Random Thoughts

Pink Floyd Sues EMI Over Online Revenues

ERTorre — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:10:31 GMT

Times change, don't they?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/pink-floyd-emi-battle-gro_n_491696.html

It's fair to say that the band Pink Floyd is one of the all time best selling musical acts ever. But even they have to deal with the new reality of the music industry. As convenient and great as it is to have your entire music library on a rectangular device not much bigger than a wallet, it also presents those pesky unintended consequences.

Music is far too easy to post online and "share" illegally. ITunes and Amazon have made it possible for people to simply buy one or two songs and ignore the rest of an artist's album (sometimes, I'll readily acknowledge, this can be for the best. There have been plenty of albums I've bought that, in the end, only featured one or two songs I've liked. Red Ryder's As Far As Siam is perhaps one of the more prominent examples, at least to me, of this).

And these problems are spilling to other artistic endeavors. Films are showing up online for illegal download even as they first hit (or before they first hit!) the theaters. Books are also showing up (I've mentioned before the heartbreak of finding that my own novel, Mechanic, showed up at one of those file sharing services and has been downloaded a criminally large amount of times...potential earnings for a work I sweated plenty on creating that I've subsequently lost out on).

I don't know where we'll eventually wind up regarding earnings artists should be making off their works. The cat, as they say, is out of the bag now and its almost impossible to police all the file sharing services out there, just as it is also difficult for artists, even well known artists such as Pink Floyd, to deal with the company they work for.

As for that Red Ryder song? Find it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9852hq0W0

The Wachowskis Brothers new film details...?

ERTorre — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:53:00 GMT

When I walked into the original The Matrix, its fair to say I was totally blown away by what I saw. Sure, there were points one could quibble with, but the action was intense and well designed, the destruction massive, and the excitement palatable.

Then came the sequels.

The only sequels more discouraging and disappointing than those were, perhaps, Superman III and IV.

Worse, the films they have been involved in, with perhaps the exception of V for Vendetta (I have it on Blu Ray AND DVD and I have yet to see the damn thing!), have earned considerable critical scorn, including their last film, Speed Racer.

Well, apparently the brothers (now brother and sister) have been working, very secretly, on another project. And it sounds, to say the least, rather...odd:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/10/jesse-ventura-also-filmed-role-in-secret-wachowski-brothers-futuristic-war-movie/

Truly, I don't know what to make of this. Will it be a war movie with inserted commentaries from other personalities? Are they using the feelings people have about the Iraq war to create "realistic" commentary about their fictional work? Time will tell...

Lost: Dr. Linus

ERTorre — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:32:54 GMT

Last night's latest episode of Lost, Dr. Linus, had plenty of good going for it, along with some bad.

The good: The parallel universe displayed Ben Linus, who had been portrayed often as a very, very nasty piece of work, was capable of good. Remarkably, the "real" island story also showed the same, as found himself in a situation wherein his lies could not free him.

As I had mentioned before, I suspect that what we're seeing in this last season of Lost is, simultaneously, the conclusion and the epilogue. The conclusion to the story is what is happening on the island. The epilogue (or, if you want, the "happy ending") is what we're seeing unfold in that parallel world. Thus far, and with the exception of the Kate story (which ended inconclusively) and the Sayid story (which also felt like an opening salvo to a bigger story), all the parallel universe episodes have presented our familiar characters experiencing positive outcomes.

Meanwhile, on the island (and this is the bad), it's obvious the producers weren't kidding when they said Lost was influenced by Stephen King's novel The Stand. When that was first mentioned many months ago (and, sorry, I cannot recall exactly where I read it), I couldn't understand what they were talking about. The Stand, a story involving the end of the world and "good" and "bad" sides joining for one final battle, seemed as far removed from Lost as possible. However, as the last sentence I just wrote indicates, it appears we're going exactly in this direction.

There is the fake-Locke side and there is the Jack Shephard side, and it appears we're heading to a major "Stand"-like confrontation.

