Update about the Next Update

This blog has been long under neglect. No more! Expect a new post tomorrow! Huzzah! Maybe even another one Monday!

Film Review: "Clash of the Titans" (directed by Louis Leterrier, 2010)

It begins in space. A voiceover describes the backstory of pretty much everything that has happened in the universe up to the current plot. The audience finds later that this is narrated by Io, played by Gemma Arterton, who seems to be the "goddess of exposition." She lets the audience know that Perseus, played by Sam Worthington, is also a demigod who ends up being raised by a poor fisherman, played by Pete Postlethwaite. These are the only characters really worth caring about, and the latter one dies about 5 minutes in when Hades, god of the underworld, hits his boat with a fireball.

Perseus survives the fireball, and is picked up by some soldiers from Argos, the city that likes to piss off the gods. Hades shows up in Argos, kills some people, and tells them that if they don't sacrifice the princess then he will destroy the whole city. And they've got like a week to think about it.

The powers that be in Argos change their mind a few times about Perseus, shifting between seeing him as some guy and seeing him as a spy from the gods who caused all their troubles. Io shows up and does her thing, telling Perseus that he is a son of Zeus and pretty much the details of his life between conception and being picked up by the fisherman (at least they made sure the goddess of exposition was nice to look at and listen to).

So everyone decides that Perseus isn't so bad and they agree that the best plan of action is to figure out a way to kill the Kraken (the enormous hellbeast that will destroy the town) rather than give up the princess, since she is pretty and nice and apparently worth more than, at best, a few guys from the questing party, and, at worst, the entire town.

Now this is based on Greek epics, and the values of the characters won't always match up with modern ways of thinking, but wouldn't giving up the princess be by far the best option? Sure, she's a nice gal, but the loss of human life one way or another will be much greater if they don't give her up. I suppose it's the principle of the thing, "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," but that kind of thinking got Argos into this mess in the first place. Maybe this is not a direct fault of the filmmakers, but trying to adapt ancient myths can make the protagonists seem a bit foolish and hard-headed compared to modern stories.

Anyway, Perseus and some guys head out and walk through a bunch of rock quarries. None of the guys on the team are very interesting or memorable. There are a couple guys who are supposed to pass for comic relief, but either forget to have screen presence or have the sense of humor of someone's dad. Io tags along too, so there is something interesting to look at, since the sets are pretty generic and unremarkable. Perseus and his pals experience some decent action scenes, with special effects ranging from awesome (Pegasus) to video game (Medusa). Everyone in his crew dies, but Perseus gets what he needs and eventually saves the day to a really good soundtrack. The city gets half-destroyed by the Kraken (who is rendered at a giant scale that is actually very well-done and believable) but it's cool because they stood up to the gods and the princess is ok. Oh, and Io gets better.

The ending kind of plays weird tricks with the themes. The motivation for the proposed destruction of Argos was Hades' attempt to prove to Zeus that men are ruled better by fear than love. This can be said to be one of the major themes discussed in the film. Hades is proven wrong, at least for the moment, as humanity rises up to defeat him instead of cowering in fear. Obviously, ruling by love is better, as Zeus comes to realize (and always suspected). However, a few facts get in the way:

1. People were rebelling when Zeus was ruling by love
2. Hades really just wasn't powerful enough to rule by fear
3. Argos was saved by a demigod, with help from the gods

To be fair, point 3 is mentioned, which suggests a partnership between humanity and Olympus is in everyone's best interest, although it implies that the gods should fear man just as much as man fears the gods. So the gods are really too weak to rule and fail to inspire love. Essentially, Hades was right. It is best to rule by fear, you just need to be powerful enough to actually do it.

This theme isn't bad, it's just different from the conclusion everyone in the story has come to. Which, again, makes the characters seem thick-headed and foolish. I have not seen the original "Clash of the Titans" nor I am familiar enough with the source material to comment on the writing, but the audience is more likely to sympathize with the characters if they make choices and conclusions that hold to some kind of consistent value system, preferably close to the audience's own.

