I watched Exit Through The Gift Shop today, and it got me thinking about modern art. I don't pretend to understand, or even really appreciate visual art much at all. What makes one piece great, and another one crap? It's an argument for the ages. I like Warhol, but I don't like Pollock. I really can't justify that, or explain why one is appealing to me and the other is not. I wanted to take art appreciation classes in college, but I couldn't work it into my schedule. Even so, I'm not sure it would have given me any clear answers. I was an English major. I know with enough dwelling and scholarly justification, you can argue discarded tinfoil into an amazing work of artistic expression. I had to write many papers singing the praises of books and stories that in my heart I believe are complete garbage.
Exit Through The Gift Shop left me feeling troubled. I want to support the street art movement, but I'm not sure I do completely. Yes, there is an obvious proliferation of advertisement all around us, and many times it covers up what would have otherwise been beautiful architecture. But I'm not sure tagging a relatively meaningless symbol over the advertisement, or "decorating" a blank wall is really always justified, or a better alternative. It's illegal, plain and simple. I get that art is often times meant to challenge our view on, and acceptance of modern society, and in that respect, cool. Go out and express yourself. But at the same time, it's dangerous, it's distracting, and evil or not, those companies paid money for those billboards and advertisement spaces. Those traffic signs are there for a reason. That's a place of business that may or may not support your artwork. A legitimate advertisement campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force nearly lead to public panic over a suspected terrorist threat. All they did was create traffic lights with characters from the show and place them strategically around town. But people thought it was a cultist symbol. Yes, some people are just stupid and paranoid, but it still caused a panic, and I don't believe art should cause panic. It should elicit an emotion, no doubt, but I'm not sure panic is the goal.
But Exit Through the Gift Shop really made me think about the "point" of art. Is it to express, or to profit? The story is of a former vintage clothing store owner who flipped $50 tee shirts for $5,000, then became a not-even-amateur filmmaker who decided to follow around street artists; a movement in modern art involving guerrilla-style graffiti painting and poster and billboard hanging. He earned the trust of the most famous street artists, including the ever elusive Banksy, and soon learned how to do the same things they were doing. Then he hired artists to produce works for himself, under the name "Mister Brain Wash," which he then sold for millions of dollars at an auction. I don't know what's more troubling, that he made millions essentially stealing, or at the very least profiting from other people's artwork, or that people lined up en mass to buy his "art." Even more troubling was that I actually liked the artwork... But much of it consisted of literally taking pre-existing images created by others, and using Photoshop to alter the images slightly. The other street artists do this as well, to some extent, and even Warhol took a Campbell's soup can and just painted the logo on things, and sold it as his artwork. I'm just troubled by the idea of taking something that another person created, and just adding splotches of color, or cutting it up and calling it your own work.
And yet, I didn't really feel all that sorry for the other artists. They seemed to hold a bit of a grudge against "Mister Brainwash" because he took their craft, which they feel passionately about, and mass produced it, got other artists to copy the style, and then rose to instant fame and fortune. I can see their point, but at the same time, people will buy what they like. If someone wants to pay $30,000 for one of his prints, so be it. The other artists can't control what people like, or are willing to spend. It could have very easily ended up that nobody attended his exhibit, and nobody bought a single thing, leaving him penniless, as he spent all of his earnings and savings on the exhibit. At the same time, it troubles me that people spent thousands of dollars on his artwork. Not because he doesn't deserve it, that's arguable, but because the idea of the wealthy buying artistic expressions that are meant to be anti-establishment in nature, doesn't sit well with me. Why should it be that only the wealthy can afford artwork? In that sense, I support the street artist movement, because at least those who enjoy and support the artwork can do so for free. And then if they want a print for themselves, they can go through the proper channels to buy it.
That begs to question, is it better to essentially force art upon people by vandalising billboards, abandoned buildings and advertisements, or to reserve art for the wealthy? I don't know. Good art is good art, and if people are willing to buy it, they should, and the artists should profit from their hard work. And really, guerrilla-style art is a sure fire way to drudge up interest and notoriety. It's brilliant marketing, even if it is illegal and arguably a public nuisance. If they didn't resort to illegal papering and graffiti, they would still be unknown, and their art would probably not sell. But good artists built their reputations without resorting to illegal actions. They suffered and struggled, but for many of them it eventually paid off. Then again, many now beloved artists died penniless, selling one of a kind original sketches and prints for a sandwich. Is art for everyone, or those who can afford it?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Movie Review: Jersey Girl
I am a long time Kevin Smith fan, having discovered Clerks and Mallrats on home video back in the day, and following his films up to Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. But for some reason, I skipped over Jersey Girl. For one, Jersey Girl was the first Kevin Smith film that had nothing to do with the characters Jay and Silent Bob. And being the immature fanboy that I was, I wanted nothing to do with any "serious" Kevin Smith project. Secondly, Jersey Girl happened in the middle of "Bennifer," Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez's much publicized romance. It was overkill. "Aw, aren't they the sweetest couple ever? And look! They're doing a movie together! How cute!" It's not their fault, but I was just plain sick of hearing about them at the time. Thirdly, I'm not a Ben Affleck fan. Nothing against the guy; I just don't care for his acting. Maybe I just can't shake the impression of seeing him in Dazed and Confused, but it feels like he hasn't grown out of that character, at least not in the Affleck films I've seen so far, which to be fair doesn't include Good Will Hunting. (I'll get around to it...) I'm also not a Jennifer Lopez fan. Don't care for her music, and at the time she was just over-exposed. Not her fault again, but too much was too much. And lastly, I was under the (wrong) impression that the entire film was centered around their relationship; one of those self-indulgent "Look at us!" romantic comedies. And I wanted nothing to do with that at all.
So I skipped Jersey Girl and waited for the return of Jay and Silent Bob and the Star Wars reference filled yuck yuck movies from Kevin Smith I'd come to know and love. But I've been getting into Kevin's work big time lately by listening to his many podcasts, and immersing myself in his Twitter feed as often as possible. His Q & A dvds have been some of the best things I've rented from Netflix so far this year. He seems very down to earth and likable, and getting his perspective on things has definitely helped to reverse some of the media-fed false impressions placed upon him as of late. All by way of saying, I was in a movie store yesterday, and I decided to finally give Jersey Girl a shot. It was on super clearance, and for $5, I couldn't go wrong. Hell, I caved and bought the Friday the 13th remake for $6 in the same trip, so picking up a Kevin Smith movie, even if I ended up hating it, surely would be less guilty than paying money to own the Friday the 13th remake travesty.
But to my surprise, I ended up really liking Jersey Girl. It had a lot of heart, and not the schmaltzy, gimmicky heart I expected, though it did toe the line at times admittedly. It is, after all, a romantic comedy at it's core, and although there aren't any "Awkwardly getting ready for the big date" montages, or clumsy ice skating scenes, there are a few cliched moments. But they're few and far between, and it was an honest portrayal of a single parent trying to balance life. That's a big credit to Kevin, because this was the first time he really created a piece of fiction. Clerks, Mallrats etc. were steeped in personal experiences. They're fictional and imaginative, of course, but they're the kinds of things friends come up with after a long night of goofing around. I love those films, but they're essentially jokes layered around a flimsy at best and mostly secondary story. Jersey Girl is pure story, with a few jokes thrown in. But it works. Having listened to many hours of podcasts and interviews, Kevin's voice really shines through with the dialogue in Jersey Girl. He's not a single parent in real life, but he is a parent, with a young daughter, and the built-in conflict of his career and his duties of fatherhood; the same essential conflict that Ben Affleck's character faces in Jersey Girl. So Kevin is still writing from experience; it's just a far more grown up experience.
Jersey Girl didn't change my opinion of Ben Affleck. He still doesn't light the torch for me. That's not to say he was bad, but the problems I've always had with his performances are still present. Interestingly enough, he seemed to have far more chemistry with Liv Tyler than with Jennifer Lopez. Liv is a better actress, so that may have something to do with it, but it's kind of interesting given the fact that Ben and Jennifer were actually a couple at the time. But then, I've always liked Liv Tyler's acting, and just as Jersey Girl didn't shake my opinion of Ben Affleck's acting, it hasn't changed my opinion of Liv Tyler's acting either. She breathed life into a somewhat stagnant character. George Carlin was perfectly cast. Who knew he was a good actor, as well as a hysterical comedian? He is missed. Stephen Root will always be Milton in my heart, but he was great as well, especially coupled with Mike Starr. Jason Biggs had a relatively small but fitting role, although the stink of American Pie hadn't quite washed off yet. He's still playing the nice guy who's a little too awkward for his own good, despite his best intentions. Raquel Castro was excellent. I'll have to see if she's done anything since. But she really grasped the material and picked up on her character better than many adult actors do, and certainly better than most child actors.
