Kill your own f*cking television! Vol. 2

LOUIE

One area where television is currently completely kicking the ass of the movie industry is comedy. Sure, there's still plenty of mediocre sitcoms polluting the air waves but in this post Seinfeld/The Office era there's also a more than usual amount of smart, unique and innovative shows to choose from. "Parks and Recreation", "Community", "Bored To Death", "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia", "Eastbound and Down" and the still funny "Curb Your Enthusiasm" are just a few of the titles out there at the moment. Towering above them all as clearly the best in a strong field is FX's "Louie"

Starring, written, directed and edited by comedian Louis C.K., "Louie" is one of the purest examples of auteurism in any current medium. If you're not familiar with his work, Louis C.K. is one of the most successful and respected stand up comedians working today. His style is honest, acerbic, self-effacing, observational and confrontational. With George Carlin he shares a love of both language and the puncturing of pomposity and self importance combined with an almost Cosby like conversational style. His humor encapsulates all subjects from the meaning of life and death to fart and dick jokes, all equally funny. In the industry he's universally respected as a "comic's comic".

Despite his mastery of the stand up form he's had little success in film or television. He has directed many short films but his feature debut as a writer/director was the notorious "Pootie Tang". Now, by all reports "Pootie Tang" was a much interfered with production and was more or less taken away from him and re-cut into the form it exists today so he's not entirely to blame. To his credit, however, C.K. has not disowned the film entirely and admits that even if his version had survived it wouldn't have been anything like a great film, or even a very good one. He just wishes he'd been given the chance to succeed or fail on his own merit.

His next major project was "Lucky Louie" for HBO, a not entirely successful experiment in deconstructing the traditional sitcom format. Shot multi-camera, with old fashioned video tape on cheap looking sets in front of a live audience, "Lucky Louie" looked and felt very much like an old fashioned network sitcom, but it's subject matter was deliberately shocking and profane, laced with cursing and even nudity. Both audiences and critics were confused and turned off by the show's ugly aesthetic and willful vulgarity and it only lasted one season. Which is too bad because, despite it's off putting elements, "Lucky Louie" was often laugh out loud funny. More than that, it was, like C.K.'s stand up, almost painfully honest in it's portrayal of the difficulties of being married with a small child and not enough money. Louis and his TV wife Pamela Adlon were a great team and a believable couple as well, and happily she has shown up on the new FX show. Although I cannot bring myself to recommend "Pootie Tang" (which is not without interest but still a god awful mess) I absolutely do recommend "Lucky Louie" at least if my description doesn't turn you off.

On second thought, maybe it's for the best that "Lucky Louie" didn't succeed because it freed it's creator to spend the next few years further refining his comedic voice and allowing him to produce some of the best stand up of his career. It's from this newer, stronger comic perspective that "Louie" his brilliant new show emerged. It is forever to their credit that despite his shaky record in the medium the FX network basically gave C.K. carte blanche to do whatever he wanted within the agreed upon budget. The form and content of the show was up to him and him alone. This is almost unprecedented and has left more than a few of his contemporaries scratching their heads in wonder (and privately seething with envy I imagine).

So what is "Louie" anyway? Basically, it's a series of short films (usually two an episode, sometimes just one) with only the barest strand of continuity. Louis plays a sad sack version of himself, a single comedian and divorced father of two young girls and this is the one real constant throughout. Stand up performances are sprinkled throughout the episodes, somewhat like early Seinfeld, often commenting on or enhancing the filmed stories. This loose format allows C.K. as a writer to wildly vary the the tone of the comedy. It is often arduously realistic but can turn on a dime into absurdism or surrealism, it can be subtle or wildly exaggerated, it can be extremely vulgar, even offensive, but also poignant and sensitive. What this format lacks in cohesiveness or consistency it more than makes up for in invention and unpredictability. Over the course of thirteen episodes Louis is able to create as full and rich a comic universe as I've ever seen. On top of this it's one of the best directed and most cinematic shows, comedy or otherwise, currently in production, often resembling a low budget seventies film, and if you know me at all, you know what a profound compliment that is.