And I couldn't be more disappointed if indeed this is the case.

Why? Because Lost has, despite some obvious influences and references, been an incredibly original and surprising show. It has defied expectations and confounded even while elaborating/provide answers to the questions it poses. And to wind down with what could conceivably be a "good" versus "bad" grouping...I don't know.

It feels...weak.

Like the producers ran out of ideas and decided to simply use the framework of something that came before to end this whole thing.

But, despite saying this, I'll try to keep an open mind. Perhaps they have a few rabbits up their sleeves yet...

Interested in hearing The Runaways soundtrack?

ERTorre — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:19:19 GMT

Not a download, rather a free (and legal) way of perusing the soundtrack album, should you be interested in purchasing it when it is released:

http://www.spinner.com/new-releases#/2

(I'm certain this will be available only for a limited time).

Ah...Florida

ERTorre — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:07:14 GMT

If it wasn't for the (usually) beautiful weather, I'd wonder what I'm doing here...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/08/wtf-florida-film-incentive-bill-could-deny-tax-credits-to-films-with-non-traditional-family-values/

Top 10 Musical Supergroups

ERTorre — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:53:33 GMT

You know, its been a while since presenting someone's "Top 10" list. Here, Time magazine offers their list of Top 10 Musical Supergroups, and it isn't quite what you're thinking...

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1970620_1970637,00.html

I have to give them credit for thinking outside the box with this list. I figured for sure we'd see some of the standards (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, etc.).

Instead, we're presented with a list of bands that featured already big names coming into this mileu. The list is certainly interesting!

Anamorph (2007) a belated review

ERTorre — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:16:33 GMT

So I'm feeling pretty damn sick over the weekend and, as the illness drains from my body and I'm feeling up to some light TV fare, I turn the television on and, on the IFC channel (or was it Sundance?!) a movie begins, entitled Anamorph. The movie is from 2007 and has nothing at all to do with the kiddie shows featuring a similar title. It's also hardly what I call "light TV fare".

In fact, this is an overly ambitious film that can be, accurately alas, billed as something of a rip off of both Se7en and Fight Club. However, lest I sound too critical right off the bat, it does also feature plenty of food for thought on its own, even if its influences are there.

The movie features Willem Defoe as Stan Aubray, a NY detective who is currently something of an introverted...weirdo. He lectures at a school while (barely) working at the department. Five years before he was involved in the "Uncle Eddie" serial killer case, and it now appears that "Uncle Eddie" might be back. But things aren't always what they seem...

Before I get into more details, let me put out a clear SPOILER warning for what follows. It's almost impossible to get into details of this film without giving away (or analyzing) elements that unfold as the movie progresses. Suffice it to say, if the above very brief description of the movie makes you interested in seeking it out, do so. Otherwise, beware the SPOILERS that follow...

Still there?

Ok, here we go:

I enjoy almost all types of films, but often those that make me think, or rather those that don't spell everything out, intrigue me. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic film in that respect. There is little dialogue but there is SO much story presented. But you, as the viewer, have to connect the dots. The same goes for Mulholland Dr., perhaps my favorite David Lynch film. I was absolutely confused by what was going on until we arrived at the audition scene. Suddenly, I understood what Mr. Lynch was doing, and the film became, at least to me, absolutely fascinating.

With Anamorph we start with what appears to be your typical serial killer situation. The serial killer is brilliant. The serial killer poses his victims in increasingly bizarre scenarios. The killer appears to be "talking" to his pursuer, bringing him into his insane world.

But, as it turns out, these "standard" perhaps even cliched serial killer conventions hide a deeper story. As mentioned before, "Uncle Eddie" first showed himself five years before. Through the course of the movie, we find that a group of cops, including Defoe's Stan, thought they knew who the killer was. They broke into his house to arrest the suspect and one of the cops, thinking the suspected "Uncle Eddie" was holding a gun (he wasn't) shot him dead.

