On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert gave a commentary on the creation of needs for the consumer. He spoke about a new deodorant for women that helps to make armpits more attractive. I was reminded of Baudrillard's Consumer Society where he talks about the way "clothing, appliances and toiletries... constitute object paths, which establish inertial constraints on the consumer who will proceed logically from one object to the next." Unilever, in an attempt to create false needs for consumer, ran a "study" that showed that 93% of women find their underarms to be unattractive. This study was then used to justify the invention of a deodorant that will make women's armpits look more attractive in 5 days. Baudrillard says: "the manufacturers control behavior, as well as direct and model social attitudes and needs." He goes further to say: "...The whole economic and psychosociological apparatus of market and motivation research, which pretends to uncover the underlying needs of the consumer and the real demand prevailing in the market, exists only to generate a demand for further market opportunities."
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Daily Show and Glenn Beck's conspiracy theories
The Daily Show 4/7
On The Daily Show last night, it was revealed that Glenn Beck would be leaving Fox news. Jon Stewart did one of his Glenn Beck Parodies and in Glenn Beck’s conspiracy theorist fashion, suggested that the world was coming to an end. He also revealed Glenn Beck was sent by Jesus and Barack Obama is really a Mayan. Glenn Beck himself is a reified object of white male conservatism. The Daily Show is postmodern because it presents itself as fake news and satire, whose playfulness is used to inform people of current issues in the news.
On The Daily Show last night, it was revealed that Glenn Beck would be leaving Fox news. Jon Stewart did one of his Glenn Beck Parodies and in Glenn Beck’s conspiracy theorist fashion, suggested that the world was coming to an end. He also revealed Glenn Beck was sent by Jesus and Barack Obama is really a Mayan. Glenn Beck himself is a reified object of white male conservatism. The Daily Show is postmodern because it presents itself as fake news and satire, whose playfulness is used to inform people of current issues in the news.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Dubstep as a Postmodern Music Genre
Dubstep music, in my opinion, is probably one of the most “postmodern” music genres in contemporary music culture. The genre uses only electronic means to create its sound and is heavily dependent on the use of sampling. The music itself has its roots in Jamaican dub and reggae and relies heavily on the use of reverberating bass frequencies with a slower, darker tone. Some dubstep music is described as having a sci-fi quality, because of its heavy reliance on computer technology, which would only be possible in the postmodern era. Some artists even use old-school video game sounds in their music, which would be characteristic of a nostalgia for older technology, that is then reused to make something new. The genre also makes no distinction between high and low art because artists will remix any song, whether it’s a classic like the Beatles or Pink Floyd or a contemporary commercial artist like Lady Gaga or Kanye West. The genre takes influences from many different genres; anything from classic rock, techno, punk, new wave, to hip hop is incorporated into the music and then fragmented to the point where it becomes a completely new sound in itself.
Here are some examples:
(You might recognize this one from the end of Fight Club)
Here are some examples:
(You might recognize this one from the end of Fight Club)
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Wilderness Downtown
After talking about advertising and conspiracy theories the other day, I was reminded of this website:
http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/
Google's advertising technology is able to read the text of our e-mail to create targeted-advertising, while Google Earth is able to use geotag information from pictures we take on our cellphones. From this information they can create street-level views of places, allowing them to catalog our positions and the position of photographs within time and space. It's pretty creepy to say the least, since, Google probably knows more about us than we know about ourselves.
Anyway, here's an "interactive" music video that uses the Google earth technology to create an individualized viewing experience based on whatever address that you give it.
http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/
Google's advertising technology is able to read the text of our e-mail to create targeted-advertising, while Google Earth is able to use geotag information from pictures we take on our cellphones. From this information they can create street-level views of places, allowing them to catalog our positions and the position of photographs within time and space. It's pretty creepy to say the least, since, Google probably knows more about us than we know about ourselves.
Anyway, here's an "interactive" music video that uses the Google earth technology to create an individualized viewing experience based on whatever address that you give it.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Fight Club
David Fincher’s Fight Club has examples of postmodern thinking, such as consumerism, schizophrenia, waning of affect, weakening of historicity, depthlessness, as well as, the use of pop culture references and the breaking of the conventions of Classical Hollywood Cinema.
