This is fun. "Retro-futurism".
21 May 2009
"Psykologi: Miehen pitäisi asettaa naiselle rajat"
("Psychologist: men should set limits to women") From yesterday's YLE-news page.jesus.....fucking....christ.
18 May 2009
15 May 2009
I suddenly come to think of a phone call I received many years ago. I was visiting a friend in the west coast of Norway. She worked with cows. I was afraid of the cows. When the cows saw me, they jumped up and down as they sensed my unease. I wasn't used to cows. I sat at my friend's house, skimming the pages of Nietzsche's On the genealogy of morality (damn me for that!). The phone rang. A man greeted me in broken swedish. He had a weather-beaten voice. He must have been around 60 years old. Or more.
- My name is -----. I am a geneticist, a ---- at the university of Turku.
- eh.... (WTF? Geneticists don't give me a ring every day.)
- You have a very peculiar structure of chromosomes.... (I knew that)
He initiated a lecture about my special genetical set up and then some business:
- ...And we would need a blood sample from you....For research purposes. Do we have your permission?
-eh....I suppose....it's ok....
- And you .... function well? You are healthy?
- I suppose. I guess. [I was having the worst time of my life at that point, but what would I have said. I had no intention of talking about my state of health to a god damn geneticist with a sand-papery voice.]
- And of course we know that you were born with ---- [and then he meticiously listed all my physical defects; he knew stuff about stuff, that man.] And then he said:
- Well, you know, with a chromosome set-up like that you're lucky not to have had a ... [he was fumbling around for words] hm.... more problematic development. Some retardation. [Said in a neutral tone of voice, he was talking about scientific measures of probability]
Dumbfounded, I didn't know what to say. I was spooked out. But a promise is a promise. I went to have my blood sampled. The day was grey, TYKS was very Riget-ish with its drab, winding corridors and the nurse who handled the needle was rude, which made me feel all the more stupid for having made a bloody sacrifice for Science.
I wonder what that sample was used for. I received no further information about their research project. Maybe I have a monstruous clone of myself prowling the basement of some lab over at TYKS. Watch out, someday it will escape and it will kick your asses.
- My name is -----. I am a geneticist, a ---- at the university of Turku.
- eh.... (WTF? Geneticists don't give me a ring every day.)
- You have a very peculiar structure of chromosomes.... (I knew that)
He initiated a lecture about my special genetical set up and then some business:
- ...And we would need a blood sample from you....For research purposes. Do we have your permission?
-eh....I suppose....it's ok....
- And you .... function well? You are healthy?
- I suppose. I guess. [I was having the worst time of my life at that point, but what would I have said. I had no intention of talking about my state of health to a god damn geneticist with a sand-papery voice.]
- And of course we know that you were born with ---- [and then he meticiously listed all my physical defects; he knew stuff about stuff, that man.] And then he said:
- Well, you know, with a chromosome set-up like that you're lucky not to have had a ... [he was fumbling around for words] hm.... more problematic development. Some retardation. [Said in a neutral tone of voice, he was talking about scientific measures of probability]
Dumbfounded, I didn't know what to say. I was spooked out. But a promise is a promise. I went to have my blood sampled. The day was grey, TYKS was very Riget-ish with its drab, winding corridors and the nurse who handled the needle was rude, which made me feel all the more stupid for having made a bloody sacrifice for Science.
I wonder what that sample was used for. I received no further information about their research project. Maybe I have a monstruous clone of myself prowling the basement of some lab over at TYKS. Watch out, someday it will escape and it will kick your asses.
14 May 2009
Why work?
Check out this interesting homepage dedicated to criticism of "work as virtue". "Creating livable alternatives to wage society". Lots of links, text and interesting stuff. Bob Black, an American anarchist, sometimes derided with the epithet of "lifestyle anarchist", is one often-mentioned name here. He has written a manifesto called "The abolish of work" that begins like this: "No one should ever work. Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world." I'll get back to this in due time.
13 May 2009
M. Wallenberg filosoferar om arbete.
Det finns få saker som är lika skojiga som att läsa om läskigt rika kapitalisters prisande av hårt arbete. Det slit som tagit dem till toppen, den möda som framtida generationers aktiehajar måste vara beredda att lägga ner på sitt....värv. Marcus Wallenberg intervjuas i kulturtidskriften Aktiespararna (som jag naturligtvis följer på regelbunden basis) under den snärtiga rubriken "Våga vara dig själv!":
Grunden till Wallenbergimperiet ligger i Stockholms Enskilda Bank, numera SEB, som grundades 1856 av André Oscar Wallenberg. Sedan dess har många inom familjen haft framstående positioner inom banken, och till hösten blir Marcus Wallenberg ordförande. Som person verkar han öppen, lugn och ödmjuk, kanske några av de sidor man måste ha för att nå långt. Marcus själv tror dock att det finns många andra faktorer som påverkar.
– Det är jätteviktigt att man lär sig saker ordentligt från grunden, och man måste vara beredd på att jobba väldigt hårt för att nå dit man vill, säger han. Det gäller också att man har en stark integritet och även ett stort intresse och engagemang för det man gör. Den som jobbar hårt och visar framfötterna blir ofta belönad.
