Category Archives: Uncategorized

Fracking Amazing.

I really don’t want to turn this into a links blog, but if you can’t find bunnies and unicorns transformed into Cylons completely hilarious, you have no soul.

First one to buy me the “I’m Fracking Magical” shirt wins.

When You Are Engulfed in Fame

As time goes by, the thinness of David Sedaris books becomes more palpable. Like the modern memoir movement he helped to launch, he’s become more prolific and has less and less to say. When You Are Engulfed in Flames, his latest book, is his thinnest yet. Padded with everything from his commencement speech at Princeton to an Esquire article that’s at least five years old, the book has enjoyable moments, but mostly feels hollow.

I think the key to why Sedaris’ early work was not just enjoyable, but relatable, was that he worked so assiduously to disguise the fact that he was, for all intents and purposes, a capital-W Writer. In his first book, Barrel Fever, this was obviously pretty easy to do, but by Me Talk Pretty One Day, the “I’m just like you” vibe had become quite carefully maintained. You’ll notice in Me Talk Pretty that Sedaris never describes himself as having money, as having any kind of career in the present day, as possessing any kind of fame. To his credit, this works pretty well. The constant self-deprecation allows you to forget that the guy has three homes (now four), is broadcast on the radio and published in national magazines, tours the country speaking to packed audiences. He’s just an average guy who can’t learn French, had trouble coming out, has a crazy family.

Sedaris bravely decided to break that wall with the story “Repeat After Me,” which appears in Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim. The story is about how his fame (and the minor liberties he’s taken with the facts) has affected his family, framed in the context of Me Talk Pretty being turned into a movie. It’s a painful story, difficult to read, and while it’s couched in the excellent little observations that have made Sedaris famous, it marks a real turning point in his work. Everything he’s written since is decidedly crowned by the label of “By David Sedaris, Famous Person.” And while I’m sure he enjoys the attention and piles of money, I don’t envy Sedaris in this respect. He’s become his writing’s own worst enemy.

To his credit, When You Are Engulfed in Flames drops most of the remnants of his “David Sedaris, Average Guy” act. He unabashedly writes that his decision to quit smoking (the story of which comprises the book’s lengthy coda) was based, in part, on an inability to secure smoking rooms in the swanky hotels to which he travels on his tours. He discusses buying an expensive painting that he no longer particularly likes. He is unafraid to admit that his quit-smoking trip to Japan cost $30,000.

Some of these gambits pay off; two of the book’s funniest stories involve thwarted social interactions on airplanes, clearly the final frontier when it comes to the imperturbability of American manners. The author makes it clear that he’s on these planes for his lecture circuit, but the behavior that follows is pure Sedaris: part misanthrope, part fussbudget, part social anthropologist, he seems to have a magical gift for attracting bizarre people and subsequently pushing them to their limits.

Still, it would be hard to say that When You Are Engulfed in Flames tops any of Sedaris’ earlier books. There’s a lot of navelgazing and half-baked attempts at mapping narratives onto events that don’t seem to want them. One story is about how Sedaris named every spider in his country house, then took one away to Paris and got annoyed with having to feed her. It’s not exactly riveting. Like every other person on this earth, Sedaris only has so many good stories, and it seems he’s used most of them at this point. I wonder if he’d consider what could be, if mismanaged, creative and financial suicide: a return to fiction. He executed fiction quite well in the short-story portion of Barrel Fever, but hasn’t published any since. Backing away from the real world may not be easy for him to do, nor particularly pleasing to the fans who want to hear every detail of a life strangely lived, but the results could be incredibly interesting. For writers who don’t have half as many good true stories as Sedaris has shared in the past decade, it’s been the best approximation we can come up with. Maybe it’s finally time for him to become a member of the club.

Can Violence Be Funny?

Last night, Tim and I returned to the movies, this time to see the new Seth Rogen/Judd Apatow offering, Pineapple Express. (If you’re interested in seeing the movie, be forewarned: there are spoilers in this post.) I’m a huge fan of the Apatow empire, and have been since the Freaks & Geeks days; I watched Undeclared religiously, and have seen every movie they’ve made since. If you had told me back in 1999 that everyone who worked on Freaks & Geeks would be big movie stars, and that Rogen, my middle school mega-crush, would be their leader, I would have told you that you were out of your mind. So seeing these guys succeed has always been pretty sweet for me, almost like having a group of geeky friends that all struck it big. I tend to be an apologist for even the weakest points of their films (the female characters in Knocked Up come to mind, as does Jonah Hill). And one of the things I love most about their movies is that they’re not afraid of being open about pot use (this joke about Gandhi always comes to mind). Some of their characters are stoners, some are casual users, but there’s no huge anti-drug message in any of the films: it’s just not a big deal. Hell, sometimes you can even do it after you take a promotional photo:

I offer all of this as a preface because I’m feeling kind of lukewarm about Pineapple Express, and I’m not entirely sure why. It’s not that the movie isn’t funny — I laughed out loud during it, many times in fact. I’m just not sure that its overall subject matter is necessarily something that should be mined for humor. Yes, it’s about stoners, but after its first third, the movie isn’t really about pot at all. It’s an action movie, and a pretty violent one at that.

