Weinberg #5
First off thanks Tom for sharing all those personal stories. Its interesting to know how you got in to doing what you do.
As I’ve talked about in some of my other posts, I have a really hard time accepting McLuhan’s notion that television is a ‘cool medium’ that “minimize(s) rather than heighten(s) the need of viewers to respond to it” (91). It sounds like the group of alternative filmmakers you fell in with also give the medium and people more credit. You said you guys you “shared a common idealism (some say naivete) to use video as a tool to reflect the world as [you] experience it. [You] wanted to change it for the better.”
It sounds like you guys saw alternative television/video as a transformative force that people would respond to in a way that revolutionized the world. I agree ‘real’ video, not the crap on TV that we all know has been edited to the least amount of realness possible, is powerful. The images do drive people to act. If you don’t hold to this belief why would an independent filmmaker/tv prodcuer/artist work with video. They aren’t ought to profit from it, so it must be because they think the images with cause a reaction from within. Is McLuhan just talking about ‘crap’ TV then?
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
global VILLAGE contradiction?
In 1969 McLuhan coined the term the “global village.” He asserted that the expansion of the internet would create “one family” and free man’s consciousness “from the shackles of mechanical culture.” However, this notion was dispelled by critics who pointed out that instead of opening up the world the internet “offered people the opportunity to pack themselves into even smaller worlds.” To this McLuhan responded that he had taken this into account and recognized that the ‘global village’ was designed to create “more discontinuity and division and diversity.”
Excuse my french, but in this instant I feel like McLuhan is covering his own ass and making completely contradictory statements…or maybe I just don’t understand.
A village in almost every culture is associated with a group of people who have a common understanding. But the expanse of the internet, which implies the decrease of print and television, allows people to look at only what they want to view. Everything can be tailored to the likes of that individual. I don’t even have to look at the headers of news stories I’m not interested in, I can have only what I want sent to me. I would agree with McLuhan that the best ‘villages’ are made up of a diverse group of people. However, the internet doesn’t allow for people to get to know others who are not like them. The internet is tailored to meet the needs/demands of the individual. How then can this phenomena be described as the “global village?”
It’s not a village. Diverse people don’t share with one another. The latest Weinberg article talked about how important it is that more and more footage will be able to be archived on the internet, but only a small portion of the population will seek this out. Other will never know about it. There won’t be must sharing of knowledge.
The only way I can justify the notion of the “global village” is to return to McLuhan’s earlier message that the “medium is the message.” If looked at in this context the “village,” which requires some communality, may be the medium itself. Yes, everyone if disconnected in their messaging, but they are connected by the medium (the internet) that they are all using to isolation themselves.
Very confusing, and pretty contradictory.
If the ‘global village’ is, not as McLuhan said in his second statement to critics, the “place to find ideal peace and harmony.” Then what is?
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
Away We Go (2009)
Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida
Producers: Big Beach Films
Distributor: Focus Features
There are three interesting things about this movie that make it relevant to our discussion of independent films. But first the plot: Its simple enough. Longtime couple, Burt and Verona, find themselves pregnant and decide to travel around the country (and Canada) in order to find the perfect place to raise a family; crazy & sane characters and misadventures ensue.
Now the three noteworthy things that I think make it worthy of the title independent.
1. The movie seems to be part of a growing trend/demand for ‘indie’ films. Over the last few years there have been quite a few popular movies that were given the title ‘independent’ even though they actually had a lot of financial support from Hollywood. Away We Go is one of them. The film was written and directed by big-time studio guys and has an all-star cast. It wasn’t the vision of one auteur and isn’t cheaply made. But most people would think of it as independent. Why? What is it about this film, and others like it, that make us cinema amateurs think it qualifies? Is it only independent if it’s completely outside Hollywood? What about Spike Lee?
2. This question brings me to the second thing that I think is interesting about the film, and my personal answer to these questions. It’s a quasi-independent film because of its content, not its funding. The film explores relationships and elements of what makes a family by looking outside of the ‘conventional’ family. As the couple travels around the country we’re introduced to an array of families, some that work and some that don’t – all of whom are married. Verona refuses to get married, saying ‘she doesn’t see the point,’ but her and Burt are obviously committed to one another and make promises to one another, very similar to wedding vows. In that respect the film is a light-hearted rejection of the institution of marriage and an emblem of stable, committed relationships that don’t require the formal paperwork. It speaks to me because my parents can’t get married, its against the law, but they are fully committed to each other and have been for over twenty years. I feel like I can relate to Burt and Verona, because I’ve often looked around at my friend’s married, ‘conventional’ parents and thought wow this is fucked up. The film is independent because it is stepping out of the traditional Hollywood narrative and exploring complex issues.
3. The third interesting thing about this movie that goes to how it was made. The movie was the studio production to undertake ‘green filmmaking initiatives aimed to reduce CO2 emission.’ How un-Hollywood is that?!?!
Filed under: VideoFiles | Leave a Comment
A couple week ago I attended a leadership seminar that explored female leadership through a gendered lens. We thought through the qualities that we associate with women and the qualities that are associated with their leadership styles, and then did the same thing with men. And what we discovered was that male qualities align well with the definition of a leader (strong, commanding). While women face a dichotomy, either they are supportive/communal or they are a bitch/vindictive. Women aren’t easy recognized as leaders in the same way men are. Stereotypical traits of a woman don’t correspond with the definition of a leader.
I think this same dichotomy is present in most Hollywood films. Women are not often the hero. As Doane talks about in her article women are associated with pathos, emotion/suffering, which “closely aligns itself with the delineation of a lack of social power.” They are either primarily emotional and dependent on the male lead (all Disney films) OR they are the bitch boss. There are also a lot of Hollywood films that paint powerful women as bitchy and vindictive, who ultimately are put in their ‘place’ by a man. They aren’t often both.
The Tod Haynes film addresses this dichotomy. Cathy Whitaker is the epitome of the ‘traditional’ woman (and she is miserable), but when she tries to step out of this role and explore issues/people beyond her kitchen she is scorned/rejected by society. Among the many things this film is exploring, I think it is also looking at the dichotomatic line women are forced to walk. Haynes looks at gender in his films and one of the big issues surrounding gender is this double standard. There is the traditional role of a woman that society is no longer dependent on, but the new woman role is also not acceptable, so women are in this very murky middle ground.
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
Weinberg #4
WOW! Youtube has only been around for four years!!! That in itself is mind-boggling. The majority of my life Youtube didn’t exist, but I can’t comprehend or imagine my life without it. It’s such a cultural staple. I use it for research and pleasure. It’s a fixture in my life. I couldn’t tell you about the first time I used it, or if I remember what it was like in its early years, I just see it for what it is now. Is this McLuhan’s Rear View Mirror concept? I still don’t really understand it.
The newest Weinberg piece raises some interesting questions. Youtube is crazy popular, anyone can post anything. Google is built on the notion that “there is no such thing as too much data.” And more and more people are getting and becoming comfortable with the internet.
Part of me agrees with the article’s point that the raw footage that is being put online is extremely valuable in documenting our generation. But there might be such a thing as too much. When does the footage go from being a valuable examination of the 21st century to ‘word vomit.’ Admittedly a lot of the stuff on Youtube is pure junk, will the infinity of the internet become filled with junk that can’t be categorized or put in a historical/cultural context? How do you find the valuable? Will it be recognizable in 100 years? Or will hours of raw footage only be valuable to researchers? I don’t know the answer, but I worry.
Is the internet like a black hole, in which everything can go into it, but when it does it becomes lost and losses its meaning?
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
Found on media burn and hunted down after Joe Winston mentioned it in class, this episode of ‘Joes Basement’ explores race issues in Chicago using a unique approach. Originally aired on April 2, 1990, the segment using a man-on-the-street documentary style asks black and white Chicagoans what they think of one anther. It’s straight to the point and candid answers are much more revealing than any race ‘expert’ or theorist.
The black people’s answer to ‘What do you think of white people’ are especially revealing. Many have mixed views and speak openly about white prejudice and inequality, providing examples. While the majority of white people try to evade the question, or just say ‘they are like everyone else. we’re all human.’ The piece illustrates the disconnect between white and black perceptions of racial equality. For the most part white people make and own the entertainment business, not to mention most of society. As the dominant class, almost everything is put in a context that we understand and is framed from our own experiences. Joe’s questions purposefully stepped outside of that frame in the most obvious way, just by asking what black and white people think about one another, not what they are told to think based on the white frame. It’s also funny!
I really love the man-on-the-street approach. It’s a very independent video style that reveals a lot, and gives anyone the opportunity to express their feelings. It was the same approach used by the ‘inquiring nuns’ who asked ‘what makes you happy?’ Its the kind of approach that can be used to address any issue and always provides interesting and thought-provoking responses. I think it should be used more often! Everyone has something to say, and these out-of-the-blew, random questions that no one thinks consciously about, but are always below the surface are so important to capture of video.
Filed under: VideoFiles | Leave a Comment
Birth of a Race, 1918
The Birth of a Race was a silent, black and white film directed by John W. Noble and produced by Emmett J. Scott, personal secretary to Booker T. Washington. It was one of the first independent black films and was made in response to The Birth of a Nation, attempting to discredit the negative stereotypes of blacks perpetuated by the film. “They sought out their own financing in order to produce films with more positive images of Blacks.”
On Youtube.com, I was able to watch the beginning excerpt of the film which depicts the “birth of the human race” and preaches equality.
It moves from God’s creation of earth to Lincoln’s emancipation of slaves to WWI in which blacks and whites fight side by side. While its midly interesting to watch, I’m not sure the film made the political statement it sought, but it is very cool to think that this was one of the first ‘race films’ and is relevant still today.
Filed under: VideoFiles | Leave a Comment
Lee as Entreprenuer
I found this article on Spike Lee very interesting and relevant to my final project. I will be exploring issues around African Americans in cinema and one of the things I would like to focus on is black independent filmmakers. I want to try and get my hands on the book this article came from and some of the other books mentioned in this piece for research purposes.
I actually haven’t seen very many Spike Lee films, nor do I know very much about him, but based on this article it sounds like he is a very interesting and influential filmmaker and entrepreneur and definitely someone I need to explore for my project.
The article talks a lot about how many of Lee’s films are financed through ‘negative pickup deals,’ which I wikied to learn more about. In this type of deal, a production company agrees to buy a movie from an independent filmmaker on a particular date for a fixed sum. Up until the date the film is purchased by the distribution company it is the responsibility of the filmmaker to find funding. The article talked a great deal about some of the creative ways in which Lee has found funding for his films. However, this type of deal places great restraints on filmmakers to finish on time and not go over budget. Ahh the price of maintaining creative control.
The article also refers to Lee as an auteur, showing that his films are reflections of his personal creative vision. Auteur Theory was championed by Francois Truffaut and Andre Bazin. An Auteur, “is the creator of a film as a work of art and is the original copyright holder.” Other key elements of Auteur Theory include the notion that “directors should wield their cameras like writers use their pens and that they need not be hindered by traditional storytelling,” and that while the movie industry is undoubtedly a money-making business, “director(s) should use the commercial apparatus the way a writer uses a pen and, through the mise en scene, imprint their vision on the work.” The Lee article is an example of how one auteur has maintained creative control and made a successful living in the biz. Lee serves as an example of how independent filmmakers can find funding and maintain the auteur title.
This article got me thinking about a relatively new black auteur on the block, Tyler Perry. Perry is the writer, director and star of the popular ‘Madea’ movies, and has produced several other films, TV shows and plays that star black actors and address black issues. He is in full ownership of all his movies with Liongate Entertainment as the distributer. Like Lee, he has his own production facility outside of Hollywood where he makes all his films. “He has total creative control, and owns everything he makes.”
However, Lee doesn’t approve of Perry’s work. Read this article where Lee critizes Perry and compares his work to ‘Amos n Andy.’
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
Weinberg #3
‘Media Burn’ is an interesting concept. From the piece I gathered that Media Burn is largely the negative impacts that occur from people’s ‘self-fascination’ with video. I particularly liked the section on ‘Media Burn and Identity,’ which addressed the idea that being on TV leads to the loss of one’s identity and ‘being perceived as anything other than the character.” I think, as the celebrity quotes in the article showed we are very used to hearing TV stars talk about losing themselves in the characters, but for some reason we all still want to be them.
I think the three questions that were addressed in this article are important questions to ask, particularly because video is so readily available to just about anyone. I would have liked to known more about the psychological hypotheses or research that has gone into answering these questions, or other scholarly articles on the effects TV/Video has on us.
I did think the information on Acquired Situational Narcissism (ASN) was pretty interesting. Why are we a celebrity-obsessed world? Is it because the TV tells us to be?
Ant Farm did some work to highlight Media Burn and criticize the mass media in the 70s , but what is being done today? From the article and what we know about technology it seems like Media Burn is expanding and will reach many more people. What is being done to counteract it. Do you turn your TV off and hide from cameras, or is there another solution?
Filed under: Class reactions | Leave a Comment
ONCE (2006)
After previewing a couple scenes in class, I decided I really wanted to see the rest of this film so last weekend I got a couple of girlfriends together and we watched it.
‘Once’ was written and directed by John Carney, former bassist for The Frames, and stars musicians Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova, neither of whom are trained actors. Hansard and Irglova composed and performed all of the movie’s original songs. The film was shot in seventeen days for only $160,000. Most of the funding came from The Irish Film Board, but Carney also contributed some of his own money. It is being distributed by Fox Searchlight Pictures.
‘Once’ is a musical-themed romance. Hansard and Irglova both play musicians who wind up working together for a week to produce music – music that explores their relationship. However there is no traditional fairytale ending to this film. At the end of the week the two go their separate ways, both audience members get the impression they have both learned and grown a great deal from knowing each other.
Besides the music, which is beautifully moving and undoubtedly makes the film, I think the cinematography is also very beautiful and telling. The story is very natural and realistic – not at all overdone, or contrived, and the cinematography plays a huge role in making it that way. The natural lighting and shaky camera make the movie seem more realistic. It’s like someone just happened to catch on their home camera the story of these two people.
I really loved this film. It was very inviting and the music is sooo good. It was also one of the more realistic ‘love stories.’ While the chance that two musically talented individuals would find each other and be in the recording studio within a week is a little unrealistic (althoug that is about the amont of time it took to film the movie), what is realistic is the way real-life, including family and past and current relationships make things difficult. They like each other, but they each have responsibilities and bagage and they don’t dismiss that and run away together. I actually want to go see Hansard and Irglova in concert in December.
Filed under: VideoFiles | Leave a Comment
Search
Recent Entries
Categories
- Class reactions (13)
- VideoFiles (12)
