It's hard to look for true genius. There's various examples all over the place really now, isn't there? And some may not be geniuses after all. In the film world, you look for true geniuses at points, and one name does spring straight up for me - Orson Welles. I haven't seen all his work (soon sorted out), but thanks to the wonderous power of left-of-the-law softuwarity, I managed to see his all-time, late in the game masterpiece, F for Fake.

This man has an incredible genius when it comes to talking. He was a humble man (as the quote above shows), but when the man talked, you listened and were in turn, entranced. Orson Welles could construct an ode to a television testcard, and yet an audience would remain hypnotised. However, the testcard is not the issue here - instead, it is falsehoods. Forgery, and illusion - in particular, the art forger Elmyr De Hory, a man who could paint a perfect Matisse or Picasso in an hour and an expert could never tell the difference. And Clifford Irving, who was Elmyr's biograph-writer, who then wrote an autobiography - not his own, but Howard Hughes's. And Orson himself, who broke out with forgery - the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast that so many people believed (Welles recalls that a radio broadcaster in Brazil did a version, and was jailed for it - so he shouldn't complain)

The film is a technical masterpiece - the editors (including Orson himself), riff incessantly, cutting faster than any Hollywood actioner, freezing frames, chopping up conversations and even going into their own editing suite. This is Orson, unrestrained by what normally kept him back in Hollywood. But there's still Orson himself. He talks about these people through an endless haze of cigar smoke, with constant pieces of information flying around - it's utterly hypnotising. Come the turn of the hour, he takes it up even further, but you're going to have to get hold of the film yourself for this, as I won't go further.

I intend soon to see another often unseen Welles masterpiece, "Chimes at Midnight" in the near future, and thoughts will be forthcoming. But now, thoughts on a different field - music. As usual, it's time for another installment of short reviews. I had a decent haul at a record fair today and have been listening profusely, so here's what my poison has been today.

---------------------------

[b][i]Buddy Holly - Greatest Hits[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[size=1]No image[/size]
[size=1][/size]
One of many greatest hits collections, of course - this one is fairly concise, with 14 songs, and perhaps a few missing out ("Words of Love", for instance). 3 of his most instantly recognisable classics are obviously included - "Peggy Sue", "That'll Be The Day" and "Not Fade Away", no introduction needed. In fair measure, it includes earlier recordings and later recordings - there is a difference. From what is shown here, it seems that Holly was about to skip his inventiveness (Undoubtedly the most inventive of the '50s in terms of playing), and skip to more standard ballads. "Raining In My Heart" is fairly catchy, but the same can't be said for "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" and "True Love Ways". Dull as dishwater - pretty much everything else is solid - we have "Rave On", the excellent "Listen to Me", "Oh Boy", and a couple of other big numbers he recorded in his short time.

His death tends to overrate him. He had his ups and downs, even in this short period, just like everyone else, and he may have turned out for the worse. But we never got the chance, unfortunately. Still, this is a brief, solid collection.

[b]Grade: B :fresh: [/b]
[b][/b]
---------------------------------

[b][i]The Smiths - The Smiths[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://onthesidewalk.com/smiths/040104/images/album/album-smiths.jpg[/img]

Excellent debut from the Mancunian eight-tees masters. Hardly a bad moment on it....well, perhaps Morrissey's endless falsetto on "Miserable Lie" can get a little grating, but that's it. Apart from that, we have great moments all around - from the opener (the epic, glorious story "Reel Around the Fountain") to the closer (Another dark, swirly epic "Suffer Little Children").

Great songs just go all the way around. It's a fairly rocky album, with various rockouts coming in on "You've Got Everything Now", "Still Ill", "Hand In Glove" and "What Difference Does It Make?", and quieter moments on "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" and "Pretty Girls Make Graves". Throughout, the standouts are both Morrissey with the unique vocals, and the irreplacable Johnny Marr on guitar. Marr took simple forms and just threw them out - endlessly brilliant guitar playing, with unexpected chord changes, quick fills, and a unique chordy picking style, much aped. Without either one of these elements, the Smiths would never have been the great band they were. They didn't last for long, but they were always great...and Blondie put it best when they wrote a song called "Die Young, Stay Pretty". Superb debut.

