Well duh! But at least Entertainment Weekly finally figured it out!! In the August 5, 2005 issue they have a “Summer’s Must-See Movies” feature which included a blurb about 2046.
I love that they commended Zhang Ziyi on her acting ability and noted made a connection between the film’s title and Hong Kong history.
Yesterday my coworker asked me what I thought about the idea that Jesus was a time traveler. Being a fan of Coast to Coast, ideas like this don’t really strike me as extremely odd or absurd.
Then I started to really contemplate the implications of Jesus Christ being from the future. The whole thing made my head spin and I was rather shaken by the idea.
Just image: Jesus is pretty much without a doubt one of the most influential people in the history of human beings on Earth (I really would struggle to think of anyone more influential). Christianity has so utterly shaped and influenced the world, I cannot imagine how the world would be without it (and I say this as an atheist).
If Jesus were indeed from the future, then the future he came from would be a future without Christianity since without Jesus there wouldn’t be a Christian religion. Wow!
So many inventions and philosophies nowadays are a result of Christianity — where would we be without them? The printing press, for example, was in large part created so that Protestants could spread the religion, largely inspired by Jesus’s desire to bring the gospel to the people, etc. You could also argue that the ideas of capitalism and the protestant work ethic and all of that are also directly influenced by the teachings of Jesus (or, more accurately, people’s interpretations of his teachings).
Conversely, however, one could argue that in the grand cosmic scheme, there was a void that needed to be filled at the time and place that Jesus lived, so had Jesus not come from the future, another person — say, David or Diane or Brandon or Mary or Michael or whoever — could have been the one to form the religion now known as Christianity because there was some great cosmic need for such a religion.
I don’t know. Like I said, just contemplating the idea made my head spin — in a good way, of course.
The story about the guy from Brazil who was shot (8 times!!) and killed in London on Friday is probably one of the most upsetting pieces of news I’ve read in a long time… probably more upsetting than this whole Karl Rove scandal.
Thank god we have The Huffington Post‘s “A Death in London” to really put things in perspective and actually report the story. (I swear, it took me a long time to even find this story on U.S. media sources this morning — the fact that an innocent man has been killed has been trumped by the release of the “names” of more suspects is rather disturbing).
I quote from the “Death in London” piece:
So let us consider two truths about this incident. Jean Charles de Menezes would never have been shot if he didn’t have dark skin, because if he didn’t have dark skin, he wouldn’t have been a suspect. (This despite the fact that Brazilians look nothing like Pakistanis.)
What this basically says, and which I think is true, is that anyone who doesn’t have white skin is now considered a potential terrorist — not just middle eastern people anymore.
And people who might defend this by saying that it was done in the name of safety and all that… well, it’s bullshit. After the Oklahoma City bombing here in the U.S. we never would’ve buried a story involving police killing “innocent” white redneck skinheads.
I just don’t get how this isn’t upsetting more people. The ends (stopping terrorists) do not justify the means (killing non-white people who might be terrorists). I understand that they police were doing their job and whatnot, but it seem as if the U.K. isn’t even apologizing for this — they are trying to justify/rationalize rather than say they are sorry.
What I find most ironic about all this “they hate our freedom” rationale for the combating these people who “hate our freedom” is by limiting our freedom (“shoot to kill” and The Patriot Act and whatnot), there is far less freedom for these terrorists to “hate” us for.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but I honestly don’t think that killing people without certainty and saying that it was the right thing to do is going to make things better.
The night of Sept. 11 I went for a run for whatever reason (during college I often went on late night runs). I remember being afraid that night, but not because I was worried about terrorists or anything like that, but because I thought the police or military or who knows what would stop me and interrogate me about why I was running at night and whether I was connected to terrorists or whatever. Is that freedom worth hating?
On Sunday afternoon, when it was sunny and in the 80s in Seattle (during a relatively cold and rainy summer), I went to a lecture by Robert Horton, the curator of The Frye Art Gallery‘s The Magic Lantern “talks on film and art” series. I mentioned the talk the other day and gave some excerpts from programs I found online.
