Saturday, May 18, 2024

Shellac - To All Trains (2024) / Steve Albini - 1962 - 2024


It's been 10 days since I saw the news, randomly, glancing at my inbox, seeing a "breaking" email from Pitchfork, referencing Albini. It was just a glimpse, and I thought nothing much of it, perhaps it was a tour announcement (the day before, Shellac had been announced as opening act for OFF! on the Chicago stop on their Farewell Tour). But then I looked again and it's fair to say my world fell apart.

The last album I reviewed properly on Flying Houses was Dude Incredible and so of course, the most fitting tribute is to review To All Trains, which is the follow-up that we all waited nearly 10 years to hear, the longest gap between any Shellac album. The review linked above once again exemplifies the evolving nature of the writing on this blog. I don't entirely disavow it ("Wingwalker" is still my favorite song), but would make certain stylistic changes. Regardless, it showcases my enthusiasm for the band at the time.

There were a few other music items on the blog since then, but no proper album reviews. There were lots of reviews of books written by musicians, but there was only a Top 10 Albums of 2017 post, and a review of a Pissed Jeans concert. I sort of migrated over a bit to Instagram in 2019 and made a post in March 2020 after the Shellac concert at Lincoln Hall, so there's a pic and a caption in my timeline. There's also this Shellac concert review from 2016, and really I'm not happy with any of them. I will try to do better here.

*

I did not do better here. I was advised by a friend that he was unsatisfied with this post. He was anticipating a "meditation on the specifics and deep, metaphysical quandaries this person represented, embodied, and cultivated in your internal world. It's not that there wasn't any of it, but it mostly felt like broad strokes without a lot of flesh and muscle and blood vessels added to the scaffolding." 

I did not do that for several reasons: (1) This is one of thousands of articles/items serving as a "personal obituary," and I did not have the benefit of meeting Albini in person (only Bob Weston, who was very nice); (2) I could easily write more of an essay on the task of disavowing earlier poses and wrongheaded statements, but plenty of these other items focus heavily on that, and generally do it quite well, and I do not ignore it entirely; (3) My friend took particular issue with the "album review" below, and I agree with him that it is not a very good review of To All Trains. I will edit as I see fit over time. If it seemed to get short shrift, it's because I'm still sitting with it, and it's quite hard to pretend like you understand what many songs by Shellac are about, and moreover, I am wary of being long-winded, and moreover, this friend is "not and never [has] been a fan of the band" and to him "those guys were never truly punk." 

Now a lot of people would take issue with that last statement (Steve Albini isn't Ian MacKaye, but Electrical Audio is to record studios as Dischord is to record labels), but I believe he meant in the general way they sound, and while I agree with that to an extent, I do believe To All Trains is their "punk" album, even if only 1 or 2 songs actually approach that aesthetic. I am sorry that I do not write well about music, but I have a great deal of respect for the artists and sometimes just want to turn people on to things they might not have otherwise found. 

With Shellac, you would only discover them if you wanted to, and they certainly were not interested in developing a huge following. They played in places they wanted to visit for fun (and most famously the Primavera Festival each year). They played in Chicago once every year or two, and I'm sad I only got to see them in 2016 and 2020, missing that insane pop-up concert they did at Reckless Records in 2019 (I did see them in 2007 at the Touch & Go 25th anniversary Block Party, which also included a mini-Big Black reunion complete with firecrackers, but that was before my appreciation for them ran deeper). Suffice to say, like the Fall, they are unappreciated, but unlike the Fall (who flirted for one brief moment with pop charts), they did not clamor for anyone's attention, or care if anyone didn't like their music. They knew what they did was good, even if a lot of people would never "get it." I don't think you have bad taste if you don't get it--to each their own--and it is really fucking sad to think that the band has come to a necessary end, that whoever might "discover" them in the future won't be able to see them play live, which was the ideal experience with them--but I absolutely think anyone that has *not* heard them, should give them a listen, if only because what they did was different, original, unique and no one can ever replicate the genuine article. 

*

The other Shellac-related posts above in pp 2-3 adequately relay my entire listening history with them. They don't, however, offer any analysis of the overall thrust of Albini's career, perhaps because it was difficult to contextualize at the time and yes, changes happened, as many obituaries and remembrances and homages and tributes tend to mention. 

He talked more shit than almost anyone else. And it was easy to get the wrong idea about him. He stood up for what he believed in, and stuck it to the music industry, regardless of whether it would register. As many items note, he rejected royalties from records he recorded, and rejected the title of "producer," preferring "engineer." You could still buy his services for $900/day in 2024 (I believe). This man was one of the greatest producers in the history of rock music (Phil Spector is the closest comparison in terms of impact and influence on the medium), and he remained affordable and available to hundreds of young musicians looking for proof of "cred." He was a community organizer of sorts. I believe he sponsored a 16" softball team and I am only sorry I couldn't find my way onto it, or that I didn't go to Electrical Audio as a 22-year-old and ask for any type of work, anything to find an entryway into this ethical enclave, at a certain remove from the crummy industry it served, a world of creativity and freedom.

Much has been made about his disavowal of earlier statements, and acknowledgement of privilege, and support of trans rights and other "liberal" causes, and the mea culpas offered on Twitter, and I have nothing to add except they are proof that his heart was always in the right place, and that sometimes you need to scale back rhetoric to protect the most vulnerable amongst us. No one ever defended "wokeness" better. If anyone could have stood up to the most monstrous people in our society and call them out for what they were and why they were wrong, it was him. He never would have wanted to be President, but he would have made a damn good one. 

For me personally, his death is a reminder to make the most of our time here. When I read Our Band Could Be Your Life for the first time in 2003, I was inspired. First I wanted to be a writer, then a filmmaker, then a writer again, then a musician or manager of musicians, then a writer, and then finally a lawyer. When I went to law school, for Legal Writing, we had to use a pseudonym for our first assignment, to ensure anonymity in grading. My name was Santiago Durango, who became a lawyer after Big Black broke up. I didn't get the best grade on that paper (nor on the one authored by Saul Goodman--but the one by Mynheer Peeperkorn, on First Amendment Retaliation claims, got an A). 

Albini did not like lawyers. At least once, he referred to us as "parasites" (who hasn't?). To defend his own statement that Juggalos were misunderstood, he wrote, "Less annoying than Deadheads by an order of magnitude. Very few lawyers and CEOs for a start." 

Albini died the same week as Jim Simons, an influential Wall Street mathematician that laid the foundation for "quant trading" and became a hedge fund manager. He made billions, and made billions for his clients. He lived to be 86. Query which man did more good for the world. The one that made himself available and affordable, and that helped so many people realize and actualize their lifelong dreams, creating a document of their time spent together--or the one that piled money on money and potentially created even more unfair advantages for the most rich and powerful on Wall Street? Both have strong legacies (Simons donated billions of dollars to philanthropic causes) but the one that didn't make front-page news was ultimately the greater champion and hero. 

He would probably question my life choices, and now that he is no longer with us, I will be haunted by his ghost, reminding me of my own mediocrity as a human being. But I also know he wouldn't want to make me feel bad. He would want his death to be a motivator for others, a reminder to follow their calling, and to make great things and do great things. It is tragic that this happened the way it did, but if solace can be taken from anything, it is the immortality of art. Albini is gone, but he will always be with us, too, and he left so much behind for our benefit. 

*

I don't fear Hell.
The baseball team is undefeated.

This is one of the last lines in To All Trains, and posits one of the burning questions I had about Albini. I know he loved baseball and considered it the only worthwhile sport (all other sports were either trying to score the most points before the clock ran out, or volleying something back and forth over a net, he once opined on The Best Show)--but was he a Cubs fan? This information is probably readily available but I'd rather keep it a mystery and pretend that he was in fact "one of us" (though my sense is that he might prefer the White Sox, or prefer to have no allegiance to either). The night he died, Hector Neris ended up getting the win for the Cubs over the Padres, but not before giving up a hit and walking a man while we clung to a 1-run lead. Neris is nicknamed "Heart Attack Hector" due to his penchant for escaping jams that he creates himself. I don't believe that Neris' performance had any impact on Albini that night, but it is an ironic coincidence (at least for the demographic subset of fans of both). (Sometimes I conflate events like this, or the night Carlos Zambrano threw a no-hitter in Milwaukee--which was not against the Brewers and played like a home game--the same night David Foster Wallace, another erudite master of a medium whose influence will continue to percolate for decades, left this world, far too soon.)

The lyrics for To All Trains don't yet pop up on Apple Music but some of them can be made out. Much will be made of the "haunting" quality of many of the songs and lyrics. At least four of them are pretty directly foreboding and uncomfortably prescient ("Tattoos," "Wednesday," "Days are Dogs," and of course, "I Don't Fear Hell.") 

