Q: Does Helmet Rock? A: Boy, Do They!

The band Helmet, formed in New York in 1989, and reformed in 2005 after an eight year absence, played a high-octane show at Eugene's WOW Hall last Wednesday. Leader Page Hamilton showed why his band has been so widely influential, and proved that he can still give a blistering performance.

Helmet is the foundation of post-hardcore, as if punk bands decided to play metal. The funny thing about Mr. Hamilton, is he has a Master's degree in jazz performance. He hadn't really listened to rock for years before he started Helmet. And even today, he says only 20% of what he listens to is rock. Given all this, it's amazing he's so good at it. But then, multiple influences are always beneficial, I think.

If Helmet has always been consistent musically, their lineup has not been. For some bands that works; I think Helmet is one of them. Page's top down management of the band's sound requires musicians who are capable of the odd rhythmic patterns in the music, and people who can project the power of the music. It doesn't really require any individual expression on the part of the musicians. Therefore, much like a symphony orchestra, you find capable, like minded players, and the leader's vision can prevail.

All this brilliance was in evidence at the WOW. Helmet tore through a set that included some new songs, from both the newest release, Monochrome, and their comeback album, Size Matters, but also plenty of old songs to please the hardcore fan. The raw energy of the music was well communicated through the sound system. The volume was perfect, and the head bangin' flowed like water.

For all the anger that comes through in his music, on stage Page was very friendly and down to earth. His hometown is Medford, and fittingly, his parents were in attendance. It was kind of odd, to see these septo/octogenatians at this kind of show, but also touching. Page attended the U of O for his undergrad, and he gave some shout-outs, including the revelation that the first gig of his career was at the Saturday Market!

As much as I enjoyed Helmet's set, the openers were less than impressive. The first slot went to Page's brother's band, Fluid, which I missed. For all I know, they were brilliant (but I kinda doubt it). The second band, a local outfit called On the First Day They Were Kittens, or some such garbage, were loud but uninteresting. Second billed were the Dub Trio, also very loud, slightly more interesting, but ultimately kind of boring. Nevertheless, well worth the price of admission for the headlining act.

If you want to see heavy rock at its finest and most pure, check out Helmet.

Required Viewing: No End in Sight

Charles Ferguson's documentary No End in Sight details the gross incompetence pervading the management of the Iraq war by the Bush administration. It's a sobering account, but one that I think everyone should see. This is, after all, our government, and we should be informed as to what can happen when we don't keep a watchful eye.

Writer/director/producer Ferguson is not a filmmaker or journalist by trade. He is an MIT educated political scientist, and has been a consultant to the White House and the Pentagon, among others. He was originally a supporter of the war. In other words, he is no Michael Moore.

Nor are his interview subjects left-wing activists, anti-war types, or "Bush haters". They are people directly involved with the Administration and the war, including military and civilian leaders on the ground in Iraq, career analysts, and officials as high up as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The picture these people paint is staggering in what it reveals about the administration's naivete, incompetence, fantastic beliefs, and above all, an unwillingness to even hear anything that didn't fit into its narrow, impossible vision. Nothing is really new, but the presentation, the credibility of the interviewees, and the lack of sensationalism make for a comprehensive account of the myriad (and avoidable) errors perpetrated by Bush and co., which is simply stunning in the breadth of the consequences.

The film's assertion that this debacle of a war was pursued by a tiny group of policy makers (which may or may not have included the president), with no military experience, shunning the advice of those who did, is deeply disheartening. It's almost impossible to comprehend the damage done by a few ill-informed, ideologically driven people. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Condoleezza Rice have seriously undermined democracy, rule of law, and national security, and the consequences of their (and our) misadventure in Iraq will be felt for a long time.

Inland Empire: A Masterpiece

"A Woman in Trouble". That's the tagline for Inland Empire, and all writer/director David Lynch would say about the movie during production. Lynch is famous for saying little about his bizarrely complex creations. He feels viewers should be left alone to figure it out for themselves. Boy, do we have our work cut out for us here.

