Bush-Era police state porn. Brangelina find out they are rival spies, become targets of each other's spy agencies, stick together, kill tons of people and get their jobs back.
Now as Gen X rom-com its fairly strong at addressing domestic tensions and blowing off steam with cute one-liners from its 2 relatable stars, but its also very troubling ideologically. Neither spy is identified as working for the government, but its obvious that they represent left and right wings of the CIA. The entire film is a "How To" on mixed-party marriage. So obviously its lens is a centrist neoliberal take thats not pro-Bush but not anti-Bush either. The film is pro-torture, pro-assassination, pro-unaccountable privatized government agencies and . I mean, its playing off the public's preconceptions anyway but it doesn't have to normalize and idolize the bloodthirsty, authoritarian security policies of America. This is freshly post-9/11, so there its forgivable.
Whats less forgivable is the toxic treatment of its protagonists. Jolie plays the uber female spy. She's impulsive, always right, seductive, impossibly strong and tough and abuses power constantly. Its weird how neolib Hollywood is so supportive of sociopathic traits in women as cute or warranted. Pitt of course is the meat headed, somewhat crass but endlessly redeeming and "perfect" Aryan macho Ken doll. He's only inferior to his woman when he chooses. I wonder if this was inspired by The Clintons.
I really disliked this era of Hollywood and its aged so quickly and revealed itself as heavy Deep State propaganda. Its not as harsh or browbeating as recent Hollywood, but its still faux-progressive, materialistic, amoral and empty outside of its glitz and escapism.
Showing posts with label 2005. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2005. Show all posts
Friday, January 12, 2018
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Billy Childish Is Dead 2005
I've looked forward to watching this doc so I can finally get a grasp of Billy Childish. I know that he's influenced a lot of early 2000s art school types (or the types that inspired them) and he created 2 art movements that almost no one has heard of, but are of interesting note: Stuckism & Remodernism.
Now the film presents Childish as an underground legend thats been fairly & unfairly ignored by the UK media for being a "pure artist" and too confrontational. Really the film is a character study of the typical 80s/90s punk rock veteran living on the fringe. Its a bit standard tragically. Drunken abusive father. Acting out violently (in this case involving sex with a dog). Burning bridges with or inspiring more famous artists. Failed capitalist celebrity dreams and then a transformation into an angry hermit who fights the power with somewhat deranged outsider art. Childish has a legion of fans because its a universal story and his is personalized to the British sensibility.
But this isn't as heroic or romantic or sexy as "Blank City". Childish's art is not very good. Thats the appeal. He fully embraces his unoriginality and expects us to sympathize and focus on the minor bits of originality within it. This defines his version of Remodernism which No Wave filmmaker Amos Poe also calls his aesthetic. Childish's interpretation is a return to the best examples of Modernity and a rejection of every progressive and postmodern movement. The appeal to conservativism, white nationalism, rightwing is obvious and touched on too briefly. He flirts with Hitler, fascism, the usual middle age UK working class hero crap (I'm happy that he's apparently critical of Donald Trump, but I don't think he even sees a connection). Its such a boring aesthetic to me and doesn't even constitute as art. Its simply copying & playing to ghosts of overrated artists who can't change things. Not punk at all.
Ironically the best segment of the film covers his ex-girlfriend Tracey Emin becoming a star of the art world by copying, reflecting & commercializing Childish's already stylized derivativeness. Childish mocks her and then we cut to Childish opening a gallery of (almost) Van Gogh reproductions. To him, reproducing other's work is the ultimate punk gesture, maybe the sacrifice of original craft is some message of generational confession or whatever. It strikes me as pretentious. He mocks artists like Nick Cave throughout the film for selling out by stealing the blues and compares Emin to a white singer exploiting black music (yet compliments Elvis). At the end of the day, it seems Childish resents his contemporaries not so much for their capitalism or commercialism but their success and similarity to his own work.
He's a great example of the confused morals of Gen X's hackiest entertainers. They have something to say but can't say it creatively. They aren't radical politically but want that label. Their only chance at seeming progressive and important is to denigrate the last century's innovations as wrong. Its just anti-social childishness & elitism masquerading as purity & punk.
This is why I call much of Hollywood and mainstream culture's faux-counterculture "Remodernist". Its trying to unmake PostModernism and return to old school values, classic formulas, etc. while incorporating just enough liberalism & multiculturalism to not be labelled what it really is: Nazism. Its a purge of unwanted, exotic, liberal ideas while also exploiting those ideas. Like a Jurassic Park remake with a hotter female lead and a macho meathead hero. Or a Star Wars film built around toy demographics. This stuff is anti-democratic propaganda built on the backs of democrats. Such a weird phenomenon to start a Millennium.
