A few weeks ago i had the pleasure of watching the movie, waiting for Godot, a very entertaining movie that for the most part kept me interested on some level the entier time. however the question put to us this week was, is it still relevant today. does it have a place in cinema, culture and our newer world. and after much internel discussion i have come to the conclusion that it does not. i believe that it does, however in this age of cinema in which everything is judged my marketability and its chance f profitability, i dont think that Godot would find a distributor. Godot gives us, as a viewer a multitude of things. Some light suspense, some comedy, some philosophical questions however none of these things are marketable.
I have a hard time thinking up a trailer for Godot that could be shown to appeal to the masses. a studio exec would see this film and while he may like it, would automatically filter it by likely is it that this movie will rake in enough money to cover its production? Is it a blockbuster? and the answer is no. i can see it having a run in the inde film festivals, but it will never gain a massive following in this day and age. in a time when people are looking for more explosions, the bigger and more stunning visuals, a simple premise with witty ans subtle comedy would just be shrugged off as an uninteresting piece of film. in the end waiting for Godot doesn't really have a place in our culture, at least not in the major markets which is what all studio execs look for when green lighting a movie. I think the movie would still be made and have a small following. but it will never be a large part of our culture. its simply too "boring" for todays explosion, high on action, low on story, type of audience.
This week i decided to dive into the world of Narrative in games by exploring 2 games from That Game Company (TGC). TCGhas a history of making games that air more on the artsy side of the gaming universe. The first game i ever played by them was a game in which you play a bacteria and you attempt to make your way up the food chain by eating other bacteria. in this game there is Little to no narrative. However TGC next game, Flower added a more fleshed out, but minimalistic narrative to the story.
In Flower you play as a single flower petal (or the spirit of nature, but its never really laid out for you what exactly you are) that goes around reigniting the nature that it comes in contact with. Through the game you cause other flowers to blossom and if you get a certain number in a given area that area changes or even comes to life. the grass changes, the rocks morph into a beautiful formation or the environment changes somehow. Each level is indicated on the title screen as a series of plants in clay pots sitting in the windowsill of a house in the city. Between each "level" or environment are small cut scenes showing the hustling and bustling of the city. as you play these images and environments come more into play. as you progress you see that the world in the city has become bland and lifeless. You Fly through the city and bring life back into the city, bringing life to plants and removing the edgy sharp and menacing architectural spires that begin bursting up around the city. In the end you arrive in the center of the city seeing an enormous spire of the menacing dark architecture. you enter the structure and ascend through it reawakening nature within the spire destroying it and bringing Life and plant life back to the city. as you reach the apex of the spire as its falling down around you you see a single chair and a window abstractly floating above you. you continue to it only to realize that it was the window and chair from the title screen/level select screen, bringing the story back around to the very beginning of the tale.
That Game Company's most recent game is Journey. And it too tends to be on the artsy side of not only their game and storytelling but visual design as well. Journey is a Cyclical game. The end leads to the beginning. its a never ending cycle. I don't want to say too much about the story directly because it truly needs to be experienced. Suffice it to say the main character is minimal in both design and character. its a bland slate, a simple non sex specific character in a red robe. no distinguishable facial feature, and it doesn't even have any arms. its is a simple graphical triangle shape with black legs. i dare say that this only strengthens the appeal of the character and the strength of the story. throughout the game you endure trials as you attempt the complete a pilgrimage to a glorious mountain in the distance. These trial force you to stop and think as well as explore one of the most beautiful environments in a game in recent years. At the end of each "level" you find a small prayer shrine, in which your character descends to his/her knees and begins to meditate or pray. You are then transported to another state of being where you witness your character talking to a character similar to yours but clothed in all white and 3 times larger then you. it has the appearance of a deity and shows you painting on a wall which depict the narrative. The whole game is told in this fashion with little hidden shrines you can find that show you other images/hieroglyphs giving even more back story to the world. The main meat of the story is told through the cut scenes all of the small shrines you find, really flesh out the rest of the story. In the end you reach the mountain... but i don't want to say anything more then that. its something you must play and experience. Suffice it to say, the way they force you to play the ending couple of levels really garners a deep connection with your faceless, silent protagonist, and in the end i actually almost cried. it was like a mini religious experience. i know that sounds weird but the way the story unfolds in the end, through visuals ONLY and how it ends is extremely powerful. Simple but powerful. its a game like no other with a narrative structure like no other. if you have a PS3 do yourself a favor and pick this up. or if you don't have a PS3 watch some playthroughs online.
