William Hurt: On the Edge of Postmodernism
January 26, 2010
By a reasonably objective metric (academy award nominations), William Hurt 
ranks as one of the greatest film actors of all-time (he has four) and yet he makes no appearance on the AFI’s 100 Years…100 Stars. On its own, this would be a triviality; many great actors fail to achieve mass consciousness. Perhaps I’m betraying my age, but has anyone ever gone to a movie just to experience the raw animal magnetism of Albert Finney? But, as we’ve mentioned many times, William Hurt owned the 1980s, starring in several of the decade’s biggest commercial and creative successes.
I thought about this the other day while watching Damages season 2 on DVD. There’s a scene where William Hurt’s character takes a polygraph. Hurt’s character is exactly the type of role for which he’s remembered: handsome without being charming, and cold without appearing calculating; uncertainty surrounds him. And Hurt is an expert at maximizing uncertainty. Watching him take the polygraph, you’re sure that he’s managed to pass the test while lying. When it comes back inconclusive, you’re almost surprised. Is he not as devious as I thought, or could he be telling the truth? There may only be a 5% chance that he’s telling the truth, but Hurt makes you consider it. In this way, he’s a great foil to Glenn Close whose skill is smiling as she stabs a knife in your back. She’s good at convincing other characters that she’s being honest, but not so good at staying a step ahead of viewers. Only the show’s jumbling of chronology allows those possibilities to slip in.
But again, the mystery that is William Hurt and his ownership (or: pwnage) of the 1980s. Read the rest of this entry »
A Proud Legacy 2: Gossip Girl Is Melting My Brain
January 23, 2010
About two weeks ago, we introduced our newest feature, “A Proud Legacy,” wherein we highlight once-promising drafts that were never finished or never posted. With the return of Gossip Girl imminent, it seemed like the time to post my belated thoughts on the show.
Thanks to a bad hangover on Saturday, Dash was left incapable of doing anything. A night of Harvey Wallbangers will do that to you, I suppose. So with Gossip Girl hype at an all time high, I decided to give it a try and watched Season 1 online. I should note that one other thing happened this weekend: Sarah Palin was nominated for VP. In my mind, these events are now indissoluble–especially because Gossip Girl is a terrible show and Sarah Palin a terrible choice (more on that later, I’m sure).
The last day of my life went something like this: watch an hour of Gossip Girl and feel horrible at myself for watching it, consistently noting that there isn’t even that much sex. Thoroughly disgusted, I’d then read Andrew Sullivan and feel mortified over the travesty that is Sarah Palin and her bat shit craziness (a technical term). This cycle probably lasted about eight hours until Gossip Girl melted my brain.
Allow me to explain. GG is a bad show, with characters barely sketched to the level of archetypes. Its appeal seems to be a minimal veneer of fashion. But if you watch enough episodes, you lost all faculties of aesthetic judgment. You lose the ability to define Gossip Girl outside of reference to itself. Instead of saying, “Gossip Girl is a bad show,” you are only able to say, “That was a bad episode of Gossip Girl.” Somehow Gossip Girl resists referentiality and interpretation, resists comparison to other shows. It is its own world.
Community! *Wherein we avoid a Marxist analysis
January 17, 2010
Community is the best new show on TV. Normally that would be an uncontroversial statement, as we’ve been in something of a sitcom dark age, but people really love Modern Family. Reuters actually selected it as one of the ten best shows of the decade. I like Modern Family. Actually, every time I watch it I’m surprised at how much I enjoy it; I forget how funny it is between episodes. But one of the best of the decade? Frankly, that The Wire wasn’t on this list shows that the critic in charge has no standing. Maybe season 6 will change his mind.
No, Community is the funniest situational comedy of the year. And I mean that in the truest sense. As Freud writes:
The comic turns out first of all to be something unintended we find in human social relations. It is found in persons, in their movements, forms, actions and traits of character—originally perhaps only in physical characteristics, and later in mental ones as well–and in their respective ways of expressing them…However, the comic is capable of being detached from persons if the circumstance that makes a person appear comical is recognized. This is how ‘the comic of situation’ arises, and this knowledge brings the possibility of making a person comic at will, by placing him in situations where these conditions for the comic attach to its actions.
The comedy of the situation depends on merging social roles with circumstance, with creating character traits that are exploited by putting the character in a dissimilar or disadvantageous circumstance (or, as we say in the biz: “hilarity ensues’). For Freud, situational comedy is different from a joke, a self-contained unit that depends on verbal economy for its humor; the sitcom depends on character traits.
This is why Community is the funniest new show on TV. The writers consistently invert classic sitcom plots, adapting them to the strengths of their characters. They may sometimes seem one-dimensional, but there are enough one dimensions to go around.
In one episode, it’s Abed whose situation makes him the funniest; in others, he might disappear. The show has more jokes-per-episode than just about any other show on TV, but, ultimately, it’s the way the jokes are tied to the comedy of situation that make them so successful.
Combine that with rotating situations and you have something that few other shows have: a truly funny ensemble series.
All Hail the Returning King
July 28, 2008
While summer television is never exactly “good,” this year’s summer TV can not even be described by anything resembling a synonym for “ok.” In fact, I’ve spent all morning browsing through a copy of the Dictionary of American Regional English in order to find words capable of describing the mediocrity that is the post-Hell’s Kitchen TV landscape in all our glorious dialects. Yet, if everyone in the MSM and their mothers are to be believed, our TV has just “tarved” (to tip, turn) and glory days are here again. After all, Mad Men has returned.
I’m not going to try to “make strange;” (to act shy, or, to feign ignorance of) Mad Men was one of the best shows on TV last year and I’m excited to have it back. It’s a well acted, meticulous show, with rich supporting characters and wonderfully understated performances by its female leads. Indeed, the show succeeded despite the relative weakness of its major mystery (Don Draper’s checkered past) on the strength of the secondary storylines and believable romantic relationships. Few shows manage to handle one love/sex story well; Mad Men always seems to juggle five or six, with each one pulsating sexual energy. I’m going to hold off judgement on the new season for a few episodes (sadly, Saladeers are not treated to the same free media as tvguiders), but, in the meantime, I will offer this: a DVD tip of the week.
In one of the show’s many “wink-wink, nod-nods,” one of Sterling Cooper’s principal partners is played by Robert Morse, star of the classic musical and film “How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying.” Film satires, especially today’s, have a tendency to age rapidly (will the four people who found “Epic Movie” funny still laugh in twenty years?), but the best satire, like Swift, is priceless. “How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying” doesn’t quite reach the heights of A Modest Proposal (now there’s an idea for a musical!), but its underlying scenario is still recognizable, and its depiction of corporate life wouldn’t be out of place on The Office. Plus, there are musical numbers. “How to Succeed” is a charming counterpoint to Mad Men, mixing office politics with a dash of whimsy. Add in Taschlin’s excellent “Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter” to fill-in the cinematic prehistory of Mad Men, and to restore the icons Mad Men spends so much time deconstructing.
Switzerland (Cause It’s 1987 All the Time)
June 11, 2008
The good Dr. …Butwithawhimper’s last post about Switzerland is not so much a critique of Swiss neutrality as it is a eulogy for the country. Still every eulogy is also an encomium, a word of praise or panegyric. His greatest argument: neutrality was once a virtue, but now detracts. It has moved beyond its time and place and is now nothing but pure isolationism. My God, Switzerland isn’t even in the Euro zone! Bully for us, I guess, as the Franc is still trading at less than the dollar. But I have to admit that I had not realized just how un-cosmopolitan the Swiss were before reading Notwithabang’s post. 
Not only are the Swiss not engaging in disparaging Russian culture, the Swiss are determined to maintain their exclusivity at all costs. Swiss citizenship, and the luxurious tax benefits that come with it, is one of the most exclusive citizenships in the world (at the very least behind The Principality of Sealand): applicants need to have lived in Switzerland for over a decade, be acclimated to the law and culture (thought they can still dress in inclimate clothing), and speak the local language (French, Italian, German and sometimes Romansh). Yet that’s not all; prospective Swiss have to apply for citizenship to both their federal government and the local municipality whose citizens then vote on the applicants’ status, sometimes, until recently by secret ballot. Just take a moment to consider what this means. No offense to the great people of Little Rock, the Paris of Arkansas (take that Paris, Arkansas!), and their in-need-of-expansion Streetcar, but, would you really want citizenship in the greater US decided at such a local level? No, there isn’t even a functioning sense of “cosmopolitanism” within Switzerland. Instead, Switzerland is held captive by that same rabid impulse for localism or locavdom that demonizes California beets but is all too ready to appease when it comes to the Mangosteen. In many ways, Switzerland is the antithesis of the cosmopolitan community.
Yet Dr. …Butwithawhimper’s rhetoric cannot help but undercut his argument, pointing out a significant virtue of Switzerland. Our author twice makes reference to Swiss time-pieces: he quotes Orson Welles on the insignificance of the Cuckoo Clock, and dismisses their “overpriced watches.” However, Swiss watches, though expensive, are hardly without purpose as they accomplish two tasks necessary for the functioning of a society. Firstly, Swiss watches are an integral agent of cultural transmission. The slogan of Patek Philippe is, “You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation.” (emphasis in Google search) If the TV show Mad Men has taught us anything it’s that advertising represents both truths and diversions, symbolism and literalism. Don Draper explains in the Pilot that “Advertising is based on one thing–Happiness.” Instead of referencing the reports that smoking is bad for your health, Draper diverts and creates the nonsensical advertising campaign, “It’s toasted.” While true, this has nothing to do with your health. And therein is the genius. Likewise, the Patek advertising campaign establishes its status as an agent of cultural transmission without ever asking if its a good thing. You look after the watch for the next generation, you take an active role in stewarding the future. The symbolic exemplar of a state.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the precision in Swiss watchery has enabled it to get a significant advantage in the Space-Time Prism. As invented by Torsten Hagerstrand, the Space-Time prism is a way of evaluating urban travel networks.
A space-time path represents the path taken by an individual, but any one path is only one of many that can actually be taken by a person in a given amount of time. A space-time “prism” is the set of all points that can be reached by an individual given a maximum possible speed from a starting point in space-time and an ending point in space-time. (more)
Most urban planners, researchers, or enthusiasts studying the space-time prism focus on the speed/distance network and treat time as a given. However, people exist in different times. For example, someone traveling to the central time zone from the eastern time zone has an extra hour to make the trip, and, if flying, may even arrive before she took-off. The reverse is also true. Simply put, time is not a constant. The Swiss have nefariously exploited the flexibility of time in their watch design. Their incredible watch making precision enables them to take advantage of even the most minute temporal variances. Touche, Switzerland.
Still, one other point of Dr. …Butwithawhimper’s needs addressing: his claim that Switzerland is a proper noun. True. But, in this age of googlism, is anything still just a proper noun?
Ultimately, however, I agree with the conclusion that Switzerland has to go. I only fear that with their advantages in time we’ll never be able to catch them.
A Visit to the Cosmopolis
June 2, 2008
Editor’s Note: Today is the first day of a new format here at Yesterday’s Salad. From now on, each week will have a theme, with 3-4 posts addressing the topic at hand. This should make YS slightly more coherent–but only slightly. After all, we’re all going to continue reading the topic at hand with our own unique biases with our interests intact. So expect my posts to keep talking about language, theory, transit, and movies while Notwithabang continues the AGS pursuits, the Ciceronian declaims, and so forth. That brings me to this weeks topic: Cosmopolitanism.
Lo, the inconsistency that is Cosmopolitanism! Just look at these conflicting definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1) Cosmopolitan character; adherence to cosmopolitan principles (Belonging to all parts of the world; not restricted to any one country or its inhabitants)
2) Disparagement of Russian traditions and culture (equated with disloyalty)
What should we make of this antagonym? (More a feature of Semitic languages as in Hebrew where the same root means both “heresy” and “atone” or in Arabic than it is of English). Is it possible to construct an actual philosophy, humanistic or political, that belongs to all parts of the world equally, yet regularly disparages Russian traditions and culture? Or could it be that Cosmopolitanism, one of the great hopes for moving the world into a post-War, post-National era is simply a repackaged, hidden form of the Reagan Revolution? Maybe the only thing the world, even educated liberals, can agree on is “Russia bad, us good.”
Of course its unfair, even in a post-Deconstruction world to burden a word with contradictory meanings simultaneously. Though Deconstruction teaches that a word always bears all of its meanings, some meanings are, in great Soviet style, more equal than others. So even though “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” disparages Soviets, its orientalist faux archeology (naturally the best kind) disqualifies it from being Cosmopolitan. So too one does not confuse the legendary blogtrix Rootless Cosmopolitan with the cosmopolitan (oed draft entry 12/07: A cocktail made with vodka, orange-flavoured liqueur, cranberry juice, and lime juice.), even if that beverage can be variously spelled with a capital C, nor does one suspect that Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy of drunkhead (though it would, no doubt, rally more people to the cause).
Indeed, the greatest problem with Cosmopolitanism as a political philosophy is that it makes no sense as an electoral strategy. Martha Nussbaum 
has called for allegiance to humanity as a whole, while Bruce Robbins opens one of his many pieces on the topic with this terrific quote: “‘In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians; I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian; but man I have never met.‘” (source) And therein lies the rub: politics is local, and appealing to internationalism rarely fixes your drainage problems.
Harvard may be a bastion of multiculturalism, but that doesn’t seem to help in a downpour.
But if there is one place where multiculturalism might work as a political philosophy, its the Cosmopolis (either the (capital) city of the world or a cosmopolitan city or community). Indeed, in such a city, politics could be both local and cosmopolitan, both inclusive and unique. Walter Benjamin famously declared Paris the capital of the 19th century, but today another city best represents global trends, better serves as an example of the cosmopolitan society. That’s right, the Elm City, New Haven, Connecticut.
Why New Haven and not its predecessor, the Atlantis/El Dorado-like lost city of Old Haven? Here are but three reasons:
1) Food. For this we turn back to that eminent scholar of Cosmopolitanism, Bruce Robbins and his sometime alter ego Mark Bittman. We live in a global world marked by flows and misflows (Yid: vegn und umvegn) of resources and culture, and nowhere is this more felt than the realm of cuisine. New Haven was not only an early adopter of fusion cuisines [citation needed], it was also the site of one of America’s first great experiments in taking something that clearly doesn’t belong to you and claiming it as your own. Such was the case with the legendary New Haven Pizza, the choice of all effete Cosmopolitans as they wrest themselves from New York or Chicago provincialism. But few know the true origins of New Haven Pizza. Read the rest of this entry »