The Apatow crew is all about mining humor from difficult places. Not necessarily dark places, or unlikely places, just places that are strewn with peril for making things funny. Having an unplanned pregnancy with someone you barely know isn’t a funny thing for a lot of people, but Knocked Up took that risk and managed to mine pretty good humor from it. The naked desperation of teenage boys fixated on getting laid also isn’t a wellspring of humor (especially for those who have daughters as a result of those unplanned pregnancies). Superbad took some really lewd stuff and still made it funny. Bad, intense break-ups, especially ones where the guy is the one devastated, aren’t all that funny. Forgetting Sarah Marshall was.

Looking at that list, there’s an obvious new frontier: violence. Can more-than-moderate violence be funny? Pineapple Express seems to be the test, and for me, at least, I think the answer is no. The movie tries to mine humor out of people getting shot, scalded, stabbed, and everything in between, and unlike other action comedies, it’s not shy about showing the gory results. Some of it works, most notably the scenes where the film shows that action movies just aren’t true. James Franco trying to bust open a cracked windshield and getting his leg stuck instead? Brilliant. And “You just got killed by a Daewoo Lanos, motherfucker!” may be a candidate for line of the year.

But there are several violent scenes that cross the line into uncomfortable. The one that comes to mind is when Franco and Rogen find Red (Danny McBride), Franco’s supplier, bleeding to death on his bathroom floor. He’s been shot twice, and has smoked some weed (and grabbed a bottle of vodka) to help kill the pain. He ends up so stoned that he doesn’t really seem to care about whether or not he dies, even though the guys offer to take him to the hospital. To make a long story short, he reappears at the end of the film, still not having received medical attention. As the guys reminisce about their action-packed day, he passes out from lack of blood, and the other two make fun of him.

Seriously, if my friend was bleeding to death and had just passed out, I would not be laughing. Even if I was high as a kite. Hell, if I was really stoned, I’d probably worry more, not less.

Even the choice to make the action scenes feel goofy and real, with tons of mistakes, ends up backfiring. In Rogen’s climactic fight scene with Gary Cole, I was literally cringing as they beat each other with blunt objects. Throwing a regular Joe into a Batman-style fight scene makes me nervous, not amused. It just hits a little too close to home for someone who’s not a particularly big fighter herself.

I think enjoying Pineapple Express really depends on whether or not you’ve crossed the threshold where you can find relatively realistic violence and killing funny. I don’t have a lot of taboos in my brain, and I enjoyed the hell out of every single one that Team Apatow has broken, but violence seems to just be something that isn’t really rife with humor for me. I’m certainly not trying to argue that you’re desensitized to violence if you love Pineapple Express — you can be anti-war, anti-killing, whatever, and still find that the film’s level of violence might be tolerable enough for you to laugh. But I can’t be the only one who will feel that it isn’t, and I wonder if this movie is going to have the kind of word-of-mouth power that the other Apatow films have ridden to glory.

Even if this film breaks their string of hits, though, I’m sure Team Apatow will recover. As long as homelessness, racism, and alcoholism are still around, there will be plenty of great taboos to break, maybe just one notch below this one. Go Judd go!

Hell Isn’t Other People

In the past week, I’ve seen both of Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy films with Tim and Tantek. We watched the first on DVD at Tantek’s house, and saw the new second installment last night at the Metreon, in a pretty empty theatre.

I wish I could say that the Hellboy movies are good, but they’re probably really not. They have hackneyed dialogue, cliched plots, bad supporting actors– all the B-movie trappings that a Dark Knight or an Iron Man spends those extra millions to obviate. There are some lessons thrown into the films, but nothing of particular philosophical merit– mostly, things tend to get resolved in the end, and lingering moral questions are irrelevant.

If the Hellboy movies aren’t good, though, they are certainly crazy as hell, which is almost the same thing. It’s clear that all of the silliness is intentional (this is pan-American comic book geeks, not Texan fertilizer salesmen, that we’re talking about), but that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. Given the opportunity to blow stuff up real good, do some nifty CGI, and ogle some breasts, how many action movie directors instead devote at least five minutes of their film to the main character and his sidekick drunkenly singing along to Barry Manilow? Or a slapstick action sequence involving a ghost, a series of locker doors, and a can of Tecate? Most superheroes live the lives of 80’s rock stars: money, glamour, women, fame. In contrast, the adventures of Hellboy and friends are much more amateurish, kind of like “Wayne’s World.”

