The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 -5A
Making music for
the critics
Ifeel like an asshole. Not
because I suggested Daily
Arts say we hate Heath
Ledger or because my girlfriend
spent signifi-
cantly more
money for
Valentine's
Day on me
than I did on
her. No, I feel
like an ass-
hole because CHRIS
I have GAERIG
essentially
removed
myself from the musical com-
munity: buying, appreciating and
absorbing the art.
This may seem somewhat prob-
lematic for a music columnist,
reviewer and Daily Arts Managing
Editor, but I assure you it's not. It
is, however, somewhat of an issue
for my own well-being, as I've long
since relied on new music to keep
me sane.
For years on end, I have been
able to brag about my CD/album
collection to nearly anyone I meet
and elicit jaw-dropping awe.
NotthatI have anunreasonable
amount of records for any serious
collector - I have a relativelysmall
one in comparison to fanatics
- but compared to the majority of
the public, my collection dwarfs
their embarrassingly lacking
catalogs. Where others had tended
towards torrents, peer-to-peer
exchanges and iTunes, I remained
a constant supporter of local stores
if for no other reason than I appre-
ciated unorthodox album packag-
ing and cordial clerks.
As my critical career extended
to slightly more prestigious pub-
lications and my name appar-
ently became more familiar to PR
agents, I beganreceivingcountless
records through e-mails, from
my co-workers and on message
boards, either to review, analyze
or assignfot the Daily. Ffe4deftly,
I get these albums before their
actual release dates and, as such,
don't buythe albums When they
actuallydrop.
But that's not because I'm a
poor college student, which I am,
or a stingy non-appreciator, which
I'm not. Frankly, I'll blow $15 on
an album instead of grabbing a
couple of beers on the weekends.
But that's when I believe an album
warrants my cash and is more
valuable than an unstable walk
back from Leopold Bros. Ultimate-
ly, I've removed myself from the
scene because I simply don't feel
like many albums of late are worth
my cash.
Before you put the paper down,
hear me out. I am not a zealot who
believes no one will ever surpass
the Beatles. In fact, when I was
younger I was often quoted as
saying, "the Beatles were just the
Backstreet Boys of their time" - a
statement I have since retracted
but a sentiment I continue to
have lingering suspicions about. I
appreciate the music of old but cer-
tainly don't worship it.
The issue I take with recent
music is that it has become too
self-aware. Not in the sense
that it needs to be a product of
improvisation or natural causes,
but rather artists - specifically
ARTS IN BRIEF
those inhabitingthe indie realm,
with little hope of makingthe big
leagues - are making music to
appease listeners and reviewers.
Most expressly, this seems to be
a product of the Pitchfork age. As
a webzine that has more or less
made itself the infallible prod-
uct of criticism, the website can
make or break a band. This isn't
to attack Pitchfork Media for this
rather unheard-of accomplish-
ment. Instead, I mean to criticize a
growingnumber of groups that, in
a desperate attemptto make a few
bucks, seem to sacrifice originality
in exchange for fitting into a mold.
In the past several years,
groups like Tapes 'n Tapes, Clap
Your Hands Say Yeah and Arcade Ill be all right Dad theresaways mime school."
Fire have all seen a significant
amount of press because of the
Pitchfork effect. Their debut
releases were all relatively inno-
vative and certainly provocative.
Since when did Remake offers little new to
musicians make the director's original
PDLY GAMES
music for
them?
But the latter two's follow-ups
were muddled albums with little
direction and almost no improve-
ment from their prior release.
You might chalk this up to the
sophomore slump that count-
less groups experience, but more
likely it's a factor of these groups
understanding what it takes to
be reviewed well and striving for
that sound. They, as expected,
received middling reviews, which
is unfortunately enough to keep
them in the limelight for a while
longer.
New groups don't seem to be
pushingthe envelope anymore.
Outside of artists like Liars and
Animal Collective - though
there's a chance you couldsimi-
larly pigeonhole them into the
self-conscious category - that
frequently tweak or even reinvent
their sound, few groups are taking
chances. Sure, the new album from
The Nationaliwas a profoundly
emotive album, and yet I rarely
care to throw it on. LCD Soundsys-
tem's Sound ofSilver is a markedly
better disc than their debut but
I only listen to one or two songs
- also, note its appearance in the
upper echelon of most webzine
year-end lists.
I don't want to saythat all
groups that produce well-received
albums are creating music for this
critical audience, but the lack of
a significant artist/artistic voice
is unquestionably bothersome.
And given the fact that I used to
waste every paycheck Iearned
on countless records and can now
hardly bring myself to buy albums
I've been enjoying prior to their
release, says something about the
current state of music. But I sup-
pose I can't be too angry. I'm part
of the problem.
