I have to see a movie this weekend. (Oh, and you should also try to.)

It looks like the holiday movie season has climaxed. I can't see movie-goers having more or better options in the next month or so.

What I have to see: these are movies that I know I will like before seeing them. It's just a matter of finding the time to go out and enjoy myself.
For Your Consideration - Christopher Guest's latest, with the regular cast (from Spinal Tap, Waiting For Guffman, Best in Show, A Mighty Wind), this time playing the hopeful (if naive) cast of a film awaiting the possible?, probable?, and then likely!? Oscar nominations.
Stranger Than Fiction - I heard Farrell pulls off the transition to drama as well as Jim Carrey did with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Good peer reviews have kept my interest alive in this one (I had my doubts from the previews, but have been reminded how skewed they can be).

What I want to see, eventually:
Bobby - Written and Directed by Emilio Estavez. Enough said. Just kidding. Sort of.
Deja Vu - If nothing else, a good excuse to eat popcorn.
Fast Food Nation - I was surprised, and then impressed that Linklater was hired to fictionalize this book instead of letting it going the shock-you-mentary route.
Sweetland - My mom said it was good.
Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny - Eh, maybe not as good of an excuse to eat popcorn, but Black promises laughs. Good afternoon with the dudes movie.
The Queen - I've heard only good things about this film that humanizes the Royal Family and gives a less tabloid-inclined picture of these usually ordinary people. Plus director Steven Frears has impressed me in the past (Dirty Pretty Things, My Beautiful Laundrette).

And, Flags of our Fathers and Little Miss Sunshine are still playing at Riverview...

There's a lot out there people.

What I have seen recently:
Babel - Would-be-great-movie. Definitely still worth seeing. I just need this question answered: Is the failure to communicate everything at the end of the film completely intentional? Or are they letting you make the final point/connections because they couldn't (skillfully, easily) bring it all togther in the end?
Casino Royale - Did they modernize this story solely for better product placement? That bugged me. Otherwise the film went along with my Bond movie expectations.

*BONUS - Mini Review*
The Fountain - I was nervous before seeing this one, for Aronofsky (the film's director, see also Pi and Requiem for a Dream). That sounds funny, but I really didn't want this director to blow his first 'big budget' on a big budget kind of movie, if you know what I mean.

Selling out, or crowd pleasing, might be what I mean...

But he didn't. When I walked out of the theatre it was obvious to me that Aronofsky made exactly the film he wanted to make. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.

From the sounds of it, however, I might be taking a defensive stance when I say how good this film is. The reviews I've seen of The Fountain have gone as low as half a star out of four! Some reviews are better, and some are great, and some critics merely defend the film, as I am, but seriously, half a star!? I generally hesitate to make judgements of people that I don't know, but I think that this film either went completely over the heads of some of these critics, or maybe (I'll be gracious) they just missed the point.

Ok, the plot is a little hard to follow, and even though I don't mind working a little bit when I watch a movie, maybe it all could have been made clearer - but I feel like I still only say that to satiate the remarks of some of these critics. They try to excuse the film, calling it ambitious (at best), but at no point did I feel like Aronofsky was trying to accomplish too much, or that he just had too many ideas for one film... It felt more to me like he really launched himself at this project with all of his energy - the result being that the audience gets sucked in to the whirlwind of fantastic imagery and storytelling that is Aronofsky's mind. If you just allow yourself to go along for the ride, amidst whatever confusion you my have early on, you are rewarded by the end with the kind of euphoric energy that the film's main character also experiences at the film's conclusion.

So go see The Fountain. You might like it.

8 Concerts That Will Help You Identify With Me Musically.

Thus far I have posted about Ultimate, film, politics, games, cereal, and a bit about my personal life in an effort to internally and externally promote and extend thoughts and opinions. You can expect to read a lot more of my thoughts concerning both Ultimate and film, and some more political debates will surely arise... But there are some areas that I haven't gone into, or haven't gone into as much as I'd like, including my personal life, fine art & design, and music.

