Top 10 – Most Creative Cover Songs

Some may think that covering a song is unoriginal, too easy, and could be considered stealing. These Top 10 Most Creative Covers will prove them wrong. Although these songs have already been written and performed by other artists, they have been revamped into something distinctive, with new meaning and new life. They sound different, they feel different – they are new songs, fully included with creativity, innovation, and personal expression.

These songs aren’t listed in order by preference, but by which songs would sound good together if they were put on a playlist, in my opinion.

1. Grizzly Bear – He Hit Me (It Felt Like A Kiss)

Grizzly Bear – He Hit Me (not live)

This song was originally written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King, produced by Phil Spector, and recorded by The Crystals in 1962. But, it was made most famous when Hole, Courtney Love’s band, covered it on MTV Unplugged in 1995. The song was meant to be a critique of domestic violence, but The Crystals’ version almost makes it seem like an approval rather than a critique because of its upbeat manner. Hole’s punk rock version makes its irony more apparent, but it still lacks sympathy. Grizzly Bear transformed the song into what it was meant to become. It’s sad, it’s true, it’s brilliant. Listening to the song, I feel like Ed Droste (of Grizzly Bear) wrote and lived the song himself.

2. The Bad Plus – Lithium

This syncopated, jazz-tastic, seemingly chaotic (but very smart) cover ofNirvana‘s “Lithium” seems even more drug induced and psychotic than the original. The melody is just about the same, but the instrumentation is a whole new piece of art.

3. Muse – Feeling Good

“Feeling Good” is a standard performed by many artists since 1965. One of the most famous versions is by Nina Simone. Muse’s “Feeling Good” is probably the most popular version for our generation, different than all the others. It’s like jazz infused rock.

Another great version of this song is Wax Tailor‘s “How I Feel,” which includes samples of Nina Simone’s “Feeling Good.”

4. Ben Folds Five – Bitches Ain’t Shit

(the video has nothing to do with Ben Folds)

“Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks. Lick on these nuts and suck the dick. Let’s get the fuck out after you’re done, and I hops in my ride to make a quick run.” Wise words from Dr. Dre. But even Dr. Dre is not quite as gangster as Ben Folds. His version of this song is ironic, funny, and catchy. I find myself not being able to recite the lyrics of this song without Ben Folds Five’s melody attached to it.

5. CocoRosie – Turn Me On

(check out other live versions too, they’re all different)

I absolutely love this song. Its soulful and melancholic demeanor makes it a plea for affection as opposed to Kevin Lyttle‘s version which is more like a demand for sex. His song is appropriate for bumpin’ and grindin’ on the dance floor. CocoRosie’s song is good for chilling, smoking weed, and crying. These are obviously very different songs, although they have the same lyrics.

6. St. Vincent – These Days

This song was originally written by Jackson Brownewhen he was only 16 years old, but it was made most famous by Nico, a German singer who was known for her collaboration with The Velvet Underground and her association with Andy Warhol. While Nico’s “These Days” is a classic, St. Vincent seems to capture the sorrow best of her predecessors. She still has the same “upbeat fingerpicking electric-sounding-acoustic” guitar style that was used in Nico’s recording, but her somber, whispy vocals compliment it in a very deep and emotional way.

Mates of State also does a good cover of the song, but it didn’t make the list because I like St. Vincent’s better.

7. First Aid Kit – Tiger Mountain Peasant Song

First Aid Kit is a Swedish band made up of two sisters, ages 15 and 17. Fleet Foxes (link to a live version), the original artist, is one of my favorite bands, but I almost like this version better than the original. The girls of First Aid Kit’s voices blend so well together, that the harmonies they create sound so majestic. Plus, the echos from the forest are the perfect accent to the naturalistic quality of Fleet Fox’s songs.

8. Jose Gonzalez – Heartbeats

Jose Gonzalez – Heartbeats (not live)

This song is a cover of The Knife‘s “Heartbeats,” which is very dance-y, and gives you the feeling of being excited about love. Jose Gonzalez’s version makes you feel more love-drunk and romantic. He translates the song so beautifully on acoustic guitar, and adds so much to the atmosphere with his plush, subtle voice, it makes anyone who hears it swoon.

