Review: World's Greatest Dad

I'll be honest: I happened upon this film while looking up Robin Williams, and I saw it because he was in it. "A critically-acclaimed film?! By Robin Williams?! Since when? 1986? Ooh, and it sounds interesting." It's a weird thing I have: I find an actor I like, avoid everything they do that's supposed to suck (hey--it usually does!), and try to check out stuff of theirs I hear good things about. On a related note, I've listened to Eminem's first three albums--ONLY his first three albums--and am considering picking up his newest album, because the first single is cool and he admits that his last album wasn't that great in it. Thankfully, I was certainly right about this film being interesting.

Directed by Bobcat Goldthwait (an actor from Police Academy), World's Greatest Dad is a black comedy starring Williams as Lance Clayton, a washed-up writer who wanted to be big and famous so he could help people through the hardships of life--and get money and women, natch. However, nothing he made ever got published (except for a few greeting cards), and he became a high-school poetry teacher instead. But that, like just about everything else in his life, isn't going well, either. His girlfriend Claire (Alexie Gilmore) won't publicly acknowledge their relationship, and seems to be spending a lot of time with the much-more-successful Creative Writing teacher, Mike (Henry Simmons).

I need a whole new paragraph to address Lance's son, Kyle, memorably played by Daryl Sabara. Kyle doesn't like music--any music--claiming that it's "for fags". He doesn't like film, either--that's for "art-fags". He's pushed around at school, but he's very standoffish and certainly isn't trying to be liked. His only friend is Andrew (Evan Martin), and considering how different and respectful he is, it's possible the two hang out from a mutual desire to be away from Andrew's alcoholic mom. Really, the greatest depth in Kyle's character comes from his diverse and often-bizzare interest in porn and masturbation. It's really the only thing he treats with respect--he doesn't even have a real-world girlfriend, nor, it seems, has he ever--and he spends his time talking about vaginas, and the things he would do with them. After getting into a fight at school, the principal says Kyle will be transferred to a special-needs school if his grades don't pick up. Lance calls his son a douchebag at one point in the film, but that really doesn't do it justice. I turned to mom at one point and said "Well, if he isn't just the most dislikeable character I've ever seen..." Selfish, twisted, and apparently untalented, watching a scene with Kyle is a wince-filled experience.

This all serves to make the film's twist even more shocking--and amusing. I won't spoil it for you--check the internet, if you must know--but something happens making it possible for Lance to attain everything he's ever wanted. His writing becomes famous, beloved, and helpful; he becomes closer to his girlfriend (more sex! Ditching the other guy!); and his son becomes popular and well-liked for the first time. All Lance has to do is deal with how he gets it all.

The film is a shocking, memorable look at a disfunctional family, one person's desire for fame, and the effect it can have on one's personal relationships. The film is often funny, powerful and eyebrow-raising, often in the same scene. This is one of those independent films that gets released every year to some acclaim and falls under the radar. Thank goodness Robin Williams had the good taste to star in this one, as it's a dark, risky and truly memorable film. It comes recommended to you all, and I'm glad I have a blog with which to share things I find like this.

Hopefully, Eminem will star in some future hidden gems, too.

Found on the Internet: Slap Chop Rap

I remember watching a TV program with mom when the Slap Chop commercial came on. My face lit up. It's Vince! With Slap Chop! Am I going to love his nuts? (That will make non-gay sense in a minute, promise.) Mom immediately left the room. "It's on every ten minutes!" I don't know about that, but after seeing this legend remix of the song, happening upon the source material live was like having Santa Claus just walk across your room when you so desperately want to believe.
This video was not so much "found" as "introduced"; thanks to Tristan for the tip. It got stuck in my head, too.
This had to be shared, if you haven't seen it already. It's one of the best commercial parodies/fitting song remixes I've ever seen. Slim pickings, admittedly, but this is high-quality; I've had this stuck in my head quite a bit.



