http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:36:02 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/10/20/203602.php Ernest SvensonIf you are frustrated with our current political system then don't watch HBO's new series K Street; it will only make you madder than you already are. The work of Stephen Soderbergh and George Clooney, this show documents the goings on of a lobbying firm in Washington located on K Street (K Street is to lobbyists what Sand Hill Road is to VCs). James Carville and Mary Matalin more or less play themselves, which is to say she plays a cautious, thoughtful political matron, while Carville plays sort of a cross between Beavis and Butthead, assuming that both Beavis and Butthead were money-obssessed political advisors with Southern accents. In the first episode that I caught, Carville learns from Branford Marsalis about the RIAA's plan to sue online filesharers, which disturbs Marsalis. Based on this passing conversation, Carville decides that there is money to be made "helping" the RIAA with their poor public image (as if the record industry can sue its customers but quell the public shock by hiring a PR firm). Doesn't seem realistic, does it? Actually, as this article points out, the thing that makes K Street so compelling is the same thing that makes it so unnerving: it seems to accurately portray a key feature of our political scheme. Namely, many of the politicians are more or less frontmen (and, sadly, frontwomen too) for amoral lobbyists, who constantly maneuver to make money from various political situations, and are (unfortunately) quite good at doing it.The truly amazing thing is that the show often features cameos by real politicians, like Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, and Howard Dean. The thing I can't figure out is why a real politician would agree to go on this show. I guess they were lulled into the false assumption that the Entertainment Industry would never show things as they really are. Well, as my daughter used to say: "Ooopsie!"Here is a well-written review from the Washington Post, in case you want more information about the show. Video9350@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:36:02 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/22/104710.php Ernest SvensonWhen a movie is really bad there's no point in writing a clever review; it just dilutes the message. Here's the message: Avoid this movie. If you feel that you must see it wait until it comes out on DVD. And, even then, be sure to have a backup DVD close at hand.Before this movie I had yet to see a movie with Johnny Depp that I didn't like. I'm not blaming Depp for this disaster, although the screenplay was so bad he should have known that he couldn't save it. I have to be honest though, it's possible that the last half of the movie turned into a beautiful lotus blossom. I walked out after a half-hour so I wouldn't know. Video8557@blogcritics.org Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:47:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/211943.php Ernest SvensonAccording to this report a federal judge has denied Fox News Channel's request for an injunction to stop publication of Al Franken's new book, whose title mocks the Fox slogan "fair and balanced." Here's Reuter's coverage: "There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case," said U.S. District Judge Denny Chin. "This case is wholly without merit both factually and legally."I'm not sure how the case wound up in federal court, since the complaint that I saw floating around was a state court complaint. No matter, the important thing is that the judge made the right decision.Fox, and its lawyers, seem to have bungled quite badly --losing not only the battle but perhaps also the larger war. In the wake of the lawsuit, Franken's publisher, Penguin Group, added 50,000 copies to the publication run, which had originally called for 270,000 copies. Penguin also moved up the book's release date from September to last Thursday. The book is currently the #1 bestseller at Amazon.com.Franken, was obviously pleased by the first round victory (the court simply denied Fox's request for a preliminary injunction). He was also pleased with the performance of all of lawyers involved: "In addition to thanking my own lawyers," Franken said, "I'd like to thank Fox's lawyers for filing one of the stupidest briefs I've ever seen in my life." I didn't see the briefs so I can't comment on that, but I did read the complaint that was filed in state court and I can say it was, not only devoid of legal merit, but also highly unprofessional. I invite you to read the complaint, in particular the allegations in paragraph 77. It is obvious, to me at least, that this lawsuit was brought because of the documented disputes between Franken and Bill O'Reilly. Clearly, the two men don't like each other, and at least one of them may have been openly rude to the other.I'm not going to vouch for Franken's behavior since I wasn't at the press gathering in question, but I know