9. Nouvelle Vague – Love Will Tear Us Apart

Nouvelle Vague – Love Will Tear Us Apart (not live)

Joy Division‘s “Love Will Tear Us Apart” has been covered by many bands including The Cure and New Order, but I haven’t found a version that is as different as Nouvelle Vague’s. Their bossa nova, quaint rendition feels more intimate than Joy Division’s ironically upbeat song with happy music and dark lyrics and vocals. Both are good, but very different.

Jose Gonzalez also does his own version of this song.

10. Joshua Keever – Knife

(ignore the last 20 seconds of the video, i had to record this in my bathroom from my itunes)

Although Grizzly Bear‘s “Knife” is rather melancholy, it’s still a bit upbeat. This slowed down version seems more direct. Stripped down to the bare bones, it reveals deceit and heartbreak from a very personal level.

Josh is one of my good friends. He’s unsigned, but he’s a brilliant musician. Show this to your friends! Let’s get him known!

Bonus: Me and my friend Andrew covering Rihanna’s “Umbrella” at our high school talent show!

The Rise and Fall of the Pirate Bay

What is the Pirate Bay?

The LA times calls the Pirate Bay “One of the world’s largest facilitators of illegal downloading” (http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-ca-webscout29apr29,0,5609754.story). The Pirate Bay, is a bit torrent tracker site used to download audio, video, applications, and games.

The Pirate Bay does not host files like Napster but allows users to share them among one another by providing links to torrent files. BitTorrent, the technology used in file- sharing, can be used legally to distribute files with open licenses. So, the original creators of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde , Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Carl Lundston have attracted over 25 million users who enjoy exercising their right to the internet by getting these files for no charge.

The program was first launched in 2003 by the Piracy Bureau and even though it has run into battles with large music and movie industries, people continued to use it up until August of 2008 when it closed and prevented anyone from using the site to downloading anything.

The Pirate Bay-GUILTY

This website has had some controversy and has recently been shut down by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) who filed a criminal complaint and worked with Sweden and the US government to make sure the site became deactivated. The MPAA believes that The Pirate Bay not only assists in the illegal distribution of content but aids in making copyrighted material accessible.

The movie and music industries charged that the tracker listed links to thousands of copyrighted films, television programs, and songs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/17/pirate-bay-digital-media)

In a 2009 trial convicting the four creators with a year in prison and extreme fines, the trial’s focus was not on whether illegal content was distributed, but that “peer-to-peer file-sharing has become so main stream that it is now incorporated into sharing of copyrighted materials” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/17/pirate-bay-digital-media).

Pirate Politics

Since the verdict created a boom in support for the Swedish Pirate Party which became the third largest political party in the country (in terms of membership), it has been said that the two judges were biased in their conviction. Still, the Party strives to reform laws regarding copyright and patents. The agenda also includes support for a strengthening of the right to privacy, both on the Internet and in everyday life, and the transparency of state administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party).

With such an agenda and great support, the Pirate Party was able to secure a seat in the European Parliament election weighing about seven percent of the Swedish vote. This isn’t significant but the fact that this party is solely based on web piracy proves to the government that there needs to be a better solution to the copyright wars and illegal downloading lawsuits.

Will there ever be an end to free file sharing?

This is a good question. With programs such as The Pirate Bay having servers in many other countries, it is unlikely that there will be an impact on illegal downloading or peer to peer file sharing. The Pirate Bay was the largest BitTorrent tracker, but there are so many other websites and programs which allow anyone to access free material as well.

As Napster gave rise to decentralized file-sharing, this will lead to even more de-centralized methods that are harder for authorities to track, and file-sharers will become more adept at hiding their activities” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/17/pirate-bay-digital-media).

Also, how-to guides on downloading free music are widely available.

Reasons for Piracy

Recent generations have always had to pay for their movies and music, yet with the advancement of the internet and such programs as The Pirate Bay, Napster, Limewire, Mojo, etc, it became possible to download these files for free. Kids especially find it unnecessary to buy cds or dvds in physical form when everything is available digitally.

