Monday, May 27, 2013

Thoughts on listening to Burzum


The fifth song on “Sol Austan, Mani Vestan,” Burzum’s 10th album is so breathtaking and angelic, it’s hard to fathom the guy who wrote it is deranged and delusional. How could someone so vile create such beauty?

Varg Vikernes, the sole member of the black metal band Burzum, is a murderer and church-burner, a racist and paranoid man who shouldn’t be idolized, and yet I can listen to his music and be so swept up in its emotionality I sometimes forget it’s the music of a disturbed individual. This central conflict, the man versus the music, is tough for me to wander through. Burzum brings me emotional releases I’ve never felt before, and does so in ways I haven’t gotten from similar bands. I know people who won’t listen to Burzum, who don’t want to support a violent and anti-Semitic individual. Which makes perfect sense. I agree with this view, and I respect people who avoid listening to Burzum on these grounds. Yet I can’t bring myself to actually turn the music off.

A presupposition I’ve accepted as a fan of Burzum is this, to put it simply: VARG VIKERNES  IS A FUCKED UP, AWFUL HUMAN BEING WHO DESERVES NO SYMPATHY BECAUSE HE IS A MONSTER. Clear enough? I’m not writing in defense of Varg (who I honestly believe has severe mental health issues that have aided in his atrocities), I’m writing more so to understand with why I can’t turn the music off.

I can vividly remember the moment when I first listened to Burzum. I had just finished watching “Until the Light Takes Us,” a fascinating documentary on the Norwegian black metal scene of the early 1990s. The title itself is an English translation of Burzum’s third album, “Hvis lyset tar oss,” which Varg explains in the film to mean being sucked up and ensnared by Christian society (the “light,” in this case). Varg would rather embrace the dark, where he sees true freedom and spirituality to be. (Note: Varg’s also very anti-Christian. He burned churches because he believes Christianity uprooted the ancient Norse culture that existed before Christianity reached Scandinavia. He thinks his actions are therefore symbolic. I think he’s full of shit and that church-burning is disgusting).

Since the documentary took its name from that album, I chose it as my starting point for delving into Burzum. I had never liked black metal before that point, as it seemed to me as nothing more than semi-organized noise. Lo-fi production, cringe-worthy vocals, with nothing memorable about it. Yet when the drums kicked in at the 2:48 mark, I found myself in a whole new world. That drumming pattern may likely be permanently engrained into my memory. The following riffs and overlain synths built up with incredible atmosphere of despair and angst. Soon the vocals follow, screeching, animalistic, incomprehensible howls. Pure, unfiltered, unrestrained, raw, bare. The essence of ennui.

This was strange and new to me. I dug more into Burzum’s discography, with the same results. Burmum’s black metal has impacted me more than any other BM band (though that could change as the blackgaze scene continues to develop). With the exception of “the “Aske” EP and half the songs off “Daudi Baldrs,” I don’t think Burzum has a single bad album (note: I haven’t listened to “From the Depths of Darkness,” because he just re-recorded old, pre-imprisonment songs that I don’t think need to be re-recorded). “Sol Austan, Mani Vestan” is another triumph, in my eyes. A bit long and repetitive, but its quiet minimalism relative to those charging drums and shrieks (SAMV is, like Burzum’s two other ambient works, an instrumental album) of “Hvis lyset tar oss” is a part of that.

Ambient music (specifically dark ambient) has been a part of Burzum since it began. Moody synthesizers fill the background of most Burzum songs, and there are a handful of entirely ambient songs sprinkled throughout most of the pre-prison album. “Daudi Baldrs” was the first attempt at a complete dark ambient album (though at that point he’s recorded enough ambient material for his pre-prison work to fill up a whole record), and given that recording whilst imprisoned is probably going to make the process quite challenging, it was pretty hit or (a very wide) miss with each song. “Hlidskjalf,” the second prison-made dark ambient album, was, on the other hand, a masterpiece.

“Sol Austan, Mani Vestan,” is another haunting, dark ambient masterpiece. This time recorded post-prison, the album quietly yet strongly evokes images and feelings of walking slowing through bare trees in a snowy wood, the moon overhead, with the silence of the chill air wrapped around you. There’s so much emptiness in the scene: the plants have died along with the leaves, all the birds have gone south, and the stillness from the lack of anything alive is baiting, But it quickly fills up with wonder about how there’s still so much beauty left, despite being bereft of life. It’s strange to feel so comfortable in such a place. This is the essence of what I emotionally achieve from the music of Burzum.

