Posts Tagged ‘Alamo Drafthouse

28
Aug
10

My thoughts on Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World

Poster for Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World; image courtesy of wikimedia.org

When I saw Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World a few nights ago, my first thought was “man, someday I gotta get back in graduate school. If I were working on a dissertation, it could write itself. Throw in Michael Hirschorn’s ‘Quirked Around‘ essay and James McDowell’s ‘Notes on Quirky‘ piece on top of all the other stuff I’ve read about film, feminist media studies, and music culture and be done with it.”

My friend Erik put it differently, but in a more succinct fashion: “it’s nice when they make a movie for me.” A stylish adaptation of a cult comic book series about a young guy who plays bass in a band called Sex-Bob-Omb and has to fight seven exes arcade-style to win the affections of a girl he likes speaks to a lot of people I know. 

This comment interested me. After the screening, my friends and I were talking about our thoughts, which slid into a some musings on how the movie isn’t raking it in at the box office. However, we left a packed audience at the Alamo Drafthouse. Recently, there have been a rash of quirky indie-friendly movies about hip white young people falling in love and/or finding themselves that I was surprised weren’t making piles of cash given how popular they were in Austin (see also Whip It!, Adventureland, and (500) Days of Summer, but note that Scott Pilgrim was released through Universal instead of Fox Searchlight). 

Like desultory twentysomethings, this is hardly a new phenomena. “Cool” cities feed on desultory twentysomethings’ disposable income. Austin has a thriving film community, a varied music scene, and a substantial population of amateur and professional pop culture enthusiasts. Nonetheless, I do think looking at the box office activity of certain cities in relation to gross revenue is an area worth pursuing.

I especially wonder what a bunch of Southern post-grads share with like-minded peers in Toronto. Are we just watching ourselves on screen? And if so, are our daily routines and heterosexual courtship rituals boring whether or not the people in them listen to indie rock or play in bands or fight like arcade avatars with something to prove? God, we’re probably as annoying as mugging hipster celebrities.

This may be a depressing thought, and one I’ll continue to wrestle with until more like-minded productions challenge heterosexuality and music fandom. By my estimate, none of the movies I listed do, including Scott Pilgrim. I wouldn’t even wager that they recontextualize the soundtrack as an ansillary product. 

As John Caldwell discusses in “Critical Industrial Practice: Branding, Repurposing, and the Migratory Patterns of Industrial Texts,” these byproducts indicate how what he refers to as ”critical textual practices” help cultural industry professionals consolidate political and economic power by intervening in cultural formation of media’s significance in that process. Extrapolating this concept for his argument about the use of heavy metal in contemporary horror movies, Joseph Tompkins argues “that film music functions not only as a cross-promotional medium for marketing movies and licensed recordings, but also as a key site for effectively managing and containing processes of consumption (Tompkins 2009, p. 68).” Hence the employment of Beck and lauded producer Nigel Godrich in the architecture of Scott Pilgrim‘s soundtrack, which is just as critical to the movie’s production and reception as the casting and directing.  

Indeed, it’s nice when they make a movie for me, even if I’ve been engineered toward this response.  

Here are my thoughts. First the good stuff:

1. By my estimate, director Edgar Wright pulled off the comic’s style without making it insufferable. As the series modeled itself after manga and 8-bit arcade game graphics and juxtaposed the quotidian daily lives of its characters with a manic tone, this is no small feat. This could’ve been a precious movie on a level surpassing Juno and (500) Days‘ quirk, but I feel it remained grounded by solid performances and Wright’s control. Yes, sometimes this meant that entire passages of the series were lifted for the movie. But it remained faithful to the source material while using a different medium to enhance the storytelling. 

1A. The fight scenes were pretty good. Since I know Hot Fuzz is awesome, I wasn’t so worried about Wright this pulling this off. That said, Wright did a good job incorporating his directing style into the action sequences. After listening to Jody Rosen, Dana Stevens, and June Thomas discuss Sylvester Stallone’s lethargic direction on The Expendables on Culture Gabfest, I remembered the importance of the director – along with the cinematographer and editor – to establish the pacing and framing of action sequences for maximum effect.  

2. Michael Cera did a good job. I was concerned about this casting decision, as Pilgrim is cowardly, impulsive, juvenile, giddy, thoughtlessly cruel, but somehow also charming. If he were younger, I believe Vince Kartheiser — who demonstrates many of these traits in a different fashion as Mad Men‘s Pete Campbell – would have been great in the role.  

Vince Kartheiser's Pete Campbell, a bratty child posing as a businessman; image courtesy of blogs.amctv.com

Cera’s screen persona tends to be defined by reticence, discomfort, displays of grave maturity that belie his age, and being put upon. Scott Pilgrim is supposed to be relentlessly youthful. Cera looks like he’s lived through 45 years of other people’s bullshit. But Cera struck a competent balance between how he’s defined himself and what’s expected of the role. 

