Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Beginning of the end...

The democratic race has been painful to watch, and after today, the votes will be counted and, for what it's worth, it'll be basically over for the voters. Sadly, I've contracted the voter fatigue that critics think may do in the democrats' chance of winning this election. Because this race has been so tight for so long (which isn't a bad thing per se - it shows that our democracy is working), the candidates have resorted to pandering to blue collar workers and the middle class (i.e., the type of family many of us reading this blog are from). In some ways, it's nice to see the candidates showing that they can relate to the common people. But, it'd be more sincere if the candidates told it like it is: "Hey, show me what you do around here. Tell me what concerns you in this town. What do your kids do for fun? How are the schools?" Obviously, the candidates are now VERY far removed from the everyday lifestyle of a blue collar worker, even if that's where they came from originally.

Here's an article from the Washington Post talking about the candidates' recent blue-collar escapades.

I can't remember if it was Colbert or Stewart who talked about Hilary's fake Southern accent now that she's campaigning in North Carolina. I tried finding it on YouTube, but I haven't located it yet. Check it out if you can; it's pretty funny.

Glitter and Doom Tour

Recording artist Tom Waits announced he will be embarking on a rare live tour this summer across southern America. For an explanation of his unusual tour route, watch this press conference.

Monday, May 5, 2008

Movie Review: Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Starring Jason Segel, Kristen Bell, Mila Kunis, Russell Brand

2008

Plots for romantic comedies are never especially original and since Forgetting Sarah Marshall so helpfully provides the gist of the movie right in the title, I'll keep the synopsis portion of this review brief: television score composer Peter Bretter goes on a Hawaiian vacation to forget his actress ex-girlfriend only to discover that she is staying at the same resort with her new rock star boyfriend. Awkward antics ensue.

Written by and starring long-time Apatow regular Jason Segel, Forgetting Sarah Marshall inevitably must be compared to the recent slew of Judd Apatow produced movies that have flooded the market. For better or for worse all of those films have adhered to the same There's Something About Mary model of infusing third rate romantic comedy plotlines with elevated levels of profanity and risque humor and then casting overweight or unattractive male comedians opposite B-list starlets to draw in male and female fans alike. Though undeniably financially successful - somewhere studio execs are still in disbelief over just how many 18-24 year old males they tricked into buying tickets for 9 Months II - this model has yielded films that lack comedic consistency and that usually fall short even of the modest story standards set by the unapologetically trite and predictable romantic comedy genre. I recently read an article on The Asylum, the company that produces straight to DVD mockbusters like Transmorphers and Snakes on a Train, and found an uncanny parallel between their business model and Apatow's. When their Japanese buyers requested a submarine movie - a genre their monster craving US buyers had no interest in - Asylum responded by inserting a giant squid and calling it 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea. As Asylum exec David Latt noted, "the big submarine battles made the Japanese happy, the giant squid satisfied our domestic buyers, and we got to make a really fun movie."

Like Asylum, Apatow draws on a small pool of writers, directors, and actors to work on his films and everyone involved seems to be having an excellent time (check funnyordie.com or the DVD extras of any of these films for further proof of the non-stop behind the scenes fun). Although some of Apatow's early players have graduated on to careers of varying levels of success (Linda Cardellini for example has done some quality dramatic work under the radar) most alums have had their greatest success working within the safe confines of the Apatow world (see Seth Rogen and the otherwise unemployed Martin Starr). Jason Segel has been working with Apatow since the Freaks & Geeks days and although he has enjoyed some success outside of the Apatow world on the sitcom How I Met Your Mother, major film roles have not been forthcoming and it comes as no surprise that Segel returns to the fold for his first starring feature.

Although Forgetting Sarah Marshall has the requisite raunchy humor of its predecessors, it is far less concerned with hiding its romantic comedy roots and as such avoids the filmic identity crisis that crippled Knocked Up. Segel throws in plenty of frontal male nudity and similar low brow sight gags at us early on but the film quickly settles into a comfortable and predictable girl leaves boy, boy meets new girl who helps him rediscover his passion for life love story. Segel has been playing variations on the same well-intentioned, romantic screw-up since his days as Nick on Freaks & Geeks and, while he may not be proving himself to be especially versatile, there's no denying that he has the part down cold. As per usual with Apatow films, the best lines all go to male characters and the female parts are appallingly one-dimensional and underwritten. In past films, talented actresses like Catherine Keener and Leslie Mann have managed to coax substantial performances from woefully thin material but Kristen Bell and Mila Kunis lack their acting chops. They do as well as can be expected with what they're given to work with but both end up spending long stretches of the film with nothing to do but stand around looking pretty (ironically, one of the few scenes that allows them to show some personality actually involves them mutually complimenting one another on being pretty). Despite these shortcomings there are some bright spots in the movie. There is genuine chemistry between Segel and Bell and newcomer Russell Brand as Sarah's new rock star beau steals every scene he's in; unfortunately, pointless, momentum killing cameos from Apatow regulars take precedence over fleshing out these more interesting main characters.

