jakobnicholas

I like Wilco.

Would there be the same outrage if Garth Brooks' music was blasted loudly?

Would Oprah have been equally offended if they had forced the prisoners to listen her show over and over?

If a Top-40 station was played, would every artist of every song played on the station have a right to be outraged?

If Jay Z found out that ESPN broadcaster/wife-cheater Steve Phillips was making love with his mistress to his music, should Jay Z state his disgust with that?

If a doctor performs abortions while listening to John Denver, should Denver's estate demand the doctor play something else?

I have no answers, just questions.

Well done review, up until that last line where you judge others' reactions to the film, which is always an unnecessary and ignorant move.

Fair enough. If some really finds it great (Rolling Stone critic Peter Travers for example), they have every right to feel that way. I guess it's not truly "silly" or "irriational" for them to feel that way. But I thought at least 1/2 of the movie was irritating, which makes it impossible for me to understand calling it "great". I can get my head around "OK" or even "good"....but 4 stars is beyond my comprehension.

I was SO disappointed in this movie.

The opening 15-20 minutes was VERY well-done. I loved pretty much everything about it. Spike Jonze did a nice job of keeping everything emotionally strong but reserved. For example, when the neighbor kids attacked Max's fort, the kids weren't obnoxious punks, but clearly just teens having a little fun that Max obviously took more seriously. Then we felt kinda bad for Max and could understand him retreating to his room. I agree that shot of Max staring at him Mom and fiddling with the hose on her feet was a powerful scene. That and the scene where he gets momentarily trapped in the igloo were executed perfectly, making me flashback to moments I had as a kid.

But about the time Max lets out his bizarre scream atop the kitchen counter is when I first started wondering if this movie was gonna stay on track.

The journey on the boat and approaching the island and the creatures was great. And the introduction to the wild things and seeing the way they looked on screen was very impressive. I don't know how they did it, but the mix of reality with CGI really captures the essence of the Sendak's creatures.

Sadly, the whole time on the island was an absolute bore. Max was always whiny and reserved and mopy. The creatures were mopy. Nothing happened, nothing was accomplished.....I don't know how to say it, other than it just felt like the movie went nowhere. And the dialouge and stupid little spats and conversations the creatures had were embarrassingly awful. Carla had a tantrum near the end for some stupid reason of which I can't think of. And I agree with someone who said they had no sadness when Max had to go back home. Carla's character was so non-sesnical and angry and annoying that I was actually happy to see the character sad...I was kinda hoping Max would flip Carla the bird while sailing away.

The 2 best scenes on the island were Max snuggling and sleeping with the creatures and Max riding on the back of one of the creatures. But I can't think of one line of dialogue that was good....it was irritating as hell.

And I too picked up on the biblical connotations. There was a lot of creature dialogue about "the king".....about how they weren't sure there was a king or now that they have a king, they should do whatever it says even it makes no sense. If one was trying to take one message from this movie, it could easily be that it's silly and irrational to believe in a king (or God).

I think it's silly and irrational for anybody to call this a great movie.

I'm glad some like W(TA) so much. I wish I did. Some of it is really great, but overall it doesn't do much for me.

Of the embarrassingly limited number of discs I've heard this year, W(TA) would rank near or at the bottom.

Morrissey, Phoenix, Decemberists, Eels, Neko Case, Vic Chesnutt, Mountain Goats, Mark Olson/Gary Louris, Dinosaur Jr, Flaming Lips, Built to Spill...I prefer all these to Wilco's newest.

I also am rooting for A-Rod out of contrarian obligation. Everybody hates him, so I want him to succeed because he's a great player and people are stupid.

I heard a sportswriter recently say that he probably wouldn't vote A-Rod into the Hall of Fame because of his steroid admission. But the sportswriter also said there's no doubt A-Rod is maybe the most talented player in baseball and is no doubt a Hall of Fame talent.

I like that someone can get dealt a harsh blow, then bounce back from it. A-Rod seems to be doing that.

Seriously, any non-Yankees fan who openly roots for the Yankees should be banished to an uninhabitable island for the rest of eternity.

I'm a life-long Royals fans, and have generally despised the Yankees. But the Royals are beyond suckiness. There is zero hope here. It's depressing as hell.

