Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Untitled
You know what? I have come to realize that I don't care what I think. I really don't. That's a weird state of mind to inhabit.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
3.6.15
There is little left for me to question.
Yet there is much left for me to experience, cherish, and love.
So it is.
3.5.15
"There will never be another me, and no matter what they do, there will never be another you."
-Eminem
Dictators have had a history of caring a little too much about cinema. I don't know why this is. Perhaps it is some childish power trip. Regardless, it has been consistent. As absurd as it may sound, Stalin was credited for every movie review written during his reign. The list of films banned under Stalin was so extensive it even included all of the propaganda films made under the leadership of Lenin. Whereas Hitler actually managed to use cinema as a powerful tool of propaganda.
Here is a story from history. I don't have much time.
An influential director in the "Golden Age" of South Korean cinema was to be swept up in this sort of dictatorial obsession. Shin Sang-ok was a prolific South Korean director in the '50s and 60s, but declined in the '70s under strict censorship. It is important to note that Shin had divorced his wife (actress Choi Eun-Hee) by this point.
Also, it is believed that 3,796 South Koreans have been abducted by North Korea (beginning in 1950). In case that is confusing to you, understand that many of these victims are returned to their home countries as North Korean spies. The abductions are not limited to South Korea, either.
Both Choi and and Shin were allegedly kidnapped (separately) in 1978. There is much debate over what truly happened. Shin claims to have been kept in a concentration camp, where he lived on bread and water (as well as grass). Soon after this he agreed to be the new architect of North Korean cinema. Kim Jong Il intended to revolutionize filmmaking and prove to the world that North Korea was a force to be reckoned with. Shin was invited to a decadent feast where he first realized that Choi had also been kidnapped. Shortly thereafter they remarried to please the state.
Back in South Korea, Shin was known to do anything within his power to be making films. This is where some skeptics would argue that Shin was simply an opportunist. In the '70s Shin's decline was linked to his falling out with General Park. For some this seems like a convenient time to get "kidnapped". How grand would it be to leap from struggling under strict censorship to be dining with the king of censors? North Korea claims that Shin and Choi came willingly. However, during one of the earliest meetings, Choi managed to smuggle in a tape recorder and document Kim's plans for them both. This evidence was instrumental in validating their story.
Eventually they were both permitted to attend a film festival in Vienna, where they managed to escape to the American Embassy.
From all that Shin says of Kim, it seems that he really just wanted to be like the Soviets. However, Kim had no Pudovkin, no Eisenstein, no Vertov, and no Dovzhenko. Kim had only Shin. And what did Shin bring him?
Pulgasari (1985).
The film was inspired by the Japanese monster-movie series, Gojira. Overtime Gojira has taken on many different forms. To me, this iteration has no equivalent. The story of Pulgasari is based on a Korean legend. The narrative presents an oppressive king who sends his army to confiscate all metal from the starving farmers- pots, pans, and utensils. Can anyone say Mao?
Soon after, a blacksmith is arrested for refusing to forge all this metal into swords. While in prison his daughter smuggles in some rice for him, which he fashions into a small doll. After his death, with the prompting of a drop of her blood, the doll transforms into the monster. The monster consumes iron, growing with each ingestion. The monster leads the farmers in a rebellion against the tyrannical king. The monster does not balk, even against rockets (yes, in 1000 A.D., there are rockets). Pulgasari joins the people in shattering the system of feudalism. And then it gets weird. Yes, now.
The insatiable monster starts to devour all of the tools and pots and pans that the people have fought to win back. All that remains is a large bell where the blacksmith's daughter is hiding. And then..
"Pulgasari eats the bell and with it the girl inside. But he is meant to eat iron, not girls. Upon tasting the blacksmith daughter, he explodes. A tiny Pulgasari is running around the debris, hit by a light beam and dissolving… The blacksmith’s daughter is sleeping in the midst of the rubble with a tear on her face… End."
