Category: Blog Post

  • The Extraordinary True Life of George Hogg

    It’s easy to understand the
    attraction of putting the extraordinary true life of George Hogg to
    film. An Englishman bearing witness to and working in war-torn
    1930s China, Hogg became the headmaster of a failing school and grew
    to succeed where his predecessors had not. Fearing the Japanese
    army’s advance, Hogg resolved to lead his students on a perilous 700-mile journey
    through the mountains to safety.

    Screenwriter James MacManus
    learned of Hogg’s
    story
    while on
    assignment in China for The Daily Telegraph, overhearing that
    a statue dedicated to Hogg was being erected in a remote town on the
    Mongolian border. Intrigued, MacManus investigated the story. He found and interviewed Rewi Alley, a New Zealander who had known and worked closely with Hogg. MacManus’s story appeared in newspapers
    around the world and compelled film producers to commission a screenplay.

    Director Roger Spottiswoode provides an agreeable old-Hollywood-style
    gloss, and high production values shine throughout. Hogg’s story
    is presented earnestly but not too cloyingly, and the film’s photography
    (shot on location across China) is beautiful, evocative, and easy to
    appreciate on the big screen.

    Less effective are some of
    the performances, saddled with clunky dialogue and the screenplay’s
    need to expedite the passage of time from sequence to sequence, and given
    little room to establish themselves beyond the stock purposes they serve.
    Jonathan Rhys Meyers (George Hogg), great fun to watch as Henry VIII
    on Showtime’s The Tudors, can’t seem to impart the different
    kind of passion this material asks for; and Radha Mitchell (Lee Pearson) is oddly vacant in her role as an
    American nurse Hogg falls in love with. The easy charisma of
    both Chow Yun-Fat (Chen Hansheng, a communist rebel who helps
    Hogg) and Michelle Yeoh, (also in Spottiswoode’s James Bond
    film Tomorrow Never Dies) as a deposed aristocrat, is stark in
    comparison, and they elevate each of their scenes accordingly.

    But for a few moments of startling
    violence, the movie feels content to create and ride a passable after-school-special
    vibe until the very en and through the credits sequence, which hints at the poignancy that is ultimately missing
    from the rest of the film.

     The Children of Huang Shi opens June 13 at Landmark’s
    Edina Cinema
    .

     

  • Beautiful Resistance

    Remember beauty? The breath-taking, awe-inspiring kind? Take a pause to remember. And remember what followed the initial encounter—the inescapable impulse to share. Did you fumble for your phone or camera to snap a picture for posterity right away? Did you turn to the person next to you, excitedly asking, "did you see…?" or verbally pointing, "look there..!" The urge to share what is beautiful rests deeply within our psyches. Beauty wields the power to humble us, however temporarily, and to re-shuffle our everyday, typically rather self-involved priorities. Rather than secretly stow beauty away, we turn to one another to share it, try to re-create it in order to pass on the experience. In the words of philosopher Elaine Scarry, an encounter with something beautiful leads to a radical de-centering, and grants us a fleeting experience of a dramatically altered relationship to the world around us. Beauty, Simone Weil writes, "requires us to give up our imaginary position at the center."

    If Scarry and Weil are right, the creation and the sharing of beauty are acts of resistance. Why? Because creating the opportunity for "the ethical alchemy of beauty," as Scarry puts it, to run its course, to temporarily dethrone us from the human zenith of significance, means resisting a cultural imperative that tells us, in no uncertain terms, to put ourselves first, to insist on our usurping center stage in the narratives of our own lives and in those of others–other people as well as other creatures.

    Two shows that opened last weekend in Minneapolis take on the lives of those very others: at form + content, Christine Baeumler’s Lost Menagerie invites us to imagine and vicariously experience her encounters with the strange beauty, sentience, and intelligence of creatures dramatically different from us, while Allen Brewer‘s And Then There Were None pays homage to extinct and critically endangered species at gallery 360. Both bodies of work engage with questions raised by the ongoing loss of bio-diversity: Brewer’s paintings with the loss and endangerment of whole species, Baeumler’s installations and two-dimensional pieces with the risk of losing the experience of the seemingly insurmountable otherness and sheer beauty of the non-human world.

    Brewer’s animal portraits are exquisitely rendered. Their at times whimsical and luminescent beauty is paired with somber titles that plainly state either the date and place of extinction–Dodos, Mauritius, 1681; Pink-headed Duck, Calcutta, 1935–or the endangered status of the species depicted. The artist writes about the paintings, hung in ornate but recycled, chipped, and worn-looking frames, as shrines meant to remind us of the "holiness" of these non-human lives lost to carelessness and stupidity of a very human kind. Despite the fact that not all of the creatures in the paintings have already disappeared, that there is some-not much-wiggle room to enact protective measures for some endangered critters, the pieces have an elegiac air. For instance, the Midwest’s black-footed ferret, long thought to be extinct, has recently been returned to the prairies in a Nature Conservancy sponsored re-introduction project. In Brewer’s portrait, though, such hopeful (albeit small) signs of stewardship and caring for all existence are absent: the black-footed ferret gazes out of its portrait under a darkening, sinister, positively ominous sky.

