Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Another Revision of Sherlock Holmes Review
Actually made some legitimate changes this time around. I feel like my voice is more cohesive now. Enjoy.
Qualities usually associated with blockbuster action-films are far from the established norm for video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. This is what gives significance to the ‘shoot ‘em up’ style that Guy Ritchie is known for in movies like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels” and which he brings to his latest project, a block-buster action adaptation of Sherlock Holmes’ character. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of the glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline.
Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat. Downing Jr. , especially, seems to get completely enveloped into his character and is fun to watch. These two actors are the highlight of a movie that, on the whole, does a great job of bringing Sherlock to the big screen.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Holmes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmes’ heart.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmes’ character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. A number of striking close-ups in Holmes’ bedroom highlight a collaboration of an imaginative script, fantastic art-direction, and strong directing that creates a unique take on Holmes that remains true to Doyle’s character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmes’ Lair. These scenes make the character developed in the film unique while managing to avoid alienating Holmes fanatics.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and highlight the stark difference between this movie and other video-adaptations of the book. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Qualities usually associated with blockbuster action-films are far from the established norm for video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. This is what gives significance to the ‘shoot ‘em up’ style that Guy Ritchie is known for in movies like “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels” and which he brings to his latest project, a block-buster action adaptation of Sherlock Holmes’ character. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of the glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline.
Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat. Downing Jr. , especially, seems to get completely enveloped into his character and is fun to watch. These two actors are the highlight of a movie that, on the whole, does a great job of bringing Sherlock to the big screen.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Holmes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmes’ heart.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmes’ character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. A number of striking close-ups in Holmes’ bedroom highlight a collaboration of an imaginative script, fantastic art-direction, and strong directing that creates a unique take on Holmes that remains true to Doyle’s character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmes’ Lair. These scenes make the character developed in the film unique while managing to avoid alienating Holmes fanatics.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and highlight the stark difference between this movie and other video-adaptations of the book. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
I've never really been a T.V. guy and I haven't gotten excited about a show in a long time but this show looks damn good I'd say, damn good indeed. Do we get FX in the dorms? Anyone? Enjoy- from NPR. Justified!
Blu Changes the Game
Graffiti-art has come a long way since its identity as solely a vandalistic act. Painting on walls used to carry certain stereotypes that have been challenged by the recent popularity of many contemporary street-artists, and specifically graffiti-artists, who are paid to paint on urban canvases around the world. One artist who is turning heads in this strange paradox of paid-vandals is a 30-year-old street-artist from Bologna, Italy who goes simply by Blu. He is changing the face of street-art as his primarily monocolor, and almost always politically charged, paintings have been popping up on walls around the world.
Blu is a great example of the widening acceptance of steet-art worldwide. Blu’s ability to paint walls all around the world comes, in large part, as result of his widening success – actually being paid to paint in exhibitions like this one at the Tate Museum of Modern Art in London.
Blu has also participated in many of the street-art festivals that have been popping up in cities all over Euroupe. Take for example the Fame Festival in Indirizzo, Italy which invites an international selection of
street-artists to paint on the walls of their city. This in-turn opens up opportunities for other street-artists for acceptable venues for their wall-based painting. Eventually popular artists like Blu start having books of their work or sketches sold, as well as prints of their pieces.
The size and quantity of Blu’s pieces are daunting. He travels far and wide as he paints his way around the world. As his blog reports, he has spent most of the last four months touring around South America, stopping in cities such as Buenos Aires; Argentina Lima, Peru; and Bagota, Columbia.
Some of his paintings are commissioned by private owners, some are done as a part of street-art festivals that have been popping up all over Europe, many of them are probably done illegally. These ‘rouge-paintings’ are in large part possible due to Blu’s growing fame. For example, many of the ‘art-projects’ and ‘exhibitions’ that contract him don’t actually have permission to paint the walls that they do. His fame has lead to easy collaboration with street-artists of different countries.
The full collection of his work is illusive. His website, blublu.org does provide a large number of pictures of walls he has painted in the last four to five years; many of his pieces, though, are lost in the sprawl of the web. The more you search the more you find.
The same rings true with regards to Blu’s identity. The artist’s use of a pseudonym probably has something to do with his easily identifiable style and the ‘guerilla’ nature of many of his works. Any biography you can find online is a visible farce. There is, though, one recorded interview with the artist done by Wooster Collective, an online magazine of street art and the dominion on all things graffiti. Here he names most of his influences as being street-artists that revolutionized the discipline; among them is Basnksy, a street-artist who paints small, highly political, stencil-based images all around the world.
The subjects in Blu’s paintings are mostly abstract beings, cartoonish human-figures, or large figures made of many smaller pieces; this is usually done with white, beige, or light blue paint inside small black outlines of the figure. His pieces almost always have a surrealist nature and he uses this surrealism to strike a very real chord. He often incorporates political messages into his images. Take for example this painting done in Bogotá, Columbia earlier this year commenting on the effect of U.S. Drug-trade with South America.
Blu is also changing the world of street-art by adapting the mediums used in the discipline. A huge part of Blu’s fame and success comes from his groundbreaking animated-graffiti. His first fully-produced video-upload to YouTube entitled “Muto” quickly accumulated one million views and is now at 6 million after one year of activity. His most recent animation, a collaboration with contemporary artist, David Ellis, entitled “Combo,” is ahead of pace – racking up almost three million views in under five months. This popularity acts as yet another resource in providing Blu the opportunity to paint more walls.
These amazing videos incorporate Blu’s style in an animated format done by stringing thousands of single photographs together in what is called stop motion animation. Similar humanesque-figures transform into strange and otherworldly images, grow, move and dance around courtyards and through city streets. The final product even includes sounds that bring the images to life. Blu’s pioneering of this new medium is truly revolutionizing the world of graffiti-art.
