Easy Rider

Easy Rider is a movie I don't really like. I think it has not aged well and am a bit surprised why it is considered so great. Easy Rider rejects authority and promotes living life the way you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. It seems quite impossible to promote this wonderful, exciting messages in an uncompelling way, but the movie very often pulls it off. Easy Rider promotes experimenting with drugs, but there hardly is a movie which can serve as a better argument against it. Dennis Hopper was mostly high when he wrote and directed the movie and the results are not always good. The dialogue is sometimes utterly silly and nonsensical. And even the famous trip scene, where a drug trip is shown, is completely uninspired. The biggest problem is in the performances by Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. Especially with Hopper it's sometimes obvious that he is acting completely stoned. The result is that Hopper and Fonda in many scenes seem completely uninspired and uninterested, draining the energy out of scenes that could be potentially a lot more interesting. I haven't seen other movies by Fonda and Hopper from that period, but considering Easy Rider was a labor of love for them I dare not imagine how dull their performances were in other peoples movies. Especially Hopper would later in his career prove that he can do much better with movies like Blue Velvet, Hoosiers and Speed.

On top of all this, I think Easy Rider wasn't that revolutionary. Two years earlier the much better Bonnie and Clyde already promoted some of the same themes of Easy Rider. And in music bands like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Doors had already done the same with much more vigor then Easy Rider.

Still the movie is not entirely without its values. It has a great soundtrack. And it is sincere. Hopper and Fonda seem to really believe that living freely on the road is better then living in a suffocating city. They genuinely seem to admire the farmer who can provide his own food, without being dependent on industry and money. And no modern movie will play the scenes in the hippie commune straight. The modern movie would probably be right, but these scenes seem like really a testament to that period. It's not that there were really people living that way (at least I don't think so) but there were really people who hoped and believed that we could really live that way. That nowadays that hope is shattered is logical and good, but also a bit sad. And then there is Jack Nicholson's performance. He is only on screen for about 15 minutes, but during that time the movie feels really alive. Nicholson brings a lot of energy to the film. Sometimes you get the feeling that he knows that Fonda and Hopper are sleepwalking a bit and tries to wake them up. It's the performance that made him famous and rightly so. Unfortunately those 15 minutes may make the movie even more disappointing. We now really realize how good this movie potentially could have been.

Four Lions

Four Lions is a very intelligent parody on Islamic terrorism. I am quite surprised that this movie was not a bigger deal. It has some very dark scenes, which at the same time are pretty hilarious and quite a bit disturbing. It follows 5 Muslims living in London, who believe they should participate in the Jihad and plan a suicide terrorist attack in the UK. The most fanatic of these Muslims is Barry, the only one who is a born and raised Brit. All of them are pretty incompetent, except for Omar, the main character. Omar is a brilliantly conceived character. He is a good father and husband who leads a pretty ordinary life except for the fact that he plans to blow himself up. About this he talks freely with his family as if it's no big deal and just a job like any other. This scenes are the only ones in the movie which are played pretty much straight. The contrast with the other, often hilarious, scenes is so big that makes this scenes even more disturbing then they would have been if they were in a dramatic movie. But even this family scenes are not without humor, which makes one feel even more uncomfortable. One can't help but laugh, even in this rather horrific scenes. When, for example, Omar tucks his kid in, he tells him a story about one does have to participate in the jihad. For this he uses a metaphor from the Lion King. Only what he tells, didn't happen in The Lion King. His kid rightfully calls him out. His brilliant response: "Yes that's the movie. But I am talking about reality".

Network

I saw Network on public television and found it a great film, probably Sidney Lumet's best. Yet I think that this is a rare movie that may even be more effective if it is seen on commercial television where it is interrupted by commercials.

