| |
|
RED: Lesser known films.
PURPLE: Lee's comments |












|
X2
(2003) Xtra stupid. Even dumber than the first one.
I won’t watch the third.
IMDb.com
Y tu mamá también
(Mexico, 2001)
(Rough translation: So’s your mother. Or even better:
Yo mama!) On the surface this is a stoner road trip:
Tenoch y Julio can a la playa. Two Mexican teens, one
very rich and one middle class, get involved with a woman 10 years
older and set out in an old car for the beach. There is much talk
about sex, and she has sex with both of them. She has a secret. But
there’s more going on here. From time to time the sound goes off and
an omniscient narrator gives us details of things that have happened
along their route. We get the point: the divide between these
well-off kids and ordinary Mexicans is deep and wide. Personally,
I’d have been terrified on this trip, with fascistic soldiers all
along the way, but these kids are used to it, and hardly even see
all the side dramas through their car windows. It’s a good point to
make ... but what is it doing in this movie? It simply stops what
was, to me, the main story, which is a character study of the three.
The movie can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. I’m not saying
it’s bad, and the director is quite a good one, he’s worked in
Hollywood on movies as big as the most recent
Harry Potter. Apparently a labor of love, but it didn’t quite
jell for me.
IMDb.com
Yes
(2004) No.
I was
almost hoping this movie would really, really suck, so I could just
leave it at that: my shortest review! Sadly, it's more complex than
that, and I'm far too verbose and opinionated to leave this one
without a few remarks.
The central
fact of this movie is that it's entirely in rhymed
iambic pentameter. I kid you not.
It is delivered so artfully that it was 15 minutes before I was sure
of it. I'd catch a word pair and think "Was that an intentional
rhyme?" Then I'd catch another. So now I was looking for them, and
casting my mind back over the last lines of dialogue: da DAH da DAH
da DAH da DAH da DAH. Yup. Iambic pentameter, the language of
the Bard. "A horse, a horse, my
kingdom for a horse!" "To be or not to be, that is the question."
Now, maybe
it's just me, but I found it a huge distraction. When
I'm hearing Shakespeare I never give it a thought. But when you're
doing Shakespeare, you ... well, best not to declaim,
in the manner of 19th Century ham actors, but you enunciate.
"Speak the speech as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the
tongue." What we have here is what Lee nailed dead-on as "method
Shakespeare."
Marlon Brando as MacBeth: "Izzisa
daggah Izee befo' me? I coulda been da Thane o' Cawdor!" Much of the
dialogue in Yes is mumbled, breathed, whispered, and I
didn't have a clue. Even worse, some of it is in British accents and
dialects so dense that the only word I could make out with clarity
was "fookin'." Which is not a word, sadly, which lends itself to the
sonnet form.
But I'd
have left it at "NO" if I hated it, or thought it was a real
stinker. It's not. It is a noble experiment (rather like
Prohibition), both on the part of
writer/director
Sally Potter and of all the actors
who worked very, very hard to make it all seem natural. I applaud
their willingness to take a risk on such chancy stuff. Sadly, the
experiment failed.
IMDb.com
The Yes Men
(2003)
I love movies about con games. It is not true that you
can’t cheat an honest man, as current
phishing schemes are
proving (all it really takes is a stupid victim), though 90% of con
scams involve someone eager to make a quick buck or who is convinced
he’s about to cheat somebody else. I also love
media hoaxes,
in which people who really ought to be more careful are fooled into
believing and passing on things they could have discovered to be
false with just a tiny bit of research. The Internet has proved to
be the best source ever for phony stories and pictures. I get two or
three of them every month, from people who never bothered to check.
(Try Truth or Fiction. They
keep on top of stuff like that, as a public service.)
The Yes Men are dedicated media hoaxers.
They easily present themselves as representatives of the
World Trade Organization
and proceed to sell ideas so outrageous, so transparently foolish,
that anyone could see they are scams. Right?
Wrong. In one prank, aided as all their
scams are by professional
PowerPoint presentations, phony facts and figures, and sheer
brassy presentation, they point out that outsourcing jobs to poor
countries is better than slavery, because you don’t
have to feed your slaves. If America had simply kept the workers in
Africa, the Civil War could have been avoided. Nobody in the
audience objects to this idea. They’re looking for new ways to
maximize profits, and this doesn’t strike them as immoral.
To an audience of college students they
outline the new proposal McDonalds is experimenting with called the
ReMac. Since the human body does not extract all the available
nutrition from a hamburger, they intend to recycle human waste into
new hamburgers, up to ten times. Shitburgers. To their credit, the
students are outraged at the idea ... but none of them seem to have
any trouble believing that the scheme is real. This is alarming in a
whole different way. Have we lost that much faith in
corporate responsibility?
I wish I could say this is a better
movie than it is. The idea is great and there are some very funny
moments, but the execution is sloppy. These guys needed some help
from Michael Moore (who
appears briefly) on how to really slam the propaganda home. It looks
cobbled together, with too many behind the scenes sequences of the
setup. And maybe another scam or two. Not recommended by me, but
it’s short, and almost worth watching just for one scene.
IMDb.com
You Kill Me
(2007) I’ve enjoyed the films of
John Dahl that
I’ve seen so far.
Red Rock West
is delightfully evil, and
The Last Seduction
is simply one of the absolute best I’ve ever seen.