Series highlights for me would include, a humiliating encounter with a bully that takes a genuinely surprising and moving direction, a fall-on-the-ground funny cameo by Ricky Gervais as an offensive doctor, a chilling scene of Catholic school children being terrorized by a realistic description of the crucifixion, Louis' narcissistic Mother (who's portrayal is completely different in a later episode) coming out of the closet, any scene between Louis and Pamela Adlon as a single mom he befriends, Louis eviscerating a female heckler and a great scene where Louis and his friend comedian Nick Dipaolo come to blows over politics only to immediately become friends again when one of them is injured. Anyway, I could go on because it's all good. I don't exaggerate, the entire first season is great, every last episode. Last week the second season started and I'm happy to report it looks to be as strong as the first. The first episode was very good overall and contains one the the best and least gratuitous fart jokes ever recorded. Ya gotta see it.

I've often said that I'm far more of a comedy snob than a music snob. I really don't care what kind of music people listen to but it frustrates and angers me when people laugh at lazy, unfunny bullshit. In this era where between TV and the Internet we have a greater choice of quality comedy than we've ever had before, it pains me that the number one comedy in North America is the abysmal "Two and a Half Men". As a cable show with fairly edgy content, I know that "Louie" will never be able to rival a show like that but I hope, at least, that it manages to carve enough of a niche for itself that it stays around for a few more seasons. Also, when it does finally end I hope Louis C.K. is allowed to take what he's learned on this show and use it to make films. If he's given half a chance I think he could one day stand beside Woody Allen and Albert Brooks as one of the great modern comedy auteurs.

Anyway, kill your own f*cking television. I need mine to watch "Louie".

Me and Jim: A Literary Memoir for Bloomsday

"Welcome O life. I go to encounter for the millionth time the reality of experience and to forge in the smithy of my soul the uncreated conscience of my race." (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man)

When I'm asked, as I am on occasion, to name my favourite author and/or book, I always feel hesitant to answer. It's not because I don't know, am not sure or find the question foolish, although those are all perfectly legitimate positions. Rather I've grown used, over the years, to a certain incredulity in the questioner when I finally do answer. The unsaid feeling being that I'm being somehow pretentious, dishonest and self aggrandizing as if I was trying to one up the other person by choosing the most difficult and rarefied subject to admire
Admittedly, I'm probably just being neurotic but, still, it gives me pause. The answer, by the way, is easy for me and has been for some time. My favourite author is James Joyce and my favourite book is his epic adventure of the everyday, "Ulysses".

I suppose I should include some kind of biographical sketch of Joyce but, I'll be honest, that would be boring and I'm too lazy, so click here thank you:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce
Good enough? Okay then.

"His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of our last end, upon all the living and the dead."  (The Dead).

Lets back up a bit. In preparation for this post I've been trying to remember exactly when I first become aware of James Joyce. I remember that "Ulysses" was the answer to a Trivial Pursuit question but I don't think that was it. Actually, somewhere in my teens I became fascinated by Ireland and all things Irish although I'm not sure where or when that began either . I remember being struck by the physical beauty of the country in Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and that was definitely part of it, but it's clear to me that the greatest factor influencing my Irish obsession was the music of The Pogues.

A quarter century after discovering them The Pogues remain at the top of my favourite all time bands, particularly the albums, 'Red Roses For Me",  "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" and "If I Should Fall From Grace With God". Their songs, mostly written by lead singer Shane MacGowan, are filled with references to Irish history, mythology and literature performed with a punk sensibility fused with traditional Irish instrumentation. Great stuff, can't recommend it enough, and it solidified my decades long obsession with all things Irish. Joyce actually appears on the cover of their third album, the great "If I Should Fall from Grace With God".

Now parallel to this I'm sure I'd read at least some Joyce, perhaps selections from "Dubliners" or a first attempt at "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and I can pinpoint exactly the individual work and the surrounding circumstances that made me an admirer. It was reading "The Dead", late into the night one Christmas Eve. "The Dead" if you don't know, is the last piece in "Dubliners" a lengthy, rambling story centred around a Christmas Eve dinner party attended by Dublin artists and intellectuals. Like all the stories in "Dubliners" it is not driven by narrative but by the astute observation of character and behaviour and by the uniquely Irish (or better, the uniquely Dubliner) flow of conversation. It is also a masterpiece, one of the greatest short stories ever written. I'm not going to discuss the plot but I will say that the last few pages contain some of the most beautiful prose in the English language. I was engrossed in the story anyway but the concluding passages, an extended meditation on love and death, were transporting. Alone in my bedroom I was moved to tears (and I'm not an easy cry, or at least I wasn't then) and still get goosebumps thinking about it. Joyce and I (I call him Jim) have been pretty close ever since.