[...]Ibland kan det finnas genvägar för att nå dit man vill. Dessa kan dock vara svåra att hitta i näringslivet, där mycket bygger på erfarenheter, utbildning och kompetens. Marcus Wallenberg är osäker på hur en person ska vara för att nå toppen eller om vissa personlighetsdrag är en fördel.
– Det är svårt att säga att någon har fördel av att vara på ett visst sätt, säger han. Det bästa är att bara vara sig själv, det kommer man längst med. Det funkar inte med att spela något slags spel eller att försöka vara någon man inte är. Man måste också inse att man kanske inte pas sar för allt, trots att det ibland kan vara svårt. Alla kan inte passa för allt, utan det gäller att försöka hitta något arbete där man trivs och passar in.
Marcus Wallenberg tror dock inte att det finns några större skillnader i förutsätt ningar mellan killar och tjejer för att lyckas i det relativt tuffa näringslivet.[...]
– Samma grund gäller för tjejer som för killar. Det är viktigt att man är sig själv och att vara engagerad. Dessutom tror jag att man måste söka sig till en öppen miljö som inte värderar män och kvinnor olika utan istället tar hänsyn till kompetensen. Men samhället i stort verkar ha fått en ökad acceptans för att kvinnor gör karriär, och jag tror att det ser bättre ut idag än för bara ett par år sen.
Hårt arbete och engagemang
Det finns säkert många som drömmer om en situation lik Marcus Wallenbergs, men själv vet han att det ligger mycket hårt arbete bakom för att nå den allra högsta toppen - dit bara ett fåtal personer når. Han betonar återigen vikten av ett intresse och hårt arbete.
– Den som inte är född med ganska mycket tur, måste arbeta väldigt hårt arbete och ha ett starkt engagemang för att komma långt, säger han. Man måste vara kreativ och stå för det man tror på. Det funkar inte heller att jobba med något man inte har lust med eller inte tror på.
[...]
Fakta Markus Wallenberg:Namn: Marcus "Husky" Wallenberg
Född: 1956
Utbildning: B. Sc. Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington D.C.
Bästa aktieköp: AstraZeneca
Sämsta aktieköp: Telia
Förebild: Väldigt många företagsamma entreprenörer
Reser helst till: USA
Viktigt i livet: Familjen
Hobby: Segling
Okänd talang: Laga lördagsomelett
Gör på semestern: Har ingen fast agenda
**
Den här texten är helt fantastisk. Lördagsomeletten. Ingen agenda på semestern. Killar och tjejer. Hårt arbete. Hårt arbete. Visa framfötterna.
"En morot"?
Från dagens dn:
Sjuksköterskorna som svarar i telefon hos sjukvårdsrådgivningen får en bonus på 1.000 kronor om de klarar av samtalen på kort tid. – Vi vill ge de anställda en morot, säger produktionschefen Geir-Erik Hyvärinen.
vad ska man säga? kunderna på sjukvårdrådgivningen ska fan i mig inte söla i telefon, då blir sjuksköterskorna av med sin morotsbonus. Redan Geir-Eriks titel, "produktionschef" är ju lite lustigt i sammanhanget.
Den genomsnittliga samtalstiden för den landstingsdrivna sjukvårdsrådgivningen är cirka sju minuter. En siffra som legat relativt konstant genom åren.
skriver DN, och här kan jag ju tycka att det finns något smått diaboliskt i det här mätandet. Effektivitet i det här sammanhanget ger inte direkt ett mänskligt ansikte åt målen för den svenska sjukvården. Och häng med på denna empiriska "sanning":
Samtalen till sjukvårdsrådgivningen i Stockholm, Sörmland och Värmland har däremot en snittid på 4.30 minuter. Ett skäl till det kan vara att Medhelp infört en bonus till de anställda.
Bonussystemet fungerar så här: Den som klarar av att hålla en snitttid på 3.48 minuter eller lägre, får en bonus på 1.000 kr i månaden. I tiden ingår även journalskrivning. Tanken är att sjuksköterskorna ska skriva medan de talar med patienten.
Det här är tyvärr inte parodi. Man vinnlägger sig också om kvalitet - och man undrar hur man får det här att gå ihop med tidspressen som sjukskötarna utsätts för. Om patienter skickas till fel ställe, eller om andra misstag gjorts, ja, då blir det ingen bonus. "Bonusen försvinner också om någon patient klagar på dåligt bemötande." ----- Jo, här har man tänkt.
Och så här skrivs det om Medhelp, som utför sjukvårdsrådgivningen på uppdrag av landstinget:
Medhelp har ett tydlig incitament att ta emot så många samtal som möjligt. I avtalet med landstinget anges att Medhelp får mer betalt ju fler samtal de tar emot, utöver en viss grundersättning.
Kapitalistiska strukturer visar sig från sin mest surrealistiska sida. Läs här:
När en sjuksköterska loggar in på sin dator och börjar sin arbetsdag dyker det upp en ruta på skärmen som anger dagens genomsnittliga samtalstid. När sköterskan sedan tar emot egna samtal visas även de egna snittiderna. Sjuksköterskan kan alltså enkelt se hur han eller hon ligger till jämfört med kollegerna.
Sjukvård driven enligt principen call centre effektivitet (jag menar inte att de senare arbetsplatserna är mera okej). De här procedurerna har också mötts av kritik.
