The concept of a Brazilian steakhouse was unknown to me until not too long ago when a friend of mine mentioned the restaurant, Fogo de Chao. While Brazilian steakhouses are not actually ‘new,’ the idea of an all you can eat meat buffet seemed like something I definitely should have been notified about years ago. Chicago is home to three such Brazilian steakhouses: Brazzaz, Texas de Brazil, and Fogo de Chao.
On a recent Friday evening, I was invited to Fogo de Chao for a late-night meal, compliments of a good friend’s dad visiting from out of town. I mention this only because Fogo de Chao, and the two similar Brazilian establishments in this city, is far too expensive for my own casual dining experience. This restaurant is oriented towards special occasions or big parties given buffet plates cost nearly $50 a person. The one upside is the lunch buffet served daily for around $35 a plate.
Upon entering Fogo de Chao, one immediately notices the high ceilings, accommodating and friendly wait-staff, and comfortable atmosphere. I sat down and ordered a Tanqueray and Tonic, which was delivered promptly, and with the first sip I breathed a sigh of relief. Now THAT’S how a T&T is supposed to taste. The waiter returned to clear up any questions our table had regarding rules to this South American smorgasbord.
The first course consisted of an elegant salad bar filled to the brim with spreads, pastas, cheeses, and a variety of cured meats. Since I had heard about this place before, I was warned to go lightly on the salad bar because the real treat was still yet to come. I walked around the salad bar admiring the bright colors and exotic dishes. I decided on some butter lettuce topped with carrots, cucumbers and Italian dressing. I was determined to save as much room as I could for beef induced coma that was soon to follow.
I was not disappointed. We had our fill of the salad bar so it was on to the main course. Each person at the table is given a poker chip of sorts with red on one side, and green on the other. It’s pretty simple at this point. Flip the chip from red to green when you want to sample the various meats offered at Fogo de Chao. After you’ve acquired an adequate assortment of meats just flip the card back to red and you can enjoy your spoils in peace. This back and forth mentality reminded me of a game of ‘red-light, green-light,’ as I kept trying to see how fast the server would arrive once I flipped the chip to green.
The selection of meats is extensive, but most center on one of Brazil’s biggest exports, beef. Picanna, or what the servers called, ‘Brazilian Beef’ was the first cut I sampled. It was exceptional. Medium-rare with a marinade of just sea salt and garlic. No sooner had I finished my piece of steak than I was bombarded on all sides with skewers of meat. At first I was fairly intimidated by the huge swords of Alcatra, (top sirloin) Beef Ancho, (Prime Rib-Eye) and Filet Mingon, but I quickly said yes to each. So began my nearly hour-long battle with some of the most succulent red meat I had ever eaten.
As you may have gathered already, vegetarians will find little to appreciate when surrounded by smoldering carcasses as the aroma of bar-b-que permeates the air. Thankfully there was some diversity in types of meat as the night went on though. I was particularly fond of the chicken thighs, which fell off the bone, but was left fairly dissatisfied after trying the lamb chops. They were overcooked and tasted as if they had been dipped into salt brine prior to being served.
I continued to flip from red to green, anxious to try as many different kinds of meat as possible. Towards the middle of the meal, my eyes wandered towards the mashed potatoes waiting on the table, untouched. They were garnished with a paprika, cheese, chive topping. I took one bite and immediately found myself reaching for another. The creaminess and bite of these potatoes was so potent I found myself coming back to them throughout the meal, even after I convinced myself I was full. Equally pleasing were the deep-fried polenta and pan-seared bananas oozing with sugary syrup.
The evening began to wind down and everyone at the table looked ready to pass out. Desert was skipped because no one knew how to fit anymore sustenance down our gullets, but a strong Bailey’s and coffee still managed to make an appearances. I was left impressed by the wait-staff, swift with the drink orders and ready to supply a new plate if the remains of the fallen meat piled too high. There are no doggie bags supplied at Fogo de Chao, so make sure to get your fill. Don’t rush though, remember it is a buffet so you can stay until they kick you out, or die of a heart attack. Whichever comes first.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Block Party
Dave Chappelle’s Block Party is an intimate look into the musical influences that have shaped who this comedian is today. Filmed over the summer of 2008, Block Party follows Dave from his roots in a rural Ohio town to the streets of Brooklyn, New York for the September 18, 2004 block party event. The film is directed by French director Michel Gondry, known for artistic movies including 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep (2006).
Block Party, released in March of 2006, is not merely a documentary of this concert event though; it is a reflection of the pressure placed on Chappelle following the success of his short-lived Comedy Central television program, Chappelle’s Show. Between the time this movie was filmed, and finally released, Dave Chappelle refused a $50 million contract extension to continue his popular show and disappeared to South Africa. Similarly, at this time in the United States several events took place that altered the way many Americans thought about race and politics. First, George Bush was elected president of the United States of his second term in late 2004 sparking uproars around the country of a continuation of the status quo. Second, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana in August 2005, leading to serious questions about the U.S. government’s reaction to this devastating natural disaster.
On the surface, Block Party is a documentary of a once in a lifetime concert organized by Dave Chappelle, featuring his favorite musical acts. Performers include; Dead Prez, The Roots, Kanye West, Common, Talib Kweli, Jill Scott, Mos Def, Erykah Badu, and The Fugees. Filmed at the corner of Quincy Street and Downing Street in Brooklyn, New York, Chappelle tried to keep the location of this performance a secret as long as possible. You find out later in the documentary that the site of the block party was leaked through the Internet prior to the actual filming and in turn the news spread like wildfire through the masses. My favorite performances were the Dead Prez anthem ‘Hip-Hop,’ and Kanye West’s ‘Jesus Walks,’ accompanied by the full Central State University marching band. Wyclef John’s short backstage performance of ‘If I were President,’ was another powerful piece of music featured in this documentary.
Block Party was filmed behind the backdrop of the ‘Broken Angel House,’ in Brooklyn. This is an extremely unique experience because prior to the actual performances, Chappelle introduces the audience to the owners of this modern day M. C. Escher house. This unfinished mass of architecture provides a haunting backdrop to the concert. The owners are eccentric, claiming to have magical powers, yet are both honored to have their home be the site of this documentary even if they are not fans of hip-hop music. Nearby the site of the block party is the day care center where the Notorious B.I.G. attended. This additional scene shows that the heart of the hip-hop movement occurred nearby and displays the pride of so many African Americans who are aware that the roots of this musical styling all happened in their back yards.
Dave Chappelle is known for his racially charged comedy routines, which often point out stereotype of all creeds in the hope to make light of how ridiculous racism is not only in the United States, but around the world as well. A telling example of this occurs as Chappelle walks throughout his hometown in Ohio, passing out Willy Wonka-esque ‘golden ticket’s for those folks lucky enough to be invited to the block party. While he does give several tickets to ‘African-Americans’ in his town, he also dolls out a few passes to more or less elderly white people in the community. There reaction, and willingness to travel out of their element to the middle of Brooklyn, New York surprised me, but had me smiling after seeing their gratitude towards their hometown celebrity.
During his stint on Chappelle’s Show, Comedy Central realized the popularity the comedian had established using his brash, sometimes offense style of entertainment. Following this success, the network started asking for more, as is usually the case in this situation. For Chappelle though, this meant pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and appropriate from an artistic standpoint. Comedy Central more or less pigeonholed Chappelle into acting a certain way on his show. Block Party was his attempt to show people there’s more to him than offensive racist humor. After viewing the film, it’s apparent that Chappelle is a laid-back guy, who sometimes seems uncomfortable being the center of attention. He is genuinely humbled throughout this film every time he introduces a famous musician or celebrity because you know these people are his idols.