David Ellis comments on this new street-art, stop-motion phenomenon in a video interview with Vernissage TV. Ellis’ newest project includes a week-long live painting performance in the window of a store. All the while, pictures are being taken of him in high definition, the end product will be projected on a wall or screen during a gallery showing. This new medium combining painted art on walls with video-media creates new possibilities for artists allowing them the opportunity for collaboration with artists of different disciplines. “If you know other people who are talented in other things and you want to make it more fun, and enjoy it, then you have to make it for what you enjoy, and be around people, and collaborate,” Ellis said. This collaboration between artists seems to be part of an identity as a new type of artist being adopted by many street-artists, and being widely accepted as it turns out.
Even more so, Blu’s newfound fame in the cyber and art worlds support new interest, collaboration, and evolution in and of street art and art as a whole. It challenges this idea of painting on walls as being bad and brings in a whole new notion of what art is and what the possibilities are when it comes to a ‘career.’
Blu is a great example of the widening acceptance of steet-art worldwide. Blu’s ability to paint walls all around the world comes, in large part, as result of his widening success – actually being paid to paint in exhibitions like this one at the Tate Museum of Modern Art in London.
Blu has also participated in many of the street-art festivals that have been popping up in cities all over Euroupe. Take for example the Fame Festival in Indirizzo, Italy which invites an international selection of
street-artists to paint on the walls of their city. This in-turn opens up opportunities for other street-artists for acceptable venues for their wall-based painting. Eventually popular artists like Blu start having books of their work or sketches sold, as well as prints of their pieces.
The size and quantity of Blu’s pieces are daunting. He travels far and wide as he paints his way around the world. As his blog reports, he has spent most of the last four months touring around South America, stopping in cities such as Buenos Aires; Argentina Lima, Peru; and Bagota, Columbia.
Some of his paintings are commissioned by private owners, some are done as a part of street-art festivals that have been popping up all over Europe, many of them are probably done illegally. These ‘rouge-paintings’ are in large part possible due to Blu’s growing fame. For example, many of the ‘art-projects’ and ‘exhibitions’ that contract him don’t actually have permission to paint the walls that they do. His fame has lead to easy collaboration with street-artists of different countries.
The full collection of his work is illusive. His website, blublu.org does provide a large number of pictures of walls he has painted in the last four to five years; many of his pieces, though, are lost in the sprawl of the web. The more you search the more you find.
The same rings true with regards to Blu’s identity. The artist’s use of a pseudonym probably has something to do with his easily identifiable style and the ‘guerilla’ nature of many of his works. Any biography you can find online is a visible farce. There is, though, one recorded interview with the artist done by Wooster Collective, an online magazine of street art and the dominion on all things graffiti. Here he names most of his influences as being street-artists that revolutionized the discipline; among them is Basnksy, a street-artist who paints small, highly political, stencil-based images all around the world.
The subjects in Blu’s paintings are mostly abstract beings, cartoonish human-figures, or large figures made of many smaller pieces; this is usually done with white, beige, or light blue paint inside small black outlines of the figure. His pieces almost always have a surrealist nature and he uses this surrealism to strike a very real chord. He often incorporates political messages into his images. Take for example this painting done in Bogotá, Columbia earlier this year commenting on the effect of U.S. Drug-trade with South America.
Blu is also changing the world of street-art by adapting the mediums used in the discipline. A huge part of Blu’s fame and success comes from his groundbreaking animated-graffiti. His first fully-produced video-upload to YouTube entitled “Muto” quickly accumulated one million views and is now at 6 million after one year of activity. His most recent animation, a collaboration with contemporary artist, David Ellis, entitled “Combo,” is ahead of pace – racking up almost three million views in under five months. This popularity acts as yet another resource in providing Blu the opportunity to paint more walls.
These amazing videos incorporate Blu’s style in an animated format done by stringing thousands of single photographs together in what is called stop motion animation. Similar humanesque-figures transform into strange and otherworldly images, grow, move and dance around courtyards and through city streets. The final product even includes sounds that bring the images to life. Blu’s pioneering of this new medium is truly revolutionizing the world of graffiti-art.
David Ellis comments on this new street-art, stop-motion phenomenon in a video interview with Vernissage TV. Ellis’ newest project includes a week-long live painting performance in the window of a store. All the while, pictures are being taken of him in high definition, the end product will be projected on a wall or screen during a gallery showing. This new medium combining painted art on walls with video-media creates new possibilities for artists allowing them the opportunity for collaboration with artists of different disciplines. “If you know other people who are talented in other things and you want to make it more fun, and enjoy it, then you have to make it for what you enjoy, and be around people, and collaborate,” Ellis said. This collaboration between artists seems to be part of an identity as a new type of artist being adopted by many street-artists, and being widely accepted as it turns out.
Even more so, Blu’s newfound fame in the cyber and art worlds support new interest, collaboration, and evolution in and of street art and art as a whole. It challenges this idea of painting on walls as being bad and brings in a whole new notion of what art is and what the possibilities are when it comes to a ‘career.’
NEW YORKER ARTICLE ON SOFT JAZZ
Just a personal anecdote, I have been using this very kind of music to help get through all nighters recently. I especially like these types of artists that also derive their influence from some sort of folk music. Cat Power is a great example of this. I love music that drones a little - and have a deep connection to female voices. Anywho- enjoy.
Just a personal anecdote, I have been using this very kind of music to help get through all nighters recently. I especially like these types of artists that also derive their influence from some sort of folk music. Cat Power is a great example of this. I love music that drones a little - and have a deep connection to female voices. Anywho- enjoy.
Jeff Bridges' Vindication?
Jeff Bridges long wait may be over. His most recent role as Bad Blake in “Crazy Heart,” a film about a washed-up country singer looking for a second chance, very well may land him his first Oscar in 5 nominations. His first nod by the academy came in 1971 for his supporting role in “The Last Picture Show.”
