Robyn Hitchcock - I Wanna Go Backwards

10/10 -

For the newbie and the die hard

I Wanna Go Backwards encompasses expanded editions of three of Hitchcock's best-loved albums, Black Snake Diamond Role, I Often Dream of Trains and Eye, along with While Thatcher Mauled Britain Part 1 & 2, a newly compiled two-disc collection of b-sides, outtakes and home demo recordings, many of them previously unreleased. All of the individual albums feature bonus tracks and enhanced liner notes, including Hitchcock's personal reminiscences on Black Snake Diamond Role and While Thatcher Mauled Britain, an extract from a novel in progress on I Often Dream of Trains, and several pieces of original poetry on Eye, along with previously unpublished photos and Hitchcock cartoons.

Robyn Hitchcock is one of rock's most prolific and long-standing artists ... and you've probably never heard of him.

Without recounting his long and prolifc career, Robyn is once again releasing some of his classic (and my favorite) albums into the market place from his new home on Yep Roc Records. I Wanna Go Backwards boasts a stunning array of extras and bonuses, but really does repeat many tracks from "Invisible" and the Rycko bonus discs. There are a few genuine extras and the remastering is very good.

If you've always been curious as to what all the fuss was about, however, this is where to start. Containing my very favorite albums from what was once the flowering underground scene of the 1980's (crushed by Nirvana and the alternative rock format.)

How to describe Robyn's music? From the late 70s, Robyn's previous band the Soft Boys were not well liked amongst their three chords punk contemporaries. They were loud enough and angry enough, but also melodic, complicated, and funny. In 1980, the Soft Boys broke up and Robyn worked on his first solo album. From the Yep Roc press release:


Black Snake Diamond Role continued the Soft Boys' legacy of warped jangle-pop, while introducing the moody, introspective side that Hitchcock would further explore in the years to come. The album introduced such enduring Hitchcock compositions as "The Man Who Invented Himself," "Brenda's Iron Sledge" and "Acid Bird," which are joined on the new edition by eight bonus tracks, most of them outtakes from the original album sessions.

I Often Dream of Trains, originally released in 1984, was a notable departure from Hitchcock's prior work, presenting his kaleidoscopic lyrical imagery and haunting melodic sensibility in spare, mostly acoustic settings that emphasize the material's intimate focus. The album balances the haunting introspection of such ballads as "Cathedral" and "Trams of Old London" with the barbed humor of "Sometimes I Wish I Was A Pretty Girl" and "Uncorrected Personality Traits." The new edition of I Often Dream of Trains augments the album's original 18 tracks with six bonus numbers.

1990's Eye was something of a sequel to I Often Dream of Trains, with Hitchcock returning to stripped-down solo approach as a low-key respite from the major-label rock albums that he was recording at the time. "I got to record Eye at a time when a lot of people were on my case," explains Hitchcock. "It had nobody else on it and no Alternative Chart expectations. It was luxury, a wide open meadow to kvetch in." Eye remains a fan favorite, thanks to such memorable tunes as "Glass Hotel," "Clean Steve" and "Queen Elvis." The expanded edition adds four bonus tracks to the original album's 17.


He's the Fella, the man who invented himself ...

Stanley Kubrick - Warner Home Video Directors Series

10/10 for style plus several million for good thinking …

Finally, at long last, anamorphic letter-boxed versions of some of the greatest films ever made. Kubrick is such an easy director to say, “Yeah, he’s a genius” and sound like you know something. But, as we all know, he really was a genius and left us some of the best films ever made.

The problem is these films are all so deep and open to interpretation that I cannot in all objectivity review them adequately. I’ll just give you my thoughts this time around.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) – What is astonishing about this film (and really, what isn’t) to me this last time round was the massive scale of the story. The obelisk (or teaching device) for the primitives in the opening dawn of time sequence is shadowing the human race to the point of contact. In this viewing, I felt that Dave had to pass the test of defeating the machine Hal in order to evolve into the next stage (the starchild.) Bowman in that sense is playing a character who is the most evolved human on the planet.

