I am a sci-fi geek. Okay, that might be redundant. I am a geek, and as such am a big, big science fiction fan. I have long held that if sci-fi was more mainstream our society wouldn't be quite so stupid, but that is just a theory. So it is time for a list, but since I couldn't decide whether to go with books or movies, here - maybe in honor of the old school practice of showing two cheesy sci-fi movies on the same bill - is a double feature. My top ten sci-fi books and movies, in no particular order.
"Dune", Frank Herbert - Sweeping, epic and oh, so original it covers more themes with fresh ideas in one book than many others put together. The Bene Gesserit, The Guild, The Freman and so much more. Please note this is the book list and this does NOT refer to the awful 1984 David Lynch film of the same name.
"Ender's Game", Orson Scott Card - One of my favorite books of all time, see my reference to it in a previous blog here. Astonishing in it's vision, powerful and poignant. Should be required reading.
"Stranger in a Strange Land", Robert Heinlein - Arguably not science fiction despite a central character from Mars, it is one of the absolute seminal works in the genre anyway. It also is the introduction of Jubal Harshaw, one of Heinlein's most interesting and enduring characters.
"Ringworld", Larry Niven - Scale, scale, scale. This is a remarkable vision of science and engineering and a great story. I am fairly certain I haven't actually figured out what this book is really about.
"Hyperion", Dan Simmons - This book has been categorized as horror, and has also been described as a thinly veiled retelling of "The Canterbury Tales", which I think is pretty cool. It has great characters and is quite chilling.
"Neuromancer", William Gibson - My unchallenged master of cyber-fi, to call Gibson's work original is to say nothing. I am truly amazed as to how he comes up with his stuff, but no less so by his writing and language. I could have picked many of his books for this list and perpetually wait impatiently for his next book.
"The Mote in God's Eye", Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle - Maybe my favorite exploration of alien species and culture, this book goes a long way with the idea of examining ourselves by examining the other.
"Rendezvous with Rama", Arthur C Clarke - A giant among sci-fi writers, Clarke manages to write a great exploration novel while staying on a spaceship in our solar system. This is also one of the better so-called "hard science" works out there.
"Foundation", Isaac Asimov - Can't make a list like this without Sir Isaac. I am cheating a little here because I would actually say this should be the entire trilogy. It is aptly named as it is the base on which so much subsequent sci-fi is based.
"Forever War", Joe Haldeman - This book seems slightly out of place since it is, relatively speaking, pretty small. But it showcases Haldeman's sparse style and is one of the best uses of relativity and time dilation. Also another nice commentary on war lots of politicians should read.
On to the movies. I find it both odd and disappointing that not one of the titles above made it to the list below. "2001" is a great book, but not top ten for me, and while "Alien" is a fine book by the very underrated Alan Dean Foster, it isn't one of the greats. Is there something inherently impossible about re-creating the vision of these amazing books on film? Maybe now that CGI can basically produce anything on film - see Life of Pi - more directors and producers will tackle
some of these giants. Here's hoping, but get it right, all right? Until then, here are the best made so far.
Fifth Element - This movie is hysterical, exciting and just flat-out entertaining, but the thing I love most about it is how original and fresh a vision it is. Luc Besson's view is so thoroughly new and so detailed it is just beyond cool. And Chris Tucker as Ruby Rod is just a riot.
Alien - Dark, suspenseful and downright scary, it has one of my favorite production designs ever, and is one of a great director's - Ridley Scott - best movies. How often do you get a three-time best director nominee doing a hard core sci-fi flick? See below. It also has an amazing cast.
2001: A Space Odyssey - Arthur C. Clarke meets Stanley Kubrick - yikes. This movie is absolutely gorgeous and quietly terrifying. It's pacing isn't exactly brisk, but when it gets a hold of you, it doesn't let go.
Blade Runner - The only movie on this list that would definitely make my overall top ten movie list, it is just amazing. The vision, the script, the characters - I love all of it. Try to see the director's cut - Ridley Scott strikes again - as it is completely different without Decker's voiceover.
Star Wars - Before you scoff, put this great flick in context. In 1977 nothing even remotely like this had ever been done, and George Lucas deserves mad props for making it happen. It spawned an empire - can you say Skywalker Sound? - and changed the industry forever. And by golly it is just great fun and reached an unbelievably broad audience.
Rollerball - More sci-fi from a great director - Norman Jewison - this is also on my top ten sports movies list. Another beautiful film, it also has some great action and rich social commentary. It is also a must see for any James Caan fan.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - Thank you Mr. Spielberg - I sense a theme here - for treating the subject of alien contact with appropriate gravity. One of the first movies to have the subject not be all about panic and hysteria, it put the science back in sci-fi.
Inception - Love it or hate it this is a neat movie. Some say it isn't sci-fi, but I say it is one of the best kinds, that explores theoretical concepts of the present instead of jumping into the far future or space opera genres. I also love that you can argue about how it actually works even if it doesn't exist.
The Terminator - The effects are cheesy, the acting (except Paul Winfield) is questionable and it is sometimes silly - but what a script. Not just the vision of the future and Skynet and all that, but a great chase theme and just a fantastic love story. *Spoiler alert* He falls in love with the picture of her where she is remembering their love? Nice. Also vintage Arnold and the birth of "I'll be back."
Silent Running - Definitely the sleeper of this list, this is a great little film that touches on many themes but is most notable for it's take on ecology long before it became popular. It also has some excellent deep space stuff and even some entertaining robots - before they were called droids.
There - go geek out.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
La, la, la, la
Not as a song, but as a chant sung with ears in fingers and eyes closed while shaking head. You know, like you do when there is something you don't want to see or hear, but it just keeps coming. I have mentioned this tactic in a number of posts so thought it might merit its very own. I call it the "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" strategy.
Maybe the all-time great example of this would have to be the Flat Earth Society. No, I'm not kidding, and neither are they. I can't decide which part I like better, that they think all the space agencies in the world are all involved in a conspiracy (to what end I wonder?) or that they base so much of what they do on their desire for true science. Wow. But while these folks are so whacko they are actually pretty funny, they do not have much of an agenda and are basically harmless. There are other groups, however, whose refusal to accept the facts - the science, the data, the evidence, the proof - is damaging to the general health and welfare of society at large and they need to get their fingers out of their ears.