Thought on the video:
-Stop having boring tuna. I would emphasize the tuna portion of that statement, but I suppose Vince would emphasize the latter.
-Auto-tune ain't all bad.
-I don't mind salad-making, really.
-This is an expert use of musical pauses and interesting effects. Use of the slapping noises in the videos to work with the the 80's-style rap beat was brilliant; emphasizing the lyrics by speeding up the video at parts and letting him go on "solos" (?) was a nice touch.
-The random black people at the middle are random, but I approve.
-Saying "you're gonna love my nuts" in any public scenario is always doomed to mockery and weird looks. (See the paragraph above.) Consequently, it is perfect for the internet. (see paragraph...actually, don't).
-The old lady at the end is awesome, period.

By the way, I don't encourage you to buy the Slap Chop. It looks like the kind of crap they sell on late-night infomercials, offering things like a bonus cheese grater to grab your attention.

Why people hate Nickelback

One day, I would like to have a chat with the the guy who reviews a Nickelback album, fills his review with the most comical, vitrolic hate...and gives the album a 4 out of 10.
"Really? A 4? That's not too bad."
"But you don't understand how indescribably...average...these guys are!"
"Uh huh."
"They're despicably mediocre."
"That doesn't sound so bad, really."
"I-It's not! Um...but they're everywhere!"

And so we reach the crux of the matter. Throughout my life, I can safetly say that I have listened to at least 20 hours of Nickelback. I can hear the band everywhere. I assume that the same can be said of many or most of my readers: they're one of the best-selling music acts of the last decade, one of the most-played groups on radio--in short, they are really well-known and expertly-promoted.

"Wow!" I can just hear some culture theorist in the future saying. "They must have really liked this group!" To which a better-informed culture theorist would say "Well...meh. The general consensus was, 'they have that one good song'..."
If you had never heard a Nickelback song before and just happened to hear one of their singles playing in a bar one day, you'd probably think it's okay, if you thought about it at all. Not that great, but average: sometimes worse, sometimes better. But we hear Nickelback on a pretty regular basis, and that's where it comes from.

It seems weird that a whole generation of people are either apathetic towards this band, or disproportionately hateful towards them. (I suppose there are fans on the opposite end, too: people who legitimately enjoy the band's music, and would defend its quality. There must be a great number of these people, if sales are any indication--but I have yet to meet one of them. I have seen places on the internet suggesting that an army of out-of-touch grandmothers are buying Nickelback albums for their 'hip' young grandchildren, but I'm certain that there are a number of people who like the music itself, too.) Aside from really, really solid promotion from their labels--and, if you want to get technical, the consolidation of radio stations into 5ish really big companies, allowing the same song to be played up and down the country--I attribute this to the fact that we expect more of the music we're exposed to. If a band is one of the most popular acts of the decade, and contains some of the most well-known songs in history, you'd expect them to be pretty good, too. It's a little subjective at this point, but the fact is that most people don't think Nickelback are that great. (I'll throw the Nickelback fans in my readership a bone here: sure, the band might sound pretty good. But you gotta understand: they just don't sound like one of the greatest bands in the world. And maybe they should be.)

And you'd expect a band that is played on radio constantly to be rather good. But it's understood surprisingly widely that they're not. You can see the same thing, on a smaller scale, with any other artist that happens to be really popular but makes music considered to be only above-average, if that. Like, I just searched "I hate miley cyrus" on Google, and it got just shy of 4.7 million hits. What did she ever do to you people?! Make average to above-average music? (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=I%20hate%20miley%20cyrus&meta=)

No. She made such music, and we were forced to listen to it everywhere we go. And given that the music (hers; Nickelback's; hell, even something more well-liked like The Beatles) will always be disliked by someone, the question will be begged: why are my ears being invaded over and over by this group/artist without my consent? And that is what causes the dissent. I went to a party in downtown Toronto last year featuring 3 bands, and the third band sucked; my friend and I left. This is the second time in the last year I've thought about the band since then--but if I heard the group as often as I hear Nickelback, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have thought more about them than that. When you hear a band over and over that you don't like (much), it will likely seem unnatural, and annoy you. And that's why every popular band on the planet has a list of detractors to match its fans.

