Extra Kinetic Affect Things

http://www.kineticaffect.com/  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8SYyVs66I&feature=related 

The Effects of Kinetic Affect in Kalamazoo

Disclaimer:  As an acquaintance of Mr. Giron, and Mr. Latimer, and an enthusiast of spoken word I approached this project with an open mind and my intention was to make discoveries.

What is Kinetic Affect? According to the official website it is “just human, real, raw, primal” -Kirk Latimer. “We're not afraid of who we are, of our flaws.” -Gabriel Giron. “We're speaking from the true common denominator. We're all human. Kinetic Affect means coming to terms with who you are.” Kirk Latimer says that Affect is a verb that you can sense and feel, an “emotional motion engine of voice,” and Kinetic Affect is out to Affect people in Southwest Michigan. Gabriel Giron and Kirk Latimer met in April of 2006 as slam competitors. That year they filled two spots on the Kalamazoo Slam team, went to nationals together, and began the dynamic partnership that evolved into Kinetic Affect. Latimer worked as a high school teacher and forensics coach at Portage Central, and Giron was a student at Western Michigan University.

As Kinetic Affect, Giron and Latimer feel partly responsible for what they call the demise of a grassroots spoken word culture in Kalamazoo. “When we were introduced to it,” said Latimer in an interview, “There was a really strong, gritty, dirt-based on the ground poetry group [when the venue changed from Kraftbrau] there started to be a scattering, and the grassroots feel evaporated.” In the same interview Giron brought up veterans of spoken word in Kalamazoo who had been there for years and were leaving as he entered the scene; after two years he and Latimer became veterans and it was then, in part, their responsibility as team members and slam veterans to coach and help continue the community. “It's really up to the people who are in it,” he said, “and when Latimer and I left … we broke the cycle.” Latimer added, “By leaving competition we took some people with us, by accident and then what was left was a disjointed community of poetry.” 

The urge to expand and really connect with different kinds of people initially drew Giron and Latimer away from competition. “Something that we do,” Latimer said, “feels so universal. It's that universality that allows us to expand the work that is done on ground level.” Slam struck Giron as “ground level” because of its limited bar scene audience, score, and gimmicky nature. Giron said, “[Slam] is a gimmick to get people to buy into poetry We've taken, in essence what [Slam originator] Mr. [Mark]Smith wanted. We get people to buy in.” 

Latimer and Giron are interested in reinventing that community of poetry, and bringing it back together. Kalamazoo College Writer in Residence Di Seuss says of Kinetic Affect, “What I especially admire is how they've consistently connected community service with their writing practice. They have linked the performative with social change, and that is a great example for every writer in Kalamazoo.”

They have established themselves as respected spoken word artists in Kalamazoo, and have begun to give back. The creation of a non profit called Speak It Forward Inc. was a huge step in a process of establishing a strong educational and philanthropic place in Southwest Michigan. They model not only a strong creative partnership, but a phenomenal friendship, for example Latimer and Giron finish each others sentences and half joke about seeing each other more than their respective significant others. As Latimer put it, Kinetic Affect is two men with one voice.

The creative mission, according to Giron on the official website, is to create poetry that, “makes you want to get up out of your seat and cheer,” and to take poetry to another level in order to truly connect with people. Latimer voiced it in an interview as, “really just saying the things that need to be said.” and Giron expanded by saying that, “we talk about a vehicle … to kind of sneak statements in. Our Trojan Horse is spoken word poetry.” What they're sneaking in are not lessons— though they sometimes come across that way with a lot of yelling and declaration in their performance— but moments of truth and self discovery. 

Kinetic Affect's mission is to seek out the alternative voices— whoever the alternative voices are— and make the mainstream hear them. Right now, Speak It Forward Inc. is collaborating with Mylestone Project, founded by Sean Washington of Battle Creek, which is aimed at helping families grow together and cope with emotional turmoil. Their collaboration is called the Out Loud Initiative and Latimer and Giron work with youths on expression through the creation and performance of spoken word, Latimer says, “[t]his process is aimed at helping youth find new and effective ways to express themselves to help reduce recidivism.”

Although Kinetic Affect is not is not about slam and competition, it is very important to Latimer and Giron that they were able to come back to Kalamazoo Slam Master Tracey Smith four years later and say, “we have a home [for the Kzoo slam],” because they said, “with out Tracey there wouldn't be a Kinetic Affect.” 

Kinetic Affect's version of the gimmick gets people to buy in— the monthly two night shows usually play to a packed house— but they do exclude the democratic element that is intrinsic to Slam poetry. In “The Cultural Politics of Slam Poetry:Race, Identity and the Performance of Popular Verse” Slam scholar Susan B.A. Sommers-Willet argues that Slam's emphasis on diversity, inclusion and democracy results in a national “pluralism” among poets. It fosters poetry in unconventional venues and effectively places the audience in the role of critic. 