Listening to it again, last night (5/23), while no one will consider this to be his Blackstar (released the same day Bowie died), it doesn't seem entirely clear, but it seems likely, he knew what was happening to him, and knew that this very well might be the last Shellac album (he would be pushing 70 around the time the next one would be anticipated). Their music has always been keenly intertwined with the subject of death (and land, and sex, and music, and time, and ghosts, and heaven--all coupled with doses of humor and irony--and a song about real squirrels and now one about a symbolic rat), but it feels like there is more of a morbid edge to this than all others. At the very least, it grapples more with finding some kind of peace and acceptance in coming to terms with mortality, albeit indirectly. Albini never made "gentle" music of his own, however, and while perhaps a song or two are about his coming to terms with his past reputation, it's still abrasive and puzzling (in a good way, of course, and Shellac cannot be defined by any genre, but "math rock" felt relatively close). 

*

All that being said, this is Shellac's "punk" album. It's 28 minutes long and there are 10 songs. Opening track "Wsod" is possibly about Albini's side-hustle as a professional poker player competing in the World Series of Poker, but I have no idea what most or any of the songs on this album are about. The song's bass line bears a slight resemblance to a certain Green Day (or Papa Roach) song that still gets played on the radio, and it ends with one of the loudest parts of any song they have ever done, sounding a bit like the Jesus Lizard and not for the last time. Effectively the album announces itself as another Shellac album, at this point, and you know the rest will be on par with all of their previous work. It's hard to say what the song or lyrics are about but I've seen some random thing that it is an inside joke referring to the WSOP as the WSOD because it should be called the World Series of Dick-sucking. I cannot verify that but the ending line, "Give that man a medal," is conceivably related to his championship victory.

*

Yesterday (5/30/24), I randomly came across a post on Facebook or X from the Kreative Kontrol podcast. This podcast has interviewed Albini roughly once a year, sometimes twice, for the past 11 or so years. And before the release of Dude Incredible, he went through each song with the host and described the inspiration or idea behind them. They did the same for To All Trains on 4/23/24. The podcast is two hours and twenty minutes long and opens up with 45 minutes of the host (Vish Khanna) offering his remembrances of Albini, reflecting on their relationship, which primarily involved randomly calling Electrical Audio and asking for interviews and later blossomed into a friendship. 

Suffice to say, this episode offers the truth, and these interpretations I have written, above and below, make me feel incredibly stupid. I will add in the truth to highlight said stupidity. 

Basically, I am not far off on "Wsod" but I am not sure Albini got a medal for winning the WSOP, and the lines are "Aspired to bronze/but I'll settle for lead/Passed off as gold for the tourist trade, awarded after testing/Urine, blood and hair/Those three always come as a set/Get that man a medal/Get that man a medal." So it is actually about giving awards to runners up after winners take drug tests and their "competitive advantage" is uncovered. And it is about wanting everyone to know how willing you are to debase yourself on behalf of someone else (i.e. "that guy would win the world series of dick-sucking Donald Trump," to describe the overly eager fanboys going out of their way to defend their idols, a competition of sycophants).  

He also notes, he wanted to scream, "My ass is in a jackpot!" in reference to a baseball umpire who once said that in his own defense to explain why he couldn't control player behavior on the field. 

*

"Girl from Outside," track 2, is similarly mysterious. Many of the lyrics are non-sequiturs involving a mailman. First, the narrator asks the mailman to sing a song, asking if he carries a tune in that bag. Then apparently the mailman delivers, and is not really a mailman (anymore?), but a singer. From there it jumps to being about "two guys from work, who are not at work" and then something about their favorite song and kicking ass and giving high-fives. Then finally ends on its subject matter--the girl from outside, whose hair looks "really great!" I am still trying to decide what this song is about but I am sure whatever conclusion I draw will be wrong. I do like the idea of yelling at a mailman to sing, and I do actually hear them singing to themselves sometimes. 

This is actually a totally straightforward song about a night at a local karaoke bar. The "Girl from Outside" is part of a group of bar-hopping karaoke enthusiasts, not the regulars. The tone of the song does not sound like it is about a fun night out doing karaoke, so I hope my interpretation is forgivable (i.e. thinking it described two guys sitting on a porch as the mailman comes by). And the "high-fives" are a reference to karaoke night at Lounge Ax, a defunct Chicago institution in the 80s-90s, which had a sign that said "no high-fives, except on karaoke night." 

*

"New Wave Chick" is probably the most "punk" song on the album, and opens up with arguably its most classic line: 

I'm through with music from dudes!

It calls to mind "A Minute" from At Action Park or "Spoke" off Excellent Italian Greyhound or "Surveyor" (and to a lesser extent, "You Came in Me") off Dude Incredible, or even "Copper" off of Terraform--the straightforward fast Shellac rock song. The meaning of the song seems relatively obvious but again I am likely way off--most of the best music being made today is not being made by dudes. All he cares about now is "chick new wave." Bob Weston also essentially duets this song with Albini and both complement one another here as beautifully as they always have. That said, I can't discern any more of the lyrics. 

As may be conjectured, I have consulted genius.com for some of these lyrics, but I am not printing them all. In short, this interpretation is not that far off, except that it was meant to refer to the female-fronted punk bands in the early 80s, not female-fronted punk bands in the early 20s. 

*

"Tattoos" probably has the heaviest subject matter of any of the songs, but it is similarly mysterious. 

What's the panic with you?
Your urgent need to mingle.
Press the flesh and smell my breath.
Would you just, fucking wait? 

I don't see how this part connects to the rest of the song but it does always catch me off guard because I am always panicking about something whenever it comes on (I have listened to it least once a day every day since it has been out, probably about 20 times so far, which isn't hard given its length) and it causes me to reflect and slow down and realize that whatever I am freaking out about is most likely meaningless and not worth agonizing over (like this post, for example). 

How many people did you kill 
Arguing with that kid?
You got ghosts chasing you now
In your truck
Ghosts got a ghost truck

You say, "Time waits for no one
You couldn't be more wrong
Time is patient like a hunter waiting for you to come along."
Even if I give you the out
Of not knowing what the fuck this is about

We should raise a ghost army.
Volunteer ghosts, enlisted ghosts.
Help the living help the dead with their tools.
We'll tattoo the names of the dead, tattoo the names
Tattoo the names of the dead, on your hands.

Obviously, this song could be about police brutality or genocide or any of the 1,000+ mass shootings that have happened since Dude Incredible, and not letting the perpetrators forget their atrocities, lest they continue unabated. This could also be a foolish and simpleminded interpretation. 

I mean, yes, but those concerns were brought into sharp relief during the pandemic, and actually this song is about anti-maskers, and it totally makes sense. COVID denialism doesn't reach the same level of moral culpability as murder, but 2020-2021 was the one time in (most of) our lives where breathing on somebody did bring the possibility of killing them. Of course it makes me think of seeing them on 3/11/20 and how Albini opened up the show by saying, "All of you are very brave," and how Bob Weston came out wearing a mask and how I wrote, "Regardless, I hope to see them again," as the last caption line in my Instagram post, and how that 2020 tour got cancelled after the show I saw, and how the rescheduled tour in 2021 got rescheduled for 2022, and then of course last night, watching some of the Primavera Sound Festival that they are broadcasting on Amazon Prime this year, watching Pulp play, hearing Jarvis Cocker dedicate "Something Changed" to somebody. I didn't hear for sure, but it must have been Albini, because even though you don't think of Jarvis Cocker as the type of musician that would book a session at Electrical Audio, he tapped Albini for Further Complications in 2009, after meeting Albini at the Pitchfork Festival in 2008 (which again, maybe the year I most regret missing, the lineup was so stacked, and so was Lollapalooza that year, and what a travesty its become). They named one stage for Albini this year, in the corner of the festival grounds, and I saw one of the organizers talk about how this was the first year without him and Shellac. Lana headlined Lollapalooza last year and Primavera this year. It's remarkable that Primavera kept this very inaccessible group as their "house band," playing every year for the past 15, when they themselves played only a handful of shows a year. It's a testament to the "unknown" greatness of the band.  Let's just say, if I had shelled out for it this year, this would have been even more crushing, and it would have held even deeper meaning as a spiritual pilgrimage. But yes, the song is about the people that panicked over their urgent need to mingle, denying the overall situation and ignoring the idea that immuno-compromised individuals deserve to be protected. 

*

"Wednesday" is perhaps the clearest "voice from the grave" moment from Albini, along with "I Don't Fear Hell." It is the only "dirge" on the album. It's slow, there's very little melody to it, and the drum fills are the only "energetic" part of the song (it bears a resemblance to "Genuine Lulabelle" off Excellent Italian Greyhound in that). 

When they left he was hale and strong
Had all the girls fit to marry.
And what we got back, you couldn't put in your hat
And was hardly fit to bury.

The bend in your back
In the marital act,
Whether or not you plan to marry.
Hump has three meanings, maybe four.
For him, it meant to carry
What he was born with and was given,
What he earned and what he found,
What he figured out for himself,
And what he picked up off the ground,
And at last, what he imagined.
So remember him as he was, hale and strong,
Would never run from a fight
And not the sad thing that blew out his brains 
In the kitchen, Wednesday night. 
    