Gaerig is tired of music being
made for him. Email him at
gaerig @michigandaily.com
By BRANDON CONRADIS
Daily Film Editor
First things first: "Funny Games" is a
remake. This seems like the obligatory place
to start this review, as it's impossible to take
two films directed by the same man, featuring
virtually identical scripts,
and judge them on their own
merits when the only things
distinguishing them from Funny
one another are the spoken
language and the actors. Gams
Much like its 1997 Ger- At the State
man-language counterpart, Theatre
"Funny Games" tells the Warner
story of an upper-middle- Independent
class couple and their week-
end of terror at a secluded
bayside summerhouse. Ann (Naomi Watts,
"King Kong") and George (Tim Roth, "Res-
ervoir Dogs") are insipidly perfect: they own
a sailboat, have a cute blonde noppec 6f a son
and cheerfully fight over their CD collection
of classical composers. Arriving at the afore-
mentioned house, they are set uponby: a pair
of equally clean-cut but far more colorful psy-
chos, played by Michael Pitt ("The Dreamers")
and Brady Corbet ("Thirteen"). The two pro-
ceed to subject the family to a series of "funny"
games, which, as you can probably guess,
aren't so funny - at least not to the family.
If you've seen the original "Funny Games,"
there won't be many surprises in store for
you here. But Michael Haneke, who helmed
both the original and the American remake,
assumes - probably correctly - that most
Americans haven't, and he's quick to turn his
wolf-like gaze onto a fresh, wet-behind-the-
ears audience of Hollywood-weaned sheep.
Simply put, "Funny Games" is a film out to
get you. It's meant to shock you, alienate you
and leave you pissed off. It accomplishes all
this - but not for the right reasons.
The problem lies with Haneke. A talented and
controversial director, he's also, at times, eye-
rollingly pretentious, and that's evident in this
film. While technically brilliant and very well
acted, it can't seem to decide where its intentions
lie. Starting out like a straight-ahead thriller, the
film quickly verges into Godardian postmodern-
ism, with Pitt casting knowing glances at the
audience - almost Ferris Bueller style - in an
effort to shatter the fourth wall and point out
their inherent voyeuristic tendencies.
The problfi'is ftat by doing this, he's sap-
ping the movie of all real human emotion. The
film becomes what each of its maniacs is: a
coldly ealculated, grossly cynical machine.
While Godard's motivation was never in ques-
tion (he wanted you to know you were watch-
ing an intricately engineered piece of art),
Haneke still wants you to become emotionally
invested. But it's impossible when you know
from the start the filmmaker isn't playing by
the rules. Credulity is thrown out the window,
such as in a scene where one of the psychos
takes control of the action with a remote con-
trol. Everything eventually becomes predict-
able. And, finally, things segue into gratingly
dull hysterics. It gets to a point where you sim-
ply want the killers to finish off the family so
you can go home. And that's the biggest sin a
film like this can make.
Still, "Funny Games" is moderately effective.
It's one of those thrillers in which the build-up
is far more excruciating than the actual con-
frontation; the initial scene in which both psy-
chos make their way into the house through the
simple act of asking for eggs is teeth-clenching-
ly uncomfortable. And it caps off with an effec-
tive circular ending that forces the viewer to
reconsider the opening scenes of the film.
But, ultimately, it's just not that memora-
ble. Haneke has made better, and other hor-
ror films have toyed with the conventions of
the genre much more effectively, such as the
excellent "Wolf Creek" (2005).
If youre still interested, it's up to you to
decide which version to see first; everything
said here also goes for the original. What it
conresdown to, essentially, is, whether you
want to read subtitles or not. Speak German?
Hmm. Well, then ... how do you feel about
Naomi Watts?
Television
New debate show
finds few laughs
"Root of All Evil"
Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m.
Comedy Central
"Root of All Evil," Comedy Cen-
tral's new "South Park" follow-up
featuringLewisBlack("Accepted"),
could become must-see television.
The show's premise is creative
and promising: Comedians debat-
ingthe evilness of pop culture icons
inatrial-like format. But "Evil" will
never live up to its potential with-
out making an effort to degrade,
lambast and condemn more rel-
evant personalities - something it
currently fails at.
The show's Achilles's heel is
apparent in the series premier,
when Black ruled that Oprah
was more evil than the Catholic
Church. Although the two topics
provided plenty of material - one
advocate repeatedly used the term
'boy-fuckers,' and the other scold-
ed Oprah for putting Africa over
America - the comedians were
mostly reformulating overused
jokes about stale subjects.
Why not tape "Evil" on a regular
basis and give Black and his bud-
dies the opportunity to critique
more current public figures like
Eliot Spitzer or Roger Clemens?
But it seems this won't happen any-
time soon. Instead, Black chooses
to put Donald Trump up against
Viagra - two overplayed subjects
that should probably never be used
in the same sentence anyway.
DAVID REAP
CHECK ONLINE FOR A
PREVIEW OF THE
RAVEONETTES IN DETROIT
Always go to www.michigandaily.com for other
stories and updates
11