Network is the most biting satire on television I've ever seen. And I think it's hard to make a better one. The movie was made in 1976, but to say that it has not dated would be an understatement. The movie is even more relevant now, then it was in 1976. To say that this movie is a satire on television is also an understatement. This movie knows no restraint. The movie shifts tones effortlessly between slapstick, romance, drama and satire. And any theme or idea that can be introduced within the context of the story is introduced and elaborated on. The movie deals with television alright, but it also touches on capitalism, communism, USA, democracy, nations, globalization, mid-life crisis, adultery, workaholics, radical terrorism, friendship, marriage, holism, and many many more. And all of this is discussed passionately. Except for William Holden every actor is overacting here. But it works, because we really believe that their characters have very strong feelings about the subject they are discussing.

And Sidney Lumet lets them discuss. The movie criticizes television for putting form over content and puts its money where its mouth is. The movie puts content over form. There are hardly any fancy shots and most of the movie consists of simply people talking in rooms. This works, because of the brilliant actors and probably one of the best screenplays ever written.

Peter Finch plays anchorman Howard Beale, who when he learns that he'll get sacked loses it and announces on television that he'll commit suicide in his last show. He does this in a brilliant scene. While he is speaking we see the producers and technicians in the control room who have to make sure that the show goes well. They are completely obsessed with finding the right light, to cut at the right moment and hardly notice what Beale is saying. Form over content indeed. Anyway, after becoming aware of his ramblings, the producers and directors of the network want to yank him off the air right away. Only, it turns out his ramblings are very good for the ratings and they give him his own show. In this show he mostly talks about how brainless, shallow and corrupt most television is. The brilliancy is of course that most of his ramblings are not very far away from the truth.

The idea for this show is conceived by Diane Christensen, a brilliant Faye Dunaway. She is the best character in the film. She is a television producer who only cares about television ratings. Although a hard capitalist, she is ready to give up an hour of television to a radical communist resistance group, because that will be spectacular television good for ratings. The funniest scenes in the movie are the financial negotiations between this group and Diana. Content is not something that's discussed. Diana is giving them complete freedom to say and show whatever they want.
But her character is not that simple. She only cares about ratings, because that's the only thing she is capable of caring about. When she starts an affair with Max Schumacher (William Holden) an old, experienced producer at first we think she wants to use him, so she can learn something more about television. That's not the case. She really does care for him, she simply doesn't know how to have a relationship in the real world. She sees their relationship as a plot in a television show and has all kinds of screenplays written about how it may go on. Obviously real life doesn't work that way and she ruins their relationship. This is even worse for Max, who left his wife to be with Diane. His wife, by the way, is played by Beatrice Straight. She is only on screen for five minutes, but she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for it.

Ned Beatty also is on screen for about five minutes and he also was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. He has the best scene in the movie. In one of his ramblings Beale talks about how bad it is that the Arabs are buying everything in America and that now they are also gonna buy the network. He tells the American people that they should object to this, by writing letters to the president telling him to stop the deal. They do this and the deal is off. This pisses off Ned Beatty, the networks' head. So he calls Beale to his office and gives him the following speech:

You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel.

This is a speech that's completely over the top, but it is also a speech that is so far ahead of its time and that is becoming more and more true. I will discuss this speech someday, but it is so great it deserves its own entry.

Anyway, this speech sets a chain of events in motion I will not say anything about, because I'll spoil some of the biggest surprises of the film.

Sidney Lumet died a couple of weeks ago. He is not always thought of as a great director, but he really is. Every movie I've seen of him is very good to great and Network is his best.

Back to Black

Back to Black (Amy Winehouse, 2006) Winehouse obviously has some problems, but she is making some of the most distinctive recent songs and even though I don't like all of hem that is something to be respected. This song is about love and heartbreak. Winehoouse's love has left her for another woman and she mourns this. So no original concept, but more interestingly told then a lot of other songs dealing with the same subject. Also a bit grittier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1evzhSast8

