Lessig starts off with an analogy, describing how the elite spoke in Latin during the Middle Ages, while the masses did not. Instead, they spoke in local, or vernacular languages such as French, German, and English. Today, according to Lessig, text is today’s Latin, and the masses use different forms of media (TV, film, music, music videos). Relevant to this discussion, Lessig also writes about Read/Only (RO) and Read/Write (RW) technologies. RO technology is a one-way interaction, seen as an extension of older forms of communication, such as newspapers or books. RW technology, however, is a more dynamic, two-way interaction. An example of RW technology includes remixes, or the creative “mashing” or re-creation of music and videos to produce variations/re-interpretations of original material. Because of the tehcnological age we now live in, “you can do

almost for free on your own computer” (1086). Essentially, economic barrier that once limited the masses from performing remixes has been removed given the digital age.

According to Lessig, the remix makes arguments “far more effectively than could words.” Rather than asserting the truth, a remix is able to show it. He makes the argument, that it is the usage of familiar, original content that gives remixes their power. As explained by Victor Stone in an interview, “When you hear four notes of the Beatles’ ‘Revolution,’ it means something” (1088).  Lessig also uses examples of a remix of George Bush, titled “Hard Working George,” and a remix by the band Negativland, which faced legal action after using tapes of Casey Kasem from the band U2. In response, Negativland said , “Why did we have to use the actual original…the actual thing? Well, it’s because the actual thing has a power about it. It has an aura. It has magic to it. And that’s what inspires the work” (1088).

Furthermore, Lessig argues that remix creates two good: community, and education. Remixes occur in a community of remixers, members of which create in part for one another. He uses the example of people who create anime music videos, discussing Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh!. Creators of these videos aim to both learn and show off, according to Lessig. Shifting more towards the discussion of education, Lessig writes “‘Entertainment’ is separate from ‘education.’ So any skill learned in this ‘remix culture’ is ‘constructed oppositionally to academic achievement” (1090). He continues to argue that “internet-based learning is learning driven by found interests” and that kids learn more effectively when they work with something they feel passionate about, as is the same for adults.

Discussion Question: Lessig views using remix technology drives community, and is an important educational tool. In the context of Lessig’s argument, what role should media, specifically remixes, hold in the academic environment now and in the future?

In class, the question was raised whether or not 8 ½ (1963) is considered a postmodernist film. Given what a wide category postmodernism is as a school of thought, placing the entire film under the umbrella of postmodernism seems dangerous and potentially misleading. However, there were certainly elements of postmodernism in the film that, I would argue, were the driving forces of the film as a whole.

When discussing postmodernism on Monday, both in terms of the chapter in UFT and the Jameson piece, the conversation centered on whether or not films produced today can be completely original and whether or not they can point to a specific truth. Metanarratives, as we discussed in class, point to specific rules that govern the world and inform the decision-making in society. Modernists see metanarratives as influential to their work; such truths not only can be obtained but also can adequately be translated to screen. However, as UFT explained, “postmodernists are dubious of such concrete ideas” (UFT 121).

I believe that much of the existential crisis that Guido faced in 8 ½ drew on this tension between the existence and nonexistence of metanarratives. As Guido stated towards the beginning of the film, he sought to make a film that offered a solution to a problem, that offered a universal truth, that created a metanarrative; through film, Guido believed he could make sense of the absurd world. However, as the film progresses and Guido delays making any definite choices on casting or even script structure, it becomes clear that he is unable to articulate any metanarrative. At the screen test, a producer calls Guido’s script vague and superficial; this is clearly the exact opposite of what Guido is trying to attain. Thus, by showing Guido’s struggle, and ultimate failure, to make a film that showcases any metanarrative, 8 ½ points to the hopelessness at understanding the world in terms of a universal truth. Thus, the central narrative (for lack of a better word) of 8 ½ is postmodernist.

While the plot of this film is clearly pretty confusing… I love when I see a movie that has clearly influenced generations of subsequent filmmakers. Fellini’s second great master piece, (the other being La Dolce Vita), is pretty brilliant when you can get past the shaky plot structure and just take it is the moving painting, dream logic filled existential crisis that it really is.

I love how this is the plot description on wikipedia: “Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni), a famous Italian film director, is suffering from “director’s block“. Stalled on his new science fiction film that includes veiled autobiographical references, he has lost interest amid artistic and marital difficulties. As Guido struggles half-heartedly to work on the film, a series of flashbacks and dreams delve into his memories and fantasies; they are frequently interwoven with reality.”