Of course, deciding to give up the princess and submit to Hades wouldn't make a good action movie, and we'd miss out on some neat action (in the always-interesting classical mythology setting), and a great soundtrack.

Film Review: Kick-Ass (directed by Matthew Vaughn, 2010)

"Kick-Ass" is exactly what it says on the label. There's "kick" (literal violence and fast-paced action), there's "ass" (the idiot or as a sexual term), and it's all-around pretty vulgar. In spite of (or because of) these facts, the film does "kick ass" in the sense of being one of the most entertaining movies released this year.

When first hearing about this movie a few months ago, the first thing that comes to mind is "oh look, a 'Watchmen' ripoff." That thought was not entirely correct. Although it continues the deconstructionist perspective made popular through Alan Moore's opus, "Kick-Ass" is a much more conventional story. It would more accurate to say "Kick-Ass" has more in common with Batman or the Spirit: typical people with no powers track down criminals because it's fun, profitable, and feels good. The only difference is that the characters are aware of and directly inspired by the superheroes of fiction.

The film's plot follows the classic superhero tropes as closely as a "BIFF!" follows a Batman right hook. There's the Kick-Ass origin story, narrated by the eponymous protagonist, which is only a slightly more realistic look on the early growing pains for teenage Peter Parker in Raimi's "Spiderman." Big Daddy is Batman is all but name (Hit-Girl is the character who stretches things a bit). The plot is very typical: treachery, fake death, hero/sidekick versus villain/sidekick final battle, and of course a very large Chekhov's gun. Oh, and there's some boring teenage romance subplot that apparently wasn't in the comic.

What makes "Kick-Ass" stand out is action, and that action is centered around the infamous character Hit-Girl, making this probably the first film with interesting action since "The Matrix" ruined it forever. Hit-Girl is by far the most competent of all the heroes in "Kick-Ass," as well as the most violent and foul-mouthed of any character in the film. Oh, and she's 12 years old, and played by an actress roughly the same age. Many are citing this as (1) vile and immoral for a child actor to be doing and (2) a poor example to children. While I am no apologist for this film, let me make a quick digression to address this.

First, Hit-Girl is an unrealistic child superhero only in how restrained she is. If anyone gave a middle-schooler the ability to physically take out anyone (which Hit-Girl pretty much does) I don't think he or she would keep it to only "bad guys." The kid would be whooping kids on the playground just for kicks, and doing it with a larger quantity (but poorer quality) of profane language. So is Hit-Girl a vile abomination or a typical middle-schooler? Probably something in-between (if there is a difference).

Second, there may be pretty colors and a lot of action, but "Kick-Ass" is NOT a family movie. I know this happened with "Watchmen" too. Parents can do what they want, but at least check online to see the content of a RATED 'R' FILM before taking children to it. There shouldn't be complaints about "bad examples" from a film that is not meant to be for children. This has a lot to do with the Western idea that comics are cartoons are "kids' media," but that is a post for another day.

Anyway, despite its decidedly family un-friendly moments, there is a running theme about doing the right thing, just because it is right. As the protagonist says, "With no power comes no responsibility," but that doesn't mean we should shirk from doing the right thing. Our world doesn't have Spiderman or Superman to do it for us, real people need to step up and help their fellow man. Perhaps that is what the heroes have been trying to teach us all along.

"Kick-Ass" expertly finds the balance that makes an action movie bearable. The plot is nothing special, but the action makes up for it. The story and characters can be vulgar, but also have redeeming qualities. A good litmus test is to watch the mature trailer: if you can bear the vulgarity, you should have an enjoyable experience.

TV Review: “Doctor Who” (Series 5, episode 1: “The Eleventh Hour,” BBC)

At long last, the wait is over. After a year containing five specials, the new season of “Doctor Who” is finally here, and as good as ever. For the uninitiated, “Doctor Who” is a British science-fiction series centering around the exploits of the Doctor, a very human-looking alien who travels through time and space in a spaceship called the TARDIS (which looks like a police box, but is bigger on the inside) with a usually female human sidekick, known among fans as the companion, and known in the show by her name. “Doctor Who” is one of the longest-running franchises ever, running more or less continuously from 1963 to the late 80s, and then rebooting in 2005 in the same continuity. This is made possible by the fact that the Doctor's timelord species can “regenerate,” which conveniently occurs any time the series needs to switch actors.

