CD Review: ERA VULGARIS

since the end of high school, my musical tastes began shifting away from hard rock toward rap and lighter indie rock. i still gave my rage against the machine and deftones albums plenty of burn but the hard rock afterward wasn't resonating with me. i would occasionally hear a song that seemed a little better or intriquing but, with my audio galaxy downloading days far behind me, i never felt like spending the twelve bucks to find out if an entire album was worthwhile.

one such song that exemplified this was "no one knows" by queens of the stone age. it contained a hooky guitar riff, shifts in tempo, a funky bass bridge, and amazing drumming (by nirvana and foo fighters alum dave grohl). it even had a fun music video.

that was it though. just a single song from a musical island until i bumped into some more queens of the stone age songs in the game rock band. each subsequent track i heard (and got to play) got the blood running with the same mixture of percussive forward force and clever guitar riff in a heavier environment than i had found with the franz ferdinands and the strokes of the world.

thanks to the minneapolis public library, i got my grubby paws on ERA VULGARIS. i noticed two songs from rock band ("3's & 7's" and "sick, sick, sick") as cuts i liked already and was pleased by the rest of the album. upbeat, but with enough tempo shifts to keep it interesting, qotsa (as i will refer to them henceforth) sublimate harder guitar effects into catchy songs. i don't know how to judge vocals apart from knowing whether they distract me from listening or not, and these do not. the two linked songs are fairly representative of the album as a whole save except for the great pace changer "make it wit chu." while the subject matter is puerile, the throwback funk influences add depth to an interesting album that might feel repititive otherwise.

after a whole album's worth, i still want to listen to more. thankfully, more is on the way. thanks again minneapolis public library!

Movie: SIDEWAYS

SIDEWAYS, directed by alexander payne, was the indie-sort-of-comedy darling at the oscars in 2005 sandwiched between the actually good indie-sort-of-comedy LOST IN TRANSLATION and the actually terrible indie-sort-of-comedy LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE.

everything i read about this movie prior to its release seemed like it would be something right up my alley. one of the director's previous films was ELECTION, a sharp, dark film i enjoyed highly. it starred paul giamatti, whom i had liked in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and MAN ON THE MOON. the subject prominently featured wine and friendship, two more great things in life. and yet, i never saw it. not in theaters nor on video. maybe i could just sense that i wasn't going to really like this film.

several aspects turned me off. i found paul giamatti's character grating. while he did give a strong performance for most of the film, the inevitable blow up/break down scene happened not once but twice and dragged the characterization closer to base caricature. his friend (portrayed by thomas haden church) was someone with whom i couldn't empathize. a man looking to cheat on his fiance as much as he can before marriage, he only sobs when his wallet and clothes have been stolen. he later goes through with the marriage anyway. the dynamic between the down-on-his-luck giamatti and girl crazy church played like a b movie SWINGERS replacing vegas with napa.

about a week removed from watching it, i can only recall a single scene i liked and for the direction alone. a drunk, bitter giamatti calls his ex-wife in the middle of a dinner date with friends. the camera stays in close focus on giamatti's head from a low angle, highlighting his own egoism and ugliness. the rare instance where the film accurately portrayed one of its characters.

Book: BLINK by Malcolm Gladwell

i'll be the first to admit that when it comes to pleasure reading, fiction is going to be my first choice. reading almost non-fiction exclusively in college, i have been trying to figure out what is just so "classic" regarding a lot of classic literature. even when i haven't loved the book, i've felt like i'm at least able to enter in the conversation and can make a judgement for myself rather than relying on others' opinions. still, the occasionally non-fiction book comes along that piques my interest. enter BLINK.

BLINK is an examination of our unconscious thought, typically in the first two seconds of an experience, that informs much of what we do. starting with a colorful incident regarding art forgery, Gladwell posits that our gut feelings and intuitions come from a justifiable well of knowledge and can be just as valid as our conscious thoughts. sometimes even better than our conscious thought. he goes onto back up this assertion and all the others he makes with anecdotal evidence and some references to research (it was annotated in the back but i didn't follow up on them. my gut feeling is that this Gladwell character is reputable).

i never suffered from a lack of interest throughout the book and the prose flows cleanly, but i couldn't get over the fact that i just didn't feel convinced by his argument. i wasn't able (or willing) to connect all the dots between, for instance, people moving into an autistic mind state due to overstimulation. i also felt some stories (see the entry on Kenna) failed to match the points he was trying to make.

regardless, BLINK made for an interesting enough read that i'm willing to try another Gladwell book next (OUTLIERS perhaps?). i'd even recommend it for the stories and anecdotes alone.

Movie: A Band Of Outsiders (Band A Parte)

in theory, the coming weeks should see a sharp uptick in posts which will directly correlate to the return of internet in my apartment. the minneapolis public wifi system is supposedly days away from going hot in my neighborhood and then i shall have the ability to post as frequently as i like, keeping the five people who read this up to date on the books i'm reading, movies i'm waiting, and music i'm hearing. because of generous friends, netflix, and the library, i'm knee deep in all of these things. my goal is to review one album and one movie per week and books whenever they are finished.

leading the way is A BAND OF OUTSIDERS, directed by jean-luc Godard in 1964 during the heart of the french new wave movement. i knew two things going in: it was supposedly a heist film and its influence was particularly strong on quentin tarantino (he even took the US title for his production company).

the plot touches on two friends, arthur and franz, who attempt to convince female student (and potential love interest) odile to aid them in stealing stolen money from her mother's companion. arthur and franz, while not serious students themselves, instead are well versed in pulp novels, b movies, and other US culture. the heist acts as a device to move the plot forward but the movie was more concerned with examining the relationships between arthur, franz, and odile.

all three are young, attractive, impulsive, and unsure. the film's aesthetic follows suit. the score is primarily upbeat jazz. the quick pace is established through quick cuts and overlaid dialogue. shots vary from deep focus close-ups of individual faces to handheld tracking shots done on location in paris. and like the characters who constantly reference pop culture, the film does too referencing other french films THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG and THE SOFT SKIN in addition to Chaplain classics THE IMMIGRANT and THE GOLD RUSH. it was easy to see how this comes down into tarantino's style.

while there was a lot to like, the film left me a little cold. i never got to a point where i cared about the relationships between the primary characters so, in spite of the intriguing techniques used to capture them, i found my attention waning instead of growing as the plot moved towards its climax. i liked this, but didn't connect with it enough to love it. both the contents and technique of the film are occupied with the younger generation finding their own way against tradition and the thrill found in both success and failure.

in this regard, it was a success and produced scenes of exhilarating whimsy. two struck me particularly. the first takes place at a cafe. after a conversation that goes nowhere, arthur suggests dancing. i'll admit i'm a sucker for coordinated dance, but it seemed to sum up the go-with-the-flow nature of the film and characters so well, coming completely out of the blue.

the second arrives at a time when the friends have time to kill before the heist is to take place. it is the three's response to hearing that an american from san francisco had visited the lourve in under 10 minutes.

these are what i'll remember.