We're Moving

I have an announcement to make:

I am moving this blog to the platform Tumblr. My new url is oddsendsandpolitics.tumblr.com.

Why am I doing this? Short answer: It makes my life easier.

Long answer: I created this blog on Blogspot and have had trouble getting people to read it. I don't want to bother people by making them read my stuff and then doing nothing for them in exchange, and nobody finds this blog by accident. I set up a while ago a Tumblr account so that I could follow my friends' blogs, but I got a blog of my own and didn't quite know what to do with it, so it became a repository of random content I wanted to read later.

Just recently I got the idea to combine the two. It will be a bit awkward to have really long blog posts in a format that works a bit more like twitter, but the actual page will look the same, so I'm not losing anything. I'll be able to get my friends to follow me in exchange for following their blogs. Currently, only two of my friends who are not family read the blog at all (thanks so much!) and both of them have Tumblr accounts anyway. And Tumblr's features like tagging will allow me to expand my readership. Already, my best of the year posts have gained me one like and one follow by people I don't know.

This shouldn't be much of a change for you.

• If you have a tumblr account, just hit the "follow" button in the top right.
• If you read my page from a bookmark, just bookmark the new url. 
• If you use an RSS feed, there's a white RSS button on the gray bar under the title.
• If you subscribe by e-mail, the service feedmailer (here) will e-mail my RSS feed to you.
• If none of this makes sense to you, send me an e-mail or ask in the comments.

I'm in the processes of back-dating my archived blog posts on the new page and making the blog not look stupid.  (Color scheme critiques are appreciated.) I apologize for any inconvenience.

I'll be posting more frequently shorter posts, like simple links or songs, but I'll keep posting essays and such when I can. (They might sound a bit less like a newspaper column, however. Context isn't as necessary on tumblr.) I'll also might use tumblr-based mannerisms, such as OC, which stands for original content. If there's ever an issue or question, the blog has an "ask" button on the right-hand side under the profile picture and search bar.

Thanks for reading the blog in its current incarnation, and have good lives.

Racism on the Silver Screen

It’s early January, and the Oscar-bait films are just making their way now through the Midwest. Amour and Zero Dark Thirty only opened recently here. The media’s spent a lot of time this Oscar season focusing on the potential controversy behind Quentin Tarantino’s slavery-centered Western Django Unchained, certainly a conversation worth having. But the movie that people really ought to be up in arms about is The Impossible, a movie about a Spanish couple, starring Naomi Watts, surviving the 2004 tsunami in the Indian ocean.

Amidst the wonderful reception of the movie’s acting and directing, critics are overlooking one fundamental thing about the movie: the blatant racism it plays into. The magnitude 9.2 tsunami killed a stunning 280,000 people, many of them residents of Indonesia and other surrounding nations. But for white audiences to appreciate the film, its makers decided, the protagonists would have to be white.

Hollywood has been, for many years, a surprisingly racist organization. Every story must be whitewashed. Addressing racism in The Help? A white protagonist could help audiences relate. Telling a tale of the Meiji restoration in The Last Samurai? Sure, but the protagonist should probably be white.

Even high-profile filmmakers have trouble getting films financed without a white protagonist. George Lucas has attempted for a while to make a film about black airmen during WWII, and has run into this problem explicitly.  Danny Glover’s biopic of Haitian revolutionary Toussaint L’Ouverture got shot down on the same grounds.

Are the white people of this country really so shallow that we can’t watch a film from a nonwhite perspective? I understand that you want people that look like you in a film. But when filmmakers are going so far out of their way to find the white angle in Impossible while a brilliant premise about Haiti’s George Washington can’t gain any traction, shouldn’t the moviegoing public open up a bit? Then again, with all of the African-American stars in Hollywood nowadays, perhaps the problem isn’t in the audience, but in the financing minds in Hollywood. 

Eight theaters in the metro will be showing The Impossible today. What a lovely MLK Day celebration.

Separating the Man From The Job

Just a few days ago, we heard the news that President Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel, a Republican former Senator from Nebraska, to become the next defense secretary. It’s a terrifically odd choice, and my first thoughts on the subject were not pleased. It seemed like another instance of Obama making far too much peace with the establishment and caving before any demands are made, a terrible negotiation strategy.

