Final work on Disney's Most Notorious Film is slowly coming along. The whole final production process is running slightly behind, entirely because of me--May turned out to be an unusually busy month due to unforeseen circumstances . . . such as jury duty! (among other things). But now I'm just settling in and focusing on the old beast one last time. There are no major changes to make as the book has been typset already (right)--meaning that it looks more or less exactly as it will in the final bound version. All I'm doing now is both final proofreading on the page layouts and, more time-consumingly, the indexing, which in the six years since Kubrick Facade I'd forgotten just how slow it goes.
Looking over it again, I'm still largely satisfied with the content, though its amazing to think how much it changed over the years--both the original idea for a dissertation on Song of the South a decade ago, as well as the equally significant changes made since I finished that stage of the project in late 2009. I blogged a bit about that whole process here--from dissertation idea to final book--and I think when the book is available in the late fall, I'll probably reflect more on the actual content of the final version of the project.
I think it makes valuable contributions to the fields of media convergence, reception studies and Disney history, but I'm sure most people will focus on the racial component (not surprising, especially since that's what gave birth to the project in the first place). In short, its a book that will get a lot of attention, for better and for worse, and much of it probably won't even be that invested in what I actually wrote. Anyway, there will be much to say later as I begin to anticipate reactions to the project closer to the release date.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Bond and Skyfall (by way of Nostalgia)
During a recent research presentation, I gestured towards the next phase of my current project, Haunted Nerves, which will focus on the key role of nostalgia in so many of today's blockbuster transmedia franchises--namely, Prometheus (Alien), Transformers, Tron, GI Joe, Star Trek, Terminator and so forth. In its very early stages, Haunted Nerves is an attempt at historicizing the modern era of digital cinema, with "history" being largely defined here by the digital's negotiation (or lack thereof) with affect, labor consciousness and nostalgia.
The recent trend towards this deep affective investment in the past goes beyond just the obsession with serialization, sequels, transmedia storytelling and other forms of brand expansion. I'm tempted to argue that they point towards a new iteration of Jameson's "nostalgia film," a type of movie that he saw as more invested in stylistic (mediated) conventions of the past than the past itself (the most famous of his examples, perhaps, being Chinatown, a recycling of noir-ish iconography and motifs and symbolic shorthands--Roosevelt, Seabiscuit--in place of any investment in documenting everyday life in late 1930s Los Angeles).
The idea, though, wasn't just an aesthetic description of the media text, which is where much of the use value of Jameson's work on the postmodern migrated over the years. What was lost in pastiche and nostalgia was a space for historical consciousness and, by extension, political critique. The modern (digital) iteration of the "nostalgia film" then might operate in similar fashion--dependent upon surface signifiers of "pastness" rooted in pre-existing transmedia brands, and with little investment in a kind of historical consciousness beyond self-referential franchises.
Why then "nostalgia"? Its here where I think Sean Cubitt's work on the "Event Film" might be telling. Cubitt provocatively suggested that the modern blockbuster has no investment in reality--not a Baudrillardian claim that reality doesn't exist per se, only that Hollywood is indifferent to it, favoring the reassuring (depoliticized) fantasy worlds that posited themselves as above critique precisely because they're not interested in claiming to be about "our" world. Cubitt then posited the re-occuring, timeless theme of "undying love" as that which affectively anchored these otherwise detached and elaborate fantasies for real audiences.
Yet I'm wondering if nostalgia might be equally relevant in making these purely digital worlds, often spread across immense media landscapes, recognizable and reassuring for modern audiences. The best example, I think, may be Tron: Legacy (2010), a media text which depicts an elaborate sci-fi world unlike our own, and that doesn't make any narrative or technological sense internally. Its very continued existence as a contemporary franchise only works as nostalgia. But that's another story for another day.