    Darkness, too, plays a role in Christine Baeumler’s Lost Menagerie at form + content. Upon entering the sparsely light gallery space, pupils widen in a visceral response to low light, reminding visitors poignantly of our own branch on the family tree of species, our own evolutionary adaptations and deeply-seated instinctual responses. We may not be so different after all from the creatures Baeumler’s work engages with. As the artist reminds us by quoting Charles Darwin, the difference is one of degree, not kind. But the darkness serves another purpose: it asks us to step out of the conventional script of opening night, to interact in semi-darkness with gouache paintings of underwater creatures whose bulging eyes look back at us, and with video and sound installations that invite us to imaginatively enter into Baeumler’s encounters with various species, ranging from Spinner dolphins to flamingos, to turtles and mighty Galapagos lizards.

    Here, again, is the urge to share what is beautiful in that breath-taking, awe-inspiring way. Rather than mourn the careless extinction of countless species, here is work that asks us to pay attention to what we stand to lose. Yet Baeumler’s explicit concern lies not only with the threatening loss of this strange animal beauty but, more importantly, with the threat of losing the opportunity to experience and encounter that transformative beauty. Loss indeed figures centrally in Lost Menagerie: the loss of our ability to perceive, to slow down, to let "the ethical alchemy of beauty" run its course, to call out to us and transform us in the process.

    Unlike courtly menageries of past centuries, Baeumler’s menagerie does not gather exotic animals together for the sake of displaying wealth and power. And unlike zoos, which grew out of the menageries of old with the added clout of scientific inquiry, this work is not, strictly speaking, concerned with science, despite the prominent invocation of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the appeal to find affinities rather than insurmountable differences in our relationships to the non-human world. (The central piece, Darwin’s Table, includes a video loop of a human eye morphing into a fish eye and back, in a potent allusion to phylogeny). Instead, this body of work addresses experience, the act of beholding, of perception, and, to speak with Scarry one last time, "the creative act that is prompted by one’s being in the presence of what is beautiful." This creative act, driven by the desire to find ways to share encounters that move us beyond words, is the true centerpiece of the show.

    Yet in the process of engaging with these inevitably truncated snippets of profound experience, something odd happens.

    While poring over the glass-jar covered "specimens of experience," as Baeumler calls them, on Darwin’s Table and following the stop-and-go movement of slow motion video footage of a leaping pod of Spinner dolphins in Surfacing, we are conscious of the fact that the act of perception takes effort and time. The kind of beauty on display here resists short attention spans and exhortations to consume, more and faster all the time. There is resistance, too, to the paradigm of scientific objectivity and the putative neutrality of the observer. The thick glass of the jars on Darwin’s Table allows for distortions, reflections, and color variations dependent on the angle of vision. Clearly, there is no detached, objective position here: what we see depends entirely on where we stand, how hard we are willing to look, and how deeply we are ready to immerse ourselves in what we see. Scientific attempts at encapsulating, isolating, and scrutinizing experiences of this kind must ultimately fail.

    These kinds of beautiful resistance–to scientific abstractions, to anthropocentric attitudes, to cultural imperatives to consume and race through life as fast as we humanly can, and even to defeatist laments and cynical inaction–are met with another kind of resistance, though, a resistance that seems to originate from the moving images themselves.

    In Surfacing, for instance, the footage of the surface of the water, shot from a moving ship and projected in slow motion, becomes a plane for dreamlike abstraction: the
    slow-motion induced interruptions of the smooth flow of images conspire to create an effect of great distance. We are free to imagine that we’re looking at snow-covered mountain ranges from outer space, or wispy clouds, or perhaps randomly distributed, purely formalist marks. This contemplative state of aesthetic appreciation, though, is once again interrupted, this time by the graceful ascent of the dolphins. Glistening bodies rise from below the surface, arch out of the water elegantly, before descending smoothly. Their presence and beauty put an end to any associative mental journeys. But more than that, their unequivocally beautiful movement resists the technologically enforced slow-down, resists the very means of capturing and representing this experience.

    The colorful, distorted reflections on the glass jars on Darwin’s Table suggest a similar resistance of the specimens of experience on display. Rather than accept confinement in their isolated bell jars, new images emerge from the semi-darkness, composed in equal parts of video screen and reflection. Simply put, the images refuse to stay put. From certain vantage points in the gallery, the glass covering of the gouache paintings lends itself as a substrate for reflecting the leaping dolphins of Surfacing. Such is the nature of this incorrigible beauty: it resists separation, asserts itself unexpectedly and thus, on a small scale, offers a fragment of that original, mystifying encounter. Yet these feats of resistance accomplish something else still: they re-assert the uniqueness of the original experience, its irreplaceability, and the looming loss of the very possibility of such encounters.

    Ultimately, Baeumler’s work resonates with that alchemical, ethically imperative call of beauty to resist the human position at an illusionary center of the universe. Lost Menagerie invites us to embrace and seek out the radical de-centering that beauty may grant us–before it is too late and the menagerie of experiences and encounters Baeumler shares with us at form + content will truly be lost. This beauty is indeed a wake-up call.

     

    Acknowledgment: All references and quotations are from Elaine Scarry’s On Beauty and Being Just.

  • POWER: Yes, there is a PRICE YOU PAY

    I used to think that having POWER meant a better night’s rest and less worrying. I was again Wrong.

    In MY life I get to see a lot of things that most people don’t get to see. And there are times when I am so grateful for that window of lights, cameras, action — and other times when I am just at a loss for words.

    Yesterday, I wanted my daughter to see something to which I have been privy much of my life — a dignitary parade of sorts — and get her perspective. Oh, I got it all right, but not what a Mom wants to hear from her teenage child who, like her mom, has seen too much — The Truth.