All in all, I'm glad I picked this one up. I do plan on watching it again, as the dvd extras include two commentary tracks. It's just going to be a little hard getting through the beginning scenes two more times, as they present one of my biggest fears, being a husband who adores his wife, and hopes to possibly have kids some day. I was surprised I liked Jersey Girl, frankly, but I suspect that I had built up too many unfair, and unwarranted prejudices against it from the get go. I think it just came down to fame fatigue, and close-minded fanboy-ism, and perhaps poor marketing. I probably still wouldn't have seen it in the theater, but maybe I would have at least not waited 7 years to catch it on video. And now, I really can't wait to see Red State.
So I skipped Jersey Girl and waited for the return of Jay and Silent Bob and the Star Wars reference filled yuck yuck movies from Kevin Smith I'd come to know and love. But I've been getting into Kevin's work big time lately by listening to his many podcasts, and immersing myself in his Twitter feed as often as possible. His Q & A dvds have been some of the best things I've rented from Netflix so far this year. He seems very down to earth and likable, and getting his perspective on things has definitely helped to reverse some of the media-fed false impressions placed upon him as of late. All by way of saying, I was in a movie store yesterday, and I decided to finally give Jersey Girl a shot. It was on super clearance, and for $5, I couldn't go wrong. Hell, I caved and bought the Friday the 13th remake for $6 in the same trip, so picking up a Kevin Smith movie, even if I ended up hating it, surely would be less guilty than paying money to own the Friday the 13th remake travesty.
But to my surprise, I ended up really liking Jersey Girl. It had a lot of heart, and not the schmaltzy, gimmicky heart I expected, though it did toe the line at times admittedly. It is, after all, a romantic comedy at it's core, and although there aren't any "Awkwardly getting ready for the big date" montages, or clumsy ice skating scenes, there are a few cliched moments. But they're few and far between, and it was an honest portrayal of a single parent trying to balance life. That's a big credit to Kevin, because this was the first time he really created a piece of fiction. Clerks, Mallrats etc. were steeped in personal experiences. They're fictional and imaginative, of course, but they're the kinds of things friends come up with after a long night of goofing around. I love those films, but they're essentially jokes layered around a flimsy at best and mostly secondary story. Jersey Girl is pure story, with a few jokes thrown in. But it works. Having listened to many hours of podcasts and interviews, Kevin's voice really shines through with the dialogue in Jersey Girl. He's not a single parent in real life, but he is a parent, with a young daughter, and the built-in conflict of his career and his duties of fatherhood; the same essential conflict that Ben Affleck's character faces in Jersey Girl. So Kevin is still writing from experience; it's just a far more grown up experience.
Jersey Girl didn't change my opinion of Ben Affleck. He still doesn't light the torch for me. That's not to say he was bad, but the problems I've always had with his performances are still present. Interestingly enough, he seemed to have far more chemistry with Liv Tyler than with Jennifer Lopez. Liv is a better actress, so that may have something to do with it, but it's kind of interesting given the fact that Ben and Jennifer were actually a couple at the time. But then, I've always liked Liv Tyler's acting, and just as Jersey Girl didn't shake my opinion of Ben Affleck's acting, it hasn't changed my opinion of Liv Tyler's acting either. She breathed life into a somewhat stagnant character. George Carlin was perfectly cast. Who knew he was a good actor, as well as a hysterical comedian? He is missed. Stephen Root will always be Milton in my heart, but he was great as well, especially coupled with Mike Starr. Jason Biggs had a relatively small but fitting role, although the stink of American Pie hadn't quite washed off yet. He's still playing the nice guy who's a little too awkward for his own good, despite his best intentions. Raquel Castro was excellent. I'll have to see if she's done anything since. But she really grasped the material and picked up on her character better than many adult actors do, and certainly better than most child actors.
All in all, I'm glad I picked this one up. I do plan on watching it again, as the dvd extras include two commentary tracks. It's just going to be a little hard getting through the beginning scenes two more times, as they present one of my biggest fears, being a husband who adores his wife, and hopes to possibly have kids some day. I was surprised I liked Jersey Girl, frankly, but I suspect that I had built up too many unfair, and unwarranted prejudices against it from the get go. I think it just came down to fame fatigue, and close-minded fanboy-ism, and perhaps poor marketing. I probably still wouldn't have seen it in the theater, but maybe I would have at least not waited 7 years to catch it on video. And now, I really can't wait to see Red State.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Feet Bowl Competition, You Say? Go Sporting Team!
My appreciation for professional sports has wained as I've gotten older. I have to wonder if it's just a change in priorities, if old age has made me a cynic, if I'm just more aware of the industry behind professional sports, if there's just more exposure of the negative aspects of sports in this electronic age, or if it's just a natural progression in life. My childhood heroes have pretty much all retired, and the new wave of "heroes" just don't do it for me anymore. Tickets are too expensive, fans are too obnoxious, athletes are too full of themselves, and I'd rather do other things than sit mindlessly watching other people accomplish things that ultimately have little real meaning, and earning more money that I can comprehend for doing so. And yet, when it comes to the Super Bowl, I seem to have a Pavlovian response. I feel drawn to watch it every year, for reasons I can't figure out.
I haven't had a real vested interest in the outcome of the game since 1994, when the Buffalo Bills were in the Super Bowl. I'm obligated to be a Bills fan, since so many people in my family are Bills fans. Growing up in Syracuse, New York, it only made sense to be a Bills fan, especially in the 90's when they made the Super Bowl four years in a row. And then, they lost... all 4 of their Super Bowl appearances... One of them, by 1 point... (Scott F'n Norwood...) And suddenly, it was very difficult to be a Bills fan, and they haven't been back since.
And yet, I still watched the Super Bowl every year from then on, and I still do to this day. It's the bell, and I am the trained dog. I resigned myself to the aged old excuse of "I watch it for the commercials, mostly." But that holds as much water as "I read Playboy for the articles." One can't pick up a Playboy issue without realizing that it contains photos of naked women. Likewise, one can't turn on the Super Bowl without realizing that there's football happening.
Though to be fair, a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl commands a $3 million plus pricetag, meaning generally companies willing to invest that much money take special care to craft something interesting, or at least memorable. It really is consumerism at its best. They have 30 seconds to play with; what can they do that will get people to come to their website, or buy their product, or at the very least remember their name? If they make an impact, their commercial will be viewed, and re-viewed days after the original airing. People will gather at the water coolers, or in modern times the electronic water cooler known as the internet, to discuss their favorite commercials. Prudish viewers will protest the content of the more risque commercials, forcing us to once again evaluate where we stand as human beings. And a few people might actually buy something.
The day after the Super Bowl is also an interesting study in sociology and marketing. We use it to discuss what happened. The sports buffs will discuss the game; what plays were good, which ones were bad, how was the refereeing, how did Player X play, what should Coach Y have done differently, etc. Entertainment buffs will discuss the National Anthem performance and the half time show performance. John and Jane Q Public will discuss the cute commercial with the kid in the Darth Vader costume. Bottom line, people will talk about it. And that's exactly what I'm doing, albeit in a far more drawn out manner than most.
The Game I have to say, it was pretty entertaining to watch. I wasn't drawn to either team in particular, so in that respect it was hard to care too much. I'm also not a betting man, so with no money on the line I had nothing at stake. So, it came down to cheering for a team that has won 6 Super Bowls in their history, or cheering for a team that has won 4. Do I support a quarterback that has won a Super Bowl, or one that hasn't? Do I follow the guy that has the same first name as me, or the other guy? The alleged rapist, or the rape-free guy? I like cows, cows make cheese, cheese comes from Wisconsin, Green Bay is in Wisconsin, and their fans wear silly hats with pride. So I cheered for Green Bay. Also, they don't have any rape allegations. Anyway, it was a close game, which is always more fun to watch. Unless it's your team doing the beating, a one sided game gets boring quickly. And even if it's your team winning, it loses its appeal after awhile, with the outcome set in stone so quickly on in the game.
National Anthem Performance It was a hot button issue this year, with Christina Aguilera flubbing a line. That seems to be happening quite a lot lately, and it's a real shame. I can understand being nervous, intimidated, etc. That's forgivable when it's someone not accustomed to performing in front of huge crowds of people. Christina Aguilera, however, has won a Grammy. Several, in fact. She sells out huge stadiums and theaters. And... It's the Super Bowl. Wouldn't you practice until you're reciting it in your sleep? Also, it's the NATIONAL ANTHEM! School children have to memorize it; why can't a critically acclaimed pop superstar memorize it? It's an honest mistake, and I know she's taken a lot of crap for it already, and I'm sure she feels horrible for doing it, but it's a sad reflection of just how little people care about such things these days. A reported 61% of Americans don't know the words to the National Anthem. That's really sad, to me. It's a celebration of our ability to overcome adversity; to the struggles we endured to earn our independence. It's not just a song. Forgetting the words to Genie In A Bottle is fine. Forgetting the words to the National Anthem is hard to forgive. Especially when this particular Super Bowl honored the first recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam war.
