He sits on his porch dawn till dusk, drinking beer, petting his dog and cursing the day minorities began infiltrating his neighborhood. His arsenal of racial slurs more potent than the weapons he fired in Vietnam. The audience gasped as he pulled his beat up Ford to the side of the road and managed to ostracize three different races at once, one being his own.
Good thing he migrates to Florida in the winter, I don’t think anybody in the neighborhood can stand the guy. The real estate agent should have warned my parents about this guy before they bought a house next to him.
In “Gran Torino,” Clint Eastwood played a character very common to the Metro Detroit area. The film chronicles Walt Kowalski’s transformation from angry Bigot to angry Bigot who uses racial slurs playfully before becoming a martyr for the betterment of his neighborhood.
Whether or not Detroit’s emerging film industry can jump start the city’s economic engine, Hollywood has already provided a cinematic estimate on what can be done to get the Motor City on the road again through characters like Kowalski.
The leaders and citizens of Metro Detroit could learn something from studying the decade’s worth of Detroit based film since Martin Blank returned to his high school reunion, especially in regards Detroit’s tense and divided racial realities, as depicted in movies like “Gross Pointe Blank,” “8 Mile,” and “Gran Torino,” and its role in destroying a city once known as the “Paris of the Midwest.”
The deterioration of Detroit’s racial climate is habitually attributed to four days occurring over 30 years ago. The racially charged 1967 riots instigated a massive Caucasian migration to the suburbs, resulting in Metro Detroit’s great divide and three decades of excuses.
All it takes is a single viewing of the 1997 film “Gross Point Blank” to see the divide caused by the riots. If you can somehow keep your eyes off of Dan Aykroyd’s stunning performance and keep count of how many minority residents wander the quaint streets, your tally should match the number of Oscar’s on Aykroyd’s trophy shelf.
This lack of diversity, while distressing, is certainly not surprising as 97.1 percent of Gross Point citizens are Caucasian. Similarly, “8-Mile’s” lack of diversity is no shock considering Detroit is 88.1 percent African American. It is no wonder, then, that Metro Detroit is the least diverse Metropolitan area in nation.
A city does not become the least diverse city in the country by chance. Of the countless major cities that experienced racial riots in the 1960s, not one can match Detroit’s current racial landscape. If Southeastern Michigan wants to resuscitate communal ties and leave behind the haunting of events of 1967, someone should probably call the Ghost Busters because the regions inept leadership is not going to do anything.
Look no further than Detroit City Council. Led by Monica Conyers, renowned for calling the City’s interim Mayor Shrek during a meeting and verbally abusing an elementary school girl in a one week span, The City Council’s meetings make “8-Mile’s” gritty rap battles look like rock-paper-scissors.
In typical self-destructive fashion, the Detroit City Council has decided to follow the path made by the Walt Kowalski’s of the world rather than following in the footsteps of President Obama. In fact, the City Council has inexplicably attempted to restrict the use of President Obama’s name.
During a February 24th City Council discussion on the Cobo Center Expansion plan, a Caucasian teamster became subject to racially charged ridicule by Council President Conyers and several fellow city council members. In a last ditch effort to make his point, the teamster referenced President Barack Obama’s call for unity, resulting in Conyers response, “Don’t you say his name here.”
This is a pivotal era for the city of Detroit. It is facing its worse stretch in its history, yet the election of the first African American President has handed Detroit’s political leadership a chance to leave behind thirty years of racial tension that has been just as detrimental to the city as the failing auto industries. Unfortunately, the political leaders are wasting this valuable opportunity.
Instead Detroit’s leaders will beg the government for billions of dollars in bailout money to the auto makers, while letting the home of the North American International Auto Show decay purely because of racial motives.
Former Detroit Mayor, Coleman Young, a victim of racism himself growing up, once said.
“There are no symptoms of racism. The victim of racism is in a much better position to tell you whether or not you’re a racist than you are.”
Although not a victim, Hollywood has been trying to tell Detroit for a long time that it is a racist city, primarily to deaf ears.
Instead Detroit’s leaders are trying to figure out why it ascends to the summit of nearly every “America’s most (something you don’t want to be recognize for) City” on a yearly basis, when the answer is probably in their DVD cabinet.
The solution to Detroit’s problem is not found in the 11 figure checks sent to Ford and GM, or in explosive car chases down a Telegraph Road lined with cameras and director chairs. Industries can go out of business, companies can relocate elsewhere, but a city can rely on the strength of community through rough times. However, when a city’s sense of community vanishes in a crowd of racism, people leave, and a city cannot survive without people.
Detroit is not the next Hollywood and “The Automotive Capitol of the World” has become merely a title of seniority. For Detroit to survive these seemingly hopeless times, the sense of community that disappeared in favor of racial boundaries in 1967 must once again emerge. The Walt Kawalskis of Metro Detroit, from the politicians to the unemployed factory workers, must amend themselves before a once proud city becomes a martyr for racial unity.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
WhatAGratuitousNameForAConcertThankGodTheShowItselfWasMoreTolerable.
A steady stream of students began to permeate an empty Dalton Theater as early as forty minutes prior to show time. Fifteen minutes later the theater was virtually full. Ten minutes before show time and people were being turned away from a sold-out Dalton Theater, the tiered rows of seats surrounding the stage already as congested as the concert’s title.
“HallelujahIt’sRainingStrawberryWineinIowaOnMyWaywardSoWhoIsCarryingOnInChicagoAndItMakesMeWonderIfTimeIsRunningOutForMeToGetAKissFromADesperadeWhoNeedsHelpAndAnLAC?”
The eager students that arrived early enough for the anticipated event, or perhaps the much
needed LAC credit, enjoyed a performance that was exceptional for college-level standards.
The winter 2009 installment of the student organized a cappella concert saw the all-female Acabellas once again join forces with the co-ed Premium Orange in the creation of charming music using only their vocal chords.
The Acabellas opened the proceedings with a near forty five minute set. While the melodic hums of the instrument-less women were crisp and the continuously rotating soloists generally pleased the inner ears, the finest moments of the performance were found in fresh and comical renditions of the ever tedious cliché cover song.
The classy turned sassy rendition of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” was textbook for the Friday night college crowd, yet imaginative and mischievous enough to captivate an audience who had collectively heard the song well over a million times.
Premium Orange followed the Acabellas with a considerably less comedic act. From this more serious disposition emerged an outburst of musical energy, emanating from the vocalists into the captivated throng of spectators.
These spectators quickly became willing passengers as Premium Orange chauffeured them to the concert’s peak; a superb duet of the Motown classic “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough.” The male vocalist’s soulful voice was so similar to Marvin Gaye’s that he, in fact, was like the real thing.
Aside from performance aspects, “HallelujahIt’sRaining…” featured several positive and negative characteristics commonly found in smaller, student run concerts.
The smaller size of the venue allowed for an intimate setting, reinforced by a lenient hierarchy between the audience and the performers. Both a capella groups were easily accessible prior to and following the show, even working as theater ushers as crowds funneled in.
Dalton Theater's cozy environment also allowed for effortless interaction between the crowd and the stage, culminating in the entire theater singing happy birthday to one of the vocalists.
Although sufficient for the greater part of the concert, there were several lapses in acoustic quality. At times the melody from the background singers would drown out the soloist, notably during Seal’s “Kissed from a Rose” in which the lead vocalist was barely audible for extended periods of time.
After the stellar performances of both the Acabellas and Premium Orange throughout “HallelujahIt’sRaining,” Dalton Theater will assuredly overflow with students when the two groups reassemble this spring, LAC or not. Just be sure to get there 45 minutes early.
“HallelujahIt’sRainingStrawberryWineinIowaOnMyWaywardSoWhoIsCarryingOnInChicagoAndItMakesMeWonderIfTimeIsRunningOutForMeToGetAKissFromADesperadeWhoNeedsHelpAndAnLAC?”
The eager students that arrived early enough for the anticipated event, or perhaps the much
needed LAC credit, enjoyed a performance that was exceptional for college-level standards.
The winter 2009 installment of the student organized a cappella concert saw the all-female Acabellas once again join forces with the co-ed Premium Orange in the creation of charming music using only their vocal chords.