So in the hopes of giving a more well-rounded impression of myself... MUSIC!

The music that people listen to can sometimes be a strong attractive/repellent force as well as a foundational element in forming or formed relationships. Here are some concerts that stand out in my mind as either having some personal/relationship type significance and/or musical/taste type significance in my short and limited history of concert-going.
*I should stress here that I DO NOT go to a lot of shows, although that being said, I go to as many as I really want to... The concert experience, which for some people is an almost necessary element to their appreciation of a band, has both its ups and down for me. As you will read below, the concerts that I've enjoyed the most have elevated my and expanded my musical consciousness, but for me, blasting a new CD alone in my van can be just as profound. (I really have a thing for highly produced and edited sound that my stereo can, and most shows can't deliver; CDs are cheaper than most shows; and I don't become the jaded-stoic-guy-in-the-back-of-the-club-who-is-glaring-at-all-of-the-kids-that are-ruining-his-experience-guy when I'm in my van. Then again, it is the memories of these shows that are driving this post... i.e.- the following isn't a list of top Alone in my Van CD Sessions... but that could be a good list too...

Anyways...

Chronologically,
1. Frank Black - Cedarfest (Minneapolis, MN) - August 20, 1996
I was a music snob in junior high. I would not listen to the hits stations, I scoffed at the general public's tastes. This was all largely due to my friendship with next door neighbor Andy Clayton, and his seemingly tireless interest, strong opinions and endless knowledge of everything to do with music. (About Andy: Andy has an older brother (knowledge/interest source?). Currently Andy is one of the founders of the band The Dad In Common.) At that age I was very receptive to the counter-culture attitude, and as it turns out, the music. It was with Andy that I went to Cedarfest to see Frank Black, and because of my considerable lack of knowledge in Music History I became probably one of the only Black fans to not know anything about a little band called The Pixies. But I have always been good at knowing pretty quickly when I like music that I hear, and I really liked what I heard that day. Other memorable moments: making protest signs and booing the Honeydogs as they played on the stage that Black was to perform on next; skanking (ska dancing) at one of the smaller side stages.

2. The Aquabats - The Quest (Minneapolis, MN) - Highschool.
Quirky/comedic, high-tempo, funky combat Ska. The show was theatrical, the music was all about energy, and that's what I wanted. I was pretty much straight edge at this point (what I did know of the movement, I agreed with, although I never identified myself as such), but this music and these concerts would give off a contact energy high. Ska was a gateway to Punk, which was a gateway to some of the bands I listen to today. (Bad Religion, Fugazi, even System of a Down, and occasionally *groups like* Mudvayne. Don't see a connection? Well, too bad. I do.)

3. Atmosphere, with Heiruspecs, Mr. Dibbs, and Borhter Ali - UW-Stout (Menomonie, WI) - Early college. Were all of these acts really there that night? How lucky were were to have driven there, without tickets, to wait around hoping either to find a scalper or that they would open up another block to sell at the door (which they did end up doing)?! I owe a lot to Atmosphere. I can't remember what got me listening to rap and hip-hop (Who turned me on to Digable Planets?), but it was Atmosphere and groups like them that kept me listening. In high school and into college I worked with a guy named Mike Gordon who went to Stout and we often talked about who we were listening to in the underground hip-hop scene. We met up at this show with some of my other friends from Eau Claire for what was many of our first live tastes of Rhymesayers Entertainment (a Minneapolis based label). This show was also my introduction to Heiruspecs, who ended up coming to Eau Claire a number of times afterwards (which was always a refreshing show to attend in a smallish Wisconsin city).

4. Wilco, The Bad Plus and Fog - ROCK THE GARDEN (Minneapolis) - June 13, 2003 Wilco was great, the venue was awesome, they had a corn dog vendor, and Tim and I saw a strange mingling of people from our past at this show. Also, this was the first time, and the only time since, that I got to see The Bad Plus. Also also, Dave King, The Bad Plus' percussionist, is one of my favorite musicians of all time. (You can also, as I have, see Dave King play in any of the following bands: Happy Apple, Halloween Alaska, Love Cars...) Also also also, see #8.