So when the playoffs roll around, because I like baseball, I latch onto a team and root for them. This Yankees team is fun to root for. They play smart. They play hard. They have a bunch of classy players. And they don't have a fan base of snobs like Red Sox nation.

But they haven't collaborated on record since the Wilco Book/AGIB-era (when Born Again came out), which I (though I don't know about you) absolutely love. I wonder what they would be like writing/recording after the SBS/W(TA) era.

I don't know, but I hope to find out.

I agree about Wilcobook....I like it a LOT.

I think Jim and Jeff are equally talented, but approach music differently. Mabye that's why their output is so good. With Wilco's last 2 records, it's very clear Jeff is steering the ship..not that that's a bad thingg...just not as interesting as when another musical genius is working with him.

Invoking George Brett as a positive comparison to Jeter sounds weird to me. George Brett has always seemed like a cock.

Brett always hustled, always gave it his all, always hit in the clutch and was the emotional and performance leader of many great Royals's teams. Off the field, Brett was was rumored to be very into the ladies, much like Jeter. Brett, like Jeter, seems like a "guy's guy". Brett may have been a little more charismatic off the field....I don't know too much about Jeter. I find a lot of similarities between the two. Please explain why you think Brett was a cock.

GO YANKEES!

I've mostly hated the Yankees over the years. But I'm finding it VERY hard to not like their team. Jeter's impossible to not admire as a player...I love everything about how he plays and his attitude and personallity and how he carries himself on the field. He's got a George Brett vibe. Posada and Texiera and Rivera are all easy to root for. A-Rod is NOT easy to root for, but he seems very humbled from his mistakes, and is playing amazing and focused ball right now.

I'm kinda hoping the Yanks win it all.

I was selfishly hoping for Wilco to take a break, perhaps leading to Jeff, Jim and Glenn banging out another Loose Fur record. Creatively, I think Jim and Jeff make very interesting songs and sounds together....better than what Wilco has done recently.

I have no idea....I never saw Andre either.

But just wanted to say I LOVE Princess Bride mostly because of Shawn. And his voice for Toy Story's Rex is freaking hilarious.

They SLAYED on Conan last night

The Conan performance was really great....very wild and fun and wierd. Coyne was his usual cool and bizarre and corny and wonderful self.

Early reviews are mostly glowing. 4 stars from Rolling Stone. It sounds like it might be a great movie for adults and kids alike. Pitchfork has an interesting interview with Spike Jonze:

Pitchfork: I'm not sure if you were in the theater tonight. Do you enjoy watching your art with an audience?

Spike Jonze: When we put out a music video DVD [for the Director's Label series], we would do 90-minute screenings, and those were really fun. Normally when you put it out you don't get to watch different people, so that's just really fun.

Pitchfork: I was trying to think of anything in your past that had any connection to this narrative, and the one thing I could think of was your Daft Punk "Da Funk" video, because it's a mirror image opposite of Where the Wild Things Are-- one animal in a world of humans.

SJ: Yeah, I never thought about that.

Pitchfork: Obviously, the story itself comes from Maurice Sendak however: How did you end up hooking up with Maurice?

SJ: I had known him for a number of years, because he was producing another movie that didn't end up happening, but through that I got to see him as someone whose work I liked.

It was a book that he had talked to me about over the years a few times, and it was a book that I loved, and when he brought it up to me I was very excited but also very apprehensive, because it was something that I thought was so great and so perfect in its form-- What am I going to add to that? I was so apprehensive to add something just for the sake of adding it, for the sake of a movie, and not really having a reason to make it, basically. But eventually I came up with the idea that you see what you see there, and Maurice was great, he was insistent upon that taking it there.

Pitchfork: He was very generous about allowing you to create your own film?

SJ: Yeah, I really don't think we could have done it without that. I would have been too nervous to make something he wouldn't like. And I didn't want to do that.

We were really nervous with the first script, because we didn't know what he would think. He read it three times in a row. The first time he read it, he was like, "It's not like my book." And then he said, "Oh wait, I told them not to make it like my book." And then he said, "Let me read it again," and he started to be able to feel it. By the third time, he was totally detached from anything before, and was able to feel it for what it was, and he called us up and told us he wanted to do it.

