LOSING A FRIEND

CODY'S BOOKS: 1956-2008

Berkeley's legendary Cody's Books will be officially going out of business on June 20. Many knew the end was coming: its flagship Telegraph Ave. store closed in 2006 and the financial troubles facing Cody's had been known for years.

This is a story about Cody's legacy, but it is also a story about urban development. And since you can read so much about Cody's legacy elsewhere, I decided to look a bit into the circumstances surrounding the closure of this important institution.

We've heard this tale before; a beloved local business--family owned, lets say--establishes itself over years as a part a community's cultural fabric. Something unique or outstanding about this business makes it one of the places you would, for instance, take out-of-towners to showcase your town or city. But as years go by things happen. Rents go up, commerce centers change, tastes change, and the big businesses keep coming. Unable to compete in the "new economy," the institution is forced to close and the collective hearts of a community are broken.

SO...
What can anyone do?

Sometimes, admittedly, nothing. But other times, there are things we can do. And sometimes the things we can do are enough to keep something really cool around...

In my hometown of Boise, Idaho lies a very special movie theater called The Egyptian Theatre. Built in 1927 as part of the Egyptian Revival Movement after the discovery of King Tut's Tomb, this theater is about as close to a heart as Boise has. I mean, this is the place where you went on your first date. This is the place where you made out in the back row, the place where you went with your parents with wild-eyed excitement to watch Indiana Jones slash his way through the Temple of Doom. The place you smuggled in plastic spiders to throw off the balcony during Arachnophobia. This is it. This was our rock...

...and it was resilient. It survived all the 'urban renewal' of the 70s where all the other classic/ historic downtown single-screen movie theaters were demolished or transformed into other businesses. It was just always there and seemingly always would be.

But by the late 90s the theater was showing some serious age. Money for upkeep and renovation apparently wasn't there and the theater was increasingly empty during shows. Around the same time a California-based theater chain, Edwards Cinema, had built a whopping 21 screen cineplex on the outskirts of town. Boiseans flocked accross town to the flash and glitz of Edwards 21. The screens were bigger, selection broader; even their popcorn, according to promoters, had won popcorn awards.

And as if to add insult to injury, one of the four super-sized Theme Screens in the new cineplex was named "The Egyptian," complete with neon-esque hieroglyphics and pharoah paintings that looked eerily similar to the paintings in the downtown 1927 Egyptian; our Egyptian.

Soon after Edwards 21 opened, the Cineplex Odeon group withdrew from operation of the Egyptian and the theater lay dormant. Ironically, the final film to flicker across the Egyptian's screen was The Mummy, starring Brendan Fraser.

I remember actually watching The Mummy at The Egyptian--at that point I didn't know it was going to close. The one thing that really sticks out in my memory is leaving the theater. I remember looking around as I walked out and feeling a deep sadness. The place was trashed; there was garbage everywhere and one of the entire handrails had come unbolted from wall and lay carelessly on the floor. It was like looking into the eyes of your favorite horse, injured from losing a race, who you knew was about to be euthanized. There was an eerie quietness leaving that theater.

But when news hit that Cineplex Odeon was withdrawing operation, people were anything but defeatist. If there's one thing that's true about all Boiseans, all Idahoans really, it's that we have Rally Power. We've got comeback. There was a veritable movement against its closure: "Not here!" "The Egyptian is ours!" "Let the city buy it!"

And through details that still remain fuzzy, The Egyptian's ownership was able to arrange a new group of operators, moneyed operators, who not only took over operations but who engaged a massive, three-month restoration project of the entire theater.

THE EGYPTIAN THEATRE, BOISE, IDAHO

LEFT: 1927 RIGHT: 1999

The Grand reopening at The Egyptian was a beautiful and happy week for Boise. In addition to sprucing up the theater itself, the operators also diversified The Egyptian's events schedule to bring in a bigger clientele.

Today the Egyptian operates seven days a week and screens everything from current Hollywood blockbusters to cult classics as well as hosting bands, lectures, and private parties. Conversely, the Edwards Cinema chain acquired a massive debt after its hasty expansion and filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

This is one happy success story that I admit bears little resemblance to the issues facing such businesses/ institutions as Cody's Books. Yet it remains worth sharing because 1.) it is a happy story and 2.) it demonstrates that with focus and swiftness a city can save something it really loves.

