Saturday 31 August 2013

PSYCHEDELIC BREAKFAST #2

Grateful Dead
Live/Dead
1970















Dark Star
(Jerry Garcia, Robert Hunter)


Dark star crashes, pouring it's light into ashes.
Reason tatters, the forces tear loose from the axis.
Searchlight casting for faults in the clouds of delusion.
Shall we go, you and I while we can
Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds?


Mirror shatters in formless reflections of matter.                                                                               
Glass hand dissolving to ice petal flowers revolving.
Lady in velvet recedes in the nights of good-bye.
Shall we go, you and I while we can
Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds?




PSYCHEDELIC BREAKFAST #1

Pink Floyd
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
1967 

Chapter 24
(Syd Barrett)

A movement is accomplished in six stages
And the seventh brings return.
The seven is the number of the young light
It forms when darkness is increased by one.
Change returns success
Going and coming without error.
Action brings good fortune.
Sunset.
The time is with the month of winter solstice
When the change is due to come.
Thunder in the other course of heaven.
Things cannot be destroyed once and for all.
Change returns success
Going and coming without error.
Action brings good fortune.
Sunset, sunrise.
A movement is accomplished in six stages
And the seventh brings return.
The seven is the number of the young light
It forms when darkness is increased by one.
Change returns success
Going and coming without error.
Action brings good fortune.
Sunset, sunrise.

Friday 30 August 2013

THE HOTEL CAUGHT DADDY

The Shining is Kubrick's last masterpiece. While Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut have their moments, they just can't compare to Kubrick's most fertile period from 1964 to 1980.

After the commercial failure of Barry Lyndon, Kubrick needed a hit, so he turned his attentions away from obscure works of 19th century literature towards the decidedly modern tradition of the late seventies best-seller. Moreover, Kubrick wondered why he never got to make a horror movie while touching other genres in the past such as war movies or science-fiction. As always, the question was that of story: Kubrick needed a good story to make a good film.

Enter Stephen King.

After toiling in obscurity for years, Stephen King finally hit the jackpot with his 1974 novel Carrie and the equally successful Salem's Lot the following year. Most importantly, King became a Hollywood commodity after Brian de Palma's adaptation of Carrie with many of his novels and stories becoming up for grabs (soon, very soon, King's work will become a movie-making industry by itself). With his third novel, The Shining, King's reputation as a major-league novelist was confirmed. Eventually a copy found its way round Kubrick's place in Hertfordshire and...bingo!

THE LOWDOWN: Alcoholic, abusive writer. Psychic kid. Mousy long-suffering wife. Haunted hotel. Snow (as in Lot's Of). Creepy twins. Creepy bartender. Creepy headwaiter (Oh, Hell! Creepy everything).

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?:  Others have come out with several interpretations about this movie. Bill Blakemore, for instance, sees it as a metaphor of the massacre of Native Americans by European settlers. Geoffrey Cocks expanded on that to include references to the Holocaust. Thomas Allen Nelson, on the other hand, focuses on the Torrances themselves, seeing it as a metaphor for the failures of the American family vs. the "successes" of American imperialism. Co-scriptwriter Diane Johnson also sees the movie as the story of a man who gradually comes to hate his family, to the point of murder.

Room 237 is a fantastic documentary about The Shining giving free reign to Blakemore's and Cocks' theories, as well as others. It's a definite must see for any fans of the film.

For the purpose of this bit, I agree with Nelson and Johnson that the family dynamics of the Torrances are at the heart of the movie's narrative. Indeed, it is at the heart of the Overlook's efforts to corrupt Jack so he can deal with it "in the harshest possible way". There is a twist, however. The Overlook spooks wants Jack to kill his family (actually, it's Danny they want, but since Jack can't stand his wife either, she's obviously part of the deal). However, unbeknownst to all, Danny has subconsciously hatched a plot to kill his father using the nightmares of the Overlook. So, basically, the real victim of The Shining is not Danny, but Jack who becomes trapped between a son who wishes him dead and ghosts who wants to use him against his own family. Therefore, the film can be read as a game of chess between Danny and the Overlook, with Jack as the main pawn, and Wendy as the Queen (whose main task is to protect the King, i.e. Danny).

A very interesting premise, yet what clues Kubrick provides us to back it up?

But first, let's ask ourselves a very important question: how good is Danny at shining?