Firstly, I though the cinematography and shot style was as interesting and perfect as you can ask for. The first shot in the tunnel followed by the man floating above the beach were not only advanced for their time, but also hauntingly beautiful. Inception’s director Christopher Nolan clearly felt a similar reaction since his subconscious creatures that inhabit our minds also feel the need to stare at the trapped subject. That’s one already.

Next, let’s look at Mastroianni’s character. Guido Anselmi, a famous film director played brilliantly by Mastroainni, is like the actual Italian Don Draper of the 60s… Weiner did say that he based a lot of his 60s base Ad show on the Fellini film. But now that I have seen it, I totally see why. Like Draper, Guido is heralded as a brilliant man, but he has reached his limit in a sense. Mad Men is the American prequel to 8 1/2 (and perhaps will end similarly to 8 1/2). But Guido has hit the end of the road and is now finally reflecting on his life through his own personal lens (that of his mind, through his memories and dreams). That’s a difficult thing to face when you have lived your entire professional life through the cinematic apparatus creating falsified dream pictures and spent your entire childhood being challenged by the Catholic church.

The style of the film is undeniably attractive. Not only the costuming and beauty of the leading characters, but the city spots they go to are also gorgeous, the beaches, the flashbacks… They all have a beauty to them that is ineffable. Also, the subtle psychological hints he gives us in the dream scenes delivers us the proper bits of info needed to understand why he looks at women the way he does. I though the dream with his parents was particularly telling as he literally kisses his mom in Oedipus fashion until she turns into his wife and buries his Dad. His existential crisis doesn’t have a sense of Hollywood urgency. The pacing is slow deliberately and the timing of events is disjointed. There is no reason why we should care about this man. But, we do. This film is an undeniable masterpiece for what it does with it’s images. I could watch this film on silent and still get the same effect.

And now… Some influence that the film has had

Beyond Burton and Taratino, you have Nolan, David Lynch, Charlie Kaufman, and even Scorsese who clearly feel a connection to the film via their disjointed narratives, psychologically troubled protagonists and dream logic.

In Fellini’s mind… sometimes you feel like your floating, and just want to let go. If we’re to take the film as a book end, then he really did end his life and was heralded into Heaven as if it were an orchestrated circus… just like life

As I said in class, 8 1/2 confused me. That doesn’t mean however that I disliked the film. I didn’t love it, or hate it, I just tried to figure out what was going on the whole time. What I gathered was that we were entering the mind of a filmmaker who didn’t know what to do with a film he was making. I believe he (Guido) had some sort of mental blocks that came in the form of the women from his past and future. The question that came across my mind was why these women kept coming into his life. It seemed at first that these were past lovers that he had wronged, or people that he may have taken advantage of (the woman who danced on the beach for money.) But then we see them in screen tests for the movie (at least I’m pretty sure we do.) This could be a representation of how he wronged them, or maybe they’re all actresses he feels that he wronging that he manifested into a type of nightmare.

I had a few things that I couldn’t figure out about the film. I understand why the lack of continuity seems to come into play, but I cannot understand why the film was dubbed the whole time. It was kind of irritating to not have any dialog coming from the actors in the shot.  I also don’t understand the ending, but I think that he killed himself, I don’t believe the film would’ve shown him shoot himself if he didn’t actually. What does everyone else think?

Watching Indiana Jones for the first time in class since I initially saw it as a child was an interesting experience because it essentially caused me to re-evaluate whether all my favorite childhood films were also filled with dangerous stereotypes and problematic content. Like Indiana Jones, there are other films I have recently revisited to watch for a second time in order to find out whether these films which I was enthralled by as a child were still as entertaining and enjoyable to watch as an adult, and unfortunately in doing so I found that many of my other childhood favorites, namely Major League and The Last Samurai, also were filled with racist content and scenes. The racist issues in Temple of Doom are easy to see: In the second scene of the film Indiana Jones, a white hero, falls from the sky into a Indian village where he is welcomed as the town’s savior and is asked to save their sacred stone along with their children. Right off the bat it becomes evident that there is a pro-colonialist message within the film that is suggesting that in order for the village to thrive and remain safe there needs to be a white foreign presence and this message only becomes stronger as the film progresses and the colonists actually come and save the villager’s children at the end by helping Indiana to fight off the Kali Cult. As a kid I was completely oblivious to these concepts and was simply enthralled by the cool visual effects that Spielberg employs throughout the film, like the mine cart chase scene, but after watching this film in class it’s become evident that Spielberg’s portrayal of Indians as either helpless or religiously dangerous is incredibly problematic because it sends the message to future generations that we either must fear different cultures or try and help them because they are unable to help themselves. I thought that maybe Temple of Doom was an outlier in this regard, but after rewatching parts of Major League and The Last Samurai its clear that there is a pattern of racist misrepresentation within hollywood that still is continuing to this day. In Major League this racist stereotyping comes in the form of the player Pedro Cerrano, a black latino baseball player who relies on voodoo rituals to give him the power to play well and is deeply entrenched in spirituality. Pedro’s character is clearly suppose to be a caricature of a foreigner whose religious customs are alien to American society and he is often mocked in the film because of his cultural practices. The Last Samurai also features a message that is racial problematic because Tom Cruise’s character, an imperialist, is captured by Japanese Samurais and then adapts their culture and takes on the challenge of having to preserve their way of life, which is incredibly confusing because it sends the message that a white man is once again need to come to the rescue and solve societal problems. Before I never thought much about the messages these films were sending and just enjoyed them for their action sequences and story lines, but after discussing the implications of these misrepresentations I’ve realized that films like these can instead be dangerous because they lead us to develop unfair stereotypes and views.

