Call for Book Reviewers and Bloggers

Latest Posts

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008

Who needs the public interest?

Satellite radio services XM and Sirius just got a nice present from the weak-kneed Dept. of Justice in the form of a stamp of approval for their merger.  As the NY Times reports, it’s great news for the two companies and their stock holders but will not be great for consumers who will now have to deal with one mega-company for all their satellite radio needs.  As some saner voices point out near the end of the article, the DOJ are pathetically shrugging off their duty as public watchdog- also see this Broadcast and Cable article about doubts raised about the merger.

All that’s standing in its way is the dreaded FCC, which isn’t exactly known as a bastion of public service.  Indeed, Congress is now demanding that head-schmuck Kevin Martin turn over piles of internal documents about his controversial decisions over the last few years over big issues like ‘a la carte’ cable offerings but this will also likely shine some much needed light on his unsavory decisions about media consolidation also.  His masters in the media conglomerate world must be crapping their pants right now and it’s about time.  But in the meantime, look for him to squeeze through a thumbs-up for the satellite deal.  He now says that he hasn’t made up his mind but he lied about that before, and to Congress no less (which I could have sworn was a crime…).

The Satellite companies are arguing that they should be able to create a monopoly because there’s so much competition from other music services.  This is the same lame argument that media conglomerates are using to consolidate their power and get the green light to buy up more and more radio and TV stations and newspapers. 

Not that I buy their argument but they do have reason to be worried- as the Washington Post reports, companies like LastFM and Pandora offer DIY music services for people to customize to their tastes and these companies are getting more and more traction, with lots of subscribers and lots of music offered. 

But does that justify creating monopolies to compete with them?  And besides, if these greedy companies were running their business better and offering more of what the public wanted, they wouldn’t have to beg the govt to get permission to grab up competitors.  Also, if they screwed up their own companies, what’s to say that they’ll do any better to leverage more companies for their bottom line?  Most likely, they’ll screw up the other companies they swallow up too.

And again, how is all of this in the public interest?  It ain’t and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008

Can I get a show of hands – how many of you listen to audio books? Come on, now, don’t be shy, I know you’re out there. I’ve just started figuring out why they go out like hotcakes at the local public library where I spend some of my Saturday mornings helping out. At the moment my commute is mercifully short so I’m not drawn to audio books to make me feel like I’m wasting less time in the car. Rather, I like to do two things at once (minimum) and listening to an audio book allows me to get through some reading I’ve had sitting on the back burner while working on a project around my apartment.

Currently I’m whizzing through Eldest, Christopher Paolini’s bestselling sequel to his bestselling first novel, Eragon. Since there was all that hubbub when Eragon first came out (genius 15 year old author et cetera) it has been on my to-read list, along with about a thousand other things. Letting British-accented award-winning narrator Gerard Doyle read me the unabridged Eldest is a treat.

When I first decided to give an audio book a try a couple of months ago, it was because a patron had just returned one of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels, Thud. Something to keep me laughing, I thought, that would be good, and I always enjoy Pratchett parallel giant-turtle-centric universe. I started listening to Thud only to quickly realize I was familiar with not just the recurring characters in the series, but with the plot of this novel as well; turns out I had actually sat down and read Thud at some point in the past, holding the paperback in my own two hands, the old-fashioned way.

Disappointment quickly turned to renewed interest – I continued listening, but without the need to pay direct attention to the story at all times. It was more background noise while I puttered over the weekend. An ideal intro to the world of audio books.

With Paolini’s books however, it’s all new to me—I haven’t seen Eragon the movie yet, either—and I do need to pay attention as the action moves along swiftly and the characters are a bit complicated. I’m pleasantly surprised to find that even though I could read faster than the narrator can speak, it’s nice to move steadily through a work of fiction. (And also to not have to guess at pronunciation in the Ancient language.)


Brisingr, the third book in the Inheritance trilogy, is due out in September 2008, so we have that to look forward to. What’s your take on audio books? I know I would like to get my hands on presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s Grammy award-winning The Audacity of Hope. Any other particularly good ones I should know about?

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, Mar 25, 2008
L.B. Jeffries takes a look at the arguments behind the debate on violence in modern-day video games.

The issue of violence in video games has been around since the medium’s inception and the discussion of it merrily continues today. One of the first video games ever made was created by an MIT student named Steve Russell, called Spacewar!, and was just as violent—at least, in concept—as many of today’s titles. Originally a multiplayer game, two people would control rocket ships while firing torpedoes at one another. To make the game more realistic, modifications would subsequently include planets, gravity, and backgrounds. Even in the early days, by their competitive nature, video games have always contained a kernel of violence in them. At the same time, they’ve also aspired to be better simulations of the world. Whether out of the desire to make the virtual competition more appealing or simply “feel” right, video games have always sought to accurately reflect the competitions they represent.

So what are the consequences of that objective? I can now, with the press of a button, have the avatar representing me vividly and realistically kill the avatar representing you. What, psychologically, is going on in my head? A variety of studies have been conducted by a variety of sources and compiled in an essay by Craig A. Anderson entitled “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions”. According to the research, playing even a non-violent video game for twenty minutes can induce in the player “increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased pro-social (helping) behavior”. Which is fair enough. It doesn’t take a Ph.D to conclude that playing Halo 3 for a couple of hours is going to make you more aggressive. You’re competing with other players, with the AI, or with yourself when you’re playing that game. In all probability, Anderson’s research is wholly correct that after playing a video game the player is more aggressive and anti-social.

The rather curious question this raises is…so what?

Bookmark and Share
Monday, Mar 24, 2008

With 300 current in heavy rotation on Cinemax and HBO, it’s time for SE&L to take a few days off for Spring Break. In the meantime, enjoy this March 2007 piece on how Frank Miller’s style could enliven other ‘dead’ genres.

He has the magic touch. Either that, or Hollywood is so bereft of visionaries that his ideas must be copied – in some cases, literally – in order for motion picture innovation to be captured. Of course, it’s Frank Miller that everyone is talking about – again. The celebrated comic book artist first came to the attention of film fans when his Dark Knight take on Batman was reference over and over again as the inspiration for Tim Burton’s reboot of the famed super hero. Then Robert Rodriguez did the illustrator one better, actually giving him a co-director credit on his all CGI take on the Sin City series. It was that unique post-modern noir, a combination of real live actors and carefully crafted digital backdrops that argued for Miller’s arrival as a major influence in the world of cinema.

And now 300 seals the deal. The Zach Snyder epic, telling the tale of ancient Sparta’s confrontation of overwhelming Persian forces at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. is currently confounding critics, already over $100 million in box office grosses in a little less than ten days. Some are calling the sword and sandal spectacle the dawn of a new age in filmmaking, while others laugh at its ‘all style and no substance’ approach. But with Rodriguez already planning a pair of City sequels and the industry buzzing over Snyder’s boffo returns, one thing is for certain – just like The Matrix did back in 1999, Miller is destined to cast his impact over a decade or more of motion picture output. After all, you know the old Tinsel Town saying. Success doesn’t breed contempt – success breeds competition.

So as producers and suits go scurrying through the Miller catalog, looking for untapped projects to greenlight, and as the copycats prepare their own interpretations of the artist’s over the top style, we here at SE&L have a few suggests for genres that should be given the man’s pen and ink invention. In each case, the motion picture category is either stagnant, or suffering from one of its usual bouts of overdone obviousness. But by splashing a little Miller into the mix – or, by implication, following the same stylized look of his ‘graphic novels’ – an aesthetic rebirth may actually be in order. Let’s start with the most logical creative candidate:

The Horror Film:
Experts will argue that you don’t need enigmatic visuals to sell scares or suspense. Indeed, music, plotting, characterization and careful direction are all one supposedly requires to make an effective thriller. But since those other elements are in short, or seemingly unavailable supply, there’s got to be another way to reconfigure the fright film. Enter macabre ala Miller. Thanks to his exaggerated approach, especially when it comes to blood and guts, and the ability to ramp up violence until it reaches otherworldly proportions, your typical slasher storyline or undead drama would suddenly stand as a demented demonstration of fear. We’ve already seen other movies attempt such a shift. Ronny Yu’s amazing Freddy vs. Jason managed to breath life into the two dying franchises by emphasizing their inherent brutality, filtering it through a Hong Kong action ideal. And for all their goofy Goth cheesiness, the Underworld films have tried to create an alternate universe where vacuous vampires battle Eurotrash werewolves in an ongoing war of wire-fu proportions.

But it is Christophe Ganz’s astonishing Silent Hill that proves, positively, that Miller’s optical opulence can carry the creepy for an entire horror film. Based on the noted videogame series, the French filmmaker (who made a name for himself with the remarkable Brotherhood of the Wolf) applied real world terrors to his supernatural setting, resulting in a startling vision of surreal, sinister despair. Several sequences in particular, as when air raid sirens sound off to warn of the coming “darkness”, grab the viewer by the neck and refuse to let go. Now imagine such a situation augmented by Miller’s attention to depth and detail. Sin City touches on such scary movie elements. It’s clearly there when Mickey Rourke’s Marv confronts Elijah Wood’s serial killing cannibal Kevin. But that was part of an overall crime story, not a focused look at monsters and madmen. As a result, the application of Miller’s technique to something as inherently horrifying as the zombie film, or something like the Hellraiser franchise, would be outstanding (just imagine a collaboration between the artist and Clive Barker on his Tortured Souls series. Ew!).

The Western:
It’s a purely American genre, a cinematic classification that tends to wrap up the entire spectrum of morality and machismo in a few fiery gun battles. And yet the Western is deader than a Dodge City doornail, milked of all its meaning thanks to decades of overproduction and under-appreciation. Certainly, there have been attempts to revive the hoary old horse opera, wrapping it up in metaphysical meaning (Clint Eastwood’s excellent Unforgiven) or post-millennial angst (Nick Cave’s crafty The Proposition). But when it comes to straight ahead dynamics, when one looks to the black hat/white hat narratives that drove the early era of film, there is very little left of the West’s fading sunsets. Instead, we prefer our cowboy conceits retrofitted into other genres – science fiction (Star Wars), crime drama (you name it!). But if Miller was brought in to enliven the oater, to add his idiosyncratic look to all the outlaw elements, something majestic might occur. Imagine the showdowns, gun barrels glistening in the burning midday sun, bullets flying across the horizon in specialized slow motion majesty. It’s enough to get a film fan good and flustered.

The closest we’ve come, and indeed, a great place to start when considering this concept, is Sam Raimi’s pre-Spidey spectacle The Quick and the Dead. Thanks to a hot (commodity speaking) Sharon Stone, fresh off the lingering Basic Instinct hype, the Evil Dead auteur got a chance to work out all his High Noon histrionics with the visual aplomb he was noted for. His camera in constant motion, his shot selection a veritable cornucopia of new and novel angles (including one incredible ‘wounds eye view’ perspective), Raimi reinvigorated the Western by realizing the areas that needed improvement. Unlike previous revamps by maestros such as Sergio Leone, the filmmaker avoided all the psychological ramifications and went right for the gut. The results were a partial reprieve for the format, and a great example of how style can salvage even the most antique artifacts. Miller’s approach is similar – finding the places where spectacle can replace specifics - and using visuals to vault a sequence’s primeval impact. Like a spaghetti western on steroids, a Frank Miller sagebrush saga would be amazing.

The Musical:
Yeah, it may seem like an odd choice, but the one thing that is definitely missing from the post-modern showtune dynamic is vision. Present day filmmakers, unfamiliar with the old school extravaganza of the genre’s past, figure that if they merely fancy things up with bright lights, big stars, and lots of MTV-style edits, audiences will ignore the unreal situation of individuals randomly breaking out into song. But that’s not the real problem with the musical’s current hit or miss fortunes. No, what’s really missing from the mix is pure artistic heft. It’s what makes Busby Berkley’s work within the category, classic and what elevates the MGM offerings from ‘30s through the ‘50s to the status of masterworks. But look at the recent attempts at reviving the artform. Chicago was a misguided mess (forget the Oscar) while Rent and Phantom of the Opera failed to generate much interest. And let’s not even start in on Dreamgirls. If ever a musical missed the opportunity to play with images and era, it was this relatively routine interpretation of the Motown sound.

In fact, the last great big screen musical was also the last one to understand the need for a unique approach and look. While it was set in the ‘50s, and relied on a famous Roger Corman b-movie for its foundation, Frank Oz’s masterful adaptation of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken’s Little Shop of Horrors created a world wholly its own, one based in the campy kitsch of the drive-in movie melded onto the sensational schlock of the subject matter. The opening number, and unbelievably moving “Downtown”, sets the stage for the rest of the film’s super sized sentiments. In fact, Oz was so effective at selling the love story between Seymour and his sweetheart Audrey that he had to change the original, downbeat ending. With someone like Miller portraying everything, from the conversations to the choreography, we’d witness the rebirth of a genre through the lost art of visual storytelling. Even better, the artist’s inherent knowledge of what works best within a certain imagined moment would help to bring the hidden emotion and narrative undercurrents out of the songs. Lyrics demand performance and perspective to work effectively. Someone with a mind like Miller’s could easily prove how substantial this stylized interpretation can be.

It has to be said that Silent Hill, The Quick and the Dead, and Little Shop of Horrors all represent just the tip of the treatment iceberg when it comes to bringing Frank Miller’s visual acumen to the world of motion pictures. It is clear that what is required, aside from the artist’s input, is a director in sync with his unusual approach, and a studio willing to gamble a little. No one is saying the combination will be perfect – after all, there are those who look to Sin City and 300 and scoff at the idea of Miller’s brand of sketchpad simplicity. Still, for several genres that are sitting somewhere between outright death and cinematic life support, the unbelievable imagination of this arcane comic book mind could be the aesthetic salvage they so desperately deserve. If it worked for the pathetic peplum of the ‘50s and ‘60s, how can it not succeed elsewhere.

Bookmark and Share
Monday, Mar 24, 2008
by PopMatters Staff

Windsor for the Derby
Maladies [MP3]

Hold On [MP3]

Shoulda Known [Video]

Kill People [Video]

Confidences Shattered [MP3]

Egg [MP3]

I Want to Be with You [MP3]

Tremolo [MP3]

Now on PopMatters
PM Picks
Win a 15-CD Pack of Brazilian Music CDs from Six Degrees Records! in PopMatters Contests on LockerDome

© 1999-2014 All rights reserved.™ and PopMatters™ are trademarks
of PopMatters Media, Inc.

PopMatters is wholly independently owned and operated.