Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Dez Reviews 'Spectre' (2015)

With the release of the 24th James Bond film in what has become the longest running franchise in movie history, there is plenty of lore and tradition for fans to savor. In fact, so many aspects of the Bond films have become ingrained in our collective film consciousness (such as Roger Ebert's favorite, the Talking Villain, in which the egomanaical villain has Bond completely at his mercy and all he needs to do is kill him, but he instead reveals his entire plan of world domination, Bond escapes, and then foils the nefarious plot). Sam Mendes's second Bond feature gives true fans of the series plenty of subtle nostalgia. For the true Bond aficianados, references to previous Bond films are everywhere 'Spectre,' some clever and some not so much. Just going over it in my head right now, I saw specific references that I could identify to about a dozen earlier Bond films. The problem here is that the Craig era has successfully opened the Bond formula up a bit, so to see this slide back into formula is a little disappointing.

Daniel Craig's Bond era has (with the exception of 'Quantum of Solace') been a success. Part of that success has been a return to a grittier Bond with plenty of angst. What is interesting about 'Spectre' is how traditional it is. There is still grit and angst, but Mendes pays tribute to previous Bond films throughout, and even allows a little humor back into the franchise. (Just a little, we aren't talking Roger Moore slapstick here). Out of the four Craig Bond films, this one feels the most like Bond, with the familiar rhythms and plot. That is part of the charm and part of the problem.

They were going to have trouble regardless following up the hugely successful 'Skyfall'. Javier Bardem's Silva was so flamboyant and fresh, how do you top that? SPOILER ALERT: Go back to the villain of all Bond villains, Ernst Stavro Blofeld (complete with white cat). A Bond film is only as good as its villain. Christoph Waltz's Blofeld certainly oozes menace, although here (as in every Bond film featuring Blofeld), his motivations and ultimate endgame never really makes complete sense. But Blofeld here does not pop like Silva did. Another problem here is the lengths the plot goes to try and connect the previous three Craig films to this one, making it all one big foiled Blofeld plot. And then the somewhat ridiculous personal connection created between Bond and Blofeld. Hint to Bond filmmakers: the more mysterious and shadowy Blofeld is, usually the better. There was too much sharing here, turning Blofeld's obsession with Bond into a mere family squabble. Blofeld has died many times in Bond films, at least here they don't kill him off. They merely arrest him.

And I thought I would enjoy Ralph Fiennes as M more than I did. I kind of missed Judi Dench.

It is nice to see Craig loosening up a bit with the character. In the previous films he has been so serious that he was at times in danger of being one dimensional. In assessing the Craig era thus far (and I would guess he will do one more before hanging up is Walther PPK, since he has publicly expressed fatigue with the character and his contract has one more film on it), I still think 'Casino Royale' was his best one. This is definitely better than 'Quantum of Solace.' I did not think 'Skyfall' was as great as many others did, and I actually like this one more than many critics do. It has a melancholy to it that I like, where Bond's past is catching up with him. The title 'Spectre' of course refers to Blofeld's terrorist organization, but the title also can reference the spectors of Bond's past weighing heavily upon him. And it is beautiful to look at, really liked the filming of the opening Mexico City sequence. I would put it at the same level as 'Skyfall' for me personally, but I also see where most people prefer 'Skyfall' to it. Between 'Skyfall' and 'Spectre,' we are certainly learning more about Bond's background and life than we ever did before. Don't know if that is a good thing or not.

*** out of *****

Monday, November 16, 2015

Dez Reviews Neil Young's BLUENOTE CAFE (live) (1988/2015)


After a period of relative inactivity on his Archives front, Neil Young has finally put out another Performance Series release, and this is one that has garnered semi-legendary status amongst Neil collectors over the years. It is also one of particular personal interest to me. I’ve written several times of the life changing first Neil Young show I attended in 1988. He had just dumped his band The Bluenotes and reconvened Crazy Horse, and I caught the incendiary Crazy Horse show in Houston. That was a big part of making me the fan I am today. It was so sudden that the newspaper article in the paper discussing the upcoming show was still talking about The Bluenotes. With the release of Bluenote Café, I can now hear what I was actually supposed to hear on that tour. (By the way, not as life changing as what I was fortunate enough to hear, but I can say it still would have been a fantastic show.)

Young’s record This Note’s For You was the last of the wildly erratic, genre-jumping 80’s period before he did his career reset with Freedom in 1989. TNFY was actually one of the better 80’s records he put out, this one focused on horn-driven, big band city blues. There were some weaknesses on the record, though, including a really thin production sound and some relatively tepid performances. For many years after Neil talked about the shows sounding much better than the studio record, and in fact Bluenote Café was set for release as a live follow-up to TNFY until Neil shelved it and made one of his many sudden career turns.

Now I see what Neil was talking about. This is what this material was really meant to sound like. Typically, Neil is stubbornly in the present here, hardly ever looking back. Seven of TNFY’s ten tracks are here, all uniformly far superior to their studio counterparts, as well as a whopping ten then-unreleased tracks. He only digs deep into his back catalogue during the encore, with a joyous take of the Buffalo Springfield chestnut “On the Way Home” (which makes sense, since the original version also featured horns) and an epic, 20-minute “Tonight’s the Night.” The unreleased tracks were mostly written around the time of TNFY, so they are in the same style and vein.

