Criticism // Current

Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq After 17 Died

Top executives at Blackwater Worldwide authorized secret payments of about $1 million... more

cutee_leslie
added this
5 days ago
|
0 comments

How Great Is The xx?

It's a strange time for the xx. The foursome of 20-year-olds just temporarily or permanently lost its fourth member, second guitarist Baria Qureshi, who claimed exhaustion upon returning to the U.K. after a string of organized and impromptu CMJ performances. Before they even arrived in the States, bassist and vocalist Oliver Sim seemed to foreshadow fame's toll with a single tweet: “[O]fficial jetsetter,” he wrote on September 11th. “[I] dont want to leave my room now let alone the country, reclusiveness just isn't an option anymore.”

It sure isn't, but there seemed to be a smile creeping into the statement. While the band might have been happy playing poorly-lit venues in middle-of-the-country towns, suddenly finding themselves shipped off to the continent and the other side of the pond for a tour schedule that Pitchfork’s Ryan Dombal said “makes me feel a bit light-headed” is still rather wonderful. And it's not like they have a choice. The supply isn’t the album anymore, even if this band churns out what is ostensibly a studio recording on stage. The supply is the show, and it’s in serious demand.

If the live show is indeed, as many claimed last week, just another listen of the album, it at least isn’t a .rar file. It’s a physical album with a few very valuable bonuses enclosed in its jewel case or record sleeve. (I should add that last week, I watched a tall, thin man strut confidently out of Other Music in the rain, carrying an xx LP under his arm.) On stage, the chemistry between Sim and Romy Madley Croft simmers on low interminably. The songs sparkle a little brighter and set a little firmer in our echoic memory with help from visuals: Croft peers out from under a wave of jet-black hair to watch Sim finish his solo, or vice versa: Sim, head down, gazes boldly from under his brow, waiting for Croft’s cue (see: Figure 1). Their voices meld into each other's seamlessly, though of course, because their singing often sounds like a sigh or a yawn, there's little room for mistakes, or at least, it’s impossible for us to hear them.

The songs can feel like a warm breath on your neck or a cold draft up your shirt, but each one is infused with lust, so even the dankest, most desperate atmosphere on the album—the bitcrushed, glittery effects at the start of “Night Time,” or the Burial-like somberness of Sim’s solo, “Fantasy,” have longing stamped firmly upon them, and they glow and pulse—“Fantasy” quite literally pulses—with that brimming emotional intensity otherwise known as adolescence.

Read the rest:

http://lizzyville.blogs.com/index/2009/10/determining-whether-the-xxs-xx-is-good-or-great-and-if-great-how-great.htmlIt's a strange time for the xx. The foursome of 20-year-olds just temporarily or... more

grenvilleclark
added this
13 days ago
|
0 comments

Top 25 cult films of all time - Boston.com

IS your favorite in here.

quanta
added this
1 month ago
|
0 comments

CNN Edits Out Lou Dobbs Criticism From Taped Interviews

CNN aired a new four-hour documentary called “Latino in America,” exploring how Latinos are reshaping American communities and culture. The broadcast sparked protests in cities around the country, including outside CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta, with minority groups calling on the network to fire anti-immigration crusader and serial misinformer Lou Dobbs.

The New York Times reports that CNN “has not commented on the protests or covered them on its news programs.” But not only has CNN ignored the Dobbs protests, the network edited out criticism of Dobbs from civil rights lawyer Isabel Garcia during a taped interview with controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arapaio that aired on Anderson Cooper 360 this week:

[Garcia] who was featured in “Latino in America” and organized an anti-Dobbs protest in Tucson on Wednesday, said that CNN edited her comments about the anchor out of an interview. [...]

She said she called Mr. Arpaio and Mr. Dobbs “the two most dangerous men to our communities,” and said that “because of them, our communities are being terrorized in a real way.” She also asserted that CNN was “promoting lies and hate about our community” by broadcasting Mr. Dobbs’s program. The comments were not included when the interview was shown Wednesday night. “They heavily deleted what I did get to say,” she said.

This isn’t the first time CNN has circled the wagons around Dobbs. Earlier this year, Dobbs was one of the most prominent mainstream media figures pushing the conspiracy theory that President Obama may not have been born in the U.S. Dobbs repeatedly called on Obama to “produce a birth certificate” and said it’s “unfortunate” that the birthers have been “dismissed.” Despite Dobbs’ hysteria and playing on “escalating white fear,” CNN president Jonathan Klein downplayed Dobbs’ antics, claiming the CNN anchor was merely reporting on the birther “phenomenon” and had simply asked why “some people doubt” Obama’s citizenship.

