Division Shadow Now Available

The first issue of the comic I've been working on for a while is finally out, and you can order it here. I wrote the book and I'm self publishing it. It's been a bit annoying to have to pay for and do all the work to get the book out, but it's rewarding too. It's a story I believe in and really wanted to tell, and if I'm going to work on anything, it might as well be that. I first came up with the story three years ago, so it's been a long journey to print, with a lot of starts and stops, but we're zipping along now, and the remaining five issues should be released monthly.

So, if you've read my reviews and said don't criticize something until you've done it yourself, well now I have, so if nothing else, this earns me the right to critique other peoples' work. You can get more information at www.divisionshadow.com and also read a thirteen page preview here. I think it's a cool book, perhaps you will too.

Last Days

The last review I did was of Domino, a film I praised for its absurdly quick cutting and constant visual stimulation. So, it's a big jump to this review, of Gus Van Sant's Last Days, a film that is extremely minimalistic, dwelling on the most mundane everyday things to build a unique atmosphere.

Last Days is the follow up to Van Sant's Elephant, a film I loved. Both films feature very little in the way of a traditional plot and are primarily about building a world and feeling that the characters inhabit. Elephant was a bit more focused, since everything led up to a big event at the end. Last Days also builds to something, but it's not as clear or impactful an ending.

It was widely noted in the press surrounding the film's release that the last days of the title are Kurt Cobain's, and knowing at least something about Kurt's life is essential to understanding the film. I suppose you could figure it out, but at no point in the film do they explicitly say that this guy is a huge rock star, or that his fame is likely the reason for the ennui he's experiencing now. I did some reading on Cobain after seeing the film, and it's made things a lot clearer, but the film itself gives you very little understanding of the circumstances of what's going on. Normally I'd say go into a film completely fresh, but this is one where some outside information is helpful. I think it might have been wise to give a bit more exposition on who this guy is and why he's feeling the way he does, but with the film there's a conscious decision to avoid the typical biopic structure, meaning that if you bring the information you need, this can go a lot deeper than a traditional biopic, because it's more about putting you in this guy's headspace than trying to convey objective facts.

The film's got a lot of funny moments, mainly playing on the mundanity of everyday life. I love Blake making mac and cheese and dumping the cheese pack into the water, or when Blake is having cereal and accidentally puts the cereal back in the fridge instead of the milk. Similarly, the awkward conversation with the yellow pages guy and the Mormons are highlights. Particularly with the yellow pages guy, it's unclear why Blake is placing an ad, or if this store even exists, but the scene itself is strangely compelling. It's the only time in the entire film that we see someone coaxing Blake out of his self imposed mental cocoon and out into the real world.

In the entire film Blake speaks about three intelligible lines, most of the time he's just mumbling and we can barely understand him. This is annoying at first, but once you realize that the narrative is irrelevant, it becomes clear that the way he's saying things is more important than what he's saying. The entire film gives you this weird feeling of living this shiftless life, functioning at a distance from the outside world. So, the most powerful moments come when Blake comes into contact with regular people, as in the afforementioned yellow pages scene, or notably the scene with Kim Gordon, who calls him out on his lifestyle. That's the most emotionally affecting scene in the piece. Another really interesting scene is when Blake wanders into the town and goes to the rock club.

I think the film's biggest problem is that, other than Blake, we really don't know who anyone is. In Elephant there was a huge cast, but they all played off of archetypes, here there's just a bunch of random people. It's unclear whether they're in the band or just his friends. One of them looks a lot like Dave Grohl, and I doubt that's coincidence, but the phone call early in the film seems to imply that his band is somewhere else. So, the scenes with these people are difficult to decipher, and generally end up as strands without meaning. You see this guy listening to 'Venus in Furs,' but there's no meaning beyond that. It's just the surface of things. I suppose the point is to show Blake's distance from the people in his life, but it's all kind of unclear.

The film isn't entertaining in the traditional sense, or even something particularly thought provoking, it's more like going on a drug trip, entering this alien headspace for a while. You're not sure exactly what's going on, but there's an odd feeling about everything going on. However, the film is a bit self indulgent and actively confronts the viewer with long shots of essentially nothing, and countless diversions from the barely there main point.

In the end, it's not like everything came together, but the image of Blake's soul leaving his body is striking, and provides an apt conclusion for things. Stuff just happens and we caught some of the end of this man's life. Is the film a success? It certainly acheives what it sets out to do, but I think more could have been done with the premise, without turning it into a conventional narrative. Van Sant's minimalism is so concrete as to alienate the viewer. It's not a good thing when you have to turn to wikipedia afterwards to understand the basic premise of the movie.

But still, it works as a completely unique cinematic experience. I finished the film and wasn't emotionally affected, but I felt different, I remained in that odd state of mind after the film was done, that's a powerful piece of cinema.

Domino

Domino has gotten some of the worst reviews of any film that's come out recently, but these reviews were interesting in the way that they seemed to contain a vehement anger at the film, and a film that creates this sort of anger usually means it at least tries something different. The Fog may have gotten worse reviews, but I didn't see anyone claiming it was a nadir of cinematic expression. And all these awful reviews seemed to point out the things that made the trailer so great as the flaws of the film, so I went to see the film, and ended up loving it. This film is a hyper-kinetic pop art object in which narrative and character are rendered completely irrelevant and the shooting and editing of the film itself becomes the primary attraction.

There's a lot of films out there that end up being awful, but are able to string together a great two minute trailer. XXX was one of these, very quick editing, cool looking characters and a lot of excess. Compressed into two minutes, it was a cool experience. Spread out over two hours, not so much. Domino never relents from that trailer pace, the film may set a new record for average shots per minute, there's an unbelievable number of cuts and nearly every shot is moving. This makes the film an incredible rush, and lends an energy to every scene.

This film is much closer to an art film than a mainstream film, in the sense that the joy is more in the construction than the narrative itself. The opening scenes that convey Domino's journey from troubled youth to bounty hunter are the only particularly interesting character work. From there on, the film follows a fairly standard heist plot. If you shoot this differently, it could have the relaxed flow of Ocean's Twelve, or more likely end up as just a conventional thriller that's ok, but nothing special. Domino is a film unlike anything else I've seen, and for that alone I can respect it.

Domino is almost always backed by music, and that music determines the rhythm of the scenes. Even in dialogue scenes, there's almost constant cutting and you end up watching the cutting more than the action. I'm not saying that every film should be like this, I can respect the slow pace of a film like In the Mood For Love, but the medium can do this, and it's riveting to watch the construction of the movie and its total saturation of visual extravagence.

Thus, it's tough to write about the film from a traditional narrative context. The story doesn't convey the experience of watching the movie, it becomes something else entirely. I think Keira Knightley's good in the movie, anchoring everything, but the star is really the style. The opening credits alone are more exciting than most films, with the great spiralling dominoes and crazy 70s music. The movie constantly goes so far over the top, you can't believe it. The Jerry Springer sequence is so ridiculous, you've got to laugh at it. And the quick cutting makes it even more funny, because this ridiculous sequence is being propelled at such speed. The Tom Waits appearance is another bizarre one, and the intercutting with the image of Jesus makes it even more over the top. By the end of the film, I thought there was nowhere left to go, but the shootout in the tower outshone everything else with its sheer excess.

I guess what makes the film so good is that it really uses the medium. You couldn't do this in a book, it's uniquely cinematic. When I was teaching the workshop this summer, I presented the theory that the visual in film should be engaging on its own terms, apart from the narrative. Basically, your shot shouldn't just show the character talking to forward the story, it should show the talking in an interesting way. The best films are the ones that feature a great visual style and narrative.

So, this theory would be a rebuke to the traditional idea of invisible film construction, the idea that the authorial hand should not be present in the film. I think watching a film that is a marvel of visual construction is just as invigorating as watching a well told story. The best films combine the two, and perhaps the best fusion is the kind exhibited by Magnolia, which uses the medium so well, but also tells a story that's brilliant on its own terms.

Domino focuses almost entirely on the visual style part of film, with the narrative occasionally getting lost. Most Hollywood films are all about the narrative, and at this point, it has to be a pretty amazing story to get by with a weak visual style. If the visual style was toned down, Domino wouldn't be a particularly special movie. I've seen a ton of good, but unremarkable movies in the crime genre.

However, by choosing to move completely away from narrative and embrace the visual style part of film so thoroughly, Scott creates a film that's more like a pop art object. You watch the film, but don't really engage with the characters. And yet, the film is so fun to watch, that doesn't matter. When Domino's comrades fall, she picks up two machine guns and fires on some advancing mobsters, choosing to kill for the first time. In a typical film, this would be an agonizing moral decision, and the payoff of the revenge would be the focus of the scene. That's there in Domino, but it's beneath the surface, the focus of the scene is on the visual spectacle of Keira with the guns, and on showing that from as many angles as possible.

In some respects, the film recalls Wong Kar-Wai's mid 90s hyperpop period, and Scott makes extensive use of the so called 'Chungking effect,' messing with the shutter speed. WKW used the stylistic excess of those films to display the emotions of the characters. Scott doesn't really do that here, it's just about the editing, and quite frankly, I think that's enough.

Now, you may say, what about your review of Batman Begins, where I said:

we'd need Batman to be in some physical danger, and we don't get that either, or more accurately, we can't tell if he is because of the way the fight is edited. You have no clue what's going on because cuts are used to convey action rather than the actors actually fighting. The best action scenes rely on us knowing exactly what's going and being able to easily follow things. Look at the lightsaber duel in The Phantom Menace, wide shots make it easy to follow the action. Here, it's all quick cuts and then somehow Batman has won, we don't know how. But, that's not just this movie, it's a problem with many action movies today.

