Music Reviews-Aretha Franklin: Amazing Grace, Led Zeppelin: How the West Was Won, Alligator Stomp

Aretha Franklin- Amazing Grace

Many classic soul, R&B and funk singers came out of the black (generally Baptist and Pentecostal) church. Once they hit it big some left the gospel genre and never looked back as they predominantly performed secular music for ever more. Others eventually grew disillusioned with secular music and returned to the church. Some kept a foot in both worlds, releasing a back to roots gospel album every few years to prove to themselves and their audiences across the musical spectrum that they loved gospel and hadn't forgotten their roots. Perhaps some of this was just cynical marketing practice but given the very real venom with which some gospel partisans and critics viewed the practice of gospel stars crossing over, it's really no surprise that some gospel singers who made it big in the secular world would occasionally feel the artistic, personal (and religious?) need to produce a "purist" gospel album.

There are many such gospel/soul stars who have done this. Ray Charles, Mahalia Jackson, and Sam Cooke all come to mind but today I just want to quickly pull your coat to Aretha Franklin's Amazing Grace album. This 1972 masterpiece was recorded live with Aretha Franklin's touring band (which included heavyweight musicians like bassist Chuck Rainey, guitarist Cornell Dupree and drummer Bernard Purdie) and with gospel superstar James Cleveland (an influence on both Aretha Franklin and her father Rev. C.L Franklin), Cleveland's crack choir and Aretha's father himself. Mrs. Franklin herself obviously is the featured vocal soloist but also holds her own on piano. I'm not sure if she was featured on organ. In any event it was a glorious and seamless combination of traditional gospel music mixed with some more popular forms. 
As I've written before I love Franklin's voice and she was in rare form here. I think she's been so good for so long that we almost take her talent for granted. I really enjoyed the mashup of Thomas Dorsey's Precious Lord with Carole King's You've got a friend.

If you haven't heard this you owe it to yourself to give it a listen. I don't quite understand how anyone doesn't like gospel music but that's just because I grew up with so much of it. Then again I always gave a side eye to grown men with processed hair shaking and screaming "Can't nobody do me like Jesus!" but there's not much of that here. You don't have to be religious to love this music. Tastes differ of course but if you like gospel or soul this is a must have album. If you don't like gospel music well then this definitely isn't the release for you. More's the pity. My parents had this performance in various different formats over the years. I'm very familiar with all of the different classic gospel tunes featured within. Amazing Grace is today still Franklin's best selling release. Mary Don't You Weep is a wonderful update of the Inez Andrews classic. Chuck Rainey's bassline wouldn't be out of place on a Band of Gypsys release. The band and choir swing hard on How I got Over. Of course the title song Amazing Grace makes an appearance.  Precious Memories is slowed down to a crawl. Franklin and Cleveland duet. I also like James Cleveland's voice as it had a roughness similar to Howling Wolf's. Voices like that always remind me of my maternal grandfather. I wish I had a voice like that but I think you need to grow up drinking TNT, smoking dynamite and working from can't see until can't see. The album closes out with Never Grow Old.

The sound recordings are just about perfect. The bass is where it's supposed to be, deep and full in the mix, almost like a reggae recording while the guitar and drums do not dominate but instead support the vocals, pianos and organs, which generally are where the melody is to be found. Throw in some tambourines, handclaps and syncopation and you too will be transported back to the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church. Good stuff. This is the real deal. The audience and choir give a lot of feedback. I think the human voice is the most versatile and beautiful instrument. Franklin was and is one of the world's greatest singers.




Led Zeppelin-How the West Was Won

Led Zeppelin was one of my favorite bands despite their lack of attention to little things like properly crediting songwriters they covered. They were hardly alone in that sin of course. When this album was released years after the group had disbanded just about all of those issues had either been settled out of court or thrown out of court. The song credits had all been updated. Anyway that doesn't have much to do with the quality of their music. Either you like it or you don't. Their previous live album/concert movie The Song Remains The Same evidently caught them on a relatively bad series of nights, as the band sounded tired and apparently had tuning problems.
That was just not an issue in the 1972 Los Angeles concerts that make up How The West Was Won. The group is incredibly energetic, inventive and is collectively playing its a$$ off. I think Led Zeppelin was generally better in the studio than heard live but here they are a very very good live group. You may miss some of Jimmy Page's overdubs and studio wizardry but I suppose that's the case any time you listen to a live group where there's only one guitarist. 

Page does his best to make up for it and I think he does. But even as Page is challenged by the live format, Bonham is liberated by it. Drum solos and an even fuller heavier sound than you normally associate with Bonham are both on display. I've written before of how much I enjoy hearing the bass and tom-tom drums as separate audio events and that is true throughout this release. Bomham has a very thick but also quite clear sound that was probably unique among hard rock drummers. You may occasionally feel bludgeoned by his relentless attack here but I personally think that's a good thing. Plant is in full tenor glory. He warbles, sings and cries in ways that aren't necessarily soulful as I might use the word but definitely gets his point across. And bassist John Paul Jones not only holds the bottom end down in a manner which might make Bootsy smile but stretches out to play mandolin, electric piano and organ to add in all the little parts that made Led Zeppelin special.

For a live album the production quality is really good. Songs are extended and mashed up in medleys in which everyone gets a chance to shine. Most of the time this works very well. Sometimes it doesn't but the band just plays through it. If you are a hardcore Zeppelin fan you already have this. If you're just curious about Zeppelin this could be a good place to start as the three CD set, though it leans towards the heavier end of their discography, still has quite a few acoustic numbers. If you hate Zeppelin then obviously this is not the album for you.

