Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts

Friday, 29 November 2013

Article: Doing The Right Thing

I’m starting to hate open letters. I actually think there should be an open letter to everyone about open letters clearly stating that we don’t need any more open letters. Much like constant barrage of baby/engagement/wedding photos that litter my Facebook feed, it seems that now, an open letter must be posted on the internet to try and put a stop to a particular beef or irritation. I often have no problem with the intent of most of them. In fact; I’d probably back the topic that the writer is speaking out for. My issue is that the more you see these things, like an internet petition, they slowly become more trivial. Open letters have almost become memes. You can sense the groans as yet another ask for the school board/Tory MP/Miley Cyrus is retweeted through the internet’s many tubes to your eyeballs asking for the madness to stop.

This said I found myself alerted to an open letter that made its way on my twitter feed earlier this week. The letter is from Juan Luis Garcia, a freelance designer who writes (to influential Afro American filmmaker Spike Lee) that his initial poster work for the film remake Old Boy may have been stolen by an ad agency working on the project. Legal action has reared its head and it appears that Garcia has reached out to Spike as a fellow artist to see if he can intervene in any way. The letter talks about the money that the agency has allegedly not paid Garcia, but it seems quite clear that Garcia is asking Lee to use his influence as the director of the film to see if this can be settled in a civil and respectful way.

Lee (who  appears to be Brazil working on his latest project) had this to say:
It’s interesting to see that Spike has written the tweet in-between two celebratory communications for Thanksgiving. It’s almost as if he wished to call himself out on the irony. Then again Spike as a filmmaker and a personality, has never been one for tact.

Lee has never shied away from the controversial, yet his boldness both in-front and behind the camera has been important to so many film goers. It’s difficult to find black filmmakers or critics who have not been influenced by him. I remember gaining the only words of praise from a fellow student for a talk about him during my time at university and he became an inspiration since. Further insight in his work clearly shows just how many future stars benefited from working with him in the early days. Names like Wesley Snipes, Halle Berry, Samuel L Jackson and Laurence Fishburne may never have been known if not for Lee, who cast them in his early features. If Hollywood didn’t take a chance on you, then you got the feeling that Spike would. This includes the crew, who may not have been able to get a foot in the door in “white” Hollywood. 

For a director whose politics and confrontational style have often made him tough to embrace, one would have thought that Spike would have been less abrasive to something like this. The incident feels much like the problems that aroused with Lee when making Malcolm X. When the studios and bond company didn’t give him the money he asked for to complete the film, Spike had to inject his own cash and was able to get financial help from prominent members of the Afro-American community.

We should also consider Spike’s position before Old Boy, where work on the likes of Inside Man 2 were halted and Spike himself stated that he couldn’t get projects off the ground. Now with a film hitting theatres with talk of it being one of the least “Spike” movies in a long time and a Kickstarter project which brought many mixed feelings to proceedings, the fact that Spike’s own fierce independence has again been placed under the microscope makes the situation even more uncomfortable. This designer isn’t asking Spike himself for a handout, he’s chiefly asking for empathy.

I know young graphic designers and I’m currently in a position in which I work with one. It’s not pretty. In an age in which the audience will cheerfully download your film for nothing, studios are only chiefly interested in the next comic book cash cow and the idea of working for nothing/scraps in the media is becoming way too much of the norm, freelancers are doing what they can to stay afloat. Artistic and creative careers are still being seen as flights of fancy or “phases” despite the fact that our way of life has us engaging with them even more. If Garcia is merely a chancer, leaping on to a coat tails of a hotly debated film, then shame on him. However the question I would ask is why Old Boy? The film doesn’t look to be the runaway hit some are hoping it to be. It’s a violent and bloody remake of a superb yet cult Korean film. It’s hardly a film with deep pockets.

For me, the saddest thing comes from a brief exchange from a friend (and freelance writer) who reminded me of the one other thing that none of us really wanted to bring up: race.

