'Song To Song' A Review

Song To Song is an experimental romantic drama filmed in Austin, TX loosly about singer/songwriters BV(Ryan Gosling) and Faye(Rooney Mara) their relationship with nebulous producer Cook(Michael Fassbender) and to a lesser extent about his marriage with server Rhonda(Natalie Portman). The film weaves in and out of chronology using image and score to convey meaning rather than the sparing dialogue.

Mara as the defacto main character is serviceable but seems to be constrained by the style, without scenes to play or lines to speak she is presentational more than natural. We can see her acting. To be fair she is the focus of many painfully protracted close ups where she has nothing to do. Gosling, Fassbender, and Portman all fair better, more comfortable with what was(or maybe more accurately what wasn't) required. More fluid and more honest. However the main cast is all limited by what they can do simply by the nature of the script, or lack there of, its convoluted and muddled. We're never quite sure what dynamics are at play, who wants what, or why we should care. All despite the best efforts of the talented actors.

Visually, of course, the film is beautiful. The score haunting and evocative. Typical of writer/director Malick. And yet an actual film fails to coalesces. Because of the pseudo narrative affectations its more pastiche than complete thought. There are spontaneous moments of real beauty and scenes of really compelling honesty but they fail to add together to make anything like a whole.

More montage than movie, more experiment than actual idea, interesting but not moving.

Don't See It.

Driving

I drive a car

probably six times a year

mostly my mother's

aging but stalwart

2003 Chevy Malibu

after living for years

in Chicago

where there is no pressing

need for cars

it provides a foregone thrill

no quite but close

to the joy

of the newly licensed teen

over come with freedom,

speed, and lush mobility

who knew those old days

could be recaptured

with prolonged abstinence?

Balance

We had a full roster for Schwa tonight and Joe in from LA, which put us at 10. Typical rosters at iO are 9 or 10 not because everyone is in attendance but because one or two usually aren't. Ten can be an unwieldy number of folks trying to do a 30 minute improv set. Bigger numbered ensembles are more compatible with longer sets, even two act shows, where the pacing is naturally more sedate.

I've been on a number of teams that had high numbers relatively frequently and there were all kinds of methods to try to find balance when there were so many people vying for time. One oft repeated "rule" is after you've been in a scene wait till everyone else has been in a scene before you make a move to reappear. Which is, I guess, in essence sound however with ten people that could eat up a good half of the show depending on how long the initial five scenes turn out to be. Which brings us to the next "rule" which is something along the lines of "be patient" "let it breathe" or "give people their time". Meaning leave those first scenes, when we're cycling through the entire roster, alone. Again, in theory sounds good, sounds egalitarian. However improv is a performative art form not a socialist enclave even though the way its discussed people believe it is or should be. Art & Entertainment shouldn't be bound by "waiting your turn".

The reality is that when your roster is light, then you have a chance to be patient and let stuff breathe. But when your roster is full that is when things need to move, pace picked up, so that the entire cast can cycle in and out of scenes quickly. This not only allows for everyone's ideas to be incorporated it allows each member the maximum amount of involvement. Speed not restraint is what's needed to make a possibly ungainly amount of collaborators effective in an improv piece.

Schwa rarely has a full roster so tonight was atypical for us but instead of agreeing to patience we settled on speed and because of that everyone was involved almost equally zipping in and out of the piece with relative fluidity. We were able to maintain a pretty high tempo because everyone was participating and making moves. And, I think, ultimately it was a success. Each of us knew going in we would play fast and that we individually would need to make the effort to engage. There is this idea prevalent in improv that the group comes first that can frequently discount the individual which can make for tentative or overly polite improv. A group of individuals with distinct points of view and their own energies and inspirations melding together actually takes care of the group more than this ineffective and untenable idea of "fairness".

And some shows don't necessarily require every individual performer be seen or highlighted at all. The Sight Unseen show last week turned into a narrative about this family musical group in Branson, MO played by Mark, Jimmy, and Rosie and I mostly participated as ancillary characters guiding the narrative, only coming on for a couple lines of dialogue or to move the show to the next scene. What I was doing was crucial to the success of the show but I wasn't really an "equal" participant per say.

