Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Rain Deserves a Shower of Praises
The Beatles have been known to unite people, from their relaxed attitudes to their peaceful lyrics in songs like “Let It Be”, “Across the Universe” or John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Though The Beatles are no longer making music and playing concerts they have left a legacy that has given rise to numerous tribute bands.
One such band, Rain, came to Miller Auditorium in Kalamazoo, MI in mid February. Just like their greatest influence, Rain brought together a diverse and eclectic crowd all excited to see their favorite songs performed by one of the greatest tribute bands. Their show couldn’t have disappointed even the greatest fans.
Rain seemed to pride themselves on gathering this varied crowd. Throughout the show members of the band asked for lots of audience participation and would often only ask one type of group to participate at a time. During “Hey Jude” their John Lennon asked, “All the ladies, give us a sing,” and later “Everybody over sixty!” The crowd was made up of kids so young and small they had to stand in their seats to see and ranged in age all the way up to those that were so old they couldn’t stand to see at all. The mixed crowd made for a great experience for those that were used to a more homogenous feel.
Besides their varied audience, Rain effectively recreated the feel of the times in which The Beatles were most famous. Throughout the concert, the set changes a total of five times. The first set recreates the feel of “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964. Following this the set becomes that of Shea Stadium where The Beatles played their most highly attended concert. Later they play music from the “St. Pepper” and Flower Power era. They end their show with the “Abbey Road” era.
Between each set change video montages played on the side of stage showing clips from shows, audience members, commercials of the times and even war clips. These montages effectively immersed the audience in the time period and got them remembering the pop culture but also the politics that fueled some of The Beatles greatest music. Along with changing sets and playing montages, the members of Rain changed costumes and appearances. They went from black suits, skinny ties, and long hair in the “Ed Sullivan” era to their barefoot, dirty shirt, and bearded “Abbey Road” era.
By the end of the show the whole crowd was on their feet begging for an encore. The first encore was “Imagine” and left some crowd members in tears, following that they played “Hey Jude” to end on a happy note. Following the show, as people dispersed for their cars, many were singing its praises. One woman, speaking to her partner, said “Maybe its my memory that is going, but that might have been better than when I saw The Beatles back in ’65”.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Photographer or Pornographer?
The cover of Sally Mann’s photographic collection “Immediate Family” features her three young children bare-chested staring defiantly into the lens of the camera. Though their gazes are strong and poses just as threatening, they are visibly small and weak. Their bodies have not yet changed into those of teenagers or adults. The mixes of arms are thin and breakable but despite this vulnerable size the children still look ahead and seem to say, “I dare you.” They may want to come across as stronger, older or more mature then they are but there is no denying that these are the bodies and faces of young children.
The provocative work of photographer Sally Mann has long raised issues from contemporary America on what is acceptable in art. Her collections of photographs in “At Twelve” and “Immediate Family” feature many nude shots of her own and others children. Many have asked whether Mann is a pornographer, creating graphic images of these children. Others wonder if she may have hurt children or in any way manipulated them to capture these “candid” moments in their lives. Mann is, indeed, an artist, but also a mother, and though much of her work touches on the innocent sexuality of youth, her focus is merely on her family and the desire to capture moments in time. Mann has said, “the things that are close to you are the things you can photograph the best and unless you photograph what you love, you are not going to make good art.”
And what Mann creates is good art. Her images have been praised as, “ethereal, provocative, sensual, inspiring, and full of wonder.” On the other hand her work has been called, “torturous, pornographic, disgusting or repulsive.” Coming from a small town in the south and being the youngest in her family she was often forgotten and left to wander on her own. Mann usually ran about naked in her home and yard like the rest of the family. Mann has taken her experiences and the way she was raised and applied it to her family life. In raising her children, Mann allowed Jesse, Emmet, and Virginia to run around in the nude and do as they please. These are the moments that she captures.
In “Immediate Family” her children are completely or nearly nude in every shot. The only things they wear are their bold faces and attitudes. In the photograph “Dog Scratches”, Virginia, her daughter, is lying nude on the couch bathed in sunlight, her body stretched and exposed, with one long gash running down her chest and stomach (apparently from a dog scratch). Another, “Wet Bed,” shows Virginia sleeping nude in bed; her body open and a dark stain spreading underneath her. Photos like these, and many others, have caused critics to raise questions, not only about her work, but also about her parenting.
It is not unusual for questions of this nature to arise. Over the past 100 years in photography the use of nudes, especially nude children, has come under a more critical eye. In 1886 photographer Frank Sutcliffe was excommunicated from the church for taking a photo of a group of nude, prepubescent boys swimming in the shallows. While the Church fought Sutcliffe and his material but the public readily accepted it as art. Since this occurrence the public has become more protective of its children and instead of becoming more accepting of this work, the public has fought harder against it. The changing values of the American home and society have greatly changed the standards for children’s nudes in art.
Compared to ‘photographers’ like Anne Geddes who put babies in flower costumes and on flower petals, Mann’s work comes across as abrasive and harsh. Geddes images have never been considered inappropriate or vulgar because her subjects, though nude children, do not hang on the edge of child versus adult, girl versus woman, daughter versus friend. And that is a point of concern in Mann’s photographs from “Immediate Family”. Her children are all photographed as early as 3 and up to age 11. Unlike Geddes, Mann doesn’t try and beautify the children. Often, in her photographs, the kids are covered in the popsicle drips, blackberry juice, or blood from cuts and bloody noses. They are real and have not been idealized for anyone.
But the public wants the idealized, don’t they? They fight against anything too provocative. Sexual images stir up ‘naughty’ feelings and turn impressionable youth towards sex. Geddes photographs what the public wants, the flowery, fluffy babies that represent purity and innocence. In today’s culture it seems that no photograph, no matter how artistically done, can escape the critics backlash. These shots of nude children are obviously pornographic representations of the photographers own messed up psyche, right?
In 2000, Jessie Mann, now an artist herself, spoke up about the photographs. Jessie , says the publicity coincided with her realization that their childhood wasn't "like other people's." The experience of collaborating with her mother taught her about the power of art, she says. And she admires the way the photographs provoke questions about the difference (or lack of it) between reality and fantasy, even as they touch on something deeper: "There is magic in things, life is magical and wonderful." Her statements have not led anyone to believe that they caused her or her siblings any harm as some have suggested.
