It's been over a month, and my memory is starting to fade fast. Yet I feel an urge to revisit these student films that even their creators have probably forgotten about. But I made a vow that I was going to finish this, so here goes:
Tuesday, 5/13/08. Geoff Pingree's Cinema Practicum and Senior Tutorials:
(1) George Saines - Catatome
A documentary about the history of the Carnegie library and beginnings of the Mudd library. I missed the first part of this. It was an interesting subject, especially for Oberlin people looking to hear some about the history of the (now) seemingly useless and unused Carnegie building.
(2) Julia Reisen - Mapping
"Mapping" of the female body. I don't get this obsession with female nudity. It seems to come out of a lack of more substantive ideas. Either that or the whole sex-positive atmosphere has convinced people that matters related to sex and nudity are so much controversial and more interesting than anything else.
(3) Jake Coburn and Ma'ayan Plaut - Waking The Innocent
A full-fledged narrative film about a guy who gets in a car accident driving drunk but doesn't remember the details. I guess he figures out that his "friend" was really responsible but his friend ends up getting away with it anyway. The sound was mixed kind of poorly in places (a continuing problem with these student films), and the acting was also a little weak, but I thought the story was original enough. Unlike some of the other narrative films, this one was a bit less escapist and more true to the social atmosphere of college, which I liked. I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to communicate by the fact that his friend gets away, but I took from it the idea that people often don't get caught for doing shitty things. Sort of, anyway. There's a little bit more to it there that I can't communicate right now. And the film only seemed to approach that idea, so it's hard to tell exactly what was intended.
(4) Jared Correia - Faceless
A documentary about drug dealers in Oberlin. Aside from dealers saying how easy it was to make money off dealing and then saying they quit because they couldn't maintain that lifestyle, I don't really feel like this one said anything to me that I didn't already know. It didn't really get into what would possess someone to become a dealer, or why it seems pretty easy for someone who wants to commit the time to that, or why college students have such a preoccupation with drugs. In short, a pretty simple, mindless piece of work.
(5) Charlotte Tachet - Strange(r)
A French exchange student remembers her time at Oberlin. Should be renamed to Isn't Oberlin Crazy??? No Really, Isn't It???
Ok, so maybe I'm being a little harsh. I was annoyed that this didn't make any observations about Oberlin outside the very obvious ones, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to expect. It seemed more like a film of athletic highlights high school sports teams watch at the end of every season instead of a film about something. I guess that's ok if that's what she was intending.
(6) Annabelle Laurent - Limay
A documentary about the women of a small village in Central America. I honestly remember virtually nothing about this one, which means it must have been competent enough. I got the vibe that it was about women fending for themselves when their husbands are long gone, looking for work.
(7) Namrata Kolachalam - Encryption
Really well shot sci-fi piece that ruined itself by taking what must have been about 6 minutes of actual footage and stretching it out endlessly by repeatedly editing the same bits of dialogue together. I know it was a measured effect, but the repetition doesn't reveal anything more about the events that are happening onscreen. Instead, it slows everything down to a crawl and makes what would have been a well-executed piece really annoying. I hate when people over-edit stuff like this.
(8) Ian Page - How To Build An Antenna
An experimental film that begins with instructions on how to build an antenna but descends into a weirdo blitzkrieg of images and sounds from television. I liked this one, though after seeing it a second time when it was screened without building an antenna bit, I realized how unnecessary that first part seemed. At the very least, I think he should have done the building the antenna part straight-up, without any collage, and then gradually descended into the second part.
(9) Jason Outenreath - Sinema Provocateur
Mindblowingly idiotic in the best way possible. This has about the most misogynistic plot a person could ever come up with (an evil organization of women called the castrati want to rule the world through their castrated politician puppets), but the idiocy was so obvious and up-front that it made it an incredibly fun to watch. Just about every bad hollywood action/sci-fi movie cliche is on display here, and it's done impeccably. Definitely the highlight of the night.
(10) Zenith Richards - Four Feet of Segregation
This wasn't screened due to technical difficulties. Had there been a little bit more effort to test for these problems before the screening, I think more people would have stuck around.
(11) Maggie Casey - Set Free
A "documentary" about a mental health patient that might have seemed interesting and relevant, had it not been only 4 minutes long.
(12) Peter Nowogrodzki, Nick Pumilia - Birds of Prey
A documentary about birds of prey making the Cleveland area their home. Interesting in a sort of discovery channel, I-was-just-flipping-through-the-tv-and-found-this way.
(13) David Sherwin - Up From the Muck
Yet another documentary, this one about kids Sherwin taught in Cambodia. This one was remarkable for the amount of glitches and technical errors contained in the tape, which rendered almost unwatchable. I don't know if the problem was in the tape itself or the screening, but I certainly hope David was aware of those problems and had an intent of fixing them.
(14) Sara Krugman - Lost Dogs and Mixed Blessings
A pretty good college of different images that took about 5 years to actually play, making me wish heavily that someone actually bothered to work out all the technical details before they ask people to sit and watch films for 4 hours. Maybe that's why basically no one stayed for the whole time.
(15) Valerie Alt - Not Yet Home
In an exciting turn of events, this one is a documentary, this time about illegal immigrants working in Oberlin. I was annoyed that it presented people objecting to illegals as racist and one-sided, and felt that it could have done a lot more to push the issue and go further into why the issue of illegal immigration mines so heavy on the American psyche.
(16) Lena Dunham - Bumppo & Me
I can't even begin to describe the things that have bugged me about this film. I have to admit this one is probably the only reason I even bothered to come back and write about a month old screening. Lena Dunham, in both of her films, has done a better job than any other student filmmaker of evoking a reaction inside me, even if it is extreme annoyance and disgust. That's an awful lot to accomplish for someone I don't know at all.
The lovely Lena Dunham goes with her friends to visit an eccentric old man who she's been communicating with online for several years. We learn plenty about all the weird, crazy, bordering on terrifying things that Natty Bumppo has done, but never about the man's philosophies or why he's worthy being profiled on film. He's also an author, but you wouldn't know it if Dunham wouldn't have mentioned it, because he doesn't seem to talk about it all. She likes him because of his rugged individualism and ability to live and define himself outside any culture. In some ways, this is an encapsulation of the Obie spirit. But like Emerson and Thoreau supporting John Brown, or Pete Seger supporting Stalin after a visit to the Soviet Union, I think she misfires and finds a crazy person instead.
When asked about how he would define his life, Bumppo doesn't seem to know, or at least be able to answer in any coherent way. But that seems to be enough for Dunham (though not some of her friends...I can tell he scares the shit out of her boyfriend), who is infatuated with his mail order bride, obsession with firearms, and history of impulsive and violatile behavior. He's certainly an interesting subject, but her relationship to him seems heavily on the surface in a way that fails to reveal anything that truthful.
(17) Maya Curry - The Rice Cake Incident
One big inside joke among the members of Curry's house that will probably seem kind of dumb in a year or so, really, but it was at least pretty fun to watch.