Billy Childish's story is not inspiring in the least. Its very sad and frustrating but the filmmakers know this and scrutinize him justly. But they (& we) pick up on the fact that this guy has a following and taps into some dark, fringe version of demented humanism. He's a strong-willed and somewhat clever guy who rips off very sophisticated work well. But he's not an artist. He's just a rip off artist who is still independent.
*What pissed me off worst about this film were the fans and friends of the subject praising his copied, synthesized, cliche aesthetic. He simply places himself in radical artists' style while never once, in this documentary's interviews, giving credit or showing praise to his influences. That is so typical. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this artist but the film presents him pretty poorly and I don't think they had any real agenda besides actually covering for him.
Now the film presents Childish as an underground legend thats been fairly & unfairly ignored by the UK media for being a "pure artist" and too confrontational. Really the film is a character study of the typical 80s/90s punk rock veteran living on the fringe. Its a bit standard tragically. Drunken abusive father. Acting out violently (in this case involving sex with a dog). Burning bridges with or inspiring more famous artists. Failed capitalist celebrity dreams and then a transformation into an angry hermit who fights the power with somewhat deranged outsider art. Childish has a legion of fans because its a universal story and his is personalized to the British sensibility.
But this isn't as heroic or romantic or sexy as "Blank City". Childish's art is not very good. Thats the appeal. He fully embraces his unoriginality and expects us to sympathize and focus on the minor bits of originality within it. This defines his version of Remodernism which No Wave filmmaker Amos Poe also calls his aesthetic. Childish's interpretation is a return to the best examples of Modernity and a rejection of every progressive and postmodern movement. The appeal to conservativism, white nationalism, rightwing is obvious and touched on too briefly. He flirts with Hitler, fascism, the usual middle age UK working class hero crap (I'm happy that he's apparently critical of Donald Trump, but I don't think he even sees a connection). Its such a boring aesthetic to me and doesn't even constitute as art. Its simply copying & playing to ghosts of overrated artists who can't change things. Not punk at all.
Ironically the best segment of the film covers his ex-girlfriend Tracey Emin becoming a star of the art world by copying, reflecting & commercializing Childish's already stylized derivativeness. Childish mocks her and then we cut to Childish opening a gallery of (almost) Van Gogh reproductions. To him, reproducing other's work is the ultimate punk gesture, maybe the sacrifice of original craft is some message of generational confession or whatever. It strikes me as pretentious. He mocks artists like Nick Cave throughout the film for selling out by stealing the blues and compares Emin to a white singer exploiting black music (yet compliments Elvis). At the end of the day, it seems Childish resents his contemporaries not so much for their capitalism or commercialism but their success and similarity to his own work.
He's a great example of the confused morals of Gen X's hackiest entertainers. They have something to say but can't say it creatively. They aren't radical politically but want that label. Their only chance at seeming progressive and important is to denigrate the last century's innovations as wrong. Its just anti-social childishness & elitism masquerading as purity & punk.
This is why I call much of Hollywood and mainstream culture's faux-counterculture "Remodernist". Its trying to unmake PostModernism and return to old school values, classic formulas, etc. while incorporating just enough liberalism & multiculturalism to not be labelled what it really is: Nazism. Its a purge of unwanted, exotic, liberal ideas while also exploiting those ideas. Like a Jurassic Park remake with a hotter female lead and a macho meathead hero. Or a Star Wars film built around toy demographics. This stuff is anti-democratic propaganda built on the backs of democrats. Such a weird phenomenon to start a Millennium.
Billy Childish's story is not inspiring in the least. Its very sad and frustrating but the filmmakers know this and scrutinize him justly. But they (& we) pick up on the fact that this guy has a following and taps into some dark, fringe version of demented humanism. He's a strong-willed and somewhat clever guy who rips off very sophisticated work well. But he's not an artist. He's just a rip off artist who is still independent.
