Secretary


Steven Shainberg (USA, 2002)

For some reason I decided a few weeks back to create a ‘Gyllenhaal’ tag, to which films of both Gyllenhaal siblings would refer. I decided that having never seen a film starring either Gyllenhaal sibling, but thought it might be nice to click on a tag and see references to both Jake and Maggie, pending mentions of them actually becoming extant. That’s right: in case anybody was unaware, there are a brother and sister knocking about Hollywood going by the name Gyllenhaal. They are in films. That’s about all I know at this stage, but I will keep you apprised as and when.

(I would say they are the modern equivalent of John and Joan Cusack, but I spent a good few years thinking Joan was a practical joke, being John in disguise. That is not, by the way, a slight on Joan, to whom I was slightly (weirdly) attracted while watching School of Rock; it’s just the way my mind works.)

So this, then, is the first step on my journey to full Gyllenhaal tag satisfaction and, if I may be so bold, is a positive start indeed. Not sure where I am going from here, but elements of the Gyllenhaal family tend to feature in films I want to see, like Jarhead, Darko and that Zodiac thing. Not so much the Maggie, then, though I might find myself watching something like Riding in Cars with Boys in the interest of fairness. I am nothing if not fair. Gyllenhaal!

Secretary, then. People see this as some kind of ‘quirky, sexy comedy’, but in reality it is a rather serious portrait of a modern (working) relationship. It is definitely amusing in places, but I found it more touching than anything else. I’ll get the big convenience (or, as an old tutor called it, the juggernaut) out of the way first, which is the coincidence that such a potential submissive (sub) as Gyllenhaal’s Lee Holloway just happened to apply for a job with a tender dominant (dom). However, seeing as we have no film without this coincidence, I am more than willing to let it go.

I haven’t really thought about a framework for this post, so I hope to just write things about the film as I think of them and then try to edit it into something that makes sense. Consider me the Holger Czukay of bloggery.

Maggie’s performance was excellent. I find her quite attractive, but I have a feeling I am supposed to find her attractive: Maggie is a good looking woman, but not too good looking; she is pretty, but not too pretty. She is the kind of woman that cinemagoers and blogsters can find somewhat attainable, even though she is rich, famous and surrounded by rich, famous men, ergo we like her. She played the shy sub well, though. I especially liked, at the point when she was comfortable with her boss spanking her bottom, her intentional – desperate – little transgressions.

Placing a worm in a letter, when even a typo would result in corporal punishment, was a thing of brilliance; that desire to transgress in order to be punished was perfectly pitched, just the right combination of mischief and desperation. Equally brilliant was, when boss E. Edward Grey (wonderfully played by James Spader, who I only knew from a cameo on Seinfeld) would circle the aforementioned typographical errors with red pen; upon seeing the returned, dried worm, he furiously and constantly outlined it in red in a great comic moment.

I loved their relationship as a whole, as contrived as it was. From the start we see their mutual attraction, too shy to be obvious, but too engulfing to keep totally secret. Grey obviously sees it at the job interview – delivered in a soft-Lynch kinda way, itself helped by the fact that the film was scored by the ever-excellent Angelo Badalamenti – and has no issue with bringing out the sub that’s dying to get out of Lee (who I should probably add had just been released from a psychological institution). Yeah, it’s a tad messed up, but in a brilliantly life-affirming way.

From what I can tell, many people might view this film as a bit of a sicko flick, but I find it incredibly touching. Lee is a fragile, bruised soul who has pretty much nothing in the way of a social skill-set; by bringing the repressed real Lee out of her, Grey is doing her a pretty massive favour. She is a woman who has to rehearse social interactions in the mirror before playing them out, and who seems to view even the most menial task as something to get excited about. She ends up wearing, as the pre-flashback intro informs us, a light stocks, and goes about her workaday (I love that word) business wearing it.

Much like Ugly Betty, which I also plan on blithering on about, there is an existing/past boyfriend, the generally unexciting, mediocre, comforting prospect of whom provides a threat to our protagonista from hooking up with the dude with which she should hook. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for the purposes of actual narrative peril, he isn’t much of a rival and is just there as a symbol of Lee’s growth, I suppose. Pretty much the same as Ugly Betty then.

