Nebraska (Sir)

Nebraska (Sir) - Bruce Springteen 1982-Columbia Records

I've always had some distance in my mind when listening to "the Boss".  No particular reason.  In the same way I had never fully listened to this album or read the lyrics until April 1st of this year, '21.  After listening closely I know why the "distance" was there, and a large part of me has shied away from diving into Bruce's dark pool. 

 

From start to finish NEBRASKA is backwoods hick despair, as in sad, depressing, lonely.  Unbelievable, and unbelievably distant from even my own dark experiences.  And I've had a few myself.

The first song reminded me of the film "Natural Born Killers".  And they became progressively darker after that.  Of course, there is a reason for that, as his subject matter was influenced by Flannery O'Connor's "A Good Man Is Hard To Find", along with the Terrence Mallick film "Badlands", and his own research into the 1958 killings by Charles Starkweather and girlfriend Caril.  That pair has become the stereotypical young renegades associated with other works besides Natural Born Killers and Badlands, a slew of films like "The Sadist", "Kalifornia", and "Starkweather", and other songs such as "Small Town" by John Mellencamp, and probably "Take the Money and Run" by Steve Miller Band. 

 

We could give Bruce a great deal of artistic credit here and say possibly that since the language is always in the 1st person (even when he's singing from the electric chair/gallows) he is actually portraying these points of view, totally personalizing them, acting them out, projecting.  But in channeling someone, we become them, as that's inferred, so therefore to your audience, the singer is the person, especially when the acting is good.

 

I found myself wanting to know, however, after several tracks, who this "Sir" is that he repeatedly addresses.  It made sense when his song character was in front of the judge, but then he does it quite often in other songs and consistently includes the address to "Sir" when he's being ironically apologetic.  You get the definite sense that he does NOT like this Sir.  His usage of the impersonal pronoun is not respectful, but blaming, in a backhanded way.  He is, without being direct, identifying for us, the audience, ANY authority.  One senses it could be God, if it weren't for the fact that he also backhandedly declares he is an atheist on the same album...ok, his narrative voice declares it.

We can be reasonably assured that his answer to the "Sir" question would be "corporate bosses", or anyone who owns anything, seeing as how he's a confirmed blue-collar communist, the real kind.  He's immensely popular with struggling life-forms, the bottom of the ladder, the subjects of his songs.  He often feigns having had their same experiences, identifying with them; hicks, wayfarers, factory workers, migrants, street people, drunkards.  

 

Jesus himself "identified" with people like that, so it could be seen as a virtue.  But the identification was one of association, and not necessarily like-mindedness.  Jesus continually drew people away from their lifestyle and asked them unabashedly to "follow me", not "pick up your gun and point it at the nearest rich target you can take down".   Or for that matter, any target, as that is an expression of your anger over being in a world simply filled with meanness and doom.  What we're likely missing here, as it is usually missed by those who perpetrate such chaos, is that they are contributing to the meanness and doom, and have become embodiments of it, extensions of it.  In taking that control, they are essentially admitting they are controlled by the very thing they hate.  It's a vicious Catch-22.

 

This also reminds me of a moment in the TV series "The Expanse", wherein the captain is challenged by a crew member with this rhetorical question: "You know what your problem is?  You think that just because someone is the underdog that they're also the good guy". 

 

I may not give the album another listen, but I am certainly going to do some more research into Bruce's historic motivations, and I'll be reading the lyrics again.  Poetry and prose both reveal things after more than one round.

- Agitatus

The One

Netflix - Season 1 -  2021 - TV-MA

Several obvious problems in logic can spoil an otherwise very effective show. 

1.  The opening of the show drops us into the middle of the story and conflict without very much contextual preparation.  They’ve done a good job of telling the backstory sprinkled throughout, yes, and it’s clear why the service that The One Company provides is compelling, but the emphasis on the negative effects, compounded by the disaster waiting to happen underneath of a murder and coverup almost seems too soon. We are way deep inside of a plot and coverup story line that seems like we should be watching Season 2 instead of getting established.  I believe the show is assuming we’ve completely bought into the idea a bit early. 