He had script approval, so if he didn't like it, we just wouldn't have done it. So it was a big call to get that call from him telling us that he liked it, and good luck.

Pitchfork: How long was that gap between those readings?

SJ: He read it three times in one day.

Pitchfork: So he called you after the first reading, and said--

SJ: No, luckily he didn't call us then. He went through that process on his own and called us, and then afterward he told me.

Pitchfork: When you first started to imagine it, did you do so in more cinematic terms or narrative terms? It's virtually a picture book, and some of the power of it is that it's less a book someone would read to you as it is a book that a child can get lost in.

SJ: Well, cinematic terms. I knew I wanted it to be live action; I wanted to build the wild things for real. I wanted to be on location. I wanted it to be a real boy with real creatures, in a dangerous, unpredictable environment, where you're with wild animals. But that wasn't enough to make a movie. It was more the idea that gave me confidence that there was a movie there was that the wild creatures were wild emotions, and Max was trying to understand things that were confusing and frightening, and made him anxious-- things being out of control, and him being sort of emotionally wild himself.

Pitchfork: Did you see it as a childhood thing, in terms of the emotions, or are these more just human emotions to you? The adult relationships in the film have the same needs and fears in some ways.

SJ: The emotions I felt were true to a child, were true to what it feels like to be a kid. What the world is like from a nine-year-old's point of view. Like when you're nine, you haven't figured out how to process all this.

My memory is that nothing is explained to you, you've got to try to figure it out, pick up clues from the people around you, try to figure it out from their reactions. And the things that are out of control are scary-- I mean they still are, to me. But I think even more so at that age, when you really have no sense of control of your life.

And so the things that are really out of control, and scary, are emotions-- of people around you, that are unpredictable, or those in yourself which are unpredictable. Like having a tantrum. The thing I remember most about having a tantrum is not the rage during the tantrum, but the being freaked out afterwards, and embarrassed, and guilty. It's scary, to lose control of yourself. We wanted the movie to feel like it was made by a nine-year-old, on some levels. So like you're in the headspace of a nine-year-old, and you're in the world, you're on the island with Max, trying to understand this foreign place. It kind of feels like being a kid, you've just shown up to this place, and there's no road map to it.

Pitchfork: Were there other examples of children's art that you were looking at? Things that were sort of about childhood, rather than for a child?

SJ: It wasn't so much that we looked at them; there's things that we knew did it right, but we didn't reference them, we went back and watched them. Like The Black Stallion, that I loved, in 1981, it's beautiful. My Life as a Dog. The 400 Blows. there are a couple others, just films that feel like they're from a kid's point of view looking at the world.

Pitchfork: How did you and Dave Eggers end up working together?

SJ: Because I had known him for a few years, and I love his writing, and just like him as a person. It just felt right, it was one of those intuitive things, like, "That's who I want to write this with." Just sensibility-wise, his first book, the way he wrote about a young character. I don't know, just the way he writes, and we're very similar, we're the same age, just the way we grew up influenced and in love with Maurice's work. It wasn't even too thought out, it was just like, "That's right."

Pitchfork: Talking about your ages. Do you think there is something about this story that makes it so beloved with our generation specifically?

SJ: I'm not even sure if it's just our generation. I think it might be that if you're five years old and you read that book, you're like, "I recognize that." It's in the language of a kid, of monsters and of things being giant. And it's like when you're a kid, adults really do feel giant. Monsters are a part of your subconscious. You have even less control of your emotions than you do now. I think it's all in the book. And he is really speaking the language and what it feels like at that age.

Pitchfork: So you guys had almost an open-ended structure to build a narrative. Was all that freedom helpful, or more difficult? Did you go a lot of different routes before you got the script you wanted?

SJ: Not a lot of different routes, but we definitely wrote a lot of different drafts. We shot, and then had the footage... the way I work, I like to constantly evolve, and try to find a better way to do something; searching and seeing what else can be discovered. And so yeah, there were many things where we were like "That's an amazing idea!" and that was it for a week and then "No, no this is a better idea!"

Along the way, the things that stay are the things that really deserve to stay. I love that process, of not feeling overly pressured, "this is the movie," and some people can do that, like the Coen brothers, their movies I think they write, the script they write is very, very close to the movie they put out. And they shoot exactly what they need, you know I probably shoot about four times as much film as them. They're like, "Oh, we got it." And I'm like, "Oh, what else can we do? And what if we try it this way?"