3. The comic is largely defined by its supporting cast. Likewise, Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, Anna Kendrick, Aubrey Plaza, and Kieran Culkin are great in their roles. Credit casting director Allison Jones, who’s been responsible for creating several great ensembles. One interesting credit is Parks and Recreation, a show that substantially increased Plaza’s profile.

And now my issues.

1. The movie ends differently than the series, which makes more sense and is considerably more satisfying. In the movie, Pilgrim and ex-girlfriend Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) band together to defeat Pilgrim’s girlfriend Ramona V. Flowers’s seventh evil ex, Gideon Gordon Graves, a weasely venue owner and tastemaker. This was potentially a remnant from the movie’s original ending, which had Pilgrim reconcile with the underaged Chau. In the series’ sixth volume, Pilgrim and Flowers battle Graves. This makes their ultimate reconcilation feel earned, and also serves as an indication that Flowers is kind of a bad-ass. In the movie, however, Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays her as a saturnine pixie dream girl, her arms permanently folded and her mouth always formed into a pout. This brings us to my second issue . . .

2. The female characters are much more interesting in the books. As I mentioned in a previous post, Sex Bob-Omb drummer Kim Pine is my favorite character in the entire series. She’s smart, loyal, talented, resourceful, and unimpressed. She’s also the person who both Pilgrim and Flowers confide in. Here, Alison Pill and the script render her as a lobotomized Ellen Page, only able to play the drums and deliver a pointed quip in deadpan. 

Kim Pine: insert quip here; image courtesy of iwatchstuff.com

Brie Larson plays Envy Adams, one of Pilgrim’s exes who becomes a successful pop star. In volume 3, we learn that Natalie V. Adams is devastated by super-cool Pilgrim’s kiss-off, and reinvents herself largely out of revenge. In doing so, parallels are drawn between Adams and Chau, as well as between Pilgrim and Flowers’ treatment of former lovers. This is barely acknowledged in the movie, yet one of the more interesting aspects of the series.  

"Hi, I'm Envy Adams and I'm barely in this movie"; image courtesy of collider.com

In short, the female characters in the movie are subordinant and passive. This may have trickled into its marketing, best illustrated by the limits of the Scott Pilgrim Avatar Creator. Mine is below, but the folks at Paste created some interesting celebrity avatars.

My Scott Pilgrim avatar, who unfortunately cannot play her white Gibson SG left-handed because her arms are folded. Girl avatars get the passive aloof pose and boys get the active "rock out" pose.

3. Oh, how troublesome difference is here. Race relations are strained. This was actually a problem I noticed in the series. For one, appropriating manga to tell the story of two straight white people falling in love is awkward enough on its own. For another, having Chau be a Chinese Canadian high school student seems to infantilize women and girls of East Asian descent.

In addition, three of Flowers’s exes are men of color. The first is Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), who actually performs a Bollywood-inspired musical number during his battle with Pilgrim. The other two are musical twins Kyle and Ken Katayanagi (Shota and Keita Saito), who only appear in a battle of the bands sequence and have no dialogue. So much for inclusion.

Homosexuality is sidelined as well. Pilgrim’s roommate Wallace Wells (Culkin) is somewhat developed and well-played, but a minor character. Flowers’s ex Roxie Richter (Mae Whitman) is represented as crazy and bitter and identifies as a lesbian. Flowers — like Summer Finn before her — dismisses their time together as merely a phase before helping Pilgrim finish her off.

But I still liked it. As summer popcorn movies go, I certainly enjoyed it more than Inception or Salt. It wasn’t exactly what I’d hoped and it won’t beat The Expendables, which is making a killing at the box office. But perhaps Pilgrim‘s disappointing returns best prove that it’s a movie made for me. But arguing about it potentially suggests my resistence toward having my consumption managed and contained.

10
Dec
09

Lydia Lunch: Diva?

Earlier this week, I went to Music Monday at the Drafthouse. This week’s offering was David Bowie’s 1973 concert feature, Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars, which shows the legendary conclusion of the artist’s breakout tour which went out with a bang at the Hammersmith Odeon. It was directed by D.A. Pennebaker who Dylanologists (snicker) might revere for shooting Don’t Look Back and synth-pop enthusiasts the world over can credit for capturing Depeche Mode’s 1988 Rose Bowl performance in 101. Stardust is a valueable historical document of the artist, his band (particularly guitarist Mick Ronson), and the last days of glam rock, a subgenre that would capture the imaginations of a generation of boys and girls on both sides of the pond.

