Wednesday, January 31, 2007
if only my mind were like a web browser...
the i could use the "back" feature to recover lost thoughts. such brilliant thoughts, so fleeting. sigh.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
speechless...
images from the hubble... astounding. it almost looks like a sea with jelly fish creatures. makes me want to try my hand at sci fi.
Monday, January 22, 2007
a question of stirrups
i watched the first episode of hbo's rome the other day. it's no gladiator (they should ave just bought all the costumes) but it was good enough that i'd watch it again (but why or why do they all speak in brittish accents??), the characters engaging enough (thought cicero is not quite as i pictured him). but then i saw it.. stirrups. that's right. romans didn't use stirrups. okay, i understand for the actors' safety why you might want to use stirrups, certainly for the action scenes (gladiator did) but i thought the least they could do is not use them in casual scenes (as gladiator did not).
a minor thing, yes, but it led me to wonder, what fudging is acceptable in a historical piece? i was struggling with this while reading david anthony durham's pride of carthage. he takes quite a few liberties, which he freely admits to. it's an interpretation of historical events, he says, and he tinkered with the time line of events to make it conform to a narrative. most ostensibly, he condensed the appx 15 years hannibal spent in italy to a mere 5... i suppose to keep the threads of romance alive. but this really bothered me because it's a major fact. if you can't keep to the major facts, maybe you should be writing fiction, and not historical fiction. why? because people who read historical fiction expect accuracy. i don't want someone to think hannibal only spent 5 years in italy. besides which, once one fact is off, all the other facts become suspicious.
historical fiction should stay true to the facts. i realize with history, this is a little sketchy. but i think with good research you can come up with the facts that most scholars agree on. contested facts you can interpret, or offer your own interpretation, staying, of course, within the spirit of the characters and times. motive and personality is where the fun of historical fiction comes in. how will the author construct a hannibal that makes him do what he does? i think the author is also free to tweak motives because all of it is conjecture, even if you go to original sources. i think it's perfectly acceptable to ascribe ideas to people not historical. for instance, hannibal decides on a strategy, but maybe he got it from one of his generals not recorded in the history books. finally, bonus points for incorporating quotes attributed to the individual in question.
a minor thing, yes, but it led me to wonder, what fudging is acceptable in a historical piece? i was struggling with this while reading david anthony durham's pride of carthage. he takes quite a few liberties, which he freely admits to. it's an interpretation of historical events, he says, and he tinkered with the time line of events to make it conform to a narrative. most ostensibly, he condensed the appx 15 years hannibal spent in italy to a mere 5... i suppose to keep the threads of romance alive. but this really bothered me because it's a major fact. if you can't keep to the major facts, maybe you should be writing fiction, and not historical fiction. why? because people who read historical fiction expect accuracy. i don't want someone to think hannibal only spent 5 years in italy. besides which, once one fact is off, all the other facts become suspicious.
historical fiction should stay true to the facts. i realize with history, this is a little sketchy. but i think with good research you can come up with the facts that most scholars agree on. contested facts you can interpret, or offer your own interpretation, staying, of course, within the spirit of the characters and times. motive and personality is where the fun of historical fiction comes in. how will the author construct a hannibal that makes him do what he does? i think the author is also free to tweak motives because all of it is conjecture, even if you go to original sources. i think it's perfectly acceptable to ascribe ideas to people not historical. for instance, hannibal decides on a strategy, but maybe he got it from one of his generals not recorded in the history books. finally, bonus points for incorporating quotes attributed to the individual in question.
Monday, January 08, 2007
a bit nervous...
about the upcoming movie hannibal the conqueror, directed by and starring, of all people, vin diesel. on the other hand the sceenplay is by david franzoni, of gladiator, one of the best movies ever made, imho. the hannibal movie's based on a book by canadian poet ross leckie, which i haven't read, but checked out. looks a bit weak. but a good screenplay writer can take any thin novel and make it good..
but vin diesel? as hannibal? i'm tired of cookie cutter heros. i don't want another brad pitt achilles, a colin ferrell alexander (it makes my skin crawl just to remember that). or a mel gibson braveheart. i'm afraid vin diesel will be just that, modern icon of "manliness" transposed into the classical world. same characters, different scene. the only movie of vin's i ever liked was pitch black, a film where he says little and mostly just plays the silent creepy convict who shoots things. very effective part for him. but this, i do not want in hannibal.
so you see why i'm nervous?
but vin diesel? as hannibal? i'm tired of cookie cutter heros. i don't want another brad pitt achilles, a colin ferrell alexander (it makes my skin crawl just to remember that). or a mel gibson braveheart. i'm afraid vin diesel will be just that, modern icon of "manliness" transposed into the classical world. same characters, different scene. the only movie of vin's i ever liked was pitch black, a film where he says little and mostly just plays the silent creepy convict who shoots things. very effective part for him. but this, i do not want in hannibal.