This week i read: Asterios Polyp by David Mazzuccheli. and i have to say it was an incredible read. I went into it not very excited about the reading but after few pages the comic just grabbed me. The design style, character shapes, and visual language was incredible. I loved how the comic depicted the closeness of Asterios and Hanas relationship by the art style in which they both worked, and really how that connected to how they lived their lives. Asterios is depicted as a very technical drawing while Hana like her personality and personal art style is depicted in a much more artistic fashion. It was a masterful way to describe visually the gap forming in their relationship. it was used sparingly but every time it was used it instilled in me a sense of dread. i knew that they were eventually going to get a divorce and every time the divide, both emotionally and visually appeared i got anxious. I kept wondering if this was the moment where Asterios messes up and breaks the relationship? or will she forgive him? it woudl have been very easy to just say it in the dialogue and the emotions of the drawings themselves but the artist went a step further to REALLY drive that divide home.
I quickly found myself invested in the characters. While the main character kind of seemed a little off-putting for me, too stuffed shirt and a little pompous, he was still very likable and i was pulling for him throughout the duration of the story. I was so interested in Hana and Asterios's story that i quickly got bored with the sections where Asterios was with Stiff Major and his family. Those sections were still very charming and contained some great character moments and discussions. but i kept just wanting to get back to the love story. I'm kind of a sucker for a good love story. Through showing little tidbits of Hana and Asterios life i seemed to develop an overall felling that there was a real relationship there with an ebb and flow that felt tangible.
I dont want to give anything away but the ending for me was bitter sweet. Do yourself a favor and READ THIS COMIC. it was super good in every aspect of its execution. but back to the ending... i both loved and hated it. I love how everything wrapped up. but i really wish there was another way they could have told the ending with a bit more resolution or something more to hang onto. however with that said, it was pretty much the most perfect ending that could have gone with this comic. anything less would have been outside of its style, and how it was telling its story. But as you know i tend to want a more clean ending. something with some permanence (well i guess it was a "permenant ending", but i still wish it could have been a bit more "full of life") and what i got, while still loving it, a part of me wished i could have gotten just a bit different take, but i regret nothing, and i wouldnt change it.
in the end what i got out of this comic was a great reading experience, and it prompted me to look into myself and examine how i treat the people i love in my life. putting others first, making sure that the focus is not on me and that i should appreciated not only my love, but everyone around me. Do yourself a favor and READ THIS COMIC! I give it 5/5 Stars!
For this week’s assignment we were
to watch 3 movies from a selected director, and review themes that seemed to
run through all of their works. And since I had just recently seen the very
charming Moonrise Kingdom and had
fallen in love with it. I have always heard that Wes Anderson was obsessed with
showing and integrating a storybook look into his movies as well as having a
cast of very quirky enjoyable characters. Everything seems to move at a slower
pace. There is a sense of relaxed intensity, for lack of a better term. The films
move at their own pace, with a somewhat poetic verbal style. His style of storytelling
has a romantic charm to it that often nets him praise from fans and critics
alike.
One of the main themes I have
noticed in the movies of his that I have seen is a strong influence and visual
style of a children’s storybook. Wes Anderson uses a lot of flat staging with
interesting compositions. He often seems to shoot scenes with the focal length of
the camera set very high. This gives a very flat appearance to the image, a flatness
that allows him to manipulate the composition and overall give that somewhat
graphical appeal of a children’s book. He also often uses onscreen motion graphics
to either tell the passage of time or reveal other story elements. These graphics
hover onscreen as though they would appear in a book.
Wes also has a very particular set of preferences, from
the types of stories he tells, to the characters and actors he likes to use and
portray. Anderson's
films feature many of the same actors, crew members, and other collaborators.
Bill Murray has been in every Wes Anderson movie I have seen, and Noah Baumbach
worked with Anderson on The Life Aquatic with Steve
ZissouandFantastic Mr. Fox, with Anderson
co-producing his filmThe Squid and the Whale. He has characters
he likes and people he likes to portray them. Characters often have very strong
motivations whether the motivations are dramatic or quirky the viewer always knows
exactly what they want and are excited to see how they will go about getting
it.
In Rushmore for
example, the main character wants nothing more then the simply go to Rushmore
(his school) forever, as well as he has fallen in love with one of his
teachers. These are very clear goals and watching them go about getting to their
objective is clear, quirky, and enjoyable. Similarly, in Moonrise Kingdom, Sam Shakusky a 12 year old orphan has
fallen in love with Bill Murray’s (Walt Bishop) characters Daughter, and
the two attempt to run away together. Sam’s goal is to be with Suzy at all
costs and they run away into the forest together. His motivation and actions
all line up with his characters desires.
