Friday, February 19, 2010
MAKE IT STOP!!!
From an interview with Kalle Lasn, the editor of Adbusters:
"...and there’s a Pavlovian kind of a thing, you know, if somebody suddenly alarms you the adrenalin will suddenly start flowing through your body and the brain chemistry changes and television now is jolting you at a rate that is probably six or seven times what it used to be when I was a young man in Australia, watching the early television where you watched some show and there would be a shot that would last maybe for 15 seconds and some people strolled down the street and talked to each other, whatever.
One of the directors that I just absolutely loved was a Japanese director called Yasujiro Ozu and he sometimes had single shots in his films that lasted for minutes. They were very poignant scenes where a couple of old people sat in a park and just stared into the sunlight for a minute. And you had epiphanies watching that kind of stuff whereas now the producers of television programs think that they are going to lose you if they don’t jolt you with a new image or a new sound every half a second."
It's struck me that Kubrick is basically very adventurous in his filmmaking for basically the same reason - he uses space in a way that few directors do. I enjoy this characteristic as it implies that the director isn't condescending the audience - that he/she expects the audience's minds to be chattering away internally and is then allowing for it by putting room between pivotal scenes or snatches of dialogue, so that we might - god forbid - reflect on the stimulus once in a while.
I think that modern filmmaking might be a little too influenced by advertising culture - it is possible that the advertising world's compulsion to cram as much noise into as small a space as possible has infected the minds of filmmakers?
If that's the case, then I'd say it's a bit of a travesty that the art-form of our time (at least in the past few decades) is so badly influenced by a force with such unethical motives.
"...and there’s a Pavlovian kind of a thing, you know, if somebody suddenly alarms you the adrenalin will suddenly start flowing through your body and the brain chemistry changes and television now is jolting you at a rate that is probably six or seven times what it used to be when I was a young man in Australia, watching the early television where you watched some show and there would be a shot that would last maybe for 15 seconds and some people strolled down the street and talked to each other, whatever.
One of the directors that I just absolutely loved was a Japanese director called Yasujiro Ozu and he sometimes had single shots in his films that lasted for minutes. They were very poignant scenes where a couple of old people sat in a park and just stared into the sunlight for a minute. And you had epiphanies watching that kind of stuff whereas now the producers of television programs think that they are going to lose you if they don’t jolt you with a new image or a new sound every half a second."
It's struck me that Kubrick is basically very adventurous in his filmmaking for basically the same reason - he uses space in a way that few directors do. I enjoy this characteristic as it implies that the director isn't condescending the audience - that he/she expects the audience's minds to be chattering away internally and is then allowing for it by putting room between pivotal scenes or snatches of dialogue, so that we might - god forbid - reflect on the stimulus once in a while.
I think that modern filmmaking might be a little too influenced by advertising culture - it is possible that the advertising world's compulsion to cram as much noise into as small a space as possible has infected the minds of filmmakers?
If that's the case, then I'd say it's a bit of a travesty that the art-form of our time (at least in the past few decades) is so badly influenced by a force with such unethical motives.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
LOL RACISM pt.2
OK. I'll keep answers as concise as possible.
"Isn't it just possible that they never visited any 'Asian' areas of the universe? Like, Campsie is almost entirely Korean, but I never go there so if you made a show about my life, you'd never see Korean people."
No. If you're anywhere in a mixed population area, you'll see members of the various races in the same area. Go to the city and look around. You'll see Korean people. Are they a part of your life now?
"Given the whole China/US thing is never actually mentioned in-show (Not that I can remember anyway, I can only remember it saying that Earth couldn't support our numbers anymore) why does it even need to be an issue?"
Joss, at the very least, mentioned it on the commentary. It was his world, his vision, blah, blah, blah. It's canon, basically.
"It seems to stem from this guy appearing to be one of those 'Hey, there's no black/gay/asian/non-white people in this comic/show/movie/whatever so whoever made it must be totally racist/sexist/whatever!' type people."
That's not the issue. It's not overt racism as far as I can tell. The issue is that there's a demographic that should be there but isn't.
"You look in the west, and paintings of Jesus are white, you look in Africa and the same Jesus paintings are black..."
...but not among the white population in African nations...
"...it's just the cultural norm and given most of the superhero stuff started in the US 50 or so years ago, is it REALLY that surprising that most of these characters are white guys with white girlfriends?"
And a lot of it was created in the now, where the demographics are a lot more diverse. Our culture should reflect that, but it doesn't.
"Right. So it's not because (Say in the case of Batman) he had something to prove because his whole thing was basically revenge and so he practiced almost constantly to be the best? No of course not, he learned from Asian dudes, then got better at it than them because he's white, that's TOTALLY it."
Uh...Exactly.
"He's obviously never heard of Star Trek. Y'know, that show that almost never happened because there was a woman on the bridge? Not only a woman, but a BLACK woman too!"
No, but he's obviously heard of plenty of other sci-fi/fantasy series' where they don't take such edgy, edgy risks, hence the article.
"I recall my mother kvetching after watching Independence Day that "They never show what happened to Canadians" in the film."
That's different. That's because the film is set in a geographical location. Gotta be set somewhere. Firefly is set where there is apparently more ethnic diversity than what is actually portrayed is all. I'm mostly curious as to why, which was why I brought this up.
Here's the thing: What we're talking about - fundamentally - isn't Firefly (although I'll maintain that it is a good example) - it's an issue where a demographic that obviously should be represented isn't. If 'minorities' are given these roles, they're minor roles.