We [kids] all copy music and download movies because the chances of them cracking down on us specifically are slim (http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Piracy_among_Digital_Natives).

Also, illegally downloading is popular as it is a method of self expression, and a money and time saver. The weak repercussions and anonymity are perks as well.

Twenty-six percent also view file stealing as a victimless crime, saying it ‘doesn’t hurt anybody’ (http://www.digitalnative.org/wiki/Piracy_among_Digital_Natives)

Since people think illegal downloading isn’t personally affecting them in a negative way, it will continue to happen. Hence, the mindset of the people illegally downloading must change before any progress can be made. People don’t care to realize that illegal downloading has been a huge problem for music industries and record companies who have lost tons of revenue. Hence, a new alternative method to stop people from illegally downloading should be proposed. Whether this method will work is at the disgression of the public.

A Copyright Bonanza

Over the past few decades issues with copyright infringement have continued to rise, and while corporations sue more people and the government continues to create laws against it, the amount of copyright violations continue to rise.

The availability of shared media has become more and more available to the public and easily accessible. Thanks to sites like Limewire, Pirate Bay, Napster, and Vuze, people will never have to worry about going out and purchasing the media themself. The risks outweighed the cost, and while millions of people are downloading a day only a handful of them get caught. The highest amount of illegally downloaded songs come from top artists, and yet it does not look like their lifestyles have been impacted too much, making it harder for the downloaders to understand why it is so harmful to the artists. Even if these sites are being shut down, hundreds of new ones keeping popping up all over the place. To stop file sharing and copyright infringement is nearly, if not entirely, impossible.

Remixing is a large grey area in copyright, and can be construed many different ways. Artists like Girl Talk are completely based off of taking other artists’ music and mixing them all together to make their own music. What about Whitney Houston? One of her song’s she is most famous for, I Will Always Love You, was originally sang by Dolly Parton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Will_Always_Love_You Or when Alien Ant Farm redid Michael Jackson’s Smooth Criminal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_Criminal#Alien_Ant_Farm_cover While they might have been paying tribute to these artists, are the ones redoing their music now not having the same motive? If the music they wrote inspires them enough to want to remake it, then why is it so different from what the other highly paid artists are doing?  Creating new media is nearly impossible, and some, like Lawrence Lessig, believe it is stunting our creativity. (Start the video at 3:06)

The United Kingdom has started taking steps towards controlling copyright by going as far as completely removing the internet from the house where violator lives. Punishing even those who took no part in the illegality of the crime.

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.htm

My top 10 list of some of the most recent and most absurd lawsuits against copyright infringement

 

1. “Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million;…”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars

2. “The music industry has turned its big legal guns on Internet music-swappers — including a 12-year-old New York City girl who thought downloading songs was fun;…”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96797,00.html

3. “A federal jury today ordered a Boston University graduate student to pay four record labels $675,000 in damages for illegally downloading 30 songs and sharing them online, in only the second such lawsuit to go to trial;…”

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/judge_rules_aga_1.html

4. “Universal’s lawyers insist to this day that sharing this home movie is willful copyright infringement under the laws of the United States. On their view of the law, she is liable to a fine of up to $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of Holden dancing;…”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html

5. “A pub owner has been fined £8,000 because someone unlawfully downloaded copyrighted material over their open Wi-Fi hotspot;…”

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39909136,00.htm

6. “…Coshocton, OH, a small town with free and open municipal wifi. A single movie was downloaded illegally using this wifi network – and the MPAA shut it down entirely;…”

http://www.osnews.com/story/22489/MPAA_Shuts_Down_Municipal_WiFi_Due_to_Single_Illegal_Download

7. “In August 2007, 13 takedown notices were sent to the University of Washington demanding them to stop pirating music…several of the machines accused of pirating music were actually laser printers connected to the school’s network;…”

http://local.yodle.com/articles/the-riaa-is-evil-most-outrageous-recording-industry-lawsuits

8. “83-year old grandmother Gertrude Walton from Virginia who died months before the lawsuit was filed in 2005 accusing her of illegally sharing up to 700 songs over the internet;…”

http://local.yodle.com/articles/the-riaa-is-evil-most-outrageous-recording-industry-lawsuits