Fantastic Mr. Fox is the most like a storybook since it
is told in the form of a stop motion animated feature. Another theme is We Anderson movies seems to
be the idea of broken love. In both Moonrise Kingdom, and Rushmore Bill Murray
plays a man whose marriage is falling apart, and both movie include characters that
have a love interest that they cannot be with. Sam (in Moonrise Kingdom) wants
to be with Suzy but Suzy’s parents will not allow them to be together. On a
similar thread, Max Fischer is in love with his school teacher but the world
seems to be against them being together.
Wes Anderson is a very particular
director, and his movies all exude his unique sense of cinematography and
style.
Right off the bat Obama Looks downtrodden and weak. He is presented with an almost regretful look upon his face. The colors are grayed out and a dirty filter is applied giving me the feeling of tired and beaten. Right away they attack the president on Record on creating jobs. Hes doing exactly the opposite of what he said he would do. This is a setup for us to now question anything he says or does and instantly sets us up as a viewer to be wary of anything he says to us, even if its good and right. "the Facts are clear" lets me know that what comes next is going to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It sets up a dichotomy of Obama lies, "we" are telling you the truth. You cant trust Him, but you CAN trust "Us".
It goes on to produce a series of facts reinforcing what they have just told the viewer, comparing him to the rest of the previous presidents and cementing that he has created more debt then all the other president combined, painting him as the worst president in history (in regards to debt). It displays a dollar amount that is our debt that scrolls quickly getting high er and higher highlighting how quickly he is running the country into the ground. This number increases very quickly enforcing the concept that Obama is rushing us to the precipice of financial collapse. it then goes on to rip a graphic of a dollar bill in half, subconsciously referring as much o the weakness of the US dollar as well as the fact that he is borrowing so much money. It is at this point where the video highlights the face that Obama is borrowing a lot of money from China. and the screen is filled with red, reminiscent of the Red scare during the cold war with the Russians.
The video then ends reinforcing the face that he is wasting money he is borrowing, and the add ends on a similar not as it began with s gritty picture of the President except this time he is smiling with the graphics "we can't afford 4 more years". However this time he is smiling smugly, leaving me with the impression that he does not care about the debt he has caused and leaving me with a slightly bad taste in my mouth for his attitude.
Oppositional Reading:
This ad, like pretty much every political ad ever made is just full of halve truths and misinformation. First of all they attempt to make the president look bad by visually making him look down, hes taken his eye of the goal. it projects weakness. Its a visual manipulation. Debt becomes the Biggest word on the screen making Debt the only issue on the table when thinking of Obama for reelection. Disregarding the other positive things he has done for the economy and for the rest of the country. This add solely focuses on how Obama is driving our debt to insane level and doing it irresponsibly, however it does nothing to tell us what he was given. It talks about how he is creating more debt then the previous 43 president combined. but that is such a misleading "Fact". all 43 presidents i'm pretty sure George Washington couldn't have possibly created anywhere near 1 million dollars of Debt, let alone a million or a trillion. The number is so huge i would have a hard time reading anything at the bottom where it talks about Debt withheld by the public... which doesn't seem to be something Obama has direct control over anyways. all of this is for shock factor and surface level. TO trick people into thinking "Whoa that a huge number i dont want that debt for my family let alone the country."
This add tries to make a very strong visual connection between Chine and the Red Scare of the Soviet Union during the cold war. this ad is aimed at voters of all ages but this part is especially targeted to older voters who lived through the red scare. Drawing the parallel would instantly make them hesitant and cause them to develop negative association with Obama and a perceived alliance with en evil "Red" nation. This add is all about scare tactics, they are subtle but they make the viewer concerned that Obama will/has not only driven our country financially into the ground, but he is also putting us under the thumb of the "diabolical"
China. However, in reality China is extremely dependent on us as we are to them and have openly stated that they will not use the debt against us. (whether you believe such things is up to you). They also try to paint a picture that Obama is not simply wasting money, hes doing something far worse. Borrowing and then wasting.... but in order to use money you have to borrow it. its a repeated statement. and whether its "borrowed" or not, waste is just waste, adding the extra borrowing to the equation doesn't really make it all that mush worse, plus they don't really give any clear indication or fact of where all of this money is coming from, they just insinuate China being the main borrower with no source for their information.
Final Statements:
In the end, all political adds are completely stuffed with misdirection, deceit, and false "facts". And my critique of this add would apply to any Obama ads as well. Politicians lie, its as simple as that. and their adds seem to contain a lot of similar tropes. Most i have seen focus around the idea that : "You cant trust my opponent, he has lied to you in the past, but me... i'm the REAL deal, and i will never lie to you, you can trust me." I'm not trying to pick on Mitt Romney or Obama. I am trying to be an impartial judge of a political ad.