It is hard to say how much of Albini's work in Big Black or Rapeman or Shellac is autobiographical. Of course, we want to say none. Yet one cannot pretend that something like "The Power of Independent Trucking" (opening track from Songs About Fucking, which most consider the high watermark of Big Black after Atomizer) is actually only about how long-haul truckers get their "backbone" and not a metaphor or comment on the music industry.  One cannot hear "Shoe Song," and hear Bob Weston scream, "I miss you!!!" and not think of "Good Morning Captain" off Spiderland, which Albini did not actually produce---but he did record Tweez (credited as "Some Fuckin Derd Niffer" on the album) and praise Spiderland as a masterpiece and acknowledge that Slint would never be huge, but would become extremely influential (he wasn't wrong about many things, though most people wouldn't know he was right). It was sad, or perhaps comforting, to see that his mother Gina survived him, knowing "Mama Gina" (who had a sister named Angelina) is not dancing in a heaven he doesn't think there is yet. Excellent Italian Greyhound is about as directly autobiographical an album title as there is, with Todd Trainer's dog Uffizi serving as an unofficial mascot for the band. If I had to say which of the 3 bands' songs were the "most autobiographical," it would be Shellac. I do not doubt that Albini once had a very annoying watch like the one in "Watch Song." From various anecdotes, it seems clear Albini enjoyed pool and may have seen some of himself in "Billiard Player Song."  Of course, "Wingwalker," is far more likely metaphorical than actually about the it-girl of the sky that performs ridiculously dangerous acrobatics; it is about sacrificing everything else in your life to be completely and totally dedicated to a project, i.e. the plane, which has a button that can be pushed to decimate all of the people that look like little ants from above (his various monologues during the song live were by turns absurd and poetic).

This song is hard to gauge, but the original title was "Hump Day," and it really is just about the day of the week--and a narrative about a fictional character. A broken character, someone that had been through a life experience that was transformative in a terrible way, with the person becoming different to everyone and around everyone and ultimately making him take his own life (paraphrasing from podcast here). Beyond that it is mostly wordplay with the multiple meanings of "hump." 

*

"Scrappers" may be the best song on the album, or at the very least one of the best. It is classic Shellac, coming in hard and fast on the heels of the downcast "Wednesday," with a swinging guitar line, punctuated by heavy, syncopated bass thumps soon thereafter, for 1 minute, before leading into the lyrics:

Papa, did you quit your job?
Punch the man, who said those things?
Did you sell the car
And buy a truck
And start the scrapping enterprise?

Papa is that your plan?
Papa what a plan.
Papa is that your plan?
Papa what a plan. 
We'll be pirates

The cool night air will fill our lungs
With songs we'll sing each other.
I am small, but you will come
To trust me like a brother.
We'll be pirates! (x6.5)

If you can see the album art, above the band personnel are three photographs, one for each member. The photographs are of pick-up trucks filled with mountains of scrap metal and other various discarded appliances. (Perhaps worth noting, the album cover itself is a photograph of Union Station in Chicago taken by Bob Weston; I will try to replicate the photo at some point in the future.) Basically, the band members are fans of such scrappers, and Albini spoke about how such individuals are present in all places, and how some languages naming them imply a derogatory inference.

What's more surprising, is that this is a very innocent and cute song. Albini acknowledged he was attempting to recreate the sounds included in a children's song that is popular on YouTube, and that the song is from the perspective of a little girl whose father has a regular office job, but has an incident at work and wants to quit and become a scrapper--and the girl finds that idea romantic and exciting, going with her father on scrapping runs and having adventures and being like pirates. It's kind of a ridiculous and fun idea, and accordingly a fun song. Arguably getting to hear them scream, "We'll be pirates!" would be nearly as good as hearing them scream, "Look at me, I'm a plane!" I'll have to see what concerts are up on YouTube, to see how these songs went down live. 

*

"Days are Dogs" is the most verbose song on the album, unquestionably, opening with a cowbell and launching into 100 seconds of 219 words delivered in vaguely matter-of-fact barking over a spare, simple scratchy guitar line. 

I am the last day of your life, lived beyond all expectation
My wives and concubines are all fecund and pulchritudinous
And I hope that that's correct, the way I used pulchritudinous
I pity all the dead, who are not here to witness
The omniscious* creases, sweet baby Jesus
If I can't take it with me, I'll have it all now.
*-
this can't be the right word but I can't figure it out. 

The song is about how time gets away from you , and you don't get things done that you intend. "Days are dogs distracted by each other's assholes," and it goes from there, he says, and it's a very relevant message in 2024, where the only people that can avoid these types of distractions are the people that have a very healthy ability to put their phone away. He mentioned that the concluding bit is about a disaster at a rock n roll concert in Cincinnati in the 70s, when the band the Who had a concert where people were trampled to death. Going to see the Who, he explained....maybe not even worth killing someone over, and the poor son of a bitch that was in front of you, it's just bad luck you happened to be in front of me. He added that, a lot of things people do for gratification are either for aggrandizement, because they want be known as someone that has done something, or they are incredibly petty trivial shitty little things that they want or have some kind of material desire for. 

*

"How I Wrote How I Wrote Elastic Man," is a Bob Weston song that references the Fall but doesn't sound like them, though it does have a repetitive guitar part. 

I had very little to say about this song at first, despite it referencing one of my other favorite bands. It's a grower. It's grown on me, and it grows as it goes along, and by the end, it has the 2nd moment on the album where Shellac sounds like Jesus Lizard (The ending of "Wsod" sounds like "Nub," and the ending of this song sounds like "Gladiator," from Goat and Liar, both of which Albini recorded). 

Before we start 
I must explain
This song was once
Called "sauerkraut." 

It's another self-referential song within a song, not unlike "New Number Order," but then it shifts beyond its Foucault-like focus, and I really was at a loss to say anything else. Albini noted that it was inspired by a book that Bob Weston was reading at the time, which I believe is Cock and Bull by Will Self, and features the directive to the reader to "begin again," which is reflected in the lyrics of the song. This is another "grower" and ultimately becomes an album highlight, with the way instruments are methodically added on top of one another before dropping to bass and drums in the coda. And that part does sound like "Gladiator," and ironically the Jesus Lizard just announced they have a new album coming out in September and the first single released is an encouraging sign that it will actually be a good comeback album. In an interview with the New York Times, David Yow (who one must not forget, provided the name of this blog) mentioned that Albini told him people were going " shit themselves" when they found out Jesus Lizard was putting out a new album. Of course this news is overshadowed by the sadder news, but as Albini was also considered a "fifth member" of the band, one hopes at least their tour will offer a fitting tribute to his legacy. 

*

"Scabby the Rat" is a theme song for the inflatable rat that I know has shown up in Jeopardy! clues and should be played at such demonstrations. 

Is inflatable.
That's right I said he's inflatable.
Makes the whole room pregnant.
Pow! You're pregnant.

There's not much to say about this song except that it is probably the closest thing to a "pop song" on this album. All the songs are pretty short and at this point, after this many listens, I feel comfortable saying To All Trains is their "leanest" album and has almost zero-filler. Maybe below I will rank some things. The details on the song spilled in the podcast are rather limited to Albini's remembrance of his friend (Rob Warmowski) that ran the Scabby the Rat account on Twitter. This part comes near the end of the podcast, and Albini mentions that this friend died suddenly of meningitis--contracting it on Friday and dying on Monday--and the idea that Albini would have a similar "sudden death" experience, about two weeks after that interview, makes it doubly saddening to hear. But there is a mention of Warmowski and the song serves as a tribute to him and the labor efforts he promoted. 

*

The last track bears similarities to both "Watch Song" and "Il Porno Star" in how it opens but ends up becoming the most fitting final track in their catalog. I love the whole thing. If I had to guess what Pitchfork will give it, it would be 8.0. (Note: I was 0.1 off)

Obviously the last track is the aforementioned "I Don't Fear Hell," and this is the other dirge on the album after "Wednesday," but it has greater levity, with Albini actually singing, "Something something," and celebrating, "when this is over/leap in my grave like the arms of a lover." It's a very straightforward song that takes on a darker hue given the reality on 6/7/24. There are a couple great moments on it, and though now it seems destined to be tied to his actual untimely passing, there is comfort to take in it as well. Albini was a brave individual and he lived out his days in a way that many of us wish we could. His example is an inspiration. We can all do better, if we take it to heart--the work ethic, adhering to certain principles--and we might lead more fulfilling lives, too, where the everyday experience itself is the reward.  

*

There's probably more I could say, but maybe that's enough. It's taken me a long time to process this and accept it as reality. Maybe writing this has helped a bit. Suffice to say, I will be undergoing a mental reassessment of my entire life over the coming months, and hope it may end with living one where time doesn't feel wasted, or moments unexperienced don't feel missed. There are many ways to live a good life, but we are beset by a binary predisposition. The choice is often between doing great things--being ambitious, creating something new, breaking new ground--or being content with a smaller life, where you won't set the world on fire, but you will tend to your garden, do no harm and improve the lives of others around you. Albini did both, in a way, and he will stand as a lasting example of the power of standing behind one's principles, compromising for no one, and creating a beautiful piece of art out of our performance as a human being on this earth. 