The Acabellas opened the proceedings with a near forty five minute set. While the melodic hums of the instrument-less women were crisp and the continuously rotating soloists generally pleased the inner ears, the finest moments of the performance were found in fresh and comical renditions of the ever tedious cliché cover song.
The classy turned sassy rendition of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” was textbook for the Friday night college crowd, yet imaginative and mischievous enough to captivate an audience who had collectively heard the song well over a million times.
Premium Orange followed the Acabellas with a considerably less comedic act. From this more serious disposition emerged an outburst of musical energy, emanating from the vocalists into the captivated throng of spectators.
These spectators quickly became willing passengers as Premium Orange chauffeured them to the concert’s peak; a superb duet of the Motown classic “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough.” The male vocalist’s soulful voice was so similar to Marvin Gaye’s that he, in fact, was like the real thing.
Aside from performance aspects, “HallelujahIt’sRaining…” featured several positive and negative characteristics commonly found in smaller, student run concerts.
The smaller size of the venue allowed for an intimate setting, reinforced by a lenient hierarchy between the audience and the performers. Both a capella groups were easily accessible prior to and following the show, even working as theater ushers as crowds funneled in.
Dalton Theater's cozy environment also allowed for effortless interaction between the crowd and the stage, culminating in the entire theater singing happy birthday to one of the vocalists.
Although sufficient for the greater part of the concert, there were several lapses in acoustic quality. At times the melody from the background singers would drown out the soloist, notably during Seal’s “Kissed from a Rose” in which the lead vocalist was barely audible for extended periods of time.
After the stellar performances of both the Acabellas and Premium Orange throughout “HallelujahIt’sRaining,” Dalton Theater will assuredly overflow with students when the two groups reassemble this spring, LAC or not. Just be sure to get there 45 minutes early.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Critical Essay Response
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/eastcoastyes.html
Although this is a sports article, it really helped me realize the regional inferiority complexes that exist in our country and how different writers from different regions respond to it.
Schoenfield clearly believes that there is an East Coast Bias in the world of sports and pulls no stops in his attempt to prove it. For his evidence he decides to show ten different cases of this bias.
The main reason why this article helped me so much, even though it was not about the arts, is the way that Schoenfield blames the East Coast bias as a reason the Royals are never the lead on Sportscenter instead of looking at the real reason, the fact that they have been one of the worst teams in professional sports for decades. I found that using this East Coast bias as a scapegoat, as well as over romanticizing certain aspects of a region, were a very convenient excuse to conceal the real reasons why a certain region gets a “raw deal.”
I also took note of how Schoenfield spent more time disparaging the East Coast, whether it be individual athletes, teams or even sports literature, instead of focusing on the good of the other regions that are being “overlooked”. The propensity to disparage the region with a perceived bias rather than talk about the good stuff of the “inferior” region seems to be a very common form of argument against regional bias, and in my opinion one that lessens its merit.
With the help of this article as well as outside research on inferiority complexes I formulated my article, which turned into more of a mockery on regional inferiority complexes than anything else. In addition utilizing the aspects of inferiority complexes that this article revealed, I attempted to replicate one of the main characteristics of an inferiority complex, the tendency to try way too hard. In using overly complicated language and ridiculous similes and metaphors, I attempted to illustrate the propensity for the “overlooked” to try anything and everything to become superior to the “overvalued.”
Although this is a sports article, it really helped me realize the regional inferiority complexes that exist in our country and how different writers from different regions respond to it.
Schoenfield clearly believes that there is an East Coast Bias in the world of sports and pulls no stops in his attempt to prove it. For his evidence he decides to show ten different cases of this bias.
The main reason why this article helped me so much, even though it was not about the arts, is the way that Schoenfield blames the East Coast bias as a reason the Royals are never the lead on Sportscenter instead of looking at the real reason, the fact that they have been one of the worst teams in professional sports for decades. I found that using this East Coast bias as a scapegoat, as well as over romanticizing certain aspects of a region, were a very convenient excuse to conceal the real reasons why a certain region gets a “raw deal.”
I also took note of how Schoenfield spent more time disparaging the East Coast, whether it be individual athletes, teams or even sports literature, instead of focusing on the good of the other regions that are being “overlooked”. The propensity to disparage the region with a perceived bias rather than talk about the good stuff of the “inferior” region seems to be a very common form of argument against regional bias, and in my opinion one that lessens its merit.
With the help of this article as well as outside research on inferiority complexes I formulated my article, which turned into more of a mockery on regional inferiority complexes than anything else. In addition utilizing the aspects of inferiority complexes that this article revealed, I attempted to replicate one of the main characteristics of an inferiority complex, the tendency to try way too hard. In using overly complicated language and ridiculous similes and metaphors, I attempted to illustrate the propensity for the “overlooked” to try anything and everything to become superior to the “overvalued.”
Monday, March 2, 2009
Diary of a Delusional Michigander
The Michigan inferiority complex has afflicted the inhabitants of the Wolverine state since the commencement of the first westward expeditions that transformed what was once the westernmost colony in America into an overworked, underappreciated middle child.
This envious scorn, build up over hundreds of years of absent admiration, is exposed alongside the faintest suspicion of east coast bias. Why is ESPN showing the Red Sox and Yankees again instead of Tigers and White Sox? Why is does everyone love Tupac so much when Eminem is obviously better? Why are their only sharks in the ocean? Is it just that those snobby Californians get to fish for sharks and I’m stuck here fishing for Catfish in Lake Michigan?
While the eldest, easternmost offspring of the American dream and the tempestuous, golden haired western bombshell conceived through promiscuous manifest destiny monopolize the cultural consciousness of America, the palm of American and its Northeasternish companions were left with “the Paris of the Midwest” and the Renaissance Center.
The real question is not whether the Michigan Inferiority Complex exists, but what fuels it? Oh and why doesn’t anyone pay attention to us?
These sensitive inferior sentiments can be triggered by merely a cordial introduction to one of those foreign car driving egomaniacs. Nonetheless, with the imminent arrival of Mr. Big Shot Studio Executive to scrub away the filmy layer of filth left by the coming soon to a history text book near you auto companies, we shine the spotlight on Hollywood’s role in the muted perceptions of the Five Lake State.
Hollywood must maintain accountability for the gratuitous, melodramatic embellishments of our great state’s cultural defects and in turn broaden their funneled focus away from certain disconcerting aspects. The current approach is utilized only by amateurs who aspire to dedicate minimal amounts of effort and creative thought process to their non-masterpieces.
Take young David Zucker as exhibit A. Perhaps a proletarian, perhaps an overzealous intern. In his half-hearted stab at film making, “Scary Movie 4,” he illustrated the city of Detroit as flaming caricature of its true self. A woman speaks of an alien assault as we survey an already harassed Renaissance City in fiery red ruins, realizing its scorching mortality only to rise again like the Phoenix! Tears surged out of their ducts, a current of passion that raged on fiercer than the Detroit River, which is, incidentally, far superior to even a Siamese combination of the Missouri and Mississippi, strutted past my nostrils.
To hell with you David Zucker for what your filthy mind transmitted to the silver screen! The City of the Phoenix was not to ascend to its former splendor amidst blistering sparks of passion. The joke, my fellow Michigander associates, was on us. The Detroit we observed breathing its final, handsome but agonizing breath was before the extraterrestrial ambush. An allusion to the unbearable death of the most prominent city in my beloved state? To hell with you David Zucker.
This boorish vulgarity was not an isolated incident, my friends. For “The Man with No Name” has become the man with no core. Clint Eastwood’s profane “Gran Torino” depicted our great state in the most irreverent of ways. Ogling the audience from the big screen, adorned on an adolescent nonetheless, was a Detroit Lions jersey. There was also a lot of gang violence and a big shootout at the end that certainly added to the inferiority complex.
These burning spears of deceit that pierce through the retina and manifest in your mind as misconceptions of the great state of Michigan are patriotic hazards that mature into underlying turmoil between the city folk and suburbanites. This overstated trepidation being planted in our Paul Bunyan hearts by external Americans for the purpose of profit has molded Michigan’s only mountain out of class division and racial tension.