If there’s one thing that ignorance thrives on, it’s moments like this; a chance to sink their teeth into a perceived flaw and show the world that we’re nowhere near evolving yet. The problem is Spike seems to be more than happy to throw a bone to his enemies. Spike once again viewed the moment as a confrontation as opposed to seeing this as a chance to help a fellow creative (or even consider this to be a great PR opportunity for Old Boy) Spike’s bluntness as done little to help anyone, even himself. Yet this is the same guy who sought an injunction for Spike T.V as it sounded too much like his moniker. This is the same Spike Lee who wrongly tweeted the address of an elderly couple, thinking it was the home of George “Trigger Happy” Zimmerman. It’s almost like he enjoys casting the first stone within his just patched up glass house. It seems clear to me that Spike can easily let these things roll of his back, yet it becomes a minefield for those who love his work. Spike is still the best known American black director and at a time were black characters in film are getting shat on by ignorance, it would be nice to have Spike tone down his “sharper” elements and remind us of the statesman he often can be. After the Django debacle (another Spike moment), the one thing I would love to see is sodality, because we damn well need it.  

This of course is in an ideal world; where freelancers don’t get screwed for their work, and if they do, the at least they can reach out to a director who will hear them out first as opposed to a 140 character cold shoulder. We can only dream. Unfortunately in reality I find myself yelling at yet another open letter and liking Spike Lee to how Chris Rock feels about Hip Hop. I love him but I’m tired of defending him.

Sunday, 21 July 2013

Review: The Bling Ring

Year: 2013
Director: Sophia Coppola
Screenplay: Sophia Coppola 
Starring: Israel Broussard, Emma Watson, Leslie Mann, Taissa Farmiga, Claire Julien, Katie Chang

Synopsis is here:

Sophia Coppola's work is best described as films were nothing happened but something with the personage has defiantly changed. The conflict is often internal and repressed with Coppola often holding a steady distance, rarely condemning or condoning what's on screen. Consider the mistakes that her male characters make in Somewhere and Lost in Translation or how she tackled the controversial reign of Marie Antoinette. Her method often frustrates, as it goes against what many want to see. Particularly when considering the privilege of her subjects.  

The Bling Ring is winding down on the end of its theatrical run and its reception has been mostly favourable but cool (Rotten Tomatoes: 61%, IMDB: 6.4, Metacritic: 66%). It’s not hard to see why. The film is inspired by the story of the Hollywood Hill’s Burglar Bunch A.K.A The Bling Ring. A group of relatively well off white kids who decide to Google the addresses of the rich celebrities they idolise and steal from them.

Sympathy and empathy are difficult to obtain due to the distance once again Coppola sets. There’s a perverse voyeuristic quality that runs through the film as the gang set up each robbery almost dispassionately with the aim to gain more material wealth. Much of the film plays like a detached dream, revealing in the absurdity of the exploits. Scenes show the gang frittering through glossy magazines while draping themselves in stolen wares. One robbery; displayed one long, near static take, shows a vast house from the outside while two of the crew drift from room to room and pilfer indiscriminately.

I gained a large sense of frustration and helplessness at what is looks to be a sign of the times. In the world of The Bling Ring, good and bad are meaningless. We are watching vacuous; well off kids stealing from richer people who often pursue even emptier ideals. These characters say things that only highlight themselves and elevate their own narcissistic lifestyle. It's troublesome to see teens act in the way they do with the girls giving off such a false sense of empathy. But in all honestly look who they are stealing from, and the life that they themselves lead.
Coppola streams the information with running blogs of celebrity's gaining DUIs and the like. Remember that the Paris Hilton brand was originally started by a sex tape? Meanwhile; the likes of Lindsey Lohan are more known for their antics of screen than anything they've done on it these days. Not very celebrity victim deserves the treatment they get, but it’s interesting to see which celebrities the teens gravitate to the most. The lives of The Bling Ring are hinted as just as displaced and troubled as some of their victims. Coppola doesn't judge and merely highlights the links.
It’s been argued that the film lacks any real depth and is as empty as the crimes committed. Yet amusingly; I found the film’s seemingly hollow nature manages to make the film stand out even more as a generational commentary. The devil may care, near psychopathic nature of the ring’s quest for material goods, could have had them working for Enron in a parallel universe. The passivity of the whole affair is equally interesting. We never see a true outside reaction to the affair. Everything is kept inside a bubble. There’s not even a sense of reprieve when it bursts. Perhaps I’m thinking about this too profoundly, but the last moments had me thinking of the bankers that helped crash the economy, Vodaphone and their tax breaks, and of course many other powerful people who have seemingly gained through dubious means in our current financial climate.  

