Culture – Page 105

I Need a Shower…

From our I Am Not Making This Up department, the Financial Times of London reports:

The Italian artist Gianni Motti has provided the latest scandal in the
name of art. His recent work “Mani Pulite” (”Clean Hands”) is a bar of
soap that he says is made from Italian prime minister Silvio
Berlusconi’s liposuctioned fat. After it was exhibited last month at
Art Basel, the world’s most influential art fair, a Swiss art collector
bought it for E15,000.

There is some doubt, however, as to whether this is really fat belonging to Berlusconi. The "artist" says he is open to DNA testing of the bath product in question.

Meanwhile, the Daily Planet reports that, in a recent development, Motti is working on designs for a candle made from the brain cells of the collector who purchased the Berlusconi piece.

He wasn’t using them, anyway.

GET THE STORY.

Didgeri – Do's and Don'ts

In a move that is sure to bring consternation to accomplished didgeridoo players the world over, Reuters has revealed the secret to getting the most from the enigmatic instrument.

It seems it’s all in the glottis, that little flap of skin at the back of the throat. According to a group of Australian scientists:

"We conclude that a major difference between a novice and an experienced player is a learned, but usually subconscious ability to

reduce the glottal opening…"

And all this time I thought it was all in the uvula! Ah, well… now I can take my trusty old didgeridoo out of mothballs and play my children to sleep as I have always dreamed of doing.

THE "SECRET" REVEALED!

JIMMY ADDS: Hmmmm. . . . As a result of practicing Semitic languages like Arabic, where glottal stops are considered a consonant, I’ve been practicing closing my glottis on command rather a lot. . . . Maybe I should take up the digeridoo.

Didgeri – Do’s and Don’ts

In a move that is sure to bring consternation to accomplished didgeridoo players the world over, Reuters has revealed the secret to getting the most from the enigmatic instrument.

It seems it’s all in the glottis, that little flap of skin at the back of the throat. According to a group of Australian scientists:

"We conclude that a major difference between a novice and an experienced player is a learned, but usually subconscious ability to
reduce the glottal opening…"

And all this time I thought it was all in the uvula! Ah, well… now I can take my trusty old didgeridoo out of mothballs and play my children to sleep as I have always dreamed of doing.

THE "SECRET" REVEALED!

Peeking At Potter

Did you know that the latest installment in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince is on store shelves already? Fourteen people managed to snag copies of The Half-Blood Prince before a Canadian store realized its mistake in selling before the July 16 release date and pulled the copies.

You’d think that this wouldn’t be an earth-shattering event. After all, I’ve seen books sold in bookstores before their release date all the time. It’s not kosher, but it’s routinely done. Only if you’re a publishing industry superstar do you rate an iron-clad "no sale" prior to the official date. When you’re J. K. Rowling, you rate a Canadian judge ordering the fourteen early-buyers to keep their mouths shut about the book’s contents:

"A handful of people in Canada got a sneak peak of the latest Harry Potter book, but a British Columbia Supreme Court judge ordered them to keep it a secret.

"The book was sold to 14 people who snagged a copy of J. K. Rowlings’ much anticipated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, when it landed on shelves last Thursday at a local grocery store.

"The book, officially set for release this coming Saturday, has been shrouded in secrecy and its debut has been highly orchestrated to enable everyone — readers, reviewers, even publishers — to crack it open all at once. It’s the sixth in Rowling’s seven-book fantasy series on the young wizard.

"But the store slipped up and sold 14 copies before realizing its mistake."

GET THE STORY.

The individuals involved should be grateful that all that happened was that they were legally gagged by a Muggle judge. A Wizard court would probably have made them drink one of Snape’s potions.

Fantastic Four: Movie of the summer?!

A few weeks back, when the best film of the summer, Batman Begins, opened, I posted expressing my hope that its opening weekend might end the worst U.S. weekend box-office year-over-year recession in 20 years.

Well, it didn’t… nor did any of a slew of other highly anticipated movies, including War of the Worlds, Revenge of the Sith, Cinderella Man, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Longest Yard.

According to studio estimates, though, the 20-week recession was finally broken… and to add insult to injury, the film credit with the achievement is another comic-book super-hero movie that’s as terrible as Batman Begins is great: Fantastic Four. (Get the story.)

So, what’s the lesson here? Why did Fantastic Four — an ensemble film with no star power from a fledging director based on a venerable but only moderately popular comic book — outperform Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, Batman, Star Wars, Russell Crowe and Tom Howard, and Adam Sandler?

More pressingly, why did a lousy, badly reviewed film with only two tepid action sequences, one-note characterization, awful casting, mostly bad acting, dreadful dialogue, trashy humor, and lame special effects outperform an array of films that outshine it on almost every level imaginable?