 

2. One of the more obvious flaws of The One becomes evident about the middle of the 2nd episode.  We are following several threads of relationships that have married people obtaining DNA matches from "The One" company.  The program and acceptance for getting a match should have been limited to SINGLES ONLY.  Then there wouldn’t be all this heartbreak.  It seems funny to me, actually very obvious, that the primary method for bringing tension into the story is over-emphasizing married couples at the expense of the large number of singles that would likely snap this service up like crazy. We hardly meet any.  They are not in any way a significant part of the plot. 

Credit goes to the opening sequence however in establishing the overarching conflict right away, visually especially.  The very first shot of the show is a deep-sea diver finding a body behind a rusted ship panel.  Then immediately after a convincing speech to the public about The One, Rebecca walks out, and the body bag of the dead person found underwater is opened and closed again by a police person.  Gruesome.  

3. Peripheral themes abound, but most notably LGBTQ expectations and marital androgyny are seen as status quo, and like the over-emphasis on marital involvement in The One program, so are the saturation and normalcy levels of queer presence.  The question most people should have after so many TV series of this nature is, “Are there now an overabundance of “different” people than what could be considered “normal”?”  If I were an alien that learned earth’s languages and its topography and sociology enough to watch this and other television shows as examples of what human behavior is really like, I’d be inclined to say, “People from earth certainly are diverse sexually and they have expanded their consciousness of that into an almost asexual state of affairs, even though the older generation it would seem still have some outlying but largely insignificant qualms about it.”  - memo to space central, planet QuardX8 (a planet where all humanoid life is completely amalgamated sexually and asexual reproduction and gestation are 100% across their “species").  

I am only on episode 3 at this time, but I want to make a prediction about what a casual audience might say about this show, after the last episode... and it is an either/or.  I believe what we’re seeing is 1.  “the potential for better science, if it weren’t in the hands of such dishonest and immoral people”.  In other words, the science is real, but being handled the wrong way, and should probably not be privatized, but made available as a right, and an expectation.  I could be wrong, but it seems that it may be this way.  Or 2. "Of course the science is correct, how can it not be?  But the real point is that something this delicate should never be let out of its cage until studies can be done on the real effects, and definitely should be relegated to singles". 

 

So…don’t mess with DNA until we’re truly ready for it".  BUT...in EITHER scenario, because of the juxtaposition of the science of DNA leading to "inevitability", and the mixed, or androgynous nature of many of the key relationships, it is ex post facto of how the latter presumes the former.

Another peripheral theme that keeps cropping up in the form of a question is about the integrity of human relationships.  Quite a few times during these first 2 episodes the phrase similar to, “Was it Love, or was it just sex?” comes into play, and examples of both kinds of relationships are juxtaposed in the story.  At least that’s an honestly good theme, but of course, which gender is not the concern in the subtext of this series. 

 

We largely replace our logic and thinking when undertaking a film, TV series, and even a book. It's called "suspension of disbelief", and most of us, frankly, have a memorized path to that switch, on autopilot.  We normally don’t really want to find that kind of stuff out...problems with logic, or the story, making the connections... because it can spoil the fun.  A consistent question of some of my friends when I was in Columbia College Film School was,  “Doesn’t knowing all that stuff kind of…uh, spoil the movie?”  I've not found it that way. But on the other hand a few questions come up regarding the "fun".  Is it possible that spoiling the fun might be good for us?  Like vegetables instead of cake?  I say you can still have your cake, but vegetables are a must in any case.  And isn't the problem with being on autopilot essentially just that...that someone else is driving then?  When it comes to morality, I want a completely faithful Chauffeur driving my car, not just any Uber Driver.  I guess the most immediate solution for anyone is: watch, enjoy (eat your cake, fine), but make sure you've had your vegetables, and always refer to your faithful Chauffeur.  For those who believe that they do not have a Driver....why are you reading this?

  

 

Approach with skeptical caution being drawn into an argument you were not thinking about having.  I think that’s my new “review” motto.

- Agitatus

Me, Myself, and the Dying Indecision

2021, today actually

NR- 62 Yrs 89 dys 5 hrs

I've been here many times before.  I'be been blogging about film and music and "k"ulture and America and faith and logic and mystery and love and...ok mostly film, true.

I'm tired.  This blog has been around 17 years out of the above 62+.

