I don't even know if Tom Cruise can act. I just know I don't like him.

 "The movie was awful, and yes, you were awful in it, but one bad movie could be overcome. Look at Colin Farrell, he's overcome dozens of 'em, 'cause the perception of him is, he's a movie star."

 ARI GOLD, ENTOURAGE

 

 

Every now and then I have those little moments where I find reality can be directly related back to a movie or TV show. I'd like to think that's normal. If not, just go along with it anyway.

 

For most of last weeks class with Mark, I kept coming back to Entourage, the 8 season HBO series following the rise, fall, and eventual comeback of a Hollywood "movie star." I threw quotation marks over that phrase just now because we spent a great deal of time in class discussing what exactly makes a movie star, what defining characteristics separate them from celebrities, and how the concept of stardom runs a little deeper than a seven figure salary and your picture on a billboard.

 

Societies general perception of movie stars is pretty straight forward, and I think that's where the idolisation  stems from- rich, famous, and good looking- who wouldn't want that?

But as Mark explained to us in class, a movie star is more about being a commodity of the film industry, not an individual entity. They have to go beyond the one week wonder phase, and endure the elements of the movie business, hoping to come out at the end as a marketable image.

 

The scary part is considering just how unforgiving both the industry and the general public can be, if you fall.

 

Tom Cruise? I don't care what movie he's in, he's a couch jumping douche, and too short to play any role that isn't a jockey.

 

Mel Gibson? Anti Semitic prick.

 

Eddie Murphy? Well, Eddie is still rad. but I can't not think about his rendezvous with a transsexual prostitute every time I see one of his movies.

 

Over the years my level of respect has dropped for these actors, even though their downfalls and shortcomings have absolutely nothing to do with their on screen performance.

This alone pushes the idea that as an actor rises through the ranks in Hollywood, their actual talent becomes less important than their image- Their acting ability is what gets their foot in the door, but it's how they are perceived, and how they sell themselves (as a commodity) that will determine how long they can stay at the top.

 

 

 

Brittney Spears- The poster child for self destruction.

Considering how cautious a person has to be in every area of their life, knowing that everything could change in one interview, one break-up, one bad paparazzi photo.... do I still envy them? Sure. But the difference now is, I'm starting to recognize that they have a little more to worry about than their seven figure salary and their face on the billboard.

 

 

 

Happy Easter!

 

 

Sean.

NEWS FLASH! DIRECTOR DAVID LYNCH DESIGNS FURNITURE FOR IKEA!

Last week I went to IKEA. I bought a stool. It looked simple enough to construct- wood, bolts, and screws. But alas, at midnight I was still cross-legged on the lounge room floor asking myself “WHAT THE FARK!?”

It made no sense. $35 of flat packed douche-baggery.

Jump forward 24 hours. It’s midnight again, and I’m still cross-legged on the lounge room floor, still fuming and confused. But this time it’s because I’m halfway through David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive. I can’t help but think, if there was ever a definitive exercise in pointlessness, Lynch is spot on with this film.

In last week’s class, we discussed the main characteristics that define classical narrative, the common structure of what is deemed conventional/normal in film. This week, we discussed alternatives to that structure- hence the homework assignment of watching Mulholland Drive.

What bothered me initially is that the film bothered me. I knew that I was losing patience because to me, the film made no sense.

But after Mark went over certain points in the film with the class I understood it. But I’m still bothered.

The reason I am bothered now, however, is because I do understand it, and I love it. I think its genius. I now hate that I was too dense to understand the film without having it broken down for me, and just as much, I hate that my opinion of the film is now completely the opposite of what it was. But I think Lynch’s film is a testament to how much of an impact you can make by going against the grain, and rejecting conventional methods.

 

On the surface, it appears as if Lynch has rejected all the qualities associated with classical narrative. Character traits, clearly defined goals, coherence… It’s not there. At least not in any obvious way. What is there, however, is symbolism and subtext- over 2 hours of it. And next time I get a free evening I’ll look forward to sitting down again and taking a second stab at uncovering some more of it.

Until next week,

 

Silencio.

 

Sean.

Narrative structure and dead insects

"...They take a whole bunch of dead shit, and make it come back to life through film."

Can i quote my lecturer here? Maybe it wasn't my lecturer who said this. Maybe it was the crazy guy eating his own face on the train home on Friday night (FYI, the Werribee line is not for the faint of heart). You'll never know.

Stan Brakhage's Mothlight received many cracks from my fellow classmates (myself included) at uncovering the subtext, some of which could be true, some could be false. But the above quote stands true, regardless of any other analysis you throw over the top of it.
Whether it's recording actual events in a news report or documentary, a science fiction feature film projecting a possibility of an alternate universe, or just 2 stupid fictitious people who take 140 minutes to realise they are meant to be together, film gives life to events and scenarios (both real and fiction) every time you turn on the television or walk into a movie theatre.

 

I think if i were to take away only 1 piece of information from this class, that would be it. But I need to back up a little- I don't want to give the impression that that was all I took away from the lesson.

Classical Narrative- 2 words that when paired together had never meant a great deal to me, up until last Friday.

Everyone understands the basic idea of narrative structure in film. You meet the characters. Something happens. That something gets resolved. Then the lead male gets laid. A lot.
You don't need to see him getting laid, you just know that it’s going to happen, and a part of you wants to start a an epic slow clap, as if to say, "well played random film hero, well played."

It wasn't until the actual elements of classical narrative structure were listed and discussed that i began to develop a deeper understanding of the paradigm employed in the majority of films over the last 80 years.

While i do appreciate this common structure, i am eager to watch David Fincher's Mulholland Drive next week, as it rejects the conventional structure of film to which society has become accustomed to.

More about that next week!

Sean.