that personal animosity should not appear in a formal complaint or any other document that a lawyer files in court. Fox's lawyers should have simply stated their legal case and left the personal attacks out. Somehow, one has to conclude that the whole case by Fox was motivated by a quest for revenge and not by a desire to assert legitimate legal rights.How fitting, then, that they should lose the important first round (i.e. the preliminary injunction hearing). And it is also fitting that Franken's book should wind up being boosted by the publicity that Fox has unwittingly bestowed upon it. Sometimes the legal system and Karma can work together to create a beautiful thing. If Fox has any residue of good judgment they will find a way to let this lawsuit die quietly.Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman, said the network was "considering its options" on whether to pursue the case. "We don't care if it's Al Franken, Al Lewis or 'Weird Al' Yankovic," he said. "We're here to protect our trademark and our talent." Well, here's some free legal advice for Fox. Protecting your trademark and protecting your "talent" are two different things. One would hope that talented hard-nosed journalists like Bill O'Reilly can protect themselves. But, in any case, the courts aren't there for litigants who want retribution. Now, if Fox wants to protect its trademark, that's a different story. It is entirely proper for a court to hear a legitimate trademark dispute. But, from this account it sounds like they won't be able to convince a court of the merits of their trademark claims either. During the hearing Judge Chin called Fox's trademarked slogan "weak" or "invalid" because it is a phrase often used by journalists. "Parody is a form of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment and the keystone of parody is imitation," the judge said. "It is ironic that a media company, which should be seeking to protect the First Amendment, is seeking to undermine it by claiming a monopoly on the phrase, 'Fair and Balanced.'"Indeed. Ironic, and also quite pathetic. Culture7779@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:19:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/12/151429.php Ernest SvensonLast week I rented No Maps for These Territories (from Netflix), which is a documentary that features well-known science fiction author William Gibson sitting in the back seat of a old model car as it makes its way from California to Toronto. An unseen person in the front seat asks him questions and Gibson, chain-smoking all the while, uses the questions to foray off into penetrating observations about the modern world that we live in.The cinematic style of the film is edgy and not at all what you would expect from a documentary. Gibson, as most of us all know, coined the term 'cyberspace' in his 1985 book Neuromancer. So Gibson's premier achievement may have been that he foresaw the evolution of the non-spatial world that we now take for granted, which we call "the Internet." During the course of the film, Gibson observes that the thing that fascinated him most about the development of the Internet was that its creators were so interested in preserving their nation in the face of nuclear war, and yet --according to him-- it is now apparent that among the many unintended consequences of their creation is likely to be the demise of the Nation-State. Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the people at DARPA (who first imagined the internet) wanted.He commented on many topics but his observations on the Internet are what most piqued my interest. The societal implications of the Internet, he explained, are still too difficult for us to grasp. Years from now, he predicted, we will come to regard the creation on the Internet as being on par with, say, the development of cities.Interestingly, his new book Pattern Recognition (which I have just started reading), is set in the present time. No doubt consistent with his more recent famous statement that "The future is here. It is just not evenly distributed." Video7531@blogcritics.org Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:14:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/25/135106.php Ernest SvensonPalmetto's is a restaurant bar in Slidell, a semi-rural suburb of New Orleans (about 30 minutes outside of town). Palmettos is off the beaten path, near the bayou and close to a railroad depot. I've taken to playing guitar there on Thursday nights with my friend Ched. So last night, after the gig, Ched and I were hanging out in the parking lot shooting the breeze. It was late and every single waitress and bartender had left, so the parking lot was completely empty. And dark. As we were talking the tall moss-laden trees that surrounded us were making a terrible racket. Actually, it was the tree frogs that were making the noise. But then, suddenly, it got quiet. And we noticed a car pulling into the parking lot.Slowly, a large 1970s Cadillac rattled along the gravel until it wound up next to Ched and