This is quite significant for this review, as this episode begins the run of the eleventh incarnation of the Doctor (and third since the reboot), as played by Matt Smith. But the Doctor's not the only thing that's new. The show now has a new head writer, Steven Moffatt. Although Moffatt has written a episode or two in each previous season (and usually the best episode of the season), he has never written any episodes that deal with a major story arc. Fortunately, “The Eleventh Hour,” written by Moffatt, shows no hesitation at all.

It begins with the Doctor hurtling towards earth, newly regenerated, his TARDIS in flames. He crashes into the garden of a young girl named Amelia Pond who is scared by a crack in the wall of her room. The Doctor discovers an alien convict somehow used the crack to escape from a space prison. The Doctor needs to use the TARDIS for something, and he tells Amelia he'll be back in five minutes, but accidentally overshoots by twelve years. Amelia is now grown up, and the rest of the episode continues with the alien authorities trying to find the convict and the Doctor making sure the earth isn't incinerated by the authorities.

There are really a lot of strengths in the writing of this episode, the basic plot is typical for the series, but there are already references to the major season arc, with the crack in the wall being somehow related to tears in the fabric of the universe. It's fast-paced and never boring, and so far seems to suggest a theme this season of the Doctor as a protector and rule-enforcer.

Matt Smith plays the Doctor a little wackier than the great David Tennant, the previous actor, but was overall endearing and had the right character attributes. The only critique would be that Smith is a bit too generic and too close to Tennant's character, but as this is his first episode he still has time to come into his own as the season progresses. Karen Gillan's Amy Pond seems to avoid the typical companion's penchant for whining and being generally irritating, so the season is really looking good as far as characters go (these two will probably be the only recurring ones).

“The Eleventh Hour” was a strong episode that didn't take a lot of risks with story or character development, but did manage to entertain and establish all new actors and a new story arc, giving a lot of hope for the new season and the future of the series.

Film Review: Almost Famous (directed by Cameron Crowe, 2000)

Almost Famous is a semi-autobiographical account of writer/director Cameron Crowe's experiences as a young journalist touring with a rock band. The story on its most basic level is a typical coming-of-age story: a young man, William Miller (played by Patrick Fugit), goes through a life changing experience while touring with the band Stillwater, and eventually both loses innocence and becomes a stronger person because of it. What makes Almost Famous much more charming than most coming-of-age films is that Crowe shows an intimacy with the film that the audience can almost feel. This isn't just a story to Crowe, this is his story, and more importantly, one of the defining times in his life. It's not often that directors get to work with such a story and can make it as intimate and interesting as Crowe does.

The story here could not be told effectively without the excellently-casted ensemble of actors and actresses who put as much energy into their characters as Crowe puts into the story. Frances McDormand, as William's overprotective mother, is equally sympathetic, antagonistic, and comedic, and easily steals the scene when she is in it. Playing William's other mentor, Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lester Bangs is another minor character standout who is as entertaining as he is wise to what William is about to experience.

Stillwater is led by lead singer Jeff Bebe (played by Jason Lee) and "guitarist with mystique" Russell Hammond (played by Billy Crudup). These characters go through a lot of growth in the film, especially Russell, through fights, injuries, and band-related trials and successes, all while William takes it all in. William's relationship with and attempts to interview Russell are major driving forces of the film, and Fugit and Crudup have some decent chemistry.

The catalyst of this chemistry is Penny Lane (played by Kate Hudson). The groupie that the entire film revolves around. She is incredibly charming and attractive, or at least that's what the characters assert over and over. She seems more like a maguffin, driving the plot and shaping the relationship between Russell and William. Maybe this isn't completely fair, and Penny's character does develop more towards the end, but while Hudson's performance is good, the audience never really sees what William and other characters find so enchanting.