And the "Uncle Eddie" crimes suddenly ceased.

For five years.

But when new victims appeared, things became muddy. Was Stan, the lead investigator in the original case, wrong in fingering who "Uncle Eddie" was? Did the raid five years before kill an innocent man? If so, were these new killings the work of "Uncle Eddie" or were they the works of a copycat killer? And what exactly happened to the last female victim of "Uncle Eddie" some five years before? Whatever it was, the young woman's death and fleeting flashbacks and dialogue suggest Stan and this woman had a very strong relationship.

What follows are more victims, including one of the original officers on Stan's group, and hidden messages in the scene of each crime. Anamorph, as it turns out, relates to clues left behind by the killer. In this case, he is referring to old paintings that, when viewed head on, reveal an image, but when looked at from a severe angle, a hidden image within the painting becomes apparent. Thus, our killer is hiding clues in his artfully designed slaughters.

Which should also clue you in that we're dealing with a movie with hidden meanings, as well.

As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Stan may have dirtier hands in this whole affair than is first apparent. To begin, and as mentioned before, he has flashbacks to the events of five years before, from the raid to the last murder attributed to "Uncle Eddie", the young woman Stan had some kind of vague relationship to. In the flashback to that last murder, Stan arrives at the scene of the crime after the fact. She lies on the dock beside the water. However, later in the film, Stan recounts to the woman's friend that HE pulled her out of the water, that HE held her until she let out her last breath. Yet clearly in his earlier flashbacks Stan appears to arrive AFTER she's removed from the water. Adding further confusion to the whole thing is that later still in the film, Stan appears to have flashbacks of the woman being stabbed and falling into the water.

Did HE kill the woman?

The implication seems to be that this is the case. But where the film ultimately, sadly, fails is that too much is left for the viewers to sort out, and details are left so vague that arguments can be made for several alternatives. For example, one could assume that Stan had an affair with this woman, and it went sour while he was investigating the original "Uncle Eddie" crimes. Now (and I'm guessing here) it is possible, perhaps even probable, that Stan killed the woman and made it look like it was the work of "Uncle Eddie". After all, his police task force already had an idea who "Uncle Eddie" was. After Stan commits this crime, his group raids the suspected "Uncle Eddie" house and the man is killed, thus "resolving" the crimes without anyone suspecting that Stan performed that last act...

...and there my theory goes bad.

For you see, if this was indeed the case, then Stan, to cover his tracks, would/should be the one to kill the suspected "Uncle Eddie" in the raid. After all, Stan wouldn't want the man taken alive. The suspect might admit to all the crimes he committed but that last one, and given Stan's hinted relationship with the last victim, wouldn't the police begin to eye him as a possible suspect in that particular crime? But the fact is that Stan DOES NOT kill the suspected "Uncle Eddie". Another cop does it.

So the mind wanders again...Perhaps Stan IS "Uncle Eddie", and the man who has appeared after a five year absence is, effectively, a copycat "Uncle Eddie", albeit one that knows Stan was the original. But that also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The crimes are so damn elaborate that it seems impossible someone could simply copy this idea. And, further, if Stan was the real "Uncle Eddie", then wouldn't he have figured out the copycat and his methodology a lot quicker?

Add to the mix at least one character, an art dealer, who may or may not be a figment of Stan's imagination and you've got even more confusion.

But despite all these criticisms, I still have to admit the film kept me there, watching it to its (admittedly vague) ending. As such, I would give this film a recommendation with a very big caution: While it is well made and will draw you in, the journey ultimately leads to such a vague ending that it can't help but cause irritation. If you're still curious to see it, do so. But this is one case where I can't help but wish the filmmakers offered more solid clues as to what path they wanted the viewers to follow.

