Hector A. Ruiz

MBA, Project Manager, Tennis Player, Musician, and Author of "How to Destroy a Country"

Can Friends hold up? – Part 2

By

On May 26, 2025

In Movies and TV/Steaming Series

Season Two of Friends pretty much picks up where Season One left off: it transmits to viewers that this is a corporate run show, produced with a lot of humanity and talent. It’s a crafted show, but a very good one.

I was experiencing the teenager’s life at the time when season one was airing: partying, playing lead guitar on a few bands, dating plenty of women, and getting ready to go to college -which was a separate experience on its own-. I preface that to say that up until this one day I was at my at the time girlfriend’s house, I had never fully watched an entire episode of Friends. She was a huge fan, and never missed a new episode. On that day, it was The One with the list.

I was somewhat aware of the characters’ dynamics and some of the show’s plots, so it was a welcoming sensation that I did not need much background to be able to follow the episode’s story. I vividly remember the cold opening to this day, when Chandler proudly opens his new bad boy: a newly acquired laptop -it looked like a COMPAQ, which was arguably the state of the art at the time-, brags about the device’s superb specifications: “12 megabytes of ram, 500 MB hard drive and a modem that can transmit at 28,000 bps” (amazing how less then two decades later, even the cheapest phone available today can beat that). I loved the exchange that follows:

-“What are you going to be using it for?”

–“Games and stuff…”

…which is exactly what any single male in their 20s would have done with such a monster equipment back in 1995.

I thought the premise of the episode was kind of stupid: three smart men being unable to hide a list of Rachel’s flaws that had been typed into the laptop, and then printed. Anyone would have come up with any decent lie to cover the whole thing up: “It’s a list of gifts for our first anniversary / your birthday”; “It’s a list of places for us to visit during the summer”. Heck it could have even been a list of Rachel’s flaws, not having Ross involved in it at all: “Joey and Chandler were talking about why neither of them would date you, so they came up with a list of reasons why.”

…but no, they came up with Ross being the responsible, hence leading him to losing his chance of finally becoming boyfriend with the girl he had always been in love with. The rest of the episode is forgettable, except for the ending. I laughed out loud at the radio host turning off Ross’ request to dedicate U2’s With or without you to Rachel as he tried to apologize to her, and instead playing some other song a guy dedicated to his girlfriend to apologize to her after running over her with his car.

Back to the season’s review, this is a season I watched retrospectively over the years that followed that day at my then girlfriend’s house. As time went on, I was able to gain more appreciation towards it. I still feel though that one can look at Season Two like a continuation of Season One.2, rather than being its own separate ploy.

It starts off with The one with Ross’ new girlfriend, which is probably one the best episodes (the irony being that Ross’ new girlfriend is a really forgettable character). After the premiere and as it happened Season one, the series shifts to a more emotional tone with The one with breast milk and The one where Heckle dies, which is an episode with a purpose I never really understood. Was the goal to remove the character? Or to mirror Chandler’s eccentricities to him and make us relate to him as a person? Who knows. After a couple of more episodes something magical happens -similarly to how we experienced in Season One-, and an episode appears out of nowhere to elevate the show’s quality: The one with Five steaks and an eggplant. What a great episode. It contains a perfect blend of humanity, humor, and realism. It has no happy ending, but it feels like eventually everything is going to be all right. It reflects life: some days you just had a bad day at the office, but hey… tomorrow’s another day, and like the theme song says, I’ll be there for you. This is arguably one of the episodes of the series, and it strongly holds up to this day, with its re-watchability value being very high.

Five steaks is followed by a string of solid episodes one after the other, all of which simultaneously progress the overall story of the series, develop the growth of the characters, and keep audiences engaged on an enjoyable fictional ride of the lives of these six people that at times parallels our own. This is where Friends‘ success begins to emerge not only as a good sitcom, but as a good entertainment series as a whole. After all, most of us have experienced any of the following situations:

  • Got rejected by our crush.
  • Eventually found out that our crush liked us at one point (and might still do).
  • Drank ourselves away to get over a crush.
  • Share a kiss for the first time with your crush.
  • Be in a relationship with someone where there is an age difference (or have a friend who is); experience the fears and implications that come with it, and be strong enough to
  • believe that your feelings for that person are stronger than any judgement.
  • Think you are at the high moment in your life, only to be brought down to the ground by life.
  • Experience your parents’ separation.
  • …even linger on our feelings for a pet who is no longer with us.

While Season Two is not the best in the series, I will confidently say it is the closest the show resembles reality, hence why it was able to cement itself as something more meaningful than other more average oriented shows at the time.

In regards to the difference of eras, there are a few aspects of Season 2 that would probably feel dated to someone presently under the age of 20. I feel that late teens and young adults in their 20s would probably Tinder their issues away, and have more interaction through their virtual social life, rather than the personal connection shown between the characters throughout the season. There is the one episode in which Joey (who in the series plays a soap opera actor, for those of you who have not watched the show), is stalked by a fan -marvelously played by guest star Brooke Shields-. The way the story unfolds would probably not be the same in 2025.