Soon our Paul Bunyan hearts will no longer beat the drums of Lake Superior with the irreplaceable compassion that fueled the first Model T. A city once known as the “Paris of the Midwest” is being seized from right under the tip of our thumb by cash mongering , non-American driving east and west coasters. And because statistics never lie, according a Wayne State University Study, of the 19 million people who attended marquee events in downtown Detroit in 2003, only 19 serious crimes occurred per 100,000 people. Chomp on that David Zucker.
While gluttonous stock market of the early 1900s dealers bartered our country into a great depression on the east coast and the embryo of artificial breasts, childhood actors turned drug addicts and Paris Hiltons were being viewed on ultra sounds in the west coast, Michigan was diligently creating industry. The State of Five Lakes was producing the assembly line and assembling factories that were essential in coming years. The Automotive State was manufacturing automotive products.
Michigan may be known as the Automotive State, but contrary to what the prehistoric Tinsel Town executives imply in their “films,” the soul of Michigan encompasses far more than Big Three auto companies that we never received due appreciation for. The Big Three auto companies that our fellow American colleagues repudiated while plunging a manually serrated foreign gear shift into the back of our hand.
Michiganders DO NOT consummate our relationship with a significant other in the sanctity of the factory like that ruffian B-Rabbit in “8 Mile.”
We do not crack quirky quips towards the affluent that drive luxurious foreign cars like the coward Martin Blank in “Gross Point Blank.” We chastise them and cease if and only if they resolve to drive American.
What Michiganders do is sail on the lakes, the warm wind blowing against our boat hats as we nip an elegant local Red Wine. We rap the puck about the frozen pond in the winter, and we fire rifles at animals for population regulation purposes in the fall. We barbeque meat in the summer and perhaps listen to the smooth stylings of fellow Great Lakesmen Bob Seger and Ted Nugent while perhaps sipping on a beer at night.
So Mr. Big Shot Studio Executive with your Crisco greasy hair and your designer suit with a price tag higher than Michigan’s average annual income. If you intend to erect your elaborate studios and continue to exploit our great home for capital. If you intend to continue to disregard the entirety of our beloved glove then you and your Hollywood frivolities can remain on the west coast. Us Michiganders will scrub away the filmy layer of filth left by auto companies by ourselves, as we have been for over a century.
This envious scorn, build up over hundreds of years of absent admiration, is exposed alongside the faintest suspicion of east coast bias. Why is ESPN showing the Red Sox and Yankees again instead of Tigers and White Sox? Why is does everyone love Tupac so much when Eminem is obviously better? Why are their only sharks in the ocean? Is it just that those snobby Californians get to fish for sharks and I’m stuck here fishing for Catfish in Lake Michigan?
While the eldest, easternmost offspring of the American dream and the tempestuous, golden haired western bombshell conceived through promiscuous manifest destiny monopolize the cultural consciousness of America, the palm of American and its Northeasternish companions were left with “the Paris of the Midwest” and the Renaissance Center.
The real question is not whether the Michigan Inferiority Complex exists, but what fuels it? Oh and why doesn’t anyone pay attention to us?
These sensitive inferior sentiments can be triggered by merely a cordial introduction to one of those foreign car driving egomaniacs. Nonetheless, with the imminent arrival of Mr. Big Shot Studio Executive to scrub away the filmy layer of filth left by the coming soon to a history text book near you auto companies, we shine the spotlight on Hollywood’s role in the muted perceptions of the Five Lake State.
Hollywood must maintain accountability for the gratuitous, melodramatic embellishments of our great state’s cultural defects and in turn broaden their funneled focus away from certain disconcerting aspects. The current approach is utilized only by amateurs who aspire to dedicate minimal amounts of effort and creative thought process to their non-masterpieces.
Take young David Zucker as exhibit A. Perhaps a proletarian, perhaps an overzealous intern. In his half-hearted stab at film making, “Scary Movie 4,” he illustrated the city of Detroit as flaming caricature of its true self. A woman speaks of an alien assault as we survey an already harassed Renaissance City in fiery red ruins, realizing its scorching mortality only to rise again like the Phoenix! Tears surged out of their ducts, a current of passion that raged on fiercer than the Detroit River, which is, incidentally, far superior to even a Siamese combination of the Missouri and Mississippi, strutted past my nostrils.
To hell with you David Zucker for what your filthy mind transmitted to the silver screen! The City of the Phoenix was not to ascend to its former splendor amidst blistering sparks of passion. The joke, my fellow Michigander associates, was on us. The Detroit we observed breathing its final, handsome but agonizing breath was before the extraterrestrial ambush. An allusion to the unbearable death of the most prominent city in my beloved state? To hell with you David Zucker.
This boorish vulgarity was not an isolated incident, my friends. For “The Man with No Name” has become the man with no core. Clint Eastwood’s profane “Gran Torino” depicted our great state in the most irreverent of ways. Ogling the audience from the big screen, adorned on an adolescent nonetheless, was a Detroit Lions jersey. There was also a lot of gang violence and a big shootout at the end that certainly added to the inferiority complex.
These burning spears of deceit that pierce through the retina and manifest in your mind as misconceptions of the great state of Michigan are patriotic hazards that mature into underlying turmoil between the city folk and suburbanites. This overstated trepidation being planted in our Paul Bunyan hearts by external Americans for the purpose of profit has molded Michigan’s only mountain out of class division and racial tension.
Soon our Paul Bunyan hearts will no longer beat the drums of Lake Superior with the irreplaceable compassion that fueled the first Model T. A city once known as the “Paris of the Midwest” is being seized from right under the tip of our thumb by cash mongering , non-American driving east and west coasters. And because statistics never lie, according a Wayne State University Study, of the 19 million people who attended marquee events in downtown Detroit in 2003, only 19 serious crimes occurred per 100,000 people. Chomp on that David Zucker.
While gluttonous stock market of the early 1900s dealers bartered our country into a great depression on the east coast and the embryo of artificial breasts, childhood actors turned drug addicts and Paris Hiltons were being viewed on ultra sounds in the west coast, Michigan was diligently creating industry. The State of Five Lakes was producing the assembly line and assembling factories that were essential in coming years. The Automotive State was manufacturing automotive products.
Michigan may be known as the Automotive State, but contrary to what the prehistoric Tinsel Town executives imply in their “films,” the soul of Michigan encompasses far more than Big Three auto companies that we never received due appreciation for. The Big Three auto companies that our fellow American colleagues repudiated while plunging a manually serrated foreign gear shift into the back of our hand.
Michiganders DO NOT consummate our relationship with a significant other in the sanctity of the factory like that ruffian B-Rabbit in “8 Mile.”
We do not crack quirky quips towards the affluent that drive luxurious foreign cars like the coward Martin Blank in “Gross Point Blank.” We chastise them and cease if and only if they resolve to drive American.
What Michiganders do is sail on the lakes, the warm wind blowing against our boat hats as we nip an elegant local Red Wine. We rap the puck about the frozen pond in the winter, and we fire rifles at animals for population regulation purposes in the fall. We barbeque meat in the summer and perhaps listen to the smooth stylings of fellow Great Lakesmen Bob Seger and Ted Nugent while perhaps sipping on a beer at night.
So Mr. Big Shot Studio Executive with your Crisco greasy hair and your designer suit with a price tag higher than Michigan’s average annual income. If you intend to erect your elaborate studios and continue to exploit our great home for capital. If you intend to continue to disregard the entirety of our beloved glove then you and your Hollywood frivolities can remain on the west coast. Us Michiganders will scrub away the filmy layer of filth left by auto companies by ourselves, as we have been for over a century.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Revised Final Assignment Proposal
My final assignment will be a social/cultural critical essay revolving around the film “8 mile.” The social/cultural element will concern economics, specifically Michigan’s focus on creating a movie industry, in part to clean up the mess the Big Three auto companies left behind. In this assignment I will argue against building this industry and the methods they are using to build it, for example giving movie producers tax breaks while proposing budget cuts in both arts and education. They are essentially going to be paying people from Hollywood to come in and make movies while drastically reducing the opportunity for homegrown talent. To argue this point I will be using the movie “8 mile” as a metaphor because the movie was made in Michigan and the main character’s life resembles the state’s dilemma. He starts off poor and barely makes ends meet in a decaying auto factory before finding success in show business. However, I will argue that this is not the common scenario because none of the other rappers in the movie achieve success. I will utilize this to argue my opinion that a movie industry in Michigan will only hurt the state. Further, because “8 Mile” was closely based off of a true story, I examine outside research on the fates of the real individuals that the movie depicted.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A CLUE Movie?