(18) Alison Luby and Oren Shalev - By the Books
A detective story that takes heavily from Chinatown and The Long Goodbye (to the point of almost plagiarism). I could see the influence, but not anything else. Which leads me to...
(19) Jared Correia - So It Goes
...this 30+ minute disaster. The plot is taken from Persona - one person decides to stop talking, the other one has to deal with that. Of course, anything that made Persona an insightful and disturbing look into the human condition is gutted thoroughly, and we're left with an ugly looking sequence of digital video that goes absolutely nowhere. I might even call this pretentious, but I want to save that word for more deserving works of art. I could say that this is a case of style over substance, but there isn't even a style here. It's just a bunch of monotonous, badly filmed (the shots are flat and tedious, there's obvious dirt spots on the lense in places, the sound is mixed badly) shots of a wife walking outside, then coming home from working and getting undressed as her husband continues to not talk. At one point, in an out of place part lifted from a Bergman film seemingly without any regard to its relevance in this film, she attempts to pray to God which is something no Oberlin student would do (they'd much more likely take their misery out on others passive-agressively). And then she kills herself.
None of the important and deeply affecting issues of life and death in Bergman's work can be found here. No attempt seems to be made to put them there. This coupled with all the technical issues and the excessive length all equal just a big waste of time. I sincerely hope that when people think of Bergman's films, they don't think of something like this, which is far from even being competent enough to qualify as a parody.
I hate to badly trash the work of someone I don't know, but if you make a film that heavily references a famous Bergman film, yet seems to contain none of what made that film insightful or interesting, it makes me question if you even understand what you're referencing in the first place.
(20) Rachel Greenberg - Capoeira Angola at Oberlin (WIP)
A documentary about Capoeira Angola that ended up actually being a lot more interesting than was probably intended through it putting Greenberg and her complaining about the difficulties of relating to people here and how people misunderstand Capoeira in the forefront. It seemed like it was still striving to be more conventional and boring like some of the other documentaries, though. I certainly hope the roughness was intentional, but who knows.
(21) Ally Paz - Always a Good Show (WIP)
The bit shown lasted about 30 seconds, which I didn't really get the point of seeing, especially at the end of a 4+ hour screening.
That's it!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Oberlin year-end cinema screenings
Another year finished at The Grand College of Oberlin. A lot has changed. I love music, but any hope for pursuing it in the conservatory is pretty much dead given the typical bureaucratic bullshit anyone can come to expect from any Institution of Higher Learning. Ignoring that, though, the conservatory traditionally imposes the kind of structures and approaches to music that I have always opposed. Oberlin is a bit better than the norm, but it's still relatively pointless for me to struggle with a system I don't agree with when I have the choice not to do it.
But this year I finally figured out that there's something creative that I give a shit about that I can study fairly uninhibited. It's the magic of cinema studies. I was originally looking at transferring to an actual film school, but then realized it was pretty unnecessary. I'm going to want work on what I want to work on regardless of where I am. Maybe graduate school in film would be an possibility, and honestly any thing where I can talk with people who are genuinely interested in movies and invested in this kind of stuff is fine with me. Where I'm at now is fine, though, at least for another year.
Of course Oberlin's cinema department is pretty young and not really all there yet. For one, I really have not sensed much of a community among people involved in cinema. There are plenty of cinema majors, but it's not exactly a huge department, so personal contact shouldn't be all that difficult. But it remains much more of a "I have my friends, I do my thing, leave me alone". It's a toxic and discouraging view, really. I don't really know how it's counteracted either. Maybe it's an Oberlin viewpoint, maybe it's the kind of people who have come in and been involved in art in the past 5-10 years, who knows. All I know is that a lot of people I know from WOBC/etc. who are art/cinema people (there are some notable exceptions) are some of the least friendly, least nice human beings I have ever met. They seem to still be in a state of arrested development emotionally and socially that prevents them from empathizing with other human beings.
So maybe in the hope that I'd see something really great and inspired, maybe because I was looking for more of a community among cinema majors, maybe just because I didn't have much to do last week, I decided to attend all of the year end cinema screenings. My impressions were mixed across the board, which wasn't too surprising to me. What did surprise me, though, was how few people involved in cinema studies seemed to care about the work of their classmates. It was really irritating that basically no one showed up for my class's video diaries at 7:00pm, only for the attendance to explode when 8:00pm rolled around.
Even when I see something that I think is fundamentally awful (which did happen a few times), I understand that good people are capable of producing shit now and then, and that seeing their trainwreck is a huge learning experience to me. In fact, I might say that I learned more about filmmaking from seeing all of those screenings than I ever could have from any class. It's a real shame that other people involved in filmmaking decide to skip out from that experience. I understand why; It could be a fear of either seeing something really awful or seeing something amazing that totally shows you up. Or or it could be that you sense the amateurishness of student films and find it really uncomfortable to sit through them. But exposing yourself to discomfort is a huge part of making art. You can't just avoid it because you don't like it.
Anyway, onto my reviews/impressions of the projects in the first screening that happened on a monday about a week and a half ago. They followed the video diaries screened for my class (which I don't really feel the need to talk about here).
Monday, 5/12/08. Brett Kashmere's Cinema Practicum:
(1) Hannah Lesser - Frameworks/Framing/Fucking/Free
Black and white 16mm footage of a naked woman (face never shown) in a bathtub with disembodied hands squeezing her boobs and other body parts several different times. Army men float then in and out of her hairy private areas as the water rises above and below her boobs. I was told later by a friend of Hannah that the tone of this film was supposed to be pretty serious, about the militarization of the female body. This was lost on me and a majority of the audience, based on the uproarious laughter I heard throughout the entire piece.
In retrospect, I respect her message, because I was more extremely uncomfortable than amused while watching it. But army men? They seemed to imply something a lot more tongue-in-cheek, or at least make the message a lot lighter. When I see disembodied hands grabbing a naked woman's body in a bathtub it conjures pretty obvious images of rape. But when that's contrasted with plastic army men floating casually around her pussy (or armpits, I couldn't really tell), it seems to make light of what's happening in a way that's strange and not altogether very clear. That's probably why people laughed, because the idea is so ridiculous.
Still I feel like her portrayal has much more merit as an idea than the obsessive strain of "LOOK AT THE WONDERFUL NAKED FEMALE FORM!!!! FEEL SEXUALLY LIBERATED!!!" contained in some of the other pieces. I think there were probably much better ways for her to illustrate her message, though.
(2) Sarah Lipman - Cut
Rough 16mm footage of what appears to be a guy getting his hair cut. Lots of scraggles and other modifications of the film happening that I undoubtedly missed the first time. It might be interesting as a gallery piece. It was pretty short and didn't really hold my attention for very long.
(3) Lucy Engelman - Working on Memory
An Oberlin student writes about a bunch of her dad's old 8mm family-documenting films from the 60's. I enjoyed the footage a lot, and she does attempt to bring it together with some hand-written thoughts about it. The hand-writing thing seems to have turned into a student-film cliche (probably because it's easy to do), but it mostly makes sense here.