The problem here is that the city of Berkeley lacks both swiftness and focus...among many other things. People can say that the closing of Cody's is marketplace-driven, and in some ways, it is. 

Yes, today many people choose to buy books online and fewer people than ever are venturing into book stores. But fewer people than ever are going stores, period. I would also like to point out that a Barnes and Noble Books closed a store almost directly across the street from Cody's final book store on Shattuck Ave. around six months before Cody's did.

No, the problem with Berkeley is that it has no attractive commercial centers. Telegraph Avenue, in particular (Berkeley's signature avenue that runs directly into the University and was historically its commercial center) has fallen into utter decay. It has something like a 40% vacancy rate, is overrun with drug addicted and mentally disabled homeless people, and is deserted after sunset.

Shattuck Avenue isn't much better. For some reason, this city has let the streets become a place where anyone can do whatever they want wherever they want. Berkeley accounts for just 7% of the total population of Alameda County yet houses 49% of the county's homeless. And unfortunately, the Berkeley City Council (and others) spend more time championing 'homeless rights' than they do helping/ rehabilitating/ training/ finding housing for the homeless. It is one thing to be sympathetic and charitable to the homeless, which hopefully we all are. It quite another to idealize homelessness, considering the substance abuse, mental hazards, and physical risks that go hand in hand with being homeless. It's irresponsible but its also pretty twisted and disgusting, too

In addition to the aforementioned issue of "pedestrian comfort" are Berkeley's inane business laws. Zoning laws, environmental reviews, public hearings and taxes, taxes, taxes. Even though Berkeley's public stance (and several passed ordinances) read "anti-corporate/ big businesses," the city has essentially given the middle finger to small businesses in the form of countless one cent taxes here, two cent taxes there and a mind-boggling complicated and lengthy set up process.

Even assuming a well-meaning small business owner in Berkeley could afford the prohibitively expensive rent, the city council is sure to kill a project with its bureaucracy. When the Berkeley Bowl (a beloved Berkeley grocer that sells affordable fresh food to South Berkeley) announced plans to expand to the under-served, working-class West Berkeley neighborhood, the city was elated and the plan seemed like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, Berkeley's internal approval process took four years and the owners were so frustrated they considered scrapping plans. Due to public outrage and media attention, a last minute deal was reached.

Isn't the role of government to ensure that good things happen/ keep happening? Not to kill something good when it does pop up or sit idly by as a cherished institution dies a slow death.

There are other great businesses on Telegraph that still operate but I suspect are in trouble; Ameoba Music and Looking Glass Photo among them. A high-up associated with Ameoba Music was quoted in 2006 in an article about Cody's Telegraph closure as saying that business at the Telegraph Store had been particularly bad.

I lived in Berkeley for four years and I'd hate to see everything cool there close. But unfortunately it is largely inhabited and run by crazy people. And I can't do anything about that.

Open letter to all hipsters:

Hella hipsters looking hella obscure and emotional.

I thought Juno was the hipsterist movie I've ever seen, and while I still think it is, DAMN I just saw a pretty fucking hipster movie, The Puffy Chair.

See, there is a movie coming out within the next few weeks called Baghead. It looks awesome, totally Sean of the Dead style in that its looks funny and scary, so I thought I'd rent their first movie, The Puffy Chair, and check out their style (plus it got really good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes).

Well, if Baghead is anything like The Puffy Chair, then I'm going to be sad, because The Puffy Chair is one big pile of hipster indie shit- complete with its hipster indie soundtrack and everything!

Watching this movie made me wonder what it is about hipsters and their expressions of art that I and many others find so offensive. I mean, go around San Francisco, Portland, any city and talk to people in their 20s and 30s and you'll find that everyone hates hipsters and loves to talk about how much they hate them...yet everyone kind of is a hipster. I mean, looking at myself: I go to art school, I look a little slobby sometimes, I live in The Mission in San Francisco. What I'm saying is that unlike athletes or vegans, for instance, hipsters avoid identifying themselves as hipsters...I've never heard anyone boast: "Well I'm more hipster than he is."

Yet I think there really are two ways you can identify a hipster: clothes and music. Hipsters have a very specific way of dressing and very specific musical tastes which reflect their tiny and shriveled brains.