    As we sat outside, watching town cars round the bend, my daughter fell silent, stunned by the production, by the number of people it takes to transport one dignitary to a private event, and by the way any resident’s needs or comfort falls to the wayside in these circumstances. What happens to a man when he no longer has his caravan? And what of the seemingly wasted man hours? — so many people just standing around.

    I spent many years chasing stories in the same way that everybody else in the media does — trying to make sure I was asking the questions that the viewers wanted answers to. Now that line between asking the wrong and right questions — and taking a story too far — have become even more blurred. This is my life. And I have people to protect, just like the dozens of agents standing around.

    I am a human being, right? And I eat, work, and use the restroom like everyone else, right? So what is the difference between me and, say, the Secret Service, the State Trooper, and the cop who makes a living protecting what the public should know and not know?

    What makes me different from these people is that They, as PUBLIC SERVANTS, pay a hell of a price for their Jobs. Imagine waking up in the morning, saying goodbye to a family that you love and protect, leaving your home, and saying hello to people you are PAID to protect — only, instead of a hug or kiss you get complaint after complaint after complaint.

    Yesterday, the story wasn’t inside, with the dignitaries (where the cameras would be, if only "they" knew), it was just outside, where I was
    standing. It was in the herds of people Paid to Protect.

    As Melinda Jacobs from "Action News" discovered, these people are nothing short of Heroes. Despite having to spend their day in idleness, they were wonderful and kind ALL day, hour after hour. (Only one Female State Trooper gave me "the look" on property that is rightfully mine.) And I could do nothing but be nice back.

    "We finally got some nice weather today."
    "I am going to get some coffee. Would you like some?"
    "Are you hot? Because I would be happy to run and get you some water."

    That is all that I could do with MY Power, but with Their Power they looked me in the eye with a nice smile and gave me that extra feeling of security that comes from being in the hands of people we as taxpayers are LUCKY as HELL to employ. This truly makes me glad that the harder I work, and the more money I make, the more money goes to a workforce of people that Deserve to wear their badges proudly, turn on their sirens, go through stop signs (because they Have to), and put on a uniform that carries the power of life or death.

    If only more of my tax dollars went to the workforce that serves and protects, and less to the ones that abuse freedom… Oh, I would sleep so much better.

    To the Republican Party: I have evidence that I will protect in a safe place.
    To the Democratic Party: I have evidence that I will protect in a safe place.
    To the Independent Party: I have evidence that I will protect in a safe place.
    To those who are undecided: While you fight it out I will be at Dairy Queen having a turtle sundae.

    COPS ARE MY ROCK STARS!

  • Shock Me, Baby, One More Time

    SPECIAL EVENT
    A Toast to Tesla



    No, not the hair band
    from the late ’80s, although I do happen to know a few people who would
    probably be into that. Tonight’s event at the Bakken is dedicated to
    one of America’s greatest electrical engineers, Nikola Tesla,
    inventor of the radio. Sample complimentary appetizers and wines from
    Artisian Vineyards while strolling the Bakken’s beautiful outdoor
    gardens, take in a live performance of an old-timey radio show, and
    watch man-made lightning demonstrations with the Tesla coil. The Bakken
    will be hosting these "Electrifying Fun for Grownups"
    events monthly through the summer. So instead of sticking a fork in a
    light socket like you usually do every second Tuesday of the month,
    head to the Bakken for a safe and "shockingly" good time.



    5pm-8pm, The Bakken Museum, 3537 Zenith Ave. S, Minneapolis, $7

    MUSIC

    The Schubert Fest



    Get some lunchtime culture this week with the Schubert Club’s yearly St. Paul Summer Song Fest,
    a concert series that runs daily through the end of the week with free,
    noon-time performances featuring classical musicians. This year’s
    festival focuses on the work of influential English composer Vaughan Williams,
    who created epic symphonies, chamber music, opera, and film scores.
    Today’s performance features sweet soprano Maria Jette alongside Young
    Nam Kim on violin. A perfect noon reprieve from the
    Downtown office-worker blues, if you ask me.



    Noon (daily through Friday), Landmark Center, Room 317, 75 W. 5th Street, Downtown St.Paul, Free




    PERFORMANCE
    Stomp



    Provocative UK performance troupe Stomp invades the Ordway for a week-long run.
    Expect wild percussion, unusual props and instruments, and unbelievable
    movement from this eight-piece ensemble. For years, the group has impressed
    the world with their originality and presence, taking creativity in
    performance to a whole new level with innovative dance
    techniques and sound and rhythm created with non-traditional
    items such as matchboxes, garbage cans, and hubcaps. Runs through the
    15th.



    8pm, The Ordway, 345 Washington Street, St. Paul, $20-$50




    BOOKS

    Raking through Books with Greta Gaard

    The Rake’s monthly happy hour book club, at Kieran’s Irish Pub, offers readers the chance
    to discuss literature with writers and each other in a super-casual
    setting. This month, meet Greta Gaard, author of Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens and The Nature of Home: Taking Root in a Place, and editor of Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature.
    A well-published environmental literature critic, she currently teaches
    at the University of Wisconsin, River Falls, and serves on the Board of
    Directors for the Environmental Association for Great Lakes Education.