Oh man, and don’t even get me started on the Forbidden Planet-meets-Dr. Strangelove German robot with the mechanical mouth and the steam blowing out. Voiced by Seth MacFarlane, no less– yes, that Seth MacFarlane.

Of course, no exegesis on a del Toro film is complete without noting the elegance of his signature visual style. The creatures and crawlies in this film are truly incredible, from the oracle with eyes in her wings (reminiscent of the cherubim from L’Engle’s “A Wind in the Door,” as Tantek cleverly noted) to the gnawing, clawing tiny tooth fairies. The floppy-faced skin bags from Pan’s Labyrinth also make a reappearance.

Oh yeah, and there’s a weird-looking evil elf guy who wants to end the world. But that’s not really the first, or even the fifth concern, for the Hellboy crew. Watching the Hellboy films reminds me of my time at Harvard in more than a few ways: it’s about an isolated group of different, gifted, slightly crazy people who are trying to find a way to get along. Okay, so none of my classmates turned into columns of fire or lived in fishtanks, and only a few emerged from the bowels of hell. But at the end of the day, they all had to get along and work together– regardless of whether the task was saving the world or saving their GPAs. There was a lot of anger, a lot of frustration, a lot of gossiping behind every back. But in the end, it worked, and we worked. Hellboy‘s merit as a film, besides its batshit-crazy good humor, is its assertion that the inmates can run the asylum– and do a damn good job at that. No, we may not have been different enough back at the old alma mater to blow stuff up or fight giant plant gods. But we were all pretty good at being weird. Like the characters in Hellboy, that’s what brought us together.

Fighting the Collecting Urge

I was charmed by the bizarre mind-meld I felt when I read Sean O’Neal’s exquisite A.V. Club blog entry on the nature of collecting in the carbon-footprint world. Sean writes one of my favorite columns on the site, the weekly “Friday Buzzkills,” which details exactly how the cultural world has been going to hell that week. It’s unsurprising, then, that my similarly negative compatriot shares my fascination with the apocalypse. I also spent a fair amount of time in CCD and Mass reading the book of Revelation, wondering if the end of the world would come soon enough to jailbreak me from another hour of lectures on the Virgin Mary and various saints. In retrospect, I guess this was ironic, since the exact event that would have gotten me out of the religion classes I hated was the same one that probably would have actually made me believe in them.

I was also scared shitless in elementary school library class by a public-television series called Tomes and Talismans. It was designed to show kids how to use the various resources at a library, and apparently, the most efficacious way to do this was to incorporate a creepy post-apocalyptic plot. I spent every Library Wednesday cowering in the back of the room with my hands half-over my eyes.

(Incidentally, the online cult for this must have grown of late, because this was definitely NOT on YouTube when I looked for it six months ago. I can’t wait until my lunch break comes around and I can watch these.)

I’m so enthralled by the apocalypse that I read more than a couple of the Left Behind books, despite the fact that they were essentially Christian propaganda, and burned through The Road even though it scared the living crap out of me. The mixture of fear and fascination is what makes the idea all the more furiously wonderful in my mind. Most of the games I’ve played with myself, from childhood to the modern day, involve the products of my extremely overactive imagination. When I outgrew inventing elaborate personalities and life histories for my stuffed animals, I was usually mapping elaborate emotional contexts onto every signal and gesture of my high school crushes. (I once filled a 200+ page journal with writing about a single boy, who never showed the slightest bit of interest in me.) Looking back, I was most inclined to map and configure and dream when the object of my imagination was something that scared me, whether it was interacting with other people or getting a date. Now that I’ve managed to do both of those without falling completely on my face, though, the only fear left is one that can’t be faced. Unless, of course, the world ends.

Like Sean, I probably own way more entertainment items–books and DVDs, especially–than I really should. Some of my justification is sharing; a DVD set is a much easier tool to spread the gospel of The Wire to the uninitiated than a clump of AVI files. When I’m usually overcoming some inherent resistance to whatever it is I’m pressing on people, adding technological difficulties almost never helps.

At the end of the day, however, I’m guilty of the same Hornby quote. I identify myself, in part, by what I own, and I know that’s wrong. Sure, that rare “Float On” 7-inch or the Battlestar Galactica toaster that’s on its way to my house as I speak are wickedly awesome. (So awesome, in fact, that the toaster has sold out and I can no longer give you a direct link to it.) But they’re stuff, at the end of the day, and I’m not. It’s a hard question to ponder, when what you like is more a part of you than who you are. After all, aren’t humans built to respond to and integrate art? Isn’t that why we create? Or is that all just one grand marketing ploy?

