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.
Comments:
I agree there was a glut of former ad directors in the past 15 years that lead to jumpscuts o'plenty, which can be very annoying (contrast: Tarantino). However, I think the more I learn about Kubrick, the less I like his work. It's odd.
Tarantino's another good example - he does the same thing but in a totally different way. I used to think he was massively overrated, but the more I understood his techniques, the more I appreciated his stuff. He's got a well-developed sense of building tension that other directors don't seem to understand.
I just had a thought: I guess one aspect of Kubrick's style I don't like is that he tends to overthink things, which I don't believe Tarantino does.
I just had a thought: I guess one aspect of Kubrick's style I don't like is that he tends to overthink things, which I don't believe Tarantino does.
I agree with your point about the current film industry being influenced by advertising (Product placemnet ahoy!). Although, as for what that guy is rambling on about..
Well.. I didn't even bother reading the whole article.
One thing I will say though is that at one point he's talking about older films having large gaps where nothing happens (I think he uses the example of 2 old people on a bench just watching the sunset for a full minute).
I think the reason they stopped that is because it's fucking boring. Think about the scene in Neon Genesis when Shinji kills Kaworu, the amount of time that's spent on that one shot of Unit 1 face to face with Kaworu (It's actually about 1:30).
After 10 or so seconds you've got it. Shinji does't want to kill him because he's so close. They didn't need to drag that on for another minute and a half (Budget restrictions not withstanding of course).
I also wouldn't say emotional disorders have tripled, I'd say emotion disorders being reported has tripled. Remember, back in WW1 and 2, if a front line rifleman was freaking out, he'd get slapped about, shaken up and told to pull himself together and stop being a whiney bitch. It just never occured to anyone it may be a serious physiological/psychological problem.
If anything, I'd say the digital age has increased our usage of our minds. If not only to sort through all the shit and find what we're looking for, but because we have unprecedented access to that info.
Well.. I didn't even bother reading the whole article.
One thing I will say though is that at one point he's talking about older films having large gaps where nothing happens (I think he uses the example of 2 old people on a bench just watching the sunset for a full minute).
I think the reason they stopped that is because it's fucking boring. Think about the scene in Neon Genesis when Shinji kills Kaworu, the amount of time that's spent on that one shot of Unit 1 face to face with Kaworu (It's actually about 1:30).
After 10 or so seconds you've got it. Shinji does't want to kill him because he's so close. They didn't need to drag that on for another minute and a half (Budget restrictions not withstanding of course).
I also wouldn't say emotional disorders have tripled, I'd say emotion disorders being reported has tripled. Remember, back in WW1 and 2, if a front line rifleman was freaking out, he'd get slapped about, shaken up and told to pull himself together and stop being a whiney bitch. It just never occured to anyone it may be a serious physiological/psychological problem.
If anything, I'd say the digital age has increased our usage of our minds. If not only to sort through all the shit and find what we're looking for, but because we have unprecedented access to that info.
(Also, any of you guys find it a little odd that the guy in the interview rants about media destroying mentality, but he runs a magazine?)
"I think the reason they stopped that is because it's fucking boring."
This might be one reason why that sort of thing is considered a risky technique. A lot of people who are not accustomed to that sort of thing just find it boring - they're used to being force-fed stimulus with minimal breaks between it. They're not used to reflecting on a part of a film after seeing it, let alone while it's still rolling.
You might want to separate yourself from the average person and use words like 'because' and 'therefore' more often after declarations like that.
Not at all odd that he's talking about counter-culture, btw. Find out about Adbusters. The name might actually give a hint into the magazine's modus operandi (which could save you some time).
Then again, if you've read the whole interview, you may have actually understood where he was coming from. Probably not so easy to understand if you go by a few words instead.
This might be one reason why that sort of thing is considered a risky technique. A lot of people who are not accustomed to that sort of thing just find it boring - they're used to being force-fed stimulus with minimal breaks between it. They're not used to reflecting on a part of a film after seeing it, let alone while it's still rolling.
You might want to separate yourself from the average person and use words like 'because' and 'therefore' more often after declarations like that.
