/songwriter performers will enjoy this film.

After the multiplexes have beaten you in to a pulp striving to entertain you this summer, you would do well to seek out the quiet, haunting Once. It sticks with you and has you humming on your way out of the lobby. It'll certainly make a bracing tonic to the sure-to-be-overstuffed Hairsprapy.

Dick Morris

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Tue, 08 May 2007 20:38:00 +0000

Baffling:

I think that withdrawal from Iraq — it obviously gives al Qaeda a huge victory. Huge victory. On the other hand, if we stay in Iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more Americans, which they really like.

One of the things, though, that I think the antiwar crowd has not considered is that, if we’re putting the Americans right within their arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to Wall Street to kill Americans. They don’t have to knock down the trade center. They can do it around the corner, and convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist.

So our soldiers are bait?

Spiderman 3

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:53:00 +0000

It was inevitable that Spiderman 3 would disappoint given the near perfection of the second installment in the franchise. What viewers will be surprised by, however, is the weirdness of the third feature. Dance numbers exist alongside extended comic riffs which exist alongside weepy soliloquies. At times it feels like Spiderman as envisioned by Baz Luhrmann. When the movie works, its kind of a rush to see director Sam Raimi swinging for the fences. I'm often a fan of the overstuffed and bizarre particularly in the loud, bludgeoning sameness of the summer movie season.

But much of the movie doesn't work. The dramatic scenes are just too long and neither the comic book characterizations--necessarily, I know--or goofy dialogue justify the extended close-ups and tearful monologues. Tobey Maguire is a master of understatement and reserve. Watching him--particularly in this film--you finally realize how easily he could play the quiet sociopath next door. His Parker always seems on the verge of a total pshychological break. This is oddly invigorating, but also gives him zero credibility during his scenes of tearful fighting with Mary Jane. We just don't believe this loopy Parker as a passionate romantic figure. He's too screwed up.

Also, the film's climactic battle feels the most cartoony of any moment in the series so far. One of the villains is so outrageous and so clearly a CGI creation as to become non-threatening. The film is, in fact, overstuffed with villains. Sandman, evil Spiderman, Venom, and the Green Goblin all vie for screentime. Venom is scary and effective in his short screen time. The Sandman has some great moments--particularly his birth and early fight with Spiderman--but the film's attempts to invest the character with pathos fall flat. Evil Spiderman/Peter Parker is often a hoot, particularly in an extended dance number. Some viewers will find these moments tonally inappropriate, but I thought they gave the film's sagging midsection much needed energy.

But I would recommend this movie and actually enjoyed it. It's got enough of the good stuff: a few great fight scenes, some scary villainy, and a go-for-broke spirit. The film gets enough right to keep fans of the previous two entries entertained. If Raimi had shaved off fifteen to twenty minutes, the movie may have been a smashing success.

Considering the dreck that we often get in the summer, Spiderman 3 is worth seeing.

Pirates of the Caribbean 3

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:20:00 +0000

Is nearly three hours long.

That's likely three hours of loud, boring incomprehensibility. The second was an abomination and given the speed with which the third is being released expect more of the same. You're going to be bombarded with Fun until you're beaten into submission.

Your news IQ

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:06:00 +0000

The Pew Research Foundation recently conducted a survey on Americans' knowledge of current events. Answer nine questions to find out how you stack up compared to the rest of the country.

I got seven right which put me in the 77th percentile. Those who got their news primarily from Fox scored in the 50th percentile.

How do you stack up?

Bush backtracks

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Thu, 03 May 2007 15:35:00 +0000

On the wiretapping "concessions."

Spider Man 3

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 02 May 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Word is to set your expectations a little lower. This one doesn't sound like its going to top its predecessor.

Hubris

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 02 May 2007 16:37:00 +0000

And lies.

A very sad bit of theater.

Past Pulitzer winners

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:26:00 +0000

I just finished reading the 2006 winner March--see below--and thought it was only good. I found it hard to believe it was the among the year's best. (Yes, awards are always highly subjective, but it seems inevitable that the panelists read several better novels in the judging process.) This year's winner The Road was certainly deserving and was a surprising Oprah's Book Club pick. (How will book clubbers repsond to the books overwhelming bleakness and brutality? I'm not questioning the intelligence of Oprah readers, merely the possibility of the book's limited appeal due to its tone and subject matter.)

I seek out Pulitzer winners because it seems a good way--"of making many books there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12)--to separate the wheat from the chaff. This has led me to amazing books like Gilead, The Known World, Empire Falls, and Beloved. Occasionally, I run across one that elicits a shrug like Independence Day by Richard Ford. I listened to this one on tape and the narrator was very annoying so maybe that contributed to my frustration with the book's interminable navel-gazing. (Was the narrative more ironic than I realized, or was it as tiredly self-indulgent as it seemed? Maybe when I near a mid-life crisis, I'll appreciate it more.)

The Pulitzer has also been awarded to three of my favorite books of all time: Lonseome Dove, To Kill a Mockingbird, and the greatest novel ever written All the King's Men. So I'll continue to use it as a guide. It's just puzzling when a book like March gets to stand alongside Robert Penn Warren, Cormac McCarthy, and Toni Morrison.

To my readers, have any past Pulitzer or other award winners left you cold? I know that although I found A Confederacy of Dunces inspired, it also seemed slight in comparison to other Pulitzer honorees. (I'm sorry that the dream team of director David Gordon Green, Will Ferell and Robert Duvall never materialized for the filmed adaptation. That had the potential to be an amazing film.)

March

noreply@blogger.com (R James) — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:43:00 +0000

Last year's Pulitzer winner for fiction comes up short in comparison to its brethren. Author Geraldine Brooks tells the story of Mr. March, patriarch of the famous March family of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women. Women follows the March family through a eventful year as their father goes off to the Civil War to minister to the troops, but tells little of the father's story. Brooks in March imagines what that year was like for the father including harrowing scenes of war violence and of his dangerous attempt to aid in the administration of a Southern cotton plantation manned by newly freed slaves.

Brooks sets her story in the early days of the Civil War when the North was experiencing brutal losses at the hands of Confederate troops. Northern victory looked unlikely and the President's ability to lead was in doubt. To this reader, setting the story in this time of of our country's uncertainty was novel. Many civil war stories seem to be set in a world in which the collapse of the Confederacy seems inevitable.

March's time on the plantation makes for exciting reading. March's education of the newly freed slaves and his efforts to awaken the plantation's callow boss to the humanity of his employees makes for riveting reading. The plantation is located on Confederate land recently claimed, but poorly defended, by Northern forces making the threat of Confederate attack on the plantation a constant worry. This is the book's strongest section and make it worth the read.

But the book also contains some regrettable staples of melodrama: a dangerous affair and the threat of discovery. The resolution of this story makes up the book's climax and, while unexpected in its execution, feels very tired. We've seen much of this before. The narrative is also a very straightforward first person narrative where the storytellers leave little to the reader's imagination. They do more telling than showing. Their motivations are rarely in doubt.

An interesting history lesson that lacks the impact and subtletly of past Pulitzer winners. Fans of Little Women should be aware of the book's brutal war scenes that would seem out of place in Alcott's mostly gentle world.