Latimer and Giron may be two men with one voice, and they adamantly express that they are speaking from their own experiences, but they also consciously present and represent an educational model. The role of educator, as Latimer attests to in both an interview and poems is a huge responsibility, with a lot of pressure. Even though they have removed their audience from the active critic role, Kinetic Affect seems consistent in their endeavor to make the alternative voices heard. They are accomplishing that by remaining true to their own voices and also by helping to provide support and space for all different kinds of spoken word.

Sources:

Primary: Interview with Kirk Latimer and Gabriel Giron at 246 Burdick; Material from the official Kinetic Affect Website

Secondary: Interview with Di Seuss; Kinetic Affect live performance at 246 Burdick; Kinetic Affect Poems on You tube; reviews from the Kalamazoo Gazette; “The Cultural Politics of Slam Poetry: Race, Identity and the Performance of Popular Verse in America” by Susan B.A. Somers-Willet

"Crazy Heart" Feeling the Details

In 'Reading Life' Dwight Garner says of “Crazy Heart” the novel, “it’s got a deep kind of weatherbeaten charm that can’t be faked, and the love story at its core is genuinely moving. I was sorry when the thing was over.” Genuine,weather beaten charm was the most notable element of the 2010 movie version “Crazy Heart,” starring Jeff Bridges as Bad Blake. Writer/Director Scott Cooper who never went to film school and has no commercial directing experience, developed Blake's role the screenplay specifically for Jeff Bridges. In an interview with Nell Minow Cooper said, “I wanted the pacing of the film, the look of the film, everything to have the feeling of an old George Jones song, "He Stopped Loving Her Today." You have to really listen closely and let the song develop.” Cooper also mentioned that the film has a third less cuts, and a more languid pace than most of its contemporaries.

The languid pace, does not have a negative impact, nor is it difficult to adjust to. It fits. Cooper's unflinching attention to detail and pace are what allow the predictable story-line and regular characters their captivating charm. There are several movies about country music stars and they all seem to contain some sort of bottoming out followed by redemption with varying degrees of success, and a hopeless love story— or several.

Coopers delicate development of the small characters creates a very important sense of context that provides necessary balance for expansive mountain shots and long takes of a pick-up barreling down the empty dust-covered high way. Take for example, the small town women that Blake is in and out of bed with; Cooper never shies away from sagging cleavage, gap teeth, or their sadness, but he doesn't mock it either. They provide an interesting, appropriate contrast for the shallow hugeness of Blake's protege Tommy, played by Colin Farrell, and the kind-of sad, but determined journalist that Blake falls for, a young mom played by Maggie Gyllenhaal.

The love story between Blake and Gyllenhaal is incredibly flawed, and that is the best thing about it. The flaws allow for the cliché shared smiles, blushing, and tender moments to hit their mark. Gyllenhaal, though a strong actress with a great accent, gave the impression of a woman who could have been Blake's daughter which detracted from the performance. Her role seemed to demand a little more age, if not more maturity.

“Crazy Heart” doesn't feel remotely original, but the familiarity of the story, and the authenticity of the characters give us something to relate to, and an opportunity to just feel life happening without having to think too hard about it.

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards, Best Dressed and Eco-Dress; Or, Women and Oscar

The Oscars are Hollywood's Superbowl right down to outrageous commercials, celebrity hype, event-specific clothing choices, and viewing parties that include a creative array of snacks.   The Superbowl is raucous, explosive, and passionate.  The Oscars are classy, prestigious, and showy. 

This year, Hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin were certainly showy, but they punted class well beyond the edge of the red carpet nearly every time they took the stage.  They arrived onstage from above surrounded by feather-clad showgirls—a carryover from the smashing opening number from “How I Met Your Mom” performed by Neil Patrick Harris— and began by pointing to various celebrity audience members with jokes that bounced between fairly punny and just plain dumb.  The schtick-factor over the course of the entire evening was incredible.

Another thing that the Superbowl and the Oscars have in common is that they are both—in somewhat different ways— Male-Centric events.  The Superbowl features two teams of sweaty men and cheerleaders, while at the Oscars Men sport Tuxedos, escort exquisitely adorned ladies down the red carpet, and wield a different sort of power. Out of 82 years of Oscar hosting there have only been 11 women in the role, and Whoopi Goldberg is the only woman to ever have hosted solo.  In 1992 at the 64th annual Academy Awards ceremony host Billy Crystal made the comment that Barbra Streisand was not nominated for Best Director of “Funny Girl” which took home several awards because she is a woman.  