Chances are you've already made your mind up about the Apatow family of films and if you loved Knocked Up and Superbad you'll probably find this entry lacking; however, if you found Knocked Up derivative and Superbad insufferable, you might find this one surprisingly watchable. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a much more modest film and as such a more successful one; it makes a play for fans across genres, but for the most part Segel sticks to his strengths and the result is an unremarkable yet respectable romantic comedy for young adults.

Final verdict: No matter what side of the fence you're on in regards to Apatow films, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is lightweight, unoffensive fare worth a matinee-priced ticket or rental.

25 Years of Tom Cruise being a Celebrity!!!


Nauseous, disgusted, Dakota Fanninged, impressed. These are all emotions I felt while watching Oprah Winfrey's Tom Cruise Ass-Kiss-A-Thon called "25 years of Tom Cruise". Watching past cast-mates and collaborators like Dustin Hoffman (who was actually more retarded in the shout out than he was in Rain Man) to Steven Speilberg to oh so creepy and 10 going on 75 Dakota Fanning sharing and telling glorious, flowery memories of their days spent working with Mr. Cruise deeply affected me. I was nauseous because it was disgusting, I was then Fanninged by Dakota Fanning and overall I was impressed that Oprah Winfrey would take time out of her busy schedule of giving things away to audience members to honor such an American Icon and level 4 Scientologist such as Tom Cruise. Not only did Mr. Cruise do a KILLER Jack Nicholson impression... he didn't jump on any couches! Cruise just sort of sat there with his chiseled features, smiling and possibly levitating audience members off-camera with his mind, while other celebrities talked about how "great" and "awesome" he is and was and would be to work with. I retract my notion that Oprah stopped doing what she does five days a week at Harpo Studios, each audience member received a Tom Cruise DVD box set (sick!) and a special edition of "Risky Business" (heyooo!). I can't wait till the 50th anniversary.

Product Review: Kashi TLC - Natural Ranch Tasty Little Crackers


For those who know me, this will come as no surprise: I do not like foods with strong tastes. For me, usually, the blander, the better.

With that said, I would like to offer a review of Kashi Natural Ranch TLC all natural snack crackers. Kashi has wittily used the acronym TLC to refer to “tasty little crackers.” After tasting these crackers, I have to ask, who wouldn’t want to give themselves a little TLC with these TLCs?

Aesthetically, they leave something to be desired; they look like a snack you may give a small rodent or bird. And, the consistency is what you’d expect from a cracker made from 7 whole grains, and no hydrogenated oils or trans fats – crispy and grainy. Don’t be surprised if you get a seed stuck in your teeth. However, the taste is absolutely heavenly: Earthy, hearty, with the slightest hint of ranch. After you take a sip of water, the taste is essentially completely cleared from your pallet, unlike many other ranch flavored snacks that seem to linger for hours on the back of your tongue.

While not particularly high in fiber (8% of your daily suggested value per serving), the sodium content is extremely low for a salty snack at 200mg. And as we all know, foods sans trans fats and high in whole grains are heart-healthy!

I bought these crackers at a small, over-priced campus grocer for $3.49, but I’m sure in a more traditional grocery store, they’d be much cheaper. If you can’t find them with the other snack crackers, try the health food aisle.

German Idealism REDUX

If philosophy isn't your cup of tea, please scroll down and enjoy Josh's delightfully introduced link to TIME magazine's 100 Most Influential People list. For everyone else, please enjoy/criticize the following:

The ALL – The concept of ALL is similar in function and nature to the concept of infinity. That is, both consist in irony. In other words, the concept ALL is not and can never be identical to the ALL per se. Infinity and the ALL are both originally and essentially positive. Subjectivity itself is defined by the revelation of the ALL as differentiable, which consists in negation, i.e. subjectivity.

------

The ALL and its remainder – If the ALL is fundamentally a paradox, like nothing and infinity, there is an insurmountable chasm between the sign and the signified. These words by definition resist identity-thinking because they are expressly non-identical to that which they refer to.

------

The primacy of belief – Any and all forms of negation consist in belief. Belief itself can be divided into justified belief (knowledge) and dogmatic belief (faith). The structure of belief is a wall, or a point beyond which questions pertaining to the ontology of that which is in question become incoherent and unintelligible. The wall of knowledge is the cogito, while the wall of faith is the ALL.