Moreover, while discussing race issues last year on the air, Dobbs became agitated, and it appeared that he was about to say “cotton picking” (often used as a racially charged slur) in reference to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But he caught himself, only uttering the word “cotton.” In the official transcript of the show, CNN omitted “cotton” from Dobbs’ remarks.

While Dobbs has been quick to jump on right-wing conspiracy theories targeting Obama (including recently peddling a fake thesis purportedly written by Obama that trashes the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and free markets), his hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric has been ongoing for years. Now, Latino and pro-immigrant activists have launched two campaigns, Drop Dobbs and Basta Dobbs, which are aimed at pressuring CNN to “hold Mr. Dobbs to journalistic standards” or dump him altogether.CNN aired a new four-hour documentary called “Latino in America,” exploring how... more

Future_America
added this
23 days ago
|
0 comments

In Defense of Film Culture--An Interview with Armond White

Benjamin Strong has an awesome interview with NY Press critic Armond White about the... more

jlichman
added this
24 days ago
|
2 comments

I will not be muzzled.....

The New York Post: "The furor over Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst on Wednesday night -- which violated congressional protocol -- threw Republicans into full damage-control mode yesterday, as lawmakers in both parties condemned him."

--------------------------

Joe Wilson will not shut up about how he thinks he is right to have shouted YOU LIE and that the health care is cruddy as it is right now.

He's been blasted from every corner of the political realm.

He's neither her nor there. His comment was without any doubt a bad idea. However, it raises a good question that no one seems to be able to answer: What is ok to criticize Obama over?

I have asked this question over and over and over again and no one who has voted for or supports Obama can give me an answer. They will bring up the race card, they will call anyone who speaks out against Obama crazy, they will insult someone's mother if they attack Obama. It's becoming lame.

So I want a comprehesnive list of what is ok to criticize Obama on. Because people beating others to death over what they find wrong with Obama and not having a list to dictate what is ok to complain about is very confusing.

The list cannot have anything to do with Gay Marriage or Gays in the Military and it cannot have anything to do with legalizing any drug. If that is your beef with Obama you should have known from history that that wasn't going to happen with him no matter how he sounded during his campaign. That was just a given.

Remember this list has to be about what is OK to criticize Obama over. I don't want to see a bad list only the ok.

I want to see that open minded liberal talk at work. I've already asked countless people on this site to give me one and they all run away scared. Who'll be the first? Or will I just see posts of blame from liberals?

I want ZERO complaining about conservatives. If you put a single complaint in your post it'll be as if you didn't even contribute and your list (if you even made one) will not count.

Who'll be the first truly open minded person to give that list? I'm not holding my breath.The New York Post: "The furor over Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst on Wednesday night --... more

J_Jammer
added this
2 months ago
|
191 comments

The Symbol of a Country Shattered/II. An Ideal Care for the Italian Flag.

dia_offman
added this
2 months ago
|
0 comments

Much Ado About...Shakespeare Reviews?

"This weekend, critics, academics, actors and directors are gathering in Stratford-on-Avon to discuss the business of reviewing Shakespeare. It should make for some lively sessions. Janet Suzman, Tim Supple, Stanley Wells, Peter Holland, Carol Rutter and Michael Coveney will be among those taking part. I've been asked to kick off with a talk representing the aisle-squatter's view.

I don't want to pre-empt my own lecture, but one thing seems clear to me: both Shakespeare production, and the whole reviewing business, is in a state of flux. On the production side, we talk of the virtues of ensemble and a coherent directorial vision. Yet the public clearly loves nothing more than seeing stars. Look at the way young people flocked to see David Tennant and Jude Law as Hamlet. And the prospect of Judi Dench returning to Shakespeare to play Titania-cum-Queen Elizabeth in Peter Hall's revival of A Midsummer Night's Dream next year is already causing people to salivate.

Of course, star-driven Shakespeare need not preclude strong direction. One of the most exciting productions of recent years was Rupert Goold's Macbeth, which had an edge-of the-seat, horror-movie quality and a deeply intelligent performance from Patrick Stewart as a Stalinist tyrant thane. Michael Grandage's Donmar Othello combined a monumental performance from Chiwetel Ejiofor with a cool, classical vision of the play. But I still think we're not quite sure what we want from Shakespeare today. One moment it's long-term ensembles; the next, it's big names. Similarly we talk about the need for textual purity; yet no one seems to notice when Greg Doran softens the climax to Hamlet by virtually eliminating Fortinbras. And a joky rewrite of Cymbeline, such as Kneehigh gave us at Stratford recently, has people in ecstasy rather than complaining about the butchery of the verse.