[b]Grade: A :fresh: [/b]

[b]---------------------------------[/b]

[b][i]Jerry Lee Lewis - 20 Greatest Hits[/i][/b]

[size=1]No image[/size]

Bah. You see, there's severe problems with this collection. It's basically all live, and seeing as this is the 1950's, quality is hardly consistent. Rarely are all the elements actually audible (even Jerry's piano is basically inaudible at some points, and the guitar suffers), but as such, we don't really get complete versions. Jerry was an incredible performer, and my favourite artist of the decade, but this doesn't really do him justice.

The songs do show the performing though - regardless of the number. Whether it's a run through a standard like "Roll over Beethoven", "Long Tall Sally", "High Heeled Sneakers", and "Johnny B. Goode", he throttles the piano. Great to hear. But...where's "Great Balls of Fire"? Not here. Even worse, his all-time bitch of a song, the godly "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On", is only here as part of a medley, for about a minute - the subdued part. We DO, however get the almighty "Breathless" - Jerry brings the house down on this number, as you'd expect. Don't forget that classic shout of "YOU LEAVE ME............BRRRRRREATHLESS!" - it's all here.

But...yeah. Not the best collection - the quality, some horrible misses, and the length - it's quite tiring. Barely fresh as a result - I need something better.

[b]Grade: C+ :fresh: [/b]

[b]-------------------------------[/b]

[b][i]AC/DC - Let There Be Rock[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://photo.sing365.com/music/picture.nsf/CoverPicUnid/48256C71003578A24825686B001582BD/$file/Let+There+Be+Rock.jpg[/img]

This is pretty much where the whole AC/DC sound formed into...well, what it's stayed like for a considerable amount of time. Scotty wails away, and the guitar roars. It's classic AC/DC.

Although not all classic - the album is generally fairly solid, but two of the songs are totally unmatched. Of course, it's the title track - Scott's humourous lyrics about the birth of rock n' roll, that beat, that riff, and that soloing - Angus is murdering his guitar by the end. On "Whole Lotta Rosie", he's commiting genocide - the album closer simply blows the house down. And there's Scott's lyrics about a fat ol' whore named Rosie, who ain't exactly pretty, and ain't exactly small. If you thought this was obvious, then the first song on the album is named "Go Down"...hmm. Well, at least we're not covering people in oil yet.

The other songs are good though - "Overdose", and "Hell Ain't A Bad Place to Be" in particular. "Dog Eat Dog" and "Bad Boy Boogie" are also solid...."Crabsody in Blue" is...well, Crab. Funny song, though. Generally, a good solid mass with two classics - what more?

[b]Grade: B+ :fresh: [/b]

[b]-------------------------[/b]

[b][i]The Jam - Sound Affects[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://photo.sing365.com/music/picture.nsf/CoverPicUnid/48256C71003578A24825697600267755/$file/Sound+Affects.jpg[/img]

Stunning record. Not a single bad moment, really. This is where the Jam reached their peak - in 1980. A lot of other artists did the same, actually - and the Jam were amongst them. Weller's songwriting was never better, and neither was Bruce Foxton's bass playing.

One particular note - often, the Jam could be accused of aping other people's work. They don't really do themselves any favours with "Start!" - COMPLETELY ripping off "Taxman" by the Beatles...but they get away with it! "Start!" is a superb song, in fact, and it stands on it's own.

But it isn't the best. This would be...well, there's 5 different contenders. The severely rocking "Set the House Ablaze", the classic single "That's Entertainment", with excellent lyrics and everything else, the great "Dreamtime" (lengthy and iconic), another big single with "Man In the Cornershop", and the closing "Scrape Away" - all the songs are brilliant, right up as the best of the Jam catalogue. And the others are great too - opener "Pretty Green", the 60-flavour "Monday", "But I'm Different Now", "Music For the Last Couple", "Boy About Town" - all great.

This one gets the big'un - the big rating. It's a great album - one of the best out of many from 1980. Perhaps the best year for music since 1967, actually - Talking Heads released "Remain In Light", Peter Gabriel released his best, "Peter Gabriel III", the Police with the triumphant "Zenyatta Mondatta" - the best from the whole box...Dylan released Saved - but that's enough bad points. Most importantly, Kate Bush released "Never Forever" - which was, of course, the greatest album of all time up to that point. Until 1982. And then until 1985. But this is a classic too.

