Blowhard, Esq. writes:
The intersection of Hill and Third in downtown Los Angeles, 1919 v. 2014. The concrete structure on the left is the parking lot for the Grand Central Market.
Click on the image to enlarge.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
The intersection of Hill and Third in downtown Los Angeles, 1919 v. 2014. The concrete structure on the left is the parking lot for the Grand Central Market.
Click on the image to enlarge.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
The basic standards that defined both the buildings and their interiors were simplicity and utility. The Shakers frowned on any kind of decoration, and they favored pure, clean forms that were highly functional and economic to make. The house interiors were bright and airy, well-heated and clean, uncluttered and serene.
…As the Shaker movement developed, they began to systematize the layouts of their communities…What enabled the Shaker style to grow and develop was the fact that all unknown artisans involved were able to innovate, providing they held to the group’s essential tenets. “This freedom to experiment in the interest of betterment,” says [design writer Richard] Shepherd, “saved Shaker architecture from the blight of institutionalism or stereotype.”
— Building Without Architects: A Global Guide to Everyday Architecture
Sax von Stroheim writes:
Short enough and readable enough that I sailed through it, but I only ever semi-enjoyed it, and, looking back at it, overall, holistically, it’s a bit of a bummer. Pynchon’s Raymond Chandler/Philip K. Dick trip is skin deep and the gags either become a burden (all the gonzo character names get old after a few chapters-worth of reading about the likes of Japonica Fenway and Puck Beaverton), never really get off the ground (the plotting seems to be deliberately rudimentary, in the manner of a second-rate Chandler knock-off, but deliberate or not it makes the book less interesting), or remain inscrutable (why all the references to Arrested Development?). Halfway through I started to think my time would be better spent: re-reading The High Window or A Scanner Darkly or going back and reading The Crying of Lot 49 again to remind myself why I liked Pynchon in the first place.
And I do like Pynchon: Crying is one of my favorite novels, and I think V. and Vineland are pretty terrific (despite their flaws). Speaking of Vineland, one of the things I really dig about that book is that it seems to express some kind of authentic 1960’s, counterculure sensibility, but in Inherent Vice that sensibility seems second hand: “The Sixties”TM rather than the 1960’s.
Finally, every now and then some genre author will complain about how “lit fic” writers get undeserved accolades from high brow critics for doing the same things their more pop oriented brethren are doing to less acclaim. But even though I’m probably a bigger fan of pop writing than “lit fic”, I usually find those complaints to be misguided at best and sour grapes at worst, mainly because “lit fic” authors aren’t doing, simply, the same thing as pop writers: they’re doing something weirder, more esoteric, and more hermetic than trying to tell a compelling story with interesting characters. In this case, though, I did keep thinking that Inherent Vice was sailing awfully close to being one of the gonzo caper novels that Carl Hiaasen used to be the master of, and that the only reason high brows were taking it at all seriously was because of Pynchon’s pedigree.
Eddie Pensier writes:
My long weekend in Sydney included not only culture of the liquid sort, but actual art. I’ve been to Sydney dozens of times and somehow failed to visit the AGNSW, an oversight I regret after having spent the morning there. I took enough photos of art for multiple blog posts, so here’s the first — a feminine-themed one that I hope you’ll enjoy.
A few standouts: John Dickson Batten’s supremely ghoulish Snowdrop and the Seven Little Men, which will put any mental images of plump, sexless Disney dwarves firmly out of your head and replace them with menacing, slavering goblins; John Everett Millais’ The Captive, an oddly confronting name for this vision of pre-Raphaelite prettiness; Violet Teague’s Dian Dreams (Una Falkiner), with its Madame X-like bare shoulder broadcasting eroticism of a very subdued sort; Robert Peake’s Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, a rare loan from London’s National Portrait Gallery, and the three smashing portraits by the Russian-born Australian George Washington Lambert, especially The Red Shawl, which held me enthralled for a good three minutes.
Two of the paintings contain partial nudity, so possibly NSFW.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Co-directed by Scorsese and David Tedeschi, this is Scorsese’s second documentary chronicling the intellectual and cultural life of New York. Although I enjoyed Scorsese’s PUBLIC SPEAKING, a profile of Fran Leibowitz which I thought was a good evocation of a writer’s life in 70s and 80s NYC, ARGUMENT struck me stodgy, worshipful, and dull.
