Personal narrative version

went to see The Dark Knight the other day, and yes, it is still running (on IMAX). Just to fill you in, The Dark Knight was a major, critically acclaimed, Block Buster hit of 2008 cinema; it was nominated for scores of awards, and was the winner of dozens. The Dark Knight, made by Christopher Nolan, is a film which hit number one on a myriad of critics’ 2008 top ten list, thanks to the Joker probably. On that note, I feel it necessary to convey a big “hip-hip-horray” for nihilism clashing with a determinist psychopath; basically ninety percent of the other viewers would agree. I’m not too sure what that says about the audience, other than “YOU FLIPPIN’ SADISTIC PSYCHO-philes!” or something. I would say it is a reflection of modern cinema, and TV for that matter, having an adverse effect on humanity as a whole, but let’s face it; violence has been gobbled down for thousands of years. Anyway, there have been millions of reviews, all saying the same thing — probably going to lead to a massive wave of cross dressing, nihilistically manic, psychopath centered Block Busters, but that can’t be helped. Hollywood is defined by excess, eh? — And since they all say the same thing, and this is a personal narrative, I ought to spare you the repetition. And I will, to talk about cinema-going etiquette which I observed, and other such things.

A few weeks ago, having come across some spare cash to (metaphorically) burn, I found myself being gripped by the, oh so, wonderful mindset known as boredom. Having one of the worst, at least most annoying, aspects of the human condition inflicted on me, when perfectly viable alternatives had presented themselves, was something I was not willing to accept. So off out the door I swaggered, wearing an expression which can often be seen on the faces of yuppies all over the world, at about 5PM, as they are greeted by the refreshing caress of a cool, crisp, autumn-like zephyr; after emerging from an otherwise muggy, blisteringly hot and windless shift in a steelworks or some such (Just needed to present a look of class pride and it would have been a little too Vertovesque). Having arrived at the cinema a little early, I began to stroll down the entrance hall which led into the IMAX theatre. A thought crossed my mind at that moment, I thought “what if I am the only one here, and get the whole cinema to myself”, there was a realistic chance that that was going to be the case; due to it being some 12 months after initial cinema release. I allowed myself a little grin. I think deep down inside, everybody wants an IMAX of their own; and I was going to be able to indulge my imagination. Well so I thought, for ten minutes at least — motivation to become a multi-millionaire I guess – until people started arriving.

After I finished reeling from my short lived fantasy, I decided that I may as well make the most of my updated circumstances by doing a little ethnographic observation. After the film had finished, whilst sitting on the bus, I matched my observations to previous experience and concluded that there are three social norms associated with the cinema-going culture. First of all, always take at least one friend to the cinema with you. I broke this rule, such a non-conformist; surprisingly, for an introvert at least, I’ve only been to the cinema alone twice. Aside from me, all of the viewers had company; reveals that the cinema-going experience is generally one of social interaction. A revelation that strikes me as odd considering that the bulk of the time is spent staring silently at a screen. Secondly I observed that everybody had bought food. People, including me, always buy food when going to the cinema (normally popcorn and coke, frozen when available). I really don’t know where this freak of nature came from. The best guess I can make, is that it’s from an American influenced cultural background (who knows where they got it from, probably from baseball or something), which is highly mediated; so much so that it’s become a social norm—hegemony, like evolution, results in oddities I guess. The third norm, which my viewing of The Dark Knight confirmed, is to not talk loud enough to be heard. A few times during the film, this norm was disobeyed (in amusing ways). When a loud explosive sequence ended, some seemed to scream out the remains of sentences completely unrelated to the film. I figured that they were informing their peer as to what they thought they heard them say. In two of the cases the culprit sank down into their chair, not to reoffend for at least twenty minutes, sometimes even longer if there was a chorus of judgmental tongue clicking.