Requiescat in pace

Monday, April 1, 2024

Sonic Life - Thurston Moore (2023)



Sonic Life was a fascinating read. Mostly because I have been listening to Sonic Youth since 2000, and routinely included them whenever anyone asked me my "top 3" bands. I've watched The Year Punk Broke countless times. I've listened to many of their albums--Daydream Nation, Sister, Goo, Dirty, Washing Machine, Sonic Nurse, Rather Ripped, The Eternal--rather frequently over the years. I met Thurston Moore and Kim Gordon once, and wrote about it in a zine, and gave it to Kim the next time I saw them (at Tonic). I was very intimidated and I approached Kim and she accepted the zine and spoke back to me in a German accent, perhaps a defense mechanism, or a deflecting one, which mirrored my anxiety. I saw them play live many times--perhaps not a dozen, but more than half a dozen. I picked up Girl in a Band on the day it was released (actually just tried to--it was sold out; I read it in March 2015, exactly 9 years ago; also the above details are largely repeated in the linked review, and I do think I have gotten slightly better here). 

I was not nearly as excited for Sonic Life, perhaps because so much time had passed, and because I had already managed my expectations. Sonic Youth had played their final show in November 2011, and Girl in a Band was released in February 2015. For those unfamiliar, Sonic Youth started in roughly 1981, so they lasted 30 years. Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore had been married in 1984, and the end of their marriage spelled the end of their band. One imagines Kim Gordon starting the book in 2012 or 2013, delivering the finished product in 2014; on re-perusal, it is raw and emotional, written when the pain of the unraveling was still fresh. 

There was no question, however, that I would read Sonic Life as well, and I asked for it for Christmas. For all of his iconic glory and presence as a singular Thurston, a certain mystery pervades his band's recorded output. The songs are rarely personal--they are more often about friends than themselves. Lyrics, while important, often take a backseat to the noise. The language of their music is atonal, and inaccessible to a great deal of people. It almost feels like there is a resistance towards wanting to be understood. 

Coming from this perspective, Sonic Life is a revelation of sorts. As a person that spent their teenage years in Connecticut and adopted New York City as a home (albeit only temporarily), I felt a certain kinship with him, even as I struggled to understand his modus operandi. I was there in 2001. I would say that things were not that different from 1981, then. In 2021, I would not say the same thing. So while I was not there for the 70s and 80s, when New York was dangerous and somewhat affordable, I came when Giuliani was Mayor, and the city had been "cleaned up" to a degree, but still had many areas yet to gentrify. CBGB was still open and a new subset of bands attempted to recapture the magic of the scene in the late 70s. I was more influenced by Sonic Youth than the Strokes or the Yeah Yeah Yeahs (though a band I managed owed a fair debt to Interpol), but those bands held a place for me that Patti Smith or Televsion might have held for Thurston, when he moved there in the late 70s. There are definitely overlaps.

Thurston "gets it":

"The only affordable alternatives were to be had along East Houston Street, either the Yonnah Schimmel Bakery on the corner of Forsyth Street, for a knish jammed with yellow mustard and sauerkraut, or Katz's Delicatessen, a couple of blocks east, for a split grilled frankfurter with the 'works' on a toasted bun, ideally downed with a Dr. Brown's cream soda. If you were feeling flush, a couple more bucks could get you either a hot pastrami or a corned beef sandwich on rye bread, doused with mustard and coupled with a large sour green dill pickle. The pickle was key, as it helped you digest all those cured meats. At times a pickle was all that was needed, and the pickle stores on the Lowest East Side's Essex Street--huge barrels of briny vinegar pickles set up on the sidewalk, sometimes so acrid your eyes would water--were perfect for an emergency crunch fix." (120)

I took a summer course at NYU called "Writing New York City," and our professor, Nettie Jones, took us on field trips around the city, one of which was to a certain pickle merchant on the Lower East Side. This remains the best pickle I have had in my life. So he gets it. Dr. Brown's cream soda is also the credited beverage of choice at Katz's (even if that establishment is an institution that hardly feels like the "secret tip" on the pickles). There are other revelatory food passages, such as praise for the frites in Amsterdam, and I loved them because I could relate, but I digress.

*

Overall, this is a great book. The primary criticism is the front-loading. This is roughly 500 pages long, about twice as long as Girl in a Band. At page 400, we are somewhere around 1993. So you have 400 pages covering 1976-1993, and 100 pages covering 1993-Present. 1987-1993 are covered rather quickly as well. Really, the majority of this book is about the beginning of Sonic Youth, roughly 1980-1985, with a strong emphasis on the Confusion is Sex/Kill Yr Idols and Bad Moon Rising era, which is when the band began to ascend. I always found the earlier material somewhat unlistenable, and Sonic Life lent a greater appreciation for those albums. For how difficult the listening may have been, it is clear from the book that they were trying to be more of an accessible "rock band" than the vast majority of their peers in the No-Wave Scene. 

To give a specific example, consider the song "Ghost Bitch," a song that almost never registered to me, ensconced deep in the muck of Bad Moon Rising, which shows up on many more setlists than I previously perceived. And while there is a lot of noise in it, it turns into a more traditional "song" and actually kind of exemplifies what was great about their earlier material--that transition from pure noise and feedback bleeding into a song and the feeling that the moment has arrived. This is much more noticeable on live recordings, and a reminder that Sonic Youth was one of the great live bands, their noise jamming akin to the "noodling" of the Grateful Dead.

They do actually have an opportunity to meet the Grateful Dead, but it is passed up and Jerry Garcia dies shortly thereafter and regret is pronounced. In the early days of punk, hippies were the enemy, but that facade fell away in short order. Greg Ginn was a huge Deadhead and Black Flag became a jam band right after Damaged. Lee Ranaldo was also a bit of a Deadhead, though it's clear Thurston's heart is with the Stooges. Neil Young asked Sonic Youth to open for him in 1990 and their experience on that tour was somewhat transformative. They would soon have their "pop" moment, becoming leading mentors to Nirvana, influencing their decision to sign to a major label imprint and the consequent explosion of Nevermind. And they would realize not long after, that massive success was not in the cards, and settled comfortably into their niche around 1995 on Washing Machine, which was good enough for a fairly nice living. 

*

The chapter on Sonic Youth in Our Band Could Be Your Life underwhelmed me at the time, perhaps because the members of the band all seemed to act like adults, and drama was minimal. Until the end of their career, the biggest drama seemed to be the way they jerked aroud Bob Bert. Bert was their primary drummer before Steve Shelley took over, and after Richard Edson, who became an actor (in Stranger Than Paradise, the director of which was Jim Jarmusch, also a figure in the "scene"). But I had no idea how many times Bert was fired and rehired (at least three or four times). He never did anything wrong, the band just wanted a different "style" of drumming, but they had trouble finding a suitable replacement, so they kept asking him back. So he may be considered an unsung hero, for providing stability even when they did not offer the same.

Of course, the drama came at the end, and Moore dodges it to an extent. He claims that he does not want to capitalize on pain. Which feels like something of a shot at Girl in a Band, because that book basically took the dissolution of the relationship as a framing mechanism. Moore does explain how he fell in love with his "soulmate," to an extent, but the salacious details have already been printed elsewhere, and apparently do not merit refutation. And even if they did, it would not be a good look to respond to 8-year-old grievances after all this time. Thurston has said that he is totally open to a reunion, and the book is in the spirit of that, a celebration of all they accomplished--so it makes sense not to dwell on the past, once everyone has put it behind them. Regardless, while it is not our business to tell people how to write meaningfully about divorce, I have to believe there could have been a way to offer an effective mea culpa and maintain dignity, and that absence feels like a missed opportunity. 

More generally, there is not a great deal of emotion in this book. There are plenty of rhapsodic flourishes about the power of music. Iggy Pop once said (memorialized by Mogwai), "when I'm in the grips of it, I don't feel pleasure and I don't feel pain, either physically or emotionally." One could say the same about this book. It just kind of washes over you. 


There's so much information. Moore may have an excellent memory, or kept diligent journals, but the book required significant research as well. It seems like the entire book is a recitation of all of the tours that the band ever did. There are far more anecdotes from these performances than from the recording of their albums or anything else in their lives, apart from the birth of their daughter Coco. 

While Moore may not want to berate himself or hold himself up as a target, he is more than willing to make fun of himself. The band always came off as very cool and hipper than thou, so it is endearing to read about the awkward beginnings:

"Together we walked across downtown to the East Village. We found some late-night food at a diner on Second Avenue, Egan [Kim's dog] tied up outside, attentively waiting for his master, once in a while issuing a bark to let her know what time it was. Kim told me she had been staying far uptown at the apartment of the SoHo gallerist Annina Nosei. Leaving the diner, I asked how she was going to get up to Annina's with Egan so late at night, as animals weren't permitted on the subway unless they were Seeing Eye dogs. A taxi seemed luxurious. She said she was okay. I was too shy to kiss her, even politely on the cheek, though I wanted to. So I simply said--
'Okay, see ya around.' 
--and stuck my hand out, feeling immediately foolish. She cocked her head slightly, half-smiling, before returning my handshake.  
I walked to my apartment smitten and a bit mortified, my desire overwhelmed by my lack of confidence. I was clearly no Lothario. I was twenty-two years old but with a teenage brain, slow to transition to adulthood." (145)

*

The beginning of this book is as good a primer on the New York City music scene in the late 70s as I have read. The book as a whole is not as good as Please Kill Me, but the beginning of it eclipses that, at times, because it is funneled through Moore himself. Similarly, I cannot say it is better overall than Girl in a Band, though many aspects of it are better. Moore is excellent as a historian. The sheer amount of information is overwhelming and the narrative is amusing. Girl in a Band is more artistic, the prose is often more clipped and spare, and it progresses along an emotional arc. There is no real arc to this book--rather, there are Books, six of them, comprised of 71 chapters.

