4.03.2004
the texas chainsaw massacre (for ed)
since i haven't been able to talk anyone into seeing the dawn of the dead remake yet, i might as well post a bit about the texas chainsaw massacre remake. i found it a bit better than i thought it'd be, unlike ed, who was pretty much ready to throw down after watching it.
the thing to keep in mind is that it's a hollywood horror flick. so i went into it treating it as such. and i thought it had a few decent little tricks in it (the camera-view-through-the-hole-in-the-head scene was gross out fun), and the acting-- while far from good-- wasn't so distractingly bad as to take away from anything. while it's no where near as interesting as the original (of course), one decent addition was that the victims this time around weren't as unforgivingly stupid-- it wisely steered clear of the unplausible "don't-go-in-there" trappings that make so many dumb horror movies that much dumber.
still, beyond a few decent jolts, it's pretty tame nonsense. predictably, the new director envisions the "family" in a far more mundane sort of way, resorting to the usual bag of white-trash class-isms (and when it comes to playing out your dormant xenophobic fantasies, there's no victim like poor white folk to ensure you won't get called on your shit with it) as well as some embarrassing "freaky" stuff (the shot of leatherface sewing was a nice, unintentional john waters moment). the casting of that goofy drill seargent from full metal jacket certainly didn't help, proving once again that you should never underestimate the baggage that comes along with recognition... i could go on and on...
the biggest problem, i think, is that it doesn't sound like the original. there's a million weirdo morsels that make the original fucked up, but at the top of that list would have to be the increasing elimination of language. by the end of the 70's version, almost all dialogue has been reduced to ecstatic screams and mumblings (insert paul mc carthy reference here). instead, it's just the usual carnival of crap you've seen before.
but it was still sorta fun. i liked it better than adaptation, which i saw the same night (and thought was really annoying). i dunno. whatever. here's a cool pic from the original...
the thing to keep in mind is that it's a hollywood horror flick. so i went into it treating it as such. and i thought it had a few decent little tricks in it (the camera-view-through-the-hole-in-the-head scene was gross out fun), and the acting-- while far from good-- wasn't so distractingly bad as to take away from anything. while it's no where near as interesting as the original (of course), one decent addition was that the victims this time around weren't as unforgivingly stupid-- it wisely steered clear of the unplausible "don't-go-in-there" trappings that make so many dumb horror movies that much dumber.
still, beyond a few decent jolts, it's pretty tame nonsense. predictably, the new director envisions the "family" in a far more mundane sort of way, resorting to the usual bag of white-trash class-isms (and when it comes to playing out your dormant xenophobic fantasies, there's no victim like poor white folk to ensure you won't get called on your shit with it) as well as some embarrassing "freaky" stuff (the shot of leatherface sewing was a nice, unintentional john waters moment). the casting of that goofy drill seargent from full metal jacket certainly didn't help, proving once again that you should never underestimate the baggage that comes along with recognition... i could go on and on...
the biggest problem, i think, is that it doesn't sound like the original. there's a million weirdo morsels that make the original fucked up, but at the top of that list would have to be the increasing elimination of language. by the end of the 70's version, almost all dialogue has been reduced to ecstatic screams and mumblings (insert paul mc carthy reference here). instead, it's just the usual carnival of crap you've seen before.
but it was still sorta fun. i liked it better than adaptation, which i saw the same night (and thought was really annoying). i dunno. whatever. here's a cool pic from the original...
4.01.2004
three shows
i've been posting a bit less cause i've been going out more. in the past week, i saw three shows... figured i'd say what i have to say about them...
first was animal collective at vox populi, one of philly's few decent galleries. animal collective is part of this emerging scene of hippie-ish noise rock, which i find promising... they take what's fun from the old noise/spazz stuff and combine it with drum-circle-like repetition and washes of psychedelic effects. the results are pretty refreshing actually-- "drug music" that avoids the usual clichés by fusing to a contrasting punk impulse. heavy psychedelia usually isn't my thing, but there's a thrashiness to this band that seems to come out of no where, and keeps me from getting bored. worth seeing live, even if the punk rock p.a. system did occasionally reduce them to sonic mush...
they played with a philly guy who calls himself illoin, who i thought was pretty interesting too. electronics, occasional vocals and live accordion. sounded nice, but it's still a bit of a drag sitting in front of a guy with a laptop... i wish there was a way of reconciling that, since i think the laptop is at least-- if not more-- interesting in a performance than, say, a guitar or something. but you can't strut around like angus young with a computer slung over your shoulder. ho hum.
next show was tv on the radio, who played with a bunch of bands i wasn't into. praising tv on the radio at this point is probably beginning to sound like a broken record, but i think they're worth the hype. the full length is as good as the e.p., and the songs seem somehow careful and effortless at the same time, thanks in part to the really beautiful vocals. live, the "lead singer" holds up a little better as a singer than the guy with the huge hair (i'm not bothering to look up names here, sorry-- i'm a little under the weather at the moment), but on the record they both sound great-- and weird, and exciting. the best thing about this band is that they seem to juggle a lot of influences (most of which are less predicable than the usual joy division/gang of four/pet sounds/sonic youth salad that tends to make the rounds these days) and come up with something smooth, in a way. the variety of approaches seem to weave rather than clash, and the results are provocative without feeling polemical (can you use "polemical" to describe a rock record??? oh well....) at any rate, it's a real "album" album. the kind of thing you can put on without having to be locked into a certain mood, and leave on for the duration of it.
