Monday, January 18, 2016

The Hateful Eight


3.5 Stars

Anyone familiar with my tenure on the Void Zone Podcast will know that I have soured on Quentin Tarantino since the 1990s. So imagine how surprised I was to find that I genuinely liked The Hateful Eight. I’m serious. I really liked it. I think it’s good.

The plot briefly. John “the Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell), a bounty hunter, is transporting his prisoner, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), to the town of Red Rock, Wyoming. With a terrible storm hot on their heels, they encounter another bounty hunter, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) and the new Sheriff of Red Rock, Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins). Unable to make Red Rock before the storm hits, they take shelter at Minnie’s Haberdashery, a tavern and cabin along their journey. When they arrive, the proprietor Minnie is nowhere to be found, and in her place they find Senor Bob (Demian Bichir), Joe Gage (Michael Madsen), Oswaldo Mobray (Tim Roth), and General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern). Ruth and Warren are union veterans. Mannix and Smithers are confederates, and, in the close quarters of Minnie’s Haberdashery, the tensions of America in the Reconstruction Era nearly blind them all to the real threats they face inside the cabin. It’s one part Western, one part “Old Dark House” Whodunit, and thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end. Aided by a stellar cast, and a script that seems incredibly relevant to our modern times, The Hateful Eight is my favorite Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction.

Despite my occasional misgivings about Tarantino, one thing I always appreciate is his film literacy. His films are always referencing, quoting, or deconstructing earlier films, often obscure titles. He paints in bold strokes, but with great regard for the masters, and I like that in a filmmaker. Tarantino demonstrates his respect for the greats in The Hateful Eight by bringing the revered film composer Ennio Morricone (The Dollars Trilogy, Once Upon a Time in the West) to score The Hateful Eight, and it was the right decision. The Hateful Eight has the absolute finest score and soundtrack of 2015 (and that’s saying something in a year when a Cameron Crowe film was released too).

However, Tarantino’s obsession with the craft of film making also occasionally leads him astray. He occasionally crams something extraneous into an otherwise great film that takes me out of the dazzling, highly specific, and frequently self-referential film world he’s created. In The Hateful Eight, it was his decision to craft the movie as a “road show” film complete with overture and intermission. I didn’t see that version. I saw the ordinary standard cut where there was no actual intermission, just a sudden and jarring tonal shift where Tarantino’s voice comes on and begins reciting narration that would only be appropriate after an actual intermission. I think that the narration would have fit a little better if it had been done by Ms. Leigh.

Over the years, Tarantino has embraced his identity as a provocateur. He’s also reacted against any critical disdain by becoming more self-referential to the point of being nearly masturbatory in his film making. I have frequently suspected that his movies were made only for him, and meant to be reviewed only by him (Sample dialogue from Inglorious Basterds includes: “I think this may be my masterpiece”). However, in The Hateful Eight, Tarantino has crafted a film that tells a story, builds suspense, provides great moments for its characters, is beautifully photographed, and (thanks to Morricone) sings. I recommend it. See the road show version if you can.

From Out in the Void,

Steven

Sunday, January 17, 2016

The Revenant

2 Stars

In folklore, a revenant is a reanimated corpse that rises from its grave in order to torment and drink the blood of the living. It is some hybrid of a vampire and our modern conception of a zombie. The Revenant is like the reanimated corpse of its director's (Alejandro G. Inarritu) last film, Birdman. Like Birdman, The Revenant features a highly mobile camera capturing long unbroken takes of extensive scenes. Unfortunately, The Revenant's story doesn't fit this style of camera work which makes it incredibly distracting.

The Revenant purports to be based on the true story of actual historical frontiersman and fur trapper Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio). Glass was mauled by a bear sometime in the 1820s, abandoned by his men, Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) and Bridger (Will Poulter), but rallies. He manages to not only survive, but hunt down the people who abandoned him. The Revenant is the story of his vengeance quest.