Pretty good, I should say. Danny is able to send a telepathic signal to Hallorann from Colorado to Florida, a distance of almost 2 000 miles. Not only that, but when Danny "connects" with the Overlook chef he is, in fact, relaying to him what happens to Jack in room 237. So, first, Danny has tune in on Jack, and then "reports" what he sees to Hallorann. Not only that, but Danny is able to relay everything that happens to Jack in that room (basically we are watching Hallorann "seeing" what Danny transmits him). Pretty neat trick for a six years old kid. In King's novel, Danny sends a telepathic signal to Hallorann while the two of them are sitting in the chef's car, almost blowing Hallorann's mind out in the process. The hotel cook even acknowledges that Danny is the strongest "shiner" he has ever met.

What's interesting, here, is that Danny do not relay to Hallorann his own experience in room 237 (as he was warned to not go in, maybe Danny didn't want Hallorann to be angry with him for ignoring his warning. He is only a kid after all).

In the Torrances' Boulder apartment, as Jack is in the middle of his interview, Wendy asks Danny if he's looking forward to living at the Overlook. Danny answers a non-committal "I guess so" but Tony (Danny's psychic double) answers that he "ain't". Later, as Danny is brushing his teeth, he presses on Tony for more. Not only does Tony confirm that Jack has got the job (he phones Wendy to tell her seconds later) but he also confirms that the Overlook is not a safe place to go. Danny's plan to kill his father is wholly unconscious, hatched mostly by Tony who sees Jack as the threat he is. In an interview with Michel Ciment, Kubrick states that if Danny's psychic abilities were perfect he could warn everyone about everything and if so there would be no movie. Kubrick is obviously ignoring the premise of his own movie. Danny does not warn anyone because:

1. Danny's too young to cope with such powers, so his subconscious has created Tony, a projection of his inner mind (in the novel, Tony is actually a projection of his older self. Note that Danny's full name is Daniel Anthony Torrance).
2. Tony has to keep Danny's "cover" as an innocent child trapped by forces he cannot understand or cope with. For that purpose, Tony employs Danny has a sleeper agent. Danny tells Hallorann that it's not himself who knows things, but Tony. Tony then tells Danny, who "can't remember everything". Moreover, while Jack and Wendy knows about Tony, Danny is under strict instructions never to reveal his visions.
3. Because, for Tony's plan to work, the Torrances have to go to the Overlook and confront its many mysteries.
4. Finally, Nelson argues that Kubrick oftentimes poke fun at horror movie conventions. Therefore, if Danny told everyone about what's going to happen, no one would believe him and the family would proceed to the Overlook just the same.

Tony understands perfectly that the Overlook hotel is a bad place. He knew it all along. How much does he understand about Jack so the failed teacher/writer/husband will fall prey to the evil forces therein? Hard to say. However, the many ghosts haunting the hallways of the Overlook indicates that not many can resist its psychic assault. Jack's many failings in life makes him the perfect patsy for the Overlook, but also the perfect victim. Wendy is far more resilient than even she realizes, when shit gets real up there, Wendy focuses her attentions on Danny, so she enters Mama Bear mode. (Kubrick has argued that his Wendy his weaker than King's. That's certainly true, yet both of them manages to defend their son perfectly well in the end).

I mean, just look at Danny throughout all of this. For most of the film, he is preternaturally cool, calm and collected about everything. Sure, he gets scared every once in a while, yet he relies on Hallorann's and Tony's counsel to keep cool, as he knows the spirits cannot possibly harm him. Furthermore, when things get too hairy, Danny retreats deep within himself while Tony takes control, under Wendy's physical protection. Later, when all hell breaks loose and Jack is ready to fulfill his destiny (as both proxy and victim), Danny keeps his head together and manages to escape his father's murderous onslaught. At that point, Danny also fulfills the desires of another (i.e. Tony's) and purposefully leads Jack into the hedge maze (a place he has visited before, but not Jack). In a way, Danny was never in any real danger. The Overlook spooks cannot harm him (or anyone else for that matter), while he relies on Tony and Wendy to negotiate tight corners until Hallorann arrives.

That's why Kubrick changed the focus of the story from Danny to Jack. Jack is the only one in danger at the Overlook. Danny's got his shit together and Wendy, as a non-psychic is oblivious to everything until the very last moment at which point the Overlook is attempting to scare her even more (a fruitless task, akin to spilling a glass of water into the Atlantic ocean).