So, how do I reconcile that commment with what I'm saying about Domino? Here's the difference, Batman Begins is a staid film that wallows in gray muck. It uses quick cutting, but this follows a traditionally edited film, and is accompanied by boring score. So, the quick cutting doesn't fit into the world the film has constructed. I would argue that for quick cutting to be successful, it has to be tied to music or heavy sound design, making it rhythmic rather than random. Batman Begins isn't a very pop movie, it's a heavy, oppressive thing, and as a result, you want a heavy, brutal fight, not a bunch of edits. Domino is a pop construction, and a result, the editing fits. You don't really care about the character, you're not supposed to, so let's just show things in as cool a way as possible. Batman Begins is worlds away from cool. Also I'd argue Domino's fight scenes, even with the extreme cutting, are still more intelligible than what we got in Begins, and a lot more enjoyable.

All that said, yes, there's parts of the story that don't work. The ironic use of celebrities, as with Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green, just isn't funny anymore, and considering the possibilities of the character, the fact that the story is such a conventional action structure seems like a missed opportunity. However, the film moves so fast, you can easily ignore the flaws and just revel in what is onscreen. It's a crazy, hyper-pop film art object that makes fuller use of the medium than anything else that's come out this year.

I'm normally someone who uses critical response as my primary barometer for whether or not to see a film, but in this case, the critics are off. This is a unique and riveting film that is definitely worth seeing. I loved it, and you should see it.

American Beauty and Six Feet Under: The World of Alan Ball

A couple of days ago I rewatched American Beauty for the first time since seeing the end of Six Feet Under. Before I go on, this article's going to go into stuff from the end of Six Feet Under, so if you haven't seen the whole series, don't read it.







But if you have seen the series, you've come to the right place. The thing that Six Feet Under and American Beauty have in common is the fact that both are works by Alan Ball, he wrote American Beauty and created/wrote/directed SFU. American Beauty is one of the rare films where I'd consider it as much a product of the writer as the director. I suppose that's mostly because Ball went on to make SFU, while Mendes has only done one film since, and it wasn't particularly thematically connected to American Beauty, whereas SFU has a lot of commonalities with American Beauty.

First off a bit about the film itself, this is a movie I've loved from the first time I saw it. It's probably the best film to ever receive the best picture Oscar, and the only best picture winner in the past ten years that was truly a great film. It's a film that some people find depressing, but is exhilirating to me. It's a movie that covers a lot of the themes present in my work, the need to stop messing around in a routine and start doing what you really want to do.

The film tells the story of a guy who starts living life how he wants to instead of how he's supposed to, and ultimately he dies, the implication being that society will not tolerate people who so blatantly flaunt its rules. If you compare Lester's arc to Nate's, there's a lot of interesting parallels, and also a lot of insight into the difference between the differences in story construction between film and television.

Both me follow the same basic arc. Numbed by the difficulties of family life and work, they find a female muse who reignites in them something that was lost, and pursue her, until they're struck down and suddenly killed. However, the morality of their actions are presented in opposite ways. The entire movie glorifies Lester's new outlook on life, whereas Nate's actions are presented as troubling at least, morally unforgivable at worst. I seriously doubt it's coincidence that his AVM strikes immediately after having sex with Maggie.

So, why is Lester a hero for what he does, while Nate is bad? A lot of it is in the fact that this is a pattern for Nate. Lester is someone who's been trapped in this life for years and just accepted it, whereas we'd already seen Nate struggle to adjust to married life. During the Lisa arc in year three, the implication was that Nate couldn't adjust to married life because he was in love with Brenda, and it was that sense of missed opportunity that stopped him from being happy. So, let's imagine that Lisa hadn't died and Nate had stuck with her for twenty years, growing more and more numb. Then, we could probably sympathize with Nate shirking responsibility in favor of getting what he wants.

However, the narrative of Six Feet Under seemed to be leading us towards a happy romantic resolution for Nate and Brenda. When Nate has sex with Maggie, it devestates the audience because it means that Nate doesn't live up to our expectations for the kind of man he should be. It's the same as when Brenda goes on her sexual journey in season two, she's pushing Nate away, except that Lisa's pregnancy takes away from us blaming her. At the end of season five Brenda is trying, and has overcome her demons. One of the most devestating images from the season is Brenda sitting alone in the Quaker church, while Nate and Maggie are at her apartment having sex. That really got to me, she was giving everything she had to Nate and he was behaving inexcusably.

But, is what Nate did really that different than what Lester did? Both of them saw a woman who would make them believe they were something they weren't. For Lester, Angela's youth and beauty would allow him to tap into an energy that he's long since lost. He saw her as someone with all the fire that Caroline has lost through the years.

For Nate, Maggie would allow him to recapture some of the idealism of his youth. Nate is someone who's spiritual, and I would imagine back in Seattle he was involved with all kinds of New Age and Buddhist stuff. Maggie, and her Quaker faith, would put him back in touch with this spirituality, and make him a part of something bigger than himself. As Brenda says, Nate wanted someone who could make him seem like a better man than he is. This came at a time when he was beginning to realize that Brenda wasn't what she used to be. She had lost some of the crazy fire that first attracted him to her. She grew out of the youthful restlessness that had dominated her life until her breakdown in season two, Nate never reached that breakdown point, he was always able to get by no matter what he did. In season three, Nate's little rebellions against Lisa could have eventually led to a breakdown, but he didn't reach that point until he slept with Maggie. That was the act that crossed the line, and he was appropriately punished.

Lester never actually crosses that line. When he's given the chance to have sex with Angela, the reality of who she is intrudes on the mental fantasy he has constructed for himself. The sexual temptress of his dreams turns out to be a virgin once her masks fall away. For Nate, Maggie was purity and goodness, an image that he destroys by having sex with her.

The joy of American Beauty is in watching Lester gleefullly trump societal taboos. It's basically a fantasy for people stuck in a routine, he tells off his boss, smokes pot when he wants, buys the car he wants and works a job so meaningless it becomes entertaining. He consciously chooses to live like he did when he was a teenager, and as a result is happier than he ever was before. In the entire Alan Ball-verse, Lester is the character who encounters the least problems, and in the time we see him, is almost always happy. He's able to accept death because he knows he's lived his life to the fullest, for Nate, death is something to fear, because he always feels like he's lost something by choosing to come back and work at the funeral home. He's lived the exact life he didn't want to lead, and that's what makes him forever restless.

Ball clearly supports Lester, but how does the work present the morality of Nate's actions? To my mind, Nate is a character with a fire for life and a constant desire to move forward and try to reach a utopian existence. This is the thing that keeps him forever moving forward, but it also prevents him from being happy in the moment. Lester is able to find joy in the little things, but Nate can never stop thinking about the big picture and the fact that on some level he considers his life a failure.

That's one of the most interesting things about Ball's work, the characters all have grand ambitions for their lives, but they're radically different. Nate has it all, but he can't stop wanting more, whereas his brother David wants is a normal life, family and kids. However, the fact that he is gay means that wanting this puts him into conflict with society. He has to struggle to get that which Nate takes for granted. Claire is more like Nate, she's always reaching for something more, yet she finds herself in danger when she takes a temp job at an office and finds herself getting increasingly drawn into the routine of office work. If she continued down that path, it's likely she would find it impossible to break out and return to her art. And then, what she abandoned would become a psychological cancer destroying her like missed opportunity ultimately destroyed Nate.

One of the other major themes the two works share is the characters' desire to be unique, as Angela says "There's nothing worse than being ordinary." This is the governing principle of Brenda and Claire's lives, even though they would never admit it, because to do so would imply that their uniqueness is a conscious effort rather than just how they are. Angela's situation is different from Brenda and Clarie's in that she sees being ordinary as blending into the background, whereas she always wants to be the center of attention. That's what grates her so much about Ricky being with Jane, he shows no interest in her, seeing through her glamourous mask to the inner beauty of Jane. Jane is a proto-Claire, with a similar attraction to slightly insane boys. She doesn't have that much depth though, I suppose her biggest act is her decision at the end of the film to abandon the pre-chosen societal path and go to New York with Ricky. Seeing what 'normal life' has turned her parents into, she decides that this isn't for her and instead chooses to run away and try something completely different.

Like Jane, Claire runs away to New York at the end, but because of the development that a series allows for, Claire has passed through that rebellious period and instead leaves for New York on good terms with her family. I like the fact that both Claire and Brenda, who were so obsessed with remaining unique, ultimately end up embracing traditional values, but doing it in their own way. So Brenda winds up with kids, and family has her top priority, but the family she's assembled is unique, I love the scene in the last episode with Olivier, Margaret, Billy and Brenda all gathered around Willa.

I think the ultimate rejection of the idea that being ordinary is so bad comes when Claire and Ted speak in the last episode. Claire pokes fun at Ted for his decidedly unhip musical tastes, to which Ted responds that being hip is a decidedly adolescent concern. He says he'll listen to what he likes and not care what anyone else thinks, as long as it makes him happy. So, Ted, even though he may be listening to what society tells him to, is actually following his own impulses more than Claire who struggles to remain above the mainstream, even though it alienates her.

There's a whole bunch of other parallels, but this is something to think about. Even though I love American Beauty, Six Feet Under is just so much deeper because of the time allowed to develop character. AB does so much in its running time, but Nate alone has richness enough to talk about for pages on end. Then again, American Beauty does have "Fuck me your majesty!" That makes up for something.