Point being its the individual who determines their level of involvement, its no one's responsibility but their own to participate. And with that in mind, with that level of individual expectation shows are better and groups function more smoothly. Paradoxically by not "focusing on the group" by not trying to be "fair" by giving that authority back to the individual some kind of balance and artistic integrity can be achieved.

'Life' A Review

Life is a scifi horror film about a group scientists on the International Space Station who are studying samples from Mars. British biologist Hugh(Ariyon Bakare) discovers a cell in the Mars sample and after feeding it glucose and adjusting the atmosphere in its cage it begins to grow. After a month of observation the alien dubbed "Calvin" escapes and begins picking off the crew one by one.

The core cast of six are all wonderful actors. Hiroyuki Sanada as Sho, always a confident, comfortable, magnetic presence on screen. Ryan Reynolds as Rory provides his patented and effective wit. Rebecca Ferguson as Miranda and Olga Dihovichnaya as Katerina both give compelling performances with dimension albeit on little in the ways of script. Jake Gyllenhaal as David is serviceable but is the outlier of the cast in that he feels at points like he's acting, he has moments of presentation which are all the more noticeable given how present and in-the-moment the other cast members are throughout.

Visually the film is crisp and fluid, there's many evocative shots of the crew zipping along hallways in zero g, deep space visible through portholes. The monster design of Calvin is original and interesting, like a space squid with teeth. The only downfall is how rote the plot is. There is nothing new about the monster-in-the-walls beats the film hits, it falls in the long and dark shadow of Alien and doesn't offer anything particularly new. The ending is also a stumble with a twist that is predictable and a final shot that is more run on sentence than exclamation.

Excellent cast, sharp aesthetic, tired narrative.

Rent It.

'Power Rangers' A Review

Power Rangers is a superhero movie based on the 90's TV show of the same name. The movie opens on prehistoric Earth, a group of Rangers on the bring of defeat at the hands of villian Rita Repulsa(Elizabeth Banks) call down a meteor sacrificing themselves to stop her. In modern day five disparate high schoolers discover the five power coins of the original Rangers in their local quarry imbuing them with power. Rita, banished to/hibernating at the bottom of the sea is brought up by a local fisherman and endeavors to complete her mission- Power at the cost of all life on Earth. Will the novice Rangers be able to stop Rita before she acquires Earth's Life Crystal!?

The actors playing the Rangers, mostly unknowns, are all very good. Charming, authentic, and with good chemistry. The first half of the movie is basically updated Breakfast Club before they dive into battling Rita Repulsa with robot dinosaurs and they are all able to make this drastic leap work. We get to know them all a bit as characters, with some limited dimension for each, and that provides a nice base that makes the action at the end all the much more of a pay off. The stand out is RJ Cyler as Billy who has more to work with. But they all balance the humor and reality of the story with surprising grace. Banks, of course, is a knock out as the villain. Cagian in how big and broad the performance is and absolutely compelling.

Visually the film is stylish especially the first couple scenes establishing all the teens but it kind of degrades into serviceable, if not original, effects when all the morphing and zords get involved. The story has enough nods to the 90's TV series to please fans, a lot of jokes and lines referencing some of the more campy elements of the source material, but confidently makes it different and modern enough to work now. With the bright colors and particularly nutty premise the movie overcomes potential pitfalls to provide a little camp, a little heart, but above all entertainment.

A fun reboot with a nice balance of character and action.

See It.

Movie Purgatory

The past couple days Nicole and I have watched some movies from the early 90's- Powder, Soapdish, and Howard's End. They were bad, surprisingly good, and shockingly bland respectively. The last got 9 Oscar nominations yet couldn't be more forgotten, or forgettable. I asked around about these three movies and most people hadn't heard of them or only heard of them but not seen them with a few exceptions.

