Archive for the 'Culturology' CategoryPage 3 of 10

Culturology #71 - On Reading Walden

As if posting a (if I do say so myself) rather substantial first entry to this summer's book club, by the end of it I suddenly found myself irrationally confident in my ability to read books and then write commentary about them. I should have remembered that, as of late, I've barely been able to maintain a bi-weekly schedule of posting (which is supposed to, of course, be a weekly schedule) about any old thing, let alone make consistent, specific, content-driven posts about actual things. So, I didn't read Walden this week, like I claimed I was going to do last week. I did read the first several dozen paragraphs, though, and I still intend to read the thing by the end of the month.

I would like to also note, though, that it isn't Walden's unreadability that kept me from reading it. Or, to restate, it's me that's the problem, not Walden. The timing just wasn't right for things to work out. Walden, we've still got a chance to make things work, I just need some more time first. My suspicion is that, in fact, I'll wind up writing about Walden's continued or renewed relevance for young people nowadays, and about how ridiculous it is to have been made to read it in 11th grade, when I was totally incapable of doing so (as I recall, I read some of the key passages, but definitely didn't read the whole thing, or if I did read it cover-to-cover, more just looked at the words, rather than actually parsing them, or I read the Cliff Notes, or the Cliff Notes were so boring that I couldn't even get through them). But I've gotta save all that writing for when I actually read the thing.

The main other cultural-digestive thing that distracted me from Thoreau was the release (and subsequent purchase (breaking a pretty consistent string of not buying media that I had going there for a while)) of a second By Brakhage anthology DVD set from the Criterion Collection. There is the part of the post where it becomes ever more painful what a nerd I am for art, but Brakhage was an amazing film-maker, and additional was an incredibly great aesthetic thinker and a brilliant reader of poetry. Combine all of that and he's been a huge influence on my own thinking about art, and especially lyric art, especially lyric poetry (which I tend not to write about for Culturology, since it's, like, rarified and probably snooty, and mostly, I imagine, uninteresting to almost everyone on the planet (and here I distinguish between poetry, which I think everyone on the planet can potentially enjoy and get a lot out of, and poetics (the theory of poetry) which is more for the poets than for the readers, in the end (even though poets, of course, are also readers))).

Brakhage is most known for his painted-on films, which are almost always silent, and which find as their inspiration closed-eye vision. Brakhage, on the various special features of the DVDs, talks about how he was really trying to make "music for the eyes." And I think, even from a popular-cultural perspective, in a lot of ways we can all see how all the arts aspire to be music. Or we have that experience, in listening to music, of finding it to be a direct line to emotional and visceral experiences in a way that happens more often and more consistently than with writing or visual art. But, before I diverge too far into talking about such things, maybe I should stop...

Brakhage is also well known because he was, for a long time, a professor of film and the University of Colorado, in Boulder. His most famous students are Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who made the original South Park short while students of Brakhage's. He also, awesomely, has a cameo role in their first movie, Cannibal: The Musical (which I haven't watched in many years, but I recall being at least entertaining, if not as laugh-packed as, say, Orgasmo). So even though Brakhage didn't really have any use for narrative sound-film, and especially not for Hollywood movies, he still managed to play a role in a couple of his students' spring break project. Which is pretty rad. I like to imagine Parker and Stone approaching him about it, and Brakhage just chuckling and amicably agreeing.

So in that way, Brakhage as a further influence on me. Even though he was a total visionary and an incredible lyric artist (and thereby, is perhaps not as immediately approachable as some artists--at least from the aesthetic conversation perspective; I think his films are very understandable), and could probably be seen as being a bit of a snoot thereby (in one of his interviews he says something awesome to the extent of "I've never seen a Hollywood movie which required more than 15 minutes at a coffee shop afterwards to discuss" (that's a massive paraphrase, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting there)), he still managed to be a cool professor and show up in a random, goofy movie. Right on.

Coming up on the I Know What You Bookclubbed Last Summer Booklove Bookclub:

July 16th: B. Traven's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (this will be read by then; I'm already halfway through)

July 23rd: Gene Yuen Lang's American Born Chinese

Culturology #70 - I Know What You Bookclubbed Last Summer

Welcome to Culturology's second summer of bookloving bookclub action! (And you know who knows what we bookclubbed last summer? The Onion A.V. Club, who're wasting their time with A Scanner Darkly right now, which we all know is soooooooo 2009.)

