“Laughable Loves”, Collecting Bad Jokes

Laughable Loves (Smesné Lásky, Czech original title)- Milan Kundera 
“Sex is the most fun you can have without laughing” Woody Allen

Am I missing something? Because I just hated this book almost from the very beginning. Laughable? Funny? I must have a problem with my sense of humour then. "Laughable Loves" wasn't funny at all. Not in terms of style, and not in what regards to the stories that conform this forgettable (hope that happens soon, please, I want to forget it so badly) read.

First, let's talk about the style, which in my opinion poisons the book and makes it a serious struggle to read, despite being a collection of short stories and not having an extended length. It's not my first time with Kundera, so I was already aware of his prose, frequently saluted by many as philosophic, virtuoso, and enlightening. Plus, in this case, adjectives ranged from irreverent, graceful and ironic. But no, this is not ironic. It's just pedantic and boring. Sure, my preference, the literature I defend is the opposite from Kundera's style, the so called "minimalist school" (Carver, Yates, Wolff, Fante, Bukowski). But I also love McCullers, O'Connor, Fitzgerald, Cheever, and a long etc, writers that go beyond the "dirty realism" definition. Anyway, I don't believe this is an issue of personal taste. It is just a matter of Kundera "explaining us all". He is the narrator, superficially in third person, but also being omniscient to the extreme. The consequence is that the reader is unable to get into the development of the story by himself/herself. Kundera tells him what to understand, when to laugh and when to applaud the author for his wisdom. That's not funny, that's not wise. It's just annoying.

And annoying are also the vast majority of stories. Sex, love, friendship might be topics of the tales, but Kundera is not interested on his characters of developing what's going on. He just want to mock(?) about pretty silly stories to explain a paradox/contradiction. But why can't he just show it on a good story about personal relationships? Why does he have to dissect what goes on from scene to scene as if he were explain it to a baby? "The Hitchhiking Game", third tale of the collection and the strongest by far, might the best example. A young couple on holiday decide to change their "regular roles" to play a flirting game that subverts their usual behaviour, arriving to a pretty challenging, let me add depressing conclusion. The potential of the story is there, but Kundera completely ruins it by constantly shifting from one character mind to the other, to let the reader make no mistake of what he/she should think about what's going on. Same goes with "Edward and God", another interesting plot involving faith, devotion and communism as strategies to... umm.. to be clear... get laid. So, go figure what happens with the less remarkable stories: they are just weak and lame, like the tiring "Symposium" and the irritating "Let the Old Dead Make Room for the Young Dead".

A writer should not give lessons to the readers. The reader should do it by herself/himself, thanks to the quality of the story.

SCORE: 1,5/10

"Once Brothers", friendship, war and basketball

Once Brothers
Hard to think about something more dramatic and depressive than the civil wars on the former Yugoslavia. As a teenage naturally attracted to history and politics, I remember the need and will of being informed about that horrible conflict taking place at the heart of Europe and where mankind showed one of its ugliest faces ever. But I didn't know that many years after that tragedy ended, I was going to be so compelled by another take, intimate and very special, of the (his)story.

As a basketball fan I remember, vividly, several games from Drazen Petrovic and Vlade Divac as part of the incredible national team of Yugoslavia as well as their respective individual careers. As a Barça supporter, Drazen became the enemy being the star of Real Madrid, but it was impossible not to be mesmerized by his unparalleled talent, while Divac was always a personal favorite as part of the latest era of Magic Johnson's Lakers, plus the center of one of the most spectacular squads never played on the NBA: the Sacramento Kings. But I didn't know about their intimate bond, a friendship that together with Kukoc, Radja, made them unbeatable and brought them to the NBA, on a time European players where an exotic thing. And I didn't know about how their relationship ended either, when the war came.

"Once Brothers" is gripping, to the point of making unnecessary the gross outlining from ESPN channel (part of the “30 for 30” documentary series). The drama is the story. I do want to believe Americans are sensitive enough to understand the madness and nonsense of war to need the reinforcement of the drama with tricks like music or overcharged lines of script. Luckily the human tragedy here is too compelling to ruin the documentary because of bad direction choices.