The grittiness of Block Party comes through due in part to the overcast cloudy skies and rain that blanket the crowd and performers during the concert. Nothing was going to prevent Dave Chappelle from having the concert he always wanted to see come to fruition, even Mother Nature. Throughout the documentary, you get to see a side of Dave Chappelle many people never do apart form his roles in movies like Half-Baked and Undercover Brother, or his appearances on television. At one point in the film, Chappelle is quoted as saying, “Not every part of you is for sale,” in reference to the microscope that most celebrities are put under following success. Block Party was less about Dave Chappelle, and more about bringing something to fans that he could never have done without the mass exposure he received leading up to the film’s development and final release. That’s not to say there are not moments throughout the film that don’t show Chappelle’s comedy genius shining, but this was really about something more than comedy.
Block Party succeeds on many different levels. The incorporation of artistic and powerful cinematography, musical performances, and comedy provide an enjoyable viewing experience. Unfortunately, being a big fan of Dave Chappelle’s comedy, I was hoping to see more of him unleashed behind the camera. This was not the case though, as the last thirty plus minutes barely even contained more than a few segments featuring the comedian. In the end, I would recommend this documentary to anyone. You do not have to be a fan of Dave Chappelle or hip-hop to appreciate what this film brings to the table. A unique view into the lives of artists, but really just ordinary people turned celebrities happy to give back to the community that made them who they are today.
Block Party, released in March of 2006, is not merely a documentary of this concert event though; it is a reflection of the pressure placed on Chappelle following the success of his short-lived Comedy Central television program, Chappelle’s Show. Between the time this movie was filmed, and finally released, Dave Chappelle refused a $50 million contract extension to continue his popular show and disappeared to South Africa. Similarly, at this time in the United States several events took place that altered the way many Americans thought about race and politics. First, George Bush was elected president of the United States of his second term in late 2004 sparking uproars around the country of a continuation of the status quo. Second, Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans, Louisiana in August 2005, leading to serious questions about the U.S. government’s reaction to this devastating natural disaster.
On the surface, Block Party is a documentary of a once in a lifetime concert organized by Dave Chappelle, featuring his favorite musical acts. Performers include; Dead Prez, The Roots, Kanye West, Common, Talib Kweli, Jill Scott, Mos Def, Erykah Badu, and The Fugees. Filmed at the corner of Quincy Street and Downing Street in Brooklyn, New York, Chappelle tried to keep the location of this performance a secret as long as possible. You find out later in the documentary that the site of the block party was leaked through the Internet prior to the actual filming and in turn the news spread like wildfire through the masses. My favorite performances were the Dead Prez anthem ‘Hip-Hop,’ and Kanye West’s ‘Jesus Walks,’ accompanied by the full Central State University marching band. Wyclef John’s short backstage performance of ‘If I were President,’ was another powerful piece of music featured in this documentary.
Block Party was filmed behind the backdrop of the ‘Broken Angel House,’ in Brooklyn. This is an extremely unique experience because prior to the actual performances, Chappelle introduces the audience to the owners of this modern day M. C. Escher house. This unfinished mass of architecture provides a haunting backdrop to the concert. The owners are eccentric, claiming to have magical powers, yet are both honored to have their home be the site of this documentary even if they are not fans of hip-hop music. Nearby the site of the block party is the day care center where the Notorious B.I.G. attended. This additional scene shows that the heart of the hip-hop movement occurred nearby and displays the pride of so many African Americans who are aware that the roots of this musical styling all happened in their back yards.
Dave Chappelle is known for his racially charged comedy routines, which often point out stereotype of all creeds in the hope to make light of how ridiculous racism is not only in the United States, but around the world as well. A telling example of this occurs as Chappelle walks throughout his hometown in Ohio, passing out Willy Wonka-esque ‘golden ticket’s for those folks lucky enough to be invited to the block party. While he does give several tickets to ‘African-Americans’ in his town, he also dolls out a few passes to more or less elderly white people in the community. There reaction, and willingness to travel out of their element to the middle of Brooklyn, New York surprised me, but had me smiling after seeing their gratitude towards their hometown celebrity.
During his stint on Chappelle’s Show, Comedy Central realized the popularity the comedian had established using his brash, sometimes offense style of entertainment. Following this success, the network started asking for more, as is usually the case in this situation. For Chappelle though, this meant pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and appropriate from an artistic standpoint. Comedy Central more or less pigeonholed Chappelle into acting a certain way on his show. Block Party was his attempt to show people there’s more to him than offensive racist humor. After viewing the film, it’s apparent that Chappelle is a laid-back guy, who sometimes seems uncomfortable being the center of attention. He is genuinely humbled throughout this film every time he introduces a famous musician or celebrity because you know these people are his idols.
The grittiness of Block Party comes through due in part to the overcast cloudy skies and rain that blanket the crowd and performers during the concert. Nothing was going to prevent Dave Chappelle from having the concert he always wanted to see come to fruition, even Mother Nature. Throughout the documentary, you get to see a side of Dave Chappelle many people never do apart form his roles in movies like Half-Baked and Undercover Brother, or his appearances on television. At one point in the film, Chappelle is quoted as saying, “Not every part of you is for sale,” in reference to the microscope that most celebrities are put under following success. Block Party was less about Dave Chappelle, and more about bringing something to fans that he could never have done without the mass exposure he received leading up to the film’s development and final release. That’s not to say there are not moments throughout the film that don’t show Chappelle’s comedy genius shining, but this was really about something more than comedy.
Block Party succeeds on many different levels. The incorporation of artistic and powerful cinematography, musical performances, and comedy provide an enjoyable viewing experience. Unfortunately, being a big fan of Dave Chappelle’s comedy, I was hoping to see more of him unleashed behind the camera. This was not the case though, as the last thirty plus minutes barely even contained more than a few segments featuring the comedian. In the end, I would recommend this documentary to anyone. You do not have to be a fan of Dave Chappelle or hip-hop to appreciate what this film brings to the table. A unique view into the lives of artists, but really just ordinary people turned celebrities happy to give back to the community that made them who they are today.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Arrested Development Revision explained
For this revision of Arrested Development I decided that I was pretty happy with my original, but realized I could add a few more insightful details. I added more description to just exactly what Michael is feeling while trying to convince his Dad, George Sr. to give him control of the company, rather than to his incompetent family. I noticed I used the word ‘show’ pretty frequently throughout so I changed a few to ‘comedy’ or ‘program.’ I took Robert’s advice that the ‘sex-laced, incest based’ line regarding Maeby and George Michael was a little too racy. The closing paragraph was also originally a little too short, so I added more description on why this show succeeds where most Fox shows fail. There were a few additional commas that were added and I got rid of any more filler words. Thanks for the suggestions!
Arrested Development Revised
Arrested Development is a television show too smart for its own good. Luckily the producers cast the bumbling Bluth family so well, that dysfunction is rampant from the start. After watching only the first two episodes, it’s clear this is one of the wittiest shows on TV. Produced as a mockumentary of sorts, this clever depiction of the Bluth family in all their glory is one of the most refreshing television programs seen in years.
Arrested Development follows the Bluth family, wealthy socialites who see their real estate company crumble after coming under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). George Sr., played by Jeffrey Tambor is the CEO of the Bluth Company and is sent to prison in the first episode. Although he is in prison, he still manages to control the company and manipulate his family from behind bars, or as George Sr. puts it, 'his vacation.' This sets the tone for the remainder of the show as the Bluth family all vie for control of the family fortune and company. Jason Bateman plays Michael Bluth, the most upstanding and driven Bluth, who assumes he will take over his father’s position at the head of the company after all the time he has put in. Unfortunately for Michael, the rest of his family is also assuming to get this position. Gob, played by Will Arnett, is the oldest Bluth and the most delusional of the bunch. His repeated shortcomings as a magician play out through the first few episodes and provide some of the funniest moments of the show. Gob’s inability to return a frozen dead dove to the magic store and his subsequent attempts to dispose of it, is a work of pure comedy.
