Cosmopolis is coming

WOW.  I skip one, ONE, Don DeLillo novel and......

I'll let this newly released French (Possibly Not Safe For Work) trailer explain:



Book purchased.

It's a brief 224 pages.  For some reason I skipped it when I heard that it was a lesser DeLillo work.  But lesser DeLillo is better than just about everything else out there.

Back to the movie.  Directed and written(!) by the Canadian maestro Cronenberg (who continues to be on a whole other league planet from everyone else) and co-starring Juliette Binoche, Mathieu Amalric, and Paul Giamatti?!  I was already sold before the teaser, but this thing just sealed the deal.

Here's the link to the official site.

No official US release date, but it's opening all over Europe in May.

I'm as irrationally excited as a person can be after watching a 34 second video.  Seven times.

Single Malt Report: Glenfiddich 12 year old

"No alarms and no surprises please."

-- Radiohead

(and a complete misinterpretation of the lyrics via this out-of-context usage)

The Personal Classics, Part 4:  Glenfiddich 12 year old

Distillery: Glenfiddich
Age: minimum 12 years
Maturation: American (w/ bourbon) and Spanish (w/ sherry) oak casks

Region: Speyside (Dufftown)

Alcohol by Volume: 40% ABV

Glenfiddich was the first single malt for me and (probably) millions of others.  In fact Glenfiddich was the first distillery to market their own single malt worldwide, back in the 1960s.

The Glenfiddich distillery has the largest malt production capacity -- almost 40% larger than Macallan -- in Scotland.  Diageo's new Roseisle monstrosity will probably surpass it by a smidgen once it's fully online.  But Diageo is a $60billion international conglomerate.  And Glenfiddich is still run by the family of the man who built the distillery 126 years ago.

After honing his trade skills at the Mortlach distillery, William Grant and his NINE sons broke ground in Banffshire in 1886.  By the next year the stills were up and running.  And they never sold the business.

In 1892, William Grant & Sons opened up the Balvenie distillery on their adjacent property.  They introduced Glenfiddich's three cornered bottle in 1957, then changed it to the current rounded edge (which allows for a sturdier glass structure) version we know today.  They began marketing their single malt in 1963, then in 1969 became the first distillery to open up a visitor's center.

So, aside from what one thinks of their current product range, a whisky drinker has to raise a glass or two to Glenfiddich and their ownership for being good malt stewards.  Of course, they don't do it for free: the 4,000 cases of single malt sales in 1964 became 120,000 cases/year by 1974.  In 2010, they had 15% of the entire Scotch Whisky Single Malt market share, putting them in first place by a significant amount.  They're expecting to break the 1,000,000 cases/year mark this year.

The 12yr is their flagship bottling and the best selling single malt in the world.  And, aside from mass product proliferation, it's easy to see why.  It's full of steady, smooth, and comfortable characteristics.  To me, it's the most reliable single malt.  I always know what I'm getting in the glass.  Something light and versatile.  And pretty decent.

So, let's give it a taste.

NEAT:

Because the rest of its characteristics are so light, its color is surprisingly dark gold.  Possibly due to non-natural means.  The nose is very mild.  Takes some time to find it.  There's more bourbon present than sherry.  There's a gin-like herbal/mineral element.  Malty, bread-like (not yeast), and little bit of pencil wood.  The palate is lightly fruity (citrus and pears) with some sherried cream.  A good texture for a 40% ABV malt.  The finish is short.  Sweet then sour, with some mocha.

W/ WATER (about 31% ABV)

The nose remains similar.  More of the gin note (juniper?) with some granulated sugar in the distance.  The palate is soft and pleasant.  Sweet cream with malt and sherry.  The finish is brief, drying, sweet, with a slight bitterness.

It also makes for a reasonable highball, as I found out in Vegas last month.  Club soda brings a nice sugary sweetness out of the malt.