The film has several references to the consumer society. A great example of this is the “IKEA-nesting instict” that he describes. He spends his time looking through IKEA catalogs to find housewares that “define (him) as a person.” He also talks about corporations, and the way that they would begin naming planets and galaxies after name brands, like IBM, Starbucks, and Microsoft. He also talks about the simulacra created by these image-commodities, and says that everything is “a copy of a copy of a copy.”
Schizophrenia is represented by the split personality between Jack and Tyler. Jack representing the person he is within society, while Tyler represents the person Jack wishes he could be.
The waning of affect plays a major role in the film. In the beginning of the film, Jack finds himself going to different support groups in an effort to cure his insomnia, caused by postmodernity. The fight clubs work in the same way as the support groups. The members fight each other in an attempt to feel something again. This would be like the intensities Jameson describes because the crying at the support groups has the same therapeutic value as the extreme anger and violence experienced at fight club.
The weakening of historicity is evidenced in the lack of a great, lived historical moment that Tyler describes. At one of the fight club meetings, Tyler says: “(We are) an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables: slaves with white collars. Advertising has our taste in cars and clothes; working jobs we hate to buy shit we don’t need – we’re the middle-children of history… with no purpose or place. We have no great war, no great depression. Our war is a spiritual war, our great depression: our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’ll become millionaires, movie gods, or rock stars. But we’re not, and we’re slowly finding that out and we’re pissed off.”
Depthlessness is another postmodern idea that is referenced throughout the film. In one scene, Tyler describes this when he’s talking to Jack after his condo blew up. He says: “we are consumers. We are a byproduct of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty: these things don’t concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy’s name on my underwear, rogaine, Viagra, Olestra… Martha Stewart is polishing the brass on the Titanic, so fuck off with your sofa units and spring green stripe patterns.”
There are several references to pop-culture. When Jack and Tyler are talking about whom they would like to fight, Jack says he would fight William Shatner. Right after this, they see a Gucci underwear ad; Jack then asks; “is that what a real man looks like?” In another scene, Jack describes one of the women at a support group, saying: “Chloe looked the way Meryl Streep’s skeleton would look if you made it smile and walk around the party being extra nice to everybody.”
The breaking of conventions is apparent at many points throughout the film. In the movie projection scene, Jack and Tyler break the fourth wall and directly address the camera. At this point, Jack explains how Tyler splices single frames of pornography into children’s movies. As Jack talks about the cigarette burns, where the changeover happens, we are shown a cigarette burn, which Tyler then points to, bringing attention the artifice of the film.
The film has several references to the consumer society. A great example of this is the “IKEA-nesting instict” that he describes. He spends his time looking through IKEA catalogs to find housewares that “define (him) as a person.” He also talks about corporations, and the way that they would begin naming planets and galaxies after name brands, like IBM, Starbucks, and Microsoft. He also talks about the simulacra created by these image-commodities, and says that everything is “a copy of a copy of a copy.”
Schizophrenia is represented by the split personality between Jack and Tyler. Jack representing the person he is within society, while Tyler represents the person Jack wishes he could be.
The waning of affect plays a major role in the film. In the beginning of the film, Jack finds himself going to different support groups in an effort to cure his insomnia, caused by postmodernity. The fight clubs work in the same way as the support groups. The members fight each other in an attempt to feel something again. This would be like the intensities Jameson describes because the crying at the support groups has the same therapeutic value as the extreme anger and violence experienced at fight club.
The weakening of historicity is evidenced in the lack of a great, lived historical moment that Tyler describes. At one of the fight club meetings, Tyler says: “(We are) an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables: slaves with white collars. Advertising has our taste in cars and clothes; working jobs we hate to buy shit we don’t need – we’re the middle-children of history… with no purpose or place. We have no great war, no great depression. Our war is a spiritual war, our great depression: our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’ll become millionaires, movie gods, or rock stars. But we’re not, and we’re slowly finding that out and we’re pissed off.”
Depthlessness is another postmodern idea that is referenced throughout the film. In one scene, Tyler describes this when he’s talking to Jack after his condo blew up. He says: “we are consumers. We are a byproduct of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty: these things don’t concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy’s name on my underwear, rogaine, Viagra, Olestra… Martha Stewart is polishing the brass on the Titanic, so fuck off with your sofa units and spring green stripe patterns.”
