Kid A - Radiohead

This is the last album by Radiohead that I paid serious attention to. What they developed with OK Computer was a sophisticated sound that was the result of a few albums of experimentation with guitars and other instruments. The album also had a high concept, but that is of lesser interest. Sometimes people associate greatness with the attempt at meaning, but Thom Yorke doodled a bunch of lyrics that hit the listener over the head with their obvious meanings. The true excellence of the album was the band's groing ability to develop with their original sounds and show slow but thoughtful progressions in their music. When Radiohead finally followed up OK Computer they didn't keep growing with their sound but instead they abandoned years worth of accomplishments for a new identity. The new make up was concentrated of new instruments and sounds.

Kid A is their romp through beats and computer effects. A styling so far off it was considered avante garde by anyone who had associated Radiohead with their earlier incarnations. The problem is that progression with musicians usually is associated with the instruments they are good at. Considering Radiohead isn't breaking new ground but going, numerous songs on Kid A can be considered simplistic, off beat versions of much better material. The National Anthem incorporates trumpet work with drum beats and other computer effects, but the progression of the song is a layer by layer introduction of each new instrument. There is little make up to the composition of the song beyond the basic beat that drives it. The use of the trumpet is just a decorative sound for a basic beat. When David Bowie experimented with electronica in the mid 90s, he also used simple beats to decorate whole songs. It showed his ability to cloak himself in new music without making it part of the best of his abilities. The shock is that when bands like U2 experimented they did so by associating many of their old instruments in with the new ones, but Radiohead designs most of the songs on Kid A to breed a complete new identity. They try to make an album that takes on talented musicians of the genre with only a few years experience. In some ways the success of Kid A is a backhanded compliment to the genre.

I've heard that Radiohead progressed after Kid A, but once I found Amnesiac to be disregardable I lost most general interest in the band. Someday I may find my way back to the band, but an album like Kid A doesn't live up to the hype.

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles

Sgt. Peppers isn't the greatest album or even a good one. In the scheme of musical conceptions it isn't even a true album. The Beatles felt like it was a breakthrough for them because of the high level of experimentation relative to earlier efforts. The concept is that the album is being played by a mock band called Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, a kind of marching band that represents all different facets and personalities of the band. The fact that the Beatles would deal with different personalities was to be expected because the band was growing more tired with their original incarnation in every new album. The problem is that they had no good idea to go about showing the personality splits amongst the bandmembers. Instead of making a cohesive album filled with thematic, tonal and structural similarities, they made an album that is a collection of songs with no similaritiy amongst each other at all. The tie in to the concept is that each bandmember was able to mold and shift the songs to their design, but it was all for the purpose of an idea that wasn't even a concept. It's a rationalization. In Sgt. Peppers they also ditched a lot of their pop song structure with songs that challenged the bandmembers vocal abilities. Paul McCartney most notably comes up short and sings many songs with a lackluster thud. He wouldn't develop a great range until Abbey Road with the powerful stylings on such songs like, "Oh, Darling". The power behind that singing would have helped some songs on Sgt. Peppers. Abbey Road also was the album that did combine all the sounds of the Beatles and match it into an album that was an album. Different musical interests are everywhere, but all are tied with similar sounds and structures that appear through out. Plus a slightly more interesting concept drapes the album, but concepts were never the band's strong suit anyways

Finding Forrester

The film is likeable to me because it mixes two of my favorite things, basketball and writing. Other than that there is nothing to it. Gus Van Sant makes another film about an unlikely genius. This film just pales in comparison to Good Will Hunting. The story is smaller and the themes are almost nonexistent compared to the earlier film. Some filmmakers accidentally make early films of theirs shine by making new ones later about the same subject that really dissapoint. I wonder if Van Sant doing this film a few years later was such an accident. Also, I have a bone to pick with its believability. The young black basketball player is discriminated against because he is 16 and black and yet has an extensive knowledge about literature. OK, the film focuses on the fact he is black. I'll disbelieve it because he is 16! No one that young can have read so much in the timetable the film gave. It's impossible. Fun movie to watch, but not to take serious.

Saraband

The breath and depth of Scenes from a Marriage makes the idea of a sequel hard to grasp, but Bergman returns to the topic. The good news is that he reunites the original leading actors. The bad news is that the story does not hold up to the original Ullmann and Josephson, long divorced, reunite but have little shared history since their break up. The film has little to base on about them so it is mostly about secondary characters, Josephson's family mostly. This introduces fresh characters and themes into a story that already has much to it. Bergman doesn't contribute very well to the original characters with this. He borrows old themes from other films and makes a film that exists on the idea that multiple stories is better than one quality story. Bergman is a master dramatist, but even a master had to be dumbfounded about how to write a sequel to such a dense film about a couple who decide to part ways by the end. The sequel had to be about something else to exist. It is that and sadly the results do not impress.

