There's Something About Amy

Confession:  before seeing Asif Kapadia’s documentary, Amy, I had no previous knowledge of Amy Winehouse’s music or career.  I remember hearing stories in the media of her death at an early age, succumbing to the excesses of fame and hard-living.  After watching this documentary, I was completely won-over by both Winehouse as a person and her music.  Winehouse’s voice and style of music seem to recall that of jazz icons of yesterday, such as Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday while always maintaining something completely contemporary, unique and audacious.  As tragic as Winehouse’s story is, the documentary never fails to highlight the shear exuberance of her music while perfectly capturing her charismatic personality.

The film shows that Winehouse was always a drinker and liked to party.  As she became famous however, she slowly began to desire the annihilation of her very self.  Under the unfortunate influence of her boyfriend, Blake Fielder, she turned to crack cocaine and heroin and found that these drugs could erase the pain of stardom and make her “disappear” existentially.  Something deeply ingrained in her psyche had to be the source of this desire, but Winehouse admits that she was never abused in her early life.  She hints at one point that her father leaving her mother when Amy was at an impressionable age and not being present for her may have contributed to this unstable behavior later on.  Interestingly, during her blossoming musical career, the film shows that she allowed her father back into her life.  I believe this speaks to the dynamics of the family in current society.  For one, Amy’s relationship with her previously absent father demonstrates Amy’s forgiving and perhaps needy nature.  It also is a demonstration of the idiosyncratic, fluid, and ever-changing character of family life in 21st century Western society.

The film makes use of old video footage of Amy in her youth in the attempt to paint a contrasting picture between the starry-eyed, innocent girl with huge vocal talent and the emaciated, wasted mega-star she would become only a short while later.  The home video footage at the beginning of Winehouse’s career gives the viewer an intimate connection with the singer, almost as though we know her personally.  There is a total absence of traditional documentary’s talking head style interviews.  The use of talking head interviews would not have made this feeling of connection so palpable.  As the film and Winehouse’s career develops the home video footage starts to wane.  This strategy has an effective way of making Winehouse seem increasingly disengaged, alienated and distant from the viewer, much in the same way that she became to her friends, family and loved-ones.   As the home video footage recedes, the film begins to make use of the media’s footage of her more prominently.  This further reinforces the distancing strategy that Kapadia uses to stress the widening gulf between the familiar, intimate nature of Amy’s life in the earlier parts of the film and the estranged, alienated figure that Winehouse would become towards the end of her life.

In the absence of the talking head style interviews, Kapadia chooses instead to make use of constant voice-over by Amy’s friends, colleagues and family.  This is also an unusual technique because it is used as a replacement of the traditional documentary’s voice-of-God, omniscient narrator.  A traditional narrator would have been more clinical and cold.  The recounting by Amy’s loved ones and acquaintances adds a warm, pacifying dynamic to the film, stressing the strength of her bonds and interpersonal relationships.

Of course, one must not forget the music.  Winehouse could be considered an “old soul.”  The personal nature of the lyrics of Winehouse’s music almost makes one uncomfortable in its intensity and honesty.  This discomfort is balanced by the sultry tonality of her vocal stylings and the soothing, tranquilizing sound of her melodies and backing instrumentation.  Interestingly, at many times throughout the film, lyrics are superimposed on the screen or revealed through shots of written lyrics on paper.  This stress on the words over the music serves to highlight the strength of Winehouse as a lyricist and songwriter while demonstrating the aforementioned, highly-personal nature of the lyrics.

Was Winehouse’s spiral into self-destruction the result of the media’s constant attention or was the media and paparazzi simply focusing and feeding on Amy’s own self-caused damage?  Was her need for self-annihilation independent of her being forced into the international spotlight?  I believe that the two were interdependent and fed off of one another.  Yes, she had self-destructive impulses to begin with as a result of feeling abandoned and from bad influences, but the media’s glare intensified these tendencies and exacerbated her need for self-destruction.  It is this symbiotic relationship that brought about her demise.  One can only speculate on the artistry she could have achieved had she lived a longer life.

Can Hitchcock's The Birds Still Fly?

I recently had the opportunity to see Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 thriller The Birds on the big screen in a theatre.  The anticipation and excitement in the Niagara Square Theatre was palpable despite it being only half full, but I was skeptical.  Initially, I went in expecting a film that wouldn’t hold up to 2016’s standards of an effective thriller, perhaps because my memories of seeing it before and its reputation for bad special effects.  What I found, however is that The Birds holds up to scrutiny fifty-three years after its release because of its old-fashioned special effects and the fact that it still speaks to the collective fear and paranoia at the heart of society’s collective consciousness.

