Final Draft

The Films That Cry Wolf

More than one billion of the world’s population does not have access to clean water and among those, one of five are children. This is one of the many facts that msn.com presents on it’s new section, aptly titled green. It is getting harder and harder to come by any type of popular media-- whether written or presented in television or film-- that doesn’t push environmentalism.

Several recent films engage this new phenomenon in varying ways. The film “Day After Tomorrow” tries to showcases how the planet will be affected by the damage done by mankind. Following the growing environmental trend, the film tries to inform people of the risks of remaining ignorant to our Earth’s current status.

Disappointingly, “Day After Tomorrow” goes far too overboard to be taken seriously. At the National Snow and Ice Data Center website, nsidc.org, NASA makes an official statement regarding the film. They describe the film as “exciting but fictitious” and that “the kind of disaster portrayed in the movie is impossible”. When asked if this movie is realistic, NASA answers with one decisive word, “No”. 

Viewers expecting to see scientific truthful information about global warming are seriously disappointed. During the “pulse-pounding rollercoaster ride” as the film’s website claims, there are tidal waves that engulf New York City, tornados tearing apart Los Angeles, and everything begins to freeze solid. Not only do these events happen at the same time, but also they all take place in the period of one day. During these events, the characters must also battle, wolves, blood transfusions, and a trek from Washington DC to New York City. Any environmental issues that the film tried to address are buried deep under the dramatics they used to keep the audience’s attention.

This type of media portrayal of the serious environmental issues has a very negative effect on the environmental cause. When the goal of a film company is to make money, the cause of the film is often lost behind tricks that will please the audience.  Anything truthful and shocking about the planet’s status will soon be disregarded as another Hollywood shocker to rake in the money. Like the story about the boy who cried wolf, eventually the general public will be numb to any more environmental issues, which can have serious and disastrous results.

“Day After” does include several barbed attacks on the US administration. In the commentary of the film, it is said that “Casting Kenneth Welsh as the Vice President was controversial due to his physical resemblance to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, but the director Roland Emmerich insisted on it for that very reason, likely to highlight the Bush/Cheney administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Perhaps Emmerich decided to highlight the inefficiency of the government in an environmental crisis, which was unfortunately proven in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

However, there are those in the government that are very passionate about environmentalism and sustainability. In the documentary “Inconvenient Truth” Director Davis Guggenheim uses the former Vice President Al Gore to present the science of global warming. Gore’s lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change is also highlighted in this film. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a humorous lecture, filled with evidentiary graphs and charts.

The DVD for the film “An Inconvenient Truth” is packaged to make the smallest possible environmental footprint, “it is made of 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, no excess materials, and absolutely no plastics. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this DVD will benefit the bipartisan climate effort, The Alliance for Climate Protection.” This information about the DVD was highlighted in the website, climatecrisis.net. This website acts as an extended arm for the film, adding extra information about global warming and other environmental concerns.

Gore presents photos of actual sites around the world in a before and after style to show the drastic changed in just the last 20 years. He talk about the time that the United States congress passed the clean air act, it was visible to note the difference in air stuck in ice core samples in Antarctica. He presents several graphs, proving the correlation between Temperature and CO2, the rise of CO2 in our lifetimes, and the predicted temperature rise.

            Even with all the scientific evidence presented clearly, the direction of the film takes a wrong turn. By focusing too much on Gore’s personal life, the film becomes a feel good story about a political figure. Gore tells the grievous story of his son, who was in an accident and placed in the hospital for a month. This apparently led to his interest in studying global warming and traveling around the planet looking for answers. This type of story-telling trivializes the portrayal of global warning in this film.

Al Gore is an amusing lecturer, who uses his charisma to introduce the audience to this cause and keep them laughing in their seats. Perhaps he is not the best source for actual information. The film tells us our duty is to separate truth from fiction, but also tells us that the government and popular media will try to hide it.

So where exactly are the actual scientists with the believable data? Perhaps they thought it was too complex for the general public to comprehend, but by presenting the information in such an informal way, the seriousness of the cause can only be set up by Gore’s passion for the topic, not very scientific.  