Conceptually, it could have been pushed further. A lot of her writing points out all the things she observes in the video and there's not very much of why she found it important. It was almost like it was treading water, waiting for something more poignant to come along. She did seem to be trying to make sense of the footage, but unfortunately she never really got to a point where she could quantify her obsession and shape her project into something meaningful.
(4) Theresa Desautels - My Radio is Bigger Than Yours
I get this one heavily mixed up with Ian Page's project, but from what I can remember it's a collage of different found footage and sound of stuff relating to radio and video. It seemed to talk about the need for technology to constantly outdo itself. Or at least I can assume that from the title.
Assuming that was the idea, I don't know how fully it was communicated. Sometimes these things can just descend into randomness without making any kind of conceptual or rhythmic logic to the editing, and I got a little bit of a sense of that. I wish I had more to say here but I'm still having trouble differentiating this from Ian's piece. I would really have to watch it again.
(5) Allie Takahashi - Izanami and Izanagi
An animation. I totally blanked around this point because I was dozing off and waiting to see some of the other projects. It's a shame, because what I saw of this one was really nice. I'm not exactly the most skilled visual artist. I like animation a lot, but I have a lot less to say about it for that reason.
(6) Lena Dunham - Boring House
I'm trying to remember how John Hugens described this one to me. Something like "boring rich girl goes into her huge empty house and then whines about it".
Class seems to be a really big deal at Oberlin, much moreso than other schools. There's a peculiar mix of kids who go to the school for the social activism, typical middle-class midwesterners who go because it's nearby and in the league with Carleton or Grinnel, and then upper-upper middle class east and west coast kids who go because it's supposed to be a good school that contains a lot of people like them and is far enough away from home to get away from the city and their parents. These are generalizations, but they're still much more generous than ones that many other students would make.
Anyway, being stuck somewhere in between different cultural landscapes, this touches a bit of a nerve with me. I can get into the mode of "why does this person get to do all these cool things and broadcast them around to the universe when I don't because of money?" I think it's more of a cultural objection than anything else. A lot of people who come from the coasts have it driven in their head that where they're from is one of the few sane, and worthwhile places in the country. I can understand that.
I spent the first half of the video thinking "gee, this person's house is really nice." I don't even think that was supposed to be an issue here, but I couldn't get past it. Lena seemed reluctant to show how nice the house was though, maybe in fear of that. She needs to be honest about the space she's using and show it for what it is instead of trying to hide it. I feel like people too often use films to create implausible situations instead of just looking at reality and taking it from that. So we get a totally gratuitous nude scene (what is it with Oberlin and random female nudity?) and then later on, scene in a restaurant in NYC with some semi-contrived muffled dialogue and a really weird guy delivered over the sounds of the city. I won't even describe the encounter with the weird guy, basically he just keeps hitting on her (she already has a boyfriend) and steals a lot of china from the restaurant. I'm not sure what the point is there.
So what might be the point? If I had to guess, I'd say it's just about how this upper-middle class girl feels more at home in the city than surrounded by empty houses in isolation. I can sympathize. When I go home it's often boring and depressing because it's so quiet. My problem is that there's very little effort to establish the main character. The great contradiction of the naked scene is that nakedness still exposes next to nothing about the character of this girl to us. It's a great mystery, really. Maybe if I sensed that it was intentional and not just a result of poor writing, I'd like it.
This story seems to be very autobiographical, and it also seems that Lena Dunham is way too uncomfortable exposing the parts she doesn't like about herself for the character on screen to be an honest portrayal. It's a bunch of amusing bits of a girl being bored that add up to next to nothing when it could have been an interesting portrait of a person with much more honesty and attention to detail put into the piece.
(7) Jay Nolan - Projecting Reality
A short piece where the actress from the Boring House movie talks about how what we're seeing isn't real. She takes a bunch of photographs of mundane things she does over the course of the day and then hangs them up on a wall. There are some cool shots where she's doing something and then it immediately cuts to a shot of her hanging up a photograph of her doing that thing.
It was definitely an interesting idea, but the video ended up talking about explicitly just about the same kind of thing that every art movie talks about implicitly. I appreciated the concept but I felt like Jay just had one idea that he could have used other means to get to so we have some sort of attachment to what's going on. It was very much "here's what my movie is about" and not much contextualizing into a situation where the viewer has much invested in it. It would have been cool to establish her as a character and then show her gradual obsession into taking pictures of events, I think. I still liked this whole piece a lot, I just think it could have been a lot stronger approached from a different way.
(8) Lee Hull - The Resourcerer's Apprentice
Remake of the famous Disney cartoon in the lovely Mudd library. This maybe wasn't as ambitious in trying to say something but it was really well-executed. Clearly it was made by someone who's seen Fantasia a few dozen times, because a lot of the shots were recreated almost precisely. I felt a little annoyed that this one got a near-standing ovation, because I tend to get annoyed at the whole youtube generation "HEY LOOK AT HOW MUCH WORK I PUT INTO MAKING A SINGLE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING" attitude. But this one really did deserve the praise, because she took it to the extreme, never halfassing the concept like what often happens with student films. I'm sure she and her crew had a fun time cleaning up the gigantic mess they made.
(9) Ellington Wells - Niggertime
A documentary about the word "nigger". As if we needed another. Yes, just like the Sam Jackson character in the video, I am that kind of nigger.
This one mercifully didn't contain as many lynchings and riot footage as the usual. It also seemed to make a point beyond "the word 'nigger' is bad", the point being that black people should not use the word so casually as they do because of its levity. A fair point, and I always like seeing Richard Pryor or Dave Chappelle say something intelligent on screen. All in all, this wasn't too bad, but I still don't think I've seen anything that addresses the complexities necessary to address such a heavily charged issue. I think Ellington was at least starting to get somewhere in creating a dialogue.
(10) Rachel Lambert, Nicholas Wirtz and John Hugens - The Abstract
A creepy, narcissistic abstract artist played by the creepy, narcissistic Chris Sherwood (perfectly cast!*) realizes that he sucks and tries to figure out how to make art that doesn't suck. A lot of dialogue about art that sounds like it was taken from a Richard Linklater movie ensues.
My overall impression was mixed, but there were plenty of things to like about this one. It actually bothered to make a statement for one, even if the statement was "abstract art is bullshit". But I think all three directors have a little bit too much disdain for the character they're portraying to put him in any sort of positive light. He's a creepy self-absorbed guy who seems to be very into the notion of "art for art's sake" and then finds his only salvation through groveling under a strange deity which also appears to be a weird graffiti artist he meets. That part wasn't exactly clear to me.
I know John pretty well, and Rachel and Nick somewhat, and I tend to share a lot of their views. I think their intense dislike for a lot of the art that happens at Oberlin looms too heavy over this film. It came off to me as too much of a "fuck you" but wasn't coherent enough to offer a solid critique to the kind of views of art the kinds of people like the Chris Sherwood character have. Not to mention that it's much more likely to imagine the character believing that anyone who doesn't like his art is just unappreciative rather than him turning into a pitiful mess because some random girl didn't like it. I think the directors really wanted to see him suffer, even if it wasn't entirely plausible.
