Writing the "Taxi" review

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

Although I didn't take any concrete details from this for my review, it was relevant to the subject of torture and helped soothe the indignation caused by the movie. This ex-interrogations team leader who saw the torture and abuse with his own eyes talks about his team's alternative techniques and the incredible results they yielded . It's relieving to hear a practical argument against torture to reinforce the moral ones that seem to fall on deaf ears, and to know that not everyone was conducting business like the men interviewed in the movie. I highly recommend reading this.

Elements of Style

One of my favorite things about this book is that the writing therein embraces the rules it sets forth by being pithy and vibrant. There are certain suggestions that made me particularly aware of mistakes that I frequently make:

-"Use the active voice." Consequently, active sentences are always shorter than passive ones, which proves the maxim that "brevity is a by-product of vigor."

-"Put statements in positive form." It's much harder to evoke concrete images when you deny the negative instead of asserting the positive. "He was obese" > "He was not skinny"

-"Whether" > "As to whether" I say the latter too often.

-I unnecessarily use "case" frequently.

-I use "claim" as a synonym for "declare, maintain, or charge."

-Didn't know the difference between "disinterested" vs "uninterested"

-Should replace "due to" with "though, because of, or owing to".

-"Farther" = distance, "further" = time or quantity

-I find it nearly unavoidable to use "hopefully", but am now aware of its incorrectness at least.

-I have been trying to eliminate the word "interesting" and "nice" from my writing/speech due to their overall lack of meaning, this reinforced that

-I needed to be reminded of the Lay vs Lie problem

-I hear people use unique on a scale of "slightly unique" to "extremely unique" frequently and am reminded of this book.

-The general philosophy that concise, clear, and powerful writing is the most effective.

"The Critic As Artist"

In "The Critic as Artist" Oscar Wilde argues the bold hypothesis that criticism is the paragon of artistic expression. He writes from the perspective of Gilbert and Ernest, the former with unbridled passion for Criticism and the latter with curious skepticism. This dialogue allows Wilde to use Gilbert as his mouthpiece, which results in a proud, elitist tone that comes off a bit didactic. 

The first thing Gilbert teaches Ernest is that the creative faculty is predicated on the critical faculty. He describes the critical element as "the spirit of choice, that subtle tact of omission" and self-consciousness. A critic must have a keen awareness of what he is including and not including in his work, and it must not be an unconscious accident. "All fine imaginative work is self-conscious and deliberate." Without self-consciousness, "there is no fine art". He makes it clear that no one lacking such a "delicate instinct of selection" will ever be able to "create anything at all in art."

Once he establishes creation's complete dependence upon criticism, Wilde moves to elevate criticism above creation. Gilbert says that "It is very much more difficult to talk about a thing than to do it" because it demands "infinitely more cultivation." And because great criticism "treats the work of art simply as a starting-point for a new creation", criticism can be "creative in the highest sense of the word."

Gilbert seems extremely biased. At one point, he compares the "majestic prose" of a critic to the "sunsets that bleach or rot on their corrupted canvases" of an artist.  I can understand what he's saying about "artistic creation implying the working of the creative faculty", but I don't agree that "It is only by language that we rise above [the lower animals]." Aren't there modes of action such as music that escape language and draw upon forms of emotion that are uniquely human? His idea that language is the parent of thought explains this opinion that writing is the supreme form of expression, but I think that's questionable as well. Could language not be the refinement of the raw, unprocessed thoughts in our minds? Words are like thought crystals.

"Taxi to the Dark Side" Must be Seen

Though challenging to watch because of its incessant displays of heinous human behavior, Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" is invaluable for the information it exposes and forces engagement with. What caused the abuses of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and who is responsible? Gibney offers such a comprehensive, cogent, and incisive outline of the Bush administation's deplorable decisions during the War on Terror that the death of Afghan prisoner Dilawar actually make sense.  

Interviews with military police and intelligence officers explain how an innocent taxi-driver was taken to Bagram prison and eventually murdered. Blithe descriptions of brutality portrays the men as embarrassingly ignorant of sympathy, compassion, and mercy for their prisoners. Despite nothing but constant cries for his family, Dilawar and the other Persons Under Control are perceived as "evil people that definitely had violent intentions."

The staggeringly dense editing combines interviews footage with zooming in and out on countless photographs, diagrams and news articles. Archival footage of courtroom cases, torture handycams, and suggestive reenactments round out the slick presentation. Statistics are presented, quoted, and analyzed. Weaved throughout the steady flow of facts, condemnations, and horrific accounts is a helpful narration track that focuses the shocking revelations around the questions of "who did this?", "who is actually responsible?", and "how was this allowed?"

Gibney traces the confusion about responsible detention and interrogation techniques from Bagram with Dilawar to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, and then goes back to 9/11 to give context for how the rules of war got so murky in the first place. Incriminating footage of Dick Cheney saying he wants to take the gloves off and get rough with detainees gets the sinister snowball rolling in regard to redefining torture in order to get any and all information possible.

No qualms are taken in condemning the primary architects of torture; Gibney relays the scandalous information that Cheney, Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo wrote  a series of memos arguing that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to suspected terrorists. Everything is presented logically enough to understand, even though no one wants to: a fog of ambiguity about how to behave in these difficult circumstances coupled with great pressure to produce results led to the "outrages upon human dignity" that Bush says "is so vague."