The video can be found by following the above link. Apparently embedding does not work with this clip. The first thing one notices about this clip is that it is in black and white. This makes it clear right from the start that we are dealing with a sad topic. A minute in and we can't really say what's happening. We see that Winehouse is in a room with two mysterious men. One writes something and the other just sits. Outside people are waiting. We don't know for what, but assume it's Winehouse. Everybody is dressed in black. After a while we see Winehouse is going out of the house, dressed like a mourning wife.
Two minutes in we realize a couple of things. The people outside were indeed waiting for Winehouse. She has to go to a funeral to probably her husband and the people outside are probably people who have to make sure the funeral goes according to plan. The clip cuts between Winehouse going to the funeral and Winehouse singing in the room. We now know obviously that this two things don't happen at the same time. We don't know what comes first, although we assume that Winehouse was first in the room and then went to the funeral. We still have no clue who the mysterious men in the room are.
Three minutes in. It's not her husband who is being buried. It's not even a person. It's a small box that's probably her heart. This is confirmed at the end of the video. During the rest of the clip there are cuts between the funeral and Winehouse sitting alone in a room. It's obvious why her heart broke.
Winehouse's lover left her alone. This crushed her heart and she'll never love again.

Four songs, no clip

Bill Withers' Ain't no sunshine (1971) is probably one of the most covered songs ever. Among the wide variety of artists who have covered it are Akon, Joe Cocker, The Police, Michael Jackson and Tom Jones. This may come because the lyrics are very generic and simple. If an artist is looking for a safe love song, this is perfect. If sung well, there is nothing wrong with that. And Bill Withers sings it very well.

It's hard to believe that As Tears Go By (1965) was the first hit of The Rolling Stones that was originally written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Prior to that the Stones had mostly modest success with covers. This is a slow ballad, which is not the type of song that the Stones are most famous for. I like the fact that, even from the start of their, they were confident enough to not go the easy way and keep making the same kind of ballads. There are many bands who score a hit and then practically keep repeating the same song with only some small variation. A good example of this is Maroon 5. The Rolling Stones followed their first hit up with songs like I Can't Get No Satisfaction and Paint It Black, two rock songs that differ a lot from As Tears Go By and from each other. That said I am not really a fan of their harder rock songs and I prefer their slower songs like Angie,Wild Horses and this one.
Textually this also is not something you'd expect to be written by young rebels. It seems to be about a man who mourns the fact that he can't do the things he did in his childhood anymore

-Baba O'Riley (The Who, 1971) Meher Baba, a slightly crazy Indian philosopher and Terry O'Riley, a producer were apparently the main influences for this song. So that's the reason for this song's bizarre name, which is better than Terry Meher. The song has no structure whatever, both musically as textually, which makes it all the better.

I am not a fan of the Beatles, although I do understand why they were so popular and important in their time. I mostly find their songs dull. However I do like Baby, You're a Rich Man. I heard it at the end of The Social Network, and was surprised to learn it was from The Beatles. It's a very appropriate song for the movie's ending, considering both the song and the movie share a contempt for rich people who only care about being rich and think that they are great because of it. This is not the only Beatles song I have on my Ipod. I also have Get Back. It's also not the only song I have, which I got to know thanks to something written by Aaron Sorkin. I also have For What It's Worth by Buffalo Springfield, which I heard during the credits of the special post 9/11 episode Isaac and Ishmael from The West Wing

Pulp Fiction

I recently saw Pulp Fiction for the third time and every time I watch it I notice all kinds of new great details that make the movie even better.