"(A writer is) a priest of eternal imagination, transmuting the daily bread of existence into the radiant body of everlasting life" (Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man)

After the rapture of "The Dead" it was definitely time to reattempt Joyce's great autobiographical novel; "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man". I remember being primarily struck by the early passages about the young hero Stephen Dedalus' struggles at school as they were moving and easy to identify with. Needless to say the subtleties of Irish politics and history were largely lost on me and were aspects I would only learn to appreciate later. Another vivid passage is a sermon on hell that appears late in the book, terrifying and vivid even to a non-believer like myself. 
There where however, several passages, particularly a complex discussion on aesthetics during Stephen's college years that were baffling to me. This was frustrating because, in the arrogance of youth, I had a relatively high opinion of my intellect and reading level at the time and it was more than a little humbling to discover how little I knew or understood. So amongst the many other valuable things I learned from Jim was a sense of humility, an important and underrated aspect of being a serious student, or for that matter a reader, of literature.
Needless to say, I've re-read "Portrait..." many times over the years and my appreciation of it has grown alongside my increased knowledge of Irish history and politics and the particulars of Joyce's own life , as well as my own life experience. It's one of my favourite books and one I'm happy to recommend to almost anyone.

"The supreme question about a work of art is out of how deep a life does it spring. Paintings of Moreau are paintings of ideas. The deepest poetry of Shelley, the words of Hamlet bring our minds into contact with eternal wisdom; Plato's world of ideas. All the rest is the speculation of schoolboys for schoolboys." (Ulysses)

"Oh rocks!' says Molly Bloom, drumming her fingers in impatience. 'Tell us in plain words." (Ulysses)

So now we come to the reason behind this rambling and self absorbed post. Today is June 16th, so Happy Bloomsday! June 16th 1904 is the day on which James Joyce's great masterpiece "Ulysses" takes place.  All over Dublin today, but especially in Sandymount, people are celebrating the life, work and characters of James Joyce, particularly, of course, those of "Ulysses". June 16th 1904 was also the day on which Joyce met the great love of his life Nora Barnacle, the woman who would be his companion for the rest of his life, so it's safe to say that the date was not chosen at random.

"Ulysses" has dozens of memorable characters but it focuses primarily on three, Stephen Dedalus, returning from "Portrait..", Leopold Bloom, a lower middle class advertising agent of Jewish extraction and Molly Bloom, his earthy, sensuous wife. Bloom is the "Ulysses" of the title and it's his day long peregrinations (his "Odyssey") that make up the bulk of the novel's narrative. Stephen serves as a sort of Telemachus as he wanders a parallel course around Dublin and Molly is a bawdy, witty and adulterous Penelope.

The simplest narrative imaginable is given the the most complex treatment. Every chapter corresponds to an incident from "The Odyssey" of Homer, has it's own symbol as well as being symbolic of organs of the body, various disciplines of the arts and  a specific literary technique. The style of writing changes from chapter to chapter from relatively straightforward prose, to stream of consciousness, script (play form), catechism, newspaper headlines to complex pastiches of mythical and biblical speech, pulp fiction and in one chapter (Golden Oxen of the Sun), the entirety of English literature.

It's all this that gives the novel it's intimidating reputation and I'm not going to deny that it's a challenging read. I've read it several times and have even listened to a very good audio version and I'm certain that I have not gotten every allusion or enjoyed every nuance. If one approaches the book (or any book) as a test, the chances are you will not enjoy it, you'll resent and abandon it as a self indulgent piece of intellectual noodling. This would be a great pity because of all the books I've ever read, not only is it one of the most impressive and important but it's also one of the most fun.

First of all, it's a hilarious book. It's filled with the complex and witty wordplay true, but that sits comfortably alongside, corny puns, physical and scatological humor and the unique comic voice of the city of Dublin and it's denizens. For me the comic highlight is the chapter "Cyclops" in which Bloom is confronted by a drunken, anti-Semitic Irish nationalist. The chapter bounces back and forth between the point of view of a smart alec observer of the incident and a mock heroic narration in the style of ancient Irish myth, culminating in a pseudo biblical passage in which the triumphant Bloom ascends to heaven:

"And there came a voice out of heaven, calling Elijah! Elijah! And he answered with a main cry: Abba! Adonai! And they beheld Him even Him, ben Bloom Elijah, amid clouds of angels ascend to the glory of the brightness at an angle of fortyfive degrees over Donohoes's in Little Green Street like a shot off a shovel."
 