I always recommend this over Glenlivet and The Singleton when folks want to move up from the blends to the singles.  It's cheaper than some of the 12yr blends.  It is mild with no odd notes.  It won't blow your hair back, but it is very comfortable and reliable.  A good item to have on hand.

Availability - Almost everywhere

Pricing - Bargain! at $23-$28

Rating - 82

NOT Single Malt Report: Johnnie Walker Green Label

On the way to my car this morning, I saw a small black labrador retriever in mid doggie squat desperately trying to do the doo.  He stretched, bounced up and down, angled to get the right leverage in multiple unsuccessful attempts to void his puppy bowels.  No, I didn't stick around to see if he finally pooped because......what do you think I am, some kind of weirdo?

Unlike that excretorily challenged dog, I pass this nugget along to you with great ease and pleasure.

*the king of segues curtsies*

The Personal Classics, Part 3:  Johnnie Walker Green Label

Type: Blended Malt (formerly known as Vatted Malt)

Distilleries: Talisker, Caol Ila, Cragganmore, and Linkwood (and likely more)

Producer: Diaego

Brand: Johnnie Walker

Age: minimum 15 years

Alcohol by Volume: 43%

On one sunny Saturday in late 2004, my new work buddy, Bernardo, invited Kristen and I (along with a few other co-workers) up to his house in Gaithersburg.  While the ladies were all drinking wine (and/or vodka), Bernardo asked me if I liked Scotch.  I responded enthusiastically in the affirmative.

I did indeed like Scotch.  I didn't really know much about it.  I knew Black Label, Dewars (ugh), the two big Glens.  Had heard of Macallan.  But the obsession hadn't started yet.

Then Bernardo brought out a bottle of Johnnie Walker Green Label.  My memory is a little fuzzy after that.  I think we drank half the bottle.  It was fan-f***ing-tastic.  Bernardo, Green Label, and I hung out on the back deck for hours.  THIS, this was the gateway drug.  My relationship with whisky would never be the same.

Bernardo was a couple years ahead of me on the whisky track.  In the months that followed I found Macallan and Oban, much thanks to him.

So, three years later, as I moved to the West Coast, I repaid him by leaving him with a box full of half-drunk bottles of Amaretto, Creme de Cacao, and Midori. 

I'm a f***ing a**hole.

The Whisky

A Blended Malt is different than a Blended Whisky.  A Blended Whisky (like Black Label, Dewars, or Black & White) is a mixture of single malt whiskies and grain whiskies, with greater emphasis on the grains.  Blended Malts (once called Vatted Malts) are a combination of only single malt whiskies.  No grain whisky.  That results in a more expensive drink, but also (usually) a whisky of considerable depth and quality.

In Green Label, the Johnnie Walker brand provides rare transparency into its blending recipes.  It lists Talisker, Caol Ila, Cragganmore, and Linkwood as "the key components" (but not necessarily the only components).

Per the box:

Talisker (Skye) - The Power - Wood smoke, pepper, oak, and rich fruits

Linkwood (Speyside) - The Finesse - fruit, flowers, and cedar wood

Cragganmore (Speyside) - The Heart - malty, sweet wood smoke, and sandalwood

Caol Ila (Islay) - The Mystery - rich fruit, drying sea salt, and peat smoke

Those little The's are cute and sorta silly.  For "The Mystery", the box says that Caol Ila is Islay's best kept secret.  In reality, Caol Ila produces more whisky than Lagavulin, Bowmore, and Ardbeg combined and is very possibly the distillery with the most independent bottlings in history.  But whisky romance aside, Talisker is a great malt powerhouse.

The Notes

My favorite Johnnie Walker whisky changes all the time.  Black or Green or Gold.  It's difficult to say since I haven't had Gold Label in a few years.  I posted extensively about my hot-cold affair with Black Label.  And Green Label has become a Rorschach test.  I keep tasting different things in it.  The bottle I have now is peatier than any Green I'd had before.  So I've done composite of notes from separate evenings...