The sound is thick and deep (making up for the thin sounding studio record), the horn section blazes and Neil generously gives time to horn solos throughout, as well as playing some outstanding guitar, a fantastic blues style that is still unquestionably Neil Young. The tones he gets on his guitars are especially great, a large bluesy sound that he rarely uses. As it is one of Neil’s genre exercises, the double live record is also very cohesive. A time capsule of this brief flirtation with horn-driven blues (just like every tour from the 80’s would likewise be its own enclosed world. I’d love to get a release from the Trans tour).

There are quite a few highlights. The unreleased “Don’t Take Your Love Away From Me” features a canyon deep bass groove and blaring horns, along with some top notch Neil guitar. The closest thing Neil had to a hit in the 80’s (and one of his better, underrated songs), “This Note’s For You” is lengthened and full of energy. “Twilight” (the other highlight from TNFY) is even more haunting here than on the studio record, with Neil’s guitar screeches sounding like howls in the night. “Ordinary People” (described by Neil himself as “’Cortez the Killer’ with horns”) is given a much better (and shorter) run through than the interminable version that later appeared on Chrome Dreams II. The aforementioned “On the Way Home” and “Tonight’s the Night” are also great, and a rewarding return to the familiar after a show of obscurities.

The key track, though, is “Crime in the City.” Neil fans know this tune as it appeared in a much more subdued version on Freedom, and was also played live throughout the 90’s, appearing on the live album Weld. But here, I think, is the definitive version. It is given a hard-driving beat, and Neil wails on the guitar breaks. I also think it may be the key to the transition between Bluenotes and Freedom. Crucially, this is the only tune not to feature any of the horns. It is a gritty drums-bass-guitar rocker featuring some of Neil’s best post-70’s lyrical imagery, and you can hear him getting off on this performance more than maybe anything else on the record. I think he was already starting to look ahead to Freedom.

That being said, this is still a fantastic live document that finally does justice to the Bluenotes period and band. (Interesting – Neil was sued by R&B legend Harold Melvin, since Melvin’s group had also been called The Bluenotes. This is why later pressings of TNFY is just credited to Neil Young vs. Neil Young & The Bluenotes, and this record is credited to “Neil Young & Bluenote Café,” although on the tracks he refers to “The Bluenotes” throughout).

Now we are just awaiting the long promised second Archives box set which Neil has been teasing for years. The one covering the mid to late 70’s, including the Neil Holy Grail that Neil swears will be included, Time Fades Away II. Let’s get on this, Neil.

**** out of *****

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees For the Class of 2016

Part of the fun of breaking down each year’s crop of nominees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is to bash the boneheaded decisions made by the Nominating Committee. I can’t really do that this year. I would not be upset if any of these fifteen nominees were inducted for the Class of 2016. I guess the shake-up/purge of the Committee earlier this year did some positive good.

Here are the nominees, and then I will tell you who I voted for on the fan poll and then predict who will actually be inducted…

The Cars
Finally! Those who know me well know that I have been a huge booster of The Cars since I started following the Hall. To me, they’ve got all of the criteria. One of the biggest New Wave bands of the late 70’s/early 80’s with a boatload of memorable hits, top charting records, and music that stands the test of time yet is also definitely of its time. Ric Ocasek’s sardonic, witty songs have influenced a generation of power pop songwriters.

Chic
Get it over with already! This is their 10th nomination. The voting body has spoken over and over again, but the Nominating Committee will not give up. They should just cook the books and get them in regardless of the vote tally. I’m with the Committee on this one, Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards should be in the Hall of Fame, no question. Disco backlash? But Donna Summers, The Bee Gees and ABBA are all in. I don’t get it. Maybe just get Rodgers in for his production work with the Ahmet Ertugen award, bypassing the voting body altogether, since they clearly don’t get it?

Chicago
A big snub for a lot of people for years (not for me, not a big fan), this is their first nomination. I think their Peter Cetera dominated 80’s schmaltz have hurt them over the years. The jazz-rock of the 70’s was pretty pioneering, although never a critical favorite.

Cheap Trick
First time nomination for this power pop juggernaut as well. No complaint from me, although I was never a huge fan. To me, they have a Greatest Hits worth of power pop classics.

Deep Purple
Again, not a huge fan personally, but it is absurd that Purple is still not in the Hall of Fame. The Holy Trinity of 70’s hard rock is Black Sabbath (inducted after about 8 nominations), Led Zeppelin (inducted) and Deep Purple. Get them in there, and then start getting in all of the snubbed metal groups influenced by these three: Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Anthrax, Pantera, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne (solo), Megadeath, etc.

Janet Jackson
There has been a grass roots effort for years to get Ms. Jackson on the ballot, and she finally gets her shot. I agree, with her track record, it is pretty ridiculous that she is not already in. The fact that she was able to step out of the shadow of her older brother and establish her own identity is impressive in and of itself.