China Miéville's The City & The City

We're starting things off with a pretty awesome book this summer, I think. The City & The City came to me as a recommendation from a fiction-writing friend of mine, as a book which is blurbed as if it's a mash-up of Raymond Chandler and Franz Kafka, and actually manages to do so. And that's really what it does! I found it to be a very engrossing read (perhaps more like Chandler in this way than Kafka), the sort of novel which just thrives within its genre--a detective story--to keep the plot moving, but then contains such interesting scenery. I reckon that Neal will agree about this too, since it seems like it took him all of two days to read this one. There's, I think, a fairly large number of things to discuss out of this book, so I think I'm, as a start, going to just focus on one aspect for now, and see what comes up from there: genre.

Though this book is definitely a police story at heart, it straddles this fascinating line between fantasy and sci-fi as well. Put as simply as I can, the story takes place in a city, or rather, two cities which overlap each other, Besźel and Ul Qoma, which is/are somewhere past the Balkans. Although the two cities are separate city-states, they occupy the same geographic location, they are "grosstopically" right on top of each other. Some districts are all one city or the other, but many areas "crosshatch," where the two cities co-exist, their citizens being well-trained from childhood to ignore ("unsee") the other city. The origin of this is referred to as "the Cleaving," an excellent usage of language by Miéville, as "to cleave," awesomely, means both to split, and from a separate origin, to come together (this polysemy was also beautifully utilized by the poet Li-Young Lee in his amazing poem "The Cleaving"). Monitoring transgressions by either set of citizens across these invisible borders is the mysterious force of Breach.

Breach is the more obviously sci-fi element of the story, as they wield powers which are above and beyond those held by either individual city. They're revealed to be human, in many ways, by the end of the story, but even then their technologies and observation abilities are one of the points that stretches C & C beyond just being rather realistic fantasy. The other main source for fantasy-esque elements is the possible third city of Orciny, which according to legend, exists in the cracks between the two cities, and the never-satisfyingly-explained archaeological dig in Ul Qoma that produces a mish-mash of artifacts reminiscent of an ancient culture right out of H.P. Lovecraft (though the Lovecraftian elements fizzle away very satisfyingly before any real horror elements enter the novel).

There's been a recent spate, in the last couple of years, of authors mashing genres up with detective stories, to rather satisfying results (e.g. The Big Lebowski, The Yiddish Policemen's Union (not surprisingly also, apparently, in development as a movie by the Coen brothers), Inherent Vice). I think why it works so well, and this is certainly true of The City & The City, is that the detective novel allows for both a brisk, exciting, pulpy plot but also extensive world building. The cop, Inspector Borlú, needs a city to move around in, and since he observes with such a careful eye, the reader gets a very acute observation of the alternative reality he lives in. Here I see where both this book and a lot of these genre-benders owe a lot to the rise of respect within literary circles for comics and graphic novels in the last 20-30 years.

Certainly, world-building as a concept has been around since the novel came to being (Eliot's Middlemarch, for instance, is an amazing microcosmic work), but in (traditional) novels, the impetus has been one of realism, where the world represented is supposed to match the actual world within which it is written (Middlemarch, seems to me, is pretty much exactly what life must have been like for people like that in a time and place like that). But the kind of world/universe building in comics, which seeks to create self-consistent alternate realities that don't necessarily need to have anything to do with the actual world (this is why I think The Dark Knight was such a step backwards for comic book movies, its whole Gotham-is-Chicago method takes a massive step backwards in terms of world-building, since it hinges on actualism instead of self-consistent realism (though perhaps it needed to, since Schumacher took Gotham to such campy places in his movies)).

But The City & The City succeeds so well as a novel, that although at various points I did find myself thinking that it could be really well done as either a movie or a graphic novel, I think, in the end, that it's better off without any visual representation. This way, it's up to the reader to build and interpret the wild cross-hatching streets and the two city's different architectures, fashions, and mores. There would definitely be fun ways to show and hide the two cities depending on where Borlú is, but the book itself keeps you from seeing too much, which is part of what makes the book so engrossing. The first 60 or so pages were just fun reading to me, as the police procedural took its time getting out of the gates in order to slowly sneak in exposition of the circumstances of these two cities.

And once the book really gets going, though it never loses track of its police story roots, Miéville keeps enough turns coming that it never gets stale, so that even as plot points are revealed and mysteries both pertinent to the case and cultural-historical, it still feels like there's something at stake for Borlú up through the end. Though part of me was let down by there not being a bit more Lovecraft in there, overall I came away very impressed with both the concept and execution of this one. And we're off to the races!