To say what this movie is "about" would be to mislead. This movie can be experienced on many levels; the one to start with is the raw, emotional one.

Art exists, at least in part, to communicate emotions that can't be articulated. The images and raw power of this film communicate something deep that goes beyond words. It's often terrifying, but always moving.

Music, as always, is important. Rather than rely on longtime collaborator Angelo Badalamenti, Lynch instead chooses music from Polish composer Krzysztov Penderecki (many scenes take place in Poland, with Polish actors, speaking Polish). The soundtrack is rounded out by Lynch's typically impeccable popular choices.

The story, such as it is, focusses on Nikki Grace, an actress playing the part of Sue Blue in director Kingsley's (Jeremy Irons) new movie. Justin Theroux plays co-lead Devon, who in turn plays Billy. The line between character and actor, fact and fiction blurs, and Nikki/Sue is in for a ride, along with the audience.

David Lynch has always dealt in the surreal, and this film is the epitome (so far) of his exploration of this aesthetic. The most blatant example is a "sitcom" involving people wearing rabbit heads and speaking in non-sequiters (former Lynch collaborators Laura Harring and Naomi Watts , along with Scott Coffey provide voices).

What else can be said? This movie exists on so many levels simultaneously, reflected in the characters' experience of multiple times at once, the blurring of actor and character, almost Joycean in its multiple levels and profound character representations. This is a film to be experienced, not watched, and multilple times.

And what of Laura Dern (the "Woman in Trouble")? A talented actor throughout her career, this is her tour de force. If she does not get an Oscar nomination for this role, it will be a crime. Utterly brilliant, a perfect creation of conceiver (Lynch), and performer (Dern).

This movie is probably not for everyone. There are many disturbing elements, and let's face it; three hours of wondering what the heck is going on may not be everyone's idea of a good time. But for those who take the plunge, a unique and rewarding experience awaits.

Still not convinced? Check out my man Roger Ebert. Keep in mind, he hasn't always been a Lynch fan.

Superbad=Superfunny

The movie Superbad, written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, is another vulgar yet hilarious comedy in the vein of Knocked Up (in which Rogen stars). I say another, but that implies movies like this are a dime a dozen, which they are not. To make a movie with this subject matter (high school boys trying to score liquor and get laid) both smart and funny takes talent, which Rogen, Goldberg, and director Greg Mottola have in abundance.

Rogen and Goldberg are former high school buddies, who apparently started work on this idea back in high school. While it is certainly not an attempt to tell a "true story", their experiences in high school together undoubtedly influenced the film.

The story involves best friends Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill and Michael Cera) during their senior year. They've spent virtually all their time with each other. No parties, no girlfriends... their best hope is to rag on the only guy geekier than themselves. The lifelong codependents have just learned they'll be going to different colleges next year (Evan got into Dartmouth; Seth didn't). They decide they need to experience a big blow out party, with the hopeful conclusion involving the loss of their virginity.

The oppurtunity to accomplish this comes when Jules (Emma Stone) tells Seth about a party she's having, but indicates she needs alcohol. Seth gladly offers his services as the possesor of a fake ID. Actually, aforementioned uber-nerd Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the one with the fake ID. Hence Seth, Evan and necessary collaborator Fogell set out to acquire liquor for the party as if their lives depended on it.

Of course, things do not go as planned. The rest of the night sees the boys meeting a series of challenges on the way to their goal. They meet many characters on their way, and the funniest are two out of control cops, played by Bill Hader and writer Seth Rogen. A classic running joke has to do with the fact that Fogell's fake ID simply reads, "McLovin".

Of course, this being a good hearted movie, by the end the boys realize that being some girl's "regret guy" is not something to shoot for. More specifically, Seth learns a lesson, and Evan confirms what he already knows.