Ultimately, Alan Ball's work always touches on really interesting issues that no one else is talking about, issues of purpose in the modern world. I think he's one of the most talented and entertaining writers working today and I can't wait to see what he comes up with next.

Creator Control: The Magnificent Ambersons and Claremont's X-Men

For class yesterday, we watched The Magnificent Ambersons and read a bunch of articles about it. Ambersons was Orson Welles' followup to Citizen Kane, widely considered the greatest film ever made, and to this day, very few films have surpassed its awe inspiring cinematography. So, after dropping this film, Welles moved on to another ambitious project, an adaptation of the novel, The Magnificent Ambersons.

If one were to just watch the film, it would probably seem bizarrely disjointed, with some flashes of greatness, but a general lack of narrative cohesion. As is, the film is something like David Lynch's Dune, a film with a lot of good stuff in it, but one that never quite comes together as a finished product. The way it is now, Ambersons has a lot of bits that don't make much sense, and character arcs that aren't properly laid out, as well as a very cheesy ending.

However, perhaps more interesting than the film itself is the tragedy behind its production. Welles shot and edited together a 130 minute cut of the film then went to Brazil to shoot another project, at which point disasterous preview screenings led executives to recut the film, bringing it down to 88 minutes, and losing roughly 50 minutes of Welles footage in the process. Welles claimed that the film was even better than Kane. Looking at what is intact, I'd doubt that, but I'd imagine it would have been another masterpiece.

At this time there was no market for deleted scenes or director's cuts, so the footage was burned to make more storage space, and with that, the original Magnificent Ambersons was destroyed. This incident is probably the most grievous example of the perils of working within the Hollywood system, without final cut on a project. Welles had no ownership of the project, and because Kane was a box office failure, he had little influence over its direction. There was nothing he could do to protect the film from the editing because the director had no rights under the classical Hollywood system. And this continued for the rest of Welles' career, he was unable to get funding for projects, and had to make to do with lower budgets and inferior facilities.

Film is, unfortunately, a medium where you need a lot of money to realize a vision. Even with the proliferation of really good CG stuff, a certain base amount of money is needed to get a project going. For all its other merits, the way that digital is democratizing the medium is something to be thankful for. David Lynch is now able to make films on his own schedule, with no studio influence. However, working from self financing, he's not able to get the budget needed to do some things. So, he couldn't make a Dune on his own, those sort of ideas still require studio money, and with the money comes the ceeding of control.

I guess what bothers me so much about the Welles thing is that the footage is just gone. Somebody burned it and with that a work of art is out of this world forever. It's such a transient medium, and with one bad choice, an entire historical record is destroyed, never to return again. What was so briefly in this world, seen by only a few people, is now lost in time. In 'film heaven,' this is one movie that I'd like to see.

But beyond this awful situation, what does the Welles situation tell us about the role of creators vis a vis their creations? There's so many potentially great stories that were never told because the money didn't come through, or personnel dropped out. This is particularly true in comics where Alan Moore's Big Numbers only made it to two issues, and will never be finished. I haven't read it, but I've heard about the table size outline of the character arcs and that makes me sad it will never happen. Similarly, the end of Neil Gaiman's run on Miracleman is locked in legal limbo, and will hopefully make it back in a few years when the lawsuit with McFarlane is settled.

But, the greatest victims of corporate interference are people who work within a corporate system, like old Hollywood or big two comics. Chris Claremont created the X-Men. I know Stan Lee technically made the concept, Len Wein technically made the 'all new, all different team,' but that doesn't matter, because Claremont was the one who made the X-Men we know today. He built characters who have generated billions in merchandising revenue and his stories paved the way for the two films, as well as the thousands of comics made involving the characters.

And from 1974 to about 1985, he had total control over the direction of the X-Men's story. At first it was only one book, then he added New Mutants, a book that was still tightly integrated with the narrative of the main book. However, as the book became more popular, he became subject to more editorial pressure, culminating in an expanding world for the characters, one that forced Claremont to adjust his plans. The most notable affront to his work was bringing Jean Grey back, thus nullifying much of the impact of the original Phoenix saga storyline.

In the 80s, Claremont became more subject to the whims of the editors, and he was forced to indulge in a number of crossovers to build sales. Generally speaking, he made these crossovers work creatively, but in this environment, he was losing control of the world that he built, and the fearful executives forced him to move the characters back towards a more identifiable status quo. Hence Magento returns to being a villain, nullifying years of interesting character development.

The greatest affront to Claremont occurred in 1991 when he was thrown off the book he wrote for fifteen years, with no chance to resolve the plot lines, just left with nothing. It's mind boggling to think that this guy who was solely responsible for making the book into the biggest seller in comics could be let go with barely any notice. Ever since he left, the books had a big decline creatively, at least until the Morrison run in 2001.

So, the lesson of Claremont's experience is have control of what you create. He worked for fifteen years, making countless characters, but when he was fired from the book, he was left with nothing. That's likely why he willingly returned ten years later, because the characters still meant something to him. I find it unbelievable that he'd willingly return to the people who had previously screwed him over, but I guess that sometimes money trumps principle. Not everyone can be Alan Moore when it comes to burning bridges.

If Claremont hadn't been fired, I wonder if he would have ever left the book, or if he'd now be entering his thirtieth year on the title. I think he would have found it difficult to shake things up as he did in the 80s, now that the company sees itself more as a media licensing firm than a storytelling entity in and of itself. His success was ultimately Claremont's undoing, it's what turned one cohesive title into fifteen, and saw legitimate characters turn into static archetypes.

Work of Directors: First Impressions

Today I got the box set of the four new DVDs from the Work of Directors series, DVD collections that contain the music videos by a certain director. The original three (Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry and Chris Cunningham) have been some of my most played DVDs, and Gondry's in particular has some awe inspiring videos. And now there's four more. I've only had a chance to look at a couple of videos on each, but here's my thoughts on them.

From what I've seen so far, Mark Romanek seems to be the standout in the collection. He directed the film One Hour Photo, which was good, but his strength seems to be in his ability to change styles to adapt to whoever he's doing the video for. I'd already seen his video Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt, and it's one of the most emotionally affecting videos I've ever seen, very powerful images. For the first time, I watched No Doubt's Hella Good, a song I love, and it has a very cool video. It's washed out black and white with the band going around an abandoned ship. The oversaturation of the image maes for some striking visuals.

Then I checked out Jay-Z's 99 Problems, another video I'd seen before and loved. I love the rhythm in the editing, and the intercutting of still and moving shots, particularly in the breakdown sequence with all the dancers, as well as the Rick Rubin appearances. Next was Fiona Apple's Criminal. I knew the song, but not the video, and it's one of the best I've seen, capturing this porn vibe. Apple was apparently only nineteen when this was shot, and she looks a lot younger, the video plays on the idea of her as a sexually abused child, or at least a girl who's in a relationship with an older man. It's slightly disturbing, but the atmosphere of the video is so unique, I deeply respect it.

Next up was Stephane Sednaoui. I only watched two videos from him. First was U2's Discotheque. I love the song, but I'd never seen the video. U2's videos usually aren't that good, but this one was the exception. It takes place inside a disco ball and has all kinds of crazy imagery, vivid colors and a lot of quick cutting. It's very cool. I also watched The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Give It Away, which was ok, it's got some cool stuff, but was ultimately a bit too long.

I followed this up with one video from Jonathan Glazer. He's only got eight videos on the disk, and I've already seen most of them. I rewatched Radiohead's Karma Police, a very cool video for a great song. The way he builds the car into a living thing is great.

Then I rounded things out with Anton Corbijn. So far, I'm not a big fan of his. The video for U2's One wasn't too interesting, a bunch of black and white photography of the band dressed as women. It didn't capture the scope of the song. Then I watched the video for U2's Electrical Storm, which had the exact same visual style as One. He loves the slightly grainy black and white stuff. It's a great song, and there's some cool stuff in the video, but on the whole it's not that great. After that was Depeche Mode's Enjoy the Silence, which was a pretty cool video, but another one that was a bit too long for what it should have been.

So, on the whole these disks are pretty solid. No one's on the level of Gondry, but there's certainly a lot worth watching.

Mirrormask

Mirrormask was a film I was really interested in seeing because it's made by Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean. Gaiman wrote the incredible comic series, Sandman, one of my favorite pieces of fiction. It's a landmark work in the history of comics and is certainly the best comic ever made that's not by someone named Moore or Morrison. McKean did the covers for Sandman and also has done some incredible comics art himself, including the great book Cages.

The film is very similar to their previous works, but the change of medium makes this forgivable. It's often difficult for artists to make the transition to directing film. If you've got a crew, it's pretty easy to shoot a film, but a lot of people moving to film from other mediums end up shooting stuff like Sin City, very static, sticking closely to storyboards and not really using what's uniquely cinematic. It's difficult to say how much input Frank Miller had into the direction of Sin City, but the film adds very little that wasn't already in the comic, so even though I enjoyed the film, I didn't feel like there was a particular reason to make it, other than to just get the stories out to more people.

McKean does not direct like Miller did, the film he makes has a lot of moments that are uniquely cinematic, and he created a really interesting cinematic world and style. The opening sequence is really well put together. I loved the cutting and visual saturation of everything. You were drenched in visual excess and that was very cool to experience. I liked the subtle use of split screen when Helena was speaking with her mother. And even though I don't generally like circus stuff, this was really interesting to watch. The filmmaking makes you experience the feeling of the circus more than just sticking the camera in one place and letting the people perform would.

