Is it wrong that when I read this article from IMDB.com, the only thing I can think of is Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space?*
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0365842/
Ironically, Johnny Depp played the infamous director in his 1994 biopic. I'm intrigued. Part of me thinks that this can't end well, and another part of me thinks that CGI is amazing these days...
*Widely recognized as the Worst Movie of All Time** because of a lack of continuity (day turns into night into day in the span of 2 minutes in the same scene), stiff dialogue, and ridiculous plot, Plan 9 From Outer Space was Bela Lugosi's last film. He died in the middle of filming and, instead of re-shooting the whole movie, Ed Wood, the director, merely replaced Lugosi with a much younger, thinner actor. In order to camouflage that Lugosi was no longer in the film, Wood directed the replacement actor to hold his cape over his face throughout the movie. It did nothing to disguise that Lugosi was no longer in the movie.
**I think Plan 9 is not the worst movie of all time, but the most awesomely bad. It's a laugh riot and I heartily recommend it. Just don't see My Father the Hero, that is an unmitigated piece of crap. (Sorry Gerard Depardieu!)
Friday, August 1, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
A Number You Can Count on One Hand...
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0256948/
I would just like to point out that in this age of mass technology, of worldwide media culture, of the INTERNET, that Norelco bowed to peer pressure after only five complaints. I don't think there's anything wrong with Swingtown, I think the problem lies with Norelco in listening to five complaints. That's not even a blip on the radar in my law school class of 250. The entire population of television watching America (disregarding the people around the world who will watch it on the internet) is many, many times larger. I'd like to know who these five complaints came from. I cannot imagine any five complaints that threatened lawful and Constitutional action that should have that much power. Can you?
Protesters Targeting Edgier Network Programming
7 July 2008 10:36 AM, PDT | From Studio Briefing | See recent Studio Briefing news
Network executives trying to attract younger viewers with edgier fare have been stymied by protests directed at the show's advertisers, Advertising Age observed today (Monday), pointing out that North American Philips recently withdrew ads for Norelco products from CBS's Swingtown after receiving five complaints from viewers. "It is a shame," one media buyer told the trade publication. "When the networks try to push the envelope a little and try to be more like HBO, the advertisers run away." The Parents Television Council, which takes credit for the FCC's crackdown on allegedly indecent broadcasts, is urging CBS affiliates not to air the drama. All of which, according to AdAge, has forced CBS to use time on the program for "make-goods" and "bonus units" -- essentially free ads that the network gives away when one of its programs does not deliver a guaranteed number of viewers or when it enhances a sales package with extra ads to attract advertisers.
I would just like to point out that in this age of mass technology, of worldwide media culture, of the INTERNET, that Norelco bowed to peer pressure after only five complaints. I don't think there's anything wrong with Swingtown, I think the problem lies with Norelco in listening to five complaints. That's not even a blip on the radar in my law school class of 250. The entire population of television watching America (disregarding the people around the world who will watch it on the internet) is many, many times larger. I'd like to know who these five complaints came from. I cannot imagine any five complaints that threatened lawful and Constitutional action that should have that much power. Can you?
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Be Kind Rewind & My New Project
Last week, I watched Be Kind Rewind with some friends because Blockbuster didn't have A Few Good Men.
I'm glad someone else needed to know that Tom Cruise couldn't handle the truth. While Be Kind Rewind seems like an inconsequential and silly story about some guys who remake their favorite movies (poorly), I saw it as something else. I saw it as a filmmaker's love letter to his medium.
In the movie, Jack Black and Mos Def have 2 hours, 45 minutes to remake Ghostbusters after it had been erased to retain one of their best customers. So they do it -- they made a movie with one camera, three people, and a little ingenuity (using the "negative" filter on the camera to turn day into night, turning a cat into the monster in the refrigerator). And it was a hit. Their success snowballed Their films became popular. So popular, that the government shut them down. And then, what did they do? They didn't sulk (for long, anyway), but they made another movie -- a big movie with all the people they met and entertained through their Sweded videos.