Tarantino is a movie-lover who is influenced by other movies, steals from them, references them and pays homage to them. Despite all this, to me, the biggest influence on Pulp Fiction seems to be a tv-show: Seinfeld. In 1994, when Pulp Fiction came out Seinfeld was airing for 5 seasons and was probably the most popular tv-show. Watching Pulp Fiction I get the feeling that Tarantino was a fan of Seinfeld. His dialogue is completely original, but especially Jules and Vincents' dialogue could be easily used in an episode of Seinfeld. It's very easy to imagine George and Jerry talking about whether foot massages mean something or whether pigs are clean animals. This does not mean that the dialogue, besides being funny and original, is meaningless. It very often is in the service of the story and the characters. A few examples:
The fact that Vincent thinks that Marsellus has thrown someone out of the window, because he has given his wife Mia a foot massage looms the whole time over Vincents date with her. It's the reason he indulges her every whim, why when they grow to like each other he debates with himself whether he should fuck (this is a Tarantino film I am reviewing. I can use this word) her. We get the feeling that Vincent is not somebody who usually contemplates such things. And of course it's the reason why he (and we) are so concerned whether Mia will survive her OD.
The 'Royale with cheese' conversation is later again used by Vincent and Jules to taunt their victims.
Jules does not quote the bible for no reason. He really believes in God and his faith really has consequences for him. By the way, the quoting of the Bible is even more funny, because nothing that Jules says, really is written in Ezequiel 25:17. It's made up by Tarantino.
Despite the fact that Marsellus, tells Butch to fuck pride, it's partly because of Butch's pride that Marsellus is saved from the rapists.

This basement scene with the rapists is a scene I never liked. I found it too mean-spirited, ugly and very close to torture-porn. On my recent viewing I realized that it's an important scene that makes the movie even better. If the movie were told chronologically it would have been the last scene in the movie. The movie would start with the retrieving of the suitcase by Jules and Vincent (if you discount the flashback about Bucthes watch). The youngsters in the room are killed by Jules because they tried to figuratively fuck Marsellus like he was a bitch. In the basement the hillbillies literally try to fuck Marsellus like he was a bitch. When he is saved Marsellus is asked what he is gonna do to the rapist. Well Marsellus is gonna call 'coupla hard, pipe-hittin' niggers' to get 'medieval on the rapist's ass.' Obviously this is basically what Jules and Vincent were doing when we first met them. The movie has made a full circle. I recently saw Steven Spielberg's pretty good movie Munich. In the movie Spielberg argues that violence only leads to more violence and that even if you kill one of your enemies he'll simply be replaced by someone else who may even be more vicious. One could argue that Tarantino states the same thing here. After all, Vincent is now dead (not that Marsellus knows this) and Jules has quit, but they will simply be replaced by others and the violence will continue.

All of Tarantino's movies are very violent and often the violence is indeed presented in a comical way. But as I argued in the previous paragraph Tarantino does not approach violence mindlessly and I would even call him a relatively moral filmmaker. This is perhaps most obvious in Inglourious Basterds, but it can also be ssen in Pulp Fiction and not just in the example I gave in the previous paragraph. Jules for example renounces violence, Vincent does not and Vincent eventually dies. And Butch goes back to save Marsellus from the rapists. For doing the right thing, Marsellus forgives Butch the fact that he screwed up their agreement and lets him go.

A couple of other things. I can't think of any other movie which uses popular music in such a great way. A lot of scenes are accompanied by a great song and the song almost always seems a perfect fit for the scene.
The costume design is wonderful. Every room is filled with wonderful and odd details, with of course the Jackrabbit Slim's being the highlight.
If I have one small criticism about this movie, it is that Tarantino should never act. He simply can't do it, even though even that works a bit since it makes the scene even more funny and absurd.

25th Hour

Despite Spike Lee's reputation whenever I start watching a movie by Spike Lee I don't expect very much of it. That has to do with his foolish behavior during New York Knicks games. I find it a bit hard to believe that a grown up person who heckles opposing players can be a very intelligent person or director. For the same reason I never held Jack Nicholson in very high regard, until I saw Five Easy Pieces. I have this prejudice despite the fact that I actually liked all his movies I've seen. Jungle Fever is very good and Inside Man is a very entertaining movie that achieves exactly what it wants to. I've seen parts of Malcolm X and some of it is very powerful.

And now I've seen 25th Hour, I'll never underestimate Spike Lee again. This is one of the best and most moving films I've ever seen. The movie does not have a real beginning, middle and end. It's simply about Monty Brogan's last day in freedom, before he has to go to jail for seven years for dealing drugs. It's a day he spends with his two best friends Jacob and Frank, his girlfriend and his father. They all hope to make it a great day, because they all realize Monty will never be the same again. What is very remarkable is that all this characters are fully developed three-dimensional people. Besides that they are all intelligent, nice people. Monty could easily have a good, legal job. He doesn't deal in drugs, because he is messed up, but simply because he is good at it and it leads to a good life for him and his loved ones.

