Dogville (2003)

If you can withstand 1) watching a film version of a play, featuring a lack of buildings, chalk outlines for streets and props, and basically nothing except actors in costume and a few chairs, doors, and windows; and 2) sitting through a ridiculous running time of nearly 3 hours, then you might just enjoy the twists and turns and sublime conclusion of this drama.

The ultimate message here (and it goes without saying that this is a big spoiler) is that even small-town joes and janes have the potential to be, or, from another standpoint, already are, horrible and terribly immoral and twisted monsters on the inside, despite their docile appearances. The story follows in meticulous parallel arcs the moral downfalls (or, the revelation of existing immorality) of each character - in every case triggered in some way by Grace.

Grace is a complete foreigner in the town, and represents something new and unknown for the residents - and in what may be a basic pattern for children, first they are wary of the new toy, sort to speak; then they are interested and enthralled by it; and finally, after they see others' interest in it they begin to be selfish and covet it for themselves. Grace is also very tempting to the men (since there are slim pickings in Dogville...), and it is through the door of this sin we see them fall one after another like flies. The near-simultaneous avalanche nature of these moral failings is a bit unbelievable - but hey, at near 3 hours, it's a good thing they didn't stretch out the pacing any more than they did, right?

And the ending - now that's an ending! I think the conclusion made sitting through the entire film worthwhile. In the ending, of course, we learn not only Grace's secret, but via Daddy's speech, we learn in hindsight the psychopathology that has plagued Grace all along. After all, it was pretty hard not to question Grace's lack of actions in a number of scenes - when she was violated by a married man and then accused by the wife of instigating the adultery, Grace never said a word in her own defense. And why not say anything, we might ask? To avoid driving the married couple apart? To protect the public image of a man who is actually a dangerous rapist? The film posits the explanation that Grace pities these townspeoples and their flaws, and somehow reasons that they don't deserve to be punished for their transgressions. Meanwhile, she heartily accepts the yoke (actually a huge iron wheel chained to her neck) for things she hasn't done.

[SPOILERS below....]
Then, all of a sudden (and no hint how this happens), she has a brain aneurysm or something and realizes just how horribly these people have treated her. What follows is Grace going bananas, seizing power, taking revenge personally, and basically going apesh*t, killing everybody, and burning the town to the ground. A great whiz-bang, pull-out-the-stops, payoff ending. Is this technically a Happy Ending or not? Who cares? Kicks ass.

The American Dream

The American Dream - Music by Frank Carlberg / Poetry by Robert Creeley
9/14/6 @ New England Conservatory

Frank Carlberg Quintet:
Christine Correa - voice
Chris Cheek - tenor sax
Frank Carlberg - piano
John Hebert - bass
Michael Sarin - drums

This jazz quintet presented a 12-part jazz suite, composed of 11 songs set to the eclectic poems of Robert Creeley.

As a stand-alone performance piece, this was a bit long to sit through - perhaps around 8 songs would have been more reasonable - due mainly to the lack of variety. At first, the simple sonority of vocals and tenor sax over modern, dark, and quirky harmony sounded fresh and novel; after a second tune, somewhat less interesting; and near the end, a little dull. The main problems were the rarely-changing format (head - solos - head - blah blah blah), the similarities of the melodies themselves (maybe 3 archetypes: the riff, the slightly atonal free, and the really long notes), and perhaps most notably, the narrow harmonic range. Most songs were heavy on aeolian and inverted-triad dark modern harmony, occassionally with flashes of Keith Jarrett-ish gospel/bluesy influence.

Granted, one might say that this very monochromatic atmosphere was a necessity of setting Creeley's poems - most of which are similarly odd in a distinctive way - to lyrics. Nonetheless, more variety would have made for a more enjoyable two hours.

Some nice moments included two extended unaccompanied solo spaces for the drummer, Michael Sarin, and the bassist John Hebert. The latter took an extremely creative solo which used random atonality and wide/random intervals to create more sound than melodies - which was extremely refreshing within the gray stillness of the surrounding tunes. Likewise, Sarin had an extended romp near the end of the suite, utilizing his cymbal stands and sides and bottoms of drums to expand his palette of sounds. Also very effective were the transitions between sections, which were mostly seamless and subtle (and clearly well rehearsed!).