Half Time Show Wow... Painfully bad. To be fair, it began with technical difficulties when Fergie's microphone either wasn't turned on, or wasn't picking up for a few seconds. That'll throw anyone off, and it shouldn't happen at the Super Bowl. It should be nearly flawless from a technical standpoint. Even so, the songs were really, really bad. I'm not a Black Eyed Peas fan. Full disclosure. Auto-tune sounds like squealing pigs to me, and it has absolutely no place in live performances. I want to hear you sing, not a computer. But I'll give them credit for trying to appeal to a wide audience by including guest spots by Slash and Usher, representing rock and pop. But Slash couldn't have been more disinterested if he were actually asleep, and it was so painful to watch at that point, I completely missed Usher's appearance. The show was at least visually interesting, although the Tron theme was tiresome. We've seen enough glowing bodies at this point. Let's get a little more creative. And even then, the stage prop wasn't working correctly as the "V" in Love didn't light up properly. Again, there really shouldn't be technical difficulties like that at the Super Bowl. With the amount of money and time that goes into the show, everything should have been checked 100 times, and verified 110 times. The again, I can't really think of a Super Bowl half time show that left me feeling completely satisfied. I was excited to see The Who last year, until I realized that they were going through the motions, and perhaps even playing to a taped performance. Michael Jackson was fantastic in 1993. I was excited to see Aerosmith in 2001, until they proceeded to play their worst songs... with Brittney Spears, Nelly, Mary J Blige and 'N Sync in tow, for no apparent reason. U2 was the next year, which was fine. I'm not a U2 fan. No Doubt, Shania Twain and Sting the next year. And then, nipple gate. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when Janet's pastied nipple was visible for 1 1000th of a second. And the nation wept.
Paul McCartney played the next year as an attempt to return to a safe performer. Rolling Stones after that proving that they really should hang it up already. And then... Prince? You go from harmless and safe Paul McCartney and now sexless Rolling Stones, to a man who has built his career on being sexually ambiguous and explicit? Tom Petty was great, Bruce Springsteen was good, bringing us back to The Who. Can we please do a little better next year? How about Metallica? Maybe Joan Jett? George Clinton? Blue Man Group? Lynyrd Skynyrd? Fleetwood Mac?
Commercials They were pretty unimpressive this year. Although oddly enough, I feel like some of them were far more objectionable and questionable than the eyebrow raisers of the past. Either last year or the year before, Snickers had a commercial involving two men eating a Snickers bar, resulting in an accidental kiss. It resulted in a huge brew-ha-ha. This year, Doritoes had a commercial where a man sucks the fingers of another man to extract the cheesy residue. Then the same man removes and licks the pants of another man after rubbing cheesy residue on them. To me, that far more "shocking" than two men kissing. But so far, nobody has raised an eyebrow over the licking. This year also featured a commercial in which a rubber baby is catapulted against a plate glass window. I don't remember what the product or company was, so fail in that respect. Also, what's the point? Doritoes also had a commercial in which a pug runs toward a glass door. We're lead to believe that he's going to crash into it as a cruel joke. Instead, the pug dropkicks the door knocking his owner over. It didn't bother me much really, but I'll bet it raised the self-righteous hairs of PETA.
As for good commercials, I really dug the Eminem commercial celebrating Detroit's auto making history. Nationalistic pride? Perhaps. And Eminem has nothing to do with cars, but he's made Detroit proud at least. I don't know why it captured my imagination the way it did, but I dug it. The one everyone's taking about, Volkeswagon's Darth Vader commercial, was very cute. My favorite was another car commercial that made fun of the panic that winter weather brings with it. This one was my favorite because that's exactly how Richmond responds to the mere mention of snow.
This year proved to be an interesting experience for me, as it's the first time I browsed Facebook and Twitter while watching the game. It was kind of fun to read, write, and respond to things that my friends were putting up on their statuses. I haven't gone to a legitimate Super Bowl party in a few years now, and my wife isn't all that interested in sports, so it was fun watching it and having a chance to comment on the game as it was happening. The only way it could have been more fun is if I cared about the teams. There's always next year.
I haven't had a real vested interest in the outcome of the game since 1994, when the Buffalo Bills were in the Super Bowl. I'm obligated to be a Bills fan, since so many people in my family are Bills fans. Growing up in Syracuse, New York, it only made sense to be a Bills fan, especially in the 90's when they made the Super Bowl four years in a row. And then, they lost... all 4 of their Super Bowl appearances... One of them, by 1 point... (Scott F'n Norwood...) And suddenly, it was very difficult to be a Bills fan, and they haven't been back since.
And yet, I still watched the Super Bowl every year from then on, and I still do to this day. It's the bell, and I am the trained dog. I resigned myself to the aged old excuse of "I watch it for the commercials, mostly." But that holds as much water as "I read Playboy for the articles." One can't pick up a Playboy issue without realizing that it contains photos of naked women. Likewise, one can't turn on the Super Bowl without realizing that there's football happening.
Though to be fair, a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl commands a $3 million plus pricetag, meaning generally companies willing to invest that much money take special care to craft something interesting, or at least memorable. It really is consumerism at its best. They have 30 seconds to play with; what can they do that will get people to come to their website, or buy their product, or at the very least remember their name? If they make an impact, their commercial will be viewed, and re-viewed days after the original airing. People will gather at the water coolers, or in modern times the electronic water cooler known as the internet, to discuss their favorite commercials. Prudish viewers will protest the content of the more risque commercials, forcing us to once again evaluate where we stand as human beings. And a few people might actually buy something.
The day after the Super Bowl is also an interesting study in sociology and marketing. We use it to discuss what happened. The sports buffs will discuss the game; what plays were good, which ones were bad, how was the refereeing, how did Player X play, what should Coach Y have done differently, etc. Entertainment buffs will discuss the National Anthem performance and the half time show performance. John and Jane Q Public will discuss the cute commercial with the kid in the Darth Vader costume. Bottom line, people will talk about it. And that's exactly what I'm doing, albeit in a far more drawn out manner than most.
The Game I have to say, it was pretty entertaining to watch. I wasn't drawn to either team in particular, so in that respect it was hard to care too much. I'm also not a betting man, so with no money on the line I had nothing at stake. So, it came down to cheering for a team that has won 6 Super Bowls in their history, or cheering for a team that has won 4. Do I support a quarterback that has won a Super Bowl, or one that hasn't? Do I follow the guy that has the same first name as me, or the other guy? The alleged rapist, or the rape-free guy? I like cows, cows make cheese, cheese comes from Wisconsin, Green Bay is in Wisconsin, and their fans wear silly hats with pride. So I cheered for Green Bay. Also, they don't have any rape allegations. Anyway, it was a close game, which is always more fun to watch. Unless it's your team doing the beating, a one sided game gets boring quickly. And even if it's your team winning, it loses its appeal after awhile, with the outcome set in stone so quickly on in the game.
National Anthem Performance It was a hot button issue this year, with Christina Aguilera flubbing a line. That seems to be happening quite a lot lately, and it's a real shame. I can understand being nervous, intimidated, etc. That's forgivable when it's someone not accustomed to performing in front of huge crowds of people. Christina Aguilera, however, has won a Grammy. Several, in fact. She sells out huge stadiums and theaters. And... It's the Super Bowl. Wouldn't you practice until you're reciting it in your sleep? Also, it's the NATIONAL ANTHEM! School children have to memorize it; why can't a critically acclaimed pop superstar memorize it? It's an honest mistake, and I know she's taken a lot of crap for it already, and I'm sure she feels horrible for doing it, but it's a sad reflection of just how little people care about such things these days. A reported 61% of Americans don't know the words to the National Anthem. That's really sad, to me. It's a celebration of our ability to overcome adversity; to the struggles we endured to earn our independence. It's not just a song. Forgetting the words to Genie In A Bottle is fine. Forgetting the words to the National Anthem is hard to forgive. Especially when this particular Super Bowl honored the first recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam war.