Overall, the talk was mediocre. I guess I’m more used to very academic talks at colleges, whereas this one was, I felt, geared more toward a general audience… which makes sense and, if nothing else, just shows how elitist I am. Oh well.
The Frye’s Oliver Herring: Taking and Making exhibit inspired Horton to do a talk about Wong Kar-Wai. In particular, Herring had a series of photographs arranged in the shape of an X (over about 20 feet or so) that told two stories. In the middle the stories intersected.
Horton compared this arrangement of photographs to motion pictures — since a film is, at its most basic level — a series of still photographs arranged horizontally in order to produce the “illusion of movement.” Horton also likened the X pattern to the multiple intersecting storylines often found in WKW’s movies (especially Chungking Express and As Tears Go By).
He also noted that WKW and Herring shared what, I believe, is a fairly common trait among artists: The act of creating the art is more important than the final product. Horton said that for Herring the objects (i.e. the art) was less interesting than the time he spent creating it. Likewise, Horton gave some history about WKW’s reluctance to finish pieces of work (he was shooting and editing parts of In the Mood for Love days before it preimierd at the Cannes Film Festival and actually changed 2046 a bit after it debuted at the Hong Kong Film Festival). Horton concluded that WKW loves the process of making the film, probably more than finishing the film.
The method of emphasizing the creation of the piece rather than the final product is, I would argue, a common theme in postmodern art. I think of things like Warhol’s studio or David Lynch using dead animals and insects to create pieces of art as being other examples of artists who value the process of making art more than the final piece.
Horton also gave some biographical information about WKW (born in Shanghai, moved to Hong Kong at age 5 during the early ’60s — no wonder he keeps returning to the ’60s in films like In the Mood for Love, The Hand (from Eros, and 2046), most importantly noting that WKW almost always collaborates with production designer/editor William Chang and cinematographer Christopher Doyle. Horton believes, as I’m sure many critics would agree, that Chang and Doyle add a great deal to the look and feel of WKW’s movies.
(As a side note, I am guessing that Horton has met Doyle at some point — Doyle was in Seattle for 2004 the Seattle International Film Festival — because he kept talking about how much Doyle partied and was a womanizer and whatnot. It was amusing.)
Horton then showed clips from four of WKW’s movies and discussed how these clips related to time and WKW’s non-straightforward method of producing films and storylines:
Scene: Yuddy and Su Lizhen meet for the first time. The scene starts with a clock — Yuddy tells Su Lizhen to watch the clock for a minute. Then he tells that for despite what happens in the future, they will always have this one minute in which they were friends. An unknown amount of time passes. Yuddy and Su Lizhen are in bed. She asks him to marry her, he rejects. She leaves him.
Given that time was a central component of the lecture, Horton noted that a scene starting with a clock was perfect for the lecture. He noted that we don’t see their relationship progress and that the time between their first encounter and the demise of the relationship is ambiguous.
He explained that many of WKW’s films are “memory films,” and that chronology isn’t always important — the essence of the film and the events is more important than anything else.
Apparently WKW wanted his films to look like the work of Edward Hopper because of the way Hopper’s work captures alienation and loneliness — a look which WKW developed in Days and has carried through in his films sense. The production design (color palette, architecture, etc.) is very deliberate and somewhat nostalgic. Horton kept using the term brick-a-brack (another postmodern artistic technique) to describe it.
Scene: The cop and Faye meet for the first time. The owner of Chungking Express gives the cop food/dating advice, encouraging the cop to bring two things from the Express back to her and give her a choice. Ultimately giving his girlfriend choices in food causes her to leave the cop. (~35 min. into the film)
“California Dreamin'” by The Mamas & The Papas blasts from Faye’s radio as the cop tries to order food from Faye. All of the characters sort of randomly appear and disappear (not in a bizarre way — they are in one scene, and not in the other — presumably off doing something else) in the scene. The only way we know that time has passed is by the changing of Faye’s outfit — there is no traditional fading in or out. Horton calls this syncopation.