I'm not really sure how they are going to make a movie after a board game. What next? Will Ferrel as the Monopoly guy?
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53222
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53222
2010 Oscar Candidates Already?
Apparently this guy is already looking forward to the 2010 Academy Awards...
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/2010-oscar-candidates-already
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/2010-oscar-candidates-already
Other Oscar Reviews
Now that we have all posted our Oscar reviews, I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought of the show.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Oscar-Review-And-The-Award-For-Most-Tedious-Montage-Goes-To-3011.html
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/oscar-oscars-te.html
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Oscar-Review-And-The-Award-For-Most-Tedious-Montage-Goes-To-3011.html
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/oscar-oscars-te.html
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Curtain Should Have Stayed Closed
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Academy for sabotaging my Sunday night with one of the most uninspired and awkward award shows of all time.
From the onset of the three-and-a-half hour “spectacular,” when a stagehand apparently named Steve struggled to open the crystal curtains in time for the first of a seemingly endless stream of montages, the 81st Annual Academy Awards was a disaster. The once proud event has become more reminiscent of big-budget, straight to DVD movie.
In retrospect, Steve should have kept the curtain closed.
The 2009 Oscars seemed stray from the Academy’s historical, fundamental objective of show, honoring the art of filmmaking and the individuals who work so hard to make it possible.
Instead, the show often times felt like an extravagant TMZ knockoff, particularly when the camera not once, but twice cut to a close up of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie during Jennifer Aniston’s on-stage segments.
During a tribute to the nominated cinematographers, Ben Stiller appeared on stage dressed like the grizzly bearded Juaquin Pheonix and proceeded to imitate Phoenix’s now infamous David Letterman interview. While Stiller was amusing, he took the act too far and continued his antics well into the montage honoring cinematographers. Instead of paying their respects to the often times overlooked masters of cinema, both the audience and camera focused on Stiller’s exploits, denying the nominees of their moment in the spotlight.
At other times, the producers appeared as if they had been emulating the bumbling stoners from “Pineapple Express” during the show’s preparations.
The randomly placed song and dance number was reasonable in theory but was executed dreadfully. It seemed to last longer than a double viewing of “Benjamin Button” and “Titanic.” And then Disney’s “High School Musical” stars arrived. Did the Nickelodeon Awards already book the Jonas Brothers? The whole segment came across as forced filler and any momentum Hugh Jackman had build up with his stellar musical opening was slain.
Just when things couldn’t get any worse, Queen Latifah emerged to spoil the typically touching in memorandum segment. No offense to the Queen, whose display of acting prowess in classics such as “House Party 2,” “Scary Movie 2” and “Barbershop” have cemented her place in Oscar lore, but with Alicia Keys and Beyonce Knowles in the Kodak Theatre, there must have been a better option.
The 81st Oscar’s most conspicuous flaw, however, was Heath Ledger’s posthumous nomination and triumph in the best supporting actor category. His brilliant depiction of The Joker carried the “The Dark Knight” and was unquestionably one of the top five male performances of 2008. Because antagonists have obtained the leading actor nod before, notably Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs,” it is inexcusable to deprive Ledger of his due recognition.
While the Joker may have been snubbed, but it was the 81st Annual Academy Awards that proved to be the real joke.
From the onset of the three-and-a-half hour “spectacular,” when a stagehand apparently named Steve struggled to open the crystal curtains in time for the first of a seemingly endless stream of montages, the 81st Annual Academy Awards was a disaster. The once proud event has become more reminiscent of big-budget, straight to DVD movie.
In retrospect, Steve should have kept the curtain closed.
The 2009 Oscars seemed stray from the Academy’s historical, fundamental objective of show, honoring the art of filmmaking and the individuals who work so hard to make it possible.
Instead, the show often times felt like an extravagant TMZ knockoff, particularly when the camera not once, but twice cut to a close up of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie during Jennifer Aniston’s on-stage segments.
During a tribute to the nominated cinematographers, Ben Stiller appeared on stage dressed like the grizzly bearded Juaquin Pheonix and proceeded to imitate Phoenix’s now infamous David Letterman interview. While Stiller was amusing, he took the act too far and continued his antics well into the montage honoring cinematographers. Instead of paying their respects to the often times overlooked masters of cinema, both the audience and camera focused on Stiller’s exploits, denying the nominees of their moment in the spotlight.
At other times, the producers appeared as if they had been emulating the bumbling stoners from “Pineapple Express” during the show’s preparations.
The randomly placed song and dance number was reasonable in theory but was executed dreadfully. It seemed to last longer than a double viewing of “Benjamin Button” and “Titanic.” And then Disney’s “High School Musical” stars arrived. Did the Nickelodeon Awards already book the Jonas Brothers? The whole segment came across as forced filler and any momentum Hugh Jackman had build up with his stellar musical opening was slain.
Just when things couldn’t get any worse, Queen Latifah emerged to spoil the typically touching in memorandum segment. No offense to the Queen, whose display of acting prowess in classics such as “House Party 2,” “Scary Movie 2” and “Barbershop” have cemented her place in Oscar lore, but with Alicia Keys and Beyonce Knowles in the Kodak Theatre, there must have been a better option.
The 81st Oscar’s most conspicuous flaw, however, was Heath Ledger’s posthumous nomination and triumph in the best supporting actor category. His brilliant depiction of The Joker carried the “The Dark Knight” and was unquestionably one of the top five male performances of 2008. Because antagonists have obtained the leading actor nod before, notably Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lector in “Silence of the Lambs,” it is inexcusable to deprive Ledger of his due recognition.
While the Joker may have been snubbed, but it was the 81st Annual Academy Awards that proved to be the real joke.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Pauline Kael’s Repetitious Muse
During a 1994 Time Magazine interview, Quentin Tarantino, still riding the success of Pulp Fiction revealed one of his greatest influences as a director. He described someone who was “as influential as any director was in helping (him) develop his aesthetic.” While it is common for directors to revere other award winning directors, Tarantino did not have Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorsese in mind. Rather, he was speaking of a film critic; the late Pauline Kael.
One would be hard-pressed to find a more acclaimed film critic than Kael. One of the most influential, as well as polarizing, American critics, Kael made a name for herself while writing for the New Yorker. Over her career she accumulated as assembly of loyal followers, both in the general public and in the field of film critique, while also leaving a cluster of irritated critics envying her success. However, just like the films, actors and directors she based her career on, she was not without flaw.
One can argue to what length Kael consistently accomplished her obligation as a critic. As her career matured, she became increasingly involved with the business side of Hollywood, even working as an executive consultant for Paramount. Combined with several suspicious critiques, most notably a glimmering preview of the 1975 film Nashville; it becomes difficult to have faith that Kael’s later work was consistently unbiased. One must ask if these articles were merely temporary lapses in an otherwise stellar career, such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather III, or a larger plague of well-concealed flaws.
Kael has been accused of capturing movies, and through her critiques, making them her own. She has also been chastised for writing about anything but the actual movies she is reviewing, for illustrating correlations that are produced in her mind rather than the director’s. For instance, in her review for the film Top Gun she referred to the movie as “a recruiting poster that isn’t concerned with recruiting but with being a poster.”
According to Oscar Wilde, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own, that need not necessarily bear any obvious resemblance to the thing it criticizes”. In making a movie her own, Kael was not only exercising her right, but also her responsibility as a critic. Much like a novelist or songwriter uses external beings or situations as muses for masterpieces, Kael merely utilizes the movies she reviews as her muse.
Kael has also been criticized for the repetitive nature of both the word choice and structure of her work.