Except that it really, really isn't. The Revenant has no interest in telling the story of Hugh Glass. It is more important, and exists only for the purpose, of winning its lead actor a golden statue. This truth can most clearly be seen in two consecutive scenes that appear about halfway through the film. In the first, Glass catches a fish and eats it raw, while standing right next to a crackling campfire. He then passes out from pain or exhaustion, or just because the scene needs to be over. When he awakens, he hears a noise a little ways up hill. He crawls/drags himself up the hill and encounters a Pawnee man who has killed a bison. The Pawnee man gives him a raw bison liver. Glass eats it raw while lit by the light of a HUGE crackling campfire!!!! Now, why would Glass do this? Does he enjoy his meat raw? No, he actually vomits when the raw liver touches his lips. So, the only possible reason for Glass to eat his meat raw while standing next to two campfires was so that the actor who plays him could brag about how hard this movie was to make in order to win an Oscar.

And that's the problem with this whole movie. The Revenant should be called "Leonardo DiCaprio will now do literally anything to win an Oscar. Seriously, anything." And that leads to a bigger question - why? Why was it necessary for Leonardo DiCaprio (and presumably the rest of the cast) to endure such bitter cold and harsh conditions in order to make this movie? Isn't DiCaprio one of our great actors? Shouldn't he be capable of conveying his character's ordeal without actually living through it? Or, more to the point, why was it necessary for him to actually endure bitter cold rather than to actually be mauled by an actual bear? My mind was filled with these questions as The Revenant flicked across the screen.

It's even more unfortunate. The legend of Hugh Glass is not well known, but it's been told and retold hundreds of times since the 1820s. In my favorite version, Glass tracks Fitzgerald across the plains, forests, and mountains of the American frontier only to learn that Fitzgerald has enlisted in the military. Killing a member of the military would almost certainly mean capture and apprehension for Glass, and so, after all of that effort, he is forced to forego his vengeance because it has become impractical. Imagine that, for a moment, surviving all those terrible, impossible things - only to be denied vengeance because exacting it would virtually guarantee that you would be hung by the neck until dead.

The Revenant does not quite tell this version of the legend (so I've spoiled nothing). The Glass depicted by Inarritu and DiCaprio has nothing to live for beyond his vengeance. They make that much clear, so it is incredibly puzzling at the end of the film when Glass chooses to forego his vengeance because a Pawnee man said something spiritual to him one time. (Okay, now I've spoiled something). Of course, there's a story there too. Glass has an encounter with the Pawnee man who teaches him that there is more to life than vengeance. The very fact that he survived must mean that his life should be about more than killing those who abandoned him? This spiritual journey could have been powerful. It could have given DiCaprio something to act out - a character arc to bring to life - instead the decision about whether to seek vengeance is confined to a single moment - mere frames in this long monstrosity of a film. Instead of a character to play, DiCaprio is given a test to endure. Which will make it a huge crime if he wins the Oscar for this.

There were some positive aspects to The Revenant. It looks gorgeous. I mean it. It is absolutely stunning, filled with dramatic vistas and frightening frozen forests. The camera work is predictably stellar, and I particularly liked the much praised sequence near the beginning of the film where a band of Arikara warriors ambushes Glass and his companions (even if I thought the CGI horses that did not react to the fact that arrows were being shot right past them was a bit distracting). Tom Hardy gives a great performance here, and Will Poulter who younger viewers (if there are any) will recognize from The Maze Runner was excellent as Bridger. I also admired Ryuichi Sakamoto's score with its crying strings.

Unfortunately, Inarritu never found a story worth telling in The Revenant, which I suppose is something of an achievement given that The Revenant is a story that Americans have been retelling to one another for literally generations. I can't recommend The Revenant. The 2 Star rating I've given it is merely a recommendation of how competently this mess was photographed.

From Out in the Void

Steven

Friday, January 15, 2016

Best of the 2000s: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly


3.5 Stars

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is an adaptation of Jean-Dominique Bauby’s (Mathieu Amalric) memoir of the same name. In life, Mr. Bauby was an actor, writer, and editor of ELLE. In 1995, at the age of 43, Bauby suffered a stroke which left him with locked-in syndrome. His mind remained fully functional, but he lost any ability to use his body. He could not even turn his head. The only way that he could interact with the world was to blink his left eye-lid.