*What pissed me off worst about this film were the fans and friends of the subject praising his copied, synthesized, cliche aesthetic. He simply places himself in radical artists' style while never once, in this documentary's interviews, giving credit or showing praise to his influences. That is so typical. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this artist but the film presents him pretty poorly and I don't think they had any real agenda besides actually covering for him.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 2005
Its Star Wars season again and I'm preparing for the temptation to see the newest film, The Last Jedi. I found the last film to be offensive, dumb, cheap and somewhat boring, but its surely an important and popular piece of 2010's Hollywood populism/propaganda. But its attracted or given voice to a kind of anti-intellectual casual movie fan who has to hate George Lucas' prequels as the only defense of the Disney continuations. It irks me to no end because I have a soft spot for those films and I genuinely think Episode 3 is George Lucas' finest hour, an actual masterpiece to prove his genius. And we know genius is understood too late... because most people aren't geniuses... or else they would enjoy the work of another genius.
Episode 3 works on a conceptual level as THE only companion piece to the original Star Wars genesis (Episode 4) actually directed by the guy who understands it enough to have created it. This prequel was actually conceived along with the original concept that would become what we all know as the Star Wars mythos. Granted Episodes 1 & 2 are inferior and less essential, but they were engineered that way; to be prequels to the prequel, not standalone hit films like Empire or Jedi. Lucas seems inspired with Episode 3 as becoming a testement that prequels can be superior to sequels. Whether you prefer Empire to Sith is moot because one is objectively more accepted without much kickback. This is about Lucas making a Star Wars spin-off he can embrace as HIS and not a work of studio committee.
Now Episodes 5&6 were the most commercial and successful until the Disney reboots, but they are vastly divergent from the style, tone and overarching themes of Lucas' first film. What Star Wars started as was a post-modern kids film based on bygone sci-fi serials, a bizarrely refreshing blend of childish American fantasy and academic British-inspired theater. It quickly evolved into a more cold, realism-based soap opera set in space and an outrageous campy merchandised FX reel. Those were two extreme sides of Lucas' creation, but not a pure mix of both. But to match them Episode 1 is a queasy yet ambitious experiment in style trying to reclaim the series from "Jedi" back into a violent, mature kid's film & Episode 2 is more of a teenage soap opera/popcorn adventure film like "Empire". And with "Sith", Lucas reboots his series back to the politically serious, technically dazzling, spiritually questing allegory for modern morality during wartime.
Lucas has always been recognized more for his technical invention and know-how than his commercial flair or legit artistic talents, because he has always shared credit with his crew more than Hitchcock. But why is the latter considered an auteur but the former is not? Its because Lucas is even bigger fan of radical experimentation and expects more intellectual understanding from his audience. He doesn't care if the film isn't understood or doesn't make a ton of new fans, having created the comic books, video games, cartoons, etc. to serve his immature fanbase. The films are for connoisseurs of classic cinema, not casual sci-fi fans. Surely audiences in the 2000s expected a showcase of sexual innuendo, slapstick jokes & good triumphing over evil. But Lucas refuses to retread, while still cleverly throwing the nostalgia critics a bone.
"Sith" allows Lucas to identify himself as a director fully and the previous films as warm up's. Here is a showcase of George Lucas the abstract visualist, the "pop art" lover, the political theater deconstructionist, the social progressive, the hippie nerd, the digital animator, the narrative editor with non-narrative editing influences, the Buddhist sympathizer, the Democratic Socialist, the critic of bad Y2K culture. All of that artistic impression, lamely dismissed as hollow stylistic masturbation, is really contextualizing Lucas' own worldview of his created universe. Fans still seem confused as to what Lucas was saying in the prequels because they refused to understand the clear language and sentiment in them.
But with this climax of his 2nd trilogy and really a puzzle piece that legitimizes FIVE previous films, Lucas goes for a new level of closure and cyclical completion. We finally see the maturation in legendary figures and clarity in what a young George Lucas initially wanted in Empire & Jedi. In many ways this film is a deconstruction of Star Wars for his haters as much as his fans. The film is packed with allegories to politics & spirituality that are timeless and have become relevant again. While Hollywood was asking very mild and sometimes flawed philosophical questions in Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter films, Star Wars was exploring new levels of mass-media communication. Something so mainstream and accepted as Star Wars is used to confront horrible social conflicts and looming global fears that have unfortunately become more pressing.
And Ep 3 succeeds in becoming a kind of coping device for the Post-9/11 American atmosphere. Lucas gives valuable backstory and motivation to The Jedi & The Sith, placeholders for any binary conflict you want by asking the essential question of all morality, "Am I my brother's keeper?" This has divided religions, political parties, artistic movements, families, races & communities and (I assume most urgently to Lucas) futurists. Lucas gives a very well-versed and elegantly boiled down perspective on human conflict by presenting "Light" and "Dark" as choices both valid emotionally and rationalized socially, much more nuance than is given in Star Wars films before or since. And he still offers a positive beam of hope to remind us that there's a meaning for all of the suffering. Thats GREAT drama.
