Best Pop Song Ever

Once in a Lifetime, by the Talking Heads.

Discuss.

Breaking News!

David Mamet loves my wife's show! She met him this morning. Apparently, Mr. Mamet is visiting the Harry Ransom Center and really liked what he saw.

So, if you've attended the show, and you liked the show, then you are in good company.

House Mates and Who

Last night's episode of House had an interesting twist (which I am not going to spoil for you) but was nothing spectacular. A recurring sub-plot involving Dr. Wilson's separation from his wife continued, as our man Wilson moves in with House. We learn that Wilson spends a lot of time in the bathroom and likes to label his food. At first it appears that the curmudgeonly House will chase Wilson out after only a day or two but, with the labeled food and the new maid, House takes steps to keep his buddy around a little longer. That's some compelling drama, right there.

I suspect the presence of a theme in there somewhere, perhaps one about companionship and/or relationships (this week's victim was involved in a marriage that was, ah, surprisingly open). But other than the twist (which I am not going to reveal here), the show did not explore the implications of the victim's marriage very thoroughly. Dr. Cameron almost did, when she asked a few questions, but that was about it. Maybe the final moment of the show, when she pulled some money out of her pants, was supposed to mean something but it went completely over my head. Granted, it could have been the Shiraz muddling my thinking.

And Stephen Fry? Nowhere to be found. And, as always, you can find a much more intelligent analysis of the show over at Polite Dissent.

I have found myself watching Dr. Who on Friday nights on the Sci-Fi Channel. I haven't watched this show since I was a kid. I was never that impressed with the show: the effects were cheesy and the stories seemed trite, even to a kid. But the main character, a time-traveling alien who lives in a police call box and has adventures with a beautiful woman, is a great hook. As a kid, I thought the Dr. Who with the overcoat, scarf, curly hair, big nose and hat (played by Tom Baker in the 70s) was the coolest dude ever, right up there with Kolchak the Night Stalker. I understand that over the years actors played eccentric variations on the Doctor but I couldn't get into it like many fans.

The new Dr. Who is pretty good. Christopher Eccleston played the good Doctor for a season. He didn't have many of the eccentric accoutrements that Mr. Baker did but he definitely had the right attitude. He played the Doctor as an enthusiastic participant in any situation he found himself in, a being who loved life and reveled in excitement. The attitude is infectious and makes up for some of the (still) cheesy effects. I am also a fan of the current sidekick, Rose (played by Billie Piper). She is more down-to-Earth than the Doctor but she still shares his love for adventure. They make a great team and I enjoy watching them stumble through some crazy sh#t.

In other news, Dave's Long Box (link in the Link-O-Rama)is celebrating its first year anniversary. Take a gander but don't drink the punch.

Into Deep

It appears that bon vivant and raconteur Notorious Mjt! started a blog. You may a find a link to said blog in the Link-O-Rama to your right.

If you ever read it, then may God have mercy on your soul.

As I walked to my car, someone emerged from the shadows and knocked me on the head! When I came to my senses, I discovered that the Notorious Mjt! posted the following on my blog:

Hey!

Just thought of this - and thought of you - and your blog - and felt compelled to zip this off to you.

Bear with me...

I'm sitting here at work tapping away on my computer while listening to XTC's Oranges and Lemons, and it struck me as to how perfect an album it is. I love every song on it - I think it's XTC's best work (their "peak", if you will - just my opinion of course) - and it would be less of a work if any song or sound were missing or even if the play order was different. It is complete, and whole, and exactly right for itself, and it's intent, at that time and place - in other words: perfect.

So that made me think. How many truly perfect albums are there like that? I mean, there's are tons of cool albums, and everybody has their favorites. But there's always the "That song was awesome, but this one- not so much". Or the "I wish they'd started the album with this track instead of that" (Steely Dan's Aja immediately comes to mind for that one - they TOTALLY should have started with the title track instead of Black Cow!). You know what I mean?

I can think of a few other possible contenders. Pink Floyd's DARK SIDE OF THE MOON was my next thought. It's arguably not their most influential work - like The Wall. And yet it seems more complete and true to itself than any of their other albums. And each song flows from one to the next as if that was the only order they could have possibly been in. It's internal consistency is without flaw, IMHO.

Pat Metheny's LETTER FROM HOME came to mind, too. I could listen to that album on eternal replay over and over again. It's not like As Falls Wichita So Falls Witita Falls - which has the awesome title suite (it's really more than one track), with a few other numbers tacked on to the end. Each individual song on Letter From Home seems like it segues to the next, as if the whole album is one great big extended composition. Perfect.

Does this make sense? Can you think of any others? And would your readership have some suggestions? The more I think about this, the more I'm interested to hear what others think about it.

