Hypercube, or Cube 2, is (of course) the sequel to Cube. The films share a minimal, elegant SF/horror premise. A bunch of people are trapped in a series of cubical rooms. The rooms are basically empty and featureless. Each room has six exits, one in the middle of each side (including the floor and the ceiling) which lead to similar empty cubical rooms. Various murderous threats appear in certain rooms; the characters also get tenser and tenser, and somtimes break down, or turn against one another. You have a combination of abstract mathematical patterns – a sort of modernist architecture theme gone mad through its own excessive purity – and psychological tension, people pushed to the point of nervous collapse. In Hypercube, the sadism of modernist geometry (everything white, with no irregularities or distinguishing features) is multiplied by the cruel unpredictability of quantum weirdness (postmodern? quantum theory is modernist, early 20th century; but here it is invoked, not very rigorously, as the justification for all sorts of twisted and trippy – as in a bad trip – video effects) as the victims find themselves in a tesseract (the equivalent, in four spatial dimensions, of a cube in three dimensions, or a square in two). Space folds back on itself, time contracts and dilates, and people encounter alternate versions of themselves. There’s no way out, of course, but only interminable waiting, or else actual death; both Cube films could be described as pulp versions of Beckett, and all the better for their mixture of high intellectual concept and trash TV psychology. The affect of Hypercube is an odd combination of icy distance and a sort of free-floating dread, too unfocused, abstract, and impersonal to be existential angst, but too palpable, too tactile, to be dismissed. A chillingly creepy experience; low-budget trash-art at its best.
Hypercube, or Cube 2, is (of course) the sequel to Cube. The films share a minimal, elegant SF/horror premise. A bunch of people are trapped in a series of cubical rooms. The rooms are basically empty and featureless. Each room has six exits, one in the middle of each side (including the floor and the ceiling) which lead to similar empty cubical rooms. Various murderous threats appear in certain rooms; the characters also get tenser and tenser, and somtimes break down, or turn against one another. You have a combination of abstract mathematical patterns – a sort of modernist architecture theme gone mad through its own excessive purity – and psychological tension, people pushed to the point of nervous collapse. In Hypercube, the sadism of modernist geometry (everything white, with no irregularities or distinguishing features) is multiplied by the cruel unpredictability of quantum weirdness (postmodern? quantum theory is modernist, early 20th century; but here it is invoked, not very rigorously, as the justification for all sorts of twisted and trippy – as in a bad trip – video effects) as the victims find themselves in a tesseract (the equivalent, in four spatial dimensions, of a cube in three dimensions, or a square in two). Space folds back on itself, time contracts and dilates, and people encounter alternate versions of themselves. There’s no way out, of course, but only interminable waiting, or else actual death; both Cube films could be described as pulp versions of Beckett, and all the better for their mixture of high intellectual concept and trash TV psychology. The affect of Hypercube is an odd combination of icy distance and a sort of free-floating dread, too unfocused, abstract, and impersonal to be existential angst, but too palpable, too tactile, to be dismissed. A chillingly creepy experience; low-budget trash-art at its best.
Inspired by Warren Ellis, I have started my own WAPblog. This is a mini-blog (very brief rants/thoughts/etc, text-only) accessible through any Web-enabled mobile phone. Just bookmark http://tagtag.com/shaviro on your mobile phone.
If you don’t have a WAP-enabled mobile, you can go to my startpage, where you can access the content of my WAPblog, Warren’s, and several others.
Inspired by Warren Ellis, I have started my own WAPblog. This is a mini-blog (very brief rants/thoughts/etc, text-only) accessible through any Web-enabled mobile phone. Just bookmark http://tagtag.com/shaviro on your mobile phone.
If you don’t have a WAP-enabled mobile, you can go to my startpage, where you can access the content of my WAPblog, Warren’s, and several others.
Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic (which, for whatever reasons, I never managed to see before now) is a brilliant tour de force–in terms of the performances, and especially Soderbergh’s direction: intense, gripping, and visually compelling, with the multiple plot lines and locations beautifully orchestrated together. As a commentary on the “war against drugs,” however, it is mostly hokum. While it is (properly) cynical enough to recognize the futility of our current “zero tolerance” policies, and while it is well done in the gangster/corruption aspects, it shows no understanding about drugs themselves, what they do (including their profound differences from one another), and why people take them. Instead, we get cliches (the black drug dealer who Michael Douglas’ daughter has sex with in order to get her fix) and melodramatic posturing (not that I have anything against melodrama, just against tasteful melodrama) about the nuclear family. Though Michael Douglas is marginally less loathsome than he is in most of his other roles, and though Soderbergh thankfully doesn’t lay on the family values with anything approaching Spielbergian hysteria, it all still rings hollow. Give me R-Xmas any day, rather than Traffic, when it comes to films about drugs and their effect upon families.
Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic (which, for whatever reasons, I never managed to see before now) is a brilliant tour de force–in terms of the performances, and especially Soderbergh’s direction: intense, gripping, and visually compelling, with the multiple plot lines and locations beautifully orchestrated together. As a commentary on the “war against drugs,” however, it is mostly hokum. While it is (properly) cynical enough to recognize the futility of our current “zero tolerance” policies, and while it is well done in the gangster/corruption aspects, it shows no understanding about drugs themselves, what they do (including their profound differences from one another), and why people take them. Instead, we get cliches (the black drug dealer who Michael Douglas’ daughter has sex with in order to get her fix) and melodramatic posturing (not that I have anything against melodrama, just against tasteful melodrama) about the nuclear family. Though Michael Douglas is marginally less loathsome than he is in most of his other roles, and though Soderbergh thankfully doesn’t lay on the family values with anything approaching Spielbergian hysteria, it all still rings hollow. Give me R-Xmas any day, rather than Traffic, when it comes to films about drugs and their effect upon families.
Jack O’Connell’s Word Made Flesh is a hardboiled crime novel, and also a meditation on language and writing, and memory and complicity. (Thanks to Ashley Crawford for recommending O’Connell). Like Hammett’s Red Harvest, Word Made Flesh uses the detective genre, and a story about competing gangs in a small city (Personville, sarcastically called Poisonville, in Hammett; Quinsigamond, a kind of dream version of Worcester, Massachusetts, for O’Connell) to convey a hellish vision of power, of a world in which “people are brutalized for the simplest reason of all: because they can be. Because when someone else holds power, they can fuck you over in ways that your imagination has never even considered” (215). But O’Connell replaces Hammett’s gritty realism with a phantasmal irrealism in which violent economic and political power, expressed through horrifying assaults on the body, accompanies, and seem almost interchangeable with, the power (which is also the delusive anti-power) of words and texts. So the violent, noirish plot turns out to involve a quest for a missing book, an Anne Frank-like work of impotent, yet enduring, testimony to a massacre (or worse than a massacre, since it sought to obliterate, not just people, but the memory of those people’s ever having existed). And we encounter such phenomena as a gang of violent terrorists who seek, on philosophical grounds, to eliminate all written language; a parasitic disease that feeds on the language centers of the brain, as well as on the tongue; not to mention a bevy of competing bibliomanes, literary scholars, linguistic theorists, and religious visionaries obsessed with the Word. All in all, a strangely gripping and compelling novel.
Jack O’Connell’s Word Made Flesh is a hardboiled crime novel, and also a meditation on language and writing, and memory and complicity. (Thanks to Ashley Crawford for recommending O’Connell). Like Hammett’s Red Harvest, Word Made Flesh uses the detective genre, and a story about competing gangs in a small city (Personville, sarcastically called Poisonville, in Hammett; Quinsigamond, a kind of dream version of Worcester, Massachusetts, for O’Connell) to convey a hellish vision of power, of a world in which “people are brutalized for the simplest reason of all: because they can be. Because when someone else holds power, they can fuck you over in ways that your imagination has never even considered” (215). But O’Connell replaces Hammett’s gritty realism with a phantasmal irrealism in which violent economic and political power, expressed through horrifying assaults on the body, accompanies, and seem almost interchangeable with, the power (which is also the delusive anti-power) of words and texts. So the violent, noirish plot turns out to involve a quest for a missing book, an Anne Frank-like work of impotent, yet enduring, testimony to a massacre (or worse than a massacre, since it sought to obliterate, not just people, but the memory of those people’s ever having existed). And we encounter such phenomena as a gang of violent terrorists who seek, on philosophical grounds, to eliminate all written language; a parasitic disease that feeds on the language centers of the brain, as well as on the tongue; not to mention a bevy of competing bibliomanes, literary scholars, linguistic theorists, and religious visionaries obsessed with the Word. All in all, a strangely gripping and compelling novel.