Even children’s film media is turning environmental, such as “Ice Age”, “The Bee Movie” and “Arctic Tale”, but these movies are right on track for children by introducing the concept that caring for the Earth is very important. Obviously, as adults we know that mermaids and talking animals do not exist and in that same way, it is important to critically question all the information that is presented in these films. For children, however, it sets the root of the idea. Perhaps it’s a lesson that popular media should not be taken as seriously as it is, and it is the responsibility of the audience to determine if the wolf is actually there.

 

Background on my final paper

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/business/media/05universal.html?scp=12&sq=green+media&st=nyt

Just an article showcasing NBC's decisionto air "green" shows during the week...

Critical Defense of NYT Artical

Manohla Dargis, one of the staff writers of the New York Time’s movie section, published a review of the new film, “The Other Boleyn Girl” on February 2008 found on the website, .

She describes this film as a “salacious” story of rich, pretty girls who run around the castle and act as prostitutes to the king. Dargis writes her review in a way that subtlety compares this movie to a reality TV show, where two sisters are set in competition and the audience gets to see their downfall. She calls these girls “more or less the Paris and Nicky Hilton of the Tudor Court. Her language also reflects this type of media. Especially for the New York Times, Dargis uses language that is on the saucy side. She writes, “His sexual wish was their command” and describes one of the sisters as being “passed around from man to man”. She even says that the daughters were “pimped out” by their father.

It’s interesting the language that she uses, sometimes very common and at other times quite confusing. What is the word “pastiche”? Is it a common term in the film world? Another confusing example of her language in her lede, she uses the phrase “More slog than romp”. Perhaps it’s due to a personal confusion, but it seems like this phrase is difficult to understand. Also she writes that “The Boleyn sister were the kind of trouble that can make for bodice-ripping entertainment, but they were also the kind of unruly women who sometimes risked burning”. It’s difficult to understand if Dargis is talking about the real sisters or how they were portrayed in the movie; overall, the sentence is badly constructed.

But she accomplishes her goal at placing her position on the film. From the second paragraph on, she uses descriptions that inform the reader of her point of view. She uses the phrases, “oddly plotted and frantically paced”, “safe and predictable”, “underwritten and unedited”, and “whittled down to the nub” to describe different aspects of the film. She writes that the movie has “few meagerly entertaining moments”. The reader can also know what to expect, without knowing too much about the film or plot. In her kicker, “Ms. Portman’s eyes, Mr. Bana’s hands, and Ms. Johansonn’s chin all receive vigorous workouts” Dargis paints a picture of what the audience should expect, especially if they are familiar with these famous actors.

Overall, she does a good job getting her opinions out and keeping the tone of her piece steady. Her title is lacking and wouldn't attract readers, but perhaps the movie was advertised enough for readers to naturally seek out her review. At some points, it is slightly difficult to understand who her audience should be, because of some of her word use, but she writes an engaging piece about a film she clearly didn’t enjoy.

Rough Draft

“10,000 years ago, one storm changed the face of our planet. On May 28, it will happen again”. This is the tagline to the film, “Day After Tomorrow” starring Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal, Ian Holm, Emmy Rossum and Sela Ward. The film tries to showcases how the planet will be affected by the damage done by mankind. Following the growing “green” environmental trend, the film tries to inform people of the risks of remaining ignorant to our Earth’s current status.

Disappointingly, “Day After Tomorrow” goes far too overboard to be taken seriously. A consultation by NASA scientists was requested before the filming of the movie, but even NASA stated that the events in the film were too ridiculous to actually occur, and hence denied the request.

Viewers expecting to see scientific truthful information about global warming are seriously disappointed. During the “pulse-pounding rollercoaster ride” as the film’s website claims, there are tidal waves that engulf New York City, tornados tearing apart bout Las Angeles, and everything begins to freeze solid. Not only do these events happen at the same time, but they take place all in the period of one day. During these events, the characters must also battle, wolves, blood transfusions, and a trek from Washington DC to New York City. Any environmental issues that the film tried to address are buried deep under the dramatics they used to keep the audience’s attention.

Unfortunately, this type of media portrayal of the serious environmental issues causes a large problem. Anything truthful and shocking about the planet’s status will soon be disregarded as another Hollywood shocker to rake in the money. Like the story about the boy who cried wolf, eventually the general public will be numb to any more environmental issues, which is an actual cause that deserve their attention.