I Know What You Bookclubbed Last Summer Schedule:

July 9th: Henry David Thoreau's Walden

July 16th: TBD

July 23rd: Gene Yuen Lang's American Born Chinese

Culturology #69 - Giggle Giggle Giggle

Ask a person (or a group of people) for a funny number, and chances are they'll come back with the same one (not "one," meaning (1), you know what number I'm talking about...). If there are other numbers that are funny, I'll be curious to hear about them. Perhaps there are synesthetes out there that, rather than seeing colors when they hear musical notes, hear jokes when they see numbers. That'd be interesting.

Back when I was in school for symphonic music, I was doing research on the composer György Ligeti, when I discovered that he had written, back in his (relative) youth, he had written a satirical piece against his home government, called something to the extent of "Hungarian Military March," and given the non-consecutive opus number of 69. And that was fifty-sixty years ago.

I'm not really sure how old I was when I first realized that numbers could be funny, though I'm sure it was in the form of saying "You're number one," while flipping someone the bird, which I perhaps learned about from the movie Top Gun. Not the part about saying "you're number one," but the part about flipping someone the bird. Top Gun also being the movie that inaugurated my love of beach volleyball (that's not true; I don't like beach volleyball). Nor was I particularly good at figuring out dirty phraseology (as an example, when I was 11 or 12, I thought the phrases was "getting ahead with that girl," not "getting head from that girl"), let alone numerology (as much as I enjoy swearing, it was until I befriended Nick during college (this biography/chronology might also be bullshit) that my vulgarities stumbled down into obscenties). This is all to say that, for writing an article on a site like Audioshocker.com, this is perhaps the most notable milestone that Culturology has yet reached.

Oh... 420 is a funny number. And 4:20 is a funny time of day (twice a day!). Don't know why I was so delayed in remembering that one. Therefore, Culturology hereby decrees that 6.0869565217391304347826 (repeating) is also a funny number. Perhaps the funniest number. You can learn more about this funny number by hiring a friend to dress in this costume. "The hat has a sign reading "420/69", which adds to the costume's authenticity." Authentic indeed (meaning, surely, that the hat being worn cost 420 pounds, 69 pence). Every so often, in critical/academic circles, the discourse can get all messed up in concerns about the authenticity of a given ethos (see, say, Theodor Adorno's The Jargon of Authenticity). I think if Adorno had been writing in the times of easily-purchased sexy polyester costumes, he'd have felt differently about existentialism's "radical inwardness" (if you know what I mean...).

If I have any hopes left for Culturology (and I don't, really), it's to get to a point where as many people read it as the number that it has--the next best reason for sticking by 6.0869565217391304347826 (repeating), 'cause I'm surely closer to having that number of readers than 69.

Click here to visit the AudioShocker Store!

Culturology #68 - Oh, the Book Club is So On

The first selection for the 2010 Culturology I Know What You Bookclubbed Last Summer Bookclub has been made: China Mieville's The City & The City. So run out to your local independent bookseller and hop on board the CIKWYBLSB train! The City & The City, though I haven't started reading it, is a work of speculative fiction, and a police procedural. Online reviews, just glossed by me, like to compare it to Kafka & Dick (that's Philip K. Dick, who you might recall from 2009's Summer of Booklove Bookclub). Perfect summer reading! I'll look to write it up shortly after the solstice, so let's shoot to have it read by then.

And we (I) hear in Culturology's Miami Bureau (Culturology's only bureau) should also have some other literary treats in store for you later this month as well, so it should prove to be a most not heinous summer.

But what to blog about in the meantime. It's been a lousy spring for culture. I've mostly been wrapped up between work, teaching an undergraduate creative writing class, and plotting out the upcoming (only a month and a half away!) Time Log web comic with Nick (which, by the way, is going to be awesome, if I do say so myself). I think co-writing a comic gives me some decent street cred with my students, though I'm mostly trying to teach them about the wonders of poetry these days. Why? Because you know what many of my students seem to really like? Manga. Back when I was at Carnegie Mellon, I thought it was just a nerd-college thing that people would, like, like manga. But apparently not. Even at a giant public university in South Florida with, by my count, very few nerds, manga reigns supreme.

