The invisible influence

A few years ago, when I was young(er) and dumb(er), I remember asking my mother what was the big deal about the Beatles. They had a ton of famous songs, but they really did not sound all that much better than other bands. Catchy, yes, but nothing that no one else was doing. My poor mother might be not a pop culture junkie, but gave me the perfect answer: "you don´t know how dull music was before the Beatles came around".

The Beatles is only one example of band, movie, game or TV show that does not look all that impressive for the untrained eye, mainly because they have been so massively influential that they don´t look all that exceptional anymore.

For someone that did not had to slog across the dreadful movies of the eighties, "Pulp Fiction" is just another clever post modern artifact. Yeah, wicked script, clever writing, tons of witty quotes and cute time line gimmicks. As artifacts go, it is a very shinny one, but it is not that different. Of course, that misses the point that movies got a whole lot better after/because "Pulp Fiction", basically because they were shamelessly ripping it off. The movie was such a change of direction that it is easy to forget what it spawned.

We have this kind of movies across the decades, hidden in plain sight. "North by Northwest" is just another clever action thriller; of course, it just invented the whole idea. "Jaws" it is just another summer blockbuster - just the one that invented the concept. "Night of the Hunter" basically invented the psychokiller movie. Even "Citizen Kane" is only obviously great if you have watched some of the stilted wrecks that were typical of the era - movies that no one watches anymore.

The same goes for TV shows (and that´s why "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is awesome, kids), videogames ("Ocarina of Time", "Half Life", or even "Super Mario Bros"), music (Joy Division, for instance), comics (Watchmen) or even novels (Don Quixote, if I have to be a snob). Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but sometimes it has the side effect that it makes your work invisible - what you added to the art gets such a widespread use that it is easy to forget that you are the one that brought it to life.

And yes, "Buffy" is that kind of show. One hour drama with long arch plots, character focused episodes (no, Lost did not come up with that), irony, pop culture references galore and smarty-pants self awareness looks common now, but it wasn´t used all that often a few years ago. But that´s a discussion for another post, where we workship the Whedon as he deserves.

Watchmen: the review

I am really reluctant to review Watchmen. For starters, I don't like the book; I worship it. It is one of my favorite novels of all time, which makes any adaptation struggle against a very, very high standard. The only movie that had to climb a mountain this big to convince me before was The Lord of The Rings, in fact; and as much as I appreciate Tolkien's work, I don't know if I have obsessed as much with the themes of his novel.

It is not that LOTR is a "shallow" novel, by any means (and any victim of catholic school will probably be able to point out how deeply religious and theological the book is), but Middle Earth was for a long time a place were I slayed Orcs and Trolls with my buddies on a RPG setting. Watchmen, I read it later, and I was already a uptight, snobbish intellectual when I got a hold of the book. My worship is equally strong, but it is far brainier. Not a good thing.

Anyway, back to the movie. The test for Watchmen was if it would get the same overwhelming feeling that I got in LOTR when I realized that Peter Jackson had been on my brain and made the movie I always have dreamt about. The Fellowship of the Ring was pitch-perfect in looks and tone; it was exactly what I had in mind when reading the book. It made the book hard to read after the fact, as the images are so fully realized on the screen. With Watchmen... not so much.

Before watching the movie I would have said that it was impossible to cram the comic into a 2h 40 min script; it just had too much detail. Visually, however, I believed that making a good movie was a given, as you had the mother of all storyboards as starting point, and a pretty clearly defined tone and grittiness in the plot and visuals. Something like Blade Runner-meets-Dick Tracy; a Fifth Element without flying cars and crazy camera movements.

Well, Watchmen does the hard part right, with an excellent, brooding, layered script with all the right cuts and changes, but totally, utterly, massively fucks up the easy side, with Zack Snyder fucking up the visual style something fierce. We got what could be described as Michael Bay-meets-Batman; a garish, overshot, wildly exaggerated style that overuses slow mo and the glossy, plastic-fab look of blatant CGI "upgrading" to highly distracting levels. To top things of, the movie has what is probably the worst sex scene seen in a Hollywood movie since Showgirls and the fierce swimming pool of hair splashing; a scene that has ruined one of the best songs ever for future generations.

We end up with a really odd movie. The themes are there. The script is wonderful, and noting the reactions of many critics that have read the book (Roger Ebert, giving it four stars), it really gets the point accross. In addition, you get the feeling that the extended edition of the movie will be even better, as some of the things cut out (Roscharch's backstory, for instance) would get back in. The overall "feel" of the movie, however, is completely off, in part of the annoying visual flourish, in part because it should not really be sold as an action movie at all. Watchmen, the book, essentially has only three very, very short "action" sequences.