Whole Lotta Love (extended w/medley)  Bron-Y-Aur Stomp   Going to California
LA Drone/Immigrant Song  Bring it On Home   Moby Dick  That's The Way  Heartbreaker
Stairway to Heaven  Since I've Been Loving You Dazed and Confused (part 1)





Alligator Stomp

Louisiana, or at least the New Orleans area of it, can be arguably said to be the birthplace of both jazz and rock-n-roll. Most people are familiar with Dixieland jazz and the traditional African-American second line drum and brass bands found in New Orleans and echoed in regions of West Africa and Brazil. But Louisiana is also home to different forms of music, stuff which is both related to and separate from the more familiar New Orleans music. I'm talking of course about Cajun music and Zydeco. Originally Cajun music tended to be more closely associated with European-Americans and featured violin or dobro soloists who played in a distinctly French or Celtic style while Zydeco was more closely associated with African Americans or mixed Creoles who often used used a more percussive style. But as early as the fifties, even despite the musical and social segregation the distinctions had become  increasingly meaningless. It's all just good music as far as I am concerned. Many of the singers, regardless of race, sang in French as much as they sang in English. Both Cajun music and zydeco are, like many of the other musics native to that part of the world, made for dancing.  Some are slow waltzes while others are outright get down and boogies. But usually this is not something that you sit and listen to quietly. 

Alligator Stomp is a sampler of various music by Cajun and Zydeco recording artists from across the color line. Some are black, some are white, some are other. They all have something to say. If you aren't familiar with these styles of music or worse, think they all sound the same, you might want to pick up this album. You may be surprised at some of the things you hear. There's the early rock-n-roll of Cleveland Crochet's Sugar Bee and Johnnie Allan's cover of Chuck Berry's Promised Land. You get the pleading white soul waltz of Jo-El Sonnier's Jolie Blonde. That's a favorite. There's Rocking Sidney with old school rock-n-roll You Ain't Nothing But Fine. That song combines a clean appreciation of the feminine form with just a hint of the wolf on the prowl. I love it. Queen Ida mixes straight ahead zydeco with humor in The Back Door. And zydeco king Clifton Chenier shows that rock-n-roll and zydeco are the same thing in Eh Petite Fille.

China-The New Frenemy

There is a long ugly history of Yellow Peril in American and Western literature and thought. This phenomenon generally looks at the much more numerous Chinese and/or East Asian peoples and sees in them not only unfathomable cultural and racial differences but also finds an insidious threat to the American way of life. This fear and hatred was once so great and well respected that authors like Jack London  (Call of The Wild) could write fiction calling for the complete and utter annihilation of Chinese-total genocide. Obviously no one is calling for such steps today but people from across the socio-political spectrum are starting to realize that while China may not quite be a threat but it's very much not a friend to the United States. China may be something a bit more dangerous than a competitor. Some have pointed out steps that the US must take to aggressively pursue its own desires vis-a-vis China.

These calls to action are not necessarily based in racist thought but in the very real fact that China's rise to economic prominence, its relentless demand for natural resources and its increasingly muscular foreign policy is not necessarily in the United States' or even the world's best interest. And when I say United States' best interest I am referring to the military-security state, the corporate superstructure, and the generally muted concerns of labor and environmentalists.

All of these groups' concerns are somewhat endangered by China's growth and behavior over the past few decades. Labor's concerns are obvious. Cheap Chinese labor reduces job and wage growth within the United States. The corporate sector was generally in favor of this of course but some corporations have belatedly realized that China simply does not believe in intellectual property protection in the same way that the US does, at least not for foreigners. And the military-security state may finally be reaching a point where it's not only concerned by China's rather pugnacious statements about several Pacific regions, including but not limited to Taiwan but also worried about the allegedly successful and ongoing penetration of corporate and government databases by Chinese hackers. When Vietnam, Japan, S. Korea and The Philippines are all trying to get closer to the US to get backup against Chinese bullying and over the top territorial claims, it may be that China is overplaying its hand. With rising inequality in China, the state may be deliberately fanning nationalist furies to take people's eyes away from internal problems. Imagine that.

Because President Obama is meeting with Xi Jinping this weekend, there have been a remarkable series of analysis pieces and op-ends detailing what's going on and what the nature of the US-China relationship will and should be going forward. I'm only going to link to two. If you can find it there is a great piece on China in the latest ISR (International Socialist Review). The ISR piece is longer than the two I've linked here but takes the view that China is now acting as a classic imperialist power just as the United States has. It details more of the history and interactions between the two countries.

Economics professor and gadfly Peter Morici's piece  has a list of steps that the US can and must take in a variety of places to, if you will, stop the Chinese batter from hogging the plate. There's nothing like a brushback pitch high and inside to get someone's attention.

Again, the Obama Administration turns to diplomacy, and China responds with denials. If not to change China then at least insulate the U.S. economy and national security from reckless and cynical behavior, the Obama Administration needs to act more aggressively. Moderate and progressive economists, such as Fred Bergsten and Paul Krugman, as well as this conservative voice, have advocated direct action on the currency issue: U.S. market intervention to raise the value of the yuan, slash the bilateral trade deficit, boost manufacturing and accelerate growth.