Although the evening of the 82nd annual ceremony was punctuated with male hosts Katherine Bigelow was the first woman to win Best Director for “Hurt Locker” which took 6 Oscars total including Best Film Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Writing of an original screenplay.  In a “Fresh Air” interview on NPR that aired the afternoon of the Oscars Bigelow explained that the movie's biggest challenge was making explosions look real.  The array of wins would indicate that she succeeded, with a bang.   And to top it all off, she looked stunning!

 When asked what it is that makes a great Oscar dress, Jennifer Lopez replied, “You have to be able to wear it.”   Perfect answer.  Of all the dresses on display Sunday night, only one could be classified by   the sustainability concerned as “Eco friendly” and therefore truly wearable.  Suzy Amis Cameron, wife of Director James Cameron wore a dress made of “peace silk” and dubbed “avatar blue” by James.  The dress was designed by a senior at Michigan State University as part of a fundraiser.  

The Oscars pay tribute to the extraordinary in Hollywood, and often amount to little more than a tabloid spectacle, a chance for us small people to oggle at celebrities' dresses and listen to them talk, as themselves.  This year, it was refreshing to witness, amongst the buzz, empowered women and an eco-friendly clothing choice.

Gender Neutral Oscars

In today's op-ed section there's a great piece about how the awards should not be divided into gender categories.  Here's the link:

And the Gender-Neutral Oscar Goes To..

Crawlspace Eviction, You Don't Have to Laugh

 “Improv is not about plot, it's not about solving big problems in scenes … It's all about being in the moment and responding to what you just heard from your scene partner”  claimed Crawlspace Eviction director, Dan Sytsma in an article by John Liberty for the “Kalamazoo Gazette.”  In their show “I Wanna Text U Up, Or Same Text Marriage”  on Friday February 19,  Crawlspace Eviction did not seem to remain in the moments they created, nor did they solve any problems.  Members of the troupe seemed to compete more often than give to each other, and opted to break character and giggle along with the audience regularly.  After the first skit about same-sex marriage in the military, Sytsma was inspired to turn to the audience and say, “[y]ou don't have to laugh.”

The show opened to a packed house at Studio 246 on North Burdick, in what was previously Whole Art Theatre. Despite a high energy approach Crawlspace Eviction could not justify occupying the stage for two hours.  It got weighed down by over-explanation between games, and irrelevant choices within scenes.  One started with an audience suggested situation depicted a brother, his sister, and her friend on girl's night and spiraled into violence and toilet humor.  The brother wouldn't “put [a giant plug] in the hole” and so the girls were going to “take him out and shoot him.”

In article by Sebastian Fryer for the “Western Herald” that ran the day before their show went up, Sytsma said that the performers would follow the theme that titles the show as well as incorporate a movie theme—for the sake of the Oscars, and that Crawlspace Eviction tries to be “more scenic in our approach and not as gaggy in the games we choose.”  In individual scenes the performers consistently leaned toward screaming, cheapening situations for a laugh, and violence instead of making more complex, satisfying choices.  For example, the second half of the show opened with a “gaggy” Sytsma in a giant yellow chicken costume doing an interpretation of “Rambo.”

In the most successful vignette of the evening Crawlspace Eviction gave a hilarious nod to some performers' Alma Mater in a game that involved a Kalamazoo College student from the audience relating his entire day to be re-enacted with a twist onstage.  It was one of the few moments when the performers worked together, incorporated the evening's texting theme, and made choices rooted in the scene.   

Articles I read: 

The Western Herald


The Kalamazoo Gazette

Audience:  The Index, Gazette or Herald

Pauline Kael Should Have Been A Pop Star

**REVISED 2/22/10

“Kael is the only writer about whom I can say that being condescended by her felt like an honor,” notes Ken Tucker, critic-at-large for “Entertainment Weekly.  In the same article by Tucker Kael is quoted as saying, “Not many reviewers have a real gift for effrontery … I think that may be my best talent.”  What is it about such a perfected offensive, condescending personality that draws devoted followers?  Image? Controversy?  The thing that Pauline Kael was most successful at was not reviewing, but controversy;  she cultivated an image so volatile and unwavering that it struck a chord in the totality of her readership.  Kael basked in attention, and used movie reviews to glean more of it more often than she used them to provide insightful, credible evaluation.  She was good at getting talked about, fought over, and argued with.  Pauline Kael would have been an excellent pop star.

In her essay “House Critic” Renata Adler calls that single and powerful attracting quality

 “Liveliness.”  She deemed Kael an instance of everything that can go wrong with a staff critic, and called Kael's style a “lapse” that existed simply because she only wrote about movies;

–the sadism, slurs, inaccuracies, banalities, intrusions—came to be regarded as Ms. Kael's strong suit.  Ms. Kael grew proud of them.  Her cult got hooked on them … There was              always the impression … of liveliness. 