Which is not to make any judgment on manga one way or the other. As a matter of fact, the only manga I've ever read was the complete Akira (while at CMU, as a matter of fact). And I thought it was great. I also recall, a couple of years ago now, as Nick and I were still in the process of making Time Log happen, Nick mentioning that manga was, like, really popular, and that the easiest way to get TL made would be to make it a manga (which, as you now know, didn't happen). But now my students know that 17th-19th century British poetry is way cooler than comics!

There being some compulsion which I'm missing, to try and make poetry new and vital for my students, and use even vaguely contemporary examples. But my general opinion is that any poem worth its salt makes itself new and vital again and again across time. Of course, explaining this notion to modern students isn't easy, since it seems pretty arbitrary to them why one poem and not another would be chosen. And that's actually a really valid complaint, since who cares what a bunch of old bearded white men decide what makes for good poetry? Except that canonization is an inevitable process--and one could point this out with manga, or comics in general as well. As I've stated plenty of times before, some cultural things become recognized as being good because they are good. Or because they're good for good reasons. And it's a human enterprise; we've got to take someone's word for it. It's just a matter of not taking it for granted when we do partake of canonical pieces of the culture, and be sure to actively engage it and be able to decide for ourselves if it's worth passing on in our own personal canon of recommendations.

And so, yes, I would recommend both Akira and The Prelude. And now I command you to read The City & The City!

Culturology #67 - The Haplonomicon

So I almost started the I Know What You Bookclubbed Last Summer Bookclub this week, but I think I'm gonna let it slide until it's actually summer, so not for a couple more weeks. Why? Because for a minute there, I thought I had my book picked out: Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, but then when I went to actually acquire a copy (that is, take my Dad's copy from his house while I was home for Memorial Day weekend) I realized that the paperback is obscenely thick (1168 pages (I didn't actually check the page count while holding the thing; I just looked that up on the Internet)). Does this make me a much shallower reader than I generally claim to be?

The aphorism generally goes "don't judge a book by its cover," but it's not so much the cover that I'm judging it by, but all that there between--and not the actually words, but just their volume. The cover seems fine, and I, like many folks who were fans of the Evil Dead; movies (especially Army of Darkness, I'm a huge fan of the the "nomicon" suffix. In fact, while I'm still a resident of North Miami (affectionately called "NoMi" by some (or at least by the free shuttle bus that the city offers)), I should probably host some kind of convention, so as to call it the "NoMicon." It'll be all about North Miami: our museum of contemporary art, our library, our night life. Pretty simple. Simple enough, maybe, to call it the Haplonomicon, or "Simply North Miami."

Hopefully I won't be so busy planning the convention to not also start up the IKWYBLSB as well. So I'm still taking recommendations for what to read. Otherwise it's gonna be something like Thoreau's Walden, which I've been meaning to read (technically re-read, maybe, insofar as I think I read some of it for English class back in 11th grade (though, if memory serves me correctly, I was so bored by it that I couldn't even get through the Cliff's Notes of it)). But Thoreau's been in the air recently, at least in my (small) social circles. Seems like a thing worth doing. One of my older brother's just re-read it, and he claims that Thoreau often displays a very pleasant wit in his writing, that was certainly lost on my too-bored-for-crib-notes 16-year-old self.

And, all joking aside, I actually do find myself very pro-bookclub, in general. Maybe it comes from having taken so many literature classes, where I've gotten used to reading and discussing literature with a group of people. And bookclubs, at least ones with folks you're interested in dealing with, can take the best parts of those academic discussions and free them from the bullshit that soaks most academic discourse to the point of no longer being particularly pleasurable. I surprise myself sometimes.

Culturology #66 - To Book or not to Book

Have I slouched into some kind of every-other-week pattern with Culturology? It would seem so... As usual, though, I immediately rise to my own defense (though I have no excuse for missing last week, other than the fact that I was busy hosting a visiting poet in Miami), but I feel pretty bad about it. Since Neal's been busy and skipping his Monday posts, I suddenly have realized that maybe my contributions to Audioshocker are actually important (and with Time Log: The Web Comic (official story sub-title coming soon!), coming 'round the mountain, my contributions will certainly be more notable), and I should really keep pursuing these articles, rather than letting Culturology fade off into the sunset.

