Strange Days

Currently reading “Break on Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison” by James Riordan and Jerry Prochnicky.



Yet another biography of Jim Morrison. I know, I know. I read “No One Here Gets Out Alive,” I’ve read Desnmore’s book, and I’ve read the not too great “Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend” by Stephen Davis. I even have, but haven’t fully read, Manzarek’s rather biased book. So, why bother digging into the very old story of the Lizard King again? What’s new? He’s still dead.

Well, I guess that depends on where you stand with old Jimbo. Frankly, the Doors are a band you either love or hate. Seems to be no middle ground with them. It all comes down to Jim. And, the authors – after a very long and frankly fictional account of Jim’s trial by fire on the rooftop after UCLA film school (or his “dance with the spirits”) – admit that he was a dual personality and split opinions right down the middle. The minute the Doors hit the scene that was the case. Those that hate the band tend to do so on very superficial grounds (Jim’s looks, the dated organ sound, the pretentious poetry.) The fact is they aren’t that bad. Those that love the band tend to go with flights of outrageous fancy (electric shamanism, possessed by ghosts of dead Indians.) The fact is … they weren’t that great (cause its absurd.)

Finding the middle ground and the true facts about the Doors and Jim Morrison is difficult if not impossible based on the lies and mythos applied to them by these various factions. But, one thing is totally clear – 40 years after appearing on the music scene The Doors are still one of the biggest American rock bands of all time. The music, if you like it, is so strange and dramatic that it often seems hard to believe that the band weren’t created by a super-manager. In fact, they luck factor and reliance on “vibe” or whatever is so prevelant within the groups formation and their sound that it isn’t any wonder why fans often ascribe supernatural qualities to the Doors and, in particular, Jim Morrison … who, it must be said, is the absolute perfect frontman for any band.

Riordan and Prochnicky seem to be doing a good job of balancing the yin and yang of the Morrison myth and fact. I read a good chunk of this last night while listening to the newest archive concert recording “Live in Boston.”




Recorded in 1970 during the many recorded gigs for the “Absolutely Live” album (which means, though it was Absolutely Live … it wasn’t absolutely the same show) many bits clearly are taken from the two shows presented here. It is also very clear why this has been held back in favor of many of the other archival shows … the technical quality varies. It seems to vary during the first disc … clearly getting better. What is also true is that these shows were really good doors gigs. Fresh from his Miami bust and ban … then a decent success with “Morrison Hotel” the band seem to be looking for a new way to do things. While I think some of these later gigs do not stand up to something like the Hollywood Bowl show, the Amsterdam TV show, or “The Doors are Open” Roundhouse gigs in ’68 … it is only because the mood and attitude of the band are different. No longer playing with dramatic tension of image and audience, the band at this stage was redefining its own image and getting back to a grounding with the audience.

Obviously, if you hate the Doors, then the essential live tracks “When the Music’s Over” and “Light My Fire” will drive you mad, but as a fan these tracks almost always seem to work (even if I am a bit sick of “Light My Fire” I still know when that first snare snap will hit.) Well worth a listen.

I went to the same junior college Morrison went to: St. Petersburg Junior College and hung around those old stone buildings and the library where he must have been (they certainly weren’t very modern when I was there.) He was there in early 60s and I was there in the early 90s. In fact, I was there when the movie came out. And even though I’ve been to other schools, no school has left such a indelible image upon me. It was probably because I was dying to get the hell out of there and away. My life was on hold, much the way Morrison’s was during his time there 30 years before.

And, much like those dead Indians dying beside the road, I think Morrison’s soul leaped into my childish eggshell mind.

Well, maybe only a little. ;)

"The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Simpsons Movie"

Catch up ... a few more today. Some brief thoughts on them (in no particular order).

The Bourne Ultimatum (8/10)



Matt Daman is back as Jason Bourne in the 3rd installment of the thriller series. CIA trained assassin whose lost his memory but not his touch, Bourne is still struggling with inner demons and an even deeper mystery about his origins. Like all the Bourne movies, the plot is fairly high octane without being too moronic or preposterous. It has some slick action and usually at lease one “gotcha” moment. In many ways, this film is superior to “The Bourne Supremacy” as it fills in much of the time gap at the end of that previous film and doesn’t saddle us a lot of the emotional baggage Marie’s death did in the 2nd film.

The Simpsons Movie (6/10)

The problem I have with the Simpsons as a feature is quite simple … after 23 minutes you can’t help but think “Hey, when is this episode going to end.” Still, there plenty of good gags … as only big money and Harvard graduates can deliver …

INLAND EMPIRE

OK, I admit it; I never really liked David Lynch or his films. There was a brief period of time when I liked or tried to like “Wild at Heart” because it at least had a sense of humor, but even that has worn very thin over the years. For his die hard fans, I’m sorry, but his latest is easily the most obnoxious, pretentious, unintelligible thing I’ve ever forced myself to sit through. There is really no excuse for this exercise in confusion.