Mjt!

Despite the throbbing pain in my skull, I will list a few albums that, in my mind, fit your criteria:

1. Pete Townshend, White City

2. Talking Heads, Remain in Light

3. Dave Brubeck, Take Five

4. Paul Simon, Graceland

5. Miles Davis, Kind of Blue

Ok, posters, it's your turn!

The Movie "The Man" Didn't Want Me To See

I took myself to the movies this weekend and watched V For Vendetta. I read Alan Moore's comic when it was first released (has it really been almost 20 years?) so I didn't remember too many details from the original source material.

As a result, the only baggage I carried with me into the theater was the recent huffaloo raised by Mr. Moore. The New York Times reported that Mr. Moore doesn't like the movie very much and, in fact, doesn't like any of the movies made from his work. The rancor between Mr. Moore, DC Comics, and Hollywood has developed to the point where he is not credited in the movie (the only reference to the comic is the fact that it was "Illustrated by David Lloyd"). The basic point he makes is: the story was his until the comic company and other media twisted it into something it was not. He wants nothing more to do with the process. Although I think the media has been inordinately kind to Mr. Moore by keeping his work in print and in the public eye for over twenty years, and I think that he is naive if he thinks movie makers will not change the story to fit the demands of the medium and the marketplace, I can understand his sense of ownership. Having seen what those bastards did to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I too would be overcome by fear and loathing for the deep capacity of movie makers to really screw things up.

Did they screw things up with V? I don't think so. I will not get into many plot details here, so as not to spoil it for you. I will say that the movie definitely watered-down the exteme viewpoints dramatized in the comic and humanized the radical V to a greater extent than I recall from the original story. There are a few Matrix-like fight scenes but they were not overdone and they did not occur too often. Hugo Weaving (who played Elrond in the Lord of the Rings movies and Agent Smith in the Matrix movies) does an amazing job playing a tortured human being who wears a mask with but one expression at all times. Natalie Portman does an excellent job too, although her British accent is not that great. And I am always happy to see Stephen Fry in a movie. Now if we could just get him to play a role in House....

If you'd like a more in-depth analysis of the movie and its relationship with the original source material, then I refere you to the excellent commentary on the Howling Curmudgeons web site.

Uncle Patrick takes Substance D

The movie premiere was a lot of fun. Before the movie started, we stood in the line reserved for cast, crew and various hangers-on (that was us). Patton Oswalt was there! We talked with a few of the animators and learned that the film making process was not as grim as this article would have you believe. Which is a relief.

The movie was not the finished product scheduled to hit theaters this summer but it was quite good. It takes place seven years in the future, when over 20% of the population is addicted to a drug called Substance D. Substance D alters the user's sense of reality and gives a sense of euphoria but can result in brain damage. Keanu Reeves plays an undercover agent seeking to root out the members of the drug's distribution chain in Anaheim, California. Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson play his addicted roomates. Winona Ryder plays his love interest. Rory Cochrane (who you'd recognize from his work in Dazed and Confused) plays another addict. The performances were all very good. Mr. Downey's characterization of an intelligent, amoral man whose mental synapses misfire under the influence of Substance D is particularly excellent. Mr. Cochrane's performance of a man deep within the thrall of the drug is also really good.

The animation is well used here too. The process is called roto-scoping, where the animators animate over the live-action film. By and large, the animatos show admirable retraint, using the process to give the whole movie a slick, almost greasy look, as if seen from the eyes of an addict one-step removed from reality. Although the animation is often almost indistinguishable from live action film, backgrounds can sometimes slide around or come into and out of focus. People turn into insects. Imaginary insects crawl over the skin and through the hair. The effect can be disconcerting but immersive (and I must admit there were moments when it distracted me from the dialogue or the action). The animation is most evident in the one sci-fi gimmick in the film: the scramble suit.

Undercover agents wear scramble suits to hide their identities. Scramble suits are full body suits that contantly shape-shift, flickering characteristics of different people across the wearer's body. These characteristics are not consistent across the suit (half of the torso could be a business suit, while the other half is a summer dress, while the face shifts from African-American female to Caucasian male, and so on) and the result is like a walking night-terror, a miasma of images that the viewer cannot get a handle on, hiding its wearer in plain sight. The animators really shine with this effect; I am not convinced that it could be captured effectively in any other way.

In any event, with the exceptions of the scramble-suits and the insects (which are the few instances of overt animation), the animation in this movie serves the story admirably and provides a new dimension to the experience. Highly recommended.

Uncle Patrick Goes to the Movies

My wife and I are going to see A Scanner Darkly tonight. It premieres at the Paramount Theater in downtown Austin as part of SXSW.