The end is probably one of the most poignant scenes in a film I have seen all year. The neighborhood, the people who made the movie, sit in the video store one last time before its demolished to watch their movie. The TV breaks before they can begin their screening, but serendipitously another local video store owner comes in with a projector. People put a sheet up on the window, and the film is projected on the sheet for the people in the store ... and for the community outside the store. The entire neighborhood is standing in the streets, on their balconies, and as the movie plays, the community who hasn't been behind this video store for long enough to save it from destruction, comes together because of it. And not to save it, because it will be demolished, but to appreciate the power of a story, and the power of community, and the power of the film to bring the two together.
Gondry's two-fold theme in this movie, the power of movies to bring people together, and the
power of people to make their own movies, advocates a proletariat cinema -- movies made by the masses for the masses -- that both transcends and "subscends" YouTube. The cinema subscends YouTube because Gondry focuses on a corner video store that has no DVDs to rent, the main characters have a boxy camcorder that takes only a videocasette, they have no editing equipment, and ostensibly no computer. The lack of technology is quaint, and at the beginning, the audience can't help but wonder how they'll create a successful movie (or any movie) with two people, a deficient looking camera, and no time. But when they succeed, not only in finishing the film, but also in the eyes of the rentor, the barrier of technology magically disappears. The remainder of the first 3/4 of the movie is fun -- watching the characters recreate old favorites and wanting to see what they will make next, not wondering if they could make anything at all. But still, the amazement lingers (I can't believe they could make that with what they have). The emphasis on YouTube is what videos people make, not if they can make a video at all, and the audience mindset rests with that initial amazement, even after the characters prove themselves again and again.
However, the whole film focuses on a community coming together around movies -- watching them, and making them. YouTube provides a virtual community, but it's hard to replicate that community that's created by watching a movie with someone, or waking up at dawn with people to capture that perfect morning light, the ambiance of which is essential for your movie. And by stripping away the technology and the YouTube and even the computer, movies are boiled down to their purest form -- a projected story told by people who banded together for a common purpose. And I prefer the transcendence of sharing something with a small, flesh and blood community than the mechanism of sharing globally via binary.
The message I left with was that anyone can make a movie -- no matter what equipment you have or how much money or how many people you have to help you. All you need is a camera and an idea. This is a true love letter to a medium that is currently drowning in ideas about the importance of production values and losing the essential element of story. Gondry is trying to save motion pictures from drowning in the smog of technology by breathing in the fresh air of ideas. And whether film itself or the industry or even anyone else appreciates it, I love him for it.
A couple days ago, I thought about this movie in a new light. I booted up my old desktop, the one I only use for video editing, to finish a movie I wanted to submit to the Port Clinton Film Festival (a new festival that had waived its entry fee) and the deadline was the next day. I shot it entirely on my own and was excited to finally complete a movie for the first time in 3 years. And then, my trusty editing program crashed. It won't open, it won't let me edit. Nothing. I guess Murphy missed me, got jealous of all the other laws I was studying, and decided to visit me in a big way. I was foiled again. The deadline has passed. But I can't let a snag like a dead editing program kill my buzz. I need to make movies. I have no portfolio and if I want to call myself a filmmaker, I need to create one. So I am, Be Kind Rewind style -- not by Sweding, but by taking what I have and making a movie. No excuses. No whining. Just film.
I'm making one movie a month for at least a year, maybe longer. July's entry will probably be something that doesn't require editing. We'll see. I'll keep you updated. I still don't know if I'm posting on YouTube, somehow it seems against the Be Kind Rewind message (even though YouTube was used as the center of a viral marketing campaign for the movie).
I'm glad someone else needed to know that Tom Cruise couldn't handle the truth. While Be Kind Rewind seems like an inconsequential and silly story about some guys who remake their favorite movies (poorly), I saw it as something else. I saw it as a filmmaker's love letter to his medium.
In the movie, Jack Black and Mos Def have 2 hours, 45 minutes to remake Ghostbusters after it had been erased to retain one of their best customers. So they do it -- they made a movie with one camera, three people, and a little ingenuity (using the "negative" filter on the camera to turn day into night, turning a cat into the monster in the refrigerator). And it was a hit. Their success snowballed Their films became popular. So popular, that the government shut them down. And then, what did they do? They didn't sulk (for long, anyway), but they made another movie -- a big movie with all the people they met and entertained through their Sweded videos.
The end is probably one of the most poignant scenes in a film I have seen all year. The neighborhood, the people who made the movie, sit in the video store one last time before its demolished to watch their movie. The TV breaks before they can begin their screening, but serendipitously another local video store owner comes in with a projector. People put a sheet up on the window, and the film is projected on the sheet for the people in the store ... and for the community outside the store. The entire neighborhood is standing in the streets, on their balconies, and as the movie plays, the community who hasn't been behind this video store for long enough to save it from destruction, comes together because of it. And not to save it, because it will be demolished, but to appreciate the power of a story, and the power of community, and the power of the film to bring the two together.
Gondry's two-fold theme in this movie, the power of movies to bring people together, and the
power of people to make their own movies, advocates a proletariat cinema -- movies made by the masses for the masses -- that both transcends and "subscends" YouTube. The cinema subscends YouTube because Gondry focuses on a corner video store that has no DVDs to rent, the main characters have a boxy camcorder that takes only a videocasette, they have no editing equipment, and ostensibly no computer. The lack of technology is quaint, and at the beginning, the audience can't help but wonder how they'll create a successful movie (or any movie) with two people, a deficient looking camera, and no time. But when they succeed, not only in finishing the film, but also in the eyes of the rentor, the barrier of technology magically disappears. The remainder of the first 3/4 of the movie is fun -- watching the characters recreate old favorites and wanting to see what they will make next, not wondering if they could make anything at all. But still, the amazement lingers (I can't believe they could make that with what they have). The emphasis on YouTube is what videos people make, not if they can make a video at all, and the audience mindset rests with that initial amazement, even after the characters prove themselves again and again.
However, the whole film focuses on a community coming together around movies -- watching them, and making them. YouTube provides a virtual community, but it's hard to replicate that community that's created by watching a movie with someone, or waking up at dawn with people to capture that perfect morning light, the ambiance of which is essential for your movie. And by stripping away the technology and the YouTube and even the computer, movies are boiled down to their purest form -- a projected story told by people who banded together for a common purpose. And I prefer the transcendence of sharing something with a small, flesh and blood community than the mechanism of sharing globally via binary.
The message I left with was that anyone can make a movie -- no matter what equipment you have or how much money or how many people you have to help you. All you need is a camera and an idea. This is a true love letter to a medium that is currently drowning in ideas about the importance of production values and losing the essential element of story. Gondry is trying to save motion pictures from drowning in the smog of technology by breathing in the fresh air of ideas. And whether film itself or the industry or even anyone else appreciates it, I love him for it.
A couple days ago, I thought about this movie in a new light. I booted up my old desktop, the one I only use for video editing, to finish a movie I wanted to submit to the Port Clinton Film Festival (a new festival that had waived its entry fee) and the deadline was the next day. I shot it entirely on my own and was excited to finally complete a movie for the first time in 3 years. And then, my trusty editing program crashed. It won't open, it won't let me edit. Nothing. I guess Murphy missed me, got jealous of all the other laws I was studying, and decided to visit me in a big way. I was foiled again. The deadline has passed. But I can't let a snag like a dead editing program kill my buzz. I need to make movies. I have no portfolio and if I want to call myself a filmmaker, I need to create one. So I am, Be Kind Rewind style -- not by Sweding, but by taking what I have and making a movie. No excuses. No whining. Just film.
I'm making one movie a month for at least a year, maybe longer. July's entry will probably be something that doesn't require editing. We'll see. I'll keep you updated. I still don't know if I'm posting on YouTube, somehow it seems against the Be Kind Rewind message (even though YouTube was used as the center of a viral marketing campaign for the movie).
Monday, April 23, 2007
Seriously?
So, I was perusing IMDB news and I came upon this gem (copied and pasted below, link in case you wanted to see it in situ).
Castle-Hughes: "Media Made Me Feel Ashamed of Pregnancy"
Australian actress Keisha Castle-Hughes was forced to hide her bump while she was pregnant last year, because the heavy criticism she encountered in the press made her feel ashamed of becoming a young mother. The Whale Rider star was just 16 when she fell pregnant with 19-year-old boyfriend Bradley Hull's baby, and because of the media furor surrounding her age, she felt she was doing wrong by celebrating her impending motherhood. She says, "It hurt at the time because it's supposed to be a huge celebration. I was supposed to be able to go, 'Wow, I'm having a baby and this is amazing'. I felt like that I had to hide. I felt like it was bad for me to be happy about it." And she admits the constant presence of paparazzi outside her house in New Zealand was a "scary" experience. She adds, "I felt scared in my own home and it was horrible. I should be entitled to walk around my front yard without worrying that these people are watching me."
Um...Keisha Castle-Hughes, I understand that you are excited about being a mother, but the fact that you are an Academy Award nominated actress doesn't mean you aren't a part of the teenage pregnancy statistic. You are 16...if you went to my high school (when I was there), you would be friends with that crazy pregnant freshman who was so proud of being pregnant that she talked loudly and a lot about her baby shower, only to disappear in the middle of March to have her baby, never to return again. And while you are a successful actress and so won't be worrying about which McDonald's is hiring, you are still like that girl -- hopelessly naive.
You are a teenage mother, and while you shouldn't be ashamed of that if you don't want to be, the fact that you can't recognize why people are criticizing you is EXACTLY the reason why you are being criticized. It's not just naivete, but a teenage ignorance of the world around you. While you think you're special because you're an actress, you don't realize that most people aren't actresses and see things through a real world lens. That lens tells them you are throwing away opportunities to enjoy yourself and be young. Now you might interpret that as good, as in a baby will keep you from being Paris Hilton, and that's a good thing. But, if you don't have that self-control in the first place, don't have a baby. Secondly, being young is about going to clubs with no underwear on, drinking, dancing, being spontaneous, and making mistakes (all in moderation of course). You can't do that with a baby, and that's a shame for you.
Basically, Keisha Castle-Hughes, be excited, be a good mother, and enjoy yourself, but most of all, see where everyone else is coming from and stop complaining about it. You made your bed, but society has made theirs first. So you have to lie in both.
...
or something.
Castle-Hughes: "Media Made Me Feel Ashamed of Pregnancy"
Australian actress Keisha Castle-Hughes was forced to hide her bump while she was pregnant last year, because the heavy criticism she encountered in the press made her feel ashamed of becoming a young mother. The Whale Rider star was just 16 when she fell pregnant with 19-year-old boyfriend Bradley Hull's baby, and because of the media furor surrounding her age, she felt she was doing wrong by celebrating her impending motherhood. She says, "It hurt at the time because it's supposed to be a huge celebration. I was supposed to be able to go, 'Wow, I'm having a baby and this is amazing'. I felt like that I had to hide. I felt like it was bad for me to be happy about it." And she admits the constant presence of paparazzi outside her house in New Zealand was a "scary" experience. She adds, "I felt scared in my own home and it was horrible. I should be entitled to walk around my front yard without worrying that these people are watching me." Um...Keisha Castle-Hughes, I understand that you are excited about being a mother, but the fact that you are an Academy Award nominated actress doesn't mean you aren't a part of the teenage pregnancy statistic. You are 16...if you went to my high school (when I was there), you would be friends with that crazy pregnant freshman who was so proud of being pregnant that she talked loudly and a lot about her baby shower, only to disappear in the middle of March to have her baby, never to return again. And while you are a successful actress and so won't be worrying about which McDonald's is hiring, you are still like that girl -- hopelessly naive.
You are a teenage mother, and while you shouldn't be ashamed of that if you don't want to be, the fact that you can't recognize why people are criticizing you is EXACTLY the reason why you are being criticized. It's not just naivete, but a teenage ignorance of the world around you. While you think you're special because you're an actress, you don't realize that most people aren't actresses and see things through a real world lens. That lens tells them you are throwing away opportunities to enjoy yourself and be young. Now you might interpret that as good, as in a baby will keep you from being Paris Hilton, and that's a good thing. But, if you don't have that self-control in the first place, don't have a baby. Secondly, being young is about going to clubs with no underwear on, drinking, dancing, being spontaneous, and making mistakes (all in moderation of course). You can't do that with a baby, and that's a shame for you.
Basically, Keisha Castle-Hughes, be excited, be a good mother, and enjoy yourself, but most of all, see where everyone else is coming from and stop complaining about it. You made your bed, but society has made theirs first. So you have to lie in both.