Sexy Beast is a clever British gangster film from 2001, noteworthy for Ben Kingsley’s performance as a menacing, psychopathic gangster who is trying to convince or bully a former associate, now “retired” to a villa in Spain, to come back to London to pull another heist. The film focuses on surreal touches and uncomfortable psychological undercurrents, rather than action or suspense, which makes for a refreshingly different take on what would otherwise be a familiar genre study. And Kingsley is amazing: he is probably the only actor who could give such a performance, over-the-top and yet understated at the same time: which sounds like an oxymoron, but which is literally true.
Sexy Beast is a clever British gangster film from 2001, noteworthy for Ben Kingsley’s performance as a menacing, psychopathic gangster who is trying to convince or bully a former associate, now “retired” to a villa in Spain, to come back to London to pull another heist. The film focuses on surreal touches and uncomfortable psychological undercurrents, rather than action or suspense, which makes for a refreshingly different take on what would otherwise be a familiar genre study. And Kingsley is amazing: he is probably the only actor who could give such a performance, over-the-top and yet understated at the same time: which sounds like an oxymoron, but which is literally true.
The best new CD I have heard recently is Boy In Da Corner by Dizzee Rascal, a 19-year old black British rapper. (Thanks to Simon Reynolds’ blog for turning me on to this–his extravagant praise of the album is altogether justified). Now, I’ve been skeptical in the past as to the Brits’ ability to rap (last year’s much-hyped Original Pirate Material, by Mike Skinner, aka The Streets, struck me as a big bore). But Dizzee Rascal is something else again. His vocal delivery, or flow, is as wide-rangingly expressive as any hiphop MC I have ever heard; despite my prejudice against British intonations, I was immediately blown away. His lyrics are violent and bleak, about life in the slums, but totally different in mood as well as detail from American so-called “gangsta rap.” They combine toughness, vulnerability, cynicism, hopelessness and a grim determination to get on with it. This is as “real” as anything by 50 Cent, but twenty times smarter and more affectively powerful. And there’s not an ounce of the self-congratulation that has been the unfortunate defining characteristic of most mainstream US hiphop since Biggie (and that reaches its extreme point with Jay-Z). As for the music–Dizzee Rascal is his own writer and producer– it samples a wide range of stuff, most of which I can’t quite identify; it has the rhythmic propulsion of the best UK garage, but it’s harsh and dissonant and stutteringly percussive in ways I haven’t heard elsewhere. There are also odd, off-kilter choruses and refrains, and several songs feature brilliant boy/girl call-and-response arguments. All in all, this is an amazing album, and I hope it gets released in the US soon (though I’m not holding my breath expecting it to be a hit here).
The best new CD I have heard recently is Boy In Da Corner by Dizzee Rascal, a 19-year old black British rapper. (Thanks to Simon Reynolds’ blog for turning me on to this–his extravagant praise of the album is altogether justified). Now, I’ve been skeptical in the past as to the Brits’ ability to rap (last year’s much-hyped Original Pirate Material, by Mike Skinner, aka The Streets, struck me as a big bore). But Dizzee Rascal is something else again. His vocal delivery, or flow, is as wide-rangingly expressive as any hiphop MC I have ever heard; despite my prejudice against British intonations, I was immediately blown away. His lyrics are violent and bleak, about life in the slums, but totally different in mood as well as detail from American so-called “gangsta rap.” They combine toughness, vulnerability, cynicism, hopelessness and a grim determination to get on with it. This is as “real” as anything by 50 Cent, but twenty times smarter and more affectively powerful. And there’s not an ounce of the self-congratulation that has been the unfortunate defining characteristic of most mainstream US hiphop since Biggie (and that reaches its extreme point with Jay-Z). As for the music–Dizzee Rascal is his own writer and producer– it samples a wide range of stuff, most of which I can’t quite identify; it has the rhythmic propulsion of the best UK garage, but it’s harsh and dissonant and stutteringly percussive in ways I haven’t heard elsewhere. There are also odd, off-kilter choruses and refrains, and several songs feature brilliant boy/girl call-and-response arguments. All in all, this is an amazing album, and I hope it gets released in the US soon (though I’m not holding my breath expecting it to be a hit here).