This claim seems inconsequential because movies themselves are among the most repetitious forms of art. When one talks of a director’s “signature style,” whether it be Hitchcock’s suspense or David Mamet’s fast-paced, witty dialogue, it must be pointed out that these styles were crafted solely through similarities and repetitions throughout the course of careers. Further, a vast majority of Hollywood films follow the same distinct structure. Because the movie industry flourishes on repetition and structure, it seems unfair to chastise a film critic for the same thing.
With the recent migration of film critiques from newspapers and magazines to the more convenient internet the death of the journalistic film critic may be imminent. The internet is a place where anyone can post a review of a film regardless of qualifications, and where discussions on message boards have replaced the weekend movie headlines. With this in mind, Pauline Kael’s place in American culture has become exceedingly important in assuring the America will never forget the once hallowed Hollywood critic.
One would be hard-pressed to find a more acclaimed film critic than Kael. One of the most influential, as well as polarizing, American critics, Kael made a name for herself while writing for the New Yorker. Over her career she accumulated as assembly of loyal followers, both in the general public and in the field of film critique, while also leaving a cluster of irritated critics envying her success. However, just like the films, actors and directors she based her career on, she was not without flaw.
One can argue to what length Kael consistently accomplished her obligation as a critic. As her career matured, she became increasingly involved with the business side of Hollywood, even working as an executive consultant for Paramount. Combined with several suspicious critiques, most notably a glimmering preview of the 1975 film Nashville; it becomes difficult to have faith that Kael’s later work was consistently unbiased. One must ask if these articles were merely temporary lapses in an otherwise stellar career, such as Francis Ford Coppola’s Godfather III, or a larger plague of well-concealed flaws.
Kael has been accused of capturing movies, and through her critiques, making them her own. She has also been chastised for writing about anything but the actual movies she is reviewing, for illustrating correlations that are produced in her mind rather than the director’s. For instance, in her review for the film Top Gun she referred to the movie as “a recruiting poster that isn’t concerned with recruiting but with being a poster.”
According to Oscar Wilde, “To the critic, the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own, that need not necessarily bear any obvious resemblance to the thing it criticizes”. In making a movie her own, Kael was not only exercising her right, but also her responsibility as a critic. Much like a novelist or songwriter uses external beings or situations as muses for masterpieces, Kael merely utilizes the movies she reviews as her muse.
Kael has also been criticized for the repetitive nature of both the word choice and structure of her work.
This claim seems inconsequential because movies themselves are among the most repetitious forms of art. When one talks of a director’s “signature style,” whether it be Hitchcock’s suspense or David Mamet’s fast-paced, witty dialogue, it must be pointed out that these styles were crafted solely through similarities and repetitions throughout the course of careers. Further, a vast majority of Hollywood films follow the same distinct structure. Because the movie industry flourishes on repetition and structure, it seems unfair to chastise a film critic for the same thing.
With the recent migration of film critiques from newspapers and magazines to the more convenient internet the death of the journalistic film critic may be imminent. The internet is a place where anyone can post a review of a film regardless of qualifications, and where discussions on message boards have replaced the weekend movie headlines. With this in mind, Pauline Kael’s place in American culture has become exceedingly important in assuring the America will never forget the once hallowed Hollywood critic.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
NYT Defense
A Generous Helping of Country-Rock Comfort Music by Jon Caramanica
Jon Caramanica’s review of the Zac Brown Band followed a fairly uncommon format as he not only reviewed their latest album, “The Foundation,” but also examined a recent live performance. This “buy one get one free” approach allowed for a fascinating contrast between, and overall mixed review of, the in-studio and live version of the band.
Caramanica opened with an effective lede intended to leave the reader thinking, ‘Yes I do like comfort food as well as comfort music, I will read on.’ After a brief background of the album, where he mentions its “references, allusions and nods,” Caramanica’s “but” reveals his mixed feelings on the album. He recognizes the attempted symbolism within “The Foundation”, but because of its stereotypical nature, the album sounds “almost like a parody, what a Northerner might write when asked to imagine what’s in the mind of a Southerner.”
Caramanica opens his review of The Zac Brown Band’s live performance by claiming that the band he saw at Bowery Ballroom was more musically focused than the band he heard on the lyrically centered “The Foundation.” Regardless, Caramanica holds mixed views on the Zac Brown Band’s live performance. In his “but” statement, he refers to the performance as “genial, sometimes affective.” He criticizes both the band and the audience for becoming disinterested and “undermining the hierarchy of performer and crowd.” At other times he praises Zac Brown’s performance in some of the more desolate songs, such as “Highway 20 Ride.”
This review was very intriguing to me because of the way it managed to review two different facets of the music industry while effectively exploring the differences between the two.
Jon Caramanica’s review of the Zac Brown Band followed a fairly uncommon format as he not only reviewed their latest album, “The Foundation,” but also examined a recent live performance. This “buy one get one free” approach allowed for a fascinating contrast between, and overall mixed review of, the in-studio and live version of the band.
Caramanica opened with an effective lede intended to leave the reader thinking, ‘Yes I do like comfort food as well as comfort music, I will read on.’ After a brief background of the album, where he mentions its “references, allusions and nods,” Caramanica’s “but” reveals his mixed feelings on the album. He recognizes the attempted symbolism within “The Foundation”, but because of its stereotypical nature, the album sounds “almost like a parody, what a Northerner might write when asked to imagine what’s in the mind of a Southerner.”
Caramanica opens his review of The Zac Brown Band’s live performance by claiming that the band he saw at Bowery Ballroom was more musically focused than the band he heard on the lyrically centered “The Foundation.” Regardless, Caramanica holds mixed views on the Zac Brown Band’s live performance. In his “but” statement, he refers to the performance as “genial, sometimes affective.” He criticizes both the band and the audience for becoming disinterested and “undermining the hierarchy of performer and crowd.” At other times he praises Zac Brown’s performance in some of the more desolate songs, such as “Highway 20 Ride.”
This review was very intriguing to me because of the way it managed to review two different facets of the music industry while effectively exploring the differences between the two.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Springsteen’s “12 Minute Party” Lives Up to the Record Breaking Hype of Super Bowl 43
There was no “accidental” bearing of breasts, nor was there a sexually suggestive 60 foot silhouette depicting a guitar as something much more reproductive than a musical instrument. There was, however, an ensemble of AARP eligible rockers trying to deliver on their promise of a “12 minute party” in front of a record breaking 98.7 million party-goers around the world.
The performance of Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street band at halftime of Super Bowl 43, while not flawless, lived up to the immense hype and will be remembered among the great performance in Super Bowl history.
Opening with a silhouette reminiscent of the album cover of the classic “Born to Run,” the Boss lived up to his moniker, instructing America to “step away from the guacamole dip” and to “put down the chicken wings.” In vintage Springsteen style, he leapt onto the piano before opening with two songs from the legendary record.
The first saxophone notes of “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” set the tone for the high-energy, raucous performance of the jazzy classic that saw Springsteen nearly enter the living rooms of America. Overshooting his patented knee slide across the stage, he bowled over the camera man. The audience gasped, the band kept playing and Springsteen got up laughing. This first song of the set not only set the tone for the rest of the performance, but got the crowd going and let everyone know that Springsteen is not your ordinary 59 year old rock and roll has been.
With the crowd already in the palm of his hand, he followed with a stunning performance of the stadium anthem classic, “Born to Run,” that left even Springsteen out of breath. He once again demonstrated the passion and stage prowess he has been known for since the mid-Seventies, providing a moment that will live in Super Bowl halftime lore right next to Prince’s scintillating guitar solo and U2’s rousing, post 9/11 performance.
The low point of the show occurred in the third song of the set, Springsteen’s new single “Working on a Dream.” It would be hard to blame Springsteen for trying to promote his new album without paying for a three million dollar ad. However, the tone and pace of the song seemed to hinder the liveliness of both the performance and crowd. With the plethora of classics in his arsenal, “Working on a Dream” was a disappointing addition to the set.
Springsteen saved the moment, reeling the crowd in with a lighthearted performance of another one of his classics, “Glory Days.” Fitting the Super Bowl theme, he changed the main character of the song from a baseball player to a football player and even had a mock referee appear on stage to throw a yellow flag for delay of game as Springsteen and the E-Street band played over their 12 minute limit.
On the biggest stage in American culture, in front of the most viewers to ever watch a televised event, Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band delivered a powerful performance that matched the fervor and excitement of the game itself, making what was supposed to be a ‘break in the action’ a defining moment of Super Bowl 43.
The performance of Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street band at halftime of Super Bowl 43, while not flawless, lived up to the immense hype and will be remembered among the great performance in Super Bowl history.
Opening with a silhouette reminiscent of the album cover of the classic “Born to Run,” the Boss lived up to his moniker, instructing America to “step away from the guacamole dip” and to “put down the chicken wings.” In vintage Springsteen style, he leapt onto the piano before opening with two songs from the legendary record.
The first saxophone notes of “Tenth Avenue Freeze Out” set the tone for the high-energy, raucous performance of the jazzy classic that saw Springsteen nearly enter the living rooms of America. Overshooting his patented knee slide across the stage, he bowled over the camera man. The audience gasped, the band kept playing and Springsteen got up laughing. This first song of the set not only set the tone for the rest of the performance, but got the crowd going and let everyone know that Springsteen is not your ordinary 59 year old rock and roll has been.
With the crowd already in the palm of his hand, he followed with a stunning performance of the stadium anthem classic, “Born to Run,” that left even Springsteen out of breath. He once again demonstrated the passion and stage prowess he has been known for since the mid-Seventies, providing a moment that will live in Super Bowl halftime lore right next to Prince’s scintillating guitar solo and U2’s rousing, post 9/11 performance.
The low point of the show occurred in the third song of the set, Springsteen’s new single “Working on a Dream.” It would be hard to blame Springsteen for trying to promote his new album without paying for a three million dollar ad. However, the tone and pace of the song seemed to hinder the liveliness of both the performance and crowd. With the plethora of classics in his arsenal, “Working on a Dream” was a disappointing addition to the set.
Springsteen saved the moment, reeling the crowd in with a lighthearted performance of another one of his classics, “Glory Days.” Fitting the Super Bowl theme, he changed the main character of the song from a baseball player to a football player and even had a mock referee appear on stage to throw a yellow flag for delay of game as Springsteen and the E-Street band played over their 12 minute limit.
On the biggest stage in American culture, in front of the most viewers to ever watch a televised event, Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band delivered a powerful performance that matched the fervor and excitement of the game itself, making what was supposed to be a ‘break in the action’ a defining moment of Super Bowl 43.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"The Elements of Style"
While reading "The Elements of Style" I found many things that I wish to incorporate into my writing, as well as many things I would like to change.
"16. Use definite, specific and concrete language"
I often times find that my writing is hampered by vagueness. I don't know if it is laziness or lack of consciousness towards this lack of concrete language, but I feel this change could improve my writing greatly both in journalism and creative fiction situations.
"17. Omit needless words"
I think my tendency to use needless words ties in to my problem with vague writing. Often times because my writing is vague, I feel the need to "spice it up" with needless adverbs or adjectives. This hurts the quality of my writing as it sometimes makes it difficult to decipher the real meaning in a paragraph or section of my work.
"16. Use definite, specific and concrete language"
I often times find that my writing is hampered by vagueness. I don't know if it is laziness or lack of consciousness towards this lack of concrete language, but I feel this change could improve my writing greatly both in journalism and creative fiction situations.
"17. Omit needless words"
I think my tendency to use needless words ties in to my problem with vague writing. Often times because my writing is vague, I feel the need to "spice it up" with needless adverbs or adjectives. This hurts the quality of my writing as it sometimes makes it difficult to decipher the real meaning in a paragraph or section of my work.
Notorious
Just in time for the newly released "Notorious" here are the top 10 Notorious B.I.G. rap lines, according to theboombox.com
http://www.theboombox.com/2009/01/16/top-10-notorious-b-i-g-quotables-no-10/
http://www.theboombox.com/2009/01/16/top-10-notorious-b-i-g-quotables-no-10/
The Critic as an Artist?
Oscar Wilde presents a very intriguing argument in "The Critic as Artist." The main points of his argument revolve around his theory that, "To the critic the work of art is simply a suggestion for a new work of his own, that need not necessarily bear an obvious resemblance to the thing he criticizes." He argues that the way in which the critic uses other materials, other creations of art, to create his own art is no different than painters, writers or musicians in that they also draw on other inspirations. He uses Shakespeare and his use of mythology as an example of this. He asserts that an actor himself is a critic of the the play he acts in and a musician is a critic of the music he plays. Within each criticism, therefore, is art.
Further, he argues that it is from the critic that art receives its meaning and beauty. He contends that most of the meaning and beauty behind art is not from the original creator's intentions, but from the personal emotions and ideas others draw from it. It is through this art is given its eternal life and ability to evolve with the times. Great works of art will always have a meaning to someone no matter what era it is viewed.
Wilde uses a structure in which two people, Gilbert and Ernest, talk about the role of critics and their criticisms. Gilbert explains his theory to Ernest as Ernest plays somewhat of a devil's advocate. I think that this structure works well for Wilde's argument in that he is able to convey his own arguments and beliefs while also using them to combat, what he anticipates to be, opposing arguments of his theory.
Wilde's argument for the critic as an artist was very convincing and one I had never quite thought of before. I would agree that the critic who interprets art by "intensifying his own personality" in the works of others should indeed be considered both an artist and a driving force of art. If a critic truly gives a work his own meaning through his own inner thoughts and feelings, then he is doing the exact same thing as someone like Bob Dylan does when he writes songs like "The Hurricane." Just as Dylan used his own inner feelings toward an external person and event, an African American boxer unjustly convicted of murder, to create his art, so does the critic use his own inner feelings toward an external work to to create his.
Further, he argues that it is from the critic that art receives its meaning and beauty. He contends that most of the meaning and beauty behind art is not from the original creator's intentions, but from the personal emotions and ideas others draw from it. It is through this art is given its eternal life and ability to evolve with the times. Great works of art will always have a meaning to someone no matter what era it is viewed.
Wilde uses a structure in which two people, Gilbert and Ernest, talk about the role of critics and their criticisms. Gilbert explains his theory to Ernest as Ernest plays somewhat of a devil's advocate. I think that this structure works well for Wilde's argument in that he is able to convey his own arguments and beliefs while also using them to combat, what he anticipates to be, opposing arguments of his theory.
Wilde's argument for the critic as an artist was very convincing and one I had never quite thought of before. I would agree that the critic who interprets art by "intensifying his own personality" in the works of others should indeed be considered both an artist and a driving force of art. If a critic truly gives a work his own meaning through his own inner thoughts and feelings, then he is doing the exact same thing as someone like Bob Dylan does when he writes songs like "The Hurricane." Just as Dylan used his own inner feelings toward an external person and event, an African American boxer unjustly convicted of murder, to create his art, so does the critic use his own inner feelings toward an external work to to create his.
Cultural organizations looking at little kids for funding?
A growing trend in Detroit, as well as the rest of the country....
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090124/METRO/901240379
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090124/METRO/901240379
New Movie Studio in Southeast Michigan?
Here is an interesting article about the possibility of a 'very large' movie studio opening in southeast Michigan.
http://www.pressandguide.com/stories/011109/loc_20090111003.shtml
http://www.pressandguide.com/stories/011109/loc_20090111003.shtml
Real Life 'Slumdog Millionare'
Here is an interesting little video for anyone who has seen or plans to see 'Slumdog Millionare." A rickshaw driver who won over a million rupees on a game show.
http://video.aol.com/partner/cbs/the-real-slumdog-millionaire/43TqgS4rtK0_7o_XHN74nTEMrp_Q83b6/?icid=VIDLRVENT02
http://video.aol.com/partner/cbs/the-real-slumdog-millionaire/43TqgS4rtK0_7o_XHN74nTEMrp_Q83b6/?icid=VIDLRVENT02
Monday, January 26, 2009
"Taxi to the Dark Side" an Effective Look at what 'American Justice' has Become
“One by one the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.”
