Wednesday, April 8, 2009

dave hickey explains it all [book it]

Have you heard of Dave Hickey? I came across him this weekend in the Los Angeles Times' occasional Sunday magazine, LA (why this paper can't manage a Sunday magazine of any consistency or caliber like its pretentious New York competitor is beyond me, but that is a matter for its own diatribe). Inspired by the brief interview, I picked up Air Guitar: Essays on Art and Democracy, the 1997 collection of cultural commentary that helped him earn a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" in 2001, and can assure you after a premliminary perusal -- it's worth a read.

- thoughts, quotes, SPOILERS -

Unbreak My Heart, An Overture (introduction)
"In truth, I have never taken anything printed in a book to heart that was not somehow confirmed in my ordinary experience -- and that did not, to some extent, reform and redeem that experience. nor have I had any experience of high art that was not somehow confirmed in my experience of ordinary culture -- and that did not, to some extent, reform and redeem that. So I have tried to reinstate the connective tissues here, and, in the process, have written an odd sort of memoir: a memoir without tears, without despair or exaltation -- a memoir purged of those time-stopping exclamation points that punctuate all our lives." (italics mine)
I love that description for a collection of cultural essays -- an odd sort of memoir. Isn't that, in effect, what this blogging thing is? What our home librairies and DVD collections and CD stacks truly represent? Going back over old favorites is like looking through old photos; taste, and its evolution, is a form of biography perhaps as meaningful as any other. 
Hickey then plunges into a meaningful comparison between two camps of cultural observers, each considering itself to be the true custodian of Culture -- mom-and-pop shop operators (galleries, record stores, jazz clubs, etc), vs. ivory tower academics. It's not hard to see which side Hickey comes out on, and his characterizations are unfairly stark, but the opposition is relevant all the same.
"The problem for me had never been who sold the dumb object, or bought it (it was just a dumb object), but how you acquire the privilege of talking about it -- how you found poeple with whom you could talk about it...That was the best thing about little stores. If you were a nobody like me, and didn't know anything, you could go into one of them and find things out. People would talk to you, not because you were going to buy something, but because they loved the stuff they had to sell. The guy in the Billabong Surf Shop, I can assure you, wants to talk about his boards. Even if you want to buy one, right now, he still wants to talk about them, will talk you out into the street, you with the board under your ar, if he is a true child of the high water."
Notice, too, how Hickey freely files surf boards under Cultural Objects right along with vinyl. They are crafted and loved and collected like any other cultural passion.
"And I love that kind of talk, have lived on it and lived by it, writing that kind of talk for magazines. To me, it has always been the heart of the mystery, the heart of the heart: the way people talk about loving things, which things, and why."
That could pretty much be the description of this blog. When I worked for a publication's arts section, the great pleasure was coming in and shooting the shit with my colleagues, re-hashing the same points perhaps, feeling my own vehemently expressed opinions crystalize and then shatter. Writing was the chore -- the bread. That banter was the butter.
"Thus it was, after two years on university campuses without hearing anything approximating this kind of talk, I began feeling terrible, physically awful, confused and bereft. I kept trying to start this kind of talk, volunteering my new enthusiasms like a kid pulling frogs and magic rocks out of his pocket, but nothing worked. There was no bounce, just aridity and suspicion. It finally dawned on me that in this place that we had set aside to nurture culture and study its workings, culture didn't work. It couldn't work, in this place, because all the things that I wanted to talk about...belonged to someone. But not to everyone. All the treasures of culture were divvied up and owned by professors, as certainly as millionaires own the beach-fronts of Maine."
Hickey is a wonderfully succinct writer, eschewing technical jargon for plain rhythm and imagery without losing any effectiveness (hey, Chuck Klosterman, take note). Don't get me wrong, he's no saint -- isn't is a bit old to so fervently hate the Establishment by now? -- but he does what the best cultural writers do: he feels his subjects. He loves them. 
I'll leave you with a little left-field snippet, a quote that, while mildly out-of-context, demonstrates his comedy as well as his eye:
"[It was a] cool, windy afternoon in the zocalo of a little town on the slopes above Mexico City. I was sitting in a shady arcade with my old friend Brownie, who isn't called that anymore, since he is presently in the Federal Witness Protection Program. We were down in Mexico on a nefarious errand that doubtless contributed to Brownie's uncomfortable accomodation with the Feds, but, on this afternoon, nothing very nefarious was going on. We were just sitting at a little table, shooting nothing but the breeze and enjoying the air. Brownie was drinking a beer. I was drinking coffee. At one point, Brownie reached over and touched my arm, nodding at something in the square behind me. I turned around and beheld a perfect Latin American tableau.
On the edge of the curb, on the other side of the square, three people were standing in a row. There was a boy of about seventeen, wearing a cheap black suit, a white shirt, and a narrow black tie. Beside him was a beautiful girl of about the same age, in a white lace dress, and, beside her, a duenna in full balck battle-regalia with a mantilla over her hair. The duenna was a large woman, and looked for all the world like Dick Butkus in drag. The three of them had been about to cross the street into the plaza when they found their way blocked. Now, they were just standing there, at a loss, lined up on te curb with two dirt-brown dogs fucking the street in front of them."
PICK UP THIS BOOK.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