I do think I'll do another Summer of Booklove reading club this summer, so I'm officially accepting recommendations or requests for books to read (my own reading habits tend to take these big swings away from fiction--I'm currently in a 5-month-long span of not really reading any novels (though I've been unsteadily chipping away at Ellison's Invisible Man for most of these five months (the book is amazing, and I'm glad to finally be getting around to reading it, but for whatever reasons (again, these kind of fiction droughts that I got through are rather obscure to me), it's taking me months and months to actually read it all). Usually what happens during these spans is I start to get all self-conscious and wonder if I'm finally caving in to contemporary culture and not reading books anymore, and then, once the fiction-blockage clears itself  I read a bunch of novels real fast all in a row, and feel better again about my ability to read. So maybe it'll be book-blogging the summer months that facilitates that pattern this time around.

Speaking of books, I've also been having the interesting experience recently of greatly liquidating my book holdings. Having so many books (mostly paperbacks, incidentally) strikes me, now that I'm post-grad school as being this kind of awful grad-school thing where, even though I would like to claim that I'm above such thing, it meant something to have all these shelves of books, most of which I'd read, on display in my apartment (which one can then imagine transporting to the claustrophobic confines of some professorial office at some small liberal arts college where everyone is impressed at how well read one is). So, the obvious remedy is to get rid of all those damn books.

I'm about to be donating the remainder to a local library, but the first step in reducing my holdings was to go through and just select all the books that I didn't care about at all, then to more thoroughly go through and get rid of the books that I knew I was never going to read ever again. Pretty quickly, I amassed a pile of books on my floor that amounted to many many shelves worth. Then I went through the books that didn't make the cut, and wrote down the ISBNs of the ones that looked like they might be worth selling on the internet. From that list, I wound up posting around 40 books on the internet, many of which I've now sold (making a couple hundred bucks in the process). Then I brought a few of my (also grad-school(ing/ed) friends over to see if they wanted any of the books I was getting rid of. At first, they were shocked that I would do something so drastic as to get rid of my books (and, come to think of it, I think  I had a similar reaction a few months back when Nick announced that he was getting rid of so many of his comics (many of which I wound up with)). But once they picked through them, there were very few that they actually wanted.

Which is part of the interestingness of this phenomenon: as soon as the books were off the shelf and on the floor, they lost all of their value. The remaining books, which none of my friends wanted, and weren't worth selling on the internet, are now going to be donated to a local library, which hopefully be able to find some use for them. I haven't yet found myself missing any of the books that I've hosed, and really wonder if I ever will. Seems doubtful. It isn't precisely a cathartic exercise either though; mostly I just get this sense of satisfaction at making my self-image slightly less douche-y (slightly more cathartic was my recent sale of my half-stack (for approximately 88% of what I paid for it seven years ago), but maybe that just feels that way because I've been living off that cash ever since).

Before the cull, I had 14.5 shelves of books. I'm now down to 7. Not too shabby. Which is also to say, I've still got a shit-ton of books in my possession, but it's a much tighter collection, and more practical feeling, since it's mostly books to which I will probably actually return (or books that I still intend to read). I've also been going through the process of trying to get a rid of a bunch of my records too, in a similar way, to get my collection down from two crates to one. And would like to do the same with my CDs, but they're kind of lost-thing at this point, since I don't have any of their jewel cases, and no one wants CDs at this point (though I guess people could take them, rip them onto their computers, and then just recycle the disc?)

Culturology #65 - Unsatisfied Consumption

Here in my new, prematurely air-conditioned office, as I realized that it's two o'clock already, and that I was planning on leaving early today, and that I was also planning on actually writing an article this week, I also realized that if I'm not careful, I might end up writing about poetry, like, all the time on these things. Which maybe wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but still, no one wants to read about poetry on a blog about comics and movies.

Why would I only write about poetry? Well, because of the continually-cultivated cultural ambivalence that I was writing about last post, whereby I no longer pretend to care about stuff that I don't care about (this also includes not following the Pittsburgh baseball Pirates this summer (though, let's face it, that's pathetically easy, since their one of the worst teams in the majors yet again this year)). And I ran out of the kind of play-time  money good for going to a lot of movies in the theater a year ago (and it's also been a rather abysmal year for movies).

So maybe that's the question that I'm getting at, between Hollywood and the Pirates: maybe I'm not really taking any kind of cultural-critical action via this so-called ambivalence, but merely acting as an unsatisfied consumer. So then, do I either a) recognize that I'm just an unhappy customer and get back to complaining about crappy shit, or b) figure out a way to genuinely ignore the entire set of machinations of the culture industry?