Sjuksköterskorna som svarar i telefon hos sjukvårdsrådgivningen får en bonus på 1.000 kronor om de klarar av samtalen på kort tid. – Vi vill ge de anställda en morot, säger produktionschefen Geir-Erik Hyvärinen.
vad ska man säga? kunderna på sjukvårdrådgivningen ska fan i mig inte söla i telefon, då blir sjuksköterskorna av med sin morotsbonus. Redan Geir-Eriks titel, "produktionschef" är ju lite lustigt i sammanhanget.
Den genomsnittliga samtalstiden för den landstingsdrivna sjukvårdsrådgivningen är cirka sju minuter. En siffra som legat relativt konstant genom åren.
skriver DN, och här kan jag ju tycka att det finns något smått diaboliskt i det här mätandet. Effektivitet i det här sammanhanget ger inte direkt ett mänskligt ansikte åt målen för den svenska sjukvården. Och häng med på denna empiriska "sanning":
Samtalen till sjukvårdsrådgivningen i Stockholm, Sörmland och Värmland har däremot en snittid på 4.30 minuter. Ett skäl till det kan vara att Medhelp infört en bonus till de anställda.
Bonussystemet fungerar så här: Den som klarar av att hålla en snitttid på 3.48 minuter eller lägre, får en bonus på 1.000 kr i månaden. I tiden ingår även journalskrivning. Tanken är att sjuksköterskorna ska skriva medan de talar med patienten.
Det här är tyvärr inte parodi. Man vinnlägger sig också om kvalitet - och man undrar hur man får det här att gå ihop med tidspressen som sjukskötarna utsätts för. Om patienter skickas till fel ställe, eller om andra misstag gjorts, ja, då blir det ingen bonus. "Bonusen försvinner också om någon patient klagar på dåligt bemötande." ----- Jo, här har man tänkt.
Och så här skrivs det om Medhelp, som utför sjukvårdsrådgivningen på uppdrag av landstinget:
Medhelp har ett tydlig incitament att ta emot så många samtal som möjligt. I avtalet med landstinget anges att Medhelp får mer betalt ju fler samtal de tar emot, utöver en viss grundersättning.
Kapitalistiska strukturer visar sig från sin mest surrealistiska sida. Läs här:
När en sjuksköterska loggar in på sin dator och börjar sin arbetsdag dyker det upp en ruta på skärmen som anger dagens genomsnittliga samtalstid. När sköterskan sedan tar emot egna samtal visas även de egna snittiderna. Sjuksköterskan kan alltså enkelt se hur han eller hon ligger till jämfört med kollegerna.
Sjukvård driven enligt principen call centre effektivitet (jag menar inte att de senare arbetsplatserna är mera okej). De här procedurerna har också mötts av kritik.
12 May 2009
Goslings - Between the dead (2005)
Almost every artist nowadays seems to take an interest in the combination of noise, drone and pop sensibility. The Goslings * could be described like that, too. But I must admit that the droning aspect is far more dominant than the pop sensibility part - but that makes the music all the more dynamic and surprising in this case. Effervescent noise. Bubbly mud. It's surprisingly extrovert music. Brutal, yet somehow tender, this album is. Vocals are included on some tracks, and Leslie Soren's distorted voice sounds great beneath the layers of droning guitar feedback and sometimes drums. For a sunny afternoon in May, it's a perfect album. My thoughts drift towards bamse the dog, a text that does not write itself, a sun that never sets, the transient nature of stuff.* why are the Goslings, along with some other band, referred to as a "husband-and-wife duo"? When I'm listening to Between the dead, I'm not really intrested in the marital status of the band members.
10 May 2009
ghost-chasing with Al Bowlly
I got interested in pre-WW2 English ballroom music through The Caretaker - a magnificent experimental artist who has made lots of records with warped sounds from this period. Al Bowlly is said to sing like a ghost. (I've been reading k-punk on 'Hauntology' and bowlly). He really does. The singing detective and the shining feature his music and listening to him, the reason is obvious. chilling, sentimental, eerie stuff that, as K-punk observes, stray far from the panting, adolescent lustings of "typical rock n' roll". He was famous in the thirties. Al Bowlly. "The man who invented crooning", "the first pop artist". The man who spent a few bland years in America. The man who died during a bomb attack. I would certainly invite him to my tea party. Well, have some scones, some gin and say hi to the ghosts.
(sorry, embedding doesn't work right now)
8 May 2009
Дама с собачкой (1960)
Now I realize that something essential has been missing in my life. Melodramatic films from the glorious days of Mosfilm & Lenfilm! Soviet grandeur! But The lady with the dog , directed by Iosif Kheifits is, of course, based on Chekchov's short story, in which the events take place towards the end of the 19th century. I like Chechov. (What I don't like is the problem of translating cyrillic letters into latin ones: there are different ways of doing it in different languages, and something always goes wrong.) There is not much to say about the story. Moscow banker, Gurov, meets a nice lady on Yalta. They have a thing. They are married. She returns to Petersburg, he returns to Moscow. In Moscow, Gurov's days pass by in the spirit of doom & gloom. He drinks with his mates. He sings sad songs. And he thinks about the girl.