I've been thinking about this lately because of my own research on the commodification of nostalgia (both Haunted Nerves and the earlier Disney book), but also because so much of my interest in event films from last few years has grown explicitly out of nostalgic impulses. I've wanted for years to do something with the waves of generational nostalgia that seems to have sustained some franchises in particular for decades--namely, GI Joe, Star Trek and James Bond, all of which can trace their popularity at least as far back as the 1960s, but which also seem to have periods of success that have come and gone over that time. One short answer--as I discuss repeatedly throughout Disney's Most Notorious Film--has something to do with how so many parents raise their kids, knowingly or otherwise, on their own nostalgia.
Speaking of Bond, one of the first images released from the forthcoming Skyfall (above) was deeply rooted in nostalgia, as producers once again brought back the famous Aston Martin DB5, which has made several appearances since its debut in 1964's Goldfinger, which rightly remains the quintessential Bond film (even though I am as personally fond of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia with Love and Casino Royale--the latter being the only one in the last thirty years that comes close to the greatness of Bond in the 1960s. One might also notice in the image above that its the exact same license plate number--BMT216A--as in the original Connery classic. More subtly too, though, the landscape behind Daniel Craig and the car are also deeply evocative of the same barren, hilly Swiss landscape that Connery was driving around five decades ago (right).Although much of the promotion for Skyfall so far, such as its underwhelming teaser trailer, doesn't seem as overtly nostalgic (there is, after all, more than one target audience), its not at all insignificant that there is presently a major push to get consumers to buy the 50th Anniversary Blu-Ray collection, which includes every Bond film ever made. Without exception, Sony uses every new Bond film as an excuse to re-release "new" versions of old movies onto home video formats as a way to both promote the new theatrical release and to continue milking consumers for every dime the old franchise can still grab. Bond blu-rays were originally released in tandem with 2008's Quantum of Solace, and some manner of similar re-release strategy has stretched back over the last 10-15 years.
Of course, its too cynical to only focus on the transparent money grab--though the whole thing is pretty disgusting, particularly in its strategic withholding of certain titles in order to force people to buy the whole thing just to get one or two films still missing from the library. But I've got bad news for Sony--I'm not spending $200 just to see On Her Majesty's Secret Service in high definition. Of course, I'm sure the plan is to release them all separately in another year or so, anyway, once they've gotten all the cash out of the 50th Anniversary edition they can.
But less cynically, the constant obsession with releasing old Bond films onto DVD and Blu-Ray with each new theatrical release speaks to other considerations as well--for one, it highlights how the appeal of Bond in the contemporary moment always coexists with a deeper nostalgia for the entire, accumulative franchise. And, for other, it reminds us again that "newer" media and their various platforms are always largely anchored by the nostalgic remediation of older properties instead of anything truly "new."
Friday, May 18, 2012
Top 10 Favorite Movies
Lately there's been a lot of hype around the latest Sight & Sound poll of the greatest films ever made. Typically, I find the idea of the "greatest" movies problematic, but there is definitely something of value in polling many of the most respected film critics and scholars in the world for their opinions and, from those results, carefully compiling a list that might actually begin to vaguely approach a "greatest" movies list. The idea that there is any real objective criteria for such a title is absurd--this isn't to say that one individual's opinions aren't valid, just that they, like the movies themselves, needs a heavy dose of historical, critical and cultural contexts.
If I were partaking in a "greatest" list, I'd be inclined to list some of the usual suspects--Vertigo, Rules of the Game, Sunrise, Double Indemnity, 2001, Man With a Movie Camera, Rome, Open City, Night and Fog, etc.--but it would be a careful negotiation of my personal favorites from amongst the larger canon of pre-established "classics," taking into account a balance of different filmmakers, countries, time periods, etc. Thus, the list is always already compromised by external factors which quickly become self-perpetuating in any such endeavor.
The idea of one's favorites in a purer sense seems to fit better. Its more transparently honest about the subjective and fleeting (not to mention mostly arbitrary) nature of such a project. Along those lines, I've been giving thought to updating my list of Top 10s for a long time. When I was a teenager, I had a definite list, which I wasted too much of my youth thinking about. As I got older, I began to realize how foolish the whole thing was--partially because my tastes kept changing and partially because, especially in college, I kept being introduced to so many new films that I couldn't really keep up with something as trivial as a "best of" list.
But, anyway, I've been thinking recently about all the movies I've ever seen and which ones stayed with me, and which ones didn't. It might be amusing, like S&S, to revisit the topic once a decade. So, here's a list of my top 10 favorite films. My criteria was mostly two-fold: I have to believe it is a "great" film, for one, even if that greatness is limited to fulfilling the functions of its genre; for another, it has to be a movie which I genuinely need to watch at least once a year on my own time (as in, not for a class, or other official screening). Finally, I tried to spread it across different genres and people--i.e., I could have made this a list entirely of Billy Wilder movies, Bogart performances or film noirs and it still would have been close to accurate. Finally, I am a sad, unapolegetic Americanist (not because I think its "better" but just because that's mostly been my exposure over the years, and I'm not so arrogant as to speak for international cinema in this context).
So, here goes (in alphabetical order, because the idea of ranking them any further feels too silly):
- Carnival of Souls, 1963 (a deliriously seductive low budget B&W horror film, shot entirely in Kansas and Utah, which despite its no-talent cast benefits tremendously from an atmosphere created by its verite style. Precisely because it was all shot on the fly, on real locations, the movie slowly generates--even unintentionally--a deep feeling of unrelenting dread as the main protagonist flees in vain from a landscape of spirits haunting her at every turn. Made by a group of industrial filmmakers putting together their sole feature-length fiction film, this was superb indie filmmaking back when that was actually an accomplishment in the pre-digital, pre-home video era--everything Ed Wood was trying to do, but this time actually making a great film. This was also the film, few people realize now, that inspired the low-budget look and feel of Romero's more celebrated Night of the Living Dead a few years later.)
- National Lampoon's Vacation, 1983 (pure nostalgic bliss: the Route 66 roadtrip; 80s Americana; the satirical faux-Disney transmedia empire; Chevy Chase in the only role that ever worked for his otherwise one-dimensional style; and a genuinely witty script: "Ed, I'm not your ordinary, everyday fool." Truer words were never spoken.)
- Punch-Drunk Love, 2002 (I've often remarked that I wrote a whole book about Paul Thomas Anderson's films just because I wanted to write one chapter on Punch-Drunk Love. What I mean by that, though, isn't just how much I love this movie--its that its so good it made me rethink Anderson's other work as well. Its the movie that made me taken him seriously. Boogie Nights is a very clever film in a lot of ways, perhaps even too clever for its own good, but also a very superficial one--its pleasures are all there on the surface the first time through. There Will Be Blood is just about flawless, but his real evolution began here. Its no easy task to make such anger and sadness feel so light and playful, and scary. Read more here.)
- Raising Arizona, 1987 (The Coen brothers' best film and, apologies to Lebowski, also the most quotable. A look at how a loser lowlife criminal and his hypocritical cop wife try to steal their way into having a family. Its a genuinely quirky, but also sincerely affectionate, look at the contradictions of Reagan's America before "quirky" takes on middle class white American patriarchy became a self-sustaining cliche of "indie" cinema.)
- Sabrina, 1954 (its hard to pick only one Wilder film, but I think I'll go with the one that doesn't get nearly as much love as the others. But more than that, its a true Wilder classic in its biting subversion. Whereas Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard and even The Apartment wear their cynicism of their sleeves, Sabrina is a romantic comedy with a whole mess of personal and social sadness buried within its core, which reveals itself more and more with each passing. Added bonus: the only movie ever to involve Billy Wilder, Humphrey Bogart, William Holden and Audrey Hepburn together, has got to immediately be in the mix for greatest movie ever of the old studio system).
