Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Monday, 28 April 2025

Article: Radio Ga Ga - Talk Radio

The most penetrating aspects of the movies Talk Radio and Natural Born Killers, directed by Oliver Stone, reside in how well they touch upon the intimate effect broadcasting can have on its audience. Both prey on how easily the media entices people. Natural Born Killers, the tale of two homicidal maniacs, is presented in a schizophrenic style which liberally borrows from everything Television. From 50s sitcoms to 30-second cola adverts. The assault on the senses is bludgeoning, with the film frantically establishing the perverse nature of being drawn to toxic media. Subtle may not be the best word for Talk Radio, but it is less manic. However, this doesn’t stop the film from showcasing the seductiveness of entertainment media. Its lead performer, Barry, whose self-destructive tendencies shatter his personal life, unleashes hell on his angry yet captivated audience. Most of Barry’s listeners can’t seem to stand him. Many straight out despise him. All of them can’t wait to see what he says next.

Talk Radio is an overlooked movie in Stone's filmography. Even his duds get mentioned more often. I only recently saw a clickbait listicle bemoaning the age differences in Alexander (2004). However, Stone’s movies are usually larger in scale. Talk Radio is intimate and personal in ways many of Stone’s movies are not. Yet it pierces the skin of America now just as well as his more talked about features. One disturbing reason Talk Radio feels so relatable is how well it explores parasocial connections broadcasters have with their audience. Such audio broadcasting ingrains itself profoundly with its audience due to its immersive nature. In the same way, content creators in the current era can present themselves as authentic while hiding their problematic sides, Barry is a complicated ball of conflict. A presenter who holds an innate ability to feed the lonely and dangerous in the middle of the night, positioning himself as a know-it-all truth sayer to all the insomniacs who are comforted by his voice and their thoughts.

Based on both the off-Broadway play written and performed by lead performer Eric Bogosian, and the non-fiction book Talked to Death by Ted Savinar, Talk Radio is also based on the real-life death of Alan Berg, a liberal-leaning, Jewish, shock jock, murdered by a Neo-Nazi faction after recording an episode of his show. Whereas people viewed Berg as a humourist, with a tone that sounded like he was in on a joke, Eric’s Barry Champlain is a far more difficult creature. Someone who is not as easy to love. Champlain’s innate ability to entertain with his quick-wittedness enables him to ditch his suit-selling job to become a Talk Show radio host. Champlain’s confrontational style has his show receive well-wishers who love what he does, along with hostile callers, bigots and far-right extremists who phone in with threats and intimidation. His ability to trigger hostility from everyone is not just a defining element of Barry’s show but also helps dismantle most of his close relationships. His reckless behaviour causes rifts between himself and his crew. His ego and general hostility only help to ensure an uneasy relationship with Ellen (Ellen Green), his ex-wife. Unbelievably (or maybe not these days), Talk Radio starts with Champlain’s show on the cusp of being picked up nationally. This decision excites and aggravates the provocateur and soon bleeds into the emotional mixing bowl of Barry’s life.

The two films Oliver Stone directed before Talk Radio, Platoon (1986) and Wall Street (1987), were grand morality plays. The young protagonists found themselves being fought over by two opposing forces, with both films becoming a grander allegory for the soul of America. That may sound hyperbolic, but when were Oliver Stone movies above some grandstanding? Despite its smaller stage, Talk Radio is no different. However, this film plays out as if the battle for the country's spirit had been lost long ago. Cynicism drives the loose narrative as Champlain goads his listeners to lose their rag over their bigoted views, their loneliness, or anything. Both Barry and his devoted following gain a kick charge out of the on-air battles, with listeners furious with the DJ, but doing little to remove themselves from the firing line. Barry is no different, stoking himself up for these debates, finding himself wound up by the bigoted ignorance on display. As the grand conductor, Barry feels he can do whatever he wants on his show. But as the corporate sponsorship of national airplay looms large over his head, there’s a sinking feeling that Barry may have sold his soul to something more damning: Censorship.

Gene Siskel likened Barry to Taxi Driver’s Travis Buckle. Bitter, complicated, while harbouring a burning desire to do the right thing the wrong way. Barry sees his show as a platform for no-holds-barred free speech. He goads bigots and racists, runs rampant with his bitter misogyny and mocks those who are desperate and confessional. He sees no victims. If the audience wants to listen, then they are willing to call. If they want to call him, then the terms of engagement are with Barry. In real life, Alan Berg enjoyed stoking the fires to gain a reaction. But Berg, who battled alcoholism and seizures in his lifetime, was also someone who understood the absurdities that came with his ventures. Even if despised by his audience, Berg wanted them to think. To be unglued from their binary belief systems, even though he saw the folly. Barry goes to work every night, only ever seeing the void, and having it stare straight back at him. At one point, Barry fed up with a chuckling huckster who pretends to have real problems, invites the caller to the station on air as a guest. The airheaded buffoon, glad for the attention calls Barry’s bluff and comes in, contaminating the airwaves with inane, half-baked discourse. It’s one of the film's most potent moments. Highlighting that while free speech is something people fight for, not everyone is as intelligent as they are loud.