Half Time Show Wow... Painfully bad. To be fair, it began with technical difficulties when Fergie's microphone either wasn't turned on, or wasn't picking up for a few seconds. That'll throw anyone off, and it shouldn't happen at the Super Bowl. It should be nearly flawless from a technical standpoint. Even so, the songs were really, really bad. I'm not a Black Eyed Peas fan. Full disclosure. Auto-tune sounds like squealing pigs to me, and it has absolutely no place in live performances. I want to hear you sing, not a computer. But I'll give them credit for trying to appeal to a wide audience by including guest spots by Slash and Usher, representing rock and pop. But Slash couldn't have been more disinterested if he were actually asleep, and it was so painful to watch at that point, I completely missed Usher's appearance. The show was at least visually interesting, although the Tron theme was tiresome. We've seen enough glowing bodies at this point. Let's get a little more creative. And even then, the stage prop wasn't working correctly as the "V" in Love didn't light up properly. Again, there really shouldn't be technical difficulties like that at the Super Bowl. With the amount of money and time that goes into the show, everything should have been checked 100 times, and verified 110 times. The again, I can't really think of a Super Bowl half time show that left me feeling completely satisfied. I was excited to see The Who last year, until I realized that they were going through the motions, and perhaps even playing to a taped performance. Michael Jackson was fantastic in 1993. I was excited to see Aerosmith in 2001, until they proceeded to play their worst songs... with Brittney Spears, Nelly, Mary J Blige and 'N Sync in tow, for no apparent reason. U2 was the next year, which was fine. I'm not a U2 fan. No Doubt, Shania Twain and Sting the next year. And then, nipple gate. Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, when Janet's pastied nipple was visible for 1 1000th of a second. And the nation wept.
Paul McCartney played the next year as an attempt to return to a safe performer. Rolling Stones after that proving that they really should hang it up already. And then... Prince? You go from harmless and safe Paul McCartney and now sexless Rolling Stones, to a man who has built his career on being sexually ambiguous and explicit? Tom Petty was great, Bruce Springsteen was good, bringing us back to The Who. Can we please do a little better next year? How about Metallica? Maybe Joan Jett? George Clinton? Blue Man Group? Lynyrd Skynyrd? Fleetwood Mac?
Commercials They were pretty unimpressive this year. Although oddly enough, I feel like some of them were far more objectionable and questionable than the eyebrow raisers of the past. Either last year or the year before, Snickers had a commercial involving two men eating a Snickers bar, resulting in an accidental kiss. It resulted in a huge brew-ha-ha. This year, Doritoes had a commercial where a man sucks the fingers of another man to extract the cheesy residue. Then the same man removes and licks the pants of another man after rubbing cheesy residue on them. To me, that far more "shocking" than two men kissing. But so far, nobody has raised an eyebrow over the licking. This year also featured a commercial in which a rubber baby is catapulted against a plate glass window. I don't remember what the product or company was, so fail in that respect. Also, what's the point? Doritoes also had a commercial in which a pug runs toward a glass door. We're lead to believe that he's going to crash into it as a cruel joke. Instead, the pug dropkicks the door knocking his owner over. It didn't bother me much really, but I'll bet it raised the self-righteous hairs of PETA.
As for good commercials, I really dug the Eminem commercial celebrating Detroit's auto making history. Nationalistic pride? Perhaps. And Eminem has nothing to do with cars, but he's made Detroit proud at least. I don't know why it captured my imagination the way it did, but I dug it. The one everyone's taking about, Volkeswagon's Darth Vader commercial, was very cute. My favorite was another car commercial that made fun of the panic that winter weather brings with it. This one was my favorite because that's exactly how Richmond responds to the mere mention of snow.
This year proved to be an interesting experience for me, as it's the first time I browsed Facebook and Twitter while watching the game. It was kind of fun to read, write, and respond to things that my friends were putting up on their statuses. I haven't gone to a legitimate Super Bowl party in a few years now, and my wife isn't all that interested in sports, so it was fun watching it and having a chance to comment on the game as it was happening. The only way it could have been more fun is if I cared about the teams. There's always next year.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
In Defense of: Dungeons and Dragons Players
I always admired those who played D&D. It seems like those who played when it first existed are now those who own media empires; the smart kids who understand algebra and can program their vcrs, set up a LAN party, correct runtime errors, and comprehend the physics behind a black hole. These were the chosen ones who did well on their English and their math SAT. These were the smart kids who majored in subjects that lead to steady employment and financial success after college. I was not one of these kids. No, I was a pudgy sports enthusiast who liked to read and write on the side, and fill his head with absolutely useless knowledge about the entertainment industry, like how many singers Pantera had before Phil Anselmo took the job. And when I say I was a sports enthusiast, that mostly means I went to McDonalds a lot to collect the Dream Team cups during the summer Olympics, spent way too much money on collecting sports cards (including $10 per pack trying to hunt down a Don Mattingly rookie card, which I never got.), and buying the occasional replica jersey from the Champion outlet. I threw a basketball at a hoop regularly, but it rarely went where it was supposed to. I did play football in high school, and I wasn't too bad at it either, but I was far from a "jock." In other words, I was in the 98th percentile on my English SAT, and just above legally brain dead on my math. The only dice I knew was six-sided, white with black spots, and inside a Yatzee box. That all changed when some of my friends introduced me to HP and D-20's.
I didn't get into Dungeons and Dragons (affectionately abbreviated as D&D) until after college, actually. I knew of it, but I really knew nothing about it, apart from very rudimentary details that I learned from depictions of D&D sessions in tv shows like Freaks and Geeks. It involved dungeons, dragons, knights, quests, someone called a dungeon master, jokes, miniatures, and junk food. Oh, and funny looking dice. And math. It took me awhile to catch on, and in all honesty, there are still things that I don't quite understand completely, but I am now a proud D&D player. My wife and I play with two college friends almost weekly now, and it's a lot of fun. And we're all well-adjusted adults with jobs and college degrees. We're decent people and in touch with reality. We're sociable, easy-going and diverse. According to most of the movies I've seen about D&D players, we shouldn't exist. We should be either very damaged individuals, escaping behind our character sheets to detach from our troubled pasts, or we should be self-obsessed and angry.
I've now seen three movies focusing on D&D players; Gamers, The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, and The Dungeon Masters. In two of the three, the players are depicted as one of the two above options. Gamers is billed as a comedy, featuring four grown men with lousy jobs, living with their parents, fighting each other constantly, and generally being unpleasant human beings. They play Demons, Nymphs and Dragons (DND, get it?), but that's pretty much irrelevant to the story, which has very little to do with any actual gameplay. It's a disappointing movie that serves only to perpetuate the untrue stereotypes of a D&D player.
Dungeon Masters is more honest. It's an actual documentary, about actual people, who actually play D&D. Because of it's authenticity, I enjoyed it somewhat. But again, it focused on people who have blurred the lines between reality and their fantasy filled creations. People who have deep emotional scars from abusive relationships and childhoods. People with little ambition other than to improve their characters and delve deeper and deeper into their fantasies. People who spend hours applying makeup for their live action role playing games, and sacrifice time with their families in favor of exerting their dominance over their colleagues through cruel dungeon master rules and encounters. And sure, those people obviously exist. But not every gamer is a sad case. Not everyone plays to escape reality and personal demons. Not every player is essentially socially inept. I suppose it makes for a more interesting film if the stars are a little damaged, but is it so much to ask to just have D&D players, having fun, maybe some "drama" mixed in, but an honest depiction of the good aspects of the game, instead of focusing on adults acting like children?
That's where The Gamers: Dorkness Rising comes in. It's funny, it's honest, and it celebrates the good aspects of the game and those who play it. It's a comedy, and it's fictional, but I think it's the most honest examination of D&D culture. Frankly, it's the only of the three that's really worth watching. I can only hope that there will be more movies about D&D like this one.
Maybe my problem is that I'd really like a D&D movie that explains the game. And that would be kinda boring for most people. I'd like an instructional video that teaches me how to be a dungeon master, and what "milestone" means... I'd like to watch a video of people playing D&D. And that's far geekier and depraved than actually playing.
I didn't get into Dungeons and Dragons (affectionately abbreviated as D&D) until after college, actually. I knew of it, but I really knew nothing about it, apart from very rudimentary details that I learned from depictions of D&D sessions in tv shows like Freaks and Geeks. It involved dungeons, dragons, knights, quests, someone called a dungeon master, jokes, miniatures, and junk food. Oh, and funny looking dice. And math. It took me awhile to catch on, and in all honesty, there are still things that I don't quite understand completely, but I am now a proud D&D player. My wife and I play with two college friends almost weekly now, and it's a lot of fun. And we're all well-adjusted adults with jobs and college degrees. We're decent people and in touch with reality. We're sociable, easy-going and diverse. According to most of the movies I've seen about D&D players, we shouldn't exist. We should be either very damaged individuals, escaping behind our character sheets to detach from our troubled pasts, or we should be self-obsessed and angry.