In terms of nitpicking, there is plenty; most of it having to do with minor changes to characters that have some influence in how to interpret the themes of the movie and book. For instance, Rorschach is much more of a blatant fascist in the book than it is in the movie; he is not really a bad ass, but a maniac. Veidt is not such an asshole in the book, either; he is more suave and subtle. Sally / Silk Specter is much more of a mess in the book. Nite Owl, the Comedian and Manhattan, however, are all spot on.

To tell the truth, I could be riffing on the whole intellectual-philosophical thing behind the book and movie for hours, so I will spare you of that... for now. I do answer questions and requests. If someone is really masochistic, please go read my upcoming post in my other blog (in Spanish) for all the PolSci nerdiness.

I Liked it!

But then, I am not a theater critic. I am a big nerd that hates a lot of stuff and demonizes those who deserve being demonized.

It turns out that the theater critic of the almighty NYT didn´t like the Broadway revival of Guys & Dolls, a play that we saw in previews and I greatly enjoyed. To tell the truth, I believe my problem is that I have the whole concept backwards; I always believed that G&D was a delightful, classic musical in the same sense that pre-Citizen Kane movies are delightful and classic. That is, it is a great piece, considering what was going on during the period.

The thing is, the original material is sorta flat. G&D has quite a few great songs, but the plot is just a couple steps up from a bland daytime sitcom; if it wasn´t for the music, no one would even remotely remember the play. That´s the whole point of some musicals, after all; you buy into the whole happy fiction and forgive that the whole thing is a bit of a contrived mess. Like opera, but sung by humans and without needing years of education and snobbery to get it.

So this G&D is slightly clunky and a bit flimsy. Well, the play sorta is. So what. The actors are engaging, the play flows really well, and everyone buy Craig Bierko (at least the day we saw it) can deliver a good tune. The critic bables about the lack of chemistry, but to tell the truth, I think it was there in plain sight. In G&D, there is not much depth into the whole character thing, so it is all about the actors making you have a good time, and I had it. It is not the best play of all time, but that´s what´s on the script.

If you want depth and all that, wait until Sondheim.

U2, that sham

In one of our frequent and deep, reasoned, magnificent conversations on all things cultural here at the Dump World HQ (aka the dumpster) we just reached this conclusion: U2 are a sham.

Case in point: what album is usually considered to be U2 seminal, classic, ultra-awesome album? Legends say that Joshua Tree is the holy grail of all things Bono; their creative peak. Well, let me offer a track list, and please, be sincere: how many songs do you remember?

1. "Where the Streets Have No Name"
2. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
3. "With or Without You"
4. "Bullet the Blue Sky"
5. "Running to Stand Still"
6. "Red Hill Mining Town"
7. "In God's Country"
8. "Trip Through Your Wires"
9. "One Tree Hill"
10. "Exit"
11. "Mothers of the Disappeared"

Here is the cruel truth: there are only three good songs. Four, if you catched "Bullet the Blue Sky" on the B-side on the greatest hits or something. The famed Joshua Tree is actually three (amazing, mind blowing, absolutely classic) singles and a whole ton of filer.

Do you thing Joshua Tree is the only one? Check the track list of pretty much any album from them. Bono manages to squeeze two or three stunning songs on each CD, and the just vomits his way until the end of the album. This is a band that has writen songs called "Elvis Presley and America", for fuck's sake. With the possible exception of All That You Can't Leave Behind (and even there you find some amazing turds, like the inane and self important "When I Look at the World") every single album is either half finished or gets clobbered on the way to release by Bono's gigantic ego.

I would get into the dangers are perils of Bono Syndrome and other types of music megalomania in another post, but you know, "Miss Sarajevo" and all that.

In any case, U2 are an awesome band... an awesome greatest hits band. If you are a bit patient, you will be more than well served by sitting out their albums and waiting until the end of the decade, when they release a compilation. Bono will still make sure that there are at least a couple of turdtastic songs on the CD (hello, "When Love Comes to Town") and an irrelevant B-sides companion (so you know, don't but the deluxe edition), but you will get a great seat of absolutely magnificent songs.

They should release them on Rock Band. The bastards.

Random caffeine-fueled mussings

• Dear EW:we are finally caught up with Battlestar Galactica. The last two episodes were much less exciting (albeit still totally awesome) thanks to your wonderful spoilers, thank you very much.

• Why Orlando Bloom still has a career? He is a talent of Zellwegerian proportions. And no, being in the LOTR movies doesn´t give you a pass. Even playing an inmortal elf not prone to sentimentality, he was still terrible in many scenes there.

• Keeping with EW, their videogame reviews are pretty terrible. You are not supposed to review gaming using movie-based criteria; it is a completely different medium. I won´t claim that videogame reviews are a settled matter (gaming sites use a wildly inconsistent set of criteria) but the focus should be in mechanics and player interaction with the medium, not on how-movie-like the game is. Prince of Persia is not a bad game, but its main innovation / drawback (depends on who you ask) is that it takes a lot of control away from the player. You must mention that in a review.