I can identify with the ennui/angst Varg no doubt feels, but not their causes. Am I allowed to do that? Is it ok to twist and reinterpret his music to suit my own wants? Is it immoral to listen to Burzum no matter what? I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. And I don’t like that I don’t know.

I haven’t justified listening to Burzum, not to myself or to anyone else. I simply put it off and keep listening. Don’t take this writing as my trying to justify listening to Burzum and/or supporting Varg. It’s not meant to be. Varg is a monster who does not deserve to have his views supported or promoted. How can someone so monstrous make something so angelic and beautiful? I don’t know why I can’t turn the music off.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness and the problems with the Abramsverse

SPOILERS AHEAD

The whole goddamn internet is inevitably going to be filled up with debates, arguments, and all-out flame wars as Team Abrams and Team Not Abrams butt heats over Star Trek Into Darkness. It has its faults (this is, after all, Abrams/Lindelof/Kurtzman/Orci we're talking about), and it's also laudable for being a fun, well-paced, action-packed sci-fi adventure.

This is going to be an argument critical of Into Darkness. At least, into terms of story and the Roddenverse/Abramsverse Star Treks. I'll preface with a few things: As a twisting, plot-spinning action film, ID was a good film. Non-stop action, compelling villains, and no random Tyler Perry cameos. Second preface: I'm a huge Trekkie whose first-ever exposure to Stark Trek was watching Wrath of Khan with my father when I was about eight. I've been to conventions, can cite random pointless facts (the Vulcan equivalent of teddy bears are basically gigantic live spiders, for example), and am able to curse in Klingon.

In other words, I'm slightly biased.

My approach to movies is two-fold: what it is, and what it can be. The final product versus the potential. ID is an Abrams product: flashy story-telling that ultimately lacks substance. ID's potential was that of "The City on the Edge of Forever," "The Best of Both Worlds," or "In The Pale Moonlight." (I know, very high standards, but nonetheless achievable). That's the story potential of Star Trek, to be (very overly) blunt. Instead, we wound up with a quasi adaptation of Space Seed/Wrath of Khan. Which is fine, I suppose. Khan's a cool character, and seeing Benedict Cumberbatch reimagine him is worth the price of admission. But it's not very creative to a Trekkie like me. Abrams has a whole canon-free universe to operate in, and yet all he does is rehash a couple of elements from Space Seed and WoK.

At least Abrams-universe Klingons have cool body armor, I guess?

Khan Noonien Singh was undoubtedly the best TOS villain. He had a clear backstory and fantastic arc culminating in WoK. The Abramsverse, in my opinion, doesn't need its own Khan. Nor does it need its own Locutus of Borg or Gul Dukat. The only reimagination is that of Montalban's regal, power-hungry Khan being replaced with a brooding and predictably double-crossing Khan. Cumberkhan was also more of the recently popular trope of"cerebral big bad who's always two steps ahead of the protagonist until the third act," which isn't really keeping with Montalkhan's gladiatorial bravado. A few trains of thought: Cumberkhan is a reimagination of the character, and Cumberkhan is Khan in name only. Both of these seem to lead me to one conclusion: why have Khan at all? Montalkhan is a very compelling character in its own. Why adapt that character for the Abramsverse? Sure, the concept of genetically engineering human beings is rife with rich, philosophical quandaries, so that element of Khan's makeup is (multi)universal, but genetic engineering shouldn't necessitate a Roddenverse-specific character to make the (quantum) leap into the Abramsverse. The villain from Abrams' first Star Trek was (initially) interesting because we had no idea who Nero was or why he was fucking shit up. (Turns out he was fairly one-dimensional, sadly).

This is what irks me, that Abrams thinks he's doing a fan service by tying in Roddenverse characters, but all he ends up doing is forcing poor Zachary Quinto to be the unfortunate soul who screams "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!" because that line also, for some reason, needed to cross over from the Roddenverse to the Abramsverse. The plot also mimics some of WoK: specifically when [Kirk/Spock] needs to fix the technobable by technobabling in the radiation-filled chamber, knocks out McCoy, and shares a heart-felt deathbye with [Kirk/Spock]. That just strikes me as lazy writing: lifting a powerful, emotional moment that was heart-breaking in WoK and flipping characters' places (and come on, we all knew Kirk wasn't going to be dead for good). And all those cheap feels because Abrams' Cumberkhan is running around.

Remember when Scotty straight resigned in protest due to those special torpedoes? Or how Kirk came about to realizing due process outweighed vengeance? (Both of which TOTALLY aren't analogous for drone warfare, obviously) I wanted more of that from Abrams, because it showed me he and his writing team are capable of grasping relevant moral and philosophical elements of today's complicated world rather than rewriting other people's stories that don't need retelling.