Culture For ‘Em
17 May, 2008 — RickBTentatively I thought maybe at the weekend to have something a bit art/culture-ish (yeah that’s a word, wanna make something of it?). In one apsect I was inspired by this comment thread @ Complex System of Pipes, a fine post about fascist scum but because Buffy (the Vampire Slayer) was mentioned the comments talked a bit about that. That aspect has made me think there could be some enjoyment to be had by writing about works of popular culture film/tv/music/web etc not in too a rigid analysis mode (if you’ve ever had to endure some film analysis where someone expounds on diegetic sound in relation to ‘Transformers’ you’ll get the idea) but nevertheless making some mention of the political or social context the work exists in and what it might be expressing of interest to us no goodnik dirty lefties. But in an enjoyable way, I wanted to think of good name but so far only have “Weekend Culture For ‘em” (from the joke title of a skit by-I think Trevor & Simon- where an Art Forum was “Art For ‘Em”)… maybe Buffy the Neoliberal Slayer??
Anyway I thought to start with Alien3, having recently seen the ‘assembly’ cut which restores and replaces some of the original version, however it is still rubbish and while it makes a good example of corporatism destroying cinema, it’s simply best forgotten. Really, there are two films in the Alien cannon- Alien & Aliens- after that they went to hell (incidentally after Murdoch bought Fox, hmmm). All others are objects of curiosity ( I cannot resist seeing them dammit!) but in no way continue the saga began in the first two. So I have sort of started with Alien3 but really am still too annoyed to bear writing more about it, what a waste, what a fuck up, no wonder Fincher refused to do a commentary, he knows he did wrong (and had wrong done to him by the ‘company’)!
So the official first entry is this image below-
From a BBC week in pictures thingy (item no. 3) the caption is-
Blood stains cover a bullet-riddled wall in the Lebanese town of Shwayfat. The country has been rocked by fighting between Hezbollah fighters and pro-government forces.
Yesterday I read Ann’s post at People’s Geography about a film ‘Waltz with Bashir’ at Cannes that is a curious animated true tale of an IDF soldier, Ari Folman, to come to terms with the gaps in his memory surrounding the part he played in the first Lebanese war and the 1982 massacre of thousands of unarmed Palestinian civilians in the West Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.
I have read some about Sabra & Shatila, I was appalled Sharon got to be PM, news shows would perhaps sometimes call him ‘hardline’ as in I suppose Peter Sutcliffe was ‘hardline’ with his position on feminism. What a fucking murdering war criminal scum bucket, and he got elected Prime Minister! Anyway she included some links to testimony of the massacres, some I had read before the testimony of Dr Ang Swee Chai I had not (read it here). It is astonishing, utterly horrific, there can be no doubt that what the right wing Christian Phalangists aided by the IDF did was no different to the Nazi liquidation of Jewish ghettos.
Later on I came across the picture featured above and while the circumstances are different (although in some larger context it is in part violence supported by Israel and the US while they talk of peace) it is an image of the detritus of armed violence. However I find it also a striking image quite abstract from its immediate context, I would guess the photographer (an AFP person, well done whoever you are) also saw that. They have made an image that moves beyond its news context and certainly beyond the representation of violence it is both pleasing and disturbing visually. Whereas many canvasses or prints can look similar, this of course exists due to some person having possibly lethal violence done to them. As such it is utterly unique and too terrible a result to wilfully reproduce (just say no to snuff art!) but nevertheless for me it’s the most arresting artefact I have seen this week. That it comes out of a news context probably indicates my preoccupation with the human events on planet Earth (and dare I say the depoliticisation of much artwork in order to sell to the wealthy buying class, having said which this looks good -send me a review copy!) and it is disturbing to want to look at it, yet I do, like picking a moral scab.
Anyways, I see I have manifestly failed in this inaugural For ‘Em by going form a passing condemnation Alien3 to a somewhat less fun photo and memories of massacres and being quite serious. D’oh, sorry, but hey there’s no telling where a bit of kultchur(!) might take you, next week I shall try to plan it around a more lightweight subject. Frankly I blame Alien3 for being steadfastly bad, still.