The work of Mann has indeed featured nude children in provocative poses. Unlike pornographers looking for subjects to exploit their sexuality Mann’s children don’t exploit their bodies. They don’t realize the power that their nude bodies possess and while their minds are still young and innocent their bodies represent something much more sexual. As an artist Mann has no need to censor herself, as a mother she reached a point where her photographs became inappropriate and should have stepped back. The beauty of all of her shots, though, is what is important.
The provocative work of photographer Sally Mann has long raised issues from contemporary America on what is acceptable in art. Her collections of photographs in “At Twelve” and “Immediate Family” feature many nude shots of her own and others children. Many have asked whether Mann is a pornographer, creating graphic images of these children. Others wonder if she may have hurt children or in any way manipulated them to capture these “candid” moments in their lives. Mann is, indeed, an artist, but also a mother, and though much of her work touches on the innocent sexuality of youth, her focus is merely on her family and the desire to capture moments in time. Mann has said, “the things that are close to you are the things you can photograph the best and unless you photograph what you love, you are not going to make good art.”
And what Mann creates is good art. Her images have been praised as, “ethereal, provocative, sensual, inspiring, and full of wonder.” On the other hand her work has been called, “torturous, pornographic, disgusting or repulsive.” Coming from a small town in the south and being the youngest in her family she was often forgotten and left to wander on her own. Mann usually ran about naked in her home and yard like the rest of the family. Mann has taken her experiences and the way she was raised and applied it to her family life. In raising her children, Mann allowed Jesse, Emmet, and Virginia to run around in the nude and do as they please. These are the moments that she captures.
In “Immediate Family” her children are completely or nearly nude in every shot. The only things they wear are their bold faces and attitudes. In the photograph “Dog Scratches”, Virginia, her daughter, is lying nude on the couch bathed in sunlight, her body stretched and exposed, with one long gash running down her chest and stomach (apparently from a dog scratch). Another, “Wet Bed,” shows Virginia sleeping nude in bed; her body open and a dark stain spreading underneath her. Photos like these, and many others, have caused critics to raise questions, not only about her work, but also about her parenting.
It is not unusual for questions of this nature to arise. Over the past 100 years in photography the use of nudes, especially nude children, has come under a more critical eye. In 1886 photographer Frank Sutcliffe was excommunicated from the church for taking a photo of a group of nude, prepubescent boys swimming in the shallows. While the Church fought Sutcliffe and his material but the public readily accepted it as art. Since this occurrence the public has become more protective of its children and instead of becoming more accepting of this work, the public has fought harder against it. The changing values of the American home and society have greatly changed the standards for children’s nudes in art.
Compared to ‘photographers’ like Anne Geddes who put babies in flower costumes and on flower petals, Mann’s work comes across as abrasive and harsh. Geddes images have never been considered inappropriate or vulgar because her subjects, though nude children, do not hang on the edge of child versus adult, girl versus woman, daughter versus friend. And that is a point of concern in Mann’s photographs from “Immediate Family”. Her children are all photographed as early as 3 and up to age 11. Unlike Geddes, Mann doesn’t try and beautify the children. Often, in her photographs, the kids are covered in the popsicle drips, blackberry juice, or blood from cuts and bloody noses. They are real and have not been idealized for anyone.
But the public wants the idealized, don’t they? They fight against anything too provocative. Sexual images stir up ‘naughty’ feelings and turn impressionable youth towards sex. Geddes photographs what the public wants, the flowery, fluffy babies that represent purity and innocence. In today’s culture it seems that no photograph, no matter how artistically done, can escape the critics backlash. These shots of nude children are obviously pornographic representations of the photographers own messed up psyche, right?
In 2000, Jessie Mann, now an artist herself, spoke up about the photographs. Jessie , says the publicity coincided with her realization that their childhood wasn't "like other people's." The experience of collaborating with her mother taught her about the power of art, she says. And she admires the way the photographs provoke questions about the difference (or lack of it) between reality and fantasy, even as they touch on something deeper: "There is magic in things, life is magical and wonderful." Her statements have not led anyone to believe that they caused her or her siblings any harm as some have suggested.
The work of Mann has indeed featured nude children in provocative poses. Unlike pornographers looking for subjects to exploit their sexuality Mann’s children don’t exploit their bodies. They don’t realize the power that their nude bodies possess and while their minds are still young and innocent their bodies represent something much more sexual. As an artist Mann has no need to censor herself, as a mother she reached a point where her photographs became inappropriate and should have stepped back. The beauty of all of her shots, though, is what is important.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Little Something
In 2000 this article was published in the NYT and relates to Sally Mann and her work. I am writing about her for my final but if you want to read about it from another perspective it is a really well done piece.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EFDB1F3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63&pagewanted=2
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901EFDB1F3BF93AA25752C1A9669C8B63&pagewanted=2
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Final Proposal: Sally Mann
Since the 1970’s Sally Mann has been making a name for herself in modern photography. Going back to the traditional roots of photography Mann utilizes old cameras and traditional processes to create her ethereal, haunting images of the vitality of life and the bitterness of death.
In the early 1990’s her work started a scandal revolving around the ethics of photography. Mann, a resident of very rural Virginia, often let her three children run around in the nude. Her first two published books At Twelve and Immediate Family both featured images of her nude children. The content of the photographs caused serious criticism and was considered pornographic. Though the debate over her photographs has died down the underlying social issues are still of great importance. The photographs did not just bring up issues of pornography but also of familial relationship, previous experience, bonds and the ethics of photography.
The majority of my final will be based on research done through analysis of photographs, researching past articles and watching documentaries. Mann will also be compared to artists whose work has brought about similar debate, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe. Combining these resources together will allow a complete picture of Mann to be made.
In the early 1990’s her work started a scandal revolving around the ethics of photography. Mann, a resident of very rural Virginia, often let her three children run around in the nude. Her first two published books At Twelve and Immediate Family both featured images of her nude children. The content of the photographs caused serious criticism and was considered pornographic. Though the debate over her photographs has died down the underlying social issues are still of great importance. The photographs did not just bring up issues of pornography but also of familial relationship, previous experience, bonds and the ethics of photography.
The majority of my final will be based on research done through analysis of photographs, researching past articles and watching documentaries. Mann will also be compared to artists whose work has brought about similar debate, for example, Robert Mapplethorpe. Combining these resources together will allow a complete picture of Mann to be made.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Economy Doesn't Keep Glamour Away at Oscars
When the economy starts to flounder, glitz and glamour are often traded in for more reasonable uses of money. The Academy Awards, though, did not suffer from this economic downturn; they were, in fact, glitzier than ever. The show, in an effort to regain viewers (2007 Oscars had 40 million viewers, the 2008 had only 32 million) restructured the awards show and created something magical.