A celebration of the the New York Review of Books, the film is less a history of the publication and more like a greatest hits anthology. Scorsese and Tedeschi mix footage of co-founder and editor-in-chief Robert Silvers at work (making phone calls, dictating emails) with scenes filmed at the publication’s 50th anniversary party in 2013 along with the usual talking head reminiscences by contributors like Zoë Heller, Ian Buruma, Mary Beard, Mark Danner, and Michael Chabon. The movie recalls the NYRB’s combative glory days in the 60s and 70s with entertaining glimpses of Gore Vidal v. Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag v. Mailer, and a room full of angry women v. Mailer. But the film is tied together thematically by scenes in which some of its most notable writers read from their signature pieces, for example Sontag on photography, Joan Didion on the Central Park 5, and Derek Walcott on Robert Lowell. They read extended excerpts, up to three minutes long, while the filmmakers illustrate the narration with archival photos and pull quotes. However, the directors don’t provide much context for these scenes so it’s easy for the audience to tune out. And do we really need two segments, one three minutes long the other four and a half, of Darryl Pinckney droning on about how influenced he was by James Baldwin?
At a time when venerable East Coast literary brands like The New Republic and The Atlantic are devolving into clickbait farms, I appreciate that Scorsese and Tedeshi want to honor an institution that has resisted New Media trendiness. In the scenes of Silvers working, the only thing that makes his job look different from photos taken decades ago is the presence of a Mac; both then and now the primary feature of his workplace are stacks and stacks of books. The NYRB blog is mentioned, but the blog’s editor is quick to note that one contributor is so helplessly maladroit with technology that he faxes in his posts. One shot prominently features the book Social Media is Bullshit in case the point isn’t being driven home. But despite the parade of luminaries recounting the paper’s highlights, I don’t think the documentary adds much that can’t already be gleaned from the paper’s Wikipedia entry.
THE 50 YEAR ARGUMENT is currently streaming on HBO Go.
Related
Paleo Retiree writes:
Why are so many young Americans today (esp. of the white-and-privileged sort) not-OK with the idea that there’s a difference between messy, bad sex and rape? Is it mainly because everyone these days craves victim status? And, if so: Why on earth are we cultivating a culture that holds up victim status as something that’s to be passionately desired?
Related
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
The remote, heavily forested Isla de Chiloe [in Chile]…is home to a remarkable set of wood churches, sixteen of which have been recognized by UNESCO World Heritage as “outstanding examples of the successful fusion of European and indigenous cultural traditions to produce a unique form of wood architecture.”
…It was Jesuit missionaries who first established the churches…the myths, spirits, and beliefs of the indigenous people became intertwined with the Catholic doctrine; this cultural fusion became enshrined in the unique wood structures that the Indians built under Jesuit instruction.
— Building Without Architects: A Global Guide to Everyday Architecture
Paleo Retiree writes:
Another in my series of looks at good documentaries-about-movies, a movie genre in its own right and one that strikes me as particularly healthy. Previous installments in this series are here, here and here. Today …
Side by Side
Straightforward, super-informative documentary, directed by Christopher Kenneally and narrated and co-produced by Keanu Reeves, about the changes digital tech has brought about in the movie business — in the industry itself as well as in the business’ creations. The film features a perfectly amazing collection of interviewees, from James Cameron and Martin Scorsese and Steven Soderbergh to execs, editors and cinematographers. Nearly all of them do great jobs of sharing experiences and insights, and nearly all of them are frank about the minuses as well as the pluses of the technology; this is no pro-digital propaganda piece. I’m a little perplexed about why the Jennifer Jason Leigh / Alan Cumming movie “The Anniversary Party” didn’t get a mention; it was one of the more interesting (IMHO, of course) of the earlier digital features. But let’s be grateful for what we do get, which is considerable. If you watch this movie, you’ll learn everything any civilian might reasonably want to know. Keanu’s a likably enthusiastic and (as you might expect) goofy interviewer, and the glimpses we get of the compact tools and teeny cameras used to make the very documentary we’re watching really help drive the film’s messages home.