Alec Baldwin appears as the network head, Dan. He might be yet another of the contemptible corporate stooges that Baldwin loves to play. However, his big scene, where he pulls rank on Barry with a string of inflammatory comments, touches on themes found in Stone's Talk Radio and Natural Born Killers. Barry may feel he is a truth-teller.  A societal judge, jury and executioner for the masses. The crowd respond to him as if he were a holy preacher. But capitalism has already worked out how to market Barry. As much as Barry may not accept it, he’s being made to wake up and realise that he is considered mere entertainment fodder. Nothing more than a socio-political jester of sorts. In Natural Born Killers, this idea is folded over and baked into the ideal of Micky and Mallory Knox. A murderous couple whose story can have soda adverts slotted into breaks for the MTV generation. The horrific juxtaposition in Talk Radio is that what lies within the relationship between Barry and his audience is just as invasive, with an even more emotional intimacy. While he may be the commodified “voice of reason”, Barry’s words are designed to disrupt a caller’s core beliefs. Natural Born Killers has a Wikipedia page dedicated to so-called copycat killers. Talk Radio is based explicitly on the assassination of a media personality whose words and views were taken on board with a seriousness that people never believed they would be. Both of Stone’s films press a succulent question: when does our media consumption break down into actual derangement with people acting on words with extreme prejudice?

Despite being rarely talked about, Talk Radio features some compelling technical work. Managing to take a stage show with a limited cast and allowing buzz with the same energy as its protagonist. Talk Radio was made before the director began manipulating varied film stocks with more gusto. But the hyper-kinetic editing made more apparent in the likes of Natural Born Killers can be seen seeping through. Moments of the film feel fuelled by a cocaine binge in the editing room. It’s different to explain the “awake late” slightly strung-out feel that lingers in shots. Cinematographer Robert Richardson also shows his command of craft here. The combination of frantic cutting combines with a myriad of shots utilised to keep the frame interesting. From swirling cameras and split-diopters to figures reflected in windows, the film volleys an array of techniques and compositions that keep the eye alert in a film which is often just talking. In one of the few scenes in which we leave the confines of Barry's radio station to a basketball game, Stone restricts the scene to almost nothing but tight close-ups, making the surroundings even more suffocating than expected. Fans, well-wishers and hate listeners approach Barry with the DJ having no way of discerning who is friend or foe. When the action heads back to the station, the amount of space suddenly becomes startling.

This mixture of theme and form is not only staggering at times but surprising, in that Talk Radio isn’t talked about that much. Stone’s louder movies take up much of the spotlight, but Talk Radio was released at the same time that the likes of Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh were becoming more prevalent, so it’s a little shocking that it feels a little forgotten. Three decades on Talk Radio still manages to be an absorbing watch. Managing to be both enticing and repulsive. It provides a disturbing reminder of the power of free speech, accountability and commodity. Its relevancy feels more potent in the era of unregulated podcasts and the internet. In a 2017 interview with The Guardian, Eric Bogosian mentions the rise and influence of Talk Radio:  

“The right then took it [Talk Radio] over, which wasn’t the case at the time. I was looking at someone who will pretty much say anything to get a rise out of his audience, which in turn increases his ratings. Look at Rush Limbaugh. He has described himself as an entertainer. At the same time, he’s messing with issues which are of the greatest importance to all of us. You’ve had a similar problem with Brexit: someone starts tossing this football around for fun and before you know it, they’ve changed policy.”

Watching Talk Radio now is especially chilling. As Barry hurtles towards self-destruction he screams “How deep into the muck we can immerse ourselves?!”. Slowly realising some of his self-righteous hypocrisy. Those who were tossing the football around have started to act.  As we become more siloed off by tech, and the effect of media has caused more rampant division, we now have an answer to the muck question. We can get deeper into the muck than you can imagine Barry. We can plunge into the depths.


Talk Radio is a difficult one to find. Although it may be on Apple TV. I watched it on a out of print Network distributed DVD.

Dig what you read? Buy me a Ko-fi.

Friday, 9 December 2016

Self Imposed Hiatus

Hey All.

This is just a note to say that while I've still been writing about and watching movies. My blog has become slightly unused. There are a few reasons behind this. I moved house, I took up photography, I was writing for online publication; The London Economic. However, the main reason was simply that I was falling behind with personal viewing and current releases.

This is likely to change come January when I get back on the horse and look towards filling the site with reviews and articles again.

Until then please enjoy another little passion project that has come about. My new film and media Podcast with my good friend Hugh K David. I introduce you to Hustler of Culture!

I will see you in January where I'll be ready to get my teeth into new releases again.

See you then.



 

Sunday, 1 April 2012

Review: The Hunger Games

Year: 2012
Director: Gary Ross
Screenplay: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hutchinson, Liam Hemworth

Synopsis is here

*WARNING: There is a slight spoiler in my review but come on...who hasn't seen it yet?*

By the time I had my ticket to the hunger games, half the western world had seen it.