So, what is fun about this movie? The cheese! (studio?) settings turn the beautiful scenery of a romantic night by the sea into something that feels very unreal, the filmic medium being apparent to the extent that it made me laugh. Strangely, there are a few beautiful scenes, too, that have qualities other than cheese-factor. Silence. Frozen landscapes. Crowds. Drunken parties. The cutting technique is great, too, rendering the film a nice rhytm. And there are tons of fun little things. In one scene, a paltry musician at some venue tries to entertain Gurov and his mate. "You could entertain people by grunting like a pig - oink, oink, oink" one of the gentlemen snarls, bogged deep in his unhappy state, buried deep in his vodka glass.
What surprised me about The lady with the dog was its lack of moralism. Well, maybe the standards of censorship were "lax" in 1960... Married people and monstrosities like that! These reactions, of course, give a hint about what I expect from soviet film.
(For some reason, IMDB recommends Brokeback mountain to viewers of this film. And, sure, there are some slight thematic connections there.)
Well, I really have to return to Chekchov now. And more soviet movies, please! I want to watch Moscow does not believe in tears!
6 May 2009
Rosa Luxenburg on economics
I'm reading a book (yes, it's true!) by Andrea Nye called Philosophia: The thought of Rosa Luxenburg, Simone Weil and Hannah Arendt (1994) Nye presents three thinkers - three thinkers that have been quite overlooked in the history of philosophy. But Nye has a project of her own, too, beyond that of a mere presentation. She is critical of contemporary feminist theory, and she uses the philosophy of Arendt, Weil and Luxenburg to articulate a position of her own. Even though some of her points are quite all right, the ever-recurring, dismissive slurs directed at "academic feminists" are quite tiresome and sloppy, too. But I haven't read the whole book yet, either.
The section devoted to Rosa Luxenburg was very interesting. I was not familiar with Luxenburg's ideas at all - all I knew about her had to do with her political activism (and death). Nye's description of Luxenburg's views on economics was particularly enlightening. Luxenburg was, at least in Nye's reading, not an orthodox marxist. Her position was that of the constant outsider, disliked by most for her outspoken and non-orthodox views. Neither did she conceive of Marx' tehory about capital, accumulation and the end of capitalism as Gospel. Luxenburg was, Nye says, a thinker who placed openness to different experiences - contact with reality - at the fore. For this reason, she was very worried by the importance many of Marx' followers attached to matemathical models. Marx, too, in the same way as bourgeoisie economists, relied too heavily, thoughtlessly, on matemathical models intended to explain economic phenomena. According to Luxenburg (again: this is Nye's interpretation) economics is to be understood mainly from the point of view of those who are affected by things we would call "economics". Luxenburg found contradictions and difficulties in Marx' views of accumulation (how is surplus value created?) and his view of capitalism. Luxenburg argued that these difficulties were brushed aside using the elegance of matemathical models. Luxenburg herself highlighted the role of imperialism and militarism in creating new forms of economic exploitation. Economics is a social phenomenon, even though many economists do their best to obfuscate it. Nye writes, and I find this very interesting:
"Economic models do not prove anything, they are useful as illustrations of thoughts, like 'maps or diagrams'. They cannot replace thought, cannot be a substitute for thought. Once a model is derived, thought cannot stop because a supposedly absolute truth has been achieved. [...] To make more models, or to complicate existing models, cannot help if the subordination of modeling to thinking is not understood. Marx, in the process of thinking about political economy, illustrated his critical insights in revised economic models that brought out the role of surplus value in the productive process. At the same time, his thinking shared many of the limitations of classical economic thought. What makes his models useful, Luxenburg argued, even for Marx himself, is that with them Marx was able to expose contradictions in his thinking." (pp. 36-37)
and also:
"When models are seen as a revealed plan for necessary relations embedded in a ideal economic reality, there is no expansion of thought and understanding. Thought stops. Economists, capitalists and marxists, tinker with their models, use their ingenuity to factor out discrepancies, redefine variables so that data will fit schema, jealously claim immunity from criticism for their most questionable assumptions. Meanwhile, the economic lives of working men and women are unleavened by understanding and thought." (38)
I wonder what modern economists would say here. But it is interesting that Luxenburg is better known for having been murdered than she is for her ideas on economics. At least to me, this approach to economics - situating it in the complexities of social life and experiences - seems very fruitful. Luxenburg's thoughts are subversive in their challenge of economic expertise.