Of course, every time I watch this film I think different things. The pity now is that the first space shots tend to a look a little 2-d and the styles seem a bit stuck in the mid-60s, while the later Jupiter sequences look as if they could have been shot yesterday. The models have more depth and the fact that everything in the Discovery looks brand new.


A Clockwork Orange (1971) – As Malcolm McDowell himself says, there are some roles that an actor was born to play (that is Alex.) He is perfection itself in this role.

Of course, everyone knows this is a pretty controversial film. It is difficult to watch, but funny at the same time. I noticed this about 20 years ago the first time I saw it. I wondered why these scenes of horrible rape and violence seemed so funny … and that was the first time I realized that film could manipulate your feelings subconsciously. If Alex wasn’t doing “Singing in the Rain” while commiting what has to be one of the most horrendous acts ever depicted on screen, you would never watch it. Then, in the later half of the film, when justice is being served, in a reversal, Kubrick uses music make us feel bad for Alex. Alex the rapist, murderer, and theif.

This is a film more about what film can do to you then it is about the subject of teen violence. This must have been its intent because when Clockwork copycat style violence started erupting in England, Kubrick pulled the film from release. Clearly he'd created a monster.


The Shining (1980) – "Here's Johnny!"

Jack! Very few times in the history of Kubrick’s films do his lead actors seem to overtake his virtuosity. Jack Nicholson really goes way over the top in this and creates his most amazing movie role (which is saying a lot.) I don’t like horror movies. They don’t scare me; they don’t do anything to me. But, there are a few exceptions – mainly this and Psycho. Sort of the same idea – madness. Jack tears this movie to shreds just like that bathroom door.

Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers (oh, Scatman!) are brilliant as well, but ... frankly, it is close to impossible to take your eyes off Nicholson.


Full Metal Jacket (1987) – I will admit that Full Metal Jacket did very little for me back when it was first out. I saw it because it was a Kubrick film, but I was in the middle of the “Platoon” Vs. “Apocalypse Now” argument (me coming down firmly on AN as the better film) and having yet another Vietnam movie come out just didn’t sit well with me. Add to that the obvious fact that it was shot in England and no where near the tropics, and you have a tough one to get through.

Upon this second viewing, I was pretty stunned by how good it actually was. The two “episode” feeling you get between the Paris Island basic training sequence and the subsequent “all hell is breaking loose” Vietnam was pretty shocking. Not being in the military, I was surprised at how loose these guys were after basic. You would have thought they’d be wound really tight. But, war is hell, I guess.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) – I hate to dismiss this out of hand, but I do really feel this is a terrible film. Probably because Cruise and Kidman seem to dominate the thing so totally, that I find it hard to see the hand of Kubrick in it at all. Add to that the completely ludicrous middle section (the gothic sex orgy), excessive though not sexy nudity, and the murkiness of the character’s actions and you get something mildly uninteresting. I did give it my full attention this time through, but still felt it was far and away Kubrick’s worst film.

This is an excellent box set. Everything looks incredible and, for the fan, the bonus features are well worth the extra time.

Time-Crash

Just a couple of pics from Friday's "Time-Crash" ... and this does look pretty funny. Just look at Peter Davison's face!

No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace.

"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."

OK, first of all ... this is the dumbest slogan ever. And, these people are supposed to be writers!

I'm not sure how I feel (or not feel) about the writer's strike. Hollywood is a club (you have to a member of the unions to work, but work to be a member ...) that I really hate it. The industry is run by giant corporations instead of artistically minded individuals.

Anyway, the complete article from the NY Times is below:

HERE

November 5, 2007
Screenwriters Picket as Strike Begins
By DAVID CARR and MICHAEL CIEPLY
Hollywood writers moved to the picket lines this morning, as last-minute negotiations between the writers’ unions and producers failed to avert a strike over payments from producers for so-called new media, among other issues.

About 75 members of Writers Guild East set up a picket at Rockefeller Center, just above the fabled ice rink. Picketers chanted: “No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace.”

Many of the writers said that they expected to be out of work for a while. The tourists and office workers who walked by rarely stopped at the curious sight of writers holding signs that read, “On Strike.” For a time, the pickets chants were drowned out by the roar of the crowd that was assembled for the “Today” show across 49th Street.