[b]Grade: A+ :fresh: [/b]

[b]-----[/b]

Well, pop-pickers, that's a whole load of gushing reviews. Not a bad seed so far! Next time, there might be some more jazz, country music, and a little Beatles. Oh yes...and I did say last time that i'd review some commercials.


Well....I haven't seen any good ones. There's those horrible "LOTSA CHANGE PLEEZ" McDonald's commercials. That one with some cunt in drag screeching about Wrigley's Spearmints....various nonsensical commercials that are somehow percieved to be funny. Little shits as grown ups. Ugh. Buggery to them all.

And have you heard the dance remix of Lou Reed's "Satellite of Love"? Jesus. I heard it today, and my ears are still burning. Pissing all over classics, for christ. Fuck them too.

Well, that's enough raving. Night-night.

That's what I'd like to see. The brutal murder of one of Britain's most unfunniest wankers by a German madman.

Anyway. Films today? How about one of the briefest, great pictures of madness, Werner Herzog's [b]Woyzeck[/b]. Complete with a powerful, brooding Klaus Kinski. It's familiar territory for Herzog, but it's delivered so well - and some scenes are pure brilliance. And then, we have the monstrous classic, Akira Kurosawa's [b]Yojimbo[/b] - it's all about Mifune. Sanjuro Kuwabatake - the classic mercenary, right on for the darkness. That, and typical Kurosawa brilliance.

Boredom presents various opportunities, you know. So, i've decided to put my two favourites up against one another. Ingmar Bergman will take on Akira Kurosawa - yes, i'm severely bored, but it doesn't take up much time anyway - it also gives me an excuse to watch, through whatever means, anything I can get hold of by them. Here's the current results (Bergman to the left, Kurosawa to the right):

[b]Persona V Ran - RAN[/b]
[b]Cries and Whispers V Ikiru - IKIRU[/b]
[b]Autumn Sonata V Rashomon - AUTUMN SONATA[/b]
[b]The Seventh Seal V Kagemusha - THE SEVENTH SEAL[/b]
[b]Smiles of a Summer Night V Yojimbo - TIED [/b]

So, it's all square at 3 a piece. Here's the other fixtures, if you're still interested:

WILD STRAWBERRIES vs THE SEVEN SAMURAI
HOUR OF THE WOLF vs SANJURO
FANNY AND ALEXANDER vs THRONE OF BLOOD
SUMMER WITH MONIKA vs THE HIDDEN FORTRESS
THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY vs RED BEARD
THE MAGIC FLUTE vs STRAY DOG
SARABANDE vs DREAMS
A LESSON IN LOVE vs RHAPSODY IN AUGUST
THE SILENCE vs DOD'ESEK'ADEN
SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE vs DERSU UZALA

If the cheating machines work well, it's likely there'll be other matches, with more, all or less of these films - on Bergman's side, Shame, The Virgin Spring, The Magician, To Joy, Port of Call, Three Strange Loves and the Serpent's Egg, and on Kurosawa's side, The Bad Sleep Well, The Lower Depths, The Idiot, Sanshiro Sugata, Drunken Angel and Madadayo. It's all very pointless, but it keeps me healthily watching movies.

Perhaps now, it might be time to get on with some more record reviews, out of the latest batches (of which another one will be coming on Sunday). 5 more brief reviews, then.

---------------

[b][i]The The - Mind Bomb[/i][/b]

[img]http://www.musicmatic.de/T/TheThe_2a.jpg[/img]

It's a blessing for this record that it has superb music - and it really does in most cases. For Matt Johnson really, really isn't a good lyricist - as a matter of fact, he's incredibly banal, and it's no better or worse than what you find on a Marilyn Manson record. Which is quite torrid in the first place. Cliched lines abound in this one - certainly uncliche music though.

The opening track, "Good Morning Beautiful" - a slow, superb, catchy long build-up number is definitely the best. Lots of sound, and still more to hear on multiple listens makes Johnson sound like the gothic Peter Gabriel. It continues on the twisted "You've Got Another Thing Coming", and nothing else really comes close to this one, although the only stand-out bad number is the banally gothic duet with Sinead O' Connor, which I believe is called "Kingdom of Pain". "The Beatnik Generation" is also good, and it shows off Johnson as a good harmonica player.