The year 1963 was obviously a time that preceded the cinema of today’s use of CGI to make the impossible possible.  The Birds is painstaking in its manipulation of real birds, puppets and rear-projection to create the illusion of a massive bird attack on the small town of Bodega Bay on the coast of California. 

The problem with CGI in today’s cinema is that it takes the life and soul out of many films in its attempt to create a seamless depiction of reality.  Episodes one to three of the Star Wars franchise is an example of this claim that an overabundance of computer-generated effects created a world that felt artificial and soulless.  By contrast, episode four to six of the Star Wars films, before its digital makeover, was effective because it used special effects that weren’t added afterwards with computers, but were actually contained in the pro-filmic world of the movies.  Similarly, it is “refreshing” to see a film like The Birds where most of the special effects are achieved through things taking place before the camera.  The effects may be seen as somewhat dated and unrealistic.  There are scenes where it is clear that the birds are puppets or mechanical props.  But the majority of The Birds demonstrates a painstaking realization of real chaos.

The question arises as to why do films like The Birds with seemingly “unrealistic” special effects still manage to shock and terrify their audiences.  I believe the answer to this lies in the psychological investment that the viewer has in such films.  Filmmakers like Hitchcock were great at creating psychological identification with his characters and situations.  By building up character nuances, creating characters that the viewer can be sympathetic towards, and creating a realistic environment and relatable situation in which the characters exist, audiences may be able to look past an assortment of special effects that may, especially by today’s standards, seem quite “fake”.   An example of this would be the scene of the birthday party:  the children and some adults are enjoying themselves on a sunny afternoon when all of a sudden there is a frightening attack from a bunch of seagulls.  Some of the gull attacks look very phony:  a child is seen flailing about on the ground, kicking her legs while an obviously animatronic bird is pecking at her head.  The scene works however, because of our sympathy for children and adults who we had previously seen enjoying themselves.  The situation as well, is one in which we all can identify with and perhaps have participated in in our own lives.

Finally, The Birds speaks to the fear and paranoia in society’s outlook, then and now.  At the time of its release, there was a widespread fear of nuclear annihilation and catastrophe.  The film spoke to this underlying anxiety in its presentation of a modern day apocalypse.  From today’s perspective, the film still works in this regard.  We in Western society are still presented with a collective fear and paranoia at the constant threat of terrorism, global warming, police brutality, and war.  Thus, The Birds still is effective at speaking to our collective anxieties as a culture. 

The film is an allusion to the age-old philosophical theme of man versus nature (sometimes referred to the conflict between man and his environment).  In our culture’s collective consciousness and unconsciousness there is a pervasive fear of what our untamed, natural, and base surroundings can inflict upon us if we are not careful, prepared or respectful.  Perhaps the birds attacks in The Birds are a way to comment on the threat of our environment and natural world if we do not show respect or are constantly ignorant of things such as pollution, global warming and a lack of consideration towards our environment.

The Birds still works today for a variety of reasons.  With its special effects and commentary on society it is a film emblematic of a time in film history when filmmakers didn’t resort to a constant bombardment of thrills, gratuitous CGI, or vapid, two-dimensional commentary on society.  The Birds still resonates with viewers fifty-three years after its initial release. 

The Magic of Mississippi John Hurt

With the passing of time, unfortunately many of yesterday’s brilliant musicians and performers are
largely forgotten in our culture’s demand for newness.  Mississippi John Hurt is not well-known today in popular culture but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t of monumental importance to music and specifically the blues in his time.  Hurt transcended his genre to display a totally original musical outlook and personality.  In fact, John Hurt deserves more credit and listenership because his unique musical style and character.

I first came across Mississippi John Hurt’s music from a single song on a 6 CD box set entitled Roots N’ Blues: The Retrospective, 1925-1950.  The box set was a compilation of seminal roots and blues recordings from the first half of the 20th century.  In it, Hurt’s 1928 recording “Big Leg Blues” captured my mind and attention.  It had a unique quality in many regards.  The soft-spoken, quiet nature of Hurt’s voice sounded totally unique and seemed to put forth a personality unlike any other I’d heard in the blues.  Already I could see his persona paving the way for mellow, laid-back and more introspective folk artists that would appear several decades later:  the folky side of Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Nick Drake and Donovan. 