For this week in Lit and Media studies we were to read the Book Lolita by Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, and talk about the book and "Morality". With that in mind i looked up the definition of Morality online, and came up with this Definition.
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. I'm not sure how to approach this. This topic is frought with Opinions. What is right, what is wrong, what is moral, what is immoral? lately these lines have been very blurred. however after being exposed to this book i can safely say that i feel there is not much about
Humbert's actions that are at all moral. i don't want to get into a huge discussion about are his intentions or actions really immoral or are they just set forth by and oppressive culture that restrains real love? i really don't feel like getting into that fruitless discussion with anyone that might try to raise that point. Everything about the way the main character talks, his thought process, the way he speaks drips with pedophilia. (also id like to point out that i was listenign to the audio book, so it was actually Jeremy Irons reading the book. That's right SCAR from Lion King was reading Lolita to me) Early on in the book he takes advantage of Lolita (in a "minor" way, not sure if this is the first time, there were so many) and thinks to himself, "I felt proud of myself. I had stolen the honey of a spasm without impairing the morals of a minor. Absolutely no harm done." That is a sign of no remorse. an unapologetic pedophile.
He continually describes their interactions in the most sensual way. which even in the context of a normal relationship would be pretty creepy. There is a moment right before he gets the letter from Charlotte confessing her love for him, when Lolita is away and he jump on her bed smelling the fabric for just a slight hint of her scent. Even in the context of a "normal" relationship that is a bit too obsessive. He even goes far enough to figure a way to pleasure himself without her knowing (or does she?) "focusing my lust and rocking slightly under my newspaper, I felt that my perception of her, if properly concentrated upon might be sufficient to have me attain a beggar's bliss immediately." His morals appalled me even before he took Lolita and went on the run. He married Charlotte Haze, Just to be able to stay in the house with Lolita. He does come to love her in a tiny way but that is soon replaced with the notion of killing her!
Charlotte wants to send Lolita away and in a fit of selfishness thinks of a way to kill her so as to have Lolita all to himself (which eventually he gets, somewhat). He even goes as far as to describe the idea of drowning her in great detail. being brazen enough to do it while some people are watching from afar and being able to pay it off as an accident. While reading it, i actually forgot that he was just voicing his thoughts, and i thought he was actually doing it. Humbert does have morals about other things in life, he seem to abhor what the world has become and the moral it forces on him. He is hyper cynical when traveling with Lolita about the tourist traps and terrible motels. He seems to have a heightened sense of personal morality. as though his morals are right and the world is wrong. he detests the world for labeling him as a sex crazed maniac on one hand, but on the other hand he calls himself a monster. (whether he feels that way or is simply saying that for the "jury" im not sure) overall with his character i find a distinct lack of a correct moral compass. and overall the book smells of immorality even seeing the writer of the book makes me just a bit antsy. I felt so uncomfortable listening to the book on tape. There were points where i really enjoyed his flowery descriptions of his passions, emotions, and senses, but it continually kept crashing down when i realized hes talking about an underage girl. Honesty, I felt slightly off after finishing.
Update: (10/3/12) I have to say that this book still frustrates, confuses, and irritates me. In class we discussed the topic of love in Lolita, and whether or not Humbert actually love Lolita, and whether lolita loves Humbert. In class my teacher persuaded me that love was in the book, at least the type of love that we celebrate in movies, in that replace Humbert's object of affection with say blonde women in their early 20's and we would be celebrating his passion for his girl. But because it is a 12 year old girl we instantly write off the possibility of love because the object of his affection is of a perverse nature. And i began to buy into that notion. that maybe Nabokov was writing a story of love, but an awkward and wrong one. but after reading more i am not convinced that there is no real love in Lolita, only lust and unhealthy passion.
Humbert does not treat Lolita in the way that lovers should treat each other hes manipulative, selfish, and self serving. Keeping her only to himself, pulling the "father" card often. Pleasuring himself to other girls (and im relatively sure that he had her pleasure him while looking at other nymphettes, though i could be remembering incorrectly). There was little semblance of a caring relationship that i could see. Morals have little to no place in this book. Not a single character in this book had a single redeeming quality. I could look for a deeper meaning, and attempt to find some semblance of morality and a sense of "true" love hidden among the pages, but i have no motivation to. In the end all i can say about this book if i was telling a friend about it would be this: Lolita is a book that is written extremely well. When reading it you WIll be carried away. you can feel every sensation, live every emotion. But the story is perverse, and dies a bit in the middle. and in the end you will read a story that will not leave you with anything redeeming. You wont be changed, you wont learn anything about life. In the end you will be left with a beautifully written sad story of a pedophile whos perverse passion, jealousy, and selfishness ruined all of the lives around him, and got away with everything.