And at the bottom of my collecting, there still remains the fear. If huge swaths of this country are destroyed, huge swaths of our art– even our mass-produced, 1-click-on-Amazon art– will go with it. How would I feel about living in a world with no copies of Ulysses, no remnants of “Double Nickels on the Dime,” no memory of Freaks & Geeks or Arrested Development? (Insert your own cultural touchstones here.) These things may just be things in the end, but they’ve made me laugh and cry and think.

Yes, I’m a consumer. I don’t go into debt for my things, and I can afford everything I buy, but I still consume beyond the essential needs, and that makes up my little contribution to the petroleum economy (I no longer own a car). It’s entirely possible that once the whole world composts and switches to Priuses, my lifestyle will be the next target. Or else the world will end, and I’ll be locked up in the house against the marauders, reading by whatever weak light my generator can make. Either way, my lifestyle will become untenable. But it isn’t right now.

And so I collect: against the better part of logic, against the environmental arguments, and against the end of time, my greatest unconquered fear.

Fruits of My Labor

I consider gastronomy to be an element of my pop-cultural world, and with the increasing penetration of chefs or chef characters into television, books, and film, I think the culture has concurred. This will be the first of a series of occasional entries on food.

Raspberries are so beautiful. Their perfect conical shape, the lovely clumps of tiny cells that make the whole. The delicate hairs that extend from each clump, tickling softly on the tongue. The richness of their red. In the mouth, squishy and crumbly and vaguely crunchy all at once, sweet down to the seeds that stick in your teeth. The way some of them taste ever so slightly of soil. Fingers covered in a juice so electric pink you would think Pantone had expanded into fruit.

I didn’t used to like raspberries.

My birth, in the halcyon year of 1986, coincided with two major events in American food: the heyday of processed food, and the saturation point of factory farming. Granted, when you’re a kid choosing between cookies and fruit, there’s usually only one winner. For my generation, however, the game was especially rigged. On one side, I had ever-present access to the bounty of multitudinous corporate labs, from Juicy Juice to Cheez-Its to Dunkaroos, and especially the intense, penetrating sweetness of soda. It came advertised on my favorite programs and decorated with happy cartoon emblems. Its jingles penetrated down to my bones.

On the other side lay fruits and vegetables, glossy and beautiful and tasteless. They looked perfect in the store, even when they had spent three weeks on a carrier ship bound from Chile, but they tasted like nothing, and even the fact that I was “supposed” to eat them didn’t improve them. Oranges were dry, barely emitting juice. Corn was starchy but lacked any sweetness. Berries left a slight, evaporated sour flavor.

But I didn’t know that these foods could have other flavors, because I was a kid at the time. As far as I was concerned, this was just how fruit was. And I couldn’t understand how adults could eat it.

If we lived today, my family could have found its salvation in the whole local/organic thing, going to farmer’s markets, the works. But in 1994, we just had Publix. Winn-Dixie, maybe, if you were feeling adventurous. Unable to control the taste of what we were eating, my parents’ focus shifted to what it was doing to our waistlines. When nutrition facts were introduced and the fat crisis of the early 90’s broke big, my mother reacted by doing what she thought was best. Unfortunately, she fell for the same myth that a lot of people did. Our lunchbox Oreos were replaced with SnackWells. Our Triscuits became fat-free, our ice cream low-calorie. And so we continued to put crap in our bodies, assuming that we had outsmarted the general populace, marveling at the food industry’s ability to meet our needs. I, in particular, still didn’t eat any fruit, and very few vegetables. They all tasted like nothing to me, and what flavor they did have paled in comparison to the explosive rush of high-fructose corn syrup. It was like choosing a Budweiser over a shot of heroin: the pleasure ratio didn’t even begin to work comparatively, even though one choice was clearly wiser.

It was a bowl of cherries that changed my life. I was in Spain, traveling up after my Portugal summer program ended, visiting the family of the Spanish girl who was about to come live with us as an exchange student. They were incredibly wealthy, and took me to their “rustic” country home, a gem overlooking perfect hills and a glorious swimming pool. After a great lunch, they handed me a bowl of cherries, and beseeched me to eat some.

I had never gotten the appeal of cherries. My mom went crazy every time she found them in the store, buying huge bags, but whenever I ate one, it just tasted cold and slightly sour, almost the ghost of a taste. How could my beloved cherry Kool-Aid and Blow Pops have descended from the neutered flavor of this little fruit? And what made my mom love them so much?

I had to eat some of my hosts’ cherries, if only to be polite, so I stuck mine in my mouth and tried to quickly get down what I assumed would be its sour, watery taste. Instead, an explosion of sweet and sour notes lit across my tongue.

The cherry was very good. More than that– it was incredible.

I ended up eating most of the bowl.

