{fv_addthis}

Latest Blog Posts

by PopMatters Staff

9 Sep 2009

Speech Debelle won the coveted Mercury Prize last night in the UK for her album Speech Therapy. Andrew Martin called the MC “a special talent who is primed to make something of herself with a little more polishing. But don’t get it twisted: Speech Therapy is an album you want and need to hear.”

She’s got a few upcoming US dates as she comes to these shores for CMJ:

10/21- New York, NY; Cake shop, Terrorbird party
10/24- New York, NY; Santo’s , Windish Party
10/28- Los Angeles, CA; Club NME @ Spaceland

Speech Debelle
“Better Days” (Revox) ft. Micachu and Wiley [MP3]
     

“Go Then, Bye” (Photomachine and El-B Remix) [MP3]
     

by Aaron Sagers

9 Sep 2009

Are you hunting Yeti for business or pleasure? Do you have any Chupacabra or Sloth Monsters to declare? Have you accepted any gifts from Swamp Dinosaurs, Bat Demons or Devil Worms while traveling?

The questions Josh Gates encounters when flying across the world for fun and adventure are slightly more exciting than what the rest of us have to answer at the airport. Still, even though the third season of his hour-long show Destination Truth premieres Wednesday, Sept. 9 on the Syfy Channel, the gig of monster-hunting host hasn’t become mundane.

Since June 2007, Gates has traveled to remote, off-the-grid locales with a small crew to investigate claims of encounters with beasts that could take a bite out of Bigfoot and Nessie. As if that wasn’t enough, his repertoire has recently extended to exploring curses and ghosts – and his adventures with the unknown all occur after he deals with known dangers. But Gates is an affable guy who, at 32 years-old, sports a professorial-meets-adventurer look. Not completely unlike another such explorer who favors a whip and fedora, Josh Gates has learned to take life-threatening work environments in stride.

by Bill Gibron

9 Sep 2009

Nine
Director: Rob Marshall
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cottilard, Penelope Cruz, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Kate Hudson, Nicole Kidman, Sophia Loren, Judi Dench, Fergie
Opening: 25 November 2009
Distributor: The Weinstein Company

Leave it to Daniel Day-Lewis to flummox fans. After winning the Oscar for his bravura performance as a wily turn of the century oil baron in There Will Be Blood, the unconventional actor has now jumped headlong into Rob Marshall’s big screen adaptation of the Broadway musical take on Fellini’s 8 1/2. That’s right, it’s a singing and dancing Day-Lewis who’ll be helping the Chicago helmer bring this baffling tuner into obvious Academy attention. And as the ladies in the fictional filmmaker Guido Contini’s life? Well, we have none other than Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Kate Hudson, Stacy Ferguson, and Sophia Loren. There’s over seven little gold statues among the cast alone. While some fear that Marshall is a one hit wonder (the Chicago follow-up, Memoirs of a Geisha, was less than successful at the box office), the talent involved should pull him through. Should.

by Ashley Cooper

9 Sep 2009

Since first coming onto the R&B music scene in 2005, Trey Songz has created many hits. His first two albums, ‘I Gotta Make It” (2005) and ‘Trey Day’ (2007) had numerous singles such as “Girl Tonight”, “Just Gotta Make It”, “Last Time” and “Can’t Help But Wait”. The latter song gave Trey Songz a Grammy nomination for Best Male R&B Vocal Performance, and also affirmed that Trey Songz is one very promising R&B artist.

Now Ready is released, and is currently #2 on Amazon’s R&B Sales Charts, and #3 on iTunes Album Sales Charts. The album features the hit single “Successful”, featuring the rapper Drake, as well as his take on Mary J. Blige’s “Be Without You”, “One Love”. Trey Songz has also announced that he will be touring with the official BET Live! 106 & Park Tour along with R&B acts Mario, Day26 and Sean Garrett. Tour information can be obtained from his official website, but the dates are as follows:

September:
29th- Los Angeles, CA- House of Blues
30th- Anaheim, CA- House of Blues