so you see why i'm nervous?
cover songs
every once in a while i'm reminded of how good a cover of a song can be. most covers are a woeful rehashing of the original that leaves you wanting to rage at the artist, why the heck did you even bother? it sounds exactly the same (i'm thinking of the black crowes's lucy in the sky with diamonds) or is such a vapid rendition (smash mouth does neil diamond/ the monkee's i'm a believer) that it's not worth the energy required to play the damn thing. but a good cover song has the power to completely transform the original. the new artist will take it and own it, not just singing it in their own voice but giving it the unique twist that only they can give it. why else would one cover a song?
the first time i discovered this potential i was 14, and my sister had just brought home an album titled "red hot + blue: a tribute to cole porter." "sit down," she said, "you have to listen to this." i looked at her dubiously. yeah, i knew cole porter. my dad played cole porter on the piano. we had dusty vinyl full of cole porter. i'd even sung cole porter. sure, i liked it, but come on, as cover songs? porter's appeal was the same to me as fred astaire's: urbane, slick, and charmingly obsolete. but an older sister's opinion means everything to the younger, and so i sat and listened.
i think my jaw must have hit the ground. the sophisticated wistfulness of "night and day" becomes untempered lust in u2's expert rejiggering. the song seemed to have been written just for them. who better to sing "don't fence me in" than david byrne, for whom the lyrics seem to hold special meaning? kd lang lends the power of her voice to a more conservative version of "so in love," and manages to own the song anyway. and erasure singing the songs of "too darn hot": "i'd like to sleep with my lover tonight... but it's too darn hot..." took on a new, poignant meaning (the album was part of an aids benefit). you can listen to song samplers of the cd from amazon.
few cover songs have since astonished me as much as those. i'm older now, more critical, harder to impress. but cover songs still hold special appeal. well done versions tantilize you with the memory of what the original song was - the same lyrics, the familiar chord winding throug out - but evoke an entirely different mood. Good covers, i'll contend, are harder to pull off than good original songs. so i'm constantly on the prowl for new covers. here are some of my favorites. i'd love to hear some of your favorites.
yesterday i discovered an excellent cover of the cure's "a forest", done by french pop band nouvelle vague ("new wave"), transporting us from the northeastern, cold, conifer forest of the original right into the heat of a lush, tropical rainforest. you can listen to it, as well as some of their other songs (an intriguing version of echo and the bunnymen's killing moon) on their official site.
tom wait's version of heigh ho reminds us, surely, this is what dwarves must sound like.
i'm enthralled by brasilian artist seu jorge's covers of david bowie - played with an acoustic guitar and translated into portuguese, and popularized by the movie the life aquatic with steve zissou. when i first heard them i didn't recognize bowie's beloved notes. but once you catch on, it's simply awe inspiring to listen to him meld and translate the sound of several electric guitars, pianos, whatever in the original into a single, acoustic guitar. another convincing bowie cover: m ward's let's dance (links to artist): a winding, reflective tune. think swaying slowly in a faded floral patterned dress, sunlight through the dusty air from the tall windows of an abandoned house.
two versions of prince's purple rain desmonstate just how original a cover can be in the hands of a daring, imaginative artist. i'm damn impressed by classical guitarist benjamin verdery's rendering of prince's "purple rain" (sorry, couldn't find the link, but it's available on itunes)(also, can this properly be called a cover if it doesn't have the lyrics? i on't know.) the version by a swedish artist stina nordestam (links to artist) is nearly its opposite, evoking smeared lipstick, cigarettes, rainy days, and too much whiskey. neither of them, of course, anything like the original.
johnny cash did a number of covers, the best of which are u2's "one" and depeche mode's "personal jesus"" (many mistakenly assume the cash is the original).
madeleine peyroux (georgia-born, but lived in paris for 10 years) does an intoxicating version of dylan's "you're gonna make me lonesome when you go", which could easily stand on its own merits. her voice is a perfect foil to dylan's, light where his is rough, but she manages to convey the intensity of emotion, the keeness of need, almost as well as dylan himself, while keeping true to the rueful tone of the song while making it all her own. you can hear her version on amazon.
i also love ricki lee jone's kick-ass version of rebel rebel (links to amazon), claiming that song for grrls everywhere.
both covers of "in my time of dying", by bob dylan and martin gore, are very cool. the original, by led zepplin, i have yet to hear.
cake gives gloria gaynor's "i will survive" a cynical bite. i have a special place in my heart for ewan mcgregor's "your song", as sung in the movie moulin rouge. there's nothing too fresh about siouxsie and the banshee's "this wheel's on fire" (original by dylan), but she brings a sassiness to it that i like.