Where Stalin was afraid of artistic expression, Kim was unaware of it. This film would never have been released under Stalin, because it could have been a subtle critique. I think it was. Minus the subtle part. Would this film help restore the people's faith in the Worker's Party or just remind the masses of their lack of human rights? Many Korean critics find it laughable that this film was released as propaganda, when it is clearly pointing a big finger at Kim Jong Il (and his father before him). Could it be that the film even jumps forward, asking what will come of the weakening of the regime under Kim Jong Un?
All in all, Choi and Shin never separated again.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2003/apr/04/artsfeatures1
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/ssrc/result/memoirs/kiyou22/22-01.pdf
-Eminem
Dictators have had a history of caring a little too much about cinema. I don't know why this is. Perhaps it is some childish power trip. Regardless, it has been consistent. As absurd as it may sound, Stalin was credited for every movie review written during his reign. The list of films banned under Stalin was so extensive it even included all of the propaganda films made under the leadership of Lenin. Whereas Hitler actually managed to use cinema as a powerful tool of propaganda.
Here is a story from history. I don't have much time.
An influential director in the "Golden Age" of South Korean cinema was to be swept up in this sort of dictatorial obsession. Shin Sang-ok was a prolific South Korean director in the '50s and 60s, but declined in the '70s under strict censorship. It is important to note that Shin had divorced his wife (actress Choi Eun-Hee) by this point.
Also, it is believed that 3,796 South Koreans have been abducted by North Korea (beginning in 1950). In case that is confusing to you, understand that many of these victims are returned to their home countries as North Korean spies. The abductions are not limited to South Korea, either.
Both Choi and and Shin were allegedly kidnapped (separately) in 1978. There is much debate over what truly happened. Shin claims to have been kept in a concentration camp, where he lived on bread and water (as well as grass). Soon after this he agreed to be the new architect of North Korean cinema. Kim Jong Il intended to revolutionize filmmaking and prove to the world that North Korea was a force to be reckoned with. Shin was invited to a decadent feast where he first realized that Choi had also been kidnapped. Shortly thereafter they remarried to please the state.
Back in South Korea, Shin was known to do anything within his power to be making films. This is where some skeptics would argue that Shin was simply an opportunist. In the '70s Shin's decline was linked to his falling out with General Park. For some this seems like a convenient time to get "kidnapped". How grand would it be to leap from struggling under strict censorship to be dining with the king of censors? North Korea claims that Shin and Choi came willingly. However, during one of the earliest meetings, Choi managed to smuggle in a tape recorder and document Kim's plans for them both. This evidence was instrumental in validating their story.
Eventually they were both permitted to attend a film festival in Vienna, where they managed to escape to the American Embassy.
From all that Shin says of Kim, it seems that he really just wanted to be like the Soviets. However, Kim had no Pudovkin, no Eisenstein, no Vertov, and no Dovzhenko. Kim had only Shin. And what did Shin bring him?
Pulgasari (1985).
The film was inspired by the Japanese monster-movie series, Gojira. Overtime Gojira has taken on many different forms. To me, this iteration has no equivalent. The story of Pulgasari is based on a Korean legend. The narrative presents an oppressive king who sends his army to confiscate all metal from the starving farmers- pots, pans, and utensils. Can anyone say Mao?
Soon after, a blacksmith is arrested for refusing to forge all this metal into swords. While in prison his daughter smuggles in some rice for him, which he fashions into a small doll. After his death, with the prompting of a drop of her blood, the doll transforms into the monster. The monster consumes iron, growing with each ingestion. The monster leads the farmers in a rebellion against the tyrannical king. The monster does not balk, even against rockets (yes, in 1000 A.D., there are rockets). Pulgasari joins the people in shattering the system of feudalism. And then it gets weird. Yes, now.
The insatiable monster starts to devour all of the tools and pots and pans that the people have fought to win back. All that remains is a large bell where the blacksmith's daughter is hiding. And then..
"Pulgasari eats the bell and with it the girl inside. But he is meant to eat iron, not girls. Upon tasting the blacksmith daughter, he explodes. A tiny Pulgasari is running around the debris, hit by a light beam and dissolving… The blacksmith’s daughter is sleeping in the midst of the rubble with a tear on her face… End."