There are some movies that stand the test of time. Movies that are remembered and re-watched, that find their way into the cultural lexicon. But many others fade away due to their own mediocrity and simple time's passing. For a while the video store was the place where these forgotten films would be, if not remembered at least preserved. And browsing the shelves and watching a swath of moderate to bad movies you might find something cool. I still remember fondly Legend of the White Horse, a 1987 movie with Christopher Llyod, and Josh Kirby...Time Warrior! both of which I don't think anyone I've ever met has seen. With the advent of streaming and the extensive accessibility of mainstream entertainment the video store has gone the way of the buffalo. And so to the ability, and pleasure, of finding relatively unknown films.

But time has passed, streaming services are now the watchword and with their popularity they have all focused, almost primarily, on original content. With the majority of their money being spent on their own shows and films streaming services don't have the money to continually buy rights for all new releases. In order to keep their catalogs full they've begun digging deeper for content, acquiring rights for little known, little seen, or forgotten films. Which brings us to Powder, Soapdish, and Howard's End.

Of the three only Soapdish I would actually recommend but its nice to have the access, to have the ability to go back and watch these 20+ year old films that can, if not necessarily entertain, evoke a time period, a style, and a culture temperature. Films are not only entertainment they are time capsules and, good or bad, can teach us, can have value. With the bankruptcy of Blockbuster and the extinction of the video store as we know it something was lost, not the access to the new releases but access to the breadth of film history, we still have Taxi Driver and Titanic but hundreds of thousands of movies fade into obscurity. With Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon all pushing hard into original programming we are getting that breadth of access back. And that's a good thing.

Jelly Beans

Essentially they're just sugar
the various flavors merely chemical
but for me
their crystalline savor
is the epitome of treat
perhaps because
of fond Easter's past
hunting on every ledge,
counter top and picture frame
for beans arrayed in lines,
circles, arcs and arrows
patiently laid out by my parents
and lovingly collected by me
or perhaps because of
their jagged sweet
fluid crunch
so simple
and unpretentious
dogged every spring
despite the flash and flair
of modern candies
they remain
unchanged and unrepentant.

'Beauty And The Beast' A Review

Beauty And The Beast is a family fantasy film, an adaptation of the 1991 cartoon itself an adaptation of the 18th century fairy tale. In a small town in France Belle(Emma Watson) is different, intelligent and imaginative she doesn't fit in in her humdrum village. She continually rejects the romantic attentions narcissist Gaston(Luke Evans) and when her father Maurice(Kevin Kline) is captured by Prince cursed for his selfishness into a Beast(Dan Stevens) she takes his place in confinement. Overtime the two begin to care for each other.

It's difficult to gage any part of this film without the influence of the now classic animated original. Watson is a decent Belle, the entire cast are all good and each is clearly committed and having fun. The songs are all good renditions and the handful of new ones help flush out the story but there is nothing about any of the performances that really soar. Nothing that goes beyond the good. Because the film is such an exact replication it doesn't allow the actors to do much more than parrot or do impressions. The voice work of some of the objects is very well done(Ewan Mcgregor, Emma Thompson) but even then there is something in the hardlined faithfulness of the adaptation that constrains.

The score and musical numbers are wonderful, just like they were the first time. Seeing actual humans and CGI figures reenact, at times shot-for-shot with identical blocking, the beloved cartoon is cool and entertaining. It fully delivers on nostalgia without any of the disappointment these 90's revisits typically bring along with them(TMNT, Jurassic World) it's not as good as the cartoon but it compares and offers enough difference to be, if not fresh, than fun. Devoid of context the film may not work but for any fan of the animated classic this incarnation is a great ride.

A familiar musical spectacle with a lot of joy if few cinematic risks.

See It.

'Personal Shopper' A Review

Personal Shopper is a thriller about Maureen(Kristen Stewart) attempting to make contact with her deceased twin brother while buying high end cloths for her rich and temperamental boss. After an unknown number begins sending her mysterious text messages Maureen's grip on what's real begins to loosen and the boundary between the temporal and the ethereal begins to fray.