Let's start with climate change, which, by the way, I think we should go back to calling global warming. We only stopped because there were too many morons who would say something like: "If global warming is real, why is it snowing?". Oy. The fact remains that it is now warmer than at any time in the previous four thousand years. And if the fact - fact! - that it is warmer doesn't alarm you, consider how quickly it has happened and how much impact it has already had. Here's a chart published by the wall Street Journal (and seen in the site above):
Now the WSJ is many things, but liberal or alarmist they are not. And on this topic they have been anything but progressive. In fact, they gave ink to a group of so-called climate scientists who peddled a serious pile of bs that was subsequently blasted by actual scientists, so for them to put this in their paper is significant. Also significant is that the EPA, who it can be argued is not as interested as it should be, has a great site dedicated to the science - science, people! - of climate change. By the way, the whole argument that it may or may not be caused by man . . . do we care? Should we do something about it, you know, save all the things that live on the earth, or argue about whose fault it is?
Along the same lines, and I must warn you my atheism might jump in here, let's talk evolution. This is like gravity. Back when Newton was tossing apples around it was called the "theory of gravity", but that implies that it is theoretical, like it might or might not be true. It is no longer in question so now we just call it gravity, just like with the "theories" of plate tectonics, cells or heliocentrism. Something that has been observed or tested so many times there is no longer a compelling reason to observe or test anymore becomes fact. Now I know this plays a little loose with the scientific definitions of theory and fact, but you get the gist. And evolution falls very firmly into the realm of fact.
Here is a great site that covers the facts. The overwhelming, incontrovertible, proven and accepted facts.The alternate theory, that of intelligent design (creationism dressed in a lab coat) has been almost universally dismissed as faith vs science based. I say almost because there is always fringe "science" - see the Flatearthers above. One of the principal reasons this theory persists is because if the folk who believe it are forced to come to terms with it being false, they might have to examine the other parts of that faith. Put another way, if Genesis is proved false, can they continue to believe in Revelation? And that is a very scary for them. But here's the thing. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, of many faiths and religions, and they can reconcile the two - something with which I frankly am not comfortable - so why don't we stop insisting that there are two sides to every argument? Hell, just apply Occam's razor and decide which is more likely: that there is a supreme intelligence that designed and created everything in existence or that natural forces that we can quantify and understand allowed that same everything to come to be. I know which I'm picking.
Then there is supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Here is Wikipedia's pithy summary of the idea:
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.
Here's the catch: it doesn't work. Once again, the overwhelming evidence and data indicate that there is no correlation between lower top marginal tax rates and GDP growth. Every chart you can find shows that when the supply-side folk are in charge the only people who do better are the people at the top, and damn you anyway Ronald Reagan. A thing that I find bemusing about it is that it doesn't even sound right. Trickle down? Picture a dam holding back a river and only a trickle of water making it to the valley below.Why would we even think that is a good plan? What is even more interesting is that much of the evidence indicates that the exact opposite of what the theory claims is actually true. I give you two charts:
The one on the left shows that tax decreases on the top 10% of income earners does not result in job growth, but decrease on the bottom 90% does. Hmm. So we don't get more jobs or growth. What do we get? Greater income inequality. Look to the graph on the right. The rich get richer, which really seems to me like the point of the whole ugly idea. Here is a fantastic video on how the distribution of wealth works in America, but if you don't watch it just know that 1% of the population has 40% of the money and the bottom 80% only has 7%, and most of that has built up in the last 20 to 30 years. So if there is any trickle coming down it is the rich pissing on the poor.That's what supply-side has given us. It doesn't work. Or if you are truly cynical about the motivations of the people who believe in it, it works great.
But these three examples of blind or misguided adherence to failed concepts aren't evil in and of themselves. If those who can't see the truth - and let's not hedge here, truth is what we are talking about - were just on the fringe being wacky a la our friends the Flatearthers, we could shake our heads and look away. Unfortunately it is only their thinking that is on the fringe. These willfully ignorant people influence decision and policy making and cause serious problems. We can't pass or enforce regulations regarding carbon emissions. We won't fund research or teach evolution in schools. We keep getting handed the same whole tired budget proposals. And these three examples are just a few of the more glaring on a long, long list.
I don't know which is scarier - that they are stupid and/or ignorant or that they know exactly what they're doing and do it anyway. Either way they need to take their fingers out of their ears acknowledge reality.
Maybe the all-time great example of this would have to be the Flat Earth Society. No, I'm not kidding, and neither are they. I can't decide which part I like better, that they think all the space agencies in the world are all involved in a conspiracy (to what end I wonder?) or that they base so much of what they do on their desire for true science. Wow. But while these folks are so whacko they are actually pretty funny, they do not have much of an agenda and are basically harmless. There are other groups, however, whose refusal to accept the facts - the science, the data, the evidence, the proof - is damaging to the general health and welfare of society at large and they need to get their fingers out of their ears.
Let's start with climate change, which, by the way, I think we should go back to calling global warming. We only stopped because there were too many morons who would say something like: "If global warming is real, why is it snowing?". Oy. The fact remains that it is now warmer than at any time in the previous four thousand years. And if the fact - fact! - that it is warmer doesn't alarm you, consider how quickly it has happened and how much impact it has already had. Here's a chart published by the wall Street Journal (and seen in the site above):
Now the WSJ is many things, but liberal or alarmist they are not. And on this topic they have been anything but progressive. In fact, they gave ink to a group of so-called climate scientists who peddled a serious pile of bs that was subsequently blasted by actual scientists, so for them to put this in their paper is significant. Also significant is that the EPA, who it can be argued is not as interested as it should be, has a great site dedicated to the science - science, people! - of climate change. By the way, the whole argument that it may or may not be caused by man . . . do we care? Should we do something about it, you know, save all the things that live on the earth, or argue about whose fault it is?
Along the same lines, and I must warn you my atheism might jump in here, let's talk evolution. This is like gravity. Back when Newton was tossing apples around it was called the "theory of gravity", but that implies that it is theoretical, like it might or might not be true. It is no longer in question so now we just call it gravity, just like with the "theories" of plate tectonics, cells or heliocentrism. Something that has been observed or tested so many times there is no longer a compelling reason to observe or test anymore becomes fact. Now I know this plays a little loose with the scientific definitions of theory and fact, but you get the gist. And evolution falls very firmly into the realm of fact.
Here is a great site that covers the facts. The overwhelming, incontrovertible, proven and accepted facts.The alternate theory, that of intelligent design (creationism dressed in a lab coat) has been almost universally dismissed as faith vs science based. I say almost because there is always fringe "science" - see the Flatearthers above. One of the principal reasons this theory persists is because if the folk who believe it are forced to come to terms with it being false, they might have to examine the other parts of that faith. Put another way, if Genesis is proved false, can they continue to believe in Revelation? And that is a very scary for them. But here's the thing. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, of many faiths and religions, and they can reconcile the two - something with which I frankly am not comfortable - so why don't we stop insisting that there are two sides to every argument? Hell, just apply Occam's razor and decide which is more likely: that there is a supreme intelligence that designed and created everything in existence or that natural forces that we can quantify and understand allowed that same everything to come to be. I know which I'm picking.