Breaking the Waves

A ridiculous film. The story starts out fine and develops an interesting moral dilemma, but the film announces bankruptcy when it starts to become a film about right and wrong in the eyes of God. The conservative religious folk condemn the actions by Watson's character, but her character is honored by church bells in the sky upon her burial at sea. The fact this film develops with many themes and ideas and then reduces itself to a simple morality tale that goes against the dated religious belief of a small town is bad enough. But the film gets really bad with the ending church bell scene. It says Watson was in the right with God but with no context. Just praise be her and her committment to her husband. C'mon. There is no challenge in this ending but only a satisfaction to the taste buds of the audience. It is also an unlikely and out of place romantization within a very stark and dark disturbing story. Late films by Lars Von Trier have been poor for trying to merge the realism of art films and Hollywood characteristics.

Casablanca

This should be considered a cult film. Those who love the film do so without regret or angst. They also do so without just explanation to why it is great. Those who hate it can point out the obvious romance cliches, but those cliches are why the first group loves it. Ingrid Bergman is a model photographed from one side instead of an actress here and Bogart has fine moments, but the writing doesn't give him a character. It's a camp romance filled with cliche dialogue that reminiscences about what they had in Paris, but not about them. People should not compliment what just formulaic for the times. Incompetence is the only thing that held this movie back. I also don't believe Ebert when he says the depth comes in the scene of actual French citizens sing the song of French resistance during WW2. It is only one scene. Ebert does a better job in his commentary to point out the numerous filmmaking inaccuracies in the film. So much for the height of classical hollywood cinema!

Szerelem

The dissapointment for some with this film is that more doesn't happen, but the film (with a less than satisfying title) is a small but wonderfully textured story. A woman routinely visits her bedridden mother-in-law and both have to deal with their son who is a political prisoner. The mother is dying and the son isn't due back anytime soon. But without warning, he is released and unexpectedly comes home but is too late to see his mother again. The film doesn't make this a big dramatic moment. This scene of his return meshes with all the others. The beauty of the film is the simple conversations and the wonderful filmmaking that bring to life the mother's dreams and ideas. None of the ideas are specific or really add up to greater ideas, but wonderfully add detail to a day in the life of these characters. It's said the beauty of good literature is the texture of the characters and scenes. That can come in many ways. Szerelem finds another way to tell that equivalent on film.

Persona

A nurse is asked to treat an actress who refuses to speak and have any contact with her family. The hospital believes the condition is self willed so a young unassuming nurse is enlisted to dig at the reasons behind this peculiar act. The two women get to know each other intimately and challenge each other to find their bounds and limits. At one point the film stops being chronological and straight forward and takes on a narrative that illustrates the complexes of both personalities. Persona is one of the richest experiences in all of cinema. The appreciation only deepens with every viewing. Bergman always had an idea to film the subconscious and soul on camera. He's done many films to many levels of quality, but no film seems to match Bergman's ambition the way Persona does. It is unbelievable that a film under 90 minutes and made in 1966 is still one of the complex portraits for an art form, but Persona is one of the few perfections we have.

Requiem for a Dream

The fact the film is disturbing and powerful should not warrant kudos. Certain subjects will bring out those feelings. The film is amateur hour and mostly nonsense. There is little detail to the character's lives. Each person is introduced and the film speeds to their problems. The depth of the storytelling is in how much the camera set ups and tricks shots dominate. The purpose is to create a drug state, but the film is so repititious with a few set ups and tricks that there is little imagination to the filmmaking. Instead it becomes nauseating and numbing. All the characters have different addictions and problems, but the state of their reality seems to come with the same look and feel. Arnofsky would develop with The Fountain, but the big budget here doesn't hide the fact this film feels like Pi did as a starter film.

The Usual Suspects

I remember when this came out. A review said, "If you can predict the ending, a top job is waiting for you at the FBI." That's funny because the only interesting thing about this film is the ending. The rest is a fluff genre movie that tries to take itself too seriously. The story pretends to be meaningful when it is just tired, but is paced slow enough and has a few dramatic scenes to give the illusion it is something more. The ending reveals an intrigue into deception, but reveals nothing more about the characters or situation. The rest of story just comes off as an exercise in criminal acts than anything else.