    5:30-7pm, Kieran’s Irish Pub, 330 2nd Ave. S, Downtown Minneapolis, Free


  • The Three Pointer: The Lakers Lay an Egg

    (AFP/Nicholas Kamm)

    Game #2, NBA Finals: Los Angeles 102, Boston 108

    Series to Date: Boston up 2-0

    1. No D in Los Angeles Lakers

    After watching the last 2 and a half quarters live and then the entire game on tape, I’ve got to say that for all my babble about the superiority of the Western Conference this season, the Celts lose last night’s game if the opponent was the Cavs, and probably the Pistons too. What a dreadful, dreadful lack of defensive commitment shown by LA, beginning at the top with Kobe Bryant–has an all defensive first-teamer ever mailed it in so thoroughly at that end of the floor in a big game?–and extending down to poor Trevor Ariza, who needed GPS to figure out where Paul Pierce was on the court during his mercifully brief 7:19.

    These were supposed to be the old, veteran Celtics, the team whose Big 3 have double-digit years in the league and who bring dinosaurs like PJ and Sam I Am off the pine. These were supposed to be the neo-Showtime Lakers, young and fleet, especially lanky big men Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom and the go-go backup backcourt of Sasha Vujacic and Jordan Farmar. So why did the Celts have more fast break points, 14-10? Why was Doc Rivers correctly telling his team at halftime that every time they forced a miss they could get layups and open treys if they pushed in transition? Yeah, the Lakers were embarrassed on the boards in Game One and determined not to let it happen again, so they hit their offensive glass hard and likewise posted up frequently in the first half. But how many times did we see whatever Lakers bothered to hustle back in transition necessarily play out of position to staunch that early flow, creating all sorts of chaos and mismatches if indeed the Celts had to wait for a second wave of offense on the controlled break–that is if they didn’t score immediately?

    Things didn’t get much better when the tempo slowed and the Celts operated their half-court sets. The Lakers’ pick-and-roll recognition and response was pathetic–if Kevin Garnett had hit half of the wide open midrange jumpers he usually knocks down, Boston would have been up 20 instead of 12 at the break. (And BTW, KG very rarely got those looks against Cleveland or Detroit or even on the road against Atlanta.) Of course Boston often didn’t bother with the pick and roll because Vlad Rad and Ariza were totally stumped by the fact that Paul Pierce could put the ball on the floor–that newfangled dribble move! They must have been reading all the breathless hype about how banged up and incapacitated Pierce was from his 96 second absence in Game One. That’s about as far from "the Truth" as if he’d had to tap out from a figure-4 leg lock from Ric Flair in wrestling. In any case, imagine how badly Radmanovic would have looked if Pierce had two good knees.

    Kobe? It was hard to tell who he was guarding half the time, although twice running out to slap palms with Ray Allen on the latter’s uncontested treys provided some clues. A couple of times Kobe was matched up on Leon Powe, and we know how that worked out–well, better than when hapless Luke Walton was forced to try and guard somebody.

    You really could go right down the Lakers’ roster. Odom totally allowed the wily vet PJ Brown to get in his head at both ends of the floor. Derek Fisher hasn’t gotten the memo that you see if Rajon Rondo is hitting his jumper before you allow him to become a playmaker, especially if you are much slower than Rondo (who had just 4 shots versus 16 assists). RonyTuriaf was too slow for Powe–and for PJ Brown.

    Put bluntly, the Lakers played shockingly bad defense, and that, to me, was the ballgame. Consider that the Celts shot 46% in the Atlanta series, 42.5% versus the Cavs, 45.8% against the Pistons, and even 42.1% in Game One against the Lakers. Last night they were 52.9%, including 9-14, or 64.3%, from beyond the arc, and that’s with KG having an off night at 7-19 FG. Boston’s bench shot 11-16 FG–69%.

    If Jackson and his crew are smart, they will change their priorities for the next game. Put Kobe on Pierce and tell him to shut Pierce down. Kobe is capable of it and it would get his mind off trying to do too much at the other end. Pierce will try and get him in foul trouble but the refs will have heat on them for the free throw disparity in Game Two and won’t call the borderline contact. Put Vujacic on Ray Allen and tell him that he is only allowed to shoot as often as he makes Allen miss. On offense, Kobe will be taxed from actually playing some defense, so Los Angles should play more inside-out with ball movement, posting up Gasol and running Odom off screens and forcing KG to decide which one he is guarding. Because if a dinged up Perkins or an ancient PJ Brown can stop Gasol in the low block, the series is pretty much over anyway.

    2. Overrated: Referee Bias and Laker 4th Q Comeback

    Anyone who cares about pro hoops intimately knows the feeling of believing your team is getting screwed by the refs. The violence you wish to do is totally out of proportion (hopefully) with the way you normally view setbacks and petty grievances and injustices in your non-fan existence. I’ve found myself rooting for the Lakers against the Nuggets and the Jazz, and rooting against them versus the Spurs. I favor the Celtics in this series due to my longstanding observation of KG during his time in Minnesota, and my growing respect throughout these playoffs for their team-wide commitment to defense. But I have affection for the Lakers too, and have found that you really detest the refs when you are not only pulling for someone to win, but equally pulling for the other team to lose, and the whistles therefore double down on your passion.

    This long preface is meant to stake my claim as a slight, but certainly not blind, Celtic partisan here. To Laker fans screaming bloody murder about the free throw discrepancy, I understand–but don’t feel–your pain. Remember, I’m the guy who claimed the Lakers’ Game Four win against the Spurs was "tainted" due to the referees. Believe me when I say that the anger will subside and perspective will set in. And the perspective that is required here–as was true in the LA-SA Game Four–is that the refs weren’t the difference here.