Not at all odd that he's talking about counter-culture, btw. Find out about Adbusters. The name might actually give a hint into the magazine's modus operandi (which could save you some time).
Then again, if you've read the whole interview, you may have actually understood where he was coming from. Probably not so easy to understand if you go by a few words instead.
Oh, another thing: it is certainly the case that what we hear are the reports of emotional disorders. I'd say bringing up the armed forces' treatment of this is a little misguided, although, yes, you point out that they tend not to diagnose those issues properly. They still don't, actually.
Anyway, that's something that I thought - Kalle mentioned that they've tripled and it's certainly the case that he's really talking about the reports of them. Which made me think: those are reported cases. It's a given that quite a few cases go unreported - most professionals (who are arguably the most subsceptible demographic) often don't have the time to reflect on what's going on in their brains, let alone talk to someone about it.
Anyway, that's something that I thought - Kalle mentioned that they've tripled and it's certainly the case that he's really talking about the reports of them. Which made me think: those are reported cases. It's a given that quite a few cases go unreported - most professionals (who are arguably the most subsceptible demographic) often don't have the time to reflect on what's going on in their brains, let alone talk to someone about it.
"This might be one reason why that sort of thing is considered a risky technique. A lot of people who are not accustomed to that sort of thing just find it boring - they're used to being force-fed stimulus with minimal breaks between it. They're not used to reflecting on a part of a film after seeing it, let alone while it's still rolling."
You needed that full minute and a half to work out what was happening with Shinji/Kaworu and understand it? I'm not saying don't use the technique. I'm saying don't waste a minute and a half on something that takes 20, 30 seconds max.
"Not at all odd that he's talking about counter-culture, btw. Find out about Adbusters. The name might actually give a hint into the magazine's modus operandi (which could save you some time)."
No, you missed my point. He's ranting and raving about how media destroys mentality and yet he runs a media outlet? For that guy (or anyone in his defence really) to try and claim that he's in some way different from any other magazine is self-rightious hypocracy (at least, on his part). What he does would be no different to Womans Day or Playboy. All he'd be doing is changing the articles to fit his demographic, adding some artsy words to make it sound sohpisticated and pretending he's above all the others. I call bullshit, you can change any of those names around and the model fits.
(Also, before you start trying to argue that what he does isn't media because he doesn't have Ads or whatever, let's look at the actual meaning of the word:
me·di·a
1.a pl. of medium.
2.(usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.)
"Oh, another thing: it is certainly the case that what we hear are the reports of emotional disorders. I'd say bringing up the armed forces' treatment of this is a little misguided, although, yes, you point out that they tend not to diagnose those issues properly. They still don't, actually."
Actually.. Yes, they do (Although, historically, no). That's why they introduced a limit on sucessive combat tours and rotation of troops in the field (Shell shock anyone? How many 'phases' did that go through before they worked out it was PTSD and realized they should try to prevent it?). My point was that that's pretty much what it's been like everywhere. How many depression clinics were around in the 50's? 60's? hell, 70's? If anything, while in the military, those guys got the best care they could of given the time. That that care was little more than 'suck it up' is another matter altogether..
"Anyway, that's something that I thought - Kalle mentioned that they've tripled and it's certainly the case that he's really talking about the reports of them. Which made me think: those are reported cases. It's a given that quite a few cases go unreported - most professionals (who are arguably the most subsceptible demographic) often don't have the time to reflect on what's going on in their brains, let alone talk to someone about it."
Again - He doesn't actually say he's talking about reported cases. he just says that the numbers have tripled. Until he clarifies himself I'm not reading anything into it because it'd be pure conjecture.
Need I remind you of the Tlielaxu axiom?:
'One man can never truly know all that lies in the heart of another..."
You needed that full minute and a half to work out what was happening with Shinji/Kaworu and understand it? I'm not saying don't use the technique. I'm saying don't waste a minute and a half on something that takes 20, 30 seconds max.
"Not at all odd that he's talking about counter-culture, btw. Find out about Adbusters. The name might actually give a hint into the magazine's modus operandi (which could save you some time)."