Oh, and then there's William, almost forgotten in the midst of a dozen colorful characters. William is a blank slate, being shaped by the forces around him. He's earnest, naive, and all-around decent, essentially how most people see themselves (or younger versions of themselves). William is an accessible protagonist because of this but not an especially interesting one. This is not a weakness, but the main contributor to the intimate feel of the story.

Rock music in the 70s is a setting rather than theme of this film, and the soundtrack and production design create a very believable atmosphere. Crowe's wife Nancy Wilson and friend Peter Frampton created out of a few actors without much musical experience a band that is almost real. A lot of passion obviously went into Almost Famous, and this is what makes it worth watching.

Album Review: Sufjan Stevens "Illinois" (2005)

Illinois is a state known for generally being part of the mundane Midwest. Indie folk singer Sufjan Stevens completely breaks this stereotype in "Illinois." Stevens’ mix of music and lyrics creates an album that flows like the murky Mississippi past the state itself.

Rather than start off with a bang, Stevens starts by holding back his trump and gives the listener a rather mystical and almost eerie song “Concerning a UFO sighting near Highland, Illinois.” This track is very piano driven, and Stevens’ uses words like “revenant” and “in the spirit of three stars” to paint a picture of some eerie visitors from another world. Yet this reference to obscure Illinois history only scratches the surface. A further review of the lyrics reveals that it also has an application in religious allusion, as Stevens’ faith is a big part of his work. A line like, “Incarnation, three stars delivering signs and dusting from their eyes” holds a not-so-obvious allusion to doctrines of Christianity. Illinois and Stevens' personal faith weave a lyrical thread throughout the album, the latter often obscured or nonexistent, as in “Jacksonville” and “Decatur, or Round of Applause for Your Stepmother,” where the theme tends to lean towards equality and the virtue of people like Helen Keller. Conversely, religious influences are quite evident in songs like “Casimir Pulaski Day” and “Seer’s Tower,” the former about Stevens’ struggle with God over the loss of his girlfriend to bone cancer, and the latter about final judgment by Christ. Themes of Stevens’ struggles and fallibility are also found in songs like “John Wayne Gacy, Jr.” where a gentle description of the famed serial killer concludes with Stevens’ admitting his own faults and that “in my best behavior I am really just like him.”

Lyrics are made even more extraordinary by the artist’s ability to seamlessly connect them into the theme of the album musically. After the first mystical, piano-driven track, the second track, “The Black Hawk War…,” the first of a few instrumental tracks, is introduced as a buildup of many of the instruments that will be featured later on in the album. With great musical symmetry, the album is “wound down” in a similar way in “Out of Egypt…” and the two songs preceding. Other musical highlights in the album include many uncommon or unexpected instruments and styles. “Decatur” relies heavily on the banjo, giving it perhaps the “folkiest” sound on the album. “The Man of Metropolis Steals our Hearts” has the distinction of being the only song which features distorted guitar, not sounding quite like rock. “They Are Night Zombies…” has a bass line which resembles something the BeeGees would utilize. A plethora of instruments used keep the songs from all sounding the same, yet maintain a continuity and flow necessary for a concept album such as this.

Illinois brings both state history and faith alive in a fresh look that few have paralleled. The flow and balance of the album are impeccable: for every presumptuous title there is a humble lyric, for every banjo there is a distorted electric guitar. Music lovers of every genre can find something they like in "Illinois", whether it is the gentleness of a serial killer, the sadness of a lost love, or the wonder of soft drinks. Music and lyrics flow together smoothly and cleanly into a very pleasurable journey into the history of Illinois and the life of Sufjan Stevens.

Film Review: Hairspray (directed by Adam Shankman, 2007)

Camp is defined as something artificial, yet amusing, and there is no doubt that "Hairspray" is as artificial as the aerosol chlorofluorocarbons for which the film is named. The film is admittedly amusing for most of its 2 hours, with a lot of cheesy jokes and entertaining song and dance numbers. So yes, "Hairspray" (a remake of a 1988 John Waters film) is quintessential camp, but is it worth watching?