    Let’s get specific. Early foul trouble on Kobe Bryant was to my eyes (and I played back the tape a lot on my second viewing of the game) comprised of both legitimate and questionable calls. The first foul, when Pierce tried to rub him off on a screen and he reached around to keep contact with Allen, was an understandable call and a legit foul. It also could have been a no-call. The second foul–the arm-shove to Allen before he got the ball–was deemed by Van Gundy and Jackson as a cheap foul, but it looked pretty blatant to me and was in any case unnecessary. Whether or not it was called, it was a stupid move by Kobe and a tribute to Ray Allen, whose defense on Bryant has been something of a revelation this series. The third foul on Bryant was an obvious flop by Paul Pierce–that’s not the way players fall, if they fall at all, when someone runs into them. It was a borderline flop if Kobe had the ball and was going to the hoop: that it was whistled as Kobe was trying to move through a pick (and Pierce is a master at slightly moving to the side on his picks) was a bad call, especially so because it was #3 and sent him to the bench. Ditto the technical on Kobe after the layup seemed like a rabbit-eared move. I’m all for ringing up technicals on blatant protests by players, but it is being enforced so haphazardly–hey, Kendrick Perkins could get a technical every single time he commits a foul, and ditto Gasol–that to whistle Kobe, especially when it looked like a Celtic reached in and raked him during his drive, was bad judgment by the official. Also, there was more than once when Kobe got hammered driving the lane–once
    Pierce knocked him so obviously that Kobe changed his hand and scored lefty–and no whistle was called. So, yes, I believe there was a pro-Boston bias on balance to the calls. I think even more than Kobe, Gasol got screwed, but some of this is Gasol’s fault–he’s just not very aggressive by nature down in the paint, and that matters to the refs. Nevertheless, I saw Gasol get fouled as often as I saw Leon Powe get fouled and Powe had 13 free throws to Gasol’s one.

    So why don’t I think it swung the outcome of the game in which LA only lost by six points? Because the large lead caused the Celts to lose their focus, as happened at least twice before in the Pistons series. These lapses are a weakness, but thus far not a fatal weakness, with Boston. The smaller the lead, the tighter their focus, and while that was indeed an impressive scramble-back by the Lakers, it was that combination of one team’s desperation and another’s nonchalance that makes for second-rate, sort of novelty basketball. I don’t believe that improbable comeback is any more successful if the refs call a totally balanced game.

    The ending of that comeback, by the way, was to my eyes poetic justice. On the Celtic end, Boston put the ball in the hands of the person who is their crunchtime assassin, Paul Pierce. (A reader/commenter briefly convinced me that Kevin Garnett has an equal right to that claim for the Celts, but after reviewing some old crunchtimes for Boston in these playoffs, I reverted back to thinking that when it comes to the team needing a basket, Pierce is going to be their preference about 8 out of 10 times.) Pierce drew the foul and hit the crucial free throws. At the other end of the floor, the Lakers’ and arguably the NBA’s premiere crunchtime assassin never touched the ball because Sasha Vujacic mistakenly continues to believe he’s the second coming of Manu Ginobili and got his ill-advised shot blocked by Pierce. Replays showed Kobe getting open on the weak side just before Vujacic launched. A fitting ending to a horrible game if you are a Lakers fan.

    3. Worst Assist Ever Called

    Hey, I grew up worshipping the Celtics, who won their first ring with Russell when I was five years old, growing up approximately 7 miles from the old Garden, and even I think all this "Celtic tradition" stuff is getting out of hand. Don’t believe the hype.

    And speaking of hype, does everyone recall the play that typified LA’s brain dead, foot cobwebbed, approach to defense last night, when Leon Powe dribbled the length of the court and sank a layup while Gasol, Vlad Rad and others had garlands strewn in his path to the hoop? Perhaps you’ll recall that Powe received the ball beneath the foul line in his own end, and thus had to dribble about 85 of the 94 feet. Well, the player who gave him the ball–it could have been an out-of-bounds pass, or perhaps just a "why don’t you bring it up, Leon?" gesture–was Rajon Rondo. And the official scorer in Boston gave him an assist on the play. Sort of puts those 16 assists Rondo tallied, and the 31 allotted to the Celtics team, in a new, less favorable light.

  • Are All Critics Obsolete?

    Steadily as the American dollar, the value of informed opinions is decreasing. As information becomes ever more accessible and democratized, thanks to the likes of Google and Wikipedia and Things White People Like, the necessity for critics — previously our cultural gatekeepers — seems to be vanishing. Whether it’s food, music, or movies, the corresponding critics are getting laid of left and right from their respective publications. Much of the problem, as Jeremy Iggers and others note, stems from the declining budgets of print newspapers. But (as Iggers also explains), this trend may be equally due to the ubiquitous opining of the blogosphere.

    The same thing, of course, is happening in the literary world. The following is a missive from the National Books Critics Circle:

    At the Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, Newsday, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, The Memphis Commercial Appeal, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, The Dallas Morning News, The Sun Sentinel, The New Mexican, The Village Voice, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and dozens upon dozens of other papers, book coverage has been cut back or slashed all together, moved, winnowed, filled with more wire copy, or generally been treated as expendable.

    There seems to be a definite difference, though, between the demise of the literary critic and critics of other media. Namely, book reviewers see their fate as being tied more closely to their subject. While the sorry state of print newspapers isn’t helping their cause, nor the sexy snarky opining of clever online commentators, the real problem might stem from within the practice itself.

    "Even if you think critics are parasites," said Louis Bayard in an article for Salon a couple weeks ago, "you have to acknowledge they can only survive when their host organisms thrive… If we want to bring the critic back to life, we first have to resuscitate the novelist."