(Looks around university dorm room) *SIGH* My life is so hard... )_:

I'm getting the sense that if you dropped me anywhere in the world, I'd be unhappy. Chillin' in Indonesia? Unhappy. In the North Pole wit' my main man Claus? Unhappy. Rockin' in China with endless free movies? Unhappy.
The thing is, I want more. Maybe it's a human thing, but for myself at least I'm always trying to improve, and that includes my situation in life. I want not only to do better, but to be somewhere better, too. Why not?, I figuire. It's my life. I deserve the best. If I don't say that, no one will.
The trouble is in the way I motivate myself: guilt. How come you didn't do homework tonight? Now you'll have to cram it all in tomorrow. And Counter-Strike is a terrible video game! Why are you still playing that? Remember, you don't just have that assignment to do, but you should work on your Philosophy paper, too. And those readings for English next week. And did you make time to hang out with friends? I think all of that, and I prioritize all the things I have to do--but then, try as I might to break it into pieces, the number and scale of my tasks daunt me and I just want to play some more of that Counter-Strike. (Don't play the game, if you can avoid it.)
I've got to keep everything in context, though. What reason do I have to be sad? I've got food--hell, I've got plenty of food. I've got a nice room, a family that loves me, a caring living environment (for the most part), good friends, and a solid postsecondary education. Why complain? I shall try to remember all of this in the future: you can always be doing more with your life, but you must keep in mind the good things you have as you chase the other things you want. Remember that things are dandy right now.
Motivation, then, becomes a problem. I motivate myself with guilt, which is weird, but it gets me places. When I rest on my laurels for a few days and just relax, I find myself falling behind: things I want to do (but usually don't) pile up, deadlines loom closer before I start to work. It seems some days that if I didn't have stress, I wouldn't get much of anything done. Finding that balance between a drive to succeed and perfectionism is a challenge, and I haven't found it yet.
Well, I've got some assignments to do now; I'll go and do what makes me feel best about them: get them finished.
(image source: http://www.pwnem.com/t-buddypoke-game-characters)

Personal stuff

Hello, all. I'm just signaling a bit of a new direction for my blog.

Occasionally, I'll think of things that are completely separate from personal experience that I'd like to talk about. Ideas. Comments on pop culture. Philosophy. This has been the focus of my blog. But this has been rather challenging to keep up, as most of the stuff I think about is tied to my life--what can I say, I'm a self-centred guy.

From now on, expect more posts to be on my life and times. Consider this an alternative to posting notes on Facebook or sending massive e-mails. Just come and check my content when I post something new, and you'll see what I'm up to. I won't share everything--I'm sorry, internet, but some of your members are creepy--but I'll give you the gist, and maybe I'll talk more about this stuff in person.

I'll have to send out an e-mail to my core constituents--erm, family--again. That way, they'll know that I've written since that one week 2 years ago when I e-mailed them about it.

Peace,
--Aaron

Why I hate 2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey is my least favourite film of all time. I don't think I've finished a movie feeling angered--as if I'd wasted my time--before or since. A friend of mine was really shocked to hear this, so I thought I'd write about it.
First off, I think 2001 is a bad film; though I feel it's quite awful, I know it did some things well, and featured some cutting-edge direction. It has an innovative film score, groundbreaking special effects, and that bit 3/4 of the way through the film with HAL 3000 is fascinating. In this way, I suppose I see why the film is so well-liked.

The problem is, 2001 is dreadfully boring and pointless. Let's start with boring: almost every scene in the film is stretched far longer than it needs to be to get its point across. I remember in particular one scene where a space shuttle was simply flying across the moon; to illustrate that, Kubrick (the director) shot a scene where a shuttle flies slowly across a barren moonscape--FOR OVER 20 SECONDS. I don't know how long it was exactly, but it was at least that long, and I got the message easily, and long before that 20 seconds was up. (The message? "Some people are travelling across the moon in a shuttle." There wasn't much moon scenery to note.) Worse, the climax of the film is 20 minutes (minutes!) of flashing lights. What purpose does that serve? 3 minutes into that "scene", I think I got the picture. There are many, many scenes like this--even the few scenes with dialogue in the film are spoken slowly and dryly. sometimes I wish Michael Bay would be around to direct this thing, because at least he'd have the decency to blow something up.

