Infinite Playlist: Same Story, Cooler Music

I went to see Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist last Friday, and while there were certainly moments I enjoyed, the film ultimately underwhelmed me and has failed to leave a lasting effect. There were aspects I liked and ones I did not like. Here is a brief breakdown:

I Liked: The film opens strong with Michael Cera creating a mixtape and leaving a lengthy phone message on his ex's voicemail. Cut to a high school scene - the female leads speak somewhat over-the-top about what's on their iPods and a Where's Fluffy? secret show. Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly characterized this as "honestly rooted in an authentic kids-of-'08 universe," although I would disagree with that. I did not find this opening particularly authentic, but that was something I liked about it. I thought essentially we would presented with a film that would be over-the-top in its importance granted towards hipster values and interests. Perhaps we would be see the being of a new genre of cinema, a kind of indie rock alternate universe that could be likened the great kischy rock and roll films of the '50's (Don't Knock the Rock, The Girl Can't Help It).

There is much to like about Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist in principle. Gay characters are treated as actual human beings, for instance. The film and its characters have already embraced the homsexuality and there is not a need for greater explanation. For a film centered around music, the film rarely actually uses music as a storytelling device. Most often, it plays in the background. The soundtrack - or playlist, if you will, feels rather secondary.

I did not like: While there is much to like in principle, I found the overall story to be kind of a drag. This is one of the longer 90-minute films I've seen in a long time. While gay characters are treated with respect, there is one rather implausible moment that will have you wondering if all gay men drive around with a drawer of bras in their cars. Although, probably the most troubling aspect is that for a film that intends to be modern and progressive, it falls into the same traps of undeveloped female characters despite the presence of a female screenwriter.

In a conversation following the film, my girlfriend likened Norah to the "manic pixie girl," who shows up in a number of films "from heaven to warm the heart and readjust the attitude of even the broodiest, most uptight male protagonist." Recent examples include Natalie Portman in Garden State and Kate Hudson in Almost Famous. While Norah has a but more depth than some, she does possess qualities that fit the bill - her own artistic aspirations are never revealed, and instead she worships at the altar of Nick's mix CDs (and his music career to a lesser extent). Furthermore, she does happen to be the daughter of a music mogul and thus gives Nick access to the coolest night clubs and recording studios. She is not a complete cliche, but hardly revolutionary.

Overall, I think Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist fails to break new ground - ultimately telling an age-old tale, while simply modernizing it with tracks from Vampire Weekend and Band of Horses. Schwarzbaum has called this a "a revolutionary movie disguised as a familiar story," but frankly I am lacking the revolution.

The Language of Elections

During the first presidential debate, John McCain frequently referred to Barack Obama's "naive" answers before offering a rebuttal. To those viewers such as myself who thought Obama the victor (note: we were the majority), Obama's answers actually appeared thoughtful and well-researched. In a sense, they were not naieve. But, as Keith Olberman frequently asked that night on his post-debate episode of Countdown, "if you say something enough, does it make it so." What matters is not whether Obama's foreign policy knowledge is actually naive, but if the viewing audience in turn associates naivete with Obama.

This is nothing new for elections. Four years ago, the Republicans conjured up a phrase to describe John Kerry. "Flip flopper" was echoed repeatedly by Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Ann Colter, and eventually George W. Bush himself. Eventually, it caught on. Such is the state of elections in the 2000s - they are not about ideas, but rather semantics.

The Obama word association game has become exceptionally brutal in recent weeks, as the McCain campaign has pledged to step up their attacks. Attempting to link Obama to former Weather Underground radical, Bill Ayers, the words "Obama" and "terrorist" have not been spread far apart when spoken from Sarah Palin's lips. This has prompted cries of "terrorist" directed at Obama during McCain rallies. There are varying levels of dirty work in this game of semantics, as McCain stays away from any "terrorist" references.

But McCain and Palin can also use language in a light positive to their own campaign as well. McCain has taken to calling himself a "maverick," while knighting his running mate with the same distinction. Referring to McCain as a "maverick" has become a frequent tool for Palin of late. "He's a maverick," she often falls back on when failing to recall actual details of his record - as if to say, "I can't think of a particular reason why, but they wouldn't call him the maverick for nothing. (Wink)." It proved exceptionally powerful during the vice presidential debate, when Joe Biden flipped the script, calling McCain "no maverick" on the issues that matter most.

Obama, too, plays this game, and given his intellectualism, plays it rather well. He has been successful at frequently linking McCain to Bush, while frequently using the phrase "out of touch" to describe his opponent.

With the recent economic crisis, momentum has shifted sharply in Obama's favor. If the election ultimately becomes about issues, than Obama clearly has the upper hand. The McCain campaign realizes their strategy focuses on the language, and not just painting Obama as "inexperienced." No, they will have to rely on words like "terroist," connoting fear and, ultimately, difference (painting Obama as "the other"). It is going to be an ugly few weeks.

Is Ralph Nader Relevant?