This movie falls firmly into what I call the '80s Fantasy' genre, which consists of a teen protagonist who lives a boring life expressing a desire for something different, at which point they're taken into a a fantasy realm, where they have a whole bunch of adventures and return home with a new appreciation for their everyday life. In making this film, Gaiman and McKean set out to create a Labyrinth for the 21st century, and the influence is obvious, right from the sock puppet business at the beginning. The entire narrative structure is the same as Labyrinth.

The surprising thing about this film was how compelling the real world sequences were. Normally the filmmakers are trying to get into the fantasy as quickly as possible, but there was a lot of really interesting emotional stuff going on here. I actually wouldn't have minded if the entire film focused on the real world problems because McKean was able to shoot those segments in a really interesting way. I loved the setting outside the apartment, with the vast landscape off in the distance. Emotionally, these scenes were very strong and I really felt for Helena, and the mix of guilt and fear she carries.

Even though I love Gaiman's writing, he's got a lot of things that bother me that constantly pop up in his work. His strongest stories are the ones that are dark and serious, when he does whimsical stuff, the work frequently seems like it thinks it's more clever than it actually is, and he frequently gets in the habit of throwing out a bunch of wacky concepts rather than focusing on the emotional development of the characters. Most of Sandman stayed in a dark, serious place, meaning that the pieces that were comedy, like Delerium, worked well because they were the exception. When it's all this goofy comedy, it just doesn't work.

Mirrormask has a plot that's very similar to Coraline, his young adult novel about a girl who wanders into an alternate dimension. Both works are good, but the restrictions of a young target audience seem to lead to the works holding something back. Mirrormask has a lot really dark, great stuff, but isn't there consistently enough to be a truly great film.

I wasn't a fan of the sock puppet thing at the opening, that seemed like something that had been done too much, Labyrinth pulled off something similar, but twenty years have passed, and it's not fresh any more. However, after that, there's very little of the bad Gaiman tics. The opening chunk of the film is some of his most grounded, realistic writing and it's emotionally affecting.

For me, the beginning and ending of the film are great, it just suffers a lot in the middle. My biggest problem with most films in the '80s Fantasy' genre is the fact that there's not quite enough story to make a film, so they always rely on having the main character running into some wacky stuff along the way, some hilarious episodes that will show off the visual skill of the filmmakers. There's always that point where the film's sort of adrift, where the person's in this new world, but isn't sure what to do and just wanders around meeting strange things. I enjoy non-narrative filmmaking, but the problem is the things the filmmakers come up with usually aren't clever or entertaining enough to justify their screentime.

And sadly that's the case here. The first time the Sphinxes appear, they're very cool, and the book stuff is pure Gaiman, but by the time they get to the Sphinx with the riddles, I just wasn't dazzled by this stuff anymore. The film was progressing forward slowly without any emotional development for Helena.

Also, this was the only point in the film where I felt the presence of the green screen. In later scenes, the effects were completely seamless, but when the story was weak, I was taken out of the world. However, throughout the film, the acting is top notch, particularly from Stephanie Leonidas. It can't have been easy acting in a greenscreen world, but she pulled it off in a really top notch performance.

I will say that even though I thought the exploring the world section hurt the film, it was beautiful and very cool to see the McKean style in a film. I liked the fact that all the masks made the characters look like McKean drawings come to life, and on the whole, the effects were seamless. It's astonishing that they pulled this off with a 4 million dollar budget.

So, the film was losing me, but once Helena gets captured by the queen, it all picks up and up until the end is really great. I loved the 'Close to You' sequence, the combination of music and visual was perfect, making a really surreal moment. I loved the design on the jack in the box things. Also, I really liked Helena's goth fabulous wardrobe at the end, I'm sure a lot of Gaiman's fans who see this movie will be appropriating the style, that is if they don't already have lace up leather gloves.

As the film ends, it implies that the entire middle section is a dream, and if you view it that way, the conflict at the end, between the two Helenas, is essentially Helena confronting her guilt over what she said to her mother. Earlier, she said that she wanted to live a normal life and when Anti-Helena steals her life, she sees what that normal life would consist of. As a circus performer, they all hold on to something essentially childlike, a view of the world as full of wonder, something that's reflected in her drawings. However, Anti-Helena tears the drawings down and rather than existing in the realm of imagination, she lives on a purely physical. She smokes, she 'snogs' with boys and dresses in a cliched rebel teen style.

So when she looks through the windows she sees her wish fulfilled, and realizes that it's not what she reallly wants. This life repulses her and makes her appreciative of what she does have. So, at the end she has to consciously reject this lifestyle, and reclaim the life she did have, except now she knows that this is actuallly what she wants. She doesn't need to grow up so fast.

I'm a little hazy on what happens at the end to allow Helena to reclaim her life, but I figure that's the dream breaking down, so it doesn't have to make that much sense. Basically, the world is subject to Helena's will, and when she demands her life back, she gets it. And at the end, she's backk at the circus, only happy now instead of unappreciative.

The ending of the film raises some issues. Is it right for Helena to shy away from the adult world, most notably her quite repulsed reaction to seeing herself 'snogging'? I take it to be more that Helena is rejecting this accelerated development. Rather than having meaningless physical relations, she would want a relationship that goes deeper and fires her imagination. The most troubling thing for her is the destruction of her art, and by extension of the person that she is. She really likes the life she has, and the guilt she has over what she told her mother plagues her throughout the film.

The other thing that was great throughout the movie was the music. Reading Cages, you could tell that McKean was a big fan of jazz, and this film has a great score that's a combination of jazz and electronica. I love the trumpets and clarinets, it really helps to build the mood of the film, and is totally integrated into the storytelling. It's one of the most unique film scores I've ever heard, and it worked perfectly here, with the 'Close to You' scene as a highlight.

So, the film concluded on a real high note, and was generally top notch. Gaiman and McKean certainly made no concessions to the studio, this is a very pure hit of their vision. The problem with it lies in the second act, which makes the film good, instead of great. Of course, on a second viewing, maybe I'll appreciate it more, but we'll have to wait on that. On the whole though, they were completely successful in making a 'Labyrinth for the 21st century,' and I would argue this film actually surpasses Labyrinth, though I do miss the Bowie presence. However, in most other respects this film surpasses it, and I think it's that rare film where the cliche is actually true, it's got something for the whole family to enjoy.

U2 Live @ MSG

Yesterday I saw U2 live at Madison Square Garden. I've been a fan of the band for a while, but was never able to see them live, and considering their reputation as one of the best live acts around, I was very excited to get to see them. It took me five hours to make it from Middletown to Madison Square Garden, starting with an hour long bus delay, an hour wait for the train at New Haven and a trip along the entire New Haven line. Anyway, I got there about five minutes before U2 went on, so it was perfect timing, though I'd have preferred to have gotten there a bit earlier, so I wouldn't have to hurry so much.

This was the first concert I've been to where I wasn't in the GA section, and that was a change. I'm used to being in the mess of people, whereas here I was in a seat, near people, but not really caught up in that group mentality. I got the cheapest tickets (still rather expensive at $55), so my seats weren't the best. I was pretty close to the action, only slightly off the floor and not that far back, but I was behind the stage. So, I saw the backs of everyone as they performed, which was a bit odd. It put me at a distance from things.

But that doesn't mean that the show wasn't great. The level of charisma that they had far surpasses any other band I've seen live, there was such energy and assuredness in the way they played. The songs were all tight, but with enough variation to make the live show unique from the recorded version.

The way they had the stage set up worked great. It's a big circle, with the stage at once end, and a whole bunch of people in the middle, and the band members would walk around the circle at points during the show. The circle had all kinds of lights on it and they did some very cool effects throughout, with the lights setting a different mood for each song. They had a bunch of spotlights right in front of where I was, and it was interesting to see that they had a whole team of people sitting on these lighting structures suspended from the roof, operating the spotlights. That's got to be an annoying job, not one where you'd want a fear of heights.

Music wise, I was a bit disappointed in the song selection. There are songs that are essential to play, like Pride Where the Streets Have No Name, and songs from the new album they're definitely going to play, which leaves only a few spots for some of the less popular stuff. So, most of the variant songs here were from their early albums, with Electric Co. and Gloria, songs that aren't bad, but I'm not that big a fan of. There was only one song from Achtung Baby, one from Zooropa and none from Pop.

Even though the crowd was really into it throughout, this was clearly a group that knew the hits more than a thorough knowledge of the entire back catalog. When they went to a less popular song, like Miss Sarajevo or a lot of the stuff off the new album, the crowd just wasn't that into it, whereas on Sunday, Bloody Sunday or I Still Haven't Found what I'm Looking For, you could barely hear Bono because the crowd was so loud. On 'Still,' he stopped singing and the crowd did an entire verse on their own, which was very cool to hear. So, even though I'm not as a big a fan of those songs, hearing the crowd reaction to them, it's clear why they need to be played at the show. I think the new songs are actually better than most of the classics, but the crowd really wasn't giving much on them, or at least that's what it was in the area I was at. The crowd in the ellipse seemed to be a lot more into every song.

I was really impressed with the musical skill throughout. The guitar lines were great and there were a bunch of cool things, like having a seperate drum on 'Love And Peace Or Else,' that was probably the best song they did. That was another one that used the circle well.

Most of the songs in the encores were better than the stuff in the actual show. First Time was great, and the acoustic version of 'Stuck in a Moment' was even better than the album version, particularly when the bass and drum came in after nearly two songs dormant. And the combination of Yahweh and an amped up version of Vertigo to end the show was great.

