Marika's Extra Credit: Birdman

I went to see the new movie, Birdman, this week, and given its unique cinematography, I thought it was appropriate to write about. The movie is all shot in "seemingly" one take, an incredibly difficult feat, and one that added dramatically to the overall feel of the movie. Washed up ex-superhero (birdman) actor, Riggan Thomson, attempts to make a come-back by writing, directing and staring in his own broadway show. Constantly haunted by his past (which is represented quite literally by a deep voice, an actual birdman, and super powers), the camera remains constant as Thomson's psyche goes in and out of reality. While watching this film, I was incredibly impressed at how the movement of the camera and the different angles added to my perceptions of the characters. During one scene, Thomson found his daughter, played by Emma Stone, smoking pot after just getting out of rehab. After he reprimands her, she retaliates by yelling back, but the angle (and possibly the lens?) of the camera makes her head and eyes look enormous as she bugs out vocally and visually. Some of my other favorite shots took place in the hallways of the theater where the cast stayed. The beginning of  this clip shows Thomson and his manager/friend/lawyer walking through the halls. Through the camera, the audience is visually taken through the twists and turns of Thomson's life, making us feel, as Thomson does, like we can't escape.

The Significance of the Nature and Context of a Medium

Early in the piece, McLuhan writes: "This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology." Shrinking this down, we have: "The personal and social consequences of any medium result from the new scale that is introduced by media, including new technologies." Soon after, McLuhan clears this up by discussing the idea that what is most important about a work of a particular medium is not the work itself, but the nature of the medium being used. An especially clear portion of the discussion was the point that all works of a medium contain another medium in order to form meaning, such as words containing speech. It seems to me that one of the underlying points in this piece is the idea that a medium carries with it its own significances based on its own nature and the way in which it exists in society and the world, and is not only significant through the content used to display the medium. I see this as very true, although I may be looking at it in a somewhat fundamental way. Media themselves have their own particular properties, and so the products of those media should not be looked at without considering the significance of the media themselves, since a large part of the significance comes from the nature and history of the medium, and not just from the content expressed through the medium. I'm sure that I'm missing some oh McLuhan's key ideas, so I'm eager to see what others have to say. I'll use Yamishibai, a show depicting spins of Japanese folklore, as an example of the significance of a medium. In this case, there is a media fusion. An old style of paper theater, not unlike a puppet show, is used in conjunction with drawing and animation, so that it is not just the story itself that is told, but the medium itself shows its significance by pointing out the folkloric traditions involved, which also helps to set the tone. http://www.crunchyroll.com/yamishibai-japanese-ghost-stories/episode-2-zanbai-641889

What's Pollock's Message?

With every art movement, and any movement for that matter, whether it be technological, cultural, populous-based, financially based, there becomes a clear underlying purposeful message. Of course, this message stands the test of time, meaning that it this message is developed over time by critics and the public. Also just because it is clear, does not exclude it from being debated.

For example, in regards to most modern art, which largely came after the developing of film and photography, there was a push to express what is subconscious and interpreted rather than what is seen and understood. In the article by Marshall McLuhan, he discusses how a medium is defined and the message that it produces. Within that McLuhan addresses how various producers of the medium can go with uniformity or against it, but is inevitably defined by it. Which leads to Jackson Pollock. Jackson Pollock has created numerous paintings, but most at first glance are just splotches of random paint on a canvas. With the arbitrariness to this style of painting, it would seem trivial that any of his paintings sell more then a dollar let alone millions.

However, as McLuhan states, the medium is the message....paint on canvas. Pollock's style of painting comes from two major factors. Firstly, Pollock always visualized what he wanted to see before he painted. Secondly, the message is so minimalistic that it only seems that the message paint on canvas holds is the aesthetic of such. Essentially, this would mean that Pollock created these paintings for the sake of being paintings. However, it is important to note that this is only one of many interpretations of art, so it would be naïve to exclude any other interpretations. As all art has many interpretations, so does the medium that defines it.

Attached is Jackson Pollock's No 5, which is valued at about 250-300 million dollars. Is this painting really worth 250-300 million $? How does one define the value of aesthetic, within that what separates Pollack's style from something like american romanticism or impressionism, which are typically reality based? These questions are just for thought, there are numerous answers, and more questions then answers to this question. However it is important to note that these questions are being asked, as they will to someday define what is produced in art, and other mediums today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948

Extra Credit: Alex and Ali Review

“In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country,” claimed former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while speaking in New York in 2007. Alex & Ali, a love story more than 45 years in the making, shows us the lonesome world of two lovers separated by politics and time. Alex is an American who met a handsome volleyball player named Ali while volunteering in Iran with the Peace Corps in 1967. They instantly fell in love but the Iranian Revolution forced them apart with Alex fleeing back to the US in 1977. But for 35 years, they have kept in touch through letters, phone calls, and eventually, e-mails. Fast forward to May 2012 as Alex’s nephew plans to reunite the pair for two weeks in Istanbul, and Ali must make a decision: apply for refugee status and try to enter the US, or return to Iran and face the possibility of arrest and torture. The documentary follows the now elderly men around Istanbul as they struggle to revive their affections and make potentially life-changing decisions. Though their bond ran deep enough to keep them connected through middle age and into their later years, they must attempt to overcome the tremendous amount of change each has undergone and rekindle the spark they first ignited in their youth. Filmmaker Malachi Leopold does not hesitate to discuss the state of gays in Iran, a nation which is far behind the Western World in terms of social progress. Homosexuality is a taboo subject within the media and society as a whole, forcing an entire country into the closet. Alex fights to help Ali escape this world, but his biggest challenge proves to be overcoming the mindset instilled in his friend through years of persecution and hatred: Ali refuses to admit he is gay. Through the eyes of Alex and Ali, we are reminded that there are far too many people to whom government still defines how they can express their identities, and that the biggest obstacle to their happiness may be convincing them to overcome their own fears.