Speaking of guest stars, this is an aspect that should also be highlighted as both a reason that drove the show’s success, as well as a possible element that might feel dated. Season 2 features some of the best guest appearances in the entire series. A remarkable group of A-list actors at the time were able to made their way into the show and contributed to elevate the quality of the episodes they were in, and the overall feel of the show. Most of them would probably feel foreign to the current younger generation, however I would argue despite perhaps being unknown to some, it is undeniable their onscreen presence is notable : Jean-Claude Van Damme, Julia Roberts, Charlie Sheen, Chris Isaak, and most notably Tom Selleck -who plays Monica’s 20-year older boyfriend. I fondly enjoy Selleck as he is able to successfully play both a dramatic and comedic role at the same time, while being able to perfectly blend with the main cast without overshadowing them or taking over their role as protagonists, which says a lot of the main cast’s ability to hold their own against better actors than them.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I never cared much about the Eddie -aka Chandler’s new roommate- story. I am not sure what the writers were going for with this character. Were they planning on kicking him off all along? If so, why make the character so annoying? Why not have a memorable character audiences would want back, instead of an annoying freak nobody cared about. Why not just have Chandler live by himself? Overall, Eddie is the weakest point of Season 2, and arguably, one of the weakest points of the entire series (if not the weakest). While the majority of the series guest appearances seamlessly made themselves look like they were part of the group, at no point Eddie felt like he belonged there.

Most people consider The one with the Prom video the peak of the season, and it is hard to disagree with that assessment. Some people feel it could have been a better season finale instead of The one with Barry and Mindy’s wedding, which ended the season in a very odd way. Like I said at the beginning, I watched this season years after it came out, so I already knew the eventual outcome of the finale’s cliffhanger. I will say though that I felt that, had I watched the series when it was airing at the time, I would have felt the biggest cliffhanger at the end of season 2 was: where is the series going to go now? Will the next season be better, worse, or more of the same thing we have been watching?

It is a good thing I did not have to wait too long to find out.

HR

Snow White

By

On April 16, 2025

In Movies and TV/Steaming Series

Remakes, sometimes also called reboots.

Whenever the topic of remakes is brought up to any serious movie pundit -good remakes that is-, within a large plethora of options -especially recent ones-, almost always three films will stand out as the only movies that achieved success in both outclassing its original to the point of making it fall into oblivion, and by demonstrating the few occasions in which a remake was both needed and properly executed. The films are John Carpenter’s The Thing, which is a remake of The Thing from Another World; David Cronenberg’s The Fly, which is a remake of the same titled movie from 1958); and Brian De Palma’s Scarface, also a remake of the same titled movie from 1932, which was produced by Howard Hughes during his time as a movie executive).

With the exception of Scarface, the reason why Carpenter and Cronenberg remade The Thing and The Fly was due to the 1950s science fiction being a genre associated with mediocre production and low quality standards. Most sci-fi films of this era, today are labeled as B-movies or worse, such as the case with Ed Wood’s films, including the commonly referred to as worst movie of all time Plan 9 from Outer Space. Unlike the Hughes 1932 Scarface, which stands as a great film on its own and features fantastic acting by Paul Muni and great directing by Howard Hawks, The Thing and The Fly took on a mediocre product, and elevated the concept with superior acting, directing, special effects, and general production, even adding philosophical themes. De Palma’s Scarface is a re-imagining on the main subject of Hawks, using a more modern approach that was able to work effectively mostly thanks to the same reasons why The Thing and The Fly succeeded (better actors, better production). These three films succeeded so much, that they are constantly featured in top movies of all time lists.

Needless to say that dozens of other remakes exist with mixed results when compared to their originals. However generally speaking, it is hard for anyone to come up with a remake that can compare in terms of quality with the aforementioned films, or at least surpasses the original film. Planet of the Apes, Vanilla sky, Psycho, Diabolique, Mr. Deeds, The Stepford wives, all share the same characteristic: they are forgettable. Then came this recent trend of remaking films that were already considered good -even classics-, which for no other reason other than to capitalize from their old fame: Total Recall’s 2012 remake, Robocop’s 2014 remake, Carrie’s 2013 remake, Point Break’s 2015, and many others. All these films can be summarized in one word: forgettable. It makes one wonder the need for it other than to cash in millions of dollars (the only reason). Then comes the Disney conglomerate.

About a year ago, the folks at RedLetterMedia addressed the matter of remakes during their review of The Exorcist: Believer (another unnecessary remake), by briefly emulating a speculative Disney boardroom meeting discussing the remaking of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. You can watch their analysis below -it only takes sixty seconds-:

Today Snow White sits with an average of 1.6 out of 10 at IMDB, 40%-70% on RottenTomatoes. Surely several of the low score reviews are driven by the “either good or bad” recent trend to evaluate products, but still this reality does not deviate by how dissapointed a substantial percentage of audiences feel -especially with film so highly regarded such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves-.

I was never too big into Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, however I have always acknowledged its quality, importance and legacy in the pillars of movie history. I recognized the simplicity yet effectiveness of the story, I felt the sentimental appeal of the classic songs (Heigh-Ho, The silly song, Someday my prince will come), and I understood why thousands -if not millions- cried when it premiered, during a time of depression where optimism was a much needed emotion in our world. Moreover, I knew -just as it had occurred with 1971’s Wily Wonka, and Tim Burton’s remake-, there was zero chance a Snow White remake would be able to even compare itself to the lowest point of the original film. But who are we to stop Disney and their endless pursuit to destroy every ounce of the legacy Walt Disney himself built for us: Disney, Disneyland, Disneyworld… they all exist thanks to the classic films. They do not exist because of the remakes.