I. Ched looked in the open window and recognized the driver, a wirey black man with a large cowboy hat. Only then did I realize it was Gatemouth Brown, a legendary blues guitar player who lives in the area. After a few minutes of talking through the car window he invited us to his house to listen to some music. I'm thinking it's late, but this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so we piled into the back seat of the caddy.Gatemouth's house is a simple little place. Outside, he has an unpainted wooden fence. Inside, he has lots of memorabilia from his various tours. He also collects wooden boats. Lots and lots of hand crafted wooden boats.He pops in a VCR tape of a concert that he did in Denmark back in the 1970s, fires up his pipe, and proceeds to share his tips of the musical trade. For example, 24 bar solos. That's the rule. Which applies to him too. "People don't wanna get bored listenin' to some long-ass solos that's all jerkin' around," he grumbles.As I watched the video I noticed that he didn't use a pick. And it was hard to see which finger on his right hand he used to pluck the strings. So I asked him if he used his index finger primarily or what his technique was. He held up his hand and rolled all of his fingers repeatedly as he said "I use them all." But, he added, "I don't know how I use them or where they are when I play. They just make the music. That's all I know."So apparently he didn't think much about how he "made the music." But he did think hard about how to please his audience. Not surprising, I suppose, for a 77 year old Grammy award winning artist. The thing that struck me the most about him though, as I watched the video of him playing, was how selfless he was with his band members. He had top-notch players accompanying him and he was the headliner. And yet for most of the time he just played his 24 bar solo and then quietly accompanied his band members as they took their 24 bars.If you didn't know he was the headliner, you wouldn't have known it from his attitude onstage. His total focus was on creating good music. Even if that meant taking a backseat for awhile.After a few hours he offered to take Ched and I back to the parking lot where our cars were. As we drove he said "I really want to thank you guys for coming over. I don't get a lot of people at my house, and maybe I like it like that. But I really enjoyed having ya'll over."Ched and I looked at each other in shock. He was thanking us?If you have a chance to ride in a car with Gatemouth take it (even if it is late and you are tired). More likely you might a have a chance to hear him play music. Don't pass that up either. Here is his official website with tour information. Music7204@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:51:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/16/172707.php Ernest SvensonI didn't enjoy the Matrix Reloaded as much as one or two others apparently did. But, like them, I was really captivated by the original Matrix. I own it on DVD, and have watched it at least 30 times. And each time I have watched it I have noticed things that make the story even more compelling. The problem with the Matrix Reloaded is that it doesn't stand on its own as a movie. I'm not willing to forgive that flaw, and that's what separates me from the people who like it. The writer of the Salon article (subscription required for whole article) says, in essence, that he trusts the Wachowski brothers to answer all of the newly presented questions in the final movie that will come out in 6 months. I respectfully disagree. I think it's impossible for the next movie to answer the questions that I have, but maybe I'm not the target audience for the Matrix trilogy. Movie trilogies in general are kind of weird and maybe that's the problem. Perhaps we are only now creating the story-telling conventions for these multi-release cinema epics (e.g. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc) and so I guess I should be more open minded about things. But somehow, where the Matrix Reloaded is concerned, I can't. When I saw the original Matrix I was captivated by the plot, the action, and the character development. As I understand the art of story telling, it mostly requires that the Hero have flaws and then be presented with challenges in order to overcome them. And the viewer has to be able to understand the Hero's challenges and how he surmounts them. This is what draws the viewers' interest.In the first movie Neo was an "ordinary person who had to make tough choices." Would he quit his job and listen to some guy named Morpheus that he had heard about, but had never met? Would he take the deal that Agent Smith offered him to turn Morpheus in? When he finally did meet Morpheus, would he take the mystery pill that would allow him to find out about the Matrix? Would he choose to live and thereby make Morpheus die (the Oracle told him he'd face this choice)? And, lastly, would he turn out to be"The One"? The questions were presented in one movie, and resolved in one movie. We