Monthly Archives: July 2009

Let us continue the glorious march!

            Although ultimate victory against the Evil Doers is as certain today as it was when we first joined battle against this merciless and implacable foe, it is my unfortunate duty to inform you that there have been certain small and temporary setbacks in the War against Deadlines. We are not discouraged and we have already redoubled our efforts against the insolent enemy. We will pursue Overdue Assignments to the caves where they live. We will confront Due Dates on the Plains of Procrastination, and we will defeat them there. We will not weary or rest even unto the last hour of the last day of The Washington Post Sunday section production schedule. But today we must ask for patience and sacrifice on the Home Front.

             And so we offer up an Opera News cover story, recently published, on the subject of style. Herein you can find my argument that the opera house is a place of refuge for the historically endangered idea of style, the need to make distinctions, to notice detail, to honor the received wisdom of the past while we imprint our own stamp on art. I even use the word “post-modernism,” and not in a nice way.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Opera

Potty-mouth Politics

The career of James Gandolfini takes yet another turn, this time with a role that mixes the Norman Schwarzkopf body type with a more Colin Powell political sensibility. My review of the expletive-saturated In the Loop here.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Richard Rogers, in DC

Not the composer of The King and I or Oklahoma, but the British architect, the co-designer of the Centre Pompidou and mastermind of the Millennium Dome. Rogers and his firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners have stitched together three buildings very near the Capitol, into a cohesive, energetic, exciting office complex. Here’s my review from today’s The Washington Post. It offers hope for people exhausted with the K Street vernacular, the box with cheapo cladding and no soul, inside or out. It’s also only the second completed building from Rogers in the United States (this is the other one). He’s run into some rough weather in his native land, but he’s welcome here. Build more.

 

Image by Katsuhisa Kida, courtesy of Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture

Walter and Trust

            Commenting on culture with a small c, that blur of ephemera constantly droning from the flat screen television in your kitchen, bedroom, living room, garage and the swivel mount in your recreational vehicle, used to be a much bigger part of what I do. Now, it’s mostly culture with a capital C: Art, performance, books, cartoon ducks. I miss it, from time to time, especially when ten inches of frothy prose on the subject of Walter Cronkite and Trust garners the link love (Romenesko, Slate) that a cultural scribe can only dream of. Join the herd.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Culture

Duck, way amuck

             Daffy Duck’s Quackbusters, an embarrassingly bad 1988 film that stitches together classic cartoons from the golden age of Warner Brothers cartooning with a flimsy plot line about ghost busting, is proof that corporations can’t be trusted with classic Americana. The film, which is being released by Warner Home Video on DVD in August, shows a glaring cleavage between the work done by classic animators such as Chuck Jones (whose chef-d’oeuvre, the 1953 Punch Trunk, is cannibalized for this compilation), and the new segments, which are garish, choppily animated and clumsily written. Even the posture and the gait of Daffy and Bugs have changed, and they have been neutered of anything remotely transgressive. Quackbusters does as much damage to the legacy of Warner Brothers as the despicable 1990 “Tiny Toons Adventures,” which respected the tender gender sensibilities of America’s youth by dividing the androgynous Bugs into a blue “boy” rabbit and a pink “girl” bunny.

            In the United States, the line between commercially produced entertainment and “folk” entertainment can be very porous, in part because we have no single, shared reservoir of folk sources and traditions. The Happy Birthday song? It’s under copyright protection, at least according to its corporate owners. So too half the songs you think are traditional Christmas carols but are, in fact, ditties owned and harvested for profit every yuletide.

           

Classic cartoon figures, like classic songs, belong to what seems a gray area between commercial product and the world of old quilts, marching bands and campfire stories. But it’s not really a gray area. Warner can do whatever it pleases with its cartoons, even unto subverting their characters, ruining their sense of humor and trashing their dignity. It can also decide when and where Bugs and Daffy are seen and if you’ve noticed that there are never any decent cartoons on Saturday morning network television anymore it’s in part because the Warner Brothers classics are now limited to Warner-affiliated outlets. If you don’t have cable, you’re stuck with pre-pubescent superheroes, incomprehensible robots and other technicolor enforcers of Manichean morality. Hence, a tradition as old as making Mom and Dad really crap pancakes and eggs in the pre-dawn hours of the weekend is now history. Until the rules change, at some inscrutable corporate whim, and Bugs, Daffy, Sylvester and Tweety return in all their atavistic splendor.

            If I were writing a stupid, one-idea book aimed at frequent fliers and other suits, it would be something like Daffy in the Boardroom: Classic Advice from One Funny Duck. It would have mind-numbingly idiotic chapter titles like “Tooning In: How to Listen Your Clients,” and “Beep-Beep: Staying Ahead of the Competition.” The only substance in the book would be an in-depth look at an interesting problem in the history of management: How did the various and disparate teams of cartoonists, under the leadership of directors such as Chuck Jones, Tex Avery and Friz Freleng, manage to put out such consistently high-quality product? How did such a large and changing group of creators stay true to something as delicate as a sensibility, a form of humor, a style of dialogue and the nuance of consistent characters? And how did all that wisdom utterly elude the corporate hacks who made Daffy Duck’s Quackbusters?