Will this wave of adequate bashing against Snow White make movie producers to wake up and get them to stop remaking old classic films that do not need any updating or improvement and that have stood the test of time for decades -and most likely will continue for centuries-? Only time will tell, however the power is in your hands.

HR

Can Friends hold up? – Part 1

By

On March 2, 2025

In Movies and TV/Steaming Series

It has probably been about ten years since I last saw Friends. Week in, week out I glanced at both my DVDs (yikes), and more recently my Max playlist, in search for the right time to rewatch what was one of the biggest series of my generation. I finally did a couple of months ago.

Before I go into my review, I would like to address that a few years ago I had read a couple of articles and seen a few critiques regarding how the lack of diversity on the show affected its legacy, which as most likely you obviously know starred six Caucasian (I do not like using the term “white”), and that this impaired the possibility of Friends holding up and withstanding the test of time. I have always thought such negative criticism is unnecessary and uncalled for. I favor DEI as much as everyone else does, but having a show meet DEI just because modern society enforces it, kind of defeats the purpose of freedom and artistic creativity. To me it comes down to reality and perspectives: I have Caucasian friends, whose inner circle consists of exclusively of Caucasians, and it is not because they have any sort of discrimination against other races, it is simply because that is how it is; just as I have Caucasian friends who have a diverse inner circle; and the same applies to Latins, Indians, Asians. So honestly, back then and to this day I do not care if back then Friends was not diverse. I just care whether it is funny or not. With that out of the way, I can now dwell into the main topic.

This review will contain spoilers.

Friends’ first episode starts as your basic sitcom show: characters are bluntly introduced and in a few minutes the viewer is able to understand their different personalities and general dynamics. Chandler is the joke guy, Monica is the control freak, Joey is the cute dumb guy, Ross is the structured one, Phoebe is the Wacky, and Rachel the spoiled little princess. Somehow these people got together and over the years have been able to maintain a strong relationship that allows them to share their feelings, struggles, and moments of happiness and sadness while living in New York City. The first episode is clear in two aspects: 1) The series at its core is about Ross and Rachel; 2) The episodes will feature unusual situation. Keep in mind that by the time Friends came out, although both Seinfeld and the Simpsons were into their fourth season, there were still remnants of the 80s TV formula personified by Family Ties, Cheers and Full House. Therefore, audiences were wondering if there was going to be a “safe” sitcom with a “normal” plot. As episodes went on, it became clear Friends was gearing more on the risky side, but borderline close to the “safe” zone.

The first bomb of Ross divorcing his lesbian pregnant wife was a fantastic way to start the series, and a risky element to propel the first storyline. The second missile of Rachel transitioning from sweet spoiled little princess to hardworking member of society was an admirable way to ground it on the safe side. Throughout its existence, Friends played with this balance of being risky at times, and safe on other occasions. Monica sleeping with a guy on their first date was risky, while Phoebe -being the wacky one but good at heart- reporting she was deposited a large amount of money in her bank account was safe.

The series progresses with overall good episodes such as “The one with the East German laundry detergent” -a title that may not have aged well-, yet with a story that is funny and relatable; and “The one with the butt” in which Joey gets a role as Al Pacino’s butt double, while Chandler dates a polygamous woman. However as it happens with most great series, there is always one moment that elevates the show, or even better, a full episode: The one with the blackout. The plot is great, the acting is superb, the dialogue is hilarious:

Joey: You waited too long to make your move and now you’re in the ‘friend zone.’
Ross: No no no, I’m not in the zone.
Joey: No, Ross. You’re the mayor of the zone.

along with…

Chandler: rrrhhh, rrggggr, rrrrrrmmm, rrrkkkk
Monica: I have no idea what you just said.
Chandler: Put Joey on the phone.
Joey: What’s up man?
Chandler: rrrhhh, rrggggr, rrrrrrmmm, rrrkkkk!!!!!!!!
Joey: Oh my God, he’s trapped in an ATM vestibule with Jill Goodacre!!

along with…

No no no, I’m not in the zone.
Joey: No, Ross. You’re the mayor of the zone.

and of course…

“Hey Ross, I know this is a bad time, but you gotta throw a surprise party for Monica.”

What a way to end an episode! This is the first episode worthy of a 10 out 10.

Blackout is followed by similar quality episodes as the ones that preceded it, most of them are good in general, and have a few key moments that hint to what audiences witnessed in Blackout. Hank Azaria’s guest appearance is one of these moments. Jon Lovitz’s is too. The remaining episodes of the season are strong, mostly to the superb writing which as I mentioned earlier marvelously plays with that risk vs safe balance: The one with boobies, The one with two parts, The one with poker which is very good because of its realism on Rachel’s struggle with being rejected for that dream job she has been looking for, The one with the ick factor “Oh I’m a Senior!”, and the original season finale “The one with the birth”, which as you may or may not know, was objected by James Burrows who instead pushed for another episode, because he did not want a cliffhanger with a tone that the following season was going to be about Ross’ baby. Hence, “The one where Rachel finds out” was written, which is arguably as good as “Blackout”:

Rachel: What did you just say?
Chandler: Crystal duck?

…an amazing way to end a successful first season.

HR

What makes a good book?

By

On February 26, 2025

In General

A couple of years ago, some of my coworkers started a book club. They went through Killers of the Flower Moon, and a few other trendy books. This is how I became familiar with Fourth Wing. Just recently, Onyx Storm -the third title in the Empyrean series- made it to their hands. As soon as I saw the hardcover in their desks, my brain inevitably began lowering its control rods.