Back in the States, now, I’m always on the lookout for cherries, but not one I’ve tasted has even come close to the flavor of that bowl I consumed in Spain. They’re glossier, yes, and less likely to be pitted or scarred, but they mostly taste dull and watery, like they did when I was a kid. When I eat a cherry now, I’m mostly just feeding myself a memory.

This, to me, is the real problem with the state of American food, one that no one seemed to notice until it had already swept the system. When people popped their first factory-farmed cherry into their mouths, 20 or 30 years ago, they probably just assumed it was a dud: all fruits have good and bad harvests. And even when the cherries continued to be mediocre, they had the memory of a good cherry to keep them eating, and the hope that they would eat a good one again.

For my generation, however, all we grew up eating were mediocre cherries. Until I went to Spain at age 18, I never even knew what a good one tasted like– the memory hadn’t been instilled. And when there’s no memory, there’s no desire. So I avoided fruit, because fruit tasted bad. After that experience with the cherries, I came home determined to re-try all the fruits and veggies that I thought I hadn’t liked. Surprise: Most of them still didn’t taste very good. Every time I went to Europe after that, I tried to build feelings around the food, slamming down luscious fruit in the hopes that I could grow attached enough in memory to eat the crummy stuff at home. But I never did.

Moving to California has been a small miracle when it comes to fruit and vegetables. The freshness is so real– everything really comes from here, and a lot of the produce tastes like it did in Spain. All of the flavors have been turned up to eleven, and I’m understanding for the first time in my life why people like these things. Tomatoes, for example: I had always loved tomato sauce, but couldn’t understand how that tasteless vegetable (well, fruit, really) could produce such a range of flavor only when pureed to bits. Turns out I was just eating the wrong tomatoes. The ones here are piquant and bright and subtly spicy. They taste like the flavor of tomato sauce– a big difference for a food whose flavor, to me, usually resembled dirt.

Sure, there are downsides. I’ve eaten most of a box of raspberries as I write this, leaving tiny pink splotches on the keyboard, and there are some duds in its corner: this one too squishy, that one practically black. But you can tell this box hasn’t traveled from too far away: most of them are perfectly round and firm to the touch, like tiny mottled fingertips. And they taste amazing.

I worry about the kids who’ve never tasted a raspberry like these. There are a lot of them out there, probably a number of victims of the growing juvenile obesity epidemic among them. It’s hard to turn down a raspberry donut or Fruit Roll-Up for a real raspberry, because there are no guarantees with the real thing. Often, the only guarantee is that the taste will be mediocre. That, more than anything, makes me hope these local/organic farming trends will continue, that fruit will slowly drift back to the way it was.

If the memory of the taste has never been there, then the taste is impossible to cultivate. So, Californians, eat your fruit and rejoice. In this ever-changing world of food, it’s more important than ever that we build some good memories. They may end up being all we have left.

Batman Gets His (Psychological) Wings

Like everyone else on these here Internets, I feel like I definitely need to say something about The Dark Knight. If you’re one of the five people in America who didn’t see it this past weekend (it had the biggest opening of all time), be forewarned: mild spoilers ahead.

I, like most of the audience, left my screening of Dark Knight in a bit of a grim mood. In fact, I was rather grateful that there was going to be an afterparty for the film, because I was sorely in need of a drink. Some people claim that this was to be expected (one of Tantek’s friends noted that “after all, it isn’t titled The Mildly Ominous Knight,”) and I didn’t mind the film’s sacrificing some of the zip that characterized Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan did the best he could by introducing a lot of humor in the first half of the film– I was almost blown away by how funny it was in places, which is a rare thing in a superhero film. Ultimately, however, endings stay with you, and I think Nolan did realize that the audience was going to be walking out with a pretty grim view of the world. To paraphrase Commissioner Gordon, it wasn’t the ending we wanted, it was the ending we deserved.

What’s even more interesting about that ending, and Dark Knight in general, is that it’s one of the only pieces in the movie that prominently features Batman. Most of the Batman films are about Batman and his problems, from the mythmaking in the original and rebooted origin stories to the juvenile pop psychology of Batman Forever (with none other than Nicole Kidman flashing her Rorshachs at Mr. Wayne). It’s an understandable impulse at first: especially at the beginning of a story, we want to know why this character is making the drastic decisions he’s making, want to feel the effect of his inner moral turmoil. The original Batman, as well as Batman Begins, accomplished that task ably.

But in sequels, I think it’s just as, if not more, important to spread the psychological wealth a little. If we’re three movies in with our old pal Batman and still hearing about how his parents were murdered, he has poor impulse control, et al, the films start to become like therapy sessions peppered with car chases and explosions– and the supporting characters, many of whom have equally interesting tales, stay completely flat. The paper-thin development of Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face in Forever is a great example: he appears from nowhere in the beginning of the film, starts pouring some acid on people in a bank vault, and sneaks in a little bit of exposition about how Batman is somehow responsible for his mangled visage. It’s like Insta-Villain: ten seconds in the microwave, a poorly thought-out motive for revenge, now let’s just go blow stuff up real good.