            Sometimes you wish culture fell under historic covenants, like old houses, and once it reached a certain venerable age, it could be conserved.

       For more on cartoon ducks, and famous French comics…

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Feuilleton, film

Embassy Design, continued

What's wrong with this picture? It's a U.S. embassy located in an actual city.The Post gave me considerable space in Sunday’s paper to look at a new report issued by the American Institute of Architects. The document is a nuts-and-bolts thing, incremental in its recommendations and it hardly glances at the real problem–crippling security dictates–that may make it impossible to build inspiring embassy architecture again. But it proves that there’s momentum to acknowledge the ugly embassies we’ve built and their impact on our public diplomacy agenda. Many architects believe that a workable compromise between security and aesthetics can be achieved through innovative and inspired design. I hope so. The AIA recommends that the office responsible for designing embassy facilities borrow from the GSA, and adopt a “design excellence” program. Perhaps that will help, though design excellence is a great way to ensure you get B-plus structures. It rarely if ever produces A-plus buildings.

But I think without a serious conversation about security, about the degree of risk we must accept, and about the nature of a diplomatic work–perhaps it is fundamentally dangerous and we must simply accept that–we will never build great embassies again. And if we can’t build great ones, then we should at least stop building bad ones. And reinvent diplomacy without embassies. A sad conclusion, and I hope we never get there.

1 Comment

Filed under Architecture

Music in Film

Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Tokyo Sonata has a musical title and it builds—spoiler alert!!!—to a wonderful musical climax. I don’t think it’s a perfect film, and the more I watch Japanese film, the more I’m disturbed about the political direction of Japanese society. But for music lovers, an uncut performance of Debussy‘s Clair de lune, with little visual comment, makes this longish film worth its full length.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, film, Music

Write Your Own Damn Emmy Screed

            Lisa de Moraes, my colleague at The Washington Post, writes a television column so entertaining that I read it even though I don’t watch much television. Of course she covers  the Emmy Awards.

            Seems that there’s debate about the proper process of picking the nominees. Since 2006, “blue-ribbon” panels have selected the lucky candidates, which has meant that smaller, more interesting niche cable shows have done better than they might have under the old system, which put the issue to a vote of the entire television academy membership. This was not pleasing to the network giants, which host the annual awards ceremony. They naturally want to promote only their shows, and don’t want their mass-marketed product losing out to higher-quality cable fare based solely on the whims of inscrutable judges. So (after much debate and some pressure tactics) now the system reverts back to the full vote of the academy members, which makes the Emmy Awards essentially a popularity contest, excellence be damned.

            I don’t comment much on television, in part because I don’t watch all that much television. I thought “The Sopranos” was a rehash of the old Callas-Tebaldi  feud and gave it a pass. When I do watch, I try to watch to crap. So rather than say whether reverting back to the full vote of the members—to the disadvantage of better quality, cable television programs with a smaller audience—is a good thing or not, I’ll just present the options. Follow my à la carte menu, and write your own cultural screed.

1.  The Grunt Democratic View: It’s a good thing because it’s more democratic. Elite panels of blue-ribbon judges are un-American and don’t reflect the general taste of the public, which should never be dismissed. Don’t leave culture in the hands of judges not answerable to the people.  Insert quote from William F. Buckley: “I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”

 2. The Basic Elitist View: It’s a bad thing because experts help elevate the standard of taste and reward excellence. If you conflate merit with popularity, then you have defeated the very notion of an award for excellence. Without making room for meritocracy, democracy cannot survive. Insert rhetorical question: What would happen if the Nobel Peace Prize were awarded by popular vote?

 3. The Condescending Elitist View: Television is so stupid, who cares how the awards are chosen? Rise above the question, look down upon it and take a bemused tone. Insert invidious comparison: The best burger in Iowa, whether decided by a panel of ground-beef experts or by popular vote, will still never merit even a fraction of a Michelin star.

 4. The Condescending Elitist View with a Lefty Spin: Television is stupid, which is why we should care how the awards are chosen. Entertainment for the masses may not be Shakespeare, but that’s all the more reason to try to elevate it. We can’t allow taste to be ground down by rapacious corporate interests. Insert dubious comparison to earlier art forms: The novel was a trashy medium when it first emerged, but with time it was nurtured into a great avenue of human creative endeavor.

 5. Non-sequitur Change of Subject: Who cares about the Emmy’s? The polar icecaps are melting. Insert long, increasingly incoherent diatribe about the triviality of the American public, with references to the Mayan calendar, Jared Diamond, the Roman Empire and a not very germane quote from George Santayana (ie., “Sanity is madness put to good use…”)

I would continue with more options, but the icebergs are melting.