The J.B.’s
I had to look this one up. A funk group that James Brown put together to back him at some point that then released some funk music of their own. I listened to some of it, fantastic stuff. Bootsy Collins, Bobby Byrd and Maceo Parker all went through their ranks. The Hall recently inducted some other backing bands through the backdoor (deservedly), I bet when the J.B.’s don’t get enough votes this year, they will get in that way too. Fine with me.

Chaka Khan
It is a little strange that she was previously nominated with/as Rufus and Chaka Khan but this time she is being nominated purely for her solo work. She is fantastic.

Los Lobos
What a pleasant surprise. I did not see this coming at all. Casual music fans probably just remember “La Bamba,” but they have a catalogue both rich and deep. They have fused Mexican styles of music seamlessly with American rock and roll, and also released some quite experimental albums (Kiko is one of my all time favorite records). They are a dark horse, but not as much of a longshot as you might think. First, they are very respected in the industry, and that is who votes. Secondly, they have worked with many other artists, many of whom are voters as well. (Paul Simon won’t be voting for them, I imagine. Los Lobos played on a song on Simon’s Graceland. When Simon did not give them a songwriting credit, that launched a decades long war of words, with Los Lobos claiming that Simon ripped them off).

Steve Miller
Another “finally,” shockingly this is his first nomination. Another case of casual listeners being familiar with a handful of radio hits, but an artist with a deep and rich catalogue. His late 60’s work was very interesting, and he was a hits machine in the 70’s. Like with last year’s initial nomination of Stevie Ray Vaughan without Double Trouble (they later amended it), it is odd that Miller is nominated alone and not as Steve Miller Band, which is how all but one of his albums is branded. Perhaps there was too much of a revolving door with Steve Miller Band personnel, I’m not sure.

Nine Inch Nails
Definitely not a fan, definitely deserves induction. Trent Reznor was influential on annoying trends in music during the 90’s and beyond. But the key word there is influential.

N.W.A.
The Hall (or voters) have an issue here. And it is not whether rap belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. That decision has already been made with Run DMC, Grandmaster Flash and Public Enemy already getting inducted. Do you recognize and honor a group that is so steeped in violence and misogyny, yet one of the most important groups of the last 25 years? (I guess they already decided misogyny was OK when they inducted The Rolling Stones). This is their best chance with the ‘Straight Outta Compton’ film doing so well this year. It would be a fun ceremony with them there, for sure.

The Smiths
Love to see them here again. The fact that they (and The Cure, Joy Divison/New Order, Depeche Mode, The Cars, Devo, The Replacements, Duran Duran, Sonic Youth, The Pixies, Morrissey as a solo artist, etc.) are still not in reveals a real problem with the structure of voting. Many of the voters are steeped in 50s, 60s and 70s rock and are dismissive or don’t really understand the 80s. Steven Van Zandt has said that “the 80s were a musical wasteland,” and he is one of the most influential members of the Nominating Committee. And Jerry Lee Lewis is a voter. How much Moz does Jerry Lee really listen to?

The Spinners
Great Philly Soul group from the 70s. Love to see them get in, but they don’t have much of a chance in this field. Their only hope is that there is not much competition to split votes with such a classic rock-heavy ballot.

Yes
And we come to the most egregious snub still on the outside. However you feel about their music or the progressive rock genre in general, the fact that you have the most important band of a major genre of rock still not in the Rockhall is by definition absurd. They should have gotten in on their first nomination two years ago (actually, they should have gotten in when became eligible in 1994), but hopefully this is the year we rectify this crime. Too bad Chris Squire is no longer alive to enjoy the induction.

Again, it would be hard to come up with a list of 15 nominees more deserving of induction. On the fan poll you can vote for five, but they have been inducting 6-7 in recent years. So…

My votes:
The Cars
Yes
The Smiths
Los Lobos
Steve Miller

My predictions:
The Cars
Chicago
Deep Purple
Janet Jackson
N.W.A.
Nine Inch Nails
If they induct seven: Steve Miller
And I predict they will backdoor the J.B.’s with the Musical Excellence category

Thoughts? Your favorites? Predictions?

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Rockhall Matters

It is that time of year again in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame cycle, when the nominees for the Class of 2016 will be announced. Brief review of rules and criteria: an artist is eligible 25 years after the release of their first album or single. They have changed the wording slightly regarding the criteria, but as it stands here is what they say: The artist must “…have demonstrated unquestionable musical excellence. We shall consider factors such as an artist's musical influence on other artists, length and depth of career and the body of work, innovation and superiority in style and technique, but musical excellence shall be the essential qualification of induction.” (emphasis added).

So, breaking that down, the only real qualification after the time limit is “musical excellence.” Therein, of course, lies the perpetual problem when you have a Nominating Committee that meets in secret once a year to put the nominees out there. Of late, there have been a list of approximately 15 nominees per year, where about 5-6 end up getting inducted. Once the nominees are determined, voting goes out to a larger group. Nobody knows the exact number, but about 500 artists, critics and industry insiders make up the voting body. Each current inductee gets a vote (therein lies another problem, what does Jerry Lee Lewis really know about The Smiths or The Replacements?) They have thrown the fans a bone, mostly symbolic but appreciated, with a poll that fans can participate in and then the results of that poll will be one ballot. Which is about how much they respect fan opinion in this whole process, 1 out of 500, although statistics show that whichever artist tops the fan ballot almost always is inducted. To make things more intriguing, there was a purge this year on the Nominating Committee where a decent number of members were booted, so the Committee is smaller now.