The arc of Sonic Life is in Books 1-3. That is where Moore realizes his dream and vision of the future and goes about manifesting the band and its unlikely success. There is something deeply inspiring about these pages, a tone that Our Band Could Be Your Life maintained throughout, about not having any idea of how to play music but wanting to anyways, and doing it. 

So when this book captures that energy, it is at its best. I do think it needs an index. Any book that required significant research and lobs hundreds of names of famous, semi-famous and non-famous artists at the reader should get an index. There is a real "scene" that gets captured here, in full-fledged glory (punk), which eventually dies and turns into something else (no wave), which then dies and turns into something else (college rock), before branching off into nether realms (grunge). There may be a greater testament to the No Wave scene than Sonic Life but I've yet to see it. Moore's observation of it and life within it is the strongest part of the book. 
 
Those were simpler times, and they are treated lovingly. The real memoir of the book is Moore's early life. By the time the band is charting a course towards greater accessibility with Sister, the book is about Sonic Youth, and no longer about Thurston Moore, and emotional truth does not apply to entities the same way (i.e., it was nice of John Lydon to show the band what seemed genuine concern when their gear got stolen before a gig they did with Public Image Ltd.). He sums it all up rather nicely, it just ends too abruptly. 

Grade: A-
 

****

Is that really all I have to say? No. But I can't write a perfect review of this book. I thought it might be an interesting exercise to provide two excerpts--one from Sonic Life and one from Girl in a Band--about the same event, which is a performance by Public Image Ltd. Perhaps that will provide a window into how these two artists remember details:

"There were others of course--the Velvet Underground, the Door--who took risks in the 1960s, when no one knew where any of it was going. Before them were the Beats and before the Beats the avant-garde artists, the futurists, Fluxus, and before that, the blues, outsider music, a mourning for what's expected but will never happen, so why not dance and play and forget for a few moments that we're all alone anyway?
Cut now to Public Image Ltd. performing at the Ritz in 1981 in New York City. Sid Vicious was dead and the Sex Pistols were over. Public Image Ltd. had made an impact and their third album, The Flowers of Romance, had mystery, with its girl on the cover. The Ritz crowd anxiously awaited the band's appearance. The huge movie-scale screen where videos were projected before bands was still down. The screen was a natural barrier, used to create and motivate the crowd's reaction. First up came a huge image of John Lydon's face, laughing. Then he began to sing. Projected onto the screen was a strange film of a dark alley and the girl from the cover of The Flowers of Romance getting out of a garbage can. The film stopped, but the screen stayed in place, and suddenly behind it, the shadows of the three band members appeared. The screen stayed still. Furious at seeing the ghostlike, ritualistic figures of the group out of reach behind the screen, the audience became agitated; they couldn't see the band in the flesh. They started yelling. A few of them threw metal chairs. The band ran offstage and the audience proceeded to destroy the screen. 
Public Image didn't go out there intending to cause a riot. They were simply trying something new. The audience's expectations were dashed. The band's pure audacity had drawn crowds to the Ritz in the first place, but then the audience couldn't accept what the band was offering. It was too much. And that experience, that feeling, will never appear on YouTube, will never be downloaded onto anyone's laptop or phone. Today you will never find a picture of it, because the Internet didn't exist, and no one was paying attention, or bothering to document what was taking place right before their eyes, with the exception of a zine started by a bunch of fifteen-year-old New York girls called The Decline of Western Civilization." (261-262)

This comes near the end of Girl in a Band, and goes onto to discuss our need for heroics from musical icons that died too young, how the 80s were like the 60s, questioning whether the 90s actually happened, and then ends with her seeing Dave Chappelle at the Oddball Festival in Hartford in 2012 or so, comparing the audience to that show to the one for PiL at the Ritz, and how Chappelle couldn't get the audience to stop talking and so opted to spend 25 minutes on the stage, smoking a cigarette and waiting in silence, to their escalating dismay. It's kind of a great mini-essay on what it means to be in the audience and what we expect to get out of the experience. She had written famously before about how audiences want to see themselves on stage, and so the performer should be a mirror to them in a way, serving as a conduit for their energy. It appears that Sonic Youth took this concept to their stage show, in their waning years, as they would project a video of the live audience itself, being captured from the front of the stage, behind them on a screen as they performed. I have to think this is a callback to the PiL screen, and Gordon's and the band's own notions of how to frame the audience experience.

In contrast, the 28th chapter of Sonic Life, "The Electric Dread," is 3 pages long: 

"Public Image Ltd, in May 1981, set up shop in New York City. Their idea was not to perform gigs like any other rock 'n' roll group, but to make recordings, books, and films--to be a 'company' of sorts, a brand as opposed to a band
Less than a year earlier John Lydon and PiL guitarist Keith Levene had appeared on the program Tomorrow, a late-night network talk show with an engaging, funny, take-no-guff interlocutor named Tom Snyder. Lydon and Levene attempted to state their case of being an 'anti-band' to Snyder, only to become argumentative when he didn't take the bait.
The band had already shaken up the North American airwaves earlier that year by lip-synching on the weekly music show and institution American Bandstand, Lydon making no pretense of going along with the pretense, walking among and dancing around the live TV audience, reavealing PiL's music to be nothing but a canned recording.
On the Tomorrow show, Snyder was surprised, even astounded, at how rude and aggressive Lydon could be. At one point he admonished the punk lord, only for Lydon to accuse the host of having a 'tantrum.' Lydon and Levene kept getting out of their chairs to lean across the table and cadge cigarettes from Snyder's pack. 
The episode was explosive for us, energizing the entire scene in its defiance of the mainstream.
The Ritz nightclub on East Eleventh Street had a cancellation by the London band Bow Wow Wow (who were managed by the ex-Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren, whom Lydon was then suing). Lydon and Levene accepted an offer for their new anti-band to play the gig instead, but only if they could perform behind the Ritz's monolithic video screen, touted as the largest in the world. Rolled down, it filled the entire stage. They had the idea to illuminate the screen and stage from behind with high-intensity PAR can lights, creating monstrous silhouettes, while Super 8 film footage of the group bopping around Manhattan was shown.........
[The queue outside the Ritz is described, the rain that began crashing down, and the extended wait for the band to set up their unorthodox arrangement, and the hapless opening band that was booed off the stage...]
Before too long the silhouettes of Lydon, Levene, and their bandmates rose high on the screen, inciting cheers from the audience. The opening salvos of the band's just released album, The Flowers of Romance, with Lydon yodeling an unholy atonal yowl, blasted through the PA.
A live feed of the group behind the screen would intermittently cut into the preshot Super 8 footage. Each time an actual image of Lydon or Levene would appear, the crowd would lift its voice in approval, but the effect soon became redundant and annoying. 
Bottles began to be hurled as chants of---
'Lift the screen! Lift the screen!'
---filled the room. 
[The audience's pulling of a tarp on the stage that was under all the band's equipment is described.]
Keith Levene ran in front of the screen, waving his arms at the audience to stop the madness, but it was entirely ineffectual as bottles whizzed past his head, nearly braining him. Stagehands ran out to rescue Keith as a pretaped image of Lydon appeared on the screen, warbling and strumming tunelessly on an acoustic guitar, singing a piss take on an old folkie tune---
I've got a hole in my heart
Levene proceeded to put on a recording of The Flowers of Romance. He played some kind of feedback guitar with it, which sounded excellent to me--though my appreciation for it may have been in the minority. More chants of---
'Lift the screen!'
---came, mixed with yelling and laughter, bottles lobbed endlessly towards the stage. Lydon again appeared on the screen, this time singing an actual live and in-person version of the same song---
I've got a ho-o-ole in my heart
The audience lost it.
This was not a concert; it was an insane asylum.
With the pulling of the tarp having fully dismantled the band's gear, Lydon's silhouette loomed across the screen as a giant demon, haranguing into his microphone a singsong tease---
'Silly fucking audience, silly fucking audience!'
It was the final straw.
Bottles now rained over the room and onto the stage, splattering, smashing, and staining the screen, the crazed audience grabbing at it, attempting to tear the offending obstruction down. The pride and joy of the Ritz, its world-famous video screen, hung precariously from its moorings. 
In an instant all the houselights flared up, a Wizard of Oz voice booming from the PA---
'THE SHOW IS OVER!! EVERYONE LEAVE!! NOW!!'
Furious security guards began to forcibly push the audience out of the room. No one really fought back; everyone was simply too bewildered, too giddy even, at how messed up and chaotic this gig had become. There were laughs and a few shouts of---
'I want my money back!'...(183-185)

Maybe you can see the difference. Gordon's is like an essay, from a distance; Moore's is like a short story, experienced moment by moment. It's likely both were at that PiL show at the Ritz in 1981 together, but you can't totally tell from Gordon's.  I didn't fully copy the entire text of "The Electric Dread," but I hope the lawyers at Penguin Random House are willing to dote on me, and see that this is its own form of publicity, and that it can only help keep conversations about the book going. Book reviews should be able to include long excerpts, and this has been a foundational rule on Flying Houses. It helps the reader decide if they want to take the deeper dive.