Michael’s sister, Lindsay Fünke (Portia de Rossi) and her husband Tobias Fünke (David Cross) are perpetually fighting and attempting to one up the other. Tobias is a former psychologist turned actor whose repeated homosexual faux pas are noticed by everyone but himself. Lindsay on the other hand is lazy and cynical after living a life of privilege and excess. Their daughter, Maeby Fünke, played by Alia Shawkat, and Michael’s son, George Michael (Michael Cera) play estranged cousins whose innuendo-laced, incestuous relationship yields several awkward yet hilarious parts of the show. At one point George Michael is promoted to ‘Mr. Manager’ of the frozen banana stand, and Maeby is forced to help him. His father has only one request for his son after hiring her, “You stay on top of her buddy, do not be afraid to ride her…hard.”
The last two members of the Bluth family are George Sr.’s wife Lucille, played by Jessica Walter and their youngest son Buster (Tony Hale). Lucille is a drunk, who constantly belittles her Spanish-speaking maid and repeatedly tries to thwart Michael’s efforts to save the family business. Buster is a mama’s boy, inept at any sort of social situation due to his reliance on Lucille and inability to interact with people without having panic-attacks. This combination of personalities is the perfect mix of characters; fueling constant bickering, arson, extortion, and overall dysfunction.
Without these actors providing such memorable portrayals, Arrested Development, would not be the show it is. Also, the intelligent and gifted writing of creator Mitchell Hurwitz is what really drives this show. The interactions between the family members and the tricky situations they find themselves in result in hilarious outcomes. When George Michael and his father burn down the banana stand in the second episode, despite warnings from George Sr. that, ‘there is always money in the banana stand,’ it perpetuates the hysterical nature of this television show.
Furthermore, the style of this comedy as a kind of reality show meets documentary meets sitcom is unlike any other show I have ever seen. This combination of elements is extremely distinctive from most other programs on television today. The show’s narrator, Ron Howard, and his omnipresenence is another part that makes this show so smart. Howard is always there to quickly clarify any lies or misconceptions a member of the Bluth family may have just been spouting. The addition of still photos, home movies, newspaper headlines, and flashbacks are used to explain any past actions or events and meant to tie up any loose ends unclear to the audience.
Arrested Development succeeds where most shows fail. There are no telling signs of this show becoming stale and predictable like the oh so many FOX shows that have failed. i.e. Overweight, sarcastic husband who has the 'way too hot for him' wife, who repeatedly fails his kids but still learns a life lesson after only thirty minutes. The sheer absurdness that follows the Bluth's on a day to day basis means there is plenty of awkward hi jinks left in store for this family. It is fresh, funny, and stars some of the most talented actors on television today. It’s hard to say where Arrested Development will stand in the current list of television shows, but it seems as if this show has potential to be around for a long while.
Arrested Development follows the Bluth family, wealthy socialites who see their real estate company crumble after coming under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). George Sr., played by Jeffrey Tambor is the CEO of the Bluth Company and is sent to prison in the first episode. Although he is in prison, he still manages to control the company and manipulate his family from behind bars, or as George Sr. puts it, 'his vacation.' This sets the tone for the remainder of the show as the Bluth family all vie for control of the family fortune and company. Jason Bateman plays Michael Bluth, the most upstanding and driven Bluth, who assumes he will take over his father’s position at the head of the company after all the time he has put in. Unfortunately for Michael, the rest of his family is also assuming to get this position. Gob, played by Will Arnett, is the oldest Bluth and the most delusional of the bunch. His repeated shortcomings as a magician play out through the first few episodes and provide some of the funniest moments of the show. Gob’s inability to return a frozen dead dove to the magic store and his subsequent attempts to dispose of it, is a work of pure comedy.
Michael’s sister, Lindsay Fünke (Portia de Rossi) and her husband Tobias Fünke (David Cross) are perpetually fighting and attempting to one up the other. Tobias is a former psychologist turned actor whose repeated homosexual faux pas are noticed by everyone but himself. Lindsay on the other hand is lazy and cynical after living a life of privilege and excess. Their daughter, Maeby Fünke, played by Alia Shawkat, and Michael’s son, George Michael (Michael Cera) play estranged cousins whose innuendo-laced, incestuous relationship yields several awkward yet hilarious parts of the show. At one point George Michael is promoted to ‘Mr. Manager’ of the frozen banana stand, and Maeby is forced to help him. His father has only one request for his son after hiring her, “You stay on top of her buddy, do not be afraid to ride her…hard.”
The last two members of the Bluth family are George Sr.’s wife Lucille, played by Jessica Walter and their youngest son Buster (Tony Hale). Lucille is a drunk, who constantly belittles her Spanish-speaking maid and repeatedly tries to thwart Michael’s efforts to save the family business. Buster is a mama’s boy, inept at any sort of social situation due to his reliance on Lucille and inability to interact with people without having panic-attacks. This combination of personalities is the perfect mix of characters; fueling constant bickering, arson, extortion, and overall dysfunction.
Without these actors providing such memorable portrayals, Arrested Development, would not be the show it is. Also, the intelligent and gifted writing of creator Mitchell Hurwitz is what really drives this show. The interactions between the family members and the tricky situations they find themselves in result in hilarious outcomes. When George Michael and his father burn down the banana stand in the second episode, despite warnings from George Sr. that, ‘there is always money in the banana stand,’ it perpetuates the hysterical nature of this television show.
Furthermore, the style of this comedy as a kind of reality show meets documentary meets sitcom is unlike any other show I have ever seen. This combination of elements is extremely distinctive from most other programs on television today. The show’s narrator, Ron Howard, and his omnipresenence is another part that makes this show so smart. Howard is always there to quickly clarify any lies or misconceptions a member of the Bluth family may have just been spouting. The addition of still photos, home movies, newspaper headlines, and flashbacks are used to explain any past actions or events and meant to tie up any loose ends unclear to the audience.
Arrested Development succeeds where most shows fail. There are no telling signs of this show becoming stale and predictable like the oh so many FOX shows that have failed. i.e. Overweight, sarcastic husband who has the 'way too hot for him' wife, who repeatedly fails his kids but still learns a life lesson after only thirty minutes. The sheer absurdness that follows the Bluth's on a day to day basis means there is plenty of awkward hi jinks left in store for this family. It is fresh, funny, and stars some of the most talented actors on television today. It’s hard to say where Arrested Development will stand in the current list of television shows, but it seems as if this show has potential to be around for a long while.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Arrested Development
Arrested Development is a television show too smart for its own good. Luckily the producers cast the bumbling Bluth family so well, that dysfunction is rampant from the start. After watching only the first two episodes, it’s clear this is one of the wittiest shows on TV. Meant to be a mock-u-mentary of sorts, this clever depiction of the Bluth family in all their glory is one of the most refreshing television programs seen in years.
Arrested Development follows the Bluth family, wealthy socialites who see their real estate company crumble after coming under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). George Sr., played by Jeffrey Tambor is the CEO of the Bluth Company and is sent to prison during the first episode. Although he is in prison, he still manages to control and manipulate his family and the company from behind bars. This sets the tone for the remainder of the show as the Bluth family all vie for control of the family fortune and company. Jason Bateman plays Michael Bluth, the most upstanding and driven Bluth, who assumes he will take over his father’s position at the head of the company. Unfortunately for Michael, the rest of his family is also assuming this position. Gob, played by Will Arnett is the oldest Bluth and the most delusional of the bunch. His repeated shortcomings as a magician play out through the first few episodes and provide some of the funniest moments of the show. Gob’s inability to return a frozen dead dove to the magic store and his subsequent attempts to dispose of it, is a work of pure comedy.
