Happy Giving Thanks Day

Have you ever fallen flat on a bed and thought about your childhood?
Remember the good things, and then when you think about your flaws, you can see why you have those flaws now, because of something.

I know, I know. The topic of discussion as seen above is a little...well, yeah I know. But has it ever occured to any one of you that even when we have a few things to be thankful for, there are ten things behind those few which scream to be heard.

This is totally unrelated: who were the real pilgrims? I found a picture of myself last night now that I am at my parent's house (my, how they clean at the moment). I was wearing a bright bright sweater, with a paper bag hat, with colored paper feathers on it (a headdress), a necklace made of hard pasta shells, and a paper bag vest, with the name "chief jonathan" written in colored markers. I was in pre-kindergarten...I can't believe I was small enough to wear a grocery bag as a vest at one point in my life.

I remember second grade: I was William Bradford, the pilgrim. I don't really remember any the details of his life, but I do remember doing a really nice cutaway drawing of the Mayflower. I think I spent all afternoon in Mr. Child's class making it look perfect.

As we get older, the school emphasis on Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims, etc. tones down. But I remember thinking these people were heroes of some sort, and more than that--I was connected to them somehow (oh yes, they were white and european). I just find it dumbfounding that we never talked about the Native Americans (Indians was the word in class back then) getting slaughtered, or fighting back with pride. I guess they'd save the serial westerns on TV for that education.

away for a while...visit another page

its been a while...i've found a new place to interact on the web and have my voice heard. so, go there, and read my film writings and reviews, etc.

here's the link:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=183318&view=public

school has me so bogged down, this weekend is being reconsidered...viewing fri., sat., sun. as mon., tue., wed.

time time time time time time time (there isn't enough?)

the power of film? (revisited)

contrary to the last post, i've been finding that while some may be moved by certain images, others may not be moved by them at all. it is not a question of power, really, but more specifically, the image's ability to move on into action. that is the power.

an image can and will only do two things when we view it. one, it will inform us of something new that we have not considered before. when we view a commercial on television for a toyota truck, we may have an idea of what toyota's trucks represent, but when presented in a different manner, maybe not as rugged and more intellectual, we consider the image in a different way.
second, images can only reinforce opinions that people already have. if the image does not reinforce an opinion, it is then is perceived as a new idea that has not been considered or has been considered but the viewer is inclined to disagree with. these people are what i would call critical viewers, who are aware of the images and the subjectivity existing within themselves.

in the case of Van Gogh's Submission, the image perceived by islamic extremists was most likely one of dissent--it was presenting the image in a new way that had not been considered by certain islamics. mainly, in a negative manner. this, obviously is a result of the biased stance of the filmmaker and writer, and by logic, they were blamed for the way in which certain extremists perceived the image.

of course, in hesitate to assert this fully, for things are not always either/or. i tend to prefer both/and, and this my friends is the reality of life. we are not all the same.

the power of film

associated press
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands Nov 2, 2004 — A Dutch filmmaker who had received death threats after releasing a movie criticizing the treatment of women under Islam was slain in Amsterdam on Tuesday, police said. A suspect, a 26-year-old man with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, was arrested after a shootout with officers that left him wounded, police said.

Filmmaker Theo van Gogh had been threatened after the August airing of the movie "Submission," which he made with a right-wing Dutch politician who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth. Van Gogh had received police protection after its release.

The slain filmmaker was the great grandson of the brother of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, who was also named Theo. In a recent radio interview, Van Gogh dismissed the threats and called the movie "the best protection I could have. It's not something I worry about."

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende called on the Dutch people to remain calm.

"Nothing is known about the motive," he said in a written statement. "I want to call on everyone not to jump to far-reaching conclusions. The facts must first be carefully weighed so let's allow the investigators to do their jobs."
Balkenende praised Van Gogh as a proponent of free speech who had "outspoken opinions."

The government are holding late-night crisis talks about Dutch race relations after discovering a note containing lines from the Koran had been pinned to Van Gogh's dead body with a knife.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
again, i must re-iterate the power a film has, in this case it seems that the images of Submission have ended up getting the filmmaker killed. Van Gogh experienced a long career of success as a filmmaker in the Netherlands, taking in awards over the last twenty so years from 1981 (Luger), 1994 (06), 1996 (Blind Date, best director), 1997 (In het belang van de staat), 2003 (Najib en Julia), and 2004 (Cool!) at the Nederlands Film Festival. Although I am not all to familiar with his works, it seems he knew how to get noticed with his art, and most importantly, he knew how to evoke deep feelings within his audience, with the camera as his tool.



(Theo Van Gogh, in memory of a filmmaker and human: july 23 1957-november 2 2004)

REdirected

major reworkings on the site today, i'm getting it ready for december and the first installation of internet at the apartment. blog, i promise to spend more time with you when i have twenty four hour internet access. in the meantime, i'll leave you with some thoughts on my current paper topic, american movie audiences and ethics:

Memory can play tricks on us as viewers, what we think we remember from a movie may not take place in the reality of space within the moving picture. Some audience members may remember spending money as opposed to the actual content of the film, thus—the complexities of individuals, of all that they are made up of (social role, race, gender, economic status) help to determine many of the experiences remembered to the moviegoing experience (whether it is primarily the movie, or the experience of the movies).

Let me diverge: the experience can have an important part in shaping our ethics. Not just the film, but the experience of leaving the home, going to a public space, where the lights are off, viewer is seated (sometimes not the case), stationary watching a screen project images which have no relation to the space the viewer is seated in. We are socialized in America to sit and watch and not talk when we watch images move on a screen. Does this effect the ways in which our personal ethics are developed?

Most conclusive to me was the idea that attitudes towards films change over time. Nearly all the subjects studied have rewatched the films with the stars they crushed on in childhood, formed allegiance with in pubescence, cried with or for in their adulthood, or rooted for in the classical narrative form. Each and all of them ended having different feelings towards the star/actor at present time—often feeling silly for even liking the star so intensely at a point in their lives.

Sex was both exciting and unnerving to children in the movies, especially in what we (or at least I thought) were the dry and family values 50s. The 50s especially were devoid of serious films. What few examples of serious films in the fifties, Stempel supports the idea stating, “what has come to be the standard view of American movies in the fifties is that it was a time of films with very little or no content or with the content put in the films in disguise (Invasion of the Body Snatchers)” (38). His major claim is the fifties are a nostalgia industry, with their primary support coming from white males who long for a time when white males seemed to be uncontested in power. “By its nature, nostalgia tends to see the past as a lot purer than it really was, and the fifties were not pure” (38). This would be apparent in the 70s as well, with the re-emergence of the film noir. Films like Taxi Driver, The French Connection, The Godfather, Mean Streets, and Chinatown all seemed to function of this nostalgia for film noir of the 50s. Its clear that the film noir was ahead of its time, analyzing American culture post WWII from a postmodern view all to early, it wasn't until after Vietnam that these films became popular, and modern films began adapting the film noir styles.

Another source for the view that the 50s represented a lack of success for the film noir and the absence of serious films comes from liberal historians and their position on the blacklisting of filmmakers and professionals in Hollywood in the 50s. Indeed, the government was in fear of a communist view spreading in Hollywood, and took action against it; making several anti-communist films, much of them horrible propaganda, which were marginally effective on their audiences. Serious films, stood against this phenomenon, such as Kazan’s testimonial film to the Blacklisting committees, starring Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront. Films like these in a dry political time, helped to remind viewers that there were important opinions in Hollywood, which were not subversive, rather they were snapshots of justice.

Fragments, its all fragments.

a network standard dialect?

Television and its desire for wide-communication, its self created problems and misunderstanding of humanity, an argument against a network standard:

The termination of the dialectical concept of a "network standard," while far from taking place in American culture, would be beneficial to the development of language in children and society as a whole and would further reflect upon our differences in American life.

First, a "network standard" for sounds of language attempts to homogenize society into one standard that does away with diverse cultures. Analyzing the concept of a "network standard" culturally, leads myself to believe the network standard would serve businesses, corporations and advertisers (all who's primary interest lies in consuming) primarily, and adversely affect regional cultures in the United States who could not adapt to the network standard of sound. A network standard creates a consumer environment in the case of television, that is easier to market towards, demographically speaking.

Second, a case for this reasoning rests in second language learning in post-pubescent teens/young adults; when learning a second language the hardest aspect and last to be learned is the sound of that language. While language is seen as a phenomenon in that its stages of development are universal and innate in children--what makes language a true phenomenon are its variations in sound within different regions of the United States. Often, these sound variations are tied strongly to the overall culture in the specific region, working to convey deep emotions in the human need for expression.

Third, children with language development problems and in need of professional assistance would not be primarly learning a network standard. This in turn creates a possible isolation from the group or community's dialect specific to the child's region of inhabitance. Termination of or ignoring these variations on sound would in some cases cause a segregation of that sub-group from a majority.

While as whole, a "network standard" may improve communication, a "network standard" rejects the idea of the individual and subjectivity, of different cultures and seems to take an ignorant stance on a human's ability to understand different dialects in order to communicate effectively.