Billy Corgan interview details

ERTorre — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:32:32 GMT

If you're curious, a review from CNN of the coming Rolling Stone an interview with Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins, and some of the juicier details found within:

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/05/billy-corgan-on-pumpkins-split-jessica-simpson/?hpt=Sbin

What is curious about this comes later, with the reader comments, some of which are strongly for and others very stongly against. Same goes for the preview article at Rolling Stone (which was, I'm assuming, the basis for the CNN article):

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2010/03/03/billy-corgan-on-pumpkins-split-loving-jessica-simpson-preview-the-story/

I find the comments curious, to say the least.

Does Billy Corgan have an ego? Is it out of control? Perhaps. But many of my favorite creative works, be they in film or literature or music, were created by people who had...quirks, and just because the person behind the work of art may be someone you have issues with doesn't mean the work they create isn't worth enjoying.

I think Billy Corgan's is a tremendously talented individual and he has made some truly great works of music (count me among those who thinks Adore was a great album, although I'd probably say their "best" album was Melon Collie...but that's just me) and I'm still interested in hearing his new stuff.

Further, I enjoyed the Zwan album quite a bit. I thought, however, Billy Corgan's solo album wasn't all that interesting and Zeitgeist, while a decent enough return for the band, erred in releasing all those variant albums with one or two alternate tracks. In the end, I thought the best song from that album was Ma Belle, but that song can only be found on one of the variant albums, a pretty bad deal for anyone interested in picking this up. Mr. Corgan's latest effort after the American Gothic mini-LP, the song a month (for free!) Teargarden by Kaleidyscope has been, after three songs, interesting, but I'm holding back hearing it fully until I have several songs (well, at least 4-5) to sample. I just don't want to burn myself out with one song, then do the same with the next, etc.

I guess for me, the bottom line is this: what difference does it really make whether Mr. Corgan has an ego or not? Ultimately, no one is forcing you to listen to his music, whether he's a great guy or not.

If listening to his music is disagreeable, you can always turn off the stereo/radio/iPod/etc. off.

What killed the Dinosaurs?

ERTorre — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:15:11 GMT

An interesting article about the debates regarding the extinctions of the dinosaurs. A group of prominent researchers have pulled together all their data and think they have the answer:

http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/scientists-reaffirm-asteroid-theory-in-dinosaur-deaths/19383600?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fscientists-reaffirm-asteroid-theory-in-dinosaur-deaths%2F19383600

As I said, interesting stuff, even if you're not intimately involved in the scientific process. Further, enjoyed the skeptic's take on the conclusions, as well as the counter arguments.

No love for Human Target?

ERTorre — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:52:39 GMT

Sometimes these things happen: A new show premieres, goes through many episodes, and audiences appear to give it a collective shrug.

I have heard almost nothing about Human Target since it premiered. Based on a DC Comic co-created by the legendary Len Wein, the show is coming back after a brief hiatus with new episodes.

Now, I haven't seen all the previously aired episodes yet (time constraints...I still haven't watched so much as a second of this season's 24, either!), but based on the first two, Pilot and Rewind, this is a fun, if not the most super-realistic, action adventure show.

There are differences between the show and the comic, and those who are fans of the printed version of Christopher Chance may balk at the TV show's changes. In the comics (especially the most recently published ones) Chance is a master of disguise who very intimately takes on the roles of his employers. He "becomes" a human target because he becomes the intended victim. In the TV show, at least in these two episodes, he simply remains close to the intended target/victim. Close enough to sniff out the villains intending to do the victim harm.

As I said before, the show is certainly not one of the most realistic around. In the Pilot episode, Chance and the potential victim fashion a functional parachute in a few seconds flat. In Rewind, we have Chance flipping an airliner as if it were a WWII fighter. This later sequence is particularly silly because it makes no sense for many reasons. First, can a bulky airliner actually be "flipped"? Secondly, and even more importantly, the need for flipping the plane is to get it closer to higher, faster moving air so they could extinguish a fire inside the aircraft. Why not simply raise the plane's altitude until it is within this "faster moving" air? And, seriously, how much faster can this air possibly be going that it alone can extinguish the fire?

But having said all that, this is a show that pushes the envelope of silliness yet has a trio of likable protagonists and you push the silliness aside, accept it, and enjoy the ride.

At least I did for the those first two episodes.

Yet more on the Oscars...again with the undeserving films...

ERTorre — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:42:36 GMT

Found this article regarding what the author feels are the "10 worst injustices" in Academy Award history:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/7360378/Oscars-2010-the-10-worst-injustices-in-Academy-Award-history.html

As I've said before, hindsight is a great thing, and what feels like the right choice at that time can, over the course of years, fade away into insignificance while another work rises above.

This is certainly the case of 1941's Citizen Kane versus How Green Was My Valley. The later film won the Academy Award and the former didn't. Of course, few today recall How Green Was My Valley. Granted, the film has its fans and reviews of it are generally very, very positive. However, that doesn't change the fact that many consider Citizen Kane the best film ever made!

More on Oscars...pandering

ERTorre — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:16:23 GMT

Arguably the most memorable -and by far controversial- sequence in Tropic Thunder was the so called "full retard" bit, wherein Robert Downey Jr. tells Ben Stiller about the...uh...finer points regarding receiving kudos for your acting while playing someone with developmental...issues.

The sequence was humorous because it was like a guided missile hitting its target with pin point precision, and made people look back at certain movies (such as Radio, which may well have been one of the bigger, most obvious targets of the gag) in a far more humorous light.

But lest we set our sights too narrowly, there have been other instances wherein it appeared actors purposely try stretching themselves and act in a role where they (perhaps) hoped the Academy, and audiences, would reward them. In roles that perhaps on paper looked grander than they ultimately appeared on the big screen. In roles destined to never quite reach the heights hoped for...

The link below takes you to Eric Hynes' Slate article "12 high-wire performances that pandered to the academy but didn't even get a nomination". Many of his choices are most apt.

http://www.slate.com/id/2246557/

Smashing Pumpkins...song #3

ERTorre — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:02:05 GMT

I genuinely thought Billy Corgan and company (whoever the rest of the band is at this point) had given up on presenting free copies of their songs on a monthly basis (it has been more, I believe, than a month since the second song appeared).

The third song is called "A Stitch In Time" and is available, along with the other two songs, for free (legally!) at:

http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/

Lost: Sundown

ERTorre — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:23:00 GMT

There have been those (like Entertainment Weekly's Jeff Jenson) who have offered great praise for last night's Sayid-centric episode of Lost.

Alas, I'm not going that route.

Was it me, or did the whole thing feel way, waaaay too forced? Sayid goes from being a good guy with some very heavy baggage (he was an Iraqi torturer. If you recall the first season of the show, he was presented as quite reluctant to use those skills on Sawyer) to SPOILER!!! a very, very bad guy.

All in the span of a few minutes and one conversation with anti-Locke.

I know he was tempted. I know his faith in the people at the temple was low to begin with (and even lower after he did what the leader of the temple asked him to do). But the way he so quickly turned on his principles for Locke's offered temptation felt...forced. Now, I know, I know, I'm not one of the writers of the show. I have no ownership of his character and, should the producers wish to have him walking the island in a clown outfit in the next episode, who am I to say they're wrong?

But after all these years, as a viewer you get a certain understanding of the characters and, when they do something that feels wrong, there better be a damn good reason for it.

Consider Sayid's actions in this episode versus those of Harold Perrineau's Michael in season 2's concluding episode "Live Together, Die Alone". When Michael goes very, very dark, we find it is because he wants to save his son's life as well as, selfishly, get off the island. However, as revolting as those actions were, we could understand -while not condone- his desperation.

I don't feel the same with what Sayid does here.

Yes, he very much loves the woman he lost, and obviously misses her. Further, he has plenty of reason for disliking the people of the temple (especially their leader)...its just that, how does he know anti-Locke will be good to his word and somehow bring his lost love back? It seems a bit of a stretch to simply trust his word and murder, in very cold blood, two people and then sit back and watch a whole bunch of others get murdered, on the off-chance that he might get his lost love back. Was there more to his meeting with anti-Locke? Was there something anti-Locke showed him to prove he could do what he said?

Or has Sayid simply lost all humanity? Maybe future episodes will clarify this.

Btw, the parallel-universe story was engaging, and the first to present a genuine "what the hell?" moment at its end. I'm curious to see where that goes!

How to suss out bad tach predictions

ERTorre — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:16:49 GMT

Fascinating article from Slate magazine concerning wrong headed predictions about the future, and why they might be made. Particularly interesting are the thoughts on Clifford Stroll's 1995 prediction that the internet wouldn't amount to anything:

http://www.slate.com/id/2246515/pagenum/all

More undeserved Oscars...

ERTorre — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:03:09 GMT

...and this time they focus on actors:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/unsatisfying-oscar-winner_n_482975.html

I have to return to the fact that sometimes, in the so-called "heat of the moment", you feel for a certain thing and, over time, these good feelings may evaporate entirely. Of the list presented, one has to look hard at Cuba Gooding Jr. for Jerry Maguire. I suspect that, even if you feel he was very good in this particular role, you can't help wonder how he won over William H. Macy in Fargo. (While I thought Edward Norton was pretty damn good in Primal Fear, the movie really let me down about halfway through. Can't give too many specifics as I only saw it once back when it was originally released, only that I have a vague recollection the film became more ludicrous as it went along)

Still, an interesting conversation piece.

Will oversea fans save FlashForward?

ERTorre — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:39:08 GMT

After seeing the first half of season 1, I find myself stubbornly gray about the prospect of more FlashForward. On the one hand, there are intriguing aspects to the show. On the other hand, and unlike Lost (the show it strives mightily to emulate, even taking two of the actors from that drama over to them), the characters and situation aren't quite as interesting, their obstacles not quite as dangerous, as the island adventure.

Nonetheless, after watching (finally!) the final of the first half episodes, I found that while I wasn't hellbent to see more FlashForward, neither was I so disappointed in the product that I wanted to drop it entirely. Of course, the bottom line with any TV show are the ratings, and FF's ratings, at least in the U.S., have plummeted. However, there might be hope for fans of the show, as it appears to be watched elsewhere...

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/03/01/will-overseas-fans-save-abcsflashforward/

Star Trek: How It Should Have Ended

ERTorre — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:36:01 GMT

An amusing entry into the "How it should have ended" field. Particularly loved the bit beginning at 1:10.

> > >

Burn Notice: Good Intentions

ERTorre — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:23:58 GMT

As I was watching it last night (thank you, DVR), Good Intentions, the second to last episode of season 3 of Burn Notice, had something about it that felt...odd.

It was a good episode, don't get me wrong (in fact, it was pretty damn good, which is why this show remains one of my favorites), but still, something about it was off.

After the show was over, it hit me: Jeffrey Donovan's Michael Weston, the protagonist, was strangely absent from the major goings on within this episode. Burn Notice has created a certain pattern for itself. There is usually a "big" plot that we see in bits and pieces throughout the season and an "individual" plot which occupies each (you guessed it) individual episode. The "big" plot involves Weston figuring out what a British assassin is up to (this was pretty much revealed in this episode and served to lead us into this week's season finale), while the "individual" plot involved a very clever kidnapper (24's Tony Almeida, actor Carlos Bernard) whose reasons for turning to crime wind up being quite heartfelt.