...
or something.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Media Panics and Gonzales v. Carhart
So last night, when I came home from class, I watched America's Next Top Model (I had taped it earlier). A commercial during the tape said that a Supreme Court case was decided today that restricts Roe v. Wade. I am a strong pro-choice advocate, so I was scared and dismayed that the Supreme Court was restricting my rights. I was too tired to figure out what was going on last night, so I decided to figure it out this morning.
First, I went to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/the_skinny/main2703879.shtml
There, I read their comments and watched the video of the legal analyst. I still didn't understand what was going on exactly. The video seemed intentionally vague about the scope of the decision and the law passed by Congress that the decision had affirmed. A lot of questions ran through my mind after watching the analyst's opinions. Were ALL abortions after the first trimester banned? What about those that would save the mother's life? Why did Justice Kennedy deliver the majority opinion of the court; why was someone so liberal in favor of restricting rights?
I decided, then, to stop looking to the news for my news. I went straight to the source and found the published opinion of the United States Supreme Court on their website (Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf).
What I found was startling -- the decision was not very restrictive at all. What the decision does restrict is partial birth abortions only; that is, those in which the fetus is killed after being delivered from the mother's womb intact through crushing the skull or sucking the brains out. It does not restrict any other kind of second term abortion, only those in which a viable fetus is deliberately taken out of the womb, still alive, and killed while out of the womb. If a fetus is aborted while still in the womb (through medication or vacuum or any other way), that is still legal. Many doctors also said that the partial birth abortion restricted by the upheld law is not medically necessary and there are other ways of aborting a fetus.
While it does make me uncomfortable to see this decision restrict a woman's right to choose, no matter how gruesome the means of choosing are, I am not completely disappointed by the decision as I had expected to be.
This brings me to the subject of media panics. A media panic is when a news outlet, usually, creates undue anxiety surrounding a hot button issue. After having read the Court's opinion on this case, I would like to characterize the fervor of the news surrounding it as a media panic for several reasons.
That the decision pushed Virginia Tech news to the second story of the night might make sense because the Virginia Tech shootings happened on Monday and the Supreme Court decision happened yesterday. However, the significance this event does have is that there were two decisions rendered at the Supreme Court yesterday. The second was in regards to "whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is a “violent felony” under ACCA [Armed Career Criminal Act]." And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered three different decisions. Obviously, these other decisions lacked something that Gonzales v. Carhart (the abortion case) didn't for it to be able to usurp the top story spot reserved for Virginia Tech news the past two days. That thing is that abortion is controversial and the violence of attempted burglary is not. Basically, the news found a way to alarm people with the Gonzales case that it didn't with any other.
The most surprising aspect of this media panic is how CBSnews.com had barely any factual, concrete information about the opinion of the Court and, instead, had a five minute video with a legal analyst analyzing something the viewer probably didn't even completely understand. Keeping the viewers ignorant brings them back to the news. And keeping them only partially informed makes them slaves to the media because they believe they are in greater danger of whatever than they actually are.
Also, in that video, the correspondant interviewing the legal analyst kept referring to this decision as something Justice Alito swayed. In a media panic, someone needs to be blamed. CBS chose Alito, for what seems to me unclear reasons (something about his relationship with Justice O'Connor). Kennedy supports Roe v. Wade and delivered the Gonzales MAJORITY opinion. Maybe he should have been the focus of their blame (not that anyone should be to blame).
I hate media panics in general because it reminds me that the news is not all about informing the public, but about convincing the public they need to be informed so they can stay in business.
First, I went to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/the_skinny/main2703879.shtml
There, I read their comments and watched the video of the legal analyst. I still didn't understand what was going on exactly. The video seemed intentionally vague about the scope of the decision and the law passed by Congress that the decision had affirmed. A lot of questions ran through my mind after watching the analyst's opinions. Were ALL abortions after the first trimester banned? What about those that would save the mother's life? Why did Justice Kennedy deliver the majority opinion of the court; why was someone so liberal in favor of restricting rights?
I decided, then, to stop looking to the news for my news. I went straight to the source and found the published opinion of the United States Supreme Court on their website (Here's a link if you're interested: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf).
What I found was startling -- the decision was not very restrictive at all. What the decision does restrict is partial birth abortions only; that is, those in which the fetus is killed after being delivered from the mother's womb intact through crushing the skull or sucking the brains out. It does not restrict any other kind of second term abortion, only those in which a viable fetus is deliberately taken out of the womb, still alive, and killed while out of the womb. If a fetus is aborted while still in the womb (through medication or vacuum or any other way), that is still legal. Many doctors also said that the partial birth abortion restricted by the upheld law is not medically necessary and there are other ways of aborting a fetus.
While it does make me uncomfortable to see this decision restrict a woman's right to choose, no matter how gruesome the means of choosing are, I am not completely disappointed by the decision as I had expected to be.
This brings me to the subject of media panics. A media panic is when a news outlet, usually, creates undue anxiety surrounding a hot button issue. After having read the Court's opinion on this case, I would like to characterize the fervor of the news surrounding it as a media panic for several reasons.
- The local news promotions cited this decision as heavily restricting Roe v. Wade (it didn't)
- This decision pushed Virginia Tech news to the second story (more a tertiary reason, but there is significance)
- The lack of concrete facts found on legitimate news websites
That the decision pushed Virginia Tech news to the second story of the night might make sense because the Virginia Tech shootings happened on Monday and the Supreme Court decision happened yesterday. However, the significance this event does have is that there were two decisions rendered at the Supreme Court yesterday. The second was in regards to "whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is a “violent felony” under ACCA [Armed Career Criminal Act]." And on Tuesday, the Supreme Court delivered three different decisions. Obviously, these other decisions lacked something that Gonzales v. Carhart (the abortion case) didn't for it to be able to usurp the top story spot reserved for Virginia Tech news the past two days. That thing is that abortion is controversial and the violence of attempted burglary is not. Basically, the news found a way to alarm people with the Gonzales case that it didn't with any other.
The most surprising aspect of this media panic is how CBSnews.com had barely any factual, concrete information about the opinion of the Court and, instead, had a five minute video with a legal analyst analyzing something the viewer probably didn't even completely understand. Keeping the viewers ignorant brings them back to the news. And keeping them only partially informed makes them slaves to the media because they believe they are in greater danger of whatever than they actually are.
Also, in that video, the correspondant interviewing the legal analyst kept referring to this decision as something Justice Alito swayed. In a media panic, someone needs to be blamed. CBS chose Alito, for what seems to me unclear reasons (something about his relationship with Justice O'Connor). Kennedy supports Roe v. Wade and delivered the Gonzales MAJORITY opinion. Maybe he should have been the focus of their blame (not that anyone should be to blame).
I hate media panics in general because it reminds me that the news is not all about informing the public, but about convincing the public they need to be informed so they can stay in business.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Hannibal Rising
My favorite movie is The Silence of the Lambs. My favorite film character is Hannibal Lecter. How can't you fall in love with someone so completely articulate, knowledgable, classy, well rounded, and twisted? My favorite thing about Hannibal, that makes him rise above other characters, is that contradiction -- he is a refined sadist.
With that refined quality, even his eating Ray Liotta's brain in Hannibal became an art form. He chose beautiful dishes, a wine that would pair well with brain, and high quality cooking utensils. Of course it's perverse, it's murder, but it is pre-meditated in a sense that alleviates the gross quality of the act. He doesn't plan how he's going to kill Ray Liotta because it's not the important part. The important part is what happens after he (in this case) disables him -- he cooks a gourmet meal. He invites the woman he loves to the table. She is wearing a designer dress. Hannibal is about the finer things in life -- an example of when the id and ego have been separated from the superego, in Freudian terms.
The big problem with Hannibal Rising, which I saw last night, was not the gore (even though it was the closest thing I've seen to a snuff film). It's a movie about a cannibal; I expect gore. The problem was that all sense of refinement and beauty was lost. Murder was not an art to young Hannibal -- it was murder for revenge. The cannibalism was an afterthought. Cannibalism should be the first thought. Or at least a greater purpose above himself. There was no art in his revenge killings. Just anger. Hannibal is not angry -- he is calm.