Walk Hard: The Story of Dewey Cox

Walk Hard makes itself exist between good satire and the muddled version prevelant in so many Will Ferrel movies. The film had a chance to be more, but collapsed under the pressure.
The problem is that the movie clings to the latter interpretation of satire. It's more structured than the usual Ferrel mess, but the exaggerrations are still there. John C. Reily is playing Dewey Cox through and through. When his character hits moments hat reflect other great musicians, it's all still the Cox persona. It's no more ridiculous than how Ferrel would have seen him be if he played the part.

Parts of the movie are funny because they feel like comic twists on popular history, but a lot of it feels like loose make ups of what really happened. I only got a sense of some musicians while most were too generic to be insightful. As the Great Dictator proved, you do need to accurately portray your subject before you send him off on zaney adventures. That's the only thing that Chaplin didn't do.

The ultimate problem is that I feel is that the filmmakers captured and undermined music history as thoroughly and accurately as Wil Ferrel did Nascar racing with Talladagha Nights. The film was too loose with the references and the story dragged too much. We don't care too much for plot and instead want a series of good jokes.

SLC Punk!

Discussion about structure and aesthetics in a film are relative to the constructions that make up its fictional characteristics. SLC Punk has fictional elements certainly, but also has ties elsewhere.

Documentary is rooted in the idea of image as truth and story as nothing more than a recorder's basic objective. While SLC Punk! is not as documentary oriented in recording story as films like Il Posto or others, it has an aesthetic that defies easy criticism because its whole point is to be nothing more than an extended memory of early wild days and growng pains.

Thus the question of whether the film feels sincere or is edgy enough becomes relevant because all the characters are suppose to exist as worthy interpretations of disgruntled youth. The film has a structure of being a series of parties and misadventures, but it does have poignant moments in between all the scenes that don't exhibit cheap sentimentality.

The film has an edge to it that could exhibit comparisons to other indie films like Trainspotting, but the film doesn't wallow in grunginess to just do it, but has points that speak to the advent of maturity for a rebellious youth. The film does make aesthetic decisions to get to this point, but the fact is that it doesn't try to heavy hand the material or make points beyond the characters basic growing up. The ending is sad and climactic but that doesn't make it fictional because the teary moments are rooted in pain and flavored with as much abrasiveness as any other part of the film.

Letters to a Young Contrarian (Art of Mentoring) - Christopher Hitchens

It is pretty absurd to think a book by a contrarian about the subject will get total love and agreement from other contrarians. Hitchens does take a viewpoint on numerous subjects. Those things remain to be debated. But the best thing he does in this book is gage the reasons why people become contrarians and how they can protect that individuality. He understands the inert feelings involved. Thomas Jefferson once said he had to find the argument in everything. He didn't know why, but he just had to. This book professes the same thing. It also does well to explain why the contrarian voice is needed in society. Whenever I find my confidence wavering because I am against all opinions, I can come back to this book to find comfort.

Sontag and Kael: Opposites Attract Me - Craig Seligman

I read this out of simple appreciation. Like Craig Seligman, I too have a distinct attraction to both Susan Sontag and Pauline Kael. The benefit of Seligman's book is that he makes his personal affection a drawn out work. The structure is basically a commentary on both authors and the narrative voice is as casual as a conversation. He doesn't start at their beginnings and go until the end, but hits earlier and later periods often and with ease. The reader who is already well versed in the writings of both writers won't learn anything new here, but they will get a picture of Seligman's appreciation for them. Since the book is sometimes as much about Seligman as it is Kael and Sontag, it makes the book a personal journey as well. I'm not an expert on either writer so I also saw this book as a good introduction to them. This book isn't a mighty or grand work, but since books about both writers are very few in number, it's a special accomplishment nonetheless.

Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: The American Classic, in Words and Photographs, of Three Tenant Families in the Deep South - James Agee

James Agee's naturalistic answer to James Joyce's Ulysses. Inspired by the scope of Joyce's work, Agee tries to do it in a documentarian style for an impoverished American family in the 1930s. Joyce took on Ulysses through an array of styles and structures. Agee doesn't represent the history of literature like Joyce does, but he uses a mixtures of styles and structures to comment on a family and period of history. The ambition is to cover every part of daily life at the time. Photographs by Walker Evans bring light to all the detail in the book. When released in the 40s, critics were harsh but positive reviews came in the 60s once critics were able to transition into comfortability with the style. Unlike Ulysses, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men wasn't an immediate classic and given instant analysis and writings about it so praise was slow to come. Biographies about Agee and texts on the book are recommended if considering reading.