Chattering Cyclops, Part II

You may have noticed that I did not post any commentary on House this past week. I was pretty wrapped up in Ptolemy's Gate and did not note the time until I paused long enough to call my parents. We talked for a few minutes before my Dad said, "Gotta go, House is back on!"

I figured that I can catch the episode in re-runs and went back to my book.

So I am not writing in praise of House (I have done that before anyway). Instead, I sing a song of The Shield.

My wife and I watched the fourth season on DVD a few weeks ago. As many of you recall, this season featured Glenn Close as Capt. Monica Rawling, the new head of the Farmington precinct where the series takes place. The character was a strong, driven person who was not given to passionate outbursts (save for a few noteworthy exceptions during the last few episodes of the season) but who clearly cared about the people she worked with an protected. There was never any question who was in charge either. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Ms. Close portrayed one of the best protagonists I have ever seen on television or elsewhere, of either gender. That is not to say that any of the other actors in the series were any less worthy of praise; rather, it is a reflection of the greatness of the work that she stood out in such an excellent ensemble cast. And the character's arc was dealt with intelligence and style, that ends in ambivalence that is also somehow satisfying (and in keeping with the tone of the show). I won't go into too much detail so as not to spoil anything for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of watching the series.

And I would give the entire series, from beginning to end, my highest recommendation. The premise seems suspect on first blush: the show traces the career of a corrupt cop who works in a precinct beseiged by crime. But you grow to like the cop, and the people he works with, and follow his descent and his climb back to respectability (of a sort). Not all of his colleagues are corrupt (indeed, the source of much of the conflict in the show is his race to keep one step ahead of his fellow cops) but they all struggle mightily to create order out of chaos. My wife and I make it a point to wait for each season to come out on DVD, so we can absorb it in marathon sessions.

And the winner is...

Blogging about the Oscars.

First, see By Ken Levine, a regular member of my Link-O-Rama.

Then, see Tom the Dog.

Then, Vince Keenan.

Very amusing stuff.

For my part, I only watched the opening monologue. Mr. Stewart was stiff and a little nervous but he was still funnier than any host in recent memory. And Kudos to George Clooney, who helped sell Mr. Stewart's joke about "Good Night and Good Luck". I admit that I haven't watched any of the best picture nominees but most of them are waiting on my Netflix queue.

As for my next TV post, I want to give people an opportunity to read the first part. It is below.

The Chattering Cyclops, Part I

Today, I write in praise of television. I have a love/hate realtionship with that device. When I grew up, my family treated it with scorn and derision. In fact, we did not have a TV for a few years. When we did have a TV, my parents strictly regulated my viewing habits. So naturally I loved the thing. I'd watch it every chance I had. Mostly cartoons and syndicated shows. I have blogged before about my love for old Universal movie monsters, which came from watching old movies on Sunday afternoons on TV. It offered a great escape and inspired many ideas in my young, fevered brain.

But I got older and along the way I obtained an over-developed critical faculty. This faculty cannot stand most of the stuff that is on television. On most days, I adopt the same attitude about the medium that my parents did when I was a kid.

Then there are shows that make me believe that the best creative work in pop culture is on television. I have spent many blog posts discussing House, so I will not rehash it here. Instead, I want to talk about the first of two shows that have grabbed my attention and won't let go: Arrested Development.

My wife and I rented the first two seasons on DVD from netflix about a month ago. I watched bits-and-pieces of the show when it was on the air but I didn't see enough that it earned more of my attention. After we watched back-to-back episodes in sequence, most of them in marathon sessions, I reflected upon my stubbornness. It could be my tragic flaw. Arrested Development is a damn fine show.

From the writing to the acting to the music to the production, the talent on display is top-notch. The show rewards regular viewers with convoluted in-jokes that twist and turn, growing funnier and funnier. There is also a thread of met-commentary on pop culture in general and television in particular (the scene where Henry Winkler's character literally jumps over a dead shark is a classic example) that rewards the attentive viewer. Each actor displays his or her chops in physical and verbal comedy as they make their way through stories that adhere to their own internal logic so faithfully that one could convince oneself that one was looking through a magic window into another reality where things are slightly...off...and not just another paint-by-numbers sitcom. All-in-all, an enjoyable and entertaining experience.

I understand that, despite the critical praise and countless accolades heaped upon it, the show could not develop a larger audience and Fox canceled it after three seasons. I am stunned that Fox kept it around that long! If a show is good, Fox will usually kill it within a few episodes (see, for example, Firefly and Wonderfalls). I guess the acclaim kept Arrested Development on life support. I also understand that Showtime picked the series up and will run new episodes. I wish it well.

In my next post, I will talk about the other show. What show is it? Stay tuned and find out!