Where Stalin was afraid of artistic expression, Kim was unaware of it. This film would never have been released under Stalin, because it could have been a subtle critique. I think it was. Minus the subtle part. Would this film help restore the people's faith in the Worker's Party or just remind the masses of their lack of human rights? Many Korean critics find it laughable that this film was released as propaganda, when it is clearly pointing a big finger at Kim Jong Il (and his father before him). Could it be that the film even jumps forward, asking what will come of the weakening of the regime under Kim Jong Un?
All in all, Choi and Shin never separated again.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2003/apr/04/artsfeatures1
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/ssrc/result/memoirs/kiyou22/22-01.pdf
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
3.4.15
"Less heart more head"
This post contains minor spoilers for Boat People and Days of Being Wild. As well as moderate spoilers for Made in Hong Kong and the first Infernal Affairs.
DISCLAIMER: if you are not 18 years or older I do not recommend watching Made in Hong Kong or Days of Being Wild.
Today I chose a more self indulgent post. Yesterday's was not my comfort zone (to say the least), so today I shall venture into a topic naturally within my orbit. I shall possibly alternate between difficulties or something.
I present to you Andy Lau. You may only have heard of him as the Hong Kong actor who dropped out of Iron Man 3. Unbeknownst to the general public he had much better things to do. Or perhaps you know him from House of Flying Daggers. This man is the eastern equivalent of George Clooney.
Andy Lau is a Hong Kong actor (as well as singer). Born into a poor family in '61, he excelled in his academics and through insane work ethic excelled as an actor. According to therichest and celebritiesmoney Lau has a net worth of $96 million.
From 1985-2005 Lau yielded 1.7 billion HKD total box office. The award for long term box office success of Hong Kong went to Lau (with Jackie placing second runner up). But let's be real, who cares about money. Am I right Murdoch? :D You get me Harvey. Rep it Koch brothers.
The first film I want to highlight is Boat People (1982). This was an early work of the under-appreciated Ann Hui. Lau stepped into play the part of To Minh when Chow Yun Fat dropped out. Lau and Hui would go on to collaborate in the future. The film follows a photojournalist who visits postwar Vietnam and discovers the horrific nature of the New Economic Zones. This plan forcibly relocated (displaced) 800,000 or so Southerners, confiscated all property of the victims, and stripped them of all human rights. Furthermore, the property of the victims was "redistributed" to former members of the Viet Cong. This film paints a picture of Vietnam not seen elsewhere. Got to love that American legacy.
Lau starts it off with bang here. Not only does he take part in a story presenting a fresh perspective on a controversial time, Lau works with a rare director. Hui triumphed over the gender ratio bias and the default sexism of modern cinema. 1452 filmmakers were surveyed globally for Forbes, 20% were female, and 7% of those women were directors. Sexism in filmmaking is not a Chinese problem, it is as a global issue, present in every thriving film industry.
Hui is not simply exception to the rule, she is a supernova. Seriously. Lau went from struggling for clean water to placing in the top ten richest Chinese singers. What has Hui done? In truth she has achieved greater social mobility than Lau. Even though she wasn't born into a poor family, her shift has been of greater magnitude (systemically speaking). Hui is a prime example of the powerhouse of Chinese Cinema.
Rep that Angel Haze. Listen up Nicki, being an artist is what. Stop trying to prove you're the best female rapper, you're building your own glass ceiling. Crabs in a bucket.
Next comes the first producing venture of Lau: Made in Hong Kong (1997). This is an early work of Fruit Chan, a piece that makes Easy Rider seem as cute and as colorful as Oz. This film is as bleak as hospital white. Chan shows a Groundhog Day of sorts that is nuanced in its portrayal of drowning in your own impulse. Its depiction of contract killing is a minimalistic marriage of Drive and Unforgiven.
This post contains minor spoilers for Boat People and Days of Being Wild. As well as moderate spoilers for Made in Hong Kong and the first Infernal Affairs.
DISCLAIMER: if you are not 18 years or older I do not recommend watching Made in Hong Kong or Days of Being Wild.