Yes; the biggest problem for a film blogger, who is also a paying patron, is that with work related issues and life getting in the way, you'll often be talking about a film that many have already seen and forgot about. My reviews on movies have never really been about telling people exactly what to watch although it's great if someone takes my view and enjoys a flick. However, it is nice to try and get your writing out with the big guns before the money rolls in.

From the view of The Hunger Games however, it's particularly interesting to observe the reaction of a film after the opening weekend. As much as we go on about cinema as an artform (and it can be), mainstream cinema always has and always will be dictated on cash. How a film uses it's money and how it makes it back is the bottom line of everything, period.

Case in point, it's fascinating to watch how (regardless of your view on quality) The Hunger Games lapped up the board audience and big bucks that John Carter missed previously. Scott Mendelson gives us decent reasoning as to why John Carter had such a fall from grace. Strangely enough, The Hunger Games appears to have done the complete opposite in all regards and reaped the rewards.

While one of the main reason behind the films attraction is of course the clear fact that the film is aimed at the "young adult" crowd. The film clearly has universal appeal. It's director; Gary Ross, had his writing talents involved in films such as Big (1988) and Pleasentville (1998). Simple features with board appeal and to this blogger, more than enough entertainment value. As writer and director here, Ross makes sure that the basic translation is solid (although it's clear that plot strands have been streamlined), and those who know the material well will probably be happy with what transpires.

Those who have brought the book on their kindle, and are still reading the life and death of Don Simpson, will see that the films story and themes, tender to various audiences. There is something for most within the material.Played out like Lord of the files meets The Running Man (with a sprinkle of Orwell), the films politics, the action and the female lead all come out well enough, yet doesn't feel like they've been picked by committee. You do get that true escapist feel of the world situated. I'm sure that this is evident with the book (I'll brush the dust off my kindle soon) but Ross does his best cinematically to give the film a certain amount of scope.

Jennifer Lawrence is as convincing here as the world that is built. This is mostly because she brings to the role the same quiet steeliness that she graced Winter's Bone with. Striking her role with the right balance of vulnerably and aggression. Whether it's bouncing off the ever reliable Woody Harrelson, or fighting through the foliage during the games themselves, Lawrence carries the film as comfortably here as she did in the Ozarks.

The film has it's faults. Due to it's 12-A rating and modern action filmmaking in general, it's blink and you miss it editing makes some of the set pieces feel awkward. Meanwhile; a streamlined relationship between Katniss and a fellow hunger gamer Rue, feels reminiscent of the Ripley/Newt but feels lacking in screen time.  Such aspects could do with a bit of breathing space. However, the films lengthy running time reminds us that we should be happy that the film manages to place as much in as it can. In fact, contrary to the racists tweets from ignorant alleged fans who clearly can't read well, one of the films changes from the book involving a revolt in one of the districts after a certain event, works surprisingly well because of the aspects of race. Consider the films talk of districts uniting and revolting together. Surely such a mixture of races uniting as one voice makes the theme stronger than a typical white on white view. But then, maybe I'm wrong with such idealism.


Dubious race readings aside, the film works well when it has other sci-fi in its sights. Many have made the comparison to one Battle Royale, and while it's true that the film's main conceit has similarities, Much of the film seems to owe itself to Orwell's seminal 1984 (don't they all). An early moment within the film involving Katniss and her District boyfriend feels much like the neutral space that Winston and Julia share halfway through the novel. The constant manipulation of the media and containment of hope and emotion evoke the  same Ministry of Love meddling that took place in Oceania (and of course the aformentioned Running Man).

Some of the films politics are clearly dated for where we are now. Ideas of celebrity being not only an importance but life affirming (as well as life giving). The dolling up our young and utilizing them for political gain and distraction is a difficult and complex element that the film does well to explore. The complexities aren't there, but for such a mainstream film to even think about such things is surprising. In comparison to Battle Royale*, The Hunger Games lacks the explicitness found within certain areas of that feature. In fact its straight laced nature of the film means that it lacks the absurdity observed within it's so called Japanese counterpart. The severe bloodletting is of course missing, but then so is the extreme adolescent behaviours that take place. Said enhanced immaturity helped highlight the senselessness of the situation. The Hunger Games doesn't appear to strive for anything too similar, focusing on a typical Hollywood arc, in which the kids grow up fast and quickly, one step already into womenhood and heroics.

This isn't a negative per say. More of an observation between two films that share similarities, yet are from two very different cultures. The Hunger Games works well as an entertaining piece of Hollywood affair. One willing to engage in lofter and darker themes than one would usually expect. For a film that found itself being touted as "the next twilight", this gives us a heroine who eschews the passive nature of Bella and hints at a romantic triangle which looks set to be more complex than the wolfs and the vamps. What happens next should be quite compelling. For now, I need to make do with checking out the book, as I'm more behind with that than the movie.

*Note: I know, I know EVERYONE has referenced it.