The one part of the movie that read as real in terms of Hannibal as a developing character (I'm talking about the Gallard Uspiel version, not the little boy) was when he killed the butcher because:
Basically, Hannibal isn't Hannibal yet...he's just forming...and I miss my refined, old, patron of the arts. I'd rather have seen this movie where the main character wasn't Hannibal Lecter, but some new character. It might have been a little interesting, and if not, I at least wouldn't be wishing I was at home, with The Silence of the Lambs on so I could see Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and not that cheap imitation I saw last night.
With that refined quality, even his eating Ray Liotta's brain in Hannibal became an art form. He chose beautiful dishes, a wine that would pair well with brain, and high quality cooking utensils. Of course it's perverse, it's murder, but it is pre-meditated in a sense that alleviates the gross quality of the act. He doesn't plan how he's going to kill Ray Liotta because it's not the important part. The important part is what happens after he (in this case) disables him -- he cooks a gourmet meal. He invites the woman he loves to the table. She is wearing a designer dress. Hannibal is about the finer things in life -- an example of when the id and ego have been separated from the superego, in Freudian terms.
The big problem with Hannibal Rising, which I saw last night, was not the gore (even though it was the closest thing I've seen to a snuff film). It's a movie about a cannibal; I expect gore. The problem was that all sense of refinement and beauty was lost. Murder was not an art to young Hannibal -- it was murder for revenge. The cannibalism was an afterthought. Cannibalism should be the first thought. Or at least a greater purpose above himself. There was no art in his revenge killings. Just anger. Hannibal is not angry -- he is calm.
The one part of the movie that read as real in terms of Hannibal as a developing character (I'm talking about the Gallard Uspiel version, not the little boy) was when he killed the butcher because:
- He killed for someone else, for her honor
- He went about it calmly
- There was a symbolism to his cuts on the butcher and the display of the head
- The method of murder and the display of the head are according to a tradition valued by the woman he was protecting
- "Hey Thomas Harris, I'll pay you a bajillion dollars to write another Hannibal Lecter book and adapt it into a movie!" Thomas Harris says, "Okay!"
- Thomas Harris thinks, "Shit! I ended the book Hannibal with him and Clarice living happily ever after. I can't add on to that. What do I do? Oh yeah! I have like 100 pages of pre-writing on Hannibal's past lying around, I'll make that into a book." (A writer who wrote an entire character study book (Hannibal) would have a LOT of pre-writing around)
Basically, Hannibal isn't Hannibal yet...he's just forming...and I miss my refined, old, patron of the arts. I'd rather have seen this movie where the main character wasn't Hannibal Lecter, but some new character. It might have been a little interesting, and if not, I at least wouldn't be wishing I was at home, with The Silence of the Lambs on so I could see Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, and not that cheap imitation I saw last night.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
A few thoughts on Beauty and the Geek
I love watching Beauty and the Geek for a few reasons:
First of all, there is always one beauty and one geek who hook up. I always feel bad for the geeks because those relationships aren't going past the time they spend in the house. That's because these girls, the beauties, are so used to using their bodies as currency that it seems unnatural to not do so. At least one of them will hone in on one of the guys who is the richest, the most smooth, the most attractive, etc. in order to validate that their form of currency hasn't lost value in the presence of their new intelligence/self-awareness/whatever this show gives them.
Now the question is: why don't all the girls do this? I think there are a few reasons.
The second reason is that this current arrangement promotes negative stereotypes of girls in relation to men: that we're all dumb, needy, and men are smarter in general. Even though the show targets one specific TYPE of men and one of women, I can't see any negative stereotypes of men that are promoted because:
A couple female "ringers" -- pretty girls with brains who can play dumb -- might make things interesting because it would counteract the dumb stereotype the show capitalizes on, throw people off, and make the competition interesting (of course, the ringers would be gone after a few episodes to make it fair for the remaining people).
The point of both of these changes is for the "beauties" to see positive female role models -- girls who can thrive without their bodies always being amazing. I don't feel that the girls this season really understand that fact, and I think throwing all girls into the house together would help both types learn from each other in a way they can't when it's both men and women together. The beauties will have to learn how to deal without men and the geeks will have to learn how to get along with women (many geeky girls I know find it easier to hang out with guys than girls), stand up for themselves, and not compete for men (everyone wants someone).