I've now seen three movies focusing on D&D players; Gamers, The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, and The Dungeon Masters. In two of the three, the players are depicted as one of the two above options. Gamers is billed as a comedy, featuring four grown men with lousy jobs, living with their parents, fighting each other constantly, and generally being unpleasant human beings. They play Demons, Nymphs and Dragons (DND, get it?), but that's pretty much irrelevant to the story, which has very little to do with any actual gameplay. It's a disappointing movie that serves only to perpetuate the untrue stereotypes of a D&D player.
Dungeon Masters is more honest. It's an actual documentary, about actual people, who actually play D&D. Because of it's authenticity, I enjoyed it somewhat. But again, it focused on people who have blurred the lines between reality and their fantasy filled creations. People who have deep emotional scars from abusive relationships and childhoods. People with little ambition other than to improve their characters and delve deeper and deeper into their fantasies. People who spend hours applying makeup for their live action role playing games, and sacrifice time with their families in favor of exerting their dominance over their colleagues through cruel dungeon master rules and encounters. And sure, those people obviously exist. But not every gamer is a sad case. Not everyone plays to escape reality and personal demons. Not every player is essentially socially inept. I suppose it makes for a more interesting film if the stars are a little damaged, but is it so much to ask to just have D&D players, having fun, maybe some "drama" mixed in, but an honest depiction of the good aspects of the game, instead of focusing on adults acting like children?
That's where The Gamers: Dorkness Rising comes in. It's funny, it's honest, and it celebrates the good aspects of the game and those who play it. It's a comedy, and it's fictional, but I think it's the most honest examination of D&D culture. Frankly, it's the only of the three that's really worth watching. I can only hope that there will be more movies about D&D like this one.
Maybe my problem is that I'd really like a D&D movie that explains the game. And that would be kinda boring for most people. I'd like an instructional video that teaches me how to be a dungeon master, and what "milestone" means... I'd like to watch a video of people playing D&D. And that's far geekier and depraved than actually playing.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Cleaning Out the Brain Cobwebs Leads to Hopeless Album Search
Sometimes it's frankly scary how my brain works. I always struggled with math, especially when they added letters to that crap. I often can't remember what I have scheduled for the weekend. I often forget how old I am. And yet I seem to have a steel trap mind for absolutely useless entertainment knowledge. And not even impressive, encyclopedic hipster knowledge that might win a trivia contest somewhere, or get me a free or discounted album at a yard sale or cool record store. No, I remember snippets of things long forgotten. Things that weren't really that cool, even when they were cool. Which brings me to the point of this entry.
I randomly remembered a band called Harlow while messing around on the internet. They were an unsigned all-female band from Los Angeles who took part in a reality tv show on VH1 called Bands On the Run. The fact that I remember Bands On the Run could be considered impressive. The fact that I remember the winning band's name was Flickerstick is perhaps trivia contest worthy. But the fact that I remember Harlow is... kinda sad on my part. Not only do I remember them, I remember thinking they were the best band on the show, and that regardless the outcome, I wanted to remember them for future reference. I suppose I need to explain a bit.
Bands On the Run was a "reality" show on VH1 featuring four unsigned bands; Soulcracker, Flickerstick, Harlow, and Josh Dodes Band, competing for a record contract, some moderately impressive amount of money, and I think new gear. Anyway, they were given a budget of $20 a day per band member to promote themselves and to put together gigs and bring in people to their shows. I remember Soulcracker tried to sabotage Flickerstick and the other bands, I think by pasting over their flyers and giving their tickets away for free instead of selling them like they were supposed to. I also remember Harlow were, frankly, lazy when it came to promoting themselves. But they put on the best show out of all four bands, and had the best music in my opinion. I don't remember Josh Dodes Band at all, to be honest. Flickerstick were good enough, and they were dedicated. Soulcracker were motivated, but kinda generic. Harlow were the rockers. Not to mention, they were all cute girls.
So, I did a search for Harlow on the internet. (I refuse to say that I "Googled" them, because 1) Google is NOT a verb, and 2) that just sounds kinda dirty.) I discovered that the guitarist/singer has moved on and retired from music basically. I also discovered that their website no longer exists. So I figured they split up, never put out music, and faded into obscurity. Until I saw a glimmer of hope on the Bands On the Run website, which is still alive for some reason... It mentions the possibility of buying their "new album" from the now defunct Harlow website. This means that they did indeed record music at some point. In some capacity, this music exists.
Youtube has provided another glimmer of hope. I now know the album was called Harlowland, and there are some of the songs from the album on there, so I can at least hear them. I also learned that it was produced by Pat Smear, formerly of The Germs, and touring guitarist for Nirvana and the Foo Fighters, which only makes me want this bleeding thing all the more. And thanks to the internet, I've found the cover art and a tracklist, but I can't find it for sale anywhere. I have a new challenge now. I don't necessarily like challenges when it comes to albums. Some of them are just so seemingly unobtainable. The Holy Grails of albums that I don't believe I'll ever find are:
1. Goons/Boils split 7". The Goons were a punk band from Arlington, Va. I saw them open for The Misfits a few years back, and instantly loved them. I've since collected nearly everything they put out in their short time together. But this split 7" ep record has eluded me time and again. What's worse, I've had it in my virtual grasp a few times. I've found it on eBay, and I actually won the auction, but was later told that it was listed in error and was refunded my money. I haven't been able to find it again since.
2. Die Cheerleader Die - Chasing the American Nightmare. Oddly enough, another band that I saw open for the Misfits, at the same show that introduced me to The Goons. I bought their third album, Down With Pom Poms, Up With Skirts, at the show. I had no idea they had two other albums. I don't believe I'll ever find this album. But just to make it worse, the old band website is still up, and it has two songs from the album on streaming audio. It also shows the album artwork, which is absolutely brilliant, and makes me want the album even more. Most of the band members went on to form a band called The Twats, and I bought that album, but it's not as good. The Twats also broke up, the singer married the guitar player, and they moved to Florida to breed and go to school.
3. Die Cheerleader Die - title unknown. Supposedly, they also had a short run CDR on a label called Mutant Pop. This one is confirmed to be pretty much completely unavailable. So unless I find one of the band members personally, and they happen to still have a copy stashed away somewhere in their attic, and they're willing to make a copy for me... Yeah, I'll never see this thing.
4. Harlow - Harlowland. Well, who knows. They were on tv, and the Pat Smear endorsement should carry some water at least, so I have to imagine there were a reasonable number copies of this album released. I have hope that I'll track this one down someday.
5. Nine Inch Nails - Purest Feeling. This one's a bootleg actually, comprised of the demo versions of Nine Inch Nails' first album. Some kind soul has uploaded most of it to Youtube, so I can at least hear it. And really, a buddy of mine has it, and I'm sure if I ask nicely enough, he'll make me a copy. But it'd still be cool to find a copy myself.
They taunt me. I want to hear them, and I've been known to plunk down slightly unreasonable money for past "treasures." But I need to be an adult, and a responsible adult at that. So for now, I'll only go after the obtainable, and keep dreaming of finding these grails.
I randomly remembered a band called Harlow while messing around on the internet. They were an unsigned all-female band from Los Angeles who took part in a reality tv show on VH1 called Bands On the Run. The fact that I remember Bands On the Run could be considered impressive. The fact that I remember the winning band's name was Flickerstick is perhaps trivia contest worthy. But the fact that I remember Harlow is... kinda sad on my part. Not only do I remember them, I remember thinking they were the best band on the show, and that regardless the outcome, I wanted to remember them for future reference. I suppose I need to explain a bit.
Bands On the Run was a "reality" show on VH1 featuring four unsigned bands; Soulcracker, Flickerstick, Harlow, and Josh Dodes Band, competing for a record contract, some moderately impressive amount of money, and I think new gear. Anyway, they were given a budget of $20 a day per band member to promote themselves and to put together gigs and bring in people to their shows. I remember Soulcracker tried to sabotage Flickerstick and the other bands, I think by pasting over their flyers and giving their tickets away for free instead of selling them like they were supposed to. I also remember Harlow were, frankly, lazy when it came to promoting themselves. But they put on the best show out of all four bands, and had the best music in my opinion. I don't remember Josh Dodes Band at all, to be honest. Flickerstick were good enough, and they were dedicated. Soulcracker were motivated, but kinda generic. Harlow were the rockers. Not to mention, they were all cute girls.
So, I did a search for Harlow on the internet. (I refuse to say that I "Googled" them, because 1) Google is NOT a verb, and 2) that just sounds kinda dirty.) I discovered that the guitarist/singer has moved on and retired from music basically. I also discovered that their website no longer exists. So I figured they split up, never put out music, and faded into obscurity. Until I saw a glimmer of hope on the Bands On the Run website, which is still alive for some reason... It mentions the possibility of buying their "new album" from the now defunct Harlow website. This means that they did indeed record music at some point. In some capacity, this music exists.