There are several references to pop-culture. When Jack and Tyler are talking about whom they would like to fight, Jack says he would fight William Shatner. Right after this, they see a Gucci underwear ad; Jack then asks; “is that what a real man looks like?” In another scene, Jack describes one of the women at a support group, saying: “Chloe looked the way Meryl Streep’s skeleton would look if you made it smile and walk around the party being extra nice to everybody.”
The breaking of conventions is apparent at many points throughout the film. In the movie projection scene, Jack and Tyler break the fourth wall and directly address the camera. At this point, Jack explains how Tyler splices single frames of pornography into children’s movies. As Jack talks about the cigarette burns, where the changeover happens, we are shown a cigarette burn, which Tyler then points to, bringing attention the artifice of the film.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Vivre Sa Vie
Godard's Vivre Sa Vie, in my opinion, has many postmodern qualities to it, and seems to be a good example of extreme human commodification in the form of prostitution. Nana - who is trying to become an actress - is forced to work retail in a record store, but finds it impossible to make ends meet. After being thrown out on the street and being picked up by the cops for attempting to steal money, she decides to become a prostitute.
At its most basic level, the film could be considered postmodern because of Godard's use of the Twelve Tableaux, which break up the narrative into episodes, or chapters. This could be interpreted as fragmentation, which is emblematic of postmodernity.
The film also has many references to popular culture, which is a common motif in postmodern works. Examples of this would be the pop music played on the jukebox, the references to consumer culture throughout the movie, and the large role movies play within the film. Nana constantly voices her desire to "go see a movie," and at one point is shown watching Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, while towards the end of the film, we see a shot of a movie marquee displaying Francois Truffaut's Jules et Jim.
An obsession with the photographic image is also a recurring theme in the film, which would be associated with postmodernity. At several points during the film, Nana is either looking at photos of herself or is talking about having photos taken of her. This represents her desire to become an image, which could then become commidified: in the form of her becoming an actress whose image is sold through the cinema. This commodification of the image, however, becomes realized in the form of prostitution. She uses the image of femininity and sexuality to sell herself literally as a human commodity, by having people pay her to fulfill their sexual desire. In the process, she is subjected to capitalist exploitation. The pimp, Raoul, controls her the way a worker would be controlled in a capitalist society. Thus, she is turned into human capital, working within a system, which controls her through politics and police force, as evidenced by the scene in which Raoul explains to her the rules of being a prostitute. These rules have been clearly delineated by laws, which control her working conditions and define where she can and cannot go in the city. Raoul also tells her about how her beauty affects her place within the hierarchy of prostitution. The more attractive girls have a higher price, which translates to more money, while the less attractive ones have a lower price and generally make less money. Because of this, her beauty directly determines her exchange-value as a human commodity.
During the scene where Nana first meets Yvette, she makes a comment, which ultimately sums up the capitalist attitude towards human life, and foreshadows the ending quite well. When Yvette mentions escaping to the tropics, Nana responds by saying that "escape is a pipedream." Later, when Nana tries to leave the life of prostitution, Raoul tries to sell her off to another pimp which ends in Nana's death. This is reminiscent of the "Society of the Spectacle", in which Debord suggests that: "The tendency of use value to fall, this constant of capitalist economy, develops a new form of privation within increased survival: the new privation is not far removed from the old penury since it requires most men to participate as wage workers in the endless pursuit of its attainment, and since everyone knows he must submit or die." Nana, who represents the wage-worker, becomes the symbolic manifestation of the "submit or die" mantra.
Also, the scene where "the young man" reads the poem by Edgar Allen Poe, he foreshadows the ending, which relates to primacy of the image over the subject, and the subsequent death of the subject, as a result of its auraticization. The poem describes a man who paints a portrait of his wife. The man becomes so obsessed with the painting of her that he forgets that it’s based on a living person. When he finally finishes the painting, he looks over at his wife, who has died. Nana, who has become a reified image of beauty in the image-based postmodern society, has died just like the woman in the poem.
At its most basic level, the film could be considered postmodern because of Godard's use of the Twelve Tableaux, which break up the narrative into episodes, or chapters. This could be interpreted as fragmentation, which is emblematic of postmodernity.