On the Committee, to try and make up for their alleged deficiencies in certain genres, they have created some sub-committees to specialize in those genres. The category that is most paid attention to is the “Performer” category, but there are some other categories that avoid the mass voting stage and people can be inducted directly by the Committee, like Early Influence, the Ahment Ertugen Award (formerly Non-Performer, meant to honor important non-musicians in the industry like producers, record execs, journalists, etc.) and Musical Excellence (which from what I can tell, is primarily used by the Committee to shoe in artists they know won’t be voted in by the voters, most notoriously used last year to inexplicably give Ringo Starr his second induction). Here is the most up to date list of who we know is on the Committee.

Jon Landau and Steve Van Zandt are considered two of the biggest power players, although Questlove and Tom Morello have been throwing their weight around too. Several of Questlove’s pet projects have gotten in during the past few cycles (like Hall & Oates, for instance), and Morello is credited for finally getting KISS nominated a second time (and then inducted, despite former Committee Member Dave Marsh’s famous pronouncement that as long as he was on the Committee, he would make sure that KISS never got in). Through Van Zandt, it is believed that Bruce Springsteen makes his opinions known, and for the conspiracy theorists out there, the shadowy puppet master orchestrator is believed to be former Committee member (and inductee) Jan Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone magazine.

Back to the problems of the process. “Musical Excellence” is fairly meaningless because it is almost entirely subjective. While all Halls of Fame have some if this problem, the RRHOF seems to have the worst. So I guess you can only really turn to the factors that they list for guidance, although we do not know how much Landau, et al. actually pay attention to them vs. just trying to get in their favorites. (When Ahmet Ertugen was alive and was the Chairman of the Committee, an unusually high number of artists who had recorded on Atlantic Records were getting in, which was the label Ertugen founded and ran).

Notice one factor missing is any mention of sales. They have rather proudly stated several times that record sales are not an important factor. Which I find odd. Granted, it should not be the major factor, but for a Hall of Fame that honors what is a “popular” music, perhaps what has been “popular” over time (measured by record sales) ought to be considered? But the more concrete factors that I can discern from their statement are: Influence, Length and Depth, Innovation and Technical/Stylistic Superiority. Influence I am absolutely on board with, as well as Innovation. Technical/Stylistic Superiority can be problematic. There are many obscure guitar players sitting around smoking a doobie in their suburban garage with great technique. Stylistic Superiority I take as leaders within genres, which I agree with, but you will see there are many genre leaders who have been snubbed thus far. Length and Depth are decent factors, but longevity alone does not necessarily make great rock and roll. And if you look at some inductees, they have had very short careers. Velvet Underground released four records, and the Sex Pistols really only released one of note. (Both are deserving, by the way).

Soon I will post my list/commentary on the most glaring snubs in my view, and then hopefully will be evaluating the actual nominees for 2016 soon thereafter. This post started as the snub post, but the intro became so lengthy that it became a post itself.

Sunday, August 2, 2015

Thoughts On Trump (and the other candidates)

One of my last lectures/class discussions in my AP US History class last year was looking ahead to the 2016 election. I tried to fit pictures of all of the declared and likely Republican candidates on one PowerPoint slide, kind of pyramid style, with the "important" ones on top with bigger pictures and the less important ones at the bottom. As an afterthought I put a silly little picture of Donald Trump at the very bottom. My students and I had a quick laugh and we moved on to a more serious discussion. No Republican is laughing now. (By the way, I also had to explain who the hell Bernie Sanders was and the students had a laugh at his disheveled photo and then we discussed Hillary's democratic coronation. That conversation would go differently now as well).

For months now media types from all parts of the spectrum (MSNBC to right wing talk radio) have been predicting Trump's demise. This is a joke, right? People are supporting him because he's entertaining, but they wouldn't really vote for him, right? According to the media experts, every misstep is the end of Trump. Out of the gate with his illegal immigrants are rapists ("somebody's doing the raping, Don!") talk. John McCain isn't a hero because he got captured. Stupid statements like these should sink most candidates. Only his poll numbers actually go up after each of these supposed screw ups.

I believe a poll earlier in the week had Trump at 25% in a field of now 17 Republicans, the closest to him was Jeb, behind him by double digits.

Trump is not going away, and I'll tell you why. First, he has a limitless bankroll, and doesn't need to depend on begging for donations to keep his campaign afloat. It can all be self-financed, a la Ross Perot in '92. (In fact, I would not be surprised if Trump starts buying 30 minutes slots in prime time to present his case. Just wait. That is coming.) Secondly, he is a celebrity who knows media. He is the most media savvy candidate on either side. Third, he doesn't have to fight for headlines. He steps on the street and it is a CNN lead. The media is Trump-crazy (not fawning over him like they did Obama, but they can't get enough of him, and that is all he needs). And he is in command when dealing with the press. Did you see the interview he did with Anderson Cooper recently? He mandhandled Cooper. Totally controlled the interview, to the point to where Cooper was trying to point out to Trump where he (Cooper) had in fact been complimentary of Trump in the past. A leading newpaper in Iowa recently editorialized that he should drop from the race, he simply banished any journalist from the paper from any of his events. He doesn't need them like the other candidates do. It matters less that much of what Trump says makes no sense (a wall will be built on the border and Mexico will pay for it!) What matters is when he appears on television he is in command. He has sucked the air out of the Republican race. Rand Paul was reduced to taking a chainsaw to the tax code and Lindsey Graham had to make an SNL-like short getting rid of his cell phone just to get TV time.

