I have really been bad about this whole writing thing and I'm just not sure how to buckle myself down and get to it. I so enjoy it once I do it and am constantly reminding myself to get something out there for whomever it is to read. But time and time again I find that I get side tracked with something else, usually something self serving like reading, eating or watching a movie.
Recently I did see a movie I rather enjoyed. Frost/Nixon, who sadly won nothing at the Oscars (it was nominated in something like five categories) was I thought a stellar achievement of historical re-telling. Not being around for the Watergate scandal myself or any of the subsequent after math it was interesting to watch not only how the people of America felt about the situation, including Nixon's resignation, but how Nixon and those aides close to him felt when it all went down.
Frank Langella who played Nixon did a phenomenal job portraying Nixon’s idiosyncrasies, his tonality, and his intonations. He made Nixon seem jointly paranoid, money hungry and truly disturbed by the way things had turned out. It was as though Nixon believed that what had transpired was done in the best interest of the country and it's citizens.
Michael Sheen who played Frost also did a wonderful job, though I'm not sure how demanding the role really was for him. Don't get me wrong, playing someone who truly existed during events that actually happened is probably harder to do than playing a fictional character because you always have people telling you what really happened or how it was really said instead of letting the actor have their own creative flow. However, Sheen has chosen roles similar to this in the past when he played Tony Blair in the Queen. Granted he was playing a more serious character but both movies were about British role models (in a sense) and both of them had something to prove. Again, I was captivated by his performance as well.
The movie documented not only the interview that took place between the two men over four days in a house somewhere in LA but also what led up to it; Nixon's resignation, Frost's idea to get Nixon to do an interview where he discuses his presidency, his actions in office, and of course Watergate, and the way the team that brought Nixon to this unofficial public trial-- as it were-- came together and formed what was to become a historical event. What was asked and said in the interview, I have heard, is factual and some of the lines, including one of them that was in the trailer for the movie, gave me chills to think that not only did Nixon say them, but he believed them. Lines such as:
Frost: Are you really saying the President can do something illegal?
Nixon: I'm saying when the President does it, it's not illegal.
Now of course there were things that Nixon said after that one line, that I won't give away, which didn't necessarily exonerate him but it did make him seem a little bit more human. That was something that I found so compelling about the film was how human Nixon seemed. Before he was just a man, a former president who for the first time in history had resigned for a lie. He wasn't, I am sure, the first President to have lied, but he got caught and the only way to "save face" was to resign. That was all I knew of this man, his tarnished reputation. Ron Howard showed that Nixon was a man who wanted to do right by his people and his country but his ideologies weren't always the most clean and his execution wasn't always the right path. Nixon was socially awkward and yet somehow became President. Interesting how it all turned out.
I guess I should still think about forming my own Academy, vocalizing how I truly feel about movies and hope people will follow because although Frost/Nixon was nominated it got nada, and I found it to be one of the most enjoyable films out there. I guess I'll have to start writing more and more just so I can show that movies aren't always what they say they are...but then again sometimes they are.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
It's been a long time
I recently watched Rachel Getting Married and the Wrestler. I feel an obligation to watch movies that have prominent Oscar nominations, these being two of them with critical acclaim. With all the hype surrounding both of these movies I tucked myself in for what I expected to be a moving and breathtaking experience. Neither of these movies, I felt, delivered.
Now when I say moving or breathtaking I don't just mean that the movie is beautiful to look at or the dialogue is so intense that I well up immediately but I do expect to feel something and crave more from the movie as each minute passes.
Rachel Getting Married was a realistic portrayal of a woman who has been in and out of rehab for much of her life and her sister is getting married. The interaction between each of the family members as they struggle to reconcile a tragic past of one daughter with a bright and happy future of another was well done in its fidelity to such a stuation. I, however, felt uncomfortable for much of the film and was anticipating the end of the movie like a person after a long day of work anticipates a strong drink. The destroyed sister, as it were, was self indulgent and pretty selfish as much of her family accused her of being. Her monologues were filled with self loathing and stories of her troubled past. It made me want leave the room immediately and I wondered why anyone would pay to feel this way when they can feel it for free in life.