The film also has many references to popular culture, which is a common motif in postmodern works. Examples of this would be the pop music played on the jukebox, the references to consumer culture throughout the movie, and the large role movies play within the film. Nana constantly voices her desire to "go see a movie," and at one point is shown watching Carl Dreyer's La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, while towards the end of the film, we see a shot of a movie marquee displaying Francois Truffaut's Jules et Jim.
An obsession with the photographic image is also a recurring theme in the film, which would be associated with postmodernity. At several points during the film, Nana is either looking at photos of herself or is talking about having photos taken of her. This represents her desire to become an image, which could then become commidified: in the form of her becoming an actress whose image is sold through the cinema. This commodification of the image, however, becomes realized in the form of prostitution. She uses the image of femininity and sexuality to sell herself literally as a human commodity, by having people pay her to fulfill their sexual desire. In the process, she is subjected to capitalist exploitation. The pimp, Raoul, controls her the way a worker would be controlled in a capitalist society. Thus, she is turned into human capital, working within a system, which controls her through politics and police force, as evidenced by the scene in which Raoul explains to her the rules of being a prostitute. These rules have been clearly delineated by laws, which control her working conditions and define where she can and cannot go in the city. Raoul also tells her about how her beauty affects her place within the hierarchy of prostitution. The more attractive girls have a higher price, which translates to more money, while the less attractive ones have a lower price and generally make less money. Because of this, her beauty directly determines her exchange-value as a human commodity.
During the scene where Nana first meets Yvette, she makes a comment, which ultimately sums up the capitalist attitude towards human life, and foreshadows the ending quite well. When Yvette mentions escaping to the tropics, Nana responds by saying that "escape is a pipedream." Later, when Nana tries to leave the life of prostitution, Raoul tries to sell her off to another pimp which ends in Nana's death. This is reminiscent of the "Society of the Spectacle", in which Debord suggests that: "The tendency of use value to fall, this constant of capitalist economy, develops a new form of privation within increased survival: the new privation is not far removed from the old penury since it requires most men to participate as wage workers in the endless pursuit of its attainment, and since everyone knows he must submit or die." Nana, who represents the wage-worker, becomes the symbolic manifestation of the "submit or die" mantra.
Also, the scene where "the young man" reads the poem by Edgar Allen Poe, he foreshadows the ending, which relates to primacy of the image over the subject, and the subsequent death of the subject, as a result of its auraticization. The poem describes a man who paints a portrait of his wife. The man becomes so obsessed with the painting of her that he forgets that it’s based on a living person. When he finally finishes the painting, he looks over at his wife, who has died. Nana, who has become a reified image of beauty in the image-based postmodern society, has died just like the woman in the poem.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Somewhere
I just saw Sofia Coppola’s new movie: Somewhere. I’ve been excited about seeing this movie because Lost In Translation is one of my favorite movies. The movie is very similar to Lost In translation because it follows the daily life of a fictional celebrity who is dealing with increasing isolation and loss of identity within the shallow, image-obsessed world of celebrity culture. As with Sofia Coppola’s other films, there is very little dialogue and a feeling of emptiness, created by long takes and very little use of non-diegetic sound.
The movie begins with an extremely long take of a car driving around in circles. This is most likely a metaphor for the repetitive cycle of Johnny Marco’s life, which is a feeling I think most people share within postmodern life. In another scene, we see Johnny lying in bed as he is being entertained by two almost identical-looking pole-dancers. It’s almost like we’re seeing a simultaneous reproduction of the image of male fantasy, which has been reified by our media-obsessed society.
There are several instances where the depthlessness associated with postmodernity is portrayed. One specific example is a press conference, where Johnny Marco is at a press-junket to promote his new movie. One of the reporters says that he is a Russian writer who is doing a book about the lives of Hollywood celebrities. Immediately after this, another reporter asks something like: “Your film seems to accent postmodern globalism,” at which point Johnny has a bewildered look on his face and asks her to repeat the question.
Throughout the movie, the interactions that he has with the people around him (excluding his family) seem to involve people commenting on the way he looks. His private assistant constantly tells him that he “looks great,” even though he usually is hungover and unshaven. This helps to emphasize the depthlessness of the image-obsessed celebrity culture that surrounds him.
Driving is another theme that is emphasized throughout the movie. Every time he has to go somewhere, he is shown either driving or being driven to that place. These scenes almost always have no sound, except for the sounds coming from the engine, or no sound at all. This emphasizes the emptiness and isolation caused by the postmodern space in which we all live.