It was filmed in black+white, and many of the shots were really nice. I don't think digital video, in all its flat glory, necessarily lends itself to the kind of style they were going for. It would have been nice to see it filmed in 16mm, but I know materials and budget obviously limit that. The sound mix, like in a lot of other films screened, was a bit shoddy in places. There was this building and sawing sound effect that seemed kind of arbitrarily placed, for one.
In the end, I'm probably being more critical with this one because I know the people who made it and know that they was hinting at something really good and original. I just think Rachel, Nick, and John need to take a step back from and try to understand their subject a bit more before they completely debase him.
* just kidding. he seems like a nice guy from my experience.
(11) Russ Manning - Audio Nugget
A bunch of collected music videos for different jazz pieces. The music was cool. Some videos were more neat than others. I liked the one with the militaristic guy having a spiritual experience with a bunch of hippies/nymphs/whatever. Though most came off as a "HEY look at the fun stuff me and my friends can do with a camera!!" Not that there's necessarily something wrong with that, but I wanted to punch some of the people in the face after seeing the camera zoom in and out of their mouth for the 100th time. A great way to kill a cool effect is to do it endlessly and without purpose.
(12) Emily Gottlieb - Northline road and dusty love
A short animated piece that I really liked. A lot of people left before they got to see this, which made me a little mad. Something about lovers and someone walking under a bridge I think. That's about all I could take from it. I hope she keeps doing more of this kind of stuff.
That's it for last Monday's screening. Look for a couple more posts about the other ones in the next few days.
But this year I finally figured out that there's something creative that I give a shit about that I can study fairly uninhibited. It's the magic of cinema studies. I was originally looking at transferring to an actual film school, but then realized it was pretty unnecessary. I'm going to want work on what I want to work on regardless of where I am. Maybe graduate school in film would be an possibility, and honestly any thing where I can talk with people who are genuinely interested in movies and invested in this kind of stuff is fine with me. Where I'm at now is fine, though, at least for another year.
Of course Oberlin's cinema department is pretty young and not really all there yet. For one, I really have not sensed much of a community among people involved in cinema. There are plenty of cinema majors, but it's not exactly a huge department, so personal contact shouldn't be all that difficult. But it remains much more of a "I have my friends, I do my thing, leave me alone". It's a toxic and discouraging view, really. I don't really know how it's counteracted either. Maybe it's an Oberlin viewpoint, maybe it's the kind of people who have come in and been involved in art in the past 5-10 years, who knows. All I know is that a lot of people I know from WOBC/etc. who are art/cinema people (there are some notable exceptions) are some of the least friendly, least nice human beings I have ever met. They seem to still be in a state of arrested development emotionally and socially that prevents them from empathizing with other human beings.
So maybe in the hope that I'd see something really great and inspired, maybe because I was looking for more of a community among cinema majors, maybe just because I didn't have much to do last week, I decided to attend all of the year end cinema screenings. My impressions were mixed across the board, which wasn't too surprising to me. What did surprise me, though, was how few people involved in cinema studies seemed to care about the work of their classmates. It was really irritating that basically no one showed up for my class's video diaries at 7:00pm, only for the attendance to explode when 8:00pm rolled around.
Even when I see something that I think is fundamentally awful (which did happen a few times), I understand that good people are capable of producing shit now and then, and that seeing their trainwreck is a huge learning experience to me. In fact, I might say that I learned more about filmmaking from seeing all of those screenings than I ever could have from any class. It's a real shame that other people involved in filmmaking decide to skip out from that experience. I understand why; It could be a fear of either seeing something really awful or seeing something amazing that totally shows you up. Or or it could be that you sense the amateurishness of student films and find it really uncomfortable to sit through them. But exposing yourself to discomfort is a huge part of making art. You can't just avoid it because you don't like it.
Anyway, onto my reviews/impressions of the projects in the first screening that happened on a monday about a week and a half ago. They followed the video diaries screened for my class (which I don't really feel the need to talk about here).
Monday, 5/12/08. Brett Kashmere's Cinema Practicum:
(1) Hannah Lesser - Frameworks/Framing/Fucking/Free
Black and white 16mm footage of a naked woman (face never shown) in a bathtub with disembodied hands squeezing her boobs and other body parts several different times. Army men float then in and out of her hairy private areas as the water rises above and below her boobs. I was told later by a friend of Hannah that the tone of this film was supposed to be pretty serious, about the militarization of the female body. This was lost on me and a majority of the audience, based on the uproarious laughter I heard throughout the entire piece.
In retrospect, I respect her message, because I was more extremely uncomfortable than amused while watching it. But army men? They seemed to imply something a lot more tongue-in-cheek, or at least make the message a lot lighter. When I see disembodied hands grabbing a naked woman's body in a bathtub it conjures pretty obvious images of rape. But when that's contrasted with plastic army men floating casually around her pussy (or armpits, I couldn't really tell), it seems to make light of what's happening in a way that's strange and not altogether very clear. That's probably why people laughed, because the idea is so ridiculous.
Still I feel like her portrayal has much more merit as an idea than the obsessive strain of "LOOK AT THE WONDERFUL NAKED FEMALE FORM!!!! FEEL SEXUALLY LIBERATED!!!" contained in some of the other pieces. I think there were probably much better ways for her to illustrate her message, though.
(2) Sarah Lipman - Cut
Rough 16mm footage of what appears to be a guy getting his hair cut. Lots of scraggles and other modifications of the film happening that I undoubtedly missed the first time. It might be interesting as a gallery piece. It was pretty short and didn't really hold my attention for very long.
(3) Lucy Engelman - Working on Memory
An Oberlin student writes about a bunch of her dad's old 8mm family-documenting films from the 60's. I enjoyed the footage a lot, and she does attempt to bring it together with some hand-written thoughts about it. The hand-writing thing seems to have turned into a student-film cliche (probably because it's easy to do), but it mostly makes sense here.
Conceptually, it could have been pushed further. A lot of her writing points out all the things she observes in the video and there's not very much of why she found it important. It was almost like it was treading water, waiting for something more poignant to come along. She did seem to be trying to make sense of the footage, but unfortunately she never really got to a point where she could quantify her obsession and shape her project into something meaningful.
(4) Theresa Desautels - My Radio is Bigger Than Yours
I get this one heavily mixed up with Ian Page's project, but from what I can remember it's a collage of different found footage and sound of stuff relating to radio and video. It seemed to talk about the need for technology to constantly outdo itself. Or at least I can assume that from the title.
Assuming that was the idea, I don't know how fully it was communicated. Sometimes these things can just descend into randomness without making any kind of conceptual or rhythmic logic to the editing, and I got a little bit of a sense of that. I wish I had more to say here but I'm still having trouble differentiating this from Ian's piece. I would really have to watch it again.
(5) Allie Takahashi - Izanami and Izanagi
An animation. I totally blanked around this point because I was dozing off and waiting to see some of the other projects. It's a shame, because what I saw of this one was really nice. I'm not exactly the most skilled visual artist. I like animation a lot, but I have a lot less to say about it for that reason.