The Wrestler on the other hand was a look into a small niche of society. A man, who used to be a legend in a circuit like the WWE and has found he has reached a time in his life where he isn't relevant to anyone, including his own (surprise surprise) estranged daughter. The film was poignant in its character portrayal of a man whose life has figuratively come to an end but yet he continues to eat, drink and breathe. While the film did a good job with its long takes and minimal dialogue, of showing a man who's down on his luck and life I didn't feel I gained anything by watching the movie. Now some would say (*cough cough- a friend of mine who I work with) that I always feel I have to gain something out of a movie, whether it be a profound experience, to escape, or to learn something new. And I say, well why the hell shouldn't I expect that? I pay almost 12$ to see a movie in the theater. I expect to get my money's worth. While the Wrestler certainly took me to a world I have never experienced or seen (either on TV or from the inside) at the end of it I didn't feel like I learned anything more than I had at the beginning of the movie; either about wrestling or the main character. And while I certainly felt for the guy I didn't see any evolution in the character, either upwards or downwards and I wondered, what the hell is the point then of those two hours?
Some would say I'm crazy for not appreciating either of these movies but my boyfriend--who will subsequently be known as Joosh Man (or JM when I'm lazy) brought up an interesting point: Why is it that the Academy feels that all these indie, pseudo-realistic films are the ones that are worth merit? It seems to be the case year after year that these small films with their shaky camera work and their character investigations get all the clout and movies that take you somewhere you never imagined, like Wall-E get shoved into the assumed Animation category and never thought of again. Maybe someday I'll create a new Academy that will have clout with the public and re-invite this whole idea of "good movies". Until then, I'll have to be satisfied with the movies that thrill me like my new peach "Bye Bye Birdie" (classic!).
Now when I say moving or breathtaking I don't just mean that the movie is beautiful to look at or the dialogue is so intense that I well up immediately but I do expect to feel something and crave more from the movie as each minute passes.
Rachel Getting Married was a realistic portrayal of a woman who has been in and out of rehab for much of her life and her sister is getting married. The interaction between each of the family members as they struggle to reconcile a tragic past of one daughter with a bright and happy future of another was well done in its fidelity to such a stuation. I, however, felt uncomfortable for much of the film and was anticipating the end of the movie like a person after a long day of work anticipates a strong drink. The destroyed sister, as it were, was self indulgent and pretty selfish as much of her family accused her of being. Her monologues were filled with self loathing and stories of her troubled past. It made me want leave the room immediately and I wondered why anyone would pay to feel this way when they can feel it for free in life.
The Wrestler on the other hand was a look into a small niche of society. A man, who used to be a legend in a circuit like the WWE and has found he has reached a time in his life where he isn't relevant to anyone, including his own (surprise surprise) estranged daughter. The film was poignant in its character portrayal of a man whose life has figuratively come to an end but yet he continues to eat, drink and breathe. While the film did a good job with its long takes and minimal dialogue, of showing a man who's down on his luck and life I didn't feel I gained anything by watching the movie. Now some would say (*cough cough- a friend of mine who I work with) that I always feel I have to gain something out of a movie, whether it be a profound experience, to escape, or to learn something new. And I say, well why the hell shouldn't I expect that? I pay almost 12$ to see a movie in the theater. I expect to get my money's worth. While the Wrestler certainly took me to a world I have never experienced or seen (either on TV or from the inside) at the end of it I didn't feel like I learned anything more than I had at the beginning of the movie; either about wrestling or the main character. And while I certainly felt for the guy I didn't see any evolution in the character, either upwards or downwards and I wondered, what the hell is the point then of those two hours?
Some would say I'm crazy for not appreciating either of these movies but my boyfriend--who will subsequently be known as Joosh Man (or JM when I'm lazy) brought up an interesting point: Why is it that the Academy feels that all these indie, pseudo-realistic films are the ones that are worth merit? It seems to be the case year after year that these small films with their shaky camera work and their character investigations get all the clout and movies that take you somewhere you never imagined, like Wall-E get shoved into the assumed Animation category and never thought of again. Maybe someday I'll create a new Academy that will have clout with the public and re-invite this whole idea of "good movies". Until then, I'll have to be satisfied with the movies that thrill me like my new peach "Bye Bye Birdie" (classic!).
Monday, January 26, 2009
What's monotony worth?