Youtube has provided another glimmer of hope. I now know the album was called Harlowland, and there are some of the songs from the album on there, so I can at least hear them. I also learned that it was produced by Pat Smear, formerly of The Germs, and touring guitarist for Nirvana and the Foo Fighters, which only makes me want this bleeding thing all the more. And thanks to the internet, I've found the cover art and a tracklist, but I can't find it for sale anywhere. I have a new challenge now. I don't necessarily like challenges when it comes to albums. Some of them are just so seemingly unobtainable. The Holy Grails of albums that I don't believe I'll ever find are:
1. Goons/Boils split 7". The Goons were a punk band from Arlington, Va. I saw them open for The Misfits a few years back, and instantly loved them. I've since collected nearly everything they put out in their short time together. But this split 7" ep record has eluded me time and again. What's worse, I've had it in my virtual grasp a few times. I've found it on eBay, and I actually won the auction, but was later told that it was listed in error and was refunded my money. I haven't been able to find it again since.
2. Die Cheerleader Die - Chasing the American Nightmare. Oddly enough, another band that I saw open for the Misfits, at the same show that introduced me to The Goons. I bought their third album, Down With Pom Poms, Up With Skirts, at the show. I had no idea they had two other albums. I don't believe I'll ever find this album. But just to make it worse, the old band website is still up, and it has two songs from the album on streaming audio. It also shows the album artwork, which is absolutely brilliant, and makes me want the album even more. Most of the band members went on to form a band called The Twats, and I bought that album, but it's not as good. The Twats also broke up, the singer married the guitar player, and they moved to Florida to breed and go to school.
3. Die Cheerleader Die - title unknown. Supposedly, they also had a short run CDR on a label called Mutant Pop. This one is confirmed to be pretty much completely unavailable. So unless I find one of the band members personally, and they happen to still have a copy stashed away somewhere in their attic, and they're willing to make a copy for me... Yeah, I'll never see this thing.
4. Harlow - Harlowland. Well, who knows. They were on tv, and the Pat Smear endorsement should carry some water at least, so I have to imagine there were a reasonable number copies of this album released. I have hope that I'll track this one down someday.
5. Nine Inch Nails - Purest Feeling. This one's a bootleg actually, comprised of the demo versions of Nine Inch Nails' first album. Some kind soul has uploaded most of it to Youtube, so I can at least hear it. And really, a buddy of mine has it, and I'm sure if I ask nicely enough, he'll make me a copy. But it'd still be cool to find a copy myself.
They taunt me. I want to hear them, and I've been known to plunk down slightly unreasonable money for past "treasures." But I need to be an adult, and a responsible adult at that. So for now, I'll only go after the obtainable, and keep dreaming of finding these grails.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Movie Review: Best Worst Movie
I've always had a soft spot in my heart for bad movies. When I was young, my mom and I would watch our vhs tape of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes so much that it started to wear the tape out. And it wasn't even a home video release; it was our recording from when they played it on tv, so it included partial commercials and "bumpers" from when they came out of commercial and returned to the movie. My dad couldn't stand it. He would leave the room when we put it on. Years later, he'd get accidental retribution. In the days before Tivo and DVR technology, if you wanted to watch something scheduled on tv at a later time than its original broadcast, you had to set your vcr to record the show. The Sci-Fi channel (now Syfy for pretty much inane and inexplicable reasons) ran the extended 3 + hour cut of Dune, a bad movie Holy Grail, and my mom and I captured it on tape. To my knowledge, they never ran it again. I'm not even sure it's even available at all now. And my dad used that tape to record f'n politics... Extended cut Dune was lost forever. We've forgiven him, as much as you can forgive someone for such blasphemy. Besides, we also made him suffer through nearly every Ernest movie... And my mom still flips through the tv schedule to see what kind of monster movie they're playing on Syfy every weekend. Now that I'm an adult, I still love bad movies. Maybe even more than I did back then. Back then, I was somewhat limited to my mom's taste in bad. Mostly a lot of early b-movies, like the Godzilla movies and killer ants movies and the like. But in adulthood, I discovered more of the real gems. Plan Nine From Outer Space, Manos: The hands of Fate, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, Sleepaway Camp, etc. But the one I enjoyed the most was Troll 2.
I originally heard about Troll 2 on a podcast. Before that, I had no idea it existed. After listening to the podcast, I knew I had to see it. So I added it to my Netflix queue. When I got it, I discovered that it's a dual-disc with Troll part one, and Troll 2 on the same disc. I figured surely you'd have to see part one to follow part 2, so I watched Troll first. It was pretty bad, but I enjoyed it as a bad movie. And it had the kid who played Atreyu in the Neverending Story movies, not to mention Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Sunny Bono. And honestly, it was at least somewhat enjoyable and coherent. But this wasn't the gem that everyone talked about. This was just Troll, which nobody seemed to have any strong feelings for in particular. Troll 2 still awaited. So I pressed play and was immediately transported to the world of the best worst movie ever made. A few weeks later, I bought my own copy of Troll/Troll 2.
It's hard to really describe what makes Troll 2 such a fun train wreck of a movie to watch. It really just has to be experienced. There are three types of bad movies, I reckon. The first type is bad because it's boring, insultingly simple minded, and made with zero ambition or desire to be anything more than a cash grab. All of the "_ Movie" movies fall into this category; Date Movie, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, etc. The second type is bad because it's just not at all entertaining or interesting. I would place The Happening into this category. The third type of bad movie was made with the best of intentions that just didn't pan out, for whatever reason. Plan Nine From Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, Coven, and of course Troll 2 fall into this category. They all have a sense of charming ineptitude, whether it's in the directing, the writing, the acting, the corners cut due to ultra low budget, overall inexperience, etc. You want to pat these movies on the head and send them to bed with a glass of water, as The Grinch did to adorable little Cindy-Lou Who. They're misguided labors of love, and you find yourself laughing both at them as well as with them, only they don't really quite get the joke.
That was a rather long-winded lead up to the point of this post, which is to discuss the movie Best Worst Movie. Best Worst Movie is a documentary about Troll 2 and the cultural impact it has had. The interesting thing about Best Worst Movie, right off the bat, is that it was directed by the child actor who starred in Troll 2. He's in on the joke. He gets that it's a terrible movie that's hopelessly lovable. He gets why it was never released to theaters, and why there hasn't been a Troll 3 yet. But nobody involved seemed to know that the movie they filmed was called Troll 2, or that it had been release on home video.
That's because the movie was originally called Goblin, and there are zero Trolls in Troll 2. It has nothing to do with Troll part one. Not even an incling of a connection to the original story. No returning characters, no returning actors... The trolls in Troll 2 are goblins, not trolls; a continuity and logic error to end all continuity and logic errors. What's better, the director of Troll 2 doesn't seem to understand that calling the movie Troll 2, while calling the creatures goblins instead of trolls, is even a problem. It's lost in translation, as the writer's and director's, and most of the filming crew's native tongue is Italian, not English. As such, the actors had a difficult time understanding the little direction they were actually given. And the directors didn't understand when the actors had trouble with a line that was mind-blowingly stilted and unnatural, such as "Elliot is not my beau! He's my boyfriend and he told me last night that he loves me and that he wanted to come on this trip with me and my family."
Best Worst Movie starts off by catching up with Dr. George Hardy, who played the father character in Troll 2. He's an instantly likable man, with a smile as wide as the ocean, and a genuine love for life and people. His acting past is long behind him, and he's settled into his role as a dentist and small town hero, but he still has a little taste for flair and showmanship left in his heart. He straps on roller blades and dresses up in costumes for the town parade every year. His character in Troll 2 is beloved for an entirely different reason. Mostly, it's because he has some of the most insanely incomprehensible lines, my favorite being "Tightening my belt one loop so that I don't feel hunger pains, and your sister and mother will have to do likewise. Okay, Joshua. You wanna get rough with me? You wanna show me that you don't like the choice of this house for our vacation by going on a hunger strike? Well, I'll accept the challenge. But just remember when I was your age, I really did suffer from hunger. We'll see who gets through this, but just remember I've got more practice than you. I'll see you tomorrow." Even taken in context, it's completely illogical. He's punishing his son for ruining dinner. You think he's reaching for his belt to beat his son with it. No. He's reaching for it to tighten it as an act of defiance against his son's behavior, which he has interpreted as a protest against a boring vacation and a challenge to see who can go the longest without eating... which he knows he'll win, since he starved as a child... and tightening his belt is the only way to circumvent the hunger pains of a hunger strike... That doesn't make a lick of sense in any language.