Something a little less obvious. Even though I agree more with establishment Republicans, I know how the right wing thinks because I listen to a lot of talk radio. They despise the Boehner/McCain Republicans. They feel like the mainstream media is a Left Wing conspiracy. So the more the establishment Republican Party and the mainstream media tries to dismiss Trump or take him down, the more support he will garner from the right. His "straight talk" style is an aphrodisiac to the angry, politician hating Tea Party/right wing types. And they are loudest in the primaries. Something Trump and Sanders have in common, by the way, is that they have tapped into a Populist anger out there combined with a straight shooter persona when skepticism about politicians is high. Opposite ends of the spectrum, but the populist roots are close to the same. Trump has also mined that old nativist tradition in American politics that has popped up periodically, from the early 1800's, the 1920's, and other periods. The fear that new immigrants ain't like the older immigrants, they will ruin our great nation with their crime, strange beliefs and dangerous political ideologies.

But would Trump get support in the general election? He obviously would have trouble with the Hispanic vote. That is a real issue because it is a crucual demographic for the Republicans in the future. And as I have commented in the past, there are many segments of the Hispanic community that lines up very nicely with Republican values, both social and economic. It is an issue of messaging. Trump has done real damage in that crucual effort. But if Trump were to force his nomination on a cowering Republican establishment, what's their alternative? Vote for Hillary? The hatred for Hillary is so strong that it will bring out much of the Republican base, Tea Party and establishment. (Much like Reagan's 1980 victory was as much an anti-Carter vote as it was for Reagan). The real question is whether Trump could get independent votes, the ones that now determine general elections. His favorables are not strong with independents, but he has time and has exceeded expectations thus far.

This is a fascinating race even without Trump. There are 17 Republican candidates because Hillary is so beatable. I predict that in the end, Biden will jump in and give Hillary a real race on the Democratic side. People don't like Hillary. Polls indicate that over 50% of the American public sees her as untrustworthy. Benghazi and the email scandal are not going away and they shouldn't. She is a terrible campaigner. Her speeches are shrill and dripping with insincerity and poll tested lines. Are you willing to listen to four to eight years of that? Even most Democrats are just lukewarm on her. The alternative to Hillary, until Biden gets in? Socialist Bernie Sanders.

What about the other 16 Republicans? That is sort of the shame here. There are some very good candidates on the Republican side. There is a website with a questionnaire on issues, go here, and there are others out there as well. It matches you up by percentage with all of the candidates based on how your responses match up with their positions. Probably not an exact science, since candidates positions can slip all over the place, but it is fun. I had my students all do it. If you do it, make sure to adjust the priority meter, it makes a difference in the results. Anyway, my results were what I thought they would be. John Kasich was my highest match, followed by Chris Christie. Jeb was fairly high. Hillary was in the middle, by the way, and Ted Cruz was dead last. When I did it in the spring, Trump wasn't an option.

I don't see Kasich or Christie winning the nomination, though. Nor do I see Trump winning it, but the fact that he is in the serious conversation would have been laughable six months ago. Odds on favorites are still Jeb or Scott Walker in the end, and either one should pick Marco Rubio for VP candidate.

However things eventually turn out, the first Republican debate next week is now must see TV, with The Donald front and center.

And one other thing Trump has. He has the nuclear option of running as an independent if the Republican Party "doesn't treat him right". Like Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 and Ross Perot in 1992, that guarantees a Democrat president for the next four years. And the Republicans know it.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Dez Reviews the Book ‘Goldeneye, Where Bond Was Born: Ian Fleming’s Jamaica,’ by Matthew Parker, 2015


Even the casual James Bond fan knows at least some things about Bond’s creator, author Ian Fleming. They at least know that some of Bond’s exotic and thrilling exploits have roots in Fleming’s own experiences. Goldeneye was Fleming’s home and property in Jamaica, where after he purchased the land and had his vacation home built in 1946, he religiously spent two months of the year (from about mid-January to mid-March) in Jamaica. Bond fans also know that every Fleming Bond story was written in Jamaica during those two months each year between 1952 (when ‘Casino Royale’ was written) until Fleming’s death in 1964.

So in a way this book makes a lot of sense. Jamaica and Goldeneye clearly are a big part of James Bond. It is safe to say that had Fleming not found Jamaica, James Bond would never have been. What Matthew Parker has accomplished here is impressive. Instead of a straightforward Fleming biography, his book is a biography of only two months a year of Fleming’s life in Jamaica. But it is much more. It is part biography. part Jamaican history, part travelogue, part rumination on the twilight of the British Empire, part salacious gossip, and part analysis of the creation and writing of the James Bond novels (although we don’t even get to the first Bond novel until about 125 pages in, that is fine because the other topics of this book are so well done).