The movie follows the escapades of a desperately alcoholic country-singer, Jeff Bridges, as he falls in love with a woman, Maggie Gyllenhal, who convinces him to turn his life around. In his comeback, Bad Blake, writes his way through the movie’s sound track which has some spectacular songs.
Bridges’ performance in this film is impeccable. Jeff looks like he was born for this part from the very first scene as he smokes a cigarette in a bowling alley, very reminiscent of his fun-loving scenes in “The Big Lebowski.” His voice surprises and his guitar skills combine with his wonderful acting to lock you into the movie from start to finish.
The music would have been the highlight of this film if it weren’t for Bridges’ excellent performance. Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnettreally put together some excellent pieces of music here. The songs hit hard, but the scenes hit harder – there was hardly a dry tear in the house.
Bridges’ co-star, Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful in this film. She proves her worth against the likes of Jeff Bridges and Robert Duvall with a commanding performance. It certainly doesn’t hurt that she looks great in a pair of wranglers. Her interactions with Bridges are tantalizing and her tears hurt almost as much as Bridges’ do.
The movie really draws you into the struggles of Bad Blake. You struggle with him, you fail with him, and most importantly you succeed with him. The movie is an emotional ride worth taking. The music, especially, jerks your emotions this way or that, and adds to the plot in a big way.
As if the movie hadn’t done enough things right some of the wide-shots of south-west landscapes nearly bring you to tears themselves. The cinematography is great in this movie and whether or not that is simply because of the beauty of the landscapes surrounding the actors is a mute point. This film is visually stunning.
The movie isn’t without its imperfections but they only add to the endearing nature of the film. Even Collin Ferrel surprises with some good acting. Nothing extraordinary, but that would have been too much anyways. His role fits neatly into a film that could do no wrong in my book.
Jeff Bridges deserves to have his fifth time be the charm. This movie is excellent and truly is a must see.
The movie follows the escapades of a desperately alcoholic country-singer, Jeff Bridges, as he falls in love with a woman, Maggie Gyllenhal, who convinces him to turn his life around. In his comeback, Bad Blake, writes his way through the movie’s sound track which has some spectacular songs.
Bridges’ performance in this film is impeccable. Jeff looks like he was born for this part from the very first scene as he smokes a cigarette in a bowling alley, very reminiscent of his fun-loving scenes in “The Big Lebowski.” His voice surprises and his guitar skills combine with his wonderful acting to lock you into the movie from start to finish.
The music would have been the highlight of this film if it weren’t for Bridges’ excellent performance. Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnettreally put together some excellent pieces of music here. The songs hit hard, but the scenes hit harder – there was hardly a dry tear in the house.
Bridges’ co-star, Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful in this film. She proves her worth against the likes of Jeff Bridges and Robert Duvall with a commanding performance. It certainly doesn’t hurt that she looks great in a pair of wranglers. Her interactions with Bridges are tantalizing and her tears hurt almost as much as Bridges’ do.
The movie really draws you into the struggles of Bad Blake. You struggle with him, you fail with him, and most importantly you succeed with him. The movie is an emotional ride worth taking. The music, especially, jerks your emotions this way or that, and adds to the plot in a big way.
As if the movie hadn’t done enough things right some of the wide-shots of south-west landscapes nearly bring you to tears themselves. The cinematography is great in this movie and whether or not that is simply because of the beauty of the landscapes surrounding the actors is a mute point. This film is visually stunning.
The movie isn’t without its imperfections but they only add to the endearing nature of the film. Even Collin Ferrel surprises with some good acting. Nothing extraordinary, but that would have been too much anyways. His role fits neatly into a film that could do no wrong in my book.
Jeff Bridges deserves to have his fifth time be the charm. This movie is excellent and truly is a must see.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Oscars Dissapoint
The 82nd Academy Awards marked the first year in which a woman won an Oscar for best director as Kathryn Bigelow took home the award for her directing of The Hurt Locker, a film about a bomb-squad’s journey in Iraq. As Barbra Streisand put it, “the time has come” for a new era in Hollywood. Unfortunately, this shining moment was overshadowed by one of the worst shows in recent memory for the Academy.
The Oscars were hosted by Steve Martin for the third time this year, his first two coming in 2001 and 2003. Steve was hilarious as usual; just the perfect mix of hilariousness, political-correctness, and edge to keep the audience captivated for what proved to be a marathon of an awards show. The Academy affirmed, though, as it so often does, that it has a knack for making the wrong choice - starting with Martin’s co-host, Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin and Martin had no chemistry on stage and their performance was exceedingly awkward at points. They did get the audience laughing, but it wasn’t nearly enough, to keep the audience interested for the show’s nearly four hour run-time. Every so often it would seem like the Academy reward us and Baldwin would disappear from the stage for a moment, only to return just in time to ruin another one of Steve Martin’s jokes.
The show was also riddled with technical errors. Strange, clunky noises in the background, stuttering by multiple award-presenters, and constant camera-transition mistakes all made the show nearly unbearable to watch on television. The show started with the usual fuss over the red-carpet as a rousing game of “my dress is more expensive than yours” and “my skin is more orange that yours” ensued. As if this wasn’t enough torture the show then attempted to parade the stars from Twilight, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, around the Kodak Theatre as much as possible.
The Academy was entirely too busy proving their ability to be wrong to put on a successful show. Among their errors, assuming that there were actually 10 films deserving of a Best Picture nomination, thinking that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin would make good co-hosts, including an Edward Scissorhands clip in a video-montage of horror films, and, of course, presuming that Miley Cirus appeals to adult as well as pre-teen audiences. They were too busy screwing up, in fact, that they forgot one of the most captivating aspects of the Oscars – the full orchestra visible in the pit.