I'm not personally calling RACISM on this one, but I think it's worth thinking about a bit more. I know that the article made me think a bit differently about how I viewed the world - like I said, I never questioned the Firefly thing, but since it was brought to my attention, I can honestly see his point. And the point of other people who feel the same way.
One thing I liked about the Hitchhiker's movie was the casting of Mos Def as Ford. You guys might be saying 'Big Deal', but I always thought it actually was - I don't live in a bloody vaccuum. I - and many other people - are well aware that casting him for that role was a statement in itself in a world where it shouldn't have to be. And, just in case, don't go sayin' "BUT THERE DARK-SKINNED PEEPS IN OTHER FLIM!" because if you do, you're missing the very obvious point I'm making.
These films and other pieces of creativity that are discussed are mostly made in the US, where the demographic is similar to ours. OK, maybe back in the day, the white creators of Batman and similar things were in a more white-centric universe and Asian people didn't seem as real. Or something.
But this is now and we're encountering similar problems with lead roles. Sure, Batman was white then, so he should be white now. Fine. But this ain't just about Batman, either. Seeing a pattern?
I'll put it to you guys - The question is, if it ain't racism, then what is it?
As the creator of a fiction, is one not responsible for maintaining an accurate representation of all races in order to challenge racism that existed?
If you don't (and thus, do nothing), are you still contributing to a problem that existed decades ago?
Is it possible that the culture we exist in is not as racially self-aware as it should be?
And...
Why did you think Ford was white?* :-D
Go on. Admit it. Jesus knows you did.
"Isn't it just possible that they never visited any 'Asian' areas of the universe? Like, Campsie is almost entirely Korean, but I never go there so if you made a show about my life, you'd never see Korean people."
No. If you're anywhere in a mixed population area, you'll see members of the various races in the same area. Go to the city and look around. You'll see Korean people. Are they a part of your life now?
"Given the whole China/US thing is never actually mentioned in-show (Not that I can remember anyway, I can only remember it saying that Earth couldn't support our numbers anymore) why does it even need to be an issue?"
Joss, at the very least, mentioned it on the commentary. It was his world, his vision, blah, blah, blah. It's canon, basically.
"It seems to stem from this guy appearing to be one of those 'Hey, there's no black/gay/asian/non-white people in this comic/show/movie/whatever so whoever made it must be totally racist/sexist/whatever!' type people."
That's not the issue. It's not overt racism as far as I can tell. The issue is that there's a demographic that should be there but isn't.
"You look in the west, and paintings of Jesus are white, you look in Africa and the same Jesus paintings are black..."
...but not among the white population in African nations...
"...it's just the cultural norm and given most of the superhero stuff started in the US 50 or so years ago, is it REALLY that surprising that most of these characters are white guys with white girlfriends?"
And a lot of it was created in the now, where the demographics are a lot more diverse. Our culture should reflect that, but it doesn't.
"Right. So it's not because (Say in the case of Batman) he had something to prove because his whole thing was basically revenge and so he practiced almost constantly to be the best? No of course not, he learned from Asian dudes, then got better at it than them because he's white, that's TOTALLY it."
Uh...Exactly.
"He's obviously never heard of Star Trek. Y'know, that show that almost never happened because there was a woman on the bridge? Not only a woman, but a BLACK woman too!"
No, but he's obviously heard of plenty of other sci-fi/fantasy series' where they don't take such edgy, edgy risks, hence the article.
"I recall my mother kvetching after watching Independence Day that "They never show what happened to Canadians" in the film."
That's different. That's because the film is set in a geographical location. Gotta be set somewhere. Firefly is set where there is apparently more ethnic diversity than what is actually portrayed is all. I'm mostly curious as to why, which was why I brought this up.
Here's the thing: What we're talking about - fundamentally - isn't Firefly (although I'll maintain that it is a good example) - it's an issue where a demographic that obviously should be represented isn't. If 'minorities' are given these roles, they're minor roles.
I'm not personally calling RACISM on this one, but I think it's worth thinking about a bit more. I know that the article made me think a bit differently about how I viewed the world - like I said, I never questioned the Firefly thing, but since it was brought to my attention, I can honestly see his point. And the point of other people who feel the same way.
One thing I liked about the Hitchhiker's movie was the casting of Mos Def as Ford. You guys might be saying 'Big Deal', but I always thought it actually was - I don't live in a bloody vaccuum. I - and many other people - are well aware that casting him for that role was a statement in itself in a world where it shouldn't have to be. And, just in case, don't go sayin' "BUT THERE DARK-SKINNED PEEPS IN OTHER FLIM!" because if you do, you're missing the very obvious point I'm making.
These films and other pieces of creativity that are discussed are mostly made in the US, where the demographic is similar to ours. OK, maybe back in the day, the white creators of Batman and similar things were in a more white-centric universe and Asian people didn't seem as real. Or something.
But this is now and we're encountering similar problems with lead roles. Sure, Batman was white then, so he should be white now. Fine. But this ain't just about Batman, either. Seeing a pattern?
I'll put it to you guys - The question is, if it ain't racism, then what is it?
As the creator of a fiction, is one not responsible for maintaining an accurate representation of all races in order to challenge racism that existed?
If you don't (and thus, do nothing), are you still contributing to a problem that existed decades ago?
Is it possible that the culture we exist in is not as racially self-aware as it should be?
And...
Why did you think Ford was white?* :-D
Go on. Admit it. Jesus knows you did.