Episode 3 works on a conceptual level as THE only companion piece to the original Star Wars genesis (Episode 4) actually directed by the guy who understands it enough to have created it. This prequel was actually conceived along with the original concept that would become what we all know as the Star Wars mythos. Granted Episodes 1 & 2 are inferior and less essential, but they were engineered that way; to be prequels to the prequel, not standalone hit films like Empire or Jedi. Lucas seems inspired with Episode 3 as becoming a testement that prequels can be superior to sequels. Whether you prefer Empire to Sith is moot because one is objectively more accepted without much kickback. This is about Lucas making a Star Wars spin-off he can embrace as HIS and not a work of studio committee.
Now Episodes 5&6 were the most commercial and successful until the Disney reboots, but they are vastly divergent from the style, tone and overarching themes of Lucas' first film. What Star Wars started as was a post-modern kids film based on bygone sci-fi serials, a bizarrely refreshing blend of childish American fantasy and academic British-inspired theater. It quickly evolved into a more cold, realism-based soap opera set in space and an outrageous campy merchandised FX reel. Those were two extreme sides of Lucas' creation, but not a pure mix of both. But to match them Episode 1 is a queasy yet ambitious experiment in style trying to reclaim the series from "Jedi" back into a violent, mature kid's film & Episode 2 is more of a teenage soap opera/popcorn adventure film like "Empire". And with "Sith", Lucas reboots his series back to the politically serious, technically dazzling, spiritually questing allegory for modern morality during wartime.
Lucas has always been recognized more for his technical invention and know-how than his commercial flair or legit artistic talents, because he has always shared credit with his crew more than Hitchcock. But why is the latter considered an auteur but the former is not? Its because Lucas is even bigger fan of radical experimentation and expects more intellectual understanding from his audience. He doesn't care if the film isn't understood or doesn't make a ton of new fans, having created the comic books, video games, cartoons, etc. to serve his immature fanbase. The films are for connoisseurs of classic cinema, not casual sci-fi fans. Surely audiences in the 2000s expected a showcase of sexual innuendo, slapstick jokes & good triumphing over evil. But Lucas refuses to retread, while still cleverly throwing the nostalgia critics a bone.
"Sith" allows Lucas to identify himself as a director fully and the previous films as warm up's. Here is a showcase of George Lucas the abstract visualist, the "pop art" lover, the political theater deconstructionist, the social progressive, the hippie nerd, the digital animator, the narrative editor with non-narrative editing influences, the Buddhist sympathizer, the Democratic Socialist, the critic of bad Y2K culture. All of that artistic impression, lamely dismissed as hollow stylistic masturbation, is really contextualizing Lucas' own worldview of his created universe. Fans still seem confused as to what Lucas was saying in the prequels because they refused to understand the clear language and sentiment in them.
But with this climax of his 2nd trilogy and really a puzzle piece that legitimizes FIVE previous films, Lucas goes for a new level of closure and cyclical completion. We finally see the maturation in legendary figures and clarity in what a young George Lucas initially wanted in Empire & Jedi. In many ways this film is a deconstruction of Star Wars for his haters as much as his fans. The film is packed with allegories to politics & spirituality that are timeless and have become relevant again. While Hollywood was asking very mild and sometimes flawed philosophical questions in Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter films, Star Wars was exploring new levels of mass-media communication. Something so mainstream and accepted as Star Wars is used to confront horrible social conflicts and looming global fears that have unfortunately become more pressing.
And Ep 3 succeeds in becoming a kind of coping device for the Post-9/11 American atmosphere. Lucas gives valuable backstory and motivation to The Jedi & The Sith, placeholders for any binary conflict you want by asking the essential question of all morality, "Am I my brother's keeper?" This has divided religions, political parties, artistic movements, families, races & communities and (I assume most urgently to Lucas) futurists. Lucas gives a very well-versed and elegantly boiled down perspective on human conflict by presenting "Light" and "Dark" as choices both valid emotionally and rationalized socially, much more nuance than is given in Star Wars films before or since. And he still offers a positive beam of hope to remind us that there's a meaning for all of the suffering. Thats GREAT drama.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
War of the Worlds 2005
Summer's soon so I'm in the mood for big spectacle. Who better than Spielberg? (like my alliteration?)
I missed WOTW when it was released but now I'm quite warm on the idea of big blockbuster CGI fest filmmaking. This is very much a minor Spielberg movie, but I was impressed by its modernity and the huge influence its had on Hollywood stylistically. But some would say that influence isn't positive and that this is Spielberg on the decline.