The plot revolves around Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky), an overweight teenage girl of 60s Baltimore who wants nothing so badly as to be on the local teen dance show, " The Corny Collins Show." On her way to stardom, or at least local notoriety, Tracy comes up against station manager Velma Von Tussle (Michelle Pfeiffer), whose aspirations for her daughter, Amber (Brittany Snow), run in conflict with Tracy's. It's pleasantly plump teenager versus stuck-up daughter of a domineering mother for the opportunity to be Miss Teenage Hairspray. If the stakes weren't already high enough, Tracy gets to know African-American kids at the school, and mutually impressed by each others dance moves, decides to work to integrate the show (which previously reserved one day a year as "Negro Day").

Ok, not exactly a nailbiter, but the film is more a vehicle for dance numbers set to early 60s-style music, which it delivers quite well. "Run and Tell That," is notable for containing a great solo by Taylor Parks as Little Inez. On the other hand, John Travolta and Christopher Walken (Tracy's mother and father, respectively) performing the romantic duet "(You're) Timeless to Me," while being a bit creepy, really has a bit of "old Hollywood" charm, although Travolta's singing parts were overall pretty weak throughout the film.

Overall, the cast performs well in their respective roles, and Blonsky performs her lead role with the high amount of energy the film needed. Essentially, the characters are over-the-top caricatures and could be played by anyone with some acting talent, but all the actors really did well keeping the film high-energy and interesting, which was probably due in no small part to the director.

In the end, "Hairspray" is like a caffeine pill, don't expect to get anything out of it besides energy. The plot is simple and oversimplifies some big issues, as the dancing, music, and happy-go-lucky feel are the real reason the film was made. Don't expect two hours of informed social commentary, "Hairspray" is just ridiculous fun.

Film Review: Rushmore

Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is a brilliant young man who must do everything, and does it pretty well. Max begins "Rushmore" (directed by Wes Anderson, 1998) as the de facto ruler of the eponymous prep school. He is involved in about every club or team at Rushmore, and president and/or founder of the majority of those.

There's also Herman Blume (Bill Murray), a millionaire industrialist with two sons he finds loathsome who also attend Rushmore. Blume notices that Max seems to have it "pretty figured out"and asks him what his "secret" is. Max replies that "you've just gotta find something you love to do and then... do it for the rest of your life. For me, it's going to Rushmore."

Unfortunately, all the extra-curricular activity has taken a toll on Max's academic performance, and he is found to be in danger of academic expulsion. While devising a way to remain at his beloved Rushmore (that doesn't involve more study), Max happens upon a quote written into a book about Jacques Cousteau. Following library records leads him to the pretty, young first-grade teacher Miss Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams). Max is immediately smitten, and his efforts are focused on impressing her, first by running a successful campaign to reinstate a Latin class, and then by creating a school aquarium, funded by Blume. In the process, Blume notices Miss Cross as well, and tensions rise between he and Max, soon turning to an all-out war.

The real strength in this film is in the acting, as Schwartzman and Murray (and Williams to a lesser extent) make their characters both sympathetic and larger-than-life. Schwartzman's Max is extremely self-confident (perhaps even arrogant), even for a teenager, but never loses the audience's sympathy due to his naivete and earnestness. Max is still a child trying to be an adult, and genuine in everything he does, not an adult reaching back to immaturity. Murray's Blume, however, is an adult who hates himself, his marriage, and his children, and wants to prevent Max from making the same mistakes. At the same time, he wants to be Max, and earnestly seeks whatever pleases him without thinking of consequences. This makes for a good supporting role, not only adding more comic flavor to the plot, but complementing the character of Max in a way that makes both characters more likeable.

