Steve’s Stuff

The New York State chapter of the Nation Organization for Women had this to say in regards to Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama . . .

“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

“And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one). ‘They’ are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That’s Howard’s brother) who run DFA (that’s the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women’s money, say they’ll do feminist and women’s rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America’s future or whatever.

“This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”

It seems clear enough that NOW advocates blindly following *any* female candidate regardless of qualifications. Feminists should vote for the best leader - and the most sympathetic to their agenda. With many prominent feminist cultural theorists speaking out about Hillary, and her willingness to play the part of the submissive, long-suffering wife, why is NOW so upset? No demographic should vote for a candidate simply because he or she is like them. Pick the best and then let others do the same without being so whiny when others don’t agree.

This book is not what one would hope. Beyond the frequent factual mistakes (dates, chronology, plot, etc.), there is a deeper issue. Mikita Brottman claims to be helping us understand the importance of these films by showing us hidden qualities that redeem them from their exploitation roots. However, her prejudices are obvious - she is unable to engage these films as worthy of study without demonstrating that she is academically and intellectually superior.

Granted, Herschel Gordon Lewis was not a cinematic genius (although he does have a PhD in English or literature), but he wasn’t the simple-minded idiot Brottman describes him as. She ignores one of the most interesting aspects of his career: he was able to put the stamp of his personal vision on each of his films, independent of the financial forces that typically control directors and drive them to make derivative junk.

In describing the films she claims to redeem, she ends up contributing to the negative hype surrounding them by describing them as “so sick, depraved, and unwatchable that the view becomes physically ill.” Seriously - Blood Feast is nothing compared to some more contemporary films. It may have been shocking at one time, but now I seriously doubt its ability to make someone physically ill. It’s just so cheesy and unintentionally hilarious that I don’t think anyone is watching it in the way that Brottman seems to think they are. I don’t know anyone who put the DVD in, watched, and became horrified. On the other hand, I DO know many people who watched the film for its comic value. From this perspective, I believe many of her arguments are weak.

She makes a few statements that really makes one question just how many times she watched some of these films. There are plenty of mistakes in the chapter on “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, but the most disturbing is that she falls victim to the same trap that many critics succumbed to: namely, the amount of gore in the film. She describes the film as using (amongst other things), advanced special effects. This is absolutely untrue. They intentionally *avoided* gore both because it would be difficult to pass the censorship board and because they weren’t interested in exploitation. Many people learned from “Psycho” that you don’t need blood to terrify. Carpenter’s “Halloween” has almost no blood, nor does Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Tobe Hooper focused on suspense and a horrifying environment of terror rather than the cheap, visceral effect of blood and guts. From Brottman’s comments, we can see that she will never be guilty of a thorough understanding of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, as she sees fit to completely misunderstand the filmmakers intentions (probably a result of her elitist need to marginalize the director).

My final criticism is that her idea of art is much different from mine. She sees directors like Jorg Buttergeit (the Nekromantic series and Schramm) as art-house directors while seeing Gaspar Noe (Irreversible) as exploitation masters in the style of David Freidman and Herschel Gordon Lewis. Just compare “Irreversible” with “Nekromantic”: Irreversible has a real visual style, a message, and creatively explores the medium of the teleological narrative. Nekromantic is an exercise in invoking the taboo taken to pointlessly nauseating levels. And for what point? To show that necrophiliacs are people too? I’d rather deal with a serious and skillfully portrayed meditation on the base instincts of the human condition rather than watching a necrophiliac make love to a cheesy fake body.

Brottman is entitled to her opinion and if she doesn’t want to see Noe as an artistic director, that’s her right. However, it shows me that I don’t agree with her on fundamental issues and therefore, I cannot accept many of her points. There ARE some nice sections and the writing style is readable. It’s not elegant by any stretch, but it’s not as dry as some scholarly texts. If you’re a big fan of exploitation film or the so-called “low culture”, you’ll probably find some interesting ideas in this book, as I did. However, they are buried and you’ll have to make a number of allowances for Brottman’s mistakes and odd opinions. What a shame - it could have been so much better.

Universal finally got around to releasing Lynch’s “Lost Highway” on DVD! Most of you are already well aware that there was never a proper domestic release of the film. It was available from Canada in a hideous pan and scan version complete with terrible color and brightness levels that made the film difficult to watch.