End of part one



     



Wednesday 28 August 2013


STANLEY KUBRICK

Yes, I'll be going on about Kubrick for a while now. My complete and utter disenchantment with the modern film industry has had me return to the work of this man, if only to remind me why I loved cinema so much.

Ah, but where to begin? It has been said of rock critic Lester Bangs that his reviews were quite uninteresting when he dealt with artists he admired and respected. His true talent, it seems, lay in lambasting artists and albums he didn't like. Like everything else, it has shades of truth but doesn't really tell the whole story. I too am in a difficult position for it would be quite easy for me to label each and every one of his films with adjectives like "genius", "fantastic", "masterpiece" etc. Yet it would make for a boring read (not to mention writing this stuff).

For me, Kubrick is the ultimate film director. His films are a complete cinematic experience in and of themselves combining acting, sound, cinematography and editing that reads as an exhaustive movie-making course. Kubrick took everything that was good about his predecessors from the golden age of Hollywood and improved on their expertise in a completely new and even more impressive set-up. And, like the best of them, he did this while keeping an eye on commercial success. For Kubrick, having large numbers of people turning up in movie theaters was the only way he could maintain his independence and make the films he wanted to make.  In that respect he is the one of the most successful independent movie directors of all time.

Of course, others like Coppola, Scorsese and Lucas also started out as independents yet their most successful and rewarding movie projects were vicious, protracted battles against the studios who paid for their extravagances (If you don't believe me, watch The Godfather with Coppola's comments on, it's just one long bitch-fest). No so with Kubrick who enjoyed an healthy and productive relationship with his employers. Something Robert Rodriguez certainly kept in mind.

Before we tackle the films themselves, I think it's important we take a look at some of the most useful tomes written about the man. This is by no means a complete list, only that of works I have actually read.

Michel Ciment: Kubrick: The Definitive Edition. This beautiful coffee-table book was first published in 1983. It was reedited several times until the final 2001 edition including material on Kubrick's last two pictures (Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut). Ciment discusses the director's most important films and offers several interviews with Kubrick and some of his main collaborators, accompanied with a wide selection of pictures. Perfect starting block for the Kubrick amateur.

Thomas Allen Nelson: Kubrick, Inside a Film Artist' Maze. In my opinion, the definitive book about Kubrick's work. Originally published in 1982, it has been expanded in 2000 to include chapters on FMJ and EWS. Nelson's opus offers a comprehensive analysis of Kubrick's films, as almost every frame Kubrick shot is given a thorough examination. Note, however, that this is not a book for beginners. It is quite academic in tone (though not without a sense of humor) and makes for a sometimes arduous read. Nevertheless efforts on the reader's part are more than adequately rewarded. I haven't read the new edition, but it's certainly on my shopping list.

John Baxter: Stanley Kubrick: A Biography. Kubrick's life was pretty straightforward when you think about it. His is not the life of a dissolute rock star/movie star/star star full of twists and turns, lucky breaks and reversals of fortune. Baster's book shows a deep and profound respect for its subjects whilst not shying away from revealing the madness behind the methods. While it is full of tasty anecdotes, it does not work as a general debunking of the man and myth. Like many a great artist, what Kubrick thought about life can be found in his films.

Gene Daniel Phillips & Rodney Hill: The Encyclopedia of Stanley Kubrick. Ever wondered who John Alcott was, or James B. Harris, or what director Kubrick replaced on Spartacus? This is the book for you. While not exhaustive, this nifty little tome is a grab-bag list of every major Kubrick collaborators, film sources, film techniques and critical reception of his work. It's basically a very useful reference book for everything and everyone the director met in his long life. Also includes profiles on his films as well.

Frederic Raphael: Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick. Ever wanted to know how working with Kubrick would be like? Frederic Raphael was Kubrick's co-scriptwriter on his last picture Eyes Wide Shut, here Raphael exposes the rewarding yet tortuous relationship he entertained with the director while writing his very last opus. An exciting read for anybody looking for a bird's eye view on Kubrick's genius and working methods. Essential.

Michel Chion: L'humain, ni plus ni moins. Kubrick have always been accused on being a "cold" filmmaker and is often denounced for his overly cynical and detached views on humanity. Here, composer and author Michel Chion offers a counterbalanced point of view on the author of A Clockwork Orange, Chion vierws Kubrick's work as far more humanistic than previously thought. Note, however, that Chion is not above slaughtering sacred cows and often offers a very different point of view from previous reviewers. Available only in French.