Even more than the humor however, what I love about "Ulysses" is it's in-your-face humanity. All of the literary genius and mastery of language would amount to nothing if Joyce didn't populate the novel with living, breathing human beings with all the faults and foibles that entails. Bloom is one of the great figues of literature not because he's brave or strong (although he is after a fashion) but because he's decent. As a husband, a father , a son and a breadwinner, he's everything a man can really be and more. He's not perfect, with a predilection towards voyeurism and an overall preoccupation with matters sexual, but he is unfailingly kind and empathetic, even to those who despise him.
Then there's his wife, one of the great women of literature. We should hate Molly for her unfaithfulness but we don't. If anything we understand (without actually approving) her needs and frustrations both personal and sexual. She's so funny and honest it's as easy for us to forgive her transgressions as it is for Bloom himself. The last chapter of the book "Penelope" is her internal monologue and it's a tour de force of writing, arguably the best in the book.  I would never presume to say that Joyce completely understood women, but he certainly understood Molly Bloom  (as well he should since she was based on Nora).

Other favourite chapters of mine include the opening chapter "Telemachus" which reintroduces us to Stephen Dedalus and spells out his current dilemma (in the words of the Clash "should I stay or should I go"), "Wandering Rocks", portraying various characters and their interactions, "Nausicaa" in which a voyeuristic encounter between Bloom and a pretty young women is rendered in a style aping pulp romance novels and "Sirens" the most musical chapter of the book, even including an an onomatopoeic overture.

For the record, for me the most difficult chapter by far is "Golden Oxen of the Sun". I always have to take it a page at a time as the style changes every few sentences and it seems to be written for maximum obfuscation. "Circe" written in the form of a play is also tough because of it's aggressively hallucinatory content but it's also very funny and fun to read. I've often wondered if an ambitious theatre director has ever produced it for the stage. I'll bet it's happened. I've seen "Penelope" produced as a one woman show called 'Molly" and it was brilliant!

Anyway, this is getting long and I'd really like to post it on Bloomsday, so I should wrap it up.  If you take nothing else away from what I've written here let it be this; don't be intimidated by Joyce and "Ulysses". By all means read "Dubliners" and "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" first. If you don't care for those, fair enough, no writer, no matter how great, is for everybody. However, if you do enjoy those, you must attempt "Ulysses'. Don't worry about getting every nuance, try to enjoy the language and spending time with the characters, Hopefully that will be enough.

Before I go, I have a confession. Even though Joyce is my favourite writer, I have never successfully completed his last, and some say his greatest, novel "Finnegan's Wake". It's combination of wordplay, literary, historical and mythical allusion and dream logic just completely defeats me. I'm literally not knowledgeable enough to read it. I have listened to some very old audio recording of Joyce reading from it and did enjoy the musicality of his reading but that's the best I've managed. Ah well, maybe someday when I have the time to read it side by side with a book of annotations, but until then I'll leave it alone.

Well, I hope this has been fun to read and has adequately explained why Joyce is so important to me. Some of my other favourite writers include, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Leo Tolstoy, Honore de Balzac, William Faulkner, Vladimir Nabokov and Cormac McCarthy and I may write about all of them in the future. I would never presume however, to call any of them by their first name

Happy Bloomsday!

PS - A word about the photos. All these were taken during a trip I took with my wife, to Ireland in 2009. The first one is me with the statue of Joyce on O'Connel Street in the heart of Dublin, the second is a casting of Joyce's death mask from the James Joyce museum in the Martello Tower at Sandymount, the third is me with the bust of Joyce in St. Stephen's Green, the fourth is the Martello Tower in Sandymount, the setting for the opening scenes of "Ulysses" and the home of The James Joyce Museum and the last is me raising a pint of Guinness to my friend Jim in Davey Byrne's Pub which appears in the '"Lestrygonians" chapter of "Ulysses".