The film makes several references to cell phones and the way that our “communication technology” is making us even more isolated. Of course, there are many other examples of postmodernism within this movie, however, I feel like I’m starting to ramble, and I don’t want to ruin the movie for anybody. I really liked it, and I definitely suggest that anybody who likes Sofia Coppola’s films should go see it.
The movie begins with an extremely long take of a car driving around in circles. This is most likely a metaphor for the repetitive cycle of Johnny Marco’s life, which is a feeling I think most people share within postmodern life. In another scene, we see Johnny lying in bed as he is being entertained by two almost identical-looking pole-dancers. It’s almost like we’re seeing a simultaneous reproduction of the image of male fantasy, which has been reified by our media-obsessed society.
There are several instances where the depthlessness associated with postmodernity is portrayed. One specific example is a press conference, where Johnny Marco is at a press-junket to promote his new movie. One of the reporters says that he is a Russian writer who is doing a book about the lives of Hollywood celebrities. Immediately after this, another reporter asks something like: “Your film seems to accent postmodern globalism,” at which point Johnny has a bewildered look on his face and asks her to repeat the question.
Throughout the movie, the interactions that he has with the people around him (excluding his family) seem to involve people commenting on the way he looks. His private assistant constantly tells him that he “looks great,” even though he usually is hungover and unshaven. This helps to emphasize the depthlessness of the image-obsessed celebrity culture that surrounds him.
Driving is another theme that is emphasized throughout the movie. Every time he has to go somewhere, he is shown either driving or being driven to that place. These scenes almost always have no sound, except for the sounds coming from the engine, or no sound at all. This emphasizes the emptiness and isolation caused by the postmodern space in which we all live.
The film makes several references to cell phones and the way that our “communication technology” is making us even more isolated. Of course, there are many other examples of postmodernism within this movie, however, I feel like I’m starting to ramble, and I don’t want to ruin the movie for anybody. I really liked it, and I definitely suggest that anybody who likes Sofia Coppola’s films should go see it.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Phil Solomon, Jameson and L.A. Noire
I went to the screening of Phil Solomon’s work on Thursday. I’ve been very interested in seeing his work, since I’ve heard mention of him several times over the past few years because of my slight obsession with all things Grand Theft Auto, as well as with Rockstar Games in general. I’ve always been interested in the Grand Theft Auto franchise since GTA 3 came out, because it was the first time anybody had attempted to create a virtual urban space that gave you the freedom to do anything you want in a world that was as close to a representation of “reality” as had ever been possible. Having been a film major, I was interested in the ability to create interactive media, which had the same political potential as film, and which, in my opinion, Rockstar games had come pretty close to achieving with games like Manhunt, Bully, Red Dead Revolver, The Warriors and the GTA series. This youthful optimism, however, became slowly jaded over the years (as the reality of life set in) and I had to focus all of my time on school and work. I was pleasantly surprised, then, to find that GSU had invited Phil Solomon to show his films based on the games that I had wasted so many days of my life playing.
Unforunately, because of work obligations, I didn’t get to attend any of the panels, but I did stay for the entirety of the screening and the Q&A session. One of the things I found particularly interesting was his comment on memory and its relation to the virtual space. He said that he noticed while playing the Grand Theft Auto games that he was able to memorize the layout of the virtual space (which turns to take, how to get to certain places) the same way that we are able to memorize the layout of actual space, although it was just a series of images being rendered in real time. I found this interesting because I had experienced the same thing, to the point where I knew my way around the game space just as well (if not better) than I knew my way around the streets in the real world.
Another thing I found interesting was his mention of L.A. Noire (another Rockstar game), which I have read about and have been anticipating for a while. It’s sort of a film noire take on the video game medium and follows the story of a Los Angeles detective in the 1940s. After having read Jameson’s theories on pastiche and nostalgia films, this game fits right in with his assessment. The game, which is supposed to be a photographic recreation of the city of Los Angeles in the 1940s, shows a stylized historical representation of an earlier period in history, for which we have only have the ability represent through the period’s style in reference to our own point in time.