While I think Pennebaker and his film crew constructed a few minor but unfortunate heterosexist images here (i.e.: showing teenage female fans in a clear state of religious/sexual ecstacy but not pointing the camera at any of the boys that assuredly were in attendance; downplaying the sexual dynamic between Bowie and Ronson’s on-stage interplay by framing Ronson’s extensive solos as a chance for Bowie to change costumes with the help of several female personnel), it cannot be denied that Bowie is a helluva entertainer and an assured diva candidate.

His interest in cultural provocation and reinvention impacted Madonna, who inducted the purposely absent icon into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996. His androgynous look and campy performance style paved the way for like-minded male artists like Prince and Adam Lambert, the latter of whom is apparently too hot for prime time because his orientation has turned queer subtext into text. And finally, his theatrically nasal voice and lyrical wordplay have influenced indie rock singer-songwriters like Dan Bejar of Destroyer to turn odes to girls and books into labrynthine pop.

Oh, and let’s not forget Bowie’s fantastic turn on Extras. I know Andy Millman won’t.     

But all of this means nothing, as I’m going to be focusing on Lydia Lunch, a woman who probably has no use for Bowie or any of his accolades. Fitting in a way, as she’d probably have even less use for being called a diva. While I have no problem declaring her one anyway, I’m also pretty sure she’d tell me to fuck off.

"The fuck is this diva bullshit, Alyx?"; image courtesy of fan-belt.com

For those unfamiliar, Lunch made her mark fronting no wave group Teenage Jesus and the Jerks. Like many of that scene (who’d probably even hate to be referred to as such), this band constantly deconstructed what bands were, what songs were, what music was. Nonetheless, they made an upsetting, exciting scrawl.

And Lunch became imfamous for her confrontational vocal and performance style, something she also brings into her art and written work. Lunch doesn’t sing songs, create installations, make paintings, and write essays and poems so much as disembowel salf-fashioned, sometimes hilarious psychodramas about sex, abuse, death, drugs, and the grotesque implications of image construction. And filth. Always filth.

"Not again!" -- Lydia Lunch, otherwise occupied; image courtesy of flickr.com

On my must-read list; image courtesy of fromthearchives.com

Acerbic and frequently bored, she’s a delightful addition to any music documentary. In fact, she practically saves 2004′s Kill Your Idols, Scott Crary’s otherwise messy attempt to outline the New York downtown scene from the proto-punk offerings of The Velvet Underground and Suicide to the ascendance of then-up-and-coming acts like The Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Liars. Here, she tells her version of the unhistoricizable subgenre that is no wave and strongly endorses against band formation and traditional instrumentation, suggesting kids pick up tubas instead of guitars.

Unfortunately, Crary feels the need to frame his subject in such a way that her heaving bosom is in nearly every shot, which contrasts sharply with the interview footage of Swans’ Michael Gira, which is almost entirely comprised of low-angle head shots. To further pronounce the Citizen Kane indebtedness, Gira’s shot in black and white. Lunch’s breasts apparently required color.

That said, I struggle with Lunch in ways akin to how I struggle with Patti Smith.

Nobody's Patsy; image courtesy of last.fm

On the surface, they’re very similar. They’re both northeastern female underground music-art world figures who made their names blurring filth with art with persona. They also got their start working and aligning with men, sometimes causing me to wonder if they find a particular kinship with men over women, if music historians have overemphasized their work with men, or if they want to absence gender from any discussion of their work, except when they’re making the argument themselves.

Of course, Lunch has worked with a number of women, including Exene Cervenka, Kim Gordon, and Annie Sprinkle. And both women occupy interesting cultural positions that challenge gender roles that line up perfectly with divas. While both women actually employ collaborative processes in their work, the heavy lifting of their male instrumental counterparts is often relegated to the background to emphasize their singularity.

Of course, that I’m doing much of the emphasizing along with generations of like-minded commentators should not be ignored. Instead it should be challenged in terms of how we’re perpetuating the idea that women are better suited to the iconographic role of the solo artist and not toward a further understanding of art- and media-making’s inherently collaborative process and what roles women have, or choose not to have, in it.

Of course, both women seem to like being perceived as cults of personality, which tends to be the realm of the solo artist. Many women have followed, and continue to follow, in this path. We need to keep asking why. I’d like to start by offering up this question: could there ever be a collective of divas working together on a musical project?

Perhaps Lunch and Smith’s configuration as solo artists has something to do with their iffy relationships to feminism (the former instead aligning herself with humanism when she feels its necessary to align with any isms; the latter out-right dismissing feminism).

But one thing I respect about Lunch is her stubborn resolve not to be considered a historical figure. Or an artist. Or a musician. Or a poet. Or a writer. Or a woman sometimes and a human almost never. Because to her, the categorization that inevitably comes from creating or complying with the instation of identity markers create limits on people. Thus, she also resists the entire process of canonization. So I know she’d reject the impetus behind this blog’s assessment of the cultural import behind her personae and body of work.