Faye, especially, is a syncopated character. She randomly appears in people’s lives then disappears — especially when least expected. Horton notes that this reflects the nature of her character, as evidenced by her trespassing into the cop’s apartment.
With Chungking Express, Horton also notes that WKW rewards viewers for multiple viewings. The film is basically broken into two pieces: The first half dealing with the woman in the blonde wig and He, the cop; the second half dealing with the other cop and Faye. Bits and pieces from each half appear in the other, though in ways that are not obvious upon first viewing.
Horton also noted that Chungking Express was initially intended to be three parts, rather than two. The last part ultimately became Fallen Angels which, like Chungking Express then became a concatenation of two stories.
Scene: The Killer, one on of his assignments, goes into a restaurant or something to kill a group of people playing mahjong. After fleeing the scene he boards a bus where he runs into an old friend from school who tries to sell him insurance. He shows his “friend” a picture of his “wife” (a black woman he paid money to pose with him) and his “son” (a kid he bought ice cream for). He then contemplates the idea of an assassin having insurance benefits.
While the killer is killing a remix (or a remake??) of Massive Attack‘s “Karmacoma” is playing… I’m not familiar with the version of the song, though it sounds somewhat like the “Bumper Ball Dub” remix). I mention this because I love the song and loved that it was included in the movie and because Horton mentioned the song, as well.
Horton noted that throughout Fallen Angels, especially, WKW used wide angle lenses. They add a sort of distortion to the film, he argues. The wide angle lenses also made the scenes feel less claustrophobic (despite the fact they were since WKW shot on-location) and caused the people on the screen to look distanced, which captured the emotional feelings of many characters in the film.
From a technical standpoint, Horton also pointed out WKW’s use of step printing after the Killer leaves the restaurant and how it, also, distorts the scene. Step printing is a type of slow-motion filming that looks more like stop-animation. It’s hard to explain, unfortunately, but feels very disorienting.
The violence of the Killer’s assassination was nontraditional, Horton suggested, because of the quick cuts from different angles. Rather than helping the audience make sense of the moment, WKW made everything chaotic and appearing as a blur of color and movement. Horton went so far as to say that the frantic editing was like music.
Fallen Angels also makes use of narration (which becomes a WKW trademark in subsequent WKW movies — I don’t recall it in Chungking Express as much). Horton described the narration as “taking us out of the scene while we are still in it.” The narration also gave the main characters a chance to be more whimsical and ironic than the normal events of the film would let them be.
Finally, in regard to genre, Horton noted that WKW started off as a screenwriter mostly doing Hong Kong kung-fu and action-type movies. Fallen Angels, Horton explained, may have had the motif of a gangster movie, but that the film was really about other things (WKW favorites like loneliness, relationships, etc.) though it was “hung on the hanger of a gangster movie.”
This part killed me. The thing I hate the most about lectures are the audience questions and comments. It seems people ask two types of questions: either they ask an inane question they could find the answer to (“what year did xxx come out?”) or a question that shows off their knowledge. I hate both types. Sometimes there is a good question, but mostly Q&As are lame.
Sample questions:
Doyle once told a story about Happy Together that Horton feels captures the chaotic style of WKW’s filmmaking process: Some of the supporting actors arrived in Argentina but WKW had no idea exactly who their characters were or how they were going to fit into the movie or anything. WKW starts without a script and then lets the characters find themselves (much to the annoyance of many actors). Doyle’s remark on this was something like: “The actors were waiting for their characters to come and WKW was hoping for the same thing at a coffee shop down the street.”
Scene: Chow and Su Lizhen are in the alley acting out how they think their cheating significant others first met and started messing around. Some indefinite time passes and they are eating at a restaurant.