-George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address
Newly inaugurated President Barrack Obama’s executive orders to close the Guantanamo Bay Corrections Facility has rekindled a debate regarding the meaning of “American justice” that former President Bush was referring to in 2003. Since its inception following the September 11th terrorist attacks, the “War on Terror” has led to a transformation of certain aspects of the American justice system that many believe defies the very ideals our forefathers strived for. Alex Gibney’s Academy Award winning “Taxi to the Dark Side” is a thorough investigation of this evolution of “American justice.”
Based around the story of an innocent Afghani taxi driver who was tortured and murdered while in United States’ custody, “Taxi to the Dark Side” delves deeper into the underlying issue, becoming a comprehensive study of the United State’s torturous interrogation techniques of the past fifty years.
Gibney does an admirable job in his attempt to examine every facet of the subject. From explanations of the torture techniques, inside looks at facilities, insightful interviews and an effective exploration of the politics behind it all, “Taxi to the Dark Side” gives the audience an in depth glimpse of the occurrences prompting President Obama’s first set of executive orders. Although not always pleasant to the eyes, heart or patriotic spirit, “Taxi to the Dark Side” is a must see documentary.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” incorporates a multitude of interviews from seemingly every slant of the issue including the implicated soldiers, families of the victims, Washington insiders, experts within the psychiatric field and even the lawyers of the detainees. The interviews with Washington big shots, such as Senator Carl Levin, make this documentary a legitimate, journalistic exploration of the issue while an interview with the family of the victim allows it to touch the audience emotionally.
Gibney skillfully interchanges video clips from speeches and news programs to compliment the diverse array of interviews and give even further perspective. For instance, he shows Vice President Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press” advocating the United States to get “mean, dirty and nasty” while glorifying the work of the United States on the “darker side of intelligence.”
Both the cinematography and soundtrack in “Taxi to the Dark Side” are outstanding for a documentary of this nature. From the clean transitions to the “shock of capture” scene, the cinematography offers a visually appealing break from the often times difficult to watch footage.
The soundtrack’s somber tone did an exceptional job at adding to an already solemn mood.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is a thorough investigation of a very significant subject that blends information, media and cinema in a way that encapsulates elements of both journalism and art. With President Obama’s recent executive orders, its relevance cannot be understated, but as long as there is war in this world and detainees in these wars, “Taxi to the Dark Side” will remain a valuable American documentary.
-George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address
Newly inaugurated President Barrack Obama’s executive orders to close the Guantanamo Bay Corrections Facility has rekindled a debate regarding the meaning of “American justice” that former President Bush was referring to in 2003. Since its inception following the September 11th terrorist attacks, the “War on Terror” has led to a transformation of certain aspects of the American justice system that many believe defies the very ideals our forefathers strived for. Alex Gibney’s Academy Award winning “Taxi to the Dark Side” is a thorough investigation of this evolution of “American justice.”
Based around the story of an innocent Afghani taxi driver who was tortured and murdered while in United States’ custody, “Taxi to the Dark Side” delves deeper into the underlying issue, becoming a comprehensive study of the United State’s torturous interrogation techniques of the past fifty years.
Gibney does an admirable job in his attempt to examine every facet of the subject. From explanations of the torture techniques, inside looks at facilities, insightful interviews and an effective exploration of the politics behind it all, “Taxi to the Dark Side” gives the audience an in depth glimpse of the occurrences prompting President Obama’s first set of executive orders. Although not always pleasant to the eyes, heart or patriotic spirit, “Taxi to the Dark Side” is a must see documentary.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” incorporates a multitude of interviews from seemingly every slant of the issue including the implicated soldiers, families of the victims, Washington insiders, experts within the psychiatric field and even the lawyers of the detainees. The interviews with Washington big shots, such as Senator Carl Levin, make this documentary a legitimate, journalistic exploration of the issue while an interview with the family of the victim allows it to touch the audience emotionally.
Gibney skillfully interchanges video clips from speeches and news programs to compliment the diverse array of interviews and give even further perspective. For instance, he shows Vice President Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press” advocating the United States to get “mean, dirty and nasty” while glorifying the work of the United States on the “darker side of intelligence.”
Both the cinematography and soundtrack in “Taxi to the Dark Side” are outstanding for a documentary of this nature. From the clean transitions to the “shock of capture” scene, the cinematography offers a visually appealing break from the often times difficult to watch footage.
The soundtrack’s somber tone did an exceptional job at adding to an already solemn mood.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is a thorough investigation of a very significant subject that blends information, media and cinema in a way that encapsulates elements of both journalism and art. With President Obama’s recent executive orders, its relevance cannot be understated, but as long as there is war in this world and detainees in these wars, “Taxi to the Dark Side” will remain a valuable American documentary.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
What I would do differently: Gran Torino
While reading my "Gran Torino" view from a distance I found many flaws but one stood out in particular. I structured my review like a academic paper rather that a review. My paragraphs were much too long and I often times covered several points in a single paragraph rather than giving each topic its own glory.
I also struggled with the 500 word maximum, and in retrospect it was due to my inefficient use of words. Rather than useless adverb and adjectives I could have fit more meaningful information and opinion into my review.
I realized after already posting my blog and turning in my hard copy that i neglected to put the movie title in quotations, a careless and somewhat embarrassing mistake. In the future I hope to avoid small mistakes like this as they will kill a review regardless of the content.
Content wise, I wish I would have seen the movie on Friday or Saturday. I saw it at 9:45 on Sunday and immediately wrote my review. With such a small time frame for reflection I found only the enjoyable parts of the movie in my consciousness. The more I thought of the movie, especially after our class discussion, the more I was reminded of certain negative elements I had overlooked. While I still would have given "Gran Torino" a good review, it would not have been as glowing.
I also struggled with the 500 word maximum, and in retrospect it was due to my inefficient use of words. Rather than useless adverb and adjectives I could have fit more meaningful information and opinion into my review.
I realized after already posting my blog and turning in my hard copy that i neglected to put the movie title in quotations, a careless and somewhat embarrassing mistake. In the future I hope to avoid small mistakes like this as they will kill a review regardless of the content.
Content wise, I wish I would have seen the movie on Friday or Saturday. I saw it at 9:45 on Sunday and immediately wrote my review. With such a small time frame for reflection I found only the enjoyable parts of the movie in my consciousness. The more I thought of the movie, especially after our class discussion, the more I was reminded of certain negative elements I had overlooked. While I still would have given "Gran Torino" a good review, it would not have been as glowing.
Monday, January 19, 2009
"LIVE FROM BAGHDAD" DOES NOT GROW INTO CLASSIC
It is not often that one has insider access to the emergence of an American media icon.
“Live from Baghdad” is a behind the scenes portrayal of a CNN news crew in Iraq as they seek a story that will finally grant respectability to their network. Led by Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, the CNN crew must clash with both competing networks and a restrictive Iraqi government for a coveted interview with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Although an entertaining and authentic look at one of the more captivating events in modern media history, “Live from Baghdad” cannot overcome its insufficient political context and character growth. Because of these flaws, “Live from Baghdad” comes up just short of reaching the plateau set by other war time journalism classics such as Roland Joffe’s “The Killing Fields” and Phillip Noyce’s “The Quiet American.”
Michael Keaton does an admirable job in his attempt to saved flawed protagonist, CNN producer Robert Wiener, but a lack of character growth makes him difficult to pull for. Wiener begins the film as an egomaniac and there is not enough evidence by the end of the film that he has changed. What Wiener lacks, however, is more than made up for by a strong and complimentary supporting cast. Bruce McGill’s depiction of the flamboyant, fearless veteran war reporter Peter Arnett steals the show.
The screenplay succeeds in both the overall telling of the story and humorous, witty dialogue but struggles in its exploration of individual relationships. The romantic relationship, if you can call it that, between Wiener and Formanek is forced and adds little to the film. The unfaithful nature of this relationship makes it difficult to become emotionally attached to. The basic essence of this romance can be personified in the awkward, drunken conversation between the two where they attempt to discern if their sexual affairs were real or realistic alcohol induced dreams.