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, 1982 (Greatest movie ever. Aside from establishing the formula which every Star Trek since has sadly tried to mimic--including JJ's lame version, which feels emptier every time through--it also has a very intelligently constructed and deeply moving mediation on the fine line between life and death, between destruction and creation. I make no apologies for being an old-school Trekkie--if I wasn't limiting myself to one ST movie, Voyage Home [1986] would probably also be on this list.)
- The Haunting, 1960 (Ghost movies are hard to do, because they run counter-intuitive to the usual conventions of the horror genre--viscerality, gore, shock--in favor of what really makes "haunted house" movies work--central protagonists who slowly and believably lose their minds. Atmosphere is never more key than with this subgenre, and The Haunting is a textbook example of how such simple techniques as widescreen, low/high-angles and long takes can draw us into its dreadfully spacious world and create an oppressive feel of unease. I literally love every frame of this film.)
- The Third Man, 1949 (Citizen Kane deserves its reputation, at least on a technical level, as being the greatest film ever made, but ask me to pick a Welles/Cotten movie and I would go with Carol Reed's post-war noir every single time. Ironically, I don't really care for Cotten at all, and yet he appears prominently in three of my fav films from the 1940s--Kane and Third Man, as well as Hitch's remarkable Shadow of a Doubt [1943]. I'm not sure I could really say why--its a deeply melancholic film, filled with friendship betrayal, cold-blooded murder, speeches about humankind's insignificance, unrequited love, criminal deception, and even healthy dose of child poisoning for good measure, and yet it just fills me with joy every time I see it).
- The Wild Bunch, 1969 (I think this must count as my one true guilty cinematic pleasure--I don't dispute its racism, its excessive violence or its misogyny, all of which becomes more awkward with each passing day. And I don't hide behind historical claims about its groundbreaking editing and slow-motion [which still feels fresh forty years later], or its thorough deconstruction of the frontier mythology, though its probably not a coincidence that this is the only western to come anywhere near my list. I'm really not sure why I find this such a powerful film to me, even after viewing it so many times through the years. Maybe because it is so unapologetic--not just in its offenses but in the way it asks us to follow such a thoroughly unredeemable group of unlikeable criminals, offset only modestly by the fact that most everyone else around them is even more despicable. Maybe its the only western to me that feels honest about the historical origins of the genre, about why the illusion of the frontier really appeals to some people. On a not-unrelated note, the fact that William Holden is the only one to make two appearances here probably explains why I'm so inexplicably fond of his persona, or vice versa. He is such a grizzled old badass in this movie, for better and for worse. For some reason, I find vintage Holden so captivating, pairing this with Network and even Eastwood's Breezy.)
- Vertigo, 1958 (this isn't just an established masterpiece. It really is an awesome cinematic experience; some like to criticize its pacing, but they really aren't fans of old Hollywood to begin with. Its style and its mood is utterly hypnotic, lulling us into a dream which slowly evolves into a nightmare, and at its core is one of the greatest music scores ever written, and one of the best performances ever given--Jimmy Stewart as a likeable old cop who slowly goes insane. Much acclaim has already been lumped on Hitchcock's greatest film, and every bit of it is fully justified.)
I spent so much time thinking about the list that I don't have time now to write more about each one. Another blog post, perhaps.
Other thoughts: as I said, I made a conscious effort to limit Bogart, Wilder, Hitchcock, horror films, etc: so stuff like Big Sleep, Casablanca, In a Lonely Place, Double Indemnity, The Apartment, Shadow of a Doubt, North by Northwest, Dawn of the Dead, The Shining, and so forth, are on the outside looking in. Ditto, limits on 80s sci-fi, so no Terminator, Alien, Predator or Tron. Also, no international cinema, which I'm not proud of. If I had to pick one, it would probably be a toss-up between Renais' Marienbad or Hiroshima, Mon Amour.
I'm resistant to include films from the last twenty years, because a) its tricky to elevate some of them as being "special" when so many of them were already consciously drawing from a rich history that came before them, and b) I've learned from experience that some movies don't stand the test of time. So, no Eternal Sunshine, Mulholland Drive, Lost in Translation, Ghost World, or Be Kind Rewind. Of those, I would suspect only the first two will still be a consideration in another 10-20 years, but we'll see.