NEAT:

The color, a dark caramel amber.  Both sherry and bourbon barrels show up in the nose as well as sweet cream, salt, malt, black pepper, and apple juice.  The texture is soft and creamy.  The palate is led by Talisker's pepper, then some salt and sherry, a little peat smoke, whipped cream, and more apple juice.  Pepper sticks around in the medium length finish along with the cream and malt.

W/ WATER (about 30% ABV)

The nose gets spicier, think cayenne pepper and ginger.  But it's also malty and buttery.  Brown sugar now leads in the palate, along with cherry syrup and lots of black cherry flavouring.  The finish is "Yummy".  Cookies, brown sugar, salt, and cherries.

I'd been having it neat for so long, I was surprised how well it took to water.  As a fifteen-year old whisky, the price is right and the flavor has been created with some skill.  So I recommend it.  Perhaps it will be your path to Whiskimania too.

Availability - Wide

Pricing - Excellent at $50-$55 (if you find it for less, grab it up!)

Rating - 87

Moar teevee!

I'm going to do a little postee here about the shows I'm following, but first two non-TV items.

1.)  Today is the first annual World Whisky Day, to which I say......Really?  I appreciate the whisky enthusiasm, but every day is World Whisky Day, people.

2.) Speaking of things that are important every day:  Peanut Butter.  I've been doing some gradual peanut butter tasting recently.  Yesterday I opened up a jar of 365's Organic Unsweetened Peanut Butter and OM NOM NOM NOM!  What I mean to say is OM NOM NOM NOM!

Actual photo of me.

So, back to television.  Here are some series I'm watching:

Mad Men - (NO SPOILERS HERE, Kristen is out of the country and will miss the first two episodes.)  I'm fully caught up with this one for the first time.  And it can do little wrong in my book.  It's probably the one drama series I enjoy to the point that I've abandoned any hope of objective research.

Even the best of series have some filler (you know, filler, the stuff they pack into burgers, meatballs, and crab cakes to make the dish seem more physically substantial while not contributing any nutrition whatsoever?).  Mad Men seems to have precious little filler.  What seems like piffle keeps coming around to have character or plot significance.

Each episode is so open and the conflict so gradual, that one often doesn't realize the landslide that has happened until the season is over.  And OH MY GOD THEY KILLED DON DRAPER!!!!  Just kidding, KP.  They killed Betty.  O_o

---

Awake - (POSSIBLE SPOILERS?)  Here's a new one that I'm all caught up on.  All four episodes worth.

After a car accident that involves his family, a police detective finds himself existing in two separate realities.  One in which his wife is dead, but his son survived.  While in the other, his son has died and his wife is alive.  In both worlds, he sees a psychiatrist, both of which are trying to convince him that there is only one reality and the other is a dream.

Jason Isaacs is great in the lead role, dealing with therapy battles, dual family issues, and solving crimes.  Awake has a nice intellectual bent without losing entertainment value.  The crime-solving plots are entirely closed.  The family issues seem to be mostly closed, with residual character conflicts remaining.  But the therapy keeps the reality-versus-reality story wide open, the hook that brings the viewer back for more.

I do have concerns about an underlying car crash conspiracy plot that appeared in episode two.  To me, it's not necessary.  I like the idea of the lead character using his two realities to work out his guilt over his responsibility for causing the death of a loved one.  Or is that too sad and grim for primetime?

---

The Wire - I'm midway through Season Two.  So dense.  A constant expansion of the story's universe (to paraphrase the great Sean H.).  I may have mentioned this before, but the element that blows my mind is that almost every moment of The Wire is made up of the minutiae that writers are told to dispose of in their scripts.  In The Wire all of this subtlety adds up, forming into an exceptionally dark and emotional journey through crime, ethics, and existence.  Yeah, it's that deep.  And the questions it poses aren't comforting.

---

The Walking Dead - Meh.  Yeah, #1 Zombie Fan says "Meh."

Let me qualify that "Meh."  I've only seen the first season.  And I watched it all in one sitting.  So it can't be all bad, right?  It's not all bad.  Some of it is very good.  And it's clearly addictive.  But I couldn't help but notice how much filler was in each episode.  Or the predictable pattern of who's going to die next.  Or the one note characters that rarely surprise.

The bigger question is, am I just bitter?  Probably.  I'm tired of zombie saturation.  It's not that zombies "sold out".  It's more like, the existential terror and spiritual collapse within a world where the dead rise has been totally muted in nearly every piece of zombie entertainment.

It could also be a zombie flavor preference.  Though Dawn of the Dead is the apex of the zombie craft, I've always preferred the cheapie eurotrashy zombie flicks of the late '70s and early '80s over anything that's been released since.  They're straightforward and honest in their exploitation which in turn creates the aforementioned spiritual and existential vacuum at the center of the films' universe.  There's an entire book waiting to be written on this.

I suppose The Walking Dead is more of a post-apocalyptic show where the bad guys keep getting shot in the head.  (SPOILER)  And the most interesting character, introduced at the end of the first season won't be around for season two.  The second most interesting character, introduced in the first episode wasn't around for the other episodes.  His possible presence in the second season is one of the few things inspiring me to continue watching.

But that's it.  I know that Season Two has finished airing, but I have very little desire to watch it.  That's not good, right?

---

Breaking Bad - Just finished the first season.  I was lukewarm on this one for a while too.  It was Brian Cranston who kept me watching, as well as the occasional very funny plunge into dark humor.

But then episode five, "Gray Matter", hooked me.  I was dazzled by the spectacular writing throughout the family intervention scene and found myself emotionally invested by the end.  Episode six turned everything up a notch, then I didn't want the season to end when Ep. 7 finished.

Though I have some gripes with the characters, the quality of the overall writing is up there with Mad Men.  Can't wait to start Season Two!

---

That's about it.  I'm dabbling in some other shows in order to study structure, but none that have captured me for a full season.  Again, this is all new for me.  Still trying to get my sea legs...

I'm new to this whole TV-watching thing

Source

1996 was the last year I had cable.  There has been a month or two since that I've done some viewing via rabbit-eared antennae.  But otherwise, whenever I've been in the presence of someone else's TV and remote, I've sought out The Simpsons reruns, baseball games, and SportCenter.  And Food Network, to see if there are any cleavage-baring cuties peeling cucumbers.

Last year, to my wife's joy, I agreed that we should get cable television in our home.  We each have been doing some catching up with series on Netflix so that we're in the proper episode-viewing window for our chosen shows.

So after binging on drama series for the last few weeks, I have decidedly changed a long held stance.  Anyone who writes for contemporary audiences in ANY medium must watch television.  If he brags about not doing so, then he is an a$$hole.  If he fully avoids it, then he is a fool.  And I have an a$$hole and a fool.

Aside from the novel, there is no better opportunity for subtle character development and complex plotting based off multi-tiered conflict.  Feature films cannot compete.

Once a show is picked up for a season there is considerably less meddling by studio/network brass than in major features.  Not that there isn't some heavy note-giving, but there isn't time to work out those external criticisms in time for airing.  A bunch of writers are hired and they build the ship with the show runner(s).  A feature screenplay can undergo two or three years of rewriting, but television episodes need to be worked out within months or weeks.

And then there's the actual breadth of storytelling time.  A feature film has to get in and out of the story within two hours.  A cable drama series gets over ten hours per season (minus ad space).  Network dramas often have over sixteen hours (minus ad space) per season.  I don't care how many sequels one gets to release on one's feature, there just isn't the same opportunity to tell an expanded story.

