Transcendental Fragmentation | Intuition……………………… Devolution …………………….. Absolution.
Latest Entries »
Chemtrail spraying in progress
Here we are, the last month of 2013 already! So guess what? I only need 90 more views on this blog(really just a repository of university assignments) to beat last years huge total of 2299… okay huge to some people… So after finding the long lost account info I was able to access it and check this stuff out…. All kinds of cool stats like this…
So the next question would be, how to get way more views and make money with the content I have already created…. hmmm
Ever forget the user name and/or for one of the things you set up years ago and suddenly remember? I just did that – I found my way back into this thing – cool. Now I can delete anything I want….
MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA
Trevor Olafson
FILM DIARY #9 – Network
“We lie like hell – we’ll tell you any shit you want to hear! We’re all you know!”
Howard Beale (Network)
The thing that struck me as I watched Network, was that each character in the film played a part that was not only required of the story line, but they each represented a facet of the television/corporate structure – or those who are enraptured or disenchanted with it. As we see in the film for example , Diana is more than a network producer – she embodies the dispassionate television executive that is only able to think in terms of ratings and profit, these being derived proportionally from content more often than not exploiting the misfortunes of others (if it bleeds it leads). After the initial set up in which Max Shumacher has told Howard that ‘he’ is being cancelled, we are taken to a production meeting set the next day – for that nights’ news. The stories are being timed and slotted for the show, they consist of terrorist threats, oil embargoes, sports scores, and ‘kitty rescued from tree’ viewing fodder.
Things don’t go as planned however, the producer in the control room is distracted by an assistant and does not notice the deviation in Howard’s segment that night – however we hear the first of what will become a complete manifesto, confession, condemnation and shockingly, at the end – submission, supplication to, and finally blood sacrifice by ruthless power in control, or in the words of Arthur Jensen, “the primal forces of nature”.
It is very easy to forget that the film is structured as a satirical comedy, other than the narration at the start and end that plays against the split screen of different TV stations, I think the film could have worked just as well as a straight drama. The reason? I am quite sure that the portrayal of the vulture-like television/corporate executives and producers is not far off the mark, the assassination of Howard was coldly decided in an ’emergency meeting’, this has surely been done in reality the same way in boardrooms across the land.
Howard’s first ‘rant’ and subsequent backlash from his implying that he will ‘blow his brains out’ on next weeks show, gaining a ‘fifty share at least’ – darkly foreshadows the message being delivered by this film, we live with manufactured fear and societal breakdown (to allow control), and I believe the producer who missed it (allowing it to go to air) during this first of the five ‘Howard’ diatribes – is symbolic of those of us who hear, but don’t listen – in this case comprehending that something was actually ‘out of order’, only after having to be convinced by others that it happened.
While watching, it is important to note the ‘five rants’ prior to meeting with Aurthur Jensen, and then how strangely Howard was affected by his ‘sales pitch’. This is I feel one of the most powerful scenes – Howard has what is to him a pseudo religious epiphany, seeing the face of ‘God’ in Jensen. This is the turning point of the film, Howard is no longer telling people that they matter, instead he now preaches a new kind of societal apathy – telling them to basically expect the worse and they won’t be disappointed, a complete turn around from his previous platform. Howard was kept on the air in this new ‘format’ until his death despite poor ratings – by the powers represented in Arthur Jensen. Interesting, because in this case profit was not a factor in the corporate formula, it was replaced with a message which I would read as – “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here”.
MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA
Trevor Olafson
FILM DIARY #10 – Citizen Kane
Given the task to analyze how Orson Welles constructed Citizen Kane, both technically and thematically as a statement on power, corruption and loss is not an easy one – but we will explore it here, however briefly.
First I must confess, this was the first time I had seen this film in its’ entirety – my knowledge had consisted up to this point of twenty or so minute snippets caught at two in the morning (waking up to the late show, falling asleep again) – or references made to the film in the Simpson’s for example, sad but true. So, with that out of the way let’s talk about Citizen Kane.
Brilliantly shot and edited, Welles used every method available at the time to construct this classic. The film opens with a posthumous newsreel about the fictitious Charles Kane, it effectively sets up what will become the story line as told by the people in his life through flashbacks – appropriately triggered when being interviewed by a tenacious reporter who is tasked to find ‘Rosebud’ (Kane’s last words) dead or alive, it is material the producers of the newsreel want to add to it before release. It is through this mechanism of an investigative reporter that Welles’ takes us into the life of Charles Kane and the people affected by it.
A major part of the effectiveness of this film are the fantastic sets, and the intricately woven soundtrack, both music and background sounds are used to set each scene and the mood in it. Transitions between the story as the reporter searches for ‘Rosebud’ begin with the introduction into the life of Charles Kane as told in a memoir written by Walter Thatcher, the man who is the catalyst for change in boy Kane. Being read by the reporter ‘Thompson’, the scene itself begins with the manuscript having to be pulled from a secured vault, and as with each successive flashback it begins with a narration which dissolves into the point in time being referenced.
Kane’s story of loss is recurrent from the start, and as we jump from the period in time when young Charles is taken to Chicago by banker Walter Thatcher from the family homestead, to the end when he dies alone in the unfinished and by then derelict monument Xanadu – never finding fulfillment through the accumulation of objects and people as objects. I feel Welles makes this statement beginning with a literal and allegorical parental rejection – the parents being a representation of western society, which through its’ very nature has created generations of people cut-off yet seeking to attain a kind of ‘parental approval’ from the same power on the other hand that works within to keep us cut-off from our rightful inheritance.
By the end of Kane we become privy to the secret of ‘Rosebud’ – the sled represents the loss of innocence, and that it really was ‘just a simple thing’. The implied irony of the fiery destruction of ‘Rosebud’ is that we are living in a system that institutionalizes from birth, separates us from our joy, and grooms us to play our role as decided by our handlers.
MEDI 311 – FILM ABOUT MEDIA FILM DIARY #8
Trevor Olafson
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
While viewing this film I found that throughout I was continually drawn closer to identifying with Hugo Chavez and his supporters as they are portrayed in what I feel is one of the best examples of Cinema Verite that I have seen to date. The film-makers accidental presence during the short-lived attempted coup of the Chavez government in April of 2002 gives it a very succinct and thus memorable, easily documented time line of the events as they occurred; since it took place over a period of only 48 hours, unlike other films documenting events which occurred during a relatively much longer span of time.
The film at several points does take us into the inner sanctum of Chavez and exposes what seems to be a completely genuine, thoughtful and fair minded man. This seems very apparent during one interview with Chavez in which he explains how as a young man he was compelled to investigate the allegations of murder against his grandfather – made by Chavez’s own mother. He is incredibly compelling as a story teller while he describes his journey of discovery into the past of his grandfather, and how he was not a murderer, but a fighter; and how Chavez himself became a fighter in the revolution because of how this knowledge changed him. One can feel a sense of the true pride and conviction in his beliefs when hearing the man speak so intimately on film.
Throughout as in the beginning of the film Chavez is shown to be a man of the people. First shown in the parade and his opening address in which tells his followers that he would “go to the gates of hell to defend them”. We see the use of mainstream television from the US Venezuelan television stations and how they obfuscate and confuse the real issues that Chavez is trying to address. We are shown talking heads giving jumbled explanations of what the US is concerned about with the Chavez government. The film maker then explains to us his interest and reasons for being in Venezuela to film Chavez, who luckily is granted total access starting with the presidential plane, taking us with him as he films the first of many daily activities of Chavez and his aides.
In the film we are shown that support for Chavez came from a huge portion of the population, 80%; the other 20% of the elites were in control and reaping the benefits of the countries wealth. Predictably they are against Chavez and rally against him calling his supporters terrorists and describing Chavez on television as a mentally ill, sexually deviant dictator. He clearly is not and his speeches to the people continually speak to the oil profits that the campensinos have never received and how he wants to change it through the constitution through which all of the people have rights that they need to be aware of. His speeches also contained messages about the importance of education and in the film we are shown how he makes himself accessible to the people through a weekly call in radio show called ‘Allo Presidente’, as well as responding to every single note or letter that is sent to him with requests for help. Chavez faced powerful enemies throughout his 3 year term up to this point but he had the loyalty of the troops as he was in the military as a commandeer and knew instinctively how tho gain the loyalty of his troops.
The filmmaker shows us how well Chavez understood how important the media was to his government and its’ support by the people. The five private media outlets were railing against him and his policies, Chavez used his only channel of addressing the people which was the state run Channel 8. His impassioned response to the people that he is standing against the US and Venezuelan oil interests as a matter of principle. He explains in his speech that he is against terrorism, but does not support it Carte Blanche as he show photographs of dead Afghan children, the result of US bombing. I felt sorry for the victims in the photos and Chavez at this point – here is a feeling person truly trying to give peace and prosperity to his people and having to fight off the US Military/Media complex that are trying undermine both in Venezuela.
The coup unfolds and Chavez supporters rally to support him at the presidential palace, however a counter march by a much smaller group move towards the palace; the army is used as a buffer between the two factions until shooting starts and several people within the Chavez group are killed or injured. As panic ensues we see people from the Chavez side shooting back with pistols at rooftop or balcony positions they believe the shots are coming from. What was then incredible was how the footage was manipulated through editing to look like these people who were defending themselves were actually shooting into a crowd of unarmed Chavez protestors, the camera angle did not show that the street below was actually empty at this time – they further twisted the scenario by blaming the deaths on Chavez and calling for his immediate removal. I definitely felt a sense of confusion as well as the apprehension of the people within the palace, becoming even more palpable as first the main state television and then remote stations signals are cut off. Finally the palace is surrounded and Chavez receives the ultimatum to give up or be bombed, he agrees to be leave but not step down to avoid bloodshed, he is a given an emotional farewell by his staff as he is led away at the end of this powerful scene. The next day, even as the new officials swear themselves into office word has gotten back to the people that Chavez did not resign but was secretly being held captive. Their righteous indignation and demands that Chavez be returned to them as President climaxes with the secret plan carried out by the palace guard to retake it and arrest the coup organizers – finally leading to the cathartic return of Hugo Chavez to his rightful place as leader of the people of Venezuela.
The films title is itself the statement being made – given the way in which this event was hidden and minimized in US and Venezuelan television markets. It also alludes to the power that mainstream media wields when it wants to build up or tear down governments. By using manipulated images and omitting events that would provide context rather than being used to obfuscate the truth, it show us just how vulnerable we all are to being lied to by government when we willingly accept whatever version of it is spun – as long as it comes through the television. The filmmakers have attempted to provide us with this insight with the systematic filming and breakdown of these events as they unfolded and fill in possible knowledge gaps that we as viewers may suffer from – induced by the mainstream media.
I feel that this film falls into a category unto itself in that it exposes the corruption and manipulation of opinion and ultimately behaviours that we as societies impose on ourselves; through our own sometimes wilfully induced ignorance as to the way things really are, and that everything we see on television is deigned to illicit the correct response by the viewer, Unfortunately this type of film is not made more often as it rates extremely high in my opinion as a benchmark example of committed independent documentary film-making for these very important, high-level reasons.
Transcendental Fragmentation 