 

However, “Day After” does include several surprisingly barbed attacks on the US administration.  “Casting Kenneth Welsh as the Vice President was controversial due to his physical resemblance to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, but the director Roland Emmerich insisted on it for that very reason, likely to highlight the Bush/Cheney administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Perhaps Emmerich decided to highlight the stupidity of the government during times of environmental crisis, which was unfortunately proven during the Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

Also during production of the film, Emmerich supposedly paid $200,000 out of his own pocket to make the production "carbon-neutral", where all carbon dioxide emitted by the production was offset by the planting of trees, and investments in renewable energy.

 

There is another way that the film itself can help save the environment. The DVD for the film “An Inconvenient Truth” is packaged to make the smallest possible environmental footprint - it is made of 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, no excess materials, and absolutely no plastics. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this DVD will benefit the bipartisan climate effort, The Alliance for Climate Protection.

In the documentary “Inconvenient Truth” Director Davis Guggenheim uses the former Vice President Al Gore to present the science of global warming. Gore’s lifelong commitment to reversing the effects of global climate change is also highlighted in this film. A longtime advocate for the environment, Gore presents a wide array of facts and information in a humorous lecture, filled with evidentiary graphs and charts.

 

Gore presents photos of actual sites around the world in a before and after style to show the drastic changed in just the last 20 years. He talk about how when US congress passed the clean air act, you can visibly tell in the ice core samples in Antarctica. He presents several graphs, proving the correlation between Temperature and CO2, the rise of CO2 in our lifetimes, and the predicted temperature rise.

 

            But even with all the scientific evidence presented clearly, the film takes a wrong turn. It focuses too much on Gore’s personal life and turns the film into an emotional cry for help. Gore tells the sad story of his sons car accident and having to wait in the hospital for a month. This apparently led to his interest in studying global warming and traveling around the planet looking for answers.

You look at that river gently flowing by. You notice the leaves rustling with the wind. You hear the birds; you hear the tree frogs. In the distance you hear a cow. You feel the grass. The mud gives a little bit on the riverbank. It's quiet; it's peaceful. And all of a sudden, it's a gearshift inside you. And it's like taking a deep breath and going, "Oh yeah, I forgot about this." Says Gore

Al Gore is like an entertaining lecturer professor, although the material is made to be easily understandable, even for people without a scientific background. The film tells us our duty is to separate truth from fiction, but also tells us that the government and popular media will try to hide it. So who exactly are we supposed to believe?

 

Even children’s film media is turning environmental, such as “Ice Age”, “The Bee Movie” and “Arctic Tale”, but these movies are right on track for children. As adults, it is important to critically question all the information that is presented in films about the green plight and understand that it is a real issue. Not the next new controversy, but something that everyone needs to understand.

 

 “An Inconvenient Truth is not a story of despair but rather a rallying cry to protect the one earth we all share.  ‘It is now clear that we face a deepening global climate crisis that requires us to act boldly, quickly, and wisely,’ said Gore”. 

** I hope to interview someone in the K biology department as well as add more information about childrens movies. I was only able to briefly touch on the green movement outside of the two films, and I think I would like to add more on that  as well.  

I wanted to apologize to the class that my draft isn't up yet, I promise I'll have it up by tomorrow morning!

Topic for final project

I was interested in delving into the world of media with a focus on the "Green Movement" or environmentalism and sustainability. Films such as An Inconvenient Truth (presented by former US vice president Al Gore), The Day After Tomorrow, March of the Penguins, and even children's movies such as Ice Age are trying to open the public's eyes to our effects on the planet. Series such as Planet Earth or Blue Planet (created by the discovery channel) show viewers nature at its finest and implore upon its audience to help save the planet. Even commercials on television, such as Esurance, tell consumers that if they use their insurance company, they don't tell the audience how to help save the planet. Also, the cost of becoming green is high, which leads us to wonder whether it's worth the trouble if our planet is already doomed to ruin anyway. 

No Dazzle at the Oscars

“The fight is over, so tonight…welcome to the make-up sex!” jokes the host Jon Stewart in reference to the end of the writers strike as he opens the 80^th annual Academy Awards.

Steward, the comedian who is the host of the popular TV comedy central “The Daily Show” was the savior of the awards show this year. With only a week to prepare, the full genius of Stewart emerges when he delivers every line so naturally and comically.