All in all, what could be improved? Overall - and this ties into the variety issue noted above - it would have been much more fun to listen to had the music been as experimental as the concept behind it. Why not, for example, try something different from the traditional instrument roles? Why not have the piano walk some basslines, and the bass double the melody with the singer? Or set the lyrics not to a melody, but to a background figure for solos? (This was actually done once, but only for about 16 measures.) Or, why have everyone playing all the time? - Why not break down into a duo or trio for a solo or two? Or why not extend what limited free playing there was into more than an interlude?

...But we all can go on and on about breaking down barriers and 'thinking outside the box' forever. Despite the lack of overt innovation here, it was still a good show and an interesting artistic amalgamation.

READ ME FIRST

*** SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!! ***
All the reviews and discussion on this site - whether it be for movies, music, live performance, literature, art, etc. - is written post-consumption; that is, intended as reflection or reaction to a piece of art. Because that's the danger of mass-produced creative art in the modern day: not only is so much of it artistically bankrupt, but the sheer volume produced encourages the thoughtless swallowing of art on a large scale - it cultivates the passive, unthinking observer. Which, in a Zen-like 'let everything wash over you' sort of way, is certainly calming and peaceful, but which over time leads to BRAINDEATH. By way of resistance, we should consciously strive to think about what we see and listen to; to react, to analyze critically, to explain and debate and to interpret and re-interpret - in essence, we should be active participants in the artistic flow.

But this brings me back to what I was saying: these writings are all after-the-fact, and so necessarily discuss points which might spoil the experience for, let's say, the first-time viewer of a film, or similarly, predispose a first-time listener of a CD or live performance. In other words, THERE ARE LOTS AND LOTS OF SPOILERS HERE!!! Go see the film first! Hear the band first! Experience it for yourself, and then, if you're interested in reading one humble (ahem) artist's take on it, read about it here, and better yet, leave some comments!!!

Now, let's go find some art!...

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Things that I noticed about the latest and weakest installment in the X-men series....

- One consistent problem: a distorted and sometimes completely absent sense of scale. Magneto's great mutant army is about forty people, small enough to camp out in the woods? The fabled climactic 'last stand' war is simply a tiny battle of less than a hundred people, which lasts some 15 minutes or so? The X-men, with Xavier's entire academy at their disposal, somehow only have 6 members to their team, fully half of whom are clearly underage students? And so on and so forth.

- Dialogue that doesn't make any sense, or seems to hint at things that were never explained in the storyline. For example, Xavier's line to Logan, saying out of the blue "I don't have to explain myself, least of all to you!" - what the hell is that supposed to mean???

- Phoenix's great, uncontrollable powers seem to be 1) levitating and crumpling shit up, and 2) disintegrating people. Then after temper tantrums she stands looking sullen for 30 minutes doing nothing.

- Why kill off the greatest characters? Why? Why purposefully demolish the chance for a sequel? So ok, the Professor is back, but now in a different body. If he did appear in a sequel, it would have to be as a different actor, which just wouldn't work at all. Otherwise, they'd have to make up some half-assed explanation as to how he reconstituted his body through pure psychic will. Oh - and then they'd have to bring Scott back, which is relatively easy considering the circumstances of his 'death' are comparably murky to Jean's 1st death, and then bring back Jean somehow, and then find a way to restore Magneto's powers....

- Wouldn't Xavier or the others recognize the need to suppress the cure, especially AFTER the government begins to weaponize it and use it indiscriminately? Why oppose Magneto and his army, given that all they want to do is destroy the cure (well, AND the child - but certainly Xavier or Magneto could protect the child, given that he could be their key to defeating any other mutant who might come along)? Surely both sides could recognize that human-mutant relations are much better off without the problematic cure around? So then the fighting cause behind the X-men's grand Last Stand was what, exactly?

- The biggest strength of the movie was the appearance of a wide variety of new mutants (so many, in fact, that less than half had names). Perhaps it can be left at that.

- What about an antidote to the 'cure'? Can't science always find another way around things? And there's another point - this movie firmly establishes the fact that a mutant ability or identity is simply like a layer covering the human, that can be turned on or off as simply and as quickly as a light bulb. I suppose then that we can expect similar effects in subsequent storylines - more instant mutations and wild-typification (?), and more chances for CG moments.

- Overall, very problematic. Has Ratner effectively screwed up the X-men saga? Is this the end of what could have been a long-lived and respectable series? Let's hope not... perhaps Bryan Singer could come back from the dead via some psychic manipulation by the professor and restore the films to life....