------

What does it mean to disbelieve? – To disbelieve is the essence of skepticism, which itself paves the ultimate path to pure knowledge. Skepticism recognizes the fundamental reality that all positive knowledge really consists in negation, and thus all knowledge consists in belief. In fact, Hegel’s project in the Phenomenology consists largely in showing that Kant provides a realization of this paradigm, insofar as he assumes an absolute skepticism towards reality per se, and imagines a secondary contingent reality – the phenomenal realm, or realm of possible subjective experience – of which, he claims, positively justified knowledge can be known. As an idealist, Kant had faith in this distinction. He achieves the absolute separation between the subject and the object by creating an absolute separation between the object and non-objective reality, or the ALL. By dividing the ALL per se into phenomena and noumena and simultaneously extracting the subject from the ALL, we are confronted with the absolute, unquestionable subject/object distinction.

------

Hegel vs. Kant – In response to the unquestioned irony built into Kant’s epistemology, Hegel inverts Kant’s reality by giving phenomena primacy and dismissing noumena, which cannot be objectively known, as “less than shadows.” Hegel’s distressing fear of irony* forces him into a repetitious, often circular epistemology that aims at a communion of subject and object. Hegel’s Absolute, the totality of objectively knowable reality (thus everything), has no outside and thus claims to be the ALL not simply identified, but identified as the totality of that which is always already becoming.

*Hegel and Irony – It is not irony in itself that Hegel fears; it is the unexamined, assumed irony that Kant unquestioningly uses as the bedrock upon which he erects his three critiques. Attempting to overcome irony, rather than ignore it, although necessarily futile, proves to be the nature of life itself. Thus when we find that Kant was bound to his hometown and was no traveler to say the least, the hermetical odor that pervades his work makes perfect sense, while Hegel, not afraid to confront uncertainty without writing it off as such, produced works that have a far more human flavor. Hegel’s Romantic grandiosity exists in truth, while Kant’s certainty-driven epistemology exists for truth.

-----

Apperception as negation – Apperception is essentially negation. In other words, if I call to mind the fact that I am currently formulating ideas and writing, I am essentially saying that I am absolutely doing nothing else, thereby making an a priori objective statement. If the conditions of the possibility of my formulating ideas and writing are met, I am necessarily doing nothing else but formulating ideas and writing. In order to believe this to be a proper description of reality, I must grant knowledge – i.e. the primacy of the objectively answerable question – primacy. Pure knowledge, of course, does not consist in positivity, but in negativity. As an epistemologist, Kant had to first negate reality (ignore it as unknowable) in order to assert anything positive about it (as phenomenal reality). Pure knowledge requires that we disbelieve that it is itself a form of belief.

------

All knowledge is reducible to self-knowledge – Within the Kantian framework, knowledge can be reduced to self-knowledge insofar there is only one Self, i.e. the rational agent. Within the Hegelian framework, knowledge can be reduced to self-knowledge insofar as there is only one Self, i.e. the Absolute, or Geist. The difference between these two notions of Self is a variation on the subject/object theme, which itself is a variation on the opening theme, that of the ALL. Specifically, the Kantian Self consists in an absolute separation from the world, i.e. the universe not only exists independently of Self, but Self probably can’t even say anything necessarily true about the universe. The Hegelian Self, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with collapsing this differentiation by a return to ALL. In religious terms, we are faced here with the schism between Protestantism and Catholicism. The Kantian world has no metaphysical structure beyond our ability to describe it in terms of how we confront it, while the Hegelian world resolves into the Self by making the Self, or subject, not an object, but the Object.

------

The Voice of the Remainder – Kant’s world, though like Descartes he didn’t necessarily intend it to, annihilates the remainder through the doctrine of “the condition of the possibility.” Thereby, Kant sees but does not hear the remainder. On the other hand, Hegel annihilates the remainder through his rigorous practice of the science of phenomenology, or the taking of phenomena as more real than noumena. Thereby, Hegel hears but does not see the remainder.

------

Transcendence and Immanence - Kant believes in an outer ultimate reality, while Hegel believes in an inner ultimate reality.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Who's Your #1?

TIME magazine just published their list of the 100 most influential people in the world. The list covers world leaders, scientists, artists, and captains of industry.

100 Most Influential People - complete list


Just for kicks, go through and see how many names you recognize. I got 33/100, taking a big hit on the Scientists & Thinkers and Builders & Titans sections. I did significantly better identifying selections from the preview for PEOPLE magazine's upcoming 100 Most Beautiful People list.