Because "Once Brothers" is striking, utterly sad and deplorable, using the case of elite basketball players to explain the personal tragedies that war brings. Friends torn apart due to circumstances beyond their control. The love for a flag (hope that one day mankind will understand a flag is just a colored cloth) and a silly gesture on a moment of emotional burst transformed Divac and Petrovic into national heroes in Serbia and Croatia, therefore enemies while civil war exploded back home. Ethnic tensions that weren't a problem before surfaced to help ruining one of the most true and precious things we have: friendship.

Directed by Michael Tolajian, is quite remarkable how intimate the film aims to be. As a matter of fact, this is the personal voyage, emotional and physical, of Divac, also narrator of the documentary. From his perspective, we see all the meaningful places: the snowy Serbian town where he was born, the gym where the Yugoslavian national team trained, the hotel in L.A. that was his first home in the States, to Zagreb today, where Divac is still the enemy or at least a real stranger (that walk is so shocking, one of the highlights of the film). It serves well the purpose of explaining that friendship was never restored, because we all know how Drazen was killed in a car accident on 1993, just when he was achieving stardom recognition on the NBA (is also deeply touching to see how they supported each other when they were at NBA, immigrants isolated from home, specially Drazen, who had difficult seasons), and how Divac has ever come to terms with the death of a friend before they had a chance to reconcile.

Surfing the net I have realized how some wounds will never be healed. The hatred speech, from both sides, is still easy to find. The accusations and insults to Divac are recurrent. Same can be said about Drazen. Heroes and villains depending on which side are you on. Well, maybe is true. Maybe Divac made an anti-Croatian political statement with the flag on purpose. Maybe he was extremely naïve about the then exploding conflict and Drazen had reasons to be angry. But what I can see on “Once Brothers” is a grown-up man, 7 foot tall, sincerely trying to repair the bond with his friend, regretting all what happened. I also see/hear a young and then a grown-up Tony Kukoc explaining how Croatian players were intimidated, by their own friends and relatives, of the consequences of not severing all ties with Divac. Same applies to a puzzled but wise Dino Radja, admitting the fear and the damage caused as a result of it. These collection of revealing moments are better than any history lesson or detailed account on the conflict, showing the human face of the tragedy caused by war.

SCORE: 8/10

"I Was Bono's Doppelgänger", music, pain and U2

I Was Bono's Doppelgänger- Neil McCormick

After the amusing and very original "Killing Bono" it was a matter of time I would put my hands over the book on which the film is based, "I Was Bono's Doppelgänger". And as the topic says: the book is more satisfying than the film. Or better said, is even more rewarding.

The thing that has surprised me is the amount of differences with the screen adaptation and the book. Director Nick Hamm took some less relevant/secondary or anecdotal facts and built several scenes on their own, allowing the film to flow as a surreal comedy with a few dark twists and a crazy plot, in which U2 are the recurring element of frustration, as their worlds are more and more extreme: U2 achieving stardom, while his school pal only a series of let-downs in their attempt to music success.

But the book is very different. Essentially, this is Neil McCormick's biography, covering an incredibly intense period of his life, in which he will struggle, again and again, to achieve his desire/obsession of being a rock star. Its a personal ride towards Dublin and London, in a cruel clash trying to make it in the music industry, in which the writer cannot help but add an increasingly excruciating note of comparison with his friend Paul Hewson, commonly known around the world as Bono, leader of U2.

I loved McCormick's writing skills. He's clear, direct, funny and extraordinarily frank in his narration, even when that honesty doesn't show the best portrait of himself. He makes the reader feels very close to his frustrations and stubborn behaviour, even despite his, sometimes pretty huge, ego. The failures of his bands, in particular Shook Up! are revealed with rage and pain in this pages, and offers a quite depressing look of the music business. From someone who has made his living on this industry nevertheless, not as musician, but as well-known pop-rock journalist and writer, its refreshing to read such open comments.

But don't get me wrong, this is not a rant against music industry. McCormick balances his tone with hilarious situations and anecdotes, and a witty, self-deprecating humour, so when the climax almost approaches and he lets his envy on U2's worldwide success explode in front of his friend Bono, it is clear this is written from the perspective of a mature person, who has grown and learnt from that experience.