Thanks

Still Alive

Hi Everybody,

Sorry about the delay in finishing my BBS post. I've been surprisingly active the last couple of weeks and it's kept me off the computer. I also confess to feeling a little bit uninspired to write and, wanting to give the remaining films in the set equal attention and devotion, I decided to put off the review until I felt more engaged with the topic.
yeah, I know, weak excuse but It's my blog so what are you going to do about it?

Also, I have a special post I'm planning on posting sometime tomorrow afternoon, on a subject that never fails to fascinate me.
See you then.

AMERICA LOST AND FOUND: THE BBS STORY Blu Ray Review Part 1

If I had to choose a favourite era of American Film it would have to be the late sixties through the seventies. It was of course, a time of transition for movies and America as a whole. Confused and out of touch film executives found themselves with no choice but to put their faith in a new generation of artists if they hoped to remain viable. This gave birth to new contemporary cinema inspired by the great auteurs of Europe to be both personally and politically radical. For a brief time, the director was king and the mandate was to create great art, not just great box-office (although that was and always will be a factor).

Amongst this new found talent were producer Bert Schneider and producer/director Bob Rafelson who joined with the more experienced Steve Blauner in 1968 to form BBS productions. Rafelson and Schneider had scored with "The Monkees" TV show and it was this success that provided the momentum for them to form their own company. Over the next few years BBS would produce only seven films and the folks at Criterion have been ambitious enough to collect them all into one remarkable box-set. The films range from iconic classics to dated curiosities but all are worth at least a viewing.

The title of this post is a bit misleading. The set, which I purchased on Blu Ray, includes many worthwhile extras and I will be mentioning a few of them but overall this will be a discussion of the films, not the discs.

So without further rambling, The BBS Story.

HEAD   (1968)

In what must have seemed a no-brainer the first film Rafelson/Schneider produced was a vehicle for The Monkees that Rafelson would direct as his first feature film. Rafelson wrote the script with an actor friend of his who'd been kicking around Hollywood for a while with little success named Jack Nicholson. For those who might not know, The Monkees were an ersatz pop band created for a TV show intended to cash in on The Beatles and their success in such film as "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help". The members were Mike Nesmith, Davy Jones, Peter Tork and Micky Dolenz, all likable young men and the show was surprisingly fun and creative and quite popular. The studio bosses must have been very happy at the prospect of a fun, frothy romp aimed at the lucrative youth market, particularly teenage girls. How shocked they must have been!

What they received was a genuinely subversive piece of free form psychedelia in which the members of The Monkees mocked themselves and their prefabricated celebrity in a series of stream of consciousness sketches. These included movie parody, commercial satire and fourth wall breaking non-sequiters tied together with some surprisingly strong music. Bizarre cameos include, Annette Funicello, Sonny Liston, wild man character actor Timothy Carey, blink-and-you'll-miss-them shots of Jack Nicholson and Dennis Hopper and Hollywood veteran Victor Mature as a kind of tanned, greasy haired god figure.

Needless to say, the film baffled studio execs and alienated it's intended audience. It exists today as a cult film and a genuine relic of it's era. So is it still worth watching? I would give it a qualified yes. As I stated before, it is an act of subversion and a much more radical piece of film than ever could have been expected of a Monkees vehicle. The members of the band equate themselves well, gleefully torpedoing their squeaky clean carefully marketed images and the songs, while dated, are quite listenable, written by the likes of Carole King and Harry Nilsson. The problem is it's not funny. This sort of loose collection of satirical and absurdist scenes would succeed wonderfully for artists as diverse as Luis Bunuel and the members of Monty Python but here it falls flat. The overall tone of "Head" is bitter and pretentious with no real joy or anarchic revelry.

An interesting cultural artifact with several reasons to recommend it "Head" is too inconsistent to be called a success. However, it did establish Bob Rafelson and Bert Schneider as fearless young talent with a taste for pushing the boundaries of American film both thematically and aesthetically. Their next film would change everything.

EASY RIDER  (1969)

Well you've all heard of "Easy Rider". It's one of the most important and influential films ever made. It's success led the way for a new cinema in America, a radical and politically committed cinema that spoke to a generation that old Hollywood could not and would not even try to understand. It mainstreamed methods and techniques inspired by the European art cinema of the day. It was a brave, original work of art that challenged and blew away all pre-conceieved notions of what a hit film had to be.
Why then, have I never been able to completely embrace it?

First things first. "Easy Rider" starred and was conceived by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. They wrote the screenplay with some assistance from the great Terry Southern (who provided the title) and Hopper directed. It told the story of Wyatt (also known as Captain America) and Billy, a couple of bikers who, after making a big drug score, take a  road trip across the southwestern united states on their tricked out motorcycles. Along the way they have positive encounters with simple working people, hippies, artists and various other counterculture figures along with experiencing violent hatred and prejudice from small town bigots and rednecks.

The film was originally intended as a project for Roger Corman's AIP, where both actors had already scored some success with biker or drug films intended for the drive-in circuit. When Corman passed (one of the few times his commercial instincts failed him) it was snatched up by BBC who would produce with Columbia Pictures distributing. It was produced for a budget of around 400 thousand dollars and grossed in it's first run almost 20 million.

There is much to admire about "Easy Rider". The cinematography by Laszlo Kovacs is stunning. Virtuoso camera operation (often from a moving vehicle) combined with flawless composition gives the film a suitably iconic look and feel. The soundtrack is full of great songs by the likes of Steppenwolf, The Byrds, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan all utilized for maximum effect. It's perhaps the first mainstream film to directly portray the American counterculture of the time and at least try to understand where it was coming from. The acting is mostly hit and miss (more about that later) but it does contain at least one great star making performance from Jack Nicholson as small town lawyer George Hanson, who joins our heroes on the road. This is the birth of the Nicholson we all know and should love, sly, funny, charismatic, eccentric and perceptive. I think I'm right in saying that he's the character that most who watch the film can most successfully identify with. I know when I watch "Easy Rider" he's aways the part of the film I enjoy the most.
Getting back to my earlier question though, why don't I like this film all that much?

Here's the thing, I think I've stated pretty clearly what's good about the film and why it's important. None of this however, changes the fact that this is a haphazardly conceived film that dates very badly. The screenplay, such as it is, was largely improvised by the actors while stoned and it sounds like it, being often tedious and nonsensical, especially when they're trying to be profound. Neither main character is particularly interesting, Fonda says almost nothing while Hopper chatters continually somehow managing to say even less. The fact that the bikers are unashamedly portrayed as drug dealers is kind of brave on one level but plays into conservative stereotypes that link the counterculture inextricably with drug culture. The few female characters are vapid and readily available for casual sex confirming yet another negative stereotype, the "easy" hippie chick. The film makes a big deal about Fonda's character throwing away his watch symbolising their freedom even from time itself, but the Hopper character is constantly harping on the fact that they only have a few days to get to New Orleans fro Mardi Gars. Once they get to Mardi Gras we have to endure an unwatchable "acid trip" scene that's dull, pretentious and laughable at the same time. Lastly and most importantly, other than a disdain for the crudest forms of prejudice, this film has, despite it's reputation, zero political content. That needn't be a problem but this film was clearly meant to be a political statement of some kind. Beyond, "rednecks suck and hippies are incompetent" I have no idea what that could be.

Okay, perhaps I'm being too harsh. The fact is, the runaway success of "Easy Rider" was instrumental in ushering in this period of cinema I love so much. For that, at least, I will always be grateful and appreciative of Fonda, Hopper and BBS's achievement.

Next: BBS has it's first masterpiece, plus two minorpieces.

THOR, MUTHUF*CKA!

The book shown above was published in 1976 when I was _ years old and was my favourite comic book for a long time. I'm sure I must have read and reread it until the cover fell off and well afterwards. It was one of a series of huge over-sized re-print volumes marvel released at the time (I had an F.F. one as well) so the splash pages were way bigger than my head, all the better to enjoy the genius of Jack Kirby. If you've never experienced the work of the King in his prime you're really missing out. The bold graphics pop with detail and pulse with an energy unmatched before and rarely equalled after. I'm talking about pages like this:

or this:

See what I mean?
Anyway, the point I'm taking the long way to get around to is this. If I thought for a moment that Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" film was going to come anywhere near the epic epicness (that's a word if I say it is) of these comic book pages, I would have been much more excited these past few months.
Well, now I've seen the film, 3D and all,  and I'm happy to say that it may not quite be Kirby but it manages to come a lot closer than I would have thought.