Michael’s sister, Lindsay Fúnke (Portia de Rossi) and her husband Tobias Fúnke (David Cross) are perpetually fighting and attempting to one up the other. Tobias is a former professor turned actor whose repeated homosexual faux pas are noticed by everyone but himself. Lindsay on the other hand is lazy after living a life of privilege and excess. Their daughter, Maeby Fúnke, played by Alia Shawkat, and Michael’s son, George Michael (Michael Cera) play estranged cousins whose sex-laced, incest based relationship yields several awkward yet hilarious parts of the show. At one point George Michael is promoted to ‘Mr. Manager’ of the frozen banana stand, and Maeby is forced to help him. His father has only one request for his son after hiring her, “You stay on top of her buddy, do not be afraid to ride her…hard.”
The last two members of the Bluth family are George Sr.’s wife Lucille, played by Jessica Walter and their youngest son Buster (Tony Hale). Lucille is a drunk, who constantly belittles her Spanish-speaking maid and repeatedly tries to thwart Michael’s efforts to save the family business. Buster is a mama’s boy, inept at any sort of social situation due to his reliance on Lucille and inability to interact with people without having a panic-attack. This combination of personalities is the perfect mix of characters; fueling constant bickering, arson, extortion, and overall dysfunction.
Without these actors providing such memorable portrayals, Arrested Development, would not be the show it is. That being said though, the intelligent and gifted writing of creator Mitchell Hurwitz is what really drives this show. The interactions between the family members and the tricky situations they find themselves in bear hilarious outcomes. When George Michael and his father burn down the banana stand in the second episode, despite warnings from George Sr. that, ‘there is always money in the banana stand,’ it perpetuates the hysterical nature of this television show.
Furthermore, the style of this show as a kind of reality show meets documentary meets sitcom is unlike any other show I have ever seen. This combination of elements is extremely distinctive from most other programs on television today. The show’s narrator, Ron Howard, and his omnipresenence is another thing that makes this show so smart. Howard is always there to quickly clarify any lies or misconceptions a member of the Bluth family may have just been spouting. The addition of still photos, home movies, newspaper headlines, and flashbacks are used to explain any past actions or events are meant to tie up any loose ends unclear to the audience.
Arrested Development succeeds where most shows fail. It is fresh, funny, and stars some of the most talented actors on television today. It’s hard to say where Arrested Development will stand in the current list of television shows, but it seems as if this show has potential to be around for a long while.
Arrested Development follows the Bluth family, wealthy socialites who see their real estate company crumble after coming under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). George Sr., played by Jeffrey Tambor is the CEO of the Bluth Company and is sent to prison during the first episode. Although he is in prison, he still manages to control and manipulate his family and the company from behind bars. This sets the tone for the remainder of the show as the Bluth family all vie for control of the family fortune and company. Jason Bateman plays Michael Bluth, the most upstanding and driven Bluth, who assumes he will take over his father’s position at the head of the company. Unfortunately for Michael, the rest of his family is also assuming this position. Gob, played by Will Arnett is the oldest Bluth and the most delusional of the bunch. His repeated shortcomings as a magician play out through the first few episodes and provide some of the funniest moments of the show. Gob’s inability to return a frozen dead dove to the magic store and his subsequent attempts to dispose of it, is a work of pure comedy.
Michael’s sister, Lindsay Fúnke (Portia de Rossi) and her husband Tobias Fúnke (David Cross) are perpetually fighting and attempting to one up the other. Tobias is a former professor turned actor whose repeated homosexual faux pas are noticed by everyone but himself. Lindsay on the other hand is lazy after living a life of privilege and excess. Their daughter, Maeby Fúnke, played by Alia Shawkat, and Michael’s son, George Michael (Michael Cera) play estranged cousins whose sex-laced, incest based relationship yields several awkward yet hilarious parts of the show. At one point George Michael is promoted to ‘Mr. Manager’ of the frozen banana stand, and Maeby is forced to help him. His father has only one request for his son after hiring her, “You stay on top of her buddy, do not be afraid to ride her…hard.”
The last two members of the Bluth family are George Sr.’s wife Lucille, played by Jessica Walter and their youngest son Buster (Tony Hale). Lucille is a drunk, who constantly belittles her Spanish-speaking maid and repeatedly tries to thwart Michael’s efforts to save the family business. Buster is a mama’s boy, inept at any sort of social situation due to his reliance on Lucille and inability to interact with people without having a panic-attack. This combination of personalities is the perfect mix of characters; fueling constant bickering, arson, extortion, and overall dysfunction.
Without these actors providing such memorable portrayals, Arrested Development, would not be the show it is. That being said though, the intelligent and gifted writing of creator Mitchell Hurwitz is what really drives this show. The interactions between the family members and the tricky situations they find themselves in bear hilarious outcomes. When George Michael and his father burn down the banana stand in the second episode, despite warnings from George Sr. that, ‘there is always money in the banana stand,’ it perpetuates the hysterical nature of this television show.
Furthermore, the style of this show as a kind of reality show meets documentary meets sitcom is unlike any other show I have ever seen. This combination of elements is extremely distinctive from most other programs on television today. The show’s narrator, Ron Howard, and his omnipresenence is another thing that makes this show so smart. Howard is always there to quickly clarify any lies or misconceptions a member of the Bluth family may have just been spouting. The addition of still photos, home movies, newspaper headlines, and flashbacks are used to explain any past actions or events are meant to tie up any loose ends unclear to the audience.
Arrested Development succeeds where most shows fail. It is fresh, funny, and stars some of the most talented actors on television today. It’s hard to say where Arrested Development will stand in the current list of television shows, but it seems as if this show has potential to be around for a long while.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Larry Gallagher
If there is one word to sum up Larry Gallagher’s sophomore album, Can I Go Now?, it would have to be ‘simple.’ Don’t jump to any conclusions just yet though, because beneath the minimal exterior is the work of a sincere, honest musician. A glance at the album art will immediately show you that Gallagher is an individual. He is seen standing in a boat full of instruments, stranded on the beach looking rather confused. This cover accurately follows what I was felt before I started to listen because the song titles alone were random and rather obscure.
Gallagher is not one to take himself very seriously though, evident from the titles he chose for the songs off this album. Each song title accurately reflects exactly what he is about to sing about. The opening track, ‘TV is Your Friend,’ covers the concept that our society is weirdly obsessed with the television. He is mostly accurate given that those who lack friends can always look to a television for some sort of twisted companionship. Likewise in the song, ‘Try Not to Think About Bugs,’ Gallagher sings all about trying not to think about bugs. While there is a bigger message to all of his songs, on the surface each track becomes very predictable once you read the title is. After listening through this album one time, it really irritated me how obvious each track was in relation to the title because I couldn’t get over how uncomplicated his music seemed. Upon reading further into Gallagher’s background though, the combinations of instruments and song selection began to show through.