Stewart gives one of her most serviceable performances however there is still an exceeding amount of distracting ticks and odd line delivery that make it seem off balance. However she does make the most with the incredibly clunky script she's given, providing the closet level of authenticity compared to the remaining cast. They all suffer from saying lines that were seemingly translated by a machine from french to english and then not edited. Aside from Stewart all the performances are bizarre, wooden, and borderline animatronic. She comes across as the only human in a world of 2D cutouts.

The story itself is convoluted, three disparate plot lines fail to weave together and also fail to resolve with any satisfaction. Is this a ghost story, a murder mystery, a class drama? In attempting to inject all three into one narrative none are fully realized. Interestingly shot and scored there are some captivating moments but they are few and far between, brief moments of promise in the two hour running time.

Clunky, muddled, and difficult in its spasmodic oddness.

Don't See It.

Love Haiku

My lips on your skin

-magnetic and electric-

a pleasant good night

Fear of Flying

Visiting with some friends over the weekend I found out that a couple of them were afraid of flying. Like it really bothered them and they had all these particular things they did to get through it, had tried sitting all over the plane, different rituals, in order to make it bearable. Which is all well and good, but ultimately I think its kind of silly if not totally irrelevant, along with most fears or phobias.

What is fear of flying really about, control and death, both tangled up together. One is illusion, the other is an inevitability. I've written about this stuff relatively frequently so I won't belabor the point. But it bears repeating control is an illusion. Life is spontaneous, varied, and mercurial. Anything, good and bad, can happen at any time. Wondrous discoveries as well as accidents or hardships. And that's OK, that's just how it is. Accepting that can bring a lot more happiness then the constant striving for, but never attaining, of control. As far as death, we all know we will die some day, but we all have various ways we deal(or don't) with it. For me its something I've accepted, I don't worry about it, try to live each day as it comes on its own merits. For other people it can be a more immediate or pressing concern depending on the situation.

Now here's the thing. After talking with my friends I got the sense that there is perhaps some benefit to being afraid to fly, to phobias/fear in general. That it in turn gives a person more drive, more ambition, more momentum. That if you are pursued by this or that fear with the looming specter of death hanging over you, you may get more done. It, inversely, provides urgency. Provides, perhaps, the potential for more relish, more variation.

After letting go(for the most part) the idea of external control and accepting(for the most part) death as inevitable I found myself(generally) calm and content. And its a great feeling. I now have a sense of comfort in my own skin that I didn't have for a long time, an ease with life.  Relaxed and capable in most any situation or place I find myself. However. There's a fine line between calm and complacent, between satisfaction and inaction. And perhaps fear, although mostly unpleasant, can be a motivator, a clarifier. Something to disrupt pleasant tedium.

I don't fear flying but perhaps it has its benefits.

'Kong: Skull Island' A Review

Kong: Skull Island is a monster movie set in the waning days of the Vietnam War. An expedition of surveyors, scientists, military, a photographer, and a jungle expert set off for the uncharted/unexplored Skull Island which is surrounded by a ceaseless storm. When they arrive they begin dropping seismic charges which wakes Kong. He makes quick work of the helicopters and the survivors split into two factions, one lead by Col Packard(Sam Jackson) bent on revenge the other lead by James Conrad(Tom Hiddelston) and Mason Weaver(Brie Larson) more open to the wonders of the island and primarily concerned with survival.

The performances are all fun and almost unilaterally over-the-top, fitting for the tone and style of the film. Jackson, great as always, plays his wild-eyed Colonel with relish. John C. Riley gives a good turn and one of the only balanced performances in the film, providing heart and humor. The other notable turn is from Shea Whigham who's able to balance the stylized tone with some authenticity. Larson and Goodman are both serviceable but aren't given a lot to work with however it works and its clear they're having fun which is probably more important than depth in a film like this. Hiddelston is fine but seems mostly awkward and out of place. For all his fame and praise there are only a few films where his casting is appropriate and his performance functional(I'm thinking Loki in the Marvel movies and Adam in Only Lovers Left Alive). He doesn't read capable action star, he has yet to prove his range.