Today I chose a more self indulgent post. Yesterday's was not my comfort zone (to say the least), so today I shall venture into a topic naturally within my orbit. I shall possibly alternate between difficulties or something.
I present to you Andy Lau. You may only have heard of him as the Hong Kong actor who dropped out of Iron Man 3. Unbeknownst to the general public he had much better things to do. Or perhaps you know him from House of Flying Daggers. This man is the eastern equivalent of George Clooney.
Andy Lau is a Hong Kong actor (as well as singer). Born into a poor family in '61, he excelled in his academics and through insane work ethic excelled as an actor. According to therichest and celebritiesmoney Lau has a net worth of $96 million.
From 1985-2005 Lau yielded 1.7 billion HKD total box office. The award for long term box office success of Hong Kong went to Lau (with Jackie placing second runner up). But let's be real, who cares about money. Am I right Murdoch? :D You get me Harvey. Rep it Koch brothers.
The first film I want to highlight is Boat People (1982). This was an early work of the under-appreciated Ann Hui. Lau stepped into play the part of To Minh when Chow Yun Fat dropped out. Lau and Hui would go on to collaborate in the future. The film follows a photojournalist who visits postwar Vietnam and discovers the horrific nature of the New Economic Zones. This plan forcibly relocated (displaced) 800,000 or so Southerners, confiscated all property of the victims, and stripped them of all human rights. Furthermore, the property of the victims was "redistributed" to former members of the Viet Cong. This film paints a picture of Vietnam not seen elsewhere. Got to love that American legacy.
Lau starts it off with bang here. Not only does he take part in a story presenting a fresh perspective on a controversial time, Lau works with a rare director. Hui triumphed over the gender ratio bias and the default sexism of modern cinema. 1452 filmmakers were surveyed globally for Forbes, 20% were female, and 7% of those women were directors. Sexism in filmmaking is not a Chinese problem, it is as a global issue, present in every thriving film industry.
Hui is not simply exception to the rule, she is a supernova. Seriously. Lau went from struggling for clean water to placing in the top ten richest Chinese singers. What has Hui done? In truth she has achieved greater social mobility than Lau. Even though she wasn't born into a poor family, her shift has been of greater magnitude (systemically speaking). Hui is a prime example of the powerhouse of Chinese Cinema.
Rep that Angel Haze. Listen up Nicki, being an artist is what. Stop trying to prove you're the best female rapper, you're building your own glass ceiling. Crabs in a bucket.
Next comes the first producing venture of Lau: Made in Hong Kong (1997). This is an early work of Fruit Chan, a piece that makes Easy Rider seem as cute and as colorful as Oz. This film is as bleak as hospital white. Chan shows a Groundhog Day of sorts that is nuanced in its portrayal of drowning in your own impulse. Its depiction of contract killing is a minimalistic marriage of Drive and Unforgiven.
I'm one of those fake '90s kids. I was born in '92, so my generation doesn't remember the '90s. Seriously, don't trust us. Still, there is this leftover aura of '99 that I think I experienced. And if there is a form of depression that I typify as '99 residue, it would be Made in Hong Kong. I'm a research expert of 8 years. So yeah. The Doctor has spoken.
Here is where I make a time jump. Ever heard of The Departed? It is a Martin Scorsese film about an undercover cop. This film stars Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio and is based on the renowned Hong Kong triad film; Infernal Affairs (2002). There are three of these Infernal Affairs films and they are directly comparable to the Godfather trilogy. These films present a collision of Lau's celebrity star status and his impeccable skill as an artist. Infernal Affairs also features Tony Leung, who might be compared to Daniel Day Lewis. The films also bring us Anthony Chau-Sang Wong, who happens to be one of the best kept secrets of the kung fu genre. Take a look at Ip Man: the Final Fight.
Moving on.
In 1990 Lau starred in Days of Being Wild. If you haven't taken the time to watch a Wong Kar Wai film then you really should reconsider. Wong is as good as Miley is infamous. It has been said that certain directors have a department in which they specialize. Soderbergh clearly is a director who cares first about camera, whereas Tarantino loves his quirky dialogue. There are some who obviously have multiple favorites, or none at all.