Which it is. But it’s a lot more than that. Chuck Hagel is not the average Republican in terms of foreign policy. As a veteran of the brutal and unnecessary Vietnam War, Hagel seems to understand the grueling nature of militarism. He was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War. He has supported for cutting the military budget, a cut even most democrats would be scared to endorse. When asked about winning the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, he said, “Iraq and Afghanistan are not America’s to win or lose.”  

I disagree greatly with Hagel on most points. He played a good part in the Bush wrecking ball that hit the nation in the 2000s. He voted for indebting tax cuts for the rich as well as destructions of civil liberties. He’s had a consistent record of voting against LGBT rights. He joined with those who responded to the immigration crisis by building bigger fences.

All of these things would be vital- if Hagel were a senator. But we’re not talking about electing him to the senate. We're talking about giving him command of wars. In this instance, we have to take on a hard job as citizens: separating the man from the job.

Take a look at another potentially raucous cabinet nomination: Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts as Secretary of State. Liberals should be, in general, happy with his voting record, which puts him just to the left of the middle of the Democratic Party, including running for president as an opponent of the Iraq War. However, his track record is still questionable on foreign policy. He's shown too much support for unilateralism and interventionism, and let's not forget his vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution. 

In this instance, as well as the first, we have to remember that there is a difference between a person, overall, and how they will fit a certain job. Nowhere is this truer than in the character-defamation-centered world of politics. With both of these nominees, we should proceed with an incredibly cautious optimism, keeping an eye on them for problematic intentions or a lack of conviction. But the whole time, we have to keep in mind that an unpleasant person can be right for a job, and the vital opposite.

The Secret of the Sitcom

About half of the scripted shows on television are designated as “sitcoms”. Though they could easily be referred to in the broader context of comedy, they are not, because the sitcom is something more than a comedy, just like the tragedy is something more than a drama.

Every sitcom follows a particular formula: the protagonist, who has flaws but remains likeable, is trying to do something good. In the process of said well-intentioned act, they manage to heap blame on themselves, and the entire situation concludes slightly worse off.

Try it with your favorite sitcom. Or your least favorite. Or one you’re apathetic about. Look at Lindsay of Freaks and Geeks try to help a mentally disabled student and end up offending him and breaking his arm. Look at Michael Bluth of Arrested Development get arrested for kidnapping after offering a ride to an acquaintance. Everything Liz Lemon does on 30 Rock, everything anyone does on Full House, everything on Community makes the whole situation worse.

But we love them, and we keep watching their shows, for the simple reason that, in our minds, we are them. Each person believes that they have good intentions, and that they are acting in order to make things better. Yet bad things happen to them sometimes, and in general, we see most things in our lives fall short of expectations.

It’s this mirroring that makes the sitcom such a potent storytelling mechanism: the formula reveals something powerful in the human condition. Consider that next time you’re enjoying the protagonist’s antics. Very likely, you are the protagonist.

Best Albums of 2012

2012 wasn't a great year for music. Weak years come along every once in a while. But if the year will be remembered for anything, musically, it'll be a transition year. In 2011, The White Stripes, Sonic Youth, and R.E.M. all broke up, among others. 2012 was when newbies came in and tried to take their place, hopping out of the garage or off the mix tape and into the musical circuit. The result was often confusing and lacking in confidence but always surprising.

1. Frank Ocean, Channel Orange. I wasn’t quite sure what album to give the top spot to, but after seeing how this was the consensus choice, there was really no other album deserving. Frank Ocean packs enormous skill and creativity into his second (!) album. His surprisingly unified sound manages to reach everywhere from thick, low funk to light electronic pop to drawn-out ‘80s soul numbers. It will surely be remembered for years to come.

2. Kendrick Lamar, good kid, m.A.A.d. city. Lamar’s a well-known rapper with popular appeal to spare. He compiled his album with producers at the top of their game, giving us great hits like “Bitch, Don’t Kill My Vibe” and “Swimming Pools.” But it’s songs like “Sing About Me, I’m Dying of Thirst”, a ten-minute freeform track touching on existential dread, societal criticism, and an elaborate baptismal metaphor that show that Lamar is something truly special.

3. Grimes, Visions. Electronic musician Grimes screeches her latest record from a cave of humming bass lines and twitching beats. She milks this contrast like nobody’s business on this repertoire of songs that blend earworm-pop and freeform experimentation flawlessly.

4. Death Grips, The Money Store. I was skeptical about giving rap collective Death Grips a listen- they can be less than eloquent sometimes- but this record blew me away. Their drum beats are some of the most fascinating I’ve ever heard, and their panicked, paranoid performances top it off unbelievably.