Even disregarding the monkey brain buffet, and the obscene amount of creepy crawling creatures, Indiana Jones Temple of Doom was an extremely cringe worthy film. The depiction of indigenous individuals, women, Indian culture and much more were all undoubtedly problematic. The lack of continuity throughout the film was an immediate indicator on the quality of the film; however, each additional misrepresentation threw an additional punch. I was fully expecting the film to receive an incredible amount of backlash and Spielberg to comment or more appropriately, apologize for the offensive depiction. I was shocked to discover that the only hindsight he offered was that the film was extremely dark and gory. Furthermore, he attributed this quality to his unfortunate circumstances at that time which was his divorce. Essentially, Indiana Jones Temple of Doom was a break up film; exposing the emotions Spielberg was experiencing during the time. In regards to the Auteur Theory, this coincides with the personal filming aspect of the theory, which states that directors produce films based off their own situations or experiences. Obviously, Spielberg never crashed a plane in the mountains or was forced to drink blood, however, the dark demeanor of the film reflected his state of mind at the time.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/56881/20-fun-facts-about-indiana-jones-and-temple-doom

“The battle begins without, against the enemy (i.e. bourgeoisie) who attacks us, but also within, against the ideas and models of the enemy to be found inside each one of us” (CV 938).

This quote from Solanos and Getino reminded me of the theoretical writings of Antonio Gramsci, who I posted about earlier in the semester- he was briefly mentioned on page 91 in UFT. In the context of Gramsci, who borrowed from Marxist ideology, filmmakers are to be what Grasmci deems “organic intellectuals”. Similar to the Marxist notion of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeois, the organic intellectuals of a society are supposed to be the first to understand their subordinate position and motivate others to rally against it, overthrowing their oppressors. In this view, filmmakers are tasked with using Third Cinema as a tool to overthrow ideological oppression that has been historically rooted in Hollywood cinema.

Although Solanas and Getino wrote about Third Cinema in the 60s, they were preceded by the Soviet Montage movement. Corrigan et al. briefly dwell on this in their last sentence of their introduction to “Towards a Third Cinema,” saying, “Like the Soviets in an earlier revolutionary moment, Solanas and Gestino see the cinema as a populist and mass medium that transcends barriers of language and literacy” (CV 925). Dziga Vertov and his Soviet contemporaries, “aimed ‘to place at the centre of attention the economic structure of society,’ ‘to open the working masses’ eyes the links uniting visual phenomena,’ and ‘to expose to workers the bourgeois structure of the world’” (Crofts & Rose, “An Essay Towards Man with a Movie Camera, 1977).

It seems that Solanos and Getino’s idea of a Third Cinema has existed since the early days of the medium, and still continues in the present with documentary films like Roger Ross William’s God Loves Uganda (2013), which provides viewers with an awareness of the ideological oppression still enforced by the bourgeoisie today.

When I was younger I remember seeing the first two Indiana Jones (for some reason I didn’t see the last one) and I loved them both. Aside from the traumatizing effect of seeing a man’s face melt off had on me, I couldn’t see anything wrong with them.

And now I re-watched Temple of Doom and I feel like a little bit of my childhood has gone away.  The film is just bad in so many ways. The dialog, plot, action is all very bad, however the music is good, thank you John Williams for that. I can obviously see why we’re talking about the film during a section of the course about ethnic representation. There are three white characters in the film (Indy, Willie, and the British General) and they are all portrayed above the “ethnic natives” around them. It felt pretty bad to see Spielberg, who made Jurassic Park, my favorite movie, sink so low with racism and sexism.