Tracks feature mainly the guitar and piano, and most contain variations of bass, organ, horns, and a Wurlitzer. If you are someone who really enjoys a heavy bass or drum beat in his or her music, this may not be the album for you. Larry Gallagher’s influence is California, or what I would coin ‘surfer rock,’ His sound is laid back and effortless, similar to the artist Mason Jennings. Choruses are repeated frequently and almost every track is around three minutes in length, give or take. According to his website, Gallagher has spent much of his life wandering between vocations, even joining a Buddhist Monastery at one point in his life. Can I Go Now?, definitely is evidence of this vagabond lifestyle due to each track’s ability to cover miscellaneous life topics in such a straightforward manner. From ‘Me and William Shakespeare,’ a song about what Gallagher might say to Shakespeare if he ever got the chance to drink a few beers with him; to ‘I’m Sorry for What My People Did to Your People,’ an honest attempt at remorse for what I see as a direct correlation to the genocide of Native Americans prior to and during the settlement of America. What was refreshing after listening for a while was that his songs were not all about women, or falling in love. There is a time and place for these kinds of ballads, including tracks five and ten, but it was nice to hear him not go over the top into this expected theme.
Running just around 45 minutes in length, Can I Go Now?, is straightforward, yet packs a lot of punch. Gallagher tackles tough subjects like existentialism in the track, ‘My God is Better than your God,’ and the tried and true concept that as generations go by, the youth only become more promiscuous as explained, ‘Horny Teen Sluts.’ By far the most entertaining song on this album is, ‘I’m Deep.’ In this song, Gallagher’s sarcasm bleeds through so transparently I couldn’t help but laugh throughout the whole song when I hear lyrics like, “No hope, no help, I’m free of wealth how can you control yourself? I’M DEEP!” The notion follows that a sure and easy way to get a female into bed is to profess your unique ability to tap into some place deep inside you. That somehow being, or having the appearance of being prophetic and worldly in your pursuit of pleasure will most always guarantee you success.
Larry Gallagher accomplishes what attempted in the beginning. Can I Go Now?, is an effortless block of music, demonstrating his ability to cover many complicated themes and messages with the use of humor and sarcasm. Many listeners may look deeper into the meanings of his songs, while others may be satisfied with the fun lyrics and simple guitar melodies dominating each track. In the end though, you are left with a feeling of satisfaction for gaining some insight into one of the more obscure artists you might every listen to.
Gallagher is not one to take himself very seriously though, evident from the titles he chose for the songs off this album. Each song title accurately reflects exactly what he is about to sing about. The opening track, ‘TV is Your Friend,’ covers the concept that our society is weirdly obsessed with the television. He is mostly accurate given that those who lack friends can always look to a television for some sort of twisted companionship. Likewise in the song, ‘Try Not to Think About Bugs,’ Gallagher sings all about trying not to think about bugs. While there is a bigger message to all of his songs, on the surface each track becomes very predictable once you read the title is. After listening through this album one time, it really irritated me how obvious each track was in relation to the title because I couldn’t get over how uncomplicated his music seemed. Upon reading further into Gallagher’s background though, the combinations of instruments and song selection began to show through.
Tracks feature mainly the guitar and piano, and most contain variations of bass, organ, horns, and a Wurlitzer. If you are someone who really enjoys a heavy bass or drum beat in his or her music, this may not be the album for you. Larry Gallagher’s influence is California, or what I would coin ‘surfer rock,’ His sound is laid back and effortless, similar to the artist Mason Jennings. Choruses are repeated frequently and almost every track is around three minutes in length, give or take. According to his website, Gallagher has spent much of his life wandering between vocations, even joining a Buddhist Monastery at one point in his life. Can I Go Now?, definitely is evidence of this vagabond lifestyle due to each track’s ability to cover miscellaneous life topics in such a straightforward manner. From ‘Me and William Shakespeare,’ a song about what Gallagher might say to Shakespeare if he ever got the chance to drink a few beers with him; to ‘I’m Sorry for What My People Did to Your People,’ an honest attempt at remorse for what I see as a direct correlation to the genocide of Native Americans prior to and during the settlement of America. What was refreshing after listening for a while was that his songs were not all about women, or falling in love. There is a time and place for these kinds of ballads, including tracks five and ten, but it was nice to hear him not go over the top into this expected theme.
Running just around 45 minutes in length, Can I Go Now?, is straightforward, yet packs a lot of punch. Gallagher tackles tough subjects like existentialism in the track, ‘My God is Better than your God,’ and the tried and true concept that as generations go by, the youth only become more promiscuous as explained, ‘Horny Teen Sluts.’ By far the most entertaining song on this album is, ‘I’m Deep.’ In this song, Gallagher’s sarcasm bleeds through so transparently I couldn’t help but laugh throughout the whole song when I hear lyrics like, “No hope, no help, I’m free of wealth how can you control yourself? I’M DEEP!” The notion follows that a sure and easy way to get a female into bed is to profess your unique ability to tap into some place deep inside you. That somehow being, or having the appearance of being prophetic and worldly in your pursuit of pleasure will most always guarantee you success.
Larry Gallagher accomplishes what attempted in the beginning. Can I Go Now?, is an effortless block of music, demonstrating his ability to cover many complicated themes and messages with the use of humor and sarcasm. Many listeners may look deeper into the meanings of his songs, while others may be satisfied with the fun lyrics and simple guitar melodies dominating each track. In the end though, you are left with a feeling of satisfaction for gaining some insight into one of the more obscure artists you might every listen to.
Monday, March 2, 2009
PhotoDimensional
The Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College Chicago was the first ‘photo’ museum I had ever visit. Photography is something that I had definitely taken for granted. Digital photography and the fact that almost every cell phone these days is equipped with a camera has made this kind of art lost in my mind. It was refreshing to see the PhotoDimensional exhibit with these somewhat low expectations going in because I was pleasantly surprised after I left. This exhibit featured various artists presenting their idea of what happens when photography tries to break out of its natural 2’D realm, and into the 3-D. The works ranged from sculpture, video, photography, paintings, and incorporations of both photos and paintings.
One thing I noticed from the start was just how easily ‘space’ can be manipulated through the use of combining painting with photography. One such artist, David Ireland, worked with seascapes taken around where else? Ireland. In one of his works, Green rectangle over Skellig. Ireland takes the image of a desolate island made of rock, looking lonely in the ocean all by itself; and juxtaposes it against a solid green block of color, more or less dividing the photo into three parts. Two parts rock, one part green. This concept really messed with my perception because the solid green stood out so vividly against the black and white photo. My mind could not concentrate on which area to look at first, or which one was truly in the fore, or background. Similarly, Ireland’s other photo, Blood Dots and Rain over Ireland, was out of focus, and portrayed a rainy day in the ocean. On top of this photo, he pained large red blobs of color that force you to reconsider what you were looking at in the first place. Of all the works I saw, Ireland’s art seemed the most simple, but also stayed with me the longest.
Moving through the exhibit, I noticed the myriad of photos and sculptures were placed very far apart. It came to me that they were set up like this because photography needs to be seen by itself, and without distraction. I liked being able to look at the works uninterrupted and without other art distorting my frame of reference.
One piece, La Ronde, by Bettina Hoffmann was very disorienting. She took the concept of a still photograph, and added the art of multimedia. Her DVD concentrated on the idea of what would happen if you entered the scene of a photo mid snap, and walked around. The video rotated between scenes around a kitchen table, inside a bedroom, and living room. The result is mesmerizing, and very surreal because you seem to be repeating the moment this photo was taken over and over while you are frozen in time and space. I still don’t know how they got the subjects to stand so still throughout the whole ordeal, or how the camera swiveled around the photo so effortlessly.
One other artist that really thought captured the whole concept of ‘photodimensions’ was that of Florian Slotawa. I thought these photos were actually funny. His work, titled, Hotelarbeiten, consists of several pieces of furniture from hotels, crammed into one corner or side of the room. Again this reminded me how the concept of space is pretty abstract; given that a bed, desk, lamp, couch, and chair could so easily fit on top of each other in a room where they before took up all the space.