The night wasn’t without its highlights, though. Among them were a performance of the Beatle’s “In My Life” by James Taylor, a particularly endearing acceptance speech by Jeff Bridges winning Best Actor in his leading-role as Bad Blake in the film Crazyheart, and for the first time ever, a female recipient of Best Director. But these moments seem to get lost in the four-hour ceremony riddled with b-list celebrities and technical on-screen errors. All-in-all the Oscars left something to be desired this year as Hollywood’s “biggest night” became its “biggest mess.”
The Oscars were hosted by Steve Martin for the third time this year, his first two coming in 2001 and 2003. Steve was hilarious as usual; just the perfect mix of hilariousness, political-correctness, and edge to keep the audience captivated for what proved to be a marathon of an awards show. The Academy affirmed, though, as it so often does, that it has a knack for making the wrong choice - starting with Martin’s co-host, Alec Baldwin.
Baldwin and Martin had no chemistry on stage and their performance was exceedingly awkward at points. They did get the audience laughing, but it wasn’t nearly enough, to keep the audience interested for the show’s nearly four hour run-time. Every so often it would seem like the Academy reward us and Baldwin would disappear from the stage for a moment, only to return just in time to ruin another one of Steve Martin’s jokes.
The show was also riddled with technical errors. Strange, clunky noises in the background, stuttering by multiple award-presenters, and constant camera-transition mistakes all made the show nearly unbearable to watch on television. The show started with the usual fuss over the red-carpet as a rousing game of “my dress is more expensive than yours” and “my skin is more orange that yours” ensued. As if this wasn’t enough torture the show then attempted to parade the stars from Twilight, Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner, around the Kodak Theatre as much as possible.
The Academy was entirely too busy proving their ability to be wrong to put on a successful show. Among their errors, assuming that there were actually 10 films deserving of a Best Picture nomination, thinking that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin would make good co-hosts, including an Edward Scissorhands clip in a video-montage of horror films, and, of course, presuming that Miley Cirus appeals to adult as well as pre-teen audiences. They were too busy screwing up, in fact, that they forgot one of the most captivating aspects of the Oscars – the full orchestra visible in the pit.
The night wasn’t without its highlights, though. Among them were a performance of the Beatle’s “In My Life” by James Taylor, a particularly endearing acceptance speech by Jeff Bridges winning Best Actor in his leading-role as Bad Blake in the film Crazyheart, and for the first time ever, a female recipient of Best Director. But these moments seem to get lost in the four-hour ceremony riddled with b-list celebrities and technical on-screen errors. All-in-all the Oscars left something to be desired this year as Hollywood’s “biggest night” became its “biggest mess.”
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
BLU!
For my final piece I would like to do a profile of the graffiti artist Blu. Blu is an Italian street-artist who is revolutionizing the world of street-art, especially with his animated graffiti-art. His unique style moves away from the conventional ‘tagging’ style of most street-artists. He uses many plain colors; white, light blue, grey, to paint an arsenal of surreal characters on walls all around the world.
There are several key points I would like to focus on for this piece. Fist, I would like to talk about the evolving world of street and graffiti-art. New technology and a rising acceptance of graffiti-art have completely revolutionized the discipline. This, combined with rising acceptance of graffiti-art and the rise of new street-art festivals around the world (Fame Festival, Names Festival) have expanded the opportunities for graffiti-artists. This fact has morphed the identity of a street-artist from a hooligan to a potentially famous artist (as is the case with Blu.) Blu himself has traveled the world to do his art.
Animated graffiti-art especially brings a whole new notion of what is possible in art, and is an up-and-coming style. I would like to use specific videos of single and collaborative animated street-art from Blu to talk about this discipline specifically. I would also like to use several interviews with Blu’s contemporaries (using a pseudonym he does not do interviews) as further research on the current state of graffiti-art.
I would also like to touch on Blu’s use of a pseudonym, his rise to fame, and his large breadth of work. A very important part of his pieces come in the political message he works into the paintings; this is a key point in my article. My main sources include Blu’s website (blublu.org), which includes a large collection of his work, the wide compilation of videos of his work, video-interviews with his contemporaries and collaborators, and the websites of street-art festivals.
This is relevant because it is a currently changing and evolving discipline of art and Blu is one of the flagships of these changes. I have been following Blu for several years now and am aware of many of his pieces, even ones that are not on his website. This makes me the perfect person to write this article.
There are several key points I would like to focus on for this piece. Fist, I would like to talk about the evolving world of street and graffiti-art. New technology and a rising acceptance of graffiti-art have completely revolutionized the discipline. This, combined with rising acceptance of graffiti-art and the rise of new street-art festivals around the world (Fame Festival, Names Festival) have expanded the opportunities for graffiti-artists. This fact has morphed the identity of a street-artist from a hooligan to a potentially famous artist (as is the case with Blu.) Blu himself has traveled the world to do his art.
Animated graffiti-art especially brings a whole new notion of what is possible in art, and is an up-and-coming style. I would like to use specific videos of single and collaborative animated street-art from Blu to talk about this discipline specifically. I would also like to use several interviews with Blu’s contemporaries (using a pseudonym he does not do interviews) as further research on the current state of graffiti-art.
I would also like to touch on Blu’s use of a pseudonym, his rise to fame, and his large breadth of work. A very important part of his pieces come in the political message he works into the paintings; this is a key point in my article. My main sources include Blu’s website (blublu.org), which includes a large collection of his work, the wide compilation of videos of his work, video-interviews with his contemporaries and collaborators, and the websites of street-art festivals.
This is relevant because it is a currently changing and evolving discipline of art and Blu is one of the flagships of these changes. I have been following Blu for several years now and am aware of many of his pieces, even ones that are not on his website. This makes me the perfect person to write this article.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Graham Parsons House Show
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds, a Kalamazoo band, played a local show on the night of Feburary 20th at 444 Locust Street. Around 9:00 the house began to fill up. A B.Y.O.B. decorum had not discouraged a house full of party-goers from venturing into the bitter-cold night in search for good live music. Only about 50 people were able to squeeze into the basement. These lucky few got the good live music they were looking for.