Linda
Fiorentino should have gotten an Oscar nomination—and won! This
was by far the best performance of 1994, lots better than the
winner, Jessica
Lange, who I don’t even remember … only it was shown on TV
first, and thus was ineligible.
Rounders
was good, too. He tells hard, relentless stories that don’t cheat
the viewer, and that is priceless. This time he goes for a lighter
touch … and it almost works, but not quite.
Ben Kingsley
is a hit man with a bad drinking problem. When he falls asleep while
waiting for a man he’s supposed to be killing, his boss tells him to
join AA. He does, reluctantly, in denial, and some of these scenes
are funny, where he’s talking about his old job. He meets and falls
for Téa Leoni,
who I’ve loved in films like
Flirting With
Disaster. Here’s a very beautiful woman who’s good with
comedy, something just a little off-center about her. I guess the
big problem was the chemistry wasn’t there for me. She’s 41 and
gorgeous, he’s 64 and … not. He’s not very charismatic, either. I
don’t know why she liked him.
IMDb.com
Young Adam
(2003) Based on a book by the Scottish Beatnik
Alexander Trocchi. (I’m sorry, that phrase just makes me laugh,
I see a guy in a kilt and a beret. “Hoot mon, daddy-o!”)
Ewan McGregor is a
deck hand on a canal barge and has affairs with various women. In
the process he is faced with a moral question, and ducks it,
existentially. Nice to watch but not my thing. Best thing in it is
Tilda Swinton, a
chance-taking actress I’ve seen in several good things before.
IMDb.com
The Young and the Dead
(2000) What a stroke of luck to have happened on this title. We have
visited the
Hollywood Forever cemetery, it's
about a mile from where I'm writing this, and seen the graves of all
the celebrities there and much of the rest of the place. What we
didn't know is that, by the late '90s, the con-man who had owned the
place (and refused to allow
Hattie McDaniel to be buried there
in 1952) had let it get into disrepair. Then it was bought by a
young man from the Mid-West,
Tyler Cassity, and taken over by
him and a group of his yuppie friends. They had big dreams. They
cleaned it up and planned to take it into the 21st century with
15-minute documentaries on the deceased that could be called up on
kiosks around the grounds, or even accessed through the Internet. I
just went to
their website and sure enough, they
have sample bios of some of their clients available for viewing. I
don't know if these are videos of dead people or "pre-need," as they
say in the trade. (In our cemetery rambles we've seen headstones for
couples with no date of death on them; creeps me out. No way I want
to see my name on a tombstone, but I guess some people find it
reassuring.) They are professionally produced compilations of still
photos and home movies, with music sound tracks or narration by the
recently- or eventually-to-be-deceased. One guy is/was a drag racer.
His video is almost all cars.
It all sounds very new-age and weird,
but these yuppies seem to have a respect for tradition, too. They
had a Halloween party on the grounds, and they keep up the yearly
tradition of a celebration on
Rudolph Valentino's birthday. They
aren't like nearby
Forest Lawn, which insists on
nothing but real flowers. People can decorate graves with whatever
they want. The film didn't mention it, but there is one section
along the east wall that is almost entirely
children's graves, and most of the
names are Hispanic. We saw one mourning woman there with her two
other kids, and I really doubt she could afford a plot, so we assume
some sort of atonement is going on for Hattie McDaniel (they put up
a stone for her), as well as community outreach. That wall just
explodes with colorful toys and plastic flowers. It's a
heartbreaking place, and yet beautiful.
IMDb.com
Young Frankenstein
(1974) See
Top 25 Favorite Movies.
IMDb.com
Young People's Concerts
(1958-1972) We saw this multi-disc set for sale at the
Walt
Disney Concert Hall downtown, but it was way out of our
price range. Then we subscribed to
Netflix…. What a find this was! I
had never seen them, but Lee was a music student studying piano and
had watched them when they were new. She had a big crush on
Leonard Bernstein, and it's easy to
see why. The man was dynamic, charismatic, and good-looking. (Too
bad about the gay business.) And whatever he didn't know about music
probably wasn't worth knowing.
I
researched this series a bit, and was surprised to learn that
Bernstein didn't originate it. In fact, they began in 1924 under
Ernest Schelling, who did them in
New York and on tour until 1958, when Lennie took over. Schelling
was never the musical director of the
New
York Philharmonic. I'd like to be able to see some of
these shows to see how much Bernstein changed them, but of course
television was pretty primitive at the time, and none of the shows
were televised. I would be surprised if Schelling's efforts were as
insightful and fascinating as Bernstein's performances, because
after all Lennie was one of a kind, but I could be wrong. I suspect
they were more like "pops" concerts, and played mostly music that
would be accessible to younger listeners.
Not
Bernstein, though. He specialized in challenging stuff. This series
contains 25 of the 53 shows he did from 1958 to 1972. The early ones
are quite static, visually. Take a look at the cameras of the era,
big as a refrigerator and about as mobile, and you'll see why. But
the sound quality is amazingly good. I shouldn't be surprised, as I
have a series of re-issues of LPs from the ‘50s now available on CD:
"Mercury
Living Presence" and "RCA
Victor Living Stereo," and they are as good as any
99-track digital stuff being recorded today. The very idea of
stereophonic sound was new and exciting back then, but how do you
mike 110 people with 2, or 4 tracks, tops? Today, you just give
everybody a mike, but back then they had to be creative about it,
and they found ways to be sure you heard every nuance from every
player.