On the whole, it's an astonishing thing to watch 19,000 people completely get caught up in this show, and the performance was that good. Seeing U2 from inside the circle would probably be the best show in the world, and even from behind the stage it was phenomenal. I'm thinking about trying to get tickets to their November show because I really want to see them again.

Top 10 U2 Songs

Tomorrow I'll be seeing U2 live. I've heard they're one of the best live acts out there today, so I'm psyched. To commemorate the occasion, here's a list of my top 10 U2 songs, if you've only heard their big hits, check out some of the more obscure tracks here, because they're brilliant.


#10. Until the End of the World (Achtung Baby) - One of U2's trademarks is the delay guitar and this song features one of their best riffs, essentially functioning as the song's chorus. After the lyrics about "the end of the world," there's a great instrumental part, with some non-lyric vocals. The final verse ("In my dreams I was drowning in sorrows...") is the highlight here. It's a great example of building a song primarily around an excellent guitar riff.

#9. Miss Sarajevo (Passengers) - This is a song off the album U2 did with Brian Eno, mostly ambient stuff that's ok, but this track is exceptional. The lyrics are great, particularly the repetition with the "There is a time for..." bits. The high point is the Pavarotti cameo, which takes the song beyond just a slow ballad and into the stratosphere.

#8. Discotheque (Pop) - This was the first single off the much maligned Pop album, an album that I'd rank among U2's best, and the opening track is the high point. This is a great example of a rock song built around dance rhythms, that uses a lot of repeitition within a few distinct sections. There's the verses, "You can...," the "Know you're chewing bubble gum" part, the chorus ("boom Discotheque") and finally the B section ("Looking for the man..."). All the sections are strong individually, but it's the combination and variation that makes it work. It's a song with a lot of hard edge, but with a pop structure. My favorite bit is the "Boom cha cha boom Discotheque" part.

#7. City of Blinding Lights (How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb) - When I first saw the track list for the new album, this one sounded instantly promising. I always love titles that involve light, and this sounded like it would be a huge, anthemic track, and upon listening, it was. I think this does everything that 'When the Streets Have No Name' does well and then goes beyond it by combining the anthemtic style of 80s U2 with the experimentation of 90s U2. I love the buildup in the first part of the song up to "I'm getting ready to leave the ground," which leads to a great instrumental section and the soaring chorus. The way the words are spaced out on "Oh you look so beautiful tonight," is another high point.

#6. One (Achtung Baby) - This song was huge for a reason, it's a great low key, yet driving track. This is probably Bono's best vocal, or at least most emotional vocal, on any U2 song, and the guitar line adds a lot. And in the interaction between the two you get magic, as in the segue from "Carry each other...one" into a great guitar part. That's consistently the most interesting thing in U2's music, the way the guitar and vocal compliment each other, such that each song seems like a duet. The crescendo at the end from "all you got is hurt" to the chorus stands out as well.

#5. Stay (Zooropa) - This is another song in the lo-fi lounge mode of One, but Stay goes even more loungetastic in its stylings. The interaction between vocal and guitar here is phenomenal, most notably in the chorus, the way "Then the night would give you up..." segues into a beautiful arching guitar line. I also love the way the verse segues into the chorus, the music building to the point that it's inevitable for something interesting to happen. The second chorus is the high point here, and it all dissipates in the comforting final verse. So the song takes you on a journey from this dark night to a bright morning.

#4. Walk On (All that You Can't Leave Behind) - This song has so many things I love about it. The slow opening, backed by some electronic sounds makes the bigger verse rewarding, and the chorus here is the best of U2's anthemic songs. But the best part is the ending with its repeated line of "All that..." phrases. I always love the repeating of stuff like that, such as on Pink Floyd's "Eclipse," and it works wonderfully here, particularly with the vocal interjections over the repeated phrases.

#3. Ultraviolet (Achtung Baby) - I'm mystified that this song was never released as a single because it's incredibly catchy and captures everything that the best U2 songs have. The guitar line is a phenomenal example of delay work, nicely dropping in after the a capella opening. I love the chorus here, with the repetition of "Baby, baby, baby light my way." It's such an exhilirating song, and the start of the phenomenal three song run that ends Achtung Baby.

2. Acrobat/Love is Blindness (Achtung Baby) - I know two songs sort of breaks the rule, but I see these as a suite since they flow into each other so well. This follows Ultraviolet on the album and it's the only U2 album that closes on a high note. They usually front stack their records, so the end just sort of fades out. However, here it ends on a great dark progression. I love the way Acrobat's opening verse builds within itself, and following it, the way the instruments echo "Don't let the bastards grind you down," with the keyboard progression repeating those notes. Also, the lyrics in this song are phenomenal. There's a desperation in the delivery that really sells it, and is complimented nicely by the hard edged guitar which cuts into the song following the choruses. Love is Blindness follows with more darkness, this time a low key, electronic track, and fades out on an eerie instrumental bit. The two of them together are beautifully dark and a great end to U2's best album.

1. Lemon (Zooropa) - This is a crazy song, another one built out of disparate parts. There's the verses ("She wore lemon..."), the "I feel like I'm slowly..." part, " the chorus ("Midnight is where the day begins...") and the b section with "Man paints a picture..." I love each of these individual parts and together they form the best song U2 ever recorded. The vocal goes to so many different places, from the soaring "Midnight" to the detached, almost monotone "Man makes a picture..." and it's all backed by similarly varying instruments. My favorite instrumental part is what's going on behind the "Midnight..." part. Listening to the song as a whole it's like nothing else I've ever heard, the combination of production and performance skill is unparalleled and the song itself cobbles together a bunch of disparate pieces into a great cohesive work. This is one you really have to hear for yourself to understand.

Well that's the top ten. It's exclusively stuff from U2 Phase 2 and U2 Phase 3. I don't dislike their early work, but there was a massive jump with Achtung Baby, and the stuff from then on eclipses what came before. Even though Achtung and Zooropa are my two favorite albums, I have liked the things they've done recently, when they've promoted a retreat from the experimental period. I think the past two albums have fused what worked about early U2 with what worked about experimental U2 and that's made them successful again. I would love to see more stuff like Zooropa, but it just doesn't seem to be happening, so I'll enjoy the top notch stuff they did on the most recent album.

Judging from the setlists online, there seems to be a fairly even spread through the eras. There's not much Zooropa or Pop, but there is a lot of Achtung, and Miss Sarajevo, which should be great. And perhaps they'll mix things up seeing as how this is their fifth New York show in a week.

Ghost World

Yesterday I watched the film Ghost World for the first time in about two a half years. I first saw the film in 2001. I loved it then and I still love it now, though it was a bit odd watching the film and being older than the characters in it. However, the thing that separates Ghost World from other 'teen movies' is the fact that here the characters just happen to be teenagers, but their concerns are universal. This is a film I always really relate to, it's quietly brilliant.

Ghost World is one of my top 20 films of all time, and the only film comprable to it within the twenty is Chasing Amy. Both are films that on the surface seem rather disposable, good, but not spectacular, either in terms of scope or filmmaking technique. While I think Ghost World is better shot than Chasing Amy, both films are extremely minimalist, relying almost exclusively on dialogue to forward the plot. Both films are about shifting relationships, the hazy line between friendship and romantic relationships, and the complications that emerge between friends. Even though neither one seems particularly ambitious in terms of plot, the character interactions are apocalyptic for those involved, and each film follows the total destruction of the status quo over the course of the film. And the other big similarity is the way both films seamlessly navigate between some of the funniest dialogue ever captured in film and utterly devestating emotional drama.

The sharpest writing in Ghost World comes in the early going as we get to know Enid and Rebecca. I love the opening sequence, both for the great music and visuals, and for what it says about our main character. Right from the beginning it sets Enid as someone who's so hip and cool she's spending her time watching 60s Indian movies. She places herself above the mainstream, and as we soon find out, clearly looks down on everything that mainstream culture stands for, something brilliantly articulated in her apalled reaction to the graduation speeches. And yet, even as she hates it, she wouldn't want it any other way, because her identity is composed as a reaction to the blandness of mainstream culture.

The party scene brilliantly captures the feeling of leaving high school, in that it's simultaneously something you've been waiting for forever, a great event, and a bit sad because it means you'll never again see all the people who were just there. What once was a group now splits into disparate individuals, all going on their own path. I love when Melora says they should get together over the summer and Enid says "That'll happen," knowing that that's something people say but don't really mean.

As the film moves along, we start to see conflict emerge between Rebecca and Enid. Recognizing that high school is over and it's time to start growing up, Rebecca makes plans to move towards mainstream society. In high school it's ok to be the crazy girl who hates everything, but when it's time, she recognizes that it's time to stop looking down at the people who work at the coffee shop and instead become one. This is further evident in the scene where she goes shopping with Enid and is picking out bland looking plasticware, much to the offense of Enid. Rebecca is less concerned with being hip than with ensuring that she's successful on her own.

However, Enid is much too self conscious to allow her to become so shamelessly mainstream. After Rebecca suggests that they should dress like yuppies in order to get an apartment, she goes out and dyes her hair green, totally rejecting the safe, mainstream image that Rebecca wanted to project. This probably stems from her jealousy of boys' attraction to Rebecca's blonde haired, blue eyed beauty, leaving her uncomfortably on the fringe. I think her fear is that Rebecca could leave her behind and live a normal life, as if the persona she had was just a construct, and the text would support that idea. At the beginning of the film, Rebecca's eager to follow the 'satanists,' but at the end she's most excited about a fold out ironing board, and this leaves Enid alone. She'd been able to be a defiant outsider because she had someone to support her, but when she's alone, her fears about being alone come to the surface.

