“Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which has existed throughout history by means of photography…the proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance yet that very idea has motivated me. For me the strength of photography lies in its ability to evoke a sense of humanity, if war is an attempt to negate humanity, then photography can be perceived as the opposite form and if used well it can b e a powerful ingredient in the antidote to war.” This quote sounds like the most powerful thing I have heard in quite some time. It embodies why someone would be willing to risk their life for the greater good. James Natcheway just became an idol of mine.
PRESS.PAUSE.PLAY Response…June 26,2016, by Ahmed Malik Braxton
Directors David Dworsky and Victor Kohl documents the transformation of media due to the rampant increase in accessibility in the interrogative film documentary “Press.Pause.Play” (2011). The directors allowed for well-known media makers and those involved in the market for media creation to give their view on what the evolving technology and its increase in accessibility means, assessing whether or not this could lead to an artistic cultural revolution or on the opposite end of the spectrum if this means the demise of the arts as the cultural producer that it has proven to be. Essentially, the question underlying the film is does mass accessibility equate to the destruction of culture.
Throughout the film, I kept thinking about the concept of the subjective vs the objective such as that we discussed in class; as a sub-theme one could say was the notion of “talent”. One quote near the introduction during the panning of the library scene along the lines of what was considered good media (or excellent) has historically been dictated by those in power and historically from the manner in which we typically analyze (that of Euro-centricity) has been at the helm of white men. For this reason, a terrible loss has been affronted to those who do not have access to the circles, they must hide their identity to become a part of the “canon” or not be seen as great producers of media. This idea is why there are a great bit of talented people who are not archived and/or awarded. Take for example the Oscars and Grammys, in the history of the Oscars only 32 media engagers won some form of award, four of those thirty-two were lead actors and one of those thirty-two were lead actresses, this isn’t to complain about the situation merely to point out that certain folks are marginalized within the ranks of consolidated media. The beauty and power of media now is that anyone has access to it and being that anyone has access to it, more pools of judges can get to it. This allows for more creativity to not only blossom but to flourish, for the next Scorsese filmmaker (in terms of acknowledgement granted) to come from someone who doesn’t represent the dominant face of America. What mass media does is decentralize the media marketplace.
What I found an overwhelming amount of, was criticism of media evolution by those who feel that they are experts or who are current members of the industry. They spoke as if they had some sort of supreme authority over the media creating processes and the arts. Their main thing was that the mass access to technology essentially has the potential to disrupt the canon and it is my belief that this is exactly what needs to be done. In terms of media and entertainment accessibility (at least here in the States) has been one of privilege and/or pure fortune especially when it came to music. Also, in terms of music it has been severe limitations to who and what gets heard through the mass commercialization of music. Technology has the ability to fragment the sounds of what exists and create something new, destabilizing existing categories. Technology without mass access is what has made it impossible for a new cultural innovator as it has standardized the sound of tons of music. The same can be said of film, the blockbuster in American film is simply who can do the best of about six different narratives. The interference to the marketplace through mass technology has proven to create great music and films. It is that which its outside the norm which characterizes the mold for greatness. In consolidation of technology and thus media creation both creative processes and artistic ability has been perverted into a distasteful science.
The movie “Magnolia” happens to be one of the most unique/ odd movie I have ever seen and stylistically reminds me of Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulpfiction” (1994). Much respect is due to filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson for this work. Due to its lengthy nature (3 hours and non-movies), it is able to give a very detailed account of the characters’ lives through the use of the mosaic. Anderson does an impressively detailed account of the history of individuals and connects them with other characters, this is my favorite aspect of the movie. Through the development of character relationships, Anderson is able to thematically analyze the terminal nature of life as well as the importance of healing.
In some facet of life, all of the characters encounter death. In the earlier moments, Officer Jim Kurring (John C. Riley) finds a dead body in an older woman’s home. A few scenes later his character is partnered with a young boy named Dixon (Emmanuel Johnson) who claims to know the answer to the murder and who committed it. Due to his youth, perceived arrogance, and associated vulgarity; he is quickly dismissed by Officer Jim Kurring.