It's worth a cheap buy, really - unless you're really into the gothic scene, in which case, it's an absolute must-have. It is fresh though, and worth a try no matter what.

[b]Grade: C+ :fresh: [/b]

[b]--------------------------[/b]

[b][i]Lou Reed - New York[/i][/b]

[img]http://store.artistdirect.com/Images/Sources/AMGCOVERS/music/cover200/drf600/f627/f62750uy0z2.jpg[/img]

Lou Reed suffered ups and downs in the '80s, just like anyone else. But, at the end of the decade, he pulled out one of his best albums to date. In most cases, it's typically Lou Reed - he sings in his more regular whine, and doesn't tend to bother much with the music, but the lyrics go up several levels for this number. When he wants to be, Lou Reed is one of the best lyricists the world's ever known - and here, he was.

The title says it all - it's basically all about the city, and all the people in it. 14 songs, all with brilliant lyrics - particularly "Dirty Blvd.", "Endless Cycle" (which sort of works like a follow-up on the first number, "Romeo and Juliette"), and what's probably my favourite, the haunting "Xmas in February" - a powerful ballad. In turns, it's more slower, on the aforementioned numbers mainly, and faster and rockier, such as on "There is No Time" and "Strawman". The music isn't anything brilliant - in fact, it's thoroughly basic, and if this same music was by John Cougar Mellencamp or someone similar, i'd shit on it. But this is Lou Reed, and he's the only real element required.

Out of the many Lou Reed works, some good, some bad, this is one to pick up for sure. Go to it.

[b]Grade: A- :fresh: [/b]

[b]----------------------[/b]

[b][i]Sex Gang Children - Live at the Lyceum[/i][/b]

[size=1]No image available[/size]

Crap. Turgid crap. In fact, it's so turgid I can't remember anything about it. Aside from a highly memorable band name. From what I remember, nothing's really badly performed - it's done with a basic energy, with the frontman talking to the crowd often, but it's so samely and banal. Every song is basically the same, only with different lyrics on the top.

Now, this works if you're the Ramones, back in 1976, ripping it up so incredibly primitively on the debut and most of the other work with three golden chords. Sex Gang Children aren't primitive enough, and even with that band name, they aren't spunky enough. It's just gothic punk with no real riffs or melodies at all, and it isn't worth talking about any longer. At least it was cheap and cheerful.

[b]Grade: E :rotten: [/b]

[b]------------------[/b]
[b][/b]
[b][i]Dire Straits - Dire Straits[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://www.jpoc.net/music/rock/d/00/direstraits/direstraits.jpg[/img]

Don't be fooled, and don't miss an opportunity to check out this debut. Ultimately, Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler descended into banal territory, and said guitarist is now thoroughly washed up. BUT, back in 1978, they released this corker of a debut - if you like stunning songs, and stunning guitar work, then this album is absolutely worth your time.

But even then, it's not for all - if you like that music loud, then perhaps not. This is one of the quietest albums ever - a pipe-n'-slippers record. Even if you like the big breakthrough hit "Sultans of Swing", that's still not a solid indication that you're going to like it. And you'll have to be taking it all in - loud, so you can hear all of the little details Knopfler sticks in to his playing. And the smart lyrics - Knopfler's a smart social commentator. The aforementioned "Sultans of Swing", and the more barbed "In the Gallery" prove this here. But the songs are as solid as a rock, are groovy certainly (what about "Down on the Waterline?") and could be quite creepy ("Six Blade Knife").

Don't pass it up just because of the name - it really is a superb record. Give it a chance sometime.

[b]Grade: A :fresh: [/b]

[b]---------------[/b]

[b][i]Talking Heads - Fear of Music[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://www.musicmatic.de/T/Talking2a.jpg[/img]

This is 1979. Mr. Talking Heads, meet Mr. Brian Eno. Eno, meet Heads. A little while later, what's the result?