Was I wrong to conclude in my earlier post that the message of the box-office recession was that moviegoers want better movies? Is the lesson here that quality doesn’t matter after all? That Marvel fans are a more reliable (or more forgiving) market than DC fans?

First of all, a plug: Jimmy and I will be discussing this and other movie-related topics today on Catholic Answers Live.

Second, a little perspective:

Fantastic Four’s opening domestic take of $56M is stronger than most of those other films — but not all of them. War of the Worlds actually opened much stronger, with a three-day opening weekend total of $64.5M — a figure that’s actually deceptively low, considering that much of its opening business wasn’t even in the Friday-to-Sunday period, since it opened on a Wednesday before the July 4 holiday (its six-day total was $112.7M).
Batman Begins likewise opened with a three-day take of $48.7M, somewhat lower than FF’s $56M — but here too Batman opened on a Wednesday, so its opening business wasn’t all concentrated into that three-day weekend total. Batman’s five-day opening take was $72.9M.
Fantastic Four isn’t single-handedly responsible for the end of the box-office recession. It was the convergence of FF plus continued strong performance from War of the Worlds and Batman, as well as other films. Had FF opened a month ago, likely it would not have broken the recession, and some other film would have.
It’s still too early to certify FF a hit. The figure that really matters now is the percentage of dropoff in the next week or two. Batman has been holding up well over the weeks, slipping a very modest 35% this past weekend to a $172.1M If FF tanks in its second or third weekend, as so many films do these days, it could still be a box-office turkey.

Still, with all that said, the question remains: Why did this film do so well?

Here is what I think is an important part of the answer:

Until FF, the big movies of summer have all — quite rightly — come with warnings not to bring the kids.

Even properties with built-in kid interest, such as Batman and Star Wars, have been the subjects of media and critical cautions that these films are too intense for young kids. And they are — and there’s nothing wrong with that.

As a result, though, the family market has been neglected. Yes, there have been traditional “family films” like Herbie: Fully Loaded and Madagascar. But families seem to crave films outside of the “family film” mold, i.e., cartoon-style comedies (whether live-action or animated) about children / families or anthropomorphic animals, cars, robots, etc, flatulence humor, kicks in the groin, etc.

Based on its marketing, FF, supposedly a “funny family action film,” seemed to fit the bill. Its initial success, like last year’s National Treasure (also not a great film, although much better than FF), may suggest that family audiences crave the same kind of thrills and action as teenagers and young adults, but without the heavy violence or sexual content. In fact, families may be so desperate for acceptable fare of this type that they will even embrace movies that are mediocre (National Treasure) or lousy (FF).

Unfortunately, it also seems, at least at the moment, that it may not be necessary that the movie be actually family-friendly — only that it be marketed and perceived that way. With FF, a running thread of trashy exploitative content, mostly in connection with the character of Johnny Storm, keeps it from being family-friendly, but it didn’t keep the studio from marketing the film to families.

And families, at least this weekend, seemed to buy it. Time will tell if word of mouth prevents the strategy from working in the long run… or whether family audiences really are the suckers some Hollywood studios think they are.

Listen today to Catholic Answers Live for more.

I've Been Paged!

… By Christopher over at Against the Grain in his page over the Harry Potter novels and Pope Benedict XVI’s alleged disapproval of them.

Since the Holy Father’s election, Potter naysayers have been having a field day with a German-language article that claimed that the then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had denounced J. K. Rowling’s mega-popular children’s series. As the release date for the latest installment draws near, the frenzy has become even more strident. So, the question is, did the Pope disapprove of the series? The answer: No, because no such statement has been offered by Pope Benedict during his pontificate. Well, what about the alleged disapproval of Cardinal Ratzinger? Here’s my response:

As far as I know, the letter sent to the German critic Gabriele Kuby has not been published. According to Lifesite.net (the site that offers an article that blares "Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels"), Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was quoted by Kuby in a German-language interview she gave to the Zenit news agency. If the letter has been published, then I would have to read it in order to determine whether the Cardinal had been giving a private opinion or was speaking in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
According to Kuby, as mediated through the Zenit report, Ratzinger said: "It is good that you shed light and inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions that are barely noticeable and precisely because of that deeply affect (children) and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it (the Faith) could properly grow." Please note that the glosses in parentheses are probably not Cardinal Ratzinger’s. One would have to see the letter itself to confirm the context of the glosses. Even if accurate, there is still a lot of context missing. What exactly does the "these" in the clause that starts "for these are subtle seductions" refer to? As of yet, there is no way to know.
Cardinal Ratzinger may simply be giving a politely general response to the concerns of a correspondent, affirming that her concerns for the faith of children are valid without necessarily affirming that the series itself indeed causes such dangers. If the intriguing "these" simply refers to the concerns she raised and not to alleged problems in the Potter series, then the quote says nothing of the Cardinal’s opinion of the series. Analogously, if someone wrote to Catholic Answers asking me if such-and-so liturgical abuse was a legitimate concern, I could say yes without saying anything about the particular circumstances at the correspondent’s parish.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has read the Harry Potter novels and agrees with the Potter critics that they are bad. What does that prove? If he was speaking privately as an independent literary critic, not much beyond the fact that they are not his cup of tea. If he was speaking privately as a theologian troubled by theological issues in the series, then his opinion would carry the weight of the private analysis by an orthodox and well-respected Christian theologian. Only if he had been writing as head of the CDF would magisterial authority begin to be a question.