9. “…A sick teenage girl suffering from pancreatitis who’s regularly hospitalized and needs a cell transplant or she faces death…and you come across another bill – except this one isn’t from the hospital, it’s from the RIAA demanding thousands of dollars in fines;…”

http://local.yodle.com/articles/the-riaa-is-evil-most-outrageous-recording-industry-lawsuits

10. “…a single mother of two – stands liable for $222,000 in damages after allegedly sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa P2P network;…”

http://compnetworking.about.com/b/2007/10/05/woman-loses-a-222000-p2p-file-sharing-lawsuit.htm

Top 6 examples of Media Influence on Race and Politics in the Obama era

The Reverend Wright Controversy

Society’s appetite for information, especially from media sources, has been fed by the constant exaggeration and unnecessary coverage of certain news topics. The media’s method of reporting news has opened the door for personal opinions to be shared but has also raised questions regarding the involvement of race, particularly the presence of racism, in political issues. For example, in March 2008, President Barack Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the target of all news stations after a past sermon of his was leaked to ABC news.

Background

The Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is a predominantly black church where the influence of Black Liberation Theology is very strong. Rev. Wright’s firm belief in this theology is expressed through his sermons where he encourages his congregation to uplift themselves in a racially divided America. FOX news quickly aired a clip from one of his past sermons where he spoke out rightly against the white race in America and continuously showed it on every news show they had. Their aim in doing this could be seen as informative, but for a news station to repeat the topic everyday for over a month is quite ridiculous. Informing the viewers was certainly not their aim, but provoking anger is what I believe their primary focus was. It’s so sad how subtle these efforts can be made, but if you read between the lines, you will see that many news stations have made this attempt on numerous occasions.

The Sermon

The above video is a clip from Reverend Wright’s sermon that FOX news and other stations used daily in their reporting. This one in particular is from the FOX network who hammered the Obama presidential campaign when this issue arose. They somehow tried to connect Wright’s sermons as being a part of what they believed Barack Obama’s goal was in making America better for minorities (the black race mainly). It is ironic how in this video Rev. Wright says, “Jesus never let their hatred dampen his hope,” because the hatred that stemmed from the constant circulation of this video never changed his focus of preaching what he considered the truth about racism in America to whomever listened.

The image above was created after the issue began to sink deep in the minds of many Americans. Does this not look like a step backward? I certainly believe that this picture is evidence of the presence of racism in America. The fact that they target a ‘black’ man because of his ‘anti-American’ beliefs raises the question of why don’t they target the ‘white’ men who are apart of the KKK?

During the middle of a presidential election, media sources were focusing one man’s sermon from years earlier that had no direct connection to Obama. I found this very bothersome because it now seems that our political news anchors focus on sensationalizing news instead of reporting it and helping viewers to understand what is truly going on. For a whole month, this man’s sermon was the main topic of any interview show dealing with politics. A few examples are shown below of various political talk shows on CNN, MSNBC and FOX all reflecting on the Reverend Wright issue.

1. Chris Wallace addresses Rev. Wright and attacks Obama

In this interview the topic of Rev. Wright is the main focus as Senator Chris Dodd and Chris Wallace discussed the issue of the division in America.

2. The flip-flopping of Chris Matthews on the Reverend Wright case

In the video below, Chris Matthews smacks down the comment of a guest pundit when he makes reference to the Rev. Wright issue in an inappropriate context, but this article discusses the episode in which Matthews refers to Obama and Wright as being ‘different faces of the same guy.’ Did his own actions backfire on him? This is a perfect example of what happens on these talk shows as hosts exaggerate topics to the point where, weeks later, guests on their show are still intrigued by it.

3. Conservative Reverend Huckabee on MSNBC discussing the Rev. Wright case

In this interview Huckabee defends Barack Obama in the Rev. Wright case and explains that you cannot hold candidates responsible for “things people around them may do.” Politics should never be solely based on people a candidate associated themselves with, so it makes me wonder why the American political sphere has adapted this method? It doesn’t seem as if Americans are grasping a true connection to their politicians, but rather an addiction to the news that lingers after being overemphasized for so long.

