Kid Cudi - Man on the Moon: the End of Day

Kid Cudi’s debut album, ‘Man on the Moon: the End of Day’ jumps straight into the deep, introverted, self-reflexiveness that makes this more than just another RnB record. The chorus of the first track begins with the line, “I’ve got some issues that nobody can see, and all of these emotions are pouring out of me...this is the soundtrack to my life.” This life apparently includes the co-existence of ‘Scotty’ the person and his alter ego Kid Cudi the artist. Both personalities are present in this album which combines a diverse range of hip hop and Rnb beats with the kind of clever lyricism that is akin to poetry and doesn’t resort to the lowest common denominator that has become typical, and let’s face it – tiresome, of this genre of music.

For instance, even though he raps about the ubiquitous topic of sex, the lyrics are neither basic nor two-dimensionally derogatory; instead, sex is explored and discussed in a stylistically sophisticated, yet un-esoteric, manner. This approach is accompanied by some very clever double-entendres, and well-placed pop cultural allusions. One of my favourites of this is, “I’ve got 99 problems, and they all bitches...” ‘Make Her Say’, a good example, is a collaboration with Kanye West and Common, with Lady Gaga’s ‘Poker Face’ in the background, which explores the pursuit of women in this more subtle and humorous way. The song, believe it or not, actually has layers.

Kid Cudi also comments on the clichéd/stereotypical rap culture, neither denouncing nor glorifying it, but rather acknowledging that he is both inside and outside this controversial environment. He also acknowledges its very real effects on both his creative and personal psyches – as he is trying to “find peace somewhere.”

Of course, all the subject matter of this record is not deeply autobiographical. In fact, some of my favourite songs are a partnering of great, unique-sounding beats with some more light-hearted topics. One is ‘Day N Night’, a song about a “lonely stoner” rapped to a really funky beat. Another good one is ‘Hyerr’, an unconventional slow-jam about a familiar first love –weed.

Considering this is his debut, Kid Cudi’s album has the stylistic sophistication and depth of meaning that is expected from someone more mature and experienced. This record reflects the potential for this genre of music to be so much more than what many of its ‘artists’ are lowering it to, and what many of its critics have come to expect –the overly-sexualised, highly violent and basically unintelligent crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator in not only subject matter, but audience alike. Kid Cudi’s album not only has great beats and doesn’t ‘dumb down’ its contents, it also realises a more intelligent audience who can appreciate the multi-layered character that hip hop/RnB music can be. [Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Cudi]

Revolutionary Road

This is one movie I can’t make up my mind about. I don’t like it and I don’t completely dislike it, but there’s something about it that is not letting me write it off as just another mediocre movie that I have nothing to say about. It’s been in the back of my mind for two weeks now.

The story behind ‘Revolutionary Road’ is different – something that hasn’t been explored before, that I know of. It follows the mundane and compromised life of an average 1950s suburban couple who had dreams of so much more. But due to, what seems to be the ubiquitous catalyst for compromise, the arrival of children, Frank and April Wheeler find themselves living the stereotyped American nuclear family story. As the suppressed housewife, April, played by Kate Winslet, devises a plan for the couple and their two children to move to Paris and live a more interesting and exciting life. Frank, Leonardo DiCaprio, reluctantly agrees and things seem to become more promising for the family, until the arrival of another compromise – April is expecting another baby. From here, the trappings of comfort, stability and a steady pay cheque become too tempting and secure for Frank to turn his back on, and so their hopes, again, are dashed. April quickly spirals into a well of depression, trapped and overwhelmed by the inescapability of her monotonous and sole-destroying situation.

Though it is an interesting concept to explore, the movie didn’t seem to delve far enough into the psyches of the characters in order for us to empathise with them. Particularly in the character of April, one wonders why she is so unhappy – more so than any housewife at the time may have been – and why she goes to such drastic measures to escape her miserable existence. Though it is entirely plausible for a woman to have felt as trapped and isolated as April did, the movie itself did not facilitate the psychological connection between her situation and her mindset. This is just one example in what I would call a dramatically ambiguous movie. It felt as though director Sam Mendes took the audience to a certain point in the sporadic and abruptly-arrived-at dramatic moments, but wasn’t able to take us all the way to the peak of these moments – something was definitely lacking.

And yet, there was still something about the movie which I found intriguing. Perhaps it is the steady downward spiral of April, or the parallel settlement into complacency that her husband takes as they both fail to take charge of the circumstances in which they find themselves. Or the way in which such a story has relevance and familiarity to many who still feel the pressures of family life and the continued compromises this demands.

This is why I can’t figure out this movie – its ambiguity has cast a shroud of indecision over my judgement. Perhaps if anyone else out there has seen it, and has more of a solid opinion, you can cast some light on this movie for me. [Image from http://reeldebate.wordpress.com/2009/10/]

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The movie ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is a case in point of how screenwriters will often take a classic story, written by one of the great storytellers of all time, and shat all over it in some feeble attempt at ‘revisionism’. In this case, the creators seem to have gone that one step further, and have revised Roald Dahl’s classic in the name of (post)modernising the story for a contemporary audience. Well it didn’t work. The postmodernising of the story which I refer to came in many forms, in fact, the movie was saturated with these ill-conceived notions of social commentary. From the weak existential moments, as Mr. Fox questions his fox-ness, to failed commentaries on consumer culture, and finally to the lame attempts at demonstrating swearing by replacing swear words with the word ‘Cuss’ – obviously some obnoxious comment on the amount of verbal violence in the media today – the whole film came off as nothing more than a try-hard pastiche, stripping the story of its original innocence.

In fact, it was insulting and uncomfortable to watch as one of my favourite childhood characters went from sly, clever but altogether loveable fox, to obnoxious, self-centred, and overly-ambitious for no other reason than self-gratification fox with Clooney’s voice. Even more vexing is the fact that way too many other scenarios/events/things in general were unnecessarily added to the story. The confusion caused by this was exacerbated by jerky camera work, too-quick dialogue, and an overall speed of unfolding action which doesn’t allow for the audience to have any time to actually empathise with the characters. This inevitably made them simply annoying and two dimensional.

I don’t understand why people will massacre such a great work. Obviously the original story is good, otherwise why would anyone get any funding to turn it into a film? So why, why would the same people who agree (and probably fight) to get the story retold on screen then turn around and, for lack of a better term, fuck with it? It makes no sense to me. And this time, it was extremely personal to me because, one, Roald Dahl is still one of my favourite authors, and two, ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ was one of my favourite childhood stories, I must have read it about five times. I’m probably not the only one who has such fond associations with this book, and hence I’m probably not the only one who is insulted, embittered and altogether pissed off at yet another Hollywood fail which has slaughtered another classic children’s story through some intellectually snobbish, yet altogether wrong, attempt at ‘revisionism’. For those of you who haven’t subjected your kids to this try-hard movie yet, don’t. Stick to the book, it’s way better.