I have been pretty bad at keeping up with this blogging thing I know but I'm working on it. In an effort to keep working I have decided I need to create a schedule for my blogging, a routine that I can stick to thereby remembering to blog and having new and exciting topics on a consistent basis. In making this schedule and trying to adhere to the routine it got me thinking about responsibility. The responsibility of blogging, sure, but what other responsibilities require a routine? And with routine does monotony inevitably follow because of the constant similarity; the repetition of said routine? Routine is usually something we put in place to make sure we do something on time and correctly, aka Responsibility. Does monotony equal responsibility?
I got into a discussion about this with my father, a wise man, and he thought otherwise. Dear old Dad believed that routine was a comfort, something that fills our days and that allows us to have a constant rhythm to our life, a beat to follow. I agree with that, I actually like routine. It helps the days move along when you have something that you must do everyday. It creates a sense of achievement when that task is done or maybe something to look forward to constantly when that task is something as enjoyable as writing (if of course you like to write, though why would you if you didn't?).
However, certain routines are the signatures of being an adult such as paying bills and rent every month, taking your car in to be cleaned, oil changed, tires rotated, and if you're truly ambitious, walking a dog, feeding it, cleaning it, etc. These routines are not necessarily enjoyable though neither are they truly abhorrent but they certainly signify adulthood. If you are able to pay bills and rent on your own it can be assumed you have a job, another flag that you must be what society deems a "responsible adult". The same can be said for a car. Having a dog is usually something people do when they have what they like to call stability in their life, where they feel they can cater to a dog's need. Said stability comes from the routine of adulthood where money, time and the desire to have something else rely on you are in place.
Another argument could be made that all this consistency also comes from having a constant flow of cash which unfortunately cannot just be plucked off trees. The cash needs to come from a working job whereby repetitiveness tends to reign. Maybe not all the time but jobs usually have a daily steadiness where we do the same things everyday.
Yet another argument is that this whole idea of being what society calls an adult isn’t necessarily being an adult. Maturity is a large portion of what people like using as a qualifier for determining an adult. I have know people who were wise beyond their years and younger than I. By the same token I have known people who were 15 years my senior and had the maturity level of a teenager. I hate to say it but it’s usually men who have the hardest time growing into the maturity level of their years which is why I feel you usually see older men with younger women, they have a maturity match.
So what makes adulthood interesting? How do you break up the routine without feeling the shakiness? Do you need that routine and stability to be in place to be called an adult? One day I hope to test the boundaries of my routine and mix things up, maybe get a job that requires me to never be in one place for more than a few days. But until I feel that sudden urge to be a risk taker, I'll stick to the ebb and flow or lack thereof of good ol' regularity.
I got into a discussion about this with my father, a wise man, and he thought otherwise. Dear old Dad believed that routine was a comfort, something that fills our days and that allows us to have a constant rhythm to our life, a beat to follow. I agree with that, I actually like routine. It helps the days move along when you have something that you must do everyday. It creates a sense of achievement when that task is done or maybe something to look forward to constantly when that task is something as enjoyable as writing (if of course you like to write, though why would you if you didn't?).
However, certain routines are the signatures of being an adult such as paying bills and rent every month, taking your car in to be cleaned, oil changed, tires rotated, and if you're truly ambitious, walking a dog, feeding it, cleaning it, etc. These routines are not necessarily enjoyable though neither are they truly abhorrent but they certainly signify adulthood. If you are able to pay bills and rent on your own it can be assumed you have a job, another flag that you must be what society deems a "responsible adult". The same can be said for a car. Having a dog is usually something people do when they have what they like to call stability in their life, where they feel they can cater to a dog's need. Said stability comes from the routine of adulthood where money, time and the desire to have something else rely on you are in place.
Another argument could be made that all this consistency also comes from having a constant flow of cash which unfortunately cannot just be plucked off trees. The cash needs to come from a working job whereby repetitiveness tends to reign. Maybe not all the time but jobs usually have a daily steadiness where we do the same things everyday.
Yet another argument is that this whole idea of being what society calls an adult isn’t necessarily being an adult. Maturity is a large portion of what people like using as a qualifier for determining an adult. I have know people who were wise beyond their years and younger than I. By the same token I have known people who were 15 years my senior and had the maturity level of a teenager. I hate to say it but it’s usually men who have the hardest time growing into the maturity level of their years which is why I feel you usually see older men with younger women, they have a maturity match.