The focus of the 81st Annual Academy Awards was on the presentation itself. For the many actors, producers, directors, editors, and others at the Kodak Theatre, the Academy Awards is the end all be all of great shows. In past years the feeling of glamour and beauty is poorly translated to television but this year the audience felt all of the fantasy and magic come through. The set of the Kodak Theatre was ornate and very old Hollywood. The crystal curtains were stunning and enveloped all those who were on stage. The stage floor resembled patterns that Michelangelo used in his plazas. In keeping with the old Hollywood theme, a showy bandstand was set up and the musicians played jazzy renditions of the typical Oscar themes.
During segments of the show the set was changed from simple backdrops to lavish sets to present the awards for Best Art Direction (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Best Costume Design (“The Duchess”), and Best Make- Up (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). Before announcing the nominees for the Best Original Song, A.R. Rahman and Thomas Newman performed a medley of “Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, and “Down to Earth” bringing in Indian choreography.
Another performer of the night was Queen Latifah singing, “I’ll be Seeing You” in memoriam of the many people involved in the movie business that passed away within the last year. Generally, this moment leaves the crowd and at-home audience in tears. The crowd at the Kodak Theatre may have been moved but at-home audiences were far from moved. During this segment the camera, in an effort to portray the feel of the show, moved wilding about following the different screens on stage. Instead of being encompassed by the images of these people who are no longer with us the movement of the camera was distracting.
The glamour of the show continued by bringing back five previous winners in each category of Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. The sense of awe from the crowd looking upon such talent was obvious and the Academy’s choice to present the awards in this was much stronger than in years past.
The Awards ended, quite sweetly with the awarding of the Best Picture, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Members of the cast and crew swarmed the stage and the excited amongst them and the rest of the audience was apparent. Danny Boyle, director of “Slumdog Millionaire” mentioned that the entire Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre was, “Bloody wonderful”.
The focus of the 81st Annual Academy Awards was on the presentation itself. For the many actors, producers, directors, editors, and others at the Kodak Theatre, the Academy Awards is the end all be all of great shows. In past years the feeling of glamour and beauty is poorly translated to television but this year the audience felt all of the fantasy and magic come through. The set of the Kodak Theatre was ornate and very old Hollywood. The crystal curtains were stunning and enveloped all those who were on stage. The stage floor resembled patterns that Michelangelo used in his plazas. In keeping with the old Hollywood theme, a showy bandstand was set up and the musicians played jazzy renditions of the typical Oscar themes.
During segments of the show the set was changed from simple backdrops to lavish sets to present the awards for Best Art Direction (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”), Best Costume Design (“The Duchess”), and Best Make- Up (“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). Before announcing the nominees for the Best Original Song, A.R. Rahman and Thomas Newman performed a medley of “Jai Ho”, “O Saya”, and “Down to Earth” bringing in Indian choreography.
Another performer of the night was Queen Latifah singing, “I’ll be Seeing You” in memoriam of the many people involved in the movie business that passed away within the last year. Generally, this moment leaves the crowd and at-home audience in tears. The crowd at the Kodak Theatre may have been moved but at-home audiences were far from moved. During this segment the camera, in an effort to portray the feel of the show, moved wilding about following the different screens on stage. Instead of being encompassed by the images of these people who are no longer with us the movement of the camera was distracting.
The glamour of the show continued by bringing back five previous winners in each category of Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress. The sense of awe from the crowd looking upon such talent was obvious and the Academy’s choice to present the awards in this was much stronger than in years past.
The Awards ended, quite sweetly with the awarding of the Best Picture, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Members of the cast and crew swarmed the stage and the excited amongst them and the rest of the audience was apparent. Danny Boyle, director of “Slumdog Millionaire” mentioned that the entire Academy Awards from the Kodak Theatre was, “Bloody wonderful”.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Kael
Pauline Kael has been revered by many and loathed by some for her blatant opinions of movies. In reading Afterglow by Francis Davis and House Critic by Renata Adler two very different perspectives of this American movie critic are presented. Davis praises Kael for her straight-forwardness while Adler chews her to pieces for a, “jarringly, piece by piece, line by line, and without interruption, worthless”, collection of reviews. Adler, though tough, provided enough examples to prove that Kael was no “great”.
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Kael, born in 1919 to Jewish Polish immigrant parents, rose to celebrity critic standing after working menial tasks and writing reviews here and there. Kael hit her stride when working for The New Yorker in 1968. She worked as one of two critics until 1979 when she became the sole film critic. Over the course of her career, Kael published five collections of reviews, I Lost it at The Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, When the Lights Go Down, Taking it All In, and Deeper Into the Movies. After living with Parkinson’s disease for ten years, Kael announced her retirement in 1991.
Kael was often praised for her colloquial writing style. She wrote that movies were a “pop” experience and wanted to write in a manner that everyone could understand. Kael spoke negatively about avant-garde, haute couture, and art house films and audiences saying an educated audience uses these films, “in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism”. Yet Kael’s work often makes the reader feel unintelligent and Kael seem overbearing and pretentious. She often compares work that doesn’t compare to the movie or speaks to the audience like they couldn’t understand what she was saying.
Often, Kael’s reviews were meandering, autobiographical conversations. It took Kael a considerable number of words to actually review the film. When she did begin, as Adler points out, Kael was quick to use many similar phrases such as “whore”, “myth”, “pop”, “pulp”, and “visceral”. Adler, writer for The New Yorker, critiqued Kael on her refusal to acknowledge mistakes she made, incessantly asking open-ended questions, making up endings to words, and selling out by moving to Hollywood. Adler makes many good points and provides numerous examples to support her view on Kael.
Over time Kael gained a following and during her time many critics devoted themselves to writing in her style; these critics were called “Paulettes”. Currently, A.O. Scott, film critic for the New York Times and Roger Ebert, leading film critic, admit to being influenced by Kael. Also, movie directors would send her copies of scripts or advanced copies of their movies for her to review. If Kale gave a director a positive review they were kept in work, if she was negative it could mean a director would stop making movies. David Lean, for example, said he was so traumatized by Kael’s review that he was too afraid to make another movie for 14 years.