PS: Dizzee Rascal was stabbed by an unknown assailant a couple of weeks ago, but apparently he will be OK. This is a sort of 50 Cent-esque “realness” that we really do not need…
Well, I finally saw 8 Mile. I have to admit that it’s pretty good. Eminem’s low-key charismatic screen presence, and the gritty camerawork showing Detroit, make up for the hokeyness and predictability of the plot. Still, it’s a film that raises more questions than it answers…
Well, I finally saw 8 Mile. I have to admit that it’s pretty good. Eminem’s low-key charismatic screen presence, and the gritty camerawork showing Detroit, make up for the hokeyness and predictability of the plot. Still, it’s a film that raises more questions than it answers…
Continue reading “8 Mile”
I am a sucker for “true crime” books, and Aphrodite Jones is, to my mind, the true mistress of the genre; she does for crime reporting what Jerry Springer does for live television. So I was excited to read Jones’ new book, Red Zone, about the incident in San Francisco a couple of years ago where a woman was mauled to death by a pair of attack dogs belonging to her neighbors. I wasn’t disappointed. As always, Jones delves into the sleaziest and most sensational aspects of the case. She focuses especially on the fantasy menage a trois – maintained through letters, photographs, and drawings – between the lawyer couple who raised the killer dogs and the white supremacist prison inmate who was their legal owner. It’s never clear how much of this was just pornographic fantasy on the part of the three, and how much involved actual incidents and practices – up to and including bestiality – but Jones insinuates where she is short on concrete facts, effectively maintaining a feverish atmosphere for her portrayals. The dog owners come across as arrogant megalomaniacs without a shred of remorse, whose fanatical self-righteousness ultimately leads them into a state of absolute delusion. Jones’ writing, as always, is itself deliriously non-linear, piling on minute details in no comprehensible order until the reader feels lost in a labyrinth of amazement and stupefaction. Her prose style combines the hyperboles of yellow journalism with the plodding repetitiveness of a befuddled court reporter. Occasional sentences take my breath away, they are so brilliantly off: “”To Ana, animals were the only real perfection of nature” (243); “Noel’s act was really quite good, so the prosecutor decided to pull out all the ammunition, to wipe Noel’s charming smile away” (259). I could never myself invent, nor find in even my worst students’ papers, “bad writing” that resonates in quite this way. Aphrodite Jones is a genius of misbegotten prose. Do I need to reiterate how much I love this book, both for its content and its style?
I am a sucker for “true crime” books, and Aphrodite Jones is, to my mind, the true mistress of the genre; she does for crime reporting what Jerry Springer does for live television. So I was excited to read Jones’ new book, Red Zone, about the incident in San Francisco a couple of years ago where a woman was mauled to death by a pair of attack dogs belonging to her neighbors. I wasn’t disappointed. As always, Jones delves into the sleaziest and most sensational aspects of the case. She focuses especially on the fantasy menage a trois – maintained through letters, photographs, and drawings – between the lawyer couple who raised the killer dogs and the white supremacist prison inmate who was their legal owner. It’s never clear how much of this was just pornographic fantasy on the part of the three, and how much involved actual incidents and practices – up to and including bestiality – but Jones insinuates where she is short on concrete facts, effectively maintaining a feverish atmosphere for her portrayals. The dog owners come across as arrogant megalomaniacs without a shred of remorse, whose fanatical self-righteousness ultimately leads them into a state of absolute delusion. Jones’ writing, as always, is itself deliriously non-linear, piling on minute details in no comprehensible order until the reader feels lost in a labyrinth of amazement and stupefaction. Her prose style combines the hyperboles of yellow journalism with the plodding repetitiveness of a befuddled court reporter. Occasional sentences take my breath away, they are so brilliantly off: “”To Ana, animals were the only real perfection of nature” (243); “Noel’s act was really quite good, so the prosecutor decided to pull out all the ammunition, to wipe Noel’s charming smile away” (259). I could never myself invent, nor find in even my worst students’ papers, “bad writing” that resonates in quite this way. Aphrodite Jones is a genius of misbegotten prose. Do I need to reiterate how much I love this book, both for its content and its style?