No Kubrick films, which doesn't surprise me, but might surprise others for superficial reasons: The Shining probably still remains my personal favorite of his only because of my fondness for ghost movies, but if I had to choose one these days I'd probably pick Strangelove. No Bond movies, either: Goldfinger, Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service just missed. The latter, in particular, would probably be #11, if I had to choose.
Finally, some movies that were on my list a decade or so ago: The Godfather II, Pulp Fiction, Casablanca, 2001, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now, and Chinatown. That was my teen years in a nutshell: don't judge. Of all those, I'd say only Chinatown came close to making the list again (and it did come thisclose to being included). The only two that did survive after all these years? The Wild Bunch and Sabrina.
No Bill Murray: which makes me sad.
js
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The University of Texas Press webpage for Disney's Most Notorious Film (2012) is now up. Very cool. Check it out.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Be Kind . . . Rewind
Yesterday, I received a copy in the mail of Cinephilia Vol 2, putting an end to a very long chapter in my academic life. Scott and I began thinking about the possibility of doing a collection of essays on cinephilia and digital culture as far back as 2005, shortly after we started putting together an SCMS panel on a related subject. Indeed, as long ago as 2007, the deal with Wallflower and a tentative list of contributors that largely held together over the years was already in place. Volume 1 appeared in 2009, but the second took a bit more time. But now that its finally here, I can honestly and perhaps immodestly say that Volume 2 is excellent, and I'm not talking about my own chapter, but the uniformly impressive roster of contributions. And they fit together well, too--a nice capstone to how Scott and I ultimately conceptualized the notion of cinephilia. In other words, it was worth the wait. I sincerely believe that this volume can stand with any of the collections of work on cinephilia published in the last twenty years.
* * *
On a more personal note, I'm comfortable with how my own investment in "cinephilia" has come to a resolution here. I'm proud of my own modest involvement as co-editor with the larger collection, but also of my own essay on film after film in Be Kind Rewind, which had been a labor of love for several years ("love" in this sense is not to be confused with cinephilia). One of the few advantages to taking so long to publish Vol. 2 was the opportunity to include a paper idea that evolved relatively late in the process. Looking over it one more time yesterday (but also for the first time when I could no longer change anything), I was still largely satisfied with it. There are no shortage of flaws, mind you, but I was very happy to see that the intended spirit of the essay is still intact for me four years after I conceived the idea.
"Be Kind . . . Rewind" uses the occasion of Gondry's little-seen 2008 film to rethink some older ideas about cinephilia's aesthetic, historical and cultural "use-value." The idea began with the movie itself. The first several times I saw this movie, I wept at the end. This is not a common reaction for me at all with movies, and I suppose on some level I really wanted to know why this movie affected me so acutely. Its not as visually clever, or tonally pitch perfect (or even "touching"), as the earlier collaboration with Charlie Kaufmann, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), and yet that film never quite produced the same reaction. Somewhere in the course of the essay, I think I unlocked it, but its not something--by design--I would put in a single sentence.
But it wasn't just about my own cinephilia--if it were, I would have had no interest in writing the essay, as that autobiographical period of my career (from "Nemesis" to "Islands of Detroit") has largely passed, as my forthcoming books on Disney and Paul Thomas Anderson, respectively, should definitely indicate. It was more motivated by the simple question: how does Be Kind Rewind and its distinctive form of media consumption fit with any possible notion of cinephilia, either narratively or as a cinematic artifact? What do we do with the questions of economic access, racial identity, cultural history, nostalgic ambivalence, out-dated media platforms, "low culture" aesthetics, and so forth? This, to me, is where the essay and the film are particularly interesting (though they are not at all completely separate from my personal reactions either).