The section devoted to Rosa Luxenburg was very interesting. I was not familiar with Luxenburg's ideas at all - all I knew about her had to do with her political activism (and death). Nye's description of Luxenburg's views on economics was particularly enlightening. Luxenburg was, at least in Nye's reading, not an orthodox marxist. Her position was that of the constant outsider, disliked by most for her outspoken and non-orthodox views. Neither did she conceive of Marx' tehory about capital, accumulation and the end of capitalism as Gospel. Luxenburg was, Nye says, a thinker who placed openness to different experiences - contact with reality - at the fore. For this reason, she was very worried by the importance many of Marx' followers attached to matemathical models. Marx, too, in the same way as bourgeoisie economists, relied too heavily, thoughtlessly, on matemathical models intended to explain economic phenomena. According to Luxenburg (again: this is Nye's interpretation) economics is to be understood mainly from the point of view of those who are affected by things we would call "economics". Luxenburg found contradictions and difficulties in Marx' views of accumulation (how is surplus value created?) and his view of capitalism. Luxenburg argued that these difficulties were brushed aside using the elegance of matemathical models. Luxenburg herself highlighted the role of imperialism and militarism in creating new forms of economic exploitation. Economics is a social phenomenon, even though many economists do their best to obfuscate it. Nye writes, and I find this very interesting:
"Economic models do not prove anything, they are useful as illustrations of thoughts, like 'maps or diagrams'. They cannot replace thought, cannot be a substitute for thought. Once a model is derived, thought cannot stop because a supposedly absolute truth has been achieved. [...] To make more models, or to complicate existing models, cannot help if the subordination of modeling to thinking is not understood. Marx, in the process of thinking about political economy, illustrated his critical insights in revised economic models that brought out the role of surplus value in the productive process. At the same time, his thinking shared many of the limitations of classical economic thought. What makes his models useful, Luxenburg argued, even for Marx himself, is that with them Marx was able to expose contradictions in his thinking." (pp. 36-37)
and also:
"When models are seen as a revealed plan for necessary relations embedded in a ideal economic reality, there is no expansion of thought and understanding. Thought stops. Economists, capitalists and marxists, tinker with their models, use their ingenuity to factor out discrepancies, redefine variables so that data will fit schema, jealously claim immunity from criticism for their most questionable assumptions. Meanwhile, the economic lives of working men and women are unleavened by understanding and thought." (38)
I wonder what modern economists would say here. But it is interesting that Luxenburg is better known for having been murdered than she is for her ideas on economics. At least to me, this approach to economics - situating it in the complexities of social life and experiences - seems very fruitful. Luxenburg's thoughts are subversive in their challenge of economic expertise.
5 May 2009
I wake up from the afternoon nap. I fell asleep on the Rosa Luxenburg analysis. It doesn't matter. I'll read it tomorrow. It's raining, at last. I stand outside my ugly black & white house in which I've lived forever and there's a strong smell of gasoline in the air. A pizza box is lying on the asphalt. Parked cars are scattered all over the place, some of which I recognize, some of which I don't. I feel the gentle rain. I have a strong lynchian sense of how wonderful things are sometimes, for no particular reason. I go inside, I treat myself with frozen pizza and a bad movie (Billy Wilder's Sunset blvd. - famous, not so good, a bit sexist, but all in all quite entertaining if you're into film noir.) I listen to Blind Willie Johnson & things are a-OK.
4 May 2009
Heroin and your veins - Dead people's trails (2007)
Sinikka & Orvo, Matti & Pekka, Eeva-Leena & Marjatta are having a blast at the local humppa joint (called Lihamarkkinat). The night is beautiful and the beer is mellow and the stars shudder brightly. Somebody throws up in a corner. A few scoundrels start a brawl at the other end of the joint. The band heroically delivers a string of classics from the past.
The orchestra is not called Rekka-pojat (not this time). They are Heroin and your veins. On Dead people's trails, the artist (yeah, it's one guy, but according to the homepage of Heroin...., there's a live band) churns out a mix of twisted humppa (a brand of Finnish entertainment music) & seedy, dark instrumentals somewhere in the shadowlands surrounding Bohren's work & post-rock ensambles like for example Explosions in the sky (but no crescendos). As you see, they draw on very different sources. Some of the material on the album could also, I suppose, be called some sort of surf music. Personally, I am not that great a fan of the genre (Jack Nietzsche?), but I am very delighted to have found this band, with an album abounding with exactly the right kind of cheesiness and alluring twist of tradition. One song, "Diet and cancer" makes me think of pukesy humppa, Joy division and the Surfaris at the same time. Some tunes on Dead people's trail are build around slower, but yet twangy, riffs that conjure up some of the landscapes that Bohren's music so masterfully evoke. The vaguely Lynchian ones. But with a steady, shiny dance-shoe on the Humppa (OK or maybe post-punk) joint floor.
This band should get some attention. Apparently, there's a new album, too. The sound is pretty good, I must say, and it is pretty cool that one of my favorite bands, Bohren & der club of gore, has gained some Finnish followers. And, what is vital in this context, Heroin and your veins is lots of fun (I expected glum goths). Get ready to shake a leg to some of the most narcoleptic, desolate-sounding music you will hear in a long time.
The orchestra is not called Rekka-pojat (not this time). They are Heroin and your veins. On Dead people's trails, the artist (yeah, it's one guy, but according to the homepage of Heroin...., there's a live band) churns out a mix of twisted humppa (a brand of Finnish entertainment music) & seedy, dark instrumentals somewhere in the shadowlands surrounding Bohren's work & post-rock ensambles like for example Explosions in the sky (but no crescendos). As you see, they draw on very different sources. Some of the material on the album could also, I suppose, be called some sort of surf music. Personally, I am not that great a fan of the genre (Jack Nietzsche?), but I am very delighted to have found this band, with an album abounding with exactly the right kind of cheesiness and alluring twist of tradition. One song, "Diet and cancer" makes me think of pukesy humppa, Joy division and the Surfaris at the same time. Some tunes on Dead people's trail are build around slower, but yet twangy, riffs that conjure up some of the landscapes that Bohren's music so masterfully evoke. The vaguely Lynchian ones. But with a steady, shiny dance-shoe on the Humppa (OK or maybe post-punk) joint floor.