The real star of the film is Kong himself, the island, and all the creatures that inhabit it. The production design is all vibrant and immaculate with colorful scenery and interesting monsters. It is, for lack of a better descriptor, cool. The score is also a series of classic rock hits, some diegetic and non-diegetic. And it works.

A fun, slick, simple, popcorn movie.

Rent It.

My Darling Chi

At first I thought you cruel
your sprawling concrete pathways
and looming steel structures
dwarfed me and affirmed
my insignificance.

I could feel your indifference,
at times outright hostility,
it was a struggle
simply to exist
in your expansive churning sprawl
you moved with such speed
I could barely find my footing
let alone keep pace
and eventually I fell
my defeat, one of many,
splayed out ungainly
across your apathy.

I left beaten and dejected.
After two years I returned.

Refueled and corrected
the confidence of youth
appropriately eroded
I came back
offering proper fealty
to your looming impassivity.

Knowing well and respecting
your vein like pumping grid
and steady thrumming pulse
over time I found a place
in your avenues and streets,
bus routes and railways,
restaurants and shops,
secret corners and quiet stops.

I carved out a home
with patience and resolve
and eventually found you
not only warm
but inviting
after I, humbled,
divested of entitlement,
became a part
of your broad shouldered embrace.

Money Management

Finances can be tough. Budgeting, paying bills, curbing debt, the whole works, can be daunting. Can seem fruitless. A Sisyphean effort. But with some simple steps and routines(I know how that sounds) it can be, if not easy, manageable.

I was a bank teller for two years and a personal banker for one. I don't think this necessarily means I'm better with money than anyone else but looking at peoples accounts, observing their spending, their budgeting or lack their of, going over credit reports etc. day after day, month after month for three years it provided me with an awareness that has been helpful for my own finances. So those are my bonafides, such as they are.

1. Know your balance. Check it once a day online and as you spend try to keep an internal calculation. The more you practice this the more it'll become innate. Depending on your income you should know your balance to the approximate third, second, or first digit(excluding cents).

2. Budget. Income may vary but it shouldn't be too difficult to determine an approximate for each month. Take the total subtract monthly bills, divide that by four, and that's the amount you can spend each week. As each week goes by subtract your spending from this weekly allotment, either in your head or on paper. Of course things come up and sometimes they'll be a special event that requires a bit more spending but the closer you can adhere to this, keep this weekly allotment in mind, the better. The more weeks you do this the more innate this becomes.

3. Have a credit card with a reasonable balance. You should have a credit card in order to help build your credit as well as have an additional layer of funds to tap into if needed. A minimum limit card doesn't offer that much assistance in the event of financial difficulty but a large limit card can be unwieldy and have a high interest rate. A good rule of thumb is you should have a credit limit that, if maxed out, wouldn't take you more than a year or two to pay off.

4. Participate in your 401k. If your job offers a 401k the sooner you can begin contributing to it the better. If slicing off a portion of your income is worrisome contribute the minimum amount, 1-2%, this will most likely be relatively negligible in regard to your monthly spending. Ideally if your company matches you should work up to contributing whatever percentage that they will match up to to get the most benefit. However depending on your situation the smallest contribution is a good place to start and then work up from over time.

5. Open a savings account. Given interests rates being what they are there isn't a whole lot of options for short term return so a low interest savings account is a good option for putting money away because its accessible and the difference between the potential return on a savings account and a CD are relatively negligible. Typical savings accounts have a minimum balance of $500, you only want to open one when you know you'll be comfortable not accessing that base amount. You can then begin contributing a small amount to it each month or each paycheck. There's no point in opening a savings account but then dipping into it a couple months later. Make sure that amount you open the account with is truly disposable income. It's the bedrock to begin your savings, whether its for emergencies, down payment on a car or home, a child's college, what have you.

Income is going to dictate the degree to which the above can/should be implemented but in my experience awareness is the key. The reason people get so twisted up and in trouble with money is because they don't think about it until they don't have it, are faced with a bill they can't pay, and by then its too late. With a little bit of structure and discipline spending will fall roughly in line with income.