Along with stellar acting, both the cinematography and the soundtrack are strong points of the film. From the intricate nuances throughout the film, such as real Gulf War footage, to the spectacular “firework” display at its climax, “Live from Baghdad is an authentic, visually pleasing experience. The Middle Eastern influenced soundtrack also adds to the authenticity to the movie.
The HBO produced film focuses exceedingly on the CNN brand and crew while inadequately exploring the overarching political ramifications of the situation. This should not come as a surprise as CNN and HBO are branches of the same corporate family tree. This lack of political centered drama does not allow “Live from Baghdad” to encapsulate the intricate weaving of personal and political crises of classics within the genre, such as “The Killing Fields.”
A noteworthy depiction of the true story told by CNN producer Robert Wiener’s memoirs, three time Oscar winning “Live from Baghdad” offers a rare behind the scenes look at a news story that changed American culture but lacks the political and personal depth that have made other movies of this genre classics.
“Live from Baghdad” is a behind the scenes portrayal of a CNN news crew in Iraq as they seek a story that will finally grant respectability to their network. Led by Robert Wiener, played by Michael Keaton, the CNN crew must clash with both competing networks and a restrictive Iraqi government for a coveted interview with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Although an entertaining and authentic look at one of the more captivating events in modern media history, “Live from Baghdad” cannot overcome its insufficient political context and character growth. Because of these flaws, “Live from Baghdad” comes up just short of reaching the plateau set by other war time journalism classics such as Roland Joffe’s “The Killing Fields” and Phillip Noyce’s “The Quiet American.”
Michael Keaton does an admirable job in his attempt to saved flawed protagonist, CNN producer Robert Wiener, but a lack of character growth makes him difficult to pull for. Wiener begins the film as an egomaniac and there is not enough evidence by the end of the film that he has changed. What Wiener lacks, however, is more than made up for by a strong and complimentary supporting cast. Bruce McGill’s depiction of the flamboyant, fearless veteran war reporter Peter Arnett steals the show.
The screenplay succeeds in both the overall telling of the story and humorous, witty dialogue but struggles in its exploration of individual relationships. The romantic relationship, if you can call it that, between Wiener and Formanek is forced and adds little to the film. The unfaithful nature of this relationship makes it difficult to become emotionally attached to. The basic essence of this romance can be personified in the awkward, drunken conversation between the two where they attempt to discern if their sexual affairs were real or realistic alcohol induced dreams.
Along with stellar acting, both the cinematography and the soundtrack are strong points of the film. From the intricate nuances throughout the film, such as real Gulf War footage, to the spectacular “firework” display at its climax, “Live from Baghdad is an authentic, visually pleasing experience. The Middle Eastern influenced soundtrack also adds to the authenticity to the movie.
The HBO produced film focuses exceedingly on the CNN brand and crew while inadequately exploring the overarching political ramifications of the situation. This should not come as a surprise as CNN and HBO are branches of the same corporate family tree. This lack of political centered drama does not allow “Live from Baghdad” to encapsulate the intricate weaving of personal and political crises of classics within the genre, such as “The Killing Fields.”
A noteworthy depiction of the true story told by CNN producer Robert Wiener’s memoirs, three time Oscar winning “Live from Baghdad” offers a rare behind the scenes look at a news story that changed American culture but lacks the political and personal depth that have made other movies of this genre classics.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Gran Torino Review Research
While researching for my Gran Torino movie review, I found the Internet Movie Database website (imdb.com), a website devoted to every facet of movies, to be extremely helpful. I used their Gran Torino specific page for purposes specifically relating to the movie. It was very helpful in reminding me of certain smaller elements I may have overlooked during my viewing of the movie such as character names and the actors who played them. Further I used their actor specific pages for background information on many of the actors. It was vital in my background descriptions of Clint Eastwood as both an actor and as a director, for example his Academy Award history and the possibility of this being his last movie.
Website = http://www.imdb.com
Website = http://www.imdb.com
Monday, January 12, 2009
Gran Torino Review
Seventy-eight year old box office icon Clint Eastwood sitting in a dimly lit room, cigarette in his mouth and blood streaming from his tattered, glass filled knuckles may be one of the enduring images of Gran Torino, but could it also be the final image of Eastwood’s unforgettable career? According to Eastwood himself, Gran Torino is very likely to be his last appearance in front of the camera. If this is indeed true, than the legendary Hollywood tough guy could not have selected a better way to ride into the sunset. Also a two time Academy Award winning director, Eastwood maneuvered through an opulently intricate screen play to compose a multilayered masterpiece that will absolutely enter into the Oscar discussion come February. Gran Torino’s unique ability to fuse together racial tension, complex character development, bloodshed and redemption bring to life an inspiring take on several all too familiar Hollywood themes. Oh and by the way, Dirty Harry will have you laughing the whole way through.
Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, is a no non-sense, racist, alcoholic Korean War vet who becomes irritated as he loses his Detroit neighborhood to an ever increasing influx of Asian immigrants. After several gang-related incidents, including the attempted theft of his beloved Gran Torino, he becomes acquainted with his two young Hmong teenager neighbors, Sue Lor (Ahney Her) and Thao Van Lor (Bee Vang). Together, Sue and Thao gradually begin to crack the surly old man and his racist convictions. As Kowalski’s gruff façade begins to crumble, the focus of the film shifts away from racial tensions into a story of redemption; a story of reconciling past sins and finding inner peace. There are events in Kowalski’s past that haunt him, and he seeks to escape from them.
Eastwood’s Dirty Harryesque portrayal of Walt Kowalski, in my opinion, should unquestionably earn him his third Academy Award nomination as an actor, and perhaps his first Oscar. For a seventy-eight year old man he is more than capable of convincing the audience that he is a legitimately dangerous individual. Complimenting his patented intensity is his sense of old fashioned morals and a multitude of sharp one liners, which give his character a certain embattled depth. This multifaceted disposition gives the audience a reason to root for him, even in his boorishness and bigotry. Ahney Her, appearing in her first film, also stood out for both her quirky persona and exceptional on screen chemistry with Eastwood. She endears herself to the audience to the extent that her role in the film’s climactic events generates genuine feelings of distress and indignation that are essential to the movie’s conclusion.
Gran Torino is an ideal concluding chapter to an illustrious, legendary journey that began in the Wild West and, fittingly, draws to a close in the equally wild Mid West. If this is indeed Clint Eastwood’s last appearance on the silver screen, he is riding out on a masterpiece that assures his role as one of the foremost tough guys in Hollywood.
Eastwood’s character, Walt Kowalski, is a no non-sense, racist, alcoholic Korean War vet who becomes irritated as he loses his Detroit neighborhood to an ever increasing influx of Asian immigrants. After several gang-related incidents, including the attempted theft of his beloved Gran Torino, he becomes acquainted with his two young Hmong teenager neighbors, Sue Lor (Ahney Her) and Thao Van Lor (Bee Vang). Together, Sue and Thao gradually begin to crack the surly old man and his racist convictions. As Kowalski’s gruff façade begins to crumble, the focus of the film shifts away from racial tensions into a story of redemption; a story of reconciling past sins and finding inner peace. There are events in Kowalski’s past that haunt him, and he seeks to escape from them.
Eastwood’s Dirty Harryesque portrayal of Walt Kowalski, in my opinion, should unquestionably earn him his third Academy Award nomination as an actor, and perhaps his first Oscar. For a seventy-eight year old man he is more than capable of convincing the audience that he is a legitimately dangerous individual. Complimenting his patented intensity is his sense of old fashioned morals and a multitude of sharp one liners, which give his character a certain embattled depth. This multifaceted disposition gives the audience a reason to root for him, even in his boorishness and bigotry. Ahney Her, appearing in her first film, also stood out for both her quirky persona and exceptional on screen chemistry with Eastwood. She endears herself to the audience to the extent that her role in the film’s climactic events generates genuine feelings of distress and indignation that are essential to the movie’s conclusion.
Gran Torino is an ideal concluding chapter to an illustrious, legendary journey that began in the Wild West and, fittingly, draws to a close in the equally wild Mid West. If this is indeed Clint Eastwood’s last appearance on the silver screen, he is riding out on a masterpiece that assures his role as one of the foremost tough guys in Hollywood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)