The trouble with articles like the one on Lifesite is that they cause a lot of controversy without much substance. The same was true a couple of years ago when Roman exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth nixed the Potter series. Naysayers pounced on this and trumpeted it to fans of the series while failing to mention that Fr. Amorth was only speaking on his own authority and not the Church’s. Now that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict XVI, naysayers are hoping to stir the cauldron again. Granted, the remarks should be discussed, even investigated, to ascertain what was said and the context in which it was said. But misleading headlines and sensationalistic articles are not the way to foster calm and reasoned inquiry.

I’ve Been Paged!

… By Christopher over at Against the Grain in his page over the Harry Potter novels and Pope Benedict XVI’s alleged disapproval of them.

As far as I know, the letter sent to the German critic Gabriele Kuby has not been published. According to Lifesite.net (the site that offers an article that blares "Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels"), Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was quoted by Kuby in a German-language interview she gave to the Zenit news agency. If the letter has been published, then I would have to read it in order to determine whether the Cardinal had been giving a private opinion or was speaking in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
According to Kuby, as mediated through the Zenit report, Ratzinger said: "It is good that you shed light and inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions that are barely noticeable and precisely because of that deeply affect (children) and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it (the Faith) could properly grow." Please note that the glosses in parentheses are probably not Cardinal Ratzinger’s. One would have to see the letter itself to confirm the context of the glosses. Even if accurate, there is still a lot of context missing. What exactly does the "these" in the clause that starts "for these are subtle seductions" refer to? As of yet, there is no way to know.
Cardinal Ratzinger may simply be giving a politely general response to the concerns of a correspondent, affirming that her concerns for the faith of children are valid without necessarily affirming that the series itself indeed causes such dangers. If the intriguing "these" simply refers to the concerns she raised and not to alleged problems in the Potter series, then the quote says nothing of the Cardinal’s opinion of the series. Analogously, if someone wrote to Catholic Answers asking me if such-and-so liturgical abuse was a legitimate concern, I could say yes without saying anything about the particular circumstances at the correspondent’s parish.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has read the Harry Potter novels and agrees with the Potter critics that they are bad. What does that prove? If he was speaking privately as an independent literary critic, not much beyond the fact that they are not his cup of tea. If he was speaking privately as a theologian troubled by theological issues in the series, then his opinion would carry the weight of the private analysis by an orthodox and well-respected Christian theologian. Only if he had been writing as head of the CDF would magisterial authority begin to be a question.

Motion Picture Conclave

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — you know, the group that passes out that shiny gold statue called, uh, uh, Oscar!, every year — has elevated 112 artists and executives to voting member status.

"The invitees range from such recent Oscar winners as best actor Jamie Foxx, original score composer Jan A. P. Kaczmarek and animated short-film creator Chris Landreth to such executives as newly installed Paramount Pictures chairman and CEO Brad Grey, Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman and CEO Michael Lynton, and Pixar Animation Studios chairman and CEO Steve Jobs.

"While the Academy adopted a new policy last year to slow the growth to a maximum of 30 new members annually, it was able to issue more than 100 invitations because of deaths and members opting for retired (nonvoting) status.

[…]

"Candidates for Academy membership are normally proposed by members and then considered by committees made up of representatives of each of the organization’s 14 branches."

GET THE STORY.

In case you were wondering how Hollywood’s most elite yearly conclave works, now you know.

Monk Season 3 On DVD!!!

JUST RELEASED TODAY!!!

HIGHLIGHTS:

Mr. Monk goes to New York City!
Mr. Monk gets a job at Wal-Mart! (only without it being called "Wal-Mart")
Mr. Monk goes on Jeopardy! (only without it being called "Jeopardy!")
Mr. Monk solves the murder of Bruce Lee! (only without him being called "Bruce Lee")
Mr. Monk takes medicine to cure his OCD!
Mr. Monk is forced to live in a cabin . . . in the woods!
Mr. Monk gets buried alive! (literally! in a coffin!)
Mr. Monk goes to Las Vegas!

Plus!