Kael has had many fans and many critics over her long life. One thing everyone can agree upon is that her work has changed the way audiences, critics, and directors see movies. She didn’t even like “Star Wars”!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hicok, A Primer in Poetry
When a poet walks in wearing a blue t-shirt, jeans and sneakers any expectation of the pompous, pretentious, poetry reading type is removed. Hicok even says himself, “I hate poetry readings, I can’t pay attention at all…So if you get distracted by anything and everything, don’t worry”. His laid back attitude didn’t reflect at all upon Hicok’s numerous accomplishments.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Hicok is a self-taught poet, but not having a formal education hasn’t hindered him either. He has written 5 poetry books (Insomnia Diary (Pittsburgh, 2004), Animal Soul (2001), Plus Shipping (1998),The Legend of Light (1995), Bearing Witness (1991)) and won 2 Pushcart Prizes, an NEA Fellowship and one of his books was named an ALA Booklist Notable Book of the Year and winner of the Felix Pollak Prize in Poetry. He is currently teaching at Virginia Tech and is the associate professor in the M.F.A. program. In the past he owned a successful auto-die company and taught at West Michigan University part-time.
The influence of his Detroit, Michigan upbringing is everywhere, most noticeably in “A Primer”. In it, Hicok mentions that in Michigan “February is 13 months long”, “the state bird is a chained factory gate”, and “ ‘What did we do?’ is the state motto”. Others of his poems contain his Detroit influence, in “Killing” (a poem not read at the reading) Hicok depicts a boy that wishes he had stronger weapons to kill bigger targets and a boy that wishes he could defeat a bully.
Hicok read poems about life, love, politics, school, and illness. Despite the array of his work, Hicok covers each topic with the same eloquence and relates to every person. The reading began with the poem “Life” immediately putting the listener on the same level as Hicok; He didn’t want anyone to feel left out. His small talk between poems eased the audience into the works and he prefaced some poems with stories about how they related to his life.
Some of the more touching of the poems were “BRCA1”, “Her, My Body”, and “A Primer”. “BRCA1” relates to learning of a friends breast cancer and the title is taken from the gene named for the detection of early onset breast cancer. In “Her, My Body” Hicok again refers to cancer but talks about, with great delicacy, how it effects his life and love for his wife and says that he has “one way/ to be happy/ and she is that way”. “A Primer” referenced life in Michigan and got the whole audience laughing with its truthfulness.
“Let us all be from somewhere”, says Hicok as he ends “A Primer” and his readings for the night. He leaves the audience with a sense of renewed interest in the world, an increasing desire to pay attention to the little things, and a wish to be able to express, so simply, how one feels about everything around them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
From a "Slumdog" to Top Dog
“Slumdog Millionaire” is leaving audiences breathless. Right from the start “Slumdog” charges at the audience with its eye-opening look at the slums of Mumbai and doesn’t stop until the very ‘bollywood’ credit. Scene after scene, “Slumdog” proves that it is exactly the opposite. Director Danny Boyle (“28 Days Later,” “Sunshine”) doesn’t disappoint and instead has created a craze that is sweeping Hollywood.
The movie, almost released straight to DVD is now a Hollywood hit. After gaining praise from its first screening at the Telluride Film Festival “Slumdog Millionaire” has steadily gained momentum in Hollywood and is now sitting on 42 award wins and 36 other nominations. It is no surprise that “Slumdog Millionaire” has landed ten Oscar nominations, and each one has a strong chance to take home the Oscar.
The story, based on the novel “Q&A” by Vikas Swarup, follows Jamal Malik as he answers question after question correctly in the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” The film begins with the typed question on the screen, "Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees," it reads. "How did he do it? A) He cheated. B) He's lucky. C) He's a genius. D) It is written." From there, the story is told in episodic flashbacks of Jamal’s life in the slums where each flashback reveals how Jamal knows the answers. Jamal Malik’s childhood is unlike any imaginable by American audiences and, therefore, is captivating. Jamal, his brother Salim, and ‘third musketeer’ Latika are all orphaned and left to fend for themselves in their youth. Throughout their tumultuous childhood, they become thieves, gang members, or prostitutes.
The film is filled with exquisite cinematography matching the energy and feel of “City of Gods”(directed by Fernando Meirelles) with the use of light and action shots. The editing of the “Slumdog” is impeccable, especially with the transitions between the youth of Jamal, the game show and the questioning by security. The soundtrack is just as seamless as the other elements of the film. The mix of semi-traditional Indian rhythms and electronically infused pop music suits each scene.
Despite all of its strengths “Slumdog Millionaire” seems cliché in parts, the ending is no surprise and completely predictable. Through the acting of the entire cast and the rest of the cinematography these shortcomings can be overlooked.
Throughout, the actors all prove themselves. The adult Jamal (Dev Patel from “Skins”), Salim, played by Madhur Mittal, and Latika, played by Freida Pinto, were full of a range of emotions and executed each scene stunningly. The best moments come from the interactions between the children that play Jamal, Salim, and Latika. Taken from the actual slums of Mumbai and placed in the movie, the Hindi-speaking children, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, and Rubiana Ali, respectively, are so engaging and convincing in their parts it is difficult not to fall in love with each of them (Through her work in the Indian casting, Loveleen Tandan, gained status as co-director). In particular, the interactions between Khedekar and Ismail as brothers are impeccable, even in their youth both actors grasped the intensity and depth of their parts.
So where does the success of “Slumdog Millionaire” come from?
D) It is written.
The movie, almost released straight to DVD is now a Hollywood hit. After gaining praise from its first screening at the Telluride Film Festival “Slumdog Millionaire” has steadily gained momentum in Hollywood and is now sitting on 42 award wins and 36 other nominations. It is no surprise that “Slumdog Millionaire” has landed ten Oscar nominations, and each one has a strong chance to take home the Oscar.
The story, based on the novel “Q&A” by Vikas Swarup, follows Jamal Malik as he answers question after question correctly in the Indian version of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.” The film begins with the typed question on the screen, "Jamal Malik is one question away from winning 20 million rupees," it reads. "How did he do it? A) He cheated. B) He's lucky. C) He's a genius. D) It is written." From there, the story is told in episodic flashbacks of Jamal’s life in the slums where each flashback reveals how Jamal knows the answers. Jamal Malik’s childhood is unlike any imaginable by American audiences and, therefore, is captivating. Jamal, his brother Salim, and ‘third musketeer’ Latika are all orphaned and left to fend for themselves in their youth. Throughout their tumultuous childhood, they become thieves, gang members, or prostitutes.
