metallica: some kind of monster

I recently saw the documentary Metallica: Some Kind of Monster (IMDB). Regular readers of my blog (hello, you two) should know that I have pretty ecumenical music tastes. I used to be a huge fan of heavy metal: Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne, the Scorpions, Judas Priest, and a whole bunch of bands you’ve probably never heard of. However, around the time Metallica first attracted attention in the early 1980s, my tastes had already started moving in other directions. It wasn’t until the 1989 song “One” became a hit that I actually heard anything by them. Given the seven-and-a-half minute song’s loud/quiet dynamics (I was digging the Pixies at the time) and anti-war stance, I thought they were interesting. I’d listen to subsequent songs that came across my car radio, but I have never bought any of their albums.

Ann Hornaday’s review in the Washington Post convinced me that this was a movie I needed to see. I’m a sucker for documentaries, and Monster filmmakers Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are known for two previous, critically well-received works: Brother’s Keeper (1992) and Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996). I disagree with Hornaday’s contention that this is a movie about a band struggling to remain relevant, although this theme is a thread. Rather, in Monster, the filmmakers focus on interpersonal relationships and the frustrations of the creative process. Yes, there are some Spinal Tap moments, but not many, in my opinion.

Like the HBO series The Sopranos, in which the viewer is let in on the thought processes of gangster Tony Soprano through his therapy sessions, Monster allows us to sit in on the sessions that the band, as a group, has with Kansas City therapist and performance coach Phil Towle. The documentary begins in 2001, when the band is about to record a new album. They’ve just fired their longtime bass player, Jason Newsted because he refused to quit his side project band, Echobrain, saying he needed it as an alternative creative outlet. This kind of clash becomes apparent in other developments in the band’s history. Drummer Lars Ulrich and guitarist James Hetfield – both of them dominant personalities, in sharp contrast to the mellow Buddhism of lead guitarist Kirk Hammett – argue in the studio over each other’s playing style. At one point, Hetfield expresses unease with the idea of the other band members working on songs while he is out of the studio, saying that he doesn’t want to feel like he’s just being added to a finished product as an afterthought. Hammett responds with “That’s what I’ve felt like. [pause] For the last twenty years.” Years-old conflicts are revisited as former lead guitarist Dave Mustaine (he went on to form Megadeth), kicked out in 1983, comes to a session with Ulrich to discuss what the past two decades have been like for him. “Do I wish you guys had said, ‘Dave, you need to go to Alcoholics Anonymous?” he asks. “Yeah, I do.”

This kind of candor, and (however unlikely it sounds) the increasing fluency with which these heavy metal musicians are able to discuss how they feel towards each other and work through their disagreements without ultimatums make for a pretty compelling film. A lengthy portion of the film features Ulrich and his gnome-like father, and it’s clear that although he’s sold about 100 million records by this point, Ulrich still worries about what his father thinks of their new material. Upon hearing a new track, Ulrich senior gives it a thumbs down, and his son looks like he’s about to cry. When the band performs at a prison, Hetfield gives a brief, informal talk to the prisoners about anger (the new album will be called St. Anger) and the productive ways of channeling it before admitting that he’s nervous and doesn’t know what to say; the prisoners in the audience show their support by giving him the classic heavy metal hand gesture. The crew and his fellow bandmembers give him hugs as he comes offstage.

Hetfield goes into rehab to deal with his alcohol abuse, and the other band members (now just Ulrich and Hammett) don’t see him for a year and are unclear if he’ll still want to be in the band when he comes back. Upon his return, they create music according to a new work ethic: Hetfield needs to leave at 4:00 every day so he can be with his children. Although previously, individual band members were not allowed to comment on each other’s role in the band (the drummer couldn’t criticize the lyrics, for example, and the singer couldn’t criticize the drumming), they now decide that anything goes and each member throws out ideas for song lyrics. Hammett offers “My life style determines my death style,” and everyone laughs at what sounds like an odd sentiment. But they listen as Hammett explains some of his Buddhist beliefs, and by the end of the movie we see Hetfield singing that exact line on stage as the camera cuts to Hammett in a pretty subtle edit.

The new album debuts at #1 on the charts when it’s released, and Ulrich argues that this proves you can make a harsh, aggressive album through a process that doesn’t involve constant conflict and anger. For a musical genre known for its cartoon-like masculine posturing, this is all pretty remarkable stuff. The movie’s not perfect – it presents an unrelentingly positive view of the band – but it’s definitely interesting, whether you’re a fan of heavy metal or not.

new kids on the block

“When the devil came, he was not red. He was chrome, and he said, Come with me.” – Wilco, “Hell is Chrome” [listen online]

Wow. While I wasn’t paying attention, a bunch of new academic blogs sprang up over the summer months:

  • This Academic Life: “Academia als Beruf,” or, an occasional record of the various aspects of my life as an academic.
  • Bitch Ph.D.
  • The Chronicles of Dr. Crazy: Thinking for a living is serious business.
  • The Cul de Sac: Living the Burbs, Where the Margin is the Center The Center, the Margin and Everyone wants to live on a road going nowhere.
  • Professor Dyke: A Writer and Professor Talks Smack About Writing, Publishing, Teaching, Misadventures on the Tenure Track, and the Perils of Being the Only Single, Non-Student Dyke in Smalltown-Collegeville
  • Eudaemonia’s Horizon: A light-hearted romp through life, love & philosophy at the bottom of the atmosphere…
  • In Favor of Thinking: life in academia, yoga, movies, books, ideas, general rants …
  • Just Tenured: A recently tenured associate professor at Little-Known U rediscovers life in academia and beyond. Is there light at the end of the tenure-tunnel? Where am I going and what am I doing?
  • New Kid on the Hallway: Negotiating a new job and a long distance marriage, while trying to avoid the bullies and hang out with the cool kids on the academic playground.
  • No Fancy Name: No fancy description. I’m really quite boring, not creative at all. I also can’t match my socks.
  • Playing School, Irreverently: Whee! Adventures on the tenure track … and beyond.
    All aboard!

I’m not caffeinated enough to have anything to say about all this, yet, but you might find interesting the recent (and perhaps unfinished) conversation about identity and blogging. As Chuck speculates, maybe this time of year encourages such reflections.

american dialogues: i think i have a syllabus

Here you go. Man, it takes longer than you’d think. My course is based mostly on the freshman writing program at the University of Maryland. Further details to follow, as I have time.

american dialogues: let’s take it from the top

The first thing I’m going to do, after basic introductions, is introduce them to the concept of rhetoric as the study and practice of the art of persuasion, not the common definition of “empty or insincere speech.” [See, for example, the intro to Andy Cline’s online Rhetoric Primer, or Jack Lynch’s much more brief definition.] We’ll go over the importance of audience: writers write for readers. I’ll discuss the three divisions of rhetoric identified by Aritostotle, sometimes referred to as deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. [See this section of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric.] Our first focus will be on epideictic rhetoric: the rhetoric of praise or blame. [See this section of On Rhetoric.] Praise or blame is something we’ll be hearing a lot in the months leading up to the 2004 election, so I figure this is a good place to start. Students will choose a candidate, a campaign proposal, or an event and write (probably as an in-class essay) an encomium, a vituperation, or an apologia for a specific audience of their choice.

not really a good day

Nope. Can’t say that it was. Nothing that some single-malt scotch won’t fix. I’m sure some readers are pretty glassy-eyed in the face of my posts on teaching composition. I’ve been thinking of some other, more personal topics about which I might write:

  • Catching you up on my trip to Europe and posting the remainder of my digitial photos.
  • Sharing with you my unironic love of the criminally under-rated Lynyrd Skynyrd.
  • Writing my thoughts about my impending trip to visit family in Georgia.
  • Commenting on the genuinely entertaining Some Kind of Monster.

But not right now. Time for comfort food and television…