He opens the show with a comedic monologue, addressing issues like the writer’s strike, the Iraq war, and the presidential elections. He jokes, “Tonight we look beyond the dark days to focus on happier fare: This year’s slate of Oscar-nominated psychopathic killer movies. Does this town need a hug? What happened? ‘No Country for Old Men’, ’Sweeney Todd’, ’There Will Be Blood’? All I can say is, thank God for teen pregnancy” referring to the feel good hit, “Juno”.

But other then Stewart’s witty comments, the entertainment value of the show was at an all-time low. The writers apparently couldn’t slap together enough material, as there were montages that highlight every single Best Picture, Actress, Actor, Director from the creation of the award show until the present.

They obviously needed something, anything to fill the three hours that the awards show spanned. George Clooney reminisces, “One thing that’s always consistent…it’s long…no I’m kidding… it’s unpredictable.”

Unfortunately, this year, the show was utterly predictable. “There Will Be Blood” and “No Country for Old Men” was up for eight nominations each and between the two, took home five major awards. “No Country” had four. Best Picture, Best Director, Best adapted screenplay and best editing. Not to mention, Javier Bardem who won Best Supporting Actor for his role in “No Country”. Daniel Day-Lewis won, for the second time, Best Actor, sealing his fate as an Oscar worthy talent.

The biggest surprise was when the small low budget movie “Once” won the Best Original Song for “falling slowly” when the Disney film “Enchanted” had three songs in the running.

Another surprise was the international theme of the show, with award winners from Spain, England, and France. All four acting prizes went to Europeans: Frenchwoman Cotillard, Spaniard Bardem, and the British Day-Lewis and Swinton.

But it’s noticeable that the iconic stars were absent. They were there as presenters and not as nominees. Matt Damon from “Bourne Supremacy”, Julia Roberts from “Charlie Wilson’s War”, and Brad Pitt from “The Assassination of Jesse James” didn’t even seem to be present at the event! Viewers waiting for their favorite celebrities were sadly disappointed.

Which leads to the question, why was Miley Cyrus even there? Was she a way of compromise that other famous pop icons were absent? Although she helped spark interest in the show among her following of preteen adolescent fans, she had no real reason for attending the classy celebrated award show for serious actors and actresses. Perhaps even she had nothing better to do on a Sunday night, than go to the Academy Awards.

Birds Sing, Glasses Wail, Storms rage, Seas Toss

A music review by Steve Smith on Wednesday, Feb 20 NYT

Steve Smith reviews a oncert by the Julliard Orchestra at Avery Fisher Hall this previous Monday night.

The title of this review sets the tone for the piece. The vivid images of seas tossing and storms raging brings up thoughts of drama in nature that is reflected in the music that Smith hears.

From the very beginning life of the review, Smith praises the performance as being one that “far surpasses expectations.” His tone remains positive and very complimentative throughout the review.

He gives evidence to his praise by informing the audience of the usual proficiency of Julliard performances then highlighting this particular performance and describing it. He uses naturalistic examples again “The electricity Mr. Valliaume mustered in Berlioz’s ‘Royal Hunt and Storm’ from ‘Les Troyens,’ was all the more impressive for the control with which he wielded it.”

From this review, it is obvious that Smith would freely recommend this performance as being an exciting and brilliant presentation of the music.

An Exercise of Wits

If there is one person that every student has encountered, it is the crazy professor. He doesn’t win the popularity contests and is often underestimated by all of his students; he is absent minded, but brilliant. As students, it is often imagined that these eccentric educators have no personal life outside of the college.

In Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf a play by Edward Albee, a professor’s deteriorating personal life is shown in a dark yet hilarious manner. It is being showcased by the director Randy Wolfe at the Whole Arts Theatre in downtown Kalamazoo.

George, played by Richard Philpot, is an associate professor of history at a small town college. He is married to Martha, Marti Philpot, the daughter of the college president. George and Martha invite the new, very young biology professor and his wife to their house after a faculty party at two in the morning. Drunkenly they insult, berate and toy with each other, as well as the guests, in a comedic way before the plot takes a more serious turn. George apologizes to the guests, “Martha and I are merely exercising… that’s all, we’re merely walking what’s left of our wits.”