The perceived liveliness is a product of how out of place Kael's 'common' language, material, and exaggerated approach were to her contemporaries in the field.  Tucker puts it this way in “A Gift For Effrontery,”

Film criticism in the present day is dominated by careerists whose primary frames of reference are other examples of their chosen art plus the desired opinions, real or imagined, of their editors. 

 Kael avoided dullness, but at the expense of credibility.  In “House Critic” Adler cites, as an example,  a review in which Kael mistakenly accuses director George Roy Hill of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” of recording indoors.  In her review of “Gimme Shelter” Kael racked up inaccuracies, inspiring the filmmakers, Albert and David Maysles, and Charlotte Zwerin to write “A Response to Pauline Kael” which they intended for publication in the “New York Times.”

Instead of relating Kael offers advice, prescription, and judgment that belittle not just the film, but her audience.  In her review of “Hiroshima” Kael writes,

It seemed to be a woman's picture—in the most derogatory sense of the term … I decided that the great lesson for us all was to shut up.  This woman … was exposing one of the worst faults of intelligent modern women: she was talking all her emotions out …

 It is as if Kael projects her own fear of intimacy onto the film and onto her audience.  The movie screen is, indeed, only her starting point. And that is not necessarily negative, what is negative is that in her exploration she speaks for her audience instead of to them. On page 99 of “Afterglow: A Last conversation With Pauline Kael” Francis Davis asks if she wants movies to be “good for us” or “medicinal” and she answers yes.  She says not only that movies should be medicinal, but how.

In her review of “My Left Foot” Kael writes, “I don't know that any movie has ever given us so strong a feeling,” and  “you don't feel manipulated.”  This is a problem of style and word choice, used to convey a preaching, parental tone.  Kael seemed unwilling to grow past her initial reaction to a movie, or just unwilling to grow, and that problem is hard to overlook.

             

Final Pitch: Slam Poetry Filling in the Gaps

Spoken Word, and more specifically, Slam Poetry in the United States gives voice to those who are typically excluded from literary movements.  The "slam" format is important in its inclusive, participatory, provides a venue for engagement in literary and political exchange, and sets up a non-academic standard for judgment. 

When it began, in 1986, Slam was something for bars, and working audiences who had little time for entertainment, let alone literature and politics.  It has since taken a commercial turn (Def Poetry Jam, for example).  The implications of commercialization on a grassroots movement are incredibly relevant.  I came into the Kalamazoo slam scene in 2003 and have watched it grow, disappear, and return.  I am passionate about it.  

The Kalamazoo Poetry Slam, which existed for 11 years before folding has returned this year.  I plan to interview the host, Tracey Smith.  "The Cultural Politics of Slam Poetry: Race, Identity, and The Performance of Popular Verse in America" will also be a primary source.  Secondary sources will include other interviews and poetic examples.

Pauline kael Should Have Been A Pop Star

In “A Gift For Effrontery” Ken Tucker, critic-at-large for “Entertainment Weekly” says of Pauline Kael, “Kael is the only writer about whom I can say that being condescended by her felt like an honor.” In the same article Kael is quoted as saying, “Not many reviewers have a real gift for effrontery … I think that may be my best talent.” What is it about such a perfected offensive, condescending personality that draws devoted followers? Image? Controversy?

It seems that the thing that Pauline Kael was most successful at was not reviewing, but controversy: she cultivated an image so volatile and unwavering that it struck a chord in the totality of her readership. Kael basked in attention, and used movie reviews to glean more of it more often than she used them to provide insightful, credible evaluation. She was good at getting talked about, fought over, and argued with. Pauline Kael would have been an excellent pop star.

In her essay “House critic” Renata Adler calls that single and powerful attracting quality “Liveliness”:

I think what has happened is this: an extreme case of what can go wrong with a staff critic. Prose events that would, under ordinary circumstances and on any subject other than movies, have been regarded as lapses –the sadism, slurs, inaccuracies, banalities, intrusions—came to be regarded as Ms. Kael's strong suit. Ms. Kael grew proud of them. Her cult got hooked on them … There was always the impression … of liveliness.

The perceived liveliness is a product of how out of place Kael's 'common' language, material, and exaggerated approach were to her contemporaries in the field. Tucker puts it this way in “A Gift For Effrontery”,

Film criticism in the present day is dominated by careerists whose primary frames of reference are other examples of their chosen art plus the desired opinions, real or imagined, of their editors.

Kael avoided that, but at the expense of credibility. In “House Critic” Adler cites, as an example, Kael's review that mistakenly accuses director George Roy Hill of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” of recording indoors.