Limit Chinese investments to those sectors posing no security threats and to only minority stakes—no wholesale purchases of U.S. assets without reciprocity for U.S. businesses seeking to participate in the Chinese economy. If China wishes to engage in cyber warfare, after fair warning and without not much delay the United States should do more than harden defenses, but rather go after China's commercial secrets and security defenses as well. 

Be plain, demand transparency and engage in talks from a position of strength. Through fruitless diplomacy U.S. presidents have permitted China to become stronger and bolder—the lessons of history regarding appeasement are clear. Only stronger recognizable actions that impose costs on China may bring real change in its conduct and cultivate Beijing to act more responsibly and constructively.

The NYT piece points out that China's state financed economic model is in the short run defeating the US' market driven one. This is not a good thing as it will lead to misallocation of resources and an even more unpleasant changes in US worker expectations.

It is important to remember what is really behind China’s global economic expansion: the state. China may be moving in the right direction on a number of issues, but when Chinese state-owned companies go abroad and seek to play by rules that emanate from an authoritarian regime, there is grave danger that Western countries will, out of economic need, end up playing by Beijing’s rules. 

As China becomes a global player and a fierce competitor in American and European markets, its political system and state capitalist ideology pose a threat. It is therefore essential that Western governments stick to what has been the core of Western prosperity: the rule of law, political freedom and fair competition.

They must not think shortsightedly. Giving up on our commitment to human rights, or being compliant in the face of rapacious state capitalism, will hurt Western countries in the long term. It is China that needs to adapt to the world, not the other way around.

However it turns out I think from self-interest more and more people are thinking twice about the Chinese-US relationship. But the barn door is already open. We can't go back to the 1970's vis-a-vis China. And Chinese cheap labor will continue to be quite attractive to US and European corporations. The question is how do people outside of China deal with what has been described, fairly or not, as a devouring dragon. We have to find a way to ensure that continued interaction with China is beneficial to both countries and the entire planet, not just for one nation or for a small number of elites within each country. I like the idea of raising the value of the yuan and taking steps to make China pay for any hacking.

Thoughts?

US Government Seizing Verizon Phone Records????

I don't have very much to add about the below story. It grows out of the Patriot Act, which was initially passed under President Bush and extended/expanded under President Obama. All I can say is IF this is true then it once again proves my point that when you give government expanded power to investigate you, violate your privacy and keep a watch over what you're doing, government will use it. This is not just about President Obama and/or his advisers and appointees having a disregard for privacy or limited actions to discover leaks or criminal wrong doing. Although in my opinion they certainly do have that disregard. No the problem here is that under the Patriot Act and associated legislation this is probably all completely legal. The only limitation to executive branch snooping is not the law or divided government but the caprices or morality of various people in the executive branch. This is not how our society is supposed to work but you know what I'm starting not to care any more. The Patriot Act was passed and passed again. People just don't care about civil liberties.

IF this report is true and that's a big IF it would just be another nail in the coffin of limited government and privacy. Again, this isn't just about "bad people". If I had powers to do things like this I couldn't be trusted either. No one could which is why historically the power of the state to invade your privacy had to be done under warrant, had to be specific to an action that you allegedly took and had to have some sort of probable cause.  I honestly think that eventually we ought to just get rid of the Bill of Rights, or at least the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Because IF this story is true, it's not as if anyone in power cares much about them...with the exception of whoever leaked this story.

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. 

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Welcome to surveillance society. But don't worry. I'm sure the Republicans would have been worse on this issue. Or something like that. Big government is your friend. And we know that the Administration will get to the bottom of this. No expense will be spared...to find out who told the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald about all of this...IF it's true. I keep saying IF it's true because after all we know the government would NEVER grab up millions of phone records just because it could...right? Can you hear me now??

Thoughts?

Kaitlyn Hunt is NOT Rosa Parks...

..though she MIGHT be Genarlow Wilson...if Wilson had been a legal adult when he did what he did. 
Formal equality under the law is a funny thing. There are still some remaining exceptions to it. Women do not have to register for selective service, though I think that will change soon. Women still pay less for life insurance and auto insurance. Ladies' Nights in bars or nightclubs are generally still legal. Men are arguably shortchanged in divorce and child custody claims. Private organizations have greater latitude to include or exclude people as they see fit. Men and women are both free to take maternity/paternity leave though men often do not, which adds to inequality. And so on. 
Most Americans would probably agree that equality under the law is a good thing. If I am accused of a crime the judge, jury or prosecutor should treat, judge and sentence me based on the evidence. I shouldn't be treated differently because I am of a particular age, gender or race. There shouldn't be any laws that dictate that person A of group A receives this sentence while person B of group B gets that sentence for the exact same crime. Obviously this is the theory and not the practice as there are still several instances where people don't get equal treatment. We've discussed "marriage equality" or what was more commonly known as "gay marriage".  This means that two people of the same gender should be able to marry just as two people of the opposite gender can. Some think this to be the greatest civil rights issue of our time. Well maybe. I don't much care one way or the other. But I do think that if a community wants equality under the law for the good things in life then it must be willing to accept equality under the law for the bad things.