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Feuilleton

Better in silence

            It’s a hard choice: Watch Carl Theodor Dreyer’s cinematic masterpiece, The Passion of Joan of Arc, in total silence, or with Richard Einhorn’s 1994 cantata Voices of Light, which was inspired by the film and is now included as an optional soundtrack on the Criterion Collection DVD. I’m not a big fan of those hyper-intense, minimalist-inspired, long-winded forays into spirituality that were so popular in the 1990s, but I wasn’t feeling very disciplined either, and it’s hard work watching a film in a total silence. So I chose Dreyer with Einhorn over the mute play of Dreyer’s stark study of warts, wrinkles and bodily fluids.

            Einhorn’s music feels like it was whipped up by folks in the marketing department of the old Sony Classical company. It was composed shortly after the release of a wildly popular 1992 recording of Gorecki’s Symphony No. 3, which introduced so-called sacred minimalism to a wide audience. Einhorn wrote his oratorio to feature prominently Anonymous 4, a women’s vocal quartet that was another fashionable sound of the mid-90s, when souls newly liberated from the fear of Cold War annihilation sought refuge in mass-produced spiritual balms and escapes. Anonymous 4, which burst onto the scene in 1993 with a best-selling recording called “An English Ladymass,” gave Einhorn’s oratorio an instantly ethereal, otherworldly texture throughout much of its hour and twenty minutes of repetitive modal singing, slow moving harmonies and insistent and hypnotic off-beat rhythmic figures. They lent a veneer of authenticity to the composer’s  exercise in faux-medievalism, which borrowed in spirit from Orff’s Carmina Burana without ever attaining that piece’s crude power.

            In 2001, I reviewed the oratorio (at the Kennedy Center) performed in concert with a screening of the Dreyer. The Einhorn was not particularly noisome but not very good either.  Now music and film have been paired on the Criterion Collection DVD, which raises to a whole new level the question of the oratorio’s suitability to accompany this exceptionally powerful film. We live in a society that self-educates, and DVDs are an essential and vital part of that process for many cineastes. But people new to Dreyer might be misled into thinking that this pairing is both historically sanctioned and commensurate with the genius of Dreyer’s film. Neither is true.

            Minimalism is a fast and easy solution to the silent film music problem, filling the creepy aural void without saying too much in particular. So long as the composer occasionally changes harmonies or textures in synch with the film, the style works well, unobtrusive but not accidentally related to the action of the film. Einhorn’s music, composed in large, bland arcs of repeating patterns, does that.

            But it fails to support or underscore the power of Dreyer’s vision which dissects human cruelty and suffering through intense close-ups, while  suggesting the inevitability and ecstatic acceptance of religious martyrdom on the part of Joan. Dreyer’s vision is intensely physical and spiritual at the same time. The knock-off chant forms and two-note descending melodic fragments that Einhorn employs ad nauseam aren’t believable on a religious, spiritual or historical level, and they are too blunt and slow moving to respond to Dreyer’s excoriating magnification of the real, and his often-expressionist camera movement. If ever a film called out for a score of electric intensity, atonal if necessary, it is The Passion of Joan of Arc. Of course it would have been torture for Anton Webern to write film music, and he wasn’t exactly a master of long-form composition. But Dreyer’s film is Webernian in its combination of sparse imagery and architecture, its intense fidelity to an uncompromising process and its explosive psychological ruptures.

            Of course, maybe I’m not being fair to Einhorn and over praising Dreyer. When Dreyer’s camera isn’t focused squarely on the  furrowed and wart-bestrewn face of one of his subjects, it is moving in a slow series of diagonals. Joan is constantly looking up and out of the frame in exactly the same direction a figure in a Baroque painting would look up at a dove in the sky or a saint in the background, through a strong formal play of angled lines. Is the filmmaker borrowing as bluntly from the tricks of earlier painting as Einhorn borrows from an earlier language of music?

            If so, Dreyer does more with his borrowing than Einhorn does. And in his importation of these diagonal lines into film there is at least an act of formal innovation, an interpretation from one art form to another. Einhorn doesn’t add much to the music he appropriates, other than organize it in repetitive blocks. Without Dreyer’s imagery, Einhorn’s music quickly becomes boring and meaningless. And even when seen with Dreyer’s film, the music drones on in its own, separate universe, not even dimly aware of the power of what it is ostensibly supporting.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Culture, film, Music

Pondering a “post-embassy” future

Aaron Britt, an editor at Dwell, interviewed me after a panel on embassy design he moderated last May. The conclusion? I talk too fast. But if you listen at warp speed, you’ll get a sense of what we talked about at the event, hosted by the Finnish embassy. I raise the question: If security needs are now so onerous that it is impossible design a decent embassy building, do we need to think about a “post-embassy” architecture? Would it be better, perhaps, to disperse embassy functions rather than concentrate them in walled compounds? That way we could at least separate public diplomacy from the rest of the pack, and get our libraries and information centers back into the urban fray, and connect them once again with the daily life of real people, the souls we hope to convince that America is not, in the end, such a bad idea. (Actually, that’s beginning to happen… maybe. Look out for a Washington Post story on that soon.)

That green stuff behind us in the video? A view out the window of the stunningly beautiful Embassy of Finland: open, accessible and a tremendous asset to its country’s reputation.  The sort of building we have decided the United States cannot build.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Architecture