*

I'm not sure what else to say. Both of these artists and their band have meant and continue to mean a great deal to me. They do not get their due respect. Perhaps they did, briefly, 30 years ago, and Daydream Nation is in the Library of Congress and they are still famous, in the sense that they stood for the vanguard of their time, and persist today as solo artists that keep pushing themselves in new and sometimes exciting directions (Gordon's two solo records have both been remarkably good; Moore's work has become a behemoth, less suited for the type of rambunctious live performances of Gordon on recent tours--really appearing to me like a female-fronted version of the Fall, her onstage persona reimagined and reinvigorated--and more suited to jazz lounges and study lounges, playing instrumental music for productivity, and naps). Their books are a "study in contrasts," and each is certainly worth reading for any fan of the band. Gordon's is the more affective story, and the reader will feel more after finishing hers; Moore's is the nerdier, more emotionally-distanced one. Arguably, the first half of Sonic Life eclipses Girl in a Band, and if it had continued in that vein, might have been better overall. It doesn't fall of the rails exactly, but it loses some verve and sense of wonder along the way, and turns into bulletpoint-like prose summing up their final years (the chapter on 9/11 is the last great part of the book). Much of it is extremely readable and amusing and thought-provoking and educational. And that really should be good enough for a book. We need not require that musicians open up and bleed in their memoirs--it just feels like that would be more true to the spirit of punk--but there are other sub-genres and other aesthetics. 

Thursday, February 22, 2024

2024 Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture

I heard recently that voting for the Academy Awards will end next week, right around February 29th or March 1st, and it would make a great deal more sense to complete this post prior to that date, and I realize now, the Awards ceremony itself is not very far away (March 10th). Because I enjoyed the exercise last year, I thought I'd do it again this year. It was a bit crazy, because I had to just about watch one movie per day for the last week, and now if I get on it, I will have more time. There are about 16 or 17 days left and I have 6 movies left to see. I will write about them in the order they were seen, as before. 

Oppenheimer


To date, Christopher Nolan has been recognized by the Academy for four films: Memento, Inception, Dunkirk, and this. He has not won Best Director, and I think this may be his year. I also think this may be the film to win Best Picture, if the Golden Globes are any indication. I have not looked too closely at predictions yet, and only know one sure-fire winner (edit after the fact: SNUBBED), which everyone should also know. 

Both Robert Downey Jr. and Cillian Murphy won at the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, and also seem like fair picks to win Oscars. Matt Damon arguably deserved a nomination more than Downey Jr., and probably didn't get it because his character is "less interesting," even though he injected the film with sorely-needed comic relief. 

Overall, I liked this movie. I saw it in IMAX 70 MM, which was cool, and the cinematography is beautiful. It's delicately made. One might say it is designed to win Oscars. I respect it as a film, and think it poses important questions, but left me feeling a bit cold, emotionally. The primary drama of the film is whether Oppenheimer's security clearance will be renewed, and it is played out over a lengthy series of administrative hearings. This is the type of thing I usually like--the audacity of a "blockbuster" about bureaucracy--but also makes me feel that it is prestige for the sake of prestige (and The Prestige is one of Nolan's many films that did not get the respect it deserved at the time). 

17 years ago, that film was only nominated for Art Direction and Cinematography. A year later, Nolan followed it up with The Dark Knight, arguably the greatest blockbuster superhero action movie there has been, which won for Sound Editing and Supporting Actor. He followed that up with Inception, which demands multiple viewings (more recently Tenet required the same, though I think fewer wanted to try). We don't need to go through his whole filmography; suffice to say, he is clearly one of the greatest "mainstream" auteurs of our time, and is due for recognition. This is not my favorite film of his (I liked 3 or 4 of them better), but it is definitely the most "Oscar worthy," in a similar vein to Dunkirk--because it is historically accurate. This is a valuable thing when our world is prone to inaccuracies and questions surrounding stories told by the victors. Oppenheimer does bridge this gap nicely, showing the heart of the conflict inside the person, and how the world wants to see him, or not see him as his feelings evolve. I probably need to see it a second time. It didn't put me to sleep but my viewing companion did doze off in the theater.

On rewatch, I recalled my friend's critique after the theater viewing: "I think I need to watch it with closed captioning." A word, briefly, about closed captioning. I was ashamed when I began regularly turning them on for most things I watched. I soon realized, perhaps in 2018 or 2019, that this practice had been adopted by the masses. Perhaps this is to deal with the influence of "mumblecore" films, but I doubt it (Joe Swanberg isn't Quentin Tarantino, or even Kevin Smith); we just miss less. And this film is populated by at least a dozen fairly nondescript white, male actors, referred to just by their last names, and it can be difficult to keep everyone straight. So I do think this film is aided by closed captioning, but that didn't make me like it much more.

I do think I am wrong about it being "historically accurate," just from the opening scene with the apple, which I had forgotten, along with another delusive move or two. I also forgot about my favorite "cameo" in it, and perhaps the way that character is barely in the movie at all and then has a major dramatic moment near the end. It surprised and befuddled me. I appreciated that weirdness, and I actually really liked how it "flashed forward," to show what happened after these hearings, later in his life. The dramatic bombast of it all is powerful, and befits the importance of the man itself--it is a big, loud movie, and I won't be surprised at all if it wins.

Barbie


Another film I probably need to see again is Barbie. Now, I liked Barbie, just fine--until the very end. Near the very end, there is a certain throwaway moment that will escape notice from just about everyone, except a very specific subset of people that will feel seen. And ashamed. But I am probably taking it too seriously. Suffice to say, I later heard an interview with Greta Gerwig (a contemporary) and she acknowledged that she does in fact love Pavement, so it's fine. Anytime the Fall is mentioned in a movie like this, we should take that as a win. 

Apart from that idiosyncrasy, my issue is that this movie got far more love than The Lego Movie, and it is reductive of it. It will probably win Best Song, and that was The Lego Movie's only nomination. Granted, visually, this film is stunning, even if it is "plastic."  They are very different movies but they definitely have many things in common, one of which is Will Ferrell playing the bad guy, who is given more room to vamp here. It has a feminist message whereas Lego was just more focused on child-like glee. This also has its share of child-like glee, along with a bit of a darker edge. 

I have complicated feelings. Margot Robbie was robbed of a nomination. Ryan Gosling and America Ferrara deserved theirs. The plot of the film is also very similar to The Lego Movie. What's unique is that it is mainstream, fully endorsed by Mattel, and subversive. Perhaps one of the best things it did was open up conversations on gender politics, while still being a fantasy, and fun. Ultimately, it was recognized because it had its cultural moment, shared with Oppenheimer, that fully returned the masses to theaters. It was important in that respect, and I have to believe it was a better experience with a theater audience than Oppenheimer (I watched this at home on Max). I need to see it again probably, but basically yeah, I thought it was about as good as The Lego Movie--only a little better in the way the story was brought to life. 

Maestro


Maestro is a fine film, but it almost feels like Bradley Cooper wanted more after A Star is Born. Lady Gaga did not win Best Actress for that, but everyone acknowledged her as the best thing about it. Cooper was also nominated for Best Actor for that, in a very good performance as well, but it felt like token recognition. Lady Gaga was the star, and in Maestro, Cooper is the star. It's a largely admirable effort that is also likely to leave audiences cold, perhaps ironically, even colder than Oppenheimer

I liked parts of it. The interplay between Cooper and Carey Mulligan is the best thing about the movie. The two of them have a handful of scenes in it that are as good as anything else that came out this year, and would be borderline iconic if not crushed beneath the weight of the rest of the film, which is a  biopic that attempts to cover a rather long period of time. Credit Cooper for taking on difficult material, and portraying the conflicted bisexuality of his character (even if audiences may feel more sympathy for Mulligan). Of course, the cultural milieu plays a role in that dynamic, and the film's historical accuracy approaches that of Oppenheimer. It still feels like a mash-up of Tar and Star, and not as good as either. 

It is worth watching, however, for the scenes between Mulligan and Cooper. It gains speed as it moves along, as Cooper dials up the absurdity of his performance, which is iconic in its own right. I don't expect it to win anything, and its place here is a result of the expanded Oscar ballot. It is worthy of recognition, but so is The Iron Claw (Zac Efron's performance in that was criminally underrated).

Killers of the Flower Moon


In terms of what "deserves to win," it seems it comes down to Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. Both are over 3 hours long. I am not sure how others felt, but even though this one is about 30 minutes longer, it felt shorter to me. I didn't fall asleep during either. It's perhaps worth noting that I watched this on Apple TV+ and started it with my dad at 11 PM. 

He told me he had tried to watch it before, and he didn't like it. He said it made him uncomfortable to watch. He made it about 45 minutes deep. This time, he lasted until 1 AM. I stayed up until 2:30 AM to finish it. He left right before the most awful part of the movie happens. This is a really awful movie in terms of morality, and it continues to be dialed up until it reaches that epitome. After, it shifts into its second half, which must be where the controversial "intermissions" had been inserted by theater owners, when Jesse Plemons shows up to investigate the murders. It loses a tiny bit of steam in the second half, and there are bizarre elements that ultimately coalesce in a memorable epilogue that underscores the most heartbreaking element at the center of the film. Its last words teared me up. 

Is it more important than Oppenheimer? Probably. The movie takes place 100 years ago. Most of the awful atrocities committed against Native Americans occurred in the 1600's-1800's, but this film shows that really nothing changed in the 1900's, and thereby questions how much has actually changed in the 2000's. Everyone in America is living on Native land and we often forget that. Near the end of the film, Robert DeNiro delivers a short monologue that encapsulates every argument that could be made for colonialism, and reveals the film to be a perfect allegory of the history of the plight of the indigenous. 

It's another significant accomplishment by Martin Scorsese, and a testament to his rightful place in the all-time canon of cinema. We can only hope that in 25 years, Christopher Nolan will remain at the top of his game and do the best work of his career, because it feels that way for Scorsese. 

The Holdovers


On Friday, February 23rd, I subscribed to Peacock for a month and watched The Holdovers (enveloping it with a re-watch of Oppenheimer, see above for update). The movie tricked me, for a minute. I didn't realize it took place in December 1970. At first, I thought it was a flashback, where Paul Giamatti was a teacher in present day, and a student in 1970. But then he would be playing about 15-20 years older than he is. 

In more ways than one, this movie is a throwback. It might remind a viewer of some of Hal Ashby's work. It is an R-rated film, but it should be PG-13, because it ultimately is a family film. One of the stills I almost chose was connected to an article titled "the 65 best Christmas movies of all time," and so this may be considered an instant classic, and an obvious choice for future television programming around the holidays. 

I was struck by how "uncynical" it was. I liked it fine, but similar to Maestro, and our next item, feel that its place here is a result of the expanded ballot. I think I have to put it over Maestro because it is a finely-paced, complete film. It does not attempt to make any major message, unlike some of the other nominees. It is a small, quiet, heartfelt film, filled with great compassion for its characters, and about as gentle as one can imagine. 

Some people think the Best Actor category comes down to Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti (the others are Bradley Cooper, Jeffrey Wright, and Colman Domingo from Rustin, which I should also see). It is a tough call who will win. Giamatti, I think, may win for "career achievement," because while Cillian Murphy has had his own lengthy career at this point, Giamatti is a feted actor that was robbed of a nomination for his previous collaboration with Alexander Payne, Sideways. (It is difficult to say whether Giamatti will beat Murphy, and it is difficult to say whether Da'Vine Joy Randolph will beat America Ferrara, but I believe this film has a slight edge in the Best Supporting Actress category; it may well win for both, but should be recognized for at least one. The SAG Awards seem to indicate it will be Randolph and not Giamatti.) 

In a lot of ways, The Holdovers is a redux of Sideways, a buddy comedy with Giamatti, except in this case he is playing more of a curmudgeon than a snob. And it's not about wine culture, but boarding school culture. Giamatti himself went to Choate, and I thought I might "see myself" in this, but I didn't really (the film was shot at Groton, NMH, Deerfield, and two other prep schools, though not LC, sadly). This was not the great boarding school film that is yet to be made (the way The Catcher in the Rye is the great boarding school novel). It is, however, a moving meditation on the nature of family and togetherness, and unmistakably touching in how it teases out the vulnerabilities of its characters. I teared up at least once or twice. Yet even with this air of melancholy, it is heartwarming, and the "lightest" nominee after Barbie. It would be difficult to hate this film, and I liked it, but as noted, I believe this is late recognition for Sideways, because nearly 20 years later, that film is rightly considered a modern classic.  

American Fiction


On Sunday, February 25th, I went to the local movie theater and saw American Fiction. I have to rate it similarly to The Holdovers, but it is a very different type of film. The first comparison I could draw is to Sorry to Bother You. Both are satires about similar issues, but obviously, that one "jumps the shark," and this one stays within the realm of the plausible. 

It's surprising that this is adapted from Erasure, a book published in 2001. (I was also drawn to consider The Sellout in the course of watching this, and how that book is not comparable to the two primary "texts" this film depicts.) The film is unmistakably important for our times, because it poses questions about identity and representation, which have been hot-button issues for years on end, and demand deeper inquiry. They will need to pick a "clip" for the Oscars from Jeffrey Wright's performance, and I hope they pick the brief scene he has with Issa Rae, where he confronts her and calls her out on what he sees her work as doing. That scene, like certain scenes between Cooper and Mulligan in Maestro, is borderline iconic. It's beautifully written and acted. And the way such issues are percolating in our culture and driving divisiveness, this film should likely inspire thoughtful debate and conversation. 

It's unfortunate that it took more than 20 years for this book to be adapted, and that I haven't read it. (I haven't read Killers of the Flower Moon, either, but the movie is making more people read the book, and that is the side-perk of giving such films recognition.) At a certain point, Wright says that he doesn't even really believe in race, and while that may have been more common in 2001, it feels quaint today, with more performative virtue-signaling in social media, and the rejection of teaching Critical Race Theory in certain sectors of this country. I was going to say Sterling K. Brown deserved a nomination for supporting actor, and I see that he got it. Tracee Ellis Ross is also very good in her abbreviated role. 

This is a thorny film, but that is only half the story. At the end of the day, like The Holdovers, it is a moving meditation on family, showing how Wright and Brown navigate the uncertain territory of middle age, caring for their mother when she needs them most, while she is unable to give them the validation and love that they crave. It makes a bigger "statement" than The Holdovers, but it is also heartwarming in unexpected ways. 

That being said, for further reading and an alternative take that goes much deeper, see this, which made me feel sort of terrible for thinking the movie was pretty good. Apparently, the book is braver, and better. 

Past Lives


On March 1, 2024, I watched Past Lives on Paramount+. To this point, it is the most narrowly focused of the nominees, and somewhat similar to The Holdovers, isn't deeply invested in any message, other than the metaphysical trope of in-jun and 8,000 lifetimes. I could be cynical, and point to the ten nominees, and the previously controversial standards for eligibility, but the film is worthy of recognition. (Drive My Car was better than Parasite and Everything Everywhere All at Once and I implore you to watch it after the Oscars if you haven't.) Past Lives overtakes The Holdovers as the "smallest" and "gentlest" nominee. It is rated PG-13, and I do not understand why it is not PG except for the filmmakers to signal this is not a movie for kids. There is hardly any cursing in it, no graphic material, no violence, and the conflict it depicts is inherently veiled. "Fiction is about trouble," some writing instructors may intone, and the trouble here, which has an element of EEAO about it, is that our lives have too many possibilities, and sometimes we have to leave behind parts of it for reasons beyond our control. The leaving may all well be good and necessary, and as one character says near the beginning, "When you leave something behind, you gain something, too." And maybe what we gain is a newfound freedom to start again and try to shape our lives into a way we wish them to be. And maybe once we have done that--even if we are happy--we may have imagined more perfect futures before we have understood the realities of adulthood.

I don't want to say too much about the plot of the film, but it is about as simple of a plot as you can have in a movie. What struck me about it is its spareness. There is no concrete "subplot," not even a tangential conflict over whether or not the married couple wants to have kids. It is just squarely focused on this single issue, the notion of how things might have gone differently if say, we didn't need to leave, or if we had brushed against a certain person in the subway (or perhaps at a party in a dorm, or in History class, or at a music festival, the laundromat, the grocery store, etc.). The plot in one line: childhood sweethearts reconnect 12 years later over Facebook/Skype, and 12 years later again in NYC. 

In the way The Holdovers is a great holiday film, this is a great NYC film, vaguely reminding me of one of the earlier random film reviews on this blog, and more obviously, Annie Hall and When Harry Met Sally. And it is a very romantic, bittersweet film which makes me feel more teary-eyed in retrospect than it did in the moment. At first blush I would have rated it as lesser than the other films seen to this point, but the mood it inhabits is suffused with such deep humanity that practically no one could not identify with some element in it. There is a good chance it will make you cry, and ponder the trajectory of your life, and perhaps it may inspire an upheaval, whether foolishly or practically. I won't spoil which direction the film goes. This is just the most "human" and "basic" story told by any of the nominees, that transcends race, nationality, language and tangibility in general--we just know one main character is a writer, and the other main character is an engineer. To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor: every writer has material, whether or not they believe it, for they have gone through childhood. And so too, after moving into adulthood--when we have continued to pursue certain childhood dreams, and made good on them, we wonder if our feelings from our most innocent times end up feeling the most intense and genuine. Maybe I am trying too hard to wax poetic to give closure to this capsule assessment, but if you've seen the movie, you may understand why. 