The film is filled with exquisite cinematography matching the energy and feel of “City of Gods”(directed by Fernando Meirelles) with the use of light and action shots. The editing of the “Slumdog” is impeccable, especially with the transitions between the youth of Jamal, the game show and the questioning by security. The soundtrack is just as seamless as the other elements of the film. The mix of semi-traditional Indian rhythms and electronically infused pop music suits each scene.
Despite all of its strengths “Slumdog Millionaire” seems cliché in parts, the ending is no surprise and completely predictable. Through the acting of the entire cast and the rest of the cinematography these shortcomings can be overlooked.
Throughout, the actors all prove themselves. The adult Jamal (Dev Patel from “Skins”), Salim, played by Madhur Mittal, and Latika, played by Freida Pinto, were full of a range of emotions and executed each scene stunningly. The best moments come from the interactions between the children that play Jamal, Salim, and Latika. Taken from the actual slums of Mumbai and placed in the movie, the Hindi-speaking children, Ayush Mahesh Khedekar, Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, and Rubiana Ali, respectively, are so engaging and convincing in their parts it is difficult not to fall in love with each of them (Through her work in the Indian casting, Loveleen Tandan, gained status as co-director). In particular, the interactions between Khedekar and Ismail as brothers are impeccable, even in their youth both actors grasped the intensity and depth of their parts.
So where does the success of “Slumdog Millionaire” come from?
D) It is written.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Criticism is Itself an Art
Oscar Wilde describes his thoughts on critics and critiques through his argument as Gilbert. Wilde states most importantly that, “Criticism is itself an art (904).” Wilde also discusses the importance of realizing that “there is no fine are without self-consciousness (899),” and that everyone must come into their individuality to provide criticism.
Wilde chooses this method of presenting his argument because it allows him a creative way to discuss the critic as artist. Also, this method makes it easier for him to address the issues that others find with his theory. Ernest is the voice of all those that seem to oppose Gilbert/Wilde’s way of thinking.
As an art student part of me does agree with Wilde, in that to be a critic one must also be able to understand the work and passion that goes into a piece of art. Another part of me realizes that it is difficult to critique others, but those that choose to critique usually take it upon themselves to understand the background information and form a well-rounded opinion.
Wilde chooses this method of presenting his argument because it allows him a creative way to discuss the critic as artist. Also, this method makes it easier for him to address the issues that others find with his theory. Ernest is the voice of all those that seem to oppose Gilbert/Wilde’s way of thinking.
As an art student part of me does agree with Wilde, in that to be a critic one must also be able to understand the work and passion that goes into a piece of art. Another part of me realizes that it is difficult to critique others, but those that choose to critique usually take it upon themselves to understand the background information and form a well-rounded opinion.
“Where Lines Become a Language” and The Figure is the Bottom Line
After writing for the New York Times for over 25 years, Holland Cotter is a well established arts reviewer. In this particular piece Cotter immediately asserts his authority as a know-it-all. He tells us that this article is a total crowd pleaser and the reader gets the idea that this is going to be a negative interview. It is, in fact, a glowing review of the exhibit Raphael to Renoir: Drawings from the College of Jean Bonna.
The review flows, just as the exhibit does, from piece to piece. Cotter discusses some of his favorites and gives history behind the subjects or the artists. Overall, Cotter is positive throughout and he is also interjects brief moments of humor so that the overall effect is nothing like satire but the review isn’t mundane either. Cotter appreciates the exhibit so much that he does not actually have a ‘but’ anywhere in his review. In the beginning Cotter says that Banno has “assembled an outstanding inventory,” and he ends his review by talking about the “something else” in drawings that gives us the feeling of a “nourishing meal” even if we only ate a “dessert”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/arts/23raph.php
The review flows, just as the exhibit does, from piece to piece. Cotter discusses some of his favorites and gives history behind the subjects or the artists. Overall, Cotter is positive throughout and he is also interjects brief moments of humor so that the overall effect is nothing like satire but the review isn’t mundane either. Cotter appreciates the exhibit so much that he does not actually have a ‘but’ anywhere in his review. In the beginning Cotter says that Banno has “assembled an outstanding inventory,” and he ends his review by talking about the “something else” in drawings that gives us the feeling of a “nourishing meal” even if we only ate a “dessert”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/arts/23raph.php
Elements of Style
I have used this book to help me write papers in the past. This time, though, I actually sat down and read the entire thing and thought that some sections were better than others. Particularly the section on commonly misused words and expressions. On page 54, Strunk and White, say not to use a noun as a verb.
Wrong- The candidate hosted a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Right- The candidate gave a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Wrong- The meeting was chaired by Mr. Oglethorp.
Right- Mr. Oglethorp was chair of the metting.
I definitely want to work on correcting this in my own writing because I am aware that I do this on occasion. I also want to fix my use of that/which. After reading the example that Strunk and White use I already understand it better but still worry that I could mess it up in my writing.
Wrong- The candidate hosted a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Right- The candidate gave a dinner for fifty of her workers.
Wrong- The meeting was chaired by Mr. Oglethorp.
Right- Mr. Oglethorp was chair of the metting.
I definitely want to work on correcting this in my own writing because I am aware that I do this on occasion. I also want to fix my use of that/which. After reading the example that Strunk and White use I already understand it better but still worry that I could mess it up in my writing.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Taxi from the Dark Side; Dark, Dreary, Depressing
“We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals…those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake,” said President Obama in his inaugural address. Shortly thereafter he signed executive orders to suspend trials of terror suspects held at Guantánamo. The 2008 Oscar Winner for Best Documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” follows the case of Dilawar, a taxi driver, taken to Bagram prison and reported dead after five days. Cause of death: Homicide. The film then describes the different methods of interrogation used at Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib prison and Guantánamo Bay prison.
Using Dilawar to propel the story, Gibney utilizes news footage and photographs to further his investigation into U.S. policy on suspected terrorists. Gibney’s revealing documentary sheds light on the treatment of these suspects when no written rules are in effect and soldiers can do as they please.
Gibney combines interviews from numerous soldiers/interrogators, attorneys, one released detainee, and archival footage and photographs to create an engaging and horrifying documentary. On the surface, Gibney brings up political issues and questions of humanity. On a deeper level his documentary provokes the audience to wonder about the human ability to treat another with such disregard for life.
The political aspects of the film focus on the Bush administration’s response to the then increasing number of suspects brought into these facilities. The footage goes on to show Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the changing policies and the split from the Geneva Convention.
The prison guards, who received no word on proper conduct, used numerous torture tactics that didn’t follow the criteria set forth by the Geneva Convention. The soldiers used sexual assault, sleep deprivation, stress positions, dogs, and waterboarding as a means of getting the suspects to talk.