Just what you'd expect - a stunning New Wave album, filled with rhythmic paranoia, and perhaps if it wasn't for the next record down the line, the very best the Talking Heads had to offer. A golden nugget - belters all around + an influential record. I'm not sure if Adrian Belew was still kicking around with the band at this point (it's got to be - Belew's sound is still there), but this is the music that would, despite rawer, inform King Crimson's '80s period and Discipline - with Belew at the forefront. In fact, Robert Fripp's also in here - I believe, only on the opener - "I, Zimbra". A classic opener, and it's only the start of the album.

Throughout, this record always threatens to go over the edge. It's a true concept album - one that connects through certain themes, despite the crazed lyrics of Byrne. We have "Paper", "Cities", "Heaven", "Electric Guitar" and so on, and then ultimately "Drugs". Like Werner Herzog would say, it's a terrific metaphor, but what for I don't know. When it finally reaches "Drugs", the closing track, it's right over the edge - this long, slow, creeping number might be my favourite - either that or "Heaven". Either way, the whole record is brilliant - filled with catchy, repetitive lines that will definitely beat into your head. Great, great record.

[b]Grade: A :fresh: [/b]

[b]----------------[/b]

So, that wraps up another installment. Next time: We review the latest commercials and pet foods, improvise skits, and wonder how many minutes of Chappelle's Show are now suddenly (and sadly) irrelevant.

Toodles.

That's what I'd like to see. The brutal murder of one of Britain's most unfunniest wankers by a German madman.

Anyway. Films today? How about one of the briefest, great pictures of madness, Werner Herzog's [b]Woyzeck[/b]. Complete with a powerful, brooding Klaus Kinski. It's familiar territory for Herzog, but it's delivered so well - and some scenes are pure brilliance. And then, we have the monstrous classic, Akira Kurosawa's [b]Yojimbo[/b] - it's all about Mifune. Sanjuro Kuwabatake - the classic mercenary, right on for the darkness. That, and typical Kurosawa brilliance.

Boredom presents various opportunities, you know. So, i've decided to put my two favourites up against one another. Ingmar Bergman will take on Akira Kurosawa - yes, i'm severely bored, but it doesn't take up much time anyway - it also gives me an excuse to watch, through whatever means, anything I can get hold of by them. Here's the current results (Bergman to the left, Kurosawa to the right):

[b]Persona V Ran - RAN[/b]
[b]Cries and Whispers V Ikiru - IKIRU[/b]
[b]Autumn Sonata V Rashomon - AUTUMN SONATA[/b]
[b]The Seventh Seal V Kagemusha - THE SEVENTH SEAL[/b]
[b]Smiles of a Summer Night V Yojimbo - TIED [/b]

So, it's all square at 3 a piece. Here's the other fixtures, if you're still interested:

WILD STRAWBERRIES vs THE SEVEN SAMURAI
HOUR OF THE WOLF vs SANJURO
FANNY AND ALEXANDER vs THRONE OF BLOOD
SUMMER WITH MONIKA vs THE HIDDEN FORTRESS
THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY vs RED BEARD
THE MAGIC FLUTE vs STRAY DOG
SARABANDE vs DREAMS
A LESSON IN LOVE vs RHAPSODY IN AUGUST
THE SILENCE vs DOD'ESEK'ADEN
SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE vs DERSU UZALA

If the cheating machines work well, it's likely there'll be other matches, with more, all or less of these films - on Bergman's side, Shame, The Virgin Spring, The Magician, To Joy, Port of Call, Three Strange Loves and the Serpent's Egg, and on Kurosawa's side, The Bad Sleep Well, The Lower Depths, The Idiot, Sanshiro Sugata, Drunken Angel and Madadayo. It's all very pointless, but it keeps me healthily watching movies.

Perhaps now, it might be time to get on with some more record reviews, out of the latest batches (of which another one will be coming on Sunday). 5 more brief reviews, then.

---------------

[b][i]The The - Mind Bomb[/i][/b]

[img]http://www.musicmatic.de/T/TheThe_2a.jpg[/img]

It's a blessing for this record that it has superb music - and it really does in most cases. For Matt Johnson really, really isn't a good lyricist - as a matter of fact, he's incredibly banal, and it's no better or worse than what you find on a Marilyn Manson record. Which is quite torrid in the first place. Cliched lines abound in this one - certainly uncliche music though.