4. Howard Kurtz prefers to discuss the Wright issue

Here we have CNN news anchor Howard Kurtz, discussing the Wright case, but only giving a few minutes to touch on John McCain’s endorsement from other controversial pastors. Again, I question whether it is because of his race, why Reverend Wright has received as much attention compared to other public figures who can be placed in the same category?

5. Anderson Cooper’s focus on the facts in the Rev. Wright case

In a brave attempt, Anderson Cooper, a CNN news anchor, provides his own theory on the Reverend Wright issue stating that “Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.”

6. Jon Stewart critiques media focus on Reverend Wright

Jon Stewart also touches on the issue of the media focusing on Wright instead of the political candidates on his show. He commented on Obama’s speech addressing the Wright issue, saying “… understanding of his context, the media reluctantly backed away. …[T]he controversy was lingering on their mouths.” It seems as if it is a common act for media to use stories out of context to satisfy their own attempt to have more viewers. Therefore, it is fitting to say that deception is what really captures the interest of viewers, rather than the truth.

Race in the Political World of America

Politics in America seems to now be focused on the petty things, such as silly comments or jokes by politicians or what people who are close to politicians are doing. Yes, I can understand that anyone would be concerned that a preacher is expressing hate speech in his church, but the magnitude to which it was exaggerated really makes me wonder what is important in the eyes of this country. Is it a true fact that people were offended by what he was saying, or was it because he is a black man who had a connection with another black man who was running to become the leader of this nation? I honestly believe it is absolutely a racial problem. I don’t see anyone complaining or discussing the KKK that is still very present in 2008. The Jena Six case was not as discussed as Wright’s case. I wonder why? Perhaps for people to show an interest, black individuals would always have to be portrayed negatively.

Why did it have to take Jeremiah Wright’s sermon for news anchors to show an interest in Black Liberation Theology? In these two links, news anchors from CNN and FOX take a deeper look into the Black Liberation Theology which influenced Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Why did Wright’s sermon have to be a decisive factor in whether American’s believed Obama was capable of being their leader? What about his running mate, John McCain’s, constant false accusations of Obama being a terrorist? Not many people called that an act of racism, but it most certainly can be placed in that category.

The problem today is that we are afraid to point out the problems in our society, and they linger until something like Rev. Wright comes along and we point fingers at the minority. My suggestion is to take a look at the world around us, acknowledge that WE THE PEOPLE can make a change and step up to take that opportunity so that we can make a better tomorrow.

So often we are reminded that racism was a flaw of the ‘past’ that has been fixed. We think of 2008 and there is no possible way racism could be ‘present’ in a nation that elected a black man as president. The fact that Americans recognized a black person as being qualified to run their country should be enough to convince anyone that racism is non-existent. 2008 seemed to become the era of living proof to the rest of the world that America embraced equality.

The common quote, never judge a book by its cover is most suiting for this issue that America has pretended to face. At first glance, anyone in their right mind would think that equality flowed throughout America, but looking deep into the core of this nation, you will see that Americans’ values are intertwined with their political beliefs. If anyone was to watch American political news shows on CNN, MSNBC or FOX, they would begin to question themselves on what America truly considers racism to be. These news shows are one of the main sources of political information for millions of Americans and if they don’t know anything else, Americans can tell you what they heard on AC 360 last night. The more informed citizens are, the less likely they are to think in a racist manner right? After all, lack of knowledge is thought to be the reason racism existed in the first place.

Sadly, these news stations reveal the ugly side of American politics and values and they entertain the game of playing the race card.

High Fidelity “Spins” Out More Than Your Average Romantic Comedy

John Cusack and Director Stephen Frears move past the clichés of  the “Chick Flick,” as High Fidelity packs itself with intelligent dialogue, witty conversation and the upper class of “vinyl” appreciation.