I Am Charlotte Simmons - Tom Wolfe

Not Wolfe's most impressive novel, but definitely his best orchestrated one. Every novel he has done has dealt with a scope and frame that was too large for him to wheel all the way. I Am Charlotte Simmons is very good and the end hits the right note for all the characters. The other note about this novel is that as much as everything about college life seems exagerated, it isn't. I read this before I went to live in a college dorm and my instinct was to second guess every idea and claim in the book, but Wolfe turned out to be accurate to an uncomfortable degree. For a writer who steps into other worlds with his novels, accuracy is an important element.

The Forging of a Rebel - Arturo Barea

The large story of Arturo Barea's life and political career. He has little to say about his family as an adult, but much about how his childhood shaped him and the circumstances that took from a lowly soldier to a working revoluionary. Barea keeps the narrative focused on the escalation of small events that eventually made him an important part of the Spanish Civil War. Many people outside the political arena have little idea how one man can make a difference unless that person becomes a dictator or outright leader of a group. Barea was the working man behind the scenes. This book isn't dense with political ideas, but has a lot to say about the political life. It was hard to end this book. I felt like I became intimate with the passion of a man.

American Pastoral - Philip Roth

Yes, his Pulitizer Prize winning novel, but I don't know. The novel does right by following a realism track. Roth never did well with plot. The novel is also ambitious like his best works, but it is also redudant. The first forty pages is mere introduction, but after that the story is repetitve with the protaganist repeating the extent of his anxiety over and over again. One situation leads to new things, but the novel is focused on capturing the psyche of this disturbed man that it doesn't know when enough is enough. Roth writes his most radical book here, but the novel lacks the larger perspective in his better 90s works. I actually preferred I Married A Communist to this one. It has a similar subject and handles the outside perspective of the character better. That's also the only novel in that decade by Roth not to win a major award.

L.A. Confidential - James Ellroy

This isn't the usual mold for a crime novel. The structure is a dense crime report. The characters fit as if they were posing for mug shots. You get their most hard boiled image. Even for Ellroy this was an evolution. His early books are typical in structure with his usual tough punch. In L.A. Confidential he adapts the story to feel like it is home to the time period of the 1950s. The vernacular is so deft that there isn't just numerous expressions of common slang, but sentence structures that were common for the 50s. L.A. Confidential is encompassed by an authenticity all its own. He backs this wonderful language with a crime story that has ambition to devalue every other and with a story larger than five crime novels put together. White Jazz showed he could write in this style with a smaller focus, but L.A. Confidential is huge. In the movie the action takes place over a few days. In the book it takes place over about twenty years.

Humbolt's Gift - Saul Bellow

Tom Wolfe made this story a culutral examination with two of his novels. Saul Bellow makes it a personal one. The story is of the man who searches for great heights but has to come great pain before he can understand the beauty of simplicity in life. Charles Citrine is a version of Bellow's Herzog, but he keeps his thoughts to himself instead of sending them to everyone. His self importance clouds his ratonality with others and leads him to clustered situations of confusion and plight. Bellow is masterful with detailing the bulk of his excesses. He's so good that this examination of Citrine is almost too detailed. The point of view is from Citrine so we are privvy to all of his excessive thinking. Bellow doesn't focus enough on the ticking clocks in Citrine that get him to have a change of mind. All of a sudden he just does. His reasons encompass events and thoughts across the whole novel, but the reader is never thinking this event would come to pass. It feels tacked on. Other novelists told stories like this outside of the first person point of view and focused on the fatefulness of the protaganist's journey to self discovery. It made us look at the events with more awareness. In Humbolt's Gift we are beholden to his thoughts and whims to self entertainment for the character. Bellow is masterful with his writing, but too distanced from making the final revelations truly work.

Closely Watched Trains

War films are made by the plenty, but none with the personal context like Closely Watched Trains. The story follows a youth whose purpose is to take over his father's duty as a railway platform guard. His first day on the job is queazy and his escapades lead to the hope of sexual liaisons instead of honor on the job. The focus on this character, a general issue-type one, relates him back to the old guard mentality that the youthful are to follow in their parent's footsteps. Or, in the case of war, they are to follow in the footsteps of national allegiance. This film wonderfully shows the personal ambitions that lie in people even during the most honorable causes. The end, with the youth turning unexpected rebel to the war, is a pronouncement of the film against old ideals of allegiance and honor in war. But the film is most memorable for its vivid characters and wonderful writing.