It had been two months since I published my Fourth Wing review, and as I carefully skimmed through the pages, the same question kept wandering my thoughts: “Over half a million reviews combined, sold out in a matter of minutes, people go crazy for this series: is it really that good? Am I missing something?”

The interaction that followed covered many topics, all of which would spin around the Empyrean series’ popularity, a feat I do not reject or disapprove in any way as I explained in my Fourth Wing post. In fact my natural response towards Empyrean is almost of complete indifference -genuine indifference, meaning neither fondness nor dislike- except for my perplexed feelings on how such a standard work has become so streamlined into our society. This indifference prompted one of my coworkers to then ask me: “What book -from pure literature- I would recommend?”

Even though similar in nature but different in output production, I have always found common ground between music, movies and literature. There are artists like Ed Sheeran who capitalize on a wide demographic, and there are artists like Van Der Graaf Generator, who only care on crafting beyond the boundaries of creativity. There are movies like Titanic, the type everyone has to go see just because it has two appealing leads in a straight forward three-arc structure predictable story, and there are movies like Brazil that will fry your brain for using braincells that have been drowsing for most of your life. And then there is the Empyrean series, a cultural phenomenon of the last years. Is it that good? Is it really that good?

Looking back over the years, I do not think I have a particular favorite literature device. It took me a while to answer my coworker’s question, because I have truthfully enjoyed the majority of literature works I have been fortunate to read: Huckleberry Finn, The Trial, Don Quixote, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Crime and Punishment, and it has nothing to do with them being “the classics” of literature. On the contrary, it has everything to do with how compelling is the story the author tells, how developed the characters are, what are the themes touched, what motifs drive the elements, the symbolism contained, how well literary devices are used, and other aspects that make the reading a pleasure to my senses, and not a dull routine obligation to comply with popular trends. This is why it took me a while to state one above the rest as my personal literature work: in essence, I rate them all equally. Take “A Tale of Two Cities” for example.

Widely labeled as not Dickens’ best work, even receiving mixed reviews when first published, and only gaining popularity by the early twentieth century, what I like about it is its depth and the amount of layers it has, as well as how robust and properly differentiated they are. It also helps that it is centered around the French Revolution -one of my favorite historical events-.

MINOR SPOILERS BELOW — Do not proceed if you haven’t read A Tale of Two Cities.

I will be the first to admit that A ToTC is not an easy book to read. The first couple of chapters move fast driven by Jarvis Lorry’s “Recalled to life” mission of rescuing Dr. Manette, but then the pace all goes downhill after that and submerges into full slow motion for an excruciatingly long time. You have to be very patient, as every page feels like an anvil. Especially the first time.

However this mental endurance Dickens puts the reader through is actually where the essence and beauty of the book firmly rests. It is not easy to initially grasp, but all the themes gradually begin taking shape as the story progresses. Character development is embodied through every chapter, rather than by isolated literary construction. There is an almost surgically methodical way in which Dickens creates the feelings of sympathy and revenge in the French side of the story, while growing ambivalence and happiness on the British side. This is one of the many dualities the book carries from its title and even starting on its first sentence: “A tale of two cities”. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”. So in case you missed it, duality is the main theme of the book. But what does that mean?

A book’s theme is a central message the author uses as platform for the story that is being told to the reader. A ToTC contains many elements that are a literal or metaphorical representation of duality. The fact that England was living a prosperous time, contrasted against the poverty and oppression France was experiencing. This can also be exemplified by Charles Darnay -a well-established nobleman with a protocoled approach to life- and Sidney Carlson -a nobody who thinks nothing about himself, with an idealistic view to life. The fact that Dr. Manette is a well-educated established surgeon, who can relapse into a small timid human being who can barely communicate, traumatized by his tenure in prison; he, however, can be brought to life again and become a functional normal individual of society by his daughter Lucie. Dr. Manette being brought back to his normal life introduces the subtheme of resurrection, which is a consequence of duality (life vs. death).

There are many other subthemes of course, but resurrection I believe is the one with most important one. I would say justice and revenge are the ones with most exposure, due to the explicit narrative of the events surrounding the story. One of the reasons why I do not like the Star Wars prequel trilogy was specifically how poorly the theme of Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side of the Force was handled. The emptiness of him leaving his mother without any justification of why did not he rescue him during the ten years or so when he had the opportunity, the mindless actions of his futile revenge against the Sandpeople, and his absolute inability to properly judge a mentor from a conman, leads any viewer with common sense to conclude the inevitable: Anakin fell to the Dark Side because he was taken away from his mother for no reason, he was passed over a promotion in his job, and his wife abandoned him when he lost his mind and went crazy. There are worse things that happen to someone in life and people are able to get themselves back up and become stronger. In Anakin’s case, it felt he never should have become a Jedi, and should have been institutionalized instead. A ToTC deals with the same themes: abandonment, resurrection and revenge, however it builds them up in such an effective way, that the reader can easily relate two each one of the characters that manifest the actions of these themes, and this includes minor secondary characters. Whether the reader likes it or not, or whether if they agree with Madame Defarge’s ideals, they fully comprehend the authenticity of her feelings, which is expressed through her knitting. Nothing similar to this occurs in Fourth Wing, and that is why Yarros’ book fails to impress me from a critical perspective: everything is linear and predictable, and the narrative has no depth.