None of this would work, of course, unless Ian Fleming himself weren’t so damn interesting. And fortunately, he was a pretty fascinating, if not likeable, character. He comes across here, and I have read this elsewhere as well, as an endlessly interesting friend and partner in having good times, but a horrible person to try to be closer to (say as a wife, son, etc.) He simply would not let people get too close, almost pathological about his solitude and need for freedom and space. He was also the perfect figure to use to look at the uncomfortable ending of an Empire, both as a figure clawing and scratching while being dragged into the sunset but also one who sees the reality of what is happening with a somewhat sardonic British humor. And that insecurity, of the once top dog on the block having to step aside for the Americans and Russians, permeates the Bond novels as well.

“All history is sex and violence.” – Ian Fleming

That is one reason the Bond novels resonated so much in Britain. In the wake of humiliations like the Suez Crisis, Bond was an escape for Brits to see themselves as still powerful. When in reality, they no longer were. More than anything else, the Bond novels are strong colonial/Imperial nostalgia, as well as a way to vent at the loss of strength and vitality (or Empire). Parker says “Even the thickest-skinned nostalgist could no longer deny [Britain’s] second-class status. But this would make the escapism of Fleming’s stories, in which, behind the scenes, Britain in the figure of super-agent 007 still bestrides the globe, more popular than ever. The world of Bond was rapidly becoming a place where the nation could congregate around a vision that denied Britain’s disappointing new reality.” And “ “Bond expresses [Britain’s] complicated relationship with [its] past, and [its] empire – at once a little bit proud, a little bit ashamed, and forever aware that [its] ‘greatest days’ are behind [it].”

Take the following remarkable passage from the Bond novel ‘You Only Live Twice,’ where in this dressing down of Bond by Japanese agent Tiger Tanaka, Fleming takes the opportunity to go through a cathartic dose of reality worthy of any monk’s self-flagellation:

Tanaka: “You have not only lost a great Empire, you have seemed almost anxious to throw it away with both hands…when you apparently sought to arrest this slide into impotence at Suez, you succeeded only in stage-managing one of the most pitiful bungles in the history of the world, if not the worst. Further, your governments have shown themselves successively incapable of ruling and have handed over effective control of the country to trade unions, who appear to be dedicated to the principle of doing less and less work for more and more money. The feather-bedding, this shirking of an honest day’s work, is sapping at ever-increasing speed the moral fiber of the British, a quality the world once so admired. In its place we now see a vacuous, aimless horde…whining at the weather and the declining fortunes of the country, and wallowing nostalgically in gossip about the doings of the Royal Family.”

Wow. Through Tanaka, Fleming is clearly venting and editorializing on the current state of Britain. He does that often through his books.

And who has taken Britain’s place? Fleming grudgingly admits it is the United States. While acknowledging the deep friendship between the U.S. and UK, there is still a startling anti-Americanism that shines through in the Bond books. It is interesting to look at Bond’s relationship with his CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter. Leiter is rather hilariously played by an array of actors throughout the Bond films (he was even black, along with most everyone else, in 'Live and Let Die'). “[Leiter’s] close and friendly relationship with Bond represents an optimistic, or even fantastic, model for Britain’s relationship with the United States. Leiter’s role is to supply Bond with technical support, hardware and muscle, as well as money. Bond – and by implication Britain – provides the leadership, intelligence and daring,” states Parker.

But Fleming is also often spiteful and jealous of America. In a private letter he discussed America’s “total unpreparedness to rule the world that is now theirs.” Other than Leiter, almost all of the Americans that Bond encounters in the novels are “surly, uncooperative and jealous of [Bond’s] success and panache.” In a travelogue book he wrote, ‘Thrilling Cities,’ Fleming describes beating the “syndicates” of Las Vegas, and having to “wash the filth of the United States currency off my hands.” Vegas is “ghastly,” New York is obsessed with the “hysterical pursuit of money,” and Chicago is “grim.”

ABOVE: Fleming's paradise, Goldeneye, where all of the Bond stories were written. Interesting fact: after Fleming's death Bob Marley seriously considered purchasing Goldeneye, but deciding that it was too "posh" and wouldn't jibe with his revolution image, he passed.

One of the more interesting aspects of Fleming that Parker discusses is his views on race, ethnicity and nationality. First of all, it is important to remember both the times in which he lived and the fact that he was a Brit from the upper middle crust living in a colonial possession. Or, context. But anyone who has read his Bond novel ‘Live and Let Die’ cannot escape the racist tone throughout. Through Bond’s eyes, Fleming describes blacks as “easy prey to sickness and fear” due to “weak nerves.” Their “organs of sight and hearing are keener than ours,” feeding into the racist clichés of making blacks closer to the animal kingdom than whites. The black henchmen of Mr. Big are “clumsy black apes.” While in Harlem, Bond reflects that the smell of “negro bodies” is “feral.” Harlem is a “jungle.” And so on.

But Parker makes an interesting point. “It is also important to note that Fleming – and Bond – looked down on pretty much everyone who was not British and perceived people of all colours in terms of negative stereotypes of race and nationality.” Parker quotes from several Bond books: in ‘Moonraker,’ Germans have “the usual German chip on the shoulder.” The Japanese in ‘You Only Live Twice’ have “an unquenchable thirst for the bizarre, the cruel and the terrible.” The Italians in ‘Diamonds Are Forever’: “bums with monogrammed shirts who spend the day eating spaghetti and meatballs and squirting scent over themselves.” The Afrikaners in DAF: “a bastard race, sly, stupid and ill-bred.” The Chinese in ‘Dr. No’ are “hysterical.” As Parker says, “No villain in the Bond novels is ever British. Even when they are British citizens…they turn out to be of foreign racial origin.” In a letter to his wife discussing America, Fleming once simply said “all foreigners are pestilential.”

That being said, for his time and station, Fleming did have a better view and relationship with the local Jamaicans than many of his compatriots. Like the Bond of the novels, Fleming “loves the spontaneity, the physicality and…sexy exoticism of it all. His affection is genuine, then, but based on what we would now see as racist clichés.” All of Fleming’s relationships with native Jamaicans were with tradespeople and servants of some sort, but the evidence shows that they genuinely liked Fleming, at least when compared to the other Brits on the island. Fleming’s relationship with most of the native Jamaicans he knew were of the “captain/first mate” sort. Where there is respect and even room for debate, but in the end the captain is in charge. Jamaicans who worked for Fleming called him “Commander” (from his rank in the navy), and he apparently relished the title.

A perfect model is the character of Quarrel, the Jamaican sidekick Bond has in several of the novels. “So here we have Fleming’s ideal colonial relationship. There is no challenge to Bond’s superiority – rank, as on a ship, is taken as read; Quarrel is unmistakably ‘staff.’ But with mutual respect established and power relations solidified by history and custom, there is no need for coercion. Quarrel will ‘follow Bond unquestioningly.’” Quarrel will even instruct Bond in certain skills, like spearfishing. But in the end, Bond sets the agenda and Quarrel will make every effort to help Bond succeed.

One question many people have with any sort of interest in Fleming or Bond, is how much of Bond is really also Fleming? Fleming did have some dashing adventures during World War II. One of the keys, argues Parker, lies in Bond’s birth at Goldeneye in Jamaica. Fleming was more at home in the tropics than back in England. He came alive there. The book wonderfully captures the decadent last days of partying by the British elites as the sun sets on the British Empire. There is a shocking lack of morality amongst these people. Marriage vows are not to be taken seriously. Fleming, like Bond, was a serial womanizer. When he got married, that changed very little. Fleming wrote of Bond in ‘Casino Royale’: “the lengthy approaches to a seduction bored him almost as much as the subsequent mess of disentanglement.” The same could have been said of Fleming.

ABOVE: Ian Fleming and Sean Connery in Jamaica during the filming of the first Bond film, 'Dr. No' (1962). Fleming was not impressed with Connery originally, thinking him too brutish. Fleming changed his mind after having dinner one evening with Connery and watching the female patrons watch Connery. Connery later said of Fleming: “I know he was not that happy with me as [Bond]. He called me, or told somebody, that I was an over-developed stuntman…But when I did eventually meet him he was very interesting, erudite and a snob – a real snob. But his company was very good for a limited time.”

ABOVE: Fleming has a drink with Ursula Andress, the gorgeous actress who portrayed Honeychile Ryder in 'Dr. No.' Not surprisingly, Fleming was reported to have been smitten.

In case you don't understand why Fleming was smitten, try this one:

Fleming was not your typical English stuffed shirt. He came alive in Jamaica, and loved physical danger. He was an obsessive snorkler off his private beach at Goldeneye, and thrilled in swimming with sharks and barracuda. He explored every inch of the island, the seedy parts as well as high society. He despised social gatherings of the British elite, preferring the saucier company of his good friend, playwright Noel Coward. As Parker says, “Jamaica seemed to Fleming the perfect mix of British old-fashioned imperial influence and law and the dangerous and sensual, of reassuring conservatism and the exciting exotic: in effect, the same curious combination that would make the Bond novels so appealing and successful.” When asked about his formula, Fleming once stated “What I endeavor to aim at is a certain disciplined exoticism.”

Writing of Bond, Fleming could also be talking about himself. Bond is often described as cold, cynical and ruthless, but also always trying to control emotions and passions boiling just under the surface. “Like all harsh men, cold men, he was easily tipped over into sentiment.” Bond is a hero for the new, “increasingly classless, jet-set age.”

Parker addresses Fleming’s uncomfortable self-awareness that he was producing what we would today call pop culture for the masses, as opposed to great literature. Fleming often gives a knowing wink within the novels themselves. There is a fascinating and often told anecdote of Fleming coming home one evening to one of his wife’s many high society dinner parties of English artistes, and as he was sneaking through the back so as not to have to socialize, he overhears the guests mockingly reading passages from one of his Bond novels. His wife often dismissed the books as “Ian’s pornography.” These books never were high art. Then again, today we probably don’t know the names of most of those dinner guests, do we?

Like his character Bond, Fleming lived fast and had sort of a death wish. He smoked heavily, drank even more heavily, and ignored years of doctor advice to slow down. Parker points out that in the last several Bond novels, Fleming has Bond suffer this deterioration as well. In the last few books, Bond struggles more physically to accomplish his daring feats. Bond is often winded and reflects that he didn’t used to feel this way. Bond also smokes all the time and drinks recklessly. In ‘Thunderball,’ Bond is even ordered by M to go detox at a clinic. (Although this is more a spa where he beds the attractive nurse). In fact, in the Bond universe, “abstinence is the sure sign of villainy.” When Bond is thought dead in ‘You Only Live Twice,’ his secretary suggests the epitaph “He didn’t waste his days trying to prolong them.” Appropriate for Ian Fleming as well, dead at the age of 56.

If you have an interest in Bond, British Imperialist twilight, Jamaica, or any combination thereof, then **** out of *****.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A Very Late Review of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' 2015


Due to the fact that I have a five and a two year old, I don't really set foot into movie theaters much these days other than to watch Minions or Elsa. But I was finally able to go catch the new (well, couple months old now) Mad Max film. We can get one thing out of the way right now: this movie kicks more ass than almost anything else you will go see. I do admit that I am a huge fan of the original 80's trilogy featuring a pre-crazy Mel Gibson, but as I told my friend last night who accompanied me, you don't really have to see the other movies to understand a Mad Max movie. That does not diminish the films, they are just primal and straightforward: they are about survival and suriviving while keeping your humanity. And I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic cinema.

Did I mention that this movie kicks ass? I am sure most of you know by now from reviews, both professional and from friends, that it is one big adrenaline soaked chase. While that might be a slight oversimplification, it is only slight. What is remarkable about what George Miller has done is that he keeps it interesting throughout. 'Mad Max 2,' aka 'The Road Warrior' in the U.S., remains one of the greatest action films ever made. In part because the stunts are so kinetic and breathtaking. The same goes for this new film. In a day of ever increasing, mind numbing CGI-fests, Miller keeps the digital effects to a minimum. This stuff is the real thing, and it shows. Miller and his crew really did build these ridiculous three story bohemoth automobiles, tie a dude to the third story, drive insane speeds through the desert, and tell him to play guitar while flames shoot out of his axe...


The action and mayhem is difficult to top. Few modern movies do, and George Miller don't need no stinkin' CGI to do it. Just give him some vehicles and an open road, and he will top the action of any superhero snoozefest.

A word about Tom Hardy, who takes over the role of Max from Mel Gibson. Gibson is so linked to that role (it is what broke him through to an international audience and first made him a star), it might be difficult to accept another actor. Hardy is fantastic, and has a little of the crazy himself. Mel and Hardy supposedly met early in the filming and Mel gave him his blessing to take the Max Rokatansky character into the new century. Like Gibson's Max, Hardy's is a man of very few words. So much of what he conveys is both through brutal action but even more importantly, his face. The resignation, tension, then determination, fury, sympathy, humanity...it is all there with no wasted words.

But Max and Hardy are really beside the point here. Charleze Theron is absolutely stunning. Hands down her Imperator Furiosa is the greatest female action character I have ever seen. And I'll tell you why. I find it sad (and irritating) that so many films, when trying to portray a female action hero, simply make her masculine and think that is enough. It is always the same vibe of "oh look, she can do five flips in the air too and kick you unconscious or fire automatic weapons and make quips and stare you down." (Thank you 'Matrix' films for decreeing that all action heroes must also be CGI-enabled acrobats). Now make no mistake, her Furiosa can kick your or my ass. Easily. She and Max engage in a brutal fight that is more or less a draw when they first meet. And fighting Max is like fighting a caged animal in its cage. Miller could have simply stopped where almost every other director would. Just make her another bad-ass, but she happens to have breasts.


But Miller and Theron never stop there. Theron creates a character of strength and action, yet retains a vulnerability and uniquely female understanding of suffering in this world. Like with Hardy's performance, Theron does not need nor use profuse dialogue. It is mostly through her eyes and action that we come to understand who her character is and you cannot keep your eyes off of her. I will be furious if Theron does not recieve a Oscar nomination for her Furiosa. Max, as we all know from way back, is a "shell of a man" who is singularly focused on survival. He kind of has to be, as he starts the film a prisoner who is strapped to a car and connected to an IV and is being used as a blood bank for his cancer-ridden captor. In fact, that is his name for awhile, "Blood Bag." Below...


So the Theron character has to offer the heart and soul of the film and dare to hope for a future. It is Theron's Furiosa that provides the plot, or why everyone is racing across the desert and killing eachother. She has rescued a handful of other women who were being used as "breeders" for the evil Imperator Joe. That is a large factor in the strength of her character. She is running from and fighting against one of the most basic, ancient and horrible crimes, sexual slavery, that is based inherently upon the differences between the sexes. This wouldn't work if they just made a masculine hero who happens to be female. And of course it is through Furiosa that Max finds his own humanity once again.

So this movie works on this level, and it also works as a fantastic and intense action flick. And did I mention that it kicks ass?

**** out of *****