Another character relationship which develops is the relationship between the two boy geniuses. Quiz Boy Donnie Smith and Stanley Spector while having never have met are related through their participation in child genius related television shows. Donnie Smith somewhat encounters death as his supposed intelligence is dead (due to being struck by lightning) as well as his fame. His relationship with his parents are also dead. Stanley Spector’s mom isn’t around it can be assumed that she is dead and his possibly abusive and overtly aggressive father kills their relationship as well.
Frank Mackey and Earl Partridge are characters who are literally related. Throughout the majority of the movie we see a Frank Mackey who is living with the distress of childhood abandonment by his adulterous father, however we do not know this. Frank Mackey portrayed in this movie by Tom Cruise is the extreme embodiment of male adultery, extremely misogynistic and making a living on the idea of the dominant male taking a bestial approach in sex and its pursuit toward women. Earl Partridge is an ailing man on his deathbed with one last wish to see his son who declared him as dead long ago.Partridge it turns out left Mackey with his then ailing mom and ironically calls on his son in the final hours.
Youth and The Character Relationships.
In each of these relationships, the younger one seemingly atones or solves the problems of the older one’s past or current situation.
With Dixon and Officer Jim Kurring, Dixon serves as the Aaron to the Israelites and guides him to the solution to the murder case with this quote, “When the sunshine don’t work, the good Lord bring the rain in”, dubbing himself THE PROPHET and giving the truth to the Israelites. Kurring reflects the Israelites, who seems to be hard-headed because the word isn’t coming from Moses.
As similar scenario is presented for Quiz Boy Donnie Smith, by Stanley Specter, who doesn’t claim to be a prophet but has a vast array of wisdom and embodies Moses. In the scene which can be seen as the apex of the movie, Specter is on the set of the game show and states this”This isn’t funny. This isn’t cute. See the way we’re looked at? Because I’m not a toy. I’m not a doll. The way we’re looked at because you think we’re cute? Because, what? I’m made to feel like a freak if I answer questions? Or I’m smart? Or I have to go to the bathroom? What is that, Jimmy? What is that? I’m asking you that.” This is when the frogs begin to fall and the Exodus from the chaos of all of the characters’ lives are repaired.
Citizen Kane Rosebud: “I always gagged on the silver spoon”
“Citizen Kane”,a somewhat fictional adaptation of famed publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst, uses the protagonist Charles Foster Kane as a barometer to navigate the dysfunctional public image and private person. The movie opens with the portrayal of another short film examining the death of one of America’s greatest media tycoon, Kane, and his final word “Rosebud”. The entire film of “Citizen Kane”, a journalist for the “National Enquirer” was sent by the corporation to get to the bottom of these last words. After interviewing just about anyone who had ever gotten close to Kane, the journalist recognizes that for someone like Kane who had everything, the little things don’t matter so he gives up on the venture. Ironically, in the ending of the movie right after the journalist gives up, the camera picks up on an object with the word “Rosebud” engraved.
“Rosebud” is significant because it recognizes the internal conflict within Charles Foster Kane. The one who he presented to everyone else and who he felt he was. In both his eyes and in the early publics’, he wanted to be that little boy in Oregon which though lived in poverty lived with his true family and was able to be a happy young kid. His childhood is quickly interrupted by his sending away, as it is written in a family members’ will to do so for him. His mother in order to receive the benefits of the estate sends him off to the Northeast where her son will reap the benefits of an urbanized environment and an affluent education. During his time in the North where he is ushered into the family magnate business and is supposed to be groomed to success he works his hardest to destroy the money. Getting kicked out about seven top-rated universities and refusing to join the family business and instead choosing to establish an empire within the realm of honest newspaper creation. With establishing the “Daily Enquirer”, he creates a standard of principles to abide by. Over the course of building his empire, Kane loses track of these principles and succumbs to the lifestyle of celebrity. Cheating on his first wife, abandoning the people and spending frivolously to get whatever he deems necessary and believing he has ownership over the people he invests in. He treats his personal relationships as if they are business relationships, three times repeated are statements on love by two people who Kane deeply valued on a personal value; by Susan Alexander Kane “Love! You don’t love anybody! Me or anybody else! You want to be loved -that’s all you want! I’m Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want – just name it and it’s yours! Only love me! Don’t expect me to love you!”, Jedediah Leland, “That’s all he ever wanted out of life… was love. That’s the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane. You see, he just didn’t have any to give” and “You don’t care about anything except you. You just want to persuade people that you love ’em so much that they ought to love you back. Only you want love on your own terms. Something to be played your way, according to your rules.”