Ralph Nader is relevant again. That is, to say, he is attempting to make himself relevant once again. He appeared on The Situation Room earlier today, and has a stop at The O'Reilly Factor scheduled for this evening. On The Situation Room, Nader discussed his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, and with this current economic crisis, we have reached the territory Nader is most articulate in. In a sense, this is the kind of dissenting voice we need - an independent outside of Washington, yet knowledgeable on the issues, holding everyone accountable. I just don't think this same dissenting voice should be running for president.

An appearance on The O'Reilly Factor presents an opportunity for the right leaning FOX to give a national spotlight to a figure who has been blamed for snatching votes from democrats in the past. Eight years ago, I voted in the first presidential election in which I was eligible, and I cast a vote for Nader. If I had to do it over again, I would make the same decision. I will never come around to thinking that Nader's presence is somehow responsible for the fact that George W. Bush has spent eight years in the White House.

When I cast that vote for Nader, instead of Al Gore, I - like many liberals - wanted to send a message to the democrats. A message to not take their progressively-minded voters for granted; a statement that we would abandon them the farther they ventured to the right. I think that message came across - it paved the way for Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries; it paved the way for Barack Obama to speak out against the war in Iraq. In November 2008, I will cast my vote for Obama - and this time, I also want to make a statement.

There is a great deal of idealism in casting a vote for Obama - some of it justified, some of it probably not. If we are looking at things progressively, then there is still much to criticize about Obama. Fundamentally, Nader has every right to be in this election - and I do hope to live in an America where someday, more than two viewpoints are allowed to debate on the issues that matter most. Obama is far from perfect - but his election would be an undeniable step forward.

An intellectual no doubt, Nader has unfortunately painted himself into the corner as a "despised liberal outsider" - no longer backed by the Green Party or the liberal intellectuals who championed him in years prior. This is undoubtedly unfair, but one would hope that Nader would not embrace this role quite so readily, and find a more effective soapbox where he can be heard and appreciated. By his unwillingness to do so, Nader has made himself irrelevant and, sadly, this is a time when we could use his voice the most.

The T-Pain Effect

I recently received a press release for T-Pain's new record that stated, "Few people can accurately say they’ve changed the course of music; count T-Pain among that short list." Such declarations are not uncommon in press releases, however I felt as though there was some truth to this one. As both a singer and producer, T-Pain has established himself with a distinctive sound built around use of auto-tune effects. Essentially, the auto-tune is used during the recording process to correct mistakes in vocal performances. This has come to be associated with Britney Spears-like pop singers whose actual vocal talents are deemed questionable. The key with such pop stars however is that this "vocal cheat" is concealed as best as possible.

What separates T-Pain is also what makes him an innovator - he uses auto-tune not to hide mistakes, but to create the sound itself. Furthermore, the presence of auto-tune is not concealed, but celebrated. A T-Pain vocal track is not complete without auto-tune, but others have recently adopted it as well. Lil Wayne used it for his single, "Lollipop," while Kanye West recently adopted it for his recent hit, "Love Lockdown." Both rappers have displayed somewhat flat singing voices in the past, and the auto-tune does cover that up to a certain degree. However, both songs heavily distort the singer's voice beyond just simple tweaks.

T-Pain's impact in music is that he has created a new sound out of something that was intended simply as a concealer. He is in fact changing the way we listen to music by changing our notions of how a singer is supposed to sound. We are demanding something different of our vocalists. In fact, the sound has become so popular that singers such as Chris Brown and Sean Kingston - who seemingly do not need such effects - have adopted it as well.

Thoughts on The Wire Season 5

HBO's The Wire - one of television's most unique and engaging programs - concluded earlier this year after five seasons. The show was ignored at last week's Emmy's, indicative of the fact that while critically acclaimed, the show's "big picture" storyline and character actor cast held it back from higher accolades. Now on DVD, the ten episode fifth season successfully brings an end to the show, while remaining true to the philosophy of the show. The finale did not offer answers for a better world, nor was it overly cynical. Essentially, for a show that was about critiquing American institutions, the finale states that as long as the institutions remain the same, show do the individuals and the results.

The Wire's final montage shows this cycle, with various younger characters coming to fulfill roles once held by other major characters. "We knew it would be cyclical," says creator David Simon.

[W]e knew someone was following Bubbles and somebody was following Omar and someone was following McNulty, and ultimately the cyclical manner of the institutional prerogative was going to be asserted.

Simon and his team of writers have been successful at making poignant arguments by not acting cynical towards their characters. "It's cynical about institutions, and about their capacity for serving the needs of the individual," Simon says, adding:

But in its treatment of the actual characters, be they longshoremen or mid-level drug dealers or police detectives, I don't think it's cynical at all. I think there's a great deal of humanist affection.

This humanist affection is seen in the writing of four young boys who are introduced in season four. While the first three seasons focused largely on members of the drug trade, Simon has said he wanted to use the boys and the show's critique of the public school system to show has these individuals are formed by their surroundings. While each boy starts in a similar place at the beginning of season four, each is on a very different path by the show's end. Dukie is following after Bubbles, while Michael is following after Omar. It is not specific who Namond is following after, but it appears to be in the legal or political direction. Though we see Randy in just one scene in season five, I would venture to guess that he is following after Marlo.