Princess Mononoke

Most fantasy films don't resonate because the stories are ham and filled with plots that deal only with the world around the story. Princess Mononoke has a lot of discussion and explanation about a world where humans and animals battle for control of a forest, but the story is rooted in deep human emotions. The story is supposebly about a foreign situation, but is about the very unclear nature of right and wrong. Actually if someone looks at this foreign world they see signs of Japanese culture in mythical and religious beliefs. Like Kurosawa before him, Miyazaki uses a distant subject to deal with very modern feelings.

Cinema Paradiso

The film for film lovers. I find that even the most critical film goers accept the romanticism of this movie because it is about their own feelings at the beginning of movie going. It's interesting because the movie is far from perfect. It condenses and simplifies what Fellini did with Amarcord into a ready made product that takes advantage of old movie lore. But, so what. I was a wide eyed 15 year old kid when I saw this movie and I am still wide eyed kid when watching it. An essential movie in my life.

And the Ship Sails On..

One of the most pleasant Fellini films ever. By this time the style that began in 8 1/2 had become a good memory for Fellini. I say that because this story is so simple, so imaginative and so friendly. His ambition isn't to out due what he did, but to make good on the best features of his filmmaking. The story, set on a luxury liner, is about a memorable bunch of odd passengers and a lovesick elephant! The tone is quircky. Even the ocean is fabricated to set the perfect mood. Wes Anderson makes films these days about similar characters, but can't paint a picture of them without a chuckle at their expense. Fellini loves the characters. We should be grateful for that.

Ronin

Standard comedies go by the way side of explanation because everyone has their own sense of humor. It's something everyone knows but can't explain. I'm starting to believe people have a sense of genre as well. I couldn't make a great argument to someone outside the crime/esponiage fold why Ronin is really good. To those who appreciate the genre it is in the simplistic story and tight focus. Made in the late 90s, it was a-typical to other 90s crime movies. It didn't add new elements to the story and didn't worship at the altar of Tarantino. It is a classical thriller made by a classical director. In the 60s, this film would have been standard. Today it is refreshing. The professional cast helps. De Niro and Reno are both capable actors, but both work their standard movie star personas here.

Scenes from a Marriage

Bergman originally said this six part series took him six months to write, but thirty years to experience. The largeness of the story eclipses many personal films previously done by Bergman. Typically a ninenty minute filmmaker, Bergman held thematic and structural ambitions in check while he focused on simple stories that would exude the belief that film was able to discover the depths of the soul. In Scenes from a Marriage, Bergman takes the best of his ability there to tackle a subject that has the width and breath of a complete thought for a major subject. Bergman manages to keep the story personal instead of strutural by having the scenes be a series of conversations at different points in the marriage. The scene are charged and dramatic, but they encompass the extent of these characters' lives together that it feels like a larger comment on them.

Beerfest

Two reasons why this is good, 1.) It's funny. 2.) The film is the best promotion for homosexuality in any recent movie. Why do I say this? There is no female love interest. The characters are shocked and disturbed when they find out granny was a whore. The film also shows male bonding to an uncomfortable degree. One of the characters was a male gigolo and another zones out his wife to be with the guys and another continually makes homosexual freudian slips. And that's just the beginning. I'd like to think the writers were conscience of this and did it purposely to go against the standards of guy movies, but I'm not sure. Either way, this film has found a large male audienceand the best education for them may be the subconscious kind.

A Woman Under the Infuence

The art of uncomfortability. Cassavetes goes further than anyone to personalize his projects. This film, set in his own house, starring his family and friends, made by other friends, was produced from money off mortgages on his house. The story stars his wife as a manic housewife whose erratic behaviors sends her to a mental hospital. Family and friends make her out to be the problem for the whole family, but a welcome home party turns into a large fight and shows as many problems in the husband as her. A "woman under the influence" may be her under the influence of a controlling husband. The uncomfortability comes in the doco-realism of the story and the focus on the most unnerving moments of the situation. Cassavetes always said he filmed Gena Rowlands to play himself, but I don't understand how that applies here. Cassavetes personalizes this story, but this may be a foreign subject. The reward of the film is in Gena Rowland's performance but the film may have been kept from greatness becauses it focuses so much on the realism that it lacks clarity about the characters.

Knife in the Water

Polanski's contribution to Polish national cinema is actually his development of many norms that would define 1960s art house cinema. It never became a genre, but it did have tendencies and similarities in a lot of films. Knife in the Water features a story about a couple on a yachting trip who take along a mysterious traveler. Things start out fine until emotions are played with and the happy threesome becomes disjointed. The story is not interested in promoting a conflict and resolution, but to allow the tension to swirl. All the characters end the story on an uncertain note about what is next. The film's focus on a real situation and small moments gives it a realism that was different in the 60s. Even Italian neo-realism had stale plots in their films. Polanski made a classic example of a film and story that could be something else. Very memorable.

Hands Over the City

Franesco Rosi is the different kind of political filmmaker here. Most focus on cultural stories with a political emphasis, but Hands Over the City peers into the beaucratic make shift of an Italian city. The film starts out with a building collapsing and people dying. It goes on to focus on the city planner's reaction to the collapse. He doesn't try to correct the situation. Instead he tries to swindle deals to keep other building projects around the city going. The collapsed building was an example of the city's future "housing projects." The story doesn't focus on the dramatics that would exemplify right and wrong, but instead focuses on the grasp of the city planner's beaurcratic powers with politicians and businessman. Rod Steiger plays the city planner, a notorious character to all in the film, but the greater evil in the film by the end is all the politicians and businessmen involved. The film doesn't make any detail fantastic. Every detail is level headed and focused on structures of city government. Many filmmakers were making excellent political films at this time, but none with such dedication and vision as Rosi. An underappreciated master.

Paper Moon

When Bogdanovich made this, he was pigeonholed as the critic turned filmmaker who had his eye geared toward the past with low key black and white films. Paper Moon was his light affair. Starring Ryan O'Neal and Tatum O'Neal, a real life father-daughter duo, they play con artists who may or may not be father and daughter. The film is good because it is sweet on a small level. The quiet, funny moments between father and daughter pay off. When this film was released, it didn't get the greatest reviews. Tatum O'Neal was the stand out, but critics faulted the film for being less than satisfying. Too many ambitious films made then crowded this work. This film works better today because it is a good memory of better times in filmmaking.

Beautiful Girls

Life in the middle of nowhere. Thirty-somethings come together for their high school reunion. Some have gone on to greener pastures but most are still waiting for the rest of their lives to begin. That debate is coming to a head with a few men who are in relationships but cannot fully give themselves up to it. They live with the idea that someone better is bound to come. The film Beautiful Girls shows them as near middle aged youths who still go to the bars and still have good times like it's the old days. The film is very funny and down to earth with the portrait. There is no exagerration. It also leads to the end revelations with little hoakiness. The 'beautiful girls' are really the girls around them the whole time. Their denial of age kept them from seeing that. The film is set in a small winter town with idiotic fun guys. It's hard for me not to sympathize or relate to the characters. Sometimes the subject of a film is bigger than any comment you can make and you have to give in to the peaceful memories of yourself. I definitely am not middle aged yet, but I am from this same environment and I have not grown up any quicker than these guys.

Raging Bull

One of Scorsese's best films. In the varied career of Martin Scorsese there has always been experimentation with genre and reference. Taxi Driver, a supposed serious work about a Vietnam Vet rebelling against society, has more comment today about its noir tradition and stylistic techniques. Raging Bull borrows from 1960s Italian cinema realism, but little comment is about that. That is because the style serves the story and character. Scorsese is fully devoted to lifting the inner emotions of the film instead of sugar coding it. De Niro plays Jake La Motta to tragic effect. Scorsese allows the script to draw out the parimeters of a rise and fall story, but the true detail is in the emotions of how personal the story goes. The black and white, a staple cinematography touch for any film set in the 1950s or earlier, better represents the grittiness of La Motta's life than it does the time period. Scorsese did everything right to film this story. It's too bad the focus and talent in Raging Bull has been the exception in his Scorsese's filmography.

A Hard Day's Night

For a Beatles fan, this film is a reward. It has the perfect balance of fictional humor and Beatles persona. At the time of release the film probably had the stench of a marketing tool for the band, but age and endearment has given this film new life. My interest is in Richard Lester though. The ultimate comic filmmaker, he handles the story pitch perfect in filmmaking and composition, but the film has too much limitations. It has neither the cinematic or thematic ambitions of later films. A true early work for Lester.

Mirror

First off, I don't believe this is film poetics. The imagery is powerful, but images don't connect together or double up to create ideas or implant symbolism within the viewer. This film is closer to a painting. Tarkovsky creates a distorted memory of World War II. The film goes from scene to scene with no literal connection but a similar meditative feel. The film is short so each viewing becomes a different impression of an abstract piece. The fact that the film, on third and fourth viewings, still resonates with the deep pains of Tarkovsky's memory, makes it successful. This film has always alluded me by way of description. Even essays I've read have done the film little justice. But I've grown with this film through Bill Jensen's paintings. He's a painter who took European art films and created abstract texture works based on them. He dabbled with different Bergman films. I don't think Bergman was the right filmmaker for this remodeling, but Tarkovsky perfectly fits it with Mirror. The texture displays feeling instead of ideas. Tarkovsky is very philosophical in other works, but pure emotion here.