There are so many jaw-dropping displays of stupidity, inhumanity, and irresponsibility that it's impossible not to get mad, disturbed, and frustrated by this movie. Calling Cheney's comments about water-boarding being a "no-brainer" offensive would be a severe understatement. But it's those exact moments that force engagement with the material. Grappling with what has been done in our name only inspires people to act, or at least talk about it. It is made very clear to supporters of torture that it is inefficient, inhumane, and breeds contempt for the United States.

Two years ago when it was released, "Taxi" was a crushing blow to the American psyche. Things were going downhill and this movie seemingly exacerbated the bleakness. But under Obama's new anti-torture administration, Gibney's film is an educational achievement that will hopefully stand as an important document of how things used to be, instead of how things are today. 

Shooting down an album with logic

In his review of A Cross the Universe, a live album by French electro-duo Justice, David Abravanel utilizes an unusual structure that ends up being very effective. Instead of discussing individual tracks or giving a lead-in to the story behind the album, he simply posits two questions about the purpose of a live album. The entirety of the review is split between frankly answering these two questions, and it's to his credit that those answers also serve to answer the question of "Is this worth buying?"

First, he asks, "what is the purpose of a live album in the age of instant bootlegging?". He lists off qualities that stood out in pre-internet live recordings: sequencing, song selection, sound quality. This perfectly sets up his critique of those qualities in Justice's album, which are all lacking due to evidence he supplies. 

This pragmatic style is simple, yet effective because it's so logical. Due to fact that he is reviewing a live album, which has basic characteristics that need to set it apart from any other bootleg, it is possible for Abravanel to set up a hypothesis for what constitutes an enjoyable listening experience. 

When he tries to fit Justice's square peg of an album into these circle shaped criterion, his position that the album is only barely better than average is made clear. It's also thought-provoking to try and answer the questions he asks on your own, and his insightful answers will also make you ponder your own opinions about the matter. I really enjoyed this review.

"For Intimate Music, the Boldest of Designs" NYT Defense

Herbert Muschamp, the New York Times architecture critic from 1992-2004, was a champion of avant-garde, exuberantly experimental architects like Frank Gehry and Hans Scharoun. His protege Nicolai Ouroussoff was hand-picked by Muschamp's to be his successor in 2004, and since then he has taken up the mantle of applauding bold creativity in architecture quite well. 

His review of the Copenhagen Concert Hall, designed by Jean Nouvel, gives an immediate nod to the past with an evocative lead that alludes to Scharoun's Berlin Philharmonic. "It's usually considered an insult to say that an architect designs pretty packages, let alone that he borrows ideas from a dead genius." 

This is not only engaging because of the images of a sagely ghost and a gift-wrapped building, but because it hints that Ouroussoff really knows the scene. 

The "but" of the article comes literally right after that first sentence. "But Jean Nouvel should be forgiven for resurrecting old ghosts." It's implied that his work is an homage rather than a rip-off, and then the appropriate context for these historical references is given.

He reveals that the cascading balconies of the Copenhagen Concert Hall pay tribute to the similar interior of the Berlin Philharmonic. In a way it seems like Ouroussoff is also honoring the past by comparing one of his favorite ("Looking Skyward in Lower Manhattan" praises Nouvel) contemporary architect's work to one of his mentors'. He even name-drops Gehry in the next paragraph, further establishing his taste for the daringly imaginative.

Aided by his history with Muschamp and serious passion for everything post-modern, he is very knowledgeable about architecture's past, present, and future. He describes trends such as architects striving for decades to create more fluid spaces, declares that "we are in the midst of a glorious period in concert hall design", and gives an example of under-construction buildings that further prove his point. His authority comes from his education and obvious experience in the field. The density of information signals that this is coming from the perspective of an expert. 

The review is logically structured, progressing from the building's roots in history, to exterior descriptions, to cultural criticism, to interior descriptions, to praise of Mr. Nouvel himself. 

Despite his efforts to prove why this building is a step forward or relevant or culturally important, his physical descriptions are what really convinces me that this place is a masterpiece.  And the feelings he invokes from phrases like "the main performance hall wraps you in a world of luxury" complement his rave review quite well.

My attempt to review Gran Torino failed.

Looking over my Gran Torino review, it's actually rather difficult to find the thesis. It hardly works as one, but I'd have to say it's this - "The idea of a 78 year old man brutalizing a young gang member sounds comical, but seeing razor-sharp Walt unleash his elderly wrath commands nothing but awe-tinged respect." This is the first line of actual praise, and conveys my general idea that Walt is entertaining to watch.

But what it doesn't convey, nor does the rest of my review, is that I actually thought everything except Clint Eastwood was either mediocre or laughably bad. Something about my mixed feelings made me feel like I needed to lean more towards everything being good, and because I didn't completely agree with my writing, it came out sounding vague and uninspired. If I revised it, I would go much lighter on the plot summary and focus more on trashing the script/supporting performances. With plenty of evidence, of course. I was lacking on that. Lots more context would need to be given as well.

I think my review deserves a low-mid B, because the thesis is unclear, I use the cliche "Make no mistake about it", and there isn't enough criticism that's actually supported with detailed evidence.