Inception-In which Cillian Murphy has a bag over his head, once again.

So I finally got around to seeing Inception yesterday, and let me say that it truly exceeded my expectations as a thriller and ultimately, a mindfuck.  Within the first 9 minutes, you are thrown into a crazy world in which you have no idea what's going on, and things aren't being explained.  You just have to observe (and drool over Joseph Gordon Levitt) and hope that everything illuminates itself accordingly.  It's basically your traditional heist movie (drugs, robbery, that sort of thing) but much more interesting and complex.  It's thought robbery, or more specifically, thought placement.

More important, there's no bond girls here, which is a major plus, for ladies watching it, and no gratuitous violence.  This is a cerebral action movie.  There's lots of anonymous shooting, but very limited blood and gore, and the deaths are of dream projections, not real people.  

As a side note, I am absolutely fascinated by Leonardo DiCaprio's transformation, as an actor and a person, from a scrawny teen heart throb to a round faced, goatee donning suspense/thriller actor of high quality.  Who knew?  I can never get enough of Joseph Gordon Levitt, so that was a major plus, and I love Ellen Page and her sassy, smart characters, not to mention Cillian Murphy, who seems to always have a bag over his head in Nolan's movies.  WIthout giving much of the plot away, the movie was definitely male dominated, and Page's character wasn't a particularly violent one, but she was the architect of the realities that the characters occupied, and in control of much of the action.  She was an emotional sensor, and was able to understand DiCaprio in ways that his coworkers couldn't, and helped him to deal with the death of his wife (Played by a fierce Marion Cotillard).  

This is an awesome movie when it comes to drama, suspense, and simply not knowing what the heck is happening, and it made me happy to see the leading ladies (Marion Cotillard including) in non-Bond girl style approaches.  While I give props to Angelina Jolie for consistently kicking ass in action movies everywhere (usually scantily clad, as well), I appreciate the depth and contemplativeness of these two female characters, and the lack of dumb sex scenes and excess cleavage.  Both of these actresses are beautiful, in a slightly untraditional way, and this film allowed them to be so without compromising the integrity or intensity of the plot.  I suppose it is the first action movie I've seen in which there is no dumb Romance element to it?  Way to go, Christopher Nolan.

  

Not to mention the perception of reality, and questioning the perception of perception.  That's deep right stuff for an action movie.  Either way, I definitely want to see it again, and not just for Gordon-Levitt.

It has a hint of Dylan's Rare 1967 Release, with a tinge of this rare 1980's grunge band EP release...

One of the things I have thought about doing with my life is writing about music. Preferably not classical music. I have thought about this for many years, even looking into getting a journalism degree instead of a music masters. But at the end of this whole 'writing about music,' whether popular or classical, I end up dissatisfied. Why? Because writing and describing any form of art is a way of making it something other than it is. When I write about what Scarlett Johanssen's voice, I'm saying what I think it sounds like, what it's been influenced by (whether or not it has) and what it lacks. And that's great, but I almost feel like the better advice is to tell someone else to listen to a piece of music or see a painting, and judge for themselves. With classical music, I can very clearly articulate what I like and don't like. (impressionism, tone color, minor seconds, sevenths, irregular ostinati, sweet viola/saxophone/bassoon/bass/trombone soli in orchestral pieces, minimalism, occasional tonality, extended techniques.) But I can't always apply these ideas to popular music writing. The things that I like about Grizzly Bear are not always what the popular music critics make note of. They might talk about their influences, their forward and backward looking inspirations, etc. But the things I hear are:

1) Diversity of texture: irregular drum lines, especially as reinforced by the bass line and kick drum

2) Awesome 2-4 part harmony: duh. 2 lead singers

3) Beatles' like diversity of singers: 2 lead singers, sometimes alternating

4) A wide range of song styles, from the folksy, acoustic and intimate style to a more extroverted and raw sound.

5) Creepiness: sometimes the songs are creepy as hell, because of harmonies, slow build ups, distortion, etc.

What I hear in Lady Gaga is:

1) The speak-song style of Gwen Stefani, Black Eyed Peas (see, I'm alluding to previous groups! Yikes) or a husky Cher (from the late 90's) which yields a fairly limited vocal range and volume, not belting, but not ethereal

2) Really good basic beat structure usually complimented by a synthesized pitch pattern, which may be irregular

3) The songs are usually in 2 or 4, layered with a series of electronic repetitive textures. The melodic lines stay in limited tonal areas (I-iv-V-vi). (Just dance repeats the minor third interval a gazillion times!!!)

4) Her most successful songs are the ones in which the combination of beats, simple catchy melody and texture are diverse. Her worst songs (and there are quite a few that drift towards Fergie of Black Eyed Peas bad.) are lopsided, and lack one of the basic ingredients for success.

Suggestions: varied tempi, more irregular beats rather than a repetitive track, and more diverse chords/melodic lines. She clearly has a limited vocal range, and it comes through in her songs.