    The corresponding argument for restaurant reviewers would be preposterous: Food critics are dying off because food isn’t relevant anymore. Meanwhile, though Clay Aiken rules the radio and ‘Meet the Zohan’ is on the big screens, the independent communities in film and music still seem to be thriving. If anything, the emergence of the Internet has only made the musical climate more diverse and interesting, providing heaps of content for reviewers. Whereas the alternatives to Stephen King (as Bayard would have it) are becoming ever scarcer.

    I take issue with the idea that the novel is irrelevant. Ignored, sure. But there are still some incredibly moving books and stories published each year. The question that’s raised, though, is what is the aim of criticism? And are their bloggers that do actually achieve this aim, thus rendering the prose pros (boo…) obsolete?

    For me, the most satisfying reviews are the ones that throw light on a novel’s context, and show me how it’s supposed to be read. I trust critics to be smarter than me, and to have the ability to place a given book in its correct context, which I might otherwise miss.

    In their essay "The Hype Cycle," the editors of N + 1 avow that there is not necessarily a set medium for criticism, but a set of rules. "Real criticism can take the form of a monograph, or a long review, or just a few words mumbled to a friend," they say. "In any case, it judges art with reference to the work’s internal logic and generic and historical situation." They go on (in other articles) to say that though strong examples may be found in blogs and on Amazon reviews, for the most part the emergence of these media have cheapened criticism.

    Certainly there are some professional critics who satisfy the common criteria for reviews. Robert Pinsky’s write-up of Kathryn Harrison’s While They Slept, which appeared in this week’s NYTBR, gives us a precise idea of how to understand the book we’re about to read:

    The violations that destroy human lives, or maim them, seem to demand telling…Possibly we seek such stories as ways to understand our smaller, more ordinary losses and griefs. Mythology and literature (and their descendant, the Freudian talking cure) manifest a profound hunger for narrating what is called, paradoxically, the unspeakable. Raped, her tongue torn out, Philomela becomes the nightingale, singing the perpetrator’s guilt. When Oedipus appears with bleeding eye-sockets, the tragic chorus simultaneously narrates and says it cannot speak; it looks while saying it must look away.

    Having read the review, there is no way to consider the actual book without keeping this in mind.

    But mostly there seem to be sloppy reviews that substitute analysis for opinion. The following is another review from last Sunday’s NYTBR, this one by Lucy Ellman, concerning Chuck Palahniuk’s Snuff.

    What the hell is going on? The country that produced Melville, Twain and James now venerates King, Crichton, Grisham, Sebold and Palahniuk. Their subjects? Porn, crime, pop culture and an endless parade of out-of-body experiences. Their methods? Cliché, caricature and proto-Christian morality. Props? Corn chips, corpses, crucifixes. The agenda? Deceit: a dishonest throwing of the reader to the wolves. And the result? Readymade Hollywood scripts.

    So not only has America tried to ruin the rest of the world with its wars, its financial meltdown and its stupid stupid food, it has allowed its own literary culture to implode.

    Though I’m inclined to agree with her on all points, I’m not sure a book review is the platform. Throughout, she has as many problems with what ‘Snuff’ stands for as with the book itself.

    Others substitute analysis for plot description, like Rachel Blount’s review of Charles Leerhsen’s Crazy Good in this Sunday’s Star Tribune. The most illuminating aspect of her critique is when she tells us that this book follows the Seabiscuit model. Otherwise, it’s 98 percent synopsis.

    Ellen Emry Heltzel’s review of The Garden of Last Days, also in the Strib, fares little better. At first there is promise, as Heltzel tells us it’s "Dubus’ empathy for his characters" that make the book so titillating. Maybe she’ll explain his technique, why it’s so. Instead we just get a description of what happens.

    I do agree that literary criticism is ailing, and not necessarily at the hands of bloggers or dying print dailies. To say that irrelevant models breed irrelevant reviews is one thing, but to me there seems also to be a lack of discipline on the critic’s end.

    Maybe Norman Mailer put it best. "Critics were my judgmental peers," he said in an interview that appeared in The Paris Review last summer. "It was more exciting to meet [critics] than to meet most movie stars…you wanted their respect, and feared their disapproval. At the same time, as you grew and developed, you didn’t feel inferior to them…That was a nice moment. We don’
    t have it anymore. Those critics have all passed away. There’s no one to replace them that I can see."

  • The Well-Lubricated Fall of the Middle Class

    All praise be to the cyclopean gods of old for finally
    bringing the nigh interminable local and national Democratic nomination process
    to a close. For while sentences involving Andy
    Rooney, sodomy and bestiality
    , not to mention flag
    lapel pins
    and innuendo involving sniper fire,
    roll comfortably off the tongue of B-grade actors on late-night Cinemax, they
    do not serve as a substitute for effective political discourse.

    As a result, now that the maddening cacophony of berserk
    liberals has gone silent, however briefly, we must rush to place weightier
    issues on the table of public discourse. for not even the ancient eldritch
    power of the elder beings from out of time and space, combined with the cosmic
    might of Allah and Yahweh, will be able to hush the yowling
    dissonance
    that will ensue once the battle for the nation’s
    soul
    between Republican and Democrat begins in earnest.