17 May, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I see you like pondering about popkultchur too …
I have not seen any of the Aliens, and I surely will not. When it comes to these things I cannot help being visceral and I am totally incapable of being intellectual about the visceral affect of blood and gore … interestingly, though, the picture of bloody war seemed quite ordinary to me … I think watching too much “real” blood and gore had desensitized me to the ‘real’ affect; yet the fiction blood sickens me to no end. Now I have no clue if Alien is bloody; I just have seen the box set, which is green, and so I assume it’s Marsians
18 May, 2008 at 12:00 am
I loved Alien and Aliens (more the former than the latter). I agree that Alien3 was not ‘good’, however, Alien Resurrection is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. And besides, I tend to overlook Alien3’s flaws because I am a big Fincher fan and I cannot believe he is capable of such a shocking film (but perhaps he is).
18 May, 2008 at 12:55 am
Welcome KultchurVulturs! Ok I’ll stop that now.
Hey Naj, your point is well made, the appetite for Grand Guignol is often a sign of a protected removed decadent population, even more alarming in America which does such violence yet it’s people are rarely informed of it by their media (although that trait is common in all imperial/colonial and post regimes). Interestingly another horror film I saw recently (Bernard Rose’s Snuff Movie- which attempts something quite interesting in an almost Brechtian way -the final shot is crucial to the conceit- not wholly successful but interesting) spoke about how action films make the killer the hero while horror identifies with the victim more often (even though they are doomed). Generally I think men (particularly adolescent to 30’s) are the core audience of horror, although I have noticed a lot of women claiming to like the Saw films (Death Wish remade as torture porn). But definitively there is a split between those who find catharsis in them and those who find them traumatic and life experience as you testify, informs that.
As for Alien & Aliens they are exceptional cinema, Alien is the straight horror, Aliens is combat/horror with a lot of Marine Corps esprit. If you ever had to watch one I would go for Alien, the design of the earth tech and the Alien artefacts is era defining and it does have a fairly intelligent subtext alluding to all manner of dark sexual fears. I bet that’s really selling it to you!
(ps. thought the protagonist is a strong resourceful woman which is a nice change)
I found the photo image just very interesting to look at, from the abstract of colour, shade and structure to the detail of it’s reality. And the morally questionable act of viewing it and gaining some enjoyment. Maybe it was because of reading about the Sabra Shatila massacres, I didn’t have nightmares about it but I certainly thought a lot about them. And in relation to cinema, films are entertainments largely and they usually offer fictional avatars for our engagement, they offer heroes and they tend to moralise that those who die in some way deserve it because of some failure of that person, whereas in reality being rounded up, lined up and shot happens to all kinds of people, we need to tell those stories more show the heroes of those stories stripped raped and killed and hidden in mass graves. The cinema of spectacle and action does rather favour the killer who survives not the many victims. My favourite part (there aren’t many) of Austin Powers is when they comedically show the friends of a just killed guard waiting to meet him in a bar and saying how great his new job is, how his family are so happy etc. it’s done as a gag, but ever watch an action film and start to imagine the lives of all the disposable heavies in it, helps to pass the time if you have to sit through rubbish film.
Korova, yeah Resurrection is a pantomime, Whedon disowns how it ended up. I don;t think Fincher deserves too much guilt for A3, he basically put on dead man’s shoes (and had to carry on Ward’s script, with terrible rewrites, the fake Bishop was so bad it had to be reshot with the actor, it was nicknamed Bosh-up by the Brit crew which sort of summed up the whole project, ill starred from the outset. But I can’t blame him, who wouldn’t say yes to trying an Alien film) and tried, got screwed, overall though it was made backwards, Fox booked it’s opening date I think before shooting and needed a big summer film and A3 was it, they would have put out a puppet show they were so desperate. Agreed Fight Club is simply superb (and a brilliant and subversive satire which the fighting bit is really only a small part not that you’d know it from the marketing, a friend of mine got it on sellthru vhs -actually I think I gave it him as a pressie- when it came out and actually wore out the tape he watched it so much). His other stuff is always very well done but I think he needs a great script or else he gets lost in the aesthetic and technology (Panic Room). Zodiac showed a real maturity though, almost a grown up riposte to Seven, killers aren’t admirable and becoming obsessed with them is not so great either.
Seven is a serial killer movie landmark but the end always annoys me in that of course Pitt caps the guy, in the real world this doesn’t ruin his career, the cops all agree a story and he gets a medal! The film suggest it is as terrible thing, but his wife’s head’s in a box, anyone would kill the perpetrator, yes not great, but did I mention-his wife’s head is in a box! It’s a love story! And as a cop he would likely not even get charged!
20 May, 2008 at 2:01 am
Hmmm
Have you seen “The act of seeing with one’s own eyes”, Stan Brakhage!
20 May, 2008 at 2:02 am
Please do, and if you can get a Print version of it, even better, if not get the DVD; no U-Tube stuff!
20 May, 2008 at 2:33 am
Uh-oh, you’re ‘Hmm’-ing me!
No I haven’t seen that one, last of his I saw was…thinks… Window Water Baby Moving I think (but at least projected in a proper cinema and everything!).
Well I’ve had a quick search and there is a Region 1 (no probs got multi region gear) DVD “by Brakhage: An Anthology”
http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=184
which includes it so probably a worthwhile purchase. I will have a watch then do a write up, will take a couple of weeks for post etc. at least though.
That does remind me that I found ‘Wavelength’ by Michael Snow on YouTube but only a short- few minutes long clip (of awful quality) which to me sort of defeats the film as I love it because of its length and the contemplation/experience you go through watching it. I do have a bit of thing for structuralist works.
This is good, one post generates suggestions of other works to explore which in turn will make more posts and more suggestions/links. Even if it is a gruesome autopsy film!
(again I blame Alien3, when will that film stop punishing me!)
20 May, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Woohoo! Now we’re talking experimental cinema!
Yes the Antology is worth having.
I watched Brakhage’s with NO visceral reaction; I am sure if I were in the autopsy room I would have fainted! It is not gruesome; it really is FASCINATING what he does.
Brakhage is a phenomenologist; although I doubt if he has ever used that word in any of his writings; but he just talks about film like James does, or Merleau-Ponty.
by teh way, I was hmmming you because I was sniffing a bit of cine-buffer in you, and that was a hmmm of delight not disapproval! You won’t think I would suggest Brakhage to a non-Artist
20 May, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Aha a good ‘Hmmm’!
“Brakhage is a phenomenologist”
Yeah definitely I think he would fit into that or at least his film does although the intention that provokes the film maybe less strictly defined. But overall his life does seem to be described by a film/technology enabled ontological expedition. Definitely the very physical nature of film (film, chemicals, printing, the camera - cogs, shutter, aperture, lens) makes it a suitable companion/tool to such method. (Although I get the impression phenomenology is a bit frowned upon and unfashionable from my Uni days, I think a British bias).
Well I ordered the DVD and of course it’s got loads of others on so that will be quite a mini film festival for me, certainly the most comprehensive access to his work I’ve ever had (and probably for many, applause to Criterion- though boo for it being Region 1/ntsc [NTSC the worst tv standard ever!]).
21 May, 2008 at 2:57 am
Phenomenology’s on its way back. Cultural ’sciences’ need a bit of catching up to do … even psychoanalysis will be back too … bye bye Bordwel!
21 May, 2008 at 4:46 am
That’s fightin’ talk! He seems a bit reductionist and I certainly despise cognitive mechanistic stuff. Is it unfair to say it’s a way to justify the dominance of narrative cinema?
But then I come from a Lacan and Zizek-y (although he’s gone a bit funny now) background with a splash of structuralist punk. Also…as someone who actually y’know has at times made and shown films you do find the millions of words written about them by people who have never done it yet assert absolute knowledge rather amusing. I sense some of this new approach is related to a sort of production line corporatism, as if deep down they want to make empirical formulations for what constituents a good work. A kind of vague fascism of capitalist film culture. That may be unfair, I don’t know much about their stuff but it seems a bit dull.
21 May, 2008 at 7:44 pm
OH THAT’S What you are … a cinema-maker! I always wondered what kind of an artist you are; I thought you are a musician; never a filmmaker … pfffffffffff now I REALLY needed that stupid job the Nazi stole from me in London!
I think Bordwell and cognitive theory is good as far as the learning of a ‘language’ goes. But then, when the ‘language’ (of cinema) enters poetics, then Bordwell becomes irrelevant. However, even he has changed. I saw him maybe two years ago and he was embracing Claude Lelouch … I wrote two hefty articles on him (just examining his work in the context of French New Wave and then Post Modernism of the 80s) and the Sense of Cinema rejected them calling Lelouch “not a great artist” … which is kind of sad, because as much as I hate Capitalist institutions, I hate Marxist ones that have shunned him away because he “makes money” …
… and therein lies my interest in watching trash TV, because ultimately I am interested in understanding that which moves ordinary humans …
Lacan … the reason why I say there will be a refocusing of attention on these guys (even Freud) is because the science (which rejected them some 30 years ago) is starting to re-embrace them.