Also enjoyable is the film's use of sound. One great scene is in the library, where the enforced quiet brings out little things like the soft scratching of a pen, the pouring of lemonade, and the sound of feet on carpet. Max and Miss Cross talk about their "relationship" ("You want me to grab a dictionary?”). Miss Cross speaks in hushed tones until Max decides to use the electric pencil sharpener and she has to raise her voice. Soundtrack is also used effectively, and the "love war" scenes using the Who's "A Quick One While He's Away" become more entertaining as the music perfectly fits the tone.

This is only one example of director Wes Anderson's effective use of soundtrack to create tone in the film. In fact, Anderson's quirky tone is evident in almost every aspect of the film, from casting to cinematography. This style for which he is now well-known works well with a story like “Rushmore,” filled with eccentric characters and a deadpan, quirky tone.

In the end, Max must find a way to channel his energies into something enjoyable while still maintaining the priorities that most of the world has set. He cannot "fake the results" anymore, and the audience is given a generally satisfying (although maybe a bit too easy) ending. "Rushmore" is worth seeing for great comedic acting and good story.

Manifesto on Music Piracy

Music will always exist. This is the most important fact to remember. Even if no one will pay for it, humans will always be creating music. It's part of culture, and everyone enjoys it. Let's just remove the idea that "piracy hurts music" from our minds. Nothing will ever kill music as an art form (this is essentially a straw man argument, but some people actually use it).

Ever since the ability to record sound has existed, the potential for music piracy has existed. Piracy, in action, is no different than what record companies do to create products. Pirated material is identical to non-pirated material (theoretically). That is the entire issue, after all.

As recording technology has become cheaper and better, so has piracy become cheaper and more mainstream. In the beginning, very few had machines which could carve vinyl copies, but later a large number of people had the ability to make a copy with a cassette tape from another tape or from the radio. Now, computers make copying virtually effortless and free, and copies can be shared with anyone in the world thanks to the internet.

What record companies must understand is that the short "age of the record" is over. Technology has made piracy so ubiquitous that to demand that a consumer purchase a record is to demand an eskimo purchase a snowball. It makes no sense. Yes, there is a legal issue that piracy is at best copyright infringement and at worst stealing, but this is defined by the previous order.

Record companies do not sell the art of music. The art is the action, and the musician's performance. They sell a copy of the art. A record is not like the original of Van Gogh's
"Starry Night", rather it is like a copy or postcard with the image of "Starry Night" on it. If a tourist at the MoMA takes a picture of "Starry Night" (or, more accurately, the "Starry Night" postcard) and makes it into a postcard, is he taking money away from the postcard industry?

Of course he is! This is risk that is taken by the postcard company when producing a product as cheap and reproducible as a postcard. There are many other factors at hand, but the scenario is essentially the same for the record industry now. As copies are easier for the industry to make and distribute, so are they easier for the consumer (aka pirate) to make and distribute. Now piracy is so easy that it is unstoppable. What can record companies and musical artists do?

They can continue what they have been doing and keep fining and arresting pirates, using legal action to force people to ignore the advances in technology. This isn't cheap for the record industry or good for the image of artists, and it has done nothing to stop piracy.

The better alternative is that the record industry can realize that the "age of the record" is over and to expect most people to purchase albums is no longer a viable business model. Consumers should be encouraged to donate to artists they enjoy when downloading records, instead of being forced to purchase every recording they download. Artists and labels need to harness the power of piracy for publicity, exposing consumers to music they would probably not pay money for right away. Then, publicity needs to be funneled into live shows (an experience which cannot be pirated), where the artist can express his art more powerfully, just as the painting is more powerful than the postcard.

Many music sites and artists are beginning to do this, and should be commended. Adaptation, not brute force, will ensure future generations of paid musicians and a thriving recording industry. This new age, brought about almost accidentally by piracy, will hopefully find a balance where musicians continue to prosper, consumers are exposed to more types of music than ever, and live music will take an even greater role in culture. No matter the ethics of piracy, there is still hope in the future for music and musicians. Piracy is (currently) illegal, but not evil, and it is nothing the free market cannot handle.