This is what a night out is like for a bored person who studies film and media. I have to admit that going to a cinema purely for a relaxing visceral experience can be fun, but there is so much more to see. That is, if you are willing to put the otherwise boring first year sociology notes to good use and observe things such as audience behavior; you’ll be surprised at what you might think up.

Dark Knight, Cinemas, and Zombies.

Went to see Dark Knight, the major critically acclaimed Blockbuster hit of 2008; nominated for scores of awards, winner of dozens. Christopher Nolan has made a film which hit number one on a myriad of critics 2008 top ten list, thanks to the joker probably. A big hip-hip-horray for nihilism clashing with a determinist psychopath, dunno what that says about the audience, other than “YOU FUCKING PSYCHO-philes!”, or something. Anyway, there have been millions of reviews, all saying the same thing — probably gonna lead to a massive wave of cross dressing, nihilistically manic, psychopath centered Block Busters. But that that can’t be helped, Hollywood is defined by excess eh? — And since they all say the same thing, I’m gonna spare you the repetition and talk about cinema-going etiquette! Horrah. (And maybe zombies)

Anyway, as anyone can observe, there is the first tier of social rules. This is the tier that everybody, almost always, conforms to and it usually includes: one, always take at least one friend to the cinema with you; two, always buy food (normally popcorn and coke, frozen when available); and three, DO NOT TALK loud enough to be heard. It’s really amusing how people get caught out, when a loud explosive sequence ends, and they seem to scream out the remains of a sentence completely unrelated to the film. Usually they are just informing their peer as to what they thought they heard them say. Tip: do not bother talking to someone who suffers from chronic selective and imaginative hearing (yes Ralph, that’s you). They then sink down into their chair (probably blushing) not to reoffend for at least twenty minutes, sometimes even longer if there is a chorus of judgmental tongue clicking, ’cause, of course, the hero needs to eat some pretty persons face in silence.

Then, of course, there is the second tier. The rules of this part are relative to the person’s habits and stuff. People do pretty bizarre stuff in cinemas to make themselves comfortable, or whatever. A personal favorite, a stage which I went through a while back, is finding the most unsuitable food, whether it be hot, noisy or messy, buying it and taking it to the cinema. Nothing like taking corn chips, salsa dip, bread and a bottle of water with dozens of tea bags shoved into it (seemed like a good way to make iced tea at the time). The salsa was fun, in the dark and all, quite a challenge. Created the need for quite an odd ritual which involves slowly lowering your hand to find the salsa(without getting your hand chipotleised), rustling and crunching about in the plastic bag until you find the chip with a perfect shape, dipping, then rapidly crunching in your mouth to get the noise out of the way as soon as possible. It’s all synchronised with the loud parts of course, not that much of a pig. Other people prefer to buy a few meals at McDonalds, then run into the toilets to shove it all into their pockets, and jackets, once they discover that fast-food isn’t allowed into the cinema (fuck knows why, maybe the cinemas don’t like giving out free advertising).

Anyways, Zombie movies are cool. Just finished watching George A. Romero’s Dead series, I love how you come to fear the humans more than the zombies; freaking hyper-masculine soldiers, crazy neurosurgeons, and deluded men wanting to hide in a basement with only one entrance. I had to laugh my arse off at the Night of The Living Dead ending. After surviving a night of hell, held up in a house with nervous wrecks and massive bickering fits, the dude gets shot in the head by a police zombie-hunting squad. (Evil spoiler there). Bleh, cheerio.

Good Night, and Good Luck; an allegorical reading.