(6) Lena Dunham - Boring House
I'm trying to remember how John Hugens described this one to me. Something like "boring rich girl goes into her huge empty house and then whines about it".
Class seems to be a really big deal at Oberlin, much moreso than other schools. There's a peculiar mix of kids who go to the school for the social activism, typical middle-class midwesterners who go because it's nearby and in the league with Carleton or Grinnel, and then upper-upper middle class east and west coast kids who go because it's supposed to be a good school that contains a lot of people like them and is far enough away from home to get away from the city and their parents. These are generalizations, but they're still much more generous than ones that many other students would make.
Anyway, being stuck somewhere in between different cultural landscapes, this touches a bit of a nerve with me. I can get into the mode of "why does this person get to do all these cool things and broadcast them around to the universe when I don't because of money?" I think it's more of a cultural objection than anything else. A lot of people who come from the coasts have it driven in their head that where they're from is one of the few sane, and worthwhile places in the country. I can understand that.
I spent the first half of the video thinking "gee, this person's house is really nice." I don't even think that was supposed to be an issue here, but I couldn't get past it. Lena seemed reluctant to show how nice the house was though, maybe in fear of that. She needs to be honest about the space she's using and show it for what it is instead of trying to hide it. I feel like people too often use films to create implausible situations instead of just looking at reality and taking it from that. So we get a totally gratuitous nude scene (what is it with Oberlin and random female nudity?) and then later on, scene in a restaurant in NYC with some semi-contrived muffled dialogue and a really weird guy delivered over the sounds of the city. I won't even describe the encounter with the weird guy, basically he just keeps hitting on her (she already has a boyfriend) and steals a lot of china from the restaurant. I'm not sure what the point is there.
So what might be the point? If I had to guess, I'd say it's just about how this upper-middle class girl feels more at home in the city than surrounded by empty houses in isolation. I can sympathize. When I go home it's often boring and depressing because it's so quiet. My problem is that there's very little effort to establish the main character. The great contradiction of the naked scene is that nakedness still exposes next to nothing about the character of this girl to us. It's a great mystery, really. Maybe if I sensed that it was intentional and not just a result of poor writing, I'd like it.
This story seems to be very autobiographical, and it also seems that Lena Dunham is way too uncomfortable exposing the parts she doesn't like about herself for the character on screen to be an honest portrayal. It's a bunch of amusing bits of a girl being bored that add up to next to nothing when it could have been an interesting portrait of a person with much more honesty and attention to detail put into the piece.
(7) Jay Nolan - Projecting Reality
A short piece where the actress from the Boring House movie talks about how what we're seeing isn't real. She takes a bunch of photographs of mundane things she does over the course of the day and then hangs them up on a wall. There are some cool shots where she's doing something and then it immediately cuts to a shot of her hanging up a photograph of her doing that thing.
It was definitely an interesting idea, but the video ended up talking about explicitly just about the same kind of thing that every art movie talks about implicitly. I appreciated the concept but I felt like Jay just had one idea that he could have used other means to get to so we have some sort of attachment to what's going on. It was very much "here's what my movie is about" and not much contextualizing into a situation where the viewer has much invested in it. It would have been cool to establish her as a character and then show her gradual obsession into taking pictures of events, I think. I still liked this whole piece a lot, I just think it could have been a lot stronger approached from a different way.
(8) Lee Hull - The Resourcerer's Apprentice
Remake of the famous Disney cartoon in the lovely Mudd library. This maybe wasn't as ambitious in trying to say something but it was really well-executed. Clearly it was made by someone who's seen Fantasia a few dozen times, because a lot of the shots were recreated almost precisely. I felt a little annoyed that this one got a near-standing ovation, because I tend to get annoyed at the whole youtube generation "HEY LOOK AT HOW MUCH WORK I PUT INTO MAKING A SINGLE REFERENCE TO SOMETHING" attitude. But this one really did deserve the praise, because she took it to the extreme, never halfassing the concept like what often happens with student films. I'm sure she and her crew had a fun time cleaning up the gigantic mess they made.
(9) Ellington Wells - Niggertime
A documentary about the word "nigger". As if we needed another. Yes, just like the Sam Jackson character in the video, I am that kind of nigger.
This one mercifully didn't contain as many lynchings and riot footage as the usual. It also seemed to make a point beyond "the word 'nigger' is bad", the point being that black people should not use the word so casually as they do because of its levity. A fair point, and I always like seeing Richard Pryor or Dave Chappelle say something intelligent on screen. All in all, this wasn't too bad, but I still don't think I've seen anything that addresses the complexities necessary to address such a heavily charged issue. I think Ellington was at least starting to get somewhere in creating a dialogue.
(10) Rachel Lambert, Nicholas Wirtz and John Hugens - The Abstract
A creepy, narcissistic abstract artist played by the creepy, narcissistic Chris Sherwood (perfectly cast!*) realizes that he sucks and tries to figure out how to make art that doesn't suck. A lot of dialogue about art that sounds like it was taken from a Richard Linklater movie ensues.
My overall impression was mixed, but there were plenty of things to like about this one. It actually bothered to make a statement for one, even if the statement was "abstract art is bullshit". But I think all three directors have a little bit too much disdain for the character they're portraying to put him in any sort of positive light. He's a creepy self-absorbed guy who seems to be very into the notion of "art for art's sake" and then finds his only salvation through groveling under a strange deity which also appears to be a weird graffiti artist he meets. That part wasn't exactly clear to me.
I know John pretty well, and Rachel and Nick somewhat, and I tend to share a lot of their views. I think their intense dislike for a lot of the art that happens at Oberlin looms too heavy over this film. It came off to me as too much of a "fuck you" but wasn't coherent enough to offer a solid critique to the kind of views of art the kinds of people like the Chris Sherwood character have. Not to mention that it's much more likely to imagine the character believing that anyone who doesn't like his art is just unappreciative rather than him turning into a pitiful mess because some random girl didn't like it. I think the directors really wanted to see him suffer, even if it wasn't entirely plausible.
It was filmed in black+white, and many of the shots were really nice. I don't think digital video, in all its flat glory, necessarily lends itself to the kind of style they were going for. It would have been nice to see it filmed in 16mm, but I know materials and budget obviously limit that. The sound mix, like in a lot of other films screened, was a bit shoddy in places. There was this building and sawing sound effect that seemed kind of arbitrarily placed, for one.
In the end, I'm probably being more critical with this one because I know the people who made it and know that they was hinting at something really good and original. I just think Rachel, Nick, and John need to take a step back from and try to understand their subject a bit more before they completely debase him.
* just kidding. he seems like a nice guy from my experience.
(11) Russ Manning - Audio Nugget
A bunch of collected music videos for different jazz pieces. The music was cool. Some videos were more neat than others. I liked the one with the militaristic guy having a spiritual experience with a bunch of hippies/nymphs/whatever. Though most came off as a "HEY look at the fun stuff me and my friends can do with a camera!!" Not that there's necessarily something wrong with that, but I wanted to punch some of the people in the face after seeing the camera zoom in and out of their mouth for the 100th time. A great way to kill a cool effect is to do it endlessly and without purpose.