Some background Horton gave about In the Mood For Love: the shoot took 15 months (which is long), WKW was shooting the epilogue days before the Cannes premier, the actors didn’t have much direction and were told to “search for the material,” WKW wanted to shoot the entire thing on location — not on sets or soundstages, and the original title was Summer in Beijing.
The style of In the Mood is more like that of Days of Being Wild (not as jittery or random as Chungking or Fallen Angels), though with a more grown-up feel.
Originally, apparently, WKW wanted to do a 3-part film about food (?!?). Horton suggests that that is why there are so many scenes of people eating or at restaurants and why the food is almost fetishized.
Horton’s main discussion about In the Mood, however, focused on the deleted scenes and the Criterion Collection edition of In the Mood For Love.
Some of the most important deleted scenes make the relationship between Chow and Su Lizhen much more explicit. They make love (which is only vaguely alluded to — and never confirmed — in the “theatrical” version of the film), the cook together, they dance together, etc.
Horton argues that the existence and relative accessibility of these scenes (i.e. they aren’t locked away in a vault or anything — the Criterion Collection is, as far as I know, the only U.S. release of the film) alters the film in a sort of metaphysical way. The overall story is drastically changed in our heads forever now. Even though the scenes were “deleted,” they live in our head and change our understanding of the events in the movie.
DVDs can change the way films are understood and turn them into a constant work of art. The DVD is a new form of art with a new film on it. In order to really understand In the Mood For Love are we better off watching the DVD and seeing the “true” story, or should we ignore the deleted scenes and take the “theatrical” version as the definitive version.
What is interesting about this whole idea is that other directors, most notably George Lucas and Peter Jackson, have also embraced the DVD and/or re-releases of films in order to constantly work on their previous projects. Whereas Jackson has been commended for his DVDs, Lucas has mostly been criticized.
It’s a fine line, and I’m not sure where I fall when it comes to In the Mood — the unspoken and unseen love between Chow and Su Lizhen is one of the most beautiful aspects of the movie… but at the same time, I love existing in their world and seeing as much as possible. It’s hard.
And then, of course, how does 2046 fit into everything. It’s been described as a “loose sequel.” It definitely stands alone, but should it? Is 2046 just another permutation of the same project that In the Mood For Love is? And is In the Mood For Love just a sequel to Days of Being Wild anyway?
Horton then moved the conversation toward WKW’s fetishization of objects. He mentioned the food in the restaurant scene that started the In the Mood discussion and also remarked that WKW also fetishized music, people’s faces through extreme close-ups. intense colors and textures, jukeboxes, hair, and costumes (especially Su Lizhen’s in In the Mood). Again, he referred to this as brick-a-brack and theorized that it made everything more precious and important.
Only the good ones:
Horton made two comments about 2046: First, Chow’s character is more like Yuddy from Days than Chow from In the Mood; second, if 2046 is just an extension/exploration continuing In the Mood For Love and In the Mood For Love is an “adult” version of Days of Being Wild… so that basically all of WKW’s movies are different perspectives on the same theme, he doesn’t need to choose a “favorite,” per say — he loves them all.
Finally, I have to comment on how annoying some of the audience members were.
First, there were some old women toward the back of the auditorium who were talking throughout the lecture. Because they were old, I am guessing, they had to speak louder because they had lost their hearing or something. It was totally rude and they were ignorant about what they were doing.
Second, in a similar vein, there was another old woman who had a plastic bag that she sat and ruffled for quite a long time toward the end of the lecture. Nearly everyone in the auditorium looked back to give her “the evil eye” but, again, she was ignorant to how rude she was. It was very annoying.
Finally, there was an audience member who was trying to be all know-it-all and suggested that the title 2046 was a reference to the fact that it would be the 50th anniversary of Britain returning Hong Kong to China… well, as I noted in a previous review, the year is actually 2047. I am guessing that the guy read the same review I did and just got the dates confused. This is an example of someone asking a question only to show off.