Unforunately, because of work obligations, I didn’t get to attend any of the panels, but I did stay for the entirety of the screening and the Q&A session. One of the things I found particularly interesting was his comment on memory and its relation to the virtual space. He said that he noticed while playing the Grand Theft Auto games that he was able to memorize the layout of the virtual space (which turns to take, how to get to certain places) the same way that we are able to memorize the layout of actual space, although it was just a series of images being rendered in real time. I found this interesting because I had experienced the same thing, to the point where I knew my way around the game space just as well (if not better) than I knew my way around the streets in the real world.
Another thing I found interesting was his mention of L.A. Noire (another Rockstar game), which I have read about and have been anticipating for a while. It’s sort of a film noire take on the video game medium and follows the story of a Los Angeles detective in the 1940s. After having read Jameson’s theories on pastiche and nostalgia films, this game fits right in with his assessment. The game, which is supposed to be a photographic recreation of the city of Los Angeles in the 1940s, shows a stylized historical representation of an earlier period in history, for which we have only have the ability represent through the period’s style in reference to our own point in time.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Ideas on Inception and "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"
I watched Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) for the first time this last week. After two viewings and looking at some of the theories that have been discussed on the internet as to the meaning of the whole thing, I think that I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it all means.
One of the most interesting articles I found was at CHUD.com. The author of the article, Devin Faraci, suggests that the whole movie was a dream, including the parts where Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an extractor who performs corporate espionage by penetrating people’s dreams and stealing their thoughts. He goes further to suggest that the movie is an autobiographical work about Christopher Nolan and his work as a director, similar to Fellini’s 8 ½. In this case, Cobb, who breaks into people’s dreams, represents the director. Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is the researcher, represents the producer who sets everything up. Ariadne (Ellen Page), the architect, represents the screenwriter who creates the world that the dreamer will enter. Eames (Tom Hardy), referred to as the forger, represents the actor, who assumes the form of other people in the dream world. Yusuf (Dileep Rao), the chemist, is the technical guy who furnishes the chemicals necessary to create the shared dream state. I would go even further to say that Yusuf is the cinematographer – where the camera is the dream-sharing “apparatus” and the sedatives used to facilitate the dreaming could be considered the actual film in the camera. Finally, Saito (Ken Watanabe) is the financier of the dream (or film) and Mark Fischer (Cillian Murphy) - the corporate guy being targeted - represents the studio system.
With all that being said, the movie is the dream. The shared “dream” is the collective consciousness we all share as the audience, while the dream represents the director’s dream, which he seeks to share with the audience, and the ideas implanted in our minds by the movie represent the inception taking place. Walter Benjamin talks about this concept in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He says that: “thanks to the camera… the individual perceptions of the psychotic or the dreamer can be appropriated by collective perception. The ancient truth expressed by Heraclitus, that those who are awake have a world in common while each sleeper has a world of his own, has been invalidated by film – and less by depicting the dream world itself than by creating figures of collective dream.” The movie, therefore, could be considered a metaphor for the filmmaking process. On the psychoanalytical level, one could say that the catharsis achieved through the shared dream state represents the catharsis achieved for the filmmaker in sharing his vision with the world as well as the catharsis achieved by the masses in the reception of the film as distraction.
On another level, I would suggest that the subplot involving the penetration of the corporate mogul’s dream to implant the idea of the will, which dissolves the corporation into smaller companies spread equally among the investors, could represent the studio system’s control over the film capital and the capitalist exploitation of the medium of film. The will would represent the property relations that Benjamin speaks of, and the inception of the idea to change the will to split up the company could represent the revolutionary change of property relations (redistribution of wealth) that could be attained through the use of film. Benjamin puts forth this idea and says: “there can be no political advantage derived from this control until film has liberated itself from the fetters of capitalist exploitation.” So, Christopher Nolan, represented by the extractor, is using the film (the dream) as a means to reclaim control of the film capital in favor of the proletarian masses through the use of collective consciousness.
Obviously, there are many more levels to the reading of this film, however, I felt like this was one level that hadn’t been explored yet. Analyses of the dream within a dream, and whether or not the whole movie was a dream have been described at length many times in message boards and other blogs. As a result, I don’t feel the need to explain these theories. I do believe, though, after having read The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, that Benjamin would have come to similar conclusions.