Instead of relating Kael offers advice, prescription, and judgment that belittle not just the film, but the audience for whom she is writing. In her review of “Hiroshima” Kael writes:

It seemed to be a woman's picture—in the most derogatory sense of the term … I decided that the great lesson for us all was to shut up. This woman … was exposing one of the worst faults of intelligent modern women: she was talking all her emotions out …

It is as if Kael projects her own fear of intimacy onto the film and onto her audience. The movie screen is, indeed, only her starting point. And that is not necessarily negative—on page 99 of “Afterglow: A Last conversation With Pauline Kael” Francis Davis asks her if she wants movies to be “good for us” or “medicinal” and she answers yes—what is negative is that in her exploration she speaks for her audience instead of to them. She tells them not only that movies should be medicinal, but how. This is a problem of style, using “I” and “you” and “we” in a parental fashion. In her review of “My Left Foot” Kael writes, “I don't know that any movie has ever given us so strong a feeling,” and “you don't feel manipulated.” Kale seemed unwilling to grow past her initial reaction to a movie, or just unwilling to grow, and that problem that is hard to overlook.

Blog on Blogs

There is an article by Roy Edroso in last week's Village Voice called "I Blog New York: Your Guide To Gotham's Best" that should prove resounding and relevant to anyone with an Arts Journalism bent, a blogging curiosity, or slightly voyeuristic inclination.

Along with a comprehensive list of amazing blogs that are particular to NYC, but not exclusively for New Yorkers, Mr. Edroso provides researched commentary on the claims and reality of a decade long blog revolution. The featured blogs range from food-centric musing, to neighborhood news items in the Burroughs, to an epic photo journalism project covering the scope of a subway construction site near Second Ave. (The Launch Box)

My favorites from the list:

*Food in Mouth: This blog features exquisite, mouth watering pictures, first off. Food is usually just a jumping off point for unique, witty, musing.

*Slant Magazine's The House Next Door: Popular Culture reviewed.

*Art Fag City: This woman seeks to make contemporary art graspable for people who aren't necessarily 'versed' but who are interested.

What comes from reading Mr. Edroso's article is, for me, pure invigoration. The next step is to step away from New York City and seek more local, extraordinary blogs. Or make one.

Charles Isherwood stole my heart: Or, what's really fair in love and war?

Reading the New York Times in Kalamazoo, Michigan is often like eating cedar grilled salmon from a plastic microwave container; the concept of mouth-watering delight prevails, but what remains is a plastic aftertaste.

Reading Charles Isherwood's review of "Time Stands Still" is not like that. I have never seen this play about journalism and the complexities of a changing relationship that he describes, and I probably won't. Mr. Isherwood brings it to life so that I may watch vicariously as a journalist returns home wounded from Iraq to relearn her life. He passes judgment and lets me decide for myself with his breakdown of the characters and their relationships, his assessment of the writer, the description of how it is played, and how the play comes together onset.

Charles Isherwood is a Theatre Critic for the New York Times who also, apparently wrote a biography of porn star Joey Stefano called "Wonder Bread and Ecstasy: The Life and Death of joey Stefano".

My favorite element of the review is his summation:

Mr. Margulies’s quietly powerful drama illustrates just how much pain and trauma are involved in the everyday business of two people creating a life together, one that accommodates the mistakes of the past, the reality of the present and the changes that the future may bring.

When a review reflects its subject in such a way that the reader considers questions that might be invoked by experiencing the subject its self, I think that the review has succeeded.

Isherwood's review: "What's Really Fair in Love and War"

Filling in the Gaps at Kalamazoo College: English Faculty Reading

**Edit: 2/2/10

¨We are here to generate a little heat and light.” said Gail Griffin at the opening of the Winter 2010 English Faculty Reading at Kalamazoo College. It was an embryonic experience; imperfect and intimate. Not every performance was strong, but the program sandwiched drier scholars between more boisterous performers. Each faculty member who stepped up to the intimidating podium put their vulnerability on display— for a room full of witnesses who will see them in class— as if to convey that they are on equal footing, and growing alongside their students.

Kalamazoo College's English Department reading was comprised of ten individuals, each of whom contributed a completely unique set of experiences and projects. Andy Mozina began the event with an excerpt from his short story “My Non-Sexual Affair” his saucy prose provided an excellent contrast to arduous observations about marriage. Following Mr. Mozina was visiting professor Beth Marzoni whose poem “Rothko Room” orbited around the Rothko Room in London's Tate Museum. Her cadence was self-conscious, but suggested that the audience should be a set of lungs taking in metaphors with her breath and sending them to every part of the body.

Marin Heinritz and Gail Griffin both read from their creative non-fiction works, and both were stunning. Ms. Griffin, in an inky voice and borrowed glasses, revisited a murder-suicide that haunts Kalamazoo college. Moments of heavy description mirrored the reality of emotional weight, and simultaneously allowed statements like, “all of us were survivors” to hit their mark without gushing. Ms. Heinritz read from her memoir, “Coming of Age With Cancer”. She dissected a murky relationship with her mother in a clear, strong delivery that gave the impression of unsympathetic empathy. Her tone resonated with concise assessment and analysis of observations about her mother.