People were squished into every possible nook and cranny by the time this five-man act started playing at around 9:45. The band started with a few up-beat tunes that got the crowd dancing, in the spaces that they could. The band’s rock and country influences showed and every so often the group smoothed into a bluesy rift that buckled the knees. Andy Catlin (K’09) manned the keys and completed the quintet with fiery fingers on these fast numbers. The Go-arounds didn’t shy away from a few slower songs either – much appreciated breaks in the otherwise high-energy set. On these songs the pure vocals of Graham Parsons led a soul-filled progression, aided by harmonies from the other two microphones on stage. These guys could really sing.
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds is comprised of Graham A. Parsons, the band’s front-man, on lead guitar and vocals. Grant Littler on guitar, Ted Kloosterman on bass, and Adam Danis on drums make up a killer rhythms section; and Andy Catlin (K’09) supplements on keyboards and guitar. This band has chemistry. The continuation of an old project, Toro and the National Guard (minus a few), the group seems to have found their nitch with this act. A constant morphing of folk, soul, blues, country and rock music, the band seems to have reached a happy medium in their upcoming release of a three-song EP (available on myspace music.)
The band’s new identity comes with a new tour around the state over the next few months. That means less shows for Graham Parsons fans in Kalamazoo. The locals soaked up their time with the band on this night, calling out for “one more song” three or four times at the end of the set. Graham and company were all too happy to oblige the audience, slowing things down for a bit only to end with a raucous last song featuring Catlin on the guitar this time. The set ended at about 11:00 and the crowds lingered only long enough to watch the band pack up and to exchange a few words with the boys. The next act played to a mostly-empty basement as the party followed Graham and his vagabonds into the night.
People were squished into every possible nook and cranny by the time this five-man act started playing at around 9:45. The band started with a few up-beat tunes that got the crowd dancing, in the spaces that they could. The band’s rock and country influences showed and every so often the group smoothed into a bluesy rift that buckled the knees. Andy Catlin (K’09) manned the keys and completed the quintet with fiery fingers on these fast numbers. The Go-arounds didn’t shy away from a few slower songs either – much appreciated breaks in the otherwise high-energy set. On these songs the pure vocals of Graham Parsons led a soul-filled progression, aided by harmonies from the other two microphones on stage. These guys could really sing.
Graham Parsons and the Go-arounds is comprised of Graham A. Parsons, the band’s front-man, on lead guitar and vocals. Grant Littler on guitar, Ted Kloosterman on bass, and Adam Danis on drums make up a killer rhythms section; and Andy Catlin (K’09) supplements on keyboards and guitar. This band has chemistry. The continuation of an old project, Toro and the National Guard (minus a few), the group seems to have found their nitch with this act. A constant morphing of folk, soul, blues, country and rock music, the band seems to have reached a happy medium in their upcoming release of a three-song EP (available on myspace music.)
The band’s new identity comes with a new tour around the state over the next few months. That means less shows for Graham Parsons fans in Kalamazoo. The locals soaked up their time with the band on this night, calling out for “one more song” three or four times at the end of the set. Graham and company were all too happy to oblige the audience, slowing things down for a bit only to end with a raucous last song featuring Catlin on the guitar this time. The set ended at about 11:00 and the crowds lingered only long enough to watch the band pack up and to exchange a few words with the boys. The next act played to a mostly-empty basement as the party followed Graham and his vagabonds into the night.
Kael Revisited
Pauline Kael drew upon a highly familiar tone in her writing as a way to connect with her readership. This aspect of her style tends to conflict with her tendency towards elevated language in her reviews. This contrast, coupled with several other techniques act to separate her voice from any sort of objective truth within arts-journalism – despite the longevity of her career.
Kael’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense of authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority is derived, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kael that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false sense of authority and Kael often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kael once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as ‘Ms. Pauline Kael, lead critic for the New Yorker.’ She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements sting in an attempt to twist her audience’s arms into compliance. In her review or Victorrio De Sica’s Shoeshine, Kael writes,
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
Certainly no one wants to be incompetent of feeling these deep emotions that such an ‘authority’ as Kael does – or at least she suggests as much through the tone of the sentence.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
For Renata Adler this is characterized in Kael’s “overuse of certain fraises.” She points to her use of words ending ‘ized’ as well as her abundant use of slang words like ‘twerpy’ and ‘dopey.’ For me this element of Kael’s style conflicts with the elevated language used to connect with her New Yorker readership. Although this mix works well for those who customarily read the magazine it alienates audiences outside of that faction. This seems contrary to a way “people spoke about the movies.” It puts a contingent on which people and does not appeal to a wide audience.
Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest - further separating her voice from any sort of objective truth in media-critique. In my eyes, techniques sometimes viewed as supplementary to her strong arguments only detract from a point of view drawn from a false sense of authority.
Kael’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense of authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority is derived, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kael that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false sense of authority and Kael often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kael once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as ‘Ms. Pauline Kael, lead critic for the New Yorker.’ She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements sting in an attempt to twist her audience’s arms into compliance. In her review or Victorrio De Sica’s Shoeshine, Kael writes,
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
Certainly no one wants to be incompetent of feeling these deep emotions that such an ‘authority’ as Kael does – or at least she suggests as much through the tone of the sentence.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
For Renata Adler this is characterized in Kael’s “overuse of certain fraises.” She points to her use of words ending ‘ized’ as well as her abundant use of slang words like ‘twerpy’ and ‘dopey.’ For me this element of Kael’s style conflicts with the elevated language used to connect with her New Yorker readership. Although this mix works well for those who customarily read the magazine it alienates audiences outside of that faction. This seems contrary to a way “people spoke about the movies.” It puts a contingent on which people and does not appeal to a wide audience.
Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest - further separating her voice from any sort of objective truth in media-critique. In my eyes, techniques sometimes viewed as supplementary to her strong arguments only detract from a point of view drawn from a false sense of authority.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A Blind Following
Pauline Kale’s unique style and loud opinions won her a long-time job as lead movie critic at the New Yorker for more than twenty years. From this post she and her work became influential in the world of film critique. Her love for movies drove a storied career that built up her sense authority on the subject as well as people’s acceptance of that authority.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation, though, comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority comes, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kale that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false authority and Kale often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kale once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Cutch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as “Ms. Pauline Kale, lead critic for the New Yorker.” She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements like
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
sting line this line does in her review of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine. Certainly no one wants to be unable to experience the radiance of a movie like Ms. Kale does.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
Renata Adler also talks about this affect in her overuse of certain fraises. “She also likes words ending in ‘ized’ (‘vegetablized,’ robotized,’ ‘aestheticized,’…) and a kind of slang (‘twerpy,’ ‘dopey,’ ‘dumb,’ …)which amounts, in prose, to an affectation of straigforwardness.” This, though, conflicted with an elevated language in discourse that acted to alienate any readership that was much less educated that that over her New Yorker readership.
These tools fooled many a reader into agreeing with her take on the movie or at least respecting it. I am not so easily fooled. Though. Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest in my eyes and further to separate her voice from any objective truth in media critique.
A major pitfall in the creation of her argumentation, though, comes in her sense of authority on the subject. This authority comes, in large part, from the successful release of her first book I Lost It at the Movies. The result of such success was to create a voice of Kale that assumed authority over what was and wasn’t good movie making.
This authority, though, was often a false authority and Kale often proved to be largely uninformed. As Renata Adler points out in her article “House Critic,” Kale once made bold statements about the indoor shooting of Cutch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid only to find out that the film was shot outdoors by the demand of director George Roy Hill. “When informed of such errors, Ms. Kael never acknowledged or rectified them,” the article goes on to explain.
Instead of searching for some sort of objective truth about why the movie is good or bad she draws from her own authority as “Ms. Pauline Kale, lead critic for the New Yorker.” She dosen’t write to prove why the movie is good but to prove why her opinion of the movie is good and well informed. To do this she often uses manipulative tactics. For one, she draws on her previously mentioned authority as a way to make statements like
I walked up to the street, crying blindly, no longer certain whether my tears were for the tragedy on the screen, the hopelessness I felt for myself, or the alienation I felt from those who could not experience the radiance of Shoeshine,
sting line this line does in her review of Vittorio De Sica’s Shoeshine. Certainly no one wants to be unable to experience the radiance of a movie like Ms. Kale does.
Take also, for example, her trademark use of a familiar tone throughout her writing. She talks about the difference between academic English and “the way people spoke about movies” in her interview with Francis Davis chronicled in the book, Afterglow.
Renata Adler also talks about this affect in her overuse of certain fraises. “She also likes words ending in ‘ized’ (‘vegetablized,’ robotized,’ ‘aestheticized,’…) and a kind of slang (‘twerpy,’ ‘dopey,’ ‘dumb,’ …)which amounts, in prose, to an affectation of straigforwardness.” This, though, conflicted with an elevated language in discourse that acted to alienate any readership that was much less educated that that over her New Yorker readership.
These tools fooled many a reader into agreeing with her take on the movie or at least respecting it. I am not so easily fooled. Though. Her increased involvement with movie studios, even taking a position as a consultant to Paramount Pictures, prove to be a conflict of interest in my eyes and further to separate her voice from any objective truth in media critique.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Jon Pareles NYTimes Defense
The Article I'm Defending!
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
What first struck me about this particular article was the fact that it helped me become interested in a topic that I am normally not particularly interested in. Electronic music, and especially ambient music, is not a genre that I particularly enjoy or find my self interested in. The wording that Jon Pareles uses in this article to describe the sounds of a live ambient show paints a vivid picture. I was curious, though, as to whether or not the picture that I had in my head was actually accurate. To my delight, but not my astonishment, I found a cut down version of the show that Jon Pareles was reviewing on YouTube. What I found was that, amazingly, “background wash of pink noise like interstellar dust and puffy tones, pitched and unpitched, arising out of the static” sounds exactly as one might expect it to sound. What really impressed me about this article, though, was the length. Something that I have been having trouble with in this class has been fitting my reviews into their allotted word-count. Jon Pareles, though, does a good job of accurately describing something that’s very hard to describe in a succinct and straight-forward manner.
What, though, offers a source of authority when talking about what is a good or a bad live music performance? Knowing, inarguably, whether or not the music was on pitch can help and Jon Pareles, using his possession of perfect-pitch, can do this. In an interview with www.rockcriticsarchive.com Pareles recounts his love for music; “I had always been attracted to music—I have perfect pitch---and started playing the piano when I was 6.” This kind of love for music combined with a storied career in rock-n-roll critique gives Pareles this very authority. He speaks in such a matter-of-fact tone in his article and this sense of authority is, I think, where it comes from – and it makes it believable. Another thing that gave Pareles this authority came from my research in his past. His experience originates in Rock-n-roll music critique yet here he is talking coherently about ambient electronic music. Again, pointing to his long-time interest in music, with involvement in his college radio-station, and even a degree in music from Yale gives him a ground on which to stand on.
The show he reviewed.
A list of other reviews by Jon Pareles.
An interview with Jon Pareles.
Connecting Narrative with Arts Review
"Venus in Fur" Review
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
Story of Wes Bentley
Hey all,
Here are two articles I found especially interesting in this week's arts section of the times. First is a piece on Wes Bentley who played Ricky Fits in American Beauty. The story chronicles Bentley's fall from grace and inability to cope stardom after the release, and craze, of American Beauty.
