SXSW Coverage

Any criticism worth reading is one that provides a larger context to its subject. Fusing a belief or idea into the writing is what separates a critic from a reporter.

For this reason, the reader shouldn’t be surprised to see that three critics (Jim DeRogatis of WBEZ.org, Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune and Thomas Conner of the Chicago Sun-Times) extracted three unique perspectives from Bruce Springsteen’s keynote address at this year’s SXSW festival. Though each provides a distinctive insight, neither holds less or more weight than the other.

One opinion rings true throughout the three articles ­– Bruce gave an unexpectedly good speech. Kot likened the address as an hour-long critique of music history. Providing the audience with a litany of his personal influences, Springsteen discussed everyone from Elvis to the Sex Pistols. Going hand in hand with this lesson in rock ‘n’ roll history was a comment on the industry’s current status. The music scene has splintered into a seemingly incalculable number of sub-genres. These particular focal points are where the three critics diverged in their articles.

Kot wrote, “What matters is not how the music is created, but the ‘power and purpose’ behind it.” The critic used Springsteen’s speech as a lens to examine the passion every true artist contains. Underneath Springsteen’s encyclopedic knowledge of music was a clear admiration for the art. Kot emphasizes Springsteen’s respect for James Brown and notes the admission that the Animals’ song, “We Gotta Get Out of This Place" sums up his entire discography. Looking back, Kot viewed the keynote address as a showcase of Springsteen’s passion and reverence for his peers.

Conner also noticed Springsteen’s extensive knowledge of music. However, the critic differs from Kot in that he viewed the various bands as a statement that music cannot be restricted to a simple definition. He provides the following quote from Springsteen that reads, "The one thing that's been consistent over the years is the genesis and the power of creativity. It's all about how you're putting what you do together. The elements you're using don't matter. It's not confined to guitars, tubes, turntables or microchips. There's no right way, no pure way of doing it -- there's just doing it." The sea of bands that flooded the clubs of Austin for those three nights is evidence enough that music means something different to each individual. No matter if you’re listening to a Woody Guthrie song or something along the lines of melodic death metal, the transcendental experience only music provides is a unifying theme that connects all listeners.

Within the third article, Jim DeRogatis provides a comment on the music industry’s changing climate. Certainly, the plethora of sub-genres has created a sustainable niche market. However, the critic questions whether this “ever-narrowing” scope of rock ‘n’ roll ultimately isolates the listener. After all, he insists, “there was a magic to be had in the universal shared experience.” A concrete answer isn’t provided because only the future can tell us that. However, Springsteen views variety, not as exclusionary, but an illustration that “the ideals he grew up with are alive and well.”

The three critics all tackled the same event and, in some instances, they quoted the same material. However, the point to be taken here is not that one critic should be regarded higher than another. Rather, bringing your own personality and ideas is fundamental to the critical process. Otherwise, every article would be a carbon copy of one another and what’s to be learned from that?

Movie Review: Almost Famous

“Almost Famous” (Directed by Cameron Crowe, 2000)

Be honest and unmerciful. This mantra is repeated throughout Cameron Crowe’s semi-autobiographical film for good reason. Besides providing the audience with an entertaining story, the movie serves as a crash course in criticism. “Almost Famous” avoids the often cliché story of musicians teetering on the brink of success and opts to examine those who were there to witness the period of decadence. Underneath the culture of sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, the film illustrates what it means to be a critic – both the passion that drives a rock journalist and the ethics he or she must follow.

Set in 1973, the film follows 15-year-old aspiring rock critic, William Miller, when Rolling Stone gives him his first assignment. Played by Patrick Fugit, the protagonist is molded after a young Cameron Crowe. Like the director who also wrote for the prestigious magazine, William is tasked with following the up and coming band, Stillwater, on their cross-country tour. While on the road, William forms a relationship with Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) and guitar prodigy, Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup). However, the movie’s central conflict sets in when William’s newly formed friendships threatens to jeopardize his morals as a critic before his professional career even begins.