The intended purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast the ways in which historical material, in this case the representation of a ‘battle’ between Murrow and McCarthy in Clooney’s film Good Night, and Good Luck, is used to address contemporary social and political issues. Good Night, and Good Luck definitely provides us with an allegory of certain contemporary social and political issues, but, like Don Trbic points out in his piece about the film, “there are many opportunities for cheap political allusions, but the director avoids them all”[1]. He then goes on to suggest that it would be more appropriate to see it as a commentary on a news journalism system gone astray; this essay will further elaborate on how Good Night, and Good Luck is an allegory alluding to state of journalism and the public sphere, among other things of a political nature. To be more precise, a discussion of allusions made by Clooney will involve the following things: (over) commercialization of the news media-leading to a collapse of Habermas’ idea of the ‘Public Sphere’ (along with a ‘dumbing down’ of news media) and the establishment of a climate of fear resulting in a vicious circle of censorship, specifically self-censorship, and a division between, in the case of the United States, ‘us’ and ‘them’; ‘Us’ being ‘democratic’ people who will lay down and support anything for the security of the nation, and ‘them’ being terrorists or anyone not seen as a patriot.

An important issue which is raised in Good Night, and Good Luck is one of commercialisation and the effect it has on news media and the public sphere. When private individuals meet and create a critical-rational discourse, involving debate, which leads to consensus (public opinion) the movement towards a public sphere begins[2]. This, according to Habermas, becomes a public sphere when it is facilitated and reflected by non-commercialised news media. The discourse has to be mediated in order for it to effect, form, and represent public opinion. Essentially the public sphere “mediates between society and state”, in other words it is an apparatus that facilitates the democratic process.[3] Murrow and his news show were part of a media facilitating a form of public sphere. Good Night, and Good Luck is not only an allegory or comparison to the collapse of the public sphere; it is presenting part of a process that is still ongoing today, with the ever increasing commercialisation of public broadcasters and other related news media. Murrow talks about this in the beginning of the film, when referring to affect of commercialisation on news media. He describes the state of television news as “evidence of decadence, escapism, and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this”[4]. In contemporary society, similar to what Murrow observed, people, namely intellectuals, speak of the ever increasing commercialization in news media as a “devaluing of journalism, which is compounded by a set of news values that place the world of show business and human interest stories above those about corruption and poverty”[5]. Commercialisation is so detrimental to the public sphere because it, like Murrow’s case highlights, determines the news agenda, essentially reporting what sells. Commercialization results in journalism being “dominated by’ marketing’ and ’demographics’”[6]. Ultimately as Murrow indicated towards, the public sphere in most places has become a “Pseudo-Public reflection of a sham private world of culture consumption” due to commercialisation[7]. Another allusion to this ‘dumbing-down’ of news media in a historical film can be found in Gladiator where the mob of Rome goes to the Colosseum purely for entertainment[8].

One of the subjects heavily dealt with in Good Night, and Good Luck is censorship, particularly self-censorship in the news media; it is a subject that has a large effect and is widely apparent in contemporary politics and society, making it possible to make an allegorical or comparative reading of the film. The news media self-censorship represented in Good Night, and Good Luck has three causes that are explicitly dealt with in the film, the first being government pressure, the second being financial and commercial pressure, and the third being nationalism. Just as journalists in the McCarthy era were put under pressure to self-censor by the threat of being caught up in the anti-communist paranoia frenzy and losing their jobs, so are the journalists of the Hong Kong news media today; except in its case, self-censorship involves being pro-communist. Clooney may have been alluding to the subscription of Hong Hong Press agencies to the hegemony of the Communist Party in Beijing. This subscription was “achieved through a culture of fear, and through a system of rewards (and implicit punishments) run by the Chinese authorities”[9]. This culture of fear was created by the presence of Chinese authority, resulting in, similar to Good Night, and Good Luck, the firing of high risk journalists that can draw negative attention[10]. In contemporary society financial and commercial pressure creates self-censorship, also known as “corporate information management” which is dealt with in Good Night, and Good Luck with the restriction and eventual disappearance of Murrow’s news show. This ‘management’ is due simply to viewer statistics; it is more financially viable to report purely on news stories that sell (This will be dealt with in further detail below)[11]. Another cause of self-censorship, weather conscious or not, is nationalism. Most journalists are affected by nationalism, whether it is their own, or pressure asserted on them by others with nationalist motivations. This leads them to “select and suppress facts so as they convey the impression that national policy is well-intentioned and justified”[12]. A parallel to this can be found in Good Night, and Good Luck, when we see William Paley point out that even Murrow self-censors, when discussing Alger Hiss’ conviction. He doesn’t correct a mistake McCarthy made because it would involve going against national policy, and Paley says: “Did you not want the appearance of defending a known Communist? I would argue that everyone censors, including you”[13].