Glenn Deutsch also read from a non-fiction piece that will appear in “Literary View”. “Monkey Version of My Father” is told from the perspective of a young boy. During his reading Mr. Deutsch paused to interject bits of humor or orienting facts. In his biography on the English Department's web page he says, “I also try to show the value of writing that avoids abstractions, generalizations, and judgments ...The point, of course, is that well-written, character-based literature lets us live other peoples’ lives vicariously.” Mr. Deutsch's portion of Wednesday's reading was particularly successful in this way.

Amy Rogers and Babli Sinha were the most academic readers, but both women avoided seeming out of place in the line-up with rich, relevant content. Ms. Rogers read from a 'process piece' in which she observed that, “writing about someone who actually existed is not so different from creating a character.” Ms. Sinha read from a conference paper on South Asian Media and understanding the “new woman”. Her quiet delivery made the eloquent writing and smart humor a little difficult to catch, but her work is well worth straining to hear.

Di Seuss and Amelia Katanski rounded out the evening with energizing, animated confessional and narrative poetry, and Bruce Mills brought it to a close. Mr. Mills was brilliant. He delivered what he called the "epigraph for the evening" infusing hard subjects with silly grace and “filling in the gaps”. He read from “Archeology of Yearning” which called the audience to Iowa with its abandoned farms and his own house littered with artifacts of Autism.

The reading overall was a thoughtful collection of juxtaposing elements placed in a casual framework which acted as an easy framework for so many personalities.

Rob Sietsema gives a heads up to the foodie wannabe

Rob Sietsema has been the food critic for the village voice since 1993. He has a lot to say in regard to who is a legitimate food critic and how the art should be approached.

Mr. Sietsema cuts lose on the infamous "restaurant girl" who swept New York City with her unorthodox, flamboyant style of restaurant reviewing. He cites anonymity and return trips to gather a fair sample as necessary in his article "Everyone Eats ... But that doesn't make you a restaurant critic" for the January/February issue of the Columbia Journalism Review. The articles sets up a forum for some relevant ethical questions that pertain to those of us interested in food criticism, and reviewing in general: How important is it to conceal identity as a reviewer? Does anonymity mean forfeiting the opportunity to speak with chefs (directors, actors) about their vision? Does researching need to be an individual experience or can we engage with the people who created what we are reviewing? Unfortunately the article is not available to non-subscribers in the online version of the magazine, but it is available in the Kalamazoo College Library.

Here are some links:

Counter Culture (Mr. Sietsema's column in the Village Voice)


Restaurant Girl (Danyelle Freeman is Restaurant Girl)

Assume a Pose: Oscar Wilde and Glam Rock

"Velvet Goldmine"
1998 Goldwyn Films
Audience: Readers of an alternative weekly(eg: City pages or The Village Voice)

Most anyone can relate to the crude glamor of performing self. In his 1998 film ¨Velvet Goldmine”, director and writer Todd Hayes weaves together performance, identity, and the desire to evoke social change in a succulent eroticism of stardom. Mr Hayes frames a journalist's literal manhunt, and reconnection with personal history as a lurid, sickeningly appropriate metaphor for the hedonistic invention and reinvention of public image, and the unintended consequences of these deliberate images on his characters.

Mr. Hayes is no stranger to examining complex, public characters in a given moment and well outside of their comfort zone; one of his short films (“Superstar”) chronicles Karen Carpenter's traverse through fame. He does not give his audience any answers, but instead endeavors to take them on a journey that entangles them in the perspective of each character. He does this by creating a sort of surreal fairy-tale documentary that compresses time, immerses us to saturation in every scene, and fragments the narrative in such a way that we make every discovery along with the characters. Mr. Hayes capitalizes on the effectiveness of using old forms to explore and dissect new, difficult material, he employs “Citizen Kane” as a template which serves to makes his own work more readily digestible.

“Velvet Goldmine” is opulent, the soundtrack carries its own Glam Rock subplot as well as serving to punctuate specific moments with drowning force. It dances around a powerful trifecta of popular culture's marginalized heroes: Oscar Wilde, Kurt Cobain, and David Bowie. It resists being biographical (which was, admittedly, Mr. Hayes' original intent), and instead covers more varied, allegorical ground. Oscar Wilde saturates the film with innumerable quotations (mostly from “Pictures of Dorian Grey”) woven into dialogue (often with absurd hilarity), and with more stylistic inclusions like the Victorian roots that show in costumes of the Glam Stars. Wilde's presence in the film gives the glam rock era in London and its relationship to the scene in the US awesome depth, and historical context.