October:
2nd- Las Vegas, NV- TBA
5th- Houston, TX- House of Blues
6th- Dallas, TX- House of Blues
8th- New Orleans, LA- House of Blues
9th- Atlanta, GA- Tabernacle
11th- Myrtle Beach, SC- TBA
12th- Charlotte, NC- Fillmore
13th- Baltimore, MD- TBA
15th- Kansas City, MO- TBD
16th- St. Louis, MO- The Pageant
18th- Detroit, MI- TBD
19th- Chicago, IL- House of Blues
20th- Cleveland, OH- House of Blues
21st- Indianapolis, IN- Egyptian Room at Murat
29th- Orlando, FL- TBD

November:
11th- Washington, DC- TBD
12th- Boston, MA- TBD

by G. Christopher Williams

9 Sep 2009

This discussion of the Prince of Persia contains major spoilers regarding the game’s conclusion.

Despite their often thuggish and brutal behavior, a few weeks ago I wrote about how the characters that we play in video games are still often made sympathetic to us through various narrative techniques that sometimes conflict with player choice.  While Niko and CJ of the Grand Theft Auto series do some terrible things while we control them, both characters’ rough edges are often softened by scripted cutscenes that give these characters justification for their bad behavior or that just simply show that they are not altogether bad.

What I would like to consider this week is a character whose reputation has suffered as a result of a slightly different and less static narrative technique that also attempted to reveal more about the protagonist of a video game, the Prince of Persia.  Much like the rapscallions of the GTA series, the Prince seems to have been largely conceived of as an anti-hero.  Much like Aladdin, the Prince emerges from the tradition of the rogue as hero.  The charming and rebellious bad boy has much going for him in the way of generating audience sympathy that can be found in other characters like him.  Unlike the bad boys of GTA and other crime sagas, characters like Han Solo, Jack Sparrow, or just about any character ever played by Cary Grant, tend through their own wit, charisma, and good looks to offset any negative feelings about their possible character flaws or even criminality.  Charm, it would seem, masks a host of vices.

Certainly, the latest re-envisioning of the Prince of Persia plays into this persona of the bad boy, especially as such characters normally relate to a female love interest (a perfect vehicle for demonstrating qualities like charm).  Like Han Solo and Princess Leia, Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann, Peter Joshua and Regina Lambert, the Prince’s general charm is in part communicated to the player through the witty verbal cut and thrust that he and Elika take part in over the course of the game.  Nothing says sexual chemistry more than a little verbal violence.  We tend to forgive little boys their attacks on girls after all because we know that in reality it just shows that “they like ‘em” and that seems to be the case with most of these man-boys.

While some folks may criticize the relative cleverness of the non-stop give and take between the Prince and Elika, unlike many video games, it certainly reveals more about these two characters and how we are intended to perceive them than games often do.  Usually, video game characters seem to go mute when a cutscene ends and actually playing as them begins.  While this is usually because they aren’t working with a partner, the partnership between the Prince and Elika is one essential to gameplay (as the Prince serves as the vehicle for moving around the world of the Prince of Persia while Elika’s powers keep him alive) but also to characterization—one of the easiest ways that a writer can develop a character is by showing an audience what they act like around others.

Despite efforts to build the Prince into a likable rogue, the Prince has taken a real beating as a much beloved protagonist largely do to the final decision that he makes somewhat independent of the player’s control at the close of Prince of Persia.  The gameplay and plot of Prince of Persia are driven by the goal of saving an unnamed kingdom by healing its corrupted landscape.  When the Prince and Elika (and the player) finally manage to succeed in healing the “fertile grounds”, the Prince and the player is confronted with the uncomfortable truth that Elika, whose resurrection caused the corruption that plagues the land, must also die to make right the unnatural balance that was created by her previous return to life. 

Interestingly, Ubisoft did not choose to present the Prince’s response to Elika’s death as a final dramatic and unplayable cutscene.  However, despite the seemingly participatory nature of the game’s epilogue, the player is not actually given any choices about how the Prince might choose to respond to Elika’s death.  If the epilogue is played through, the only thing that the player can do is walk Elika’s body out of the temple that she has sacrificed herself in and destroy several trees that represent the lifeblood of the land.  As a result, the land once more is corrupted by shadow, and Elika is returned to life.  The Prince has chosen love over salvation.

The conversation  provoked by this unusual and exceedingly romantic conclusion is varied.  Some (as I myself do) feel that this is a reasonable conclusion to the Prince and Elika’s story.  Every indication of the Prince’s feelings for Elika as they verbally parry and thrust through a complex dance of sexual antagonism and anxiety indicates to me that a legitimate sexual chemistry and ultimately love is being developed between the characters.  It may be that I have seen too many episodes of Moonlighting, but this formula of boy meets girl, boy and girl hate each other because they actually really, really like each other has apparently conditioned me to view much literary and cinematic romance in this way.  Additionally, the rebellious qualities of the Prince suggest something of the Byronic hero or the Satanic Hero.  Like Satan in Paradise Lost who felt that it was “better to reign in Hell then serve in Heav’n”, the Prince chooses to resurrect what he desires rather than save a world.  Thus, I feel like this final decision is consistent with the character (and, truth be told, I kind of favor the Byronic expression of the hero over the blandly noble heroes of other literature myself).

However, given that saving the world is the focus of so many games and certainly the goal that the player has been led to believe is his or her own of over the course of this game, it is, perhaps, unsurprising and very understandable that many players find themselves to be very much in conflict with the Prince’s decision.  Those that might want to choose a more noble outcome or see the Prince as a potentially less selfish character might reasonably disagree with this conclusion.  To further rub salt in the wounds of players that might feel that saving the world is a more noble and sacrificial choice to make then to save the woman that they love, the game asks the player to make this choice right alongside the Prince, to become complicit in this more “Satanic” option. While the player controls the Prince at this moment in the game, he or she can only take actions that revive Elika and corrupt the land, there are no alternative actions (barring making choices outside the boundaries of the fictional world itself) that might allow the Prince and player to maintain an uncorrupted kingdom.  As Iroquois Pliskin puts it in his review of the game from December, 2008, Prince of Persia  “presented the player with the one of the few real ethical dilemmas of the holiday season: turn the console off, or finish the game?”

That Ubisoft seems willing to force the player into enacting a choice that they may or may not agree with and allow the player’s will to come into direct conflict with the will of the character that the player has inhabited for hours strikes me as a brave from both a narrative and gameplay perspective.  Not only do they risk making the Prince an unsympathetic character by making the player overtly complicit in his less than noble decision to embrace his own needs and desires over those of the “greater good”, but the conclusion of Prince of Persia invalidates everything that the player has been doing throughout the game or in playing a game at all.  One of the most satisfying thing that adding narrative components to video games has done for gaming is in providing a conclusion, a stopping point that allows players to know that they have succeeded in their goal, that they have “beaten” the game.  However, that this goal is the result of achieving various lesser goals throughout the game by testing their acumen at the various tasks of the game (in this case, running, jumping, fighting monsters, etc.) suggests that taking all of those minor actions are worthwhile because they achieve that victory condition.  The frustration that may arise from playing Prince of Persia may lie in the fact that the value of the actions necessary to “win” the game are all erased at the game’s conclusion.  It is as if the board that the game is played on has been suddenly swept and the 10 or 12 hours needed to complete the game were unnecessary.  The land is under the spell of Corruption and nothing has changed as a result of a laborious effort. 

The near absurdity of the reversal of the the effort of playing a game is sure to aggravate players who are accustomed to being told that playing results in achievement and winning.  The interesting thing about Prince of Persia is that it challenges the value of the work of play itself.  That the Prince makes the decision to invalidate his work in saving the world might be acceptable but that the player is forced (barring turning off the console before the narrative completely concludes) to invalidate their own work alongside him might make it easy to begin to hate this guy.  It also raises the question, though, since we have acted alongside him, do we have to hate ourselves for wasting all this time?

//Mixed media
//Blogs

'Fire Emblem Heroes' Is a Bad Crossover

// Moving Pixels

"Fire Emblem Heroes desperately and shamelessly wants to monetize our love for these characters, yet it has no idea why we came to love them in the first place.

READ the article