Another thing similar to censorship, in contemporary society, is government secrecy, which also appears in Good Night, and Good Luck. Government secrecy appears when the case of Milo Radulovich, from Detroit, is presented. He had no trial, and the ‘evidence’ used to convict him wasn’t seen by anyone. A contemporary example of this occurring is in the process in which ‘terrorists’ are detained and put in Guantanamo Bay Detention Centre, in the United States, without a trial. While this draws a comparison in the use of censorship, it also shows that Clooney could have been alluding to the lack of the all important habeas corpus in Guantanamo Bay cases with his representation of accusations laid upon Milo Radulovich.

Good Night, and Good Luck focuses on a climate of fear, created by McCarthy, and it’s relation to journalism. Clooney is pointing out that in the McCarthy era; journalists were in such a state of terror of being accused of communist sympathies and being blacklisted, that they kept their criticism of McCarthy out of the media. There is a comparison that can be made between the climate of fear, caused by communist paranoia, presented in Good Night, and Good Luck and the contemporary political and social situation. The comparison lies in the late Bush administrations climate of fear surrounding its war on terror. Initially, after the trade center attacks it was socially unacceptable for the press to speak out against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan; those who did were labeled as unpatriotic, lost ratings, and thus funding in most cases. This effect was not so much of an issue at the time because the bulk of the media, at least in America, supported the ‘War on Terror’; this overwhelming support could have been caused by a climate of fear. Noam Chomsky once wrote, quoting, that regimes create “a climate of fear and uncertainty to discourage any form of opposition to the ruling elite”[14] . This certainly appeared to be the case with media organizations, feeding off of government press releases, almost constantly reporting on the ‘War on Terror’, or an Anthrax scare, or a Terrorist plot unraveled and stopped. This is exactly what Clooney would have been alluding to with his representation of the McCarthy smear campaigns and congressional hearings of feared ‘communist threats’; because the McCarthy hearings suggested to the American people that there was a huge communist threat, in the United States, to fear and be uncertain about. This discouraged journalists to say otherwise because they were uncertain as to whether or not McCarthy would label them as a communist if they spoke out, just like the press releases on the ‘War on Terror’ frightened journalists, who were opposed to the campaign, in to silence out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and losing viewers as well as other things. This climate of fear is also alluded to in the historical Roman film Gladiator, when the emperor eliminates all of the enemies that challenge him thus sending a message which silenced others with descent, or rebellion on their minds[15]. Another allusion following on from this, is that as Murrow finally spoke out “because the terror is in this room”, so did contemporary journalists about the ‘War on Terror’.

Another allusion that Clooney may have made with Good Night, and Good Luck, was one between McCarthy and George Bush. Both of them tended to divide their world view into two objective camps; ‘us’ anyone who shares and supports their view entirely, and ‘them’ people who don’t. McCarthy’s logic is summerised in Good Night, and Good Luck as such “Anyone who doesn’t share his disregard for decency and human dignity, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, must be either a Communist of a fellow traveler”. This description may have been alluding to George Bush and is famous exclamation “You are either with us or with the terrorists”, and the means in which he tried to ‘root’ out ‘terrorists’, like McCarty did ‘Communists’, by ignoring “human dignity, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution” and engaging in irrational persecution.

