Entries from February 2006 ↓

The centrality of the web browser as a surfing medium has been very cyclic over the years. The utility and interface of prehistoric browsers such as NCSA Netscape 4 and Internet Explorer 4 was very static and limited, but they served as the main portal to the world-wide web. Many advanced users would nevertheless resort to shell-based connectivity, such as Telnet for basic internet services (e.g. IRC, mail, news). Then came dynamic HTML and Javascript, which provided some user interactivity. But with the advent of XML and web services, people began thinking outside the box, even contemplating the end of HTML. The birth of fourth generation browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Opera, did not tickle users’ fancy, despite the fact that they incorporated and espoused web services principles. Some technologists even called for the end of the web browser. Those fears, though, stemmed from a failure to separate the idea of web development from web browser development. Modern browsers have, for a long time, enabled advanced functionality. That’s why so many people were blown away when Google Maps did their magic right on their trusty ol’ browsers. Ajax and the Web 2.0 revolution have since been reasserting the web browser as a prime medium not only for web surfing, but for general applications. With ubiquitous internet connections, there is even an argument over whether the browser will replace the desktop.

But the truth is that, with RSS and other XML web services, the user web experience is gradually becoming more decentralized. Delivered content is no longer tied to its presentation. The end-user can decide how, and when, to view it. Web services have enabled this decentralization a long time ago. It has just taken this long for specific implementations to realize this. There are now countless applications, big and small, that deliver downloaded content in one form or another, right over HTTP.

For example, on my Mac I’ve been using NetNewsWire Lite as an RSS reader. It is a great app that aggregates blog and news feeds into one interface. I can read content on-demand, and offline. One terrific usage is the ability to subscribe to RSS feeds of custom Google News. So I get news about Lance Armstrong instantly delivered right to my door step, whenever it is reported. Listening and subscribing to podcasts through iTunes is another realization of web services at work.

But I think the finest example of the decentralized user experience is desktop widgets. The most popular flavors are Apple’s Dashboard (which I use) and Yahoo! Widgets Engine. These applications deliver custom content in cute little, well, widgets. The technology is built on web services and the interface is provided in HTML. While in its infancy, I think that the widget framework has a huge potential. With existing widget support for Ajax, it could conceivably replace web browsers altogether.

The strides being made with Ajax and Web 2.0 are nevertheless establishing the web browser as an extremely essential component in the user-experience. Presentation of content is still very important, and website designers have gone to great lengths to provide simple and beautiful webpages. Sites like Technorati.com, Digg.com, and the brand-spankin’-new Zillow.com, are reason enough why the browser is not going away anytime soon.

Technorati Tags: software, internet, web, ajax, xml, rss, web 2.0, mac, netnewswire lite, widgets

I have to admit that I quite enjoyed Munich the first time around, and didn’t understand why so many Jews and Israel-sympathizers found it troubling. Granted, it had a very confused and confusing climactic scene. To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to the political commentary being advanced by Tony Kushner through Spielberg’s handicraft. Even though the movie explored how political assassinations blur the difference between right and wrong, I approached the movie with a moral clarity and exited the theater with the same clarity unwavered. No human being can deny that killing, whether of innocent or criminals, shakes one’s foundations. It’s not a deed to be taken lightly. And Spielberg is known for portraying characters exploding with emotion. So for me, I sympathize with Avner when he is questioning his actions. Not on a global political scale but rather on a personal level. After all, he could have easily been portrayed by Jean-Claude Van Damme, instead of Eric Bana, if he were to simply be a mean killing machine.

My good friend Dan, who probably thinks I’ve been metamorphosed into a bleeding-heart leftist and who refuses to see Munich, is almost shocked that I enjoyed it. I tried to explain that it’s a well-made action thriller.

But then this changed my mind entirely. Understanding Kushner’s perspective truly casts the entire movie in another light, and also explains the climactic scene, essentially rendering it even more disturbing than it already is. Curiously, situating his radical views between the recent Hamas victory and the Palestinian reaction to the Danish cartoons makes the underlying thesis of the movie even more myopic. I think I owe Dan an explanation.

Technorati Tags: movies, israel, terror, spielberg, munich

This year’s Academy Award nominations are yet another indication that Hollywood is becoming out of touch with the movie-going public. Not to suggest that the movie-going public is this rational, logical animus. But there is definitely an air of superficial arrogance that separates the Hollywood elite from the rest of us. And it all becomes apparent at the Oscars. I’m not referring to all the banal skirmishes, waged by both sides, over social issues that the nominated movies foist or don’t.

I’m referring to some pretty darn good movies that have hardly been given a mere Oscar nod. They include, among others, Batman Begins, Star Wars III, King Kong, and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (ironically, these are all sequels or remakes, but that’s another story). Yes, they’re all blockbusters, and all have huge budgets. But that doesn’t detract from their artistic values. For all their flaws, they’re beautiful, captivating films. They might not be as complex and deep as others, but then the Best Screenplay category covers that.

But rather than diving into a lengthy diatribe about the Oscar spaceship, I’ll address one category where this haughtiness is clearly evident and which I’m really passionate about: filmscores. This year’s nominations for Best Original Score are:

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (Gustavo Santaolalla)
THE CONSTANT GARDENER (Alberto Iglesias)
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA (John Williams)
MUNICH (John Williams)
PRIDE & PREJUDICE (Dario Marianelli)

I own both of the John Williams scores, and they’re wonderful. I only heard excerpts of the other 3 and they’re just flat-out boring (you too can give them a listen at Amazon). The Brokeback Mountain nomination was obviously the Academy’s jumping on the Brokeback Bandwagon, as the score itself is repetitive and unimaginative. As are the other two.

But more to the point, there is a whole slew of great scores from 2005 that should have been considered instead. The superb scores to the blockbusters mentioned earlier are a few examples.

My favorite score of 2005 is Hans Zimmer’s and James Newton Howard’s collaboration on Batman Begins, which got some flak for lacking a main theme. In my opinion, it’s the absence of a theme that makes this score stand out above the others. It’s minimalist, fresh, and unique. I listen to it constantly.

As for Star Wars: Episode III, it is by far my favorite of the six Star Wars scores: emotionally charged, powerful, dark, and mature. Episodes IV, V, and VI have all gotten nominations (Williams won an Oscar for The Empire Strikes Back). But this one, nada. How is it even possible to consider any of this year’s pitiful, non-Williams, nominations over Star Wars???

I just don’t get it. There are many other great scores from 2005 that could have made it, including Danny Elfman’s The Corpse Bride, Harry Gregson-Williams’ The Chronicles of Narnia and Kingdom of Heaven, and Julian Nott’s Wallace and Gromit. Snubbing these scores just indicates that the nominators have some sort of ulterior agenda, and that quality of score and its relevance to the film aren’t factors in their decisions. The nominations are more a nod to non-traditional scores by independent composers. But it stems from an uneducated, elitist conceit that in fact pervades the rest of the Hollywood establishment.

As a note, Dan Goldwasser at Soundtrack.net discusses this on his podcast.

Technorati Tags: Academy Award, Hollywood, Oscars, movies, sequels, remakes, filmscores