To wit the Kaitlyn Hunt case. You may remember the Genarlow Wilson case in which a seventeen year old young man had sexual relations with two girls (young women) who were seventeen and fifteen. This was evidently part of a group sex incident. The case facts were recently rehashed here. Some people still view Wilson as a rapist. Kaitlyn Hunt is an 18 year old woman who had sexual relations with a 14 year old girl. They met in a Florida high school. Hunt has refused a plea deal and appears ready to proceed to trial. Her parents and attorney accuse the minor's parents and prosecutors of homophobia. Contrary to what's been reported Hunt admits to being eighteen before starting a sexual relationship with the minor. Hunt doesn't view herself as a child abuser. Neither do some people in the gay community or the media.

Problem is though the law is pretty clear on the fact that eighteen year olds aren't supposed to be having sex with fourteen year olds. The law doesn't make any exception for sexual orientation or gender. 

There's an old joke that "15 will get you 20". In other words it doesn't really matter how old an adult thought a child was. It doesn't matter if the child was mature for his or her age. It doesn't matter if the child consented. It doesn't matter if the child was "experienced". There is a certain age below which a child can not consent. Period. In the arrest affidavit when asked if she knew it was wrong to have sex with a fourteen year old Hunt replies that "she did not think about it because the girl acted older". Right. Just imagine a man saying that. Would we not start measuring the rope for the lynching party?

Now it may be the case that age of consent laws were primarily written out of concern for male predators and female victims and to a lesser extent for male predators and male victims. (Attractive) female predators with male victims may cause some older men to snicker that "I wish my teachers had looked like that!!" while female predators with female victims may slip under the radar entirely. For both biological and cultural reasons people tend to be a little more perturbed about an older man with a younger girl than the opposite. But the law is the law.

I am certainly not under the misconception that Hunt was the only eighteen year old in the universe who ever had sex with a fourteen year old. She just got caught.
But if the female victim's parents and/or the police and prosecutors discover a female predator what do you think they should do? Turn a blind eye to it because it's a same sex interaction? How would that work? There are many cases where an older man or boy runs afoul of statutory rape laws and finds himself in a world of pain. In some cases you can make a legitimate argument that the law is out of touch with current realities. In other cases it's pretty obvious that the older person is indeed a predator and/or pedophile. The jury can decide the facts if the older person wants to go to trial.

But I don't automatically think we can say that the prosecutors or the parents are acting out of malicious or "homophobic" reasons in proceeding with the case. The parents may well have acted even sooner if the alleged predator were male. Listen to what the parents say here. And ask yourself what you would have done. AFAIK we lack evidence either that the parents made anti-gay statements or that the prosecutor disproportionately goes after same sex statutory rape cases. Absent that or some proof that Kaitlyn Hunt has been singled out/overcharged I don't accept charges of bias. But biased prosecution or not, no one made Hunt take those actions. And comparing Kaitlyn Hunt to Rosa Parks or the civil rights movement is ridiculous. Rosa Parks was not agitating for the right to have sex with fourteen year old girls.

Kaitlyn Hunt should be treated like any other eighteen year old who had sex with a fourteen year old. Her sexual preference and gender should not matter. And I have known too many women, who at fourteen identified one way but upon maturity identify in completely a different way to accept the argument of Hunt's supporters that this is about homophobia. No. From what I can see this is about parents who don't want their fourteen year old daughter having sex with an adult woman. And I find no fault with that... 

What's your take? Is Hunt being unfairly singled out?

Do consent laws need to be changed?

Should there be different standards for age of consent for heterosexual vs. homosexual relationships?

Shakeup on Obama Foreign Policy Team: Susan Rice to be named National Security Adviser

Samantha Power, Susan Rice, President Obama

Susan Rice will depart as US Ambassador to the United Nations and head over to the White House where she will have direct access to the President, as National Security Adviser. Rice will replace Tom Donilon who is leaving the post, after serving on the Obama Foreign Policy team for more than four-years. Replacing Rice as Ambassador to the United Nations will be Samantha Power. Though I'm still a little bitter with Rice for her withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of State, I think that this may prove to be a good move for her. Rice gets to bypass Senate confirmation for this position. 




From The Washington Post:

National security adviser Thomas E. Donilon will resign his post, White House officials said Wednesday, and will be replaced by U.N. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, a close confidant of President Obama with deep foreign policy experience who is disliked by Republicans buthad been widely expected to move into the job.

White House officials said Donilon’s resignation will take effect early next month. Aseasoned Washington insider, Donilon has held senior national security posts in the administration since Obama took office, rising from the principal deputy national security adviser to his current job.

But his reputation for protecting Obama politically has caused friction with other agencies over the years, beginning in the fall of 2009, when he advocated for a far smaller deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than the Pentagon had requested.

Executing the administration’s shift to a stronger focus on Asia in its foreign policyhas been one of Donilon’s primary policy initiatives; his resignation is timed to follow the summit meeting he helped organize between Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping this weekend.

Rice has long been among Obama’s most trusted foreign policy advisers, and her move from the United Nations has been expected since she withdrew her name from consideration as secretary of state late last year.

Rice withdrew amid criticism of her role in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

Republicans on Capitol Hill accused Rice of misleading the public over the nature of the attack in an attempt to protect Obama from criticism during a difficult re-election campaign.

The Senate does not need to confirm her as national security adviser.

The news of Donilon’s resignation was first reported by the New York Times.

White House officials said Obama will nominate Samantha Power to replace Rice at the United Nations. Power, who won a Pulitzer Prize for her book “A Problem from Hell” on the U.S. response to genocide, served as a senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights on the National Security Council during Obama’s first term.

