Cranky, adorable young men
If you're smart, and hip, and indie and whatever other epithets appended to the youth of to-day, you're already/should be reading Cokemachineglow. I've taken the fact of CMG being balls-out great as self-evident for a while now, but a) never really understood why they didn't have a wider readership, influence or market share, despite being so perfectly on point with their reviews, and b) they don't even make money from this! They have this gorgeous site and a wonderful stable of talented writers and it's all charity, what the fuck! and c) oh wait, I know why they don't have a wider readership, influence or market share.
They're incredibly fucking idiosyncratic.
As patient and avid followers of CMG may have noticed, they have a blag of sorts going now. And much like how many blags turn into self-indulgent community notice boards, CMG has done something similar; one of their latest posts is effectively a rant by David M. Goldstein's on the 2009 World Series. Their latest post? The ever-favourite pastime of Liam Gallagher baiting.
Here's the thing: The Goldstein post is actually pretty fascinating, if you're looking into a virtual spittle-flecked insight into what a Mets fan feels like. And CMG is caustic! Mounting a campaign devoted to building a better world by "castigating one smug fuck at a time" can seem pretty bitter.
But here's the other thing: it is fucking hilarious. The CMG writers are much too funny and much too talented as music reviewers/writers to let themselves down. It's not just technical abilities (seriously, how many writers do you know are even aware of the word 'copacetic'?), but their general melange of urban, urbane angry ironic hipsterdom, which manages to strike that appropriate balance of self- and other-directed anger...and then slides off way into the other-directed anger. Especially at Liam Gallagher (which to be fair, he brought on himself. By being Liam. Gallagher.)
Oh CMG. Please never stop, now or forever.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
It's a pittance, to be sure
But you've sold me!
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be greatfiller material for the blagoblag! Especially given in the light of the recommendations by some people *cough* *cough*
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
I wrote this watching the guilty article in question while flying from Dulles to LAX, and have only just remembered that I finished editing it, sort of. I sent to Simon, who has rightly been pestering me about it for a while now, and realised it would be great
17 Again
It really is hard to describe how terribly bad this movie is. From its insipid scripting to the incredibly vapid acting to outright offensiveness, the movie plumbs the depth of what it is to prostitute yourself to focus groups. The overall thematic is that of a 17-year-old wise beyond his years/has a conscience kinda thing. It doesn’t help that Efron is a crappy, crappy actor for the job, and the scripting is terribly terribly boring.
Witness the witless dialogue (“I’m a lot closer to them than you think.” GROAN. “Why is that new kid waving at me?” “I don’t know, but if he were an apple, he’d be delicious.” BARF) Totally charmless direction (what is this person’s idea of humour? Or characterisation? Or directorial vision?) Scoring that tries to oh so hard to be cinematic; note to who ever is scoring this, quit trying to be John Williams. Painfully clichéd camera/montage work, which climaxes ever so wretchedly with a contrived lightsaber scene.
Zac. Efron. Cannot. Act. He is waaaaay out of his league on this one. He’s a kid, who’s pretending to be a middle-aged guy, who has to pretend to be a kid? He can barely manage ‘kid’. He’s not even very good at basketball! Worse, he’s not even convincing pretending to be good at basketball!
A notable and worthwhile mention to Matthew Perry; he’s a little typecast these days as “Chandler” i.e. bitter, satirical, wittyish one-liner deliveryman, but it’s a role that suits him well, and a role that he plays well. The interaction between Perry and rest of cast is enjoyable, if a little formulaic. Thomas Lennon is also quite good, but I have a feeling that this is only because of contrast with how uncomfortably amateurish Ze Efron is.
So, obviously, though Perry is by far the better actor, they substitute the easy on the eyes (and hopefully easy in all the other ways that matter as well) Efron for the bulk of the movie. There is a lot, a lot, of screentime for him. Yeah, too much. Unless he shows more skin (and it better be egregious amounts of skin), I’m going to keep imagining punching him in his smug, self-satisfied face. NB: the malice may be going a bit far, but fuck it, he’s irritating. I guess I should be charitable in some way, and say that he’s quite good at the physical stuff; stick to the singing and dancing, kid.
What the hell was the point of that opening dance sequence? What the hell is this movie doing? And oh my god do you have to pound the principal idea of the goddamn title into our heads over and over again? We get it, he missed out on being 17.
Incredibly predictable sub-plot about his kid wanting to go out with head cheerleader, complete with jock-bully antagonist who’s fraternizing with the daughter? Check. Oh add a secondary sub-plot with klutzy, kookie sidekick trying to kindle lost romance in irritatingly kitschy ways? Also check. Ironically, Thomas Lennon’s acting and delivery is actually not half-bad, given what he has to work with.
I never, ever, want Zac Efron to ever say the word psychiatrist or bravado ever again. In any context.
Waxing jokes? Really?
Wha…I…No one…You…let…Zac…monologue in the health class scene. What can I possibly say? What’s probably even more horrifying is that this is only the first of many. Many. *shudder*
Aaand then they make fun of geeks. And then gays. How many stereotypes are you going set up and knock down? Do you think that this gives your more interesting? Is this what you think 'diversity' is?
I haven’t finished watching this movie, and nobody needs to. It’s hard to find a reason to see this movie, much less like it; a hackneyed clichéd effort that’s a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. I’m not going to bother cataloging all the its many and severely aggravating sins, or documenting the many many ways this movie is deplorable. Unluckily for me, I was a captive in a pressurized metal tube. Don’t make the same mistake.
ENJOY! It was amusing writing this while sitting next to christian dude from Colorado, who actually seemed to be enjoying the movie. Certainly made him squirm uncomfortably in his seat.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
It is happening, again
It is happening, again
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).
Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.
Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.
Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.
Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)