Next, we catch up with the other main cast members, one by one. They all seem to have pretty much the same story; they were surprised to learn that the movie was called Troll 2, and that it had been released at all, and their first viewing was full of shame and regret, and they've tried to forget about it all these years. What brings them all together again is the discovery of the new fan base the movie has received now. It's the definition of a cult classic. People had small scale viewing parties, and it spread like wildfire. Pretty soon, they were invited to take part in panel discussions and special screenings that sold out night after night in the U.S. It's all very upbeat, and it makes you proud to be a fan of Troll 2. And then you catch up with some of the lesser characters, and Best Worst Movie takes a darker turn.
It turns out, Troll 2 has had a profound impact on some of its stars. The actor who played Grandpa is now retired and lonely. And from the looks of it, he's a borderline hoarder filled with regret. But he's still as likable as he was in the movie, which makes it even more difficult to learn that he's alone and feels like he wasted his life. The actress who played the mother character has become a paranoid recluse, who may or may not hear voices. The actor who played the town shop keep is a recovering mental patient. He admits that at the time of filming Troll 2, he was an avid pot smoker, and he basically dreamed about killing the child actor because he hated him so much. Shit just got real.
Then we're introduced to the director and the writer of Troll 2. The director is either egotistical beyond belief, or in some serious denial. He really seems to believe that he created the ultimate allegory for the human spirit and the human condition with Troll 2, and that those who enjoy the film are deeply connected to the important issues explored throughout the film. The writer, his wife, believes that her tale of goblins who convert people into plants in order to consume them as an alternate to toxin and cholesterol-filled meat products, is a scathing condemnation of vegetarians, whose dietary practices she found personally insulting at the time. Even though... they eat people... which is still a carnivorous behavior, even if they're partially converted to plants... and it's never explained why people-plants are required, instead of, say, plant-plants... The director believes that the actors and fans are just simply too dumb to completely understand his vision when they laugh at lines like "Joshua is not a little shit; he's just very sensitive," or the actors relay tales of receiving incomplete scripts, and never fully understanding the concept behind the story, or being told to go upstairs when they're outside... in the woods...
All of the fame and praise the cast has received in the U.S. went completely out the window as they embarked on a misguided and ill-advised international convention appearance. There were about 6 people at the screening, instead of a sold-out crowd, and zero autograph requests. The horror convention didn't fare much better, with George wandering around taking in horror fan culture and dental habits research instead of fan love. It all ends on a somewhat uplifting note, with most of the main actors seemingly coming to understand, embrace and appreciate their status as cult movie icons, at least in select markets. It invigorated the desire to try again at an acting career for many of them, and I came out of watching the movie with the hope that those who love the movie for what it is will continue to give the key players just enough praise for them to feel proud of making a fun movie despite itself. It did leave me wanting a bit more though, as not every main cast member was interviewed, and a bit too much time was spent focusing on Dr. George. Then again, maybe more of that is covered in the special features of the dvd, assuming there are any, or perhaps in the special 20th anniversary edition of Troll 2, which I don't yet own.
I still hope to attend one of the screenings at some point, but short of that, Best Worst Movie is a great reminder of why Troll 2 is so much fun to love, and why I proudly own the anniversary set of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes on dvd, with the collector mini movie poster intact.
I originally heard about Troll 2 on a podcast. Before that, I had no idea it existed. After listening to the podcast, I knew I had to see it. So I added it to my Netflix queue. When I got it, I discovered that it's a dual-disc with Troll part one, and Troll 2 on the same disc. I figured surely you'd have to see part one to follow part 2, so I watched Troll first. It was pretty bad, but I enjoyed it as a bad movie. And it had the kid who played Atreyu in the Neverending Story movies, not to mention Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Sunny Bono. And honestly, it was at least somewhat enjoyable and coherent. But this wasn't the gem that everyone talked about. This was just Troll, which nobody seemed to have any strong feelings for in particular. Troll 2 still awaited. So I pressed play and was immediately transported to the world of the best worst movie ever made. A few weeks later, I bought my own copy of Troll/Troll 2.
It's hard to really describe what makes Troll 2 such a fun train wreck of a movie to watch. It really just has to be experienced. There are three types of bad movies, I reckon. The first type is bad because it's boring, insultingly simple minded, and made with zero ambition or desire to be anything more than a cash grab. All of the "_ Movie" movies fall into this category; Date Movie, Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, etc. The second type is bad because it's just not at all entertaining or interesting. I would place The Happening into this category. The third type of bad movie was made with the best of intentions that just didn't pan out, for whatever reason. Plan Nine From Outer Space, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, Coven, and of course Troll 2 fall into this category. They all have a sense of charming ineptitude, whether it's in the directing, the writing, the acting, the corners cut due to ultra low budget, overall inexperience, etc. You want to pat these movies on the head and send them to bed with a glass of water, as The Grinch did to adorable little Cindy-Lou Who. They're misguided labors of love, and you find yourself laughing both at them as well as with them, only they don't really quite get the joke.
That was a rather long-winded lead up to the point of this post, which is to discuss the movie Best Worst Movie. Best Worst Movie is a documentary about Troll 2 and the cultural impact it has had. The interesting thing about Best Worst Movie, right off the bat, is that it was directed by the child actor who starred in Troll 2. He's in on the joke. He gets that it's a terrible movie that's hopelessly lovable. He gets why it was never released to theaters, and why there hasn't been a Troll 3 yet. But nobody involved seemed to know that the movie they filmed was called Troll 2, or that it had been release on home video.
That's because the movie was originally called Goblin, and there are zero Trolls in Troll 2. It has nothing to do with Troll part one. Not even an incling of a connection to the original story. No returning characters, no returning actors... The trolls in Troll 2 are goblins, not trolls; a continuity and logic error to end all continuity and logic errors. What's better, the director of Troll 2 doesn't seem to understand that calling the movie Troll 2, while calling the creatures goblins instead of trolls, is even a problem. It's lost in translation, as the writer's and director's, and most of the filming crew's native tongue is Italian, not English. As such, the actors had a difficult time understanding the little direction they were actually given. And the directors didn't understand when the actors had trouble with a line that was mind-blowingly stilted and unnatural, such as "Elliot is not my beau! He's my boyfriend and he told me last night that he loves me and that he wanted to come on this trip with me and my family."
Best Worst Movie starts off by catching up with Dr. George Hardy, who played the father character in Troll 2. He's an instantly likable man, with a smile as wide as the ocean, and a genuine love for life and people. His acting past is long behind him, and he's settled into his role as a dentist and small town hero, but he still has a little taste for flair and showmanship left in his heart. He straps on roller blades and dresses up in costumes for the town parade every year. His character in Troll 2 is beloved for an entirely different reason. Mostly, it's because he has some of the most insanely incomprehensible lines, my favorite being "Tightening my belt one loop so that I don't feel hunger pains, and your sister and mother will have to do likewise. Okay, Joshua. You wanna get rough with me? You wanna show me that you don't like the choice of this house for our vacation by going on a hunger strike? Well, I'll accept the challenge. But just remember when I was your age, I really did suffer from hunger. We'll see who gets through this, but just remember I've got more practice than you. I'll see you tomorrow." Even taken in context, it's completely illogical. He's punishing his son for ruining dinner. You think he's reaching for his belt to beat his son with it. No. He's reaching for it to tighten it as an act of defiance against his son's behavior, which he has interpreted as a protest against a boring vacation and a challenge to see who can go the longest without eating... which he knows he'll win, since he starved as a child... and tightening his belt is the only way to circumvent the hunger pains of a hunger strike... That doesn't make a lick of sense in any language.
Next, we catch up with the other main cast members, one by one. They all seem to have pretty much the same story; they were surprised to learn that the movie was called Troll 2, and that it had been released at all, and their first viewing was full of shame and regret, and they've tried to forget about it all these years. What brings them all together again is the discovery of the new fan base the movie has received now. It's the definition of a cult classic. People had small scale viewing parties, and it spread like wildfire. Pretty soon, they were invited to take part in panel discussions and special screenings that sold out night after night in the U.S. It's all very upbeat, and it makes you proud to be a fan of Troll 2. And then you catch up with some of the lesser characters, and Best Worst Movie takes a darker turn.
It turns out, Troll 2 has had a profound impact on some of its stars. The actor who played Grandpa is now retired and lonely. And from the looks of it, he's a borderline hoarder filled with regret. But he's still as likable as he was in the movie, which makes it even more difficult to learn that he's alone and feels like he wasted his life. The actress who played the mother character has become a paranoid recluse, who may or may not hear voices. The actor who played the town shop keep is a recovering mental patient. He admits that at the time of filming Troll 2, he was an avid pot smoker, and he basically dreamed about killing the child actor because he hated him so much. Shit just got real.