Speaking of ‘peril’, I have noticed the recent trend in film adverts for the written description of every detail of whichever ‘movie’ it is it is advertising. I don’t like it one bit, being firmly of the opinion that an age rating should suffice in terms of films content. For example, The Wild Thornberries contained ‘scenes of mild peril’ in its cartoon pores. There are also films that contain ‘scenes of animated fantasy violence’, which sounds a bit oo-er if you ask me, and probably more so than the film actually contains. I don’t need to be told if a film contains ‘language that might be considered objectionable by some’: if I go to see an 18-rated film, I expect nothing less. And I don’t care what the rating is; if a film does not contain ‘mild peril’ – at the very least – it’s not worth bothering with.

It’s a stupid, sorry state of affairs, and if a prospective cinema attendee cannot infer from an age rating that a 15 might contain scenes of a slightly sexual and/or violent nature, their troubles extend way beyond the confines of the cinema and they might want to consider seeking greater help than text on a telly advert can provide.

Anyway, marrying that rant to the review: I would love to see Secretary advertised in such a manner, if only to see the phrase ‘contains scenes of male and female masturbation’ on my telly; I’m sometimes juvenile like that. And I love the fact that the film contains scenes of male and female masturbation: almost every film containing adults has sex, but the act of self love is woefully underrepresented in films; certainly the films I watch. Maybe I’m too highbrow and need to watch American Pie or some shit.

Rather than merely being some jaded bit of sleaze, as one might well fear, one of the masturbation scenes provides the most poignant part of the film (of course, the other two such scenes provide the funniest and grossest moments). Lee is too introvert to express her feelings and desires externally, so she deals with her feelings for her boss in the most private of arenas. And it’s beautiful. Things get a tad more ‘niche’ when Grey bends Lee over, tells her to strip and then jerks off, but horses for courses and all that.

This leads to the deeper issues dealt with by the film: that Secretary is blatant in its displays of fetish – leading to a presumed level of shock from the general audience – is intentional, as it examines the fetish culture at work in the film through the private travails of the characters. I might add that this is fittingly no dungeon romp, as I imagine the majority of fetish enacting takes place in the kind of suburban mores represented by this film. So the discovery of sadomasochism is at once an awakening and moment of personal definition for the somewhat arrested Lee, while it provides both a thrill and an albatross for Grey, who hates himself for that very excitement he feels through his unconventional love practices.

The last act is a tad odd as far as I’m concerned, as Lee rushes out of her wedding to Other Bloke to declare her love for Grey, whose total immersion in lustful acts has rendered the currency of love somewhat moot, if indeed it was ever anything other than moot to him. This being Hollywood, albeit Weird Hollywood (you know: Lynch, Waters, The Ice Storm, American Beauty etc), his glacial resistance to normality – ergo happiness, according to the movie industry one might argue – eventually melts (after she stages a sit-in hunger strike, complete with wetting her wedding dress) and they find a perfect balance between freaky-deakiness and actually living lives that are not governed by lustful urges.

Overall, then, I’d consider this film quite the success; less a weirdo spectacle at which reasonable observers gawk and laugh than a genuinely moving, actually romantic, comedy in which two otherwise lost souls manage to find happiness with each other. I had originally decided to watch this one as something of a night off from my usual diet of far-eastern Shakespearean tragedy and monster movie satire, but Secretary proved surprisingly compelling and moving in a world full of contrived tearjerkers that do nothing of the sort. A very edifying start to my slow burning Gyllenhaal project.

I have been a poor writer of late, for which I apologise. I have many posts near conclusion, and I need to pull my finger out really. Anyway, here is something I wrote in application for a Channel 4 job for which I applied recently. As I didn’t get that, I might as well post it here. My thoughts on a Channel 4 programme. Hopefully getting something posted will gird me into action:

I wanted to write on the excellent one-off Mark of Cain but, in honesty, I have to give the nod to Peep Show. I am a big fan of comedy, watching whatever I can in the genre. As a result, it takes a really well-written programme with believable characters and unbelievable situations to really impress me; Peep Show impressed me from the beginning.