Her much-anticipated nomination to become ambassador to the United Nations will require Senate confirmation.

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: The Rains of Castamere, Robb Stark and Red Wedding

Life at last sit and listen while the fun begins
Hearts are broken and the bad guys win
Sit and listen all the cutting up is easy
And this isn't for the queasy or the weak of heart
You had better start for home while there's still time
-Life at Last by Paul Williams

Well now you know the exact moment in the book A Storm of Swords that made me hurl the book across the room, run over to pick it up to see if there was some mistake and then upon discovering that there wasn't, seriously consider hunting GRRM down and going completely Annie Wilkes on him.  Ok. Well not really. I am joking. It's just a story. But I would like to just ask him WTF dude? Why? I stopped reading the book for a few days because I was so po'd. Well life goes on. There are other shocking moments remaining in the published series. I'm sure GRRM probably has a few others planned in the books yet to be written. And no doubt Benioff and Weiss have their own surprises in the HBO adaptation. But I don't think anything will ever shock or anger me more.

Who could have expected The Red Wedding. In hindsight it was obvious. Robb was unbeatable in battle. Unfortunately Robb neglected to understand Bolton's self-interest, Frey's pride and duplicity and the political challenges caused by Stannis' loss at King's Landing. This episode was extremely powerful not only for the brutal betrayal but also because it kept to a very tight group of characters with minimal jumping around. Before we get to the event which really changed everything even more than Ned's execution did, let's take a quick look at the other storylines in the ninth episode.

Daenerys and her advisors are looking for a way to attack Yunkai. Daario takes the opportunity to get close to and touch Daenerys. She doesn't seem to mind. Daario knows of a back gate thru which he can enter, kill the guards, and then take Grey Worm and Jorah in and then open the front gate.  Daario thinks this is a piece of cake. Jorah doesn't trust Daario but Grey Worm does. Of course Grey Worm doesn't have his little grey worm any more which is probably why he is not threatened by Daario the way that Jorah is. Barristan wants to come along but Jorah tells him to stay and guard Daenerys, the Queen. In Yunkai Daario does just as he said he would. Grey Worm and Jorah enter and find dead guards and Daario smirking. However the three men are then attacked by reinforcements. At this point the three men show that they are some baaaaaaaad motherf- shut your mouth!! Outnumbered 20 to 1? They don't care. Surrounded and facing certain death? Bring it on. Although the later battle is not shown in detail they obviously survive and manage to open the gate and let the army in. Daenerys is anxiously awaiting for news. The bloodied but triumphant Jorah enters and tells of victory. Daenerys thinks that's great and all but what about Daario? Daario enters and repeats what Jorah just said but with more flourish. This makes Daenerys quite happy. Jorah is obviously wondering why being a nice guy just doesn't seem to be getting him anywhere with Danerys. You had better brush up on your Game, Jorah. It's all in the reflexes. Just ask Jack Burton.

Sam discusses Castle Black's history and how to reach it with Gilly who finally seems to be impressed that Sam actually knows something useful. Of course one wonders how much it would really take to impress Gilly but Sam's happy and that's a good thing.
Tormund, Orell, Ygritte, Jon Snow and their wildling commando party come across an old man who breeds horses for the Night's Watch. Jon doesn't want to kill the man but the wildlings are eager to kill someone. They attack the farm but Jon accidentally on purpose clangs his sword against a rock which gives the old man a warning. The fellow gets on his horse and rides off. Ygritte shoots at him but misses (deliberately?) just as Jon tells her to stop.

Bran and his group are in a tower in the Gift. Bran wants to know how to get past the wall. Hodor is scared of lightning.  As it turns out the old man that had escaped was ridden down by the now horse equipped wildlings. They are outside of the tower. Hodor is yelling in fear and almost by accident Bran wargs into Hodor to calm him down and prevent him from giving away their presence. Orell thinks he heard something but Tormund dismisses it. He's eager to kill the captured man. 

Orell demands that Jon Snow kill the man to prove his loyalty. Jon won't do it.  Trying to save face Ygritte kills the man but it's too late. Orell wants to kill Jon Snow and Ygritte too for that matter. It's precisely then that Bran is able to warg into Summer. Summer and Shaggydog attack the wildlings. Jon kills Orell, who wargs into an eagle and attacks Jon. Jon rides off and most emphatically does not stop to pick up Ygritte. She's heartbroken by this but Tormund tells her it is what it is. This is an important point here. It goes back to conflicting ideas and demands of honor. We know that Jon Snow is a "good guy" but from Ygritte's POV he's betrayed her in a very ugly way.  From Ygritte's perspective Jon Snow is a real SOB. She's given him her body, her love, her trust and her knowledge and he's given her what exactly? 

Bran decides that he will head North with Meera and Jojen while Osha will take Rickon to Last Hearth, the Umber stronghold. Arya and The Hound continue to the Twins, bickering with each other about their fears and killing. Arya says she will kill The Hound one day and that he's not so tough. The Hound intends to pose as a meat/wine salesman in order to get inside The Twins, the Frey's castle.  I am sure that the 6-6 Hound who is nothing if not dangerous looking will be able to convince other men of violence that he is a simple peasant seller of meat and wine. And now we get to the horrific part.