No, you missed my point. He's ranting and raving about how media destroys mentality and yet he runs a media outlet? For that guy (or anyone in his defence really) to try and claim that he's in some way different from any other magazine is self-rightious hypocracy (at least, on his part). What he does would be no different to Womans Day or Playboy. All he'd be doing is changing the articles to fit his demographic, adding some artsy words to make it sound sohpisticated and pretending he's above all the others. I call bullshit, you can change any of those names around and the model fits.
(Also, before you start trying to argue that what he does isn't media because he doesn't have Ads or whatever, let's look at the actual meaning of the word:
me·di·a
1.a pl. of medium.
2.(usually used with a plural verb) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media are covering the speech tonight.)
"Oh, another thing: it is certainly the case that what we hear are the reports of emotional disorders. I'd say bringing up the armed forces' treatment of this is a little misguided, although, yes, you point out that they tend not to diagnose those issues properly. They still don't, actually."
Actually.. Yes, they do (Although, historically, no). That's why they introduced a limit on sucessive combat tours and rotation of troops in the field (Shell shock anyone? How many 'phases' did that go through before they worked out it was PTSD and realized they should try to prevent it?). My point was that that's pretty much what it's been like everywhere. How many depression clinics were around in the 50's? 60's? hell, 70's? If anything, while in the military, those guys got the best care they could of given the time. That that care was little more than 'suck it up' is another matter altogether..
"Anyway, that's something that I thought - Kalle mentioned that they've tripled and it's certainly the case that he's really talking about the reports of them. Which made me think: those are reported cases. It's a given that quite a few cases go unreported - most professionals (who are arguably the most subsceptible demographic) often don't have the time to reflect on what's going on in their brains, let alone talk to someone about it."
Again - He doesn't actually say he's talking about reported cases. he just says that the numbers have tripled. Until he clarifies himself I'm not reading anything into it because it'd be pure conjecture.
Need I remind you of the Tlielaxu axiom?:
'One man can never truly know all that lies in the heart of another..."
Now, two problems with the movie thing - one, you're using your own stupid example against my argument, rather than mine. Ever ask me what I thought of its execution?
Geez.
Second, we're dealing with a subtle technique which has largely intangible benefits. Hate to say it, but if you don't already get it, there's no point in explaining it to ya.
I may, however, point you in the right direction to the basis of the principle of the technique at some point, if I'm reminded.
Now, to Adbusters...
The point of adbusters is all in the name: It's a magazine with the intent goal of, well, busting ads. Countering consumer culture. Why can't somebody with a goal to do this do so via a magazine?
To compare what Adbusters does to Women's Day or Playboy is a little dubious. I'm not sure whether it's more misguided to do so without having read a single page from it or not.
Anyway, I know you are of the former, so I'll just tell you: The publication is all about culture-jamming and making people a bit more aware of how OTHER magazines (well, not just magazines) are pushing an agenda that's ruining our society - by pushing products and lifestyles that are not sustainable or doing us any actual good. I've read many issues of it and will continue to do so. It's a magazine that makes me think about my place in society - global society. Other magazines have ultimately made me think about useless crap I want to buy.
I'd say that's a pretty significant difference between adbusters and your average mag.
Regarding depression statistics:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/depression/definition/en/
Took me five minutes and not much mental effort at all. Went to WHO.org (figured that since he was quoting the WHO's own statistics, they'd have 'em on their website) and ran a search for 'depression'.
BTW, I'm not commenting on 'Shell Shock or PTSD - I'm talking about depression.
Sure, it doesn't say much about previous generations' statistical occurrences, but then, I think you might find that you don't have to go back that far to find a similar curve. I think if you look at reported cases from 1980 up until now, you might learn something.
...you still do that, right?
Learn things?
Geez.
Second, we're dealing with a subtle technique which has largely intangible benefits. Hate to say it, but if you don't already get it, there's no point in explaining it to ya.
I may, however, point you in the right direction to the basis of the principle of the technique at some point, if I'm reminded.
Now, to Adbusters...
