From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #26 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, January 27 2003 Volume 03 : Number 026 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Scott mention... ["Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" ] [loud-fans] Adaptation [Carolyn Dorsey ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies [Charity Stafford ] Re: [loud-fans] Adaptation ["jer fairall" ] RE: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? [Robert Toren ] [loud-fans] chat? ["jer fairall" ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] another eMusic alert [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies [glenn mcdonald ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:36:43 -0000 From: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Subject: [loud-fans] Scott mention... A friend of mine stumbled across this - Game Theory and Scott get a mention... http://equanimity.blogspot.com/2003_01_01_equanimity_archive.html#879043 90 Gil, that was great stuff - thanks! Ian ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 10:48:22 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies >Movies that left *me* wondering what people saw >in them (explainations welcomed): > >> 7. ABOUT A BOY I can try, but on the whole, this is one of those "what did other people not see it in," for me. Hugh Grant adroitly subverts his nice guy persona, leading with his crow's feet. Nicholas Hoult, in his first major role, keeps always on the intriguing side of annoying, and the amusing side of clueless. Admittedly, the book's point, which the author couldn't help spelling out at the end--that Marcus, the boy, must change to have any hope of fitting in--twists, cinematically, to the point where the man meets the boy in the middle. I don't find that more false, though (however much I find it more unlikely). In the film, especially, Will, the man, remains more than a little of a self-absorbed jerk. So the filmmakers' "admission" that they aren't completely on Will's side refreshes as much as Will's willingness to help Marcus. >> 10. WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? I'm not sure I understood it myself--kept hoping glenn and/or Stewart would jump in on this one--and you're not alone, Jer. The friend I saw it with, no movie slouch himself, went to far as to say he'd been "assaulted." Walking homeward with Bill, though, the world seemed different, right down to the jingle bell from my jester's hat clinking against my glasses. If art is supposed to change our perceptions, here's a prime example. It uses space and silence in a way almost no Western filmmaker would dare. And it stretches comedy (the soul's situation in the afterlife as symbolized as one cockroach, eaten by a fish) to the point where the sadness in comedy's fabric must appear in the light. I don't usually refer people to other reviews while defending a work myself, but Paul DiMauro has a lengthy assessment of this film with an eye to its Buddhist symbolism, that's well worth reading: http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0269746 Comments and counter-comments welcome, Andy "Not really my thing. Besides, it upset the cats." - --Curtis Peterson on Marzette Watts ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:09:53 -0500 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: [loud-fans] Adaptation I just saw this movie yesterday and loved it! The tail wags the dog. Go see it. It's alot of fun. I think Nicolas Cage is looking more and more like Gene Wilder . *Spoiler * * * * * The first half is slower moving because Charlie can't make anything happen with the book he's supposed to write a screenplay for, until he asks for the help of his hack writer brother to help him. So the second half of the movie takes on a whole different character when the brother gets a hold of the script and brings in some action--he turns the Orleans character into a drug addicted adulteress. Crowd pleasing devices abound, with a car crash, murder plot and the protagonist learning an important life lesson and getting the girl! Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:29:06 -0500 From: Charity Stafford Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies At 10:48 AM 1/26/03 -0800, Andrew Hamlin wrote: >>> 10. WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? > >I'm not sure I understood it myself--kept hoping glenn and/or Stewart would >jump in on this one--and you're not alone, Jer. Stewart hasn't seen it, actually - he has't seen any of Tsai Ming-liang's films except for THE HOLE. Ironically, I *haven't* seen that one myself, although I've seen REBELS OF THE NEON GOD, VIVE L'AMOUR, and THE RIVER. Unfortunately, I can't offer a lot of detailed comment in support of WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? because although I've seen several of his films and liked them enough to continue to try to see new ones as they appear, I've found them all to be kind of impenetrable. I really liked much of VIVE L'AMOUR, for instance, and thought the intersection of the different characters who were all using the empty apartment was often both extremely funny and excruciating (particularly Lee Kang-sheng under the bed while the other two are making it on the bed, and his tender advances towards his sleeping love object), but I have never been able to understand the final scene, a typically LOOOONG scene (basically taking place in unedited real time) of the young woman walking around and then into a large, empty park and finally breaking down in tears for a very long time. One thing that's always struck me about many Taiwanese films I've seen, and Tsai's films in particular, is that while many other Chinese films from the mainland or Hong Kong give a sense of strong interconnections between characters, large extended families, and just generally a sense of a greater world around the small set of characters in the story itself, the people in Tsai's films are painfully lonely and very much alone in their worlds. Even when there are characters who have relationships to other characters, they seem alientated and isolated from each other and unable to make connections. All that said, I will add that, having seen several of his earlier films, I found WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? to have much more actual narrative plot, to be way funnier, and to be what I would consider his most "accessible" film to date. So I can understand both how it's ending up on folks' best-of lists AND how other folks would be unable to fathom the choice... Charity ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:22:18 -0500 From: "jer fairall" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Adaptation This seems to be yet another movie that everyone but me liked. Here's what I wrote in my movie diary (something new I'm trying this year to keep track of what I've seen and what I thought of them): "The most disappointed Ive been in a movie since JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK. I thought BEING JOHN MALKOVICH was pure genius but the praise appears to have gone to director Spike Jonze and screenwriter Charlie Kauffmans heads. The film is basically about Kauffman writing the film were watching, a semi-clever stunt that is nevertheless nowhere near as clever and Jonze and Kauffman seem to think it is. A few funny bits here and there (the pitch for THE 3 is by far the films highlight) and some okay performances never redeemed for me the feeling of smugness that hangs over the whole project nor the fact that I never felt at all involved in what was happening." Jer np: Madonna, TRUE BLUE Race to Save the Primates - every click provides food! http://www.care2.com/go/z/primates ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 13:33:37 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Toren Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? From: Gil Ray Yes, Michael was kind enough to ask for a little Mitch blurb, > And Michael Slawter told me about a funny piece you > wrote him about the > Let's Active tribute. !?! >:-0 well? post it *here*!!! please? Yet more listenings to 2-Steps, following along with a lyric sheet - (Room for One More, Honey - it's 'Always one more' not 'Always want more'?? doy!). While finding no major flaws in 2-Steps, I do feel slightly disatisfied at the end, like it lacks a pay-off (a Friend of the Family or Waist and the Knees?) Is there a consensus (heh) around here regarding 2-Steps? Gil, I listened hard for fuck-ups in Growing the Erection but didn't hear a one; maybe a little hesitation on some beats, which only made it greater r ===== "Monotheistic religion has always brought out the best in us humans; thank you so much for the idea of a vengeful supernatural entity who rewards people in the afterlife! That shit makes a lot of sense!" http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war17.html http://www.angrylambie.com Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:55:58 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? > Is there a consensus (heh) around here regarding > 2-Steps? I don't think this is the consensus, but it's always been my favorite Scott record. The production sounds a little odd, but the collection of songs can't be beat. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:23:34 -0500 From: Carolyn Dorsey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? Yes- This has always been my favorite too, it's the first record by Game Theory I heard. And I never understood what he was singing about either. Carolyn on 1/26/03 4:55 PM, Dan Sallitt at sallitt@post.harvard.edu wrote: >> Is there a consensus (heh) around here regarding >> 2-Steps? > > I don't think this is the consensus, but it's always been my favorite > Scott record. The production sounds a little odd, but the collection of > songs can't be beat. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:05:24 EST From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? It may be the record I've listened to the most in my life along with Joni Mitchell's FOR THE ROSES, but I think Lolita Nation reaches higher and sounds better. I don't think Scott music needs two guitars and you can really hear this on TWO STEPS. I wish he'd deliberately written in "greatest song of all time" mode more often the way he clearly does on Throwing the Election and We Love you Carol and Allison. hmmmm, Steve Matrick n.p. The Streets- Original Pirate Material, a record that is really hard not to like despite myself. Anyone figured out what a Cronenburg is? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 18:02:02 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2-steps drumming - Gil? - --- Robert Toren wrote: > Gil, I listened hard for fuck-ups in Growing the > Erection but didn't hear a one; maybe a little > hesitation on some beats, which only made it greater No real FU's, just a bit of...confusion on some of those ..anticipatory pushes and accents..(wow, I think I just invented a drumming term!) But they aren't too bad. Not as bad as Ringo screwing up an accent on No Reply. (at the 2:03 mark) ;) Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:09:48 -0500 From: "jer fairall" Subject: [loud-fans] chat? Surely I can't be the only one who doesn't care about the Super Bowl... (unless you're all just watching to see Shania Twain) irc.eskimo.com #loudfans Jer Find out who's green and who's not! Use Care2's Green Thumbs-up! http://www.care2.com/go/z/4029 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:15:43 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Charity Stafford wrote: > Stewart hasn't seen it, actually - he has't seen any of Tsai > Ming-liang's films except for THE HOLE. Ironically, I *haven't* seen > that one myself. Sue & I saw THE HOLE at the late, lamented UC Theatre. We both thought it was excruciatingly dull and pointless, not to mention needlessly squalid. Then again, we both hated PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE. I've never seen an Adam Sandler movie, and she's only seen THE WEDDING SINGER, so maybe having seen one of his movies where he's a jerk makes PDL, where he's an insane jerk, more interesting. I nevef bought thelove story, and found Barry to be intolerable, no matter what the reason for his pathology. ADAPTATION was clever, even more so after Sue explained the "pivot point", a la Carolyn's post. Neither ADAPTATION nor BEING JOHN MALKOVICH were laugh-out-loud funny, though. ABOUT A BOY was. Damn Raiders. Everybody go see CHICAGO as soon as you can. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:34:51 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll > I've been lax in my reminding duties! > > http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~aaron/poll/lf02 I'm trying to figure out whether I should vote for the Hives (whose record was released in 2000 but seems not to have made it to the USA until 2002) or the Shins (whose record is plainly a 2001 release, but I see some people ten-besting it). I suppose there are no guidelines whatsoever, right? - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:41:52 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Dan Sallitt wrote: > I suppose there are no guidelines whatsoever, right? My personal guidelines are: it had to come out in 2002, with foreign albums eligible either the year they come out overseas or the year they come out here, whichever one is actually the first time I hear them. But I don't have the time or the will to enforce this, so people can vote for whatever they want. The only time I remember anything at all questionable getting more than a vote or two was last year, when the New Pornographers won handily with a record that came out in November 2000. Other loudfans have voted for both the Shins and the Hives -- full list coming tomorrow for those of you who are waiting. (The list will not, of course, say how many votes each record has, nor is anyone limited to voting for things on the list if they vote in the last week of the poll.) a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 01:54:53 -0500 From: Stewart Mason Subject: [loud-fans] another eMusic alert Another spree of new additions on eMusic includes further gems from the Voiceprint catalogue, including THE BRONDESBERRY TAPES (1968) by the legendary King Crimson precursors Giles Giles and Fripp, the indescribable MINIATURES by Morgan Fisher, a couple of early Soft Machine live discs, and my all-time favorite prog-rock-related album, Tom Newman's FINE OLD TOM. Many who have received tape/CD trades from me over the last five or six years already know this album's utterly marvelous single "Sad Sing": now's your chance to hear the whole album, plus bonus tracks that are actually kinda interesting. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:07:55 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 Movies Well, I thought _What Time Is It There?_ was astonishing and brilliant, but I'm in no way surprised by anybody not liking it. I'm a big fan of quiet, observational movies, and they don't get much quieter or more observational than that. I loved _Vive L'Amour_ similarly (*especially* the incredible endless tracking shot of her walking through the park), and even liked _The Hole_, in which the quiet observations are punctuated with campy musical dementia. But if you want a slightly more accessible introduction to Taiwanese cinema, you might try _Yi Yi_ first instead. glenn ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #26 ******************************