A ToTC on the other hand, holds the reader through every page without any clue on what will unfold next, while maintaining a robust base on its motifs. When Mr. Stryver, Darnay and Carlson, all share their feelings towards Lucie, your initial reaction is to believe there will be a confrontation between them, or a major development to resolve the conflict. However, almost immediately it is revealed that it was all a red herring, and any subplot is discarded as Lucie marries Darnay. The book also wanders for two or three chapters with almost nothing happening at all other than describing’s Lucie and Darnay happy lives, which makes the revelations that come out on the third part stand out even more: Dr. Manette’s origin story, Darnay’s family story. Darnay’s liberation and re-arrest, which leads to his death sentencing. It all works so effectively, because by this time, everything that Dickens has been feeding the reader has now taken form and is now a solid palpable structure in their mind, which all sides visible, tangible, and exposed. Carlton’s sacrifice is perhaps the most beautiful side of the structure.

I do not want to overanalyze the book, as there is plenty of fabric for the reader to work with, so for now I will leave brief exploration as is, summarizing that these are some of the many reasons that make A ToTC a wonderful, thoughtful, and enjoyable read.

HR

Point of the week

By

On January 27, 2025

In Sports

Kind of lazy on my part…

HR

Happy New Year 2025!

By

On January 1, 2025

In General

Happy New Year 2025!

HR

The spaceship that keeps taxiing

By

On December 28, 2024

In Music

As far back as I can remember, The Beatles have always been my favorite band. Not only that, but I also rate them as the most influential band of all time, and anyone who says otherwise should receive history and music lessons for a full year. They are the greatest band / musical artist of all-time period. Unquestioned. Undoubted. Undeniably.

So what about the Rolling Stones? I mean after all, many fans and pundits point to the Stones as the greatest band of all time after The Beatles. As far back as I can remember, I have never really cared that much about The Rolling Stones. I do not dislike them, I actually enjoy all their songs. However to me, they have always sounded like the band that tried to be better than The Beatles, but never could. To me, if there was a textbook dictionary definition of “second fiddle”, it would be The Rolling Stones. So this past weekend I decided to listen to all their discography, song by song, to try to understand why are they rated so highly in the musical spectrum. I have been listening to them all my life. I listened to them non-stop with a now more mature ear to see if my perception of them changed, and I could appreciate their greatness as others do. In the end, my perception remained unchanged. Given the result, I decided to share my thoughts on why The Rolling Stones are rated so highly, beginning with the premise that far from being the second greatest band of all time, 

The Rolling Stones might in fact be the most overrated band of all time.

#1. Marketing.

I am obviously not a baby-boomer, so I was not around at the time the Stones rose to fame. However as you should probably know, I am an avid reader and an amateur historian who enjoys time traveling to different eras and relating to how events and people influenced life.

As The Beatles took over the musical streamline, several copycats / competitors emerged. Many were frauds, many were talented -but not as talented-, but none could equal John, Paul, George and Ringo. My guess is that there was a definitive push by other records / labels / producers, to incentive some sort of competition and / or rivalry with The Beatles. The band who benefited the most from this push, are The Rolling Stones. Think about it: The Yardbirds, The Monkeys, The Kinks, The Animals… all failed. The Who and The Beach Boys just could not keep up. And then there were The Stones.

#2. Mick Jagger.

I do not know what “it” is, but Mick Jagger has it.

Every single woman I have dated -and almost every single woman I have met- has been attracted to Mick Jagger. I have always found this remarkable. The guy is skinny as fuck. He is not handsome, he is not… anything. What do women see in him beats me.

#2.1. Mick Jagger, the frontman.

Continuing the above analysis, there is something crucial that I recognize of Mick -even if his irresistible manly attributes to women escape me-: Mick created the frontman figure. Before The Stones, a band’s singer was merely, well… exactly that: the signer and no more. The Beatles did not need a frontman, because they were so frigging talented, their music functioned as a vehicle for any audible and visible vein they as artists needed to fuel audiences. However, aside from them, Eric Burdon was just The Animals’ singer, just like Jack Bruce for Cream. Jimi Hendrix was the singer for his band, but his prowess as a guitarist were the main protagonist of his performances.

Mick on the other hand, established the role of a singer who could interact with the audience, and evoke feelings from them beyond those originated from the band’s songs. His dancing, his mannerisms, his expressiveness, would elevate the band, and his particular role within the band. If you think about it, Mick does not even have a great voice. He is an average signer at best, easily surpassed by even Ringo Starr. But by incorporating a persona that magnifies the role of a singer and expands it into what is now known as a frontman, Mick was able to stand out like no one else did.

Now give the frontman a great voice, and now you have a real powerhouse on stage, which is how Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury elevated the role of a band’s frontman. Peter Gabriel also elevated it, albeit in a different way, with complex lyrics and costumes to portray characters from Genesis songs.

#3. Exploiting sensitive topics.

The band releases an album with a cover that looks awfully similar to Sergeant Pepper’s. They also write a song about the devil -which ultimately becomes one of their masterpieces-.

So why does my opinion of The Stones remain the same? Well, in short because they fail to impress me. Other than their biggest hits, most of their songs feel kind repetitive. When I was listening to Exile on main street, I had a hard time distinguishing between the tracks. At one point I thought I had been listening to a fifteen-minute piece, when in fact four songs had gone by. Mother’s little helper has always been my favorite song of them. It’s a great piece with great lyrics, but still, remove the sitar and it’s just a flat song in A-Major repeating the same musical theme for three minutes straight. Compare that to The Beatles, where you have not one, but four distinct and unique voices capable of bringing a plethora of emotions to the listener. In The Stones, you are stuck with Mick since 1963.

