Craig Davidson's Blog - Check out his new novel: The Fighter

Home
Archives

Craig Davidson

The Fighter by Craig Davidson - Check out the new website NOW!

Rust and Bone by Craig Davidson - IN PAPERBACK in late August!

December 2008
SMTWTFS
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Powered by Greymatter

visit www.penguin.ca


Thursday, December 18th

New Experience: Eating Dog Food


Hi All,

So, it's minus 22 here in Calgary so I'm having to park my bus at my folks' house to take advantage of their big driveway. Mine's too small, being a condo, and I'd parked my bus at a school and used their plug-in, but the temp dropped to -30 or so over the weekend and the electricity shut off at the school, so: my bus was frozen solid. A block of black greasy iced oil in the crankcase. Wouldn't even turn over.

So: the folks'. I'm here now a little early, feeling a tad peckish, so I head to the pantry. What do I see but a new product---Mom is always buying new products---called NUTRO (TM) Natural Choice Healthy Desserts. It's in a can, a little can like you can get flavored tuna in. 100 calories per container. Hey! Sounds intriguing, I must say. Apple crumble and Pumpkin Pie. Well, well, well! I'm a big fan of pumpkin pie! Dessert in a can! What will those food scientists think of next? The fact it was in the cupboard where the dog treats are kept was a little fishy, but there's also human food in there---bread, buns---so I wasn't so surprised. Pumpkin pie and apple crumble DOG FOOD? I mean, how absurd. They eat rawhide and pig's ears and their own fecal matter; why would any company go to such great lengths to make food for dogs that could so easily be misconstrued as human food, especially by a particularly dimwitted human?

So I tore the top off. Scanned the ingredients. The first was: 'Sufficient water for processing,' which seemed a little odd---I read a lot of ingredients lists and this was the first I'd seen that---but I was completely convinced this was for me, a human, and those lists are full of all sorts of odd things. In fact, the entire list gives no indication that this is not for humans. There is the fairly odd "Guaranteed Analysis" portion, which lists Crude Protein and Fiber amounts, which is nothing I've ever seen gracing packaging before. But as I said, I was full-on convinced and plus: Pumpkin Pie! An early Christmas treat!

So, yes, tore that top off. A congealed puck inside, not terribly appetizing but then, pumpkin pie filling isn't the most visually appealing substance on earth so I thought nothing of it. There was that familiar pumpkiny smell, though much more ... subdued, shall we say ... than a pie, but still, this was 100 calories, health food, and I've been on enough diets to know that sometimes you sacrifice taste when something is supposed to be 'good for you.' I dug a fork out of the cutlery drawer and forked out a good hearty mouthful. My folks' puppy, Briar, was drooling and barking her head off but then, she's a glutton, she does that anytime food's anywhere in the offing. I crammed that forkful directly into the unquestioning toothy void that is my mouth. Oooooh! Heavenly! No, not really. Sort of granular, really, like corn meal was mixed into it, and not really sweet at all. Couldn't they have at least put some Nutrasweet into it? Hoo-ey, this was health food like I remember it; why I stopped eating it. But then, I don't like to start something and not finish. I was pretty much finished when I scanned the label a little more closely. In the bottom righthand corner of the can, beneath the artist's rendering of cinammon sticks and three eggs and a whisk in a steel bowl (!!!!), which would lead anyone to think this was, in fact, PEOPLE FOOD, were the two words that, as I'd worked my way through the can, now seemed entirely logical: DOG TREAT.

Holy Shit! I've eaten a lot of ridiculous foodstuffs in my time and I plan to eat much more before I shuffle off this mortal coil, but 99% of it---the horsemeat shashimi (yes, I ate Secretariat) and gelded bull flank and blended squid guts and pigeon and all other manner of gustatory oddities I've shoveled down my craw---have been done with full knowledge of exactly what I've been eating. Here I felt positively bushwhacked! I swear to you, this can is duded up and labeled in a manner that almost seems to INVITE human consumption. As if dog food manufacturers are hoping people might eat it accidentally, as I did, and say to themselves: "Well, the dog food industry has come a long way!" I felt like the Gyro Captain in THE ROAD WARRIOR, fighting with Mad Max's feral dingo of a kerchiefed dog over the leavings of that ALPO can! Now, I won't lie to you: I've eaten far worse. And quite honestly, as I'd eaten 80% by the time of this realization and, as I said, I'm all for finished what I've started, I ate the entire can. I mean, it was only 100 calories. But I DID NOT go back for the apple crumble can, no sir!, and I will not. I'm shocked, really. It seems lately I've been crossing off a great many things on my 'had to happen at some point in my life' list---and yes, eating canine food seemed an eventuality---but I must say they are not some of the most impressive milestones.

Anyway, should you happen to be in a foreign kitchen, hungry, and spy cans looking like this:

www.thehungrypuppy.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=nutro-healthy-desserts

... do not consume their contents! Good grief! Do you see their labels? Apple-fucking-TORTE? Berry-frickin'-COBBLER? Our dogs eat goddamn shoes and dirt clods and their own turds! I cannot believe anyone, any pet owner, anywhere, thinks any dog would have a sophisticated enough palate to appreciate such things.

Clearly, I do. But then again, I'm a gourmand.

All best, Craig.
Craig Davidson on 12.18.08 @ 03:47 PM EST [link]


Saturday, December 13th

2008 Flicks


Hi All,

So, back for one of these infrequent posts. Now, as you know, I'm a big movie buff. I'm so buff on the movies, it's really quite sick. And although I don't think it was a particularly great year for movies, at least by my toting, I thought I'd share my thoughts on a few of this years' personally memorable ones. Some memorable because I really enjoyed them, some memorably poor, and some neither good nor bad but simply memorable for reasons that a movie can sometimes be.

CHOKE: Saw this one on the other end of the city, as that was the only place it was playing. It's based on a Chuck Palahniuk book, perhaps the first one I ever read. It concerns a sadsack---played by Sam Rockwell, who is always a good bet as a performer; I saw him again in THE GREEN MILE, playing on TV the other week, and he was solid in that, too, although overall that's a solid flick---who works at a historical reenactment village and fakes choking at restaurants so that he can be hiemliched, saved, by random diners. It is hugely faithful to the book, and Palahniuk himself gets a wordless cameo at the end. Rockwell's character is also a sex addict and entrusted with the care of his senile mother (Anjelica Huston, who I think is fabulous), so there are some scenes of the 'black humor' variety: who knew scatalogical perversions and rampant senility could be funny? Well, to some it won't be. I guess I was thinking this was going to be ... not great. I can't say why I felt that way; just an inkling. And it wasn't a homerun, but it was pretty damn good, and faithful, and that was great to see.

BURN AFTER READING: I don't know where I'd put this. My initial sense of this Coen bro's offering is: a letdown. After NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, especially. Apart from a few funny one-note gags and their trademark 'violence kindling out of nothingness' scenes, there wasn't a lot to commend this movie. Brad Pitt playing a goofball personal trainer with streaked hair? John Malkovich as an at-the-end-of-his-tether CIA operative? Tilda Swinton with her brittle persona and snowstorm skin? George Clooney ... ? I like all these actors, plus Frances McDormand, and it seemed like a workable enough idea. But it's really just sort of underdeveloped and jumpy and things end without resolution. As often enough happens in a Coen bro's movie. And I must say that, almost without exception, their movies improve upon second viewing. There were quite a few---Fargo, the Big Lebowski---that left me nonplused upon initial viewing but grew on my like some toxic fungus with later viewings. So, maybe this one will be the same. Or maybe it goes on their blooper reel with THE LADYKILLERS and INTOLERABLE CRUELTY.

THE DARK KNIGHT: Well, what can be said? A good flick. Solid, except Christian Bale's voice change as Batman was sort of grating. Like he'd just swallowed a mouthful of shredded brillo pads. A long flick but it didn't feel long. I'm not sure I'm down with all the meta-textual blah-blahing I read about the movie as representative of a certain societal shift or whatever; it's a good, dark, superhero movie. Reading too much into it seems like cinematic navel-gazing.

FUNNY GAMES: Here's one where the director---by all acounts a fussy, semi-ridiculous fellow---really wants you to meta-textualize his movie. So much so that he has his characters stare at the camera, breaking that fourth wall by directly addressing us, the viewers. It's basically a torture movie. I don't know if 'Torture-porn' works, because there's not a lot of direct on-camera gore. Basically, it's: these two white-gloved teenage sadists dressed like they're on day passes from Exeter Academy terrorize and murder a family in a secluded rich-person's cottage (more a mansion). The inference is they're working their way around the cottages, killing everybody. There's no explanation given as to why, which is part of it. Listen, this is one of those that falls under the 'memorable' category. I cannot say it's good---though it's not that the violence or subject matter makes me morally opposed---but I cannot say it's bad. Some of it is very, very good. It's a clean, Chinese Finger trap of a movie: the characters get locked in, they cannot get free. The director ensures that. But it's preachy, it overreaches its ambitions, and it's pretentious in that it (he, the director) insinuates that he's teaching us something about ourselves as viewers that we don't already know. But man, it is memorable. The way Naomi Watts is dispatched at the end ... COLD.

IN BRUGES: Great little flick. Basically, the tale of two hitmen who are forced to hole up in Bruges, a city in Belgium, after a hit goes horribly awry. Colin Farrell, who I can take or leave though he has been very good, is the young hitman. The older hitman, played by Brendan Gleeson, is fantastic. In fact, I would have to put Gleeson near the top of my favorite character actors: www.imdb.com/name/nm0322407 . He has that ability to play paternal/vicious that, to my mind, is unparalelled. I go down his movie appearances on IMDB and I can remember his role in every one of them I've seen. Fantastic in GANGS OF NEW YORK. Ditto 28 DAYS LATER. Ditto THE BUTCHER BOY (which is another flick in the FUNNY GAMES vein). Every time I see Gleeson, I'm happy. And in this movie he's similarly fantastic. He has that ability to play a character who, at root, is capable of great violence and menace, and yet he manages to infuse it with a sense of goodness totally at odds with some of the things he'll do. It's a rare talent, and maybe it doesn't function beyond the bounds of certain supporting character roles (though maybe it does) but as Gleeson largely plays smaller parts he's always solid. Anyway, check this one out for Gleeson, but also for Farrell and Ralph Fiennes as the crazily despotic mob boss. Written by Irish playwright Martin McDonagh, well celebrated for his dialogue and rightfully so.

INDIANA JONES FOUR: George Lucas, especially, should be ashamed. I don't know what it is about him---and I'm not a massive fanboy, so this won't be a rant---but he seems bound and determined to slowly water down and erase most of the fond feelings viewers have for his chief accomplishments, STAR WARS and the INDY franchise, by pumping out listless, uninspired ... I won't call it dreck, because it's always well-done and generally well-acted, but a pale immitation of the original. Watering stuff down so that new generations will look at their fathers and mothers with repelled stupefaction and say: "This is the best of your generation?" To which the parents must reply: "It used to be a hell of a lot better." I could understand it Lucas had frittered his money away on failed slant-drilling operations and crippled Arabian racehorses and needed the dosh to get Skywalker Ranch out of hock, but he's pumping out this dross for reasons that outstrip by ability to understand. That scene where what's-his-nose, the kid from TRANSFORMERS, is swinging on vines with the fucking monkeys ... I think I watched a good deal of my cherished childhood cinematic memories vanish in a puff of monkey-scat-smelling smoke. Nobody has been more ill-used by modern-day computer generated effects (or has used them to more ill effect) than Lucas. His STAR WARS effects were great. He couldn't GET Indy swinging on CGI vines with CGI monkeys in the first movie, so he didn't; he was creatively handcuffed by the limitations of technology, thank god. Just because you CAN have a person swinging on a vine---keeping pace with a speeding Jeep, no less---doesn't mean you NEED to do so, George.

SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS 2: I laughed. I cried. I switched pants with a scabby-knuckled hobo on the way out of the theater. I was magic. It was heaven.

BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER: A steroid documentary. I liked this one a hell of a lot. The director focusses on his own brothers and their use of 'roids. It's a clearsighted look at the issue. Also, I loved KING OF KONG, though that came out last year.

There are a few I'm looking forward to before years' end: GRAN TORINO, Frank Miller's adaptation of THE SPIRIT. But overall, unfortunately, for me, not a standout year for movies.

All best, Craig.

Craig Davidson on 12.13.08 @ 11:59 AM EST [link]




Copyright © 2002-2006
Penguin Group (Canada), a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.