The initial episodes seduced me with their strange sense of the understated. From the theme tune that echoed Tom Waits compositions, to the point-of-view perspective, to the fact that both main characters were geeks (albeit to different degrees of overtness), Peep Show felt like something new; a feeling I hadn’t really felt in British comedy since Brasseye or Spaced. What I really liked about the first series was the wonderful dialogue, both internal and spoken, that defined the characters far more clearly than their embarrassing deeds ever could.

I was initially disappointed when the second series appeared, due to an ostensibly contrived effort to ‘sex up’ the show. I thought this due to the new, rock, theme tune (I have admittedly now learned to love ‘Flagpole Sitta’), and all the random sex and marriage that seemed to be happening. I was pleased to learn the error of my ways when I bought the DVD set last year: not only were the episodes I had seen better than I thought, but I had apparently watched only half the series. Watching some scenes, like the poker game, had me in stitches and were a revelation.

Whatever I thought of the second series, series three was complete salvation as far as I was concerned. Super Hans in particular was fantastic, especially in the episode where everybody was trying to get everybody else sectioned.

That reminds me of one of my favourite Peep Show facets: the way the characters were used, in a very subtle way, as mouthpieces for various social movements. So Jeremy is the Eternal Student, vocally opposed to what he sees as ‘the system’, but either unable or unwilling (or both) to actually do anything about it. In direct conflict with this is Mark, in an almost identical psychological situation, but on the right wing side of the coin; conservative (and Conservative) in world outlook, he is resigned to his fate as saloon-driving family man in the suburbs, but is brilliantly terrified of this eventuality. He tries to escape the straitjacket of destiny, but seems to intentionally develop self-handicapping strategies.

The lesser (in stature) characters are also perfectly pitched. Super Hans, while a caricature, is absolutely compelling. His character high point for me was, in a moment of unintentional (on his part) satire, when he referred to crack as ‘more-ish’, perfectly lampooning the current trend for euphemising addiction by the advertising industry. When the women are added to the mix – such as the devil/angel combination of Toni and Big Suze – that truest comedy cliché comes true: put great characters in any situation, and they write the comedy themselves.

Mulholland Dr.

[Written ages ago]


David Lynch (USA/France, 2001)

I have a pile of DVDs that sit, unwatched. They wait, patiently, for the moment that they realise their potential and rotate at high speed inside my DVD player. The more I want to watch one of these discs, the longer they usually have to wait before fulfilling their potential. See, with a film I’m not that bothered about, I can just give it a spin without a second thought. The films I am eagerly awaiting, though, have to wait for when the moment is just right, for when I am sure I can devote my undivided attention for over two hours. And so they wait.

Anyway, I watched the Culture Show on Saturday. I don’t know why I do it when Radio 4’s Saturday Review is on at the same time, and is far superior. Let’s face facts: it’s not hard to be superior to a TV show hosted by Lauren Laverne that features ten-minute puff pieces on Maximo Park (a band I saw supporting LCD Soundsystem once, and during whose set I was only being kept awake by my feelings of unadulterated hate. The headliners ruled though). I’m just bitter about the show ever since they bumped Verity Sharp off presenting duties, presumably on account of she didn’t look enough like a startled boy to fit in with the current BBC presenting scene (joke influenced by Charlie Brooker). That reminds me: I must listen to more Late Junction.

The one thing of interest on the programme was that posh arty bloke wandering round an exhibition of David Lynch’s static visual art. It was pleasantly surreal, and he seems to have taken to Photoshop rather well, and he gave good interview. Then Mark Kermode (at least I’m above ‘commode’ jokes. I guess) reviewed Lynch’s new film, Inland Empire. I didn’t stick around to hear it, on account of I like going into films as fresh as possible, and I decided tonight would be the night I watch Mulholland Dr., probably the most extreme example of the films I want to see so much that I never actually watch them.

Being that I do not normally go in for hyperbole, I will allow myself to declare this film both the best and worst American film I have ever seen. Of course, I do not mean this literally (I think the first two Godfather films are better*, and I think Queen of the Damned and the first Harry Potter film are worse**), but it both amazed and infuriated me.

I am not sure why but, despite knowing this was a Lynch film, with all that implies, I was expecting something a tad more normal than what I got. I don’t even think it was a case of The Straight Story lulling me into a false sense of security, as I always saw that as an aberration in his body of work. I reckon it’s mainly just due to various media outlets banging on about how great a film it is, without mentioning how insane it really is.

And it begins normally enough. It actually begins in a very arch and on the nose manner, but I find that pretty refreshing. There are shots of Hollywood, but with an ominous musical tone creating an atmosphere of foreboding. Phone calls are made, and the shot is of a phone ringing, or the back of a man speaking on a phone. It was all so matter of fact that I should have expected it would all implode with the strain of maintaining a straight face.

What Lynch does in twisting the stereotypes of filming Hollywood itself is very interesting. As well as the aforementioned juxtaposition of Hollywood Hills and eerie tones (as though Lynch house composer extraordinaire Angelo Badalamenti had decided to go all John Carpenter on us), the colouration of the film seems to have been an intentional act of usurping the usual Hollywood associations.

While California has been associated with nothing but sun in everything from Baywatch and The O.C. to Arrested Development, early shots in this film break with tradition. When ‘Rita’ first eyed up the house in which she eventually made temporary residence, I first noticed the blatant greyness of the scene. And, in those scenes not set during nightfall, I saw nothing to contradict this feeling.

In fact it was not just the visual tone of the film, but the production values as a whole that impressed me. While I usually start checking chapters and clocks in an agitated manner well before most films have ended, I felt as though I could have happily watched this film forever. Quite apart from the fact that the entirety of the piece seemed to take place in that perfect moment just before the heavens open, and sweet, sweet rain purges the ground beneath, everything else just seemed to click.

I have a fascination for anything Hollywood-based; it’s almost sick. The amount of hours I have spent watching Cribs, The Fabulous Life of…, The Hills et al can be gauged only by secret, room-filling, steam-powered retro-chic computers from the future. Hollywood-gone-bad is even better: the myriad social pratfalls encountered by Larry David in Curb Your Enthusiasm send me into paroxysms of hilarity and, as physically soon as Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson split, the ostensibly romantic Newlyweds took on a ghoulishly addictive sheen, like a pink, heart-shaped box full of haunted heroin.

Obviously this tale of would-be starlets, mob-threatened directors, horrifically bad nose jobs and shadowy figures was less up my street than it was peering through my bedroom window, flashbulbs a-popping. In fact, the Lynch exposition was comforting in its soft surrealism. The aforementioned archness and shots of phones were to be expected, as was the very small man doling out single-syllable orders while in an otherwise dark, featureless room. The first major reveal of any note that I currently recollect was also a major step in the right direction.

In quite the engaging diner scene (I love diners), a man told another man about a dream he had. It was a bad dream, involving a terrifying face. That off his chest, they leave the diner, turn the corner of the building oh so gradually, when boom! A terrifying face appears and man #1 collapses. We don’t actually see him again until much later in the film, but that’s for much later in this post. In his defence, the face was very scary, and the scene was filmed very much to get that jump reaction from viewers.

The film was so expertly played that I actually relegated this sequence to the back of my mind for the body of the piece. That body, of course, was the tale of Hollywood life at its most mysterious and intimidating. While before I had seen it, my attention had been drawn to the alleged dual leads of Laura Elena Harring (one of the few legitimately beautiful actresses in a vast, characterless ocean of ‘hotness’, and yes, there is a difference) and Naomi Watt. That’s a bit of misinformation as far as I’m concerned: the narrative strand concerning hapless director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux) is as important and arguably more compelling.

Kesher is rather an arrogant film director who is unimpressed at what seems to be mafia involvement in the casting of his upcoming film. He thinks nothing of rejecting who two shadowy men think should be cast as his female lead. Thankfully, this is only the beginning of a descent into a disturbing downward spiral for Kesher. First up is the little matter of his wife screwing around on him.

Now, upon seeing the other man in bed, I was going to make one of two jokes. The one I decided on was referring to him as a man from 1987. Not great, I’ll admit, but rather accurate given his mullet and attire. The other joke would have been to refer to him as Billy Ray Cyrus; essentially shorthand for the former anyway. Then, when the credits rolled, I saw none other than Mr. Cyrus on the cast list so, as the Bee Gees once sang, the joke was on me. He then gets knacked by Cyrus, gets turned bankrupt by malicious forces, and ends up agreeing to meet a mysterious man who goes by the name ‘Cowboy’.

Of course, cocky Adam Kesher is initially amused at the idea of this ‘Cowboy’, but soon gets very intimidated after a late-night drive to a dark ranch results in The Cowboy persuading him to do the right thing (‘you will see me one more time if you do good. You’ll see me two more times if you do bad’). The ‘right thing’, of course being the casting of that blonde girl from Home and Away in the lead of his new film. This strand ties in with the other major thread when, after agreeing to the casting, he sees the delightful Betty Elms (Watts) and is gutted. That’s the end of that one in terms of linear narrative.

While I love the Kesher story (and not just because I want a pair of his spectacles), the ‘main’ tale is also compelling. In short, a woman (Harring) being driven somewhere is involved in a crash. In a state of amnesia, she wanders into a nearby house, on account of the resident is departing. She meets Betty who, staying at her aunt’s mistakenly assumes the woman is a friend of the resident. Harring’s character, dubbing herself ‘Rita’ on account of a Hayworth poster she spies, eventually explains the real situation, and the two decide to get to the bottom of her mysterious identity. Betty, meanwhile, is a young Hollywood hopeful and we accompany her on a very impressive audition.

So far, so good. Somewhere along the line it all gets a bit lost in its own sense of intrigue. I really have to watch it again, actually, because this is one of those films whose first viewing provides more questions than answers. I am a generous viewer, so I ask not about the coincidence that the owner of the house Rita enters is off on her hols. I do ask about the old couple who Betty befriended on her way into Cali, though, as they turn up later in the back of a car, looking hellishly pleased with something or other.

Anyway, the tale of Rita and Betty playing dual Nancy Drews is an engrossing one, and the part of the film that prompted me to think ‘I could stay in this world forever’. There is much to recommend it: the audition Betty goes on is a scene that draws the viewer in like few others I have seen. Kudos here to the performers for making a segment of a big film feel so intimate; it was almost ethereal in its tone. The exquisite beauty of Harring was a definite boon; there are many actresses in Hollywood displaying a certain ‘hotness’; very few are actually beautiful in a classical, timeless sense. And to think she used to be in Sunset Beach.

Cutting to the chase, I remember watching the bedroom scene, wherein our two protagonists end up getting romantic, and thinking ‘this has to change the relationship’. I knew it was a tipping point of some kind, I just didn’t realise it was the signal for all hell to break loose. I thought that maybe there would be some compromise of either the search for identity of the search for work, and figured on the latter, seeing as the audition story was running into something of a cul de sac.

Instead, it was the moment in which the film – that had lulled us into a false sense of cinematic security with its safe surrealism – plunged into a nosedive into Parts Unknown. While I tried to pay due attention during this closing stretch of utter dementia, will was insufficient. It was just too mad.

From what I can recollect, we saw the scary-faced individual from the side of the diner, and a blue cube. I think one of the main characters actually disappeared into it, or at least the camera (our perspective) did. There was an alternate universe I didn’t pick up on at the time; things like names of protagonists and waitresses being switched. By this stage, I was so overflowing with utter chagrin that my subconscious refused to take any more.

Scenes came and went that mixed characters from the Rita and Kesher arcs, scenes that seemed to jump into temporal points in relationships that were either yet to happen or never to be. The more this frenzied switching, as though Lynch’s work experience kid had bumped into someone in the corridor while holding the script, and had attempted to sort the sheets that had gone flying like a snowstorm of potential paper cuts, so everything had been accidentally muddled… the more I saw of this, the more frustrated I grew with it.

To me, it seemed that what had started out as a wonderful piece of cinema was being besmirched to a massive degree by what was apparently a massive copout. It was almost as if Lynch had started a classic script, but was unable to finish it in that style for fear of taking a misstep and ruining it.

Trips were taken, both before and after the blue cube debacle, to a mysterious club called Silencio (the lip synch performance of ‘Crying’ was another wonderfully moving scene): it was here the film would find what ended up being a fitting conclusion. After this stanza of sheer madness, we end up back in Silencio, as the camera zooms in to a figure in the stalls. As I’m sure I have seen in nightmares about ham-fisted pseudo-surrealist parody, the character uttered the word ‘silencio’, at which point the credits rolled.

It was a maddening anti-climax to what had been about two hours or so of excellent, enigmatic, compelling cinema. Even comedy vignettes such as the botched assassination in which everything that could have gone wrong did so seemed perfectly pitched. I didn’t care that loose ends didn’t seem as though they would meet denouement. But when the downward spiral of quality began, I would see characters from earlier in the film (the diner fainter, for example), and resent their very reappearance.

As I somewhat facetiously stated at the outset, this was both the best and worst film I have seen. For so long it was nigh-on perfect, but it was that soaring into the heavens, to borrow a reference from the most hackneyed of writers’ handbooks, that led to the sun’s proximity to melt its wings, and send it back into the very world of mortality it sought so desperately to escape.

*I know, oh-so predictable.
**Yes, I have actually seen them. Long story.

I gave you the world, it was all for you


So Tom decided he would bang on a bit about the excellent ‘Capt. Midnight’, by Mike Patton’s* rather hit-and-miss Tomahawk. Good on him, it’s nice he likes the song enough to post about it et cetera. However, I always considered that my song (you know, because ownership of a recording is largely based on whether a particular dork in Leeds likes it a lot), so what follows is what I think about the song in question.

I always viewed the song as a pastiche of the angst rock movement that seems perennially popular among the pretend disaffected of our society, and in hindsight it seems a long time coming. See, it’s pretty common knowledge that the band which made Patton famous, Faith No More, rather influenced a sub-genre of rock known as ‘nu-metal’. It’s not like FNM are to blame for this, as really good bands in any area of music are likely to spawn numerous inferior imitators. Still, FNM (and numerous other early 90s Californian bands, like Rage Against the Machine, Tool, to a lesser extent Jane’s Addiction…) were pretty solidly ripped off.

And it’s not just nu-metal that ostensibly ripped off FNM, as Biohazard’s entire oeuvre was essentially an urban take on ‘Surprise! You’re Dead’ (apart from that band’s best album, the 1996 release Mata Leão, which is bizarrely slated by their fans as their worst. Probably because they decided to write some songs that didn’t sound like ‘Surprise! You’re Dead’). Still, the influence was there, in possibly the most maligned rock movement of the decade. **

And by ‘nu-metal’, I am of course referring to that cash cow that began with Korn’s success, which soon led into Deftones (who are to the scene what Led Zeppelin were to metal: self-distancing because they wanted to seem cool), Coal Chamber and Limp Bizkit, before snowballing on in directions as superficially broad as Slipknot and Linkin Park. Ironically, a listen back to the album that started it all, Korn (1994), reveals that it sounds precious little like the over-produced slick-boy music that followed. Recorded on fifties equipment, the music sounds surprisingly organic in hindsight, there being more in common with Cypress Hill circa Black Sunday (there’s another one for the early nineties Californian influences on nu-metal, then) than anything that followed. While it set the template of explosive angst building from quiet fidget, as well as the self-loathing routine, that is nothing we hadn’t already heard from Nirvana, whose Nevermind was rather glossier to the ear than the Korn debut.

I digress, as usual. The point is that Faith No More, whether we or they like it or not, begat nu-metal, and in 2003 Mike Patton apparently saw fit to directly respond to that. He had, of course, made reference to nu-metal in the past, such as when it was rumoured that there would be a nu-metal tribute album (‘A FNM tribute record? Who gives a fuck? Do you really want to hear bands ruin great songs? My advice is to let sleeping dogs lie’), or that ex-FNM drummer Mike Bordin would be temporarily replacing injured Korn sticksman David Silveria (I can’t find the quotation online, but it was to the effect that Patton would never be able to trust Bordin again).

FNM ended in early 1998, having witnessed, though not being directly influenced by, the initial rise of nu-metal. Patton’s most prominent immediate post-FNM projects came in the form of Mr. Bungle’s excellent California, as well as the debut from the Fantômas super-group; Tomahawk emerged in late 2001 with a quality self-titled record. After the uncontrollably chaotic controlled chaos of Bungle, and the step beyond provided by Fantômas, Tomahawk – a collection of veterans of FNM, Jesus Lizard, Helmet and Melvins – was more traditionally ‘rock’, albeit with the self-awareness and humour one hopes would accompany such a crafty veteran outfit.

Ergo, while it was based on an updated JeezLiz sound, there were touches of electronics (Patton is a very public fan of such labels as Tigerbeat6), strange vocal themes and enough imagination to keep it interesting. The album also featured a greatly missed facet of Patton: the big chorus. The big chorus features twice on this album, benefiting both ‘God Hates a Coward’ (even if it just a mantra of ‘on and on and on and on and on…’) and the album high point ‘Sweet Smell of Success’, which boasts vocals that sound like Macy Gray and a weird downtempo Bristolian barbershop sequence. Like Tom mentions, there is also a big chorus on second album Mit Gas, and it is the biggest of them all.

Tom hears the song in a different way to me: he views the chorus as an honest expression of catharsis, ‘like all the tense, steadily building electronics in the world couldn’t connote how he feels; he just needs to scream’, but I think Patton’s delivery here goes some distance beyond that. Obviously, there is what Patton calls a ‘visceral, direct impact’ to the chorus, that release of whatever it is he has built up during the first verse, but there is a self awareness to the ostensible catharsis (‘I know it’s unromantic, but I think of myself almost like a craftsman. You get the pieces that fit, and you put them together’).

And here is where the nu-metal reference comes in. See, while previous big Tomahawk choruses were mid-paced, melodic affairs, this is a beast of entirely different stripe; angst and aggression is the name of the game. To these ears, Patton is sending a message to the aggro pretenders by parodying the big, angry chorus, but also performing it so well as to outdo the current generation on every level. He’s the twenty-first century Alexander Pope in other words, as he pulls off the pastiche with no small amount of aplomb and very particular attention to detail. I won’t go as far as to compare ‘Rape this Day’ with The Rape of the Lock, don’t worry.

What really impressed me on a visceral level is how intense the chorus vocal is. Beginning as simply loud projection, the performance builds incredibly subtly through the passage. By about halfway through, I am convinced it is the greatest rock vocal performance I have heard; what is most impressive is the perception that Patton is at once giving the impression of screaming uncontrollably while maintaining complete control of what he is doing. Sadly, as with all the best passages, this is all too brief and not to be repeated (like the deliriously good ‘The Prizefighter’ by Slo Burn).

This segments lyric is what really betrays Patton’s intention behind this chorus; the listener is at once wowed by the delivery while raising an eyebrow at the ostensibly intentionally juvenile wording. But it is in this very juvenility that the truly inspired nature of the work shines through – attributions of anger in the abstract are the epitome of angst rock subject matter, and this song doesn’t disappoint:

What?
Are you surprised?
I’m stayin’ alive, I spit in your eye, Drive a stake in you

This is the first couple of lines that set the scene. Amelodic screaming enters for the first time with:

Take me away, take me away

…Which reaches a crescendo with the ‘world’ beat in:

I gave you the world, it was all for you

Patton then provides dynamic counterpoint with a relatively controlled…

But I’m sick and tired of wasting time, I want mine

…Before repeating the ‘take me away… all for you’ refrain, and finishing with the amazingly affecting, and steadily building:

Stinkin’ lies, stinkin’ lies, stinkin’ lies

This chorus is a particularly effective juxtaposition to the rest of the song: largely electro beats and tinkling keyboard melodies. The transition to the chorus is somewhat foreshadowing, with the introduction of increasingly frequent live drum fills, but not so much as to detract from the impact of the explosion into chorus (a riff on the quiet-loud nineties alt-rock structure?). Oddly, this musical formula returns post-chorus but, as there is no repetition of the chorus, the track just fizzles out, overcome by the blank silence of space; this is the ultimate statement on the futility of directionless teen-rock angst. Patton, in the space of one pop song, displays both his massive vocal talent and inherent satirical streak, plunging a stake into the vampire that would suck at the lifeblood of his enduring inspiration.

* Well, it’s more the baby of erstwhile Jesus Lizard guitarist Duane Denison, but that would get in the way of my point.
** Nu-Metal was still more artistically rewarding than Britpop.