That said, though, the essay certainly has its flaws. As we authors always say, if I was writing it today, I'd write it differently. For one, its no longer technologically timely (already!!!)--for instance, the section about disappointment with the clarity of mechanically projected (35mm) theatrical images is already out of date in an age when studios are pressuring all theatres to convert to digital projection, something still seen as financially and logistically impractical just a couple years ago. It is also perhaps too long, although the logic still makes sense within a framework of the "off-modern," alphabetical structure very much intended to mimic not only earlier projects in cinephilia (Ray, Girish, Wollen) but also what I see as the wandering spirit of the film itself. As the quote from Gondry which opens the essay highlights:
"Ideas are like cities: Once they are started they keep on building on themselves, accumulating incongruous layers over the years to form a complex texture resembling organic matter." (71)
Honestly, that pretty much sums up the intended spirit underneath the form and content of the essay. The structure though is not as free-form as it might seem--fitting everything into an "A-Z" structure forces as many limitations on a writer and it creates opportunities. The writing process becomes in many ways counter-intuitive. Some of the writing is still too bloated, a flaw I've refined somewhat since then. The plus side, though, is that the alphabetical structure also forced me to go in directions I hadn't really intended to originally. It also fit with the idea that there is no simple, reductive idea encapsulating the whole "incongruous" project on an "off-modern cinephilia."
Its also just too polemical in its elegy to my cinephilia, too much taking the bait and fighting fire with fire--which very much reflects where my own personal engagement with cinephilia was circa 2009-2011. This was frustration with other cinephiles, true, but if one looks closely enough they will note it was also very much about frustration with myself. For better and for worse, though, it remains very close to the spirit of what I originally wanted to say, and I don't often feel that way after my work is published. Moreover, I still stand by the content, if not always the form. It says almost exactly what I wanted to say about personal and public forms of cinephilia, from a properly historical and culture perspective. And, it remains, I hope, the last thing I will ever publish on the topic.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Midnight in Paris and the Nostalgia Film
Nostalgia may be the central thematic preoccupation of my writing career. But, by itself (as a theoretical category), I'm not terribly interested in it. I prefer to explore it in relation to other issues: history, audience studies, cinephilia, transmedia franchises, whiteness, remediation. And thus I tend not to write at length about it explicitly. But I could easily see myself very effortlessly writing a whole book just on--with apologies to Jameson--the "Nostalgia Film."
Woody Allen’s most recent movie, the much-acclaimed Midnight in Paris (2011), is the director’s most transparent meditation on nostalgia yet. This is something that has already been noted by many, including my friend Todd's excellent take on Allen's career. Although a fondness for the past has always informed his deeply cinephiliac work—especially his postmodern pastiche period of the 1980s and early 1990s (Purple Rose, Zelig, Radio Days, etc)—it has never felt quite so explicit in its self-awareness, and by extension, its rather blatant critique. The premise of the movie is a struggling American writer (Owen Wilson, who seems frighteningly effortless in challenging Woody Allen in a way I wouldn’t have anticipated) who discovers a way to travel back to 1920s Paris—a heyday of artistic exploration in literature, music, cinema and painting. Along the way, he meets the usual suspects: Stein, Hemingway, Bunuel, Eliot, Porter, and so forth.
In case we miss the central theme of the film, there is the obligatory pretentious academic (Michael Sheen) to spell it out for us rather early in the narrative (Allen often seems to deflect his own pretentiousness through a narrative contempt for self-involved intellectuals). In Midnight in Paris, Sheen’s character offers others, and the audience, a lecture on how:
Nostalgia is denial—denial of the painful present. The name for this denial is “golden age” thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one’s living in – it’s a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present.The speech, much like the whole movie, is a bit too “on the nose” in its conception of nostalgia. Without giving it away, the film’s plot twists on a revelation which explicitly highlights the arbitrary, idiosyncratic nature of such “golden age” thinking—the endless nostalgic deferral further into the past. This forces the writer to confront the dangers inherent in his romanticizing of the past, thus causing him to accept the present for what it is (not).