This initiation into the world of John Hurt was followed by my further investigation into his history.  I learned that after recording several songs in 1928, Hurt disappeared.  He was only rediscovered in the early 1960‘s, in his seventies, when researchers and music fans, going by the lyrics of his 1928 recording “Avalon Blues” located him near his hometown of Avalon, Mississippi. The lyrics hinted at Hurt’s whereabouts:

Avalon, my home town, always on my mind
Avalon, my home town.

This rediscovery would lead to a renaissance in Hurt’s elderly years as well as contributing to what was known as the “Folk Revival” of the 1960’s.  Hurt recorded three studio albums leading to critical and commercial success.

After hearing “Big Leg Blues” and learning more about Hurt, I bought a three CD pack Mississippi John Hurt:  The Complete Studio Recordings, a collection of his 1960’s albums.  After listening to this, I was hooked for life.  There is a warmth and closeness of the 1960’s albums, because of the better recording methods, that really brings out the quality of Hurt’s music, songwriting prowess, and personality. 

John Hurt’s musical style is all his own but it has been classified as falling into the country blues and delta blues categories of the blues.  Hurt employs finger-picking in all his songs:  there is a syncopated bass note played by his thumb with alternating treble notes played by his index and middle fingers.  This produces a style not unlike ragtime for guitar:  imagine Scott Joplin’s piano rags arranged for acoustic guitar.  The songs are always rhythmically flawless and are a testament to a totally accomplished guitar musicianship. 

Lyrically the songs are always clever, sometimes humorous.  Take the song “Candy Man Blues” as an example.  Like many blues singers, Hurt uses metaphors alluding to sexuality.  The song begins with:

All you ladies, gather ‘round
The good sweet Candy Man’s in town

Later on the lyrics are even less subtle:

Don’t stand close to the Candy Man
He’ll put a big candy stick in your hand.

Aside from a sly sense of humor, Hurt employs a wide range of emotional colour throughout all his recordings.  What always comes across is his unique personality:  a laid-back, gentle and kind persona that you seldom hear in the blues or any musical genre.

After many hours of listening to Hurt’s 1960’s recordings I decided to further explore his oeuvre by purchasing his 1928 recordings for OKeh records.   These recordings offer an interesting counter-point to the records he made in his old age:  in 1928 he is young and more energetic.  Some of the songs he recorded in 1928 were re-recorded in the 60’s and it is also interesting to see how these songs have evolved and mellowed like a vintage wine.

The history of recorded music is rich in output from artists and musicians that don’t get the exposure that they deserve.  By exploring music history, one can often find music and people that speak to his or her own unique outlook on life and personal experience.  Focusing on only current popular culture trends will blind you to the diverse and highly-personal discoveries you can make by excavating the past.  My own discovery of Mississippi John Hurt is testament to this claim. 

My Journey on the Rocky Mountaineer

The Rocky Mountaineer is a train that takes you through some of the most beautiful and breathtaking landscape in Western Canada.  I had the good fortune of being able to take a round trip on the train from Jasper, Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia and then back again on a different route from Vancouver to Jasper.  The scenery is unforgettable and the service by the staff of The Rocky Mountaineer is impeccable.  In fact, my experience on the train was nothing short of life-changing.  It opened my eyes to a part of Canada that I had never seen before and I received amazing service along the way.

The main draw for the Rocky Mountaineer is the magnificent scenery.  Beautiful mountain ranges, lush rainforest, waterfalls, a wide range of many species of vegetation, and frequent spotting of various types of wildlife are only a few of the things you will witness on the train.  As you are traveling, a friendly member of the Rocky Mountaineer staff will guide your journey through a narration.  You never have to worry about missing something because you are constantly made aware of sights as you approach them by the staff.  One of my favorite instances of this was when we were traveling through a thickly vegetated section of BC.  A staff member drew the passengers’ attention to a beautiful cascade of water that was only viewable by standing up and peering down a small canyon on the left side of the coach.

As mentioned, the wildlife is one of the interesting things you will see on your journey on the Rocky Mountaineer.  I remember distinctly passing through an open area of land on one of the initial days of my journey and spotting a lone wolf drinking from a body of water a few hundred meters away.  There were also frequent sightings of mountain sheep who always seemed to defy laws of gravity by walking along steep inclines of mountain. 