The audience is bombarded with image and style, but this is really a film about individuals and the circumstances that created (and destroyed) them. The characters in “Velvet Goldmine” are magnificent, and aptly cast. Eddy Izzard, in particular, gives a scintillating performance as the manager who is primarily responsible for the greedy success of a revolution that might otherwise have avoided such commercial success, and also, perhaps for the pressure that caused pop idols Curt Wild and Brian Slade. Wild is performed by Ewan McGregor and modeled after various elements Kurt Cobain and Lou Reed, and Slade is a specific portrait of David Bowie and performed by Jonathan Rhis Meyers. Slades wife, Mandy Slade is played by Toni Collete and mirrors Angela Bowie.

It is Mandy who finally brings the elements together and begins to show us that in a creation so precarious as stardom, even the burning out is a lavish undertaking. She speaks with resignation, but there is a cheap grandeur to her memories which illuminates how in the process of changing the world, it is the self that is revolutionized.

We seem to arrive at the end of the film unexpectedly, after several false conclusions, exhausted by a backwards game of clue and a hurtling, mysterious journey to nowhere, but perhaps that is the point; what more is growing up, after all? What more is self discovery than the creation and recreation of possibilities?

Sources and awesome links:

Theauteurs (you can view some of Haynes' harder to find films here)

Sense of Cinema (Todd Haynes and Social Criticism)

http://www.velvetgoldmine.com.ar/info.php (quirky fan site with lots of information)

NYT Critical Defense #1: Or, Why A.O. Scott is the shit

(photo: A.O. Scott via the Ithaca Times Art Blog)

I have begun to follow A.O. Scott (from the New York Times), in the past weeks and have yet to be bored in the midst of one of his reviews; boredom was the preliminary dis-qualifier for my reviewer defense this week. I have a hard time making it through most of the reviews of performances that I have not seen on account of losing interest or getting lost in the unnecessary wordiness. When gleaning the arts section for pure entertainment and inspiration, he doesn't disappoint.

What is it that that makes A.O. Scott a critic worthy of defense in his review of "Fishtank"? It is the way he incorporates and analyzes bits of triva like, "Ms. Arnold [director] gave the script to her cast one scene at a time so that they did not know what was coming next." He discerns nuances in character from the actors' approach, "[M]s. Jarvis's tentative, sometimes opaque self-presentation registers the crucial fact about Mia, which is her confusion."

In terms of structure, Mr Scott begins with director, and the overarching sense of claustaphobia that the movie is meant to convey to the viewer. He touches on the characters, both in terms of their scripted relatinships to eachother, and as they are constructed by the actors. Within the sentences, Mr. Scott orders the words in a way that builds suspense. He does this, I believe, with anecdotes, and small insets of his own observation without giving to much away. He says, "The contradictions of adolescence create their own sadness." And I comiserate with him for a moment before moving on. He gives the reader the sense that we are on the same team, rather than giving us a lecture. Mr. Scott places the film in a ring with it contemporaries and builds his authority by comparing its elements to "An Education" and the director's first film "Red Road". The 'but' comes toward the end of the review after he has presented the film to the readership and given us a chance to come to our own conclusions about whether it is worth seeing.

Mr. Scott has been writing reviews for the New York Times for ten years, and still brings a fresh perspective to one more movie about a teenage girl in the projects, complete with a creepy stepdad.

FISHTANK REVIEW
from the New York Times on Friday January 15, 2010

Sherlock Revisited, again

Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Corn-Dog Kudos

The game's afoot! It's called: how many classic stories can be reworked into big budget Blockbuster action flicks, and Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes has stepped up to take its turn under the stylized direction of Guy Ritchie. Is the predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already worth seeing in 2010? Yes. How successful is it? That question requires a little deducing.

The latest take on our Victorian detective remains in gritty, percussive 1821, London England (complete with a 221b. Baker Street). Hans Zimmer is a behind the scenes genius who places us wholly in the midst of the grime, punctuating exaggerated action with comic book folk (think zippy accordion and punchy, jig-inducing fiddles) and epic swells that are enough on their own to bring one to the edge of their seat.

For the most part, updates are in the form of graphic, testosterone-centric violence for the sake of violence that is par for the course with Guy Richie's cool ass gangster repertoire (think “Snatch” or “RocknRolla” where no moral abounding, decisive protagonist to root for).

There is no question about who to root for here, Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson are the definitive, albeit attractively flawed dream-team. Downey Jr. brings his audience into the mind of Holmes, to the point of talking us through his fight strategy in slow motion and making us feel his stifling social discomfort; Law is the perfect counter playing Watson as suave, but rigid with a gambling problem. They navigate fantastic mysteries, and the quirks of living together with nimble banter which is at least seventy-five percent of what makes the movie a joy to sit through.