Martha and George play games with one another to see who can get on top. Martha attacks George with a slew of names, “cluck”, “floozy”, “paunchy”, “swampy”, and the one that cut his pride “big flat flop”. With a bright red face and clenched fists, he violently throws and empty vodka bottle across the stage. Richard Philpot is perfect as the crazy professor pushed to his last nerve. His every facial movement and even the hunch of his back is believable, an especially difficult feat in a theatre in the round.

Three hours in a black, boxlike room in uncomfortable chairs listening to marital drama seems worse then lecture, but Virginia Woolf is theatre at its best. Using language such as “screw you” and “little bugger” the lines are delivered perfectly to shock and engage the audience. Not only are the lines well written, there is action! At one moment, George comes calmly onto the stage pointing a gun to Martha’s head. The guests scream and jump up in shock. He shoots and a red flag pops out of the gun. In a deadbeat tone, he says “pow”. The guests and the audience visibly relax, just to face another round of obscenity and profanity from Martha and George.

These hostile moments finally come grinding to a halt at the end of this crazy night. In these final moments, the death of an imaginary son occurs, the guests finally comprehend George and Martha’s games, and the illusions of their lives are set forward. It leads to the question, does everyone survive through illusions?

8 p.m. Feb. 22-23, 29 and March 1, Whole Art Theatre, 359 S. Kalamazoo Mall. $20, or $14 for seniors, $10 for students. 345-7529, or www.wholeart.org.

Interactive Theatre

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/theater/10ishe.html?_r=1&ref=theater&oref=slogin

When Audiences Get In on the Act by Charles Isherwood

Charles Isherwood seems to be the New York Times main writer for the theater section of the arts paper. Etiquette, one of the performances that he highlights, has a very interesting premise. The audience themselves act out the play in groups of two. He began the article with an interesting lede, stating that he had recently made his stage debut.

Isherwood contributes this growing popularity for the audience to interact with the idea that the general public likes to perform. On site like YouTube, anyone can post a video performance. The audience likes to be actively engaged in the performance. He highlights a past performance where the theatre have engaged such behavior, reviewing Masque. Where the audience wanders through a house setting where they find fragments of the story.

Isherwood highlights several more pieces of “interactive theatre” where he judges the medium as one that will draw audiences in, but could be difficult to pull off. He argues that focusing on the audience will draw the attention away from the plotline. Individuals cannot lose themselves in the acting. Many people go to the theatre to be passively entertained; what’s next? Interactive movies? Interactive music albums?

In Treatment Needs Some Treatment

The human brain is an amazing device. It is capable of having more ideas then atoms in the universe. It can also store countless memories and shuffle through them in a matter of seconds. This organ contains many mysteries to human behavior grouped into a large genre of the study of psychology. Given the widespread interest of the study of human behavior, HBO came up with a new series “In Treatment” which delves into the world of a psychologist.

For five nights a week in blocks of 30 minutes, “In Treatment” gives the viewer a glimpse of a therapy session in real time. During the first four nights, the psychoanalyst Paul Weston (Gabriel Byrne) treats a patient a night. The remaining night of the week, Weston goes to his own psychologist Gina (Dianne Wiest) for his problems and issues with his patients.

With impressively experienced cast members and an innovative premise, “In Treatment” falls short of the stunner it could be. The show opens with the name of the patient, the day, and the time of the session. This is the only information that the viewer receives before listening to 30 minutes straight of a therapy session, starting with the patient giving a dull 10 minutes monologue. The action is all woven into the words; there is little movement, hardly any sound, and no music. It’s difficult to compare to the other series on air with therapy sessions, because this is the only series which focuses on the psychologist life, with no other plot line or drama outside his home or his home office.

To offset this fact, the show attempts to be captivating by revealing information at a snails pace. Unfortunately, this method is not effective because the viewers aren’t previously engaged by the plotline. Even with the “near-death experiences, suspected infidelities and sexual dilemmas” as HBO.com advertises, each episode is surprisingly boring. To keep the audience entertained during these sessions, are bits of suspenseful tidbits about the characters. Only these tidbits are more confusing and frustrating then exciting. Imagine the hit television series “Lost” without the action or the dramatic music. If it was possible to get emotionally invested in Westin’s character, the viewer would most likely tune in for the next chapter of his story. Only it’s all just too easy to drowned out the calm mellow voices and contemplate personal psychological issues.