Well, for the west it is hard to accept a filmmaker who does not put plot or character somewhere in the forefront of the agenda of the film. Wong is one of these filmmakers. For a second consider Alejandro Inarritu and the lack of certainty or "closure" in the manner in which he resolves his narratives. From Biutiful to Birdman he is clearly concerned with something beyond character growth and three act structure. In this way Wong deviates from the norm and presents a cinematic experience concerned more with sensory visual experience than dialogue and continuity. Wong does so in The Grandmaster, Chungking Express, and particularly Days of Being Wild. This brings the viewer to recall that film is a visual medium, not a prettier stage production. Wong is well known for his masterful use of costume, and in eastern circles is considered a cinematic giant (rightfully so).
Most recently Lau wowed me with his performance in Ann Hui's A Simple Life (an excellent addition to her body of work).
Clooney and Lau are rare specimens. They are not simply typecast, nor are they without signature. Whereas Robert Duvall submits fully to the role and Robert Downing Jr submits the role to his signature, Lau and Clooney seem to float somewhere in the middle. Lau attacks the role with passion and technique and yet always brings his versatile charisma. Clooney surely levies more cohesive style than Lau, but still they thrive in a similar fashion.
Clooney plug.
If you haven't seen any of his directing you really should. He has directed the following: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Good Night and Good Luck, Monuments Men, Leather-heads, and Ides of March. He is an excellent filmmaker. I revere both Lau and Clooney.
A few honorable mentions: Three Kingdoms (Resurrection of the Dragon), Warlords, What Women Want, Infernal Affairs II, and As Tears Go By.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Forbes Survey
Here is where I make a time jump. Ever heard of The Departed? It is a Martin Scorsese film about an undercover cop. This film stars Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio and is based on the renowned Hong Kong triad film; Infernal Affairs (2002). There are three of these Infernal Affairs films and they are directly comparable to the Godfather trilogy. These films present a collision of Lau's celebrity star status and his impeccable skill as an artist. Infernal Affairs also features Tony Leung, who might be compared to Daniel Day Lewis. The films also bring us Anthony Chau-Sang Wong, who happens to be one of the best kept secrets of the kung fu genre. Take a look at Ip Man: the Final Fight.
Moving on.
In 1990 Lau starred in Days of Being Wild. If you haven't taken the time to watch a Wong Kar Wai film then you really should reconsider. Wong is as good as Miley is infamous. It has been said that certain directors have a department in which they specialize. Soderbergh clearly is a director who cares first about camera, whereas Tarantino loves his quirky dialogue. There are some who obviously have multiple favorites, or none at all.
Well, for the west it is hard to accept a filmmaker who does not put plot or character somewhere in the forefront of the agenda of the film. Wong is one of these filmmakers. For a second consider Alejandro Inarritu and the lack of certainty or "closure" in the manner in which he resolves his narratives. From Biutiful to Birdman he is clearly concerned with something beyond character growth and three act structure. In this way Wong deviates from the norm and presents a cinematic experience concerned more with sensory visual experience than dialogue and continuity. Wong does so in The Grandmaster, Chungking Express, and particularly Days of Being Wild. This brings the viewer to recall that film is a visual medium, not a prettier stage production. Wong is well known for his masterful use of costume, and in eastern circles is considered a cinematic giant (rightfully so).
Most recently Lau wowed me with his performance in Ann Hui's A Simple Life (an excellent addition to her body of work).
Clooney and Lau are rare specimens. They are not simply typecast, nor are they without signature. Whereas Robert Duvall submits fully to the role and Robert Downing Jr submits the role to his signature, Lau and Clooney seem to float somewhere in the middle. Lau attacks the role with passion and technique and yet always brings his versatile charisma. Clooney surely levies more cohesive style than Lau, but still they thrive in a similar fashion.
Clooney plug.
If you haven't seen any of his directing you really should. He has directed the following: Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Good Night and Good Luck, Monuments Men, Leather-heads, and Ides of March. He is an excellent filmmaker. I revere both Lau and Clooney.