Why not male beauties and girl geeks? That would be disasterous because you have the pretty boys helping the ugly girls become beautiful. Plus, boys tend to stay away from the plain girls and insult them and start up "boys' clubs" (just their own little universe to stay away from the girls). Also, the makeover section would cause the inevitable hookup. Basically all the problems would happen again, and the problem of over-confidence in the male beauties would make the more timid girls question their intelligence (I've seen it happen in real life), regardless of who is smarter. It would be a no-win situation for either party.
- The beauties make me feel smart.
- I can relate to the geeks.
- The editors are always making jokes (this past week's show when they played soft-core porn music over two of the guys hosing each other off after a challenge was awesome).
- And, of course, the reason I love most reality shows...I want to be on it.
First of all, there is always one beauty and one geek who hook up. I always feel bad for the geeks because those relationships aren't going past the time they spend in the house. That's because these girls, the beauties, are so used to using their bodies as currency that it seems unnatural to not do so. At least one of them will hone in on one of the guys who is the richest, the most smooth, the most attractive, etc. in order to validate that their form of currency hasn't lost value in the presence of their new intelligence/self-awareness/whatever this show gives them.
Now the question is: why don't all the girls do this? I think there are a few reasons.
- Not all the guys meet their high standards in looks or money (Megan and Cecille said, last night on the most recent episode, that money is their top priority...because that is so, they don't want to mess up their chances with a sugar daddy by hooking up with anyone in sight on a reality show)
- Many girls don't make it far enough in the show to do this -- the makeover episode and a couple episodes after is when the initial attraction begins.
- The geeks are shy. This reason is directly related to the one above because the geeks have to wait for the girls to make a move because they're in disbelief that such a cute girl would want them (and this is the reason that their relationships fail).
- The final reason is related to the one above also: the geeks have no sense of entitlement to the girls, they aren't jackasses, and they generally treat the girls with respect. It is no secret that almost all girls, not just this type of girl, like some degree of jackassery in their boyfriends. The pretty and rich guys typically have more jackassery in them, and the pretty and rich guys are who these girls tend to date. You get used to a certain level of meanness from someone who puportedly cares about you and you expect it from everyone who says they care about you.
The second reason is that this current arrangement promotes negative stereotypes of girls in relation to men: that we're all dumb, needy, and men are smarter in general. Even though the show targets one specific TYPE of men and one of women, I can't see any negative stereotypes of men that are promoted because:
- Men are a majority group. One member of the majority group never represents that whole group, he only represents himself. A member of a minority group is generally thought to represent that whole group. Stereotypes occur when a few members of a minority group exhibit a quality and that quality is attributed to the whole group (in this sense, white male jocks or frat boys or etc. can all be considered "minority groups").
- The types that are represented are starkly different in context. In the Western world, at least, women are all supposed to be beautiful. Geeks are a subgroup of masculinity and NOT what all men are supposed to be (of course, the same can be said for girls, but if there were girl geeks, the dumbness of the beauties would be counteracted and they would be seen more as people and less as women needing to be helped by men).
- The women all need to be helped by men to succeed.
A couple female "ringers" -- pretty girls with brains who can play dumb -- might make things interesting because it would counteract the dumb stereotype the show capitalizes on, throw people off, and make the competition interesting (of course, the ringers would be gone after a few episodes to make it fair for the remaining people).
The point of both of these changes is for the "beauties" to see positive female role models -- girls who can thrive without their bodies always being amazing. I don't feel that the girls this season really understand that fact, and I think throwing all girls into the house together would help both types learn from each other in a way they can't when it's both men and women together. The beauties will have to learn how to deal without men and the geeks will have to learn how to get along with women (many geeky girls I know find it easier to hang out with guys than girls), stand up for themselves, and not compete for men (everyone wants someone).
Why not male beauties and girl geeks? That would be disasterous because you have the pretty boys helping the ugly girls become beautiful. Plus, boys tend to stay away from the plain girls and insult them and start up "boys' clubs" (just their own little universe to stay away from the girls). Also, the makeover section would cause the inevitable hookup. Basically all the problems would happen again, and the problem of over-confidence in the male beauties would make the more timid girls question their intelligence (I've seen it happen in real life), regardless of who is smarter. It would be a no-win situation for either party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