Then we're introduced to the director and the writer of Troll 2. The director is either egotistical beyond belief, or in some serious denial. He really seems to believe that he created the ultimate allegory for the human spirit and the human condition with Troll 2, and that those who enjoy the film are deeply connected to the important issues explored throughout the film. The writer, his wife, believes that her tale of goblins who convert people into plants in order to consume them as an alternate to toxin and cholesterol-filled meat products, is a scathing condemnation of vegetarians, whose dietary practices she found personally insulting at the time. Even though... they eat people... which is still a carnivorous behavior, even if they're partially converted to plants... and it's never explained why people-plants are required, instead of, say, plant-plants... The director believes that the actors and fans are just simply too dumb to completely understand his vision when they laugh at lines like "Joshua is not a little shit; he's just very sensitive," or the actors relay tales of receiving incomplete scripts, and never fully understanding the concept behind the story, or being told to go upstairs when they're outside... in the woods...
All of the fame and praise the cast has received in the U.S. went completely out the window as they embarked on a misguided and ill-advised international convention appearance. There were about 6 people at the screening, instead of a sold-out crowd, and zero autograph requests. The horror convention didn't fare much better, with George wandering around taking in horror fan culture and dental habits research instead of fan love. It all ends on a somewhat uplifting note, with most of the main actors seemingly coming to understand, embrace and appreciate their status as cult movie icons, at least in select markets. It invigorated the desire to try again at an acting career for many of them, and I came out of watching the movie with the hope that those who love the movie for what it is will continue to give the key players just enough praise for them to feel proud of making a fun movie despite itself. It did leave me wanting a bit more though, as not every main cast member was interviewed, and a bit too much time was spent focusing on Dr. George. Then again, maybe more of that is covered in the special features of the dvd, assuming there are any, or perhaps in the special 20th anniversary edition of Troll 2, which I don't yet own.
I still hope to attend one of the screenings at some point, but short of that, Best Worst Movie is a great reminder of why Troll 2 is so much fun to love, and why I proudly own the anniversary set of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes on dvd, with the collector mini movie poster intact.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
What Do Beavis and Butthead, Revenge of the Nerds, and Horror Movies Have In Common?
Black Christmas (1974), My Bloody Valentine (1981), Revenge of the Nerds (1984), Revenge of the Nerds III (1992), Revenge of the Nerds IV (1994), Beavis and Butthead (1993-1997). What do they all have in common? Well, for one, I watched them all over the weekend, and they're all on Netflix instant watch. Sadly, and strangely, Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds In Paradise is not, so I'll never know what happens to the little nerdlings while in paradise. But there are other similarities. Black Christmas and My Bloody Valentine have been remade into modern horror films. I haven't seen either, but reportedly, they're not so good. Beavis and Butthead are supposedly going to come back to MTV as well with new episodes. And given the trend lately of remaking anything and everything, a Revenge of the nerds reboot isn't too far fetched. But though they may try, and though they have tried, they just don't make 'em like they used to.
Black Christmas is a bit of a slow burn. Truth be told, it's a little boring in parts, and the kills are infrequent and mostly off-camera. Nevertheless, what it lacks in gore, it makes up for in ambiance and suspense. The killer's motive is never clearly revealed, nor is his identity, and the twist ending is more intriguing than a 70's horror movie really has the right to be. They don't make horror like that anymore. Now, suspense is usually defined as the time between ear-piercing sonic booms used to create cheap jump scares. Ambiance is created through dizzying quick cuts and flashy music video effects. (See the Nightmare On Elm Street Remake. Or rather, don't...)
My Bloody Valentine leaves you guessing as well. It's a mystery slasher, with a killer dressed head to toe in miner's gear; his face completely concealed under an oxygen mask, making his breathing part of the ambiance and suspense. The remake had boobies and 3-d pickaxes instead of suspense.
The Revenge of the Nerds movies combined comedy with an anti-stereotyping message. Granted, that message was watered down further and further with the sequels, to the point where part IV became nerds vs. yuppies. Then again, in order to present an anti-stereotyping message, they used stereotypes. Big time. From the meat headed, hate filled, short-fused football team, to the flamboyantly gay character of Lamar, complete with limp wrist and high pitched voice, to the football coach who's only concern in life is his image, which he upholds vicariously by leading the cool kids and throwing his weight around with the administration, and of course the nerds with their bad hygiene, love for technology, goofy mismatched clothes and nasally laughs. If they do remake Revenge of the Nerds, they'll have to face political correctness, which is gloriously absent from the original. More to the point, nerdom is en vogue now. Football players are looked down upon more than nerds are. And football players touching the hearts of their peers and earning their sympathy and respect doesn't seem likely.
And Beavis and Butthead... Well, it might still work. I can't conceptualize what the characters will do, assuming they've grown up since the original series. If they're the same, i.e. still in high school, still slackers, still amused by sexual puns and fart jokes, still working fast food and still under 21, it runs the risk of getting old. After all, Mike Judge decided to stop the show because he couldn't think of what they'd do after high school. Either he's had an epiphany, or it'll be more of the same. That's not so bad really, as I'm a fan of the show, but we've all grown up and matured. If the characters haven't, a new generation may come to appreciate them, but the long time fans might drop out. Re-watching the old episodes on Netflix accomplished two things: It reminded me how good the show was, when it was a complete episode, with music video commentary, and I was the right age to relate to the characters, as I too was immature and amused by dumb jokes and heavy metal videos, and it made me wish I had been smart enough to record the episodes from tv back in the day, as they'll never be released in their complete form due to all of the legal hoops involved. The best parts of the show, frankly, were the music video commentaries. They were all improvised, and they were often the funniest parts of an otherwise so-so episode. But oddly enough, when artists are made fun of, they're not as likely to agree to allowing their music videos to be used in the home video releases. And if they are, they expect monetary compensation.
They don't make 'em like they used to. But at least there's still nostalgia.
Black Christmas is a bit of a slow burn. Truth be told, it's a little boring in parts, and the kills are infrequent and mostly off-camera. Nevertheless, what it lacks in gore, it makes up for in ambiance and suspense. The killer's motive is never clearly revealed, nor is his identity, and the twist ending is more intriguing than a 70's horror movie really has the right to be. They don't make horror like that anymore. Now, suspense is usually defined as the time between ear-piercing sonic booms used to create cheap jump scares. Ambiance is created through dizzying quick cuts and flashy music video effects. (See the Nightmare On Elm Street Remake. Or rather, don't...)
My Bloody Valentine leaves you guessing as well. It's a mystery slasher, with a killer dressed head to toe in miner's gear; his face completely concealed under an oxygen mask, making his breathing part of the ambiance and suspense. The remake had boobies and 3-d pickaxes instead of suspense.
The Revenge of the Nerds movies combined comedy with an anti-stereotyping message. Granted, that message was watered down further and further with the sequels, to the point where part IV became nerds vs. yuppies. Then again, in order to present an anti-stereotyping message, they used stereotypes. Big time. From the meat headed, hate filled, short-fused football team, to the flamboyantly gay character of Lamar, complete with limp wrist and high pitched voice, to the football coach who's only concern in life is his image, which he upholds vicariously by leading the cool kids and throwing his weight around with the administration, and of course the nerds with their bad hygiene, love for technology, goofy mismatched clothes and nasally laughs. If they do remake Revenge of the Nerds, they'll have to face political correctness, which is gloriously absent from the original. More to the point, nerdom is en vogue now. Football players are looked down upon more than nerds are. And football players touching the hearts of their peers and earning their sympathy and respect doesn't seem likely.
And Beavis and Butthead... Well, it might still work. I can't conceptualize what the characters will do, assuming they've grown up since the original series. If they're the same, i.e. still in high school, still slackers, still amused by sexual puns and fart jokes, still working fast food and still under 21, it runs the risk of getting old. After all, Mike Judge decided to stop the show because he couldn't think of what they'd do after high school. Either he's had an epiphany, or it'll be more of the same. That's not so bad really, as I'm a fan of the show, but we've all grown up and matured. If the characters haven't, a new generation may come to appreciate them, but the long time fans might drop out. Re-watching the old episodes on Netflix accomplished two things: It reminded me how good the show was, when it was a complete episode, with music video commentary, and I was the right age to relate to the characters, as I too was immature and amused by dumb jokes and heavy metal videos, and it made me wish I had been smart enough to record the episodes from tv back in the day, as they'll never be released in their complete form due to all of the legal hoops involved. The best parts of the show, frankly, were the music video commentaries. They were all improvised, and they were often the funniest parts of an otherwise so-so episode. But oddly enough, when artists are made fun of, they're not as likely to agree to allowing their music videos to be used in the home video releases. And if they are, they expect monetary compensation.
They don't make 'em like they used to. But at least there's still nostalgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)