One of the greatest strengths of “Almost Famous” is its ability to depict a critic’s passion without becoming too cheesy or sentimental. To quote Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s fictionalized version of Lester Bangs, “True music, not just rock 'n' roll, chooses you. It lives in your car, or alone, listening to your headphones... It is a place apart from the vast, benign lap of America.” With lines similar to this one, the movie paints an authentic picture of the individual’s connection to rock. Yet, going hand in hand with an enthusiasm for the music is an internal drive to simply write. “Almost Famous” demonstrates the forces that define a genuine rock journalist. Instead of wanting to be a part of the culture, rock journalism is about loving the subject and loving the craft even more.

However, abiding by a sense of ethics is equally as important as the passion. Early in the film, Lester warns William that a critic must never make friends with the rock stars. He claims that maintaining the authenticity of your opinion is vital to the survival of rock criticism. If a critic concedes to the people who “buy you drinks, offer you drugs and give you free plane rides,” Lester forebodes that “they’ll ruin rock ‘n roll and strangle everything we love about it.”

Like all good films, “Almost Famous” is an entertaining story told from a unique perspective. However, what sets this move a part from the rest is that it offers the audience something to learn. Far too often, people assume that the rock critic is a snob or a person resentful of the success of others. “Almost Famous” pulls back the curtain on that myth and reveals the art behind legitimate rock journalism. After watching the movie, the audience sees that a critic has a sincere enthusiasm and strives to have that enthusiasm heard. More importantly, if critics allow people to have influence over their opinions, it threatens the credibility of rock journalism as an art form. After all, rock is not meant to simply be, as Bangs coins it, “an industry of cool.”

Television Review: Archer

 

“Archer” (Season 1, Episode 1: “Mole Hunt,” FX)

Currently, twenty-two James Bond films have been made and a twenty-third is set to release later this year. Although we’ve witnessed the pop icon dismantle nuclear bombs, combat a giant of a man named Jaws and thwart evil plans, we never saw the secret agent deal with the mundane real world. By portraying an intelligence agency as any other boring day job, FX’s animated series, “Archer,” offers a fresh perspective on the tired spy genre with a crude protagonist, hilarious supporting cast and offbeat sensibility.

At the center of the show is Sterling Archer (H. Jon Benjamin), a loose parody of James Bond who comes with all the issues of self-entitlement and bad temper one might associate with a ruthless spy. Other than his humor, there is little reason for the audience to like Archer – he’s vulgar, selfish and prone to violence. When his butler, Woodhouse, lets a dog inside his apartment, Archer promises to rub sand in Woodhouse’s “dead little eyes” if he finds one strand of dog hair. Yet, the show’s creator, Adam Reed, is able to make him a surprisingly compelling character. Underneath Archer’s fragile ego is a childlike vulnerability. Allowing us to see the cracks on the surface makes it much easier for the audience to empathize with an otherwise unbearable protagonist.

In the pilot episode, Archer attempts to clear his name when a coworker accuses him of embezzling from the intelligence agency, ISIS. The only problem that stands in Archer’s way is that he’s totally guilty. He’s been blowing his operations account on personal expenses that include gambling, prostitution and a bunch of other vices. Typical of many spy thrillers, the plot turns convoluted when Archer discovers a mole in the field as he attempts to wipe out his own records. However, the pilot’s primary goal of establishing the world is enough to keep the viewer engaged and entertained.

To draw comparisons between ISIS and the C.I.A. would be inaccurate – the C.I.A. is much too professional. ISIS is less like a secret intelligence agency and more like a dysfunctional family. At the head of the company is Sterling’s mother, Mallory. Like her role on “Arrested Development,” Jessica Walter plays the domineering and cold mother. In fact, Mallory is so controlling that she forced Archer to assume her late dog’s name, Duchess, as his code name. While Archer is on rocky terms with his mom, the relationships with his co-workers are equally as strained.

For special assignments, Archer is partnered with his former flame, Lana Kane (Aisha Tyler). Certainly, his decision to mix business with pleasure comes back to bite Archer as Lana proves to be very jealous and shows major trust issues. Among other co-workers is Pam (Amber Nash), an HR representative who can’t keep her mouth shut, Cheryl (Judy Greer), the receptionist who Archer can never remember her name and Dr. Krieger (Lucky Yates), a mad scientist who also enjoys making love to his colleagues’ pita sandwiches. The interplay and banter between these colorful characters supplements the series with hilarious office humor. So, if you ever wondered what James Bond’s work might be like in everyday life, “Archer” answers your question.