MORE SENSELESS ACTS OF BLOGGERY

Apparently they’re planning another Woodstock festival this year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the original.

Because, you know, the 25th and 30th anniversaries went so well.

Anyway, the lineup has been announced, and NPR ran a piece on it with the following headline:

Can Woodstock 50 'Re-Create The Magic' Of The Original Festival?

Here’s my short answer:

No.

Here’s my slightly longer answer:

Hippie jokes aside, Woodstock was a one-off product of its time, unprecedented in scale and ambition – so much so that the organizers lost control of it early on. Which was in a way in keeping with the times themselves.

To be clear, I think the mythos of Woodstock gets overplayed a lot. But it WAS a culturally significant moment because of the youth-culture ideology that drove it, the sociopolitical changes in play at the time, and the unique role of rock music as an interactive motivational soundtrack for those changes.

Rock was still new and evolving in the late-60s to the point that it was part of the anti-establishment social movement itself. Consequently, I think Woodstock 1 has the reputation it does precisely because the music was integral to the youth movement at the time.

By contrast, pop/rock today feels relatively static and part of the institution, and structurally independent of sociopolitical movements. Yes, youth are starting to get engaged politically again (gun control, climate change, trans rights, #BLM, #MeToo, etc), but the music is mostly incidental or at best reactive to that. Certainly none of the big-name acts I've seen booked for WS50 have much to do with whatever new social movements are underway (their particular political beliefs and opinions of Trump notwithstanding) – maybe Miley Cyrus, but apart from that, not really. 

The organizers may have their hearts in the right place, but it sounds like to me they have no understanding of what made Woodstock 1 'magical' in the first place. In the end, Woodstock 50 (like WS25 and WS30) is just another overpriced corporate-sponsored music festival with a classic brand, and nothing more. 

This concludes my TED Talk.

Goin’ down to Yasgur's Farm,

This is dF

You probably have heard that Charles Manson passed away.

Which is mainly worth blogging about for a couple of reasons: (1) I’d rather forgotten about him, and (2) Manson’s strange role in the pantheon of pop culture. At least for my generation.

To be clear, he was a dangerous lunatic who deserved to stay in jail until he died. Which he did. I remember that whenever he came up for parole, the TV media would do a bunch of stories about it and the general consensus was: of COURSE keep him locked up.

They would also do TV interviews with Manson, who was, among other things, what they call “good television”. His interviews were a mix of stand-up comedy and Dadaist performance art. Which is how Manson sort of imposed himself upon the pop culture landscape as the world’s most dangerously entertaining mass murderer.

At least for those of us either born after the Manson Family murders or too young to remember them. We knew all about it either from the book Helter Skelter or the TV movie based on it. We knew it was a true story, and yet it was presented in the narrative form we usually associate with fiction. And the story had all the hallmarks of a Hollywood thriller.

Which is why ultimately – and perhaps inevitably – we reduced Manson to a cartoon villain.

This song by legendary Nashville hardcore band Rednecks In Pain sums it up well.



Or, if you like, this Ben Stiller sketch.



Which is not to minimize the horror of the Manson murders. It’s just that for those of us who came of age after the 60s were over, it didn’t have the same kind of impact that it did on people who were, say, high-school age or above when the murders happened, especially in the context of the cultural revolution America was undergoing at the time. Also, to be honest, by the time I knew who Manson was, serial killers were a thing (Zodiac killer, Son Of Sam, etc) and Jim Jones had his followers commit mass suicide in Guyana. So while the Manson murders were horrifying, they didn't exactly stand out.

That said, strange as it sounds, Manson was one of those monsters of society who was always present in the pop culture landscape, even if he was mainly just lurking in the background muttering to himself. The weird charisma he exerted on his followers also had an effect on those of us who were repulsed by him – a madman with the ability to make you question yr own sanity if you weren’t careful.

Or is that giving him too much credit?

Anyway, when I think of it, I wonder if maybe it was a good thing that he became a cartoon character for many of us. True Evil wants you to take it seriously. It wants you to be afraid. It hates being laughed at, being mocked. And in the end, we laughed at Manson. And in doing so we made him powerless to frighten us.

There’s a lesson there, perhaps, especially in this day and age where various groups of people are trying to frighten us into accepting their agenda.

FUN FACT: One of the many legends of Charles Manson is that he once auditioned for the Monkees TV show. Turns out that’s not true.

Helter Stupid,

This is dF

Fact.



O captain my captain,

This is dF 

Yes it is.

It's a Mad Mad Mad Max Fury Road - Trailer from Monkey Blood on Vimeo.

What a lovely day,

This is dF

[Via Forever Blog]

Pop will eat itself,

This is dF

[Via Matt Fraction]

DISCLAIMER: That’s probably not a real quote. But that doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.

Noam if you want to,

This is dF

The Muppets returned to the televisions this week.

I didn’t watch it, because I don’t live in the USA. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned as an American citizen, it’s this: just because you haven't actually seen a TV show or a film doesn’t mean you can’t criticize the content.

Sure. That’s what Franklin Graham and One Million Moms do.

Apparently they’re expecting lots of sex, drugs and full frontal nudity. I have a feeling it’s going to fall short of that mark – after all, this is ABC, not HBO.

On the other hand, if the promo material is anything to go by (and that is what these people are going by), The Muppets ain’t exactly a kids show, either. Even the producers have promoted it as a more “adult” show, which means edgy realism humor, uncomfortable relationship situations, double entendres and Grindr jokes, evidently.

None of which is a reason for ABC to cancel the show as Graham and 1MM are demanding. They generally demand the same of 85% of any given prime-time line-up, so it’s hard to take them seriously even before you factor in the fact they haven’t even watched the shows they want taken off the air.