This issue also comes up in her interaction with Seymour, most notably in the bar scene. In Seymour, she saw someone she could relate to. He's totally outside mainstream societal norms, and his obsession with kitsch objects fits her perfectly. Also, he's someone who needs her more than she needs him. She takes on the mission of finding him a date, but when she actually succeeds in putting him together with a woman in the bar, she finds herself uncomfortably alone, staring at people who are having a much better time than her.

The scene is genius in the way it conveys her simultaneous disdain for and jealousy of mainstream culture. She watches these people drinking beer and playing pool and hates them, yet they're having so much more fun than her, and they're connecting with others. She is too self conscious to allow herself the pleasures that other people take. She couldn't enjoy something so mainstream because to do so would be to lose some of that which makes her unique. She would rather confront societal expectations, as with the punk apparel, than conform to them, and that makes it impossible for her to fit in in that environment. She seems completely out of place, with her 50s style glasses, pale skin and dark hair, next to the tan, blonde people who populate the bar. This same dichotomy can be seen in the graduation party scene, when she looks at a jock type popular couple together, mocking them, but at the same time standing alone.

The film seems to set up blonde women as representative of mainstream society, with Enid as the deviation from that. Dana lures Seymour away from his unique lifestyle, and towards an existence that is more acceptably mainstream. He's someone who's so lonely, and has such a low opinion of himself, that he's willing to go along with this relationship, even though he has nothing in common with Dana. It's only when Enid expresses a sexual interest in him that he's able to end it with Dana. If she hadn't, it's unlikely that he would find the courage to reject her.

The film takes a mocking and elitist tone, clearly looking down on a lot of people, but at the same time, it recognizes that that stance is flawed. Enid finds herself alone at the end of the film because she has alienated everyone around her, and ruined the relationship she had with Seymour by making him think she would give him something she never could. She so strongly values her individuality that she's unable to compromise, and that puts her at odds with the world at large.

In the end, she sees Seymour as who she might be in thirty years, working a boring office job at Computer Station, collecting strange stuff, but ultimately disconnected from the world, unable to reconcile her disdain for the general populace with her strong desire to connect with other people. And that's the reason that she walks away from it all. In another place, she could get a fresh start and redefine herself, freed from the shackles of the identity she'd created. I don't think it would be a total redefinition, but it would be a chance to start relationships anew, and it's her willingness to leave the prescribed path and try something different that makes her so unique. Everyone else is pushing her towards college and a job, thinking of that as the only way. Instead, she chooses something different, and boards the bus, unsure of where she's going, but that doesn't matter, because all she wants is something different.

Watching the film this time it reminded me a lot of Six Feet Under. There's the obvious Thora Birch->American Beauty->Alan Ball connection, but there's also strong similarities between Enid and Claire and Brenda. It's the same defiance of mainstream norms and fear of being a cliche, subtly navigating the line between sincere and ironic. Enid's ironic commentary on 70s punk is quite similar to Claire dying her hair blue as an ironic commentary on blue hair. Plus, their pretentious art school misadventures are not far removed.

I've said it before in talking about Six Feet Under, but I think the navigation between original and cliche, sincere and ironic, mainstream and subcultural is full of dramatic potential. These are conflicts that don't lend themselves to easy resolutions, but can produce challenging stories.

Ghost World is one of the funniest movies ever made and also incredibly sad. I don't usually enjoy a film that's just funny, and that's because stuff like The Office and this film showed me how comedy can be used as a way to open deeper wounds and raise relevant issues about the direction of a person's life. This is a film I loved when I first saw it and watching it today, it's if anything, even more relevant.

X-Men 177-194

The journey through X-Men continues, and I've now read 100 issues Claremont's run on the book. 100 issues is a huge accomplishment, the only run on a book I know of that's longer than Claremont's on X-Men is Dave Sim on Cerebus, with his thirty year 300 issue journey. And at 100 issues, Claremont is still going strong, though in these issues, some of the problems that would plague the book down the line begin to emerge.

The first storyline in this chunk of the book concerns the X-Men's fight with the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. This is rather unremarkable until the issue that closes the storyline, 179, where Kitty is forced to marry Caliban, the Morlock. It's a bizarre setup, perhaps best exemplified by the cover:



But the story itself is pretty sweet, as Kitty chooses to honor the bargain she made to save the X-Men back in the first Morlocks storyline, and Caliban recognizes that Kitty doesn't belong here and lets her go.

On the whole, this set of issues isn't as strong as the Paul Smith era. The characters are always split apart, and we only get a few moments of strong character development. Kitty and Wolverine barely appear, and only Storm has major changes.

A large part of this problem is the fact that a lot of storytelling is happening in other books, I feel like I'm missing a lot by not reading New Mutants, and I'd really like to see what happened in the Wolverine/Kitty Pryde miniseries. If this were the 80s, I'd definitely be picking up all these books, because Claremont seems to have done a great job of creating a coherent universe. So, when Wolverine appears in only one book a month, not seven, but that means that we miss out on what he's up to in this volume. Same thing with Kitty, she spends a bunch of time away, and that's tough because she's probably my favorite character at this point in the run. I wouldn't say this is a flaw in Claremont's writing, I know if I was reading both books I'd love the intertitle continuity, but reading in this format, it's difficult. I really wish they'd put out an Essential New Mutants book as companion to this.

This volume is interesting because it's the first time the idea of being "hated and feared" is really beocming essential to the story. There'd always been some anti-mutant prejudice in the title, but it's becoming much more important now, and nearly every issue has a scene with some government types talking about how something needs to be done about the mutant problem. It's really interesting stuff to read, that's the strength of the book, the conflict between the old and new.

However, even as these storylines work, the book is dragged down by a series of awful storylines. The stuff with the wraiths drags on for a whole bunch of issues and leads nowhere. But the worst offender is Kulan Gath, a three issue storyline that quite literally goes nowhere, because at the end it's wiped out of the time line. It's an apallingly bad storyline, with awful mystical stuff and the main focus is on the Avengers and New Mutants, not even the X-Men.

The storyline also sees the female characters frequently dressed up in lingerie and thigh high boots. I've got the feeling that Mrs. Claremont ends up wearing this stuff every once in a while because it turns in his work so much, it's not just coincidence. It's required wear for the Hellfire Club, and Rachel, Storm, Callisto, Selene and even Kitty end up wearing some variation of the outfit. This cover basically sums it up:



I bet there were a lot of awkward moments when kids tried to get their parents to buy them that comic. A lot of the time this stuff is probably subconscious, but it's clearly a motif in Claremont's work.

Anyway, while this stuff was rather crap, we do get some great material when Storm loses her powers. Over the course of thirty issues or so, Storm has gone through massive changes, first changing her appearance and when she loses her powers, it forces her to struggle to redefine herself outside of her role as an X-Man. This culminates in the brilliant issue Lifedeath, which consists almost entirely of one night's interaction between Storm and Forge, folllowing them as they grow closer together and then ultimate are torn apart. It's a brilliant issue, the best by far in this chunk of the series. There's very strong emotional tension and it's devestating when Storm rejects Forge. We want them to get together, and it's not really anyone's fault when they're torn apart.

Forge is someone I'd seen a bit of in the TV series, but never in the comics, and he's a compelling character in his appearance here. He fits in perfectly with the anti-mutant sentiment in the government, working as someone torn between the security of his work and the moral obligation to do what's right.

The other major new character in this stretch of the book is Rachel Summers. I think bringing her in was a mistake. Clearly she's designed to replace Jean Grey, but I don't think Jean needed any replacing, especially without Cyclops around. She's got some interesting issues as a result of her time in the Days of Future Past world, but she just makes things too complex, and starts the books on the path to numerous alternate future characters that would lead them away from the more grounded state of the Paul Smith era. Plus, she's not that interesting.

The thing I did really like seeing was Xavier in charge of the team on field missions. It's a great change in the status quo and puts everyone else in an uncomfortable position. Xavier at this point is one of the most interesting characters in the book, and I'm annoyed that he's spending so much of his time off in New Mutants.

So, these issues are still good, and there's a lot of interesting stuff going on, but the book's tight focus is starting to slip and the numerous mysitcal storylines take the focus away from the character interaction that's at the center of the book.

A History of Violence

Ever since hearing the buzz about this out of Cannes, I've been looking forward to seeing it, and thankfully, despite being an arty film, History of Violence made it out to the local cinema here, and as a result I was able to see it. The film's action genre trappings clearly helped it get more acceptance than your average Cronenberg film would, and while I don't think this movie's got blockbuster potential, it's clearly something that's accessible, yet challenging for your average viewer.

David Cronenberg's a filmmaker who seems like someone I would love. However, to date, I've only seen one of his films, Existenz, and I was not a fan. It was very gimmicky and uninvolving, and despite some good ideas, it never really gelled together. However, I do want to see some of his other stuff, like Videodrome and Naked Lunch, because he has a really good reputation. Plus, he had a great guest appearance on Alias.

Compared to Existenz and from what I know of his other work, History of Violence seems to be a departure, working outside the trappings of the horror/sci-fi genre. However, the film actually has a lot in common with what was explored in Existenz, however, here it's taken from a completely different angle.

The film starts off a bit slow, which is a neccesity for the plot, but the beginning wasn't that strong. That's one of the problems with having to set up a mundane status quo, if you spend too much time on it, it hurts the film's forward momentum, as in the wedding scene in The Deer Hunter, however, if you don't spend enough time, you get no sense of the change when the action elements emerge. So, I think this film finds a solid balance, you thoroughly understood this guy's life.