(12) Emily Gottlieb - Northline road and dusty love
A short animated piece that I really liked. A lot of people left before they got to see this, which made me a little mad. Something about lovers and someone walking under a bridge I think. That's about all I could take from it. I hope she keeps doing more of this kind of stuff.
That's it for last Monday's screening. Look for a couple more posts about the other ones in the next few days.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Voxtrot - s/t
I really know nothing of any of the current buzz bands, beyond a word or two I see in a messageboard or what I'm visually assualted by when I glance at the front page of pitchforkmedia. Desperate for finding new things to get needlessly mad about, here's what I saw when I looked at it today (besides a lovely story about Neko Case selling lingere on ebay):
Say hello to Voxtrot. They look like they're trying so hard to be uncool. I'm pretty sure my dad has that exact shirt the guy in the middle is wearing (including the little alligator). That yellow and blue striped shirt is also a strong contender for the Most Tastleless Article of Clothing Ever Worn in a Publicity Shot award.
I heard about them from someone at the Oberlin radio station when I was still there and figured that with the name, they must be some sort of irritating twee/dance group. I even downloaded their new self-titled album with the intention of reviewing it here a couple months back, but their music unfortunately didn't live up to my expectations of awful. No, Voxtrot is an exceptionally straightforward and sincere band. I originally thought that was odd, maybe even refreshing, considering what's usually popular in the indie world these days. Then I remembered that it was only a matter of time before dopey, straight-laced sincerity became the new irony.
But it's unfair to get bitter about the state of the "indie" world and not judge these guys on the merit of their actual music, which is suprisingly decent. It's also nothing you wouldn't expect - the whirring, layered mechanical guitars that are present in anything remotely resembling the Strokes these days make appearences, but they're offset by more heartfelt strings and piano. The arrangements themselves are fairly predictable, but nothing too simple or redundant. There's enough variety to keep things from getting too dull, from the intense "Kid Gloves" to the laid-back "Future Pt. 1" to the jumpy, piano-driven "Stephen" to the serious ballad "Real Life Version".
Unfortunately the singer's utter sincerity in everything from his lyrics straight from the mouth of a freshly disillusioned highschooler to his clearly enunciated voice is so sentimental it borders on sappy. I prefer a simple vocal delivery vastly to weird affectations put on purposefully to the voice as a way of sounding more unique, but virtually everything about Voxtrot is as clean-cut and run-of-the-mill as you can get. And that's what I find more than a little bit disturbing. There are some pleasent hooks scattered about, but nothing particularly memorable or compelling. It's just too easy. It's almost as if their popularity is a way for teenage hipster-hopefuls to listen to something they secretly enjoy a lot more than the more difficult and challenging music they're pretending to like without losing cred.
When bands like this get embraced by the "indie" world, I start to doubt my own musical sensibilities. Maybe I'm just not hearing something brilliant that's there? Maybe my ability to recognize brilliance is way off?
But if my taste-meter isn't as fucked up as it seems to be, my question is this: How could people with knowledge of infinitely more innovative and fully-realized bands love stuff like this? Do they just like everything new that comes down the pipe that doesn't suck? It confuses the hell out of me. In the end, I don't hate this album and I don't hold it against people for liking this band's music, but there certainly isn't much on here I could give a damn about either way.
Say hello to Voxtrot. They look like they're trying so hard to be uncool. I'm pretty sure my dad has that exact shirt the guy in the middle is wearing (including the little alligator). That yellow and blue striped shirt is also a strong contender for the Most Tastleless Article of Clothing Ever Worn in a Publicity Shot award.
I heard about them from someone at the Oberlin radio station when I was still there and figured that with the name, they must be some sort of irritating twee/dance group. I even downloaded their new self-titled album with the intention of reviewing it here a couple months back, but their music unfortunately didn't live up to my expectations of awful. No, Voxtrot is an exceptionally straightforward and sincere band. I originally thought that was odd, maybe even refreshing, considering what's usually popular in the indie world these days. Then I remembered that it was only a matter of time before dopey, straight-laced sincerity became the new irony.
But it's unfair to get bitter about the state of the "indie" world and not judge these guys on the merit of their actual music, which is suprisingly decent. It's also nothing you wouldn't expect - the whirring, layered mechanical guitars that are present in anything remotely resembling the Strokes these days make appearences, but they're offset by more heartfelt strings and piano. The arrangements themselves are fairly predictable, but nothing too simple or redundant. There's enough variety to keep things from getting too dull, from the intense "Kid Gloves" to the laid-back "Future Pt. 1" to the jumpy, piano-driven "Stephen" to the serious ballad "Real Life Version".
Unfortunately the singer's utter sincerity in everything from his lyrics straight from the mouth of a freshly disillusioned highschooler to his clearly enunciated voice is so sentimental it borders on sappy. I prefer a simple vocal delivery vastly to weird affectations put on purposefully to the voice as a way of sounding more unique, but virtually everything about Voxtrot is as clean-cut and run-of-the-mill as you can get. And that's what I find more than a little bit disturbing. There are some pleasent hooks scattered about, but nothing particularly memorable or compelling. It's just too easy. It's almost as if their popularity is a way for teenage hipster-hopefuls to listen to something they secretly enjoy a lot more than the more difficult and challenging music they're pretending to like without losing cred.
When bands like this get embraced by the "indie" world, I start to doubt my own musical sensibilities. Maybe I'm just not hearing something brilliant that's there? Maybe my ability to recognize brilliance is way off?
But if my taste-meter isn't as fucked up as it seems to be, my question is this: How could people with knowledge of infinitely more innovative and fully-realized bands love stuff like this? Do they just like everything new that comes down the pipe that doesn't suck? It confuses the hell out of me. In the end, I don't hate this album and I don't hold it against people for liking this band's music, but there certainly isn't much on here I could give a damn about either way.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Panda Bear - Person Pitch
I didn't hear this until just recently. I was skeptical, but after seeing it praised on a couple messageboards I visit and its very high rating on Pitchfork (yes, I still go to that place occasionally), I decided to give it a chance.I've listened to it a couple times now and my impression is that it's a very agreeable, fun record. The whole thing is filled with bizarro world, gregorian chant-like takes on 60's nostalgia. "Bros" is the definite highlight, with its incredibly simple but infectious melody that takes its time to develop and twist its way into your skull. There are some weaker, more indulgent tracks like "Search for Delicious" that meander without really going anywhere in particular. Still, the sound of the whole album is very unique but it also immediately evokes fond memories in anyone who's ever heard a Beach Boys record (which is pretty much everyone).
There's no question that Person Pitch is infectious. My concern is that there's not an overwhelming amount of depth to it. The Pitchfork review mentions that it draws its repetition and sense of dynamics heavily from dance music. It also mentions a bunch of "microhouse" artists as a big influence, whatever the hell microhouse is. And no, I don't care.