The editing of the documentary was done well and showed considerable amounts of footage from Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantánamo, the three prisons whose tactics were questioned. Gibney used photographs that show the American soldiers as villains and the prisoners as victims. Interestingly the War on Terror began when America was victimized through the 9/11 attacks.
Though Gibney was effective in his editing, the film seemed to drag and the same phrases were heard over and over and over again. “Sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and waterboarding,” were all so overused that the words lost their original oomph. Furthermore, the film lacked any dimension. Gibney adds footage with support from both sides, but the lacking diversity in interview material weaken the film.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is not a film to be missed; it is an eye opening look at what truly went on in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Though the film is repetitive, it does get the point across that American Citizens, whether blissfully unaware of the facts or not, need to take notice of the past tragedies and turn their heads towards the hope that this new administration is giving the country.
Using Dilawar to propel the story, Gibney utilizes news footage and photographs to further his investigation into U.S. policy on suspected terrorists. Gibney’s revealing documentary sheds light on the treatment of these suspects when no written rules are in effect and soldiers can do as they please.
Gibney combines interviews from numerous soldiers/interrogators, attorneys, one released detainee, and archival footage and photographs to create an engaging and horrifying documentary. On the surface, Gibney brings up political issues and questions of humanity. On a deeper level his documentary provokes the audience to wonder about the human ability to treat another with such disregard for life.
The political aspects of the film focus on the Bush administration’s response to the then increasing number of suspects brought into these facilities. The footage goes on to show Donald Rumsfeld’s role in the changing policies and the split from the Geneva Convention.
The prison guards, who received no word on proper conduct, used numerous torture tactics that didn’t follow the criteria set forth by the Geneva Convention. The soldiers used sexual assault, sleep deprivation, stress positions, dogs, and waterboarding as a means of getting the suspects to talk.
The editing of the documentary was done well and showed considerable amounts of footage from Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantánamo, the three prisons whose tactics were questioned. Gibney used photographs that show the American soldiers as villains and the prisoners as victims. Interestingly the War on Terror began when America was victimized through the 9/11 attacks.
Though Gibney was effective in his editing, the film seemed to drag and the same phrases were heard over and over and over again. “Sleep deprivation, stress positions, sensory deprivation, and waterboarding,” were all so overused that the words lost their original oomph. Furthermore, the film lacked any dimension. Gibney adds footage with support from both sides, but the lacking diversity in interview material weaken the film.
“Taxi to the Dark Side” is not a film to be missed; it is an eye opening look at what truly went on in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. Though the film is repetitive, it does get the point across that American Citizens, whether blissfully unaware of the facts or not, need to take notice of the past tragedies and turn their heads towards the hope that this new administration is giving the country.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
So, so well said- NYT
January 21, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Exit the Boy King
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
It was the Instant the Earth Stood Still.
Not since Klaatu landed in a flying saucer on the Ellipse has Washington been so mesmerized by an object whirring through the sky.
But this one was departing, not arriving.
As W. ceased to be president, he flew off over the Capitol and across the Mall en route to Andrews Air Force Base, and then back to Texas .
I’ve seen many presidents come and go, but I’ve never watched a tableau like the one Tuesday, when four million eyes turned heavenward, following the helicopter’s path out of town. Everyone, it seemed, was waving goodbye, with one or two hands, a wave that moved westward down the Mall toward the Lincoln Memorial, and keeping their eyes fixed unwaveringly on that green bird.
They wanted to make absolutely, positively certain that W. was gone. It was like a physical burden being lifted, like a sigh went up of “Thank God. Has Cheney’s wheelchair left the building, too?”
The crowd was exuberant that George Bush was now an ex-president, and 43 himself was jovial “the way he always is,” according to his last press secretary, Dana Perino.
It was like a catharsis in Greek drama, with the antagonist plucked out of the scene into the sky, and the protagonist dropping into the scene to magically fix all the problems. Except Barack Obama’s somber mien and restrained oratory conveyed that he’s no divinity and there will be no easy resolution to this plot.
It was a morning of such enormous emotion and portent — jaw-dropping, Dow-dropping and barrier-dropping — that even the cool new president had to feel daunted to see his blocks-long motorcade and two million hope-besotted faces beaming up at him, dreaming that he can save their shirts.
The optimism was tempered by pessimism, a vibe of “Maybe this once-in-a-lifetime guy can do it, but boy, there are a lot of never-in-our-lifetime problems here.”
Unlike W., Obama is a realist. He knows there is the potential of letting all these blissed-out people down.
The day had its jittery moments: Teddy Kennedy’s collapse and Robert Byrd’s distraught reaction. There was also that match of the titan smarty-pants — the new Democratic president face to face with the conservative chief justice he voted against.
First John Roberts had to say, Easy, cowboy, after Mr. Obama jumped the gun on “I” at the start of the oath of office. Then the president, who had obviously been looking over his lines, graciously offered the chief justice a chance to correct his negligent syntax, when he put the “faithfully” and other words out of place.
Under the platform, near where I sat, Denzel Washington, Beyoncé, Jay-Z and P. Diddy looked on proudly as the new commander in chief showed he was in command of the script and the country.
After thanking President Bush “for his service to our nation,” Mr. Obama executed a high-level version of Stephen Colbert’s share-the-stage smackdown of W. at the White House correspondents’ dinner in 2006.
With W. looking on, and probably gradually realizing with irritation, as he did with Colbert, who Mr. Obama’s target was — (Is he talking about me? Is 44 saying I messed everything up?) — the newly minted president let him have it:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said to wild applause (and to Bartlett ’s), adding: “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” He said America is choosing hope over fear, unity over discord, setting aside “false promises” and “childish things.”
Letting a little air out of the highest hopes about what one man, even “The One,” can do, he emphasized the word “our.” He stressed that rebuilding after the wreckage of W. and Cheney will be a shared burden and that “giving our all to a difficult task” isn’t as bad as it sounds.
I grew up here, and it was the first time I’ve ever seen the city wholly, happily integrated, with a mood redolent of New York in the weeks after 9/11. The Obamas have made an unprecedented pledge to get involved in the real city that lies beyond the political Oz, and have already started doing so in many ways, including starting the night out at the D.C. Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.
Downtown was a euphoric pedestrian mall of commerce and communal kindness. The patience that America is extending to Mr. Obama, according to a Times poll, was reflected across the capital, as the cram of people sparked warmth rather than antsiness.