The opening track, "Good Morning Beautiful" - a slow, superb, catchy long build-up number is definitely the best. Lots of sound, and still more to hear on multiple listens makes Johnson sound like the gothic Peter Gabriel. It continues on the twisted "You've Got Another Thing Coming", and nothing else really comes close to this one, although the only stand-out bad number is the banally gothic duet with Sinead O' Connor, which I believe is called "Kingdom of Pain". "The Beatnik Generation" is also good, and it shows off Johnson as a good harmonica player.

It's worth a cheap buy, really - unless you're really into the gothic scene, in which case, it's an absolute must-have. It is fresh though, and worth a try no matter what.

[b]Grade: C+ :fresh: [/b]

[b]--------------------------[/b]

[b][i]Lou Reed - New York[/i][/b]

[img]http://store.artistdirect.com/Images/Sources/AMGCOVERS/music/cover200/drf600/f627/f62750uy0z2.jpg[/img]

Lou Reed suffered ups and downs in the '80s, just like anyone else. But, at the end of the decade, he pulled out one of his best albums to date. In most cases, it's typically Lou Reed - he sings in his more regular whine, and doesn't tend to bother much with the music, but the lyrics go up several levels for this number. When he wants to be, Lou Reed is one of the best lyricists the world's ever known - and here, he was.

The title says it all - it's basically all about the city, and all the people in it. 14 songs, all with brilliant lyrics - particularly "Dirty Blvd.", "Endless Cycle" (which sort of works like a follow-up on the first number, "Romeo and Juliette"), and what's probably my favourite, the haunting "Xmas in February" - a powerful ballad. In turns, it's more slower, on the aforementioned numbers mainly, and faster and rockier, such as on "There is No Time" and "Strawman". The music isn't anything brilliant - in fact, it's thoroughly basic, and if this same music was by John Cougar Mellencamp or someone similar, i'd shit on it. But this is Lou Reed, and he's the only real element required.

Out of the many Lou Reed works, some good, some bad, this is one to pick up for sure. Go to it.

[b]Grade: A- :fresh: [/b]

[b]----------------------[/b]

[b][i]Sex Gang Children - Live at the Lyceum[/i][/b]

[size=1]No image available[/size]

Crap. Turgid crap. In fact, it's so turgid I can't remember anything about it. Aside from a highly memorable band name. From what I remember, nothing's really badly performed - it's done with a basic energy, with the frontman talking to the crowd often, but it's so samely and banal. Every song is basically the same, only with different lyrics on the top.

Now, this works if you're the Ramones, back in 1976, ripping it up so incredibly primitively on the debut and most of the other work with three golden chords. Sex Gang Children aren't primitive enough, and even with that band name, they aren't spunky enough. It's just gothic punk with no real riffs or melodies at all, and it isn't worth talking about any longer. At least it was cheap and cheerful.

[b]Grade: E :rotten: [/b]

[b]------------------[/b]
[b][/b]
[b][i]Dire Straits - Dire Straits[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://www.jpoc.net/music/rock/d/00/direstraits/direstraits.jpg[/img]

Don't be fooled, and don't miss an opportunity to check out this debut. Ultimately, Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler descended into banal territory, and said guitarist is now thoroughly washed up. BUT, back in 1978, they released this corker of a debut - if you like stunning songs, and stunning guitar work, then this album is absolutely worth your time.

But even then, it's not for all - if you like that music loud, then perhaps not. This is one of the quietest albums ever - a pipe-n'-slippers record. Even if you like the big breakthrough hit "Sultans of Swing", that's still not a solid indication that you're going to like it. And you'll have to be taking it all in - loud, so you can hear all of the little details Knopfler sticks in to his playing. And the smart lyrics - Knopfler's a smart social commentator. The aforementioned "Sultans of Swing", and the more barbed "In the Gallery" prove this here. But the songs are as solid as a rock, are groovy certainly (what about "Down on the Waterline?") and could be quite creepy ("Six Blade Knife").

Don't pass it up just because of the name - it really is a superb record. Give it a chance sometime.

[b]Grade: A :fresh: [/b]

[b]---------------[/b]

[b][i]Talking Heads - Fear of Music[/i][/b]
[b][/b]
[img]http://www.musicmatic.de/T/Talking2a.jpg[/img]

This is 1979. Mr. Talking Heads, meet Mr. Brian Eno. Eno, meet Heads. A little while later, what's the result?