The Rocky Mountains are another thing that you will see plenty of from angles and elevations that you can’t get from anywhere else in Western Canada.  It was raining on the final day that we spent on the train and when a mountain called Mount Robson came into view, the tallest mountain in the Rockies, the sun was peeking through the clouds and a beautiful rainbow was visible adjacent to the majestic mountain, another perfect photo opportunity.

The quality of service that is received on The Rocky Mountaineer is another thing that makes the experience so memorable.  I had the privilege of being on a Gold Leaf service car.  This differs from Silver Leaf in that there is a dining section below the sightseeing section on each car.  This allows passengers to receive full dining service with their fellow travelers and the quality of service is amazing.  Breakfast and lunch is served in the dining section and the menu is varied enough to please even the pickiest of eaters.  Dinner is not served on the train because the train stops before dinner hour every evening so that passengers can stay in hotels over night.  One day, because of delays, we were on the train for longer than expected.  The service and kitchen staff were kind enough to provide each passenger with an additional meal served at their seats on this day, another example of how the staff goes the extra mile to ensure satisfaction of every passenger.

Up in the sightseeing section of the car, the staff is efficient and always pleasant.  Besides narrating your journey, the staff provides you with unending refreshments and add personal touches to the journey.  Frequently, the staff will provide amusing and interesting stories to the travelers that add colour to the trip.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to experience the Rocky Mountaineer in my life.  It is a great way to see a beautiful part of Canada.  The sights that are seen are unforgettable and the quality of service is exceptional.

The Madness of "River" (A Netflix Original Series)

“Madness can bring its own kind of clarity.” - John River in “River”

John River of the British police procedural, “River” is a character unlike any other.  What sets him apart is his ability to hear and see what he calls “manifests”, dead people from his past who visit him as hallucinations and comment on his thoughts, feelings, and situation.  Obviously, society would deem such a person “insane”, “psychotic” or “mad”, but “River” as a series, has a more open-minded outlook on its characters and does not paint them into any corner.

As the series opens, DS John River (Stellan Skarsgard) is on the trail of suspects in one of his cases.   He is accompanied by his partner, DS Jackie “Stevie” Stevenson (Nicola Walker) as they converse in their car and drive around.  Gradually, however, we learn that the case that River is investigating is the murder of Stevie and that her appearance is a figment of River’s visions.  The viewer witnesses River conversing and reacting to Stevie’s interjections much to the bewilderment of those around him.

Stevie is not the only manifest that River interacts with:  there are other people, now dead, from past and current cases, as well as the 19th century serial killer from a book River is reading.  All these presences appear to be detrimental to his state of mind and makes him appear completely crazy to those around him as he continues on the case.

There have been other items of popular culture that have presented “hearing voices” or hallucinations in a similar manner.  “A Beautiful Mind” comes to mind as one which had a similar depiction of insanity.  What sets “River” apart is the way the lead character's illness is presented to the viewer.
One example of this can be seen in the way the series is shot:  In one shot, River will be physically interacting with the object of his hallucination, in the next shot he is alone.  As mentioned one of his manifests is Thomas Cream, a 19th century serial killer.  Cream frequently belittles and antagonizes River in their conversations.  At one point River grabs Cream and starts to grapple with him and beat him up.  In the initial shot, we see the two characters fighting.  In a second shot, we see the real world’s view of River and how he is by himself and seemingly wrestling with absolutely nothing, a figment of his own imagination.

Also, River’s insanity is presented with humanity and understanding.  Though what is known as psychosis is allegedly a debilitating mental illness, the series never panders to River’s disability and arguably presents it as a psychic gift for River despite the problems it can cause.  River sometimes comes to realizations about himself and his cases through his interactions with manifests.  In reality, River’s visions must ultimately come from himself, his own psyche and unconscious.  In learning to deal with and grapple with his unconscious manifests, River is learning to deal with his own emotions, buried traumas, and the dark side of his psyche.  This idea, that there can be some meaning behind and purpose to madness, is what really makes “River” a revelation.  Mental illness or whatever you want to call it, be it bipolar disorder, insanity, madness, psychosis, mania, schizophrenia, or depression may not be just some meaningless malfunction of the brain, but a healing mechanism that is attempting to make the invisible visible, the unconscious conscious, or the
fractured more whole.

In the end, River seems to come to an understanding of himself and comes to terms with his illness and his relationship to DS Stevenson.  Furthermore, the series paints a picture of mental illness not just as a divergence from normality, but as an alternative colour in the palette of humanity’s multitudinous perspectives.