The last artist that I really found interesting was Pello Irazu. His work titled, La Fabrica, is made up of various drawings and paintings that are overlapped, kind of like David Ireland’s. His is more of a collage though because it is hard to decipher which came first, the painting or the photo. There is so much geometry going on in his pieces, whether it comes from the boxes and chairs he has stacked, or the boxes he has drawn on top that it makes me think of grade school. The use of primary colors adds to this illusion as well.
Before I went into this exhibit, I thought the idea of combining 3D concepts with 2D photography would be very muddled and might ruin the original photos. In the end though, the PhotoDimensional exhibit was captivating and I am looking forward to checking out future exhibits here on campus at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.
One thing I noticed from the start was just how easily ‘space’ can be manipulated through the use of combining painting with photography. One such artist, David Ireland, worked with seascapes taken around where else? Ireland. In one of his works, Green rectangle over Skellig. Ireland takes the image of a desolate island made of rock, looking lonely in the ocean all by itself; and juxtaposes it against a solid green block of color, more or less dividing the photo into three parts. Two parts rock, one part green. This concept really messed with my perception because the solid green stood out so vividly against the black and white photo. My mind could not concentrate on which area to look at first, or which one was truly in the fore, or background. Similarly, Ireland’s other photo, Blood Dots and Rain over Ireland, was out of focus, and portrayed a rainy day in the ocean. On top of this photo, he pained large red blobs of color that force you to reconsider what you were looking at in the first place. Of all the works I saw, Ireland’s art seemed the most simple, but also stayed with me the longest.
Moving through the exhibit, I noticed the myriad of photos and sculptures were placed very far apart. It came to me that they were set up like this because photography needs to be seen by itself, and without distraction. I liked being able to look at the works uninterrupted and without other art distorting my frame of reference.
One piece, La Ronde, by Bettina Hoffmann was very disorienting. She took the concept of a still photograph, and added the art of multimedia. Her DVD concentrated on the idea of what would happen if you entered the scene of a photo mid snap, and walked around. The video rotated between scenes around a kitchen table, inside a bedroom, and living room. The result is mesmerizing, and very surreal because you seem to be repeating the moment this photo was taken over and over while you are frozen in time and space. I still don’t know how they got the subjects to stand so still throughout the whole ordeal, or how the camera swiveled around the photo so effortlessly.
One other artist that really thought captured the whole concept of ‘photodimensions’ was that of Florian Slotawa. I thought these photos were actually funny. His work, titled, Hotelarbeiten, consists of several pieces of furniture from hotels, crammed into one corner or side of the room. Again this reminded me how the concept of space is pretty abstract; given that a bed, desk, lamp, couch, and chair could so easily fit on top of each other in a room where they before took up all the space.
The last artist that I really found interesting was Pello Irazu. His work titled, La Fabrica, is made up of various drawings and paintings that are overlapped, kind of like David Ireland’s. His is more of a collage though because it is hard to decipher which came first, the painting or the photo. There is so much geometry going on in his pieces, whether it comes from the boxes and chairs he has stacked, or the boxes he has drawn on top that it makes me think of grade school. The use of primary colors adds to this illusion as well.
Before I went into this exhibit, I thought the idea of combining 3D concepts with 2D photography would be very muddled and might ruin the original photos. In the end though, the PhotoDimensional exhibit was captivating and I am looking forward to checking out future exhibits here on campus at the Museum of Contemporary Photography.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
N. Lee projects
Nikki Lee has a funny way of fitting in. Given that she was born in Korea, yet can so easily infilitrate various ethnic and social groups is pretty amazing. I can imagine that when coming to America for the first time, she was overwhelmed by the multitude of culutures present in our country. Because of this, it would be easy for an outsider like herself to imitate certain mannerisms and appearances. I'm sure she did not run into many Hispanics while going to school in Korea. The photographs she appears in only prove how certain stereotypes can be broken. As an outsider looking in for the first time, she had the ability to adopt certain ethnic group's style and culture. This could be attributed to the fact that the various groups she joined were in themselves a kind of minority; lesbians, punks, exotic dancers, etc. In the end they accepted her because she was different, like themselves. I found myself unable to distinguish Nikki in various photos because she did such a good job of transforming herself; whereas if she had tried to blend into some 'white' cultures she may have stuck out more. I thought her ultimate goal was simply a social experiment, and the art itself was only proof of her transformation. Overall this was a very interesting ordeal she put herself through that few others might be able to accomplish.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Revision explanation
After reading the comments from my original post, and reading Richard Ohmann’s article I took to enhancing my book review of Another Roadside Attraction. It was my goal to incorporate the questions I presented towards the middle of my original review into the opening paragraph of the revised one. I felt this would grasp the reader’s attention by getting them to really think about the questions I was posing. I also tried to remove any bias I may have for this piece of work, given that it is one of the better novels I have read in the past few years. I wanted to give the person reading the review an opportunity to understand the important messages Robbins meant to explore in this book. There were also a few words I took out/added in order to enhance the overall feel of Another Roadside Attraction, especially those that seemed more redundant. I really liked the way I ended my original post though, so I decided to keep that same flow in the revised version.
Book Review Revision
There will always people who know, or think they know more than the average person. Often these people gravitate towards a position of authority, take for example the Catholic Church. What if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about though? And what if these select few individuals with authority commanded power, influence, and guidance to thousands, no millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving their dogma wrong? Think of the repercussions, who would benefit in crushing the hopes, and beliefs of these people even though their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Tom Robbins hopes to address in his novel, Another Roadside Attraction.
It’s interesting how little has changed in the nearly forty years since this novel was written. While Another Roadside Attraction was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council sought to modernize the church to more closely conform to the changing morals of the time. In retrospect, very little changed after that, and today we see the Catholic Church reverting back to a more conservative ideology following the nomination of Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger. This cyclical theory is similar to one that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, while working at a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason. Some outside force, not 'one being’ in the sense of god, but rather a collection of emotions and feelings, guide her. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is happily confined to his simple and aesthetic life. Plucky on the other hand is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system, content with fighting ‘the man’ anyway he can. Then there’s Marx. A realist through and through, believing all things science explains all things in existence. Take these varying attitudes and place them smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Tom Robbins’s writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time, as the reader is repeatedly jumping around from time and place throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right based on these convictions. The contrast of opinions between the characters is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism that flourished during the counter culture of the late 1960s has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man, it’s our nature as human beings. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fallen several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. Each character is shaped by each other’s personal perspective based on the secret they hold, and each becomes more enlightened in the process. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but rather several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
It’s interesting how little has changed in the nearly forty years since this novel was written. While Another Roadside Attraction was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council sought to modernize the church to more closely conform to the changing morals of the time. In retrospect, very little changed after that, and today we see the Catholic Church reverting back to a more conservative ideology following the nomination of Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger. This cyclical theory is similar to one that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, while working at a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason. Some outside force, not 'one being’ in the sense of god, but rather a collection of emotions and feelings, guide her. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is happily confined to his simple and aesthetic life. Plucky on the other hand is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system, content with fighting ‘the man’ anyway he can. Then there’s Marx. A realist through and through, believing all things science explains all things in existence. Take these varying attitudes and place them smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s.