Probably a more pertinent question is: is this really the Muppet show we want? (And by “we” I mean “me”, of course.)

Some of the more sober commentary I’ve read suggests that while the new show is clever and probably what the franchise needs to succeed in 2015, fans of the original show may find it jarring, if not sacrilege, or at least depressing.

For myself, I can tell you from the promo material that I’m not that enthralled with the new direction for a couple of reasons.

1. The mockumentary concept has been done to death (and just because they’re mocking the mocumentary concept doesn’t mean we need more of it). Even the idea of a mockumentary of a late night TV show isn't that original – The Larry Sanders Show covered this ground in the early 90s.

2. I don’t really want a Muppet show that goes for edgy realism or delves into their personal relationships. The Kermit/Miss Piggy angle of the original show was fun and made sense because it played to Piggy’s stage-diva character. Turning it into an ugly public tabloid drama with new girlfriend/ex-girlfriend tension doesn’t really entertain me or make me laugh.

Maybe all of this gels in the current jaded TV landscape. I don’t really watch much TV anyway, so that’s at least one reason for the disconnect here, I admit. Maybe Muppet fans who do watch lots of TV will get more out of the new show, or see the humor in it. Or maybe they’re just glad that the Muppets will be relevant to new generations of fans.

The thing is, they’re not the same Muppets I grew up with. The same characters, yes – but portrayed and presented in a much different way. Let me put it this way: as far as I know, the Muppets were always an all-ages proposition – that doesn’t mean it was just for kids, but that everyone who watched would get something out of it. Making it more “adult” alters that equation. Which might be fine except that the Muppets have always been marketed as being appropriate for kids. To suddenly bump them up to PG levels is inevitably going to confuse people.

It’s also fair to ask: is this what Jim Henson would have wanted? Lisa Henson thinks so, at least in terms of the Muppets being back on prime time and being popular again. But while Jim Henson always had something of a subversive streak to his work, he also understood the importance of subtlety.

Anyway, I'll be the first to admit my reservations don’t mean anything – as I say, I haven't seen the show, so I’m just kind of riffing and dithering here via a promo and second-hand info. And to be clear: even if it’s as bad as I imagine, I wouldn’t support a boycott like what Graham and 1MM are demanding.

Also, it’s not fair to judge a whole show on one episode. By some accounts, Episode 2 is a lot better than the premiere. So it could still grow into something that’s worthy of the Muppet legacy.

In any case, it does sound like one of those cases where parents should be given fair warning. If you already let yr kids watch (say) South Park, it’s probably a non-issue. If you keep them at the level of Pixar films or Frozen, you might want to dial up some parental supervision. Maybe a lot of the “adult” stuff will fly right over their little heads and they’ll just laugh at the silly bits. Still, I have my misgivings.

This is because I am old and decrepit, I know. Fair enough. I can’t say this is the Muppet show we need, but given the state of TV in 2015 – and the general culture of Fear, Hate and Cynicism that pretty much defines social media – maybe it’s the Muppet show we deserve.

It’s not easy being green,

This is dF

[Via Flashe Non Deux]

PRODUCTION NOTE: Yes, it’s a hoax.

Spoken word,

This is dF

ITEM: YouTube user Marcelo Zuniga has made some videos detailing every change ever made to the first three Star Wars films, complete with side-by-side comparisons.

Many of them I already knew about via the 1997 "special editions", but I didn’t know they’d been making extra alterations in subsequent home video releases. Many of them are fairly subtle, others not so much.

Anyway, as part of the original Star Wars generation, I think these videos offer definitive proof (to me) that the originals really didn't need "fixing". In my opinion the Biggs scene is the only deleted scene that was worth adding in.

It occurs to me too that one of the biggest problems here is that Lucasfilm is subtely (if not intentionally) altering film history.

The original SW trilogy was heralded in large part because the FX were groundbreaking and visually stunning for the time period. That matters because when you watch any old film, yr basically seeing films that were made with the tools available at the time, some of which may have been invented specifically for that film. That in itself is a tribute to the ingenuity of the filmmakers, and even if it looks a little clunky by 2015 standards, you can still appreciate what they managed to accomplish.

Star Wars has a well-earned rep as a game-changer in FX, but when you stick in scenes using technology that didn’t exist at the time, it’s like cheating. People seeing Star Wars for the first time may look at the latest version and think, “Wow, they had CGI back in the 70s!”

Well, maybe not, if only because Lucasfilm has been fairly transparent about its enhancements, so it’s not they're trying to trick anyone into thinking they were that far ahead of the CGI game. And maybe it only matters to people like me who have a fascination with film FX tricks and the art of making fake look real, and how they used to do it in the Old Days compared to now.

And considering a lot of the original FX are still intact, I guess you could say the upgraded films serve as a kind of mostly seamless comparison of old-school and new-school FX that demonstrate how sophisticated Lucasfilm and ILM were when they first started.

Still, now that Disney owns Lucasfilm, I’m hoping one day they’ll release the original versions for us Old And Cranky People who will always swear that Han shot first. That doesn’t seem likely, internet rumors notwithstanding. And Lucas has adamant that the “special editions” are the definitive versions as far as he’s concerned, and the originals are “half-completed” films.

If it ain’t broke,

This is dF

From 1962 (allegedly):



[Via Retrospace Zeta]

It's probably a hoax. Or a Mad Men in-joke.

But either way, FINALLY I know what a “hipster” is. I’ve seen everyone on Facebook complaining about them, but I’ve never actually seen one or even heard them described. Now I know.

Thanks, Tumblr!

Color me impressed,

This is dF