Looking
around, I found the following titles that are not on this
collection:
Anatomy of a
Symphony Orchestra
Bach Transmogrified
Charles Ives: American Pioneer
Farewell to Nationalism
Forever Beethoven!
Holst: "The Planets"
Liszt and the Devil
Modern Music from All Over
Overtures and Preludes
The Genius of Paul Hindemith
The Road to Paris
The Second Hurricane
Thus Spake Richard Strauss
A Copland Celebration
Fantastic Variations (Don Quixote)
Unusual Instruments of Past, Present and Future
Aaron Copland Birthday Party
That leaves
11 concerts that I know nothing about, not even the title. Anybody
out there know anything about these?
IMDb.com
DISC ONE
| |
1.
What Does Music Mean?
Pretty basic question. Bernstein's answer: It means nothing.
He makes a clear distinction between words and music. Music
without words can have no intrinsic "meaning." It can and
does evoke emotions, feelings, impressions, but they will be
different for every listener. |
| |
2.
What is American Music?
I didn't completely agree with Bernstein about this one ...
but I suspect that he himself might have changed his
opinions about several of these shows as the years went by.
At one point in one show he says something that seems to
imply that percussion alone doesn't qualify as music, and
I'm sure the deaf percussion genius
Evelyn Glennie would argue
about that. But this episode was worth it just for the
pleasure of seeing
Aaron Copland conduct the
selection, the last movement of one of his symphonies. |
| |
3.
What is Orchestration?
A very amusing episode, as well as being instructive. How to
bring out the colors and work variations on themes. |
DISC TWO
| |
4.
What Makes Music Symphonic?
Here's a good place to talk about Bernstein's passion for
the music. I think of myself as relatively versed in
orchestral music, but I quickly realized I've only scratched
the surface. Lennie feels this stuff on a level I can only
imagine. He usually conducts without a baton, as if he is
actually pulling the sounds out of the air. He smiles, he
grimaces, he almost dances in his fervor to create the
sounds he wants. What a pleasure to see him from the
orchestra's point of view, instead of from the back as
audiences do. |
| |
5.
What is Classical Music?
According to Lennie, "classical" music means, in general,
that it was written between 1700 and 1800. Before that it
was
baroque, and after that it
was romantic. Interesting thesis. And it does seem silly to
call the work of
Ravel,
Copland,
Ives,
Shostakovich,
Philip Glass, or other composers of the 20th
Century "classical" music simply because it was written for
orchestra. Still, I don't think he completely answered the
question to my satisfaction. |
| |
6.
Humor in Music.
Some of the jokes are pretty esoteric, and I might not have
heard them if Lennie hadn't pointed them out beforehand. |
DISC THREE
| |
7.
What is a Concerto?
Quite an engaging episode, as LB came out on an almost empty
stage ... well, empty compared to the full musical battalion
of a philharmonic orchestra. There was just a small
ensemble, and they played, I believe,
Mozart or
Handel. Then more musicians
came in from the wings, then more and more as LB traced the
expansion of the orchestra and the possibilities for it. |
| |
8.
Who is Gustav Mahler?
A badly conflicted man, according to LB, who was the
foremost champion and interpreter of
Mahler during his career.
Mahler straddled the transition from Romantic music to
modern music, and LB shows us how. Mahler sometimes used
ensembles up to 1000 people, frequently used singers, but
never wrote an opera. We get some wonderful stuff from
Das lied von der Erde
(The Song of the Earth) with soprano singers.
One of them seems to be a black woman, which had to be at
least a bit remarkable for that day and age. In fact, women
on the stage at all was a departure, something I noticed
from Episode One. The Phil back then was composed entirely
of middle-aged to almost elderly men, most of them balding.
The only regular exception was a harpist (a traditional
"women's" instrument), and we were pretty sure we spotted a
woman flautist during one episode. I will be interested to
see just when woman start to be regular members.
|
| |
9.
Folk Music in the Concert Hall.
Not
Peter Paul & Mary folk
music. Anyway, at this time that sort of folk music was just
getting started pretty far down Broadway from
Carnegie Hall. This was
about folk music themes in orchestral music, and of course
there is a lot of that. The chief delight was the appearance
of
Marni Nixon, the soprano
who made it seem like
Deborah Kerr,
Natalie Wood, and
Audrey Hepburn could
actually sing. She was never given screen credit for her
performances, which were at least as important as the acting
itself. Not that it was ever a secret, but she tended to be
"that woman behind the curtain," like
Debbie Reynolds in
Singin' in the Rain,
you seldom saw her. She's 75 now and lately has been getting
more of the recognition she was always due. |
DISC FOUR
| |
10.
What is Impressionism?
Oddly enough, just the day before we went to the
Norton Simon Museum in
Pasadena and were blown
away by the Impressionist painters. They had a fabulous
collection with
Monet,
Pissarro,
Renoir,
Cezanne, and a huge number
of paintings and sculpture by
Degas. (Also a couple fine
Van Gogh's and one spectacular
Picasso.) Neither of us had
ever thought about Impressionist music, but Lennie convinced
us. The two main composers were
Ravel and
Debussy. We got to hear all
of
La Mer, with
descriptions by Bernstein between movements. |
| |
11.
Happy Birthday, Igor Stravinsky.