Strollers laughed as a peddler in a Rasta hat hawked his “Barack Obama incense.” And revelers stepped up to a spot where you could pick out a colored magic marker and complete posters that began, “Mr. President, I hope for ...”
Entries ranged from “burning less oil” to “healthcare for all” to “a cure for cancer” to this lofty and entirely understandable sentiment: “a sick inauguration party.”
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Exit the Boy King
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
It was the Instant the Earth Stood Still.
Not since Klaatu landed in a flying saucer on the Ellipse has Washington been so mesmerized by an object whirring through the sky.
But this one was departing, not arriving.
As W. ceased to be president, he flew off over the Capitol and across the Mall en route to Andrews Air Force Base, and then back to Texas .
I’ve seen many presidents come and go, but I’ve never watched a tableau like the one Tuesday, when four million eyes turned heavenward, following the helicopter’s path out of town. Everyone, it seemed, was waving goodbye, with one or two hands, a wave that moved westward down the Mall toward the Lincoln Memorial, and keeping their eyes fixed unwaveringly on that green bird.
They wanted to make absolutely, positively certain that W. was gone. It was like a physical burden being lifted, like a sigh went up of “Thank God. Has Cheney’s wheelchair left the building, too?”
The crowd was exuberant that George Bush was now an ex-president, and 43 himself was jovial “the way he always is,” according to his last press secretary, Dana Perino.
It was like a catharsis in Greek drama, with the antagonist plucked out of the scene into the sky, and the protagonist dropping into the scene to magically fix all the problems. Except Barack Obama’s somber mien and restrained oratory conveyed that he’s no divinity and there will be no easy resolution to this plot.
It was a morning of such enormous emotion and portent — jaw-dropping, Dow-dropping and barrier-dropping — that even the cool new president had to feel daunted to see his blocks-long motorcade and two million hope-besotted faces beaming up at him, dreaming that he can save their shirts.
The optimism was tempered by pessimism, a vibe of “Maybe this once-in-a-lifetime guy can do it, but boy, there are a lot of never-in-our-lifetime problems here.”
Unlike W., Obama is a realist. He knows there is the potential of letting all these blissed-out people down.
The day had its jittery moments: Teddy Kennedy’s collapse and Robert Byrd’s distraught reaction. There was also that match of the titan smarty-pants — the new Democratic president face to face with the conservative chief justice he voted against.
First John Roberts had to say, Easy, cowboy, after Mr. Obama jumped the gun on “I” at the start of the oath of office. Then the president, who had obviously been looking over his lines, graciously offered the chief justice a chance to correct his negligent syntax, when he put the “faithfully” and other words out of place.
Under the platform, near where I sat, Denzel Washington, Beyoncé, Jay-Z and P. Diddy looked on proudly as the new commander in chief showed he was in command of the script and the country.
After thanking President Bush “for his service to our nation,” Mr. Obama executed a high-level version of Stephen Colbert’s share-the-stage smackdown of W. at the White House correspondents’ dinner in 2006.
With W. looking on, and probably gradually realizing with irritation, as he did with Colbert, who Mr. Obama’s target was — (Is he talking about me? Is 44 saying I messed everything up?) — the newly minted president let him have it:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” he said to wild applause (and to Bartlett ’s), adding: “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” He said America is choosing hope over fear, unity over discord, setting aside “false promises” and “childish things.”
Letting a little air out of the highest hopes about what one man, even “The One,” can do, he emphasized the word “our.” He stressed that rebuilding after the wreckage of W. and Cheney will be a shared burden and that “giving our all to a difficult task” isn’t as bad as it sounds.
I grew up here, and it was the first time I’ve ever seen the city wholly, happily integrated, with a mood redolent of New York in the weeks after 9/11. The Obamas have made an unprecedented pledge to get involved in the real city that lies beyond the political Oz, and have already started doing so in many ways, including starting the night out at the D.C. Neighborhood Inaugural Ball.
Downtown was a euphoric pedestrian mall of commerce and communal kindness. The patience that America is extending to Mr. Obama, according to a Times poll, was reflected across the capital, as the cram of people sparked warmth rather than antsiness.
Strollers laughed as a peddler in a Rasta hat hawked his “Barack Obama incense.” And revelers stepped up to a spot where you could pick out a colored magic marker and complete posters that began, “Mr. President, I hope for ...”
Entries ranged from “burning less oil” to “healthcare for all” to “a cure for cancer” to this lofty and entirely understandable sentiment: “a sick inauguration party.”
Monday, January 19, 2009
Reporting, "Live from Baghdad"
“It all died, rotted, turned into oil, and now...we're here,” says Richard Roth, played by Hamish Linklater, a reporter for CNN during the Gulf War, as he and the rest of the CNN crew drive along a road that can only be described as ‘dire’ in the desert near Kuwait. “Live from Baghdad” effectively recreates the experiences of the CNN crew covering the Gulf War in Baghdad while also describing the growth of the network from the underdog to top dog. The story flows smoothly; staying interesting, fresh and supported by great acting.
Directed by Mick Jackson and starring Michael Keaton as Robert Wiener and Helena Bonham Carter as Ingrid Foreman, “Live from Baghdad” utilizes its cast and creates a great representation of the CNN crew. The release of the movie in December of 2002 seemed a little risky considering the international events occurring at the time, the recent September 11th attacks and the War on Terror, but the movie was not nearly controversial enough to warrant any negative feedback or reactions. Instead it was candid and straightforward, simply presenting the facts from the point of view of Robert Wiener while stationed in Baghdad.
The film chronicles CNN’s rise from “the little news agency that could” to the next news supergiant. CNN’s executive producers Robert Wiener and Ingrid Foreman take a crew and reporter to Baghdad and try to report the stories that really matter. Instead of reporting on whatever they can, the crew spends time building relationships with the Ministry of Information.
Ingrid and Robert’s relationship propels the film by following their growing respect for one another while the rest of the crew provides some comic relief. Judy, the technology crewmember, played by Lili Taylor, and Mark, their cameraman, played by Joshua Leonard, have a perfect witty banter for this comic relief. Bruce McGill, as Peter Arnett, is simply magical in his small part as the outspoken veteran of war journalism. Furthermore Linklater plays Richard Roth, CNN correspondent, spot-on and has many key lines.
Despite all the great aspects of this film, it did fall flat in some places. The cinematography seemed to be lacking and the shots were too close and tight on the actors and didn’t focus on the surrounding activities or scenery. It would have been very easy to focus on the privacy violations and conditions in which the residents of Baghdad were living daily. Unfortunately, the film only covered it in relation to the crew living in the hotel and having their stories monitored before they could be transmitted back to the United States.