If Shakespeare production is in a state of confusion, so too are the critics. We scribblers sometimes like to see ourselves as part of a great tradition that extends from Hazlitt and Shaw to Agate and Tynan: however puny our efforts, we are subliminally conscious of our rich inheritance. Yet criticism today operates in a very different climate from the past. Space is tight, reviews are part of a consumerist culture and the blogosphere means everyone is now a critic. Change is inevitable. But the critic is today caught in a cleft stick. Confronted, say, by Tennant's Hamlet, is the critic meant to put it in its historical context or the context of Doctor Who? Possibly both. But it can be tricky trying to reconcile the idea of the critic as essayist and commentator on modern culture.

I don't want to agonise too much. Criticism is an unending challenge; one of the exhilarations of the job is tackling Shakespeare and trying to pin down both performances and changing production styles. Attitudes to Shakespeare also tell us a lot about ourselves: look, for instance, at the rediscovery of the History plays as a metaphor for modern power-politics. All this – and much more – will doubtless be aired at the Shakespeare Centre in Stratford this coming weekend. If you're in the vicinity, come along and add to the confusion – and the fun.""This weekend, critics, academics, actors and directors are gathering in... more

St_Alia_10191
added this
3 months ago
|
0 comments

A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips are At The Movies

Say goodbye Lyons and Mankiewicz A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael... more

jlichman
added this
3 months ago
|
2 comments

Republican FAIL

It's not very often one gets to type the word "clitoris" in news, but thanks to... more

iKento
added this
4 months ago
|
4 comments

Tarantino on Critics: "I know more about film than most of the people writing about me."

Oh, this mythic GQ interview just keeps getting grander and grander. In the... more

jlichman
added this
4 months ago
|
4 comments

I HATE BOBBY FLAY

All my life I have been interested in the culinary world-through helping in the kitchen to watching iron chef to working in various bakeries. I learned that every person has a style of cooking, from microwaving tv-dinners to gourmet cheffery or what have you. Even if two people were preparing the same meal, there would be some sort of variation because we, as humans, have independent and individual minds that create freely and most of the time without consciousness of it. This all leads up to this afternoon, when I happened to come across the show Throwdown with bobby flay on tv. I had seen this show before, but never really absorbed its message or followed its basic structure which is this: Bobby Flay (owner of several five star restaurants, an american iron chef and professional douchebag) is sent a secret package from this sort of “big brother” character, who typically does something rude to him like stealing the movie ticket he just bought or closing the door in his face, kicking him out of his cab etc…. Bobby opens the envelope which has information about a certain chef or cook or baker who makes a certain dish which they have mastered (i.e. the best philly cheese steak, fajitas, coconut cake, etc…). The person in the envelope’s entire living is based on what they are famous for, this perfected dish. So mr. flay meets up with his two middle aged female assistants and creates his own “bobby flay” version of this special dish (which in the first place is disrespectful in that he feels as if he is making it “better”)…he is preparing for a surprise “throwdown” they have sneakily arranged by informing this other chef that they will be on a new tv series, or have their own show or something…something to get their hopes way up. Bobby arrives at this celebration where the chef’s family friends and entire fucking town are gathered and CHALLENGES THEM TO A….THROWDOWN!...The opponent is typically shocked and highly confused as they do the hello’s and the trash talking…and by the way do NOT get their own show or any sort of variation of food network’s supposed promise. Bobby gets to cooking, and a “friendly” competition is under way. When everyone is finished cooking, samples are passed out to the entire town gathering, and two random judges come in (typically not chefs or professional critics), who take a blind taste test and choose a winner…Now, on this show because of the experience of the opponent in making their special dish, their secret ingredient or special skill or what have you, they generally are the victors. However, more than a little of the time it is bobby flay who is triumphant…so bobby flay has secretly plotted and planned and ambushed this person, challenged them to a throwdown, beat them at what they have worked on their whole life…in front of all the people they know…and that’s it. Bobby flay is better than you at what you do best. I’m not saying this show isn’t entertaining, a half hour ego trip is fun to watch, but it really does get my goat when he wins. And although the airing of his show on a big network must bring a lot of publicity to the opponents business, Bobby Flay is still a douchebag.All my life I have been interested in the culinary world-through helping in the... more