Then there is the band itself. If you asked me to name what I consider the second greatest band of all time, I will have to do a lot of research and homework to come up with a single choice. However, when it comes to naming options, they would be: Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple Mark II, Pink Floyd, and Genesis. Deep Purple would have probably been the second greatest, had Mark II survived longer than what it did. Pink Floyd could hold the title, but they are not quite there yet for reasons that deserve a separate entry. Genesis -Gabriel’s era- is another strong candidate, but unfortunately, they are too niche. So let’s talk about Led Zeppelin and how do they compare to the Stones as candidates for second greatest band of all time. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Zeppelin’s catalogue is original -meaning let’s not bring up the plagiarism issue-.

Mick Jagger vs. Robert Plant: this is perhaps the only aspect one could evenly weigh. Still, Plant’s voice is infinitely superior to Jagger’s.

Keith Richards vs. Jimmy Page: Richards is a great guitarist, one of the best of all time. My issue with him is that, other than a few glimpses of creativity here and there, he never truly evolved. Page on the other hand, created memorable riffs, solos, works of art that are studied to this day. Yes, Satisfaction is great, and I am quite sure it was groundbreaking when it came out, but if Satisfaction broke new ground, then How many more times broke a new core; Whole lotta love created a new planet; Immigrant song sent us into outer space; and Stairway to Heaven, well… it’s Stairway to Heaven.

Brian Jones / Other guy vs. John Paul Jones: you know you have a problem when you kind of struggle to remember the band members of what supposedly the second greatest band of all time is. I will keep this one simple. As great as Brian Jones was, he was no John Paul Jones.

Charlie Watts vs. John Bonham: this one is not even fair.

…so broken individually, The Rolling Stones cannot even compare to Led Zeppelin. You can make the case that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but going back to the original premise, that only holds true for The Beatles. The fact is that Zeppelin is by far a superior combination of individual musicianship.

What is left is then the comparison of their respective peaks: 1963-1972 for The Stones, and 1968-76 for Zeppelin. During this period, The Stones released: Rolling Stones now, Out of our heads, December’s children, Aftermath, Between the buttons, Their satanic majesties request, Beggars banquet, Let it bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St.

Zeppelin did: I, II, III, IV, Houses of Holy, and Physical Graffiti. Each one of these albums is a masterpiece. There is not a single wasted track. 64 songs, one better than the other. Some conventional, some rock, some blues, some folk, some with mythological references, some with Caribbean influences, some funk, some ballads.

On to specific songs from their catalogues, Satisfaction is a classic, and even as simple as it is, it definitely broke new ground when it came out, especially thanks to Richards’ riff. Sympathy for the devil also deserves this label. That being said, the rest of their catalogue is not on par to either of them. In fact, some of their songs sound like rejects of several Beatles sessions. As much as I like She’s a rainbow, I can’t help to think of it as a song Paul McCartney wrote and then discarded for not making the cut. As thoughtful as Paint it, black is, I can’t stop thinking its signature melody would not have been possible had The Beatles not written Norwegian wood. As beautiful as Angie is, I can’t help but feel that Jagger’s voice does not fit it and it should have been sung by another vocalist. Honky tonk women sounds like something Lennon wrote during a three day hungover, and then threw it in the trash after coming back to his senses. I must reiterate I am not stating they are bad songs and I am not saying I do not like them. I really do like them a lot, but I can also think of many other songs I would consider better from a musical perspective and more influential as an artist’s work. I would happily listen to a double sided album of discarded Lennon-McCartney songs all day, as I am sure there were dozens of great pieces that never made it into their albums, and there is probably a reason why that was the case.

Led Zeppelin on the other hand, wrote arguably one of the greatest songs of all time, and additionally have a wide variety of equally great songs that showcase the bands musical talents both collectively and individually. One can make the case of plagiarism, but still, Page’s mistake was not to give credit to their original authors; his mistake was not to attempt to copy someone else’s style. Even when looking at both band’s respective peaks, I always draw the following conclusion:

  • Between 1963 to 1970, the Stones were always second to the Beatles.
  • Between 1970 to 1976, one could make the case Stones were not the greatest band in the world. There were so many options to choose from: Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes… there was never a single band that could claim that spot so firmly during that period of time, and if anything, one could make the case that honor belonged to Led Zeppelin.

Overall, both band’s catalogue is very close, but due to their variety and multiplicity of themes, I have to give the advantage to Led Zeppelin. And keep in mind this is only making the comparison of the Stones against other bands. If I bring soloist artists into the mix, things would probably get worse for them. I would rate Michael Jackson as most influential and better than the stones. I would rate Madonna too.

As I close these lines, I think of that comment I overheard from Roger Federer. “How can he be considered the greatest of all time, when thanks to Djokovic and Nadal, he’s not even the greatest of his era.” That is what The Rolling Stones are to me. They are like a spaceship that keeps taxiing waiting to take off, but never does… and never did.

HR

Merry Christmas!

By

On December 25, 2024

In General

…and Happy Holidays to everyone!

HR

Fourth wing

By

On December 12, 2024

In General

Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros is an enlightening book, not precisely for being a literary masterpiece, but for originating a new marketing case study on consumer behavior.