But really, does it matter? Does my opinion on why or why these songs are not good make a difference in whether or not people like it? Nope. Not at all. You could just as easily criticize it for being commercial in its production values and musical aesthetic, which juxtaposes with the style, video, and performance aesthetic, creating a hyperbole of sorts. Quantifying art is really hard to do, even if you think it's clearly "bad." One of the main premises of art is exploring territory which is difficult to explain in words, and that must be experienced, seen, witnessed, etc. I don't usually read reviews very closely, whether of music, movies, or books. I usually read a paragraph or two, get an idea for what the reviewer thinks, and then decide if it's flaws and strengths interest me. That's it. I rarely read the whole thing. I usually look at Pitchfork's reviews, look at the number score, listen to a track or two, read a paragraph and move on. In the end, I want to make my own decisions about music and art and whatnot, and while I'd like to think that my opinion is worthwhile, everyone has a right to evaluate music, art, and creative mediums. Thus, I will probably never be a professional music critic.

listening to: The Morning Benders

You can hear the album version here: (their recent album, "Big Echo" was produced by own of the members of Grizzly Bear.)

Good movies I saw over break that most people don't know about

One of the great things about break was that I had the opportunity to see some great art films that are had to have access to here in Rochester. Many people don't know these flicks, and all of them had issues of note (especially to jucispeakers). Here's what I saw and why they mattered:

A Single Man

This is the riveting and beautiful story directed by Tom Ford about being gay, being heartbroken, and being invisible in the 1960's. The story is basically a one-man Colin Firth show about the suffering he incurs after the sudden death of his partner (played in flashbacks by my personal favorite British hearthrob, Matthew Goode) It deals with some major issues in American conservative culture- how Colin Firth's character couldn't go to his partner's funeral, and the family didn't even tell him about it, as they didn't approve of their relationship. It's how being gay in America meant that you were invisible, that you lived in between the cracks, and that you had to defend your right to have valid relationships. The clincher in this comes with Julianne Moore, when she says that Colin Firth's boyfriend was just a minor dalliance, nothing loving and long lasting. This is the kind of the conflict that had to be dealt with- homosexual love is true and as valid as heterosexual love. We're still dealing with it today. Aside from absolutely stunning design elements, I thought it was a beautiful, albeit depressing movie, and I would recommend it to anyone who has affinities towards gay rights, Colin Firth, or the 1960's. (As as a side note, the movie also features the grown up Nicholas Hoult, the infamous boy from "About a Boy" as an amorous student.)

An Education

This is a really interesting movie as well, more for women's issues and education. A young girl's parents are very conservative, insisting that she only study and that she absolutely must go to Oxford. She isn't allowed to listen to music, or go to concerts, or have a life, until older man David takes an interest in her. David wooes her and her parents, and Jenny begins to think that her family obsession with Oxford is a little shallow and useless. Jenny falls head over heels for David and begins to slide in her studies, only to discover later that David was not all he was cracked up to be. At the end of the debacle, Jenny has to reevaluate her own desires, and decide whether she wants to be a wife or a scholar.

While occasionally a little racy, I did enjoy this film, and I thought it had lots of relevant woman's issues. After recently watching Julie and Julia, in which Paul Child was extremely supportive of Julia's endeavors, I had been curious to see how women in the 1950's and 60's were empowered or challenged. This movie gives both sides of this issue- Jenny is smart and hardworking, and is encouraged at school, however her parents deny her the possibility that cultural enrichment are useful in one's studies. When it seems that she might be marrying David, her parents say that she doesn't need to go to Oxford, which really upsets her. She doesn't understand why education was so valued when she could've just been married instead. At the end of it, she puts her own education first, above anything else, and learns more about her priorities than anything else.

Acting was good, with a screenplay by Nick Hornby, and featured some really beautiful and interesting scenes, as well as some really funny ones.

Precious

I'll say the least about this movie, since most people have heard of it. It's a heartbreaking story about a young woman who is illiterate, whose mother is abusive, and whose father raped her multiple times. (She already has one of his children and is pregnant with another one). She gets kicked out of normal school for being pregnant, and has to go to an alternative school where the teacher takes an interest in her and helping her. Precious learns to read and begins to understand that she can't be with her mother anymore. She leaves home and looks for somewhere to live after she has the baby, and looks for a new life, away from the one she has known so well.

Obviously, this one is majorly sad, because it's never fun to watch abusive parents at work, at least not in my experience. Mo'nique, as her mother, is amazing and terrifying, and for me, it was great to see her in a real movie role, as she was in "The Moesha Show" as well as many movies that I'd never see, such as "Phat Girlz." (need I see more?) This movie completes our triple header of movies because it shows how one's persistence can overcome great strife, both personal and gendered. Precious is told that she is stupid and will never succeed or be loved, and she knows that's not true by the end of the movie. While it's the ultimate tearjerker, it's also a very good, harrowing movie that will certainly make you reevaluate your problems.

listening to: sara lov