One of the most interesting articles I found was at CHUD.com. The author of the article, Devin Faraci, suggests that the whole movie was a dream, including the parts where Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an extractor who performs corporate espionage by penetrating people’s dreams and stealing their thoughts. He goes further to suggest that the movie is an autobiographical work about Christopher Nolan and his work as a director, similar to Fellini’s 8 ½. In this case, Cobb, who breaks into people’s dreams, represents the director. Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is the researcher, represents the producer who sets everything up. Ariadne (Ellen Page), the architect, represents the screenwriter who creates the world that the dreamer will enter. Eames (Tom Hardy), referred to as the forger, represents the actor, who assumes the form of other people in the dream world. Yusuf (Dileep Rao), the chemist, is the technical guy who furnishes the chemicals necessary to create the shared dream state. I would go even further to say that Yusuf is the cinematographer – where the camera is the dream-sharing “apparatus” and the sedatives used to facilitate the dreaming could be considered the actual film in the camera. Finally, Saito (Ken Watanabe) is the financier of the dream (or film) and Mark Fischer (Cillian Murphy) - the corporate guy being targeted - represents the studio system.
With all that being said, the movie is the dream. The shared “dream” is the collective consciousness we all share as the audience, while the dream represents the director’s dream, which he seeks to share with the audience, and the ideas implanted in our minds by the movie represent the inception taking place. Walter Benjamin talks about this concept in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He says that: “thanks to the camera… the individual perceptions of the psychotic or the dreamer can be appropriated by collective perception. The ancient truth expressed by Heraclitus, that those who are awake have a world in common while each sleeper has a world of his own, has been invalidated by film – and less by depicting the dream world itself than by creating figures of collective dream.” The movie, therefore, could be considered a metaphor for the filmmaking process. On the psychoanalytical level, one could say that the catharsis achieved through the shared dream state represents the catharsis achieved for the filmmaker in sharing his vision with the world as well as the catharsis achieved by the masses in the reception of the film as distraction.
On another level, I would suggest that the subplot involving the penetration of the corporate mogul’s dream to implant the idea of the will, which dissolves the corporation into smaller companies spread equally among the investors, could represent the studio system’s control over the film capital and the capitalist exploitation of the medium of film. The will would represent the property relations that Benjamin speaks of, and the inception of the idea to change the will to split up the company could represent the revolutionary change of property relations (redistribution of wealth) that could be attained through the use of film. Benjamin puts forth this idea and says: “there can be no political advantage derived from this control until film has liberated itself from the fetters of capitalist exploitation.” So, Christopher Nolan, represented by the extractor, is using the film (the dream) as a means to reclaim control of the film capital in favor of the proletarian masses through the use of collective consciousness.
Obviously, there are many more levels to the reading of this film, however, I felt like this was one level that hadn’t been explored yet. Analyses of the dream within a dream, and whether or not the whole movie was a dream have been described at length many times in message boards and other blogs. As a result, I don’t feel the need to explain these theories. I do believe, though, after having read The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, that Benjamin would have come to similar conclusions.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Democratization through the use of Social Media
Social networking sites have become increasingly popular in recent times. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard of Facebook or Twitter. Social media is the postmodern form of communication, which allows people to announce to the world every detail of their mundane lives, while maintaining complete isolation from the outside world.
However, there's still hope for some kind of meaningful use of social media. Look no further than Egypt to see the democratizing power of social networking. The Egyptian people have used sites like Facebook and Twitter to organize a revolution against their corrupt, authoritarian government. The technology was so effective in helping to stage the revolt, that the Egyptian government has proceeded to shut down access to social networking sites and has even cut off all phone and internet services in the country.
The people of Egypt are seeing the democratizing potential of social media and communications technology. Through the use of Facebook and Twitter, those voices that would have otherwise gone unheard, are being given a platform for dissent and political change.
However, there's still hope for some kind of meaningful use of social media. Look no further than Egypt to see the democratizing power of social networking. The Egyptian people have used sites like Facebook and Twitter to organize a revolution against their corrupt, authoritarian government. The technology was so effective in helping to stage the revolt, that the Egyptian government has proceeded to shut down access to social networking sites and has even cut off all phone and internet services in the country.
The people of Egypt are seeing the democratizing potential of social media and communications technology. Through the use of Facebook and Twitter, those voices that would have otherwise gone unheard, are being given a platform for dissent and political change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)