Leisure and Technology

Once upon a time, humanity spent most of its time trying to not die. Starvation, ferocious beasts, inclement weather, the least bit of sickness, the process of birth and even the process of being born could threaten the continuation of the species. If life was a dodgeball game, then death was all the athletic kids and bullies and humanity was mostly fat kids and nerds. Even worse, so much time was spent trying to survive that little progress could be made in making life better.

Those days were not to last, however, and eventually humanity's timeline intersected that point which historians call "The Agricultural Revolution." People started farming and living near each other (mostly for protection). Eventually they discovered that their farms could produce much more food than a family could eat alone. This meant that not everyone needed to be a farmer. Some could develop other skills and trade the fruit of these skills to the farmers for food. A new system had been created where every single person did not have to look out for his own survival at all times. Others would help him, and in turn he would help others. Time existed during the day when work was not necessary. Thus, the concept of "leisure time" was born.

This didn't mean life was any easier right away, or that the majority of the world's population had much leisure time (or currently does). However, over many years, leisure time became one of the foundations of humanity's technological progress. Man now had time to think, time to learn, time to make things and develop skills which were otherwise not profitable (or needed full development to be profitable). Culture blossomed from leisure: the fact that man needed to find something to do when not working.

Look at the First World today, however, and it seems there has been some kind of trade-off. Technology has advanced to a point where it no longer stems from leisure, but instead provides leisure. Skills in the arts are not developed, but only appreciated in those whose employment is to develop those skills. Technology has advanced to the point where culture is now an industry and fed to the general populace instead of created by the general populace.

It is time to do something about this. Leisure time needs to be taken back by everyone. This does not mean it is necessary to destroy technology, but rather to use it to create instead of just absorb. If those ancient farmers could create a culture with what they had, how much more can the average resident of the First World, with the resources he has? Use the internet, use media, use digital photography and film to create culture. Find an instrument and create original music, not for a paycheck, or even a future paycheck, but for pleasure. Sing all the time, no matter how talented. The internet gives access to thousands of lyrics and sheets upon sheets of music previously unavailable. Learn a game or sport, or create one, and get really good at it.

Don't just do it because you read this, but do it because you find it enjoyable. All we have is time, thanks to the progress of our ancestors, and it's about time we used it.

TimeOut Chicago Chatroom Critic: Don Hall (Extended Version)

(author's note: the first four paragraphs of this post are directly syndicated from my blog "Without Preface," which I write for my "Reviewing the Arts" class at Columbia College Chicago. The post is not 517 words, so I will be expounding on it for those who read 517 Words. Also, if you have or haven't noticed, this blog will not be updated on Sundays, as a rule.)

Don Hall is a theater blogger and sole contributor to the blog "An Angry White Guy in Chicago." In the TimeOut Chicago piece "Critical Condition," Hall represents one of the critics who does not write either professionally or in print. His comments about his style of critique reflect that he is familiar and comfortable with the ins and outs of criticism on the internet.

Hall believes that anyone can be a critic, although not necessarily a good critic. He says that critics must have both knowledge and passion for what they criticize. He adds that one must be as "sharp and precise as what you're slamming," meaning that not all art is worth the same amount of research. Many times, this knowledge can come from the passion for the subject. As he says, "if you're passionate about theater, you'll likely educate yourself about it." No doubt that being an amateur blogger, his passion for the subject is what fuels his work. It is the amateurs like him who can truly say that "money has little to do with this thing we do."

Hall also agrees with most of the other critics that self-awareness is necessary to being a good critic, and knowing personal prejudices is necessary for a good critique. Knowing the prejudices and opinions of others is likewise necessary for knowing what critics one would prefer to follow. Hall sees criticism, from both the reader and writer viewpoint, as heavily based on knowing prejudices. As a internet critic, he is familiar with the instant anonymous criticism he receives on his own critiques and embraces it, using replying to negative comments in order to sharpen his own views.