But canonize I will because, as a feminist, I feel like we have to create a space where we value these sorts of contributions from women and girls. We should also contend the complexities of our art and its political implications. Feminism is tricky and slippery, and most exciting to me when it kind of hurts my head. So is the work of valueable, smart women who will wrestle free from any categorization. Even if I think they’re divas. Even if they think the entire construct (or any construct) is bullshit.

30
Jun
09

See and hear Björk’s “Voltaic”

Björk

Björk

One of the gifts that keeps on giving is Music Mondays at the Alamo Drafthouse. It is one of my favorite things about Austin. Seriously – affordable prices for classic and often rare, out-of-print, or staff-made movies and documentaries about all kinds of music? Can’t beat it.

And have they ever got a treat for you on July 20 (a treat for me as well, as it’s a week before my birthday). That is when they will be showing Björk’s Voltaïc: The Volta Tour Live in Reykjavic and Paris. Tix haven’t gone on sale yet, but keep your eye on it. This one will probably sell out pretty quick. If you don’t live in ATX, here’s a list of places it is playing. You can also suggest a venue if your city isn’t on the itinerary.

And to get yourself amped for the screening, you can also listen to the CD here.

22
Apr
09

How did you celebrate Record Store Day?

So, Sunday was Record Store Day. For the record (haha, unintentional pun, haha), I celebrated it by reshelving my CD collection and putting this blog together. A good way to spend it, I think.

But I also extended my celebrating into yesterday, when I saw I Need That Record at the Drafthouse, sponsored in part by Austin record store End of an Ear.

Hmm. It was okay. It covered its bases:
1. Talk about the emergence of radio in the U.S., starting in the 1920s
2. Talk about Payola
3. Talk about Telecomm Act of 1996, and how much power deregulation gave to major corporations
4. Talk about Wal-Mart and big box chains
5. Talk about the price hike of CD sales starting in the 1990s
6. Talk about Napster
7. Talk about digital technology, and how this has impacted potential consumers’ relationship to the music industry
8. Talk about how this impacts local/independent record stores, and encourage you, the conscientious buyer, to give your money to them
9. Load your documentary with statistical evidence that underlines points 1-8

One thing I’ll give this movie, apart from its noble message, is that it made me wanna go on a tour of the midwest and northeast, which is primarily where all the record stores in this documentary are located (I think I gotta make a trek up to Nashville this summer to check out Grimey’s). Also, the documentary’s brianchild, Brendan Toller, got some indie heavyweights like Ian MacKaye, Thurston Moore, Mike Watt, and (my favorite curmudgeon) Glenn Branca to volunteer their services as talking heads. That’s cool, if for no other reason than to know that maybe me or you (yes, you) can get ten minutes of face time with them to talk about how The Man is evil. Sure, fine. The Man is, in fact, evil. I’m cool with that.

Also, the documentary wove in some neat archival and news footage. Good on you, Toller.

As a documentary, though, it’s a bit film school 101. Toller seems really set on letting you know he can be clever with imagery — if, by clever, you mean putting together collages of pop stars, splicing reels of pre-existing film footage to make fit your piece’s context, and shooting unnecessary, clearly scripted bits of magic realism (there’s a clearly staged gag that involves a snobby record store clerk making fun of some patron’s purchases). I think these conceits weren’t really needed and, if anything, diverted from what he was trying to accomplish.

Also, as a former deejay, I don’t dig how Toller sets up radio to be the enemy of independent stations. Granted, some college stations are corporatized, but some (like good ol’ KVRX) fight hard to stay local and independent. Give them some love! They’re part of community-building too!

But my big feminist itch was WHERE WERE THE WOMEN IN THIS DOCUMENTARY? Seriously. There were only two women interviewed in the entire documentary (one of whom co-owned Trash American Style, a record store in Danbury, Connecticut — I took off my heels and ran barefoot and was still late to the screening, so help me out with her name). I can rattle off the names of least four past and present lady record store clerks within my friend group. And there have gotta be some record stores run by women (if you know of any, or shop at these places, lemme know — I’ll make those stores top priority on my at-this-point hypothetical record store tour). Hell, I’d be cool with some fellow lady music geeks digging through some crates and talking about records they like on camera. And if Thurston Moore gets to be a talking head, why can’t Kim Gordon? I’m not suggesting something as gross as a “Women and Record Stores” documentary — just integrate us into the damn conversation.

This, of course, doesn’t even get into how Caucasian this documentary is, once again emphasizing that music geekery is a white man’s game. If you object to this representation, let Toller know how you feel.





 

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers