So...
What am I doing? Right. Now.
I am reading "Eight Little Piggies" by Stephen Jay Gould. It's ridiculously good. I encourage everyone to read it, specifically the essays "The Golden Rule: A Proper Scale for Our Environmental Crisis", "Losing a Limpet", "Bent Out of Shape", and "An Earful of Jaw". Just real good stuff.
I watched three movies this week: "Sex Lies and Videotape" by Stephen Soderbergh, "Back to School" starring Rodney Dangerfield, and "Private Collections," a collection of sexually themed short films by three different directors, Just Jaeckin, Shuji Terayama, and Walerian Borowczyk.
Sex Lies and Videotape was marginally good, but I felt let down by the ending a bit. There were real challenges in the film, specifically how to deal with the fact that your loved one will undoubtedly have experiences that you cannot share with them, but I didn't think that any of the characters behaved in a manner even remotely resembling an actual person. Or at least a person that I could tolerate. When idiots collide onscreen, it doesn't really affect me.
Back to School was great in the way that I wanted it to be. There were a few laugh out loud lines, and a moderately good story. Sally Kellerman as Dangerfield's love interest was moppish and horrible, but I mostly watched for laughs and to see my hometown campus. Oingo Boingo makes an appearance, as does Kurt Vonnegut. Comedies are not like this anymore.
Private Collections was surprisingly interesting. The first short was fairly standard horror-softcore porn by the director of Emmanuelle, but it was well done and the score was excellent. The middle film, by Shuji Terayama, stood out for its incredible visual images and twisting plot. The final piece, by Walerian Borowzcyk, didn't really sustain my interest although I did finish it. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes David Lynch and sex, preferably together.
Those are my thoughts today. Until later probably.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Dogville : Justice is a Hammer
Wikipedia says of Dogville:
Many American critics including Ebert & Roeper accused Dogville of being an anti-American movie because it seems to imply that America does not care for the weakest members of its society and worse, that they are exploited whenever people think they can get away with it. The images of poverty stricken Americans of different eras flashing over the screen during the closing credits, accompanied by the song "Young Americans" by David Bowie, overtly suggest that the film is indeed intended to be a comment on American society.[1]
I'd say two things to this. 1. Ebert and Roeper are absolutely right; and foolish if they are defending against this film's indictment. 2. This movie really pays off in the end; through the credits portrayal of America's poorest, David Bowie's song, and the searing violence lusted after for emotional relief.
This movie means a couple of things to me:
1. Its a certain indictment of a system that abandons its poor and exploits its vulnerable. This is certainly across the board, as the rich exploit the poor, the poor exploit the exploitable, and perhaps there is no justice.
2. However, Van Trier seems to be advocating a certain vigilante form of justice. As his protagonists admit that they are each arrogant, they decide however that punishment "in order to train dogs into usefulness" is apt in its full deservedness, when natural behavior acts unethically and unacceptably. This vigilante thesis argues that we must take justice into our own hands.
3. In a way, I feel this movie tries to ignite violent revolutionary reaction from its viewers. As we are forced to watch the protagonists suffering, and hate those who inflict it, we relish in the violent retribution as it materializes. We hope for violence and harsh punishment, and secretly applaud when children and adults alike, are murdered in vindictive cold blood as they shiver in fear. We like that no mercy is shown and we feel complete when this finale unfolds. From this, the director exploits our own human frailness as we are forced to understand one particular true expression of justice.
4. Another thing I feel he is trying to express or remind the audience is that no human is innocent : whether exploited or exploiting. That each human has to capacity to use another if the circumstances are just right; to truly exploit if there are to be no consequences. Although one attempts to alleviate suffering where it is most abundant, will those sufferers join in the massive campaign of exploitation as soon as they leave the role of exploitee? He seems to be reminding us that humans are shit, at each stop on the social ladder, and they don't get better as they climb. Perhaps they even are worse as they climb, as the former mistreated start to see the pleasure in mistreating; in claiming entitlement. Perhaps, but this is not guaranteed. We must keep in mind that to view this as justification for social Darwinism, or perhaps arrogantly condemning humanity and avoiding an social responsibility, is the wrong path to follow.
5. Instead, one might take an existential route. While attempting to alleviate suffering, only for the sake of diminishing suffering, one should not take into account whether the net gain of goodness will utilitarianistically increase. If the exploited turns into the exploiter one should not react in condemning the aid toward the exploited, calling it a futile or a unwinnable route. While this is perhaps an apt assumption - one must still fight suffering, for the sake of this act in itself. If justice is the most important thing in this world, then this is the only true justice - even as every other route is unpredicable, and perhaps inevitably plagued by human ethical frailty. Like modern Humanism, one must try to help without the promise of reward.
6. Finally, perhaps the director is trying to say : If we are all guilty, then we must accept our guilt as what it is, and crush the true evil. Is he advocating the classic mantra, "smash the state?" Perhaps. But even if the utopian result is an impossibility, if human society can only be destructive, Von Trier is advocating fighting back against a harsh exploiter, instead of turning the other cheek to be beaten like a helpless dog.
7. Mao says “Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” In this sense, if communism isn't the utopian Marxist vision of a loving community which helps itself as a whole, and each person to individual fulfillment, then perhaps the ideal within communism is pure unadulterated and just violence. Perhaps humanity or society (ie the state) deserves only the crushing fist, and love or tolerance solidifies the inevitable cycle of exploitation.
Quote from movie:
This tells us : its time to pull back the veneer.
8. While I cannot advocate this point of view, as history has proven it catastrophic in civilian casualties and freedom's destruction, I cannot argue that this viewpoint has no ring to it. In many points of history where exploitation is explicit, and suffering is real, perhaps the only true justice comes in the hammer and not the heart. But, in the back corner of a pretentious existential mind, absurd notions of idealistic love still take prominence, and perhaps refuse to see the awful truth of this world, condemning justice once and for all.
9. As Kant suggests: "The right to hospitality, “the right to visit […] belongs to all men by virtue of their common ownership of the earth’s surface” (11) : or link
Some Quotes:
----
Many American critics including Ebert & Roeper accused Dogville of being an anti-American movie because it seems to imply that America does not care for the weakest members of its society and worse, that they are exploited whenever people think they can get away with it. The images of poverty stricken Americans of different eras flashing over the screen during the closing credits, accompanied by the song "Young Americans" by David Bowie, overtly suggest that the film is indeed intended to be a comment on American society.[1]
I'd say two things to this. 1. Ebert and Roeper are absolutely right; and foolish if they are defending against this film's indictment. 2. This movie really pays off in the end; through the credits portrayal of America's poorest, David Bowie's song, and the searing violence lusted after for emotional relief.
This movie means a couple of things to me:
1. Its a certain indictment of a system that abandons its poor and exploits its vulnerable. This is certainly across the board, as the rich exploit the poor, the poor exploit the exploitable, and perhaps there is no justice.
2. However, Van Trier seems to be advocating a certain vigilante form of justice. As his protagonists admit that they are each arrogant, they decide however that punishment "in order to train dogs into usefulness" is apt in its full deservedness, when natural behavior acts unethically and unacceptably. This vigilante thesis argues that we must take justice into our own hands.
3. In a way, I feel this movie tries to ignite violent revolutionary reaction from its viewers. As we are forced to watch the protagonists suffering, and hate those who inflict it, we relish in the violent retribution as it materializes. We hope for violence and harsh punishment, and secretly applaud when children and adults alike, are murdered in vindictive cold blood as they shiver in fear. We like that no mercy is shown and we feel complete when this finale unfolds. From this, the director exploits our own human frailness as we are forced to understand one particular true expression of justice.
4. Another thing I feel he is trying to express or remind the audience is that no human is innocent : whether exploited or exploiting. That each human has to capacity to use another if the circumstances are just right; to truly exploit if there are to be no consequences. Although one attempts to alleviate suffering where it is most abundant, will those sufferers join in the massive campaign of exploitation as soon as they leave the role of exploitee? He seems to be reminding us that humans are shit, at each stop on the social ladder, and they don't get better as they climb. Perhaps they even are worse as they climb, as the former mistreated start to see the pleasure in mistreating; in claiming entitlement. Perhaps, but this is not guaranteed. We must keep in mind that to view this as justification for social Darwinism, or perhaps arrogantly condemning humanity and avoiding an social responsibility, is the wrong path to follow.
5. Instead, one might take an existential route. While attempting to alleviate suffering, only for the sake of diminishing suffering, one should not take into account whether the net gain of goodness will utilitarianistically increase. If the exploited turns into the exploiter one should not react in condemning the aid toward the exploited, calling it a futile or a unwinnable route. While this is perhaps an apt assumption - one must still fight suffering, for the sake of this act in itself. If justice is the most important thing in this world, then this is the only true justice - even as every other route is unpredicable, and perhaps inevitably plagued by human ethical frailty. Like modern Humanism, one must try to help without the promise of reward.
6. Finally, perhaps the director is trying to say : If we are all guilty, then we must accept our guilt as what it is, and crush the true evil. Is he advocating the classic mantra, "smash the state?" Perhaps. But even if the utopian result is an impossibility, if human society can only be destructive, Von Trier is advocating fighting back against a harsh exploiter, instead of turning the other cheek to be beaten like a helpless dog.
7. Mao says “Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.” In this sense, if communism isn't the utopian Marxist vision of a loving community which helps itself as a whole, and each person to individual fulfillment, then perhaps the ideal within communism is pure unadulterated and just violence. Perhaps humanity or society (ie the state) deserves only the crushing fist, and love or tolerance solidifies the inevitable cycle of exploitation.
Quote from movie:
You want the curtains opened? You don't need them anymore. What do you think?
l think we should open them. l think it's appropriate.
This tells us : its time to pull back the veneer.
8. While I cannot advocate this point of view, as history has proven it catastrophic in civilian casualties and freedom's destruction, I cannot argue that this viewpoint has no ring to it. In many points of history where exploitation is explicit, and suffering is real, perhaps the only true justice comes in the hammer and not the heart. But, in the back corner of a pretentious existential mind, absurd notions of idealistic love still take prominence, and perhaps refuse to see the awful truth of this world, condemning justice once and for all.
9. As Kant suggests: "The right to hospitality, “the right to visit […] belongs to all men by virtue of their common ownership of the earth’s surface” (11) : or link
Some Quotes:
you should be merciful
When there is time to be merciful
But you must maintain
your own standard
You owe them that
The penalty you deserve for your transgressions...
they deserve for their transgressions.
- they are human beings
----
But dogs only obey their own nature
So why shouldn't we forgive them?
Dogs can be taught
many useful things
but not if we forgive them every time
they obey their own nature.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover
So Tonight I watched : Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover."
Its about a powerful man - who owns a restaurant - and beats his wife - and eats fancy food - and the wife is having an affair with another man - and its sort of a strange post-apocalyptic ugly and bourgeoisie nightmare.
Violent, disgusting, and intense. I will never eat the meal again that I was having while watching.
But, also pretty funny- in a macabre and delirious way.
A few scenes come to mind: the naked couple enters a truck's rear, packed with week-old rotting meat, in the nude. To be hosed slowly later on. Slowly, as the rotten meat had truly attached and stained.
Or:
A man is rubbed in shit, full-frontal nudity and beating - dogs barking and biting and then as before- the shit is slowly hosed away.
A lot of sex and food.
Zizek writes this on fantasy:
"Sex] also needs some phantasmic screen -- . . . any contact with a 'real' flesh-and-blood other, any sexual pleasure that we find in touching another human being, is not something evident but something inherently traumatic, and can be sustained only in so far as this other enters the subject's fantasy-frame. . . . What happens, then, when this screen dissolves? The act turns into ugliness -- even horror."
This film truly embodies the grittiest mucuses, and swollen seafood you could compare and as quick as possible delude in the fantasy of its need to be unreal.
Watch this with your imagination to deny its perverse kernel of truth.
To be blunt, its fucking repulsive.
A favorite sequence:
Its about a powerful man - who owns a restaurant - and beats his wife - and eats fancy food - and the wife is having an affair with another man - and its sort of a strange post-apocalyptic ugly and bourgeoisie nightmare.
Violent, disgusting, and intense. I will never eat the meal again that I was having while watching.
But, also pretty funny- in a macabre and delirious way.
A few scenes come to mind: the naked couple enters a truck's rear, packed with week-old rotting meat, in the nude. To be hosed slowly later on. Slowly, as the rotten meat had truly attached and stained.
Or:
A man is rubbed in shit, full-frontal nudity and beating - dogs barking and biting and then as before- the shit is slowly hosed away.
A lot of sex and food.
Zizek writes this on fantasy:
"Sex] also needs some phantasmic screen -- . . . any contact with a 'real' flesh-and-blood other, any sexual pleasure that we find in touching another human being, is not something evident but something inherently traumatic, and can be sustained only in so far as this other enters the subject's fantasy-frame. . . . What happens, then, when this screen dissolves? The act turns into ugliness -- even horror."
This film truly embodies the grittiest mucuses, and swollen seafood you could compare and as quick as possible delude in the fantasy of its need to be unreal.
Watch this with your imagination to deny its perverse kernel of truth.
To be blunt, its fucking repulsive.
A favorite sequence:
"When you make out a menu,
how do you price each dish?
I charge a lot for anything black.
Grapes, olives, blackcurrants.
People like to remind themselves of death,
eating black food is like consuming death,
like saying, "Death, I'm eating you."
Black truffles are the most expensive. And caviar.
Death and birth.
The end and the beginning.
Don't you think it's appropriate
that the most expensive items are black?
We also charge for vanity."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Luis Bunuel
I watched : "That Obscure Object of Desire" & "Phantom of Liberty" by Luis Bunuel.
That Obscure Object of Desire : I thought it was pretty good; for a surrealist filmmaker I'd say that Bunuel (and maybe the genre itself as far as I can tell) is pretty tame. Some bizarre aspects of the movie include : two different actresses play the same character in the film without the other characters reacting (seemingly randomly dispersed throughout the film). There was also a dwarf in the train scene which provides the protagonist to narrate his story of heartbreak /betrayal. (perhaps this provides an abnormal visual?) From what I've seen / read - Bunuel puts a lot of work into his cinematography, but I guess for most of the movie I wasn't very impressed. I didn't like the colors or the sets, but perhaps its a product of its time / moment.
There were some cool allegorical parts : In one part a fly lands in the protagonists martini "waiter,there's a fly in my soup."
The characters also all seem to be ok when the protagonist physically beats and demands sex from the object of desire Conchita, as he's held out "as much as a man possibly can." It also seems to be a commentary on terrorism and politics : I'd like to view it again and compare the plot to a courtship over nations and irrational action, or perhaps between a nation and its insurgent or resistant population. As the two protagonists die in a firery explosion / terrorist attack in the end; one has to wonder if allegorically this is more central to the point of the movie. Considering there are random bits of violence, including a street shootout, a knifepoint robbery, a brutal murderous carjacking etc.
I mean even if this isn't the point at all; it would be an interesting take on the film : while in reality the depiction of terrorism might just be (and ockham's razor would tell us so) a representation of the very real events of that day and age in france.
--
Phantom of Liberty was great.
A giant ostrich walks into a couple's bedroom as they try to sleep with a long shot completely drawing me into the scene. A incestuous boring couple, attempted murder out of shame, is trumped by an S&M couple spanking and sexual barking back and forth in front of unsuspecting priests, a boring lady, and a teenager. and so on : the movie is great.
I can't wait to watch The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.
That Obscure Object of Desire : I thought it was pretty good; for a surrealist filmmaker I'd say that Bunuel (and maybe the genre itself as far as I can tell) is pretty tame. Some bizarre aspects of the movie include : two different actresses play the same character in the film without the other characters reacting (seemingly randomly dispersed throughout the film). There was also a dwarf in the train scene which provides the protagonist to narrate his story of heartbreak /betrayal. (perhaps this provides an abnormal visual?) From what I've seen / read - Bunuel puts a lot of work into his cinematography, but I guess for most of the movie I wasn't very impressed. I didn't like the colors or the sets, but perhaps its a product of its time / moment.
There were some cool allegorical parts : In one part a fly lands in the protagonists martini "waiter,there's a fly in my soup."
The characters also all seem to be ok when the protagonist physically beats and demands sex from the object of desire Conchita, as he's held out "as much as a man possibly can." It also seems to be a commentary on terrorism and politics : I'd like to view it again and compare the plot to a courtship over nations and irrational action, or perhaps between a nation and its insurgent or resistant population. As the two protagonists die in a firery explosion / terrorist attack in the end; one has to wonder if allegorically this is more central to the point of the movie. Considering there are random bits of violence, including a street shootout, a knifepoint robbery, a brutal murderous carjacking etc.
I mean even if this isn't the point at all; it would be an interesting take on the film : while in reality the depiction of terrorism might just be (and ockham's razor would tell us so) a representation of the very real events of that day and age in france.
--
Phantom of Liberty was great.
A giant ostrich walks into a couple's bedroom as they try to sleep with a long shot completely drawing me into the scene. A incestuous boring couple, attempted murder out of shame, is trumped by an S&M couple spanking and sexual barking back and forth in front of unsuspecting priests, a boring lady, and a teenager. and so on : the movie is great.
I can't wait to watch The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.
Dune
I watched Dune last night. I watched the version that wasn't extended, although I was tempted to, as David Lynch refused to endorse the longer one. I can understand why people (including david lynch) really don't like the movie : its rambly and over-complicated, and put together in such a fragmented way that the character development and narrative are completely ignored. Thus, you really don't care if characters live or die, or who wins out in stupid good vs. evil battles. I mean its fucking epic, but for a 2 hour long movie with a soundtrack done by 80s sensation Toto, I think we should feel it a little harder.
Nevertheless : The effects were great. The shield suits they wore were the pinnacle of 80s special effects and could remain relevant even today. The worlds were fun and costumes really creepy. There were even some great Lynchian moments: when the evil Baron spits on the protagonist mother's face :
I also liked the line :
Remember, walk without rhythm and we won't attract the worm.
All in all I'd give it 3 out of 5 because it really was disapointing in someways (albeit expected) but really impressive visually (which i didn't expect.)
Nevertheless : The effects were great. The shield suits they wore were the pinnacle of 80s special effects and could remain relevant even today. The worlds were fun and costumes really creepy. There were even some great Lynchian moments: when the evil Baron spits on the protagonist mother's face :
Baron : "I want to spit once on your head, just some spittle in your face.
[He spits on her cheek.]
Baron : "What a luxury."I also liked the line :
Remember, walk without rhythm and we won't attract the worm.
All in all I'd give it 3 out of 5 because it really was disapointing in someways (albeit expected) but really impressive visually (which i didn't expect.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