Robb apologizes to his mother for not listening to her advice about Theon. He wants her assent to his plan to attack Casterly Rock with Walder Frey's help. Catelyn gives it. They reach The Twins along with their remaining soldiers as well as Edmure and the Blackfish and their men. They parkake of bread and salt. This is really freaking important as it indicates that you have guest right and may not be harmed under your guest's hospitality. Violating guest right is an atrocity akin to kinslaying, if not worse. However guest right doesn't extend to insults. Despite Robb's heartfelt apologies to Walder Frey and his various female relatives, Walder Frey makes highly sexual and extremely insulting comments to Talisa.  Bolton is attending the wedding. To Edmure's surprise Roslin Frey is actually quite pretty. So he's happy to be married to her, something which amuses his sister and uncle. Bolton refuses to drink claiming that drink removes his edge. He points out to Catelyn that marriage to a Frey was very profitable for him. This worries Catelyn a bit as Roose looks exactly like the cat that just swallowed the canary.

Talisa tells Robb that she will name their child Eddard if it's a boy. The bedding ceremony begins. Edmure and Roslin are removed from the room. Roose temporarily excuses himself.  Shortly after his return Catelyn's sixth sense goes off. It's quiet. Too quiet. She gets even more nervous and wary when she sees a Frey bar the door. The wedding band starts to play "The Rains of Castamere", which if you were paying attention in the last episode, you know is the Lannister retribution theme. Bolton is sitting very close to Catelyn and she sees that he's now wearing mail. Catelyn cries out a warning to Robb but it's all too late. There's a shot of Grey Wind trying to get out. The slaughter begins. Talisa is stabbed in her stomach/uterus multiple times. Stark loyalists are shot from above by Frey soldiers. The Hound and Arya arrive at the Twins but are refused entry. The Hound notices armed Freys entering the Twins and knows something's amiss. Arya has gone into the courtyard where she witnesses the murder of the Stark-Tully contingent by Freys and presumably Boltons. All throughout the castle Starks and Tullys are killed. Robb is shot multiple times and Catelyn is wounded. Grey Wind is trying to break out. Arya is this close to rescuing her brother's wolf but Frey soldiers come and shoot the wolf dead. Arya still wants to get inside but The Hound has found her and takes her away saying it's too late.

Inside it's almost over. Just about all the Starks are dead. Walder Frey mocks Robb as he holds on to his dead wife. Catelyn grabs a dagger and snatches up Walder Frey's wife saying that unless Frey lets Robb go she will kill his wife. Frey shows that his sexism runs bone deep as he says he'll just get another wife. On his mother's orders the badly wounded Robb is trying to stumble to the door when his treacherous bannerman Bolton stabs him dead, saying the Lannisters send their regards. Catelyn keeps her word by killing Frey's wife. She is then herself murdered. There was no ending music.

And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? 

Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know. 

In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws, 

And mine are long and sharp, my lord,as long and sharp as yours. 

And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of Castamere, 

But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear. 

Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear 

What I liked

• As a Stark bannerman there was really nothing I "liked" in this episode. I knew it was coming obviously so it didn't quite have the gut punch that it did in the book but it was still pretty freaking horrible to watch. So Benioff and Weiss deserve much credit for getting the series' most shocking moment mostly right.
• Frey is suitably appalling. It wasn't just about the broken betrothal of course. 
• The confused look of hurt and betrayal that Ygritte has when Jon doesn't look back to her. Honor has costs. Jon may think he's doing the right thing but that doesn't change the fact that he deeply hurt Ygritte. Jon broke a commitment for honor while Robb did so for love.
• I really identified with Robb. He's a young man trying to lead his people after his father's murder. He doesn't have all the answers but none of us do.
• After Season One Michelle Fairley really grew on me as Catelyn Stark. I don't think she had quite enough to do in Season Three especially but her scenes last night were incredibly good. Her rising sense of unease and panic were just so well played. Well done, Ms. Fairley.
• I guess the speculation about Talisa being a spy can be put to rest. 

What I didn't like

• Well that's rather evident isn't it.
• I also missed Robb's northern contingent, especially the GreatJon. Most of them are killed of course but in the book they go out hard and take some people with them, unarmed though they are.
• In the book Grey Wind, along with Catelyn, provides more of an early warning to Robb. Grey Wind snarls anytime a Frey is around and completely freaks out upon reaching The Twins.  Robb ignores these warnings. The Freys also insist that Robb separate himself from Grey Wind. IIRC Grey Wind also takes out a few Freys with him before being killed. I could be wrong about that though. I threw the book across room remember so some details are kinda fuzzy. I do know that if my dog doesn't like someone...I listen to my dog.
• The bread and salt acceptance should have been a bit more played up in importance. It is only then that Catelyn relaxes and lets down her guard.
• GRRM seems to have a serious disdain for characters that try to do the right thing. I understand realism and cynicism, being somewhat of a cynic myself but dammit do you have to keep killing Starks? The author says some things are required.

Questions

1) Did you see anything like this coming (assuming you didn't read the books of course)

2) Does this make you give up on the series or are you more interested now?

3) What should/could Robb have done differently to avoid this? 

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here.  NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea..of course as the series biggest spoiler is no longer a spoiler perhaps instead of decapitation you would just get sent to the Wall...

