Country Strong (2010)

[There probably are some spoilers in this review.  That is the warning.] 

     When I think of Leighton Meester, I don't have to think of The Roommate (2011).  Same goes for Garret Hedlund and Tron: Legacy (2010).  Or Gwyneth Paltrow and Contagion (2011), though to be fair when I think Gwyneth Paltrow I think of Shakespeare in Love (1998) or Hard Eight (1996).  That's because I can think of them as country singers of varying levels of success and ambition in Shana Feste's Country Strong (2010).  But that doesn't mean that Feste made a masterpiece.
     Country Strong is an incredibly dark and often cold tale of the incompatibility of love and fame, of how success can be measured by others or oneself, and how even the caring individuals can hurt others because of love.  It is not interested in giving any of the characters pure motivations. Nor are there any easy steps to make things better because the characters all find themselves in dicey relations from the beginning.  And because it isn't easy to choose the route that is contrary to success (which should bring a level of happiness), the character are often blind to their own hypocrisy. 
     Other than whatever was living on Tim McGraw's head, the cast is strong.  Paltrow can sing, and she gets a better showcase for that talent than she did in Duets (2000).  She also can convey every bit of the roller coaster her character must endure.  Hedlund affects the ultimate cowboy walk – it really is awesome – and a shoulder slouch when he plays that conveys a playfulness that fits his vocal style.  He can sing a bit, too; something like a cross between Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard.  Meester, who looks prettier as the film goes on and the personality of Chiles Stanton comes through, can sing as well (and not that crap like her single, "Your Love is a Drug"). 
     The story is somewhat complex, but does blend together well.  (Here are the spoilers.)  Country music superstar Kelly Canter (Paltrow) begins the film in rehab, attempting to recover from an alcohol induced incident that caused a deep rift between her and her husband, James (McGraw).  Sneaking into her room for songwriting tips and sex is maverick musician Beau Hutton (Hedlund).  Beau warns against taking Kelly out on tour – one that is needed to save her career – but James wins out.  James wants young beauty Chiles Stanton to open for Kelly (and he may or may not be sleeping with her), but ends up bringing Beau along as well.  Kelly has a few meltdowns, has ready access to Vodka in her dressing room, and is generally hurtful to the people around her.  Likewise, Beau does what he can to ensure that both women want him.  James tries to keep things together for the comeback tour but ignores the emotional needs of everyone.  Kelly pulls it together long enough to give a great performance and try to help Chiles avoid some of the common mistakes a starlet may make on the way up, but that ends up making the contrast between success and happiness even more tragic in the end.
     I would wager that if one was not a fan of country music there wouldn't be much motivation to see this movie.  And for some reason, the music isn't given the showcase it deserves.  Still, there is a good story in this film, and people who like darker romances with some level of realism will likely enjoy it.  I thought it was okay, but I am a pretty harsh critic.

The Singular Determinant: On the Topic of the Allowance of Free Action

     I didn't get the draft of the short story on which I am working done in time for today's post.  So I went and dug up an old paper from the last Philosophy class I took.  I can only assume that it will see nowhere near the traffic that the Case Study does.  I went and added pictures to go with the music, film, and television sources.

      

The Singular Determinant: On the Topic of the Allowance of Free Action ¹

Living on a lighted stage

Approaches the unreal

For those who think and feel

In touch with some reality

Beyond the gilded cage

Cast in this unlikely role,

Ill-equipped to act

With insufficient tact

One must put up barriers

To keep oneself intact

Living in the limelight

The universal dream

For those who wish to seem

Those who wish to be

Must put aside the alienation

Get on with the fascination

The real relation

The underlying theme

Living in a fisheye lens

Caught in the camera eye

I have no heart to lie

I cant pretend a stranger

Is a long-awaited friend

All the worlds indeed a stage

And we are merely players

Performers and portrayers

Each another’s audience

Outside the gilded cage ²

Canadian prog-rock trio Rush

                        

     What are we to supposed Neil Peart is addressing with these lyrics?  Is he only describing the life of a famous, successful musician, or is he describing something more primal, more elemental to human existence?  The former is entirely plausible, for Rush was quite successful when this song was penned (it is from Rush’s 1981 album Moving Pictures), and Rush clearly performs on a stage while performing before an audience, under many lights which serve to highlight the members.  However, Peart is at the same time explaining a truth that exists for both Rush (the band) and people in general.  What is at stake is the nature of the individual.  Should the individual seek external definition and act merely as an object to be observed and assessed by others?  Or should the individual risk alienation – being considered as a distinct other not fitting into the prescribed mold – and reject external direction and determination of one’s being?

     More to the point, what does Peart mean when addressing the stranger?  Is this merely a statement that he cannot engage in perfunctory glad-handing of people he does not know, or a deeper statement as to the nature of the self in relation to others, that the relationship between the self and the other is one that needs to be carefully guarded to hold on the sense of one’s own identity?  Can one who was once a friend become a stranger – can the other change his or her nature, or is the nature of the other determined only be the observing being?

     These questions may seem beyond the scope of a pop-rock song written and recorded by a Canadian power trio, though Rush did write several songs that are clearly influenced by the works of Ayn Rand.  While Rand is a poor philosopher (the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy describes objectivism as a “so-called philosophy”³), many have taken her decrying of altruism and religion to heart.  Leonard Piekoff made an attempt to present objectivism as an actual philosophy, one of which is the is the importance of selfishness and individual achievement.  Acknowledging this, it is not beyond reason to see an existential influence in a song such as “Limelight.”

     What is of interest in “Limelight” is how it can be understood in phenomenological terms, specifically in regards to the self as proposed by Martin Heidegger and Erwin Straus.  Rush addresses something that is presented in regards to the sense of self in regards to the other (the greater societal other rather than just an individual).  To Heidegger, this is best seen in regards to the authentic vs. inauthentic life, which is indeed supposed to be a struggle.  When Peart writes that “living in the limelight / the universal dream / for those who wish to seem,” he is representing the possibility that the highest achievement of the inauthentic being – a being wholly corrupted by society and robbed of a sense of self, or at least determinant self direction – is to be seen, respected, lauded by society.  The authentic being, on the other hand, is sure to receive some degree of “alientation” – a supreme sense of being different from the societal other – when engaging in a struggle for the better understanding of the self on one’s own terms.  For Heidegger, there is an implicit sense of guilt in failing to seek to live the authentic life, and the risk is immense – one can fall away from one’s self (though this is likely to mean one’s sense of self) and be left with nothing.  As the definition of the self would come from the societal other, it is not controlled by the being.  It would not be his or hers.  The individual would literally be left with nothing of their own.  Instead, the individual must seek “the underlying theme” – the self.

     For Straus, there is another risk.  The individual must interact with other beings to be sure, but there must be some sort of regulator to ensure that the sense of self is not obliterated by the societal other.  Straus labels this “shame.”  Straus’ concept of shame is not merely concealing shame, but also preservative shame.   Here, preservative shame can best be seen in the song with the lyrics: “Cast in this unlikely role / ill-equipped to act / with insufficient tact / one must put up barriers / to keep oneself intact.”  The barrier (singular) for Straus is shame.  It allows for the self to determine the risk of exposing oneself in one’s actions.   Shame is what allows for the continued sense of self.  Much as phenomenology posits that the being finds itself in the world, Peart imagines a being with necessary social interactions but not sufficiently equipped to deal with the societal other without risking the self.

Gigging Frogs?

If anybody has ever used the practice of "gigging frogs" to impress a woman, please let me know.