The second is a review of the new play he is in, in NYC. These two pieces work to complement each other extremely well. This is possibly one of the most interesting parts of the Arts section in the New York Times to me; the pieces that report on more timely news maters and the way they connect to opinion pieces throughout the week.
English Facult Reading: Fostering a Sense of Family
The last Wednesday in January marked this year’s English faculty reading at Kalamazoo College. The ceremony was sited by Gail Griffin, who opened the reading, as being an event that aimed to “generate a little light” during this long, gloomy Michigan winter. She then introduced two visiting members of the English faculty, welcoming them to their first faculty reading at K. This immediately worked to establish a sense of family within the department. A jam-packed family it was indeed as the Olmstead Room of Mandelle Hall was filled with students and friends of the faculty– there was only standing room available for the last few arrivals of the nearly 100 audience members. Dr. Griffin then passed off the microphone to the department’s “fearless leader,” Andy Mozina.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Dr. Mozina started off the night with a calm and collective account of his “Non-sexual affair,” an excerpt from one of his short stories. His coherent and honest tone highlighted similar aspects of his teaching style known well by his students. He spoke with great dignity of the most mundane and even goofy details of a heated, yet platonic ice-cream date. A strong decision as an opener for this event, Dr. Mozina’s reading set the stage for what would prove to be a most enjoyable evening.
Similarly, Bruce Mills signified a strong choice as an ending point to the event with his reading from his upcoming book An Archaeology of Yearning, an exploration of autism and his interactions with his son who is affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD.) He and Dr. Mozina shared a sense of dignity and honesty during their readings. The fact that Dr. Mills spoke from experience, sharing intimate details of his life with the audience, made this a very powerful reading.
In between these two readings came a plethora of different texts from the other eight members of the English department at K. These ranged from excerpts from dense, theory-based papers, to moving personal accounts, to vibrant creative responses. Di Seuss showed why her creative writing classes are often difficult to get into. She read with inspired gusto in her response to a poem entitled “I Dreamed I Knew William Burroughs.” She painted a picture of a powerful woman who slang hash as well as words. Seuss was the only presenter who read from more than one text that she is working on or has published. This gave her reading more depth. An engaging reader Seuss, writer in residence in Kalamazoo College’s English Department, captivated the audience.
The event as a whole certainly had its high points and its low points, and the value of each are debatable. The debate, though, is the true value of Wednesday’s reading. Forming a sense of community between students, and specifically English majors, is a worthy goal; and a goal achieved by this year’s faculty reading. Conversation continues to roam halls and classrooms of the school about the event. The English department invited one and all into their visibly tight-knit family and as students exited Mandelle Hall into the frigid night of January 27th they carried a little bit of light with them into the rest of the week.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Velvet Goldmine is a Wild Ride
Todd Haynes’ film, “Velvet Goldmine,” is a loud, glitz-filled, rollercoaster full of free loving, girthy live shows, and more story line than most minds can handle. Parallels of this movie and the lives of David Bowie and Iggy Pop are clear for those who are familiar; but for those who are not this film can easily become too much too quickly.
These viewers become unfortunate casualties to too much happening in the plot, unfortunate because the artistic direction in this film is something worth seeing. The concert-scenes pop and the musical score is a work within itself.
The movie begins with the hoax-killing of rock-star Brian Slade, played by James Lyons. From there the plot tries to take on all-too-much at once. The story line tries to delve into Slade’s relationship with American-rocker Curt Wild, played by Ewan McGregor; as well as with many other of his personal relationships.
All the while we have Christian Bale playing the character of Arthur Stuart, an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth behind the hoax-death of his former favorite rock star. Still following? Good, now you have to deal with confusing voice-over that lends itself to the style of an old-timey detective flick, mixed with unexplained interviews between Stuart and people of Slade’s past, wrapped in a plethora of flash-back scenes that leave the audience visually and mentally disoriented.
The unfortunate fact of this effect is it takes away from some great aspects of the movie. The sound track, for example, is a wonderful mix of heavy hitters from the era that put us in the period. The effect of this soundtrack combines with the use of pseudo-news scenes and rocking live concert scenes that make the world of the sexual revolution more relatable to the audience. Brian Eno, Lou Reed, and Steve Harley round out an exceptional soundtrack that really draws you to the movie despite the confusing plot’s attempt to boot you out.
Other pluses to the movie are its artistic direction. The costumes are elaborate in this film; hat’s off to Sandy Powell for that. These, mixed with the elaborate sets of Slade’s sex palaces work to connect you to the glamorous and outrageous world of Slade’s glam rock.
Furthermore, the acting job by all of the big-names in the film are great. Ewan McGregor and James Lyons actually have some great on-screen chemistry and the acting of the entire cast works to bring this otherwise unfamiliar world to life. These performances work with the above-mentioned scenes of fake news-casts to make this world real.
Overall, the good aspects of this movie out way the bad. Word of caution to the wise, though: do some research before you go see this film. With a little extra scope into what this movie is actually about you are free to focus in on the outstanding art-direction in this movie.
My target audience are people who have not seen this movie before and, specifically, people who are not too familiar with David Bowie's Life
These viewers become unfortunate casualties to too much happening in the plot, unfortunate because the artistic direction in this film is something worth seeing. The concert-scenes pop and the musical score is a work within itself.
The movie begins with the hoax-killing of rock-star Brian Slade, played by James Lyons. From there the plot tries to take on all-too-much at once. The story line tries to delve into Slade’s relationship with American-rocker Curt Wild, played by Ewan McGregor; as well as with many other of his personal relationships.
All the while we have Christian Bale playing the character of Arthur Stuart, an investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth behind the hoax-death of his former favorite rock star. Still following? Good, now you have to deal with confusing voice-over that lends itself to the style of an old-timey detective flick, mixed with unexplained interviews between Stuart and people of Slade’s past, wrapped in a plethora of flash-back scenes that leave the audience visually and mentally disoriented.