Movie Reviews- Broken City, Texas Chainsaw 3D, Pawn, Hammer of the Gods

Broken City
directed by Allen Hughes

I've often wondered how people who are married to or seriously involved with actors, actresses, models or other artistic folk keep their equanimity when their spouse or significant other does a love/sex scene or photo shoot that either seems too real or features graphic nudity. Imagine everyone seeing, enjoying and commenting on what you thought only you were supposed to see. I certainly couldn't deal with that but obviously thousands of people do so quite easily. Artists are different folks. If you can't accept the very particular artistic and business requirements that a performing artist works under or the fact that your significant other may have wildly different ideas than you concerning privacy and decorum then you probably should be with someone whose values and mores are a closer match to your own.

I mention this because it's a minor plot point in Broken City. New York City private eye Billy Taggart (Mark Wahlberg) has a relationship with Natalie Barrow (Natalie Martinez), an actress and would be screenwriter. The two really come from different worlds. Billy is a former NYPD cop who killed the criminal who raped and murdered Natalie's sister. He's a former cop because though he was cleared of murder charges, the NYPD decided it could do without his services. Natalie's parents love Billy but Natalie herself is showing worrying signs that the thrill may be gone. The movie implies that the Puerto Rican Natalie may think that the Caucasian and temperamentally conservative Billy is no longer a good fit for her ambitions or her artistic, metrosexual, liberal, heavily minority circles. Gratitude isn't a good basis for sustained erotic interest.

But that's a small concern for Billy at first. He's trying to keep his business afloat and doesn't have the time to worry about Natalie's emotional ups and downs. As a private eye Billy no longer has access to the official state power which he enjoyed as a cop. So clients feel free to slow pay him or worse not pay him. He's assisted by his young smart mouth secretary Katy (Alona Tal from Supernatural) who may have a thing for her boss. They track down just enough debtors to pay the office back rent and avoid eviction. So Billy thinks it's manna from heaven when he's contacted by Mayor Hostetler (Russell Crowe), who with the assistance of Billy's former boss and now police commissioner Carl Fairbanks (Jeffrey Wright), helped Billy out all those years ago. The mayor is calling in a favor, albeit one he's willing to pay handsomely for. He wants Billy to follow his coolly attractive wife Cathleen (Catherine Zeta-Jones). The mayor is certain she's having an affair. Billy is ordered to find out who the other guy is and get pictures. The money the mayor offers is enough to fix Billy's precarious financial situation for good.

But Cathleen is not exactly a dummy. She quickly picks up that she's being followed and who likely ordered it. She confronts Billy and tells him he has no clue as to what's really going on. Commissioner Fairbanks also seems to be running into Billy a bit more than randomness would indicate. But Billy is a man who believes in fair work for fair pay. He's also not particularly introspective. In his line of work he can't afford to be. He figures out that Cathleen is having an affair with Paul Andrews. (Kyle Chandler)  Andrews just so happens to be the campaign manager for Jack Valiant (Barry Pepper) who is running against the mayor in the upcoming election. Billy duly provides the photographic evidence of a meeting between Cathleen and Paul. Shortly afterwards some events take place to suggest to Billy that perhaps not everything was as seems. Murder, adultery, corruption all mix together. But Billy is a man who believes in doing right, even if he can't always figure out what the right thing is or if the right thing to do is not necessarily the legal thing to do.

This was the first movie directed by Allen Hughes (Menace II Society) without his twin brother Albert. It tries to be a modern film noir. Although Hostetler is a very obvious stand-in for NYC Mayor Bloomberg, otherwise the film has some links back to fifties films like Detective Story, The Big Heat, Dark City and a few others. Unfortunately something went wrong in transition and I'm not really sure what it was. Perhaps Wahlberg is more of an action movie name; maybe Zeta-Jones needed a larger role. Yes I would have liked to have seen a slightly stronger role with Zeta-Jones. This film probably lacks a femme fatale and you can't really have a good noir without one. Anyway this wasn't a great movie. It wasn't a bad movie. It was just blandly worthwhile. It is not as action packed as the trailer would have you believe.
TRAILER





Texas Chainsaw 3D
directed by John Luessenhop

Look if you watch any of these movies you pretty much know what you're going to get, right? There won't be any surprises. A group of physically attractive teens or young adults go somewhere isolated, ignore some very obvious problems or even explicit warnings, and proceed to get murdered in quite gruesome ways, though not before at least a few of them get laid or otherwise show some skin, usually of the female variety. It is predictable, so much so that much like Cabin in the Woods proposes, you almost wonder if there is something in the human psyche, or at least the American one, that almost requires this as a sacrifice.
Well maybe.

But this film proves that even though many horror films work the same (crowded) side of the street, the director's and writer's skills matter quite a bit. You have to find a new fresh way to present the story. The only real new element here was that the director/writers tried to make Leatherface into a misunderstood anti-hero. This failed. Witness the successful ploy by the director Rob Zombie in The Devil's Rejects  where he makes the Firefly family into virtual anti-heroes despite their enthusiastic engagement in sadistic gory evil that would make Leatherface go running for his mommy. If you're not careful you can actually wind up feeling sorry for the Firefly clan when they go the way of all flesh. But in this movie you don't really feel sorry for anybody. I mention The Devil's Rejects because like that movie Texas Chainsaw 3D also stars Bill Moseley and is a reworking of Texas Chainsaw. The Devil's Rejects is not only a far superior horror film; it's a far superior film, period.