Tom Robbins’s writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time, as the reader is repeatedly jumping around from time and place throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right based on these convictions. The contrast of opinions between the characters is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism that flourished during the counter culture of the late 1960s has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man, it’s our nature as human beings. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fallen several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. Each character is shaped by each other’s personal perspective based on the secret they hold, and each becomes more enlightened in the process. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but rather several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
CHUCK D
I had the privilege, and I do not say that lightly, of helping interview Chuck D February 17th before his scheduled lecture at Columbia College Chicago. Afterwards, I also attended his lecture at the Film Row Center. As a member of the hip-hop sensation Public Enemy, Chuck D is considered one of the most influential members in the African-American community. His appearance fell during February, which is also Black History Month. The focus of his lecture revolved around the impact of hip-hop and rap music within the black community and its future. According to Chuck D, you cannot know anything about your trade unless you study it. As a graduate of Adelphi University in Long Island, New York, Chuck D is no stranger to the importance of education. He has been touring the country, giving college lectures for nineteen years and it showed immediately. Chuck D knows how to work a crowd, considering he’s been performing on stage since the late 1980s. First he had to mention Flava Flav, because he knew there were at least a few people in the audience who were curious about his relationship with the reality show star. Chuck D made one thing clear from the start though. Flava Flav gets women to cry if they don’t receive a clock; himself, he reads books, and betters himself so he can give lectures like the one at Columbia.
Chuck D made one thing clear from the start. Knowledge is power, and in this ever-changing world we live in, the more you know, the better off you will be. Become talented in multiple facets of your career. He mentioned more than once running into aspiring hip-hop artists who tell him one thing, “I make beats!” To which Chuck responds, ‘Yeah, but what else can you do?” ‘Most often,’ he remarked, ‘they rarely have anything else to say.’ This is a great analogy to any one person’s interests. Sure you can be good at one thing, but how else can you incorporate this passion into the industry, or the world? Can you rhyme? Can you produce? Can you sell yourself?
While Chuck D is a learned man who can captivate and hold an audience, he still brings his own speaking style the table. The lecture was interspersed with various profanities, and at one point he even apologized for using so many. I didn’t understand why he did this though, I mean he’s Chuck D, just telling it like it is. I think the funniest part of the whole lecture was when he talked about how big of a waste of resources a Hummer is. He incorporated this by telling the audience Coolio was the first person he ever knew to drive a Hummer. Chuck even admitted he still drives a ‘hoopty,’ which to anyone unfamiliar with the term refers to an old, beat down car. I thought this was a very telling thing about Chuck D’s character. Here’s an accomplished, talented, multi-platinum selling artist who could not be more humble. His presence was inspiring, especially his political activeness. He finds it ironic that there’s a rapper today named Rick Ross, who bases his career of the 1980s crack king pin, ‘Highway Ricky Ross.’ Chuck implored the audience to realize that the CIA supported the original Rick Ross, and that the whole attitude of immortalizing the gangster lifestyle is only holding the black community back. Chuck D put it very simply, ‘Sure you can like Soulja Boy…if you’re in the sixth grade.”
Chuck D made one thing clear from the start. Knowledge is power, and in this ever-changing world we live in, the more you know, the better off you will be. Become talented in multiple facets of your career. He mentioned more than once running into aspiring hip-hop artists who tell him one thing, “I make beats!” To which Chuck responds, ‘Yeah, but what else can you do?” ‘Most often,’ he remarked, ‘they rarely have anything else to say.’ This is a great analogy to any one person’s interests. Sure you can be good at one thing, but how else can you incorporate this passion into the industry, or the world? Can you rhyme? Can you produce? Can you sell yourself?
While Chuck D is a learned man who can captivate and hold an audience, he still brings his own speaking style the table. The lecture was interspersed with various profanities, and at one point he even apologized for using so many. I didn’t understand why he did this though, I mean he’s Chuck D, just telling it like it is. I think the funniest part of the whole lecture was when he talked about how big of a waste of resources a Hummer is. He incorporated this by telling the audience Coolio was the first person he ever knew to drive a Hummer. Chuck even admitted he still drives a ‘hoopty,’ which to anyone unfamiliar with the term refers to an old, beat down car. I thought this was a very telling thing about Chuck D’s character. Here’s an accomplished, talented, multi-platinum selling artist who could not be more humble. His presence was inspiring, especially his political activeness. He finds it ironic that there’s a rapper today named Rick Ross, who bases his career of the 1980s crack king pin, ‘Highway Ricky Ross.’ Chuck implored the audience to realize that the CIA supported the original Rick Ross, and that the whole attitude of immortalizing the gangster lifestyle is only holding the black community back. Chuck D put it very simply, ‘Sure you can like Soulja Boy…if you’re in the sixth grade.”
Monday, February 16, 2009
It’s interesting how little has changed in almost forty years. Even though Tom Robbin’s, Another Roadside Attraction, was written in 1971, its implications still reign in as true as ever. The Catholic Church went though a transformation in the late 1960s following the Second Vatican Council. This council aimed at modernizing the church to more closely follow the changing morals of the time. Looking back though, very little changed after that, and if anything the church has reverted back to a more conservative ideology. This is the same cyclical theory that drives Another Roadside Attraction. Insert Amanda, John Paul, Marx Marvelous, and Plucky Purcell. Four individuals who hold one of the greatest secrets known to man, in a hot dog stand in the Pacific Northwest.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason, and guided by some outside force, which she frequently taps into through the novel. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is more or less confined to the simple and aesthetic life. Plucky is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system. Marx is a realist, who believes all things science will explain all things in existence. All this takes place smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s, and the writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time.
Tom Robbins does not follow any logical writing style, jumping around from time and place repeatedly throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. There are always people who know or think they know more than the average person. It’s likely these kinds of people might hold some sort of authoritative position, like the Catholic Church. Well what if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about? And what if these people with authority commanded power and influence over thousands, even millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving them wrong though? Think of the repercussions, would it be worth it to crush the hopes, and beliefs of these people even if their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Robbins hopes to address in this novel.
Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right. This contrast of opinions is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism of the counter culture has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fell several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. These characters are shaped by each others personal perspective in regards to the secret they hold. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
Amanda is a mystic, believing everything happens for a reason, and guided by some outside force, which she frequently taps into through the novel. John Paul is a wild man, who understands the natural world and is more or less confined to the simple and aesthetic life. Plucky is an instigator who wants nothing more than to shake up the system. Marx is a realist, who believes all things science will explain all things in existence. All this takes place smack in the midst of the counter culture of the late 1960s, early 1970s, and the writing style reflects the day-glow attitude of the time.
Tom Robbins does not follow any logical writing style, jumping around from time and place repeatedly throughout the story. Robbins is also very annoyed. There are always people who know or think they know more than the average person. It’s likely these kinds of people might hold some sort of authoritative position, like the Catholic Church. Well what if these people only thought they knew what they were talking about? And what if these people with authority commanded power and influence over thousands, even millions of followers? In the end, would it even be worth proving them wrong though? Think of the repercussions, would it be worth it to crush the hopes, and beliefs of these people even if their very existence was a lie? These are the kinds of questions Robbins hopes to address in this novel.
Amanda, Marx, John Paul, and Plucky act like four forces of human will. Each one thinks on their own accord, and each one thinks they are right. This contrast of opinions is what really drives this story and keeps you interested. The message of anti-establishment, pro-secularism of the counter culture has never really gone away, and recently has become prominent again. To me, this is why this book still stands the test of time; we have always and will always questions the origins of man. By the end of this novel, the story has risen and fell several times; taking plot twists this reader would never have anticipated. These characters are shaped by each others personal perspective in regards to the secret they hold. They finally become awakened by the fact that no single solution, but several usually solve a problem. By the time the conclusion is reached, each character learns why some truths are better left under wraps.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Hair Trigger 28
Reading through Columbia College Chicago’s annual Hair Trigger magazine only reinforced my belief that our current generation is just as unsure of themselves and the future as past generations. The 2006 issue of Hair Trigger, the twenty-eighth edition in the series, is put together to showcase Columbia student’s writing and photography skills. The cover of this issue depicts a Vietnam veteran standing on the beach, flag waving in the wind with the vast emptiness of ocean in the background. In the end, this photograph summed up the tone of most every essay and story I read throughout this publication.