The show should have introduced the character in some way before allowing the audience to sit in on the therapy session. Perhaps by Weston writing information in his chart, or a narrator discussing a case study the patients problems can be made clearer. This way, the audience can understand the small hidden meanings behind the patient’s words and understand fully why they say the things they do. For one who is educated in the intricacies of psychology, maybe this would have been redundant, but for the general public, necessary.

The actors, however, did have reasonable performances where each patient behaves exactly as would be expected of them. Unfortunately, the dullness of the show overshadows what would be a best actor/actress nomination. Also, the script makes it all too easy for the patients to reveal their problems. The show is more of a treatment to overcome boredom, then the treat it almost is. It would be amazing if the viewer leaves the show with their sanity intact.

THE CRITIC'S WORTH

Renoir, Monet, Picasso, and Dali. When people look at these names, they picture a great artist whose work is still worth more money then most people make in their lifetimes. Would these great paintings still be worth so much, if it weren’t for the popular opinion about the glory of the painter? Then it stands to ask, who creates the public opinion. In The Critic as an artist, Oscar Wilde defends the need for critics by philosophically arguing that the critic is necessary for art to survive.

By proving this point, however, he also implies that the critique of a piece of art is more important than the art itself. As one who influences the thoughts of many, an art critic must be educated in the art form as well as in the art of writing a critique. Perhaps in society today, his position on the importance of the critic is accurate. The general population relies on critics to tell it what it should enjoy and only read the critisms that it wants. In this capacity, the witty yet knowledgeable critic is highly important in telling society what it wants to believe. 

Kael: Pan or Rave

It’s not often that a writer comes along where absolutely all his or her readers have strong feelings of love or hate. In the case of Pauline Kael, everyone seems to be on the edges of the continuum, either rave or pan. In Afterglow; A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael, the narrator and interviewer Francis Davis is a fan of Kael, to put it lightly. Not only is he a fellow critic, albeit of music, he was also a personal friend of Kael’s. Due to the fact, it is difficult to listen to his ravings and feel that everything he gushes about Kael is not embellished or at least slightly biased. Then at the other end of the spectrum, Renata Adler in Canaries in the Mineshaft, pans Kael’s literary style. Literally from the types of words or sentences that are used in Kael’s critiques to the analogies made are attacked. Adler describes Kael’s method of questioning in her literature as “bullying, insulting, frightening, enlisting, intruding, dunning, rallying” (334) The language that Adler uses to describe Kael’s words is, at best, hostile. Her strong feelings also make her view of Kael seem biased.

So the question remains, is Pauline Kael as brilliant as the New York Times claims as “the most influential film critic of her time” in an Arts piece by Lawrence Van Gelder or is she overrated? That question can only be answered by observing her work. In the entertainment aspect, Kael accomplished her goal. Even if it was only obtained by the shock value of her words, her easily understandable critiques were entertaining, even when the movie critique did not critique the film itself. Kael often found the story behind the story of whatever film she was writing about. For art films, she blamed the intellectuals for raving the movie just for the sake of raving art films.

Kael appeals to the dark side of the public. The mass of readers who do not know technical “filmic” words such as filmic. The same group of people who enjoy lowbrow film, the kind that “excites them sexually”(34), she says in her interview in Afterglow. Adler attacks Kael’s interests in the following quote, “She (Kael) has, in principal, four things she likes; frissions of horror; physical violence depicted in explicit detail; sex scenes, so long as they have an ingredient of cruelty and involve partners who know each other either casually or under perverse circumstances; and fantasies of invasion by, or subjugation of or by, apes, pods, teens, bodysnatchers, and extraterrestrials.” (129) Adler goes on to state that these are the necessary evils that Pauline Kael subscribes to in a film. Yet it seems that many of her readers agree with her in enjoying somewhat sick and twisted situations. She appeals to the dirtiness of humanity and acknowledges the pleasure one retains from it. Even her words, as Adler points out, aren’t necessarily the classiest. She often uses words such as “whore”, “trash”,”pop”, and “crud” to describe her emotions.

Perhaps in the critical sense of the word, Kael is not a great critique, as she does not critique the film itself for its actors, plot, or scene. Yet, her pieces are interesting and engaging, something that is highly valuable when writing to sell newspapers and ultimately, a lot harder to do.

No Glowing Feelings for Afterglow

Straight interviews are always a little difficult to read. There are often thoughts behind the interviewer’s questions that aren’t necessarily apparent to the reader. Often when a person is interviewed, the pertinent or entertaining information is highlighted and informatively placed together while the rest is edited out.

In the case of Afterglow, the entire interview, which I imagine lasted quite a while, was recorded and published into a book. For a person who is not familiar with the status and personality of Pauline Kael, it is hard to understand the reason to read such a long interview with her. Although the introduction was meant to give a background to her life, it seemed as if the author was so awed by her that it seems to be a very biased view. During the interview, the impression of Pauline Kael is that she is a very opinionated and strong minded woman. By going through lists of movies and giving her opinion on them, Kael seems to be forcing others to feel the same, upsetting other if they don't agree with her opinions. Afterglow doesn’t necessarily highlight Pauline Kael in a great light, which seems like the authors main goal.

Once Upon a Time

In a generation where music is heard through ipods and expensive equipment, the beauty of listening to a record player is often disregarded. Yet many consider the small imperfections to add to the quality of the music. The same can be said for cinema. Recently, films have been reduced to pieces of amazing cinematography, and close to perfect digital editing. It leads to the question, when art is created, is the process considered art?

The film Once highlights a story where an Irish, street musician meets a Czech woman who inspires him to record his music. Due to several performances of full songs, the film is reminiscent of a music video, where the visuals in the film aid the performance of the music and not the other way around. The film quality itself is very low budget. The whole film seems as a home video, the irony is that a home video is shown during the film and is of even lower quality. The camera is often shaky and sloppy. Several times, the characters heads are cut out of the viewing screen and the camera doesn’t always capture the best angle for the audience’s pleasure.
Yet that added to the general attitude of the film being a home video, an insight into the process of creating music with a touch of human drama. There is a scene with a party at someone’s flat. The shot opens with a big stuffed bear in the hallway showing the random objects and clutter that are in most peoples houses are seen, not a clean cut room where every item is a prop.
The storyline was also very realistic, having awkward moments while the characters were becoming acquainted. As the characters grew more comfortable with each other, their personality was shared to the audience through to one another in serious conversations on busy sidewalks and cafes. The camera catches glimpses of these conversations as if on the outside looking in. It somewhat seems voyeuristic to have a camera following while they go about their business.

The main characters, the Irish guy and a Czech girl, are played by Glen Harnsard and Marketa Irglova respectively. The guy lives with his dad, who owns a vacuum repair shop and the girl lives with her mom and her son. The girl’s difficult life is slowly revealed. She has to work odd jobs as a street salesman and a housemaid to support her mother and daughter. The music she creates with the Irish guy seems to be an escape for her. She creates lyrics for a song “If you want me, satisfy me” which portrays her feelings and emotions for either the guy or her child’s father, which we aren’t completely certain. The guy also uses the music as a shield. On a public bus, he makes fun of his tragic experience with his old girlfriend singing “Fuck her, she’s gone” in heavy metal.

The interactions with all the other minor characters are also very realistic, such as when the storekeeper says to the guy “yur gorgeous” when he tries on a suit, it provides a second of comedic relief that has nothing to do with the story. Although the characters achieve their goals, it is shown that they are still not completely happy about their situations in life. In this way, the small imperfections seem allowable in this film especially for being low budget. The awkward moments, the sad and angry moments seem to capture the humanity. Perhaps the audience can also find an escape through the music and emotions that are presented.

Poisonous Fish

In the New York Times today on the front page, there is an article on the mercury levels found in Sushi. This is obviously information that was already known to the restaurant owners/managers as many restaurants are shown to have signs warning children, pregnant women, and frequent diners. The mercury levels were found to exceed warning when sushi is eaten once a week with one serving size. However, the story fails to mention whether small intakes of mercury, if only eaten once in a while, or large amounts at one sitting will affect the consumer differently. Also, what happens when the fish is cooked? Does the mercury vanish? Will one day the illustrious market of sushi be banned? or will we be able to find a way to remove the mercury from the delicacy? Only time will tell. 

