3D Despicable

Yesterday I wanted to see “Despicable Me.” I went to the theater and as I was about to buy the ticket, I saw that it was in 3D. I wanted to see the regular movie, but the cashier explained that even though it was listed in the newspaper, they were now only showing the 3D version.

That’s despicable! Why are so many movies (especially animated ones) presented in 3D only? For one, they can charge more. But the more insidious reason is the disappointing reality that just like “supersizing,” “over-stimulating” and “more technological advances” are our cultural gluttony. Sadly More is More is our motto.

I go to the movies every week.

That’s right, EVERY week.

When I miss it for scheduling reasons, I watch movies I’ve taped on my DVR. I LOVE movies, but especially seeing movies in a theater. The big screen, the hushed darkness, the surround sound, all make the experience one that has thrilled me since I first went to see “Fantastic Voyage” at the Palace Theater when I was eleven years old.

But 3D is just not for me. It’s distracting, it’s dingy looking (it’s darker than the “normal” movie version), and those glasses, PLEASE!

I was so disappointed that I was going to have to pay extra to see a version that I didn’t want that I left and raced across town to a different theater to see it there, even though I missed the first five minutes.

Even Roger Ebert agrees with me:

“The sad thing, I am forced to report, is that the 3-D process produces a picture more dim than it should be. “Despicable Me” is technically competent and nowhere near the visual disaster that is “The Last Airbender,” but take my word for it: Try to find it in 2-D. Or, if you see it in 3-D, check out the trailers online to see how bright and cheery it would look in 2-D. How can people deceive themselves that 3-D is worth paying extra for?”

And now on to the movie: it was charming, visually exciting, imaginative and had a message: it’s never too late to try and fix your mistakes, especially in relationships. It was a familiar story of orphans and manipulative adults, much like Annie. But the twist is that the villain is actually the hero.

I enjoyed the way the main character, Gru, who is voiced by Steve Carell, is illustrated to resemble him. Even though he’s thrown on a quasi Russian accent (Boris and Natasha anyone?), his expressions and distinctive phrasing come through.

The outlandish world of Gru and his nemesis, Vector, intersect seamlessly with normal people, their odd homes smack dab in the middle of beautiful suburban streets. Gru’s transporation contraptions look like giant mutant submarines as they roar through neighborhoods and don’t turn anyone’s eye. When the humongous rocket lifts off from behind Gru’s Addams Family style mansion, it does rate a gaping stare from a neighbor washing his car.

I enjoyed this movie more than I thought I would; at first it was a lot of blowing up disasters and artillery seemingly inspired by James Bond-like gadgetry. But as it went on, I really became invested in these characters with all of their flaws and charms, and the ending was very satisfying.

Joan's Still Got It

I was thrilled when I saw that Joan Armatrading would be performing at the Egg in Albany, NY. I hadn’t thought about her music in years, but she was always a favorite in my early music choices and influences as a singer and songwriter.

She jumped right in with a romping rendition of “Show Some Emotion,” and the night was off to great start.

The Kitty Carlisle Hart Theater at the Egg is an intimate theater that seats 982, and it was about two thirds full. The sound is fantastic for a small electrified combo like her with bass, drums and keyboards. Even her acoustic 12-string and Ovation 6 string guitars rang out crisply. Her vocal mix was just right, always dominant over the instrumentation, her distinctive alto layered harmonically over the rest.

I never realized how percussive her phrasing style is, and her lyrics are very conversational. The opening glissandos across the neck of her big 12-string heralding “Love and Affection” had people up out of their seats. I didn’t want it to end, and she received a standing ovation in the middle of her set for this song.

Spritely and full of fun, she seemed to skip across the stage as she joked in a lilting British accent. It put me in mind of the lyrics to her song, “Join the Boys:"

We’ll be dancing in the floodlights
Second to none
Not even on a bad night

Nearing 60, her new music reflects a life well-lived and the same acceptance of where we are that most of us baby-boomers have journeyed to: an appreciation of life, serenity, relationships.

Songs from (and including title cut) “This Charming Life,” her newest release, were sprinkled throughout several gems from her nearly four decade career. She represented her several albums and musical directions well, and chose fan-favorite “Willow” as her encore.

The Girl Who Read the Books (And Couldn't Put Them Down)

I just finished the last book in Stieg Larsson’s Millennium series, “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” and “The Girl Who kicked the Hornet’s Nest.”

After seeing the movie version of the first book, and hearing about the sensation that this series has created all over the world, I eagerly devoured the second book. I then saw the movie based on it, “The Girl Who Played With Fire.” Although usually I feel like the book is better, in this case I’m glad I was exposed initially to these characters in the first movie. Noomi Rapace is the perfect Lisbeth Salander: slight, butch, intense and capable of both vacant stares and ferocious Kung Fu fighting.

Salander is one of the most compelling characters ever introduced in a story, an emotionally wounded genius researcher/computer hacker who will survive at all costs. A little off-kilter and woefully clueless with relationships, she distrusts everyone because her experience has taught her to depend on no one; ultimately everyone else will let her down.

I like her imperfection, and even her more brutal actions have logical reasons; she does not lash out maliciously, but in defense or for vengeance. It is interesting to view her confusion when she has to decide to let a handful of people try to help her expose the life-long injustice she was the unwitting pawn of by some shadowy government espionage types.

People in authority are portrayed here in a variety of ways, most as mindless or selfish bureaucrats and worse, manipulators of the law and system toward their own ends. It’s no surprise as both Larsson and Blomkvist are anti-government watchdogs with a nose for corruption and social inequity.

But there are few good men (and women) on the police forces, well-drawn characters who go against protocol and orders to uphold a citizen’s rights. In fact, the Swedish view of democracy, social responsibility and civil rights is a very important theme throughout the series.

The writing is at times like a reporter’s account, terse, factual and to the point, which is appropriate because Mikael Blomkvist’s character is a thorough investigative journalist (which is why I’m fact-checking the spelling of these names!) Parts of the story are presented so matter-of-factly that you have to read them twice to make sure to absorb their emotional or visceral content, particularly the violent scenes.

I didn’t want to finish the last book, “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest,” because even though I was dying to find out how things resolved, it was bittersweet: the author passed away shortly after delivering the three book series to his publisher and so there will be no sequels.

Or will there?

Apparently Larsson left about three quarters of a fourth novel on a notebook computer in his companion’s possession. Synopses or manuscripts of the fifth and sixth in the series, which was intended to contain an eventual total of ten books, may also exist. I for one hope there is a way to enjoy more of Salander’s life story.

Shut Up and Sing

Why did he have to ruin it? He was waiting for “the right moment” to make his little dig, his idea of humor, during the wonderful concert presented at the White House to honor Paul McCartney as he received the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song.

Why after all of the wonderful music he had written presented by several great performers did he feel the need to make a snarky comment about former president George Bush? Wasn’t the honor of the evening, the opportunity to be with president Obama and his family enough?

I am so tired of self-righteous entertainers and performers taking political pot shots and assuming that everyone in the audience agrees with their views. Even if you disagreed strongly with the former or current president, isn’t there a way to civilly or constructively express your opinion without sarcasm and disrespect?

Remember how graciously president Bush welcomed president Clinton when his portrait was unveiled at the White House? And his decency in the transition from his term to president Obama’s? Have we heard disparaging remarks from him since he left office?

Don’t get me wrong, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but is this the appropriate venue? And if you really feel that it is, I would actually listen to it if you weren’t insulting.

I must say I lost respect for this venerated musical icon, one who was so influential to me and all other musicians who came after him. It will be hard to watch the event again without the taint of disappointment in his tasteless and unnecessary cheap shot.