5. A Tribe Called Quest - Carleton College (Northfield, MN) - During college. Getting to see a hip-hop icon at an outdoor, festival-type show on a beautiful summer day in southern Minnesota - and for FREE! - unbelievable. The crowd was loud and excited, and ATCQ only got us going more. Thank you students of Carleton for paying your hefty tuition so this concert could happen, but not paying enough that there could be adequate security to check everyone's student IDs.

6. Sage Francis - House of Rock (Eau Claire, WI) - September 8, 2004 Again, pretty incredible that this concert happened in the Midwest outside of the Twin Cities, Madison or Chicago... A slam poet/rapper from New York shows up in Eau Claire, fills a club to over-capacity and nearly blows the roof off the place. My senior year college roommate Mario opened my eyes (at least wider) to Slam Poetry (he competed locally), and although I had heard some recordings of artists like Sage Francis and Saul Williams previous to that year, I'd never been to a 'Slam', or really listened with any frequency to these urban poets working so wizardly their wordly wars. My exposure to this art form couldn't have come at a better time. I was primed to see this Slam hero.

7. Beck - Roy Wilkens Auditorium (St. Paul, MN) - September 19, 2005 A dream come true, really. Beck was on my list of bands that I actually did feel the NEED to see at some point in my life. Beck did not disappoint, but I'd love to see him in a slightly more intimate setting. (Not really possible? Although outdoors may seem more intimate with the same number of people... see Special Topics below *sour grapes*.) In fact, I think that this was my first stadium-sized show, and I'm not very excited to attend another one (it would have to be a band of Beck-epic proportions).

8. Happy Apple - My Wedding - August 25, 2006. Months and months before my wedding I was doing the band booking thing. Änna and I wanted a small jazz group to play and I didn't really know where to start looking. I looked into the guys that play at The Artists' Quarter (we were familiar with them from the Tuesday Night Jazz that they put on) and ended up finding a contact of a contact of a contact to play at our wedding. During that time I had also sent out an "It never hurts to ask" sort of email to Happy Apple. This is a group I've seen a number of times around the Twin Cities and Eau Claire - a group that has national recognition - a group whose members have been described as saviors of jazz... and a couple weeks before the wedding I get an email from Dave King apologizing for not getting to us sooner, etc, and that they would do the job if still available. I was floored! First if all to just be getting an email from Dave King (I'm a dork) and second of all that Happy Apple might play at our wedding! I did have the moral dilemma of canceling on the other group without much notice... but I got over that pretty quick, canceled, and shore up things with Mr. King the next day. And Happy Apple played at our wedding. The End.

Special Topics:
1. The only concert to-date that I wish I could have/would have been at...
Neil Young and Beck (and others) at Horde Fest. But alas, I was destined to be aboard a sailboat in the middle of Lake Superior on that day... And it's not that I wanted to back out of the 2 week sailing excursion when I heard of this festival, but damn, it doesn't get much better (and I was way more crazy about those two back then, before my mind was polluted by all of this hip hop jibber jab...

2. Bands that I would go to see with you right now if you invited me:
Blackalicious, Aesop Rock, Snow Patrol, The Streets, The Gorillas, Bad Religion...

Q: Has this man made the funniest movie ever?

A: No.

It was pretty good though.

And considering that this film was even more hyped than the last ginormously anticipated comedy, 2004's Napoleon Dynamite, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is still able to deliver some original, unexpected, laugh-out-loud moments. But lots of movies do that... so what makes this one so hugely successful (even if not 'the funniest')?