Coppola’s film almost accidentally delivers a microcosm of how those with certain privilege may view the world. What makes the film so engaging is her passive observation of the affair. We observe the girls rhyming along to rap music with little to suggest they understand or care about the lyrics they repeat. The slang they use to each other (cute, chill) is just as passive. The glossy sheen of the magazine is spread liberally all over there life. Leslie Mann’s limited yet funny role as the mother of two girls (one played by an exceedingly provocative Emma Waston) in the gang sums everything up with her circle prayers of a particularly wishy washy overtly liberal religion, using magazine cut outs of famous celebs to illustrate life lessons.


Before the film was released, one of the members of the crew; Alexis Neiers has considered and placed her thoughts on the matter for us all to view. She’s has also considered the film to be trashy and inaccurate. I agree that everything shown may not be the complete truth. However, I don’t believe films to be an exact truth. That said, Alexis’ stark blog post which hopes the film looks into the obsession in celebrity, and a prevailing sickness that has invaded all of us in a particular way is incredibly on point. Alexis also has a twitter following nearing 40,000. Suddenly I feel we've gone full circle and that pop culture will eat itself. I'm often wrong but I honestly think we've gone through the looking glass so hard that it’s shattered.   

Note: I've just read and found a great piece of further reading on the music of the film and white privilege I found to be worth a look. 

Saturday, 10 September 2011

Review: Red State

Year: 2011
Director: Kevin Smith
Screenplay: Kevin Smith
Starring: John Goodman, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo

Synopsis is here:

I'm not sure about other film fans but I've wanted to see this movie since it was first announced (mid 2007?). The idea of a Kevin Smith Horror film appealed to me, but the idea of a Kevin Smith horror film based on the religious right of America? How could I not be there? 

However despite this a lot has happened in the world of Kevin Smith and unfortunately not a lot of it I would consider that positive. For you see for sometime now Mr Smith has really had it out for those who dislike his movies, namely the critics and bloggers who are invited to press screenings. Since Cop Out gaining some of the worse reviews of his career, Smith has gone all out with all sort of attacks on those who write about film. His Twitter now a base of operations with a large allegiance of fans who will blindly attack anyone who says otherwise about the man's actions. 

Seeing how Smith has acted, reacted and lashed out to those who oppose him has been a strange experience. It's obvious that Smith's films; no matter which ones they may be, are extremely close to him and so they should as they are his works (although I've never got why Cop Out got him the most worked up) and I do find Smith's ideas with distribution intriguing ones. However, Smith's way of going about things seems to be based more on personal grudges and getting people out of joint than anything else. To his his movies is to have a personal slight on the man himself and I know for a lot of people the thought of that is just not true. 

The issue is; now Smith has made things personal, bridges will burn and relationships will crumble. Smith's fan base will keep the man going until the day he dies, but what about his idea of releasing films made by other people under his methods of independent distribution? Smith wants to change the game but the game isn't ready to play ball yet and Smith's wish to personally call everyone out and insult those who have a differing opinion could affect the very people he's trying to bring up. 