… the lecture was interesting, probably more due to the fact that it was about a director I love than the content of the lecture. As I said before, I’m not entirely sure what the guy’s thesis was — if there was one at all. It started out with some interesting ideas on time in WKW films, then into WKW’s haphazard method of developing his storylines, and finally into the new continually evolving type of film that WKW has created with the deleted scenes on the Criterion DVD. I wish he would’ve included some discussion of Happy Together (the film that got me hooked on WKW), or As Tears Go By (WKW’s first, apparently more conventional film) or Ashes of Time (which, along with Tears, I have yet to watch). Nonetheless, it great to see someone else intellectually engaged with WKW’s work and maybe it will inspire me in some way that I have yet to realize.
It’s been over a week since I last got my West Wing fix, so I’m feeling the need to do something West Wing related until my friend returns from vacation and I can resume season two (so far we’re about eight episodes into that season). As promised, here are some of my thoughts about things that have happened so far:
Don’t worry, I already know that he’s going to be gone sometime soon so if you mention it I won’t be shocked. I just get bad vibes from him. Maybe it’s the southern Texas thing? I don’t know. He just seems slimy. Oh, and I hated it when he yelled at CJ in season one. Don’t mess with her!
At the end of the episode about capital punishment, Bartlet’s priest tells him the story about the man who lived by a flooding river and that man’s belief in God. Thanks to the episode summary for “Take This Sabbath Day” on TV.com:
You know, you remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town. And that all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’ The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted, ‘Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’ A helicopter was hovering overhead. And a guy with a megaphone shouted, ‘Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I’ll take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety. Well… the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘I’m a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?’ God said, ‘I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?’
The priest says it reminds him of Bartlet because Bartlet mentions that he “prayed for wisdom,” to which the father seems rather annoyed because “God” had sent Barlet a priest, a rabbi (from Toby’s synagogue), and a Quaker (Joey Lucas), yet in the end Barlet decided not to step in and save the man’s life. As an atheist, it really struck me because it proved to me how Christians (among others) are always praying for signs and whatnot even though the answer is right in front of them — they just don’t want to accept it or want something more glorious and foreboding.
I could tell that they were gonna get together during the episode in which Bartlet was cooking chili and Zoe had Charlie taste it. I think watching soap operas makes me either really good at knowing when writers are trying to get people together, or (and maybe more likely), they make me assume that everyone is going to hookup.
I loved how during the season premier of season two (“In the Shadow of Two Gunmen”) the National Security Advisor (played by Anna Deavere Smith, who spoke/performed at my college a few years back) was more worried about Osama bin Laden in October 2000 than the real National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) until Sept. 11. Actually, I don’t “love” that fact — it freaks me out that writers and people making a fictional television show might’ve been more alert and aware of the real dangers facing the U.S. than the Bush administration.
Even though I feel like I should support Moira Kelly since she was in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (playing Donna after Lara Flynn Boyle decided not to do the movie — what’s with lame actresses playing Donna???), I just hated her character… and I loved the fact that she was a regular cast member in season one and then just sorta disappeared when season two came along. I have tons of theories on what happened to her (amnesia, drugged and abducted, she was really a spy, etc. — see, soap opera influence here!!), and since we never find out, I’ll let my imagination run wild.
It was funny to see people’s hair change overnight when I watched the first season’s finale followed immediately by the second season’s premier. Rob Lowe‘s hair change was especially noticeable.
In “The Midterms” there is a “doctor” named Dr. Jenna Jacobs who has a Ph.D. in English Literature (which is a very nice degree, I might add), but passes herself off as a psychologist or something a la “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger who passes herself off as a psychologist/therapist/etc. despite the fact her degree is in physiology. Both of the women (in the show and the real Dr. Laura) have conservative call-in radio shows. It was cool to see that real-world tie-in.
I assumed that the Ainsley Hayes character (especially based on her appearance — tall, blonde, leggy, etc. — and her opinions) would parallel the evil right-wing conservative author Ann Coulter. Turns out I was wrong and Ainsley is a cool person, after all.