"I Was Bono's Doppelgänger" also offers a much more insightful look to U2's evolution, that will please fans of the Irish band (as myself), as the band has a more active role in the book. In particular Bono becomes a very important character. The connection with the author is very intense, providing the reader with several amusing (some late parties too!) and intimate moments of friendship between the two, as well as pretty interesting conversations on music, religion and fame, revealing the good spirit of the Irish singer and political activist.

I assume I was particularly engaged with the book for personal reasons. As a person who dreams having McCormick's job, but has always been incapable of playing any instrument due to a sort of reverential fear to kill the magic of music, but also as someone with a brother pretty gifted that is striving against the difficulties of having a music career on his own but refusing to give up, I felt close to the story. I guess that by now you'll imagine I would highly recommend this reading. Without a doubt.

SCORE: 7,5/10

The Indie Anthology 9: essential songs

We are back with our anthology with one of, in my opinion, one of the best songs Spanish alternative history can offer. It's being a tough week, so I needed an important, pivotal song, where lyrics and music melt, recognise the wounds and try to heal them.

Song: Nunca Me Entero de Nada
Artist: Los Planetas
Year: 2004

I'm not a proper Los Planetas fan, but it would be stupid not to recognise them among the most brave, intriguing and stimulating bands this country has. My problem is, aside their remarkable (but not my taste) latest move towards mixing flamenco with indie-pop, that I don't enjoy their records as I do with many of their songs. But if we talk about tunes, the band from Granada has munition to compete with anyone. To me, "Nunca Me Entero de Nada" might be their finest hour. An hypnotical, circular melody, with an abyssal lyric, about betrayal in a vanishing relation. So true, so poignant. Emotional, inner epic. Besides, makes me remember very special friends, particularly missed in difficult times.

"Bridesmaids", bye romantic comedies & weddings

Bridesmaids

Let's vindicate comedies. And the directors, screenwriters, actors, etc, that without missing the focus of making us laugh during 90-120 minutes, are capable of offering something, if not groundbreaking, at least refreshing, different. "Bridesmaids" might not be "high comedy" (whatever that means) but is an amusing comedy. And a big, much needed, kick in the ass to the abominable chick flick genre.

As the very recommendable and recently reviewed "Young Adult", "Bridesmaids" also subverts the archetype of female role, but now within the format of a comedy. Director Paul Feig (with the king of the new American comedy Judd Apatow behind him as producer) is capable of doing that "playing" in the most adverse of territories: the preparation of a wedding. Hard to imagine a more chick flick-bound scenario, but its hilariously used in its own benefit, providing the film the scenes, the munition to construct several unforgettable gags. Sorry lovers of weddings and traditional romantic comedies. This is not for you. We are closer to a female version of "The Hangover".

Still, that wouldn't make of "Bridesmaids" a recommendable film per se. If  you want to create a good comedy, you need an according script and a bunch of actors that can develop it. Which brings me to Kristen Wiig, unknown in Spain but a comic American icon. She's not only the absolute star of this movie, as the troubled, disastrous Annie Walker. She's also credited as co-writer of the script. What an immense work. At the very least, an Oscar nomination was in order (at the very least).

But Wiig is not alone, as all the secondary actresses are also amusing, with a deserved, very special mention to the explosive performance of Oscar-nominated Melissa McCarthy as Megan, while Rose Byrne is also remarkable as Helen, Annie's nemesis (and the caricature-archetype of the chick flick woman) and Maya Rudolph as Lilian, the bride and Annie's best friend. Male roles are quite marginalised here, being reduced to officer Nathan Rhodes (played by Chris O'Dowd) and Ted (Jon Hamm). Though both roles are nice, ridiculed updates of typical male characters (quite funny to see the Mad Men's star character turned into an evident XXI century asshole).  

The film doesn't have many misfires. Some (few) jokes might cross the line, and I could point an unbalance on its length, that hastens its conclusion to an unnatural extent, killing some secondary parts for the sake of reaching the climax of the film. But this are minor complaints in a film that for almost two hours keeps you laughing, with several scenes to be remembered, with actresses in a state of grace (especially Wiig and McCarthy), enjoying themselves while they dynamite all the romantic comedies clichés. Fun granted.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"The Social Network", the Facebook monster

The Social Network

I won't start this review writing about the social impact of Facebook, a universal phenomena everyone is aware and probably has an opinion on it. Instead, I'll try to focus on just the film, as behind "The Social Network" superficial storyline, mapping the origins of the network, there's a stimulating and really absorbing, yet not completely satisfying, analysis on human behaviour, focused on the complex character of its creator and co-founder, the world famous, and very controversial, young billionaire Mark Zuckerberg.

The new "Citizen Kane", udpated and ready for our virtual era, this film has been defined by many critics. Certainly the mistery that surrounds Zuckerberg attitudes, and the tragic human dimension that the films brings to the table so well has a notable connection with the so well-known cinema classic. Praise director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin for their braveness and talent to make a film about, at least on paper, such a boring and elusive topic, Facebook, and instead present us such an absorbing and vivid work.

Because "The Social Network" is not like your average biopic where the hero starts from zero, shows he/she is a genious in a few silly epic scenes (always with bombastic music), suffers because of the struggle he/she faces while tries to achieve his/her goal and finally succeeds. No, here we have a person that is a complete mistery. Someone who seems frustrated and near consumed by his devils, who creates something very powerful, not without its contradictions, but that after achieving an outstanding and hard to compare triumph, seems still frustrated and in a perennial emotional unrest.

His creation, Facebook of course, serves Fincher to ellaborate an unorthodox and dramatic paradox. Is Zuckerberg a pioneer, a young genious comparable to the great inventors that provoked a media and social revolution with their discoveries? Or is he just an isolated nerd that despite his achievements can only face loneliness and the sort of fake relationships (which, at least to an extent, is the most obvious and well-founded criticism Facebook has) the network he has designed can offer?

For good and bad, "The Social Network" doesn't solve that enigma. We cannot be sure of Zuckerberg's real motivations. Money, power, control, the need to impress a girl, the fear of being excluded or failing, they don't seem real or complete reasons here. Is he just an eccentric? Or a plain asshole? Does he creates Facebook as a way to let his resentment flow and revenge against his lack of social success? Is he consumed by his ego? These questions are constantly present for the movie watcher, helped by the elusive and impassive gestures and expression of Jesse Eisenberg (terrific job). But at the same time, despite being undoubtfully striking and intriguing, I also believe that maybe Fincher and Sorkin loose the reigns of the film, probably too convinced they have found "the greatest American movie and character" in Zuckerberg.

It might be just me, but the amount of situations where Zuckerberg behaves like the human equivalent of an amoeba is puzzling. Zero passion and emotion, in scenes where friendship, love, work and integrity are obviously at risk. Unless Fincher wanted to parallel Facebook virtual, aseptic, simulated relationships with his emotionless creator, I'm sorry to say there are too many moments on "The Social Network" where Zuckerberg's inscrutability is pushed too far, making him an unbelievable character.

In addition, some other minor concerns on the film arise. One is the lack of evolution of Facebook itself. We are only enlightened about the unstoppable increase of users, but there's nothing about adding advertisement on it, when its a pretty big deal at first between Eduardo Saverin (phenomenal play by Andrew Garfield) and Zuckerberg, or the privacy issues. Another concern is precisely the relation between Saverin and Zuckerberg. How are we supposed to believe there's real friendship between them? Zuckerberg use him almost since the very beginning, while Saverin seems "too normal" to relate with such a person or being unable to see how is he behaving. On third position, we have Sean Parker's (ideal role for Justin Timberlake) character. The Napster creator presence is perhaps a bit too flashy and cliché-enlightening to convince. It is hard to believe such a smart and cautious person as Zuckerberg can "fall" so quickly for such a trickster. And finally, there's an absolute lack of interest in secondary roles. Facebook co-workers, supposed friends, the girls, even the ridiculed "Harvard twins", are just sketches of flesh and bone persons.

"The Social Network" is a risky and very attractive film, a sounding and relevant ride to a narcissistic society, obsessed with virtual popularity, focused on the peculiar figure of its creator, not in the network itself. But is not the referral piece, the masterpiece some argue.

SCORE: 6,75/10