Last year, there was some brief mention of budget and box office, and just for the sake of fun and comparison, let us consider the nominees this year.

Oppenheimer
Budget: $100,000,000
Box Office: $953,800,000

Barbie
Budget: $145,000,000
Box Office: $1,446,000,000

Maestro
Budget: $80,000,000
Box Office: $820,567

Killers of the Flower Moon
Budget: $200,000,000
Box Office: $156,000,000

The Holdovers
Budget: $200,000 (!)
Box Office: $41,400,000

American Fiction
Budget: $16,000,000 (reported estimates differ)
Box Office: $21,900,000

Past Lives
Budget: $12,000,000
Box Office: $26,600,000

Anatomy of a Fall
Budget: $6,600,000
Box Office: $29,600,000

Poor Things 
Budget: $35,000,000
Box Office: $101,900,000

The Zone of Interest
Budget: $15,000,000
Box Office: $16,400,000 

I'm not sure why any of this matters. Perhaps I want to ask, has a box office bomb ever won Best Picture? It must have happened. 

In any case, Maestro is a massive failure, but those numbers don't tell the whole story because it was most definitely the most widely-streamed of the nominees, in accordance with its rollout. 

Why did Killers of the Flower Moon have such a massive budget? It's very long, but how did it cost twice as much as Oppenheimer, which is also very long? Should we consider the "efficiency" of the film if we are really to call it "the best?" We may never know the former, and we can debate the latter, but regardless, to this point, I still think Killers is the best. 

*

Poor Things

On the morning of March 4, 2024, sometime between 9 and 10 AM, I twisted a nerve in my back and threw it out; at 7:40 PM, I arrived 10 minutes after the showtime for Poor Things. This theater doesn't show 10 minutes of previews, but I don't think I missed more than a few of the opening minutes to the film. Suffice to say, I will watch again at some point.

My enjoyment of the film was hampered by my condition, which made laughing painful. I did not laugh hard because I knew it would trigger a spasm. It would be accurate to say I laughed until it hurt.

Even so, Poor Things is not a hard comedy, and while humor is persistent throughout, Mark Ruffalo most often brought the pain. The film is nominated in 11 different categories, including Emma Stone for Best Actress and Ruffalo for Supporting Actor. 

Emma Stone will not win, unfortunately (Edit: WRONG!). She did win the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy, but that category in the Oscars is a fait accompli. She was also nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance in The Curse, which she did not win but also proves, 2023 is the year that she ascended into nearly the highest echelon in Hollywood. (Many more people will see Poor Things than The Curse, but the latter is even more bizarre than the former, and both are excellent and worth seeing.) She has already won Best Actress for La La Land, and I do not think this loss will bother her. Like Michelle Williams and Cate Blanchett last year, she deserves to win for this, but there is only one statue to give, and ties are all but impossible.

Ruffalo is not likely to win, either, but his performance stands apart from his career to this point. While he has always been a respected actor, and this is his 4th nomination for a supporting role, it is arguably the best work he has done. It is a comedic performance, and while playing Bruce Banner/The Hulk brought (brings?) its fair share of humor, this is far more subtle. I don't even know who he is supposed to be. I thought he was a magician or something.

I digress. Poor Things is a great film. I have seen a few of Yorgos Lanthimos's films in the past, to varying degrees of confusion and boredom, and think this is the best he has done (I liked The Lobster a lot, but this is unmistakably more epic).  I missed the opening minutes, but in the way of plot, this is a take on Frankenstein. The production design is noteworthy, and all of the technical elements are well-executed, but the screenplay and the acting elevate it to another level. The film may cause you to question how your experience of the world has been shaped by your parents, and society, and even "what it means to be human," in the same way that Shelley's Frankenstein was more philosophical inquiry than horror story. It is also oddly similar to Barbie. It is "fun"--but it is also provocative, and "pregnant with meaning." 
 
Anatomy of a Fall (Anatomie d'une chute)


On March 5, 2024, I began Part 1 of the Sandra Huller double-feature, renting Anatomy of a Fall on Amazon Prime, which will complete this project. Huller is nominated for Best Actress for this, and also plays a lead role in The Zone of Interest. She also played the lead role in the film I considered the best of the previous decade. Perhaps not unlike Emma Stone, Huller "ascended" in 2023. (I will have to watch Sybil in the coming weeks, which is her previous collaboration with filmmakers Justine Triet and Arthur Harari, before this; edit- I did and it was amazing and probably as good as either of these two nominees)

Anatomy of a Fall is basically a courtroom drama-thriller with some elevating elements. Huller is a German actress, and she plays a German writer (also named Sandra) that lives in France and prefers speaking English. It is not a spoiler to say she is eventually put on trial. It happens rather quickly, and the way the film moves through these various preliminary scenes rapidly, telegraphing what new developments have just come to pass, is one of the highlights. The opening itself ensures that you will never think of the 50 Cent song "P.I.M.P." the same, ever again. 

While making the film, Huller repeatedly asked whether or not her character was guilty, and the director refused to tell her. That ambiguity drives the film and imbues her performance with unsettling depth. It was also interesting as a former law student to see the differences in French trial procedure. 

Perhaps the greatest strength of this film is how much remains unknown. We cannot truly know what is in another's heart, we only know what is in our own. One could watch the movie with two completely different interpretations, and Huller's performance holds true in either case. It would be interesting to know if she had her own personal belief about the guilt of the character, but I doubt she would publicly pronounce it. So I guess that's what make this a little different from usual courtroom drama-thrillers, because most of the time, the audience knows the truth, and here, we are just as good as a jury. (While I do want to avoid spoilers, I would be curious to talk to someone that saw the ending, because I am wondering if my own thoughts are shared.)

The Zone of Interest


On March 7, I completed this project and Part II of the Sandra Huller double-feature, and I needed to buy The Zone of Interest on Amazon. So I can watch it again whenever, but I am not sure if I would unless a friend requested to see it. It's a very strange film and probably the most "artsy" of the nominees. Jonathan Glazer is an interesting filmmaker. When I was growing up and thinking about being a film director, he had recently come out with Sexy Beast after a notable career directing music videos. Sexy Beast is great and hilarious and totally different from this. He may have made other films, but after that, he was most notable for Under the Skin, which is the weirdest of all, but which more than a few people considered one of the best movies of the previous decade. It employed a similar color palette to a few discrete scenes in The Zone of Interest, one of which is captured in the still above.

It's about a German family--a Nazi family, but a family nonetheless--and the way they manage a happy domesticity in a beautiful home neighboring the front gates of Auschwitz. Many people comment that there are no images of the Holocaust, but that's not exactly true. Because a great deal of the material juxtaposes the cruel inhumanity of the father in his work as a Nazi officer with the gentle devotion he shows to his family (despite one odd scene which I think calls that into question). 

Glazer is a "slow" filmmaker, seemingly making one movie per decade (though did do the fairly mainstream Birth in 2004, and a short film, The Fall, in 2019) and may now be comparable to the often-great Terrence Malick. This movie is similarly slow and meditative, and extremely uncomfortable at times, and appalling. Huller brings humanity to her character, even after she jokes with a friend (or was it her mother?) that someone refers to her as the "Queen of Auschwitz." She fights for her family and there is some semblance of a happy ending, which obviously is conflicting and not really satisfying. This is intercut with a flash-forward near the end that lends a greater weight and gravity to the film, underscoring the horror of reality as it once was.

In a way, this is a "token" nomination, in the way that All Quiet on the Western Front was last year, and 1917 and Dunkirk were before: the war film nominee. There is not always a Holocaust film nominee, but they are fairly frequent--off the top of my head, obviously, Schindler's List, and also Life is Beautiful, The Pianist, Jojo Rabbit--and there are many more, and I forgot Inglorious Basterds. All of these films are powerful in different ways, and sadly, still relevant and necessary ("genocide" continues, and we continue to debate what constitutes it). There is no film adaptation of The Banality of Evil (though I did just find out, there is a documentary, titled Hannah Arendt) and while that would be undoubtedly rake in Oscar nominations, for now there is just this, which portrays a different variant of banality. This is not a pleasurable watch, or comfort viewing, probably for anyone, except perhaps for the deplorables justifying neo-Nazism, who might get some sick enjoyment out of it. For everyone else, it's a lesson that bears repeating, and might make the audience search themselves, and think about what they would do if they lived in Germany in the 1940's, whether we might be an "innocent bystander" or resist. It is much easier to resist when the real threat of persecution, imprisonment, exile or execution is a not an issue.

*

So then, that wraps up our coverage of the Best Picture nominees. As for predictions:

Oppenheimer for Best Picture (Killers of the Flower Moon deserves it though)
Christopher Nolan for Best Director 
Cillian Murphy for Best Actor 
Lily Gladstone for Best Actress
Robert Downey, Jr. for Best Supporting Actor
Da'Vine Joy Randolph for Best Supporting Actress

I can't say much else about the rest of the nominations, and if you are doing an Oscar Ballot competition like my family does every year, those other categories mark the winner. So I'm sorry I can't be very useful to you, but I don't want to steer you wrong. I am reasonably sure that the above six categories will go this way, though there is always the potential for a surprise.

Fin.