As I write these lines, Fourth Wing sits at Amazon with a mesmerizing 285,000 ratings averaging 4.8 out of 5 stars, and 278,000 reviews on Goodreads and an average rating of 4.57. To put it in perspective, The Beatles merchandise ratings add up to tens of thousands. The Harry Potter box set features sixty thousand ratings -with Sorcerer’s stone leading with 130,000. Granted it is possible a significant percentage of those 285,000 ratings are spam, still would it be safe to say that even at the worst case, at least a third of them are legit? Maybe a quarter? Does that mean that 70,000 people made a conscious decision to rate this book a collective 4.8 out of 5? Not even Game of Thrones, Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings feature comparable numbers. “There has to be something astonishly great about it”, I thought. Spoilers: there is not.

I got my hands on Fourth wing while I was also reading another fantasy sci-fi story (Sun – The Reborn series). I realized I needed some sort of compass from the genre in order to properly review Sun, so I figured that using Fourth wing as reference would be the best choice based on the recent trend that has driven its popularity to stratospheric heights. “Maybe this is the standard of the sci-fi fantasy genre”, I thought.

As I breezed through the pages, a recurring thought would accompany my reading: “Who can enjoy this book? The writing is predictable, the characters have every possible stereotype you can imagine, the plot is non-sensical… so what is so great about it?

Some of the highlights include (general paraphrasing):

“I love you, but I can’t…”

“You are not meant to be a dragon rider, because you are (insert random challenge) …”

“He is so evil to me, and that’s what makes him so irresistible…”

There is nothing wrong with these cliches. In fact, there is nothing wrong with teenage love and artists exploiting it. This is the same wave Ed Sheeran and even The Beatles rode during their initial years as band. Unlike the former, fortunately the latter evolved from the trend, and that is how they became the greatest influential band in occidental music, but back in their early pop days, you just had to switch off the thinking part of your brain, pay no attention to the lyrics, and enjoy the ride for what it was. In order to finish Fourth wing, you may have to do the same thing: enjoy the fantastic amalgamation of the highlights from some of the most successful artistic works from the past twenty years:

1. Dragons, from Game of Thrones.

2. A school / training location setting, from Harry Potter.

3. A major war taking place in middle Earth, as in Lord of the Rings.

4. A frail female lead character, like in Divergent.

5. A romance element of a young female discovering love, as in Twilight.

6. A young female lead character with outstanding skills, like in Hunger Games.

7. A spectacular very explicit sex narrative, as in… well, all books that need a spectacular very explicit sex narrative because the core elements of proper writing are missing.

…so the problem that I kept running into was that every time I flipped a page, I found myself saying / THINKING out loud: “That’s from Game of Thrones”, or “Oh, just like it happened in Lord of the Rings”, or “Ok, this kind of feels like that scene from Divergent”. Therefore, unless you haven’t read any of those books (or watched the movies), Fourth Wing -like Sun- will hardly surprise you. With so many references, I felt like this book tried to cover multiple ideas, and while it didn’t quite fail at its attempt, it never truly succeeded because it neither displayed any originality, nor it developed any of the themes to a deeper level. It is hard to become interested in a story where so little effort has been made on its construct.

Even with the critical part of my brain switched off, there were two things that slightly bothered me about the book. The first one was the hardest to get past by: the dialogue. It was a little off-putting that the personalities of these middle Earth / medieval characters resembled modern 202X Tik-Tok teenagers. For most of the book I felt like I was overhearing a conversation from a group of kids hanging out at a New York City bar. I was actually expecting Violet to say something like: “Fuck me!! This is so cool!” I was actually shocked it did not happen. It was very disappointing to read such poorly written teenage dialogue. For context, good dialogue written for teenage characters would be: Arya Stark, Frodo Baggins, or Harry Potter. They do not say “Fuck” every other line.

The second grip was from a contextual perspective given the setting where the narrative takes place. I am guessing that this war has been going on for quite some time, and that after several years of fighting it has taken its toll on Navarre. The vast efforts to win the war are palpable, meaning that hundreds if not thousands of people are needed to win it. If that is the case, then why do volunteers who are not skilled in a particular trade have to die. Why not give them another job and sign up for something else? I get it. Becoming a Dragon rider is a life-or-death deal, but couldn’t they become supply carriers, healer assistants, or something to that effect, as it happened with Starship Troopers, or even that goofy movie Hot Shots?

As it happened with Sun, there is nothing profound in Fourth wing. There is no major revelation, no major character transformation, no grand arc, and nothing to have it stand out as a literary masterpiece. Did I dislike Fourth wing? No. Would I recommend it? I can come up with dozens of other better books to read over this book that felt more like a Saturday morning cartoon show that dragged on forever.

There is nothing wrong with Fourth wing. Unless you don’t want to be singled out as the one person in your circle who hasn’t read it, you are honestly not missing anything special by not reading it. On the contrary, you are missing a lot in life if you have not read Dune, 1984, The Prince, or the Divine Comedy. Fourth wing is just an average book that has all the ingredients to become hugely popular (which it did), but not transcendent. The characters are decent, the story is decent, the writing is mediocre. 4.8 out of 5, as in better than War and Peace, Don Quixote, and Huckleberry Finn? No.