The film is interesting in the way it navigates around the generic conventions of the action film. The story at first seems to have very little in common with an action movie, and when Tom stops the diner robbery, it's a momentary blip in his normal life, not an impetus to enter a generic space. That makes the film's forward progress even more interesting. We stay in the 'normal' world of the first twenty minutes well after the first apperance of the action stuff.

I was under the impression that the film would be primarily about the effect of this diner robbery on a man's life, and had no knowledge of the whole Joey issue. I think there's plenty to explore in how this one act of violence changes the way someone perceives things, but what this film did touched on a bunch of bigger issues. I always love films that discuss identity issues, and the way in which people 'wear' false personas. Tom is a construct, entirely fictional, but for those who know him, he's more real than Joey. That would mean that Tom has become more real than Joey, and the only person he has to continue fooling is himself.

But his act of heroism sees the Joey persona reemerge, and the appearance of Fogerty threatens to destroy the life Tom has led. With the emergence of Joey, the film leaves the everyday realism of small town America for the hyped up intensity of the world of action film. First glimpsed in the diner fight, this comes to a head in the scene where Tom kills Fogerty. The film presents extremely graphic violence, and clearly takes pleasure in showing Tom's skill as a killer. The noise of buzzing flies and sight of rotting flesh ties this in with the decaying organic environments of Existenz.

When Tom kills those men, it is Joey emerging to protect the false Tom indentity. Edie's discovery of this alternate persona calls into the question her entire life, most notably articulated when she asks if Tom just made up the name 'Tom Stall,' and if he did, what does that mean for her identity and the kids'. One of the more questionable scenes in the film is the rape, where Edie essentially stops resisting Tom and seems to enjoy what he's doing to her.

I do question it, but at the same time, I think her motivation is apparent. In the previous scene she'd told the sheriff that there was no Joey, realizing that to expose Tom's secret would be the destruction of her life. In the following scene, she has the choice between rejecting Tom/Joey and again rendering her life false, or accepting this man as Tom and allowing their life to continue as was. In the end, she chooses to let him back into the house, and in the final scene, even though we're not sure what will happen next, it's clear that Edie has embraced the lie, and chosen to see Tom as the family man he's created, rather than the killer he was.

The film reminded me of Chanwook Park's Vengeance trilogy, in the way it's a film about the negative effects of violence, yet at the same time clearly fetishizes the filmic depiction of violent acts. Cronenberg stages the final showdown as a hyperbolic scene of murder excess, where Joey's full skill as a killer comes into play to destroy everyone who knows about his past. Ironically, it's only Joey who can protect Tom, and after he kills all Richie's people, he's essentially killed Joey as well. He can go back to the life he had, and no one will know about who he as, except for Edie, and she's chosen to embrace the lie.

The film is clearly a critique of American life, implying that our peace and stability is a false front, built on countless violent acts, with more and more violence neccesary to preserve the status quo. I think this was a top notch film, simultaneously entertaining and thought provoking. It reminds me of Straw Dogs, in the way it uses thriller trappings as a strong critique of American life.

Film 2005

So far, this has been a pretty weak year for movies, or at least for American movies, because it usually takes a year or two for stuff from Asia and the rest of the world to make it over here. Other than Revenge of the Sith, there hasn't been one film out this year that I'd consider a truly great film. Crash, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Serenity, these have been good, but nothing essential. And more than that, there haven't even been that many films that I've wanted to see.

However, in the past couple of weeks, we've been starting to get the awards season films coming out and I'm suddenly flooded with films that I want to see. I'm on break this weekend, and I'll be heading to the city to see Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean's Mirrormask. I'm usually a bit hesitant about the young person transported to fantasy realm genre, it just seems very 80s. I remember even as a kid noticing the dated clothes and hairstyles of the people in them. However, a few weeks ago I watched Labyrinth and really enjoyed it. It was extremely 80s, but strangely, I love the datedness of the fashion now, it only enhances the story. Bowie was great, and it was cool to see a young Jennifer Connely. Some of the muppets worked, some didn't, but the fantasy ball sequence made the whole film worth seeing, with its wondeful masks and Bowie music. Between Eyes Wide Shut and this, there's just something about crazy masks.

And that brings us back to Mirrormask, which is being touted as a thematic successor to Labyrinth. The trailer's amazing and Neil is one of my favorite authors, even if this film does seem to indulge in some of the weaker points of his writing. But it seems to McKean who's the real star here, the visuals do an uncanny job of capturing the feeling of his comic art and design work.

I'm also hoping to get to Thumbsucker when I'm home. This is a film firmly planted in the quirky indie teen dramedy genre, and I usually enjoy those. It's got a great cast, and Air named a song after the director. However, the biggest draw for me is the soundtrack by The Polyphonic Spree. I got the soundtrack album, which is great, and I'm really interested to see how their music plays in a film.

Next week sees the release of two new films I want to see, though both have rather negative advance buzz. One is Domino, whose trailers have been a gloriously post modern, quick cut assault of off beat action. I think action movies usually work better when centered around a female protagonist, because it creates more interesting themes. If a man is going around as a bounty hunter, it's accepted, if a woman is, it raises questions, and there are very legitimate questions about why anyone would want to go around killing people. I'd like things to reach the point where people inherently question the reason why men would kill too, but we're not there yet.

Along with this, films with female action heroes are frequently more focused around creating realistic, or at least emotionally alive characters, as in the case of Kill Bill II, or on TV, Alas or Buffy. Of course there are exceptions, like Catwoman or Elektra. And it's not to say that you can't have good action films centered around men, Angel is a character who's just as emotionally complex as Buffy, it's just that generally your male action hero is motivated solely by either a family member who's kidnapped or a family member who's been killed, and that's what passes for character development.

And if you consider the fact that Keira Knightley and Natalie Portman at times look uncannily alike, this is closest we'll get to a followup to Leon. The trailers promise a quick cut, varying film stock, crazy visual film and I'm hoping that the finished product lives up to that.

Also on Friday, Cameron Crowe's Elizabethtown is released. This is a film with awful advance buzz, but I'm willing to give anything Crowe does a look. Almost Famous is one of my favorite films, and I loved Vanilla Sky. However, Elizabethtown seems to have the same plot as Garden State, and I feel like that film covered the territory perfectly. So we'll see, that one may be a wait for the DVD.

Capote is something else I'd want to see. Philip Seymour Hoffman's one of my favorite actors, and I've read In Cold Blood twice, so I'd like to see how the book came about.

So, we'll see how much of this I get to. Reviews will be forthcoming.

Nip/Tuck: 'Kiki' (3x02)

Nip/Tuck is a show that always seems to be trying to push the boundaries of audience tolerance, putting stuff in the show that will make you say, "They've gone too far this time." And this season seems to be trying to take things the furthest they can go, so last episode we get nasty fat woman stuck to couch and this week it's bunch of transsexuals urinating on Matt, throw in a barely motivated threesome and every character smoking pot and you've got something to offend everyone. I'm not offended by the content, but I think in their attempt to push the boundaries, the show can lose some of its dramatic integrity.

Being on F/X , they have stricter limits than shows on HBO, and you won't hear the word Fuck or see nudity outsideof the surgery, but at the same time the show seems much more obsessed with how far it can go than something like Six Feet Under ever was. SFU could show you a dead body, but the focus was never on how nasty it was, it was merely backdrop for the real dramatic importance. However, Nip/Tuck is all about surface. One could say this is appropriate in a show about plastic surgery, but there's a reason that beauty is more than skin deep. So, maybe stop trying to push the boundaries of acceptability and start trying to restore a sense of order to the character arcs.

Even though the show's character arcs are thinly motivated, it's still very entertaining to watch. It's just I can't identify with any of these people, or empathize with them. I don't really care what happens to them, so I view the show as a passive observer. The only consistently entertaining characters are Christian and Kimber, and they barely appeared in this episode.

So, I watch, I enjoy, but I don't engage, and that's the show's main flaw.

Gilmore Girls: 'Always a Godmother, Never a God' (6x04)

Once again, Gilmore Girls gives us a solid but not extraordinary episode that continues to show us the lives that Rory and Lorelai are living without each other. I wouldn't say the show's been in a rut since the season premiere, but it hasn't matched that level of intensity since. I don't think the creators want to be that dark, the show is a dramedy, but that means that we've gotten a series of episodes that haven't really led anywhere and leave a lot of the more meaningful stuff to subtext.

Rory once again is getting more and more sucked into her grandmother's world. She's forced to run the party by herself, and makes all the polite jokes required of a person in polite society. But it's not clear whether this is something she actually enjoys, or just a task she has taken on to keep herself busy and further the illusion that she's actually doing something so dropping out of Yale was not a mistake.

Her conversation with Lane was all about this. I liked the fact that the awkwardness was palpable. These were two people who were really close, but very rarely interacted in recent episodes, so they have to cross that initial barrier to relate to each other again. Rory tries to defend her lifestyle, but it's pretty clear she's not entirely convinced even herself that what she's doing is the right thing.

Over with Lorelai, there were some funny bits with Beau. That setup was pure screwball comedy, it makes no sense in the plot, and is just dropped out of nowhere to be used for some jokes. They worked, but it was a bit odd nonetheless. I did like the scenes with her and Rory, where they both want to reach out, but just can't and as a result further alienate each other.