All these thoughts, twitter rants and otherwise cloud the fact that Kevin Smith has made an "It's a nasty-ass $4mil horror flick with few (if any) redeeming characters." All the posturing, throwing the toys out of the pram and general unpleasantness should detract that Red State; part religious right horror, part action siege, is in my opinion, the strongest work he's done in years.

Smith, never really considered as a "visual" director has re-invented himself here, giving himself aesthetic that pushes the authenticity of the universe he's written. The drab and sparse art direction of the church, the dropped frame rate and use of handheld digital, the obtuse angles and awkward close ups all work here. There is a beauty in the ugliness of it all, reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The roadkill, the chainsaw dance during sunset) or The Wicker Man (the climax), that Smith manages to capture and he's done it by taking risks within himself. It's simple things like seeing corpses in a cold stock room while Michael Parks' demented preacher's whiskey smooth, middle American drawl sings psalms over the soundtrack or the offbeat editing which aids the uncomfortable vibe the film gives off.   

The discomfort is centralised by a titanic performance by one Michael Parks. Parks allows the Phelps-like Abin Cooper is both snake charmer and snake. The sweetness of his voice seems to never let you forget that there is sin behind those eyes. Parks' Charisma is what takes us through the film's middle act, a lengthy, character building monologue not only tells us all we need to know about the darker aspects of the church but also how easily Parks has charmed them. His words sound warm but the fear is there in harsh and Swift retribution which is quickly and silently dealt out without argument. While Parks is the charm, Melissa Leo is the hysteria. In a role which, while predicable and trite at times (See The Mist or The Omen for similar and better displays), never the less bounces off every well with Parks more "subtly" devious role. Rounding off a trio of solid performances is a straight edged display by one John Goodman, his face betrays the look of a man whose knowing, tired and still unsure about everything falling around him. 

Unsure is the most important word for Red State as it is a film that is constantly questioning the idea of trust and blind faith. Many characters place so much trust in those above them in command only for them to fall to a fate most heinous. Ideals of faith are questioned at all sides and as clear as this is a work of fiction, Once the bullets start flying there's the niggling feeling that this is where things can go. The shadows of Waco hover over the film and the mixture of the such themes and the films aesthetics help give off an unconventional and yet tenable feel to proceedings.

Smith's decision to create a film that deals with horror that's more closer to home is far more commendable idea than the spite of remakes and generic genre fare that the U.S (mostly mainstream) have had to contend with. It plays out almost like an American version of Frontiers but of course it's nowhere near as extreme (read gory). It's a shame that there are flaws that hang out for all to see. While I have no problem with the film flipping between genres or even tone (who knew that Smith could create action sequence as visceral as he does) the narrative that hangs everything together should be better, especially from a writer like Smith. Scenes often clunk together and don't feel as organic as they could. It's great having John Goodman in the film but do we really need him on the phone basically spouting off exposition so late in the game? I don't need lovable characters but Smith wish for no one as likeable takes away so much tension. To rack up the fear we need someone to latch on to truly. The teens we start off with a left behind as soon as we hit the compound, Cooper is a personification of evil and Goodman enters far too ate in the game.

We also have lots of secondary characters but why are they so silent? Why do many of the family members add nothing to the narrative in terms of character? With all the chaos that Smith gives us why is everything tied up so neatly? The script also features humour that doesn't have to be added? Do we really need the films last (off screen) line for instance? Maybe Smith wished to diffuse the situation slightly with a bit of lightness but I like the questions he asked and I would have liked the film even more if he didn't feel the need to answer everything.

Never the less, there's an edge to the movie that I really liked, something that keeps the attention and it's not Smith's wit this time round. It's the subject matter and the approach to proceedings. It's the coldness that hides behind that warm exterior of Cooper, it's the idea that the more "touched" members of society are stockpiling for a war they believe is coming and one mistake could set everything off. After watching Red State, I was considering re watching the film again. To squeeze even out of the juicy bits of the film. Smith's is retiring after Hit Somebody. Watching Red State makes me hope it's a sabbatical.