Movie Review: High Fidelity (2002) by: Zach Hughes

“Did I listen to pop music because i was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?” Rob Gordan (Cusack) exclaims as the movie begins. Heartbreak, misery, love-lost and self loathing seem to characterize Rob, the overly critical, narcissist, who owns Chicago’s Championship Vinyl. His pervasive attempts to analyze the qualities that lead to a reoccurring pattern of what he believes is “rejection”, form a character not only relatable to the common male but a spectacle for the unfulfilled young adult. Rob, plagued by a series of bad breakups, has immersed himself in a type of self loathing that is surprisingly appealing. He finds himself lacking in the commitment and goal-oriented ares of his life needed to carry out a successful relationship, and his quest for understanding leads way to a highly comical and genuine film.

We are first introduced to Ron during the conclusion of his latest relationship, which becomes the apex over which the film is directed. His girlfriend (or more correctly ex-girlfriend) Laura (Iben Hjejle), is seen in a state of discontent; tired of Robs lack of ambition and is overall incompatibility with adult life. Laura describes how his failure to acknowledge the future and changes that come with it, make him a poor prospect for a lifetime partner. This break up leads Rob to project a “Top 5 All Time Break-up” list which he recounts in vivid detail, describing how each girl came to exist at a different point in his life and possessed specific qualities that he found so appealing, explaining his ironic failure to make the relationships last.

This theme of list making is a reoccuring feature in the film,  labeling Rob and his two friends/employees as chronic “Listers”. This covert sentimental feature is a time for Rob to convey his personal thoughts and express realistic emotion (which often includes a comical sarcasm), propelling him towards his final maturation. Another aspect the film uses excellently is Rob’s narration directly to the audience. Director Frears had the right idea when it came to transforming High Fidelity from a novel into a feature film because of the sincerity needed to convey Rob’s character.

Film Critic Kenneth Turan states,

Rob, using either voice-over or direct talk to the camera, who preserves the book’s first-person quality as well as chunks of its dialogue. “High Fidelity” presents him as someone who’s his own worst enemy, a tortured and grumpy eternal adolescent who doesn’t have to hide his weakness for being a real jerk to gain our sympathy.

As the film progresses, we are introduced to Rob’s employees and friends who seem to take up the extremes of the male stereotype selection. DIck (Todd Louiso), who is an overly sensitive, soft spoken man contrasts with Barry (Jack Black), who is boisterous, critical and humorously sarcastic. Together Rob, Barry and Dick  form a cult of musical genius (or so they believe), giving way to an informal high society not understood in traditional terms. They possess a subtle disdain for those interpreted to be unintelligent and unknowledgeable in what they consider “good music”, and have no reservations when calling out customers on their poor tastes. This regime of musical overlords presents a comical view of the bitterness presented in Rob, and how it translates to his love life. The profuse amount of music in the film both diegetic and non-diegetic, pairs directly with the emotions and experiences taking place in each scene, giving the film another angle of complexity and making it that much more enjoyable.

Rob’s hunt for information regarding his troubled relationships lead him to contact the woman that comprise his top 4 breakup list. His meetings with these past girlfriends begin to dispel his fears that it is solely him responsible for the relationship demise he is all too familiar with. But when Rob is informed about Laura’s new love interest Ian (Tim Robbins), his disdain turns to desperation as he longs to rekindle his relationship with Laura. Ian proves to be the opposite of Rob, as he portrays himself as mellow, neo-beatnick sort of guy showing no deep emotion or dialogue. He does offer an extremely comical look at the minds of angry men as Rob imagines Barry, Dick and himself beating the living shit out of Ian, during a confrontation in the Record store.

The film overall lays way to the question, “Will Rob get Laura back?”, which is truly unanswerable until the end of the movie. Rob in a sense has become more proactive in his approach towards the future and with his promotion of an upcoming band he seems to be headed in the right direction. When Rob and Laura finally reunite after her fathers death, an uncertainty still remains due to Rob’s very nature. He seems destined for failure when another woman enters the picture, but his new found understanding of life and love has given him the distinction between fantasy and reality. Rob is a model for a demographic of men, feeling unsatisfied due to uncertainty that comes with relationships, but learns how to mature into adulthood, pleading the idea “you don’t know what you’ve got, until it’s gone.”

Peter Rainer of the New York Times says it best:

High Fidelity is the rare comedy that gets inside the ways men try to make sense of themselves, and it does so without special pleading. It’s a sweet, raffish entertainment, blessedly free of baloney.