"You can't stop what's coming." This was the motto of No Country for Old Men, but it could easily be applied to this movie. The movie wisely does not make Monty a superman. Sure he can deal with wiseguys and criminals, but he still is a pretty ordinary man. When he has to go to jail he can do nothing else but accept it. In a flashback we see that when the police come to search his house for drugs he realizes there is not much he can do about it and does not resist at all or try to lie himself out. He is intelligent enough to know that there is not much else he can do then accept his fate. The movie's viewpoint is that sometimes the reality is bleak, but it still is the reality and it's pointless to sugarcoat it. Bad things can happen to good people. Sometimes they even have themselves to blame. All they can do then is to accept the consequences. One more example of this is when Jacob, a literature teacher, kisses one of his students he has a crush on. This student happens to be at the party where Monty and co. are to give him one last good time and previously that day we saw her complaining about her grade to Jacob. (This is the only slightly weak part of the film, since it's a bit too coincidental and feels a bit contrived.) Jacob and Mary get drunk, she seduces him a bit and when she goes to the toilet he kisses her. They both realize they acted foolishly that this will have consequences and simply can be undone. Another example is that the movie acknowledges 9/11. It's made in 2002 and a lot of American movies that came out during that period tried to ignore the facts of 9/11 as much as possible.

There are two brilliant scenes in this movie that could work as standalone shorts. The first is a scene where Monty says fuck you to all kinds of minority groups in New York. The words are bad, but the images Lee uses make it some kind of a love letter to the diversity of New York. The second scene is around ten minutes long and it are some of the best 10 minutes I've ever seen on film. It's the last scene. Monty's father is driving Monty to prison and tells him a story about how he could keep on driving to the west and let Monty live freely in some desert town where no one will find him. I'll write someday more extensively about it, but it is a very moving scene and it works on a lot of different levels.

One last thing. The acting is simply incredible. Monty is played by Edward Norton who proves once again to be the best actor of his generation. But Barry Pepper, Phillip Seymour Hoffman,Brian Cox,Anna Paquin and Rosario Dawson are all great. They act so effortlessly, if one wouldn't know better, he could think it are real people playing themselves. I find it puzzling how this movie didn't get a single Oscar nomination. It's one of the best movies of the last decade and by far the best movie of 2002

After Hours: The kind of movie I like most

The movies I love most are those in which situations occur which do not occur usually in reality, but are scientifically possible. By this last part I mean that I am not a very big fan of horror or science-fiction. A movie, to me, does not need to have realistic situations or dialogue to be good. What happens in the movie should just be in accordance to the world the movie has created. If we want realistic situations and dialogue, I believe, we can simply go out to the pub or to school. This obviously does not mean that I can't enjoy such a movie if it is very well made. All this probably explains why my favorite filmmakers are the likes of Quentin Tarantino, The Coen Brothers,Paul Thomas Anderson,Woody Allen, etc. None of their movies are probably flawless, but their faults are because the filmmakers dare to take risks. One of the most stupid criticisms I've ever read is that the movie Juno isn't good because no teenager in real life talks that way. First of all, that's a pity. Second of all it's true. That is why it is a movie and not real life and why the movie is so good.

Anyway Martin Scorsese's After Hours is exactly the kind of movie I love. Nothing that happens to Paul Hackett is very likely to happen. But the movie is so inventive and shifts tones so effectively that it is on of the most purely entertaining and absurd movies I've ever seen.