The point of adbusters is all in the name: It's a magazine with the intent goal of, well, busting ads. Countering consumer culture. Why can't somebody with a goal to do this do so via a magazine?
To compare what Adbusters does to Women's Day or Playboy is a little dubious. I'm not sure whether it's more misguided to do so without having read a single page from it or not.
Anyway, I know you are of the former, so I'll just tell you: The publication is all about culture-jamming and making people a bit more aware of how OTHER magazines (well, not just magazines) are pushing an agenda that's ruining our society - by pushing products and lifestyles that are not sustainable or doing us any actual good. I've read many issues of it and will continue to do so. It's a magazine that makes me think about my place in society - global society. Other magazines have ultimately made me think about useless crap I want to buy.
I'd say that's a pretty significant difference between adbusters and your average mag.
Regarding depression statistics:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/management/depression/definition/en/
Took me five minutes and not much mental effort at all. Went to WHO.org (figured that since he was quoting the WHO's own statistics, they'd have 'em on their website) and ran a search for 'depression'.
BTW, I'm not commenting on 'Shell Shock or PTSD - I'm talking about depression.
Sure, it doesn't say much about previous generations' statistical occurrences, but then, I think you might find that you don't have to go back that far to find a similar curve. I think if you look at reported cases from 1980 up until now, you might learn something.
...you still do that, right?
Learn things?
Movie thing?
What movie thing? Who's talking about a movie?
Are you making movies up again?!
"Second, we're dealing with a subtle technique which has largely intangible benefits. Hate to say it, but if you don't already get it, there's no point in explaining it to ya."
No, I get it. It's to make you think about everything going on and the impact, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm saying, if you need a full minute and a half to work that out (In that case at least) and realise how hard that would've been on Shinji, then there's likely no point in bothering with it at all.
"Anyway, I know you are of the former, so I'll just tell you: The publication is all about culture-jamming and making people a bit more aware of how OTHER magazines (well, not just magazines) are pushing an agenda that's ruining our society - by pushing products and lifestyles that are not sustainable or doing us any actual good. I've read many issues of it and will continue to do so. It's a magazine that makes me think about my place in society - global society. Other magazines have ultimately made me think about useless crap I want to buy."
So, In order to fight against an agenda pushed in magazines, he's publishing a magazine to push his agenda? See what I'm getting at? So no, I don't see any difference between what he does and what any other mag does. So again: Self-rightious hypocracy (Also, yes, I'd actually worked all that out from the Mag name - he doesn't like ads and won't use them. Big fucking deal, welcome to the Internet, home of the Ad blocker).
"BTW, I'm not commenting on 'Shell Shock or PTSD - I'm talking about depression."
Either was I specifically, I was talking about mental disorders in general (Go back and read what I said). Funnily enough, PTSD does count as a mental disorder. Given what shell shock has been found to be, it's reasonable to assume that most - if not all shell shock sufferers had mental disorders. How many of those are recorded as mental disorder?
That's even before we start looking at secondary effects - returned troops with limbs blown off having to re-adjust (Even today, some people never get over it and that's WITH all the help they can get hereabouts), wives having lost multiple kids and husbands, and these (At least, the wives) weren't even recorded.
While specific effects and numbers would probably be pure conjecture (I've neither the time nor the inclination to actually go and research it to see if it's even possible) you could reasonably assume there were pretty large cases of mental disorder during and especially after major conflicts.
Here's the big one though: how many of those were reported as mental disorders?
A fraction? Maybe? If they were lucky?
Looking at it in that context you realise that his 'numbers have tripled' point starts to become very shaky, especially with the lack of exact clarification he has (As to whether he means cases, or REPORTED cases I mean).
I've also just thought of something then:
Why do you take this guy more seriously than, say a chanel 9 reporter? Because he's independant?
Bullshit. I can guarantee he's got an agenda of his own and I know you'd know that damn well. He's still choosing labor over liberal, greens over one-nation, rebels over empire.
Rebels have a habit of either getting shot or becoming the same kind of despot that they once overthrew.
I was going elsewhere with that, but I saw the word verification and forgot it all in a fit of laughter:
cometami
What movie thing? Who's talking about a movie?