For more sources and reviews on High Fidelity check the links below:

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie000330-56,0,49246.story

http://nymag.com/nymetro/movies/reviews/2631/

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117778809.html?categoryid=31&cs=1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/09/22/DD87841.DTL

PICS: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146882/mediaindex

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=high+fidelity&search_type=&aq=f

A Cube Divided Into Many More: Office Space (1999)

Office Space’s Vision of the Contemporary Workplace

Office Space, a film written and directed by Mike Judge, is a “sharp satire of the stale, numbing existence of the American office drone” (Rob Blackwelder).

The film stars Ron Livingston as Peter Gibbons, a frustrated computer programmer at Initech.  Alongside Peter is Joanna (Jennifer Aniston), a waitress at Chotchkie’s who is also unsatisfied with her job.  Together, these two characters establish the film’s theme: the corporate world is dehumanizing.  Peter Gibbons says it best when he says, “Human beings were not meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day.”

To begin, Peter’s distinguishing attitudes toward Initech are ones of indifference and disgust, which are perfectly exemplified by his expression in the image above.  His negative attitude toward the company is one of the reasons for why he is unmotivated.  Additionally, he detests his boss, Bill Lumbergh, played by Gary Cole, who constantly asks him to work on the weekend, turn in TPS reports, and put new cover sheets on these reports.

As a result of these annoyances and an experience with a hypnotherapist, Peter eventually decides that he will stop going to work.  He is going to fulfill his dream of “doing nothing,” which is the point in the film that Peter takes control of his life.  Peter can keep working at Initech, being unsatisfied, or he can break away from the corporate world, which he feels has dehumanized him and his friends.

He chooses the latter option and starts loving his life.  One of the first things he does, which is both symbolic of his dislike for the corporate world and a slap in the face to Initech, is to take his two friends Samir and the humorously named Michael Bolton to destroy the printer from Initech.

Phil Villareal responds to the scene:

Who wouldn’t love to march the copy machine into a field and go to town on it with a baseball bat?

After completely abandoning the company, Peter goes fishing and takes Joanna out to eat;  they watch Kung Fu and start a relationship.  In many ways, Joanna is a parallel character to Peter.

Joanna’s distinguishing attitudes toward her job and boss are ones of dislike and frustration.  Her boss, Stan, always wants her to wear more “flare,” which are pieces that allow their workers to express themselves.  The minimum amount of flare required is fifteen pieces, but Joanna is constantly told that she is doing the bare minimum when she comes to work wearing only fifteen pieces, as opposed to her coworker Brian who wears thirty-seven pieces of flare.

In the image above, Stan is telling Joanna that she is not expressing herself adequately.  She eventually blows up and flips off Stan and the customers, resulting in the loss of her job at Chotchkie’s.  Joanna was tired of the control her boss had over her and felt better off being without a job than having one at Chotchkie’s, which brings us to the connection between Joanna and Peter.

Both Joanna and Peter start out the film at the bottom of corporate ladders.  Through their disgust for their respective companies and bosses, they muster up the courage to quit their jobs, which leads to them living happier lives.  Peter becomes a construction worker; Joanna works at the restaurant next door. The film insinuates that breaking away from the corporate world leads to being happier since both Peter and Joanna end up being happier at the end of the film.

Office Space takes this theme to an extreme: the film does not merely suggest stepping away from the corporate world; instead, Milton, a fed-up employee at Initech, burns down Initech.  He also ends up a happier person: he gets over $300,000 and ends up in paradise.  All in all, the film criticizes corporations as inhumane organizations and challenges people to step away from the corporate lifestyle.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Space

http://www.flixster.com/photos/office-space-wheres-my-stapler–12126891?gallery=movie-13020

http://azstarnet.com/sn/accent/121411

http://splicedwire.com/99reviews/officespace.html

MyDD :: Undoing Reagan – Restoring the California Dream

Ronald Reagan launched his political career in 1966 in his run for the governorship in California by targeting UC Berkeley’s student peace activists, its professors, and, to a great extent, the University of California itself. His oft-repeated mantra was “to clean up the mess at Berkeley.” In the end, he destroyed what was one of the great equalizers in California’s meritocracy. Under Reagan began our shift from education as a right to education as a privilege for the wealthy or as an investment for the rest of us.