One curious thin about this episode was the fact that they went to commercial after what I assumed would be the end, when Rory goes to New York, but then came back for one two minute scene. Very strange. But that scene was great, the 'Riding the Bus with My Sister' clip was hilarious, it's hard to believe someone actually made that movie, but it's all too real.

So, not too much to say about this one, though next week's episode looks like it's got a lot of potential.

Across the Narrows Festival

I just got back from the epic concert event, Across the Narrows, a festival featuring The Raveonettes, Belle and Sebastian, The Polyphonic Spree and Beck, and some other bands who I did not go early enough to see. It took two hours via Metro North and Subway to get to Coney Island. The concert was held at Keyspan Park, where the minor league baseball team, the Brooklyn Cyclones, play, and it worked great for the concert. The stage was in the center of the field, so you could see from the stands, but there was also a general area where you could go as far front as you could get. I watched the first three bands I saw from very close to the stage, in a whole mess of people.

One note on the setlists below, I just put down all the songs I remembered them playing, roughly in order, but it's by no means exact. Still, it'll give you an idea of what was played.

The Raveonettes
You Say, You Lie//Attack of the Ghost Riders//Red Tan//Sleepwalking//Ode to L.A.//My Boyfriend's Back//Do You Believe Her?//Somewhere in Texas//Love in a Trashcan

So, the first band I saw was The Raveonettes. I actually started listening to them because they were going to be at this show and I figured I might as well know as many bands as I could to get my money's worth, and I ended up loving their stuff. They've got a dark 50s rock feel, like something that belongs in a David Lynch film. Their first album picks up on the simple driving elements of 50s rock, the same stuff that provided the foundations for punk. But with their most recent they branch out into 50s pop, and create some fantastic songs.



They opened with a nasty version of "You Say, You Lie," and I mean the good nasty. The song's three minutes on the album, but must have been at least five there, with some great extended instrumental stuff. That's my favorite element of seeing a band live, watching the ways they can transform the song through the medium of live performance, and this song was probably the highlight of their set, despite not being that remarkable on the album.

The most notable thing about their live show was how the lighter. poppy songs from "Pretty in Black" are turned into hard rockers like the stuff off the first album. Everything was heavier, more bass driven, and it worked really well. I don't think the crowd was that into them, but that's more because people were likely there to see Belle or Beck, and The Raveonettes were just a bonus along the way.



The other highlight of the set was "Sleepwalking," which is perfect for live playing, with its drastic changes in tone and tempo. It's always good to make people really want to her the rocking out part of the song again by interrupting it with something slower. Unfortunately they were cut off with one song to go, which I'd guess was "Uncertain Times," or at least that's the one track I really wish they'd played but didn't.



So, on the whole The Raveonettes were awesome. I was near a guitarist who either Indian or really tan and he was totally rocking out. And their singer is beautiful and has great stage presence. This is a band I definitely want to see again, I'd go to their NYC show next week, except I've got to be at school.



The Polyphonic Spree
Have a Day//It's the Sun//Hold Me Now//New Song//We Sound Amazed//Move Away and Shine (In a Dream)//What Would You Let Go//Everything Starts at the Seams//When the Fool Becomes a King

The Polyphonic Spree were my main reason for going to this show. It's a 45 minute bus ride and hour and a half train ride to my house from school. Then another two hours on trains to get to the show, then reverse all that, plus $55 for the ticket. But it's all worth it if it means getting a chance to see The Polyphonic Spree perform again. I saw them back in August of 2004 and it was the best concert I've ever been to, completely overwhelming.

I was a bit disappointed when they opened with 'Have a Day,' probably their weakest song, and choosing to open rather than the perfect opener "We Sound Amazed," made it even tougher. But they rebounded with a great rendition of 'It's the Sun,' and their set gradually kept building and building in quality.



I was able to get much closer to the band, and they were more spread out than at Irving Plaza, so I was able to observe a lot more of the instruments in use. They had an awesome electronic clarinet played by the floutist that produced some great noises. And there was also a really cool moog, an instrument played by waving you hands near it to make strange noises. Together these two and the keyboard were used to great effect during instrumental breakdown type sequences.

They played a new song which sounded pretty good, but it's tough to evaluate on one listen, especially in a live context. It was cool to hear Move Away and Shine, which is their most recent release and top notch stuff. The one misstep was a long version of "What Would You Let Go" which just died on the crowd, it's not a bad song, but it should be used more as a bridge between their bigger stuff, rather than as such a long piece in and of itself.



However, in the final couple of songs they did, they were the best I've ever seen them. "We Sound Amazed" was awesome, and was soon followed by what must have been a fifteen minute version of "When the Fool Becomes King." The Spree's songs are perfect for a live venue because they're so big and anthemic, and "Fool" is perfect because of its many stops and starts, letting them play with the audience. During the song there was an odd bit where the whole band froze and Tim wandered around looking at them. And after going through this whole song, they returned to the refrain from "It's the Sun," and just took it beyond, one of their drummers was just throwing stuff over, it was amazing. To do such a long buildup and then have this astonishing payoff, I was totally caught up in it, and the audience was thoroughly 'converted' by the end of the performance.

I would say this was even better than the first time I saw them. The sound quality was much better, as much as I loved the first show, I could barely hear during the second half of the performance, being outside worked better. And I can't wait for them to come around again.

Belle and Sebastian
Stars of Track and Field//The Wrong Girl//Electronic Renaissance//The Boy with the Arab Strap//Me and The Major//Loneliness of a Middle Distance Runner//I'm a Cuckoo//If You Find Yourself Caught in Love//Judy and the Dream of Horses

Belle and Sebastian were the other major reason I went to the show. I only started listening to them earlier this year, but they've since become one of my favorite bands and I was psyched to see them live. Now, as they were getting ready to go on I saw a line of four people holding violins. This was the band's string section, and it was huge. With the four violins, there were twelve people in Belle, and only coming after The Polyphonic Spree could this seem like a managable number.

It seems like most of their fans are still most enamored of their early work, particularly "If You're Feeling Sinister." Now, I love that album, but I actually prefer their more recent stuff, "Dear Catastrophe Waitress" is their best work. But, whenever they broke out a vintage track, the crowd went wild, most notably with the opener, "Stars of Track and Field." This is one of their best songs, and it was cool to hear it live.

The band seemed a bit disorganized. With The Spree, all their songs flowed into one another, building momentum, but Belle would stop between songs to rearrange instrumentation, slowing things down. I was impressed by how many instruments everyone could play, Stuart shifted between guitars and keyboard, and the others bounced around as well. I loved when they broke out the string section, and the trumpet bits were a highlight too, though the best instrumental portion was the harmonica solo on "Me and the Major."



While their early work is great, it's less conducive to live performance. I liked hearing those songs, but you can't really get into them as an audience member. But that's part of the problem with transferring certain kinds of music to a live venue. Can you really 'rock out' to dark, slow songs? However, that wasn't a big problem, since most of the songs they played were more uptempo.

My favorite song they did "If You Find Yourself Caught in Love," a solid song on the record, but phenomenal live. I had the problem that I don't know their catalogue that well, so a lot of the time I'd be struggling to figure out which song it was until they got to the chorus. They closed with a great rendition of "Judy and the Dream of Horses," which went over big with the crowd.

After listening to them, I was contemplating leaving. I'd been standing for four hours wedged in between a whole bunch of people, and it was taking a toll. I know Beck's singles and a few other songs, but I haven't listened to too much of his stuff. However, I got some food, ate it and then saw that Stuart of Belle and Sebastian was over signing autographs, so I got my ticket signed and asked him about the upcoming Belle and Sebastian comic, which he doesn't seem to be too involved in, though I guess the fact that it's adaptations of his songs means he did play a role. So, it was cool to talk with him, and by the time that was done, Beck was on, and I figured I might as well stay.

Beck
Black Tambourine//Girl//Devil's Haircut//Guero//Loser//Minus//Emergency//Guess I'm Doing Fine//Lonesome//Hotwax//Where It's At//Get Paid//Broken Drum//Lost Cause//Do You Realize//Golden Age//Clap Hands//Sexx Laws//Mixed//Epro

I started out at the back, watching the set from a distance. They had a very cool video backdrop, which was being mixed by a video DJ. So that threw all sorts of strange colors onto the performers. It was cool to hear 'Girl' and 'Loser,' songs I knew. As the set passed, I gradually moved forward and was getting more and more drawn in. The dancy rock worked really well live and there was all kinds of odd dancing going on in the crowd. His stuff works great live and he had a surprisingly strong stage presence.

This was backed up by a guy who was described as being responsible for "percussion and body movements." He broke out the break dancing favorites, the robot, the pulling yourself up from the ground, etc, and he was wearing the obligatory 70s police sunglasses, which were widespread today.



So, I loved Beck's set. He did a really cool acoustic part in the middle, where his band sat down to eat dinner, and after a couple of songs they started to use the plates and glasses as percussion instruments, eventually performing 'Golden Age' with this dinner table backing. I'm really glad I stayed, his set was top notch.

After it was over, I was hit in the face by something. I thought that was nasty, but I looked up and there was a guy saying "Setlist," so I looked down and there was a crumpled up piece of paper with the setlist on it. So, that explains why the one setlist here that's actually correct is for the guy who's work I don't even know. So that was a nice bonus, and by this time I was so tired from standing for six hours that I was able to zone out on the ride home and it went by quickly.

All the artists were great, but I also have to respect this concert for running on time. Everyone went on pretty much when they were supposed to and the time between set changes was minimal. I'd love to see this become an annual thing. And one other note, I didn't take any of these pictures, I just linked them off people's flickrs.