This band should get some attention. Apparently, there's a new album, too. The sound is pretty good, I must say, and it is pretty cool that one of my favorite bands, Bohren & der club of gore, has gained some Finnish followers. And, what is vital in this context, Heroin and your veins is lots of fun (I expected glum goths). Get ready to shake a leg to some of the most narcoleptic, desolate-sounding music you will hear in a long time.
3 May 2009
Filosofi.
Min lägenhet är ett skrotupplag. Jag sätter på en melankolisk skiva med Frank Sinatra och går systematiskt igenom alltsammans. Bland de obegripliga lapparna, intygen och räkningarna hittar jag ett meddelande till mig själv från 2002 (c:a). Det är ett litet poem skrivet under ett särskilt belysande seminarietillfälle som visar hur mycket grundutbildningen i filosofi egentligen gav mig, rent intellektuellt. Redskap för red(l)igt tänkande, knivskarp analys och färdigheter att uttrycka sig i tal och skrift:
i. den newtonska fysiken / lösa ett litet problem / där masspunkter bland hörnstenarna / otroligt antal x / vi har åtminstone 3 teorier / som säger något om den yttre världens struktur / sedan försöker man förklara / ett otroligt antal partiklar / och idag är det här fullkomligt fel /
ii. ett hjälmbegrepp / i fall av rörelse / och de klassiska fysikerna angick / naturen själv / jag är anhängare av denhär tolkningen / en liten hörna / en viss slutsats:
"determinism&sannolikhetärickemotsattapositioner" [QUOTE!!!!]
/ dethär är på 70-talet / och tolkningen var fysikalisk / resultatet var blygsamt / men / stora lösningen är inte konsistent / det tycks vara ett litet problem / fastän övertygelser i den lilla hörnan / det finns objektiva sannolikheter / det är inte saker vi hittat på
iii. allting är som biljardbollar / det är svåra saker som man inte kan sätta sig in i / jag hade en korrekt lösning / genom att betrakta väldefinierade situationer kan vi förstå allt som finns att förstå / man lever med filosofin / några få utvecklar sin egen position / men vi drömmer inte gärna om det / det här är mitt sätt att se / och jag har kommit / till mycket specifika resultat.
iv. vi har då fyra (4) pusselbitar / implikation osv. / lägga lite till / predikatlogik /
v. det är en överraskning / om det visat sig vara ett bindande bevis / de bästa ex. kommer från matematiken / där finns liksom extern kontroll / allt som är intressant är elitistiskt / t.ex. i form av ett oändligt antal all / so what ? / det är ett fel i människors värld / då är man filosofiskt sett en idealist / han säger så här "....................." / "[..........]" / vi har själva skapat vår värld
vi. det här är min slutsats / om det inns ett oändligt antal x / poetiskt sagt har varje tal sitt skäl / sin egen orsak / detta är nonsens / helt klart idealistisk filosofi / sanningsproblemet är ett större problem än sanno- /likhetsproblemet.
vii. - "men det handlar om extetiska saker, andra saker" / det var därför det var olika. / mänskliga konstruktioner och där finns ingenting förutom det / en stor fråga / på tal om den idealistiska filosofin / mycket mänskliga problem / och en svår situation / som jag försatte mig i mellan 70- och 80-talen / sanningsbegreppet är underordnat kunskapsbegreppet
viii. "dethär är bara maktspel" = konstruktivism / där tror man inte på rationella / argument / man har dock en känsla av att det finns binbande bevis.
ix. det här är personliga val en filosof måste göra / filosofiska positioner är i någon mening godtyckliga / men det är iofs. mindre godtyckligt / än glass.
x. lokal filosofi / starka opinioner / svagt! / detta gäller allting / jag säjer mycket, mycket mindre / om det skulle finnas grundläggande spänningar bleve man skizofren / realisten & idealisten lever i olika världar / det finns några fall där vi fullständigt kan förstå situationen / och man kan ge argument för det.
i. den newtonska fysiken / lösa ett litet problem / där masspunkter bland hörnstenarna / otroligt antal x / vi har åtminstone 3 teorier / som säger något om den yttre världens struktur / sedan försöker man förklara / ett otroligt antal partiklar / och idag är det här fullkomligt fel /
ii. ett hjälmbegrepp / i fall av rörelse / och de klassiska fysikerna angick / naturen själv / jag är anhängare av denhär tolkningen / en liten hörna / en viss slutsats:
"determinism&sannolikhetärickemotsattapositioner" [QUOTE!!!!]
/ dethär är på 70-talet / och tolkningen var fysikalisk / resultatet var blygsamt / men / stora lösningen är inte konsistent / det tycks vara ett litet problem / fastän övertygelser i den lilla hörnan / det finns objektiva sannolikheter / det är inte saker vi hittat på
iii. allting är som biljardbollar / det är svåra saker som man inte kan sätta sig in i / jag hade en korrekt lösning / genom att betrakta väldefinierade situationer kan vi förstå allt som finns att förstå / man lever med filosofin / några få utvecklar sin egen position / men vi drömmer inte gärna om det / det här är mitt sätt att se / och jag har kommit / till mycket specifika resultat.
iv. vi har då fyra (4) pusselbitar / implikation osv. / lägga lite till / predikatlogik /
v. det är en överraskning / om det visat sig vara ett bindande bevis / de bästa ex. kommer från matematiken / där finns liksom extern kontroll / allt som är intressant är elitistiskt / t.ex. i form av ett oändligt antal all / so what ? / det är ett fel i människors värld / då är man filosofiskt sett en idealist / han säger så här "....................." / "[..........]" / vi har själva skapat vår värld
vi. det här är min slutsats / om det inns ett oändligt antal x / poetiskt sagt har varje tal sitt skäl / sin egen orsak / detta är nonsens / helt klart idealistisk filosofi / sanningsproblemet är ett större problem än sanno- /likhetsproblemet.
vii. - "men det handlar om extetiska saker, andra saker" / det var därför det var olika. / mänskliga konstruktioner och där finns ingenting förutom det / en stor fråga / på tal om den idealistiska filosofin / mycket mänskliga problem / och en svår situation / som jag försatte mig i mellan 70- och 80-talen / sanningsbegreppet är underordnat kunskapsbegreppet
viii. "dethär är bara maktspel" = konstruktivism / där tror man inte på rationella / argument / man har dock en känsla av att det finns binbande bevis.
ix. det här är personliga val en filosof måste göra / filosofiska positioner är i någon mening godtyckliga / men det är iofs. mindre godtyckligt / än glass.
x. lokal filosofi / starka opinioner / svagt! / detta gäller allting / jag säjer mycket, mycket mindre / om det skulle finnas grundläggande spänningar bleve man skizofren / realisten & idealisten lever i olika världar / det finns några fall där vi fullständigt kan förstå situationen / och man kan ge argument för det.
Earth: Hex; or printing in the infernal method (2005)
Hex; or printing in the infernal method is dronesy slowcore doom/stoner metal (or whatever one likes to call it) at its best! Slow, heavy, cinematic, awesome shit. I wish I find more stuff like this (and yes, I'm familiar with Sunn 0))), but this record by Earth is perhaps slightly more melodic than the Sunn 0))) efforts). I really hate it when reviewers of metal records praise bands for doing heavy music but in this case I am actually inclined to spurt out a celebratory speech about the heaviness of Hex. Sometimes I am surprised about the reactions music elicits in me but I guess that is what makes it interesting to keep listening to new kinds of music.
I presume my neighbors love this album, too (they better be), especially played loud at 01:00 in the morning. And damn! I like that cover. It's a weeny bit cheesy but it captures something of what this music is like. ( - A hillbilly zombie is probably peeking out from the window of that house) The combination of heavy-as-hell guitars, doom-ridden percussion and - if my ears do not deceive me - twangy steel guitar is simply perfect ("The dire and ever circling wolves" and "Tethered to the Polestar"). Or listen to that acoustic guitar that provides one more dimension of brick-heaviness on "Raiford (The Felon wind)". Rootsey goodness all the way. It might sound like an impossible concept, but this, to my ears, is doom/drone metal played country style. And why would that be impossible? Doom & gloom looms heavily over the best of country music (the brand of southern gothic stuff that I am so fond of). If The Handsome family (check them out, too! They put out a new album recently.) were an instrumental metal band, this would be the kind of record they would be making.
In short, digging from my very limited knowledge in this area, this is an album with a pretty unique sound. And with that, I am not saying that it is the concept that makes it great. Earth is a renowned band that has existed for a long time and they have made quite a few albums but regrettably I am a stupid person who hasn't heard their music until recently. Now, I intend to take a deeper look into what Southern lord records has to offer (Om is next on my list of interesting names on that label).
Excuse me, but now I have to go milk the cows (or feed the crows).
2 May 2009
Mammoth (2009)
As the ending titles of Mammoth (2009) were running, my unsentimental friend S murmured "shit! this film was a shitload of shit!" If only I were as outspoken as my pal. I didn't like Lukas Moodysson's latest film either, but my feelings are mixed - as usual. The first thing that comes to my mind is that Moodysson's intention is all too clear. He wants to criticize global power and shed light on global relations. In this sense, his film has much in common with Babel - a movie which I found tedious, moralistic and self-righteous (there were a few successful scenes in there, I suppose). My judgement this time around is not as harsh, but there's something in Mammoth, too, that I would describe as self-righteous. (You might interject that Moodysson has said this or that thing in an interview, but I don't really care about that - for me, here, "intentions" are what we see on the screen.)
The story, in a nutshell, revolves around a family in New York, a wealthy computer game designer, his surgeon wife and their smart kid, and their Filipino nanny's family back in the Philippines. The New Yorkers are wealthy, but they work too much. The game designer, Tom, travels to Bangkok to strike a business deal. In Bangkok, he start to have doubts about himself and the position his wealth has secured him. He deserts his expensive hotel suite for a beach hut. But the nice hippie life does not bless him with the noncomplicated vacation days he yearned for. Back in New York, the surgeon, her kid and the nanny is trying to cope. The daughter, who hardly meets her hard-working, but restless mother, seems to have a deep fondness for the nanny, who teaches her stuff and is there for her. At the same time, she is a worker in the house, she takes care of the chores and the family depends on her services for their comfort. Back in the Philippines, her two sons are miserable. There is not much to do. The older son tries to get a job so that it would be possible for their mother to come home.