Just what you'd expect - a stunning New Wave album, filled with rhythmic paranoia, and perhaps if it wasn't for the next record down the line, the very best the Talking Heads had to offer. A golden nugget - belters all around + an influential record. I'm not sure if Adrian Belew was still kicking around with the band at this point (it's got to be - Belew's sound is still there), but this is the music that would, despite rawer, inform King Crimson's '80s period and Discipline - with Belew at the forefront. In fact, Robert Fripp's also in here - I believe, only on the opener - "I, Zimbra". A classic opener, and it's only the start of the album.

Throughout, this record always threatens to go over the edge. It's a true concept album - one that connects through certain themes, despite the crazed lyrics of Byrne. We have "Paper", "Cities", "Heaven", "Electric Guitar" and so on, and then ultimately "Drugs". Like Werner Herzog would say, it's a terrific metaphor, but what for I don't know. When it finally reaches "Drugs", the closing track, it's right over the edge - this long, slow, creeping number might be my favourite - either that or "Heaven". Either way, the whole record is brilliant - filled with catchy, repetitive lines that will definitely beat into your head. Great, great record.

[b]Grade: A :fresh: [/b]

[b]----------------[/b]

So, that wraps up another installment. Next time: We review the latest commercials and pet foods, improvise skits, and wonder how many minutes of Chappelle's Show are now suddenly (and sadly) irrelevant.

Toodles.

So, Big Brother 5 gets into earnest - two housemates go into a bedsit, where they'll watch the other housemates. Then, after they've been privy to several rounds of bitching, they'll get put back in. As it is, the house has already split down the middle, with the fun-lovers on one side, and the more serious types on the other - of course, there's several floaters who don't really care. It's all very [b]Lord of the Flies[/b]-ish.

The simple spirit of the book - trap several people in a small location, and see what happens, has been captured many times - film-wise, you'd have to look at Werner Herzog's classic [b]Aguirre, The Wrath of God[/b] for a real stand-out example. And then, there's Big Brother. Perhaps it's giving the series a little too much credit, but it does have those undertones - people are stripped down to their base elements, and some are more concerned with the image that they project, locking away their own personality. Just look at Victor - a man of the people, a floater, but a game-player. Michelle is another true player. At times, it's like watching a chess match, seeing how these people try and project themselves. A bad one, of course - I wouldn't give Big Brother that much credit (although I thoroughly enjoy the show), but it goes to show how important some of the classics can be.

As for [b]Lord of the Flies [/b]itself, it's strange. The more unconscious or less-direct examples succeed. However, on 2 occasions the book itself was adapted for the screen, and on 2 occasions, it was a failed attempt. Why? It seems like something that you couldn't fuck up, but you can. Perhaps it's to do with acting - in most instances, not very good. Or that it's only a film - Big Brother involves real people. And that at the end, it isn't that hopeless - unlike [b]Aguirre[/b], for instance, where you pretty much know that they're all doomed from the start.

And then, there's the scope. There's many more people in the actual Flies than there is in Big Brother or Aguirre, and there's not enough time to go through all of them. The films both suffer from no real characterisation - the film medium doesn't have the time, and as such it can't offer the same amount of scope and characterisation a good book can. Not that I intend to put the two up against each other - it's just a fact of life.

Anyway, I come now to a small review of [b]Lord of the Flies - [/b]in this instance, the 1963 version that was directed by Peter Brook, a man who had more experience on the stage.

--------

[size=4][b]LORD OF THE FLIES - [/b][/size][size=2]Peter Brook (1963). James Aubrey, Tom Chapin, Hugh Edwards.[/size]

[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6302891256.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]

Superb cover-art. Shame about the movie. It's a premise that really, at it's base, should be impossible to screw up. A plane crashes that contains children. The adults are dead, but the children survive, and they find themselves on a remote desert island. They get together, elect a leader, and go through day-by-day, but ultimately, the group falls apart into factions.