And television is how people have been primarily consuming stories for over a generation.  They pay for it so that it's pumped into their home like electricity.  Because it's a steady monthly billing process, no one feels like they have to dish out $10 or $15 for individual viewing experiences like cinema.  It's there, in front of their couch, ready to deliver lifetimes' worth of tales for consumption.

That's not to say that all of the product is good.  Most is not.  Having more canvas doesn't make one's art better.  It's very easy to get lazy with so much room to maneuver.  Beautiful things can be honed within small spaces.  But the chance to develop a new epic, week by week, as an almost live experience is worth all of the failures leading up to it.

A lot of television drama is just closed procedural, each episode solves a conflict within an hour without any further development from show to show.  Some of it is much more open, developing a larger story bite by bite, cliffhanger by cliffhanger, as Dickens and his contemporaries used to.  Some incorporates both closed and open storytelling, having conflicts presented and solved in individual episodes while gradually revealing a much larger story each week.

I know that this has been the equivalent of me saying, "So that color in the sky there is blue.  And the white fluffy stuff is clouds."  But there's a difference between understanding this in theory and appreciating it for the evolutionary storytelling process that it is.

I'm new to this whole TV-watching thing.  And though I'm largely doing my viewing under the guise of an obsessed researcher in a foreign country, I can understand why humans enjoy this stuff.

I hope to do some ramblings on my chosen shows later this week...

Single Malt Ramblings: 6 Whiskys with the LA Scotch Club

I went to my first LA Scotch Club event last night: Scotch and Crepes at Jack 'n Jill's Too in Beverly Hills.  We kibbitzed, noshed, and drank, and not necessarily in that order.  I continued my renewed love affair with Nutella (via the dessert crepe), confirmed that Willet is bottling some awesome rye, and tried to make my pursuit of a screenwriting career sound sensible.

We samples six whiskys, but due to all of the socializing, no full reports were completed.  So these will be brief thoughts (read: ramblings).

Highland Park 12 - Two years ago the peat level on this was too much for me.  Now it's mild as a breeze.  Highland Park whiskys are known to have a great balance of many malt characteristics: peat, sweet, vanilla, grasses, dried fruit, etc.  This one seemed a bit shy to me. I still like all of its angles, but it was a little on the sleepy side.

Balvenie Doublewood (previously reviewed in my very first report!) - A sweetie compared to the HP12.  Very morish.  Honeyed and smooth, though we picked up a bit of bitter black pepper in the finish that I'd never noticed before.  Otherwise, easy quaffin'.

Glenfiddich 15yr Solera Reserve - I'll admit this was a part of a scouting mission.  I was on the lookout for my next reasonably priced go-to single malt.  The 'Fiddich 15 was a candidate, but I'd actually never tried it before.  And while it's totally inoffensive, and has a nice thickness and sherry sweetness that the 12 is missing, I will bypass purchasing this bottle for now.  I'm looking for something better than inoffensive for my dollar.

Ardmore Traditional Cask - I hadn't had an Ardmore in five or six years, so I was looking forward to this one.  This bottling includes some quarter cask whisky which has been can't-miss for me so far.  It turned out to be the peatiest (but agreeably so) of the six and packed a good punch at 46% ABV.  A couple of the guys at the table noted its "sharpness", which I caught too.  Possibly due to young malt.  It's not an easy one, but still decent for peat and strong oak fans.

Laphroaig 10yr (previously reviewed here) - This one keeps getting better every time I try it.  It was sweeter than I'd remembered it. A lot of nice cinnamon too.  The 40% ABV keeps it mild and almost refreshing.  Wow, I've done a complete 180 on this one.

Tamdhu 10yr - This was an unannounced surprise malt.  It was okay, kinda forgettable, but then again I forget stuff all the time.  It's a major element within Famous Grouse and Cutty Sark.  In fact, I might have thought it was a Sark-like blend had I been blindfolded at the tasting.  Edrington mothballed the distillery (wisely?) three years ago, then it was bought up by Ian MacLeod Distillers who may be reopening it in a year or so.  Good luck to MacLeod, who did some good work after they bought Glengoyne.