Before discussing this particular DVD, I’d like to include a few comments on the film itself. There are a lot of people that will say this film makes no sense, that it’s meaningless, or even pointless. I would like to counter that by saying, the film is full of meaning, but it’s like a puzzle and you can’t expect to figure it out on one or two viewings alone. There are so many fascinating details and connections that present themselves upon subsequent viewings that I really believe it’s worth it to spend some time with “Lost Highway”.

I don’t want to give away plot information or even present some common interpretations of the film. At least 30% of the fun comes from post-viewing discussions where you and your friends attempt to make sense of the pieces. If you are just dying to get some easy answers, they’re already covered in Lynch discussion boards all around the web. I’m much more interested in helping new viewers approach the film to get the most out of it on the first viewing.

I think the first viewing should be a purely sensual experience where you can take in the atmosphere and react to the film on a gut level. It’s going to make you scratch your head, but it’s such a wild ride that I think it’s fun without even understanding everything. The second time you watch it, look for details - themes, motives, repetition - there are clues all over the place.

In interviews, Lynch admitted that he and Barry Gifford (the writer) included certain elements so that the film would *not* ever completely resolve, no matter how you put it together. Think of the blue box in “Mulholland Drive” - it’s a fantastic element that probably exists only symbolically. If you separate certain features of “Mulholland Drive”, the film eventually makes sense. The same goes for “Lost Highway” - there are real events, symbolic events, and imaginary events. A great first step is deciding in which category specific events fall.

Now onto this particular DVD release:

The rumor websites have been talking about a brand new 5.1 mix, and given Lynch’s obsession with top-quality video, I’m hoping that this will be the best “Lost Highway” release ever. However, while this DVD will probably be a big step up in terms of quality and availability, I’m disappointed that Universal didn’t do more. “Blade Runner” fans waited years for a proper DVD release, but they were eventually rewarded with a total of NINE different editions (including both HDDVD and Bluray) - why couldn’t they at very least give “Lost Highway” fans a special edition? I have the Region 2 UK double-disc edition and it’s great. The featurettes, interviews, and such are out there already, so why not include them?

The only real extra is a 10-part, multi-angle interview with Lynch. Since the Lynch interview on the Region 2 release is fairly brief, I’m guessing this is something new, recorded recently. Those familiar with Lynch know what to expect - he’s going to tell interesting stories without explaining anything in the film. I’m sure it will be very cool, but what about the extra scenes that are floating around? Universal could have done a lot more.

“Lost Highway” is such a puzzling, but engaging film. I highly recommend it to any fan of Lynch’s. It’s not the best Lynch film to start with if you haven’t seen any yet. It’s not as straightforward as “Blue Velvet” and it’s trickier than “Mulholland Drive”, but it’s got a wonderfully dark atmosphere that fills the screen with Lynchian dread. It’s an experience. Enjoy.

Since eight years as a first lady counts the same as eight years of executive, presidential experience, I say we all go to the polls and do a write-in for Laura Bush! She’s been a two-term first lady, just like Hillary. Ergo, she is just as qualified as Hillary. But, she is just now finishing up those eight years, so she has momentum already. Hillary may be ready to go “by day one”, but Laura Bush has already started! Her “day one” was seven years ago!

I’m sad to see that our country is full of such mindless morons. Lets hope Nevada doesn’t screw up what New Hampshire already did. I could defend my positions, but you might as well just read what’s in the news and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Thoroughly disgusting.

This was in a CNN story covering the democratic race -

“Pre-caucus polls in Nevada make it a close race among the three, an event spiced by a lawsuit filed by several Clinton supporters hoping to challenge the ground rules.

Their objective was to prevent several caucuses along the Las Vegas Strip, where thousands of Culinary Workers Union employees — many of them Hispanic or black — hold jobs.

The rules were approved in May, when Clinton was the overwhelming national front-runner in the race. But the union voted to endorse Obama last week, and the lawsuit followed.”

This is funny - especially after she criticized Iowa’s caucus system of disenfranchising blue-collar workers unable to take time off work to attend.

More here -

“The state teachers union, which hasn’t endorsed a candidate but whose members are among Mrs. Clinton’s core supporters, has asked a federal court to halt the casino caucuses because it gives casino workers greater voice in delegate selection. The court hasn’t yet heard the suit, but it already has created bad blood between the culinary union and the state’s elected Democrats, who have been largely quiet.

D. Taylor, the union’s secretary-treasurer, calls the suit “an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of union members,” who will be working on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. He and other Obama supporters point out that all the campaigns signed off on the plan months ago.”

Yikes

Not that Arianna Huffington is in anyway unbiased, but this is still worth a look. As the race gets dirty, it’s nice to have a record of things people are saying. You might be able to find something like this on Obama, but I haven’t seen it myself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html

I did my part in the Iowa caucuses. Now it’s up to South Carolina to get out there and vote Obama.

According to Something Weird Video, the Wizard of Gore himself is back in the director’s chair for a brand new film!

For the first time in horror film history, five bloodthirsty maniacs from the infamous splatter films of HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS team up to butcher and mutilate anyone who stands in their way! Get ready for the super-villain Battle Royale of the century with BACK IN BLOOD and H.G. LEWIS’s GRIM FAIRY TALES! These all-new feature films are based on characters created by legendary horror director Herschell Gordon Lewis, teaming up the infamous homicidal maniacs: Fuad Ramses (Blood Feast), Montag the Magnificent (Wizard of Gore), Adam Sorg (Color Me Blood Red), and Rodney/Granny Pringle (The Gruesome Twosome). They’re back from the grave - together for the first time ever in the same movie! Scheduled Release Date: 2008

Awesome!

Rogue cultural critic and postfeminist Camille Paglia has some interesting perspectives on Hillary Clinton. It’s a quick read and worth your time.

Incidentally, Steve of “Steve’s Stuff”, author of an unpopular, rarely read CRATEL blog, endorses Obama. As if anyone cared.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/

Whether you believe “Inland Empire” is a great film filled with mystery, or a meaningless assemblage of unsettling scenes, you can’t deny that it has a great soundtrack. Sound design has become so important to Lynch that all of his films since “Lost Highway” feature a constant extra-diegetic sound source of some sort. In “Lost Highway”, there were obvious musical selections separated by ominous rumblings and barely audible industrial sounds. Now in IE, the distinction between what is “music” in the traditional sense and what is ambient sound is almost totally blurred. Not all music has melody, and not all ambient sound is without melody - even if only in an abstract sense. While I’m disappointed that Angelo Badalamenti didn’t collaborate, Lynch seems to have taken on the task himself with great success.

In many ways, this is an interesting companion to the film. It appears that Lynch created lengthy selections, which he subsequently cut and arranged to work with the editing and flow of the film. Now, we’re able to hear them in their entirety, as Lynch originally conceived them. To me, it’s a fascinating window into his creative mind.

Beyond Lynch’s original material, there are some interesting selections ranging from Beck to Penderecki’s intense modernist works. The big disappointment for me was the curious omission of the music from the burlesque club scene. It was a great subversion of sleazy stripper jazz into something atonal, but still groovy.

Finally, many speculate that a lot of the film is explained in the lyrics of “Polish Poem”, and this is an easy way to hear it. There do seem to be some answers, but as is typical for Lynch, they’re clouded in vague, poetic language and end up raising more questions than they answer.

This is an excellent soundtrack. Even if you were not a fan of the film itself, the music stands on its own. It’s different from the popular “Lost Highway” soundtrack, but I think it’s equally good.

Helvetica is an interesting documentary about something that
superficially appears banal - the ubiquitous san serif font. This is a
stylish film that is actually about a lot more than typography.

The film pursues two angles. The first deals with typography directly
and is more expository in nature. It’s the ostensible topic of the
film, but the interest comes from the second angle, which deals with
issues of modernism, postmodernism, and the aesthetics of graphic
design. Yes, it’s interesting to learn about typography, but
typography is not an art per se (nor am I suggesting that the film
makes this claim). Rather, it is the manner its used that has the
potential to rise above its market-driven function and become an
artistic statement.

The film really hits its stride after about 40 minutes when the
modernism bubble bursts and we start getting a lot of resistance to
the world-wide helvetica saturation. After hearing modernist designers
extol the virtues of its clean lines and clarity, it’s nice to hear
some postmodernists begin to deconstruct its undercurrent of
conformity. By the end of the film, we’ve come back to a place where
helvetica is no longer mass market taboo and graphic designers are
free to use it, so long as they some how subvert its structure.

The best part about the film is that it really lays out the
modern/postmodern debate clearly by using something to which everyone
can relate. A comparison of modernist and postmodernist painting is
sure to leave those unfamiliar with the field of 20th century painting
confused, but by using something everyone has a lot of experience
with, the issues become increasingly clear.

I have a few issues with the film that keep me from giving it five
stars. It feels a bit long for its subject matter. There are quite a
few montage sections showing how the Helvetica typeface surrounds us
everywhere. I think most people get the picture within a few minutes.
All these montages feel a bit like filler. While it’s an engaging
topic, I’m not sure that it’s a “feature-length” topic. “Helvetica”
seemed to be a great 60-minute documentary that unfortunately ran 80
minutes.

Also, some of the interviewees are a bit fanatical about typography.
At least one individual borders on the verge of typographic fetishism.
I know the difference between enthusiasm and fetishism and this was
clearly the latter. You’ll see what I mean. I don’t mind that this guy
holds this position, but I think it weakens some of the arguments that
others make in support of the aesthetic complexity of typography.

In conclusion, I’ll say that “Helvetica” is a very nice documentary.
It’s not on the same level as, say, “Gates of Heaven” or “Shoah”, but
it’s solid. It’s definitely worth renting. I’m not sure how much
replay value is present - I don’t think I will watch it again soon,
only because it was straight-forward. It’s accessible enough to engage
individuals who don’t typically watch documentaries. It’s definitely
one you can watch with your friends.

Triadic Memories is my absolute favorite Feldman piano work and probably ranks up there with my top five Feldman works of all time (the others include his Piano and String Quartet, Rothko Chapel, King of Denmark, and Crippled Symmetry). Solo piano works so well for Feldman’s music for a number of reasons. Works such as “Why Patterns?” can sometimes sound a bit shrill if the musicians have not made good sonic choices. Anytime you have flute and orchestra bells as two thirds of an ensemble, you’re bound to risk a lot of high-frequency irritation. By contrast, the piano has a wonderful range that is never grating on the ears. (I should point out though that I do like “Why Patterns?” when it’s performed well)

I’ll comment first on the work itself and then on the interpretation.

There are some reviewers here that claim the work is “boring”. This could be for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that they’re inexperienced with 20th century modernist art music. But, I’ll give these listeners the benefit of the doubt and address these criticisms anyway. There is no perceptible form at work here. You can’t follow it as you would a sonata. There is either very little repetition or quite a lot - it’s difficult to say which. Sometimes I feel like I’ve heard a certain section before, but other times it feels through-composed. That is all to say, there are valid reasons for not enjoying Triadic Memories.

Additionally, as with all extended-length Feldman, if you don’t happen to enjoy the mood and texture of a particular work, you’re probably not going to like it. “For Philip Guston” does not appeal to me because I happen to not like the small idea that Feldman expands into a nearly four-hour work. On the other hand, I like the sounds of his second String Quartet, which is even longer.

Ultimately, I would suggest listening to Amazon’s 30 second previews. They give a very representative sampling of the work. It’s as simple as this: if you like the preview, you’re in for a treat because it’s more of the same for about 93 minutes. If you don’t think it sounds good, then you’re not going to like the work.

These are all subjective perspectives anyway. Personal taste aside, this is one of Feldman’s strongest works. It perfectly realizes his delicate, haunting aesthetic and induces the type of meditative listening experience that he typically requests of his listeners. Beyond that, he finds variety with simple ideas. The broken chords of Triadic Memories, if stacked vertically, would form more-or-less normal triads, but Feldman arranges them into major and minor seconds that destroy any chance of triadic consonance. It’s beautiful stuff, really.

Marilyn Nonken provides a terrific interpretation of this difficult work. After listening to it around ten times, I cannot find any faults or errors. Her tempo is slow, but not too slow. Most importantly, she maintains excellent rhythmic integrity. For those who have had the chance to examine the score, you know that Triadic Memories is rhythmically complex - deceptively so, I might add. Nonken is able to convey this accurately and avoids the pitfall of making the notes seem like a random cloud of pitches.

Overall, I can’t recommend this recording highly enough. The only question for Feldman fans is whether to buy the double CD or the DVD-Audio version.