http://techliberation.com/2010/02/03/som-thoughts-on-pbs-digital-nation-documentary/

I came across this blog that is primarily set up to keep politicians away from the internet and tech culture.  Adam Thierer had some interesting things to say about Digital Nation.

He begins by laying out the difference between tech pessimists and tech optimists and how each are portrayed in the documentary.

What I am most interested in are his own personal opinions on these issues.

This man argues that humans have gone through revolutions before, many more jarring than the digital one, and we have always learned to adapt.

He claims that we are now in an age of informational power, not poverty.  He sees his children’s exploration of the world through a computer screen as a good and something he wishes he had when he grew up.

These opinions are obviously controversial, and my question is: what makes the digital revolution so different, so scary when compared to our past revolutions that have come and gone without bringing down civilization?

http://www.wmagazine.com/people/celebrities/2010/10/facebook_film

This article, by Lynn Hirschberg, is a mixture of how Aaron Sorkin became involved with The Social Network and a candid interview with the famous writer.  The article draws strong comparisons between Sorkin and Zuckerberg, even going as far as to liken Zuckerberg’s trance at the computer to Sorkin’s writing while on a drug binge.

Sorkin was attracted to the themes he saw while reading the novel, notably the quest to be accepted and what is lost when something is won.  He did not originally know of the Winklevoss twins and Saverin subplots, but when he found out he decided to base the film around them.  Sorkin was struck by the fact that every individual in the saga of Facebook’s creation was adamant that they were 100% correct in their own part.  Sorkin is able to brilliantly weave this into his film by deftly delivering ambiguous interpretations of events as remembered by different characters.  During the interview, Sorkin philosophically quotes, “there is no truth”.  This sums up the overall theme of the film succinctly.

One of the most interesting moments in the interview conducted by Hirschberg for the article is a discussion of the opening scene.  Sorkin spent a considerable amount of time writing the dialogue, and he felt that it needed to set the stage for the entire film.  Fincher, being aware of the importance, did 90 takes of the scene.  He was not satisfied until he felt Eisenberg and Mara were no longer acting.  The scene needed to be very natural and off-the-cuff.

Do you feel like the dialogue in this film felt natural as intended, or were there moments where it appeared well rehearsed.  To go along with that, why do you suppose it was so important for Sorkin and Fincher to portray their characters as naturally as possible?  What effect does this have on an audience?

This article, written by Matt Novak, labels Idiocracy as “a cruel and terrible movie that you should be ashamed for liking”.  This is a fairly controversial statement, but Novak is dead serious about every word of it.  The critique he is making is mostly in regard to what we discussed in class, the intro of the film.  As I think we can all agree, the eugenics implications presented in the beginning of this film are startling and downright scary.  Novak also points out that Judge makes a dangerous correlation between the wealthy and intelligence.  In a sense, he portrays those who have lots of money and thus potentially have a great stake in the large corporations being satirized in the film as the affluent and intelligent.

As we have mentioned in class, it is much more interesting to look at the cultural critique of the film and ignore the intro.  Again, Novak argues that society has always been obsessed with the lowest common denominator of entertainment and we are fooling ourselves if we think our past culture used to read dense literature with their spare time.

I think this article is an interesting read, but I think Novak runs into the problem he is being so critical of, he goes a little over the top with his assessment.  While I agree with many of his assertions on the ground level, Judge is looking at our culture on a continuum.  Though it is true that dumb culture has always existed and always drawn people in, it is difficult to argue that the situation has not deteriorated.  With that being the case, a further dumbing down over 500 years doesn’t seem all that far fetched.  However, I completely agree that Judge should have been more careful with his initial reasoning.  Pointing the finger at the poor and underprivileged is an extremely slippery slope.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/idiocracy-is-a-cruel-movie-and-you-should-be-ashamed-fo-1553344189

This film puts many touchy issues out on the table.  It is unapologetic and nondiscriminatory when it comes to its attacks.

My major question is, though many viewers identified with this film and what it is trying to say, myself included, has any of it gotten through?  This film was made in 1998, and as far as I can tell, the political climate has gotten a lot worse.

Looking at the reception, though Rotten Tomatoes is not the last word on such matters, the audience approval is sitting at 68%.  What this tells me is that the ideas were dismissed as a result of the ridiculous method of delivery, or too heavy handed.

It is fairly well known that the vast majority of movie audiences go to a film in order to escape from the problems and anxieties of the world they live in.  As a result, any degree of preaching done by a film is a recipe for disaster.

Though it is not as poignant as the style of Bulworth, being subtle with a socio-political message in a film may lead to a little more social change.  If a film can preach to an audience without them realizing it, reception of that idea may increase on a level the audience may not have perceived.

This is a very cynical way to look at the way film can push toward a better world, but from what I have seen, especially in America, it may be the most viable option.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2011/jul/29/the-hour-broadcast-news-bbc

I came across this article and its discussion on how a contemporary television series called The Hour is very reminiscent of Broadcast News.