How to genuinely ignore the culture industry? Maybe by writing about poetry all the time instead. Of course, there's also a whole list of complications on why poetry sucks too, and I don't really want to bother with those arguments either. Gah. It's like I'm becoming negative-beyond-negative here. Maybe I just need a good book recommendation?

(And also, to end (if only parenthetically) on a positive note:  Gentlemen Broncos just gets better and better in my mind the more that I think about it. So does Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.)

Click here to visit the AudioShocker Store!

Culturology #64 - Cultural Ambivalence

I'm writing this post, as usual, at a time which barely qualifies as on-time. As usual, I've got the usual excuses, though it seems  pertinent enough that in another week, graduate school will no longer be an available excuse. (In the meantime, I will mention that I was busy this week assembling the most recent online issue of Gulf Stream Magazine -- my main success in the coding of this one, incidentally, was finally figuring out how to center a horizontal list with CSS (the biggest flaw--to my mind--in Online #2).) That's right, I'm--barring any last minute complications--graduating. So now I'll never mention graduate school ever again. Luckily, though, I'm starting a job right away (co-founding a new poetry festival in Miami), so I'll have plenty of fresh excuses for not getting these articles written on time.

Not that I have all that much to write about at this point. What I've been thinking about this week--and many of these thoughts developed last week while I was in Denver, Colorado (and neglecting to post an article) for the annual AWP conference, which puts something like 8,000 writers into one convention center and lets the fun commence. What it is that I was and am thinking about: I think, since beginning to write these articles a year and a half ago, I've been steadily trying to be less and less of a "hater" (I think the presence of Super Haters on the site has made it that much easier). Basically, I suppose, it comes down to not wanting to even bother with most of the culture that is out there and available to be engaged with in this country. Which doesn't mean that I haven't been negative about various things (especially towards hating itself, and irony-at-large), but I think that it really has given me what I would call a cultivated ambivalence towards almost all popular culture.

It came up for me in a conversation with a friend about poetry (which is to be expected), where I found myself arguing that it's good that lots of people in the country write what is essentially terrible poetry. Because the activity of poetry is better than the activity of watching television, and many other activities as well. Sure, sometimes bad poets are annoying and self-absorbed (of course, most good poets are also self-absorbed...), but the fact that they're doing poetry is a good thing. I'm not sure if I'd feel differently if poetry were more popular than it is--in fact, I think that if poetry was more popular, America would be a better place. But my friend was rather shocked at my stance, since I'm also something of an unrepentant cultural elitist, so how could I claim to support so many bad artists in their quest to make art which turns out to be bad?

Am I just being condescending? I don't mean to at all claim that my writing is any good; really, I support myself as a poet, good or bad. On some level, there's really no such thing as "good" or "bad," if one just looks at the activity taking place. For example: Capitalism is evil and destroying humanity and much of the planet's ability to support human-like forms of life. So, insofar as an activity doesn't participate in actively destroying the world, it doesn't matter what it's value-as-an-output is. So long as you write your poems in a green-friendly way (on recycled paper, with responsible ink, etc.) it doesn't matter what they say. There's nothing really to talk about, content-wise.

So, in a similar vein, admitting that there's something to talk about for products of popular corporate-sponsored culture already allows it too much sway. Hating is participatory, so already more harmful than ignorance. Which isn't to say that I haven't spent a bit of time watching television in the past handful of months, but it's been dipping steadily (and Conan leaving late night helped that out quite a bit, since that was the last time slot that I still found myself turning the tube on). The main thing that's finally pushing me to actually just getting rid of the TV that I own entirely are the increased presence in, say, the past six months, of advertisements by oil companies that basically say "oil is good, America" in a similar way as beef corporations say "beef is good, America" (it not being a coincidence that factory-farmed beef is as devastating to the environment as fossil fuels). So here's the last time I participate in admitting that there's such a thing as television advertisements. A list bit of hating: fuck you, oil companies (and an extra negative shout-out to Phil Mickelson for all those "partnering with ExxonMobil" commercials during The Masters (which I wound up watching in an airport bar while waiting for an hours-delayed flight out of Denver)--it is not okay to partner with ExxonMobil, for anything, ever).

I realize that ambivalence doesn't actually represent much, as far as oppositional behavior goes, but within the realm of "culture," it's got to be at least better than nothing. And if we can erase notions of good and bad when it comes to home-made or independently-made, or community-made cultural artifacts, realizing that most industrial culture is similarly devoid of actually identifiable qualities of value, then maybe everybody's cultural lives will get better.