The False Pandemic

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/science/22flu.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

The debate remains, whether information be censored by the government or given freely. One of the biggest arguments for the former can be seen in this article. When people hear of a new strain of virus, people panic. Even when thus far, it has only affected birds. It’s not difficult to remember the mad cow fiasco, where every piece of meat in the local supermarket was questionable to the average consumer. Meanwhile, even though the news of bird flu was released, people have continued to import birds, leading to the spread of the virus.

 The virus has yet to affect humans in a pandemic as was prophesized and now people have been lulled to a state of complacency. The real question is, what will happen when the virus actually strikes.  An idea is to vaccinate the population in preparations for the war against the virus, but often that leads to a newer and ultimately tougher strain of virus that cannot be dealt with. 

A New Soundtrack Era

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/arts/music/21juno.html?_r=1&ref=music

Ben Siserio, a critic for the NYT, has in the past highlighted famous musicians such as Alicia Keys and Amy Winehouse. This time he explores the underground scene of punk-meets-folk through the artist, Kimya Dawon. Of course lately, Dawson has climbed to the charts after her hit soundtrack of the film ‘Juno’, yet she is troubled by all the attention, unlike the more outrageous members of pop culture today.

In this article, not only does Siserio highlight Dawsons popularity, but he tackles the changing artistry behind film soundtracks as well. Instead of the blockbuster pop soundtrack, there is a growing popularity in the indie or folk genre. He uses the popular examples of Garden State and how the soundtrack went on to sell 1.3 million copies.  

In this way he lifts up Kimya Dawson for being the next new craze, sighting her songs being performed in bedrooms for YouTube. He ends his piece interestingly by describing her unique method of performance. She pleads with us to take her normally while gathering her audience into a group hug. 

From Novel to Film; A Tragic Love Story

From Joe Wright, director of Pride and Prejudice, comes a brilliant adaptation of the novel, Atonement, by Ian McEwan. From the very beginning of this film, the music compliments the film well. It heightens every small sound, incorporating mundane noises such that come from a typewriter, some footsteps, a slamming window to create an intensely charged atmosphere. The music is very much in sync with the characters emotions as it often dramatically rises, falls, or stops with the character. The musical theme of the movie tends to be one of longing and regret sometimes intensified by the dark passion in the relationship between the characters. At one point in the movie, there is a surprising sad then happy twist to the otherwise steady melodic theme. A group of soldiers sing a hymn watching the ocean among the general chaos of the army’s encampment, shortly after, we are introduced to an makeshift pub with the army patrons singing a joyful song. The chosen musical themes compliment the scenery well.

            The scenery chosen for this film is also very brilliant. We can see from the very beginning the director’s affinity for beautiful landscapes. Often used as filler in other films, in Atonement, these landscapes helped set the mood of the piece. For example, from the beginning, the rich lawns with fountains and flowers framed by untamed trees and streams shows the darker side of this seemingly lighthearted film. Also, when Robbie comes upon the sight of hundreds of soldiers upon the beach with the water and the light in the horizon, it is breathtaking and magnificent. Robbie walking through the fields in France while Cecilia waits at a cottage by the ocean gives us a powerful message of the beauty of the world and of love which is torn apart by the war. The scenery hints that everything beautiful is from nature, while the impure is found in humans by misunderstandings and arguments.

The general plot is that of the innocent yet sexually charged love between Cecilia (Keira Knightly) and Robbie (James McAvoy), which is misunderstood by the 12 year old sister Briony (Saoirse Ronan). After Briony comes upon a rape scene, she falsely accuses Robbie of being a sex fiend, sealing his fate away from his love. Further in the film, there is a scene that Robbie is walking through the apple orchard and comes upon rows of dead young girls is ironic as it was a young girl who sealed his fate to the army.

Knightly and McAvoy seem to contain genuine chemistry on stage and portray the love story in the manner that it should be taken. Although Ronan is a rare find and is brilliant as a girl of 12 years, the character that replaced her as the 18 year old and then as the old woman do not seem to match. Romola Garai as the 18 year old Briony acts the script well, but seems unattached and blank, not like the remorseful character she is trying to portray. Yet overall the novel was captured well in the film. Wright did a brilliant job of staying true to the plot while highlighting the emotions not usually visible in adaptations of novels.