The author, Peter Bradshaw, makes the point that nothing is new anymore, but it appears as though this new series was directly influenced by James L. Brooks.

Interestingly, another comparison Bradshaw makes is to Edward R. Murrow in Good Night and Good Luck.

The fact that this show exists now and shares so much in common with the 80’s rom com signifies that Brooks was definitely on to something.  The concept of the young attractive news anchor ruling the news over more learned scholars has seemed to remain salient in contemporary society.

However, Bradshaw makes the point that this seems as though it could be dated.  Today on the news, we more often see older, less attractive men supported by very pretty female co-anchors.  Is this idea of infotainment on the news blending into gender dynamics as well?  On some level the news has always part of gender dynamics since the anchor is overwhelmingly male.

This adds to the degree of effectiveness enjoyed by Brooks as he crafts his drama about the politics of where news is going around strife between men and women.

Do you feel that the issues presented in Broadcast News are still just as much a concern, or possibly even more of a concern today?

If the Hour really is about the same type of problems Brooks was after in the late 80’s, why has nothing changed in 20 years?  Is it negatively effecting our news on a massive level or are people content with the status quo?

http://screenrant.com/videodrome-remake-director-adam-berg/

According to this article from 2 years ago, a remake of Videodrome has been in the works for a while may have been picked up by Adam Berg.

However, the project is having troubles getting off the ground because they don’t know if they can pull it off without that 80s style.

A major idea for how the film would be adapted for modern audiences was to explain the freaky occurrences with nano technology and blow the whole affair into a massive sci-fi action thriller.

I feel like this idea for the modern remake is very ironic and the individuals looking to adapt this screenplay missed the entire point of the original film.  What are your thoughts?

Here is a trailer for Black Dynamite.  It is a blaxploitation parody that was released in 2009.  From the obvious ridiculous nature of the trailer, what do you think the director, Scott Sanders, was trying to accomplish?  Is he mocking the history of what Melvin was attempting to do or is he mocking the way the genre has been turned into a circus sideshow?  Here is an a review of the film that briefly mentions Van Peebles in relation to Black Dynamite.

http://xin.msn.com/en-us/movies/movie/black-dynamite/AA4EY9e

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/03/entertainment/la-et-mn-remembering-andy-griffith-face-in-the-crowd-20120703

This article in the LA Times talks about the start of the late Andy Griffith’s film career.

The anecdote in the middle of the article talks about how Griffith ran into the screenwriter, Budd Schulberg, and they talked about Face in the Crowd.  Schulberg was skeptical about Griffith being able to pull off the role, so Andy proved it to him by imitating an evangelist.

This story immediately evoked the memory of one of the final scenes where Lonesome is ranting in his high rise apartment.  Why do you think Schulberg/Kazan made the decision to use such strong evangelical imagery when Rhodes was at his worst moment?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2005/10/edward_r_movie_2.html

I found this article by Jack Shafer of Slate, very interesting.  The scene I liken it to is the one in which the newspaper articles are read in the bar.  We start with the one that elevates the moment and discusses how it was necessary.  We then get O’Brian, who uses many negative terms to insult the performance.  This article reminded me of that O’Brian article.  It has nothing but negative things to say about the film, and essentially calls out Clooney for worshiping Murrow as a god.  Shafer is under the impression that all the talent and directional skill was wasted because they romanticized a man and an era to an unacceptable extent.  I would argue that in order to make a two hour film in which you are trying to make a fairly explicit argument as to the misuse of television, painting the man who represents your ideals as fallible would not be an intelligent move.  I think the audience is savvy enough to realize that this man is not perfect, and we are given a fairly biased account of who he was.  However, it still does not take away from the point that the television has been turned into a medium devoid of relevant and prevalent information and that this moment in history was a glimpse of what it could be.

My question are,

To what extent do you agree/disagree with Shafer?

Did this article cause you to look at this film in a different light?

How do you think Clooney would respond to an article of this nature?

http://www.fictionfactoryfilm.de/2012/01/filming-rage-oliver-stone-on-talk-radio/

The video embedded in the short article is an interview with Oliver Stone as he discusses Talk Radio.  He talks about how it was released between Wall Street and Born on the Fourth of July and how he looks at it as not being a commercial film, but an art film.  He seems very proud of this movie but he also categorizes it as a big step in his career.

Why do you suppose Stone looks at this film as a big step?  Also, do you agree with him when he claims that this film is not commercial?  I personally think that any film that is made by a big studio and distributed to the masses should be considered commercial on some level.  I agree that it does not fit the stereotypical norms of a commercial film, but it still falls in that category.  I feel that directors often like to label their less popular achievements as art and cult classic, but this may have just been his romantic way of looking back on it.

My final question is about one of Stone’s quotes, “Barry was an honest and authentic human being”.  He delivers this quote with a smile.  Do you think he was saying this a bit tongue in cheek or do you suppose that is what he was trying to portray in Barry’s character?  Do you think he was honest and authentic?  I tend to agree with authentic, but I don’t know about the honest part.