After watching this film I have created a list of questions for The Duplass brothers (directors of The Puffy Chair [big surprise they live in Brooklyn]) and to all hipsters in general:

WHY ARE HIPSTERS SO OBSESSED WITH RELATIONSHIP DRAMA?
Hipsters are not obsessed with relationships, but with relationship drama. Listen to their music or watch their movies and you'll see that their lives center around intra-personal relationships and the turbulence surrounding them. On a personal level, I can understand; I don't mind listening to a hipster friend talk way to long about some relationship and read way too much into everything. Whatever. What I don't understand is this obsession as manifested in art. I mean, it takes a pretty huge ego to think you can make a whole album about your various relationships, your inner feelings about them, and that this is somehow worthy of having the world pay to listen to it.

WHY DO HIPSTERS LOOK FOR MEANING WHERE THERE IS NONE?
What I mean is because of hipsters' bloated sense of self, they dwell on trivial issues that are unimportant to the rest of us. For instance, in Star Wars after the famous "Luke, I am your father" line, there is a pause in the movie to let this monumental bombshell sink in with the viewers, and there should be. In The Puffy Chair, as in many situations with hipsters, there will be vast periods of silence and deep ponderings about such trivial issues as breakfast. Hipsters don't know that you can't just say something mundane and pause for reflection because you come off as either retarded or extremely hallow.

WHY DO HISTERS TALK WEIRD?
Hipsters actually sound different when they talk. For one thing they end every sentence going up in tone. Like everything's a question??? They also talk sloowerr to stretch out their boorringgg thoughhhttss. They also try to talk cutesy at times, especially the female ones. Like in The Puffy Chair this girl keeps slipping into a baby voice when talking to her boyfriend which I just find so disgusting. Hipster musician Joanna Newsome is also guilty of this offense.

WHY ARE HIPSTERS SO SLOVENLY?
Why have hipsters actually made a sloppy appearance a part of their personal style? Actually, hipsters would probably prefer I say lack of style instead of style, because they're soooo busy starting bands and doing obscure craft projects and being different that they just don't have time to wash their shoes.....or comb their hair....or iron their shirt...or shave their unruly beard (many hipsters have unruly beards). This is what hipsters want the world to believe: that they are such authentic, real, confident, unique flowers that spend their time on psychically important stuff that they just don't have time for their appearance; and furthermore that fashion/ personal style itself is a meager and shallow form of expression that is propagated by the mainstream and The Corporations.

WHY ARE HIPSTERS ALWAYS IN SHITTY BANDS?
I know of no other sect of the population that is consistently involved with shitty music like the hipsters are. Not just the content of their songs (whiny intra-personal relationship drama and deep feelings) but actual shitty music. For one thing the male vocals are always so high pitched and often very cutesy as well. That stems from their androgyny. Hipsters lack gender identity when compared to the rest of us. That's why many straight male hipsters seem gay. Their tight black pants, obsession with feelings, and effeminate mannerisms all scream gay homosexual. But I digress. Just because a hipster doesn't have any talent won't stop them from creating a band, like it would for a normal person. Because of their bloated sense of self they think they are owed all the attentions of the world. And to showcase their obscurity a band must have at least one non-tradition instrument, such as a viola or an accordion, and an obscure name that has no relationship to anything, like Architecture in Helsinki. FUCK HIPSTER MUSIC.

WHY DO HIPSTERS PRETEND TO BE POOR?
All hipsters, no matter what their socioeconomic status, pretend to be poor. Why should I care? Because it's dishonest. The thing that bothers me most about hipsters is their dishonesty. Nothing about them is real, it's all gimmicky and hallow. As my friend Will once said about their music: "That's not even real music." In The Puffy Chair, the protagonist makes a point to mention he's poor...but wait wait it's all good because he's a booking agent for bands; i.e. he's doing something cool and real instead of making money- he made a principled choice. I suppose hipsters think that appearing poor will give them an edge, will lend some authenticity or grit to their persona, to their message. They're particularly interested in adopting into kitchy, low-middle class Americana (PBR, late-night diners). And also, to them material wealth represents the aforementioned "mainstream" and The Corporations. Ultimately appearing poor furthers the hipster's everlasting fight to be alternative... anything one can do to be more different; to not fit in- even if all hipsters are straight white people from the suburbs.