A quarter of a million ratings averaging 4.8 out of 5. Maybe it is just my opinion that Fourth wing is not that great and in reality, it is. Maybe it is not that great, and a quarter of a million people are unfamiliar with past literary works Fourth wing not only draws inspiration from, but actually copies ideas from. Maybe the roles of good writing have reversed and The Divine Comedy, The Trial, and Great expectations are being revealed as poorly written, and Fourth wing is the proponent of the new literary world order. Then again, I want to think there is a reason why these literary works have survived for hundreds of years, and are still studied to this day. Will Fourth wing become one of them too? Only time will tell… or maybe it will become an HBR case study.

HR

The Substance

By

On November 12, 2024

In Movies and TV/Steaming Series

This is a spoiler-free review.

Every generation or so, a new director with a groundbreaking vision appears in the artistic scene of cinema. Sometimes it is two or three. Lean and Kurosawa, Fellini and Kubrick, Spielberg and Lucas, Lynch and Scorsese, and most recently, Nolan, Anderson and Aronofsky. All of them pioneered in one or many ways the art of visual storytelling. While watching The Substance this past weekend, I kept wondering if Coralie Fargeat is the embodiment of this generation’s new groundbreaking vision for movie-making.

Take Nolan for example: most people will immediately associate his name with The Dark Knight trilogy, Interstellar, or  -most recently- Oppenheimer, with a minority being familiar with Memento or Insomnia. Take David Lynch: well-known thanks to Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet, but not so much for Eraserhead or The elephant man. Or take Aronofsky for Black Swan and The Wrestler, but not so much for Pi or Requiem for a dream, the latter of which I will reference in this review given the amount of similarities it share with The Substance.

With a daring combination of driving inspiration from Kubrick, Fargeat does not eschew on either visual or narrative story telling, instead relying heavily on both special effects and properly executed exaggerated dialogue to appeal to different types of audiences, from those who appreciate the poignant emotion of an ambition tale turned into madness, to those who will enjoy the absurdity of overacting adequately used for comedic effect.

However as I previously stated, it is Requiem for a Dream the true framework that was used for The Substance. If you have seen Requiem and watch the Substance, you will immediately relate to my thesis; if you have not seen Requiem, but you have seen The Substance, and watch Requiem next, you will join me as a proponent of their undeniable connection. I truly liked The Substance, though I am not prepared to say it is great or brilliant movie. The plot was good, creative, and even though the premise is simple, it brings a surprising emotional depth I have not seen in a while. Who could not relate to the thought of being able to live the life of a zenith version of yourself? How far would you go to live that life? How willing would you be to sacrifice part of your well-being to see a better version of yourself triumph in aspects you would not be able to? Alas hope can lead to bad decisions.

I have always thought Demi Moore is a good actress. She had great roles in the late eighties and early nineties with Ghost, A few good men and Nothing but trouble, until she let her ability to capitalize on her name blind herself from selecting good scripts, with a fall from grace that began with Striptease, and kept sinking to new lows with G.I. Jane and Charlie’s Angels. Other than a few glimpses of her glory days shown in Margin call, this is the first time since the early nineties I witnessed her fully utilizing her talents and living up to her potential. In The Substance, she marvelously delivers a heartbreaking yet realistic performance of a huge star past her prime who looks to relive her glory years. You can almost feel that she is not playing the part, but in reality living it. Thanks to Fargeat’s direction, the end product is a film filled with images that leave an permanent imprint on your mind, and a voice that resonates as an hymn to how selfishness leads to self-destruction.

Margaret Qualley also delivers a solid performance, but is not as good as Demi’s. You would expect her character Sue to be a pusillanimous contrast to Demi’s Elisabeth, or at least the single character with a conscience, but I guess it is part of the film’s message: that once you become part of the system, there is no way out. Yet even though Qualley does her best, he is greatly aided by Fargeat’s direction. Going back to the comparison with Requiem, I could not resist to see the paralelisms with Qualley and Jennifer Connelly, and with Demi and Ellen Burstyn (Connelly being far superior than Qualley, and Demi coming close to Burstyn’s performance, but not that close). Since there is no counterpart character for Jared Leto or Marlon Wayans, The Substance stands out as a more multi-faceted individual character study, than Requiem with its hard-hitting theme shared by all four protagonists. When measured against Requiem, The Substance needed the Kronos quartet (it also needed Keith David). The Substance might have better box-office numbers and reach out to a wider audience, but Requiem will always be the better between the two.

Regardless of how unappreciated the early works of great directors are, or how Aronofsky’s Requiem impact in filmmaking might be overlooked and undermined by The Substance’s, Fargeat excels at bringing a fresh perspective to brand new audiences unfamiliar with means and methods pioneered twenty years ago, by paying homage to many shoulders of the greats she stands upon: Kubrick’s framing and cinematography, Aronofsky’s visual techniques, and Waters’ unpredictability. There is also some David Cronenberg in it.

In the end The Substance is one of those films where rating will come down to tastes. Some audiences may find it boring, others interesting, others puzzling, and others too simplistic. I will rate The Substance 7 out of 10. It would have been a solid 8 / 10 had it ended twenty minutes before it did. Unfortunately, its third act tried to outdo The Fly’s, and it ended up slightly resembling Malignant’s, where the audience are left to wonder whether the film’s message was intended for the viewer or the establishment… or both.

A very watchable film I recommend to anyone. Then again, so is Requiem for a Dream.

HR

Page 1 of 16

Next →

Categories

Archives

Meta

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén