waking life - dir. richard linklater - so i just got back from seeing this film. i want you to think of joyce's ulysses, of gershwin's "rhapsody in blue," of godard's breathless -- unquestionable artistic breakthroughs all. now. i want you to imagine ulysses as a broadway musical ("from the makers of footloose..."); of justin timberlake putting lyrics to "rhapsody in blue"; and, finally, of breathless being remade in english with richard gere (…wait a second).

what i'm getting at here is the concept of a piece of art tarnished by something absurd. so waking life, then. it's an eminently watchable film, so much so that it occasionally distracts you from what's being said. which is a good thing because most of what's being said is philosophical bullshit, faux-profundity. recall every longwinded, undesired speech you've received from all the authority figures and blowhards you've known in your life. and then give them a sense of philosophical entitlement (and $9 for a ticket while you're at it). i had the displeasure of seeing scary movie 2 this summer and the good thing about it was that it was such a flop that one needn't be troubled by the idea of a third film in the series. scary movie 2 threw jokes at you relentlessly and, yeah, with all of those attempts, it's bound to have a few yuks. so too waking life assaults you with DEEP THOUGHTS and occasionally, particularly near the end, it works.

but still, as far as i'm concerned it could've relayed its ideas of dreams vs. reality with the animation alone. the art is sometimes impeccably rendered, other times purposely crude, but never is it less than breathtaking. the rotoscope technology makes everything seem as if it's floating, which works well with the themes at hand. (a caveat: if you get seasick easily, you'll want to pass.)

the story, as much as there is one, involves a nameless protagonist who passes through life (or is it a dream?) aimlessly. everywhere he goes, he meets someone who feels they have carte blanche to relate to him every thought they've ever had about dreams and the way our consumerist society is sucking the, er, life out of them. as he nears the end of his journey, the notion of lucid dreams is explored, but one senses that he never does establish dominion over his dreams and those that occupy them because he never once tells these people to SHUT UP. but maybe that's just me.

the movie was written by director richard linklater and its intentions are noble and its heart is in the right place -- i can't disagree with the central concept that we should live our lives as if they contained the logic and endless possibilities of our dreams. but like many of those with noble intentions, their actions and words are couched in pseudo-intellectualism which makes being a brainwashed capitalist, those who the righteous are continuously railing against, seem like a fantastic idea. (indeed, when a scenario based around the line "a well-armed society is the ultimate defense against tyranny" is tackled sarcastically, the line itself seems to ring truer than much of what is in the film.)

and yet, i still very much enjoyed the film for its images and for some of the concepts brought up despite what i think about a great deal of the dialogue; what i can't deny is just that: that the film ended up making me think and few films i've seen this year have been able to accomplish that. in my sophomore year of college, i took philosophy and on the first day of the course, the professor set about proving to me that i couldn't say for certain if i was awake or if i was dreaming. from that point on, i decided that i'd rather live than to ponder my living (and ended up with a "c" in the course). this may very well make me an anti-intellectual, but i've been called worse. as far as waking life is concerned, i've decided that it's better to watch the ideas manifest themselves in the animation than to actually listen to them.

shakira: is she meant to sound like alanis morrisette? and is this the first time mtv has put a completely spanish-language song into regular rotation? or was that marc anthony/jennifer lopez's "no te ames"? or was that only shown on vh1?

and do people really like pete yorn? i mean, really. i see he has a second video on mtv now; did that first one ever take off? are the video channels just really big fans of his? and, if so, are we meant to suffer for this?

last week, whitney houston's, what, 10 year-old version of "the star spangled banner" (?) was at #6 on the billboard hot 100. this week, it's PLUMMETED to 18, leading me to ask: is patriotism dying down?

and now it seems to me that every plane i see is flying too low.

the strokes! i bought is this it today. after listening to the album, i was struck by how measured the album is. sure, there've been comparisons made to the stooges, v.u., television, et. al., and they're not so off-base, BUT the strokes are like a streamlined version of these bands. every note -- whether sung or played -- is mapped out carefully in advanced. "take it or leave it," for example, seems to aspire to iggy: listen to this track and then listen to something like "search and destroy." hear the difference? "take it or leave it" and, similarly, "the modern age," seem to want to rage but they sound contained, like "search and destroy" itself before it was freed from the cage of bowie's production.

in e-mail, matos complained about the sameness of the tempos and the general sound, and he has a point. i mean, even appetite for destruction had the power ballad in "sweet child o'mine." there's no token "slow" one, and the most experimental the album gets is using a drum machine on "hard to explain." i'm not so bothered by any of this, really. there are 8 great rock n' roll songs on is this it: they're punchy, they're fun, and they're over before you can get bored, ditto the album. few studio albums i've heard in the last few years seem to capture a live feel so well (and i'll find out firsthand if this is the case when i see them at the hammerstein on halloween).

of course, i must register my dismay with the fact that they re-recorded the singles from the modern age ep for the album. (and at the same time, let me make my joy known: here i thought my ep would be a redundancy!) "the modern age" has been slowed down, and now it seems a bit plodding where it was once charging. and "last night" just isn't as good, frankly. the drums used to sound like they hopped; on the album, it's as if they've been fastened to the floor. ("barely legal" alone benefits from its new version.) "hunger," "being hungry," etc. are words i generally despise when used with reference to rock n' roll bands, but here it's perfectly apposite: while the ep sounds like a band desperate for a recording contract, the new versions give off the air of a band high on its own press.

i haven't updated since 9/25. damn!

rising above the parapet to say this much: i've yet to see a show that began with who wants to be... that has been anything less than stellar. ...a princess followed in this grand tradition. i nearly wept with joy when i saw the ads: this is why i love this country and, especially, the fox network. this was exactly the kind of show we needed. you couldn't get any further from reality and still be a functioning human being. escapism at its very best. God bless america.

atty. gen. john ashcroft says to beware of "suspicious looking cropdusters." now. yes. well. okay.

what exactly is a suspicious looking cropduster? how does it differ from its innocuous-looking brethren? (and aren't all cropdusters a bit funny looking? to those who live outside the plain states, at least?) is it the plane itself? or is it the context? for example: if i were to see a cropduster in new york city, regardless of the character of the man flying and despite his potentially noble intentions, i would find that suspicious. is this what he means then? i am utterly at sea on this one.