What is this film about?

OK, er ... Laura Dern is an actress who gets a part in a cursed movie … and then all hell breaks loose. There are sequences of a Polish prostitute, a sitcom staring very stoic man-sized bunny rabbits, and Dern drifting between many parts (or what appear to be other parts) in a nonstop confusion of cheap stunts and general freakiness.



To say this is overrated isn’t fair because no one seems to know about it, but the reviews seem generally to support Lynch in his bid to be as insane as he can without having to give us any allegory or story to invite us into his twisted mind. Worse still is the use of rather cheap digital cameras to get the film. Are we saving money or losing our ability to get it, one asks. Dern is here, then she is there … she’s a hooker, she’s a movie star, she’s housewife to a Russian circus star …

Lynch’s only explanation of the film is … in the form of a quote from the Upanishad: "We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."

Sadly, even a spider has to live in linear time and only has one life.

Escape from ... not doing anything

Updates

Well, I haven’t been keeping up with this blog the way I should. I sort of realized that I am not the best person to write about media. I guess I’ve known it for years, knowing that it takes a special person to write record and movie reviews. The one that my friend Julie let me write for the Soft Boys reunion album “Nextdoorland” is pretty pretentious and a little fanboy-ish. I realize this now. I am the creator and therefore not qualified to critique as well as I’d like.

Be that as it may, I shall proceed here. Why? Well, it is a good place to keep up with the “media” or art that I perceive in my daily life. I know that any time I’m asked to give influences or say what inspired something else, there is a moment when my mind tries to draw all the points of influence together … recent and long-remembered … and vainly attempt to put together some sort of star map that would explain things.

… so, let’s try and get back on track.


“Escape from New York”



There has been a lot written about this little classic. Produced independently, starring Kurt Russell in his post-child star attempt to change his image, with “Halloween” and “The Fog” director John Carpenter also wishing to shed his horror film director image – “Escape” succeeds in giving us the first real post-apocalyptic vision in film. This is a point that could be argued, but even “Mad Max” didn’t make such a dramatic impression.

Plot - In the year 1997 Manhattan is turned into a maximum security prison (remember that … ah, those were the days.) The President’s plane is hijacked and he is forced to eject himself in an escape pod into the city. At the same time, Snake Plissken (Russell) has been captured during a bank heist. Former special services pilot and assassin, Plissken is recruited to fly a glider into NY, land on the World Trade Center, and find the president. For insurance, he’s injected with tiny explosives that will detonate if he’s not back in time.






It is, quite frankly, a movie that has aged very well. Both in terms of its dystopia, but also its naiveté. Sure, the world would get worse in the future, but as we’ve seen since 9-11 … it will be worse.

Kurt Russell’s performance is very cool and controlled, relying on tense action and reaction in his body to provide the necessary motivation for his character. His essential coolness is often undercut by the beatings, shovings, and general manipulation he is put through … that when he does “bite back” you know he means it. The only real character scene Snake gets is his introduction with Lee Van Cleef. When told that the President’s plane has crashed, he replies: “President of what?”

“Escape from L.A.”



A very much maligned movie. In fact, when I first saw it I was a little disappointed. Then the second time I saw it, years later, I felt even worse. This time, again another few years later, I love it. I get it. Finally. Perhaps it takes almost a decade to see the same dark humor of the previous film in the context of “modern day”? At the times it seemed very Hollywood and over produced. Kurt Russell didn’t seem as hard edged and every minute there was some star turn. The plot had the virtue or veracity to be exactly the same … so, why make it?

Well, first of all, the original film had as many star turns as this movie does. In fact, almost everyone in it is a star, so there is no real reason to use the “Hollywood” excuse for either film. Where LA differs is that it is no longer a satiric jab at the Nixonian era view of the Presidency, but the post-Reagan era of the Hollywood-Moral Majority President. Both offer excessive madness, but in profoundly different ways. This time the President’s own daughter is to be sacrificed as part of the job.

Kurt Russell, looking back on it, doesn’t look nearly as stylized as I recall him looking. He looks a bit older, but actually watching the two films back to back, I found that his performance as Snake was exactly the same. His ruthlessness is simple and immediate. He doesn’t have time to waste being clever and therefore, immediately proceeds to the action. In fact, rarely do movies get so visceral so fast. Both Escape films offer us a “hero” who doesn’t have time for James Bond niceties or cleverness. He’s just going to kill you before he gets killed.



Final thoughts – they are talking about a remake of the first film … I really hope they don’t do that. Let’s see one last Russell Snake film …