*Note* Other movies have gone here before. In fact, any of the jokes or stunts could be found in: a film by Trey Parker and Matt Stone (South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut [1999], Team America: World Police [2004]), or either one of the Jackass movies. I might also add that you could find the uber-revealing, common-conservative-dissecting interviews found in Borat in any of Michael Moore's films, but having already referenced him in one of my previous entries I will abstain to keep you from thinking I'm partial to left wing loonies...

What Borat has over others like it is a classic Hollywood foundation in a character, a goal-oriented hero character even, who we get to follow on mission that's chronological, with cause and effect events that change said hero along the way. The Jackass pranksters don't have the central, developed character, or the story that leads from one scene to the next. The South Park/Team America movies do have this, but I think I realized this weekend how much their medium is affecting them. It's not a medium that the general public respects.

A friend asked me how Borat was after I had seen it Saturday night. I told them it was much like a South Park episode. She asked me next, "Well, but is it better because it's not animated?" I had no response. For me, there was no judgement to make between two films if the qualifying difference is animated vs. non-animated. But then I thought about it and I started to understand the question more (and more, I'm sure than the asker intended).

The creators of South Park do have a lot of my respect. They address more issues with that show than they are given credit for. Because their shows are animated, they do a lot more than would be possible, both physically and economically in a live action show/movie, and they can get away with a lot more socially and politically as well. Even after shows like The Simpsons, The Family Guy, Futurama, Beavis and Butthead, Drawn Together, etc., the cartoon medium still carries with it some sort of child-like innocence, and isn't judged seriously as a result (...and is allowed to be aired by major networks... Can you imagine seeing the spousal and child abuse (just one example) found in these shows to be allowed on camera [live action show], let alone in prime time?). This loose judgement can, of course, be a double edged sword. A risk of using a cartoon to make cultural statements is that your messages will be passed off as trivial (as is your medium). An animated feature can go further over the line than its live action equivalent, but there are still things that are being said by these 'adult cartoons' that could be appreciated by a larger audience. It might even be that the cartoon medium is a crutch for these popular film and TV writers. They can always fall back on their medium/genre and say, "We're only joking!" if they purportedly go too far.
I have supposed that the comedy genre suffers generally (not just with animations) from its apparently inherent triviality, but there has to be a compromise somewhere (between content and entertainment) to get people into the theatres.

Get people into the theaters, Borat did. As Borat, Sacha Cohen brought together the documentary/mockumentary interview aspects, the crazy stunts/pranks, as well as the social/political demi-objectives of films in the same vein, along with a central character (with goals) and a story/plot (in which he challenged/reevaluated those goals) that the audience could relate to. As for the messages carried by this film, it's up to the masses of people that saw Borat to decide how much of this comedy is just a joke.

I'm definitely out of gas on this one, but I thought it would be terribly appropriate to end the post with a cartoon. Enjoy.




Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan gets 3/5 stars.

IRV - Instant Runoff Voting!

I just wanted to re-post a website that I think deserves more prominence...
http://www.betterballotcampaign.org/

Check it out.

Thanks Dave for the comment(s), and thanks Tom for bringing more to light.

Bjorn

Voting, Independently.

The results are in. The Democrats have control of the House, the Senate is in the balance. All in all, an exciting Election Day.

I don't consider myself very political. I don't keep up with many of the issues and decisions that are made by my local and/or national representatives. I made my choices yesterday based on some light research and an MPR survey. Where I didn't know who the candidates were, I voted Democrat. In only one race did I make a vote that I had mixed feelings about, and that was the Governor's race. And this morning I find out that with much of the nation swinging to the left, Tim Pawlenty(R) remains in office in Minnesota.

The Results ........................................... Votes ..... Percent
(DFL) Mike Hatch and Judi Dutcher --------- 1,007,100_45.7%
(R) -- Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau ------- 1,029,186_46.7%
(IP) - Peter Hutchinson and Maureen Reed -- 141,656___6.4%
(GP)- Ken Pentel and Danene Provencher ---- 10,853____0.5%

I'm not surprised. And I don't think that I'm really that disappointed. But Pawlenty's election does seem to remind me of our last Presidential election a bit (and maybe the one before as well), although this time things are less severe (smaller race, less contrast between candidates, no popular vote vs. electoral debate...). Regardless, and just as in the '04 election, this Governor's race put me into the (now) familiar situation of having to choose between the candidate that would ideally serve me best and the candidate that would realistically serve the public.