Overall “Live from Baghdad” utilizes a strong cast to convey the varying emotions of covering this story while also giving adequate history of the Gulf War and the rise of CNN as a news powerhouse. The film is compelling, interesting and worth every minute.
Blogging the "But"
My review did feature a "but" in the first paragraph when I (a little awkwardly) stated that " The buzz surounding Gran Torino is well-grounded with Clint Eastwood directing and starring and the National Board giving Nick Schenk an award for the Best Original Screenplay but even with all engines revving, Gran Torino couldn't win the race. Simply meaning that Gran Tourino didn't perform as well as it could have.
Other things I would consider changing would be cutting out a portion of my overview of the story so that I could add a lot more analysis on the characters, actors, cinematography and soundtrack. Overall, for my first review, I don't think that it was awful but it definitely was not the best review I've ever read. Also throughout there are some small grammar errors which I will make sure to correct things like that in future reviews.
Other things I would consider changing would be cutting out a portion of my overview of the story so that I could add a lot more analysis on the characters, actors, cinematography and soundtrack. Overall, for my first review, I don't think that it was awful but it definitely was not the best review I've ever read. Also throughout there are some small grammar errors which I will make sure to correct things like that in future reviews.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/
When researching for this review I used the Internet Movie Database. I've always found this to be an extremely helpful source whenever I need information on movies. Not only does it list the full cast, and often times the crew, but it also is full of trivia, memorable quotes, soundtrack information as well as numerous reviews and updates on earnings.
Monday, January 12, 2009
With All Engines Revving, Gran Torino Still Fails to Impress
“Oh, I've got one. A Mexican, a Jew, and a colored guy go into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, ‘Get the fuck out of here.’” This makes Clint Eastwood the Best Actor of the Year ? I disagree, Gran Torino could have been a masterpiece, and instead Clint Eastwood carries the entire film while the rest of the cast lets it become another trite racial conflict movie. The buzz surrounding Gran Torino is well grounded with Clint Eastwood directing and starring and the National Board giving Nick Schenk an award for the Best Original Screenplay but even with all engines revving, Gran Torino couldn’t win the race.
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a retired Ford automaker and Korean War Veteran, is introduced at his wife’s funeral. After his loss Kowalski spends all his time drinking, smoking and being bitter about his Hmong neighbors instead of dealing with his wife’s death. Later, most of his time is spent dealing with his neighbors, Sue (Ahney Her), Thao (Bee Vang), their mother and grumpy grandmother (who seems to hate Walt just as much as he hates her). The Hmong community has been growing over the years and driving most Americans out of the suburb. As Walt sees his neighborhood ‘crumble’ and neighbors that let their homes fall into disrepair, he maintains his home, lawn and cars, specifically his 1972 Gran Torino in perfect shape. As Thao is increasingly harassed by his cousin to join the Hmong gang, he soon gives in to his initiation task: stealing the Gran Torino. After Kowalski catches Thao in the act, he inadvertently becomes a mentor for Thao and suppor for his family while also making himself a target for gang violence.
The subtleties of Kowalski’s change from a racially prejudiced veteran to a disinclined friend and hero are the highlight of the film. Instead of allowing Kowalski to become a complete cliché and trite character Eastwood maintains Kowalski’s prejudices throughout the film and he simply becomes more inclined to help Thao and Sue through their struggles of resisting gangs and the consequences of that path. His relationship with Thao and Sue grows stronger as Walt realizes how the bonds with his family have completely failed him. Saying that he has, “more in common with these stupid gooks than my own family.” Walt stays true to his time tested prejudices but also, as Sue points out, “becomes a good man.”
Sue’s character has potential but her timing throughout the entire movie is off and her lines feel forced and fake. Thao (Bee Vang) is slightly better and has some laugh out loud moments. Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), the priest that Walt’s wife visited in her last months, lacked any real dimension as a character and Carley did little to change that. Apart from the poor acting, Eastwood does a beautiful job of directing. Each scene is clean, simple and has a purpose. Eastwood does not force much and uses certain subtleties to carry the movie. Ultimately, Torino isn’t a film one will be disappointed with but it isn’t a life changing film nor is it a film that is worthy of many accolades. Clint Eastwood may be the only part of the film that truly earned his award.
Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a retired Ford automaker and Korean War Veteran, is introduced at his wife’s funeral. After his loss Kowalski spends all his time drinking, smoking and being bitter about his Hmong neighbors instead of dealing with his wife’s death. Later, most of his time is spent dealing with his neighbors, Sue (Ahney Her), Thao (Bee Vang), their mother and grumpy grandmother (who seems to hate Walt just as much as he hates her). The Hmong community has been growing over the years and driving most Americans out of the suburb. As Walt sees his neighborhood ‘crumble’ and neighbors that let their homes fall into disrepair, he maintains his home, lawn and cars, specifically his 1972 Gran Torino in perfect shape. As Thao is increasingly harassed by his cousin to join the Hmong gang, he soon gives in to his initiation task: stealing the Gran Torino. After Kowalski catches Thao in the act, he inadvertently becomes a mentor for Thao and suppor for his family while also making himself a target for gang violence.
The subtleties of Kowalski’s change from a racially prejudiced veteran to a disinclined friend and hero are the highlight of the film. Instead of allowing Kowalski to become a complete cliché and trite character Eastwood maintains Kowalski’s prejudices throughout the film and he simply becomes more inclined to help Thao and Sue through their struggles of resisting gangs and the consequences of that path. His relationship with Thao and Sue grows stronger as Walt realizes how the bonds with his family have completely failed him. Saying that he has, “more in common with these stupid gooks than my own family.” Walt stays true to his time tested prejudices but also, as Sue points out, “becomes a good man.”
Sue’s character has potential but her timing throughout the entire movie is off and her lines feel forced and fake. Thao (Bee Vang) is slightly better and has some laugh out loud moments. Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), the priest that Walt’s wife visited in her last months, lacked any real dimension as a character and Carley did little to change that. Apart from the poor acting, Eastwood does a beautiful job of directing. Each scene is clean, simple and has a purpose. Eastwood does not force much and uses certain subtleties to carry the movie. Ultimately, Torino isn’t a film one will be disappointed with but it isn’t a life changing film nor is it a film that is worthy of many accolades. Clint Eastwood may be the only part of the film that truly earned his award.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