… He proposed deep across budget cuts for the system and cavalierly suggested that Berkeley sell its collections of rare books in the Bancroft Library and hold bake sales in Sproul Plaza. He repeated Milton Friedman’s views whenever and wherever he could: “Individuals should bear the costs of investments in themselves and receive the rewards.”

“The state should not subsidized intellectual curiosity” declared Reagan when he finally ended a century-long state policy of free tuition in what has long been the nation’s crown jewel of public universities. Founded in 1868 as a city of learning, the University of California was free for all. Today tuition runs $9,748 for in-state residents. Total cost runs over $28,000. And it is about to go up significantly effectively ending the American dream for tens of thousands who will be priced out of the nation’s largest higher education system. For the 2010-2011 academic year, tuition will rise by 32 percent.

via MyDD :: Undoing Reagan – Restoring the California Dream.

This is the argument against public funding of the UC made by Reagan in the 1960s.  Can you inagine that the UC originally had free tuition?

How do you argue against the idea that individuals should pay for investments in their own future (i.e., their careers)?

uc budget crisis: Catherine Cole

The New Public Domain – At Public Universities – Less for More – NYTimes.com

This NYT article published after our class started should be required reading.  It provides an excellent overview of the position of the universities and the trend towards privatization, the replacement of public funds by private, and the consequences thereof.  Read the whole thing.

Public universities have historically been underpriced: average in-state tuition is $7,020 this year. A re-evaluation had to happen, says David E. Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, because the benefit has been to higher income families. “You can’t justify that subsidy for wealthier students,” he says. The trend, accelerated by the economic shakeup, is from cheap to what he calls “moderate” tuition rates, at least by private-school standards.

Mr. Shulenburger sees the tuition increases as part of a larger movement toward privatization of the most desirable flagships. With state contributions largely flat or down over the last 15 years, and enrollments and costs up, many top flagships are turning to nonpublic sources for money and, in some cases, accepting larger numbers of out-of-state students, who often pay twice the tuition of residents.

At the same time, applications are pouring in from students shut out by the stratospheric cost of private colleges. That’s generally a good thing. Flagships are attracting more wealthy and better-prepared students. Yet as the counterargument goes, a flagship’s traditional mission is to educate its own, especially a state’s low- and middle-income students. The evolution under way is putting some flagships out of reach for the students who were typically enrolled even a decade ago. Each year, the quality of students as well as the budget model skews closer to that of elite private universities.

via The New Public Domain – At Public Universities – Less for More – NYTimes.com.

So does it make sense for the state to subsidize tuitions for public universities when this mainly helps the upper middle class students who are more likely to attend college anyway?  But of course, when tuition is raised, and more out-of-state students attend, it’s the lower income students, and lower middle class students, who are disproportionately hurt.

Later in the article, the point is made that out of state University of Michigan students pay more than Princeton students.

This point is also a good one:

Public universities have assets that privates do not. They offer powerhouse sports programs, bustling campuses and more diverse student bodies.

This “public” experience of the university that attracts many students, why shouldn’t the state expect students and their families to pay more for it?

Blue Gal: Let me explain “rationing” to the teabaggers.

 

 

[Photoshopped their sign just a lil’ bit. Original here.]

…

There were about 250 parents and kids there in the crowded auditorium, being sold on the idea of applying to this magnet school. It’s like selling water in the desert. Five hundred fifth-graders are expected to apply for approximately 100 available spots in this school. The sales pitch was completely unnecessary except to provide some eighth-graders with some public speaking “enrichment”.

And we all sat there like sheep. No one shouted out in rage that the other option, one many of us fear and four out of five of us will be forced to consider, is sending our kids to the assigned residential school for our address. You know, the MIDDLE school that gets occasional good reviews because the SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES that roam the hall are really nice people.

That access to decent public education, right here in our own community, is rationed by a completely arbitrary lottery.

via Blue Gal: Let me explain “rationing” to the teabaggers..

What do you think she means that access to quality education is “rationed”?  Is there a parallel with the health care debate, here?