'Logan' A Review

Logan is a superhero/western set in a bleak near future. Logan aka Wolverine(Hugh Jackman) is an aging and ill chauffeur for obnoxious frat boys and petulant sorority girls close to the Mexican border. In a Mexican hideout he has stashed Professor X(Patrick Stewart) now in his 90's and suffering from a degenerative brain disease which makes his powers erratic and potentially lethal. Logan has enlisted the help of albino mutant locator Caliban(Stephen Merchant) to care for the Professor. While the three struggle along trying to save up enough money to buy a yacht and flee to the sea Logan is approached by Gabriella(Elizabeth Rodriguez) a former nurse at a mutant lab to safely transport Laura(Dafne Keen) to North Dakota. After a para-military attack Logan reluctantly agrees.

Jackman gives his best turn as Wolverine and one of the best performances of his career. Haunted, layered, and emotive he conveys the human of superhuman. He retains the gruff humor, the physicality, and the rough charm of his earlier portrays but this incarnation is more complicated, more pained, more vulnerable. He projects a profound regret but also an almost unshakable determination. The young Keen is incredibly dynamic and has magnetic chemistry with Jackman. As she doesn't speak for the first 2/3rds of the film its startling how much and how clearly she gets across physically given her age. It's a nuanced, sophisticated performance, violent but also almost naive. Stewart also outdoes himself in this incarnation of his longtime character. This is the first time that we not only see Professor X vulnerable, his virtually falling apart. He's weak, dying, something we've never seen. Stewart is able to imbue an incredible amount of soul into the diminished character. The supporting cast are all excellent, not a discordant performance or piece of casting in the bunch.

Although set in the X-Men world powers and CGI effects are used sparingly. The focus is on the story and the emotional arc of the characters. More a reflective character study with(impressive) action than a superhero movie. Given the recent glut of those types of films Logan feels not only refreshing by almost transcendent. That being said the action is incredibly violent, intense, and compelling. The reality of the blood and guts reflect the honesty of the characters emotion. It achieves a reality, perhaps, no other superhero movie has managed or even aimed for.

Meditative and melancholic, brutal but hopeful.

See It.

Sick

I'm lying on the floor
by my desk
at work
overcome
with the injustice
of being ill
I thought
sobriety
would exempt me
from the common cold
more fool me
another lesson
in hubris.

Why Do I Exist?

I was talking to someone yesterday who was down, who said they were plagued with this question. At first it struck me as sad, I don't like seeing anyone I know depressed, but as the conversation progressed I became rather baffled and somewhat put off. Not by this person's feeling but by their inability or desire to take no action because of it.

Question: Why do I exist?

All pseudo-intellectual drug-experimenting undergraduates grapple with this question and perhaps in this uncertain and trying socio-political landscape despair and ennui and futility are seductive. But existential malaise has no real value, only has meaning as a momentary stop on the way to an actual destination or discovery. But its boring. Railing against aging, birth itself, existence, is petulant, immature. Sure, sometimes this feeling is natural, sometimes the pressures of life can be overwhelming, but this should be fleeting. It's not that surrendering to this idea, this void, this perspective, is weak it simply serves no purpose.

Answer: You do.

That's it. You do, so what now. Faith and spirituality can provide answers, purpose, and meaning but belief isn't for everyone, barring that it is up to us. Up to us to individually give our lives, life, meaning. And the thing is, perhaps existence is absurd but even so it retains meaning, retains whatever meaning we inject into and derive from it. Whether its a particular passion, family, friends, a profession, physical fitness, mental alacrity you name it. It can be anything and the glorious thing is we can dictate what it is.

Why do I exist? Pick a reason. Pick a purpose. If life is lived with meaning, it has meaning. And that can be something as lofty as spiritual enlightenment or as banal as good coffee. And it can be a myriad of those things, big and small.

The question is, in essence, immaterial. It's a non-starter. To quote Robin Williams paraphrasing Whitman:

O me! O life! of the questions of these recurring,
Of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities fill’d with the foolish;
What good amid these, O me, O life?

                                       Answer.
That you are here—that life exists and identity,
That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.