• Oh, and it´s me, or Lost has been pretty lame so far this season. For some reason it is not really getting me the same way. Of course, the season finale last year was stellar, having a killer build up and all, so it could be a matter of expectations. The thing is, there are so many things in the process of being answered right now that I am deadly afraid that some of them will lead to disappointing anwers. I have faith in you, Lost, but I am scared. Please, don´t disappoint.

The best show in TV: Battlestar Galactica

Battlestar Galactica is the best show in TV right now. Period.

Wait a second. Sit down. It is not my geek side taking over the good taste and snobbery circuits of my brain, clouding my good judgment at the sight of awesome spaceships and Tricia Helfer. When I say that a show is really that good I mean it; spaceships and murderous sexy robots that like to have hot robot sex with humans aside, Galactica (2K version) it is a fantastic show.

The show shares basically two things with its 1970s predecessor: the premise (last vestiges of the human race on the run after almost completely annihilated by Cylons) and some of the character names. Besides that, it is a completely different show; dark, brooding, gritty, intense and just plain awesome.

It is one of those rare cases that you see a show begin with a good idea and push it way beyond you could ever imagine; Galactica has seen episodes dealing with patriotism, balancing freedom and security, faith, torture, treason, politics, duty, trade unions, trust, friendship, love and pretty much anything you can imagine. The characters in Galactica are not "good" or "bad" they are real, frail, weak human beings / awesomely hot robots trying to cope with unthinkable horrors and very hard choices, and trying to do their best when dealing with them. Treason, failure, fear, heroism, fanaticism, anger, faith is not just a matter of doing the right thing or failing; what is a right and what is wrong is sometimes very hard to say.

I don't want to spoil any plotlines (see bellow), but when a trial against a major character had me seriously having doubts and making me reconsider what treason is and what it means you know a show is into something.

It is actually pretty unbelievable that a show this good has been so ignored come award season. As usual, pointy headed critics are too serious and deep to even come to consider a SciFi / genre show for anything besides visual effects (see also: The Dark Knight Returns, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), something that seriously drives me nuts.

Believe me, I know a good show when I see it. I workship all the right altars. I am one of the cool kids. And Galactica is up there with the Sopranos, the Wire, Mad Men, the West Wing and whatever high brown show of your choice in terms of sheer awesome.

Rocking fake plastic guitars and not getting it

I will probably elaborate on this subject a bit more later, as it is something that is very close to my heart, but both Nicholas Carr and Rob Horning (via Andrew Sullivan) need to be seriously smacked down from that very high horse they ride around. I love rampant snobbery as the best of us; I am happy to be labeled a music Nazi, living up there in the Ivory Tower watching seventies movies and proclaiming they are "alluring", "elegant" and "brilliant post-Marxist deconstructions of the male ethos" if needed.

But seriously, critizing Guitar Hero by quoting the post-consumption theorizing of Jon Elster? I know Jon Elster, sir (seriously, I do. I told you I am thick-rimmed glasses intellectual) and he will call you bullshit in that statement. They really don´t get the point.

Guitar Hero (and its awesome, badass, glorious full-band successor, Rock Band) it is not music for people that don´t have time for learning to play music. It is not a cheap, fast food version of glory for morons; melody and rythm for dilettantes, those guys too lazy and lacking the level of true awesome to learn to play guitar (or drums) for real.

Why? Well for starters there is a whole bunch of people out there that will never be able to learn to play a real instrument. I love music; I have a ton of it. I workship all the right bands and musicians. I am a member of the "in" crowd, card carrying hipster armed with iPod and Gigabytes of awesome music. Despite the fact that I fart good taste, I am completely, utterly, totally devoid of music talent. I can not hit a note to save my life. My sense of rythm is non-existant. My fingers are as good as iogurt when trying to strum a guitar. I can´t follow a drum pattern even if it was 10 beats per minute. You get the idea.

What someone as musically inept as myself has left to fullfill his music fantasies (Glory! Fans! Arenas!) is either rocking out in the shower (sad) or getting into the fake plastic guitar business. It is that simple. Those games are basically a better, more fun way to enjoy music; not just listening, but playing along even if you are completely talentless. You focus and the music and let go; yes, it is just a game, but it feel awesome. If turned all the way to eleven, you do it with three friends, in a friggin´ band, and call it Rock Band, possibly the best party game of all time this side of Wii Sports.

Of course, having fun is probably not good enough for those that crave the pain of learning. It is not music if you don´t make your fingers bleed. Whatever. I will never be able to learn for real; let me enjoy my cheap imitation.