A few honorable mentions: Three Kingdoms (Resurrection of the Dragon), Warlords, What Women Want, Infernal Affairs II, and As Tears Go By.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Forbes Survey
3.3.15
The title of this blog contains so much hubris. I am starting again. Sincerest apologies that this is so ugly. With time it will change. For now, writing needs to start. Also, I am sorry for how rigid this writing is. All of my writing muscles have forgotten how it all works. So here I begin with a simple and trite subject. I present an evil corporation. This shall be exceedingly random.
"To the champagne sipping depleted uranium droppers" -Lowkey
Lockheed Martin.
My interest in this topic was ignited by the rapper Lowkey in his song "Hand On Your Gun". At the time I honestly knew nothing about LM, and I still know very little.
To start out LM has a revenue (2014) of $45 billion. For perspective, that number is just $3 billion shy of the 2014 revenue of the Walt Disney Corporation. To continue with giving you the wiki details, LM is an American public company that specializes in aerospace, advanced technology, and defense (as well as information security). The F-35 fighter jet is a very well known product of LM. Also, LM produced necessary components for Operation Dessert Storm, and the Hubble Space Telescope (1990).
It is is important to note the US makes up the bulk of LM's clientele. LM holds contracts from the US for the Air-force, Postal Service, Department of Defense, CIA, FBI, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Census Bureau, NSA, IRS, and The Pentagon.
Here is a list of some of the work LM has done for NASA:
Orion (crew exploration vehicle), Phoenix (lander), Mars Odyssey (robotic orbital spacecraft, OSIRIS-REx (upcoming mission for 2016), and the NASA multipurpose crew vehicle.
Glassdoor is a site that provides reviews of companies and their CEOs by employees. Out of 2700 reviews LM has a rating of 3.5 out of 5 stars. This is an oddly high rating for a company of this magnitude, although I am not positive that Glassdoor efficiently filters out review bots. However, LM has 112,000 employees worldwide, so these reviews may not properly represent an average experience.
A recent story surfaced about LM. On February 20, 2015 Fortune reported that LM is to pay $62 million in a 401k lawsuit. Over 108,000 employees of LM filed suit in 2006 for mismanagement of their retirement plans. According to the plaintiffs this is the largest case alleging excessive fees in regards to the 401k. The main allegation of the suit is that LM had hidden large fees that were putting strain on the plan participants.
So there are some random facts. Presented with neither structure nor finesse. We have however, established that LM is one of the largest defense contractors in the world and reaps immense profits each year. This can show us the disparity between the annual profits of LM and the treatment of its 112,000 employees.
And now the topic of today. As most of the internet may have noticed there has been some buzz about compact fusion technology. LM has made some vague promotional claims about its progress in this regard. As is often true with the buzz, you can't trust it. I am heavily influenced on this topic by my love of reading Wired.
However it all does seem much like the video games Force Unleashed and Destiny, lots of hype and not a lot of return. Perhaps LM will eventually succeed and provide a level of energy efficiency never seen before, and perhaps Bungie will follow through on their promise to not making a repurposed Halo. In the near future? I'm not hopeful. Eventually? It could happen.
I hope that if you have read this far, you now know how very boring this blog will be to read and you will move on with your life. I am ever so counter-cultural. I really am. Truly. Tune in next time for something completely unrelated. Exciting I know.
Be it agent orange or bathtub cleaner there is a profit to be had
Incendiary bombs cull people crops and culture
Till there is little left but fad
The assembly line needs
No matter what it costsHaute couture
Blackbird
MULE
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2013-Annual-Report.pdf
http://fortune.com/2015/02/20/lockheed-martin-to-pay-62-million-to-settle-401k-lawsuit/
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Lockheed-Martin-Reviews-E404.htm
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/lockheed-martin-fusion/
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
succès d'estime
Musings On The Oddity of Cinema
what defines success... well... as i am about to go into school and enter the area at least of the epicenter of the industry of the west i figure it is the best time to start this. i shall speculate on what appears to me to be on some level absurd or amusing. in fact i shall ramble and you might read, i doubt it... but who cares. im just writing. emotional release perhaps. what defines success? i am looking in on the industry from the perspective of not only a nobody but a nobody who knows nothing about it from the inside. so i guess im saying... i should start this now before i actually learn anything. i view myself as a filmmaker, philosophically... but maybe in the future i will be one literally. so as of now, this is merely the noobs conceptual perspective on what he loves but does not know. and hopes to find if that love will turn sour as he begins to actually acquaint himself with it.