You take that leap and you don't know exactly how it's going to turn out, but you know what it is that you're aiming for. You know your goal.

I have no idea how much I'll like Embryonic 5 years from now. I just know I like it right now. It's fresh and bold and crazy and whacked and at-times beautiful. I REALLY liked that they tried something that sounds radically different from their recent efforts. It sounds as if Coyne and Drozd enjoyed the hell out of their jam sessions. Yes, it kind of sounds like a mess at times, but in the best way possible.

People have brought up Wilco (The Album) or In Rainbows as examples of other well-established bands releasing bland records. I kind of agree with Wilco....their newest seems at times bland and/or on cruise control. Radiohead, on the other hand, made a more laid-back sounding album...but I think it's anything but Radiohead on cruise control. To me, it sounds like Radiohead is still moving forward.

Bottom line, would I call Beatles my favorite band. No. They don't hold that kind of connection with me. Is there anyone ever that can hold a torch to them. No freaking way. People are throwing around Dylan, Kinks, Van Morrison?. It isn't even close. I once watched a documentary talking about how Beatles songs seemed to have always exsisted, that they are that much in our subconscious. I ask anyone to really view the world of song and try to tell me how Dylan or Kinks songs exsist in the beautiful simplistic well crafted perfect melody of the Beatles world. I get it, I gravitate toward the Byrds, I LOVE Donovan and I appreciate the Kinks and Dylan. And Neil Young is my favorite. But cmon, The Beatles wrote instant perfection like they were taking a shower. It isn't even close.

Nice post.

I always liked the Beatles as a kid and loved listening to my Mom's red and blue Beatles albums. And later I bought some of the 1987 discs and really got into the White Album and Sgt. Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour. Over the next number of years I kind of branched off into all sorts of music that I loved. I re-discovered the Stones and convinced myself that Exile on Main Street alone might make the Stones better than the Beatles. Sometimes I might have argued R.E.M. was better. And Dinosaur Jr., Radiohead, the White Stripes, Wilco and Flaming Lips all impressed me with their creativity and there were times I might have convinced myself that some of those bands might be on the Beatles level. But I know that's all just silly.

I can get mesmerized by discs like Perfect From Now On, Aeroplane Over the Sea or the very new Mountain Goats disc. And I think most of the time, I'd reach for discs like that over the Beatles , because I find them to be emotionally powerful. But it's probably also 'cause I haven't heard those songs a thousand times like I've heard a lot of Beatles songs.

But getting reaquainted with the Beatles the past few months just really hit home for me how AMAZING they were. Some of their older material (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Please Please Me, If I Fell, And I Love Her) sound overly simple and a little cheesy when compared to some modern music, but their such perfect pop songs. The leap of creativity from thier early days up to Sgt. Peppers, White Album and Abbey Road is astonishing. As great as their albums are, they had 20+ singles released....most of which are as good as anything on thier albums...songs like I Feel Fine, We Can Work it Out, Hey Jude.

Speaking of which, someone mentioned not "getting" Yesterday or Hey Jude. I'll admit both songs musically may be a little bland. But the lyrics are so simple and powerful to most. And Hey Jude, at the part after "better, better, better..."....when McCartney screams "YEAH!"...then goes into "na, na, na..."......if that doesn't give someone a boost of adrenalin, then that person ain't alive.

Many are bringing up Dylan. It's very hard for me to put him on the same level as the Beatles, because, well...it's JUST Dylan. I appreciate what a great musician he is, but with the Beatles we got to hear the writing of 4 songwriters. The partnership of Lennon and McCartney, who were opposite people in many ways, was so perfect. Either guy could have led a great band, but the fact they loved working together, I think took the Beatles to a whole other level. Add in Harrison's song-writing ability, Ringo's drumming skill, George Martin's arrangement skills and McCartney's unparalleled bass playing...wow! And the Beatles did their thing in 7 years. Dylan's had 40+ years.

Hearing old dudes talk about SNL makes me sad. Is Jim Belushi running around in a bee costume really more funny than "Lazy Sunday", "Dick In A Box", or Tina Fey's Sarah Pallin impression?

No. Not at all.

