Despite the alleged financial problems the Gap is having, they seem to have plenty of cash to allocate to television advertising. The new ad campaign is apparently based on the somewhat dubious theme of celebrities discussing their first loves. I'm not entirely clear what the connection is between first love and Gap clothing. I suppose the idea is that reminding consumers of their first love will make them feel good, a feeling they will now associate not with their own personal histories, but with The Gap.

Well, I'm sure there are ad execs who understand this sort of thing a lot better than I do. Presumably these are the same ad execs who have decided I'd rather see an overly skinny and annoying blonde shilling for Old Navy instead of Carrie Donovan.

Well, despite the questionable logic behind this ad campaign, it's worth noting the ad that features Juliette Lewis dancing with Daft Punk. If you're not familiar with Daft Punk, I imagine the ad would be extremely perplexing. I imagine there are thousands of people across the country who are asking themselves "Why is this drugged out pregnant girlfriend of a psychopath dancing with robots?"

But the bigger question in my mind is whether this represents a comeback of some sort for Juliette Lewis, or if this is the final step down on her descent into career hell. Personally, I am pleased to see her looking like a normal person, and not another variant in her long line of drugged out pregnant girlfriends of a psychopath. Dancing with robots is certainly more watchable than her robbing convenience stores with Woody Harrelson.

Then again, I can't think of lot of people featuring onscreen in Gap ads who have really gone on to a significantly bigger and better things. Advertising still strikes me as that last attempt to make some cash before there is no celebrity left to cash in on. Perhaps Juliette will prove me wrong.

Rating: B+

Topics: advertisements

In a few short months, the entire staff of Chucklehound Entertainment will be unemployed and what better way to celebrate this joyous event than with a rereading of Bob Black's 1985 essay "The Abolition of Work."

In short, Black advocates, well, the abolition of work (I love authors who state their thesis in the title). The first half of the essay is dedicated to why work is bad, which, for most employees, isn't a very hard argument to make. Not only does work create a social situation not unlike that of a prison in regards to pointless drudgery and humiliation, but the bulk of all work seems to serve no particular purpose. Black is in favor of trimming away the majority of most jobs, and replacing those that are absolutely essential to existence (producing food, housing, etc.) with a play-based system of product generation.

At this point, Black's argument gets a little thin. I am all for removal of work. Work is obviously a pointless excercise in which the able are forced to perform demeaning and repetitive tasks for their cruel taskmasters. On the other hand, I really like to eat and don't really want my food production/distribution to be determined by people's willingness to "play" at farming/trucking/vending. Black never really investigates why the labor-saving inventions of the past two centuries have failed to actually make people work less. If you're going to posit a removal of a work-based economy, we're either talking about a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (toward which I'm afraid Black's hypothesis would lead) or a technology-based economy (as best expressed in Robert Anton Wilson's Schrödinger's Cat trilogy).

Still, you can't argue too much with any essay that ends with "No one should ever work. Workers of the world... *relax*!"

You can read "The Abolition of Work" at spunk.org or purchase a copy from Loompanics.

Rating: B (A great idea, but never fully realized)

Topics: books

I don't know about you, but I have certain expectations about films that involve the following motifs:

 · Elvis
 · Vegas
 · Robberies
 · Seedy Drifters
 · Duffel Bags Full of Money
 · Old Caddys with Fins

I expect long, slow shots of cars driving through the desert landscape. I expect blues-flavored bar rock on the soundtrack. I expect truly sleazy femme fatale types.

What I certainly do not expect is really bad throbbing techno and astoundingly cheesy "avant-garde" editing. These elements work fine in certain genres, but the low-budget desert road/heist movie really does not need an MTV makeover. People have been ripping off John Ford and Sam Peckinpah for years to make these movies, and I see no reason to stop now.

Demian Lichtenstein has done wonders to setting back the public perception of music-video-directors-turned-feature-film-directors all the way back to the early days of Russel Mulcahy. I can only hope the next time David Fincher walks into a trendy Silverlake club and see Lichtenstein doing blow off a hooker's chest, he gives him the beating he so richly deserves for not only inflicting this vile piece of cinema on the American public, but for making all of us just a little less likely to see a film when the promo materials describe it as "a bold first feature from a respected music video director." How does directing freakin' Sting videos qualify you to blow $62 million of Warner Brothers' money?

Maybe I'm being too hard on the guy. Clearly he has no concept of genre convention, nor does he have any idea how to pace a script (which he allegedly co-wrote) He did have the good sense to cast Kurt Russel, but, then again, that may have just been accidental, given that he also cast Kevin Costner and David Arquette. And who told him Courtney Cox would make a good femme fatale? Is there still someone out there who thinks the stars of Friends are bankable?

The more I write about this film, the angrier I seem to be getting. I'd better stop now before I get into legally actionable material...

Rating: D- (Not even a good dumb movie)

Topics: movies