It's a premise that, for the thinkers and misanthropes, strips humanity down to it's basic elements, and shakes its head as they run around like headless chickens. If you could sum it up in one word, it would be "Fools". For the child-hater in us, it's an opportunity to see children running around like fools, and ultimately meeting their demise. It's a premise that, in film, was probably given the best treatment (indirectly) by [b]Aguirre, the Wrath of God[/b], and taken to the most extreme, yet logical conclusion in [b]Battle Royale[/b].

But, when dealing with the book directly, the film falls. The technical elements aren't good for this one - Brook doesn't really take the film by the reins, and there's never anything that sticks out. For a premise that should say so much, this adaptation is flacid, and by the end, you don't care.

[img]http://home.clara.net/digger/sixties/flies.jpg[/img]

Then, there's the performances. These range from good, to awful. James Aubrey is the best, playing Ralph, and offering a well-nuanced, good performance - especially for a child. However, no one else matches his game. Most of the other performances are irritating. This was Brook's decision - using actual children, and not actors. It's meant to give the film a natural feel - but, in my mind, when a non-actor is told to act, and then put in front of a camera, it won't be natural. A non-actor will know of the camera's presence - especially if the actor's a child. In most cases, the actor who is faking being natural will be better than the non-actor who's struggling to be natural.

What should be a great premise, ultimately doesn't deliver. We never really sympathise with the characters, or concentrate on their relationships. The climactic moments are lost. The film never breathes. A shame - perhaps Lord of the Flies is one of those books that is impossible to adapt. With, other, more indirect examples achieving bigger success in film, it might be best to leave it alone.

[img]http://www.bizoum.com/samaj.jpg[/img]

We leave the island with a thought: Would it really matter if any of these men died? Is the situation important enough for a black and white freeze frame and dissolve into nothingness? Perhaps so. But not here.

Good night.
-Your lordship.

Let's rock this joint.

I'm a man of both simple and complex pleasures. I take as much pleasure out of looking at the sunset as I do watching some jigsaw puzzle. I pray for the continued life of the extremist who you watch as you would a car crash, and I have nothing but contempt for those, especially on television, who are nothing but vapid and bore me to the core.

Which is why, when I watched [b]Sleuth[/b], Joseph L. Mankiewicz's final masterpiece today, I absolutely loved it. Here's a small review that I placed on another messageboard.

[size=5]SLEUTH - [/size][size=3]Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1972. Laurence Olivier, Michael Caine. [/size]

[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6304808038.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]

Joseph L. Mankiewicz's final film - he would retire after this picture. And he couldn't have picked anything better - unlike most, Mankiewicz retired at the top of his game, after directing his best work. He didn't write it this time, but the play was tailor-made for him, just as it was tailor made to the actors that made it possible - Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier.

It's simple. Milo Tindal (Caine) is invited by Andrew Wyke (Olivier) to his house. Tindal loves, and intends to marry Wyke's wife, Marguerite. Wyke has plans in store, and starts to play games with Tindal. From there, the story goes - really, to say anything else about the plot would be to give details away, and Sleuth is one of those movies that really has to have a virgin experience in order for it to be fully enjoyed.

[img]http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/CIN01008_452.jpg[/img]

So, all I can say is that Caine and especially Olivier both give the performances of their lives, the screenplay is as brutal and acerbic as anything by Mankiewicz (It was written by Anthony Shaffer, adapted from his own play), the direction is great, with superb touches, and the detail is something else. In the end, it's one of the best thrillers of all time, and one of the most fun. The score's superb as well - i'm not exaggerating when I suggest that you should see this movie NOW. Without any delay.

It's a movie for the old artful dodger in us all - the one who loves to play games, and loves to win.

----

It is an absolute keeper. I'm glad i've seen it - it's one of those movies that's seemingly tailor-made to my own self.

A little more background information now - in this deeply exciting letter from the country of Britain, you might not see that many newer films. I generally watch more classics, depending on what I get on DVD. In this pitiful town, I do not have access to a decent cinema, which does limit me. Still, I intend to add plenty of reviews for most things. I have many here, after all.

The Conservatives hold in a place called Congleston, and the UK Independence Party candidate is complaining about missing ballots. Missing ballots? Perhaps it was just the fact that this party runs on one thing only - constant whining about keeping the bastard pound, and nothing else. Perhaps Congleston called their bullshit.

And, as the whining fades away, and my cat murders a fly, it's a good night.