I risk being closed-minded here, but I've never really understood dance music. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making music fun or danceable, sure, but I don't see the point of making music that's only intent is to be danced to. I don't really get where the artistry or skill comes in there. It's formulaic and it seems to emphasize being technically sound over being an actual musician.
So when this pretty minimal, predictable approach is applied to something like Beach Boys' melodies that were infinitely more complex in their original form, it irks me. It seems that a lot of popular music today has had an increasing amount of fixation on nostalgia, specifically 60's stuff. That's fine, but it tends to either just rehash what its emulating completely but miss the essential spark of the original or take some part of the sound to simplify and deconstruct.
And I think that's missing a lot of what made stuff like the Beach Boys good in the first place. Of course when Brian Wilson produced Pet Sounds, he wanted a great sounding record. But he also wanted to make something that sounded both very complex and completely innocent and unforced. He wanted something that could be memorable and grab people's attention right at the start but still hold up after many listens.I'm not saying that Person Pitch should be compared to Pet Sounds, just that a lot of what makes Pet Sounds a great record is that Brian Wilson was willing to encompass many different ideas that maybe seemed a little contradictory at first in order to find his ideal sound. Person Pitch, like a lot of stuff today, has one aesthetic (albeit a good one), and just takes it to its logical conclusion. That sound is put in the forefront and made much important than the music contained within. It's fun while it lasts, but there's no contradiction - there's nothing to dig into. It's some pleasant bits of noise and then it's over.
And maybe that's ok. But in my mind, it's what separates great music from just good music. I want to see more musicians not be content to stick with just one idea or asethetic, and be good artists who challenge themselves to come up with something original and timeless. I really don't believe that, despite its 9.4 review at Pitchfork, many people are going to be talking about Person Pitch in five years.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The World According to Nouns
Awhile back I was reading a very long interview with ex-Minuteman Mike Watt where he goes into detail about the meaning of each song on Double Nickels on the Dime. The lyrics on that album have meant a lot to me, but I could never figure out quite what they were getting at as a whole. What he mentions about the song I lifted the name of this site from I found particularly interesting:
What about with music? Let's say I'm a record store clerk who has the Double Nickels on the Dime lp in his hands, and I put it in the punk section. But what does punk mean? Certainly people have expectations of a specific sound from the mention of the word, but where did those expectations come from? How has the perception of this genre of music changed over time?
The Minutemen embraced the word because of it represented a DIY way of life and expression. Yet they sounded very far from what most today consider to be punk (stuff along the lines of The Ramones/The Sex Pistols). Which brings the question, can punk have different meanings? (as they say in Do You Want New Wave Or Do You Want The Truth?, "can a word have two meanings?") Has punk gone from a way of life to a crass commercial term? Does it make it more likely for their message and the value of their music to be misunderstood by people who have more narrow conceptions of what the word means?
You get the idea. The point of asking these questions is not to just talk about how we should understand language. That's pretty boring for me to write, especially because I don't know that much about it. The point is that looking at things from this kind of perspective - where there are no walls or barriers and nothing is certain and everything should be questioned, is absolutely fucking essential. If only because so many people give it no thought and take it for granted. They think the wall is there, but is it really there? You have to think about the heavy, confusing shit to develop a more clear understanding of how the world works. But to do that, you actually have to care.
And getting people to care seems to be the largest obstacle. It is hard to get a handle on all of this shit (I can hear D. Boon yelling "I'm fuckin' overwhelmed!"). Many people will try to be open-minded and look outside their world but I don't think they really see where other perspectives intersect with their own. It's more that they feel a need to be accepting of others' differences to be a better person but still believe that those people are fundamentally different.
It's like this post-modern view that we are defined by our differences. We are supposed to accept these differences as what makes everyone special and unique. I don't buy into that PC shit at all. It's what's the same about everyone that makes us special. The true strength of humans is the endless powers of ingenuity and creativity and our capacity for love, truth, and understanding. It sounds corny, but it's absolutely true. And I don't care about nor have time for anything else.
I had a lot of doubt when I first considered doing this blog. I thought if I even could somehow get people to read and understand what I'm saying, they would find it annoying and monotonous and say stuff like "why does this matter?" After all, hasn't this been the kind of thing that's been rammed down everyone's throats by every Emerson/Thoreau wannabe? Didn't all of that shit come out in the 60's until it was overtaken by the market? Doesn't it just sound now like the played out recruiting language for some mindless cult? Isn't the world we live in now fundamentally more complex and different? Don't irony and cynicism speak more to our generation?
Maybe this is hard for some people to believe, but we still live in the same world that people occupied 10000 years ago. People still eat, sleep, shit, learn, talk, and have sex. The only difference is that the capacity for learning and understanding has greatly increased. I have never been able to understand why, with the limitless resources the internet has, there are so few people online taking advantage of it. For the first time in...forever, people have actual freedom of speech and the ability to be heard from anywhere, yet very few seem to know what to do with it at all. Why not test it? Why not take a risk so you can learn something new about the world?
We're so used to having a ridiculous number of options that it's easy to concentrate on satisfying the short term and never look past that. So maybe people just don't feel an impulse to express themselves as long as they can have all they think they need. Or maybe some people figure there's no point in expressing themselves because they think they can never do it as well as someone else. Maybe they're afraid of being proven wrong or inferior. Maybe they just don't want to completely pour their hearts out only for no one to see it or care. Maybe they're just so tired of putting up with the bullshit that they've given up and become jaded and bitter. All of these are understandable, but none of them should stop anyone from confronting this and soldiering on.
"The world according to nouns" is the world most people occupy. It's pop culture, it's buzzwords, it's advertising, it's the "blogosphere". It's the only thing most people give a fuck about. People talk about it because it's a world so familiar to everyone and it's so easy to get caught up in all of it. It becomes people's lives and deludes people into thinking they know what they want out of life. It's stuff that can sometimes be important but is more often a barrier to larger, universal truths.
It's probably important to say right now that I am not being original here. I'm not going to congratulate myself for rehashing ideas that more educated and intelligent people have defined in very eloquent terms over the years. This has been repeated many times by everyone from Jesus to Emerson to Ghandi, but it bears repeating until everyone on earth understands exactly what it means. It is not hippie bullshit, it's a completely sincere and rational acknowledgment of the reality of the world. So if I had to sum up the purpose of this "blog" and any subsequent form of expression I'll ever do, it is the following:
We are all connected. Everything is connected. It's ok be smart. It's ok to be sincere and actually care about things. Irony is a tool, not a way of life. It's ok to like anything. Categories and labels should only ever be used to describe something, not define it. Don't let yourself be swept up in the culture's obsession with identity. Instead, do everything you can to discover yourself. Then make it a point to be yourself regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. Do what you believe you should do and be passionate about it, but also use your head and be rational. Realize that our society's definition of success is only temporary and doesn't make you a better human being. Don't wallow in guilt or shame. Instead, take advantage of your privileges by being a decent human being and finding a way to help others express themselves. This shit has always been relevant and it will always be relevant.
...
