Saturday, December 15, 2012

Kitten Doesn't Like Apples

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-1F-CokXNU

Nice synchronization of the soundtrack to movement in this video.  If Henri the Black Cat is existentialist French cinema than this is, well, the Ridley Scott horror film alternative., obviously.

and while we're at it, Nikita Koshkin's Suite for guitar "The Prince's Toys"

The Mischievious Prince
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS0Y-G_LyHQ&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=56

Mechanical Monkey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbh66uHz4zM&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=57

Doll with Blinking Eyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TMisPIf1U8&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=58

Tin Soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U2uBsof7mo&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=59

The Price's Coach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6PIKdjl0MQ&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=60

Grand parade of the Toys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnpTWnVmIvc&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=61

There are a couple of CDs on which this fine suite has been recorded and there's a neat doctoral dissertation on Koshkin's solo guitar music that's been published as of about six years ago.  I don't remember the details off the top of my head so I'll let you hunt around for stuff if you like Koshkin's music and are discovering it.  I think if I had to pick favorites from Koshkin this suite for solo guitar and his sonata for flute and guitar would be my favorites. 

Way back when I started this blog I wanted to write a blog about cross-movement cyclical development of motiff in Koshkin's sonata for flute and guitar.  I might yet finally get around to doing that.  You're going to have to accept that this will not include musical excerpts because I'm not interested in breaching copyright.  I could, however, link to Koshkin's neat videos of the performance of his sonata and provide explanatory notes of how certain themes derive from a motto that opens the work.  But all that's for later ... and by later I mean possibly out into 2013. 

Anyway, enjoy the suite. 

Asya Selyutina plays Koshkin's Usher Waltz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyJY7WDIzw&list=UU466ME1RFgERiTBg1wlF9eQ&index=35

On the one hand her recordings of his 24 preludes and fugues for solo guitar and their publication by Editions Margaux can't come soon enough.  On the other hand, we don't want to rsuh a project like this that is, so far as I know, unprecedented in the history of the instrument, a contrapuntal cycle composed for the guitar by an guitarist (give or take focal dystonia).  For now, Selyutina does a nice job with Koshkin's most famous waltz.

Nikita Kohskin: Megaron Concerto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3vCbp3dEi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYqVb--AxPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP98lwcFEcg&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEM_oB6rLQI

I haven't written about music in a while, though I had planned to.  Still collecting a variety of thoughts and ideas.  So instead of attempting to blog about music again before I think I'm actually ready to do so let's just link to the recently completed and premiered guitar concerto by Nikita Koshkin. 

The concerto is on CD and is available this year, I think on the BIS label.  Concerti are okay, for my interests it's that the new CD has a quintet for guitar and string quartet that intrigues me.  I admit to liking the guitar more when it has a smaller, more intimate canvas.  On the other hand, fun though it is we guitarists don't want to keep hearing just Concierto de Aranjuez forever and ever, amen, so the possibility of a new concerto to be an alternative might be nice, too.  :)

Thursday, December 13, 2012

cinemagogue, the book

http://cinemagogue.com/2012/12/12/cinemagogue-the-book/

Of course Wenatchee The Hatchet is going to note this bit of news, if a day late. Follow the link and see what James Harleman's written, particularly if you went to any of his Film & Theology presentations over the last twelve years. 

Monday, December 10, 2012

a fun (and long) post on damned Raimi protagonists is up at Cinemagogue

http://cinemagogue.com/2012/12/10/that-damned-protagonist-hell-is-for-raimis-heroes/

Of course Cinemagogue has an overview of protagonists in Sam Raimi films.  After all, Oz is coming out soon enough and Cinemaguy's affection for Raimi's work is easily looked up.  Drag Me to Hell was a fun movie! Not every story has to end with "redemption".  Often, as Harleman pointed out in his presentation on District 9 (if memory serves) so much of the time we moviegoers are used to a story of "redemption" in which a guy on the wrong team realizes he's on the wrong team, has a change of heart, turns around and goes from being a peon for evil to being the hero and savior in his own narrative.  If you want a stereotypical example of this sort of story look to James Cameron's AvatarDistrict 9 provides us with a protagonist who manages to stop being on the side of oppression and injustice but who never really becomes the "hero" that we've been primed to think he should be by American action conventions. 

Well when Sam Raimi's not playing with characters created by other people he's got no problem depicting people who seem "good" and turn out to make harrowing, awful decisions that destroy the lives of others and which lead to their own damnation.  In the case of Drag Me To Hell that damnation of the self is just as literally realized in the story as the title tells you it will be.

Sunday, December 09, 2012

Skyfall: places of shadows and people who pull triggers

There's plenty that's been written about the new Bond movie Skyfall in the last month.  By now if you don't know it's Judi Dench's last film as M then, well, er, spoiler alert?  ;-)

A bit has been made of the observation that the new James Bond movie depicts an older, depressive Bond who dislikes the nature of his work and has become too old to pass field work tests and probably has substance abuse issues.  Yet Bond shows up for duty even after he's identified as dead during a battle in which a field agent attempts to shoot a data thief and, through her own failures in aim, shoots 007.  Cue one of the few actually decent Bond songs in the last ten years.

Bond returns, like an old Bruce Wayne comes out of retirement to deal with an evil that the new generation of cops can't understand or defeat.  James Bond Returns.  But he returns to an MI6 that is positive it doesn't really need him any longer.  Mallory, whom Bond describes as "a bureaucrat", makes a blunt petition to M (Judi Dench) about her team's failure to prevent the data theft.  He says M has had a good run and that there's no dishonor in retiring early and getting a pension and that after such a big failure it's okay to retire and retain some dignity.  To this M replies indignantly, "To hell with dignity! I want the job done."  This becomes a thread through the film in which there are people who work in and with MI6 who consider personal standing or renown or welfare and those who say "to hell with dignity ... ."

But an equally obvious theme in the storyline has to do with "the shadows".  Mallory tells M that she and Bond are, basically, relics from a Cold War time, a bygone era whose methods and tools are no longer relevant. Working in the shadows doesn't make any sense when, thanks to modern technology and information resources, there aren't any shadows.  When Bond is equipped with a gun and radio by Q, the young man mentions, "I can do more damage in a single day with a laptop than you can in a whole year out in the field" (I paraphrase).  Bond retorts with a question of why on earth he even needs to be around at all.  The obviously strictly indoor Q says, "Eventually somebody has to pull a trigger."  Later in the film Q will unwittingly let the necessary villain (Silva) break into the data systems of MI6 and Silva attempts to assasinate M during a hearing on problems in MI6 security and policy. 

It is during the hearing that M explains why MI6 still needs to exist, because the changing nature of the enemy means the adversary is no longer a nation or an army but those who dwell in the shadows.  This is possibly the first James Bond movie that has a theme and at least one potential theme in the film is the question of what the shadows are.  Mallory believes the shadows don't exist and M is certain that they not only exist but that both the evils that face society (like Silva) emerge from there and that Bond has lived within the shadows and is the sort of person who can fight men like Silva.  At length Silva turns out to have been a former agent of MI6 who overstepped his authorization and clearance, risked compromising MI6's operations, and was given over by M to Chinese authorities during the 1997 transfer of Hong Kong to China.  Some have written that this backstory is implausible.  Okay, so what exactly is supposed to be "plausible" in a James Bond story can be discussed at some other time.

M's point in the film about the shadows invites a question (for those who actually feel like asking these sorts of questions), what are the shadows and where are they?  Even after Mallory said there were no more shadows MI6 is blindsided by an attack from a former agent.  The shadows are not merely some place or places but gaps in attention.  The shadows are where the people in the light are not looking, even if everything might otherwise be bathed in light.  The shadows are in the details you missed, the people you overlooked, the directions in which you were not looking.  This is the world in which James Bond, in pretty much any incarnation, has always lived.  The shadows, again, are not merely where there is no light, the shadows exist where there is some light (even) but you're not looking.