Are you making movies up again?!
"Second, we're dealing with a subtle technique which has largely intangible benefits. Hate to say it, but if you don't already get it, there's no point in explaining it to ya."
No, I get it. It's to make you think about everything going on and the impact, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm saying, if you need a full minute and a half to work that out (In that case at least) and realise how hard that would've been on Shinji, then there's likely no point in bothering with it at all.
"Anyway, I know you are of the former, so I'll just tell you: The publication is all about culture-jamming and making people a bit more aware of how OTHER magazines (well, not just magazines) are pushing an agenda that's ruining our society - by pushing products and lifestyles that are not sustainable or doing us any actual good. I've read many issues of it and will continue to do so. It's a magazine that makes me think about my place in society - global society. Other magazines have ultimately made me think about useless crap I want to buy."
So, In order to fight against an agenda pushed in magazines, he's publishing a magazine to push his agenda? See what I'm getting at? So no, I don't see any difference between what he does and what any other mag does. So again: Self-rightious hypocracy (Also, yes, I'd actually worked all that out from the Mag name - he doesn't like ads and won't use them. Big fucking deal, welcome to the Internet, home of the Ad blocker).
"BTW, I'm not commenting on 'Shell Shock or PTSD - I'm talking about depression."
Either was I specifically, I was talking about mental disorders in general (Go back and read what I said). Funnily enough, PTSD does count as a mental disorder. Given what shell shock has been found to be, it's reasonable to assume that most - if not all shell shock sufferers had mental disorders. How many of those are recorded as mental disorder?
That's even before we start looking at secondary effects - returned troops with limbs blown off having to re-adjust (Even today, some people never get over it and that's WITH all the help they can get hereabouts), wives having lost multiple kids and husbands, and these (At least, the wives) weren't even recorded.
While specific effects and numbers would probably be pure conjecture (I've neither the time nor the inclination to actually go and research it to see if it's even possible) you could reasonably assume there were pretty large cases of mental disorder during and especially after major conflicts.
Here's the big one though: how many of those were reported as mental disorders?
A fraction? Maybe? If they were lucky?
Looking at it in that context you realise that his 'numbers have tripled' point starts to become very shaky, especially with the lack of exact clarification he has (As to whether he means cases, or REPORTED cases I mean).
I've also just thought of something then:
Why do you take this guy more seriously than, say a chanel 9 reporter? Because he's independant?
Bullshit. I can guarantee he's got an agenda of his own and I know you'd know that damn well. He's still choosing labor over liberal, greens over one-nation, rebels over empire.
Rebels have a habit of either getting shot or becoming the same kind of despot that they once overthrew.
I was going elsewhere with that, but I saw the word verification and forgot it all in a fit of laughter:
cometami
Did it again. You said you 'got it' and then went on to prove that you don't.
Has it occurred to you that you *think* you get it?
And regarding the magazines - I think I've made my point. You have to keep generalizing in order to make your point appear valid - and it is, assuming you continue generalizing.
I can't do that. Details are important to me.
Also, Internet is home of ads. Few people use adblockers.
And I'm not discussing shell-shock or PTSD. I will discuss depression, as that's what was brought up in the article.
Also, only one of us has actually researched it - by that I mean looking up statistics. I think you'd agree that doing so is a good start.
"Why do you take this guy more seriously than, say a chanel 9 reporter? Because he's independant?"
Because of adbusters' agenda.
Didn't I make that clear already? O.o
Post a Comment
Has it occurred to you that you *think* you get it?
And regarding the magazines - I think I've made my point. You have to keep generalizing in order to make your point appear valid - and it is, assuming you continue generalizing.
I can't do that. Details are important to me.
Also, Internet is home of ads. Few people use adblockers.
And I'm not discussing shell-shock or PTSD. I will discuss depression, as that's what was brought up in the article.
Also, only one of us has actually researched it - by that I mean looking up statistics. I think you'd agree that doing so is a good start.
"Why do you take this guy more seriously than, say a chanel 9 reporter? Because he's independant?"
Because of adbusters' agenda.
Didn't I make that clear already? O.o