Psul is a very normal person working as a word processor who doesn't lead a very interesting life. One night he is sitting in a pub, reading a book, when he meets a slightly strange girl,Marcy, who has read the same book. She has to go home where she lives with a friend of hers, but gives him her phone number. Later that night he calls her and he goes to her and her friends' apartment, which is more of a loft, in Soho. Her friend makes paperweights and is into SM and is the first of the many absurd characters he'll meet on this night that's only going to be weirder. After a while of cuddling and talking with Marcy, Paul realizes he doesn't have much in common with her, leaves her and goes home. At least he wants to go home. Unfortunately he has only 97 cents left and can't take the metro, because after midnight the price of a ticket is up. As a barman says to him:"After hours, there are different rules."

Stuck in Soho, trying to get home, he finds that this is a quarter where all kinds of bizarre people live and are all connected to each other. Martin Scorsese has a brilliant cameo as light operator in club who with his light constantly follows Paul. The point is made rather brilliantly that all that happens to these characters is not by God's will or by some cosmic rules, but simply because the filmmakers want it. We only fully realize this though in the brilliant and even a bit frightening last 5-10 minutes of this film. They are frightening not only because the film becomes completely absurd, but also because we realize that poor Paul has no free will whatsoever. Everything he does is determined by his creator, Martin Scorsese, because he wants to entertain us. A lot of movies have been made and a lot of books have been written which reflect similar ideas. Not much have done it this entertainingly (The movie contains big laughs) or this good. And the closing shot is brilliant. It's not Scorsese's best which is logical considering he made Taxi Driver, but it's a masterpiece. And while I previously did not like Scorsese much, he is becoming one of my favorite filmmakers after also seeing The Age of Innocence and Shutter Island. He can obviously work in many genres.

Once Were Warriors

Once Were Warriors, a movie about modern Maori in urban New Zealand, starts brilliantly. We see a shot of a beautiful natural area with some tranquil music in the background. Then the camera pans away and we see that this natural area is simply a photograph on a billboard next to the highway. The shot still lasts and we see Beth Heke coming back from the mall. The movie plays with our expectations. We know we are going to watch a movie about Maori people, so when we see the first shot we are not surprised at all. We are prejudiced to believe that the Maori still live in the wilderness with primitive means. This obviously is not true. This prejudice is often unconscious and when the camera pans out we become conscious of our prejudice. We realize that we found the first shot a very normal first shot to start a movie about Maoris. The rest pf the movie is not as brilliant, but is still very good and often very powerful and shocking

Beth Heke is married to Jake Heke and together they have five children. They live in a relatively nice house even though they struggle to make ends meet. In the first scenes everything seems pretty fine. Beth and Jake obviously love each other and their oldest daughter is reading her own stories to her little brothers. Boogie has some troubles with the police and is expected to court because he stole something. But it seems like everything will be OK. They (and we) don't know that this will be the day that this family will start to disintegrate with tragic consequences.

In another great and important scene we see Jake with his friends in a bar listening to a live performance by a singer. A thug doesn't care about this and puts on the jukebox. As a consequence he is beaten up by Jake, which is quite an achievement. Previously we saw this thug beating up five seemingly strong people very easily. Jake is now celebrated by the rest of the bar and the party continues at the Hekes.

The atmosphere at the Hekes' party is so good, pleasant and full of love that we are often jealous that we aren't there. It's then even more of a shock when it goes horribly wrong. Beth gets a bit annoyed, because her son does not listen to her and she reacts a bit cross when her one of Jake's friends asks for something. This infuriates Jake and he beats her up. Our sympathy for Jake is not completely lost though. We realize that he could have easily inflicted much bigger harm on her and that he actually controlled himself by not killing her. The next morning we learn it's not the first time something like this happened. To make matters worse Boogie has to go to a detention center.

In the rest of the film Beth hopes to make her husband, who she really does love, a better man, while trying to keep her family together. She unfortunately does not succeed and things only get worse.

I won't tell much more about the plot. The film gets only more violent and only more filled with aggression. The violence is often very shocking, because it's filmed very unflinchingly. There are calm scenes, but the tension in them is so great, because we expect that at any moment it can all erupt. And it often does.