The unfortunate fact of this effect is it takes away from some great aspects of the movie. The sound track, for example, is a wonderful mix of heavy hitters from the era that put us in the period. The effect of this soundtrack combines with the use of pseudo-news scenes and rocking live concert scenes that make the world of the sexual revolution more relatable to the audience. Brian Eno, Lou Reed, and Steve Harley round out an exceptional soundtrack that really draws you to the movie despite the confusing plot’s attempt to boot you out.
Other pluses to the movie are its artistic direction. The costumes are elaborate in this film; hat’s off to Sandy Powell for that. These, mixed with the elaborate sets of Slade’s sex palaces work to connect you to the glamorous and outrageous world of Slade’s glam rock.
Furthermore, the acting job by all of the big-names in the film are great. Ewan McGregor and James Lyons actually have some great on-screen chemistry and the acting of the entire cast works to bring this otherwise unfamiliar world to life. These performances work with the above-mentioned scenes of fake news-casts to make this world real.
Overall, the good aspects of this movie out way the bad. Word of caution to the wise, though: do some research before you go see this film. With a little extra scope into what this movie is actually about you are free to focus in on the outstanding art-direction in this movie.
My target audience are people who have not seen this movie before and, specifically, people who are not too familiar with David Bowie's Life
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Doesnt Dissapoint (Revised)
Based on the existing collection of video adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes” one might not expect to see many explosions or extreme violence in a Sherlock Holmes movie. Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels) provides plenty of both, though, in his new adaptation of the old detective novels. Not surprisingly, Ritchie brings a lot of bang into a character not usually connected with the pop of a Hollywood blockbuster.
The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Meanwhile, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Homes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmesis heart.
Kelly Reilly’s performance as Watson’s fiancé-to-be, on the other hand, is flat and her scenes generally fall short of the film’s otherwise witty flow. Certainly her character calls for a certain lack of depth but her dull tone detracted from scenes in which Downing Jr. dazzled. At best her role and performance can be described as mildly annoying and lends itself to the assumption of a general miscasting.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmesis character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of striking close-ups in Holmesis bedroom the production team does a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film can provide an audience with a character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmesis Lair. Such effects allow the audience to truly connect with the character, deepening their connection to the movie.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Meanwhile, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacularly gloomy set of the grimy London streets, their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The gloomy set contrasts nicely with the bright, posh wardrobes of the two leading ladies in the film, who work to tear Homes and Watson from their case as well as their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature while she seduces the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holmesis heart.
Kelly Reilly’s performance as Watson’s fiancé-to-be, on the other hand, is flat and her scenes generally fall short of the film’s otherwise witty flow. Certainly her character calls for a certain lack of depth but her dull tone detracted from scenes in which Downing Jr. dazzled. At best her role and performance can be described as mildly annoying and lends itself to the assumption of a general miscasting.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg work well with the team of Ritchie and Downing Jr. in adapting Holmesis character while remaining true to the gloriously sublte details of Doyle’s makeup of Holmes. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of striking close-ups in Holmesis bedroom the production team does a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film can provide an audience with a character. The audience’s eyes burn along with Holmes as Watson pulls back the blinds to reveal a perfect attention to detail in Holmesis Lair. Such effects allow the audience to truly connect with the character, deepening their connection to the movie.
Huge explosions and well-done, slow-motion fight scenes add to a successful set of special effects and help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget goes a long way as this beloved story is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw the audience to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two-hour-plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when one might start to worry that they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Dosent Dissapoint
If you’ve ever watched a video adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes you might not expect to see many explosions or extreme violence in a Sherlock Holmes movie. Yet when you go to watch Warner Brother’s new blockbuster adaptation of the old detective novels, that’s exactly what you get; lots of explosions and violent fight scenes. The plot of this film, though, does a good job of outshining all of that glitz and glam of Hollywood with an excellent storyline. Not to mention, Robert Downing Jr. (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. John Watson) have great on-screen chemistry. As they stumble through a spectacular set of London their witty banter keeps you laughing while a super natural plot line keeps you on the edge of your seat.
As for the leading ladies in this adventure you have two female roles that drive Holmes and Watson away from the pressing nature of their case as well as from the destiny of their friendship. Rachel McAdams does a better job than expected at her character, Irene Adler’s, devious nature as well as seducing the audience in her attempts to capture Sherlock Holme’s heart. Kelly Reilly, on the other hand, keeps me wondering whether or not bad acting was a tool to make her character, Mary Morstar, less likeable. Whatever the case her acting is not very good and makes you aware of her characters expendable nature within the plot. Specifically, her reactions to Holme’s custom to analyze every situation to the last detail, and usually fairly accurately, detract from Downing Jr.’s terrific acting in the shot and make the scene fall short of the films otherwise witty flow.
Writers Anthony Peckham, Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg do a great job of innovating and exploring Holme’s unique character. With a violin and a pipe as his vices, Downing Jr. stumbles through the chaos of his bedroom with his own unique sense of order. With a number of shots in Holme’s bedroom the writers do a great job of keeping Doyle’s key character traits intact while taking advantage of the intimacy film provides an audience with a character. These shots prove to give Downing Jr.’s character an intriguing mix of old meets new.
Great special effects help to realize a long awaited devotion of a real budget to this long-time idled character. The film’s 90 million dollar budget takes you a long way in this one as a wait that has lasted decades is finally realized in a true blockbuster. The intricacies of the set draw you to the movie for a whopping 128 minutes. At first glance this two hour plus run time seems daunting but it flies by as the twists of the plot take you through the twists of the Thames and to the top of record-breaking bridge heights.
And just when you start to think they left out the most important part, Moriarti makes a guest appearance just long enough to give you a glint of what is sure to be a disappointing sequel. Robert Downing Jr. and Jude Law may prove otherwise, though, as their great success in this movie had me brimming from ear to ear when I left the theatre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