The early scenes of "Thor" will be the real test to separate the long term from the casual fan. To his credit Branagh, his designers and his special effects team have actually managed to create a world combining sparkling  mythical grandeur with the over the top pop-kitsch sensibility of a golden age marvel comic.You will either find this all incredibly silly or kind of thrilling. I chose to channel my younger self who so loved that above mentioned comic book and be thrilled by the silliness of it all. If you're able to do the same, you should enjoy "Thor".

The film's story is pretty rudimentary and suffers from what I call "origin-itus". It's mostly set up with not as much pay off as I would have liked. However, it does echo Stan Lee's original concept. Thor the Asgardian god of thunder is sent to earth (or "Midgard") to learn humility and inadvertently becomes a super-hero. Along the way he falls for a human woman (Natalie Portman) encounters S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and has to deal with the treachery of his brother Loki. Despite being plot and exposition heavy it moves at a good pace and certainly delivers on a summer blockbuster level.

The cast is very good. Chris Hemsworth is a terrific hero, as good at fish out of water comedy as heroics, Anthony Hopkins is a fine Odin, although he's not exactly tested by the role and Tom Hiddleston is very strong as Loki, arguably the most interesting character in the film, a villain with complex motives for his actions. On the human side Stellan Skarsgaard, Kat Dennings and Natalie Portman are all good in, again, non-demanding roles. I know a lot of this sounds like faint praise but they are all very likable. If the film gets a sequel, it would be nice to see the characters developed further.

So I admit that "Thor" is not a home run like the first "Iron Man" or the second "Spider-Man" film but it should please fans of the character (like me) and entertain summer audiences. I wasn't blown away, but I did smile throughout, and that'll do.

Oh, one more thing. DO NOT SEE "THOR" IN 3D!! It's a conversion so it frequently looks flat and (ironically) two-dimensional. Also, some of the best action sequences take place in a dimly lit environment, which would have been okay except that they are made even more dim by those damn glasses. I cannot emphasize this enough. Do not support bad 3D!

Thanks.

Kill your own f*cking television! Vol. 1

I admit it, I watch too much television. As a society we watch too much television. Television has, in many ways, had a pernicious influence on the way we live, what we believe and even how we think. That being said, do you realize how much really great work is being produced for TV these days? We're in a golden age of storytelling the like of which has not been seen since the early days of live broadcasting.

Of course you wouldn't guess it looking at the antiquated rating system currently dominated by mediocre sitcoms, boring police procedurals and so-called "reality" shows. It's this crap (combined with the shallow circus tactics of 24 hour cable news) that still makes it easy for lazy cultural commentators to smugly dismiss television as a vapid wasteland for non-thinkers. Well, if you think that, you're not paying attention, and haven't been for some time.

The cable boom has produced, since the late nineties up to the present, a meteoric rise in the quality of scripted programming that has even had an effect on the networks, forcing them to at least occasionally, take a chance on something risky. HBO would be the primary leader with shows like "Six Feet Under", "Deadwood", the magnificent "The Wire" and of course "The Sopranos", each one innovative, challenging and original in it's own way and in the case of "The Sopranos" a genuine cultural phenomenon. Of course, other cable networks took the hint with shows like "The Shield" (FX) or"Battlestar Galactica" (Sci-Fi) and even the networks produced some quality innovative programming like "Arrested Development" (Fox) or (whatever you think of it) "Lost" (ABC).

The good news is, the trend continues, and what I want to do with this series of posts is celebrate what I think are some of the best shows currently in production. Some of them are already very popular and don't really need any help from me, but I'd like to talk about them anyway. Originally,  I was going to write one big mega-post covering all my favourites but instead, I'm only going to take them on one at a time, the better to focus my energies. Hopefully this will be a regular feature of this blog. Anyway, the first show I want to discuss is:

TREME

Complex, angry, heartbreaking and beautiful there is nothing else like "Treme" anywhere on tv or, sadly, in the movies. Producer David Simon had a hard act to follow with "The Wire" and along with co-creator Eric Overmeyer I think he's come up with a more than worthy successor. Like "The Wire" this is a multi-character and storyline drama that attempts to paint a portrait of an entire city. On "The Wire" it was Baltimore on "Treme" it is post-Katrina New Orleans, a city and a culture almost eradicated by a combination of natural disaster, governmental incompetence and national indifference.