It's Igor's 80th, and he lived almost a decade beyond this
1962 show. LB calls
Stravinsky "The most
important composer working today." I might suggest Copland,
but have no real argument with that proposition. There is no
question that
Le sacre du printemps
(The Rite of Spring) was a seminal moment in
music in 1913, when it caused a riot. (Who says the mosh pit
is an aberration?) I'd loved to have heard that, but LB
chose
Petrushka instead,
and that was fine with me, as I'm not as familiar with it.
LB took the first movement apart and put it back together,
and was his usual charming self explaining it all. |
| |
12.
What is a Melody?
Two notes in relation to each other, apparently. Then there
is a theme, and a motive, and much much more. Repetition is
the key to a melody's popularity. Repetition is the key to a
melody's popularity. Repetition is the key to a melody's
popularity. Repetition is the key to a melody's popularity.
But you can overdo it, so after two repetitions you need to
inject a variation.
This is apparently the second
YPC after the Phil's move from Carnegie Hall to
Avery Fisher in Lincoln Center.
The first one isn't on this set of DVDs and I wish it was,
as it seems it was about the "New science of acoustics." I
know Carnegie has the history, but the new hall was lots
bigger, both stage and audience, and I know the musicians
appreciated the move. From the first day, the place just
sounded better ... though I recall some dissent at the time
from people who liked the muddier sound of Carnegie, just as
some incredible dopes hate the restoration of the
Sistine Chapel, on the
grounds that it ought to be brown and dusky because ...
because ... well, because it was that way for a long, long
time! Who cares what
Michelangelo actually
intended? Idiots! |
DISC FIVE
| |
13.
The Latin American Spirit.
I expected a bit of "España,"
maybe a few bars of "Malagueña."
I should have known better. LB begins with a difficult piece
by a composer I'd never heard of, and the easiest thing on
the program was something by Villa-Lobos. Then there was
Danzon Cubano by
Copland (a YPC
would hardly be complete without a piece by Copland). The
highlight was an
Israeli soprano doing
Sensemayá by
Revueltas, which involved
humming the second movement. I'd never heard
humming in a classical concert, and by a soprano ... it was
weirdly wonderful. The show ended with four dances from
West Side Story,
the first time LB has played his own music in these
concerts. I reflected on just how radical this
stuff was for Broadway in 1957, how radical it still was in
Avery Fisher Hall in 1963.
This was not
No, No, Nanette!,
or
My Fair Lady. This
was raw, powerful, difficult music. |
| |
14.
Jazz in the Concert Hall.
Once again, LB avoids the easy stuff by
Gershwin and plunges right
into a brief riff by a jazz quintet onstage with the Phil.
Three of the five jazzmen were black, the first black faces
we've seen in this series, either onstage or in the
audience. (A soprano in an earlier episode was probably
negro, as the word was back then, but she was light-skinned
and in the grainy B&W television it was hard to tell.) All
five of these guys could play a cool solo but it was obvious
they had formidable classical chops, too, as they later
played to scores that I'm sure would have had me cross-eyed.
Then there was Journey Into Jazz, a
Peter and the Wolf knockoff, directed by the
composer,
Gunther Schuller, with
words by
Nat Hentoff narrated by
Bernstein, about a boy who learned how to play jazz on his
trumpet. And the boy was played by ...
Don Ellis! If you don't
know him, he became very influential in avant-garde jazz
shortly after this 1963 concert, with a 20-piece orchestra
that specialized in time signatures much odder than any the
Brubeck Quartet used in the
seminal Time Out album. I have his
Monterey Jazz Festival recording
on vinyl somewhere. They played in 5/4, in 7 ("Beat Me
Daddy, 7 To the Bar"), 11, 13, in 27/16, and 19/4.
(Something called "33 222 1 222." Try counting that
one, and then improvising a solo!) Then it was right into
(surprise!) Copland's Concerto for Piano and Orchestra,
played by (surprise!) Aaron Copland himself. This guy is a
puzzle to me. He looks like he'd be right at home behind the
counter of a deli, slicing salami, but he sits at the piano
and strikes these stark, amazing dissonances and sprung
syncopated rhythms, never going where you expect him to go
but enchanting you all the way. He doesn't look like a
leading edge composer; he doesn't look like a composer at
all. (Beethoven,
now there's a guy who looked the part, with
that massive frown and beetling brow.) The program concluded
with one of the most difficult pieces I've ever sat through.
It was Improvisations for Orchestra and Jazz Soloists,
by
Larry Austin. I'd loved to
have had a peek at the score. Much of it was written down,
but there were improvs by Ellis, the jazz bassist and
drummer, and even by members of the Phil. It grew so chaotic
it was hard to tell what was intended and what was ad libbed.
LB came close to pulling every muscle in his body directing
it, he was so ebullient and so clearly enjoying himself. Don
Ellis got sounds out of his 4-valve quarter-tone trumpet
that I've never heard tortured out of a brass instrument.
Lee ended up covering her ears. I can honestly say I ... not
so much enjoyed it as was fascinated by it. I don't think
I'd want to hear it again, though.
This was the most challenging
YPC yet, by far. Very much not the
Boston
Pops. |
| |
15.
What is Sonata Form?