From the start I could not help feel very impressed by the caliber of writing that these young students displayed for all to see. Being a student of this school, I could relate to many similar experiences and issues explored through these writings. Whether it was fiction, non-fiction, or a drama prose, the stories were all powerful, and well written. The ambitious writing styles of each student are what make this magazine worth reading. There were points where I was lost in the creative styles used by these writers. I truly could not believe that these were written by people my age, and I couldn’t help but be very impressed, and proud of my fellow classmates effort.
The variation in writing styles was refreshing, yet I was surprised to find how distinctive many of these essays and stories were. Now I know many of them were fictional, but I couldn’t help but notice that many of the stories drew from personal experiences. Whether they happened to the writer, or someone they knew is open to debate, but it was gritty and clearly meant something to the writer.
A repeating theme throughout many of these stories was sex. Sex played an intricate role over and over. It was more than quote, un-quote sex though, it dealt with the uncertainties of life, and the pressure adolescents face as we mature. They’re about coming to terms with reality and the myth behind many fallacies associated with sex, and losing your virginity, and feeling used. One drama excerpt, titled After Hours, was extremely well written. It was not grammatically correct, and included several words favored by my generation, including ‘like.’ But it was the honesty of this scenario that struck me as extremely compelling. I know kids like that, and I could relate, making the stories seem believable, even if they were pulling these narratives out of their Asses.
The photographs that break up the literature towards the end of the magazine were also powerful. They were pictures of ordinary people. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate source for these photos, given each student writer faces the same challenges that the subjects of the photos did or still do. I would urge anyone interested in finding out about the wealth of talent exhibited here at Columbia College Chicago go check out any issue of Hair Trigger because you will not be disappointed. I look forward to reading further into this magazine as the years go by.
From the start I could not help feel very impressed by the caliber of writing that these young students displayed for all to see. Being a student of this school, I could relate to many similar experiences and issues explored through these writings. Whether it was fiction, non-fiction, or a drama prose, the stories were all powerful, and well written. The ambitious writing styles of each student are what make this magazine worth reading. There were points where I was lost in the creative styles used by these writers. I truly could not believe that these were written by people my age, and I couldn’t help but be very impressed, and proud of my fellow classmates effort.
The variation in writing styles was refreshing, yet I was surprised to find how distinctive many of these essays and stories were. Now I know many of them were fictional, but I couldn’t help but notice that many of the stories drew from personal experiences. Whether they happened to the writer, or someone they knew is open to debate, but it was gritty and clearly meant something to the writer.
A repeating theme throughout many of these stories was sex. Sex played an intricate role over and over. It was more than quote, un-quote sex though, it dealt with the uncertainties of life, and the pressure adolescents face as we mature. They’re about coming to terms with reality and the myth behind many fallacies associated with sex, and losing your virginity, and feeling used. One drama excerpt, titled After Hours, was extremely well written. It was not grammatically correct, and included several words favored by my generation, including ‘like.’ But it was the honesty of this scenario that struck me as extremely compelling. I know kids like that, and I could relate, making the stories seem believable, even if they were pulling these narratives out of their Asses.
The photographs that break up the literature towards the end of the magazine were also powerful. They were pictures of ordinary people. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate source for these photos, given each student writer faces the same challenges that the subjects of the photos did or still do. I would urge anyone interested in finding out about the wealth of talent exhibited here at Columbia College Chicago go check out any issue of Hair Trigger because you will not be disappointed. I look forward to reading further into this magazine as the years go by.
Monday, February 2, 2009
I was left with various questions for Anna Deveare Smith after her lecture was concluded. She had exited the stage at this point though so I was left only to ponder the queries she had posed for us, the audience. ‘Why was there so much trash left after the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20th, 2009?’ Now I had not attended the inauguration, merely watched it on TV, but after hearing of the refuse strewn about so carelessly, it really started to bother me. It was not the way Anna Deveare Smith orated her lecture, because truthfully it was short and consisted mostly of audience participation.
Here we are as a nation, still ecstatic after electing the candidate of ‘change,’ yet people still can’t remember to throw their garbage away.
Before the lecture began, I was completely unaware of the accomplishments and awards Anna Deveare Smith had received throughout decades of work in the arts. Truthfully I did not know one thing about her. What I did notice right away was that this lecture was not about her, or her accomplishments. She began the lecture with a tribute/impersonation to the late Studs Terkel, whom had clearly shaped her definition on the merits of art. Again, her lecture paid little attention to her artistic contribute, rather it was about the future of the arts, and the artistic community, and the opportunity for anyone to contribute to them. She genuinely wanted to know how we, as students and faculty of an art school will respond to the president’s call for change.
She was encouraged by the possibilities that lay before us, but in the end I could not help but feel there was a tone of disappointment in her speech. No one really gave her the ‘right’ answer to her question, which was more or less about the future of institutions, like Columbia College of Chicago. I’m not saying there was a right answer to this question, given that it was open to much interpretation. The notion that one of us in the audience may have had the correct answer to her question though is unrealistic. She knew this. Instead it was the idea that institutions have the ability to collaborate, and collaboration is what will eventually lead to change in any aspect of life. Many people collaborated to elect Barack Obama, but many people collaborated to trash Washington D.C. nearly two weeks ago as well.
It was evident that Anna Deveare Smith cared more about what we had to say, compared to fielding questions about her more famous literary works, Fires in the Mirror and Twilight: Los Angeles 1992. If you were to go see Anna Deveare Smith lecture again be prepared for a brief look into her own genius, and rather a deeper look into society’s as a whole. In the end, the forty-minute lecture was short because it had to be, there’s no time to waste. The opportunity for collaborative change is here, just remember to throw away the trash.
Here we are as a nation, still ecstatic after electing the candidate of ‘change,’ yet people still can’t remember to throw their garbage away.
Before the lecture began, I was completely unaware of the accomplishments and awards Anna Deveare Smith had received throughout decades of work in the arts. Truthfully I did not know one thing about her. What I did notice right away was that this lecture was not about her, or her accomplishments. She began the lecture with a tribute/impersonation to the late Studs Terkel, whom had clearly shaped her definition on the merits of art. Again, her lecture paid little attention to her artistic contribute, rather it was about the future of the arts, and the artistic community, and the opportunity for anyone to contribute to them. She genuinely wanted to know how we, as students and faculty of an art school will respond to the president’s call for change.
She was encouraged by the possibilities that lay before us, but in the end I could not help but feel there was a tone of disappointment in her speech. No one really gave her the ‘right’ answer to her question, which was more or less about the future of institutions, like Columbia College of Chicago. I’m not saying there was a right answer to this question, given that it was open to much interpretation. The notion that one of us in the audience may have had the correct answer to her question though is unrealistic. She knew this. Instead it was the idea that institutions have the ability to collaborate, and collaboration is what will eventually lead to change in any aspect of life. Many people collaborated to elect Barack Obama, but many people collaborated to trash Washington D.C. nearly two weeks ago as well.
It was evident that Anna Deveare Smith cared more about what we had to say, compared to fielding questions about her more famous literary works, Fires in the Mirror and Twilight: Los Angeles 1992. If you were to go see Anna Deveare Smith lecture again be prepared for a brief look into her own genius, and rather a deeper look into society’s as a whole. In the end, the forty-minute lecture was short because it had to be, there’s no time to waste. The opportunity for collaborative change is here, just remember to throw away the trash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)