All of the trappings of a union protest were there — signs, chanting workers, an inflatable rat, and a discarded bag of wrappers and cups from Dunkin Donuts. The rat was borrowed from Local 79, an AFL-CIO laborers’ union, and commuted in from Queens.

But instead of hard hats and work boots, the people on the pickets had arty glasses and fancy scarves.

“A lot of the public probably feels like we are brats,” said Sarah Durken, a writer for children’s programs. “We are not hospital workers and firefighters, we know that — the world is going to keep turning. But I think everyone understands that the issue of corporate greed versus the needs of workers and their families.”

More than 12,000 movie and television writers represented by the Writers Guild of America West and the Writers Guild of America East walked out today, after three months of acrimonious negotiations proved fruitless. It is the first industrywide strike by writers since 1988; that strike lasted five months and cost the entertainment industry an estimated $500 million.

The sides have been at odds over, among other things, writers’ demands for a large increase in pay for movies and television shows released on DVD, and for a bigger share of the revenue from such work delivered over the Internet.

A federal mediator, who joined the talks last week, asked the sides to continue talking in a Sunday session, but neither a deal nor an agreement to keep talking was reached.

Writers in Los Angeles have also begun picketing more than a dozen studios and production sites in four-hour shifts, one beginning at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the other at 1 p.m.

Back in Manhattan, Charlotte, a small but surprisingly loud dog, barked in unison with the picketers’ chants.

“She’s mad because they didn’t have a shirt in her size,” said J. R. Havlan, a writer for “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” “She’s really angry that there has not been an agreement, but she is having a little trouble understanding the issues.”

She’s not the only one. No one, including the people at the bargaining table, is precisely sure what is being argued about, because many of the digital forms of entertainment at issue are in their nascent state.

“I can barely switch on a computer, but we all know what is at stake here, said Amy Sherman-Palladino, a writer who is working on a “Jezebel James,” her new Fox series with Parker Posey, and was the co-creator of “Gilmore Girls.” “We are taking a stand for the next 20 years, and what we do now is going to define the new business model going forward.”

Just then, the chant switched to “No money, no funny,” a reminder that many of the people on the picket line on New York make their living writing for the various talk/comedy shows.

Ms. Sherman-Palladino continued, “I was telling my husband” — Daniel Pallidino, her writing partner on the new Fox show and on “Gilmore Girls,” and a fellow picketer — “that we need some new and better chants, but he reminded me: ‘No writing. None.’ ”

Jonathan Bines, a writer for the “The Jimmy Kimmel Show,” felt that the producer’s unwillingness to compensate for digital use of their work defied logic.

“I’m surprised we are out here.” Mr. Bines said. “I thought the producers would come in with some ridiculously low-ball offer on a percentage of new media and that we’d take it and it would be over. But they have offered us nothing.”

On Sunday, the union dropped a demand for increased compensation for DVD sales, with the expectation that it would create some movement around the digital issue, but no counteroffer was forthcoming, and the strike commenced at 12:01 a.m. today.

At either end of the picket line in Manhattan, newly underemployed writers handed out leaflets that said: “We are the Writer’s Guild. We write your favorite sitcoms, dramas, late night shows, soap operas, movies and more. We work hard to bring you our best in entertainment.”

As with anyone who is trying to handout leaflets to New Yorkers in full stride, it was very slow going. Tourists look down from a passing Gray Line tour bus wondering what all the fuss was about.

“Don’t worry, we won’t hurt you,” said Andrew Smith, who writes for “The View.” “It’s hard for the public to understand. Writers going on strike sounds like shepherds staging a walkout or something. The general public has no understanding of the issues that we are facing, but we are here because the producers will take as much as they can unless writers stand up for themselves.”

The Two Doctors .... again

Peter Davison and David Tennant will star in a Children in Need special Doctor Who!



From the BBC " ... Fifth Doctor Peter Davison, who played the part in the classic series from 1981 until 1984, will reprise his role alongside current Doctor David Tennant in the forthcoming Children in Need scene. The mini episode, entitled "Time Crash", was written by award-winning Doctor Who writer Steven Mofatt, and will be transmitted as part of the Children in Need fundraising evening on Friday 16 November 2007.