Friday, May 2, 2008

I hate to sound like a total pussy but here goes


I like cleanliness. It's a good part of life. Smelly people are smelly because they simply don't give a shit about whether they smell or not. Like I said I enjoy smelling nice. Granted I don't wear cologne, cologne is for _____________. Although if you read this blog and you do put on cologne, ignore my statement. Perfume on a woman is fine. Regardless my last entry had to do with a hand soap that is quite unbelievable. There happens to be one more thing that smells nice and makes me happy. It's a simple car air freshener. It's made by Yankee Candle company. Many of you probably have them. This is sort of a product review but I'm not reviewing the Yankee Candle car air fresheners in general, but instead one fragrance of car air freshener: MidSummer's Night Car Jar. They call it a car jar because they are corny and they want to pretend like you have an actual candle hanging from your rearview mirror but instead it's really just an air freshener. MidSummer's Night is the manliest scent they sell but because I grew up with an obsessive compulsive Mother and I dealt with fresh smelling scents all over the household I wanted something I could feel comfortable with. I get the same car air freshener every Christmas in my stocking and recently I found one in a coat pocket I hadn't worn in a while (WHAT A SURPRISE!). When I found the Car Jar, needless to say I was pretty excited. I'll take a MidSummer's Night from Yankee Candle over a generic "New Car" scent any day of the week. If you haven't experienced a long drive with one of these things dangling from your rearview mirror---you truly are missing out. So do your car a favor and buy one.

5/5 Fo' real, son.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes

As a companion to the previous post on Slavoj Zizek's Pervert's Guide to Cinema I suggest reading his article "Revenge of Global Finance" in which he incorporates an analysis of Star Wars Episode III: the Revenge of the Sith into his commentary on capitalist society. The article is a good example of how he uses popular culture to illuminate his commentary on more "important" subjects. In the article, Zizek leaves the obvious criticism of Revenge of the Sith's considerable flaws to lesser critics and offers up a more thorough critique of the film's shortcomings. A sample:

And—back to the Revenge of the Sith—the price for the film’s sticking to these same New Age motifs is not only its ideological confusion, but, simultaneously, its inferior narrative quality. These motifs are why Anakin’s transformation into Darth Vader—the series’ pivotal moment—lacks the proper tragic grandeur. Instead of focusing on Anakin’s hubris as an overwhelming desire to intervene, to do Good, to go to the end for those he loves and thus fall to the Dark Side, Anakin is simply shown as an indecisive warrior who is gradually sliding into Evil by giving way to the temptation of Power, by falling under the spell of the evil Emperor. In other words, Lucas lacked the nerve to really apply his parallel between the shift of the Republic to Empire and of Anakin to Darth Vader. Anakin should have become a monster out his very excessive attachment with seeing Evil everywhere and fighting it.

I've always been of the opinion that the essential story of Anakin's downfall is more powerful and compelling than that of nearly any film or novel ever published and that the film's failure to even remotely live up to its considerable potential is possibly the greatest theoretical tragedy in modern art (imagine if Picasso had decided to go through a blind-folded period from 1901 -1912). Zizek's article goes on to examine the troubling ideology that is shaping modern capitalism, but I'm glad that he took time out of his undoubtedly busy life to comment on the grave artistic injustice perpetrated by Mr. Lucas on us all.

The Pervert's Guide to Cinema

Recognized the world over as one of the preeminent social theorists to emerge at the end of the 20th century, Slavoj Zizek is one of the rare intellectuals who has made the jump from academic authority to cultural celebrity. Recently he made a stir in the academic world by writing captions for photos in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog. Questioned as to whether this was an appropriate application of his considerable intellectual talents, Zizek replied that he would rather make money writing ad copy than "kissing ass to get a tenured post." A charismatic and engaging speaker, Zizek unapologetically simplifies the content of his work during public lectures and television appearances, often making comments that seem contradictory to his published materials (if you're looking to waste some time, a YouTube search of 'slavoj zizek' yields a wealth of entertaining and thought provoking clips).

Zizek is the subject of numerous profiles and videos (I had to watch Zizek! in a class and would highly recommend it) and the latest film issue of The Believer magazine includes a DVD of part one of his recent film The Pervert's Guide to Cinema. Originally broadcast on British television, The Pervert's Guide provides a crash course on psychoanalytic film criticism as well as Zizek's own thoughts on human desire and the nature of reality. He covers films as diverse as Vertigo and Revenge of the Sith and his commentary comes across more like astute observations from an enthusiastic fan than serious criticism from one of the world's most renowned thinkers. You might not learn anything profound about any of these films, but watching Zizek deliver sweaty, over-enunciated commentary from inside faithful set recreations of the scenes being analyzed is wildly entertaining. He delivers a lecture on the superego from Norman Bates' basement and sits casually on the hotel toilet from The Conversation whilst discussing perception and desire.

Currently unavailable on Netflix, you can get the first hour of The Pervert's Guide to Cinema with a copy of The Believer (the issue also has a great feature breaking down the budget of a feature film) or seek out a copy online.

I've included a sample clip below, and if this is your type of thing, the entire film is available on YouTube (I'm too lazy to stitch together all 15 segments into a playlist here on The Molly; just search "perverts guide to cinema" and they should all come up)

FREUD VIA HITCHCOCK AND THE MARX BROS