In a gun fight in the hearing room the younger generation that would see Bond and the old M kindly on their way into some dignified retirement are all attempting to make killshots on Silva, who has come into to kill M for what he believes was her treachery toward him.  As people like Mallory and the field agent who will turn out to be the famous desk agent Eve Moneypenny attempt to shoot to kill and fail Bond pulls out his gun.  He shoots to confuse, using his famous Walther PPK to saturate the courtroom with fire retardants from the fire extinguishers in the room.  Silva ends up being thwarted, of course, not by the youngsters who have said there are no shadows anymore and that M should step down, but by the man who is considered physically, mentally, and emotionally unfit to be in the fight, our dear old James Bond.  As Q put it, eventually someone has to pull a trigger and Bond's reticence about his work is how often and why a trigger has to be pulled.  Having been shown unable to make easy shots after being wounded in the moment of real crisis Bond, of course, comes through and has true aim. 

Of course the usual blandishments of the Bond franchise are present but the Bond girl motiff takes a tertiary role to the aforementioned themes.  The most important Bond woman in this film is M and it's fitting that after being in the franchise so many years Judi Dench is given an actually significant role.  Severine ends up being almost purely incidental, the path to Silva.  It's the agent revealed in the end to be Moneypenny who ends up being the second most important woman in Bond's travels in Skyfall, a well-meaning younger agent who has bad aim and taunts Bond about being the old dog who somehow learned new tricks. Unlike the other generation of youngsters Moneypenny is willing to take Bond's frank and unflattering advice that with the kind of aim she has he'd feel awfully safer knowing she wasn't firing guns out in the field and that she's not cut out for field work.  By film's end Moneypenny turns out to accept Bond's blunt advice and Q has been humbled by the discovery that Silva was able to best his technology and defeat his laptop.  This being a Bond movie that's no surprise. 

Having said all that that's about as much as I think needs be said.  The new Bond movie is a veritably solemn affair but it seems that Sam Mendes is better off giving Bond movies some actual themes than cranking out self-congratulatory films like American Beauty.  Sometimes taking a big dumb movie franchise seriously and giving it some themes to play with is more fun that attemtping to be above genre trappings and being stuck in the most hoary convention of all, the shallow suburban existence in which dissatisfied people questing for meaning and personal fulfillment do ethically questionable things.  After all, you can get that stuff in Bond movies and throw in a few chase scenes. 

Old Life: When Transformation Transforms the Transformers

http://oldlife.org/2012/12/when-transformation-transforms-the-transformers/

... the example of the Amish (as Berry understands them) may also be instructive for those wanting to transform out culture. Instead of infiltrating the city to redeem it, the Amish have fled the dominant culture to cultivate a Christian culture (as they understand it). In so doing, they have avoided the problem that generally afflicts the infiltrators — that they become like the culture they inhabit, that is, in the case of city transformers, they become as urban and hip as they are Christian. The Amish are also apparently free from the self-delusion that often infects the transformationalists, then one where to justify redeeming the culture the cult loses what makes it distinct (the salt is no longer salt).

... This is not, by the way, an endorsement of either the Amish (whom I admire) or the project of Christian culture. I am more and more persuaded that the longing for a Christian culture is illegitimate and whets the soul’s appetite for something we cannot have in this world. But if you are going to look for examples of Christian culture, the Amish may have unwittingly outscored the neo-Calvinists. ...

A surprisingly sloppy post not so much in the ideas presented, which are clear enough, but in the word choice.  Maybe the post was published using a mobile device that kicked in with auto-correct.  The thoughts are, however, interesting enough that some obviously off-kilter words don't keep the idea from coming across.  The Amish have cultivated a Christian culture that is robust and recognizable by not being in the culture around them.  Neo-Calvinists, as yet, have not produced a culture that has become so recognizable or long-lasting and this "may" be because they haven't had time or, as Hart implies, they will always lack the foundation form which to build a "Christian culture" because the enterprise itself is dubious.  Whether or not you agree with Hart on that is a matter all its own. 

Having seen the earnestness with which some pastors in this area have said they want to win people to Jesus, people who will "move upstream" and "shape culture" I've also seen what can happen when people realize they are probably never going to move upstream and shape culture.  They despair, they give up, they get resentful, and in some cases bail on church altogether.  When a goal of Christian living is to "redeem culture" it may happen to happen but it ends up putting the cart before the horse.

I suppose I could write more on the matter but I don't feel like doing so.