OK, now that we've dispensed with the academia, next time we'll take a look at one of his films....why not The Shining (winter is coming after all).

Tuesday 27 August 2013




STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, a review (part two)

(Sorry for the time delay, for now on assume that every time I say "I will continue this tomorrow" it actually means "I'll get to it in a couple of days". Real life is tough on bloggers, you know)

Now then....

I'm getting a bit tired of mainstream blockbusters full of CGIs and non-stop action set pieces who have no other logic than the hey, wouldn't it be cool if... school of film-making. Of course, some of the stuff done with this philosophy is actually cool, yet when it's done with no regards to story, characters or plausibility then the whole thing becomes a tiresome, over-inflated mess.

Basically, what Abrams is doing with Into Darkness is the same as he did with the last Trek movie, only with everything cranked up to eleven. For comparison, pick you favorite tune and listen to it with the volume turned up to an impenetrable din. Your ears will hate you for the rest of your life. This is the visual equivalent. Abrams figured out that every goddamn frame needs to have a hundred things going about at once. At some point, I completely lost interest of what was going on.

Next...I marveled at how much Star Trek pegged familiar characters down to a T. All the while showing us entirely new aspects of these old friends, due to this whole "changing the past" sort of thing. Here, it's like I barely knew who these people were.

Kirk, for instance, was always a maverick captain, bending and sometimes "interpreting" Starfleet regulations to get out of tight spots. Remember, Kirk never believed in No-Win scenarios. And yet, as a member of a military organisation with a strict chain of command, Kirk also has had a very healthy respect for the institution he devoted his entire adult life to. In that regards, the scene where he argues vociferously with Pike about the "botched" mission is completely out of character and pictures our good captain not as a "maverick" but as a hot-headed lunatic rashly endangering the lives of the people under his command for no good reason. Yes, Shatner-Kirk did put his people at great risk, yet only within the acceptable risks entailed by being a Starfleet officer. Shatner-Kirk was always very reluctant to risk ship and crew when only he (and his entire command staff...) should get zapped by the alien thingy of the week. I remember him often telling Scotty or Sulu to high-tail out of planet Dangerzone III if anything bad could happen to the Enterprise.

Remember the trial scene at the end of Star Trek IV? Kirk was facing some very serious charges there. Something that would've gotten him drummed out of service in disgrace. So what did he do? Endlessly and aggressively argue with his tribunal that he was in the right all along? No. He took it like a man. He shut up, accepted the charges against him and even pleaded guilty. No arguments, no disputes. "You are right, I was wrong". This is what makes Shatner-Kirk more heroic. He did something in Star Trek III he knew was right and yet was wrong if you take the Law into account. He did it anyway, but never shirked from his responsibilities to facing up to his superior officers afterwards.

Hardly sounds like the loud-mouthed jerk we see here on the screen, does it?

Ah, Mr. Spock. Since when have you become a regulation-spouting computer, endlessly telling anyone withing earshot what they already know: "the stuff you are about to do is a) dangerous, b) against regulation and c) illogical". I don't remember Nimoy-Spock saying that at all. In fact, our Vulcan friend has always been very keen to join Kirk in whatever crazy scheme he was on about that week. If only to relieve the boredom of being a Vulcan. And betraying Kirk by ratting on him to Starfleet Command? N.E.V.E.R. Spock has learned long ago that "What happens on the Enterprise stays on the Enterprise (or whatever planet the ship happens to orbit around to)".

There's not much more to say about Spock in this, as he is basically only there to piss off Kirk and Uhura on a regular basis. Yes, Spock is logical, yes Spock always favoured the most rational course of action open to his shipmates, yes he never took risks for the sake of taking risks but Spock was never the Brainy Smurf always telling Kirk "do this, don't do that". Dr. McCoy should really operate on the stick in his butt.

Speaking of the good doctor. Hey, Man, where were you? Abrams seems to have forgotten that you're the third major character on the show. Not a bit player. Shit, Scotty gets more lines than you (no slur on Scotty, I like him a lot, be the golden triad of Trek is still Kirk-Spock-McCoy).

I could go on, but you get the point. How could Abrams have gotten it right the first time, and so wrong for Take Two?

Beginner's Luck!!!