other covers, while originals, are just disasters. tori amos-does-nirvana falls into this category. it fits all my criteria for a good cover song, but i find her treatment of it melodramatic. the whole point of nirvana, to me, was deeply disturbed lyrics sung with complete abandon. sinead o'connor does a good job with nirvana's "all apologies" however. maybe i just love her voice.
the first time i discovered this potential i was 14, and my sister had just brought home an album titled "red hot + blue: a tribute to cole porter." "sit down," she said, "you have to listen to this." i looked at her dubiously. yeah, i knew cole porter. my dad played cole porter on the piano. we had dusty vinyl full of cole porter. i'd even sung cole porter. sure, i liked it, but come on, as cover songs? porter's appeal was the same to me as fred astaire's: urbane, slick, and charmingly obsolete. but an older sister's opinion means everything to the younger, and so i sat and listened.
i think my jaw must have hit the ground. the sophisticated wistfulness of "night and day" becomes untempered lust in u2's expert rejiggering. the song seemed to have been written just for them. who better to sing "don't fence me in" than david byrne, for whom the lyrics seem to hold special meaning? kd lang lends the power of her voice to a more conservative version of "so in love," and manages to own the song anyway. and erasure singing the songs of "too darn hot": "i'd like to sleep with my lover tonight... but it's too darn hot..." took on a new, poignant meaning (the album was part of an aids benefit). you can listen to song samplers of the cd from amazon.
few cover songs have since astonished me as much as those. i'm older now, more critical, harder to impress. but cover songs still hold special appeal. well done versions tantilize you with the memory of what the original song was - the same lyrics, the familiar chord winding throug out - but evoke an entirely different mood. Good covers, i'll contend, are harder to pull off than good original songs. so i'm constantly on the prowl for new covers. here are some of my favorites. i'd love to hear some of your favorites.
yesterday i discovered an excellent cover of the cure's "a forest", done by french pop band nouvelle vague ("new wave"), transporting us from the northeastern, cold, conifer forest of the original right into the heat of a lush, tropical rainforest. you can listen to it, as well as some of their other songs (an intriguing version of echo and the bunnymen's killing moon) on their official site.
tom wait's version of heigh ho reminds us, surely, this is what dwarves must sound like.
i'm enthralled by brasilian artist seu jorge's covers of david bowie - played with an acoustic guitar and translated into portuguese, and popularized by the movie the life aquatic with steve zissou. when i first heard them i didn't recognize bowie's beloved notes. but once you catch on, it's simply awe inspiring to listen to him meld and translate the sound of several electric guitars, pianos, whatever in the original into a single, acoustic guitar. another convincing bowie cover: m ward's let's dance (links to artist): a winding, reflective tune. think swaying slowly in a faded floral patterned dress, sunlight through the dusty air from the tall windows of an abandoned house.
two versions of prince's purple rain desmonstate just how original a cover can be in the hands of a daring, imaginative artist. i'm damn impressed by classical guitarist benjamin verdery's rendering of prince's "purple rain" (sorry, couldn't find the link, but it's available on itunes)(also, can this properly be called a cover if it doesn't have the lyrics? i on't know.) the version by a swedish artist stina nordestam (links to artist) is nearly its opposite, evoking smeared lipstick, cigarettes, rainy days, and too much whiskey. neither of them, of course, anything like the original.
johnny cash did a number of covers, the best of which are u2's "one" and depeche mode's "personal jesus"" (many mistakenly assume the cash is the original).
madeleine peyroux (georgia-born, but lived in paris for 10 years) does an intoxicating version of dylan's "you're gonna make me lonesome when you go", which could easily stand on its own merits. her voice is a perfect foil to dylan's, light where his is rough, but she manages to convey the intensity of emotion, the keeness of need, almost as well as dylan himself, while keeping true to the rueful tone of the song while making it all her own. you can hear her version on amazon.
i also love ricki lee jone's kick-ass version of rebel rebel (links to amazon), claiming that song for grrls everywhere.
both covers of "in my time of dying", by bob dylan and martin gore, are very cool. the original, by led zepplin, i have yet to hear.
cake gives gloria gaynor's "i will survive" a cynical bite. i have a special place in my heart for ewan mcgregor's "your song", as sung in the movie moulin rouge. there's nothing too fresh about siouxsie and the banshee's "this wheel's on fire" (original by dylan), but she brings a sassiness to it that i like.
other covers, while originals, are just disasters. tori amos-does-nirvana falls into this category. it fits all my criteria for a good cover song, but i find her treatment of it melodramatic. the whole point of nirvana, to me, was deeply disturbed lyrics sung with complete abandon. sinead o'connor does a good job with nirvana's "all apologies" however. maybe i just love her voice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)