I have hardly ever enjoyed Lacan … I cannot stand theoretical psychologists
–not even practical ones, for that matter; bunch’a crooks!
21 May, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Rick, who are your favorite Directors?
21 May, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Lacan is impenetrable, yet occasionally fun to dally with. I do have some trouble with -specifically- psychology as it seems too close to making money rather than an ethical profession. Psychoanalysis is wild and crazy fun and at least unlike behaviourists it allows people their dignity as mindful beings. So Lelouch is verboten! Silly sods.
Actually I can/do make music at times too, maybe though the nazi spared you, I’m way out of practice.
“… and therein lies my interest in watching trash TV, because ultimately I am interested in understanding that which moves ordinary humans …”
Oh that’s what they all say!!!!
Um, favourite directors, hmmmm, well just off the top of my head some big names and in no order and with some only for one or two works, so with those caveats-
David Lynch, Lars Von Trier, Richard Lester, Nic Roeg, Sergio Leone, Jean Luc Godard, Christopher Nolan, Donald Cammell, Andrei Tarkovsky, Julio Medem, Joss Whedon, Ki-duk Kim, James Cameron, Fritz Lang, Robert Wise, Stan ‘the man’ Kubrick, Sidney Lumet, Ethan Coen, Michael Haneke, Elem Klimov, Michael Powell,
Erm, so that’s a start, not sure what it means (although I see no women and few outside Europe/US, bad list! Hey it’s a quick round up, give me a break) or signifies maybe more indicative is- I like long, contemplative, poetic stuff a lot. Which doesn’t get made much at the moment. My best film I began with an overture of Gorecki and 4 minutes of black screen, I don’t expect Hollywood to come knocking any time soon!
22 May, 2008 at 2:03 am
The most intense black screen I have ever experience in my life was in a little cinema in a little village in Quebec. We drove some 100 Kms to catch this.
The cheater was maybe 30-seats large; and we were 5-6 couples watching on … the sound was surround … and the screen black … and then it was all vibration, scream, agony … the sounds of collapsing world trade center … I had NEVER “seen” such a cinema …
Alain Renais’s when I love slow
Superman on Imax’s when I love fast.
Okey I promise to shut up now
22 May, 2008 at 2:32 am
So what’s that film about, did something happen on September 11th some years back? Was it in the papers?
You make a good point which I very much agree on, how important sound is. (and big scary sub woofer always helps).
aha Renais, yes that’s a good one to add. Superman, which one? I think Routh was good but the film was a bit wonky, still they kept the Williams score from the Reeves era, which was a great idea.
23 May, 2008 at 1:37 am
Rick, if you haven’t seen that film 9-11, do. Sean Penn’s piece, and this one i mentioned above (by the mexican director) were lovely
Superman Returns, imax 3D although the goggles were getting annoying at some point!
23 May, 2008 at 2:19 am
It’s in my DVD rental list (Inarritu did the Mexico one, his Babel is interesting although the Japanese storyline is not so well integrated, but hey nudity!)
I saw Cameron’s 3D Imax film (Ghosts of the Abyss, which coincidentally includes footage of them finding out about 911 while out at sea), the 3D was very good, but the glasses (the lcd shutter type) left me with a headache for a day afterwards. Yet I shall endure that for Avatar if necessary.
(After calling the film ‘Superman Returns’ leaves a bit of a problem for sequels-
Superman: Still Here,
Superman Persists,
Superman: Not Going Anywhere Anytime Soon,
Superman: You Would Tell Me If I’m Outstaying My Welcome Wouldn’t You?,
Superman Resigns- To Spend More Time With His Family)
23 May, 2008 at 5:48 am
Superman you say….
“Bill: As you know, l’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating. Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology… The mythology is not only great, it’s unique. Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S”, that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He’s weak… he’s unsure of himself… he’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race. ”
Kill Bill vol.2
23 May, 2008 at 4:24 pm
You know that’s about the only thing worth sitting through that overlong attempt to seduce Uma Thurman for. That dialogue.