Hall also takes somewhat of an anti-establishment stance, saying courage is only needed when criticizing the powerful (implying that their response could be worse than that of his commenters). He also sees distrust for megacorporations as the reason many turn to user reviews rather than print critiques. Independent criticism is a part of his passion for the art of critique.

Hall's stance is very relatable to anyone who spends a good amount of time on the internet. On-line media brings an amount of freedom, opportunity, and reader interaction that is severely decreased in typical print and other traditional media. Newpapers, radio, and television all understand this and are constantly pointing their readers and viewers to their websites or mobile apps. Watch any television show and you will see at least one reference to the network's website before the show ends. Read any columnist and you will see the URL for his blog at the end. When I interned with the promotions team at Clear Channel here in Chicago, a major focus was pointing the listener to the website. There is no doubt that media is slowly funneling into the web.

However, there is also good reason to be skeptical of internet media (and specifically criticism). Check out Jim DeRogatis' review of the Who's performance last night and then read some of the comments. How many commenters out of the dozens propose any kind of rational, logical, fact-supported analysis? You can probably count them on one hand. As far as independence and opportunity, how many of the really great bloggers, podcasts, or web shows are not supported by the traditional media in some way. Sure, there are quite a few, but would they have been equally successful climbing in the traditional industry as many have done before?

The internet is something big and wonderful and terrible, and no doubt it is and will be changing culture for awhile. After the dust settles, though, will we just be back where we started?

Our Mission Statement, FAQ, Pilot?

Welcome to 517 Words, a blog in which I, the author, attempt to post something daily of my own creation which contains at least 517 Words. In honor of the first ever post, I will write this is an easy and lazy FAQ-style. Questions will be in italics and answers will not.

How can a blog which did not exist mere minutes before posting have "frequently asked questions?"

Good point. The reality is that these are not frequently asked questions, but a way for the reader to get familiar with the premise of the blog, if the reader ever decides to read the first post. Through this FAQ-like method I am also establishing for myself what this blog will be about and will have something to look back on in the future, if I need a guide. Think of it as a mission statement, manifesto, or holy scripture of the blog, depending on what you are into.

What the hell does "517 Words" mean?

Watch the language there, fictional person, but as I explained in the opening paragraph, I hope to post 517-word entries to this blog every day. The title is pretty self-explanatory from there.

Ok, but why 517? Why not 500? Or 1000?

I'll answer that in reverse order. Not 1000 because that is way too daunting mentally and I'd like to set an achievable goal here.

500 is more of what I was thinking, but I am not a fan of round numbers. Round numbers are really just too predictable; you can get a leg up on people by not being a slave to round numbers. For example, if I need to be somewhere at 9:00 am, I set my alarm for 7:47 am. 8:00 is too little time, but there is no reason to get up at 7:30. So, I just gained 17 minutes of sleep over the guy who has to use round numbers. Also, I am sure there are already at least a few blogs where people challenge themselves to write 500 words a day.

517 really doesn't have any other significance besides the fact that it isn't nice and round. I can make up a reason, if you want. For instance: it's not prime, but it looks like it could be, and it is the area code of Lansing, Michigan. They have a minor league baseball team there called the "Lugnuts." That is pretty cool.

Sooo what is this blog about, besides writing 517 words a day?

Anything, really. Whatever is on my mind that particular day. Although probably not the particulars of what I did that day. Other unlikely topics are parenting, the occult, parenting, fitness, and parenting. In fact, my other idea for a title for this blog was "Not About Parenting," but I figured Google would then bring it up when people searched for parenting blogs. I really don't want to disappoint all those parents and parents-to-be with their incoming or troublesome offspring.

Topics that are likely to be covered in this blog are art criticism of all forms, philosophy, theology, music, and pretty much anything else.

How are you qualified to discuss these topics?

I am not qualified at all! I'm just writing about what I think about and experience. So don't cite me in a scholarly paper. I wouldn't.

What if you do not write 517 words or you write more than 517 words in a post?

To the former, I'm only cheating myself. To the latter, great! Like this post, which as of this sentence is nearing 575 words!


"517 Words" in a post.