    Donkey shows
    aside, the upcoming elections come at a time when a veritable shit-strewn minefield
    of problems is facing America’s
    middle class. To be clear, these problems do not include:

    • Middle
      Eastern terrorists come to spread plague, rape our women and blow up
      landmarks while screaming the Xena battle cry to
      the heavens.
    • Godless
      foreigners come to spread plague, rape our women and steal our jobs whilst
      inflicting gastrointestinal discomfort on us all by introducing new foods
      to the American palate.
    • Compact
      fluorescent light bulbs
      come to spread plague, rape our women, and
      poison our children with trace amounts of mercury.
    • Homosexuals
      seeking same sex marriages come to spread plague, rape our men and trigger
      the long-feared rash of man/horse romantic entanglements.

    What these problems do include is rising food costs,
    skyrocketing energy prices, tightening credit markets, miniscule raises, and
    falling home values, all adding up to an increasingly brutal struggle to stay afloat. In
    fact, between the first quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2008, after
    adjusting for inflation, wages for the middle class have essentially stagnated — increasing only .6 percent. And since the start of this year, wages have
    actually fallen behind inflation. Of course, that should come as no surprise –
    drivers throughout the country have found themselves spread-eagled at the pump,
    caught in the caustic grip of high-octane fossil fuels and whispering "I wish I
    could quit you" whilst sadly caressing the pump handle.

    So has this to do with the upcoming election? Everything, of
    course. America’s
    strong middle class is constantly cited as the primary reason for our country’s
    profoundly powerful and stable economy. They are the yellow sun to the United States’
    Superman. The Astro Glide to the country’s Jenna Jameson. The Blackwater to its
    Iraq
    security policy. Unfortunately for the middle class, most members of that
    demographic lack super strength, do not get to aid in the profligate banging of
    porn stars, and don’t possess the fully automatic weapons necessary to enforce
    real change. And with the illusory gains of the last few years almost
    completely wiped away, America’s
    middle class is under threat of extinction.

    On the campaign trail, our candidates for the Senate, the
    Oval Office, and every other elected office in the land put forth ideas for
    healthcare reform, bringing the troops home and winning the War on Terror.
    However, in their desperate hunt for sound bites and applause lines they’re
    missing the true scope of the problem. The economy has grown dramatically for the
    last six years, but that growth has largely left everyone but the wealthy
    behind. As a result, the middle class is becoming an even more narrow slice of
    the population, a trend that has accelerated and become ever more visible since
    the housing bubble burst. And as that slice shrinks, the country loses ground
    to its global competition.

    This lost ground means fewer students can afford college,
    thereby limiting the qualified workforce in the country. Our buying power
    suffers, forcing other countries to replace us with more valuable trading
    partners. Crime rates rise and neighborhoods become blighted toothless
    creatures, with boarded-up gaping wounds where families once dwelled and
    half-staved children roving through Longfellow, Kenwood and Linden Hills like a
    biblical swarm of feral locusts devouring all in sight and ruling their new Lord of
    the Flies kingdom
    with brutal efficiency.

    So while Democrats cheer on a message of change and Republicans
    bask in McCain’s Zen-like balance of maverick reputation and stay-the-course
    policy, neither side offers a full-blown strategy for heading off the impending
    class wars. And if this problem isn’t addressed, the rise of micro-nations
    within once peaceful neighborhoods will only be the beginning. The Chinese, no
    longer content with their near-monopoly on American lunch buffets, will buy up
    real estate at fire sale prices, satisfying the Communist nation’s long-held
    fascination with robot superweapons by collaborating with the Japanese to use
    the newly acquired land as a testing ground for an army of giant robot
    pandas
    . If this horrific future comes to pass, not only will America become
    a former superpower, but no one’s lucky bamboo will be safe from the
    predations of these nuclear-powered Socialist creatures
    of mass destruction
    .

  • Here’s One for the Open Road

    Jason Shannon likes to think
    of his band as a car.

    "A car Steve McQueen drove,"
    he says. "An old ’60s or ’70s hot rod. Not a badass car. Just a car
    with good integrity. Something that’s built to last, but not showing
    itself off. A Classic.

    "Something like that,"
    he laughs.

    The car metaphor is appropriate.
    Shannon’s song "Maybe Mexico" begs for an old jalopy and a stiff
    breeze. Ever the storyteller, his prose often seems stuck in that fork
    in the road between Lover’s Lane and Heartbreak Hotel.

    Shannon and his band are playing
    in Dinkytown’s Kitty Cat Klub, a surprisingly romantic and chic diversion
    in a college town that is aching for the latest drink special. The band,
    complete with a keyboardist and a horn section, is spilling off the
    tiny stage huddled in between the venue’s swaths of exposed brick
    and collection of antique mirrors. It’s the perfect setting for Shannon’s
    love songs and tales of hope and hopelessness. Outside, the sky is gray
    with a brewing storm. Inside, it is equally as electric. The atmosphere
    sets nerves tingling with that introspective feeling everyone gets when
    looking at the world through a rain-streaked window, seeing only your
    reflection.

    The band plays a mix of blues,
    rock, and folk with a bit of twang. And though he may have mixed feelings
    about applying the term "soul" to his sound, Shannon’s crooning
    is full of emotion. A lot of these influences, he says, he gathered
    growing up.

    "I grew up in Texas and Louisiana,"
    he says. "So I think I was always around country music and blues music.
    But no one ever said, ‘This is what we’re listening to and this
    is what this is.’ I think it’s sort of a genealogy thing, where
    I had it in me somewhere, but I never consciously tried to have it in
    me."

    His love of music he gained
    through childhood osmosis.

    "My dad managed a cable company.
    We had MTV right when it came out," he says. "I grew up playing
    sports, but I loved MTV and I loved the videos and I loved the songs.
    I would watch it all the time. Robert Palmer. Duran Duran. Tom Petty.
    INXS. I would just watch it all day. My mom would say, ‘What is your
    problem.’"

    Shannon isn’t new to the
    music scene. He spent time in a hard rock band and, as a solo artist,
    he considered a future in indie rock.

    "I was kind of hoping I would
    adopt some of the values," he says of the genre, "but I can’t.
    I gave up trying to do it. I guess it’s not even values, but it’s
    sort of like… you hope to fit in. I’m an adult, but it’s an acceptance
    thing. I gave up trying to do it. And giving up has been really good
    for me creatively."

    In a city that can feel clogged
    with bands latching onto musical trends of the moment, Shannon’s classic
    Americana sounds fresh. His quality storytelling is even more refreshing.
    It’s his words, Shannon says, that move him onstage.

    "If I’m connecting with
    a particular lyric, I will feel the lyric," he says. "I try to pay
    attention to what I’m singing all the time. I’m paying attention
    to my voice. I never have to think about my guitar playing. So I’m
    listening to the band and I’m listening to what I’m singing. If
    the lyric has a certain emotion, I’ll feel it and when I do feel it,
    it’s inspiring."

    Tonight Shannon shakes like
    his head is filled with phantoms, former romances and memories of escape.
    Missing is his near-trademark top hat, but its absence allows onlookers
    to more clearly see his face twist as he is connecting to that emotion.
    The sound bellows and his voice is thundering. Just like the clouds
    above.


    Photos by Denis Jeong.
    View full slideshow

  • More June Book Releases

  • Are Restaurant Critics Obsolete?

    The 2008 James Beard Awards for best
    restaurant, best chef, best cookbook, etc. were announced yesterday, and
    Minnesota got skunked. We had three chefs in the running for Best Chef Midwest
    – Isaac Becker of the 112 Eatery, Tim McKee of La Belle Vie and Solera, and Alex Roberts
    of Restaurant Alma and Brasa, which pretty much guaranteed that none of them would get
    the award. Wisconsin only had one candidate in the race, Adam Siegel of
    Bartolotta’s Lake Park Bistro in Milwaukee, so the cheesehead voting block had
    their way. Needless to say, Rubaiyat in Decorah, IA never had a chance.

    (Speaking of Solera, please join me at the Rake’s monthly World Flavors dinner party, tonight (Monday, June 9) from 6-8 p.m. on the second floor patio at Solera, 900 Hennepin Ave. in downtown Minneapolis. Cost is $40 per person, including an interesting assortment of tapas and three accompanying wines. To see the menu and buy tickets, click here.)

    It’s a pretty safe bet that most of the people who voted for
    Bartolotto’s have never been to the 112 Eatery, and vice versa, but the Awards
    are a tremendous publicity machine for the restaurants involved, and like they
    say, people who enjoy sausages or the law, or restaurant awards, should never
    see any of them being made.

    I used to get these James Beard Award ballots every year,
    and dutifully fill them out, flipping through page after page of restaurants I
    had never been to, and many I had never even heard of. Is
    Canlis in Seattle more deserving of the Outstanding Service award than Vetris
    of Philadelphia? How many people are there on the planet who have actually
    dined at both of these restaurants more than once? Don’t get me started.

    But it did remind me of a topic I have been thinking about,
    which is whether the internet is making professional restaurant critics obsolete.
    Here’s what I am thinking:

    1)
    Professional restaurant critics are very expensive. Back when
    I was at the Star Tribune, my dining expenses often ran to over $1000 a month,
    as I recall, and I would guess my colleague Rick Nelson’s tab was similar. We
    were the envy of our colleagues. We were supposed to visit each restaurant we
    reviewed at least twice, with dining companions, and sample a total of eight
    dinners. Most restaurant critics work for newspapers, and as newspapers enter
    their death spiral and cut staff and budget and newshole, somebody in
    management must be looking at that budget line, and wondering. I predict that
    five years from now, there will be a lot fewer paid critics around.

    2)
    Restaurant critics are an artifact of the gastronomic
    revolution that started around 40 years ago, when most Americans had never
    heard the word pasta. They needed experts, or thought they did, and so people
    like me, (who really weren’t experts, except in relative terms) got jobs as
    critics, which instantly elevated us to the status of experts. But nowadays,
    the public is much more knowledgeable about food, and much more skeptical about
    what they read in the newspaper.

    3)
    We know more than you do, but collectively, you know more than
    we do. As predictors of whether the public will enjoy a particular restaurant,
    experienced professionals like Rick or Dara or myself are much more reliable
    than the average local food blogger. And we know a lot more than the typical
    amateur – we can give you background and detail and insights that will enhance
    your dining experience.

    But now, thanks to the internet
    and the digital revolution, it is possible to aggregate the collective wisdom
    and dining experience of thousands of diners. And as New Yorker magazine writer
    James Surowiecki argues in The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter
    Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies
    and Nations
    (which I haven’t actually read), when you put together a
    lot of individual opinions, the crowd often does get it right. A lot of the
    individual comments in the Zagat restaurant guides may be inane, or just plain
    wrong, or based on one atypical experience, but on balance, their thousands of
    reader/reviewers get it right. (By the way, you can help contribute to the
    collective wisdom of the Twin Cities dining community by signing up as a Rake
    Restaurant Rater
    .)

    (Confidential to Anonymous: thanks for the spelling correction.)