5. Jessie Ware, Devotion. I’ve mentioned before that it’s unfortunate that a) Jessie Ware never made it big overseas and b) her music is very hard to find even if you have heard of her. But do take some time to at least find her on YouTube. She’s a real versatile neo-soul treasure. Just give a listen to the three singles off Devotion: “Wildest Moments”, “110%” and “Running”. Each of them could be from a completely different artist, but they all work spectacularly.

6. Fiona Apple, The Idler Wheel. Critics had a lot to say about pop eccentric Fiona Apple’s latest album, and I’m not sure that I have much to add, so I’ll just say this: Simple, sparse, and bare make beautiful bedfellows.

7. Anaïs Mitchell, Young Man in America. Singer-songwriter Mitchell has composed a record of truly fascinating ballads and soft, careful love songs all wrapped together by their prayer-like quality. She looks, repeatedly, at the destruction of traditional life in a calm and mournful manner.

8. Punch Brothers, Who’s Feeling Young Now? The Punch Brothers, an experimental bluegrass (yes, that’s a thing) collective, burst out of the monotony of modern country with songs that sound a bit like Philip Glass picked up a banjo. One of the most interesting songs on the record is a bluegrass interpretation of Radiohead’s electronic instrumental “Kid A” made with no electronics at all.

9. Dirty Projectors, Swing Lo Magellan. Okay, it’s not as fun as Dirty Projectors’ 2009 masterpiece Bitte Orca. It lacks the all-out insanity that makes it fun to listen to. But even a stripped-down version of the band and their trademark off-center art-rock is worth a good listen.

10. Shovels & Rope, O’ Be Joyful. Listening to South Carolina folk-rock duo Shovels & Rope is a bit like watching a home video of the White Stripes as children. They don’t have the rock, or expansiveness of sound, but they’ve got all the charisma and country-fried attitude to make a fascinating acoustic record.

Future Greatness Award: Alt-J, An Awesome Wave. The Future Greatness award goes to an album that I can best see topping this chart in a few years. Alt-J’s debut record was messy and uncertain, but even considering that, their talent shone through.  Their odd time structures, quirky instrumentation, and hook-based vocals could one day coalesce into a psychedelic masterpiece.

Are Television Commercials Art?

I went recently with a few friends (thanks again) to the most recent British Arrows awards. They’re an award show for the best advertisements on British television. Every year, they ship the films all the way overseas and bring them to The Walker Art Center, where they’re shown for about a month, several times some days. I don’t ever hear any of this about, say, the awards for British television shows. Much ado about advertising, I suppose.

What strikes me as oddest is that these are shown at the Walker Art Center, not some odd theater somewhere in the city. The presupposition of this arrangement- one that kept coming into my thoughts during the showing- was that these advertisements were art.

Could it be true? Are advertisements a form of art? My first response was no. The point of art is to express oneself. Advertisements don’t show what the artist is thinking, but only what the creator of the advertisement wants people to think.

This does raise some questions. For example, during the early days of classical music, all music was commissioned for religious services, by the church, for the church. It was, in a way, an advertisement for the church. But those who were writing for the church certainly felt strongly about religious ideals, and were certainly expressing something of themselves when they wrote Gregorian chant.

The adverts we saw were nothing like Gregorian chant. They exploited our emotions for profit and played to archetypes for laughs and connection.  Except, of course, that there were political nonprofit ads and public service announcements. There’s political-based art, isn’t there? In addition, some of the advertisements were really quite funny. Isn’t a comedy film a form of art? A satire, at least? Where does that line come in? Would we consider Dr. Strangelove “art” but not Mean Girls?

You could argue, then, that advertisements, as film, are art, but not good art, because they don’t reflect any emotions. But I enjoyed going to see the Arrow Award winners. Most of them were quite funny. (One of my favorites is at the bottom.) Is it possible that something can be art and be good but not be good art?

Perhaps art is, more than anything, a lens. The lesson of the Arrow Awards is that anything created can be looked at as art. Everyday objects, even the most functional, have an art and creativity in their creation. Look at the furniture wherever you are. Someone had to come up with aesthetically pleasing shapes for it. The computer you’re working on is probably either square and techy or attractively sleek. Someone had to come up with those designs as well. Even nonfiction writing has an artistic component to it. When people make things, they want them to be appreciated. Why not appreciate them?