I’d like to look a little more at the character of Willie. Who seemed only to be around to nag, complain, and scream. A very sexist view of women in the film, she was probably supposed to be the comic relief of the movie, but was far too absurd to laugh at personally. Short Round was pretty lame too. I can see why Family Guy makes fun of this movie so much .

Accented Filmmakers- from the Third World or post-colonial countries that live now in cosmopolitan places; not fully immersed in one country or culture- stuck in between.

• work independently from the studio
• Not a film movement or a group of filmmakers as a whole
• “They have earned the right to speak and have dared to capture the means of representation” (979).

1. Exilic Filmmakers- banishment for a particular offense (internal or external)
   1. internal- restrictions, censorship, and deprivation in their country-some want to stay to make a difference for the cause and fight
   2. mostly talks about external exiles- left their homeland willingly or forced, and still have a relationship with their people/want to go back.
   3. Memorialize their homeland through film- “Exilic banishment encourages creativity” – authorship
   4. exiles are “both and neither” → hybrid or fragmented

1. Diasporic Filmmakers- begins with trauma or disruption- and involves the scattering of populations to outside places
   1. different from exile because the dispersion is sometimes because of work, trade, or imperial desire.
   2. collective- a group of people in diaspora – maintain a “long-term sense of ethnic consciousness and distinctiveness

1. Ethnic Filmmakers- postcolonial are both exilic and diasporic, but differ from the poststudio American ethnics.
   1. immigrants themselves or born to non-white, non-Western
   2. focus more on their racial and ethnic identity within their host country
   3. hyphen- people are subordinate (African-American, Latino-American)- equal but not quite.
   4. the discourse of these films are narrowed- audiences read the films in terms of their ethnic content instead of their authorial vision or style.

“Exilic cinema is dominated by its focus on there and then in the homeland, diasporic cinema by its vertical relationship to the homeland and by its lateral relationship to the diaspora communities and experiences, and postcolonial ethnic and identity cinema by the exigencies of life here and now in the country in which they reside”(983).

1. The Stylistic Approach- films are classified into categories which can limit the potential meanings of the film.
2. “ideological constructs masquerading as neutral categories”

1. “accented style”- the group style- consistent use of technique across the work’s of several directors → this book’s main focus
2. encompasses characteristics common to the works of differently situated filmmakers involved in varied decentered social formations and cinematic practices across the globe. (986).
3. components of accented style = visual style, narrative structure, character development, subject matter, theme, and plot, structures of feeling exiled, location, and distribution.

III.  Accented Style- displaced filmmaker’s style shows their dislocation in film as well as shows them as authors. They have a double consciousness- the voices from cinematic traditions and voice from exile and diasporic tradition

1. Language, Voice, Address- it is impossible to speak without an accent; accent is one of the “most intimate and powerful markers of group identity and solidarity, and difference and personality.
   1. all exilic and diasporic films are accented- pronunciation is to structure- its narrative, visual style, characters, subject matter, theme, and plot.
   2. character’s literal accent in these films is ethnically encoded
   3. accented filmmakers insist on writing dialogue in their original language- loss of accent or language once exiled is a big fear.
   4. often multilingual, with voice-over narration, and subtitles
2. Border Effects, Border Writing
   1. unpack paragraph starting with, “Since border subjectivity…” (991).
   2. what is a “shifter”? What is it’s relation to accented cinema?
   3. many accented filmmakers are shifters themselves- base films on their border crossing experiences- fear of illegality and conflicted identities
3. Themes
   1. Journeys are a major theme of accented films
   2. motivation, duration, and direction
   3. types: return journeys or escape journeys
   4. also metaphorical or philosophical journeys of identity
4. Authorship and Autobiographical Inscription
   1. construction of both the author and spectator
   2. “Accented film authors are literally and figuratively everyday journeymen and journeywoman who are driven off or set free from their places of origin, by force or by choice, on agonizing quests that require displacements and emplacements so profound, personal, and transformative as to shape not only the authors themselves and their films but also the question of authorship” (993).
   3. authorial and autobiographical which makes them unique

• accented style is not a recognized film genre
• accented style is not hermetic, homogenous, or autonomous- it evolves and changes

Discussion Question: On page 978

What does Naficy mean  by his suggestion that mainstream Hollywood films are “accent free”?