The Most Amazing Crime-Solving Recap In A Detective Show Of All Time!

Also, this season feature’s the much-beloved Sharona’s last episode (for now!) and the introduction of Monk’s new assistant, Natalie. If you’re a Natalie fan, be sure to get this season so you can obsessively document her arrival on the show. If you’re a Sharona fan, be sure to get it so you can obsess about the good times we had when Sharona was here. If you’re a fan of both Sharona and Natalie, get it so you can obsess about both!

GETCHOURSNOW!!! YEE-HAW!!!

Born On The 5th Of July

You were born, and so you’re free.

So happy birthday.

Thus says the lyrics to the song "Born, Never Asked" by Laurie Anderson (left), who was born today–July 5–in 1947 (in the midst of the Roswell Incident, which might explain a good number of things about her).

Anderson is a performance artist and musician who was born in Illinois but these days hangs out in NYC (from what I can tell).

I first became aware of her back in the early 1980s when her album Big Science made it big–or as big as an avant garde album can make it, I suppose.

I recently discovered that several of Laurie’s albums could be downloaded from iTunes, and so I’ve been revisiting and enjoying the stuff she did back in the ’80s.

Here music is . . . hard to describe. You know what they say: "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

Basically, her music alternates between several different styles. Some of it is just strange and atmospheric. Then there are toe-tapping numbers, alternately instrumental or vocal, that incorporate elements of Rock and Pop.

The most unusual aspect of her music isn’t the sound, though. It’s the lyrics. Laurie has realized something that many Rock and Roll artists have: The lyrics of a song don’t really have to mean anything. They can just evoke an image, a mood, or a feeling. She also has realized something that many Rock and Roll artists have not: It’s okay to sing your lyrics intelligibly.

As a result, her music reminds me of a line that Woody Allen delivers in Zelig, describing baseball: "You know it doesn’t have to mean anything, it’s just beautiful to watch."

That’s exactly the way I feel about Laurie Anderson’s music: It doesn’t have to mean anything. It’s just pretty to listen to.

What she’s trying to do (so far as I can tell) is not get at any Deep Meanings but simply evoke certain moods and feelings that have qualities of mystery and beauty and humor and even warmth.

At times Laurie piles up interesting poetic images, as in this passage from her song "Let X=X" (flashback to math class!) in which she describes getting a postcard from a person who has betrayed one and is now twisting the knife and who then (apparently) gets his comeuppance. Notice the way the individual lines build up these impressions, even though nobody would really write a postcard like this in real life:

I got this postcard, and it read. . . . It said . . .

"Dear Amigo, Dear Partner,

"Listen, uh, I just wanna say thanks, so . . . thanks.
Thanks for all the presents.
Thanks for introducing me to the chief.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag.
Thanks for going all out.
Thanks for showing me your Swiss army knife.
Oh, and uh, thanks for letting me autograph your cast.

"Hug and kisses, XXXX OOOO

"Oh, yeah. P.S.: I feel like I’m in a burning building . . . and I gotta go."

This is a poetic abstraction of a phenomena we are all acquainted with. In our lives virtually everyone has the experience of being kind to someone ("thanks for all the presents, thanks for introducing me to the chief"), only to have that person take advantage of our kindness ("thanks for putting on the feedbag. thanks for going all out") and betray and even injure us ("thanks for letting me autograph your cast").

When that happens, we don’t want to see the person simply get away with it. We want to see them find out that the sweet things they stole have turned sour, and Laurie covers that as well ("I feel like I’m in a burning building"). Laurie thus evokes in poetic form an aspect of human experience that will resonate with the audience (or at least those who have lived long enough to experience betrayal).

Not all of Laurie’s lyrics have this serious dimension to them. Some are aimed at getting a laugh, as in this passage from the song "Talk Normal":

I came home today, and both our cars were gone.
And there were all these new pink flamingoes arranged in star patterns, all over the lawn.
And then I went into the kitchen. . . . And it looked like a tornado had hit.
And then I realized . . . I was in the wrong house.

Laurie occasionally comes up with a sentence that she is probably the first person in the history of the human race ever to utter. My favorite is this:

I dreamed I had to take a test in a Dairy Queen on another planet.

There can even be an apologetic dimension to her lyrics. Recently I was writing an article on heaven for This Rock and was tempted to quote one of her lines (from the song "Language Is A Virus"):

Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only much . . . much . . . better.

If you’d like to check out some of her material, I’d recommend her albums Home Of The Brave and Mr. Heartbreak as good, accessible starting points. The music on these is more up-tempo and has a feel-good aspect to it. It still doesn’t mean much, but then it doesn’t have to. It’s just pretty to listen to.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, LAURIE!

BUY LAURIE MUSIC

Or download Laurie music: