Ernest Alba's Blog

Harry Potter gets Naked

Daniel Radcliffe, Harry Potter himself, is going to appear naked in a London production of Peter Schaffer's Equus. Normally, I wouldn't care whether Harry Potter is getting naked or not, but when it's in a play of such high caliber as Equus, well, it's worth some attention. I first saw the play at Rice University two year ago. I was a senior in high school, visiting prospective colleges, and it was the first time I had seen full male and female frontal nudity. I know a lot of people that would have walked out during the "sex" scene in which the nudity took place. I remained grounded in my seat, however. Not because the female was attractive (oh man, she was), but because it was kind of liberating to see people so comfortable with themselves that they allow others to freely see their entire bodies - some, strangers and some, friends. I think a lot of the actors' confidence (both were Rice undergrads) came from their realization that what they were doing was art. Their naked bodies served a much higher purpose than corporal gratification. It made the motivations of the characters much more real. In the context of the play, it made the boy's sickness that much more terrifying.

For the uninitiated, Equus is kind of a detective story told from the point of view of a psychologist who tries to understand why a boy gouged out the eyes of six horses with a spike. As he questions the boy, the story unfolds and we get to hear and understand the boy's motivation for gouging out the eyes of six horses. Did I mention that he gouged out their eyes? With a spike, no less? The reasons are much more disturbing and horrendous than the crime, if you ask me. But it's not mindless violence and horror - it's moving and interesting and all that. If you haven't seen Equus, or heard about it, there is a movie based on the play that got 66% from users on Rottentomatoes. I haven't seen it myself, but if it terrifies you to the very core of your soul, then it's about as good as the play.

Film Reviews: Pirates, Superman, and Al Gore's movie

This is late, but here goes:

Biggest disappointments of the year.

• Pirates is full of itself. 300 million at the box office in two weeks? Ridiculous.
• Superman doesn't have enough Superman action and too much Superman drama.
•  Al Gore's film is not nearly as effective as Fahrenheit 9/11. I know, scientists know, and Al Gore knows that global warming exists and we're all worried about it. We wish other people would worry about it. An Inconvenient Truth won't make you worry. It's too tame.

I could write full reviews, but as I might have said before, I hate reviewing movies I don't like. It's no fun.

Cafe Tacuba and Utada Hikaru

I've been wanting to write this post for a while now. This is a comparison of Utada Hikaru and Cafe Tacuba. Though I've listened to Utada Hikaru, affectionately called Hikki, way more than Cafe Tacuba, I've listened to a large part of Cafe Tacuba's repertoire, hopefully enough to accurately gauge their comparative styles. Please point out ridiculous errors in judgement.

Cafe Tacuba is a popular Mexican rock band. They play instruments, sing, and write music. I want to analyze their music. Not their ability to sing or to play instruments. I want you to see them as composers.

Utada Hikaru is a popular Japanese pop singer. She also plays instruments, sings, and writes music. I want to analyze her music, not anything else. Thus, she, too, is only a composer.

Good melodies have two things in common. They are appealing to the ear and they are moving. To accomplish the first task, a writer must be creative, knowledgeable about music theory, and it helps to have experience with many different types of music. To accomplish the second task, melodies must carry a message, have a purpose, or express an idea, feeling, or emotion. For example, what emotion does this excerpt from Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture give you? Without even paying attention to the words and the historical context, can you feel the terror and quiet desperation in the voices of the choir? Can you hear the notes from the organ climbing to the heavens, searching for help? You may understand the  ideas and emotions Tchaikovsky was trying to convey, but none of it matters unless you enjoyed it. You must care about the emotions in order for the song to have any meaning to you - in order for it to be good. In this regard, people have tastes and opinions. A song that affects you strongly might have no effect on someone else.

The mark of a great writer is an ability to create complex expressions of emotion. This might entail a composition requiring one to listen to several emotions. Take, for example, this excerpt from El punal y el corazon by Cafe Tacuba. In it, a diverse cacophony of sounds, seemingly disconnected, but actually tied by the underlying beat, create several quickly unfolding and conflicting emotions. That just so happens to be the topic of the lyrics in the song. Complex songs can be composed even if they only create one emotion, if they are sublimely complex in melodic structure. Consider this excerpt from Desperte by Cafe Tacuba. The elementary phrase of the main theme had been introduced and repeated since the beginning of the song. However, it had not reached its fruition until after a nearly silent but haunting section of only vocals. The organizational element here is what is most impressive. It is a brilliant piece of music because of this complexity of organization. Utada uses practically the same technique in her song Keep Tryin'. After exploring the introductory phrases of the main theme, she silences all the musical instruments except for the gentle melody of what seems to be a music box. Then, she brings with full force (almost like the finale of a symphony) the full recapitulation of the theme, with the added finale. It is simply brilliant.

I consider both Cafe Tacuba and Utada Hikaru to be great composers. Among the many brilliant pieces I have heard in my lifetime, several of theirs are among the best. Though I love Hikki with a passion, I must admit that Cafe Tacuba are significantly better at writing music than Hikki. They write with such conviction, creativity, and complexity that even Hikki's work pales in comparison. In addition, they demonstrate a wide array of sounds in their songs, daring to defy convention. They can hardly be called rock, their music is so unique. But even when it comes to the good old-fashioned stuff, they can make instant classics: Cafe Tacuba - El baile y el salon. There is no doubt that Cafe Tacuba are stronger writers than Hikki. However, Utada's most recent work shows incredible promise. She has begun to grow, to mature. Her music is taking on much more complex shapes. Her sounds are becoming more widely arrayed and more unusual. Compare this excerpt from her first single "First Love" to this excerpt from one of her latest songs, "Colors." The first song is completely standard fare. It shows little creativity, hiding instead behind her knowledge of and ability to imitate classic American love songs. The second marries her knowledge of American and Oriental styles, but is infused with the style she has developed through four albums and eight years of writing.

Cafe Tacuba has been working for decades, since Hikki was born. They have become giants in their field, among the likes of Mana and Caifanes. They are revered in Mexico and Latin America. More importantly, they have become masters of their crafts. Hikki already has fame. At 15 years of age, she released her first album, which became the best-selling album in the history of Japan and created the R&B movement in Japan. She was listed in 2000 by the Guinness Book of World Records as the best selling artist in the history of Japan. Though I am proud of her success and love her music, I understand that she is capable of much, much more. Not in terms of quantity, but quality. I have boundless faith that she can become, if she so chooses, a master of her craft. She can join in the ranks of Cher, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Prince, and others who have taken pop and made it into music that transcends (Luis would insert "revolutionizes") the genre.

Film Review: Lady in the Water

Critics probably filed into the first screenings of Lady in the Water with some trepidation. M. Night had begun an ambitious project with his previous movies – to take Hollywood cinema in a different direction. Instead of relying on advanced directing techniques, extravagant special effects, and large action scenes, his films were driven by scenes of intense emotion, succinct but powerful dialogue, and very simple establishing shots. His films tried hard to create completely isolated, haunted worlds which the audience got to experience for a brief two hours before being lifted back out into reality. In the eyes of critics, he had begun to falter after his first big film, The Sixth Sense. It was probably one of the most important films in modern cinema. In addition to establishing Haley Joel Osment as a powerful actor and introducing Toni Collette to the broad American public, it began this new genre in film that belongs entirely to M. Night Shyamalan. His films are children’s tale, in the tradition of old myths, legends, and fairy tales. They have elements of horror and terror, in addition to the wonder and mystery of ghosts, aliens, and, in this latest film, sea narfs. They have a characteristic of ending with a surprise twist. In this respect, critics believe that Shyamalan has tried to create a gimmick that has already lost its luster.

The good news for critics is that Lady in the Water plays it straight. The "surprises" in the film aren't gimmicks because they logically follow the previous events. In the end, this is simply a fairy tale that takes place in modern times. It's filled with fantastical creatures, puzzles that must be deciphered, and mysterious characters. Someone you thought would be important, isn't. Someone you forgot about becomes crucial to the fairy tale. To enjoy this film, which you can, you must become a child. Forget what you know about reality, Hollywood, and self-promoting, arrogant directors like Shyamalan. He's trying to tell you a child's tale, so you must become a child. Indeed, in one particularly amusing scene Cleveland Heep must act like a child in order to hear more of the tale of the narfs.

In a children's book, this fairy tale would be successful. It has all the elements of an imaginative story. As a Hollywood film, Shyamalan is lucky that he was able to get it made. It's a very personal children's tale aimed at adults who don't mind becoming children for a couple of hours. That's a tough audience to find. Disney knew it, and for the first time in their relationship with Shyamalan, they rejected him. Shyamalan cried afterwards. Shyamalan has done a pretty courageous thing here. He has exposed himself to the world in a very personal way. He told this story to his children, and it says a lot about him as a person. It is filled with his ambitions, desires, and fears. Critics are outraged that he has the temerity to make a film about himself. They severely criticize Shyamalan for being petulant, selfish, and out of touch with reality. He might be all of that, but isn't that how all kids are?

Body Over Mind

For all the times we long for sexual encounters of heat and passion, for all the times we wish to drink and smoke 'til the sun comes up, for all the times we wish to dance until our bodies glisten with sweat, and for all our intense desires and unquenchable lusts, none of it is as powerful as our body's necessities. We may wish to continue the party, but our bodies say no, we must sleep. They say no, we must rest. No, we must cleanse. The most powerful mind is rendered incapacitated by the slightest suggestion of the body that it needs something. Without sleep, without food, without drink, our minds can not function. So we may think we are kings and queens of the universe, but really, we're animals of flesh and blood.

Review: Star Wars

Yeah right, imagine trying to review Star Wars. That's like reviewing Shakespeare's Hamlet or the Bible. It's like critiquing history. The truth is, I worship this masterpiece of George Lucas. Truly, nothing in pop culture has had such a profound and overwhelming impact on me as Star Wars. I am not alone. Countless millions have shared in the Star Wars experience through the decades. The treachery of the Emperor, Han Solo's recklessness, the cunning of Princess Leia Organa, the heroism of Luke Skywalker, and the redemption of Darth Vader have made us all fans of this unique and fantastical universe.

What makes Star Wars so amazing? Obviously the special effects are superb, the story arc is inspired and emotional, and the music is incredible. Without those things, Star Wars would be nothing. But the creativity that went into creating the planets, the vehicles, the characters, the races, and all the individual pieces and characters of the Star Wars universe are what sets it apart from anything in the history of human creativity. Jedi Knights, Sith Lords, Ewoks, Jawas, Tusken Raiders, Star Destroyers, X-Wings, TIE Fighters, Darth Vader, Yoda, Jabba the Hutt, lightsabers, the Clone Wars, the Old Republic, the Galactic Empire, Tattoine, Corsucant, Naboo, podracers, Boonta racing, Wampas, the Rancor, the Sarlacc, Mos Espa, Mos Eisley, Mon Mothma, General Ackbar, IG-88, Sebulba, Twi'leks, and the literally hundreds of other characters, weapons, vehicles, planets, and historic events that constitute the Star Wars universe make Lucas's universe unparalleled in terms of creative enormity and depth by any modern work of fiction. The grandeur of the Star Wars galaxy is staggering. Here's hoping for Episodes 7,8, and 9....

Zidane and the Headbutt heard 'round the world

Some things are not as simple as we'd like them to be. Zidane headbutted a player on the opposite team. What an ass. This is the world cup. This is friendly, if heated, competition. A move like that has no place in a soccer match.

What could have made Zidane so frustrated to make such a bold, rash move? Perhaps it was that the fouls committed on him by Materazzi had been unnoticed by the officials? Still, that happens a lot in matches. No reason to make such a brazen, unapologetic, violent move. What if he knew that...Maderazzi deserved it?

http://www.youtube.com/v/1Gyu8W1g2co

Many soccer fans are put off by Italy's aggressive, often violent tactics, and Maderazzi is the poster boy for Italy's tactics. It is believed that right before the headbutt, Maderazzi racially insulted Zidane. Perhaps, Zidane couldn't take it anymore and just let himself loose. Do I condone Zidane's actions? No. Never do I condone violence. Does he have the right to dispense justice to other players? No. On the field, only the refs do. Off the field, only the coaches do. But do I understand his frustration and anger? Yes. And I share in his disdain for players such as Maderazzi that play with zero maturity, too much emotion, and a penchant for tantrums. But I would not have expressed my disdain as he did.

Update: It turns out that, indeed, Maderazzi made some racial comments. That's an understatement. First Matterazzi called Zidane the Italian equivalent of 'n*****', and then insulted both his mother and his Muslim background by saying he is the 'son of a terrorist whore. That is pure hatred and plain idiocy.

That's what i get...

...for not logging out of my account after using someone else's computer.

Lucia, my sister, is a good person. I doubt she's the best person in the world - who can even know that?

I did not make the post below - she did. I considered deleting it, but...meh. She deserves to have it kept up.

My Favorite Person

Lucia Alba, my sister, is in one word...AWESOME, kind of like this expansive universe in which we live.

An ever elusive truth - Part Two

In the past week, I've gotten to see more of my high school friends than I have in the past two months. What's most remarkable is how little they have changed. They are going through rapid and massive ideological shifts, yet the cores of their personalities remain the same. Craig remains a tech geek, despite being a cool kid at Texas Tech. Kathryn, despite being the new party girl at Carleton, remains introspective, shy, and wise. From what I hear about Jim, he's the same superconfident, highly volatile, and argumentative kid he's always been.

I've remained, at my core, the same frustrated kid who tried, in third grade at the Catholic school, to find a scientific explanation for the existence of heaven. Jasper Cheing can corroborate my story. To this day, I have failed to find one. To be sure, I stopped trying a long time ago. I have moved on to another landscape as ethereal as heaven - the universe around us. I realized, a long time ago, that there could be no scientific explanation for heaven - it exists beyond the reach of our scientific tools and equipment. Indeed, it exists far beyond the cosmic event horizon. Any evidence would have to be biblical or metaphysical. The universe is different - we can qualify and quantify it. Our scientific equipment can measure the universe. We can test our theories and our hypotheses and prove them right or wrong. We've been doing it in an organized fashion for hundreds of years. We have almost always progressed to better and more accurate theories. We have not yet, however, discovered the whole truth.

Once I realized all of this, I also realized that the pursuit of this truth was the only way I could lead a life to which I could ascribe meaning. Studying the universe has been at the center of my universe, as everything I do is for the ultimate dream of better understanding the universe. However, in a matter of days, I have been dealt a crushing blow in my hopes and aspirations. Two people, with similar ideas, have stopped me dead in my tracks and have stricken me with fear. I'd like to reprint a comment e-mailed to me by my good friend, Adrian Adames. He's also a physics major at MIT. Below is his unaltered comment:

        I was reading your blog kid. You said in your blog that you were contemplating problems we have in our society and physics is what you came up with. You didn't look hard enough, and I don't know how you can compare AIDS in Africa to understanding the universe.
        Yes, you're right. We're all going to die, and in the big scheme of things we are insignificant, but I don't think that you /really/ think that. I believe that all humans think that they have special meaning, and they're more than organic machines approaching their expiration date. Everything that happens within humans can not be explained by simply stating that electric impulses in the brain make one see things that way or this way. Emotions, experiences, I don't know. The 'abstract' is what we are, and these things cannot all be explained through physics or any science. I'm getting carried away. I don't have any direction right now. I'd rather talk in person so you could direct me. Ok, final thought.
       Humans know very little about how the universe works. It's all theory. The big one, General Relativity, is just an approximator. We don't know much about anything.Only 4% of the universe is visible. Everything else is dark matter, dark energy,or whatever else it is. All I'm saying is that you will never come close to understanding the universe. You won't even come remotely close to understanding the small part of the universe that we know of right now. I think that you're going to change a lot Nest. You still might love physics, but your perspective of the world, of the abstract, is going to change.

P.S. I agree with most of what I said here. For some of it i'm just bullshitting. I just like playing devil's advocate and arguing with you. You need to get used to people challenging your beliefs anyway right? Aight kid. I'm tired of writing. I'm out like a light bulb.

-Adrian

Though I still firmly believe that humans are insignificant, blindly following whatever makes them feel as if they are significant, I think Adrian's argument against that belief is excellent. Do I really believe that? If I'm human, then no, no I don't. I only know it. But I don't believe it. It's why I write, it's why I study, it's why I talk to friends, and watch films, and eat food that's bad for me, it's why I wash my car, listen to my iPod, and go to Church, and it's why I think about you and me and all of us, day after day. I think that this matters. It has significance. It has meaning.

How did I come up with physics being much more important than AIDS in Africa? Well, because I know we're insignificant. In the blink of a cosmic eye, no matter what we do, we're gone. Extinguished by a universe filled with exploding stars and shooting asteroids. Does that mean I will not do everything in my power to ease human suffering? Unfortunately, no. If I could stick to my guns, I'd realize that the greatest deed I could do is to dedicate my mind, body, and soul to understanding our universe. However, I care too much about our survival to not worry about global warming, diseases, nuclear proliferation, poverty, civil rights, etc. I just saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' in Dallas (review later) with my family and, though I knew all of this already, it gave me hope that people would realize that the controversy that "exists" doesn't really exist. At least, among the people who study global warming. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The only thing to figure out is how soon? and how bad?

I digress. The crux of the matter, and Adrian's main point is that no matter how hard I or anyone tries, we will NEVER know the universe for what it is. It is far more complex than anything our science is capable of describing. Craig Milner, a high school friend, said nearly the same thing this weekend. He is a psychology major at Texas Tech, but he's contemplated these issues before. His hypothesis is simple because it requires no science, only logical deduction: we simply cannot know everything about the universe because if we did, we would be unable to cope with it. Humans are inherently incapable of knowing everything because it would spell out the end of our existence. We would cease to care about anything because we would know everything. What more is there to care about? What more is there to fight for? To live for? To have peace for? In fully knowing our meaning, it loses all meaning to us.

After going through it in my mind, I think both of their arguments lead to an inexorable fact: our future, however long it may last, does not include Einstein's dream, my dream, and the dreams of physicists everywhere. The universe will forever elude us, as it has done in the past so well. The pattern was always the same: just when we come to believe in the theories we have constructed, they are torn down by unfortunate new discoveries. The simple Greek theory of four elements proved to be too simple as we discovered over a hundred natural elements with the kicker of an unknown number of human made elements possible. How does this complex nature fit into any sort of theory we can construct? Ah, but it became simple again as we realized that all elements had basic building blocks in common - atoms composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Then we realized there were many more particles: muons, neutrinos, mesons, hyperon, and hundreds more. Then we discovered quarks, and the world became simple again. As patterns emerged, the outlook brightened, as the resulting quantum field theory could explain everything about these particles. Still, there was the awkward battle between Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Neither worked together, though they both worked beautifully apart. Then came string theory in the mid 1980's, and with it came one of the greatest senses of anticipation in the history of physics. The father of string theory, Leonard Susskind, put it this way in his book, 'The Cosmic Landscape:'

"There was a great sense of euphoria in the mid-1980s, when string theorists thought they were zeroing in on the final answer, a single, unique theory that would explain why the world is the way it is."

Needless to say, the final answer was more elusive than they had anticipated:

"Today we know that the success "just around the corner" was a mirage. As we learned more about string theory, three unfortunate things began to happen. Number one was that new mathematically consistent versions of what was supposed to be a unique theory emerged exponentially. String theorists watched with horror as a stupendous Landscape opened up with so many valleys that almost anything can be found somewhere in it. Number two was that in searching the Landscape for the Standard Model, the constructions became unpleasantly complicated. Finally, the potential candidates for a vacuum like the one we live in all had a nonzero cosmological constant." (blogger's note: Scientists had hoped for no cosmological constant - which is difficult to work with)

The hope that string theory will be an ultimately simple theory has faded over the years. All of these years, we have stretched our minds and explored our surroundings in vain, always searching and always finding greater and greater mysteries. The universe has unfolded before us in a way that let's us believe that we are making progress, yet it keeps unfolding and unfolding. We've made several advances, but what is it in comparison to the unknown number of advances we have yet to make? What is it in comparison to the advances we will never make? Having known about these previous frustrations in history, I had begun to lose hope in our ability to ever find Einstein's grand unified theory. After hearing Adrian and Craig echo similar sentiments, I have all but given up.