Besides tantric explosions and violence, the newest Sherlock story features a delightful screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg that is brimming with hilarious wit-swapping. The writing team includes a twist that renders this particular version especially relevant and engaging beyond its clever-isms. This time, the “bad guys” aren't just our for normal “bad guy” booty; they are all about using Fear (capital “F”), deceit, and conformity as a means of control over England's Parliament and citizens—a solid, yet subtle nod to our present global politics.

This “Sherlock Holmes” features a giant ax wielding henchman with manners played by a very convincing menace, Robert Maillet. The new number one bad man is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood; the character is power-mongering and reminiscent of certain political figures, and Mark Strong's performance truly encompasses his character's grandiose expectation.

By far, the worst element of “Sherlock Holmes” is Watson's fiance Mary Morstan played as well as could be expected by Kelly Reilly. Mary never develops beyond two scenes worth of simpering, typical “I love you and am a loyal woman” dialogue even though Reilly is convincing as she rushes off screen, offended. Rachel McAdams is a seductive, smooth Irene Adler who sweeps onto the smoky London scene as a silky femme fatale in a stunning red gown. In the end, though her character is predictable and flat, falling for Holmes, but still succumbing to the will of the man who pays her. The female roles in Ritchie's 2009 adaption are unfortunate as they reflect a 1891 point of view despite his state of the art cinematography.

“Sherlock Holmes” as seen in 2009 is no intricate mystery, but the game afoot is one worth playing out.

Helpful Articles in the Revision of Sherlock

Row Three Review

In his review for Row Three (a site that aims to foster community and discussion around films) Johnathan B. reflects on the worthwhile, entertaining aspects of the movie despite it's lack of "masterpiece qualities". He fits its violence and style into the context of Guy Ritchie's gangster flicks, and analyzes each element of the film in its own right, and he includes pictures.

New York Times Review

A.O. Scott strikes me as the ideal reviewer in terms of a review that is written in order to be enjoyed in a strictly entertaining sense. He does an excellent job of mirroring the film that he is reviewing and using its elements to bring the reader up to speed and help them understand exactly why he has come to whatever conclusion he has reached. His authority as a critic stems from the way that he brings well researched historical elements into his review and situates it in the context of other current pop culture happenings.

Rotten Tomatoes

Having a scale in mind (and expressed) as I think about reviewing and writing a review is fantastically helpful, as is keeping in mind a sort of consistent criteria as I consider different elements of the film. The "star" scale is kind of boring, although I can't give all of the credit to rotten tomatoes for inspiring my own deep fried food-based scale for rating (some of it has to go to an anonymous individual).

midgets in coffins: or the new, old detective story

Sherlock Holmes
(December 2009)

Is a predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already really worth seeing again (or for the first time) in 2010? Yes.

The latest take on Sherlock Holmes is directed by Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla, Snatch) and set in 1891 London, England—complete with a 221b Baker St.. The twist that makes this particular version currently relevant and interesting is that the “bad guys” aren't necessarily out for normal 'bad guy' things, they're all about using Fear (capital “F”) deceit, and conformity as weapons, and as a means of control over England's parliament and citizens. They give a solid nod to current global politics and their historical contexts. The driving motive on the evil side is power, and reclaiming the fledgling United States as a rightful colony.

This version features a giant ax-wielding henchman and midgets (excuse me, dwarfs) one of which is, very predictably, in a coffin. The new number one bad guy is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a frumpy, near miss genius with a knack for boxing and offending people, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is a fastidious man of action with a secretly maternal spirit and a spending problem.

The movie opens with a tedious, over-done chase scene. The most difficult thing about watching the movie might just be its slow motion, hyper-styled, talked through fight scenes. The only redeeming quality they posses is that Holmes narrates his train of through, and it becomes clear that even his fighting strategy is a methodical scientific experiment. Once the opening yawn-fest is over, things pick up with a hilarious wit-swapping between Holmes and Watson. Nimble banter between the pair is at least 75% of what makes the movie a joy to sit through. It doesn't take a detective to deduce that there is something of a bro-mance between the leading men. Holmes is profoundly upset that Watson is planning to get married and break-up the mystery-solving partnership.

The females portrayed in Sherlock Holmes are woeful, they hung on the movie like a damp, heavy tent. The two scenes between Watson and his fiance Mary (Kelly Reilly) were sparse, dry and completely unnecessary. I did not believe for a moment that they really care about each other, and their relationship did not develop enough over the course of the movie to provide any evidence one way or the other. Holmes nemesis, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) had promise as a brilliant femme fatale, but as the movie progressed she seemed flat.

If you're looking for a straightforward murder mystery in which the good guy will absolutely prevail; if you're looking for a second hand thrill where you can be certain of coming out unaffected; if you're looking to enjoy someone's company and a few laughs at a smart date movie, then Sherlock Holmes will certainly help pass a winter afternoon, but don't bother if you want a particularly significant, moving experience.