As and Angie

Angie (The Rolling Stones, 1973) The Rolling Stones can rock pretty hard, but they are at their best when they dial down a bit. The song is probably about some ex-girlfriend of Mick Jagger. And even though this song is about a break-up, it's actually a pretty positive song. The former lovers seem to have no bad feelings for each other and seem to even still be friends. And if you analyze the lyrics a bit further, they may not even break up forever, but that Angie's lover is simply going away to find a way to earn some money, since they are broke. Unfortunately this song does not have a clip

As(George Michael & Mary J. Blige, 1999) A song that's incredibly full of cliches, but one that's sung very powerful by both singers.



Well, the lyrics of the song make it pretty obvious what this song is about. Two lovers will love each other forever. So the clip wisely is an interpretation of the text. The aim of this clip seems to be to sell Mary J. Blige and George Michael as singers for sophisticated adults in the style of Frank Sinatra for example. Whomever made this clip wanted to distance it as much as possible from the usual clips of popsongs. First of all it has a lot of long takes of sometimes more then 30 seconds, which is quite long for a videoclip. During this long takes not much of interest happens. We simply watch them sing and dance. The ideology of the clip is obvious: For singers the music should be the most imprtant, not the show around it, just like it used to be in the good old times.

Michael and, especially, Blige are also dressed very nicely in suits, which also differs a lot from the usual video clip. And the bar they are in is also very sophisticated. When we see them drink they drink 'adult' drinks like whiskey. I have no explanation for the fact that we see many George Michaels and Mary J. Bliges, but it matters in this aspect that we see just as much Mary J. Bliges as George Michaels. Men and women are equals. Again, opposed to many other clips. We also don't see anyone else in the clip, besides the Michaels and Bliges. This may be an allusion to the text. They love each other so much, they don't need anyone else.

Sport and media

People have always loved watching sports and it seems sports are now more popular then ever. One important reason for our love of sports is the fact that we can pretty objectively decide that someone is the best. When a sports figure does something great we can instantly realize that we are witnessing something great, if of course we are familiar with the rules of the sport. That is not really the case with for example music or film. A certain combination of notes or shots does not necessarily make a great song or movie. Some may think it's great, others may not. That may make movies and songs more interesting to talk about, but it also makes sports more universal. Everyone who is familiar with football will realize that Maradona's famous goal against England is a great goal.

We love to witness great achievements. One reason for it is the fact that our forefathers were witnesses of great achievements and told us about it. We've heard joyful stories about how great it was to see Star Wars in the cinema, the Beatles in concert or Michael Jordan playing. And we hope that one day we'll be able to tell such stories about greatness. As to confirm, at least to ourselves, that we lived in interesting, great times.

In the times we live in though it's much tougher for a sportsman (or a director, actor, singer, etc) to achieve greatness. Pele, Maradona and Cruyff were only compared with their peers and since they were a lot better then them, they were considered great. The current star-footballers are not only compared to their peers, but also to Pele, Maradona, Cruyff and all kinds of other footballers that were considered stars and to be considered great they have to probably be better than 99% of them. This is because of the emergence of all kinds of new media. On YouTube we can see the highlights of most great sportsmen whenever we want. Obviously this was not the case when Maradona or Cruyff played. Occasionally there might be shown some highlights of older players on television, but that was it. They only really had to compete for exposure and greatness with their peers.

Perhaps even more importantly, we saw less sports. For example in tennis the Grand Slams were watched, in football you had once a week a live game from the European Cup and the World and European Championships. In basketball you could see one game from the NBA. And the broadcast games were of course the ones featuring the best players. So great moments were rarer and therefore more special. On top of this, it were usually the same players who were seen doing great things.
How different is it now. We can watch every tennis tournament, any NBA game we want and footage from almost any slightly relevant football league. And on top of that a lot of footage from lower leagues or even amateurs. We have a great moments-overkill. We see a lot of great moments by a lot of different players. And because we have access to so many great moments, a great moment has to be a lot greater to be considered really great. We're not satisfied any more with a half-court buzzer beater, since we've seen hundreds of them. Some even by 12-year old nitwits on YouTube. And a player has to have a lot of really, really great moments to be considered great.