The film opens here, a stationary camera facing doctors, nurses, and physical therapists at odd angles, as they begin to explain what has happened and what Bauby’s new reality will be.  These first moments are terrifying, even upsetting. Together, Bauby and the hospital staff eventually work out a system of communication, where a single blink indicates an affirmative response and two blinks negative. They begin by asking him a series of yes or no questions to test his cognition, and for a moment The Diving Bell and the Butterfly hits greatness. When Bauby is asked if he was the editor of ELLE, the screen briefly goes black (indicating a single blink) and Bauby says, “Hell yes, I was the editor of ELLE!” In that moment, the film flashes back to his beautiful car, a photo shoot, and the extraordinary life he led before his stroke. When the flashback ends, the audience finds itself trapped in the hospital with Bauby once again.

That sequence is dazzling. However, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly soon gets down to the business of explaining how Bauby constructed his memoir – dedicated transcriptionists read the letters of the alphabet in the order of their frequency in the French language, and Bauby blinks when the transcriptionist reads the appropriate letter. This allows the audience to see how The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was composed. Unfortunately, once that form of communication sets in, the transitions between Bauby’s memories (or fantasies) and his realities happen more gradually – which lessens their impact.

I struggled with how to review The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. On the one hand, almost everything about The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is very good. It is well written and poignant. I think the pacing could have been addressed, but then that may have been an intentional choice to allow the viewer to gain a sense of the pace of Bauby’s reality. The acting is superb. Amalric is wonderful as Bauby. Emmanuelle Seigner is excellent as the mother of his children, and Max von Sydow as Bauby’s father is heartbreaking. On the other hand, I never intend to watch The Diving Bell and the Butterfly again. It’s not what I would call entertaining. In fact, some passages of the film are actually quite difficult to watch. I think I can safely say that The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is an excellent film without much re-watch value. I suppose with that caveat, I recommend The Diving Bell and the Butterfly quite strongly, but I don’t think that it is the classic film I began this project in order to find.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly finds itself on this list because 5 of the sampled critics named it one of the 10 best films of the 2000s. David Denby of The New Yorker named it the best film of the decade.

Once Again, From Out in the Void,
Steven

Monday, January 11, 2016

Best of the 2000s: Almost Famous


5 Stars

The first time that I saw Almost Famous, 15 years ago, I dismissed it. To me, it felt like some kind of teenage wish fulfillment less realistic than The Lord of the Rings. Sure, a 15-year-old kid could talk his way into covering a touring rock band for Rolling Stone magazine.

Well, the joke’s on me. Cameron Crowe, writer-director of Almost Famous, filed his first story (a cover story) for Rolling Stone on December 6, 1973. He was 16-years-old, and he’d spent 3 weeks the previous summer on the road with The Allman Brothers in order to compile the story. Knowing that the basic premise of Almost Famous is grounded in Crowe’s real life has led me to reexamine the film, and I’m happy to report that I think it is fantastic – easily one of the best films of the 2000s.

Almost Famous centers on teenage music journalist, William Miller (Patrick Fugit). While still in high school, he receives an assignment from Rolling Stone to go on the road with the band Stillwater, headed by up and coming lead guitarist Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup). Hammond is suspicious of Miller at first, but Miller eventually earns his trust with the help of Penny Lane (Kate Hudson) whom both Miller and Hammond profess to love. Almost Famous tours America delivering a knock out sound track, iconic film moments, and then goes out on a high note. It is wonderfully acted, funny, good hearted, and still rock’n’roll.

Of course, rightly, the movie is remembered for the performance of Kate Hudson as Penny Lane, who, along with Polexia Aphrodisia (Anna Paquin), Sapphire (Fairuza Balk), and Estrella Starr (Bijou Phillips), reclaims the title of groupie – excuse me – “band aide” for women who aren’t just there to be seen next to someone famous, instead they seek to support and inspire the music.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman also appears in a small role as real life editor of Creem magazine,  Lester Bangs. So far, that makes Phillip Seymour Hoffman the most valuable player in the 2000s, having appeared in now 3 of the films believed to be the best. His role here is small but very important, and it is great to see Mr. Hoffman extolling the virtues of not being cool.

Almost Famous is the kind of movie you can watch again and again, not because it demands to be studied, but because it can be repeatedly enjoyed. It’s like a good rock album that way, and it’s true that it isn’t a “serious” film. But that’s all the better. I have suspected as I watch the films critics selected as the best of the 2000s, that critics have elevated films of political and social importance in a bid to make film relevant. I think that’s a mistake. Sometimes, like Penny Lane, we should just be here for the music.

Almost Famous finds itself on this list because 5 of the 37 sampled critics listed it as one of the 10 best films of the 2000s. For my part, I agree. The next film I will review, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, was also selected by 5 critics, but it was also selected as the best film of the decade by one of the critics. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly will be the first film I’ve reviewed listed as number 1 by any critic sense my review of Cache.

As Always, From Out in the Void


Steven

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Best of the 2000s: Brokeback Mountain


4 Stars

Brokeback Mountain is a great film, but it is neither as good as its adherents claim nor as bad as its detractors say. Still better than Crash though (more on that later).

Brokeback Mountain tells the story of Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal), two ranch hands who meet on a job in 1963. They fall in love, but love between two men in mid-century Montana was forbidden (if not unlawful then certainly dangerous). After their first encounter, they return to their lives. Each marries a woman, produces children, and attempts to deny their love for the other man. After a few years, they meet again, then again some time later, then again and again every few months. The love affair they engage in is ultimately disastrous for both men. It’s a tragic romance a la Romeo and Juliet, and the film’s poster was consciously modeled on the poster for Titanic – evoking another pair of doomed lovers.

Brokeback Mountain is also notable for being the first successful mainstream depiction of a homosexual romance between two men where the plot of the film is unconnected to the struggle for gay rights. It’s extraordinarily well acted, Ledger and Gyllenhaal are exceptional. Ledger in particular does great work here, quite a feat considering the fact that his character is frequently wordless. Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway who play the wives of Ennis and Jack respectively do tremendous work. Hathaway’s performance here is frequently overlooked. She doesn’t have many scenes, but over the course of the film she creates a character that grows from an ingĂ©nue to an emotionally damaged and distant woman – a consequence of the emotional abandonment her husband Jack perpetrates on her. Williams was nominated for an Oscar for her role.

Adapted from a short story of the same name, Brokeback Mountain faithfully translates the short story to the film, but in the process the marriages of Ennis and Jack are expanded upon, creating much more psychologically complex portraits of the two men at the center of this story.

The reason that I think Brokeback Mountain is not as good as its adherents claim is that Brokeback Mountain feels self-conscious. The film is aware of the place it would come to occupy in the culture as “the gay cowboy movie.” Both Ms. Williams and Ms. Hathaway appear topless in Brokeback Mountain, a decision that appears calculated to make it "alright" to watch the film. The love scenes between the two male leads are brief and cut together in ways that obscure the scenes' emotion. Even the decision to expand the information about Ennis’ and Jack’s marriages (while adding the aforementioned psychological complexity) muddies the waters, allowing for people to read the characters as not truly homosexual (Ledger went so far as to claim that Ennis Del Mar was not attracted to other men - only to Jack).

Nevertheless, Brokeback Mountain emerged as a litmus test for the population on the topic of gay rights and homophobia. It was practically required to like Brokeback Mountain, or be lumped in with Fox News pundits who hated Brokeback Mountain because they were against gay rights. Never was this more clear than when Brokeback Mountain lost the best picture race to Crash early the next year. Many people attributed the surprise “upset” to homophobia within the Academy. Commentators suggested that the old, stodgy Academy was uncomfortable with Brokeback Mountain’s “appropriation” of the classic western motifs for a homosexual romance.

That narrative doesn’t really fit the available data. Brokeback Mountain won top honors from the Directors Guild (Outstanding Director), Producers Guild (Best Theatrical Motion Picture), and Writers Guild (Best Adapted Screenplay). It was nominated in nearly all categories at the Screen Actors Guild Awards that year, and didn’t win a single one. The Screen Actors Guild Awards have no award for best picture. The closest award might be “Best Performance by an Ensemble” which, that year, SAG awarded to Crash. The same Crash that later went on to take Best Picture.

There isn’t a one-to-one correlation between guild and academy membership, but they’re pretty close. The various guild awards are frequently seen as the most predictive of the Oscars. So the oldest, wealthiest members of the Academy gave “the gay cowboy movie” awards, but the actors section of the Academy abandoned the film. Ironically it was the youngest, largest, and most diverse section of the Academy that stymied Brokeback Mountain’s Best Picture chances. What happened?

Crash was a HUGE ensemble, a movie about Los Angeles, and perfectly designed to appeal to SAG members. It features exactly the kind of acting that actors love to do (big scenes of confrontation). The truth is that when it came to the Best Picture race against Crash, Brokeback Mountain was going up against the home team.

This has led to a backlash against Crash that probably isn’t fair. In the same year that Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash, the Academy nominated or awarded other films with LGBTQ themes like Capote and Transamerica. I think a fair person would have a hard time making the charge of homophobia.

Ultimately, I think Brokeback Mountain is a great film. It also holds a unique (nearly solitary) position within its genre. For that reason, Brokeback Mountain remains slightly overrated in most critical estimations. Brokeback Mountain’s chief flaw remains that it was too conscious of its place in the zeitgeist to immerse viewers fully in its story.

As to the question of Best Picture, I think we can all agree that the Best Picture that year was Batman Begins. Brokeback Mountain was better than Crash though.

Brokeback Mountain finds itself on this list because 5 of the 37 critics cited it as one of the best films of the 2000s, just like the next film on my list, Almost Famous.

From Out in the Void,
Steven 

Monday, January 4, 2016

Best of the 2000s: Lost in Translation



3.5 Stars

I last thought of Lost in Translation in October when I reviewed Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood for Love. The connections between these two films are easy to see. Both are set in Asia. Both are about people who could be romantically involved but for their poor timing. Both films employ visual devices to create the sensation that their characters are outside of normal time, and both films end with a man making a whispered confession of love (probably) that we never hear.

However, unlike In the Mood for Love, where the characters are keenly aware of what’s missing from their lives, Lost in Translation’s characters are unable to identify what it is they are missing, or even hoping for. Lost in Translation centers on the aging actor, Bob Harris (Bill Murray), who is in Tokyo to film a whiskey commercial. There he meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson). Charlotte has come to Tokyo with her husband, John (an underused Giovanni Ribisi), because she “wasn’t doing anything.” Both Bob and Charlotte are married to other people, but neither marriage is very fulfilling. In Tokyo, these two lost souls find a very brief moment of connection – but both realize that it's only a moment.

Director, Sofia Coppola, who also wrote the screenplay, has a stunning cinematic eye. She creates a stillness around her characters, causing the chaotic nature of contemporary Japan to careen past the still, watchful, would-be-lovers at the core of her film. It creates a sense of timelessness around Bob and Charlotte that makes it possible that the dramatic age difference between them might not matter. They speak of their marriages, which are 25 and 2 years old respectively, with the same sort of weariness, the same longing to get out. Neither character really seems to have much purpose. Both seem to be searching for something older, Bob for the 1970s when he was in his heyday and Charlotte something older still in the Buddhist monasteries and ancient temples of Japan.

Sofia Coppola’s screenplay won the Oscar for best original screenplay in 2003. The not quite there romance at the center of the picture is an achievement. However, her depiction of modern Japan as clownish and filled with effete Asian-boy children and pink haired Japanese schoolgirls smacks of orientalism. Of course, she pairs this with a depiction of modern American Hollywod stardom, personified in Anna Faris’ character, as vapid and empty. Coppola’s script evinces a contempt for modernity, and an infatuation with times before.

There is a film academic named Marco Abel who has identified an emergent trend of “post-romanticism.” These films have little faith in true love as a concept, and no faith whatsoever in happily ever after. Lost in Translation certainly fits the bill. But if Bob and Charlotte don’t believe in true love, how can they be so haunted by its absence from their lives?

I suppose that’s one of the many multiple meanings of Lost in Translation’s title. Neither Bob nor Charlotte speaks Japanese. They are aliens in this culture. They are unable to coherently express themselves to their spouses, and, worse yet, they are unable to translate their longing for connection into either words or actions. They are almost like statues, frozen in a single moment of recognizing someone in a similar struggle, as the modern hustle and bustle of one of our world’s largest cities whips past them, much to their consternation.

As unrealized romances go, I preferred In the Mood for Love. It was a more carefully constructed film than Lost in Translation. Although, Lost in Translation’s final moments are more compelling. The last meeting between Bob and Charlotte gives them, maybe not closure, but a perfect moment that seems at once unearned and well-deserved.

Lost in Translation finds itself on this list because it was selected as one of the 10 best films of the 2000s by 5 of the 37 surveyed critics, an honor it shares with the next feature, Brokeback Mountain. In the meantime, if you're looking for more thoughts on Lost in Translation, you can listen to a back order of the podcast where Nick and Brit talk about it.

From Out in the Void,

Steven

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Best of the 2000s: Sideways

3.5 Stars

In Vino Veritas” the old saying goes, but Sideways begins with a lie we have all told: “I’m on my way.” Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church) are old friends. They tell many lies to their friends, to the women they meet on their seven day journey through wine country, to each other, and even to themselves. The wine and the wine country exposes those falsehoods, but it all works out in a comedic way.

Miles is an aspiring author. He’s completed a manuscript that several characters praise as a good book, but his manuscript has been rejected by several publishers and is now under review at the last possible publishing house. He’s a deep thinker, depressed, possibly alcoholic, and recovering from a divorce. He understands art, literature, and wine. His friend, Jack, is an actor – though it’s implied not a good one. He seems to have made some money as an actor, but he doesn’t approach it (or anything) as art. For much of Sideways, he appears to be all surface, uninterested in examining his friend’s manuscript or the flavor of the wine he drinks – he’s come on the trip to sleep around before his wedding. However, unlike Miles, Jack understands people, and, while he may know less about all those things that Miles understands, Jack knows how to enjoy them. Miles and Jack complement each other. They could be the perfect team, if the secrets they’ve kept from one another (and are supposed to keep for each other) don’t tear them apart.

Some people say that buddy comedies are really just romances between two men. Personally, I’ve always been offended by this interpretation of buddy comedies. This interpretation suggests either that men cannot be friends (and, therefore, must be sublimating their real feelings), or that friendship itself is not an important part of adult life – that the only relationships that matter are romantic or sexual. I don’t believe that’s true, and neither does Sideways. The Oscar-winning script by Alexander Payne (who also directs) and Jim Taylor is keenly aware of just how important those friendships actually can be.

Sideways is perfectly cast. Giamatti and Church seem like unlikely friends – and, yet, once the origin of their friendship is explained, it makes sense. I have friendships like this. Their journey through wine country brings them into contact with local women played by Sandra Oh and Virginia Madsen (who is superb). They each bring a fullness to the characters they are asked to inhabit (Ms. Oh has the most difficult job in this regard, but is successful), and I doubt that this story could have been told successfully without each one of them.

Sideways is funny, breezy, and, despite the fact that I think it trades on important themes, it feels light, even inconsequential. And yet, it’s got legs. Every time I mentioned that I was watching Sideways for this review, people lit up. They remembered old friends (or lovers) who they had originally watched Sideways with themselves and expressed their desire to go see where it was filmed. One friend of mine even attributed his taste for pinot noir to the film. That’s as fitting a tribute to a film as any I can think of. (Sideways has been credited with popularizing pinot noirs and destroying sales of merlot).

Of course, like any good pinot, Sideways is defined not only by its body, but by its perfect finish. When Miles and Jack return home, they return home from their trip where the truth came out with lies on their lips. Benjamin Cooke would be proud, “For if truth is wine, then ‘tis all but a whim/To think a man’s true when the wine’s not in him.”

I can easily recommend Sideways, but I’m not sure that it is of the caliber of classic that I was hoping to find when I began this project. Nevertheless, no fewer than 5 of the 37 reviewers compiled by Metacritic listed Sideways as one of the best films of the 2000s. Another 5 gave the same honor to the next film on my list, Lost in Translation.

From Out in the Void,

Steven