I could go on and on but I won't. I have so many questions for the hipsters, not to genuinely find out information, but to engage them in a dialog that I believe they're not having with themselves. I know I should just ignore them but I am surrounded by them. I see them everyday walking down the streets. I hear them at my school. At my critiques. I watch them date the people I have crushes on.

I see them trying so hard, even winning. And I am here to rain on their parade.

NI**ER...?

LEFT: Original Album Artwork RIGHT: Modified Album Artwork

For those of you unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding Nas' latest album, it is roughly as follows:

Hip-hop superstar Nas sought to release his latest album with the title Ni**er. However, prior to release the plan was floated around by some heavyweights, and certain chain stores and radio station said they'd never sell/ play an album with such a title. Some fans also expressed discomfort. Thus it was decided by Def Jam Records, Nas himself, or both to change the title of the album to "Untitled"...or "Nas" depending on who you ask. Right now people seem to be referring to it as "Nas' 9th Album."

According to Nas: "The people will always know what the real title of this album is and what to call it."

Now, while much or all of the controversy has centered around the actual title of the album, I find the album artwork highly interesting. As jarring as the original artwork is, I believe that the new, modified artwork is actually more shocking, more memorable, and more powerful.

Because of what happened with the album's title, the new artwork has a context; it's very existence is reactionary. It's very existence tells a story. And without doing so explicitly, it engages the viewer in the exact way that Nas sought to originally. I for one, think this will be one of the most remembered and acclaimed album covers in the history of modern music.

Obviously, album covers throughout time have used provocative imagery. Being provocative is one of the most important things artists can do. One of my own album covers used cocaine, and I still feel awkward showing it to people even though I feel it is one of my strongest works. And artists know you can find this strength through confrontation.

What makes Nas' cover unique is that, unlike other provocative albums, he didn't plan using provocative imagery; he had to transfer his message from verbal language to visual language due to market censorship. I say market censorship because in the United States we might not overtly censor like the Chinese do, but we cut off your funds. And because we are a market-driven society, when the funds leave a project, the project is dead. People like Bill Oreilly will call for a boycott of a product/person/business or Walmart will declare a product/person/business 'too political.' Shareholders get scared and the project dies. So yes, there are constraints. One performance art teacher I had told me that the first step in any piece of performance art is to know the rules of the game and know how to use them to your advantage. If you can operate within the constraints, you can win.

In a way this whole Nas thing is like a giant performance art piece. I would have liked to have seen it stay the way it was, but I see how certain people could be upset with seeing that word in public, in a store with their children, etc.

People really just don't want to talk about race. It's become like religion in that its practically considered rude, certainly taboo, to discuss in polite conversation. People are having to confront their prejudices and hesitance to understand race faster and harder than they expected, or wanted to.

Every 18 months or so some racial scandal breaks out: Don Imus, Kramer, or whoever will say something racist and conclude their apology with something along the lines of: "and I'm happy we're now having a dialog about this issue, which we are finally confronting."

Then nothing happens. People keep their prejudices internalized, stay polite, and the world keeps on turning.

However, I believe the ascendancy (and hopefully election) of Barack Obama has and will do a great deal to further Americans' ability not to look past race, but to understand it. If anything, the PC movement to treat everyone as colorblind and to ignore race was not just a failure but a detriment to all race relations.

And what a great segue this is, as today Nas' fresh new track "Black President" was leaked onto the internet. It is a response to Barack Obama's recent clench of the Democratic Nomination. It can be heard below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-koZhS5urrA

...When Doves Cry

Is it finally the end of the road? After tonight's final primaries in South Dakota and Montana, probably. Of course, Hilary is always full of surprises- like that time she showed all those news reporters her balls.

But it's pretty much over, and now she is apparently saying she wants to be Obama's VP?? Hilary just needs to go back to the Senate. She and her shifty husband comprise a toxic brew that cannot be trusted in the White House. They would stop at nothing, including assassination, to get to the number one spot.

A wise man, I believe it was The Rock, once defined integrity as "doing the right thing when no one's looking." If the Clintons consistently do the wrong thing when people are looking, what kind of sick, twisted, scandalous shit are these two up to behind the scenes??

Don't do it, Barack; your life depends on it.