Wednesday 21 August 2013



STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, a review (part one)

I have finally come around watching Star Trek: Into Darkness. The trailer didn't really inspire me with confidence, to say the least. Right off the bat, I thought the plot line was too similar to the previous Star Trek movie: Big Bad Destroys Everything. While I was somewhat wrong on that count, I wasn't that off the mark either. So here it is (SPOILERS):

After a disastrous mission (which is actually successful) where Kirk and crew gang-bang the Prime Directive several times before Tuesday, Kirk is demoted and Captain Pike returns to command the Enterprise. So far, so good. However a mysterious individual named John Harrison commits acts of terrorism. Not against Earth, mind you, or the Federation but against Starfleet Command itself. Later, Harrison goes Godfather III on Starfleet's high command and attempts to assassinate the entire Chiefs of Staff. This is where Captain Pike bites the dust and Kirk once against ascends to the center seat of the Enterprise (similarities between this James T. Kirk and his parallel counterpart of the Mirror-Universe are purely coincidental).

Worse still, the terrorist takes refuge on Kronos, the Klingon homeworld. Admiral Alexander Marcus, survivor of Joey Zasa's hit (sorry, read that John Harrison's) orders Kirk and crew to fly to Kronos and assassinate Harrison without waking up the Klingons. Admiral Marcus believes that war between the Klingons and the Federation is inevitable, so....he orders a special op mission featuring his flagship going deep within Klingon territory to nuke an island where Harrison is and hopes the Klingons will not notice. But of course, trusty technobabble explains why the Enterprise would not get noticed so everything's up and dandy.

Oh, about those special weapons the ship has to carry out? Well, it turns out that they're Khan's people. In the most undramatic reveal of the entire film, John Harrison is actually Khan (presumably Noonian Singh, though it is never mentioned on screen) awake after 300 years of slumber. He really shouldn't have bothered.

Let's get to the point before boredom ensues: all of this was a smokescreen. Everything was Marcus' idea all along and the Insane Starfleet Admiral (yet again) wishes to start that Klingon-Federation War so he can try out his new toy: a dreadnought (actually the Enterprise, only a lot BIGGER).

So Kirk and Khan must team-up to stop all this. And this is where I stopped watching.

For those of you who don't know me very well: I actually stopped watching something Star Trek before the end. To put that into perspective, here's other Star Trek stuff I watched through and through.


  1. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (twice!!! and bought the DVD too)
  2. The complete seven seasons of Star Trek: Voyager
  3. Star Trek Generation (the first Trek film I saw in a movie theater)
  4. Star Trek Insurrection
  5. Star Trek Nemesis
As you can see, I'm not the sort of person who turn down his nose at Trek, even when it is absolute crap. So, for me to stop watching Into Darkness is akin to the Pope stopping right in the middle of a Mass and say out loud "who gives a shit about that, let's go watch the game". 

Tune in tomorrow where I carry on with this bit...



Thursday 15 August 2013



Yes, yes, yes The Daleks. At this point, though, they weren’t the iconic Doctor Who villains we all know and love. They were a one-off monster, that’s all. Yet, they save the programme from early cancellation and so…there we are 50 years on. 

Tuesday 13 August 2013


And so it begins. And so everything begins: two schoolteachers, one mysterious girl, one cranky old coot, one impossible phone booth, abduction and voila! Cavemen! What was there not to like, I dare ask?

Monday 12 August 2013



Superman and the Justice League come back after a decade of absenteeism. They are apparently pissed off that a whole new generation of fans have turned to Image comics and their Splash Panel/Endless Orgy of Violence in their absence. So, in accordance with the early-to-mid 1990s comics mentality, they respond with orgies of violence of their own. Just to teach those Crazy Kids how its done. 

The guy at the back is The Ray. Why is he on the Justice League Roster is a complete mystery to me, as he was published by a different company. Ah, outsourcing....


Friday 9 August 2013




Everyone's favourite megalomaniac Davros strolling about with his creation. What's interesting here is that Davros, not unlike another mad scientist, seems to not have gotten along with his creation. In fact they attempted to kill him several times over the last few centuries. His only defense was to create his own strand of Daleks, loyal only to him. Resulting in a Dalek civil war which split the base of their constituency (beforehand, all were in favour of their usual "Exterminate!" policy, enter Davros and now half of them have added an "Exterminate Davros!" amendment. Since then, Daleks have apparently postponed elections altogether and prefer to duke it out mano a mano (so to speak, as Daleks have no hands)).



I wouldn't mind blasting across the Solar System in this nifty number. Heck, I'd convert it into a car and go cruising down the Main.

Wednesday 7 August 2013




Beautiful rendering of the original Human Torch by Alex Ross