All in all, a sweet but vulgar, hilarious but touching (sort of), and ultimately successful movie. If you can stand the language, I highly recommend it!

PS I have no idea why the paragraph breaks don't work like I want 'em to. I apologize for any inconvenience, and if anyone knows how to make it work, let me know!

Gonzales Resigns!

What can I say, I'm stunned by this news. After all the clamor and all calls for his resigntion had finally died down, and we'd moved on to other issues, why now? I don't know, but I do know that his resignation is proper.

This country operates (or should) based on the principle of rule of law. What does this mean? Does it mean that executive branch officers behave as automatons? No. Is it acceptable for a President to expect U.S. Attorneys to share (or operate as if they share) the priorities of the Whie House? Yes.

So what's the problem?

The problem is, while the President and/or Attorney General theoretically have the right to fire any U.S. Attorney at at any time for any reason, there is still at least one way that such action can be criminal: if it constitutes obstruction of justice.

Although it has been pointed out that there is no hard evidence that such crimes took place, the circumstantial evidence is compelling. New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici places call to U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Domenici pressures Iglesias to more aggressively pursue investigations against Democrats ahead of the election. Iglesias resists said pressure. He is fired.

On the other side, Carol Lam, a U.S. Attorney in California, puts Randy "Duke " Cunningham, a corrupt Republican Congressman in jail, and is rewarded by...wait for it...by being fired.

This kind of circumstantial evidence is hardly enough to convict, but that's not that the point. Combined with the AG's highly suspect testimony to Congress (and of course, lying to Congress is a felony), quite enough reasonable doubt exists to cast doubt on DOJ's ability to carry out its primary mission: enforcement of the law.

So was Mr Gonzales the victim of a political smear campaign, as President Bush says? It seems highly unlikely that he would resign if that were true; consider all the guilty politicians who have refused to resign in similar situations. And of course we know they have been quietly preparing for this for some time. Then there's the adage that the truth lies somewhere between the two sides. In this case, the two sides both come down on the side of Mr Gonzales being untrustworthy and incompetent. The difference is only in degrees.

The bottom line is this administration has, from the very beginning engaged in an intense campaign to improperly politicize all levels of the executive branch, from making up their own science to firing anyone who disagrees with their inane ideas. They might be starting to realize that there is only so far you can push. Americans aren't the sheep the Bushies believed them to be.

Knocked Up: Seriously Funny

Romantic comedies, like most other genre films, are usually good at best; rarely are they great. One problem is that if the romance is to be taken seriously, the movie has to occasionally be, well, serious. This of course can detract from the comedy, as well as having potential pitfalls of its own. We're not talking serious drama here, which leads all too easily to a finger-in-the-throat reaction. The comedy, for its part, can all too easily exhaust its potential for premise-based jokes, and either succumb to stupidity, or disappear entirely.

Judd Apatow's second film, Knocked Up, is that rare mix of gut-busting humor and touching-but-not-saccharine light drama which is often attempted and so rarely acheived. Much like his first film, The 40 Year Old Virgin, the idea for which should have led to a disaster but instead it was brilliant, this film shows writer/director Apatow's skill in dealing with unusual subjects, which could easily be one-joke movies, or unfunny sap-fests. Instead, in Apatow's hands, they become original, funny, and real. In short, this is a contemporary classic in the romantic comedy genre.

The film stars Seth Rogen as Ben Stone, a slacker-stoner whose greatest ambition is to launch a website detailing the exact time any given actress gets nude in any given movie. Nevertheless, he's a good-hearted, caring individual, who is of course capable of redeeming himself. Rogen, an Apatow regular, has always had an immensely likable on-screen charm, and delivers a wonderful performance in his starring role debut. He's consistently funny (and vulgar), but also convincing as the nice-guy-who-never-gets-the-girl type.

Katherine Heigl plays Alison Scott, an up and comer in entertainment media. She is smart, succesful, ambitious, responsible, and good-looking. She is out of Ben's league. And yet they meet. And talk. And have sex.