live, they played a sort of beefed up rock version of the record (and e.p.), which surprised me. certain songs worked better than others, but all in all, i was impressed. certainly more interesting than dull mimicry of the recorded product. if you see them without hearing the record, keep in mind that they're two different animals...
last, i saw a kinda singer songwriter-ish show: will johnson, who also plays in the group centromatic... very earnest acoustic music, reminiscent of springsteen (which i mean as a compliment). not too much to say about it, just nice music to sit and listen to... and have a beer i guess, even though i couldn't since philly is determined to make everything all ages lately.
he was followed by the much hyped sufjan stevens, who i must say was pretty rotten. i don't want to blame this on his christianity per se, but i'm afraid part of me must... it's one thing for a brilliant band like low to hint at their faith or whatever, because they don't beat you over the head with it. stevens, on the other hand, comes out with a band dressed as angels and begins to coo like a wounded fawn about "the son of man" and a bunch of bullshit like that. there was audience participation, bad bugle playing and a rather hearty dose of post-emo-dude pining and pleading, all of which made me feel like i was, well, at church...
finally, john vanderslice closed the night. vanderslice plays very tight, sharp indie pop. well crafted, tricky arrangements, smart flourishings-- and still a bit too neat a package to be 100% my kinda thing. but worth a look live, certainly. very heartfelt, it seemed. he's certainly on par with more hyped bands of a similar variety (the new pornographers, rufus wainwright, etc.), and well worth my eight bucks.
first was animal collective at vox populi, one of philly's few decent galleries. animal collective is part of this emerging scene of hippie-ish noise rock, which i find promising... they take what's fun from the old noise/spazz stuff and combine it with drum-circle-like repetition and washes of psychedelic effects. the results are pretty refreshing actually-- "drug music" that avoids the usual clichés by fusing to a contrasting punk impulse. heavy psychedelia usually isn't my thing, but there's a thrashiness to this band that seems to come out of no where, and keeps me from getting bored. worth seeing live, even if the punk rock p.a. system did occasionally reduce them to sonic mush...
they played with a philly guy who calls himself illoin, who i thought was pretty interesting too. electronics, occasional vocals and live accordion. sounded nice, but it's still a bit of a drag sitting in front of a guy with a laptop... i wish there was a way of reconciling that, since i think the laptop is at least-- if not more-- interesting in a performance than, say, a guitar or something. but you can't strut around like angus young with a computer slung over your shoulder. ho hum.
next show was tv on the radio, who played with a bunch of bands i wasn't into. praising tv on the radio at this point is probably beginning to sound like a broken record, but i think they're worth the hype. the full length is as good as the e.p., and the songs seem somehow careful and effortless at the same time, thanks in part to the really beautiful vocals. live, the "lead singer" holds up a little better as a singer than the guy with the huge hair (i'm not bothering to look up names here, sorry-- i'm a little under the weather at the moment), but on the record they both sound great-- and weird, and exciting. the best thing about this band is that they seem to juggle a lot of influences (most of which are less predicable than the usual joy division/gang of four/pet sounds/sonic youth salad that tends to make the rounds these days) and come up with something smooth, in a way. the variety of approaches seem to weave rather than clash, and the results are provocative without feeling polemical (can you use "polemical" to describe a rock record??? oh well....) at any rate, it's a real "album" album. the kind of thing you can put on without having to be locked into a certain mood, and leave on for the duration of it.
live, they played a sort of beefed up rock version of the record (and e.p.), which surprised me. certain songs worked better than others, but all in all, i was impressed. certainly more interesting than dull mimicry of the recorded product. if you see them without hearing the record, keep in mind that they're two different animals...
last, i saw a kinda singer songwriter-ish show: will johnson, who also plays in the group centromatic... very earnest acoustic music, reminiscent of springsteen (which i mean as a compliment). not too much to say about it, just nice music to sit and listen to... and have a beer i guess, even though i couldn't since philly is determined to make everything all ages lately.
he was followed by the much hyped sufjan stevens, who i must say was pretty rotten. i don't want to blame this on his christianity per se, but i'm afraid part of me must... it's one thing for a brilliant band like low to hint at their faith or whatever, because they don't beat you over the head with it. stevens, on the other hand, comes out with a band dressed as angels and begins to coo like a wounded fawn about "the son of man" and a bunch of bullshit like that. there was audience participation, bad bugle playing and a rather hearty dose of post-emo-dude pining and pleading, all of which made me feel like i was, well, at church...
finally, john vanderslice closed the night. vanderslice plays very tight, sharp indie pop. well crafted, tricky arrangements, smart flourishings-- and still a bit too neat a package to be 100% my kinda thing. but worth a look live, certainly. very heartfelt, it seemed. he's certainly on par with more hyped bands of a similar variety (the new pornographers, rufus wainwright, etc.), and well worth my eight bucks.