So, Laphroaig wins the day, with Ardmore's Trad Cask following close behind.  The peaters!

Many thanks to the LA Scotch Club for the good dinner and scotchin'!

NOT Single Malt Report: Powers Gold Label Irish Whiskey

The Personal Classics, Part 2:  Powers Irish Whiskey

Distillery: Midleton
Brand: Powers
Type: Irish Blended Whiskey
Current Owner: Pernod-Ricard
Age: likely minimum 3 years
Alcohol by Volume: 40%

I took to Irish Whiskey first.  I originally drank Scotch blends because they were considerably better than cheap gin, rum, tequila, and vodka.  But I loved the Irish first.  So I always have a soft spot in my heart (probably quite literally) for lovelies like Powers.

It started during the Ireland/Scotland trip of 2002 that I spoke of yesterday.  Two-thirds of the excursion was in Ireland, most of which was in the Irish countryside.  That was before the massive financial boom doubled the prices of everything there.  The Euro was still young and only 96 cents!  So, though the pours were small, sometimes you could get a whiskey at the pub for under 3 dollars!  And I tried every one I spotted -- Jamesons, Tullamore Dew, Paddy's, Michael Collins -- each splendid in its own way.  But Powers was love at first sight.

Ireland is beautiful, even when it rains.  Even when it is near freezing and soaked with the smell of wet sheep.  I would walk through the rain, over fenced and non-fenced land all day.  At night I'd go to the pub and order a hot whiskey.  (Recipe here!)  Roving musicians would settle in with fiddles and flutes and drums and cigarettes and stout.  They'd play and play and play for hours.  Between the music and the whiskey and the Guinness and the people's faces, the universe would warm and embrace everyone at once.  Time itself would settle in for a drink, and we'd all be held in the sway of the evening miraculous.

One can't recreate it here in The States, but the memory fastens itself to the soul.  It's always there to access, to get lost in for a moment or two.

Did I mention that Powers also tastes good?  It has a high pot still element and a low grain whiskey level.  I can't prove that other than that's what my nose and tastebuds tell me.  And Powers likes to advertise its "Distinctive Pot Still Character".

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  A little Powers history:

James Power first started making whiskey on John's Lane in Dublin in 1791.  The company, later known as John Power & Sons, became so successful that they had to massively expand their distillery and add their own bottling plant (a first for an Irish distiller).  They used a gold label to distinguish it from the white-labelled independently-bottled versions of their whiskies.  Eventually they had to expand further and moved out to Midleton, Cork where they would have enough (cheaper) land to build a massive whiskey complex with an output almost twice the size of the largest malt distillery in Scotland.  In the 1990s they released a 12 year blend.  And last year they released a Single Pot Still bottling that I covet more than any other whiskey.

But here we're talking about the original Gold Label blend.  And here are some notes:

NEAT:

The color is a lovely full gold, probably due to some caramel colouring but it's perfect to behold.  The nose is a little grainy, but very light and fizzy, with some bourbon cask vanilla.  The pot still character shows up in the palate; vanilla bean, brown sugar, mulled wine, custard, and a teeny bit of anise. It has a very pleasant medium brown sugar and molasses finish.  Splendid.

WITH WATER (about 35% ABV)

Adding the water sweetens the nose, brings out a little sherry, and a spritely molasses note.  The palate gets creamier, full of cookie dough and vanilla extract with a light bready yeast note.  The finish is still nice and moderate with more vanilla than brown sugar.

But this one really needs to be appreciated straight up or via a good hot whiskey recipe.  No ice.  No soda water.

Grading this throws the whole objective approach out of whack.  It is by no means a complex, sophisticated, brooding whiskey.  It is happily straightforward.  It has been my favorite go-to for almost ten years for a good reason.  It is simply delicious.

Pricing - Excellent at $16-$20
Rating - 88