a film should speak for itself, but it is still entertaining to go behind the scenes and find out where it doesnt speak or where you dont listen (depending on your ego). i tend to enjoy the experience and the discovery of a story. but there is great confusion over whether story should dominate or whether audience appeal should dominate how the story is written and told. perhaps i should say that there was confusion. now the majority of directors have decided that success is numbers. and there maybe some joy in the process but that is the extent of a movie's success.
there are however those 'happy few' who strive for a higher level of storytelling. those who understand that money is necessary to live and to pay your cast, crew and other such associates but also realize that does not necessarily define success. now my argument is that success is relative to your vision. success being... the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. yes? so every director will judge his/her success on a different level than the thousands or few reporters who analyze his/her work. a filmmaker has vision and the success if the final product should be judged according to that vision. michael bay's transformers was obviously a success based on his obvious intentions. i need say no more. guillermo del toro's lower budget feature Devil's Backbone was a success based on his intentions but probly very few are familiar with the title. there is nothing wrong with raw entertainment or with huge explosions that could very well have possibly killed megan fox or the better looking optimus prime... but... that doesnt mean that there is no place for a variance of direction (in directing).
judging success on such specific terms is not accurate to the definition of success and i HATE it when words are abused on such a massive scale. (my blog hurts the eyes, doesnt it?). when you attack something, you need to attack it on its own terms. Success is a goal met, a goal completed. though this logic may make sense, some will say that since it is all so relative how can you judge the quality of a
director. how can you truly know his intentions for a film? that is a good point. but maybe success is the wrong word to use? if you want to judge a director on his ability as a story teller perhaps you might judge him on his critical acclaim? or if you would like to judge him on his ability to sell a movie, base it on his income? the point is... success is not what everyone thinks it is. now others will argue that the dictionary definition of success is also attaining popularity and profit. and this is true. but once again, success is relative to the standard on which you judge the subject. so there is no reason that gross income should be the only standard for success in cinema.
success should also be judged on the quality of the story. story will truly never die, the question is will it remain an afterthought to the average viewer. will ppl begin to realize that the true success of a feature film does not always rest in the digits, or the dollar signs. to paraphrase what i once read, story is a marvelous thing, hollywood is story as prostitution. but for realz... sometimes prostitution is really fun no matter how cheap it makes you feel (have you seen the prices for 3d these days?). its just pretty right? you give them money, they make your eyes happy. but it should never replace the real beautiful and original concept of story. maybe that doesnt raelly make sense but i think the point goes across. im not tryin to sound edgy, and i dont think hollywood is in any way committing anything as volatile as prostitution but it sorta does transfer. its all about instant gratification and no afterthought, no greater sense of walking away and feeling moved, feeling touched, inspired... a mainstream appeal feature will give as many ppl as it can as much of what they want which makes it so that the story itself retains no form or direction... people pleasing is for the weak of heart who lack resolve.
let the world judge as she may, i am not her's to enslave. and when i do submit myself to the authority of the majority of the audience i make a compromise. i have no freedom in my storytelling. writing on the basis of emotional appeal is in so many cases suicide. i have gotten quite side tracked here but i guess these are ramblings... do you ever watch a movie and know what you're supposed to be feeling but dont? thats what happens when writers present a 50 pg attempt at appealing to your emotions instead of writing for the sake of good story that isnt based on theories of whether 35 year old males will be too depresssed to take a romantic comedy seriously.
