Friday, November 21, 2003
Thom Yorke, in the Guardian chat, a couple of minutes ago just said:
Now is a good time to step away from the precipice. It's all looking a bit like a warner brothers cartoon when the character walks of the cliff , carries on walking and then eventually starts to look down. and then waves bye bye. In a sad kind of way got that?
That's exactly how I feel these days, presumedly because of very different reasons.
Now is a good time to step away from the precipice. It's all looking a bit like a warner brothers cartoon when the character walks of the cliff , carries on walking and then eventually starts to look down. and then waves bye bye. In a sad kind of way got that?
That's exactly how I feel these days, presumedly because of very different reasons.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Speaking about the film versions of Jekyll and Hyde, Borges once said that the book was as famous as to spoil the whole plot to a modern reader:
"In the book, the identity of both Jekyll and Hyde are a surprise; the author keeps it until the end of the ninth chapter. The allegoric tale pretends to be a detective story; there's no reader able to guess that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person; the very title forces us to think they are two different people."
But now that we all know the story of Jekyll and Hyde, even those who didn't read the book, it's difficult to make a detective story out of Stevenson's tale, because we all know how it ends. Borges denounced that every film based on that book made the same mistake: to use the same actor for both roles. He said that, in order to make a good movie inspired on Stevenson's book, you would have to avoid the original title, to rename the characters and to use different actors for Hyde and Jekyll: that would be the only way to achieve the same effect. I think "Fight Club" would be a modern example of what Borges wanted to be done with "Jekyll and Hyde".
The whole idea of "we're no longer innocent about an artwork" was retaken by a teacher from a fifth-grade class, this time about (again) Radiohead. The experiment review, under the title of "Radiohead Rorschach", begins like this:
It is no longer possible to have an original opinion on Radiohead. (...) Mass media has bombarded us with Radiohead critique, rendering us unable to generate an unfiltered opinion of our own. When you listen to Radiohead, you're no longer actually listening to Radiohead -- you're listening to everyone's opinion about Radiohead. It's impossible to separate what you hear from what you've read. You are betrayed by what you know, and you know way too much.
The experiment was to put some little kids to listen to Radiohead songs and make them draw something about it. The results of this experiment are highly interesting, mostly because I understand that the music and the intonation of Yorke were more important to the drawings than the lyrics themselves.
Thom Yorke, alone with a grand piano in front of a crowd.
"In the book, the identity of both Jekyll and Hyde are a surprise; the author keeps it until the end of the ninth chapter. The allegoric tale pretends to be a detective story; there's no reader able to guess that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person; the very title forces us to think they are two different people."
But now that we all know the story of Jekyll and Hyde, even those who didn't read the book, it's difficult to make a detective story out of Stevenson's tale, because we all know how it ends. Borges denounced that every film based on that book made the same mistake: to use the same actor for both roles. He said that, in order to make a good movie inspired on Stevenson's book, you would have to avoid the original title, to rename the characters and to use different actors for Hyde and Jekyll: that would be the only way to achieve the same effect. I think "Fight Club" would be a modern example of what Borges wanted to be done with "Jekyll and Hyde".
The whole idea of "we're no longer innocent about an artwork" was retaken by a teacher from a fifth-grade class, this time about (again) Radiohead. The experiment review, under the title of "Radiohead Rorschach", begins like this:
It is no longer possible to have an original opinion on Radiohead. (...) Mass media has bombarded us with Radiohead critique, rendering us unable to generate an unfiltered opinion of our own. When you listen to Radiohead, you're no longer actually listening to Radiohead -- you're listening to everyone's opinion about Radiohead. It's impossible to separate what you hear from what you've read. You are betrayed by what you know, and you know way too much.
The experiment was to put some little kids to listen to Radiohead songs and make them draw something about it. The results of this experiment are highly interesting, mostly because I understand that the music and the intonation of Yorke were more important to the drawings than the lyrics themselves.
Thom Yorke, alone with a grand piano in front of a crowd.
The Guardian is inviting people to ask Thom Yorke, Radiohead's singer, some questions. Reading the list submitted so far, it's kind of interesting to see the huge amount of questions related to politics. This one could be representative:
You have been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration over a number of issues, including the war in Iraq, and you have also condemned Blair for supporting Bush (among other things). As a British citizen, what role do you think your government should be taking in world affairs and especially how should it deal with the increasing inequality between rich and poor countries?
Some people even reached the edge:
In light of recent American policies in the Middle East and, indeed, around the world, would you be willing to cancel all tours and concert dates in the United States in protest of the current American imperialism? Does Radiohead stand by its anticorporate message or has it become the latest product line for droves of American consumers? No decent individual should conduct business with an American in today's world.
What is in fact interesting about this is that, even though Thom Yorke is some kind of political activist, he never sang about politics in his musical career. Radiohead is not a political band, and it seems the political views of Thom Yorke have no place in his band. Nevertheless, the kids look for that kind of "political leader", they are equally interested on his songs and on his opinions. His case is different to that of Bono, as one of his fans noted:
Are you at all worried that making your (justly held) political beliefs outspoken might put you into the same bracket as Bono? (Who is a world-leader-pestering weirdo, and quite rightly people mutter "tosser" when he walks past)
So that's the danger. To become a mediatic moaner to sell more records, a new form of advertising. If in some other environments people would try to be "politically correct" to sell a product, in the rock stuff you have to be politically incorrect, and MTV proved that such thing is hazy to say the least. Marilyn Manson or Eminem are examples of a rebelliousness that perfectly fits inside MTV's politically correct frame. And Bono proved that is equally easy to be a toy-like political figure. So those kids are interested on that, on having a reference they can respect. Of course not everyone agrees on this view:
Please shut up and sing. No one wants to hear some stupid rich rock star complain about the evils of capitalism.
The long list of political questions seems to challenge that sentence.
You have been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration over a number of issues, including the war in Iraq, and you have also condemned Blair for supporting Bush (among other things). As a British citizen, what role do you think your government should be taking in world affairs and especially how should it deal with the increasing inequality between rich and poor countries?
Some people even reached the edge:
In light of recent American policies in the Middle East and, indeed, around the world, would you be willing to cancel all tours and concert dates in the United States in protest of the current American imperialism? Does Radiohead stand by its anticorporate message or has it become the latest product line for droves of American consumers? No decent individual should conduct business with an American in today's world.
What is in fact interesting about this is that, even though Thom Yorke is some kind of political activist, he never sang about politics in his musical career. Radiohead is not a political band, and it seems the political views of Thom Yorke have no place in his band. Nevertheless, the kids look for that kind of "political leader", they are equally interested on his songs and on his opinions. His case is different to that of Bono, as one of his fans noted:
Are you at all worried that making your (justly held) political beliefs outspoken might put you into the same bracket as Bono? (Who is a world-leader-pestering weirdo, and quite rightly people mutter "tosser" when he walks past)
So that's the danger. To become a mediatic moaner to sell more records, a new form of advertising. If in some other environments people would try to be "politically correct" to sell a product, in the rock stuff you have to be politically incorrect, and MTV proved that such thing is hazy to say the least. Marilyn Manson or Eminem are examples of a rebelliousness that perfectly fits inside MTV's politically correct frame. And Bono proved that is equally easy to be a toy-like political figure. So those kids are interested on that, on having a reference they can respect. Of course not everyone agrees on this view:
Please shut up and sing. No one wants to hear some stupid rich rock star complain about the evils of capitalism.
The long list of political questions seems to challenge that sentence.
Seikilos Home...