Marlo is unlike any other character on The Wire in that he seems completely un-sympathetic. The motivations of all characters have always been complex, but Marlo's motivations are not clear at all. He shows no emotion, no sense of humor. He takes over Baltimore's drug trade by brute force, and seems heartless and relentless. This seems quite the opposite of Randy who - despite the entrepreneurship of selling candy to younger students - does not appear cut out to be a corner boy. But Randy proves to be a victim of multiple institutions - he attempts to help the police by acting as a witness, but the police ultimately can't protect him. He winds up in a group home being bullied and labeled as a "snitch."

When we find Randy in season five, he is in the same group home but something has changed. He curses out Bunk who attempts to revive his witness testimony, and on his way up the stairs, he bullies a younger boy. After the institution has failed him, Randy has been left with no choice but to toughen up in order to survive. I wonder if perhaps Simon's argument is that Marlo was once Randy. In order to survive in a brutal city where the bureaucracy of the city's institution prevent actual change, Marlo - and now Randy - had to take on this heartless demeanor.

The Construction of Britney's Media Identity

It would appear that Britney Spears has America's sympathies once again. Whether or not Spears has new material to promote, she has undoubtedly been at the center of media scrutiny and the target of many an easy joke for several years now. The American audience has never been firm in its opinion of Spears - sure, we have disproved of her choices in men and how she raises her children. At the same time, we sympathize with the fact that she is hounded wherever she goes, and there is an underlying hope that this woman will ultimately pull through. The American audience is cruel and often takes great pleasure in your failure than your success. With Spears, however, no one wants to make up their minds - largely because they do not want her to go away.

Last week, Britney made her "comeback" at the MTV Video Music Awards. She did the same thing last year, only her performance was met with ridicule. This time, she walked away with three awards and left the impression that she had genuinely come returned to form. Shortly thereafter, details of a new album were announced. It is not the Britney did anything in particular to warrant this change in public perception. Our relationship with Britney is in fact so complicated that she has devoted her recent work to exploring the world around her - not as she sees it, but as how she perceives it sees her.

In the award-winning "Piece of Me" video, Britney pokes fun at the paparazzi, long portrayed as his arch-nemeses. It is these paparazzi who have caught her on camera committing the acts she has been subsequently ridiculed for. Yet the paparazzi have not served an entirely negative function - they have succeeded in keeping Britney in the public eye. While she on the surface appears to be avoiding this eye, one can't help but wonder if her behavior remains somewhat manufactured. As one whose identity has been constructed her entire career, Britney has crafted her own identity through the lens of the paparazzi.

In "Piece of Me," Britney attempts to have an enjoyable night of clubbing with some friends only to have cameras documenting her every move. The video reaches points of paranoia when she leads a young man to the bathroom only to discover a small camera around his neck. Despite the persistent tabloid journalists, Britney maintains a smile throughout, while the song's lyrics assert that she has in turn co-opted the media message to her own gain. In sum, the press may be trying to ridicule her, but Britney has used the publicity to construct and further her own image.

Britney appears less assertive about public perception while still self-aware in the "Gimme More" video. "Gimme More" is ultimately rather anticlimactic but the concept is somewhat fascinating. In the video, a blond Spears sits at a bar transfixed by a pole-dancing brunette version of herself. It's as though Spears herself is struggling to understand just why everyone is so intently focused on her - while at the same time she works to create a spectacle of herself in order to ensure that such focus is never lost.

I wrote basically the same exact blog a year ago and I pulled the previous paragraph from that same post. I have the feeling that Britney's relevance is such and our media memory so short, that I will likely write a similar blog another year from now.

While You Were Sleeping, The Right Co-Opted Feminism

If McCain/Palin spokespeople attempted to portray their ticket as stronger on civil rights, it would be a joke. However, when those same individuals begin portraying themselves as agents against sexism with a "feminist" running mate, it is somehow easier to buy. Sarah Palin may be a badass when it comes to hunting but that does not make her a feminist. She has spent much of her short political career in opposition to the fundamental rights of women. Yet she calls herself a feminist and the term has quickly become associated with her name. Thankfully the feminist bloggers have been on top of this - even if no one else has.

It is not the the right wing has any claim to the term - but the problem is the democrats do not have any claim either. The right has been successful in smearing the connotations of feminist and that coupled with consistently negative media portrayals have lead an entire generation to reject the word. Furthermore, democrats have been distancing themselves not just from the word, but also "downplaying" its values, particularly on abortion. Is Barack Obama a feminist? He is easily more pro-woman than McCain, but waivers and stumbles when discussing abortion rights.

What is a feminist? Well, I have a pretty clear idea of what it means and, if you don't, I'd suggest reading the fabulous Feministing on a daily basis. The problem is, many may be asking this question, and since mainstream liberals have worked so hard to distance themselves from it, they cannot legitimately reclaim it from Palin. It is a shame because Palin's feminism means cracking "the glass ceiling" while sacrificing your rights along the way. Palin walks through the doors opened by feminism, while neglecting the fundamental principle to hold them open for other women. On the other hand, democrats want it both ways. Unfortunately, they can't kick republicans off turf that they already took for granted.