I'm done talking about that for right now. I mean, it's always going to be around but I don't want to give off the impression that this blog is going to be filled with a lot of heavy-handed speculation about expression. At least hopefully not in the same incredibly self-conscious and corny way I did here. I actually find things funny and have a sense of humor, as hard as that is to believe from the above.
My interests are mostly in music and comedy, so that's mostly what I'll cover. I'm not the smartest person in the world and I'm often pretty wrong about stuff. There also only may ever be one person who reads this thing. But I'm not going to let that stop me from doing anything. Being incredibly innocent and naive can be a very good thing.
Anyway, I have a lot to talk about, way too much free time, and absolutely no expectations. So this should be fun.
Stay tuned, kids, and remember to always jam econo!
The world according to nouns - are there any thoughts left in the head that don't have a word assigned to it?...Some people think it's kinda corny and cheesy, having to talk about it in the first place with the language and that shit....You should be aware of this, especially when you're a young person. To find out where a wall is, you push. You've heard so many people talk about where it is. You're like "I wonder if it really is there."Nouns are particularly important because they can be so vague. While adjectives describe things, nouns define them. Even something as concrete as a chair can bring to mind different images of different types of chairs. And (to borrow from the song) what about something more abstract like the state? Americans have a general sense of what the state is, but how do people from a different part of the world view it? And it's comforting to think about it as a fact of life, but that ignores everything that went into creating the idea of a state and instilling it in people's heads in the first place. And even when that idea had been created, where did the current incarnation come from? How has it become what it is today?
What about with music? Let's say I'm a record store clerk who has the Double Nickels on the Dime lp in his hands, and I put it in the punk section. But what does punk mean? Certainly people have expectations of a specific sound from the mention of the word, but where did those expectations come from? How has the perception of this genre of music changed over time?
The Minutemen embraced the word because of it represented a DIY way of life and expression. Yet they sounded very far from what most today consider to be punk (stuff along the lines of The Ramones/The Sex Pistols). Which brings the question, can punk have different meanings? (as they say in Do You Want New Wave Or Do You Want The Truth?, "can a word have two meanings?") Has punk gone from a way of life to a crass commercial term? Does it make it more likely for their message and the value of their music to be misunderstood by people who have more narrow conceptions of what the word means?
You get the idea. The point of asking these questions is not to just talk about how we should understand language. That's pretty boring for me to write, especially because I don't know that much about it. The point is that looking at things from this kind of perspective - where there are no walls or barriers and nothing is certain and everything should be questioned, is absolutely fucking essential. If only because so many people give it no thought and take it for granted. They think the wall is there, but is it really there? You have to think about the heavy, confusing shit to develop a more clear understanding of how the world works. But to do that, you actually have to care.
And getting people to care seems to be the largest obstacle. It is hard to get a handle on all of this shit (I can hear D. Boon yelling "I'm fuckin' overwhelmed!"). Many people will try to be open-minded and look outside their world but I don't think they really see where other perspectives intersect with their own. It's more that they feel a need to be accepting of others' differences to be a better person but still believe that those people are fundamentally different.
It's like this post-modern view that we are defined by our differences. We are supposed to accept these differences as what makes everyone special and unique. I don't buy into that PC shit at all. It's what's the same about everyone that makes us special. The true strength of humans is the endless powers of ingenuity and creativity and our capacity for love, truth, and understanding. It sounds corny, but it's absolutely true. And I don't care about nor have time for anything else.
I had a lot of doubt when I first considered doing this blog. I thought if I even could somehow get people to read and understand what I'm saying, they would find it annoying and monotonous and say stuff like "why does this matter?" After all, hasn't this been the kind of thing that's been rammed down everyone's throats by every Emerson/Thoreau wannabe? Didn't all of that shit come out in the 60's until it was overtaken by the market? Doesn't it just sound now like the played out recruiting language for some mindless cult? Isn't the world we live in now fundamentally more complex and different? Don't irony and cynicism speak more to our generation?
Maybe this is hard for some people to believe, but we still live in the same world that people occupied 10000 years ago. People still eat, sleep, shit, learn, talk, and have sex. The only difference is that the capacity for learning and understanding has greatly increased. I have never been able to understand why, with the limitless resources the internet has, there are so few people online taking advantage of it. For the first time in...forever, people have actual freedom of speech and the ability to be heard from anywhere, yet very few seem to know what to do with it at all. Why not test it? Why not take a risk so you can learn something new about the world?
We're so used to having a ridiculous number of options that it's easy to concentrate on satisfying the short term and never look past that. So maybe people just don't feel an impulse to express themselves as long as they can have all they think they need. Or maybe some people figure there's no point in expressing themselves because they think they can never do it as well as someone else. Maybe they're afraid of being proven wrong or inferior. Maybe they just don't want to completely pour their hearts out only for no one to see it or care. Maybe they're just so tired of putting up with the bullshit that they've given up and become jaded and bitter. All of these are understandable, but none of them should stop anyone from confronting this and soldiering on.
"The world according to nouns" is the world most people occupy. It's pop culture, it's buzzwords, it's advertising, it's the "blogosphere". It's the only thing most people give a fuck about. People talk about it because it's a world so familiar to everyone and it's so easy to get caught up in all of it. It becomes people's lives and deludes people into thinking they know what they want out of life. It's stuff that can sometimes be important but is more often a barrier to larger, universal truths.
It's probably important to say right now that I am not being original here. I'm not going to congratulate myself for rehashing ideas that more educated and intelligent people have defined in very eloquent terms over the years. This has been repeated many times by everyone from Jesus to Emerson to Ghandi, but it bears repeating until everyone on earth understands exactly what it means. It is not hippie bullshit, it's a completely sincere and rational acknowledgment of the reality of the world. So if I had to sum up the purpose of this "blog" and any subsequent form of expression I'll ever do, it is the following:
We are all connected. Everything is connected. It's ok be smart. It's ok to be sincere and actually care about things. Irony is a tool, not a way of life. It's ok to like anything. Categories and labels should only ever be used to describe something, not define it. Don't let yourself be swept up in the culture's obsession with identity. Instead, do everything you can to discover yourself. Then make it a point to be yourself regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. Do what you believe you should do and be passionate about it, but also use your head and be rational. Realize that our society's definition of success is only temporary and doesn't make you a better human being. Don't wallow in guilt or shame. Instead, take advantage of your privileges by being a decent human being and finding a way to help others express themselves. This shit has always been relevant and it will always be relevant.
...
I'm done talking about that for right now. I mean, it's always going to be around but I don't want to give off the impression that this blog is going to be filled with a lot of heavy-handed speculation about expression. At least hopefully not in the same incredibly self-conscious and corny way I did here. I actually find things funny and have a sense of humor, as hard as that is to believe from the above.
My interests are mostly in music and comedy, so that's mostly what I'll cover. I'm not the smartest person in the world and I'm often pretty wrong about stuff. There also only may ever be one person who reads this thing. But I'm not going to let that stop me from doing anything. Being incredibly innocent and naive can be a very good thing.
Anyway, I have a lot to talk about, way too much free time, and absolutely no expectations. So this should be fun.
Stay tuned, kids, and remember to always jam econo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)