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.