This is the most technical episode we've seen, and probably
the least successful. Perhaps this lecture on the nuts and
bolts of the sonata would be of interest to serious music
students, but for someone like me I have to admit that a lot
of it went right over my head. Hey, I'm a brass player, we
don't play chords, we play lines. Keys, tonics, structure,
were always a mystery to me (which may be why I was a
perpetual second chair). I just counted the sharps and flats
in the key signature and that was enough for me. Sole
exception:
French horns used to come
in two major varieties, the F and the Eb. The Eb is
seldom used anymore, but for a time it was common in
marching bands, so a lot of the music we horn pickers were
handed was in Eb, which meant we had to transpose two
half-steps down. This was a bitch. We hated it. And see how
quickly you got bored with this technical stuff about horns?
That's sort of how I felt when LB was expounding on the
scales, the two (or three, or maybe, sometimes, four) parts
of the sonata form, and suchlike.
But as part of his tracing of
the sonata form from "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" to an
aria from
Carmen, LB paused to sing the first verses of "And
I Love Her," by
Lennon and McCartney. He did it in a fruity,
nasal croon, and the kids in the audience loved it. He was,
of course, making fun of the music, but hey, this was 1964,
The Beatles were just another pop-chart ditty group, albeit
a hugely successful one. There wasn't much there to
appreciate other than their ability to write a song you
could hum. Who knew that
Rubber Soul,
Revolver, and
Sgt.
Pepper lay in the near future? |
DISC SIX
| |
16.
A Tribute to Sibelius.
I've loved this
Sibelius dude since the
Nederland High School
Concert Band (second chair French horn: John Varley) played
Finlandia in 1964
or so. A really fine horn part! Beyond that, I
knew a few of his pieces, but not the ones LB played. LB
emphasized the nationality of his music as a Finn, a people
who were struggling for identity around that time, seeking
to throw off the political and cultural domination by the
Russians and the Swedes. I looked him up and discovered that
for the last 30 years of his life, Sibelius wrote
practically nothing.
The center of the show was a
performance of the Violin Concerto in D Minor,
performed by 20-year-old
Sergiu Luca. It was
stunning, especially the long, very difficult cadenza.
("'Cadenza.' That's one of those hard words,"
Lennie would say. "But it's really very simple. It's when
the orchestra stops playing, the conductor stops conducting,
and the soloist performs alone, sometimes improvising on
themes provided by the composer. See how easy that was?")
The program began with a
new introduction to the new concert hall. And ...
oops! I was wrong up there in my review of
Disc Four
when I said the Philharmonic Hall (eventually to be renamed
the Avery Fisher) was an auditory delight. In fact, thinking
back, I remember the controversy a little better. I believe
the Phil thought the new venue was better than
Carnegie Hall, but it had
problems from the start. They tore out the interior and
reengineered the whole place. I remember they put big
sandbags in every seat to account for the warm bodies that
would be there for a concert. Some say the place still
ain't what it ought to be ... I thought about changing my
earlier review, but what the heck. I'll admit to a mistake
and correct it here. |
| |
17.
Musical Atoms: A Study in Intervals.
I figured a "musical atom" would be a note, but no, LB
convinced me it's more logical to think of notes as protons
and electrons, and intervals as atoms. He took us through
the more basic ones, major and minor, diminished, ascending
and descending. A lot of nuts and bolts. Then part of
Brahms' Fourth
Symphony, and an extremely difficult piece by Ralph
(say "Rafe")
Vaughn-Williams. |
| |
18.
The Sound of an Orchestra.
LB was at his most mischievous here. He started right off
with the "Largo" movement of
Haydn's 88th Symphony.
It was lush, expressive, and quite beautiful. Then he asked
the audience to agree with him that it was wonderful, and
they did, and he said, "No, it was awful!" The
reason, he revealed was that the orchestra had deliberately
overplayed every element that Haydn had written. If he
indicated piano, they played pianissimo. A
sforzando was stomped on rather than merely
attacked. The vibratos were hugely overplayed. His point was
that Haydn was an 18th Century composer, that his orchestra
would never have been as large as the NY Phil (at which
point a quarter of the players got up and left), and that
you approached Haydn's music differently than you would
Beethoven, or
Stravinsky. Emotion was
okay, in fact it is always okay; romanticism
was not on the page, however. He showed examples,
contrasting
Berlioz and Brahms, the
frog and the kraut.
For a while now there has been a
movement to go even farther than mere period interpretation.
Much period music is now played on period instruments, or
new ones crafted to be like old ones. The sound is very
different, many modern instruments having been refined over
centuries to be fuller, mellower, brassier ... you name it.
A 17th century
pianoforte, for instance,
doesn't sound much like a
Steinway concert grand.
The program ended with the
"Hoedown" from
Copland's Rodeo.
In my book, you can't go wrong with Copland. |
DISC SEVEN
| |
19.
A Birthday Tribute to Shostakovich.
Dmitri Shostakovich
(hereafter, DS) had a hard life, and a bit of luck. He wrote
his Seventh, "Leningrad" Symphony during the
Nazi siege of that city, as everyone starved. But he got
out. Twice he was denounced, forced to publicly repent from
the sin of "formalism," whatever that is. His life was
literally on the line, and all because of music which had no
words, and thus no demonstrable political content. He was
forced to join the Communist Party to rehabilitate himself.
He contracted polio and had to stop playing the piano, he
had several heart attacks, and several falls in which both
his legs were broken. And yet he survived until 1975.
He was 60 when Lenny and the
Phil threw him this birthday party in absentia. The program
was mostly devoted to his Ninth Symphony,
which LB described as a vast musical joke (see
DISC TWO).