Good point. But anyone who doesn't see a lack of talent on the cast lately is dilusional.

Obviously, it would be ridiculous to expect talent like Will Ferrel or Dana Carvey every year. But I think even Chris Kattan or Jim Brewer made me want to tune in to SNL more than any of the male cast members today do. The news, with David Spade or Dennis Miller or Norm MacDonald always had an edge an excitement to it. Seth Meyers is yawnsville.

Jason Sudekis is a good "every man" to play many roles. But there will NEVER be another Phil Hartman. Hartman may be the best cast member ever because of his versatility and ability to elevate every sketch.

I cannot stand Andy Samberg's digital shorts. The only one I ever thought was funny was "Lazy Sunday!" Samberg is the same in every skit, he just makes ridiculous faces and uses annoying voices. And Keenan Thompson is only good when he's playing Whoopi Goldberg or Bill Cosby, other then that- to me he is simply never funny. I really miss Tina Fey as head writer... I don't care for Seth Meyers at all. I just can’t even watch weekend update anymore.

Samberg hits every so often. Last Saturday's was silly but funny.

Right on about Thompson. Tina Fey was a big talent and will be missed. I don't care for Meyers either.

The political and topical skits is what keeps many folks interested in SNL. Obama's skit last week was great.

Keenan Thompson? His bits are about the only reason I watch. I love the French Def Jam comic. The opener, with U2 and that Maxim magazine girl hosting had exactly zero laughs outside of Thompson.

Wow! Couldn't disagree more. I find Thompson's skits to be almost-always HORRIBLE and unfunny.

Anybody watching?

My initial reaction to what I've seen so far is that it kinda sucks. But I remember last year starting off the same way.

Kristin Wiig is still the best, in my opinion. Sanberg's digital short/song was really funny last weekend. The chubby African-American guy (forget his name) always seems to play a hip-hop-talking character that is never funny. Seth Meyers' jokes have been pretty funny, but he still annoys me somehow.

My opinion is In Rainbows is the better album...by far.

It's simple math. Barack Obama + Michelle Obama + Oprah = O.

Still unclear why you keep making this distinction. They were together since 1986, married in March 2009. How is it worse in April 2009 than February 2009 or August 1998? Is it not wrong to cheat on a long-term girlfriend? Would she feel less pain?

 

 

 

It'll probably be a hell of a lot funnier, in fact, if he inserts some self-depricating humor.

I was never clear on Letterman's personal life. I always thought that, after his first marriage and divorce, he just kinda played the field. I know he's had a long-time girlfriend, but I thought that was always on and off. Maybe his office flings were done at times when he was on the outs with his girlfriend. Maybe he and his girlfriend agreed to be able to see others. I don't knonw nor do I care.

You're right, whether he was seriously dating somone or married, makes no difference....cheating on that person is wrong and the woman would every right to be pissed and to dump his ass. I'm just not sure how serious he was with his girlfriend on a consistent basis.

Yeah, it COULD be funnier in the future...assuming this doesn't unravel into something worse.

We've all done things we regret, so I'm not really getting on Letterman for what he did...although I think it sheds very bad light on his character, especially if these affairs happened since he got married.

Letterman has constantly gone after Bill Clinton for his affairs. He was having a field day with Sanford. Will Letterman be able to tell such jokes in the future? It WILL be different now that we know all this.

Oh well....I don't watch the grumpy, unfunny, philandering guy anymore anyway.

I like Spoon, but do they REALLY deserve 3 albums in the top 100? And I'd have included the DBT's "Southern Rock Opera" or Okkervil River's "Down the River of Golden Dreams" or the Eels' "Blinking Lights" or Wilco's "A Ghost is Born", etc....

"Blacklisted", "And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out", "The Meadowlands", "The Sunset Tree", "Ágætis Byrjun", "Z", "Bows & Arrows", "Echoes", "Give Up"...these are good selections, imo. I like that "Moon & Antarctica" got ranked high.

BUT...

my opinion may be worthless, as I've not heard more than half of their selections. Which of the more "obscure" artists and records are worth seeking out? For instance, I bought Panda Bear's "Person Pitch" because I read it was awesome, and was pretty disappointed. It's not a bad record. Much of it is pretty good. But a top 10 record for the decade? NO WAY!