Then there is supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Here is Wikipedia's pithy summary of the idea:
Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.
Here's the catch: it doesn't work. Once again, the overwhelming evidence and data indicate that there is no correlation between lower top marginal tax rates and GDP growth. Every chart you can find shows that when the supply-side folk are in charge the only people who do better are the people at the top, and damn you anyway Ronald Reagan. A thing that I find bemusing about it is that it doesn't even sound right. Trickle down? Picture a dam holding back a river and only a trickle of water making it to the valley below.Why would we even think that is a good plan? What is even more interesting is that much of the evidence indicates that the exact opposite of what the theory claims is actually true. I give you two charts:
The one on the left shows that tax decreases on the top 10% of income earners does not result in job growth, but decrease on the bottom 90% does. Hmm. So we don't get more jobs or growth. What do we get? Greater income inequality. Look to the graph on the right. The rich get richer, which really seems to me like the point of the whole ugly idea. Here is a fantastic video on how the distribution of wealth works in America, but if you don't watch it just know that 1% of the population has 40% of the money and the bottom 80% only has 7%, and most of that has built up in the last 20 to 30 years. So if there is any trickle coming down it is the rich pissing on the poor.That's what supply-side has given us. It doesn't work. Or if you are truly cynical about the motivations of the people who believe in it, it works great.
But these three examples of blind or misguided adherence to failed concepts aren't evil in and of themselves. If those who can't see the truth - and let's not hedge here, truth is what we are talking about - were just on the fringe being wacky a la our friends the Flatearthers, we could shake our heads and look away. Unfortunately it is only their thinking that is on the fringe. These willfully ignorant people influence decision and policy making and cause serious problems. We can't pass or enforce regulations regarding carbon emissions. We won't fund research or teach evolution in schools. We keep getting handed the same whole tired budget proposals. And these three examples are just a few of the more glaring on a long, long list.
I don't know which is scarier - that they are stupid and/or ignorant or that they know exactly what they're doing and do it anyway. Either way they need to take their fingers out of their ears acknowledge reality.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Yo, Adrian
Having been sadly neglecting this space, I thought it would be good to do something fun and light to get back in the saddle - a good idiom since the topic is sports movies. The Top Ten Sports Movies, in fact. Any movie list is so hugely open-ended that it is hard to be comprehensive (or, depending on your goal, makes it easy to avoid controversy) and any sports list just invites argument, so the sports movie list is a nice double pleasure. But because of that, there is twice the pressure on a sports movie because the best of them are both good movies and good sports. There are few things more disappointing than having a decent movie do a terrible job of showing the sport it is about - like Any Given Sunday. Maybe that's a bad example as it might be a reach to call that a decent movie - but the football sequences sucked.
Aside: What is more disappointing, however, is when they finally make a movie about your favorite sport and it is both bad film making and bad sports. My volleyball readers probably recognize a preface to that crime against all things good and decent - Side Out. If C.Thomas Howell and Peter Horton chewing the sand wasn't bad enough, the volleyball was downright laughable. Every copy of that howler should be collected and destroyed. But I digress.
So what makes a great sports movie? It should have great sports sequences. It should have a story that doesn't have to rely on the sports - it can but shouldn't have to. It should be exciting. There are rare exceptions to this - as you will see if I ever get to the actual list, be patient - but mostly a good sports movie should make you cheer - or at least get on the edge of your seat. It should pay homage to or express a profound love for its featured sport. It should run a broad gamut of emotion, just as sports do. Just because a move has sports in it, or is set in a sports context, it is not necessarily a sports movie.
So on to the list, with caveats. I am not including documentaries. There are some great, great films that would certainly be on this list, but it feels like apples and oranges. (See When We Were Kings, Dogtown and Z-Boys, Hoop Dreams and Pumping Iron, as a start.) I will probably break my own rules. The greatness of the film (critical acclaim, impact, etc) is only one element and might be outweighed by just how much it moved me or made me laugh. This list is unranked.
Top Ten Sports Movies
Rocky - Probably the, pardon me, all-time champ. This is just flat out a great flick. Shot for just over a million bucks - they saved money by casting Stallone - it has become one of the most iconic of American movies. Sly was offered big bucks for the rights to the script, but wouldn't take it, insisting he be cast in the lead instead. Which, considering he was one foot from destitute at the time makes his career in movies a nice parallel to Rocky's in the ring. Pretty cool. Stark and simply shot, the boxing is good and I still get shivers when Rocky comes out for the last round and gestures for Apollo to come get him. And I just love the fact that (spoiler alert if there is anyone who doesn't know) Apollo being announced the winner is barely audible and totally secondary. Yo, Rocky.
Remember the Titans - This movie suffers somewhat form the Disney treatment - a tad too tidy, mildly revisionist - but has so much good writing and strong acting that it survives the Mouse. It tugs at the heartstrings, tickles the funny bone and excites all the way down into the gut. It manages to handle the racism theme without being sentimental - mostly - and has some great football. I will admit being partial because of the high-brow coaching themes, but it just fires me up. "Leave no doubt." It also gave a pretty good start to some young actors who have since done very well.
Bull Durham - One of the movies that violates the necessary excitement rule - there is no big game moment in the flick - it is still very much steeped in baseball, with both lead characters holding a deep love for the game as a central theme. This is a nicely complicated love story, it has a great collection of pithy sports aphorisms ("Play the game with fear and arrogance. That's the secret."), and is just flat out funny. Superbly acted throughout, an extra nod needs to go to Robert Wuhl as the hysterically funny assistant coach Larry. And Crash's speech about what he believes in is just superb.
The Karate Kid - Okay, this is not the high art of film making, but it is a fun, heartwarming and inspiring movie. Ralph Macchio ocassionally makes my teeth itch, but Pat Morita (check old MASH episodes for some great random Morita) is brilliant and it is really hard not to get psyched in the final few minutes. Mister Miagi dispenses some true gems of psuedo-Buddhist wisdom along the way, and there are some genuinely funny moments. Random bonuses: Daniel's Halloween costume is genuius and, while not from this movie, the opening of the sequel is great. The rest of it most assuredly isn't, but the first five minutes are must-see.
Hoosiers - Maybe the most predictable of these picks, it is also a movie voted most likely to be loved by coaches. Gene Hackman balances "my way or the hghway" with "but you can't deny my integrity" to a fine point, and hey, everybody likes a winner. It has a number of sweet and engaging sub-plots that enhance without distratcting or becoming unwieldy. Featuring the always excellent Dennis Hopper and Barbara Hershey, there are also some other excellent character turns by young actors you have seen more than you realize. And when Jimmy looks at him in the final huddle and says "I'll make it." my coach's heart leaps.
North Dallas Forty - This is definitely the darkest of the bunch (but not as dark as the downright grim book on which it is based) and has probably the best single performance in the group, a stunner from Nick Nolte. Directly drawn on the Dallas Cowboys, you will never look at pro football the same way and have a new appreciation - or horror - for what those guys put themselves through. Mac Davis shows surprising acting chops, and John Matuzak of all people almost steals the movie with one great little speech. I absolutely love the opening sequence, including the music, and G.D Spradlin - a wonderfual character actor you know but don't remember - is chilling as the nasty, nasty coach. Funny and sad, this is a real sleeper - and worth it just for Nolte.
The Longest Yard - The 1974 original thank you very much, this amazingly would also make my top ten prison movies list. It really is a great story and has a couple of fine performances from Burt Reynolds and Eddie Albert (if all you think of is "Green Acres" you are in for a real treat). It is dark and funny, and has some deft character development. It is surprisingly poignant and tosses in some nice little pieces of social commentary without being preachy. And the football is just great. I would stack the final sequence up against any gridiron footage before or since.
A League of Their Own - "There's no crying in baseball" is not even the best line in this joyous film. Penny Marshall inherited and refined her father's gift for comedy and it is on full display here, letting funny people like Tom Hanks, Rosie O'Donnell and, in an all-too-small but hysterical role, Jon Lovitz shine trough a number of nicely interwoven stories. It manages to be touching without being overly sentimental - mostly - and as an added bonus brings a great piece of sports history into the public eye. It is unfortunate that the best player in the movie is so clearly not the best player among the actors. Oh well. The baseball sequences are still very good.
Rudy - It pains me to include a film that focuses on Notre Dame football, but there it is. Sean Astin is somehow able to be the personification of "atta boy!" without becoming annoying and you can root for him even as you almost want to beg him to stop and believe in him even as you find him unbelievable. It is quite the inspirational story, and actually, I think, transcends the cliches that seem to spring up around that history. It is also a very beautiful film, and it has one of my favorite lesser known actors, Charles Dutton, in a great part. (And worth noting in a slightly weird twist that both Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau are in it three years before Swingers)
Major League - This movie runs counter to many of the criteria above, but I just love it. Such an eclectic collection of actors - you could play six degrees with this cast forever - often feels disjointed, but they somehow mesh and are really very funny together. My favorite random casting is Dennis Haysbert as the giant Cuban voodoo slugger Serrano, but Bob Uecker almost steals the movie as the radio voice of the team, Harry Doyle."Juuust a bit outside." The baseball isn't always great - Sheen balks (in slow motion no less) in a pivotal scene and you really shouldn't give too much thought to the batting order - but the culminating sequence is so much fun and so exciting that you just don't care. This movie is a remote flipper for me - if you find it while channel surfing you flip the remote over your shoulder because you know you're going to watch it - even if it might qualify as a guilty pleasure.
I am adding Rollerball - not (most definitely, assuredly and absolutely NOT) the atrocious 2002 P.O.S by the same name, but the 1975 Norman Jewison gem with no less than James Caan and John Houseman - as an addendum eleventh pick because it may or may not be a sports movie and the sport they play doesn't actually exist. Part sci-fi, part social commentary, part sports hero film, this is actually one of my favorite films of any genre, and I couldn't put it on the list or leave it off. With a compelling script, it is finely performed and elegantly shot, and feels original and unique even as it trots out the occasional sports cliche. And no, it isn't on the list because the hero shares my name and they chant it to end the movie. Okay, maybe a little. It is powerful, exciting and thoughtful and is really quite a film. I find it wild that Jewison directed this, Moonstruck and Fiddler on the Roof - among many others. Can you say eclectic?
Notable snubs (let's see you pick only 10 - okay 11):
- Raging Bull - I know, I know, DeNiro, Scorcese, best picture nominee - I just didn't like it, maybe I'll try again
- Moneyball - Pitt and Hill great, Sorkin script fantastic, loved it
- The Natural - gorgeous and nicely different, love Wilford Brumley and Richard Farnsworth, little too over the top
- Field of Dreams - great idea, fun, love James Earl Jones, annoying Costner
- Ali - Smith is unreal for being so real, but some of it didn't work for me
- Cinderella Man - loved Crowe and Giamatti, very uplifting, pretty
- Million Dollar Baby - again, I know, best picture, best director, best actress, best supporting actor. I loved this movie, but it is just so hard and sad
Comedies - very funny comedies! - disguised as sports movies:
- Caddyshack - a classic, the scene with Murray and Chase is worth the whole movie
- Slap Shot - Greatly under appreciated, lots of sharp humor, the Hansons are the funniest things on ice
- Dodge Ball - talk about a guilty pleasure, I laughed my ass off at this movie. It does a good job of making fun of sports as well - "The Ocho"
Smaller - either by sport or movie - but must-see:
- Breaking Away - wonderful coming of age film with cycling as the sport, a personal favorite
- Warrior - MMA as a vehicle for a taut family drama with some great performances; VERY powerful
- Vision Quest - Matthew Modine and high-school wrestling, surprising and definitely worth the effort
- Goon - Jay Baruchel's ode to hockey, this is the runaway sleeper of this whole list. You would never think to see it and I just loved it.
Aside: What is more disappointing, however, is when they finally make a movie about your favorite sport and it is both bad film making and bad sports. My volleyball readers probably recognize a preface to that crime against all things good and decent - Side Out. If C.Thomas Howell and Peter Horton chewing the sand wasn't bad enough, the volleyball was downright laughable. Every copy of that howler should be collected and destroyed. But I digress.
So what makes a great sports movie? It should have great sports sequences. It should have a story that doesn't have to rely on the sports - it can but shouldn't have to. It should be exciting. There are rare exceptions to this - as you will see if I ever get to the actual list, be patient - but mostly a good sports movie should make you cheer - or at least get on the edge of your seat. It should pay homage to or express a profound love for its featured sport. It should run a broad gamut of emotion, just as sports do. Just because a move has sports in it, or is set in a sports context, it is not necessarily a sports movie.
So on to the list, with caveats. I am not including documentaries. There are some great, great films that would certainly be on this list, but it feels like apples and oranges. (See When We Were Kings, Dogtown and Z-Boys, Hoop Dreams and Pumping Iron, as a start.) I will probably break my own rules. The greatness of the film (critical acclaim, impact, etc) is only one element and might be outweighed by just how much it moved me or made me laugh. This list is unranked.
Top Ten Sports Movies
Rocky - Probably the, pardon me, all-time champ. This is just flat out a great flick. Shot for just over a million bucks - they saved money by casting Stallone - it has become one of the most iconic of American movies. Sly was offered big bucks for the rights to the script, but wouldn't take it, insisting he be cast in the lead instead. Which, considering he was one foot from destitute at the time makes his career in movies a nice parallel to Rocky's in the ring. Pretty cool. Stark and simply shot, the boxing is good and I still get shivers when Rocky comes out for the last round and gestures for Apollo to come get him. And I just love the fact that (spoiler alert if there is anyone who doesn't know) Apollo being announced the winner is barely audible and totally secondary. Yo, Rocky.
Remember the Titans - This movie suffers somewhat form the Disney treatment - a tad too tidy, mildly revisionist - but has so much good writing and strong acting that it survives the Mouse. It tugs at the heartstrings, tickles the funny bone and excites all the way down into the gut. It manages to handle the racism theme without being sentimental - mostly - and has some great football. I will admit being partial because of the high-brow coaching themes, but it just fires me up. "Leave no doubt." It also gave a pretty good start to some young actors who have since done very well.
Bull Durham - One of the movies that violates the necessary excitement rule - there is no big game moment in the flick - it is still very much steeped in baseball, with both lead characters holding a deep love for the game as a central theme. This is a nicely complicated love story, it has a great collection of pithy sports aphorisms ("Play the game with fear and arrogance. That's the secret."), and is just flat out funny. Superbly acted throughout, an extra nod needs to go to Robert Wuhl as the hysterically funny assistant coach Larry. And Crash's speech about what he believes in is just superb.
The Karate Kid - Okay, this is not the high art of film making, but it is a fun, heartwarming and inspiring movie. Ralph Macchio ocassionally makes my teeth itch, but Pat Morita (check old MASH episodes for some great random Morita) is brilliant and it is really hard not to get psyched in the final few minutes. Mister Miagi dispenses some true gems of psuedo-Buddhist wisdom along the way, and there are some genuinely funny moments. Random bonuses: Daniel's Halloween costume is genuius and, while not from this movie, the opening of the sequel is great. The rest of it most assuredly isn't, but the first five minutes are must-see.
Hoosiers - Maybe the most predictable of these picks, it is also a movie voted most likely to be loved by coaches. Gene Hackman balances "my way or the hghway" with "but you can't deny my integrity" to a fine point, and hey, everybody likes a winner. It has a number of sweet and engaging sub-plots that enhance without distratcting or becoming unwieldy. Featuring the always excellent Dennis Hopper and Barbara Hershey, there are also some other excellent character turns by young actors you have seen more than you realize. And when Jimmy looks at him in the final huddle and says "I'll make it." my coach's heart leaps.
North Dallas Forty - This is definitely the darkest of the bunch (but not as dark as the downright grim book on which it is based) and has probably the best single performance in the group, a stunner from Nick Nolte. Directly drawn on the Dallas Cowboys, you will never look at pro football the same way and have a new appreciation - or horror - for what those guys put themselves through. Mac Davis shows surprising acting chops, and John Matuzak of all people almost steals the movie with one great little speech. I absolutely love the opening sequence, including the music, and G.D Spradlin - a wonderfual character actor you know but don't remember - is chilling as the nasty, nasty coach. Funny and sad, this is a real sleeper - and worth it just for Nolte.
The Longest Yard - The 1974 original thank you very much, this amazingly would also make my top ten prison movies list. It really is a great story and has a couple of fine performances from Burt Reynolds and Eddie Albert (if all you think of is "Green Acres" you are in for a real treat). It is dark and funny, and has some deft character development. It is surprisingly poignant and tosses in some nice little pieces of social commentary without being preachy. And the football is just great. I would stack the final sequence up against any gridiron footage before or since.
A League of Their Own - "There's no crying in baseball" is not even the best line in this joyous film. Penny Marshall inherited and refined her father's gift for comedy and it is on full display here, letting funny people like Tom Hanks, Rosie O'Donnell and, in an all-too-small but hysterical role, Jon Lovitz shine trough a number of nicely interwoven stories. It manages to be touching without being overly sentimental - mostly - and as an added bonus brings a great piece of sports history into the public eye. It is unfortunate that the best player in the movie is so clearly not the best player among the actors. Oh well. The baseball sequences are still very good.
Rudy - It pains me to include a film that focuses on Notre Dame football, but there it is. Sean Astin is somehow able to be the personification of "atta boy!" without becoming annoying and you can root for him even as you almost want to beg him to stop and believe in him even as you find him unbelievable. It is quite the inspirational story, and actually, I think, transcends the cliches that seem to spring up around that history. It is also a very beautiful film, and it has one of my favorite lesser known actors, Charles Dutton, in a great part. (And worth noting in a slightly weird twist that both Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau are in it three years before Swingers)
Major League - This movie runs counter to many of the criteria above, but I just love it. Such an eclectic collection of actors - you could play six degrees with this cast forever - often feels disjointed, but they somehow mesh and are really very funny together. My favorite random casting is Dennis Haysbert as the giant Cuban voodoo slugger Serrano, but Bob Uecker almost steals the movie as the radio voice of the team, Harry Doyle."Juuust a bit outside." The baseball isn't always great - Sheen balks (in slow motion no less) in a pivotal scene and you really shouldn't give too much thought to the batting order - but the culminating sequence is so much fun and so exciting that you just don't care. This movie is a remote flipper for me - if you find it while channel surfing you flip the remote over your shoulder because you know you're going to watch it - even if it might qualify as a guilty pleasure.
I am adding Rollerball - not (most definitely, assuredly and absolutely NOT) the atrocious 2002 P.O.S by the same name, but the 1975 Norman Jewison gem with no less than James Caan and John Houseman - as an addendum eleventh pick because it may or may not be a sports movie and the sport they play doesn't actually exist. Part sci-fi, part social commentary, part sports hero film, this is actually one of my favorite films of any genre, and I couldn't put it on the list or leave it off. With a compelling script, it is finely performed and elegantly shot, and feels original and unique even as it trots out the occasional sports cliche. And no, it isn't on the list because the hero shares my name and they chant it to end the movie. Okay, maybe a little. It is powerful, exciting and thoughtful and is really quite a film. I find it wild that Jewison directed this, Moonstruck and Fiddler on the Roof - among many others. Can you say eclectic?
Notable snubs (let's see you pick only 10 - okay 11):
- Raging Bull - I know, I know, DeNiro, Scorcese, best picture nominee - I just didn't like it, maybe I'll try again
- Moneyball - Pitt and Hill great, Sorkin script fantastic, loved it
- The Natural - gorgeous and nicely different, love Wilford Brumley and Richard Farnsworth, little too over the top
- Field of Dreams - great idea, fun, love James Earl Jones, annoying Costner
- Ali - Smith is unreal for being so real, but some of it didn't work for me
- Cinderella Man - loved Crowe and Giamatti, very uplifting, pretty
- Million Dollar Baby - again, I know, best picture, best director, best actress, best supporting actor. I loved this movie, but it is just so hard and sad
Comedies - very funny comedies! - disguised as sports movies:
- Caddyshack - a classic, the scene with Murray and Chase is worth the whole movie
- Slap Shot - Greatly under appreciated, lots of sharp humor, the Hansons are the funniest things on ice
- Dodge Ball - talk about a guilty pleasure, I laughed my ass off at this movie. It does a good job of making fun of sports as well - "The Ocho"
Smaller - either by sport or movie - but must-see:
- Breaking Away - wonderful coming of age film with cycling as the sport, a personal favorite
- Warrior - MMA as a vehicle for a taut family drama with some great performances; VERY powerful
- Vision Quest - Matthew Modine and high-school wrestling, surprising and definitely worth the effort
- Goon - Jay Baruchel's ode to hockey, this is the runaway sleeper of this whole list. You would never think to see it and I just loved it.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Almost thankful
This is about unintended consequences. About silver linings and unexpected results. About how something really bad can weirdly produce something wonderful. About something mean and ugly that you could almost, but not quite, be thankful for. Can a terrible and tragic thing that ends up causing a beautiful and remarkable thing create its own redemption?
Two things happened recently, on the same day, one nationally and one very locally, that evoked these thoughts. The first was the SCOTUS - or rather Justice Scalia - decision to look at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Some background. Section 5 is the part of the VRA that prevents certain states, or parts of states, with a proven record of voter suppression or intimidation, from changing their voting practices or election laws without the permission of the Justice Department. In other words, if you are a place that has a habit of disenfranchising minority groups, you will have oversight to keep you from doing it again. And don't think this is specific to African Americans in the south. It is also for Hispanics in the west, Native Americans in Alaska and even French Americans in New Hampshire. It is a key part of the VRA and in 2006 was reauthorized by Congress for twenty-five years after extensive (here is a nice summary of only 50 pages) research that decided it was still a good idea to protect the voting rights of minority voters. Say that again: protect the voting rights. How that turns into Scalia's "minority entitlement" truly baffles me. These groups aren't being given something, certainly nothing special or extra, but rather having something, that is their constitutional right, protected. And there is little question that those rights still need protecting. There were numerous attempts to suppress voting in places subject to Section 5 that were prevented by federal judges only because Section 5 still existed. And this didn't happen back in 2006, but last year.
There is another question involved here as well. This statement by Scalia also far overreaches the mandate of the Supreme Court. This issue is legislative. The court's job is to ensure the constitutionality of legislation, not write or pass it. Scalia is concerned that "this is not the kind of question you can leave to congress" and that senators might be overly concerned that they might "lose votes if they don't re-enact". Let me get this straight, your honor. Congress shouldn't be trusted to legislate and members of congress shouldn't be influenced by their constituents? Mustn't let democracy get in the way of judicial fiat.
But, and this speaks to original point, the actions of this small-minded, egotistical, conniving and probably racist asshole might be just what we needed. I have heard Scalia defended on the grounds that he is trying to create a truly colorblind society and that as long as we have minority distinctions we will always be subject to "mischief". Please. And Chief Justice Roberts has said that "things have changed in the South." Really? That must be why Section 5 is still, currently, being actively employed? Anyone who thinks we are in a post-racial society because we have a black President is delusional to the point of insanity. And it should be considered that there are probably some people who honestly don't make it an issue of race but rather one of ideology. They aren't trying to suppress voting by those groups only because of their race, but because they vote against them, which makes for a scary kind of practical racism. I just shuddered. But on the other side of this argument there is just the kind of outrage and anger that we need. People are pissed!
And they - we! - should be. I think the argument can be made that President Obama's elections have actually brought out the racism in this country, not proven that we are past it. We had fallen into complacency about civil rights, convinced ourselves we were progressive and that affirmative action had done its job. We wanted to believe that we had finally reached "all men created equal" because we were tired of worrying about it. And look! A black President! We must be enlightened. The reality is that it reminded people, and scared them, that we might actually be moving forward and we'd better stop. This horrific SCOTUS move is just a stark example of that sentiment and might serve to ignite the type of passion, dedication and action that was needed back in 1965 to get the Civil Rights Act passed to begin with. So it comes to be that I am almost thankful - almost! - for Antonin Scalia.
The other event that brought about this train of thought was the actions of the Westborough Baptist Church. If you don't know these fuckers, they are the ones who have gained notoriety for their "God Hates Fags" mantra and for picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat. You can learn more about them here, but in all seriousness I advise caution in visiting their website. To learn about them is to see evil. They thank God for soldiers who die in Afghanistan and pray for the deaths of thousands more. They are not your average fundamentalist crazy, but something truly extreme and horrible. And they, in the space of three days, visited both my high school alma mater and current college workplace. Weird, right? Their thing is to target an entity - school, business, movie, whatever - they feel is being bad. You know, by being inclusive, open-minded, or "supporting the fag agenda". They show up and picket, usually four or five people with hateful signs (they have each person carry three or four signs so it's kind of like having more actual people, right?) make their point - whatever it might actually be - and leave. They take pride in how many thousands of protests they have held and are sickeningly smug and self-satisfied. So how could I possibly be even almost thankful for these horrible people?
Start by watching this. Way to go Samohi! It made me proud to be a graduate and to call Santa Monica my home town. But it was only a prelude to the outpouring of emotion I would feel for the response that happened at Vassar College on February 28th when it was the WBC's turn to visit our "Ivy League Whorehouse". The response was overwhelming. We had speakers, forums, panels, and vigils. We had solidarity, conviction and passion. We had support from all over the Hudson Valley and beyond. We had alums from all over the country coming in just for the day to stand together. We had thousands - thousands! - of people coming together to combat hate and intolerance. We had good old-fashioned by golly peace, love and understanding! Was it sometimes easy, knee-jerk liberalism? Probably, but the end result was undeniable: it felt good. Good to see people caring about and promoting inclusion. Good to stand with people I love and respect defiant of hate and fear. And when even brushing up against the evil of people like the WBC makes you feel so bad - dirty and disgusted bad - feeling good is enough. And there was an actual tangible and powerful result of their actions as well. An inspired and enterprising Vassar alum set up a site to raise money for the Trevor Project, his goal to raise $4,500, one hundred for each minute the WBC planned to protest. The amount raised is up to over $100,000 and still rising, as you can see and if you are so moved, join in, here. While it is hard to know their actual goals, I can only think that such an achievement has to be the exact opposite of what the WBC wants. Massive monetary support for an organization the helps the very people they hate can't be a win for them. And anything that acts in opposition to such evil is, by definition, good.
So there again is the unintended consequence, the silver lining. If not for the deplorable actions of evil people, we would not have had the beauty and joy of the response to those actions. Give and take, push and pull, yin and yang. So am I thankful for Antonin Scalia and the Westborough Baptist Church? Almost.
Two things happened recently, on the same day, one nationally and one very locally, that evoked these thoughts. The first was the SCOTUS - or rather Justice Scalia - decision to look at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Some background. Section 5 is the part of the VRA that prevents certain states, or parts of states, with a proven record of voter suppression or intimidation, from changing their voting practices or election laws without the permission of the Justice Department. In other words, if you are a place that has a habit of disenfranchising minority groups, you will have oversight to keep you from doing it again. And don't think this is specific to African Americans in the south. It is also for Hispanics in the west, Native Americans in Alaska and even French Americans in New Hampshire. It is a key part of the VRA and in 2006 was reauthorized by Congress for twenty-five years after extensive (here is a nice summary of only 50 pages) research that decided it was still a good idea to protect the voting rights of minority voters. Say that again: protect the voting rights. How that turns into Scalia's "minority entitlement" truly baffles me. These groups aren't being given something, certainly nothing special or extra, but rather having something, that is their constitutional right, protected. And there is little question that those rights still need protecting. There were numerous attempts to suppress voting in places subject to Section 5 that were prevented by federal judges only because Section 5 still existed. And this didn't happen back in 2006, but last year.
There is another question involved here as well. This statement by Scalia also far overreaches the mandate of the Supreme Court. This issue is legislative. The court's job is to ensure the constitutionality of legislation, not write or pass it. Scalia is concerned that "this is not the kind of question you can leave to congress" and that senators might be overly concerned that they might "lose votes if they don't re-enact". Let me get this straight, your honor. Congress shouldn't be trusted to legislate and members of congress shouldn't be influenced by their constituents? Mustn't let democracy get in the way of judicial fiat.
But, and this speaks to original point, the actions of this small-minded, egotistical, conniving and probably racist asshole might be just what we needed. I have heard Scalia defended on the grounds that he is trying to create a truly colorblind society and that as long as we have minority distinctions we will always be subject to "mischief". Please. And Chief Justice Roberts has said that "things have changed in the South." Really? That must be why Section 5 is still, currently, being actively employed? Anyone who thinks we are in a post-racial society because we have a black President is delusional to the point of insanity. And it should be considered that there are probably some people who honestly don't make it an issue of race but rather one of ideology. They aren't trying to suppress voting by those groups only because of their race, but because they vote against them, which makes for a scary kind of practical racism. I just shuddered. But on the other side of this argument there is just the kind of outrage and anger that we need. People are pissed!
And they - we! - should be. I think the argument can be made that President Obama's elections have actually brought out the racism in this country, not proven that we are past it. We had fallen into complacency about civil rights, convinced ourselves we were progressive and that affirmative action had done its job. We wanted to believe that we had finally reached "all men created equal" because we were tired of worrying about it. And look! A black President! We must be enlightened. The reality is that it reminded people, and scared them, that we might actually be moving forward and we'd better stop. This horrific SCOTUS move is just a stark example of that sentiment and might serve to ignite the type of passion, dedication and action that was needed back in 1965 to get the Civil Rights Act passed to begin with. So it comes to be that I am almost thankful - almost! - for Antonin Scalia.
The other event that brought about this train of thought was the actions of the Westborough Baptist Church. If you don't know these fuckers, they are the ones who have gained notoriety for their "God Hates Fags" mantra and for picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in combat. You can learn more about them here, but in all seriousness I advise caution in visiting their website. To learn about them is to see evil. They thank God for soldiers who die in Afghanistan and pray for the deaths of thousands more. They are not your average fundamentalist crazy, but something truly extreme and horrible. And they, in the space of three days, visited both my high school alma mater and current college workplace. Weird, right? Their thing is to target an entity - school, business, movie, whatever - they feel is being bad. You know, by being inclusive, open-minded, or "supporting the fag agenda". They show up and picket, usually four or five people with hateful signs (they have each person carry three or four signs so it's kind of like having more actual people, right?) make their point - whatever it might actually be - and leave. They take pride in how many thousands of protests they have held and are sickeningly smug and self-satisfied. So how could I possibly be even almost thankful for these horrible people?
Start by watching this. Way to go Samohi! It made me proud to be a graduate and to call Santa Monica my home town. But it was only a prelude to the outpouring of emotion I would feel for the response that happened at Vassar College on February 28th when it was the WBC's turn to visit our "Ivy League Whorehouse". The response was overwhelming. We had speakers, forums, panels, and vigils. We had solidarity, conviction and passion. We had support from all over the Hudson Valley and beyond. We had alums from all over the country coming in just for the day to stand together. We had thousands - thousands! - of people coming together to combat hate and intolerance. We had good old-fashioned by golly peace, love and understanding! Was it sometimes easy, knee-jerk liberalism? Probably, but the end result was undeniable: it felt good. Good to see people caring about and promoting inclusion. Good to stand with people I love and respect defiant of hate and fear. And when even brushing up against the evil of people like the WBC makes you feel so bad - dirty and disgusted bad - feeling good is enough. And there was an actual tangible and powerful result of their actions as well. An inspired and enterprising Vassar alum set up a site to raise money for the Trevor Project, his goal to raise $4,500, one hundred for each minute the WBC planned to protest. The amount raised is up to over $100,000 and still rising, as you can see and if you are so moved, join in, here. While it is hard to know their actual goals, I can only think that such an achievement has to be the exact opposite of what the WBC wants. Massive monetary support for an organization the helps the very people they hate can't be a win for them. And anything that acts in opposition to such evil is, by definition, good.