Given the fact that we had a pretty big guest star in the episode in the form of Carlos Bernard, it was rather surprising that there isn't even one scene wherein Weston and the kidnapper interact (the only time they meet, in fact, and without getting too SPOIILERY, is at the end of the episode when Weston hauls him out of a fire. However, I suspect that Bernard wasn't even there when the sequence was filmed, that the person Donovan carried out (we never really see his face at that point) was an extra or double). There are only two other scenes where Weston and Bernard's character were "close" together, when Weston follows Bernard to a bridge (he's very far in the distance and I doubt the actual actor was there) and at a restaurant. The restaurant scene never showed a long shot of the group together, and every shot of Bernard in the restaurant was close up, which meant that he could have been in a studio doing those shots well before or after Donovan's Michael Weston showed up.

In the end it means little, I suppose, that the two actors never actually interacted in the episode. Perhaps their schedules didn't fit. Perhaps the producers were running late with the season finale and had to use up more of Donovan's time and therefore were forced to cut his appearances in this second to the last episode. Whatever happened, the people behind the scenes managed to pull something good out of what might have been a pressure situation.

Regardless, while the episode itself was enjoyable (and I love love love the quote (I hope I'm not mangling this too much) "When trying to get into a business, a clipboard is often as good as a skeleton key"), it remains a strange one, at least IMHO.

But I'm still very much looking forward to the season finale...

> > >

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

ERTorre — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:39:23 GMT

What is it with books that are pretty well written, pretty engrossing, yet seem to let you down when all is said and done?

A short time ago (you can read it here) I reviewed Glasshouse, a science fictional mystery/action novel that ended with such a big, BIG hole in its plot that it was difficult for me to understand how the author had missed it.

Seven days later, and after letting it sit on my shelf for a while, I decided to give The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a try. The book has a seriously fascinating background. Author Stieg Larsson, a journalist from Sweden, delivered three novels (this was the first) and, before they any were published (the third and last of them, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest will be available in the U.S. on May 25th), died.

A background story like this was bound to draw interest, and early reaction to the first novel was quite positive. This word of mouth prompted me to buy the first book in the series, but it wasn't until a couple of days ago I finally sat down and read it.

Like Glasshouse, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (for brevity's sake, I'll refer to it as TGWTDT) was a good read. In some ways, its central mystery reminded me of Fredric Brown's far superior The Far Cry, which I've strongly recommended before (check that out here). TGWTDT focuses on a crime committed years before, and our protagonist(s) solving of this crime.

But what ultimately hurts TGWTDT are things that are apart from the story itself.

As I noted before, Stieg Larsson, the book's author, was a journalist. I suspect that TGWTDT's main character, journalist Mikael Blomkvist, is a thinly disguised proxy for Mr. Larsson (or, as James Cameron has recently made the term popular, an avatar). His character and his situation (and life in general) is presented as such a fantasy that at times it took me away from the novel's story.

Allow me to backtrack just a little bit: When I was much younger, some of the first "adult" novels I read and enjoyed were those by Clive Cussler. Specifically, I was blown away by Vixen 03. Many years later, when my wife was looking for something to read, I recommended she try the book. She had a far different reaction to it than I did as a youth. She was totally turned off by the novel's main character, Dirk Pitt. Author Clive Cussler presented Dirk Pitt, she felt, as if he were some kind of God: irresistible to women, incapable of doing any harm (or anything wrong), and pretty much the greatest guy on the planet. Shocked by her statement, I re-read the novel after all those years and, to my great surprise, she was right. As a young man I missed it, but as an older reader it was so obvious...and annoying...the way Clive Cussler went out of his way to mythologize the character. From that point on, I simply couldn't read any Clive Cussler book.

Sadly, the character of Mikael Blomkvist falls into that camp. Author Larsson presents him as this great guy who women find simply irresistible. Further (and most unbelievably), he's had a 20 or so year sexual and business relationship with a married woman. The woman's husband knowns of the affair but he's an artist, so therefore doesn't mind "sharing" his wife (how likely is that?!). But that, my friends, isn't enough. In the course of the book Mr. Blomkvist beds another couple of women and gets sideways/longing looks from at least another few. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude, but these sexual (fantasy) forays became as distracting as they are unbelievable (trust me, Blomkvist doesn't deliver any superlative seduction lines to the women he encounters, either!). But even if we ignore this aspect of the novel, we stumble upon the next part: Blomkvist is some kind of journalistic knight errant, out to slay the financial scoundrels, and becomes a victim of one of his own reports. He needs to cleanse himself, to show he's on the side of right, and by the end of the novel he does just that in the most magnificent way possible, further presenting him as the everyman Superman.