Contrast this with Aaron Eckhart’s Two-Face in the new film. Frankly, I was surprised that Nolan chose to do both the Two-Face and Joker arcs in one film; I figured we might see a set-up for a Two-Face-centric third film (a la James Franco’s New Goblin at the end of Spider-Man), but not the entire Harvey Dent saga in one go. That being said, however, what a fucking brilliant piece of character development. Not only does Dent work on the symbolic level, he works on the real one as well: we can understand his history, his affection, his pain, and a real motive for revenge– this is no namby-pamby I’m-gonna-get-you-sucka setup.

And the supporting character buck doesn’t stop there: Gary Oldman gets in a very nice backstory as Gordon, there’s a little more clarity on Alfred’s history, and while Maggie Gyllenhaal may still be more of a token skirt than a real person, she acts the hell out of what little she’s given. I’m deducting some points here for Morgan Freeman’s performance as “Magical Black Man #467,” but overall, some pretty solid character development.

And then, of course, there’s the Joker. His character, in some ways, really defines what worked about the film for me. We watch him caper and connive, pressure and squirm, and eventually bite the dust, but through all of this, we know nothing about him. We don’t know why he does what he does. We don’t know if he’s genuinely crazy, or just a little mad. What little backstory he has (brought out in his myriad knifepoint speeches) is constantly changing; it might be the truth, it might not. And yet, none of it matters. He’s still totally riveting and compelling, right up until the last frame. Some of this is owed to Heath Ledger’s excellent performance, but just as much of it might be owed to the release of a burden: the constant focus on the minutiae of hero/villain psychology. It turns out that all you really need to build a superhero or supervillain is enough to get by: no Tommy Lee Jones-style cop-outs, but no endless digressions into Batman’s childhood and what he ate for breakfast last Tuesday, either. Give us what we need to know to make it comprehensible and believable, and let the actions (and acting) do the rest.

The long-held trope about horror movies is that what you can’t see is always much scarier than what you can. Batman’s power over his enemies (and the Joker’s as well) is exactly that: he’s mysterious and unknowable, and for that reason, he’s all the more frightening. I think Nolan and his comrades were really able to take a big leap for Batman, and for superhero films in general, by embracing the unknown and the unknowable. Just as the adage predicted, the results were scary. And scarily good.

(Thanks to Tantek and Cyan at Zivity for the opportunity to see the film a day early. You guys rock.)


Synthesizing the 80’s

The two albums that have been getting a lot of play on my iPod lately are M83’s Saturdays = Youth and the soundtrack to Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!, appropriately titled Awesome Record, Great Songs! On the surface level, these albums are pretty different: one is a moody, subtle work of pop-electronica, while the other is…well, it’s a collection of silly songs from a TV show. But they’re both raising a really interesting question for me: what are we going to do about the 80’s?

I mean, yes, in some senses, the 80’s are over. We’re approaching the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the decade, and times have certainly changed since then. Yet the decade of decadence maintains a bizarre hold on our consciousness. The simple example is all the women I still see in Jacksonville with side ponytails and Day-Glo shirts with pictures of kittens. Then there are the ubiquitous 80’s nights at clubs, with the accompanying Flashdance-style ensembles. But there’s also a kind of strange collective memory around the time. It boomed like the mid-to-late-90’s, but it was so much more egregious about that success. Everything that happened was saturated and celebrated.

And even though we acknowledge the excess that defined the whole thing, we’re also oddly rapacious to have the kind of recognition the decade gave us. Especially if we were born as products of its aesthetic, and are now growing up in the aftershocks. I myself come from quality yuppie stock. My parents were high-level corporate executives in blocky power suits. They tried sushi. They bought furniture from Crate and Barrel. They bore children named Alexandra and Mackenzie. Hell, my mom is still hoping that if she just waits long enough, puffy hair and shoulder pads will finally come back. (“My shoulders aren’t broad enough otherwise,” she often notes.) My parents’ truncated record collection, which ends abruptly after 1987, contains a fair share of their 70’s rock/folk favorites, but once you hit 1980, the sound is all smooth jazz and synthesizer. And they didn’t even buy many records at that point in their lives.

For the folks about ten years younger than them, I can only imagine what it must have felt like to come of age then, especially musically. Unless you were a dedicated anachronist or a member of an underground scene, synthesizer was just the way popular music sounded. If you went back to 1985 with your Mr. Fusion and took a poll, they’d tell you that synth was just the direction the history of music had taken, that we’d crossed over into new technology and weren’t planning to go back. (Then, they’d probably play you a few bars of “The Power of Love”.)

Both of the albums in my rotation right now try to deal with this history, albeit in different ways. Saturdays = Youth, as its title implies, is all about nostalgia. Take “Kim & Jessie,” the album’s most compelling track. Its lyrics are sad and nostalgic, about the ephemeral nature of time and teenage escape. Yet the driving synths, the keyboard overlays, and the other 80’s touches add a driving force to the song: it feels tough, resilient, over-the-top at times. It seems to suggest that the memory of the celebratory, decadent 80’s has overwhelmed its moments of vulnerability– a major assertion of David Mitchell’s equally wistful Black Swan Green. At the same time, however, “Kim & Jessie” poignantly suggests why teenagers are so attached to music: it adds sweep and grandeur to the tiny disappointments of their lives.

Awesome Record takes an even more layered route to understanding 80’s nostalgia. I think Tim and Eric’s show has been so reviled by so many people because its essential comedic premise is really, really obscure, to the point of meta. The show is not content to parody 80’s tropes; it wants to parody how people absorbed and used (and frequently mis-used) them, and what a strong hold they still seem to have on the national consciousness.

Consider, for example, the fake song “Come Over,” which appears with literally no context on the show. (Sorry for the link, WordPress is refusing to embed Adult Swim’s video player for some reason.)

So this clip is funny on the level of straight parody of the 80’s, right? It has karaoke, which was big then, and the weird whitewashed images that appeared in karaoke video tracks. But then it adds an extra level, because the adaptation is obviously pretty failed: the song is way too explicit about what “coming over” means, to the point of being gross, and the woman in the video is really old and overweight. Hell, the woman isn’t even singing correctly: it sounds like she’s having a bad run at the local bar, circa 1987 or so.

Or take this one, the most strange of the show’s various “Kid Break” segments.

So the initial 80’s parody is all of those weird PSAs targeted at kids: that’s the silly music, the weird graphics that are done in that “chalkboard” font, the obvious grown-ups in their kiddie outfits. But again, there’s the second layer: like “Come Over,” the song is way more revealing than it should be, to the point of being embarrassing. And when the display shows it was paid for by a government initiative, it’s almost like an over-the-top edition of the “diversity” PSAs of the late 80’s– do people who sit down when they pee really need a champion to keep them from being discriminated against?

The fact that both of these albums are of such recent vintage, but so clearly obsessed with the implications of the 80’s, suggests that the vogue of obsession with that decade is not over (try as VH1 might to burn us all out). Is it nostalgia? Is it embarrassment? Is it a longing for a world in which everyone was kind of a big deal? I guess you could say it’s a mix of all these things, a synthesis of all things synthesizer. Until we’ve really seen it for what it is, however, I wonder if we’ll ever get over it. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Thomas Hardy, you can’t go back to the future again. Unless one of you folks has a flux capacitor handy.

The Name Game

My copy of Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake has sat on my desk for much of the past two weeks, waiting to be read in lunch breaks and lulls. Like anything left on a desk, this apparently means it’s an open invitation for co-workers to comment.

“Do you know there’s a movie of that?” one said on Monday.

“Yeah, that’s what I’ve heard.”

“I don’t want to see it, though,” she adds. “I hated that book.”

“Do you know there’s a movie of that?” another co-worker says the next day.

“So they tell me.”

“I should see it. I love that book. It’s one of my favorites!”

After taking in these two diametrically opposed comments on the same issue, I have to admit I’m puzzled. Did they read the same book that I did? The Namesake could probably inspire a number of feelings for different people, but virulent hatred or unconditional love probably aren’t two of them. Lahiri’s book is quiet and sad, an even more distilled version of the latent misery that penetrated her Interpreter of Maladies.

The conflicts in The Namesake aren’t terribly unique, or even very overwrought; they feel shocking and inevitable at the same time, like a series of tiny deaths. It’s probably the book’s greatest accomplishment: it so eloquently captures the resignation that comes with life’s tragedies that reading it sometimes begins to feel like an act of extended mourning.

The Namesake is about the small joys and tragedies of being an immigrant, the broadening that goes hand-in-hand with the loss, and the incontrovertible fact of the second generation’s rejection, and subsequent embrace, of what sets them apart.

Ever the blogger-journalist, I noted after the fact that both of the commentators on the book, positive and negative, were children of immigrants. (Pro: Nigerian; con: Chinese.) Perhaps their feelings on these subjects were so tense because they themselves had a stake in the argument. Every child finds themselves reaching certain moments of accord or dischord with their parents as they age, but with immigrant children, the difference is sometimes incredibly stark. I know some who respect their parents to the point of worship. I know others who think it would be great if they never saw their parents again. And opinions on this subject tend to change as people get older.

