Pope-culture reviews

I've been listening to the Beatles again lately, for the first time in awhile; the other day I busted out Sergeant Pepper's, and today I listened to most of Help! in my truck. I was reminded of how Help! really exemplifies more than any other album just how big of bastards John and Paul really were. John's signature track is "You're Gonna Lose that Girl," summed up by the line "I'll make a point of taking her away from you." Not because he loves her, or cares really... but just to prove a point. This is the big disconnect with John; the same guy who wrote "Imagine" also wrote this song? The guy who penned "Dear Prudence" and "Julia" also wrote "Run for Your Life"???

I think this is what makes John such a fascinating character... well, this and his amazing super-genius, of course. But the "total self-doubt combined with arrogance combined with deep, deep love for humanity and peace" thing is pretty compelling.

And then there's Paul. "Another Girl" seems to be a perfect little microcosm of this guy's frat-boy assholery. Which seems to be a pretty fair representation of the guy, at least during the Beatles years. For me, the defining anecdote of Paul's offhand, screw-off genius is "Come and Get It." They needed a hit from another band on the Apple label, so Paul whips this song off in an afternoon, plays all the instruments recording a demo for it so Badfinger can just copy it... and it goes to the top of the charts.

This is the same guy who wouldn't let Ringo play drums on "Back in the USSR" because he couldn't get it right (according to Paul). But damn, again; superduper-genius.

But anyways. "Another Girl." Really encompasses that whole aspect of his character. Completely, utterly confident that he's the best-looking, most talented guy in the room. And, even worse, being absolutely correct in that assessment, and not afraid to take advantage of it to screw other people over. What a dick.

I've gone through every Beatle over the years as my favorite. When I was really young, like until I was 10 maybe, I was a Paul guy. I'm not proud of it. But he was left-handed like me, and wrote songs like "When I'm 64" and "Yellow Submarine." Soon I switched to John, stuck with him into my 20s... went through the spiritual George phase for the latter half of the 20s... and for the past several years I've become more and more firmly a Ringo guy. Not only is he the most underrated concussionist of all time (as any drummer will tell you), he was also the glue that held the band together. And he was by all accounts the biggest stoner in a band full of stoners. Even more than Paul, who was once busted in an airport with like multiple kilos of weed.

Do I have anything more to report at the moment? Watched the movie "Closer" last night. Part of my "watch everything Clive Owen's ever done" project. (If you haven't watched "Children of Men" yet, do yourself a favor and rent it, like, right now. Go ahead, I'll wait.) But "Closer" ate a bowl of dicks. On one level I think the Jude Law character hit a bit too close to home for my comfort... but then, I totally identified with Miles from "Sideways" and still love the movie, love Miles, etc. I figured it out; in my opinion, "Sideways" is about the moment in a person's life when he figures something really profound out, starts believing in himself, decides to embrace life a little more, etc. My brother and I will debate this until we die, but I think we're both right. Miles hits rock bottom, as my brother states; there is no direction but up from that moment, as I state.

I could go on about it, but I won't. The pertinent point is that I totally identify with Miles, all his messed-up neuroses and everything else, but I really believe he grows and changes during the course of the movie. And that's what is interesting to me in a movie. But there is no growth or change in "Closer." Everyone is fucked up and depressed and terrible to each other at the beginning; everyone is fucked up and depressed and terrible at the end. It's just a snapshot of how fucked up and depressed and terrible we all are. Great. I mean... even if it's true, even it's an accurate representation of how some people treat each other... why should I care, or want to watch it for two hours? I wish I had more hands, so I could give this movie four thumbs down. The milk's gone bad!

So nothing of a personal nature to report at this time I guess. Just commentary on some of the popular culture I've been consuming lately. Oh yeah, on that front, one more desuggestion: "John from Cincinnati" really, really blows. I read a great review of it, though; basically said that, when someone is actually a genuine artist, they're going to fail sometimes, and fail spectacularly some of those times, just because they're trying new stuff and pushing their own artistic boundaries and whatnot. So in a perverse way "John from Sucksinnati" is actually a validation of David Milch the artist. So I guess that's cool. Still not worth my 45 minutes a week. Or a steaming pile, for that matter.

Even so, it begs the question: what the heck is HBO thinking??? I mean, we're never really gonna know what happened with the forth season of Deadwood. But you've gotta imagine that HBO had something to do with getting it axed. But they obviously also give Milch carte-blanche to create any piece of crap that comes out of him... hence letting him make "John from Sucks-my-brown-eye-nati" (nice) and then debuting it after the final episode of one of the most influential, popular series in television history. So why couldn't they just give Milch what he wanted for the last season of Deadwood?

So in summary--John and Paul: unmitigated genius-bastards (gene-tards). "Sideways": a positive affirmation of self-growth and fuzzy bunnies (and anyone--cough, Glenn, cough--who wants to say otherwise should just get his own god-damn blog). "Closer" and "John from Sucks-my-Cinncinnati-bowtie": gaaaaaaaaawd-awful. Pope out!