A couple of nights ago, I went to see a poet at a venue in Los Angeles. He doesn't do features very often, so I wanted to take advantage of this rare opportunity to see him.
Unfortunately, the turnout was small. And, I'm assuming that part of the reason was that some of the poet's friends/colleagues don't go or don't want to go to that venue. And the poet featuring there wasn't going to be enough for those friends/colleagues to make a one-time exception.
This happens a lot.
People don't go to poetry venues for one or more of these reasons:
A. Dislike of the host/hosts
B. Not wanting to travel a long distance
C. Start time of the reading being too early/too late
D. Perception of the venue as being "bad" or "uncool" or insufficiently literate
E. Perception of the venue as being unappreciative of their poetry
F. Dislike of the host/hosts' choice of features
If you're a poet in LA/OC, you've probably nixed going to venues (at one time or another) for at least three of the reasons listed above.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
SCOTT PILGRIM, Edgar Wright and Michael Cera.
I give the Edgar Wright-directed (previous credits include SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ) graphic-novel-to-screen adaptation SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD **1/2 on a scale of ****. Enjoyed it up to a point (including Kieran Culkin's amazing homage to Hank Azaria), but was a bit irritated by Wright and his DP's choice to stage and shoot the film in slam-everyone-against-the-frame 1.85 to 1 (or "flat") ratio for the most part.
As for Michael Cera, it will be interesting to see if his screen/TV career evolves into that of his spiritual father Andrew McCarthy. I'm probably the only person on planet Earth who prefers Cera in Miguel Arteta's YOUTH IN REVOLT to Cera in SCOTT PILGRIM.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Richard Brody on ISHTAR--and critiquing a certain type of arts' criticism.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/dvr-alert/
I saw the Warren Beatty/Dustin Hoffman/Elaine May comedy ISHTAR on its underperforming opening weekend in the late spring of 1987 (the film's large budget had already been cluck-clucked about in the pre-Internet entertainment media and audiences were conditioned to expect the HEAVEN'S GATE of cinematic comedy). It's not the classic that May's A NEW LEAF and THE HEARTBREAK KID still are, but there are enough genuinely funny moments (greatly aided by Charles Grodin's supporting turn as a CIA agent) to make it worth seeking out (apparently, it's on Netflix' film-streaming service and there's a rumor of Sony releasing it to DVD next year).
Richard Brody, who writes for THE NEW YORKER's website, has a significant difference of opinion with the late Pauline Kael's take on ISHTAR:
"Kael had her categories set, knew what comedy was, knew who comedians were and weren’t, didn’t see the film for what it was but for the expectations [due to its partial desert setting, Kael was anticipating an update of the Hope/Crosby/Lamour ROAD TO...formula] it didn’t meet. That’s a review of advertising and of publicity and of self, not of a movie."
Substitute your favorite poetry critic's name and the word "poetry" for "comedy". And you have a good precis of most criticism of poetry.
[In another online piece, Brody discusses his concept of criticism by comparing it to poet Philip Larkin's I-hate-that-modern-jazz review of jazz music: "...the critic isn’t the one who—as Larkin thinks—takes the resistant, the recondite, the rebarbative, and reproaches his readers for not enjoying it, nor even only the prophet who sees the future of art in its present tense, but, rather, is something of an aristocrat of taste who helps audiences share in the appreciation—the enjoyment—of finer and rarer pleasures. It’s not a job of convincing or persuading; the true modernist is not a village explainer or a professorial explicator but an ecstatic enthusiast who experiences art with a passionate identification apt for a democratic age in which the artist is the uncrowned king or queen." The complete article can be found at:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2010/08/larkin-jazz.html#ixzz0wHt1AICN Although an
irony is that Brody's explanation tends to match up--particularly the "passionate identification" phrase--with how Kael approached her job as NEW YORKER film critic.]
I saw the Warren Beatty/Dustin Hoffman/Elaine May comedy ISHTAR on its underperforming opening weekend in the late spring of 1987 (the film's large budget had already been cluck-clucked about in the pre-Internet entertainment media and audiences were conditioned to expect the HEAVEN'S GATE of cinematic comedy). It's not the classic that May's A NEW LEAF and THE HEARTBREAK KID still are, but there are enough genuinely funny moments (greatly aided by Charles Grodin's supporting turn as a CIA agent) to make it worth seeking out (apparently, it's on Netflix' film-streaming service and there's a rumor of Sony releasing it to DVD next year).