So what makes adulthood interesting? How do you break up the routine without feeling the shakiness? Do you need that routine and stability to be in place to be called an adult? One day I hope to test the boundaries of my routine and mix things up, maybe get a job that requires me to never be in one place for more than a few days. But until I feel that sudden urge to be a risk taker, I'll stick to the ebb and flow or lack thereof of good ol' regularity.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Is a Picture really worth a thousand words?
I'm not the best at this idea of writing frequently on a blog I guess. I had hoped I would be more of a--responsible is not the right word-- consistent writer than I am. But writing is writing nonetheless and here I am again putting in my two sense. My lack of writing could be due to several reasons, some of it being sheer lack of worthwhile topics, some of it being busy with a full time job, a full time life and a photojournalism class I have recently started. In our first class many people, including our instructor brought up some interesting questions and thoughts about pictures and taking pictures, one of which is: Do people really like their picture being taken?
People might argue that portraits are a way of looking into the subjects soul, their eyes being the gateway to everything they are and will be. But portraits are often posed images where the subjects are placed just so in situations that are generally contrived or preconceived. A lot of the time people in said portraits can look uncomfortable because their smile may be plastered on, not having reached the eyes through genuine mirth. Other times a portrait says nothing about those within it, merely, here we are, do we look normal?
In taking this class I had to think about what I liked taking pictures of and why. I mentioned my love of capturing people who are unaware of a camera being there at all. When they are laughing or being silly you can truly see who someone is, especially in a photo where the eyes can be looked at more closely and without the individual’s knowledge of a camera sometimes it seems as though the soul really does shine through. Maybe the reason that portraits can sometimes look so unnatural is because there is a camera present in the first place.
I have noticed that people suddenly stiffen up or plaster on some sort of look that they have cultivated over the years believing that it truly represents who they are. But how can something be a representation of you when you put it on pre-meditatively and hold it for the duration of time it takes for everyone to get in the picture and get their poses on or for the flash to go off? The flash is a whole other story that can also dilute the sincerity of an image, though technology is advancing now where kids don't look like demons from red eyes or dogs look like aliens because of their eye pigmentation being augmented by the flash.
The problem lies then in capturing those beautiful moments between people or a person with themselves without making them aware of the camera and without making it something that you plan in advance. I guess that is the test of a true photographer. I am going to experiment with a different notion. Take enough pictures with people around, even though they may be aware of it, they will become accustomed to its presence and forget the ideas they may have about photographs or even forget they are being photographed at all. We'll see how it goes. Until next time...
People might argue that portraits are a way of looking into the subjects soul, their eyes being the gateway to everything they are and will be. But portraits are often posed images where the subjects are placed just so in situations that are generally contrived or preconceived. A lot of the time people in said portraits can look uncomfortable because their smile may be plastered on, not having reached the eyes through genuine mirth. Other times a portrait says nothing about those within it, merely, here we are, do we look normal?
In taking this class I had to think about what I liked taking pictures of and why. I mentioned my love of capturing people who are unaware of a camera being there at all. When they are laughing or being silly you can truly see who someone is, especially in a photo where the eyes can be looked at more closely and without the individual’s knowledge of a camera sometimes it seems as though the soul really does shine through. Maybe the reason that portraits can sometimes look so unnatural is because there is a camera present in the first place.
I have noticed that people suddenly stiffen up or plaster on some sort of look that they have cultivated over the years believing that it truly represents who they are. But how can something be a representation of you when you put it on pre-meditatively and hold it for the duration of time it takes for everyone to get in the picture and get their poses on or for the flash to go off? The flash is a whole other story that can also dilute the sincerity of an image, though technology is advancing now where kids don't look like demons from red eyes or dogs look like aliens because of their eye pigmentation being augmented by the flash.
The problem lies then in capturing those beautiful moments between people or a person with themselves without making them aware of the camera and without making it something that you plan in advance. I guess that is the test of a true photographer. I am going to experiment with a different notion. Take enough pictures with people around, even though they may be aware of it, they will become accustomed to its presence and forget the ideas they may have about photographs or even forget they are being photographed at all. We'll see how it goes. Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