It is "an ironic Haydnesque parody," according to whoever
wrote the DS article in Wikipedia, so LB isn't alone in his
assessment. But lurking within the traditional structure
were very modern elements. He also claimed that the entire
idea of writing such a small symphony as your
ninth turn at the plate was a joke in itself, because ever
since
Beethoven composers who
have lived long enough to write a ninth have tried to make
it as vast as his was. I don't know if I buy that
completely, but what the hey?
But reading about DS's political
troubles and thinking of Beethoven led me to search out one
of the more fatuous statements of the 20th Century, made by
one
Susan McClary, a
musicologist and "feminist" currently still poisoning young
minds at
UCLA. In 1987 she wrote
this about Beethoven's Ninth: "The point of
recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of
the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully
prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which
finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a
rapist incapable of attaining release." Don't
believe me? Find it hard to credit that anyone could be that
stupid?
Check it out. I'm not even
going to try to find adjectives to describe the depths of
awe this statement evokes in me. Ms. McClary interprets
various musics as "imperialistic" and "hegemonic." So with
Stalin it's formalism, and with her it's "patriarchalism." I
have the feeling they'd get along.
The Ninth! The glorious,
glorious Ninth! How dare she? What may
be the single most joyous, life-affirming, transcendent
piece of music ever set down on paper (and by a man who was
stone deaf at the time!), and she compares it
to rape? I think she watched
A Clockwork Orange
too many times. Sweetheart, just because
Stanley Kubrick had Alex
jacking off to it, and Alex was not a nice guy—was, in fact
a rapist—doesn't mean it's rape music. There was irony
there, babe, but I doubt you know what that means, any more
than
Stalin did. Clearly, this
woman needs to have her head examined. I mean that
literally; she is obviously suffering from some bad
psychological problems. As for the idiots who take her
seriously (and there are some such benighted souls) ... I
don't know what to do about them. Was it
Henry Ford who said no one
ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public? I think it can also be said about the credulity of
the gnomes of academia. |
| |
20.
What is a Mode?
Short answer: scales played on just the white keys. Not
major or minor scales, but older forms which you may not
realize you are hearing, but can easily learn to identify.
LB was very good in explaining this exotica, because he
startled us all by pointing out that the majority of
"popular" music is modal music. He gave several examples,
most notably "Norwegian
Wood":
"I once had a girl, or should I
say, she once had me."
Sing those italicized words—I'll
bet you know the tune—and you are hearing the ... I'm sorry,
I forgot if it's the Dorian or the Lydian mode. In
particular, "once" is not a note from a major
or minor scale. LB explained how whole tones and half tones
entered into the definitions, and I understood it at the
time, but I don't remember it now ... and who cares, as
there won't be a test at the end of the concert. It was very
interesting to hear it all. What I don't understand is what
we might call the Hegemony of the Major and Minor Scales, if
we used the terminology of Susan McClary, above. For more
than 200 years, apparently, "serious" composers favored
these scales above all others, while popular music harkened
back to the older, more primitive scales used, for instance,
by monks in
plainchants. (The men of
the Phil sang a brief passage. Sweet stuff.)
A funny thing ... when I was
writing
Wizard I was
casting around for some interesting, unusual terms to
describe some rather complex alien sex. I went back to the
Greeks, where I'd stolen the names of the various regions of
Gaea, and used the names of the various modes of Greek
music, something I knew nothing about. But at
least I knew the words LB was using, which are, for the
record:
Ionian
Aeolian and
Locrian
Dorian and
Hypodorian
Phrygian and
Hypophrygian
Lydian,
Hypolydian and
Mixolydian
Now you know as much as I do.
But I
must return
to the beginning,
where our eyes
were startled by
COLOR!
Now, was that sentence a little
hard to read? Did it jar your senses a little? Well, it did
mine, too. In fact, for the first fifteen minutes or so I
had a hard time listening to the music as I rediscovered the
warm wood colors of the strings, and the acoustic baffles
behind the orchestra. But by the time we were halfway
through it was as if it had never been in black and white at
all.
There was another bit of color,
too, in the person of a negro (this was 1967) player. It was
hard to glimpse him, buried as he was in the cold
hinterlands of the back rows of the third violins, but he
was there.
And yet a third change: The
first regular female member of the Phil. Even more
startling, she was a double bass player. You don't see that
every day. Here's hoping that before the series ends we see
others who are not balding white males. |
| |
21.
A Toast to Vienna in 3/4 Time.
Both the New York and
Vienna Philharmonics were
celebrating their 125th anniversaries, both having been
founded in 1842. To commemorate the occasion, they were
exchanging tributes, and this was the Valentine to the
Vienna. Where else would you start but with a
Strauss (Johann) waltz? It
was a lovely one, but I can't recall the name.
Then we moved through other
composers associated (though not necessarily in my mind,
until I looked into their careers a bit) with Vienna,
including
Mozart,
Haydn, Beethoven, and
Mahler. And we ended on
some very sweet waltzes from Der Rosenkavalier,
again by
Strauss (Richard).
NOTE: During some of the music,
the lead trumpet player used a mute I'd never seen before.