Although, similar in structure to "The Wire", "Treme" lacks the central crime procedural element, focusing instead on the character's relationships to the city itself and their efforts to rebuild their lives. To portray this, the producers have assembled one of the best casts in the history of the medium. There's Khandi Alexander as bar owner Ladonna, torn between the city she loves and her new family in Baton Rouge, "Wire" veteran and New Orleans native Wendell Pierce as her ex-husband Antione a talented but at best semi-employed musician,  Oscar winner Melissa Leo as Toni, a lawyer at odds with New Orleans authority, John Goodman as her husband Creighton a college professor raging against government indifference, Kim Dickens as Jeannette, a struggling chef, Steve Zahn as Davis, her sometimes boyfriend, a part-time musician/ex DJ equal parts charming and deeply irritating, Michiel Huisman and Luicia Micarelli as street musicians Sonny and Annie (the least interesting characters on the show I'm afraid), Rob Brown as Delmond, a successful jazz trumpeter drawn back to his hometown despite his best efforts and another "Wire" vet Clarke Peters as his father "Big Chief" Albert Lambreaux the leader of a tribe of Mardi Gras Indians determined to maintain that tradition at all costs.

If any character is the symbolic heart of the series it's Albert Lambreaux, a proud, severe and stubborn man struggling to preserve the culture that defines him. Mardi Gras Indians, if you don't know, are groups (tribes) of African Americans (until recently entirely men) who dress up and parade in elaborate costumes inspired by, and in tribute to, the historical connection between Native Americans and escaped slaves. Actually as you can see from this picture of Clarke Peters in full costume, elaborate is an understatement.

The reason this seemingly strange tradition is so vitally important to this man is never articulated verbally but is apparent nonetheless in the palpable sense of history and community he and his tribe possess. It is precisely this sense of history and particularly community that defines this series as a whole. Whereas "The Wire" was primarily concerned with crime and politics, "Treme" is all about the culture.

There is more than enough sadness and pain to go around in "Treme", and it is often heartbreaking, but never depressing because alongside all the suffering is an equal amount of pride, defiance and pure unadulterated joy. No TV show known to me is as alive as "Treme" as it dives into all the aspects of New Orleans culture that make it unlike any other city in the U.S., or the world for that matter. It's all there, the food, the crumbling but still beautiful architecture, the racial diversity, the breathtaking Mardi Gras Indians and most especially the music. Traditional and modern Jazz, Cajun  & Creole, Country, Blues, Brass Band and a uniquely New Orleans form of Hip Hop known as Bounce all are all thrillingly presented (and mostly recorded live) and make "Treme" the most spectacularly musical show on TV. This alone is enough for a highest recommendation.

I will say, if you decide to give "Treme" a try be prepared to give it at least three episodes. This is a show more concerned with character and setting than plot. The story is there but it emerges gradually, like a novel or a classic Robert Altman film. If you have the patience for it, this is the most rewarding series currently being produced for American television, and that's saying a lot.

Well I hope that inspires somebody out there to give "Treme" a look.
I think the next show in this series of posts will either be FX's "Louie" or the new "Doctor Who". Until then, kill your own fucking television!
I need mine to watch "Treme".

Mom

I lost my Mother very suddenly. I was awoken early on a Sunday morning (sick as a dog with stomach flu) with news of her heart attack and by the time I went to sleep that night she was gone. I wasn't able to say"good bye" or "I love you" or to tell her any of the things I wanted to that day. It didn't seem real and it still doesn't.

When my 14 year old cat died I could cry freely and then move on, that was just a pet. In the days following my Mother's passing, I shed tears but fewer than I would have thought. There was too much to do, too many other people to deal with and besides I never wanted to move on. I still don't.

I'm not talking about some morbid denial of the facts, I'm talking about something positive and sustaining. My Mother remains a real presence in my life and will until the day I die. My life and how I live it are expressions of my upbringing. How could they not be? I'm trying to avoid platitudes here, but I am the man I am today because I grew up never doubting for a moment that I was loved.

It's easy, and entirely appropriate, to say "I Love You" on Mother's Day and I certainly would if I could. In retrospect, however, the thing I wish I'd said more often is "Thank You".  To any of you out there who still have the opportunity to say this, do so today.
For that matter, say it as often as you can.

Thank you Mom.