Shock Corridor

I have a soft spot for Sam Fuller, but as I get older I have less of a soft spot for some of his films. Consider Shock Corridor: made with almost no budget, Fuller found a way to make a film that attacked a subject he was passionate about (abuses in mental institutions) but again his pulp writing career does not translate to pulp excellence in film. He merely recreates the basics of the B movie. The film was timely for attacking taboo subjects, but only in a few inane sequences. The positive is that the film manages to capture intense performances and create some gritty film sequences. But that's all. The fact we have James Ellroy and others now bleeding excellence into the pulp world does not show evolution, but examples of men who did a lot better work. Sam Fuller always maintained story was most important in film, but Shock Corridor is very limited. I'm glad he was making films though.

American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson - Joseph J. Ellis

This book had a large influence on me when I was 17. The interesting thing about Jefferson is that his unique character is as much of a subject as his biography. I didn't understand it then, but the characterization this book paints would serve as parables in my life about the nature of intelligence. The first is that we applaud those capable of good grammar and command of it but Jefferson was so poor at it that his first State of the Union Address was only heard by the first three rows of the audience and read along by everyone else because the speech was published in a newspaper that day. Then there is the self image of intelligence. Jefferson perceived himself to be smart, but said he couldn't even argue what color the sky was with John Marshall because Marshall's intellect was that intimidating. As much as anyone wants to view themselves the authority on a subject, there is always someone around the corner who knows more than you do. The last thing is the purpose of argument. Ellis said that Jefferson found an argument in any situation, no matter what was being discussed. I don't follow this in detailing my ideas of a work of art or something, but it does speak to the fact that the colony of agreeance can be very large for a subject but none of those members are helping themselves better understand what they really agree about. These are all small lessons that still stick with me.

The Confusions of Young Torless - Robert Musil

Robert Musil is the other major Modernist writer of the 20th Century. The Confusions of Young Torless was his first novel and written while he was a student. The novel is wonderful in parts, but still feels like a first time effort. Musil creates vivid accounts of schooling and its hang up and worries, but he is so matter of fact with the protoganists worries that it feels like he is skimming too many surfaces of what he can do to bridge narrative with character. The plotting of the story is wonderful as it keeps a tight narrative but mixes it up with accounts of memory that take the story different ways and give the sense the novel is an organic being, but the characterization could have probed deeper. My criticism may be too harsh as this is a first novel and a very unique one for being so assured and well written in many ways.

A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

The best thing about this book is that it exists. John Kennedy Toole, himself a tragic figure, does a high wire act with a comic character in Ignatius J. Reilly. He has elements of sad realism mixed with high absurdity. The situation he faces gets more absurd as the novel goes along. The personality of poor Ignatius J. Reilly seems tied to his author. Toole does his best to keep the personal sadness mixed in with the comedy. The fact that the writing never suffers is because of wonderful conciseness and excellent detail. The novel takes the plot to such heightened levels that a lesser written novel would have come off as ridiculous and amateur. Toole keeps his writing mechanics strong and makes a good novel out of a ridiculous subject.

On the Road - Jack Kerouac

My travel with Jack Kerouac began and ended here. On the Road is rightfully a classic work, but an immensely bad one. The Beat Generation, as this novel defines it as, speaks to the breaking of structural and moral regard so a novel can be written on the most basic level and represent the most common thoughts of an individual. One could say the travel of a person across a great distance to find himself recalls other large works, but On the Road isn't about anything. It's a masturbatory work about a character who is more self absorbed than self reflective. The writing, suppose to be rough, instead looks like it was written by someone with the talent of a decent high school writer. The novel is really amateur hour. The subject is suppose to be exciting and fun to read, but quickly bored me in all senses. A walk with a character where nothing interesting happens on any level is just a stiff walk. Those who still credit the novel for breaking structural norms can stand down because novels as early as the 1930s were doing basically what On the Road does. They were actually better and more interesting, but they didn't become famous. On the Road had the lucky chance to debut during a cultural shift in America. I don't believe there was a purpose to record the turning tide of America. If there was, it was badly done anyways. Kerouac doesn't develop it as a theme. He just records the basics of his life. The worlds just aligned for that to be considered semi-meaningful because it incorporated a new America.