It looked like a purple cloth bag. Now, there are many kinds
of
trumpet mutes, you can even
use a plumber's plunger as a mute, but this was a new one to
me. Had it not been in color I don't know if we'd have ever
figured it out. Could that be ... ? Yes, it was! It was a
Crown Royal bag! I verified
this after considerable googling. Trumpeters have used the
purple bags that Canadian whiskey bottles come in as mutes
for some time, apparently. You learn something new every
day. And let that be your new fact for the
day! |
DISC EIGHT
| |
22.
Quiz-Concert: How Musical Are You?
The answer for me and Lee: Pretty darn musical! And a big
reason was that we'd seen 21 of these concerts recently, and
at least a little of it stuck with us. It didn't hurt that
Bernstein chose quiz topics and questions that related back
to previous shows, either ...
We began with a performance of a
well-known piece. We were asked to identify the composer,
time period, the type of music, the form, and the name of
the piece itself. We both pegged it as the overture to
Mozart's
The Marriage of Figaro.
Got the right era, and the type, but Lee stumbled on the
form. I got it, partly by cheating and recalling that the
only form LB had covered in detail was sonata form. Bingo!
100%!
After that we did about equally
well, though we didn't keep score. There were a lot of trick
questions, some obvious, most of them pretty funny. The
audience loved it all.
Then another piece of music with
the same questions. I thought
Tchaikovsky or
Prokofiev. Russian, anyway,
and late 19th or early 20th. Bingo again! It was Prokofiev's
Symphony No. 1 in D, the "Classical," 1917,
featured in the earlier program "Musical Jokes." |
| |
23.
Berlioz Takes a Trip. Devoted to
Hector Berlioz's
Symphonie Fantastique, which Bernstein contends is
the first "psychedelic"
music. Considering that it was written in 1830, it is really
something. But it was based on
Thomas de Quincey's
Confessions of an English Opium-Eater,
so there's a lot of merit in the theory. It is quite
fantastic, and LB dissected it and then put it back
together. |
| |
24.
Two Ballet Birds.
Tchaikovsky's
Swan Lake, and
Stravinski's
Firebird, compared
and contrasted. The first contains a lot of what LB called
"abstract" music, that is, set pieces that have nothing to
do with the story of the ballet but are simply put in as
chances for the big shots in the company to show their
chops, and as such can be put in just about any place in the
performance. As I recall,
The Nutcracker is
much the same way, with most of the second act devoted to
various dances as the little girl watches. Firebird,
however, is all plot, you can't just pick and choose which
numbers you perform as the story will fall apart without the
whole thing. |
DISC NINE
| |
25.
Fidelio: A Celebration of Life.
Beethoven's only opera, and
both a towering success and a disappointment, according to
LB and most other critics, though a few would leave out the
"towering" part, or even the "success."
The opera tells how Leonore,
disguised as a prison guard named "Fidelio," rescues her
husband Florestan from death in a political prison. Not
exactly
The Magic Flute.
The music is magnificent, what we hear of it, sung by four
young students from
Julliard, but according to
Lennie the work is marred by an irrelevant subplot which is
insufficiently developed and then more or less abandoned.
This isn't something we need to worry about in a one-hour
overview like this.
I couldn't let this one go
without saying a work about this ancient business of a grown
woman passing herself off as a boy. It's amusing, and
traditional (I don't know if the Greeks invented it, but I
wouldn't be surprised), and so, so dumb. Was anyone ever
fooled for more than ten seconds? But writers love it, from
The Merchant of Venice
to
Sullivan's Travels
and
Sylvia Scarlett to
Shakespeare in Love
(which lampoons the whole conceit, wonderfully!), they can't
resist. I've got no point here, just had to mention it.
One thing ... our hero, Señor
Florestan? I can't hear his name without giggling. I always
remember that in the '50s, when Crest toothpaste added
stannous fluoride to their product, they called it "fluoristan."
So would attending this opera regularly lead to cleaner,
brighter teeth and less tooth decay? |
Now, Kultur
DVD's or the Bernstein estate or CBS, whoever controls the rights
... when do we get to see the other 28 concerts? We're waiting ....
Z
(1969)
I haven’t seen this movie in a long, long time. I remember I liked
it, but I’m including it here because I don’t have any movies
beginning with the letter Z. I promise I’ll look at it again one of
these days, and review it.
IMDb.com
Zathura
Second feature at the drive-in with
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
IMDb.com
Zelary
(Czech, 2003) ... is a very small rural town in
Czechoslovakia in 1943. A city
woman, a nurse who used to be a medical student before the Nazis
arrived, is involved in the
Resistance and has to flee the
Gestapo and hide out with a man
whose life she saved by giving blood when he was injured at a
sawmill. She hates it at first, but learns to adjust. This is
familiar territory, we know she will fall in love with the big,
bluff, kind man twice her age, and we know there will be perils to
face. But it’s very well done, if a bit long. The two main
characters are engaging, and the actors are uniformly good. A
warm-hearted story beautifully told. Oddly, it was filmed in the
same hills and valleys where
Cold Mountain was made,
and tells a similar story.
IMDb.com
Zhou Yu’s
Train (Zhou Yu de huo che)
(China, 2002)
We see a great many foreign films. I get the impression that, taken
as a whole, films from other countries are more thoughtful, better
written, more likely to be out of the box than films from the US.
Hollywood makes some great movies, no question, and we are the
masters of the big budget extravaganza ... which is often just
awful.