Texas Chainsaw 3D is a rebooted sequel to the original. After the escape of a young girl who informs the authorities of the murderous and cannibalistic activities of the Sawyer clan, especially Leatherface (Dan Yeager), the townspeople gather and burn down the Sawyer farm house. They do this even though the Sawyers were considering surrendering and did not fire first. The townspeople shoot any survivors they find and pose with dead bodies or body parts. It's reminiscent of a lynching (deliberately so?). This is done over the sheriff's objections.

However a husband and wife involved in the murder of the Sawyers find a baby girl and decide to raise her as their own. This Sawyer girl grows up to become the delectable Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) who lives with her boyfriend Ryan (Trey Songz). Heather gets a letter from a grandmother she never knew existed which deeds her the Sawyer mansion. Heather decides to take a road trip to see the mansion with Ryan and their friends Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sanchez). In order to have another person around for chainsaw fodder they pickup an untrustworthy hitchhiker named Daryl (Shaun Sipos). They arrive at the mansion. Leatherface lives there in secret. You can reread the first paragraph to learn what happens next. Ho hum. Daddario is nice looking and earnest; Trey Songz might have a future in acting. But this was a bad film. This is legitimately something which is watched on a night you don't feel like going out or on a weekend afternoon when you're drifting in and out of a nap. OMG they killed Kenny!!!!
TRAILER




Pawn
directed by David J. Armstrong

This was an independent low budget film directed by a first time director. So it could have been a trainwreck. But it wasn't. It featured some big names (Ray Liotta, Forest Whittaker, is it just me or has his lazy eye gotten more noticeable, Common, and Michael Chiklis among others) but the movie's real star is the plot. Unfortunately the low budget limits the movie's potential, as does the fact that the film's noticeable names, with the exception of Chiklis, don't have a whole lot to do. 

The story involves a series of errors which cause Nick (Sean Faris), a recent parolee who's desperately trying to stay on the straight and narrow, to wind up in a late night diner that's in the process of being robbed by Derrick (Chiklis in the film's meatiest role) and two other goons. Derrick is British which gives Chiklis a chance to try out a (to me) seemingly genuine British accent. But Derrick isn't just a strong arm thug though he certainly can play one convincingly. No, the apple of Derrick's eye is some information that he thinks is held in the dinner somewhere. For you see, this particular diner with the friendly manager/cook (Stephen Lang) is a mob front. Obviously none of the diners or waitstaff know this. But Derrick thinks some people in the diner do know what he's looking for, and he's not shy about hurting, bullying or killing as necessary to get what he came for. Things don't proceed quite as Derrick planned and a hostage situation breaks out. To Derrick's glee and Nick's dismay, the police and some other more dangerous people assume that Nick is the mastermind behind this caper. I mean he just got out of prison, right. What else do they need to know.

Whittaker and Liotta play people who may or may not be on opposite sides while Common is a police negotiator who likes people to know he's in charge. The film is a little claustrophobic at times since most of the action takes place in the diner. But that was probably the point. Liotta oozes understated menace. I would be intrigued to see what this film would look like remade with a larger budget and some minor rewriting to tighten up character motivations. I didn't quite think this was a must see film but Chiklis' blustering and Common's alpha male posturing are just enough to carry it across the finish line. I also would be interested in seeing what else Faris might do in a larger role. He was somewhat underutilized.
TRAILER




Hammer of the Gods
directed by Farren Blackburn

If you're looking for a violent gritty adventure flick set in late Dark Ages Britain when the Vikings had started their centuries long harassment and invasion of Saxon ruled England this could be up your alley. Did I mention it was violent? It's not quite as violent as Ironclad but the two movies are kissing cousins. Some of these names might be off because the sound levels were a little odd. In 871 AD an old Viking King (Game of Thrones' Lord Commander Mormont James Cosmo) is wounded in battle with the Saxons. His people are surrounded and outnumbered. It's likely the king himself won't make it past the week. Nevertheless the king has sent for his son Steinar (Charlie Bewley), who has fought his way thru Saxon lines to reach his Daddy. 

Steinar is not due to inherit. That title should go to his eldest brother Hagen (Clive Standen). But Hagen is not a leader of men. He would rather arrange a man's death and make deals behind closed doors than fight. In Viking culture just because you're the oldest son of a king doesn't mean you should be king. The King thinks Steinar might make a good king someday but despite Steinar's warrior nature his father doesn't think he has quite the brutality and ruthlessness to be king. It doesn't help that Steinar is an atheist who doesn't really go for the rape of women (or boys) or what he sees as needless violence. The king's other son Vali (Theo Barklem Biggs) is illegitimate, somewhat wimpish and half-Saxon. When the king capriciously orders Steinar to kill Vali, Steinar won't do it. This confirms his father's fears about him. 

Nope, as far as the old wardog is concerned there's only one son that deserves to rule after him and that's Hakan (Elliot Cowan), who was banished years ago for some unspecified crime. Steinar is ordered to find Hakan and return with a king. Everyone knows that Hakan is hyperviolent even for a Viking, brutal and quite possibly insane. Nobody thinks he would make a good king. Everyone thinks Steinar should ignore his father's dying orders. But Steinar is nothing if not a devoted son so he sets out to find Hakan. He takes along with him his best friends and Vali, who may or may not be working for the Saxons.
Someone is betraying them though because the Saxons and/or other people seem to know their moves before they make them. This was a combination of King Lear, Apocalypse Now, Heart of Darkness, The Wizard of Oz and The Magnificent Seven. Cosmo dominates the scenes he's in even though he's in a bed for most of the movie. Did I mention this film was violent?
TRAILER