Blue Velvet- a short review

Blue Velvet is a very good movie, that's not exactly what I expected. It sure is an often absurd mystery, but it is also, and even more so, a teen-romance/coming-of-age- movie. The relationship between Jeffrey and Sandy is at the heart of the movie. I even would compare the movie with Say Anything or Juno and other movies like that. These movies are about young protagonists who realize they love each other, while dealing with overbearing fathers or pregnancies. Well, This is what happens in Blue Velvet too, only they have to deal with a lunatic Dennis Hopper. Though I really liked the movie I understand Roger Ebert's famous gripe with this movie. Isabela Rosselini does have a pretty thankless role. She is being used simply to show off Hopper's lunacy and as a problem that the two protagonists have to deal with. I must admit that it didn't bother me much. The story was engaging and it provided for some wildly inventive, absurd scenes. The weirdest of them all was the scene where Sandy and Jeffrey go on a ride with Hopper and his 'friends'.

I also found it rather brilliant to let Sandy and Jeffrey talk as if they were in a 50's movie, while the villains and Rosellini are (post)modern characters. This makes the villains an even bigger treat for the two heroes. Its not just that they are bad people. They are bad in ways our two protagonists never thought possible.

America

-America (Razorlight, 2006) Last decade's best song. Unfortunately this was it from Razorlight. It's hard to match this song, but they never even came close. The song, about a man who seems to have lost all hope, should have given us a hint though. The songs I've heard from their next album were all depressing songs, sung in a depressive manner.



What a boring clip! It does fit the song though. All we see, besides Razorlight playing,are meaningless shots of American roads on the screen in the back. And in the end we see people holding up signs saying 'Lost' and 'feel nothing'. In the end there are also shots of a car, with somebody in it, that was involved in an accident. This is all simply a visual representation of what the text says.There is nothing on the tv or the radio which is meaningful, because everything is American import(Razorlight is a British band). This makes people miserable. So, this clip seems to say, you should listen to Razorlight. They are an intersting, serious band with substance that cares only about its (meaningful) music.

All Summer Long

-All Summer Long (Kid Rock, 2008)Kid Rock hasn't done anything interesting except for this song. But this is one of the best recent pure rock songs, even though it steals from two songs. Not just the obvious Sweet Home Alabama, but also from Warren Zevon's Werewolves of London. The song really does manage to make you feel the atmosphere of Kid Rock's favorite summer. It just is that nobody can believe that Kid Rock really feels that nostalgic about that summer. He most probably still smokes funny things and drinks whiskey out the bottle, while making love.



This is is a much more interesting clip, than the previous two I've discussed. It celebrates both Sweet Home Alabama and Kid Rock as true American icons. The first thing we see in the clip is an American flag attached on Kid Rock's motorboat. Kid Rock is riding his boat on, presumably, Lake Michigan where lots of people have fun while listening to rock and roll. Just like he did in 1989. The message of course is that these old-fashioned American rock songs like Sweet Home Alabama are timeless. Unfortunately the original singers are too old, or even dead now. Someone has to replace them. That's where Kid Rock comes in, according to this clip. He is both a real American and a real rock star. That becomes obvious during the scenes on the stage where he is singing. First of all he is dressed and behaves like a true rock star. on the floor we see stars like on the American flag and when we get a long shot of the floor we see it is painted, patriotically, in red white and blue. And in the final shot of the clip we see the word cowboy on the back of his boat. It can't get more American then that. So this clip tries to sell Kid Rock as the natural heir to the old great American rock stars. This is in accordance with the name of Kid Rock's album, Rock and Roll Jesus.


I also have All Shook Up (Elvis Presley, 1957) on my Ipod. It's a good old simple Elvis rock-song that is simply about a man in love with a girl. I am not a big fan of Elvis, but he was a pioneer and probably the first of those great American rock stars. Not much else to say about this one though and of course it doesn't have a videoclip.