But something else is at work here. Only
the best films from other countries are likely to get much of a
release in the US. I tend to forget that all countries produce a
heck of a lot of crap that we never see. They also produce routine
potboilers. If they have a bankable international star in them, they
will probably be exported. This is one of those. It stars the
stunningly beautiful
Li Gong, who is also a great actress. She has several Hollywood
movies in the pipeline. But Zhou Yu’s Train is an
empty exercise. Because it is so pretty it took me a little while to
realize how pretentious it was. It’s only 90 minutes long so we
stuck it out, but it didn’t get any better. Needlessly confusing,
needlessly arty, and quite boring. Don’t waste your time.
IMDb.com
Zodiac
(2007) I was living in San Francisco while the
Zodiac was running loose … and for
that matter, he may still be running loose, no matter
what the author of the book this screenplay was based on may think.
I remember how it all played in the newspapers, and how people not
yet accustomed to this sort of serial killer reacted to it. (These
days, of course, we’ve seen so many serial killers we’re almost
blasé about it.) I remember when the cab driver was killed—which
turned out to be the last murder that was unquestionably his. I
remember reading Zodiac’s statements in the newspapers.
And that was what
was special about Zodiac, I guess, because despite what thriller
writers would have you believe, few of these people actually taunt
the police with messages. And even fewer get away with it. Zodiac is
the
D.B. Cooper of serial killers. He
vanished, no one was ever caught or punished. Like
Jack the Ripper, who still
fascinates a lot of people. (Not me.)
In the course of
this movie mention is made of the fact that Zodiac wrote to say he
had not been responsible for the bomb that went off at a police
station on February 16, 1970, and
killed an officer. That really
brought me down memory lane, because I was living at
1735 Waller Street in San Francisco
at the time. Half a block away was Stanyan Street, and half a block
into the park from there was the tiny Golden Gate Park police
sub-station. So I was a block away when that
bomb went off, and I still remember the huge shock
wave that rattled our windows, and all the neighbors coming out into
the streets, and the wailing of sirens as hundreds of cops arrived
and sealed the area off. I don’t remember now who took credit for it
or if they were ever caught, but everybody thought it was some
political assholes like the
SDS, and the cops were very
tense. Not a good night for a longhair to stay out on the street,
and I didn’t.
Enough
reminiscence. This movie is very well made, though I think 20
minutes could easily have been trimmed from it. It is not like a
normal serial killer movie, in that it stays pretty close to the
actual story, and so the central problem becomes the same one faced
by the makers of
The Day of the Jackal. How
do you build suspense when you know the outcome? We know going in
that
de Gaulle will not be assassinated,
and that the Zodiac will not be caught. So this is going to be a
story of failure, and that’s a tough assignment.
You do it by making
the process so fascinating that you are kept on edge and interested,
in spite of knowing the outcome. This movie does a good job of that.
It’s taut and intelligent, and it’s really not about Zodiac at all …
which is good, because we really know next to nothing about him. The
real subject of Zodiac is obsession. Zodiac is driven
by his obsession, whatever it was, and the people around the story
were driven by theirs. It drives one reporter deeper into drink, and
pretty much burns out two cops. But the real maniac here is the
author of the book Zodiac (and later, several others,
quite sensationalistic if their titles are any indicator), one
Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist, of
all things, for the
San Francisco
Chronicle.
I’m old enough to
remember the years after
JFK’s assassination, and how an
entire
conspiracy industry grew up around
it. For twenty years I followed some of them, with a level interest
far from obsession, but with the uneasy feeling—shared by the vast
majority of Americans—that we didn’t get the whole story. I finally
concluded that we never would get it. Human knowledge
is not perfectible. Study any event long enough and you will find
things that don’t seem to fit in, things that might be lies,
imperfect recollections, and the farther away you get from an event,
the less you can ever know about it. We’re seeing it today with the
9/11 conspiracy industry. There is
also a conspiracy industry surrounding the
data on global warming. People get
into these things and won’t let go. They preach on Internet street
corners, wild-eyed, waving their hand-printed signs, flecks of spit
flying from their mouths, true believers. There’s no point in
arguing with them; you just become part of either the poor deluded
masses, or allied to those who perpetrated the vast cover-up.
For reasons I doubt
even he could explain, Graysmith slipped into this level of
obsession about Zodiac. It seems to have consumed his life for
twenty or more years. I guess the good thing you could say about
that is that it led him into a career a lot more profitable than
editorial cartoonist. Now he sells books purporting to solve crimes
that have high public profiles. But it also seems to have wrecked
his marriage, and made him a pest to just about everyone he ran
into. Do you really want a friend who is forever grabbing you by the
shirt and shouting his nitpicking theories in your face?
Often in a cop
thriller I get pissed off at the wife who won’t stand by her husband
when he’s trying to do the right thing. It’s such a clichéd scene,
isn’t it? Darling, either you drop this or I’m taking the children
and going to mother’s! But what the hero is doing is important,
it’s going to save some lives. This time I was solidly on the side
of the long-suffering wife. She stood it a lot longer than I would
have. I kept wanting to shout, Get over it, Bob! Truth
does not always prevail. Zodiac has stopped, why can’t you?
So in the end,
though I can say this is a good movie, it’s really tough to actually
like a movie when the protagonist is acting like an
asshole for so much of it. And that’s about half the movie.
Obsession can be an interesting subject—see
Hitchcock’s
Vertigo—and director
David Fincher has made a valiant
attempt, but in the end I was just tired.
IMDb.com
Back
to Index
ê
HOME
|
|