'Nuff said.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
friday video premiere
Every Friday, we're highlighting a specific video (or two, or three) for your end of week enjoyment.
This week, we're looking at the video(s) for Kanye West's "Flashing Lights"
This video didn't get much MTV play--the only time I caught it on TV was on a lazy afternoon, watching MTV Hits (or some other strange MTV channel) with my brother and girlfriend. I had no idea a video for the song was made (when, in fact, it appears three were...but more on this later)
I have figured through deductive reasoning (and googling) that the bit being censored is the lighter fluid, though I can't quite figure out why. Maybe because it's the only real visual allusion to violence in the video (Kanye's presumed death-by-shovel is not explicitly shown).
At first, I didn't know what to think. My brother hated it (and he loves Kanye). My girlfriend had the same response. I didn't like it much, either.
But I keep watching it. Not because the murderer is good looking (though she is), but because it's just so hard not to watch. And not because it's like a car accident, which we watch to make sure we're still alive and view in order to confirm our own mortality, but because I think it's a stunning video.
The simplicity strikes. The continuous camera angle gives the video an oxymoronic spontaneous yet premeditated feel.
It's also a Spike Jonze video..yeah, he did this one and this one and this one
It's hard to ascertain what the video is about. Yeah, the song is about a relationship with a girl while being a celebrity and having the girl enjoying being in the limelight, but you've got to think that this video is shot in Vegas (look at the desert and distant skyline) and that perhaps she hustled him at one of Vegas' nightclubs. Perhaps she's a girl from his past.
There seems to be a theme throughout all of the videos for "Flashing Lights"
and
The video that ended up being officially "released" was in no way the most expensive (clearly, it was the second most expensive video of the three, after the ridiculous castle one but before the picture-vignette one), but it was my favorite. It just strikes me as the most artistic, most raw and most...well, striking. It's so sparse, so unnerving, and you've got to think that's exactly what Kanye is going through while sitting, gagged and bound, in the trunk.
Posted by
jhuff
at
12:01 AM
|
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
check your sources.
(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)
Someone is getting fired.
"So, uh, Mike, we're going to have to let you go"
"How come?"
"Well, you know, you said United was bankrupt"
"They were"
"Six years ago"
"Yeah..."
Posted by
jhuff
at
12:01 AM
|
Friday, September 5, 2008
friday video premiere
Every Friday, we're highlighting a specific video (or two, or three) for your end of week enjoyment.
This week's video is George Michael's "Fastlove"
No, it's not exactly a "new" video, but we've never put it on the site, so there you are. It has that smooth, 4 AM vibe that I seem to be , so I'm not going to apologize.
High school me would have been appalled that I would have enjoyed George Michael so much, but I'm not high school me anymore, so there we are.
The video is so bad that it's almost incredible--I mean, that's the definition of camp, isn't it? And, so many of my favorite songs seem to rip it off--Utada Hikaru's "Automatic" features a keyboard line that is pretty much exactly the same for its entire melody, and the aforeposted Soul Decision song is pretty much the exact same song.
You've also got to love the fact that George ripped off the "Men in Black" song, except this song came out a few years earlier and was actually just a rip-off of the song "Forget Me Nots" by Patrice Rushen. Take that, Will Smith (this is actually an incredible song). And, come on, George says "why don't we make some room in my BMW". Have you ever told anyone that? As a pick-up line? If so, you're a tool. Congratulations.
So there. George Michael is totally relevant. And, even if he isn't, this song is still great.
Posted by
jhuff
at
4:12 AM
|
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
the universe!
(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)
Anyone that knows me knows that I hold author Chuck Klosterman in a fairly high regard. However, as of late, it's getting difficult.
I became acquainted with Mr. Klosterman's work primarily through his collections of vignettes--I didn't realize that most of the pieces I enjoyed in Spin magazine were done by him until I re-read them in his collections.
Klosterman rides hyperbole in most of his pieces (as well as copious amounts of footnotes). He's taken to writing for Esquire magazine, primarily because Spin was bought out by Blender, the music arm of Maxim. Klosterman's articles started out fine enough, but lately he's been harping on about how much he hates Europe. He took on a visiting professor's role at a German university and has just been writing about how much he misses America/hates Europe/hates soccer.
His most common complaint? "Europe is not America". No, Chuck, it isn't.
In the September issue of Esquire, Klosterman waxed poetic on what it means to follow America while not being in America--largely, he said that it doesn't matter, because most of us are so far removed from America anyway.
Klosterman writes "the mass media is the single most detrimental entity within the United States right now. It's having the exact opposite effect of its theoretically intended one--it's making people less informed and less complete".
Wow. I find this disgusting. Is the media biased? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But what other means have we got? I don't think it makes people any less informed than they would be without it. I mean, how else would we learn about what's going on anywhere in the world? Telepathically?
And it makes our lives less complete? If you're looking at the news to make your life complete, you've got bigger problems, Chuck.
Posted by
jhuff
at
2:50 AM
|
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dear History Channel
Below is an e-mail I sent to The History Channel today. Believe you me, I'm aware that The History Channel is not the be-all, end-all of historical investigation. I wrote this precisely because the network is a shameless info-for-the-masses, MTV B.C., pop-culture fixture. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
So, am I an inconsolable feminazi, or is this a reasonable letter? I'd really like your opinion.
To Whom It May Concern:
Two nights ago I was watching an airing of The Universe with my boyfriend. The narration of the program is supplemented with images of scientists and researchers who have contributed to the formation of the Big Bang theory. I couldn't help but comment to my boyfriend the noticeable lack of women. Not once in the two-hour program did we see a photograph of a woman or hear from a female specialist. Of course, I realize that the people involved in almost all scientific discoveries throughout almost all of human history have been male, so it is not the fault of the History Channel or the producers of the program, but rather the constraints of history itself that can partially explain the lack of women in this program.
There was, however, a missed opportunity to mention Vera Rubin, the woman who verified the existence of dark matter. I must also imagine that there are at least a few female physics professors who are just as qualified to discuss the formation of the universe as any of the men featured in the program. As I'm sure you're aware, there is an educational rift between men and women in the fields of math and science. I believe that small gestures (such as occasionally highlighting female specialists and scientists whenever it is feasible and appropriate) can improve this situation. I can only imagine the number of high school science teachers that are likely buying DVD's and using this program to accompany their lectures. Their classes, no doubt, are full of girls who may also notice the lack of women featured.
Finally, while watching The Universe, I realized how rarely women appear in any of the History Channel's programing. I realize that I'm not the network's key demographic, but I would become a true History Channel fan if I were ever to see a "Women in Ancient Rome" or "Women and the Civil War" special.
Thanks for your time.
Posted by
Amanda
at
12:24 PM
|
Monday, August 11, 2008
a geography lesson for mrs. roberts
(Joshua Masayoshi Huff)
Bsto brought to my attention Cokie Roberts saying that Barack Obama should not be in Hawaii "on vacation" because it sounds like a "foreign, exotic place"...and she's not backing off her stance at all. Then, she added that he should be in Myrtle Beach. Uh, would you rather be in Myrtle Beach or Hawaii? Yeah, I thought so...especially when you were born, raised and grew up in Hawaii.
Wow. This woman is not only a bestselling author and Emmy award winner, but she was also a professor at the George Washington University.
How? I mean, our "best and brightest" calling Hawaii foreign? The last time I checked, foreign meant a different nation. Is Hawaii different from "the United States"? No. It's not any different as California is from Alabama.
Perhaps, by foreign, she meant that Hawaii wasn't part of the continent. It isn't. It isn't contiguious, but neither is Alaska. Is Alaska also foreign?
Barack's "vacation" here is as much of a campaign stop as it is a rest period. As soon as he touched down at Honolulu International Airport, he drove half a mile and gave a speech.
Yes, the speech was short, but at least he came.
My brother was even on the same golf course at the same time that Barack golfed. Would he ever be in the same neighborhood as McCain? In the same time zone? He went home after seeing Barack and read up on him and urged me to do the same.
Because I can vote. Because Hawaii is a state. That votes. And Obama has not forgotten that. Neither has my brother, though it seems like Cokie Roberts has.
Because, you know, we vote here. We have Congressional representation. And, uh, we have votes in the upcoming presidential election.
We all know that talking heads aren't the end-all, be-all for political discourse, but can we please have more informed people on television? I mean, many Americans decide who they're going to vote for based on the CliffsNotes version of campaign platforms that the television news outlets provide them.
Unfortunately, they're getting their political information on America from people who don't quite understand all off the states that comprise said country.
Posted by
jhuff
at
4:23 PM
|