Essentially the purpose of this essay was to compare and contrast the ways in which historical material, in this case the representation of a ‘battle’ between Murrow and McCarthy in Clooney’s film Good Night, and Good Luck, is used to address contemporary social and political issues. This was done, firstly, discussing the effect of commercialization on the public sphere in both Murrow’s era and today’s. Censorship was then explored, particularly self-censorship, in the McCarthy era and today; this censorship briefly lead into a parallel being drawn between the state secrecy and habeas corpus abuses of the Communist paranoia, and today. Finally, by observing that like in the era of Communist paranoia, there is a climate of fear in contemporary society and a comparison was made; this linked into a ‘us’ and ‘them’ mindset comparison.

[1]Trbic, Boris. “Dark is the night: a Television Hero in a Quest for Justic in George Clooney’s Goodnight, and goodluck”. Screen Education (2006), 41.
[2] Habermas, Jurgen. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article.” in Critical theory and society: A reader. Ed. Bronner S.E, Kelliner D.M (London: Routledge 1989), 138-139.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Good Night and Good Luck George Clooney (2005).
[5]John Street, Mass Media, Politics and Democracy(New York: Palgrave, 2001), 150.
[6]Ibid, 151.
[7]Jurgen Habermas, the structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (London: Polity Press, 1989), 160
[8]Gladiator Ridley Scott( 2000). John Street, Mass Media, Politics and Democracy(New York: Palgrave, 2001), 150
[9]John Street, Mass Media, Politics and Democracy(New York: Palgrave, 2001), 106
[10]Ibid, 105.
[11]Ibid, 107
[12]Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights(South End Press, 1979),23.
[13]Good Night and Good Luck George Clooney (2005).
[14]Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights(South End Press, 1979),10.
Gladiator Ridley Scott( 2000).

Bibliography:
– Trbic, Boris. “Dark is the night: a Television Hero in a Quest for Justic in George Clooney’s Goodnight, and goodluck”. Screen Education (2006), pp 36-41.
– Habermas, Jurgen. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article.” in Critical theory and society: A reader. Edited by Bronner S.E, Kelliner D.M), 137-142. London: Routledge, 1989.
– Street, John,.Mass Media, Politics and Democracy. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
– Habermas, Jurgen, the structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society.London: Polity Press, 1989
– Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights. South End Press, 1979.

Filmography:
– Good Night and Good Luck George Clooney (2005).
– Gladiator Ridley Scott( 2000).

Hollywood convert alert!

I’m bored and I’ve reached a conclusion.
I think I can now appreciate Hollywood films for what they are.
I really like the basic narrative of it: rationalist-humanist drenched main character, wrenched out of their equilibrium, given a quest, and finally after battling challenge after challenge until the final pay off– generally a happy ending with the quest complete and complete closure. It’s when both modern technology and this simplistic story structure combine to create a seamless dream world, for which I raise my eyebrows enthusiastically. A dream world that fills my head with “What ifs” and “If I were there, I would…” can make my day. A mostly visceral and seamless dream world, where I know what’s round the bend and that good will triumph over evil, then live happily ever after, (don’t mistake me for a moral objectivist) is what I can really enjoy between assignments or as a way through a late sleepless night. So screw you, you shallow non-conformist indie-only-please puritan!
Goodnight.
*WOOP*

Just thinking.

I’m tucked up in bed, half asleep, sitting here typing for the hell of it. My cat is snuggled up into a cute ball resting on my leg. Outside the wind is blowing; I can hear the trees rustling and the rain lightly washing against the window. I am listening to creepy, image soaked, ambient music–thank you Richard D. James. My grandfather died on Saturday night, I had to fly home early for an exam, after the funeral thankfully. I am home alone, have been since last night, and will be till Sunday night. I suppose this gives me a lot of time to think things through, I grieve, or recover from shock, better on my own anyway. It’s still sinking in, that he’s gone, just last night I thought of something amusing and quickly told myself to tell granddad later. Of course I then remembered and it hurt. Okay, I’m starting to feel really distant now; I blame the tiredness and bizarre ambient music. Oh well, going to bed like this usually causes wicked sick dreams :). I intend to start posting about my dreams soon. Damn-nam it, here’s a sneak peek: the other night it dreamt about a monkey with pink butterfly wings, it was flying around my house and I was trying to get it out; sort of reminded me of The Wizard of Oz.