So there again is the unintended consequence, the silver lining. If not for the deplorable actions of evil people, we would not have had the beauty and joy of the response to those actions. Give and take, push and pull, yin and yang. So am I thankful for Antonin Scalia and the Westborough Baptist Church? Almost.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Pantheon four - the final Titan
Titans so far: Peter Gabriel, Pete Townshend and Neil Young. Who will be the last to join this ultra-exclusive, best-of-the-best, greater-even-than-the-gods list? Brace yourself, 'cause you're not gonna believe it.
X
The biggest problem with X is that not enough people have seen them play - not heard, seen. Not that they aren't a Titan only on hearing, they most certainly are, but it is hard to fully grasp the greatness that is X without seeing them perform. But more on that later. What they almost certainly are for many of you is the greatest band you've never even heard of, much less listened to. So.
The band was formed in L.A. by bassist John Doe and guitarist Billy Zoom in 1977, with drummer DJ Bonebrake and vocalist Exene Cervanka. They signed, and became the standard bearer for the L.A.-based indy label Slash Records, with whom they recorded their first two albums, "Los Angeles" and "Wild Gift". They eventually moved to Elektra where they recorded five more studio albums through 1993. They have had various side projects and minor personnel changes over time, occasional hiatuses, and are currently back together in the original line-up and touring. Those are the nuts and bolts. But that has little or nothing to do with what makes X, well, X.
Some "how cool are they" nuggets:
- Ray Manzarek, keyboard player for The Doors, produced their first four albums.
- Exene's lyrics, which are not necessarily written as songs, but straight poetry set to music, have been compared to Charles Bukowski and Raymond Chandler. Oh, and she was married to Viggo Mortensen, and if Aragorn ain't cool I don't know who is.
- In the movie School of Rock, the diagram Jack Black uses to detail the history of rock has X on it's very own bridge (it is in the shadow of the pointer in this picture).
- this so-called "punk" band has covered songs by Joe Burke, Merle Haggard and Richard Thompson.
- the version of "Wild Thing" that was featured in the great baseball film Major League is by X.
- they opened for Pearl Jam on their 2011 South and Central American and European tours, a very weird circle of life kind of thing as Gossard and Vedder cite X as a major influence.
- when they needed a guitarist they attracted people like Tony Gilkyson of Lone Justice and Dave Alvin of The Blasters.
- John Doe has a small acting career that includes appearances in Salvador, Boogie Nights and on "Law and Order".
But I am not getting my point across here. Let's go to a small sampling of critical acclaim and general praise:
- "Wild Gift", their second album, was named Album of the Year by not just Rolling Stone, which you would expect and who put it, along with "Los Angeles", on their list of top 500 albums of all time, but by The NY Times, The LA Times and The Village Voice, which is not your usual collection of critics in agreement.
- "They had superior song writing skills and vocal harmonies matched only by the Everly Brothers." - Jakob Dylan
- X was "Rolling Stone"'s Band of The Year in 1981.
- "I am defenseless to the beauty of X. Hank Williams would have given them the nod. Patsy Cline would've smiled. As time goes on and contemporary music gracelessly chases its own tail, X's records sound better and better." - Henry Rollins
- Bands that pay homage to X: Los Lobos, No Doubt, The Go-Gos, Soul Asylum, Replacements and the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
- The band received an Official Certificate of Recognition from the City of Los Angeles in acknowledgment of its contribution to Los Angeles music and culture.
Okay, so they're very cool, they represented both the heart of the L.A. music scene and new American punk in the late seventies and early eighties, they were critically and popularly successful and they have had a nice long run. But is that really Titan worthy? Maybe not but I have not yet even mentioned their music, and therein lies the true greatness of X.
First of all there is the depth and breadth of their canon. Often called punk, they actually defy genre. To be sure, they very frequently play loud and fast but you can also easily find rockabilly, folk, hard rock, blues and even bluegrass in their songs. From the hard rock stomp of "The Hungry Wolf" to the poignant "Come Back to Me" - on the same album side! - to the folksy "I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts" on to the actual punker "The Once Over Twice" they play it all, and they play the hell out of it.
John Doe plays his bass with power and precision, and often like he is playing a six string acoustic guitar, strumming and picking. Zoom prides himself on his speed and clarity, and he can shred with the best of them, or bang out power chords like a heavy metal monster. Exene is the worst singer ever to thank her vocal coach on every album liner, but her passion for her words shines through her voice and, like Dylan or Cohen, transcends whatever pitch or tone it lacks. DJ can hit the skins like very few drummers I've ever encountered. A manic metronome, his drive is matched only by his creativity and his sense of rhythm borders on the savant. No hackers here, they use actual prowess on their instruments to bring powerful structure and great lyrics to life.
Both John and Exene are gifted poets and while you couldn't always pick out the words they were there to look for and love. "Sex and Dying in High Society", "Riding with Mary", "The New World", "Devil Doll" - they wrote about anything and everything, but what they wrote about best was the actual lives they encountered and the society in which they lived. I have always thought the best lyricists tell tiny stories, and most X songs are just that, complete with compelling characters and powerful imagery.
But as I said to start this attempt to explain my love of X, you just have to see them play. I have been lucky enough to see them more times than I can count and can probably not ever adequately describe what they do, but I can at least try to describe the scene. There is Billy standing there in his comic book guitar hero stance - feet firmly planted four feet apart - never even glancing at his guitar no matter how fast his fingers are flying, turning his psycho-charm smile off and on like a light. There is DJ, the "noble savage" of the boy next door looks, banging, no pounding, away on his kit with some fantastic combination of desperate anger and joyful abandon. Picture a little kid hitting his drums harder and faster than seems possible, but with a silly smile on his face. There is Exene, seldom moving but somehow taking up space, leaning into her mike, her voodoo doll looks and passionate wails somehow making her both bad-ass and vulnerable. And there is John, hurtling and howling, thrashing his bass and his band mates, pushing, driving, insisting, and pouring every ounce of himself into every set, every song, every fucking note. Put it all together and you get some kind of electrified physical manifestation of passion hurled on to the stage, barely hanging together in its drive to the edge, but in the end somehow forging a primal connection with the audience, insisting that you abandon yourself to its power and urgency. To be in the audience at an X show is to connect, to surge, to feel. I have seen better concerts - Queen, U2, Peter Gabriel - but I have never liked being in a crowd watching a band more than with X.
So there it is. X is a Titan. Did I really put this relatively obscure L.A. band on a list above such rock gods as The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc, etc. Yes, I did.
Next up in the pantheon, the deities and demi-gods.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)