On Sunday, July 17 at the Frye Art Museum in Seattle there is going to be a lecture about “assemblege” and the films of Wong Kar-Wai.
From the FRYE film calendar:
Wong Kar-wai: Assembling Pieces of Time
Related exhibition ~ Oliver Herring: Taking and Making
Sunday, July 17, 2 pmFree passes available at the Information Desk at 1 pm
Like Oliver Herring’s sculptural portraits composed of countless fragments, films are assembled out of tiny pieces of still images. Wong Kar-wai, a director whose work inspires a rapturous response unlike any other filmmaker of his generation (In the Mood For Love, 2046), takes an extreme approach to the idea of assemblage. He and wild man cinematographer Chris Doyle regularly begin shooting without a clear concept of storyline—if indeed any story will emerge. Robert Horton describes Kar-wai’s method and the sensual, haunting results.
The Seattle Weekly‘s Visual Arts Calendar adds:
Magic Lantern Lecture Local film critic Robert Horton explores the parallels between the 3-D collage sculptures of Oliver Herring (now on display at the Frye) and the fragmentary films of director Wong Kar-wai. 2 p.m. Sun. July 17. Frye Art Museum, 704 Terry Ave., free, 206-622-9250.
In November 2004 I purchased a new notebook computer. I had always used desktop computers in the past, but figured that it was time to get a nice, portable computer. I didn’t even contemplate where to get the computer — I immediately went to the Dell site and bought a Dell Inspiron 1150 (note the review on that page — not by me — about how it died within four months… I should’ve researched more).
For the first couple of months the computer was great. I got to watch Sex and the City on my airplane trip back to Minnesota. While at home, I was able to sit in the living room, watch cable TV, and do some work without having to sit behind a huge case and an even huger monitor. I loved having a notebook.
Then sometime in March or so my notebook started having problems. If I had a bunch of applications open (Photoshop, Trillian, Internet explorer — not a lot of applications, but whatever…), the computer would automatically shut itself off, causing me to lose my work.
When I rebooted I got error message #M1004 saying that my computer had overheated, and that I should check to make sure that there isn’t dust in the fan or something blocking the flow of air. Check. No problem with that. I even used some condensed air to clean the fan. No help.
Prior to buying the Dell, I had known that Dell was pretty notorious for bad service, but I guess I had no idea.
I called tech support to let them know about the problem I was having. They, of course, told me to check the fan and the flow of air. Then they had me check my BIOS version (of course I had the latest — I’m neurotic about having up-to-date software). After trying a few other things, they concluded that I needed a new motherboard. The guy on the phone started taking my information so I could send it back. I was excited. My computer would finally work! Then he said, “Actually, let me put you on hold.”
He came back a few minutes later to inform me that my warranty had expired last month and that he was sorry and had to transfer me to the out-of-warranty service department. Oh, and this was on a Saturday.
The out-of-warranty service department, of course, was closed.
Being that I am a pretty resourceful guy, I figured that I could try to solve this problem myself. I went to get thermal paste (you put it between the CPU and the cooling unit/fan in order to help the CPU stay cooler). I also raised my computer up using a slinky so that the bottom wasn’t touching my desk and so the fan was totally clear. This helped for a while.
Then the last few days Seattle got a little warmer. And now my computer is dying more frequently than ever.
I just called the out-of-warranty service department to see how much a new motherboard would cost. They said $499. I said for that price I could get a new computer. She said, “Yes, but it wouldn’t be Dell quality.” And I said (and trust me, I’m usually not an angry customer…), “I hope it’s not Dell quality. This is ridiculous. I’ve had it for less than a year and it’s basically unusable!”
I tried to somehow get them to work out a deal, but had no luck. The best she could offer was for me to send it in to “the depot” for $199 and they could maybe determine that it is a problem with the fan or adapter — which, I feel confident to say, is not the problem.
I explained to her that I purchased a Dell because of their reputation for good quality and whatnot. I never would’ve expected that a new computer would go bad so quickly. That didn’t help.