Richard Brody, who writes for THE NEW YORKER's website, has a significant difference of opinion with the late Pauline Kael's take on ISHTAR:
"Kael had her categories set, knew what comedy was, knew who comedians were and weren’t, didn’t see the film for what it was but for the expectations [due to its partial desert setting, Kael was anticipating an update of the Hope/Crosby/Lamour ROAD TO...formula] it didn’t meet. That’s a review of advertising and of publicity and of self, not of a movie."
Substitute your favorite poetry critic's name and the word "poetry" for "comedy". And you have a good precis of most criticism of poetry.
[In another online piece, Brody discusses his concept of criticism by comparing it to poet Philip Larkin's I-hate-that-modern-jazz review of jazz music: "...the critic isn’t the one who—as Larkin thinks—takes the resistant, the recondite, the rebarbative, and reproaches his readers for not enjoying it, nor even only the prophet who sees the future of art in its present tense, but, rather, is something of an aristocrat of taste who helps audiences share in the appreciation—the enjoyment—of finer and rarer pleasures. It’s not a job of convincing or persuading; the true modernist is not a village explainer or a professorial explicator but an ecstatic enthusiast who experiences art with a passionate identification apt for a democratic age in which the artist is the uncrowned king or queen." The complete article can be found at:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2010/08/larkin-jazz.html#ixzz0wHt1AICN Although an
irony is that Brody's explanation tends to match up--particularly the "passionate identification" phrase--with how Kael approached her job as NEW YORKER film critic.]
Monday, August 9, 2010
Entering the comedy video arena of Funny Or Die.
Here's a just-finished video of my poem STRESS-FREE AMERICA 2010 posted to the Will Ferrell/Adam McKay/Judd Apatow FUNNY OR DIE site: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/5a6e63e046
Don't forget to cast your vote.
Don't forget to cast your vote.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Squeeze's SPOT THE DIFFERENCE--re-recording your old songs to make more money off them.
There's a mini-trend going on with bands of a certain age: the re-recording of old songs to rake in more money (presumably from song publishing and royalties). In some cases such as Simply Red's SIMPLIFY or the recent Spandau Ballet reunion album, the songs at least get re-arranged.
And then there's Squeeze's SPOT THE DIFFERENCE. It's an album of songs that have appeared on most or all of the band's other compilations--and the songs are intended, unfortunately, to be as sound-like-the-originals as possible.
Presuming that Glenn Tilbrook and Chris Difford may not have wanted to collaborate on new songs to add to the chestnuts on SPOT. And perhaps Tilbrook wanted to throw some financial support to his two bandmates from The Fluffers who fill the keyboard and drum slots in the resurrected Squeeze (which played a double-bill with Dave Wakeling's English Beat tribute band at Gibson Ampitheatre last week).
But for longtime Squeeze fans, SPOT is rather a letdown (though the songs are as well-played as the first time around in the recording studio).
Obviously, the opportunity was squandered for a more creative approach: re-record some of the lesser-known items from Squeeze's catalog. Good songs such as "By Your Side" (marred by a cluttered arrangement on COSI FAN TUTTI FRUTTI) and "When The Hangover Strikes" (marred by overproduction on SWEETS FROM A STRANGER) could have been resurrected for the band's old and new audiences. And all five members of the current Squeeze would have still received paydays.
But my conception of a perfect new-old Squeeze album looks like a forever-lost opportunity. Alas.
And then there's Squeeze's SPOT THE DIFFERENCE. It's an album of songs that have appeared on most or all of the band's other compilations--and the songs are intended, unfortunately, to be as sound-like-the-originals as possible.
Presuming that Glenn Tilbrook and Chris Difford may not have wanted to collaborate on new songs to add to the chestnuts on SPOT. And perhaps Tilbrook wanted to throw some financial support to his two bandmates from The Fluffers who fill the keyboard and drum slots in the resurrected Squeeze (which played a double-bill with Dave Wakeling's English Beat tribute band at Gibson Ampitheatre last week).
But for longtime Squeeze fans, SPOT is rather a letdown (though the songs are as well-played as the first time around in the recording studio).
Obviously, the opportunity was squandered for a more creative approach: re-record some of the lesser-known items from Squeeze's catalog. Good songs such as "By Your Side" (marred by a cluttered arrangement on COSI FAN TUTTI FRUTTI) and "When The Hangover Strikes" (marred by overproduction on SWEETS FROM A STRANGER) could have been resurrected for the band's old and new audiences. And all five members of the current Squeeze would have still received paydays.
But my conception of a perfect new-old Squeeze album looks like a forever-lost opportunity. Alas.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Trying to wrap my mind around this poetry paradox.
Trying to wrap my mind around the spectacle of a poet whose best poem was about literary rejection (with a "then I wrote a poem about it" closer) now taking the stances he does (essentially wanting to ditch his previous strengths to chase a concept of "acceptance" by others). And most of the community cheers him on for doing so.
Currently, the POETIC DIVERSITY webzine is (I guess) on hiatus; in the current environment, it would suit it well to resurface with the new title POETIC UNIFORMITY.
Currently, the POETIC DIVERSITY webzine is (I guess) on hiatus; in the current environment, it would suit it well to resurface with the new title POETIC UNIFORMITY.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
If you want validation for your poetry in the L.A. "community", you're likely to starve to death.
I don't remember the exact quote at this moment, but Lillian Hellman said something still-resonant about the House Un-American Activities Committee (and testifying before it): "I do not believe in cutting my conscience to fit this year's fashions."
Don Kingfisher Campbell was panned by G. Murray Thomas awhile back in the electronic pages of Poetix.net. Don apparently found it important for Murray to look at a subsequent volume of poetry so Mr. Thomas could evaluate whether or not Mr. Campbell had improved sufficiently.
The results are here (reviews for August 2010): http://poetix.net/reviews.htm
Speaking for myself, I'm beginning to find the search for validation from members of the Los Angeles/Orange County poetry communities by way of accolades-in-print to be something as hollow as a Cadbury chocolate Easter bunny.
The LA/OC communities can often be layered with egotism, posturing, punishing enemies and chasing what's currently the coin of the realm (in the 90s, it was the strength/articulation of one's political activism; now, it's MFA-craziness, evidenced by the buzzphrase "sufficient imagery or metaphor").
If one does subscribe to the slogan "LONG LIVE SUFFICIENT IMAGERY AND METAPHOR! NO FLAT STATEMENTS EVER!", then perhaps it's best to submit your poems or chapbooks to other learned poets/reviewers outside Southern California (be it for literary review or contest consideration).
That way, you can be assured of a review--good or harsh--free of bias, favoritism and/or the reviewer following the trend of the moment or the temporal self-appointed "leader."
Adding this statement I wrote on Facebook earlier today:
I'm sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think anyone should give Murray the keys to the Poetry Oracle-mobile. During the dozen years I've been involved with poetry, I've seen tectonic shifts in what's considered au courant. I don't think that Don's poetry needs to be put in a context where it does battle with Peggy's for Murray's monthly crown. There's validity to both of their approaches--and, ideally, a reviewer should evaluate in terms of how successful each is in what he/she is striving for. Not this nonsense of "layers of meaning" and metapnors and imagery thrown around as look-at-me tinsel.
Don Kingfisher Campbell was panned by G. Murray Thomas awhile back in the electronic pages of Poetix.net. Don apparently found it important for Murray to look at a subsequent volume of poetry so Mr. Thomas could evaluate whether or not Mr. Campbell had improved sufficiently.
The results are here (reviews for August 2010): http://poetix.net/reviews.htm
Speaking for myself, I'm beginning to find the search for validation from members of the Los Angeles/Orange County poetry communities by way of accolades-in-print to be something as hollow as a Cadbury chocolate Easter bunny.
The LA/OC communities can often be layered with egotism, posturing, punishing enemies and chasing what's currently the coin of the realm (in the 90s, it was the strength/articulation of one's political activism; now, it's MFA-craziness, evidenced by the buzzphrase "sufficient imagery or metaphor").
If one does subscribe to the slogan "LONG LIVE SUFFICIENT IMAGERY AND METAPHOR! NO FLAT STATEMENTS EVER!", then perhaps it's best to submit your poems or chapbooks to other learned poets/reviewers outside Southern California (be it for literary review or contest consideration).
That way, you can be assured of a review--good or harsh--free of bias, favoritism and/or the reviewer following the trend of the moment or the temporal self-appointed "leader."
Adding this statement I wrote on Facebook earlier today:
I'm sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think anyone should give Murray the keys to the Poetry Oracle-mobile. During the dozen years I've been involved with poetry, I've seen tectonic shifts in what's considered au courant. I don't think that Don's poetry needs to be put in a context where it does battle with Peggy's for Murray's monthly crown. There's validity to both of their approaches--and, ideally, a reviewer should evaluate in terms of how successful each is in what he/she is striving for. Not this nonsense of "layers of meaning" and metapnors and imagery thrown around as look-at-me tinsel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)