Culturology #63 - Slacking Beats Irony

Wow. So what a tournament we ran there in March, huh? That was pretty good, I think. And actually took quite a while to get entirely assembled--Nick and I started watching all those movies months and months ago back during the JCVD Roundtables (there third, and final of which, is tentatively canceled due to the movies that I watched for it being sufficiently covered in various podcasts, and me pretty much being totally over Van Damme at this point (though I was never as committed to the cause as Nick was, really, anyway)). The other sad thing about the tournament movie tournament being over is that now I have to start coming up with original content every week again, until Nick and I think of another gimmick to run (any ideas for any gimmicks out there? Let us know.).

But until we roll out that gimmick (and I'll consider bringing back the book club again this summer as well), I'll fall back on the facet of article writing that has, more than any other, gotten me to sixty-three blog posts in tw0-and-a-half years: slacking. It's even probably disingenuous to call these posts "articles" most of the times, and while I do stand by most of the insights that I've delivered in the past, I've mostly, especially this year, slacked it up quite a bit. I've actually got some things that I plan on writing about, but I'm sensing that I'm not actually going to get to them all (or any of them, really). As a test/motivation, I've scheduled this post to be published at 1:35p.m. Friday (already many hours late), to see if I actually manage to write it by then. If this is all you're reading, than I've failed.

But that up there isn't all that you're reading! Holy Crap! I've actually made it back to the internet before my self-assumed deadline! Crazy... So where was I?

Gentlemen Broncos.

That's right. A movie that if it played in any theaters, they weren't near me (were they all in Utah?). But I watched this a couple weeks ago now on DVD, and I tell you: definitely recommendable. I don't know that I've seen a less marketable movie in my entire life. It's the kind of movie that people like myself and my friends definitely go for, as it hits all these marks about B-fantasy and sci-fi novels, and also the movie adaptations of those novels. But Gentlemen Broncos is so unrepentantly weird and awkward that it stymies any attempt to convince non-nerds to go and see it.

A very strange movie, indeed, though, in it's willingness to follow characters that are all depressing in their own way, but somehow utterly sincere. Which is the final nail in the marketability coffin, since I would argue that GB even blocks attempts to enjoy it ironically. One either watches it and digs its vibe, or turns it off after about eight minutes.

And speaking of half-assing, Gentlemen Broncos hits its B-movie notes so precisely, that it looks like it was made by a bunch of 10 year olds with a camcorder, both in the three films-within-the-film and at the outer layer of the narrative itself. Which makes it that much more confusing. And that much better.

And with those few notes, I'm gonna go ahead and run this, hoping that Nick comments and that we can keep talking about this down in the comments section instead of me just blabbing about it here.

Culturology #62 - Tournament Movie Tournament: The Final Fight!

Tournament Movie Tournament FINAL ROUND Bracket:

(If you're not into reading and you want to spoil the match-up, skip to the bottom to see a bracket image featuring the WINNER.)

This is Pete, back at the helm again (though Nick and I are still tag-teaming on the post (a big thanks to Nick for all his work on the bracket images for the entire tournament)), typing directly into the "Add New Post" box of the back-end of AudioShocker. I'm so grateful to Nick for his help during this tournament, in fact, that I'm even letting his alteration of my column numbering scheme stand. What a whirlwind tournament tournament it's been! Just a couple of weeks ago there was a pile of movies all out there, fighting in their particular styles, but now we're down to a veritable Thunderdome wherein two movies enter, but only one movie leaves. Let's take another look at our finalists:

Bloodsport

It should surprise no one that this movie made it to the finals. The clear number one seed, Bloodsport is the heir-apparent to its own throne. Stripping all the unnecessary plot away from it's father-film Enter the Dragon, Bloodsport in a way really defines what the tournament movie is all about. It's about humans fighting as if they were cocks. And its about aggrandizing the myth of the star. Bloodsport, along with Kickboxer, made Jean-Claude Van Damme's career. And resident JCVD-expert Nick will confirm that the Muscles from Brussels never did better than his first real vehicle, Bloodsport. Additionally, the information that appears on the screen at the end of the movie introduced America to the-man-the-myth-the-legend Frank Dux, kumite motherfucker (or pathological fight-liar), giving Bloodsport a claim to verisimilitude unlike that of any of the other tournament movies we watched.