"american" pictorial [dude check it out]


Vanity Fair's recent "Rethinking the American Dream" piece adds up to a rather milquetoast re-hashing of "american dream" stereotypes, BUT, interestingly enough, its accompanying, certifiably stereotypical photo spread is fascinating and hilarious. Taken from a promotional series of Kodak Colorama photos that were exhibited at Grand Central Terminal from 1950 to 1990, the images depict postcard tableaus of classic American pastoral, right down to the pastel skirts and stiff coifs and occasional Norman Rockwell art direction (seriously). We camp! We wrestle with Dad! We vote! Pure americana goofiness. Vanity Fair is officially now my personal Playboy - I read it for the photos. 

Check out the full Kodak series (!in splendid technicolor!). 

jeff goldblum momentarily redeems vanity fair [tidbit]


Vanity Fair is a generally reprehensible publication specializing in all things overpriced and otherwise fatuous, BUT - it does have one worthwhile monthly mini-pictorial feature dubbed "In Character" starring some or other recognizable actor. Last month's, with Jeff Goldblum (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/04/proust-valentino200904), featured an awkward teenage boy, a flirty middle-aged dad and then another awkward (although differently so) teenage boy. Look, kids, acting is fun! 

[ps - take a good look at this picture. Who'd have thought that Jeff Goldblum would have made a suitable casting choice for Todd Haynes' Bob Dylan tribute I'm Not There?]

Also:
Whoopi Goldberg (kudos to the Barbara Walters)
John Malkovich (can you imagine a less likely construction worker?)
John Leguizamo (umm...only one of these three situations is even mildly humorous)
John Goodman (this man has a face like playdoh...who's out there casting for a basketball coach?!)

Monday, April 6, 2009

cast of history: when art is funnier than life [tidbit]

whoa, whoa, whoa, what the hell is this I just found on Robin Williams’ imdb page (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361185/)? “Freedom, A History of Us” – a 2003 mini-series featuring:

Tom Hanks as Abraham Lincoln (HA...I'd say more like Rip Torn, only thinner)

Kevin Kline as Thomas Jefferson (maybe David Morse?)

Michael Douglas as Benjamin Franklin (wow, hell no)

Morgan Freeman as Frederick Douglas (ok)

Whoopi Goldberg as Harriet freaking Tubman (meh)

Anthony Hopkins as George Washington (waaaay off)

Dennis Quaid as Andrew Jackson (HA! more like Kris Kristofferson)

Robin Williams as Ulysses S. Grant (wasn't he better as Teddy Roosevelt?)

Meryl Streep as Abigail Adams (can't have a grade-A cast without Meryl Streep)

and…

Matthew “Ferris Bueller” Broderick as (I kid you not) General Sherman

SERIOUSLY.                                                              

sadly, it’s not another star-studded John Adams-style mini-series, but a dry TV documentary with these folks’ voices occasionally sprinkled in reading a brief quote. but still…an offbeat, hilariously bad way to cast history. 

a half-thought on matthew mcconaughey [ha'-penny]

In Tropic Thunder, half-wit action star Tugg Speedman is listed in his fratty, dude-friend agent’s phone as “Tuggernuts,” a name that not only encapsulates the insult-affection of frat life, but which is also definitely in the running to be that of my next puppy. I’m thinking of this partly due to puppy lust (pug? dachshund? st. bernard?) and partly due to the latest trailer of the underrated actor who played that agent, Matthew McConaughey. Rick “Pecker” Peck was a return to the fine, even respectable comic form of McConaughey’s Dazed and Confused days, and  can’t tell you what shocked me more, seeing him really cut loose as an actual character or simply seeing him in a movie that doesn’t co-star some quirky starlet poodle.

The trailer for McConaughey’s latest gooey gigglefest is sadly (predictably?) below even Kate Hudson’s standards. I mean, by title alone – Ghosts of Girlfriends Past? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821640/ good lord.…for serious, gag me. Poor Jennifer Garner, stuck playing earnest sweetheart to his skeezy successman…it’ll surely be a dull plastic take on a good old storyline (the ever-popular and deliciously sentimental Guy Gets Girl Who Originally Got Away) and will be (even sadder?) at least number two at the box office its opening weekend.

[Note: this was basically the only photo I could find of Mr. McConaughey without his shirt on...a characteristic which Matt Damon perfectly pinpointed on Letterman not too long ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuYD2cwMbpw.]

a half-thought on ben stiller [ha'-penny]


No, Ben Stiller isn't the finiest of thespians. His thin range of characters have so little depth that they can be summed up thusly:  

meglomanically evil overachiever

awkwardly anxious dude-next-door

preeningly stupid            

etc.

But! You know, I like him anyway, and if you actually examine Stiller’s repertoire, the precision of his mixing and matching those few descriptors reveals some talent for range. I mean, hey, as Tropic Thunder action star Tugg Speedman, he was a preeningly anxious over-achiever! 

OSCAR.

ju-awesome [dude check it out]


dudes –

For those of you who don’t know, the cheesily awesome Jumanji is currently playing on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/32648/jumanji.  If you haven’t seen it, the time is now. This is a movie so good that I don’t even hate Kirsten Dunst in it (although, to be fair, she was a terrifically poised child star, once upon a time).

--- thoughts, quotes, SPOILERS----

You know, Jumanji kind of reminds me a lot of Night at the Museum, which is basically the same narrative concept: following the protagonist around a magical CGI world of random hurdles and characters while pursuing a character-building narrative arc. The difference is that Night follows a single wacky, child-like adult (Ben Stiller) around that fantastical world while Jumanji follows a smattering of wacky, child-like adults (Robin Williams, Bonnie Hunt, and, in the performance that to me makes the movie, David Alan Grier, as an everyday police officer who accepts the on-going wackiness around him with to an hilariously impossible degree) as well as, more importantly, a pair of actual kids.

 To be honest, I enjoyed Night at the Museum, but Jumanji wins, and it has nothing to do with 2006 special effects vs. 1995 (let it be said: Jumanji had pretty bomb CGI). Having two normal, semi-miscreant children in the mix balances out the adults and actually gives the movie a little reality. What today’s Night at the Museum somehow lacks is the core sweetness of older entries in the kids-adventure genre, like, say, The Goonies, or even Home Alone. Kids must make mistakes, learn bravery, step up towards (but not into - *crucial difference*) adulthood. Night at the Museum satisfactorily ties up its plot ends and it’s a solid kid film and were I a kid, I probably would have dug it; but back when I was a kid, I could actually relate to Macauley Culkin as he learned to really love his family (after getting rid of the goofy bad guys, of course), and I didn’t need a whole bunch of comedians making cameos to thrill me. In kid-focused stories, it doesn’t matter that the moral lesson is spelled out in neon lights – what matters is that actual kids can relate to them. Which is why, despite no longer being a kid, I remain skeptical of Night at the Museum’s narrative power, especially for its target audience (which I do assume to be, well, kids).

Jumanji is for kids and about kids, and that can be easily lost sight of in writing and production and then reviews. Today as a critic, I might feel obliged in my review of Jumanji to point out that the young brother and sister protagonists are orphans, a condition which could be justly considered total narrative laziness. Even Dickens knew orphan-hood to be the ultimate symbol of emotional isolation for kids (although in this case without the woe-is-me addition of poverty, as these kids do, after all, live in an enormous mansion). But it’s hard, as a critic, to evaluate kids’ movies. I haven’t even bothered watching a whole raft of them, like Nim’s Island, Narnia and, recently, Race to Witch Mountain. Perhaps I’ll embark on an in-depth article of them; perhaps I’ll discover that I don’t really care, that the magic of my once-bread-and-butter genre is gone.

So be it. I’d say that there are two real ways to sincerely evaluate kids’ movies: 1) as a kid, or 2) with nostalgia. For Night at the Museum, I can do neither. Perhaps that is why I can respect that movie without love, while Jumanji and Home Alone and The Goonies and Homeward Bound and Caspar and every Disney movie ever made I can freely love without having to worry about respect.