If you have enjoyed my comments, articles, film, book or music reviews, and you think they have actually added to your life, or added to the world's body of knowledge in such a way that actually makes a difference, then please write me a note and tell me.  I'd love to hear it.  ...... preturnatural1@gmail.com

I almost never hear from anyone except possibly people that I know, and only if I prod them, normally, and I'm not offended, really.  But there have been 10,437 page views to this day, and approximately 5 comments.  It's quite possible that my articles are SO good, so convincing in fact that it leaves people speechless.  I have my doubts.  I'm more concerned that I've left people possibly bored, intimidated and angry, or possibly thumped you all with diction that is too veiled to really do any earthly good.  Or heavenly for that matter.

I'm not BORED myself, oh no...I'm simply trying to decide if this blog should continue to be a point of reference in my life in which I continue to pour time and effort and real energy into without seeing any other benefit other than something equivalent to a journal.  I have one of those.  I've written in it and read it to myself sometimes to see how far I've come along in my attitudes or ideas, always a bit embarrassed at my own language or naiveté or brash misrepresentations to myself.  Well, at least those are only for myself.  THIS however is public knowledge, so I do regularly scour it for error, faux pas, or your general run-of-the-mill outright blasphemy.

I have considered signing off by making one of those dreaded, painfully subjective "lists" of my top 100 favorite films of all time, the likes of which I know all of you are just simply dying to read.

But seriously, I don't find that much at fault in most of this work I've done.  I just have other pursuits to manage that are bringing more rewards.  BUT, I am giving this up with some reluctance, I guess more because of how long I've been in the habit of doing it, rather than if it's really something effectual.

So....YOU CAN CAST YOUR VOTE FOR "PLEASE AGITATUS, PLEASE KEEP WRITING, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN READING THIS BLOG FOR YEARS, ALL ALONG, AND I'VE FAILED TO EVER SAY SOMETHING, I'M SORRY!!!   

I'LL POST A COMMENT NOW AND THEN TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAS MEANT TO ME!!"

Write to this address: preturnatural1@gmail.com

...or conversely, just remain silent and I'll be the judge of whether I continue or not.    Thank you one and all, whoever the all is.

- Agitatus

I Care a Lot

Home Invasion, the suit and tie kind.

I Care a Lot 2019  R - 106 min

If you could condense Breaking Bad into less than 2 hours, you'd get this, only the female version, and a very different kind of "drug"...money.  $$   

Our main character, Marla, is the most savvy and ruthless kind of schemer to be found.  She is in a Lesbian relationship with a partner in "legal" crime...trafficking in the elderly right in front of the legal system, preying on outliers that do not have good family protection.  The problem with one of her clients?  The lady has quite a bit of family protection.  The cast includes Dianne Wiest, Peter Dinklage, Chris Messina, and Eliza Gonzales, along with other supporting roles, all incredibly well-defined characters, a result again of...good casting.

The acting is brilliant, and so is the edit on this one, very fast paced and exciting with some adrenaline inducing scenes.  There is an air of the comic about this, the dark side, but the dark side overwhelms the comic fairly quickly, so it's just drama for the most part.  And the reason I cite Breaking Bad here is because oddly enough, as evil and menacing a person as our protagonist is, there is a point where you find yourself rooting for her and wanting to protect her, because dang it, there is someone/thing more evil than she is!  And you "feel" for her girlfriend as well.

No spoilers here of course, but you do have to take care to watch out who you're taking care to watch out for....as a way of putting it.

Yet we have another one to put in the Girl/Girl category bin, which is growing all the time.  Fascination has never been higher with lesbians, love between same-sex partners, and coupled with authoritative female dictatorshi....uh, I mean leadership, while simultaneously placing men in roles of high vulnerability, cliche' weaknesses and "good old boy" politics and law (such as we see from the judge in particular in this film).  It's like a gender turkey shoot out here.

So "I Care a Lot", while it may have some kind of surface motivation of another expose on the corrupt capitalist system we live in, is a Venus Flytrap of a film, injecting us with more liberal line-towing.  As per usual...great film, horrible inner core.

The "R" rating means restricted, of which I've been thinking lately, that much like they have "R"ed light districts in Europe, maybe we should have "R" film districts that you have to go to in order to view films like these, instead of on Netflix where we all know our teenagers and vulnerable minds go at night when unsupervised and snicker under their blankets at cheddar like this.  I'm not really a "star" person, but if pressed, I'd have to give this 4.5 for quality of filmmaking, and 0 for moral cleanliness.