The Karate Kid, Part III

No one should question The Karate Kid's appearance across the mat from Bloodsport here in the final. You can question whether Part III is really better than the original. In the end, it boils down to this: while the original movie is perhaps a better movie over all, and a truly great sports movie, the final chapter of the trilogy is the better tournament movie. And you might balk at even that, since the tournament figures more prominently in the original than in Part III. But look at two crucial aspects of Part III's tournament structure that make it unique:

-- Conflict between the student and the master. In all the other tournament movies, the protagonist is out to prove the validity of his or her fighting ability, and almost always to pay homage to the training of his master. There is typically some kind of fighting-centric lesson learned (embrace all styles, there's always an out, etc.), but in KKIII, the lesson that the master is trying to impart -- that you don't have to fight at all -- is ignored and railed against by the student. The master still turns out to be right in the end, but not before having to acquiesce to the student.

-- Training with the enemy. In no other tournament does the protagonist go out and train with the bad guy. Terry Silver is an absolutely fantastic villain (B-movie stock, for sure, but nonetheless) to train with. Terry's Quicksilver Method, pernicious as it is, has remained in my own memory ever since I first saw this movie back in 1989.

These points alone show the worthiness of Part III to be in the finals. But also, the fact that the movie features two grown men trying to terrorize an (ostensibly) 18-year-old kid's life is absolutely amazing. Their entire goal is to put Cobra Kai dojos all over California, and that's about it. Efficient, gripping, amazing.

THE FINAL FIGHT

Before finally declaring a winner here, the committedly culturological side of me also needs to point something else out: Bloodsport appeared in 1988, The Karate Kid, Part III in 1989. This is no coincidence. At the root of all the American-learns-Asian-martial-art (and I use "Asian" here fully aware of the ridiculousness of the notion that we can use a single word like that to describe the great variety of cultures in that part of the world; I use "Asian" here in line with the way it's actually used in movies like Bloodsport) plots is the cultural need to come to terms with the three consecutive wars that the US waged against various Eastern foes (Japan, Korea, Vietnam), ending with the ruination-machine that was the Vietnam War. I've discussed this before, in the JCVD roundtables, so I won't belabor the point, but these movies represent the end of the span of years that Hollywood spent trying to come to terms with the Vietnam War. Most people really see this work being done by movies like Rambo, and the even-more-archetypal Missing in Action, but the tournament movies (and movies like Kickboxer) are on the same arc, if perhaps in a slightly subtler way (that's right! who'd've guessed it, that anything about a tournament movie could be subtle).

And The Karate Kid, Part III, as a decade-ending, trilogy-concluding, B-movie cashgrab, represents, in many ways the end of the Vietnam vet as karate expert genre. John Kreese and Terry Silver, buddies from the same platoon in 'Nam, help each other out, though they've both clearly been heinously scarred by their military experience, having been driven to severe mania and psychopathy. And they're terrorizing a kid that could have been their own son, had they not been stuck in a jungle halfway across the globe. Daniel LaRusso represents everything they hate about America: a spoiled kid who didn't have to fear the draft, never had to fight for his country or watch his buddies die, and -gasp- has befriended an actual Asian. And, to my mind, all of this shines through the movie despite its melodrama.

In the same way, Frank Dux represents the military veteran that has found a better way to survive the US's war history. He not only convinces a master to train him in the ways of the East, but then goes there and wins (this arc being made even clearer with the chanting of "The White Warrior" in Kickboxer), and then beats the Asians at their own game.

So the winner is...

There really is very little at stake in the Karate Kid, Part III. Sure, it sucks for the baddies that their t-shirts all get thrown back at them, and sure, Daniel LaRussa has managed to stick up for himself yet again, and maybe all us viewers learned something along the way as well. But Frank Dux in Bloodsport is fighting on behalf of an entire nation. Even though the using-the-kata-to-win ending of KKPIII is awesome in its purity (and has better final fight music), nothing can top the final fight of Bloodsport, the quivering of Jean Claude Van-Damme's not-yet-ravaged-by-fame face, the mighty power of his punch. However, if it came down, out of all sixteen of these tournament movies, to which movie I'd be most likely willing to watch at any given time, I'd have to go with The Karate Kid, Part III, because it really is the most entertaining of all these movies, the most re-watchable, the most useful as a pop-cultural reference. Is that enough, though, to grant it victory? I don't know...

thus...

The grueling battle ends with victory for: Bloodsport!

Tournament Movie Tournament WINNER: