Clark and Michael is an internet series** being made in conjunction with CBS written by and starring Clark Duke and Michael Cera. Cera is best known as young George Michael (not the singer/songwriter) on Arrested Development, which I cannot begin to quantify in terms of amazingness. George Michael Bluth was one of the most solid adolescent characters TV ever had, beautifully constructed out of naivete, goodwill, and a three season yearning…for his cousin Maebe.

But just because Cera is the more recognizable face, the comedy is shared equally amongst both parties as they embark on a journey to get their TV series made. The show, much like the popular trend dictates, is a faux-documentary of their efforts. The two have learned from characters like Regional Manager David Brent that an unflattering self-portrayal does wonders for comedy.

Their other influence seems to be Aquateen Hunger Force, strange as that may seem. Random humor is certainly there. Before I forget, I must say that they have terrrific opening credits. But like ATHF, who were detectives for about an episode and a half,  Duke and Cera seem to almost forget their Hollywood dreams. I think that’s a good thing, because it’s their interactions with each other definitely outshine whatever narrative they might have, like when they explore the possibilities of rubbing alcohol:

“Clark: You can use this from asshole to elbow.

Michael: (With gleeful bewilderment) Like what do you want me to say? What am I going to say to a guy like you?”

That’s the shirts come off.

2000 miles away from there, New Zealand’s 4th most popular folk comedy duo march down their NYC apartment and take to the streets. Their shaggy black hair bounces with each step of their strut. They stick out their lips like Iceman after he played the most homoerotic volleyball game of his life. They are attitude.Then they open their mouths…and hopelessly moronic things start spilling out. 

The Flight of the Concords are comprised of Bret McKenzie and Jemaine Clement. On their HBO show, premiering tonight at 10:30, they live together but are totally clueless towards each other’s thoughts and desires. Jemaine is even oblivious in the first episode that he has asked out Bret’s ex, though they have clearly met each other before. When he brings her back to his place and tries to entice her, Brett is lying in bed in plain view, staring at the couple.

The next day after much thought over the whole matter Jemaine says out of the blue “I think she found it weird with you there with the light on.”

Bret retorts “Yeah…I think it also might be because she and I used to go out.

Jemaine – “Yeah, but also the thing with the light.”

With density such as this, Flight of the Concordes could (and would) drown in Salt Lake City.

As a folk comedy duo, it goes without saying that the guys will often break into song, Jemaine’s sexy ballad emerges smoothly: “You’re so beautiful you could be a paaart tiiiime model, but you’d probably still have to keep your normal job.”

If you don’t have HBO, you can still watch Flight of the Concords first episode over here.

When it comes down to it, Clark and Michael have a much better chance of succeeding and continuing to make episodes by fueling themselves off internet buzz and sticking to their very inexpensive doc style. The expectations and boundaries that come with an 30 minute HBO series may drain the New Zealand group after a while, as funny as they are. I don’t know how I feel about the women that stalks Jemaine and Bret, pretending to run into them whenever they come and go from their place. It certainly adds to their obliviousness.

I encourage you to give these two shows a chance, just a taste to see if you like it. If not, you can always spend your extra time this summer reading. God I’m a nerd.

*Who managed to get me to thoroughly watch and enjoy MTV for the first time in well over five years, especially with their (and their friends’) 24 hour takeover of the network. Ted Leo whaaa?

 **On a related note, am I alone when thinking that the term “webisode” sounds like something really filthy?

 I’ve always been Macintosh hesitant. Since grade school when the computers had their grip on every classroom, making us munch numbers and die from cholera on the way to Oregon for fun and giggles. For a while PC’s really took hold of the market, but any being with a couple of light sensitive flaps on their face know that mac is where it’s at.

 Especially since the iPod came out.

I don’t have one. I wouldn’t mind one. The idea of having all your media at your side is so tempting. A beautiful and authentic example of how far culture has come. but I get along fine without right now. Jim asked on my last post what the significance of tapes is now that iTunes playlists can easily organize songs for you. The accessibility and the ease of such a program are the very reasons that I think mixtapes are still important.

To make an iTunes playlist or mix CD, one does not need to actually listen to the songs placed on there. Point and click. But for a tape, it is essential to listen, the very construct requires you to become intimate with your selected songs. Hollow each tune out, settle down in them and get comfy. Get to know John Lennon or Elvis Costello before you put their songs on there, it’ll give you a real connection. That time that goes into making a tape (usually a good 4 hours for me) is your own personal bonding time with music.

Face it, you and music haven’t seen much of each other lately. Maybe for an hour at the gym, or for ten minutes in your car on the way to work, but remember when you two used to have some real romance going on? Thurston Moore does.

Despite not being a fan of Sonic Youth at all, I was intrigued when I heard this NPR interview with the indie-god-frontman a couple of years ago. Moore wrote a book examining the structure and art of mixtapes, and reflected on some of his and other peoples stories and lists. In this book you can find some romance. But you know, maybe the kids ten years younger than me have a sort of romance, walking down the street, hand in hand, listening to each other’s ipods.

.sigh.

Jim also brought up cassette labeling and original (or semi-original) album art. First off, if someone takes the time to make you a mixtape with album art, consider yourself honored. Not everyone takes that sort of time to make a cover, much less actually make art for the tape itself (The ultimate sign of commitment). I started using Brad Neely’s comics for my covers. Some of you may know Neely for his Harry Potter adaptation Wizard People or his George Washington video. Either way, the absurdist streak that runs through his work is great and I find it to be even better when I cut out the captions, turning them into something much more malleable.

 Listing though is funny, I constantly change this up, sometimes leaving out vital information (artist names or song titles). Some consider this cruel, but others see it as the exercising of a muscle, which when challenged, makes your mind and ear stronger, able to identify familiar artists. I listened to a tape that a very good friend gave to me for my birthday last year. Because it has no song listing/road map I rarely put it on, and yet when I do, I’m always delighted by her mix.  So like I said before, it can go either way for me.

I was thinking today about one more rule. Spoken Word tracks are welcome, usually best at the beginning of a tape before your startup kicker. It might be good to get a standup comedy one liner or a Lawrence Ferlinghetti poem before it really takes off. Don’t overdo it though.

Any technological advancement should make life easier, but that doesn’t mean it what came before it should be seen as excruciating. It’s just a different experience, one that I will continue doing, even if I shell out the money for that iPod one day.

 Anyways, Hornby has some pretty basic rules, no artist can have back-to-back songs, you can mix white and black music (isn’t most pop/rock black music by default? I know what Hornby’s getting at, but in these mashup times we get Biggie rapping to Tiny Dancer and this generation likes it that way.) Anyways, after this intense period in front of my stereo here are my mixtape rules.

1. Not only do I think you can’t put a single artist back-to-back on a tape, I don’t think one should have an artist featured twice on any single mix. But I have one exception to this rule. John Darnielle’s group The Mountain Goats are a personal favorite of mine and he has so many damn songs that I find it pretty much essential to include one song on each side of most my tapes. Darnielle writes and records so many songs (15 albums, 18 EPs and countless live bootlegs) that two Mountain Goats fans can discuss their favorites without any overlap whatsoever. Do it with any other artist (short of some freaky prolific Jandek-like recluse) and you have some explaining to do.

2. Always try to mix up mood/tempo. People need moments of quiet reflection juxtaposed with rock out/cock out instances.

3.Familiar songs are of course allowed, it helps pull a skeptical listener in with a trustworthy track, but it’s much more exciting to introduce the recipient to something now.

4. There are certain artists that just won’t wind up on a mixtape, especially if I make you a first time mixtape. Many of these artists I love or once loved when I was 13, but their very presence could destroy the delicate balance that is mixtape culture. Some of my restricted artists: Atom & His Package, Blink 182, Green Day, Rage Against The Machine. I still love Atom very much, but he is poison to most virgin ears.

5. You better have a kickass closer for both sides of your tape. Consider yourself warned.

6. In terms of how to read a tape, some Literary Criticism Techniques: Mixtapes always have authorial intent, so pay attention to what your tape’s architect is trying to say. They should be thoroughly analyzed and interpreted by the recipient. Lyrics ALWAYS have meaning. If I just wanted to throw a collection of songs that sounded really good together, I wouldn’t have spent 4+ hours on it. Learn what there is to be learned.

John Cusack in Being John Malkovich, Nicholas Cage in Adaptation, and Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind deal with various dilemmas. The former two have occupational crises, both being skilled at what they do (puppetry and screenwriting) but lack the confidence to appreciate it, even if others applaud their efforts. All three have relationship issues, often being too meek to approach the people they like without being plagued with self doubt, move over Alvey Singer, there’s a new neurotic force in town.

Nathan just made a nice observation that I think can be agreed on, it’s hard to be perceived as a masculine figure without subscribing to the rigid structure of gender roles. Wearing the pants in the relationship and drinking Budweiser is the sole way be your own man. Furthermore, metrosexuality has thrown us into even larger confusion. So I don’t spend an hour getting ready before going out (though I definitely floss) and I also don’t spend Sunday afternoon watching the big game. Well what the hell am I? Neither rough and ready nor slick and well groomed…well the one thing I know is that I’m not alone, because I think the larger population falls outside of these two planes. Kaufman’s characters fall outside as well.

But Hitchcock has a great way of making these everyman characters that start off with a somewhat clean slate. For example, both Vertigo and North By Northwest deal with an average man being thrown into circumstances beyond his control and focuses on how they deal with their situations. Cary Grant’s and Jimmy Stewart’s characters are both wise-cracking cynics, but what’s intriguing is how Grant’s character, an ad executive who definitely has some mother issues, manages to become more charismatic as he manages to figure out what’s going on. Stewart on the other hand, becomes more and more withdrawn and paranoid…sort of like Rear Window with less jokes. It’s not strange to me that Dr. Campbell liked North By Northwest more at first, but then Vertigo snuck up to take the grand prize. The former is a great introduction to Hitchcock and my current favorite, but I think in ten or fifteen years, I too might prefer one of his more mature efforts. Not that the jokes aren’t lacking:

“Eve Kendall: I’m a big girl.
Roger Thornhill: Yeah, and in all the right places, too.”

Oh Cary, you are a wit. 

So in my grumblings over the mutual dedication of soul mates, I was reminded of Dr. Kennedy’s explanation on how dialogues do not work when it comes to love poetry:

“Shall I compare the to a sum-”

“No!”

Once someone answers, end of the courtship! Even if it’s “Yes,” what’s the point of continuing?  In romantic relationships, one person simply cares more than the other. We all had different definitions of soul mate, so a couple will have two completely different ideas of what kind of bond they have. Obsession I get: One person yearning for something. Hitchcock’s dealing with obsession left and right. I assume we’ll get to his thing for Grace Kelly and his determination to recreate her through a number of tall blonde actresses including Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint, and Janet Leigh. A single person’s yearning is believable. Two peoples’ yearning

I figure since I presented today I deserve another ad for my show. Some of you wanted to know what we sound like. Here’s your sample: www.myspace.com/humungoginormous