The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again - Peter Beinart

Peter Beinart is a good columnist and after reading this book, I'm going to recommend he stick to that. He's right to believe there is some purpose in democracy within Iraq. He's very right to criticize the Bush administration and he's also right that Liberals have and could fight a better battle in war time. I agree with everything he said but nothing in this book compelled me. Most of it is general history about the democrats in war and their ability in the past to "fight the good fight." Little of this history is truly depth compared to the mountain of literature already available. Beinart's history lesson is meant to be lead up to his analysis on the Iraq War. The problem is that analysis only comes in continually occuring mentions and then explanation for just fifteen pages about what to do with Iraq. I'm kinda miffed. Assuming his readers already knew much of the history he describes, this might have been a better essay instead of a book. I wish a book of all his columns over the period of the Iraq War was published. That would have been good reading for anyone not familar with him.

Albums of a Life: A Memoir - Stanley Kauffmann

The best thing that Stanley Kauffmann does is make the right literary choices to make his memoir, Albums of a Life, an excellent portrait. Kauffmann doesn't concern himself with accolades or personal achievements in which to measure his biography against others, but focuses on personal moments with others and how they were most meaningful to him. The book is based on episodes of different interactions with people through out his life. Some are lighthearted and funny while others are poignant. Kauffmann doesn't focus on making each episode more than what it is. He writes with a strict concern for the facts of the situation and has little personal commentary, but this matter of fact approach works. The episodes don't lead to major changes in his life. They are written to linger on in the memory of the reader. Kauffman's concern of the scenarios and situations and the value of his observations and life lived makes the structure of his memoir all the better. It's interesting that a film critic had nothing to say about his film criticism. That avenue of writing is another form of auto-biograhy. Kauffmann understands the differences with excellence.

The Human Stain - Philip Roth

A well constructed novel for Roth. One magazine said the novel combined all elements of Roth's history into one piece. Considering Roth's history encompasses all degrees of fiction and even non-fiction, it was quite the statement. I actually agree but I don't consider it to be a true compliment. Roth hones in all of his personality to make a novel closer to a classically structured one than something of great innovation. He doesn't expand his parameters as he brings them back to familarity for non-fans. I recommend the novel because the writing is too good, but it isn't a step forward for Roth. His last novel of true strength was the previous work to this one, I Married A Communist. The Human Stain stands now for being Roth's last modeling of excellence. Some commentators get a little too excited because the book tells a classic Roth story in a new way, but it's still a step backwards for him.

White Jazz: A Novel - James Ellroy

If L.A. Confidential was the grand portrait of a cty under fire then White Jazz is the grand portrait of a corrupt police officer on the edge of sanity. Ellroy not only tackles the story with his usual boldness and bravado, but perfectly aligns a structure to the story to fit. The story of the corrupt detective is chaotic and meanders from one scenario to the next. The only constant is that he is at the focal point of every dirty deed and wrong turn. Ellroy builds a character portrait to the free wheeling nature of a Jazz piece. That description has nothing to do with the title, but it does have something to do with period. Jazz was the most innovative music of the time and Ellroy takes the simple characterization of a crime novel and lets it flow from all sides that the basic identity becomes lost in the shuffle. Jazz progressed this way as did Ellroy in his career. White Jazz is highly recommended entertainment.

Why Orwell Matters - Christopher Hitchens

As far as George Orwell is concerned, this is a beginner's book. The information about him is thin and reads like an pamphlet professing one idea of the man over another. The true concern of the book is Christopher Hitchen's idea of moral bravery. A longtime sufferer of leftist ideologies, Hitchen's sifts through Orwell's past conflicts with both the right and left like he is digging at his own personal beliefs. Hitchens, a daring writer, has always stood in between beliefs and been skeptical of everything. The George Orwell he seeks is the man who stood against evils during the most disillusioned times. Orwell's tough stances against communism in the 30s and 40s could be a historical reflection of Hitchens current stance against Islamic Funamentalism today. Popular belief says he is wrong, and he may be, but Hitchens does render an excellent image of courage and strength. Orwell is the perfect subject for him.

People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present (P.S.) - Howard Zinn

If history books should be looked at as literature, Howard Zinn is always in between a rock and a hard place for me. His details are never dense enough to compare to the best of the thickest history books. All history books are bias, but Zinn represents a deep bias. I sometimes believe he would be better served to structure his books along the lines of issues and ideas instead of straight history by date and event. He wouldn't remind me so much of how he seems to be a spokesperson first and not an academic historian. That being said, he handles the subjects well. It would be frivolous to say I either agree or sympathize with most of what he says. The truly revealing moments come in ideas that are controversial but agreed in other historical books by conservative writers. Example would be the condeming of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and why the United States did it.