I suppose a boring film would be all well and fine if it had a good point to make about something, and made it well. 2001: A Space Odyssey does neither of those things. The film has a lot of interesting imagery, recurring symbols, etc.: giant black monoliths appearing at different points in space and time, for example. but the film is so vague and indefinite so often that you can't connect the odd images with anything real. There are no clear answers in this film, which means the audience has to slog through this movie only to find that those slow, symbolism-heavy scenes don't have anything to say.

My complaint with the film, then, is that it fails to entertain. It has nothing to say: the film asks you to sit through 2 1/2 hours of slow-moving drama, and then has the indecency to demand that you decide the film's meaning for yourself. That might sound shallow, but a boring film without meaning fails to satisfy any purpose as a film. Sure, the rich imagery will have appeal to some--but then, perhaps the book version would be better. You could read that at any pace you like, and I hear the book is clearer, too.

Recent thoughts

Well, I've been learning a lot of interesting stuff at school, and I thought I'd touch on a few things briefly. If there's enough interest, I'll explain these things in more detail down the road:

-So yeah, humans might not have character traits. In my moral psychology class, we learned that if you take a person and put them through tests to see if they're courageous, they will only be consistent in making courageous or timid actions 10%-20% of the time. That's pretty inconsistent! That's why some people (situationists) say that people are moral or immoral based on the situations they are brought up in.
-So, I have like 3 philosophy classes that are getting all huffy over the idea that all of our actions are determined. The idea is, every act we do is based on our own previous actions and the environment in which we were raised to the extent that any decision we make, we were determined to make. That is to say, if you're deciding whether to go to Western University or Ottawa University and you have more reasons to pick Ottawa University, you will pick Ottawa University. (Sorry, Western. I hear you're a fine school.)
This doesn't bug me, to be honest. When I was a kid, I used to think that if you had an epic computer and were to input all the information about life in the universe, you could predict everything that happens next. (Apparently, that was actually a rather famous concept in the 19th century; quantum physics would dispel a lot of this with its randomness, but there's not enough randomness to say that determinism doesn't work for practical purposes.)
-I learned how to propertly use a urinal! Yay!!!ONE!
-The reason people are bugging about determinism is that if everything in the world, including our actions, are determined, then some infer that we don't have free will! that's a pretty big issue, I hear. I think it's silly, though: if I were to jump in a pool and someone yelled "you were determined to do that! You were always going to do that!" at me, I'd be like, "So? It's not like there was anything stopping me."
-Citizen Kane is an awesome film. It lived up to the massive wall of hype.
-People are hypocrites. That is to say, if you tell someone that everything in a world is determined, but then tell them some violent, ruthless revenge story and ask if the criminal was fully responsible for his actions, most people will say yes; if you just straight-up ask "is a person in this world responsible for his or her actions?", most people will say no. And if you ask the people who said 'yes' a few weeks later why they chose an apparently-contradictory position, about 50% will stick with 'yes' and 50% will switch to no. I thought it was funny when I was reading that study that people would go into it thinking 'people will say that a person is determined with bare facts, but will be swayed by emotion when told a powerful story. In other words, people are dumb.' And then I read the rest of the article.
-I'm in a Film Music class, which is teaching me the history of early film. It's a fascinating subject--did you know Thomas Edison was a monopolistic b------? It's true! And we watch a lot of cool movies, like The Jazz Singer, the first movie ever with sound, and Psycho, the original (HITCHC--- ROCKS!)
Also, I've still been showing movies on my floor at residence. Every weekend, I show a movie in the common room, and every weekend, 0-4 people show up. Aside from the fact that no one's coming, that's going pretty well. That IS an important fact, though.