Jerry Thompson:” No, I don’t think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn’t get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything… I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a… piece in a jigsaw puzzle… a missing piece.” As for “Rosebud”, it represented his past his ability to actually love. See Rosebud was the sled he tried to use to resist Mr. Thatcher taking him to live in affluence. In his death, as they raid his palace which he created and his dying words being “Rosebud” suggests the inability to recreate such an environment. When things began to fall apart with the departing of his second wife he uttered those same words. It seems to be when his luck falls and the literal chips are measure against him he reflects back on his youth. The missing piece was the sanity he left back in Oregon.
Story Analysis: Allegory of the Cave meets Odyssey meets modern war
-Apocalypse Now’s opening scenes could be no clearer as to how the movie will pan out, it is immediately evident that it will be a tale of destruction and rapid decimation of potential paradise. Coppola, in my historically backed opinion did an excellent job in depicting the mayhemic nature of the Vietnam War. In Copola’s own words, “My movie is not about Vietnam…my movie is Vietnam”. In essence, the signature motifs and themes that were central to the movie were based on the question of how far man was willing to go into their own realm of darkness, it questioned the unspoken realities of warfare (everything is malicious and brutal) and similarly to “Batman” toyed with the traditional protagonist/antagonist role.
Protagonist/Antagonist: Historically from an American perspective, the Vietnam War was a tale of American defense of democracy against the straits of demonic communism being pursued by VietCongs as they attempted to dismantle the Vietnamese government.In this movie, it can quite easily be assumed that Vietnam’s government and the US military will be the heroes of the story. Contrary to this thought, Coppola correctly depicts the manner and nature of the war, every time the different/new infantries of the army you see a consistent reintroduction of savagery and evil, in fact there is rarely if ever any direct contact with the VietCongs at least in a manner in which they are seen as savage. In fact, in every interaction with the natives of the land, you see the American troops (the supposed crusaders of justice) behaving as inhumanely as possible. This is not simply a tale of destruction rather a tale of banality of violence, and seeing to which point we can become most banal while maintaining sanity.
This is where Kurtz, Willard, and quotes like “never get off the boat” and Kurtz’s quotes like “horror and moral terror are your friends and if not they are truly enemies to be feared” kicks in to the forefront. The boat throughout the movie reflects the idea that the deeper you go, the more lost you get, so when you leave the boat completely you have left your humanity. This is the inherent contradictions of war, often fought in the idea of the proper way to live contrasting lives, a quest for the civilized and full pursuit for humanity…however to get there the winning army must act in the most inhumane way. Kurtz reflects the dedicated patriot, once lost in the darkness but still on the boat of humanity…he returned from Saigon before reaching the apex of what he thought a soldier to be, someone willing to die for their country. Willard on the other hand represents the soldier who will go to any distance to attain victory for the states. He essentially came out of retirement to fight Vietnam, because the United States just wasn’t doing it right. In the eyes of war, Kurtz is the protagonist and the further Willard goes up the river he realizes it and almost becomes Kurtz. His transformation into a true warrior is when he sacrifices Willard for the greater good of the war.