The second "main" character in the novel, Lisbeth Salander, is a far more fascinating character. She's an emotionally troubled 24 year old who also happens to be a terrific computer hacker (this part of the novel, sadly, reminded me of one of the more lucid criticisms offered regarding, of all things, figure skater films, which I talked about here. The point that author made is that in those films the "good" figure skater has some kind of "innate" talent in this sport. Such a thing simply cannot exist.). Salander and her story are, moreso than Blomkvist, the reason I would ultimately recommend the book despite the criticisms presented above. She is such an interesting, unique character that you are drawn to her just as I was drawn away at times from Blomkvist and his too perfect characterizations.

However, (and, SPOILER!!!!) when Salander falls for Blomkvist, I just about lost it. The man, as he himself says in the book, is old enough to be her father, therefore noting any relationship with Salander could be viewed by others as...icky. Besides that, the girl is emotionally unstable and, indeed, even something of a ward of the state. Blomkvist must be aware of at least the emotional "strangeness" of the girld, yet this picture perfect journalist has the girl (of course) fall for him. I guess ordinary moral women (even the emotionally damaged ones) simply can't resist. To make it even worse (if that's possible), it is Salander who subsequently demands (demands!) he sleep with her.

What's our poor picture perfect journalist to do?

This, more than any other event of the book, felt...wrong. Again, I don't want to come off as a prude, but we are dealing with someone who, while she's incredibly resourceful and more than a handful, is still not all there.

Anyway, enough of the bad: What was the good?

Well, the book was reasonably well written although it was clear that we were reading a translation. As such, some passages came off as oddly constructed, but that actually proved beneficial. After all, I wouldn't want to read a novel set in Sweden that "sounds" like it was taking place in New York. The mystery is also good, although again I wouldn't put it up there with Mr. Brown's The Far Cry. The prolonged epilogue could have been trimmed a little, but it also worked reasonably well (this is the part where, after the primary mystery is solved, Blomkvist comes out triumphant against the financial wizard/rogue who messed him up in the book's opening).

So, all in all a recommendation with reservations. I am curious, I admit, to see the Swedish TV version of the book, if only to see how the actress chosen to play Salander handles that particular role. My understanding is that an American version of this novel is also in the works.

Undeserving Best Picture Winners...and the movies they beat

ERTorre — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:46:03 GMT

Of course, the opinions presented relate to the people offering them. But I do find it curious sometimes to consider films that won the Oscar for Best Picture and then compare them to other pictures that were in the running. Sometimes, time has a way of making the original winners/choices look, in retrospect, as the wrong one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/undeserving-best-picture_n_469525.html

A note about Shakespeare In Love vs. Saving Private Ryan: While I would agree that Ryan probably should have won over Shakespeare, the gut-wrenching war picture was also, sadly, quite cliched, at least IMHO. We get not one, but two "slow deaths" of characters, wherein they get to say some emotional things before they pass away. Don't get me wrong: The scenes of battle, particularly the D-Day invasion, were some of the more harrowing footage ever made. I just wish the film itself had risen a bit above certain war movie cliches...

...which brings us to one of the films that SHOULD have won best picture:

Apocalypse Now. It lost to...Kramer vs. Kramer?! While Kvs.K wasn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, and AN was at its best up to the eerie bridge sequence and got a little too convoluted (again, IMHO) once we meet Marlon Brando's Kurtz, I think its a no-brainer which film stood the test of time and emerged as a modern classic.