Finished his last song and shot himself in the head.
One final statement against societal injustice.
It's time for the Oscars baby! I'm sure every picture up for Best Documentary is absolutely smashing but you owe it to yourself to take 80 minutes and watch Searching for Sugar Man, the true story of Detroit's recalled-to-life folk hero Sixto Rodriguez, better known as Sugar Man.
Rodriguez recorded two albums in the early seventies that flamed out quicker than abandoned Detroit buildings on Devil's night. They were failures everywhere except, as it turns out, for a little while in Australia and apparently in South Africa. There he was nicknamed Sugar Man (the title of the first track on his debut album) and his music became part of the rallying cry to end Apartheid. It was said that even Steve Biko was a fan of Sugar Man.
Student leader and anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, killed in police custody
No one knew the first thing about Sugar Man, except he committed suicide onstage and wrote marvelously philosphical, electric trippy lyrics like
Cause I lost my job two weeks before Christmas And I talked to Jesus at the sewer And the Pope said it was none of his God-damned business While the rain drank champagne
My Estonian Archangel came and got me wasted Cause the sweetest kiss I ever got is the one I've never tasted Oh but they'll take their bonus pay to Molly McDonald, Neon ladies, beauty is that which obeys, is bought or borrowed
Those are complex, man. Eventually two amateur music sleuths decided to find out the truth once and for all about what happened to Sugar Man. This is the story of their detective work.
Wanted: Cute, mysterious musician with righteous indignance
Curiosity peaked, I downloaded Rodriguez's two original albums and am impressed.
His lyrics are psychedelic but almost always meaningful, and he skillfully produced many styles of music. Listen to "I
Wonder" for a catchy bass line, "Only Good for Conversation" for Jimi
Hendrix-style guitar wailing, and "Silver Words?" for a humble and
charming love song.
Okay STAHP HERE IF YOU DON'T WANNA NO SPOILAS
I said STOP in the NAME of LOVE
STOP DOES NOT MEAN TRY HARDER STOP PROCEED ONLY IF YOU WANT SPOILERS STOP YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED STOP
.............WHOA, heh, he's not dead after all.
He's in Detroit. Doing construction work.
Never saw a penny of South African record sales.
Has no idea his songs helped end Apartheid.
omfg SERIOUSLY??? Get the guy onstage!!!!
And that is just what those South African music sleuths did. They flew Rodriguez to Johannesburg for a series of sold-out concerts and this sweet sixty-something musician got to bond with fans who grew up on his songs. It must have been like finding out John Lennon is alive and well and that he'll be performing in your town this summer.
<----- Happy Sixto
This was in like 1998. Rodriguez continues to be alive and well and is touring all over the world. He gives most of his proceeds back to his community in Detroit. Watch this movie if you want proof that fairy tales exist in real life.
So I haven't moved forward in GEB for, like, two weeks or something ridiculous like that. Because I'm stuck on this one part. Hofstadter's cool because he sprinkles the text with try-it-yourselfs, and until this one on page 137 I've been successfully completing all of them. And I'm not going to be defeated now.
Here's the problem:
There's a recursive tree of whole numbers which can be represented by a function G(n). The number tree looks like this:
following the basic pattern (remember, it's recursive) which looks like this:
where (b) is the second iteration of the tree. (You put a G-tree at every place where it says G on the tree you currently have to get subsequent iterations.) Bored yet? But wait! There's an equation, G(n), to go with all this!
G(n) = n - G(G(n-1)) for n>0
G(0) = 0
If you input a number from a node on the tree as n in the equation, you get its immediate predecessor for G(n). So G(9)=6, etc. And this describes the G-tree.
Here's the dumbhateful tricky part:
Draw the numbered tree the same way, but number the nodes from right to left instead of from left to right.
Now find the function G'(n) (which describes the new "flip-tree").
I've been reading Scientific American articles for years -- Savannah can tell you if you don't believe me. I carried them (rather pretentiously, yes, I know) around in my backpack in middle and high school, and I really was reading the articles... but yeah, of course, it was also kind of my thing, the nerd thing that I got a rep for, and I liked that. I talked about being a quantum physicist when I was eleven. I was that kid. (Though I think I did understand to a degree what I was talking about.) (More or less.) (More than the kids who picked on me for it, anyway. Hah.)
In college I dropped it for a while but picked up the habit again after my parents purchased me a subscription (all my own!) for Christmas one year. I try to read them cover to cover, and in my pagecounting book list I estimate I read about 70 or so pages per issue. I highly recommend them for light reading -- seriously! Because they're not issues of Science or Nature, or any other genuine peer-reviewed journals. They're science for laypeople.
The information is mostly accurate but should be taken with a grain of salt. SciAm's popularity resides in its ability to stimulate creativity. It's daydream fodder. It's sci-fi, with just enough of reality to be worth talking about at the water cooler of an office building. It's meant to educate the American people! Lift our standards of general knowledge! It's supposed to change our culture and make us all more critical and analytical about everything in our lives, and also allow us to live a little, vicariously through the scientists who are doing these neat experiments.
But it's not entirely factual, as I mentioned. If you read it, don't tell your friends about what you read as though it's all true. This magazine doesn't give you the numbers, or the statistical analyses, or accurate predictions about how and when the results of these experiments are going to change our lives. It's just fun.
And everyone should read at least one article a year.
Here is a list I will continue to update of movies I am greatly looking forward to watching. Rogue Trader (1999) The true story of the investment broker who singlehandedly bankrupted one of the most prestigious trading firms in the United Kingdom. Co-written by Nick Leeson (the guy who did it), and played by Ewan McGregor from the same time period as Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Part of me wishes I had movies on this list that were here because they're great works of human achievement. The other 99% of me just wonders what McGregor is going to look like talking mortgage-backed securities with his shirtsleeves rolled up.
Also this trailer looks like it was filmed in the 70s.
The Brothers Karamazov (1958) Fans of Russian literature, Yul Brynner, and William Shatner, rejoice! A drop-dead adorable pre-Star Trek William Shatner plays Alyosha Karamazov, a would-be monk who spends most of his time putting out fires in his community - most of which are caused by his irascible father Fyodor and hotheaded brother Dmitri (Yul Brynner). Will I ever see this movie? Depends on whether or not I can finish the book first!
Update: this movie is amazing. It grasps all the important concepts and plot points of Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel, squishes it into 2 hours 20 minutes, and, astonishingly, leaves you blanketed with warm fuzzies the way Captain Kirk gets avalanched with tribbles. Yul Brynner's performance is outstanding. I had no idea what to expect but his portrayal of Dmitri can be summed up by that quote about how nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. And smoldering good looks.
Treasure Island (2012) The book of the same name is the quintessential adventure story, tied for first with The Three Musketeers. And I love Eddie Izzard on principle because he ran 43 marathons in 51 days with only five weeks of training. He is my foremost living inspiration for lacing up the trainers and hitting the streets. This movie is bound to be enjoyable even if not a top ten favorite.
Allow me to add that my second greatest living inspiration to run is a nemesis of personal acquaintance. 2. The Three Musketeers (2011) Lo and behold, it must seem like I only care about tales of adventure! I do love The Three Musketeers more than almost any other adventure story, but I want to watch this film for the actors, not the plot. If you want to see a 3M movie that sticks well to the story and perfectly conveys the camaraderie and jollity of Dumas' famous tale, watch the 1973 version with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Frank Finlay, and Michael York as Athos, Aramis, Porthos, and the puppy-lovable D'Artagnan respectively. Go watch and fall in love!
I've heard the 2011 version is nothing like the books (lame. why do you want to add flying ships and 10,000 tons of gunpoweder? to ruin a perfectly good story). But who can resist Matthew Macfadyen playing brilliant, wry Athos? Like Darcy went rogue. And oh look, Ray Stevenson is here to play Porthos, it's like getting a second helping of our much beloved Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome FOR FREE. And Percy Jackson--well, Logan Lerman, whatever--is playing D'Artagnan! If this movie captures the esprit de corps of the novels and gives us anything remotely following the books I'll be happy, because adaptations of famous books usually get people to go read the books, and that is always a good thing.
For example, did you know you can buy copies of Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights (and maybe Pride and Prejudice) in Twilight motif? It just goes to prove that saying about how bad things come with silver linings.
3. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
I was in high school when I read this book so I don't remember it much except being enchanted with the descriptions of life in the deep, sleepy American south. I'm betting this movie can bring it to life. I've enjoyed disliking Kevin Spacey in every movie I've seen him in (except in Beyond the Sea; that was such an about-face that I feel obligated to mention it because I was flabbergasted I could actually like the man). John Cusack will forever have my heart for voicing Dmitri in Fox's Anastasia (which premiered the same year this movie did, incidentally). And I am very interested to see Jude Law playing a presumably smoking hot young rapscallion. Bring on the peach cobbler and sweet tea!
Update: it starts to drag in the middle during a long-winded trial, but not to be missed. Jude Law was compelling but it turns out the star of the show is Lady Chablis, a cross-dressing actress who stars as herself in both the book and the movie and who outshines everyone in a ten-mile radius.
My mom and I needed a series to watch over winter break that was a.) good and b.) short.
Enter Rome, HBO's 22-episode miniseries.
You will probably not like this show if you display any of the following characteristics:
(1.) aversion to nudity or hedonistic sex scenes,
(2.) dislike of gut-wrenching disgusting violence,
(3.) little knowledge of Roman history,
(4.) significant knowledge of Roman history, and you want it portrayed accurately.
Praemonitus praemunitus, forewarned is forearmed! Let us therefore commence.
I found this show enjoyable despite its historical inaccuracy, and stressful despite its enjoyablity! The series revolves primarily around two groups of people. The first group consists of two centurions: the severe and traditional Lucius Vorenus (played by Kevin McKidd), and carefree sell-sword Titus Pullo (Ray Stevenson). Vorenus is head honcho in his legion but he and foot soldier Pullo find themselves in so many scrapes together that they eventually become best friends. They are frequently present at great moments in Roman history, which in this show span from Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul to Octavian's ascension as emperor of Rome.
Pullo (left), and Vorenus (right) are "Rome's enduring couple (Chicago Tribune)"
mulier est hominis confusio:
woman is man's ruin
The other main characters are Atia of the Julii (AT-ee-uh of the JOO-lee-eye, say it right!), her daughter Octavia, and her son Octavian, that guy who _SPOILERS IF YOU DON'T KNOW HISTORY_ becomes the first emperor of Rome. Octavia is sweet and easily manipulated. Octavian is level-headed and ambitious. Atia is the world class scheming lascivious spitfire provacatrix bitch siren who lies delightedly naked at the heart of the show. She is the ingenious plot device that ties all the worlds together. We know _SPOILERS IF YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK_ the cold, hard facts like Brutus stabs Caesar and Antony marries Cleopatra, but we'll never know why exactly they did it. In HBO's retelling of the story, Atia's plots and fallout therefrom are usually at the bottom of every major turn of events.
I thought this was awesome. Here is a historical figure we know little about who traveled in all of the circles necessary to influence the events of the era, and HBO created a character so interesting--that is to say, vivacious, spiteful, passionate, ambitious for her family, and a touch mad--that you enjoy the show's pitch for how these famous events are all tied together. History tells us what happens; this story tells us why it all happened. It fills in those gaps of knowledge that will perpetually haunt all lovers of history.
Of course it's not really true. Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo both existed and fought in the same legion under Caesar in the Gallic wars. They competed to become first spear and they share a funny incident on the battlefield, but that is all that is known of them. In real life Tacitus described Atia Balba Caesonia as a woman around which "no base word could be uttered without grave offence, and no wrong deed done," unimpeachable morals and the ideal Roman matron, etc. etc. The skeptic in me considers this to be propaganda about the mother of Emperor Numero Uno, but my rule of thumb for classics, and LESSON TWO for you guys, is Never Trust HBO Or Roman Historians On Anything. What should you do when you can't trust either source? Enjoy the stories!!
So, there is a lot of cuddle time - - Even John Adams has sex scenes in it (I read the book, I can promise you they didn't get it from there), and thus you can't really blame them for going overboard in a show like Rome. (Reason # 57 that you should love The Newsroom is because there's no sex and you're still completely captivated every single episode. Expect reviews--from me for sure, and perhaps from Christina--when season 2 gets here.) What really bothered me about this show was the violence. I'm certain that everything in the show and worse was done in real life in Rome and elsewhere on a regular basis. This isn't The Hunger Games where violence is stylized and minimized and fictional. This is real life, where gladiators were forced to say "Hail Caesar, we who are about to die salute you" before every match and where the kind of torture that serial killers perpetrate now that gives me nightmares was standard operating procedure for both entertainment and criminal justice.
What sicks me out is that people watch that stuff and enjoy it. This is probably a controversial theory, but I think watching violence like that sort of prevents people from getting bored and trying it on their own. So I'm happy we've progressed from personally attending death matches to play-acting it on tv. But I'm still freaked out that people enjoy those parts. This was the goriest show I have ever seen. I felt guilty for watching it.
Wait til you meet the kid; he's a trip.
And it's stressful because you fall in love with Vorenus and Pullo by the end of the first episode and spend the all foreseeable waking hours fretting about their safety. At first you're worried they'll die in battle and you just want them to get decommissioned so they can go home. Then you find out they are ill-suited to domestic life and get in so much trouble you actually sigh with relief when they go back in uniform. Then they get caught in one of the most famous Roman shipwreck disasters in history and take up with brigands. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum (ha hahaha ah ha, the word nausea comes from the Roman word for seasickness because they hated water battles). If you watch this show, you will be stressing for them the whole time because that's how much you love them.
Rome was filmed on what is currently the largest outdoor set in the world.
If you don't know much Roman history, you'll have a hard time realizing the significance of some of the plot twists, and you won't know what's true and what's false. If you know a lot about Roman history, you may gnash your teeth and tear your hair in proper ancient soothsayer style if you're a stickler for accuracy. But you'll be enchanted if you don't worry about what's true and false and just get lost in the story. The characters are compelling. You get a feel for the grit and toil of plebe life as well as the luxury of the patrician life, enviable by today's standards. And there is much humor and poignancy in every episode. I shall leave you with a perfect little spoiler-free video from early in the series that nicely introduces Vorenus, Pullo, Atia, and Octavian. I hope you have enjoyed this essay on Rome!