My biggest problem with Mammoth is perhaps best called political. This might be a one-dimensional interpretation, but Moodysson's criticism of global power relations seems to be conjoined with an almost evangelistic message about the Family; the beautiful, fragile core family. I realize Moodysson is not trying to translate Das Kapital into the big screen, but it is just that the critical aspect of his film is flattened out and drained by the focus of his movie, which is almost exclusively the family and family bonds. Taken in the wrong way, the message of this movie might be: if we simply worked less, and focused more on our families, peace and harmony would rule the planet. If we were only to realize the shallowness of the Dollar and focus on what really matters, everything would be OK. I don't think Moodysson actually intended to say this, but there is something in the approach taken that seems sanctimonious. (What exactly is it that makes the film sanctimonious and not for example an important examination of and reminder of global exploitation? Well, for one thing, the film is not brutal, and not focused enough.) The entire perspective of the movie is skewed somehow and I wish I could spell out more clearly why I think it is. Maybe: it is a slightly sentimental film and that robs it of credibility. (Lilja 4-ever was, in my opinion, not a sentimental film even though many might perhaps advocate that it is. I would say it contains many very strong images.)
I also had problems with the glossy, anonymous cinematography. This could be Grey's anatomy, and that is a very bad thing. In this sense, Moodysson explores a very different artistic territory than he did while shooting Ett hål i mitt hjärta (or Container - or even Lilja 4-ever which is perhaps one of my favorite films). My problem is not that Moodysson is "too mainstream". I don't know what it would mean to say that or what kind of accusal it would be. My problem is simply that the artistic form of the film is one more thing that glosses over the critical content. And this might also be related to one further problematic thing, namely that many metaphores are rubbed into the face of the viewer. This doesn't, to be sure, impress me.
On the one hand, Moodysson seems to have wanted to make a movie that has a very specific Message, but paradoxically, I experienced it as a film that drifts in many directions at the same time and that the whole thing remains a somehow aimless affair.
But as I said, there are also good things to be said about Mammoth. One of them is that none of the characters are simplified into a cliché. I did feel that most characters would have been more interesting, were we to spend more time with them, but still - black-or-white portraits do not abound here. Most of the exploitative relations (the New Yorker family & their nanny / Tom-the-computer-designer & thai prostitute Cookie) are not romanticized. And it is an entertaining film (I was not bored). But maybe that was the problem?
The story, in a nutshell, revolves around a family in New York, a wealthy computer game designer, his surgeon wife and their smart kid, and their Filipino nanny's family back in the Philippines. The New Yorkers are wealthy, but they work too much. The game designer, Tom, travels to Bangkok to strike a business deal. In Bangkok, he start to have doubts about himself and the position his wealth has secured him. He deserts his expensive hotel suite for a beach hut. But the nice hippie life does not bless him with the noncomplicated vacation days he yearned for. Back in New York, the surgeon, her kid and the nanny is trying to cope. The daughter, who hardly meets her hard-working, but restless mother, seems to have a deep fondness for the nanny, who teaches her stuff and is there for her. At the same time, she is a worker in the house, she takes care of the chores and the family depends on her services for their comfort. Back in the Philippines, her two sons are miserable. There is not much to do. The older son tries to get a job so that it would be possible for their mother to come home.
My biggest problem with Mammoth is perhaps best called political. This might be a one-dimensional interpretation, but Moodysson's criticism of global power relations seems to be conjoined with an almost evangelistic message about the Family; the beautiful, fragile core family. I realize Moodysson is not trying to translate Das Kapital into the big screen, but it is just that the critical aspect of his film is flattened out and drained by the focus of his movie, which is almost exclusively the family and family bonds. Taken in the wrong way, the message of this movie might be: if we simply worked less, and focused more on our families, peace and harmony would rule the planet. If we were only to realize the shallowness of the Dollar and focus on what really matters, everything would be OK. I don't think Moodysson actually intended to say this, but there is something in the approach taken that seems sanctimonious. (What exactly is it that makes the film sanctimonious and not for example an important examination of and reminder of global exploitation? Well, for one thing, the film is not brutal, and not focused enough.) The entire perspective of the movie is skewed somehow and I wish I could spell out more clearly why I think it is. Maybe: it is a slightly sentimental film and that robs it of credibility. (Lilja 4-ever was, in my opinion, not a sentimental film even though many might perhaps advocate that it is. I would say it contains many very strong images.)
I also had problems with the glossy, anonymous cinematography. This could be Grey's anatomy, and that is a very bad thing. In this sense, Moodysson explores a very different artistic territory than he did while shooting Ett hål i mitt hjärta (or Container - or even Lilja 4-ever which is perhaps one of my favorite films). My problem is not that Moodysson is "too mainstream". I don't know what it would mean to say that or what kind of accusal it would be. My problem is simply that the artistic form of the film is one more thing that glosses over the critical content. And this might also be related to one further problematic thing, namely that many metaphores are rubbed into the face of the viewer. This doesn't, to be sure, impress me.
On the one hand, Moodysson seems to have wanted to make a movie that has a very specific Message, but paradoxically, I experienced it as a film that drifts in many directions at the same time and that the whole thing remains a somehow aimless affair.
But as I said, there are also good things to be said about Mammoth. One of them is that none of the characters are simplified into a cliché. I did feel that most characters would have been more interesting, were we to spend more time with them, but still - black-or-white portraits do not abound here. Most of the exploitative relations (the New Yorker family & their nanny / Tom-the-computer-designer & thai prostitute Cookie) are not romanticized. And it is an entertaining film (I was not bored). But maybe that was the problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)