After voting yesterday I take an emotional/moral/personal inventory, in regards to voting.
-Part of me just feels good for voting. I did a good thing.
-Part of me is panicked over me not eating enough for breakfast because I had to get up early to vote.
-Part of me was happy to see the voting line so long.
-Part of me is happy that I'm missing 5 minutes of work because the voting line was so long.
- Then, part of me thinks: "I should have voted for Peter Hutchinson, but I pussed out and voted for the candidate best equipped to take out the Republican incumbent!"

Why did I?

And why have I done this in the past?

I find myself pressured, by myself and by others, to vote for the candidates, and not the parties. I do believe that two parties is often too few to effectively represent the opinions of everyone. But like any issue, it's important that breaking up the two party system doesn't become an overwhelming factor in a person's voting record. And guess by now it's obvious that I think this might be happening a bit with voters on the left.

We liberals are disadvantaged at the moment seeing as how the 3rd and 4th party candidates usually (or in MN?) have platforms that more closely align with the Democrats. (And I can see how the elected Republicans would benefit from more '3rd Party' voters in the same vein they're in now.) Or put it this way, if this actually were a strict two party system the last couple major elections would have gone differently, to say the least.

So are liberals really benefiting, in this day and age, from this idealistic kind of voting (voting for candidates who don't really have a shot)?

I'm not sure.

My doubts about all of this started when I started thinking about voting and politics in terms of what it was achieving for 'the greater good'. So, what does aligning oneself with a '3rd Party' achieve for the greater good? It can increase awareness on issues at an increasing rate, as long as that party stays out of obscurity. The Green Party definitely has brought a lot to the table, and has challenged the major candidates to address issues that they would have otherwise ignored. But couldn't a lot of that be done by environmental and social groups if we first had a group in office that was receptive to those kinds of issues?

My opinion is that more of what the Independent or Green Party wants to accomplish could be done more quickly if Democrats were kept in office. On the one hand, it could seem like these '3rd Parties' were settling for something that they don't want less instead of getting exactly what they want. But I think it could also be seen as a step forward. In the eyes of Green/Independent Party members couldn't they be supporting their issues and their people, if not their parties, by supporting the more-liberal candidates?

I know that: 1. I must be under-educated on the contributions of the Green and Independent Parties in their current forms, and that's why I cant see the value of their perennial involvement as opposed to their possible supporting role. But hey! If I'm still under-educated about their roles and causes, maybe that's another indication that they're not doing enough. 2. Ok, yeah, I like to play the Devil's Advocate, and not only in public, but with myself to see how I really feel about things. I know that I have more to learn here, but I think that's saying more than some people on both sides of this issue. The case isn't that we absolutely need more or less parties, it's that if we liberal minded folk want to see more go our way in the future, we have to know how to win races. In a close race, nearing the finish line, and when that race is clearly between a strong number 1 and 2, that might mean shifting priorities and having numbers 3 and 4 pass off their water bottles to number 1 so he/she can win the race, remembering all along that 3 and 4 helped him/her get there.

What do you think?

Volcanos, asteroids, drug trafficing, talking fish, Truman Capote, magicians...

See a pattern? No?

Does this help?
...
Dante's Peak(1997) vs. Volcano(1997)
Deep Impact(1998) vs. Armageddon(1998)
Traffic(2000) vs. Blow(2001)
Finding Nemo(2003) vs. Shark Tale(2004)
Capote(2005) vs. Infamous(2006)
The Illusionist(2006) vs. The Prestige(2006)
...
(Can you think of any more? Add to the list by commenting!)