China Mieville gave a reading tonight, as part of the Clarion West series of summer readings in science fiction/speculative fiction. It was quite a treat: China read a chapter from his as yet unfinished new novel, which I am happy to say is set in the fabulous and tragic city of New Crobuzon, twenty years after the events of Perdido Street Station. In a not-yet-published essay, my friend Carl Freedman writes about how Mieville is a great urban writer; he gives an almost Dickensian or Joycean sense of the currents of city life–even though his city, unlike Dickens’ London or Joyce’s Dublin, is entirely imaginary. The background textures of city life were an important part of the power of Perdido Street Station; the subsequent novel, The Scar, though set in the same world, drew us away from New Crobuzon to a very different kind of city, interesting but not as rich (I mean the city was not as rich; the two novels, I feel, are equally rich, in their different ways). China said he hoped to have the novel finished by the end of this year, if not earlier, which would mean a publication date of about a year from now, summer 2004. It was nice to get a tantalizing glimpse of it, while we are waiting.

China Mieville gave a reading tonight, as part of the Clarion West series of summer readings in science fiction/speculative fiction. It was quite a treat: China read a chapter from his as yet unfinished new novel, which I am happy to say is set in the fabulous and tragic city of New Crobuzon, twenty years after the events of Perdido Street Station. In a not-yet-published essay, my friend Carl Freedman writes about how Mieville is a great urban writer; he gives an almost Dickensian or Joycean sense of the currents of city life–even though his city, unlike Dickens’ London or Joyce’s Dublin, is entirely imaginary. The background textures of city life were an important part of the power of Perdido Street Station; the subsequent novel, The Scar, though set in the same world, drew us away from New Crobuzon to a very different kind of city, interesting but not as rich (I mean the city was not as rich; the two novels, I feel, are equally rich, in their different ways). China said he hoped to have the novel finished by the end of this year, if not earlier, which would mean a publication date of about a year from now, summer 2004. It was nice to get a tantalizing glimpse of it, while we are waiting.
According to Business Week (v ia Gizmodo):
“This Thanksgiving, America’s 147 million cell-phone users will indeed have something to be thankful for: On Nov. 24, we’ll all finally be allowed to switch carriers without having to change our phone number. It’s the chance consumers have been anticipating. Now, without any inconvenience, we finally will be able turn the table on wireless carriers that have been torturing us for years with dropped calls, inconsistent customer service, and complicated price plans that require an advanced degree in comparative analysis to comprehend. ”
I’ve never quite understood this reasoning. Because the biggest cost and difficulty in switching wireless providers is not having to change your number, but having to buy a new phone–since most mobile phones are locked to a single service provider. Buying unlocked phones is prohibitively expensive; while providers subsidize the cost of phones locked to their networks, usually only the cheapest models are provided actually for free. So it does cost more than it should to switch providers, even if the number stays the same.
According to Business Week (via Gizmodo):
“This Thanksgiving, America’s 147 million cell-phone users will indeed have something to be thankful for: On Nov. 24, we’ll all finally be allowed to switch carriers without having to change our phone number. It’s the chance consumers have been anticipating. Now, without any inconvenience, we finally will be able turn the table on wireless carriers that have been torturing us for years with dropped calls, inconsistent customer service, and complicated price plans that require an advanced degree in comparative analysis to comprehend. ”
I’ve never quite understood this reasoning. Because the biggest cost and difficulty in switching wireless providers is not having to change your number, but having to buy a new phone–since most mobile phones are locked to a single service provider. Buying unlocked phones is prohibitively expensive; while providers subsidize the cost of phones locked to their networks, usually only the cheapest models are provided actually for free. So it does cost more than it should to switch providers, even if the number stays the same.