WOTW is totally a directorial "job". Its schlocky and the script isn't worked out at all. It feels like a one-note short story that was stretched out to focus solely on special fx. Its Spielberg showing off and collecting a check, which isn't so bad because it more than works as light entertainment and the man has given us enough classics that he's allowed to fuck around.
While technically it is dazzling - full of sweeping camera movements that keep the pace up, and the large scale sets and wonderfully composed action shots that made Steven Spielberg a legend - it shows the weakness of Spielberg: his lack of emotional range. WOTW focuses on the recurring Spielberg themes: imperfect fathers, childhood trauma, the horrors of genocide and systematic murder.
I theorize the undercurrent of Steven's artistry is the fear, insecurity, disgust and anger that was ingrained in him as a Jewish youth learning about the realities of World War II. Whether he is directing stories about slaves or alien invasions or android children, he relates it to this childlike view of a beautiful world suddenly turned monstrous. His films are full of sadistic, faceless, unstoppable evil antagonists and Earthy, innocent, human hordes as the fodder protagonists. So War of the Worlds is one of the most pronounced of his films in this regard.
Worlds links back to his earliest "spectacle" work in Jaws and 1941 especially, two films about worldly disaster hitting a small populated community. Oddly, this is more 1941 than Jaws and thats unfortunate. 1941 was a screwball extravaganza of wild camera gags, fx, cartoonish acting and an extremely loose plot. WOTW would've benefited from Jaws' pathos, characterization, political commentary and more adventurous narrative. Characters are evaporated and turned into mists of blood and the other characters hardly react or intellectualize it. Where's the feeling? I'm also disappointed that Spielberg's films have grown colder visually, further deadening the emotion. The terror and heroism in this film would've been stronger if it looked as vibrantly alive as Jurassic Park.
So on the surface War of the Worlds is a very personal, stylish piece of fluff but it may be too by-the-numbers and familiar for many, especially older fans of Spielberg. But its Spielberg so its not going to be a bad movie. It keeps you glued with pacing and visual treats but it might not stick you when its over. A mixed bag.
I missed WOTW when it was released but now I'm quite warm on the idea of big blockbuster CGI fest filmmaking. This is very much a minor Spielberg movie, but I was impressed by its modernity and the huge influence its had on Hollywood stylistically. But some would say that influence isn't positive and that this is Spielberg on the decline.
WOTW is totally a directorial "job". Its schlocky and the script isn't worked out at all. It feels like a one-note short story that was stretched out to focus solely on special fx. Its Spielberg showing off and collecting a check, which isn't so bad because it more than works as light entertainment and the man has given us enough classics that he's allowed to fuck around.
While technically it is dazzling - full of sweeping camera movements that keep the pace up, and the large scale sets and wonderfully composed action shots that made Steven Spielberg a legend - it shows the weakness of Spielberg: his lack of emotional range. WOTW focuses on the recurring Spielberg themes: imperfect fathers, childhood trauma, the horrors of genocide and systematic murder.
I theorize the undercurrent of Steven's artistry is the fear, insecurity, disgust and anger that was ingrained in him as a Jewish youth learning about the realities of World War II. Whether he is directing stories about slaves or alien invasions or android children, he relates it to this childlike view of a beautiful world suddenly turned monstrous. His films are full of sadistic, faceless, unstoppable evil antagonists and Earthy, innocent, human hordes as the fodder protagonists. So War of the Worlds is one of the most pronounced of his films in this regard.
Worlds links back to his earliest "spectacle" work in Jaws and 1941 especially, two films about worldly disaster hitting a small populated community. Oddly, this is more 1941 than Jaws and thats unfortunate. 1941 was a screwball extravaganza of wild camera gags, fx, cartoonish acting and an extremely loose plot. WOTW would've benefited from Jaws' pathos, characterization, political commentary and more adventurous narrative. Characters are evaporated and turned into mists of blood and the other characters hardly react or intellectualize it. Where's the feeling? I'm also disappointed that Spielberg's films have grown colder visually, further deadening the emotion. The terror and heroism in this film would've been stronger if it looked as vibrantly alive as Jurassic Park.
So on the surface War of the Worlds is a very personal, stylish piece of fluff but it may be too by-the-numbers and familiar for many, especially older fans of Spielberg. But its Spielberg so its not going to be a bad movie. It keeps you glued with pacing and visual treats but it might not stick you when its over. A mixed bag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)