- Agitatus

Orphan Black

AmzPrime 2013  TV-MA

The label "TV-MA" fits this demi-drama ONLY with regards to the displays of visual material and vocabulary, but it definitely does NOT mean "MATURITY".  This is yet another DNA-Drama that is attempting to manufacture a fiction based on the "what if" scenario of the production of multiple clones and distributing them throughout a populace, as some sort of experiment, most likely to do with the comparison/contrast of their lives.  Therefore in reality this is an exposition on the nature/nurture debate, and it is obviously falling heavily on the side of nurture, while DNA-based research proponents would love nothing more than to prove that science wins and the nature of the molecule would reign supreme over that which is "learned". 

The problem with this series...well, there are many actually...is that there is a continual barrage of insistent LGBtQ+++ Alphabet Soup incursion that is not only distracting and annoying, but completely unnecessary, and an obvious plant by the writers of said show.   As in the main character with this foil...aka one homosexual friend that consistently and blazingly pre-dominates every single episode with his intrusion and near comical cliche' homosexuality.

The latest, and I have to say the last, episode that I will be watching of this juvenile creation, Ep. 3 of Season 1, had the homosexual friend "babysit", in which case the end resulted in both children being found by the responsible adult female in a state of cross-dressed clothing, the boy dressed in a nightclub dress complete with beads and makeup, and the little girl in a dad-shirt, tie, and a man-hat.

It does not take one long to understand exactly where this series is intending us to go, manipulated into believing that human biology and our future lies in the cellular selection of "the fittest" and the random selection of genetic material that will supposedly dictate our identification, and will of course include our tolerance of the same as acceptable and "normalized". 

The show has a definite agenda that is easy enough to see.  It took me 2.5 episodes to see it coming.

This reviewer is also without any need to dive further as well into the dramatic drawbacks of the show which depend on the tension between the protagonist and said homosexual friend, who consistently bicker over every step she is taking in her journey, and which he is privy to, as is necessary when being a "conscience" that must bring the dilemma to the surface because honestly, there would be no other way to hook us... the audience... into said drama without it.  In other words, the "foil" is also the audience's foil.  Ok, it's a clever writer's trick, and one that steadfastly escapes those who are regularly addicted to soap operas.

Negative 5 stars, if that's possible.  Please do not waste your time.

- Agitatus

The Professor and the Madman

The Professor and the Madman 2019

TV-14 - 124 min

Mel Gibson didn't have to wear a kilt for this one, but he brought back the accent that was only a shade away from the Scottish used in Braveheart.  

His character here, the Professor James Murray, was credited with establishing the beginnings and methodology behind the Oxford English Dictionary, which ended up in 12 volumes, 415 thousand words, and 1.8 million illustrative quotations.  And he did it of course with the help of a small army of English-speaking people, and others of some fairly intellectual, yet flawed origin, and amid controversy over the same.  He did not see the end of the dictionary as it was finished long after he had passed away, but it seems that finishing it was no longer then a part of his personal goal.

This story is not just another historical recall, but an intimate look at faith, hope, and love, and the lasting qualities that abide in us in the current life, and that words never completely capture.  This is a beautifully written piece that is fleshed out in a spectacular and believable way.  What else should we expect with Mel Gibson and Sean Penn in the major roles, and surrounded with the likes of Natalie Dormer, Eddie Marsan, and Steve Coogan, faces familiar from so many other successful roles, and very nicely cast here.  I don't believe that the role that Jennifer Ehle played as the professor's wife was given enough space, or possibly not directed as well as she could have been, but she did pull off the "stoic" part without a flinch.  But of course a large part of her supporting character in this was in fact supposed to be confluenced.  The casting and acting made this really work.

Without spoiling it, I'll just say that though the story takes quite a few unexpected turns, and provides high drama, and leads us down a path to a very satisfactory conclusion,  it shakes the balance of the tension of hero/villain and turns that attention where the real villains lie in that English time period, and without some overwrought sense of agenda or any forced affectations.  Here I am using words that will likely be challenged by the Oxford dictionary if I'm not careful.  Affectations....I should look that up to find out it's origin!

So in any case, put this one on your list if you like great personal drama, history, a big dose of romance floating around in it, family ties and challenges, and humanity in general.   Great film.

- Agitatus