were not only told that Neo became The One, but we could also understand how he became The One. In the latest movie we are given questions and no answers. And what's worse Neo has new powers that we apparently don't even need to understand. For example, we find out right away that Neo can fly. Gee, that's cool. But how did he learn to fly? It doesn't matter. Neo is "The One" and that's it. That's all you need to know for now. He seems to have no problem beating the agents, even when they multiply in droves. He doesn't get captured, or come perilously close to death or face the threat of any other grave harm. Is he Christ? Apparently he is, and if you need to know more then you are a non-believer and you aren't welcome in the Church of the Matrix.Is the Matrix about religious worship? Oh, come on. You have to ask?When Neo first enters the Matrix in the new movie the Wachowski Brothers flash us an image (in a street scene) of a painting of Christ, just in case (I suppose) there are two or three people left in the world who haven't picked up on the religious overtones of the first movie. And Neo is wearing a flowing black robe through most of the movie. So yes, the movie is about religion. But wait, there's more!In addition to the unsubtle references to Christ or monks, we also get a flashing image of George Bush at one point (is that a "political point"?). And then there is Ms. Merovingian's use of a silver bullet while the background TV in the room is showing an old Dracula movie (gee is there "a connection" between the silver bullet and Vampires? Is she a Vampire? And how does that figure into the whole philosophy of the Matrix?). And, finally, there is a quick reference to the old 70s Cop show "One Adam 12" during the freeway chase scene. Religion, Politics, Vampires, Old TV Cop shows: I wonder how they are all related to the Matrix? Oooh, it's a mystery!Perhaps the final Matrix episode will reveal, in one elaborate ballet, the Complete Truth of Everything. Perhaps we will then be able to separate the true plot questions from the offhand socio-cultural references. Then again, maybe not. I obviously don't "trust" the Wachowski brothers as much as other Matrix fans do (hey even Speilberg made some bad movies). I'm glad that they are using lots of African-American actors, and I love the idea of loading up the story with philosophical references and religious questions. But I'd like a movie that stands on its own and which has a coherent plot structure. I think that Matrix Reloaded is deeply flawed, and it makes me wonder if the Wachowski brothers are too clever for their own good, or whether they perhaps tried to do too many things in this movie. The original Matrix was simple and direct, and at the same time it was deceptively profound. The Matrix Reloaded takes it as "a given" that every utterance by people like Morpheus or The Oracle is deeply meaningful. Or at least that it will be received as such by their fervent fans (they're probably right about that).Let's see if "All is Revealed" is when the final movie comes out. But until it does I defy anyone to make sense of the speech given by the Matrix's creator. I'll bet if you transcribe it and read it you will see that it has all of the depth of a computer generated program that spits out philosophy jargon the way that the Alanis Morissette lyric generator creates lyrics that are faux-meaningful. Too much of anything can be bad, including discussions of philosophy (trust me on this one: I was a philosophy major). So will the Matrix Revolution be a big hit? Will it leave us in starry-eyed wonder at the genius of the Wachowskis? Will it have a coherent plot structure? Will we be asked to join a cult and donate money to a worthy cause?Stay tuned. You won't know for sure until the last movie comes out. Video5366@blogcritics.org Fri, 16 May 2003 17:27:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/12/09/124520.php Ernest SvensonMy kids took me to Santa Clause 2, and since it was a Christmas request I abided. Not that I don't like Tim Allen. I do, I do! And, after seeing this movie, I like him a lot more. The movie was clever and funny and enchanting, and I highly recommend it. The set up for the plot is that Tim Allen has to get married to retain his Santa powers, and he has to do it in a hurry. He loses the fat (as part of the "de-Santification" process), which helps in attracting the females, but he has to cruise for babes in a mini-van, which doesn't. Okay, the movie is outlandish and you quickly figure out who Ms. Clause will be. NYU film students are not going to deconstruct this movie as part of their curriculum, and it can be nit-picked by erudite naysayers, but I say it's really a very endearing movie. And Tim Allen's comic acting is the fuel rod in reactor, and the laughs are indeed explosive. Hey, it's Christmas so lighten up and have some fun. If you have kids take them to go see this movie. If you don't have kids, borrow some. Video2191@blogcritics.org Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:45:20 EST