"It is an honour for me to be able to make the connection between the Fifth Doctor and the Tenth Doctor," noted Peter Davison. "However, now is not the time for sound-bites. I can feel the hand of history on my shoulder, even if I can't do the buttons up!"



Of course, that's not altogether fair, as David Tennant is thinner than all of his female costars, let alone his male ones. And, Peter still holds the "record" for youngest Doctor (he was 29 when he took the part) and Tennant's portrayal undoubtably owes a lot to this incarnation. Well, as a bonofide Doctor Who geek, this is kind of one of those moments when you have to question your sanity. Sure, it's for charity, so there are going to be some forgiving feelings about it.

The question is ... how will it be treated? Will it be a joke or a semi-real episode?

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

6/10 – Nice Video, Shame about the Truth ...

Well, what can I say that you haven’t already read somewhere? The movie isn’t historically accurate at all and that is sad because the real history is far more interesting. I know many people think it doesn’t matter, but then again, many people think most of Braveheart is true. That’s the problem; no one bothers to find out history in any other way. If the movie is out (and it’s new) that’s enough. People don’t go and look it up and films should at least give some idea of what really happened. Especially if you have the mighty acting powers of Cate Blanchett playing the title role.

Come on!

No Robert Dudley … instead, the film absurdly replacing his “love of her life” status with Walter Raleigh? That’s just ridiculous. Raleigh was not in the battle against the Spanish Armada, nor did the English burn many of the ships (the weather got them in the end) … I mean, they didn’t even get the Tilbury speech right, leaving out her most famous line of rhetoric (of possibly the first great speech in modern English)

"I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England too! And I think it foul scorn that Spain or Parma or any prince of Europe should dare invade the borders of my realm".

For all that, it is well realized and filmed beautifully.

So, I’m one of those annoying people who think that history is actually more important than a good story. In this case, there truly is no excuse for it as the history of Elizabeth I has been such good source material for many, many adaptations. In the last two years we’ve seen two different (and far superior) television adaptations. The BBC’s “The Virgin Queen” is best one I’ve seen and seems pretty historically accurate, while the Helen Mirren version is merely OK. She may have gotten Elizabeth II right, but nowhere close on the original.

I’ve read Antonia Frasier’s biography and I will tell you, for those that are interested … it is very readable, interesting, and frankly relevant even now and to Americans, as well. America is an extension of English history, just as England is of ours. It’s important to know where we come from.

Random Notes at the Beginning of a Season …

Heroes – Season Two

Aintitcool.com has a headline that reads “Can Sylar save Heroes?”

The answer is, it seems, no.

The first three episodes of season 2 seem resolutely determined to undo all the damage that the ending of season one did – namely kill off a lot of characters and change the entire direction of the program. Unlike the truly twisted twists of “Lost,” “Heroes” doesn’t feel designed to be that kind of animal and now we are finding out just how a heavy story arc can damage a new season of a television program. So, all the characters we thought were dead in the big epic battle are not … and then we have some new characters that seem very, well, uninteresting to say the least.

If it sounds like I’m being harsh, well, I’m not. The new era of television is much improved over the crass awfulness of the 1990’s. I can honestly say I don’t remember a time when TV seemed so good. The shows I watch now are an odd assortment and come from all sorts of places:

- “Heroes”
- “House”
- “Boston Legal”
- “The IT Crowd” (just ended)
- “Sarah Jane’s Adventures”
- “Doctor Who”
- “QI”
- “Dexter”
- “Weeds”
- “24”
- “Lost”

That’s actually quite a bit for right now and are in no particular order. Compare that to the 1990s when I was actively avoiding shows because I found them particularly crass and aggravating. Even the end of the 80s saw even my favorite shows (“Doctor Who” and “Star Trek”) bastardized and cheapened to extremes. In fact, with the death of the Next and Previous Generations of the original Star Trek, it seems that some cool breeze is blowing back into the world of entertainment.

So, that is my ramble. I didn’t give away any “spoilers” as such.