If Gogol Ganguli, Lahiri’s protagonist, had read The Namesake in the first half of his “life” (assuming that the book was about some other American-born Indian boy, and not a creepy Stranger Than Fiction-type situation), he probably would hate it. It’s about acceptance and resignation and all of the adult buzzwords that disgruntled youth swear will never enter their existence. It’s also about forgiveness, a notoriously poor skill among teenagers.

So perhaps the virulence of the reactions to The Namesake is as much about the reader’s own attitude, his or her own place on the acceptance continuum, as it is about anything objectionable in the book itself. If you can’t come to terms, why would you want to see someone else in your shoes do exactly that? And if you have come to terms, what could be better than a book that sanctifies your decision?


Theories About Lost: First in a Series

“Lie to them…If you do it half as well as you lie to yourself, they’ll believe you.” -John Locke (Terry O’Quinn), Lost

“How many times do I have to tell you, John? I always have a plan.”
-Benjamin Linus (Michael Emerson), Lost

I am ashamed to like Lost.

Even though it doesn’t consume too much of my mental energy or time. Even though it’s a major popular hit. Even though it’s groundbreaking in a lot of ways. Even though the production values are impossibly good. None of this matters– I’m still ashamed of liking the show.

Why? Two words: bad writing.

Despite the fact that it’s densely plotted and organized on the macro level, Lost has line writing that makes the English major in me curl up into a tiny cringe-ball. It perplexes me that the writers of a show can be this smart (at plotting) and this stupid (at line writing) at the same time.

Even if I’m willing to forget the much-ballyhooed Lost fact that none of the characters ever ask the right questions, the problem is that they just don’t talk like real people a lot of the time. Except when they do. Simply taken line by line, Lost is a mindfuck in terms of tone. My ex-boyfriend and I actually used to play a game about this when we watched the show: we’d yell at the screen each time someone said something patently unrealistic or obvious. Suffice it to say that our neighbors did not like us very much.

One of the oldest tropes in marketing (the discipline in which both of my parents work, and in which they’ve taught me the basics) is this line: “If you can’t fix it, feature it.” This basically means that if there’s something so inextricably attached to your product (or TV show) that you can’t unlink the two, it’s better just to call it out upfront. For example, when Oldsmobile set out to rebrand itself in the 90’s, it had to deal with the perception that it made cars for old people. So they featured this flaw in their ads by immediately disarming that argument: their motto became “Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile.” (This same trope was recently done even more awesomely in a series of ads for Canadian Club.)

What Lost can’t fix is genre writing, and all the bad dialogue it entails. Some shows can break through the writing trap when it comes to genre– but let’s face it, Lost ain’t never gonna be BSG. So it features it. It proudly proclaims, “This is like all those other genre shows that you watched as a kid. This is gonna have robots and kissing and awesome stuff always going on. Even if the writing sucks.”

So this is good for Lost, good for fans of genre shows who really enjoy Lost, and bad for people who aren’t really into genre shows precisely because of the writing (i.e. me).

Until I realized the best part about this fix-turned-feature.

The most essential goal of Lost from the writers’ perspective is that you don’t guess the mystery. The second you figure out what’s going on, you get bored and stop tuning in, and they stop making money. So the writers do plenty on the plot level to prevent that from happening. The show has a sizable share of red herrings: characters die before they should, often for no reason, or because the actors get DUIs (the show is three for three in this respect). Nikki and Paulo, Charlie’s impromptu baptism, Claire’s psychic…Lost is full of stubbornly loose ends. And don’t even get me started on Mr. Eko.

But what if I told you that bad dialogue is exactly the key to why Lost works?

This is why. The average Lost viewer is young, white, educated, and pop-culture savvy. (No problem if you’re not– this is merely the law of averages, mind you.) These are the people who, like me, have seen a lot of stuff, and if something gets predictable, they can call the outcome before it happens. In other words: The Lost viewership is Lost‘s kryptonite.

Bad line writing, however, confuses the best guessing instinct of all these people. If the show is action and comedy and sci-fi and romance and character drama and soap opera all in one episode, and moves between all these genres without much skill, no one is going to be able to figure out what it’s about– even the most educated guessers. The writing is cringeworthy on a micro level, but its essential randomness serves the big picture. And if that’s the case, maybe fans of great dialogue don’t have to be so ashamed of the show after all.

What’s even more insane is that if this is true, the show has lost viewers– a lot of viewers, added up over the past four years– precisely because of this ruse. But that ruse is still better than no ruse, because if the secret’s done, so is the show.

Granted, I could be making up this entire theory. A lot of Lost fans assign more cleverness and credibility to the show’s plot than it actually possesses. But it does solve the smart-stupid quandary. Plus, if it’s true, this means that the writers of Lost are so badass that they’re willing to write knowingly awful dialogue and lose tons of viewers for the purpose of preserving their mystery. And if that’s the case, it’s probably gonna be one awesome mystery.