Cheerio :)

Angst ridden drool. Catch up: Post-Structuralist, Determinist, Nihilist

14/10/08

I feel like I’m drifting, with no control, through time. I can’t imagine a future, I can’t trust my depiction of the past; I am living, existing, in the moment, a time traveller with no grasp of the transcendental. Accepting of its role in the cosmos, it lives on; it finds pleasure in its surroundings. Does this give purpose, this micro scale of pleasure seeking or is it, yet again, a result of the ad infinitum causality stripping the being of control of its circumstances- stripping, or never giving. It is a product of its surroundings.

Mulholland Drive

Call me a puritanical conformist, but a relatively intelligible storyline is important to me. I know, I know, it’s ‘Surrealist’.  Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy dabbling in the non-sequitur from time to time, but generally only in a comical context; if fish slapping and red socks ring any bells, and now for something completely different. Honestly, I do enjoy surrealism, but taking what seems to be three scripts, stapling them together, and throwing in a random corpse here and a silly cowboy there-without any logical story line- just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. The WTF factor was amusing at first, but the constant barrage of random events, followed by no explanation, fitting into a vague or nonexistent context, soon became a bore.

The cinematography, however, does offer up a few consolation prizes. The blurred out spots of light dancing about behind a brooding love triangle at the side of a pool was nice and gained an approving “Hmm”. Also the chiaroscuro in the juxtaposition of the two love enveloped actresses, blacking out all but the two flustered faces, was heavily emotive and tantalising to say the least.  I did pick up on some motion blur, specifically leading up to and during the cheap-porno-esque lesbian foreplay; there was also motion blur as the two actresses-with revolving names, my confusion of the two was not aided by the collective blond hair- ran out of flat 12 after discovering a festering corpse. The former example irked me, the latter was actually a very good way to depict the characters mindset.

I did also enjoy the sliding level of acting quality, though it may just be me reading too deeply, and the effect it had. When we are first introduced to the new Hollywood hopeful, her acting of the dialogue between herself and a pleasant elderly couple was laughable. She continues this atrocious dialogue representation through the introduction to her aunt’s apartment, and bizarre characters associated with it, until she finally blows the viewer away with an intense love scene audition. This made me chuckle ’cause I rarely see intentionally bad acting followed by decent acting in one character; thought it was clever, it drew the viewer into the mindset of the team auditioning her.

I suppose I shouldn’t expect much from the creator of Dune.

Hello world!<—– LOL at the generic automatic first message title.

Greetings,

First of all, this blog is not intended to be a place for artistic literary expression, ’cause I’m pretty sure I am hopeless at that stuff (though I have made a category just in case). Rather, it is a means for me to articulate my thoughts; in relation to all aspects of my current existence. I will probably rant about film, tea, music, life, dreams and share anecdotes as well as daily occurrences.

Also, I suppose I may as well say something about the blog title and tag line. With regards to the title ‘The HippyVoxel Opera’: HippyVoxel, aside from being a random avatar, isn’t all that important and ‘Opera’ is a pluralized form of ‘Opus’ meaning ‘Work’. The tag line “Pain-free-potentially beneficial-Self-harm”, however grammatically shoddy, comes from a sequence of hand written notes I composed during a recent depression. It draws a parallel between hurting one’s self, to allow emotional pain to physically manifest, and writing.  It is the process of drawing ideas from abstraction and solidifying them, through writing, which grants me a manifestation of my emotional state; bringing rationality and relief ever closer (it also provides you with a window into my life). This isn’t to suggest that I will be writing purely angst ridden drool, but the analogy still works.

Until next time, cheerio!