The next day, Alison clearly feels that she has had drunken sex with someone she ordinarily wouldn't be with, but Ben is oblivious. Over breakfast, she clearly bristles at his inability to grasp their myriad differences, but once again, this would be news to Ben. She is evasive when he asks for her number, but he gives her enough information to contact him (he doesn't have a phone right now, he tells her, because of a "billing problem").

One might expect at this point that he never hears from her again, but that wouldn't be any fun, would it? Of course, as we all know from the title, she gets pregnant. She tracks him down, and the rest of the movie concerns her attempts to deal with her pregnancy, and to figure out what she needs/wants from Ben, and his attempts to prove himself worthy to her.

The romance is handled sweetly without being cloying, and dare I say, realistically? Judd Apatow's TV shows, Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared were improv driven. Seth Rogen was on both those shows, and it's hard to believe some of those same techniques weren't used in this movie. Although I don't have information to that effect, Ben's friends all have the same first name as the actor who plays them, which I think supports the theory. In any event, it would explain how Rogen is able to come across so naturally.

The supporting cast is equally impressive. From to Paul Rudd, as Alison's restless, sarcastic brother-in-law, to Jason Segel as Ben's lecher friend, the movie is full of minor characters who keep the laughs coming, without getting in the way. The multi-talented Harold Ramis also appears in two scenes as Ben's dad, but the scene-stealing Kristen Wiig turns in the most memorable performance with her portrayal of Jill, one of Alison's bosses. It would be impossible to give an example here, because the hilarity was all in the delivery.

Knocked Up expertly weaves romance and comedy, but for me, the romance was satisfying but inevitable. The true measure of this movie's success is that it is ridiculously funny. It's hard to be that funny, especially over the course of a whole movie, and I'm always thankful when someone pulls it off, because who doesn't like to laugh?

The Simpsons Movie

Well, it's finally here, the movie version of the (arguably) greatest TV comedy of all time. This is big news, and apparently not just for geeks like me. The Simpsons Movie even got a mention in The Economist this week. If that doesn't scream "major event", I don't know what does.

The biggest question for me when I first heard there was going to be a Simpsons movie was, can they stretch what's already a dense 22 minutes into 90? I mean, a lot of things happen in an episode of The Simpsons, given the pacing differences of animation. How many things would have to happen to cover feature film length?

Well it turns out that wasn't a problem. It didn't feel too long and drawn out, nor was it so byzantine it failed to hold interest. It was a good length, with an engaging story, and wound up feeling a lot like any other episode (which is basically a good thing).

So, to quote Homer at the beginning of the movie, why pay for something that you can get for free? The most obvious answer is the big screen. The big screen (and sound system) is still a reason to go to movies. Is this a "big screen movie", you know, one that loses something important on TV? No. Clearly The Simpsons was meant to be seen on TV. But that's just it. After 18 years of 20 inches and 1:1.33 aspect ratio, the novelty of The Simpsons in the theater has definite value.

Another difference is that the movie is released from the restrictions of broadcast TV. This is hardly an enterprise that tries to offend, but sometimes what's funny is unacceptable for broadcast (and sometimes that very status is what makes something funny). This movie cleverly gives us a few (I counted three) instances where they're clearly saying, "this is the movie, we can do this, haha". This is worth a laugh or three.

The other main difference is that it is longer, and for those of us who have always been disappointed to see the credits at the end of an episode, this has some kind of value.

But this brings us to the real question: how does it rate against the best episodes? Unfortunately, by this yardstick, it rates somewhere below the cream of the Simpsons crop. Nevertheless, OK Simpsons is still great TV, and good Simpsons makes for a very funny movie.

The bottom line? If you're a Simpsons fan, you'll enjoy the movie. If you're not, this probably won't be your first foray into their wonderful world. In other words, you know if you're going; what do you need me for?