The Gothschall book was an amazing read and even better experience after the first FAMS class. The title, ” The storytelling animal how stories make us human” could not have been a better title as over the course Gottschall proved his humanity with his storytelling ability perverting everyday experiences and making them into extravagant experiences. All the while, approaching the very anthropological theme of storytelling and mythmaking in su ch an interdisciplinary manner all the while making it extremely entertaining and thought provoking. When bringing into the argument the likes of schizophrenics, epileptics, and other forms of mental disorders often othered as social deviants as they come to be seen as mentally dysfunctional, seem to me to be hyper-functional human beings. Their minds allow them to navigate to “Neverland” and never return which seems to be the point of human existence, at least in optimal experience. This is why Peter Pan isn’t seen negatively rather children love him and adults envy his experience. Another thing it forced me to think about (which I often find myself doing due to my major) is analyzing how much we undervalue the oral narrative. While time has indeed transformed the concept of technology and reading has been made available (mass literacy and whatnot) , oral narratives have become somewhat extinct in the social interactive setting and there roles in history have been belittled. Ironically conservative academia is at the basis of this as it has a lot to do with the belittling of Eastern and continental African culture as primitive so it works better to the maintenance of the status quo to enforce a firm distrust of the storyteller. This alludes to my next point, there is an immense amount of power in storytelling, i’ll give two examples, one from the book and one from personal thought. The first being that of the Hitler story where he was influenced by Wagner, this is a clear example where the wrong story falls into the wrong hands, where a story of nation-building and purity was resurrected in the form of mass mayhem and the genocide of several ethnic groups. Even within the story of the Holocaust you can see the reception of the news of this mass genocide in conjunction was distorted across the globe as it is replicated time and time again it is portrayed as the Jewish Holocaust when so many other ethnicities were decimated as well.
Political violence is oftendiluted, censoring the peoples from the harsh realities of the truth. History is thus storytelling . Storytelling is intrinsic to nation-building.
-Remember the Alamo
-The American Dream
-Our Last Night’s Dream
-Manifest Destiny
The second scenario is under the realm of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, no need to explain it here as everyone knows what exactly happened as a result of the trade. However, American textbooks try to dilute its harsh realities and everlasting impact by in some cases not even addressing it. Storytelling is thus manifested in everything constructed about us, if there is one universal truth of humans is that we lie to cover our own. It’s evident in the political processes, in the idea of the American ethos “land of the free, home of the brave”, its evident in self-reflections, college essays etc its a mechanism to unite, create conflict, engage and entertain.
Hoping this is how I upload to the blog section. Hello class its Ahmed. I wasn’t sure how to respond to the post so I figured I would start it off in a slightly irritating fashion…apologies, hope everyone had a nice Memorial Day Weekend though. For starters last class period (hoping to sound as little of a suck up as possible) was great especially the kicker with the “Batman: Dark Night” analysis it as I mentioned in class sparked the idea of how Batman has thematically and since its origins been used to address issues of Americanism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0ACBZFcz8
In the clip given, it is merely a small clip of a 1943 “Batman” movie where essentially Batman must save an American from the cusp of a Japanese operative tasked with the annihilation of America’s prestigious democratic government. While many other movies have a similar theme of confronting the political realm of America, few have had the longevity because none have matched the trope of the superhero. Even Batman’s character has evolved, in the earlier times he was hired by the federal government and was more so a caped spy, willing to do whatever to defend the honor and legacy of the people all while hiding his identity to ensure the utmost humility. In this sense both Batman and Bruce Wayne represented all it meant to be a young, white male in America at the time: extremely patriotic and willing to do whatever for the nation while simultaneously having a playboy image. Now in Gotham City, which is apparently a pseudonym for New York, the caped crusader is seen as a dangerous threat to the city and is wanted by the police despite the fact he is supposed to be saving the nation from anarchy at the hands of the Joker even after he saves the day, he escapes into the smoke. If this is to reflect 9/11 it makes perfect sense as to why to use Batman, if he is to represent America as a somewhat transcendental figure and how much America was demonized by its citizens for its response to 9/11 in comparison to the patriotism and non-challenging of the government in dealing with the Japanese in Pearl Harbor.