you define success. rember, im just a noob ;)
Taylor J. Gates (iguessyou already knew that)
what defines success... well... as i am about to go into school and enter the area at least of the epicenter of the industry of the west i figure it is the best time to start this. i shall speculate on what appears to me to be on some level absurd or amusing. in fact i shall ramble and you might read, i doubt it... but who cares. im just writing. emotional release perhaps. what defines success? i am looking in on the industry from the perspective of not only a nobody but a nobody who knows nothing about it from the inside. so i guess im saying... i should start this now before i actually learn anything. i view myself as a filmmaker, philosophically... but maybe in the future i will be one literally. so as of now, this is merely the noobs conceptual perspective on what he loves but does not know. and hopes to find if that love will turn sour as he begins to actually acquaint himself with it.
a film should speak for itself, but it is still entertaining to go behind the scenes and find out where it doesnt speak or where you dont listen (depending on your ego). i tend to enjoy the experience and the discovery of a story. but there is great confusion over whether story should dominate or whether audience appeal should dominate how the story is written and told. perhaps i should say that there was confusion. now the majority of directors have decided that success is numbers. and there maybe some joy in the process but that is the extent of a movie's success.
there are however those 'happy few' who strive for a higher level of storytelling. those who understand that money is necessary to live and to pay your cast, crew and other such associates but also realize that does not necessarily define success. now my argument is that success is relative to your vision. success being... the accomplishment of an aim or purpose. yes? so every director will judge his/her success on a different level than the thousands or few reporters who analyze his/her work. a filmmaker has vision and the success if the final product should be judged according to that vision. michael bay's transformers was obviously a success based on his obvious intentions. i need say no more. guillermo del toro's lower budget feature Devil's Backbone was a success based on his intentions but probly very few are familiar with the title. there is nothing wrong with raw entertainment or with huge explosions that could very well have possibly killed megan fox or the better looking optimus prime... but... that doesnt mean that there is no place for a variance of direction (in directing).
judging success on such specific terms is not accurate to the definition of success and i HATE it when words are abused on such a massive scale. (my blog hurts the eyes, doesnt it?). when you attack something, you need to attack it on its own terms. Success is a goal met, a goal completed. though this logic may make sense, some will say that since it is all so relative how can you judge the quality of a
director. how can you truly know his intentions for a film? that is a good point. but maybe success is the wrong word to use? if you want to judge a director on his ability as a story teller perhaps you might judge him on his critical acclaim? or if you would like to judge him on his ability to sell a movie, base it on his income? the point is... success is not what everyone thinks it is. now others will argue that the dictionary definition of success is also attaining popularity and profit. and this is true. but once again, success is relative to the standard on which you judge the subject. so there is no reason that gross income should be the only standard for success in cinema.
success should also be judged on the quality of the story. story will truly never die, the question is will it remain an afterthought to the average viewer. will ppl begin to realize that the true success of a feature film does not always rest in the digits, or the dollar signs. to paraphrase what i once read, story is a marvelous thing, hollywood is story as prostitution. but for realz... sometimes prostitution is really fun no matter how cheap it makes you feel (have you seen the prices for 3d these days?). its just pretty right? you give them money, they make your eyes happy. but it should never replace the real beautiful and original concept of story. maybe that doesnt raelly make sense but i think the point goes across. im not tryin to sound edgy, and i dont think hollywood is in any way committing anything as volatile as prostitution but it sorta does transfer. its all about instant gratification and no afterthought, no greater sense of walking away and feeling moved, feeling touched, inspired... a mainstream appeal feature will give as many ppl as it can as much of what they want which makes it so that the story itself retains no form or direction... people pleasing is for the weak of heart who lack resolve.
let the world judge as she may, i am not her's to enslave. and when i do submit myself to the authority of the majority of the audience i make a compromise. i have no freedom in my storytelling. writing on the basis of emotional appeal is in so many cases suicide. i have gotten quite side tracked here but i guess these are ramblings... do you ever watch a movie and know what you're supposed to be feeling but dont? thats what happens when writers present a 50 pg attempt at appealing to your emotions instead of writing for the sake of good story that isnt based on theories of whether 35 year old males will be too depresssed to take a romantic comedy seriously.
you define success. rember, im just a noob ;)
Taylor J. Gates (iguessyou already knew that)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)