With The Prestige, Hollywood doubles up again! Two movies, one theme. It's become standard practice in the film industry, right up there with sequels, prequels, trilogies, and adapted screenplays... Anything, I guess, to avoid original creativity in the fight for the top box office draws. And while I do really believe that this trend is less about filmmaker one-ups-man-ships, "I can make a better magician film than you!", and more about going with what's HOT, or what promises surefire success, Hollywood's dualities do allow for (beg for!? - you have to see both to know!) interesting comparisons when we consider things like era and casting choices, to the overall moods and messages of the films made.

Enough about that for now, because this entry was intended to be mostly about The Prestige/Illusionist combo of 2006, as I was just able to see The Prestige over the weekend.

First off, and to get it out of the way, I prefered The Illusionist between the two, although really thinking about it, a better or worse verdict isn't what I'm going for. Both of these movies are worth seeing. Hmm...
-Maybe it's just my man crush on Edward Norton that made The Illusionist stand out for me, but probably not, because both casts were chock-full of actors and actresses that I enjoy, and some of the supporting roles in The Prestige were actually played a bit better.
-Another possible bias: I tend to appreciate slower, more methodical movies more when compared to intense, time-shifting, jump-cutting films like Nolan's. Don't get me wrong! I loved Memento, and I liked Batman Begins and The Prestige as well, and OK, The Illusionist wasn't exactly slow, but I think when you look at all of these films, the most successful ones have a pace that is a direct and intentional part of the plot, and The Illusionist's pace just did more for the telling of it's story.

An admittance. I did think that The Illusionist could have ended about 10 minutes earlier than it did. A weakness in this film is that it doesn't trust it's audience. The film fades to black and I assume most would be content with that being THE END (albiet a mysterious and unresolved ending. But wait, that's perfect for this movie, right?), only to come back in (at least twice) to further explain away the mystery.
But if I can be so bold as to mostly ignore those last ten minutes, I'll say that the build up, and build back down from the film's climax was perfectly in tune with the era, and the not-angry, but worldy-mysterious, and somber Eisenheim (Norton). The absolutely angry tone of Jackman and Bale's characters definitely called for something more severe, which they found in director Nolan, whose pacing served the decidedly darker of these two films.

A reason to like The Prestige: the dark and complex but still well played out metaphors. The sacrifices made by the magicians in The Prestige only get more and more pronounced as their tricks get more amazing (birds, fingers, family and then?!). Before long Jackman's character is sacrificing more than he can comprehend -- he becomes the bird in the cage -- or at least he is just 1/100th of the person he used to be, whereas Bale's character retains half of who he was in his partner/twin. (You'll have to see the movie for that one to make sense.)

A likeness between these two films is how they ask us to consider the difference between illusion and magic. I loved the inclusion of Tesla in The Prestige. Better yet, they got David Bowie to play him! Incredible. That alone is worth going to see.
Bowie as Tesla

Maybe the reason I ended up enjoying The Illusionist a little more was in this last point (Illusion vs. Magic)... and how Norton's character transcended from being an Illusionist to a Wizard(?) or a 'Real' Magician... It was nice how director Neil Burger just lets us believe this (or not) after Norton sells it so well with his performance. It's a fantastic proposition, and we're apt to be critical of how exactly Norton and Biel's characters get away with it all, but just like the Ghost Trick is never truly explained, we are asked to decide whether or not we believe in the extra-ordinary possibilities.

Both movies get a 4 out of 5.
(On the Netflix rating scale: 1 = Hated it, 2 = Didn't Like It, 3 = Liked It, 4 = Really Liked It, 5 = Loved It)

Happy Halloween

Well, the Trick-Or-Treat-ers were out in full force in our neighborhood last night. We surpassed the 4 kids we had come to our door last year with maybe 8 this year. I barely had time to sit down between door bell rings. The kids loved us though. Not only did we have the best variety of candy this year, but we were handing out the new "Fun Size" being marketed by the major brands.



And they're right. That is more fun.