She, again, offered the “depot” option for $200, to which I said, no, that is half of a new computer, so what is the point. At that point she said there was nothing else she could do and we got off the phone.
I think I have two options to pursue:
What I really want out of the deal is a new notebook — this one, clearly, sucks. But if that isn’t possible, at least replacing the motherboard would be reasonable, I think.
I’m not very good with customer service stuff, so if anyone has advice on what I should say/do that would be awesome.
I’ve been trying to use the phrase “you all” or even “y’all” for quite a few years now, mostly because “you guys” is, while not sexist, gender insensitive? I don’t know. I just felt stupid saying, “What do you you guys think?” when none of the people I was talking to were guys.
That’s why I was excited when I found Are Y’all Enjoying this One? A ‘southernism’ we all know (via Metafilter). Although the article is more about the fact it’s a Southern phrase, I’m glad all the same that the word is getting more widely accepted.
I consider to be myself a pretty big Missy Elliott fan. I’ve purchased …So Addictive, Under Construction, and This Is Not a Test the days they were released. For Elliott’s latest, The Cookbook, the situation was the same. I got it on Tuesday. I now feel ready to comment on it.
First, I think Elliott’s best album is …So Addictive, followed by Supa Dupa Fly. I know that Under Construction was her best selling, and I did love a bunch of the songs, but it didn’t feel as surreal — it was more “old skool” and whatnot. Likewise, This Is Not a Test was rather disappointing. Of all the songs on it, I really only love “Pass That Dutch.” The songs “Pump It Up” and “Wake Up” are also good, but nothing spectacular. (Side note: from Under Construction I love “Gossip Folks,” “Work It,” “Play That Beat,” and “Back in the Day.”)
Second, I wrote a major paper (around 20 pages long, I think) about Missy Elliott for my Historical Perspectives in Writing and Rhetoric class. I used Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s theory of Signifyin(g) and Hélène Cixous’s ideas of women’s writing and writing the body to argue that Elliott’s music is a hybrid of the two ideas and represents a unique rhetoric that, I would imagine, is used by female rappers.
So yah, I’m a big fan and a nerd.
As for my thoughts about The Cookbook, two-days of listening to it still leaves me a little unsure. I have realized that I really don’t like Missy’s slower ballad-like or R&B-like songs. I much prefer her faster songs with rapping in them.
Instead of a proper review at this time, I feel safe to say that my favorite songs so far are: “Click Clack” (which features this rhyme: “click clack caught it back semi-automatic track drink a lot of Semalac shorty better fall back” — which I swear I’ve heard elsewhere but haven’t been able to track down), “Cant Stop,” “We Run This,” “Lose Control,” and “Irresistible Delicious.”
It looks like I like more songs from this album than her last two, so that is progress.
Overall, though, I miss the sci-fi elements that Elliott used to incorporate. And by “sci-fi,” I mean that very loosely and maybe more of a “surrealism” than anything else.
Nonetheless, it’s Missy, and I love her and think she’s a brilliant musician, so in the end I would for sure recommend The Cookbook.
For everyone (all 100,000 of you) who wanted more information on the song Genesis sings in Suicide Club, it’s called “Suicide Kiss.” You can download an MP3 here. Although the song is in Japanese, I found a translation of it (though I can’t figure out how to permalink to the post, damnit!!). I love that he references Luc Besson.
Time and time again the sky is blue.
And yet it’s strange how people
seem to always fall in love.An unfamiliar yellow dog…
… keeps grinning as it tears
us from the ones we love.Because the dead…
Because the dead…
Because the dead shine all night long.I want to die as beautifully
as Joan of Arc…
… inside a Bresson film.Lesson one, apply the shaving cream…
… and smile as you then
slowly slice away the heart.Because the dead…
Because the dead…
Because the dead shine all night long.Feel the warmth of the spring rain as
it gently moistens down a cheek…
… that’s streaked with dried up tears.A guileless boy but five years old
stares blankly in the face of death…
… while his heart is cut and torn away.