What is both fascinating and maddening about Midnight in Paris is how it interrogates nostalgia so closely and sincerely and yet also gets it so wrong—all the more frustrating given Allen’s career-long fascination with, and often remarkable cinematic imaginings of, the subject. Yet this most movie reduces the idea of nostalgia to the most simple-minded definition possible—an unhealthy obsession with the past at the expense of the present. This isn’t necessarily wrong in many instances, but like all crude definitions of complicated ideas, it leaves out far more than it includes.
The idea that we can perceive the present outside the past—to borrow from Deleuze—is foolish. Our pasts inform our presents—our feelings of nostalgia (along with regret or fondness, both of which are both kind of collapsed into nostalgia) shape the choices we make in the “now.” Sometimes it is unconscious and impulsive, while other times it is thoughtful and deliberate (even excessively so). But the idea that we exist without our pasts, that we ever live purely in the present, is something Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) and countless others gave the lie to years ago. Or, as Last Year at Marienbad (1960) famously suggested, there’s perhaps no clear, sustained distinction in our perception between the two. So I’m troubled in the end by Midnight in Paris’ simple “either/or” conclusion—that one must wallow in the illusory past or accept the realities of the present.
Nostalgia, as I often note in class, is really about death. We become nostalgic—at any age really—when we become aware of our own mortality. Teenagers, for example, can be intensely nostalgic—not because they have much experience to look back fondly upon, but because it’s the first time in their lives when they realize that time passes irrecoverably, that their childhood is (permanently) gone. Nostalgia becomes a mechanism by which we can imagine the stopping of time’s march. It is about enduring loss—in both senses of the word “enduring”—deferring the acceptance of a loss predicated on the unspoken realization that that moment will never come again. So, as I’ve also pointed out before, if we had no sense of death, if we lived forever, we would also have no sense of nostalgia (we would also, importantly, have no sense of time). There’d be no reason to hold onto the past if there was no notion of a finite future—replaced with the endless possibility that past moments would still eventually return.
I suppose my point with this digression above is to wonder what role Allen’s own mortality plays in Midnight in Paris’ rather disappointing articulation, and condemnation, of nostalgia. Does the playful relationship with the past that informs Purple Rose or Radio Days fade with the recognition that all that now is left is nostalgia? Midnight in Paris is often light and humorous, as clever and witty (particularly in its artistic allusions) as any of his films, but that is undermined by what is at its core a deep contempt for the nostalgic impulse that informs it, and his entire body of work--a contempt which has never been quite so explicitly articulated before. What is lost, in the end, is the nuances and contradictions of nostalgia, for better and for worse.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Avengers
The Avengers (2012) feels like the epic two-part finale to a high-profile sci-fi television show—no less ambitious and well-crafted, but inherently meaningless without the fan investment in everything that came before it. Of course, any film with this much hype for this long will inevitably be a disappointment, so we’ll forgo that. At the same time, Joss Whedon’s long-gestating epic benefits tremendously from the films which came before it, allowing the audience to remain invested in a wide range of characters that would be otherwise lost amidst an over-bloated ensemble cast such as this. It also frees up the co-writer/director from having to spend too much time with backstory on any one character. If we are already familiar with the characters and story lines in earlier films such as Iron Man (2008), Captain America (2011), or Thor (2011), we are less likely to be distracted by the relatively shallow attention given to each character—they don’t feel like one-dimensional stock characters because each has had a whole discursive history behind them. The film does a good job of honoring each character, their respective interactions, and the larger group dynamic, all the while keeping the story moving along briskly.
At the same time, The Avengers does feel quite by-the-numbers too—just like the other films, but with more characters and a higher budget. The movie’s success as a blockbuster is predicated as much on getting out of the way of formulas already established, as on coming up with anything particularly new or clever. The most interesting aspect of the new film remains the complicated, ambivalent relationship between “adopted” brothers Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) that was so effectively established in the earlier movie. One unspoken irony in the narrative seems to be how Loki’s desire for fascist control and world domination clearly echoes the franchise’s desire for a similarly passive and willing global audience. Meanwhile, Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) remains as smug and snarky as ever. If anything, by the end of the movie, the ensemble does him a favor—a little Stark goes quite a long way. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is the focal point of many of the film’s most amusingly memorable moments, but his inner conflict, as Bruce Banner explains late, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially when looking back at earlier developments in the film.
Meanwhile, Captain America (Chris Evans) retains his inherent, necessary dullness—has anyone else noticed that Evans’ narcissistic “hero” in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) would make a far more interesting character to build a big-budget action movie around? At the same time, “dullness” here isn’t meant as an insult, as part of the appeal of his earlier film was the way it articulated this romanticized nostalgia for an earlier (imaginary) period of impossible heroism which remains the guiding myth of selflessness and sacrifice for the Avengers today. Yet the film misses a chance to play more on Captain America’s anachronism—the sense of his temporal out-of-place-ness in the modern era. Although, it must be pointed out, a throwaway joke between him and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), which plays to his “datedness,” may be quietly the most clever and subversive moment in the entire franchise (though I was left wondering how he managed to not lose his wallet after all these years, or why he would still need money now, but whatever).
One is left wondering how long before the inevitable sequel. Despite the obscene amounts of money the film will continue to make, Disney and Paramount may wish to slow down a bit, letting the anticipation building for another reunion to resonate across several other films first. Part of why The Avengers works at all is the rare novelty of uniting this cast of characters. If we get a new one every two years, the appeal will grow old very quickly, and the plot holes, character inconsistencies and rushed development on display in this one will become more and more glaringly apparent. The franchise would be wise to ease up on the pedal, go back to the individual films and revisit an Avengers sequel further down the road.
At the same time, The Avengers does feel quite by-the-numbers too—just like the other films, but with more characters and a higher budget. The movie’s success as a blockbuster is predicated as much on getting out of the way of formulas already established, as on coming up with anything particularly new or clever. The most interesting aspect of the new film remains the complicated, ambivalent relationship between “adopted” brothers Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) that was so effectively established in the earlier movie. One unspoken irony in the narrative seems to be how Loki’s desire for fascist control and world domination clearly echoes the franchise’s desire for a similarly passive and willing global audience. Meanwhile, Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) remains as smug and snarky as ever. If anything, by the end of the movie, the ensemble does him a favor—a little Stark goes quite a long way. The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is the focal point of many of the film’s most amusingly memorable moments, but his inner conflict, as Bruce Banner explains late, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, especially when looking back at earlier developments in the film.
Meanwhile, Captain America (Chris Evans) retains his inherent, necessary dullness—has anyone else noticed that Evans’ narcissistic “hero” in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) would make a far more interesting character to build a big-budget action movie around? At the same time, “dullness” here isn’t meant as an insult, as part of the appeal of his earlier film was the way it articulated this romanticized nostalgia for an earlier (imaginary) period of impossible heroism which remains the guiding myth of selflessness and sacrifice for the Avengers today. Yet the film misses a chance to play more on Captain America’s anachronism—the sense of his temporal out-of-place-ness in the modern era. Although, it must be pointed out, a throwaway joke between him and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), which plays to his “datedness,” may be quietly the most clever and subversive moment in the entire franchise (though I was left wondering how he managed to not lose his wallet after all these years, or why he would still need money now, but whatever).
One is left wondering how long before the inevitable sequel. Despite the obscene amounts of money the film will continue to make, Disney and Paramount may wish to slow down a bit, letting the anticipation building for another reunion to resonate across several other films first. Part of why The Avengers works at all is the rare novelty of uniting this cast of characters. If we get a new one every two years, the appeal will grow old very quickly, and the plot holes, character inconsistencies and rushed development on display in this one will become more and more glaringly apparent. The franchise would be wise to ease up on the pedal, go back to the individual films and revisit an Avengers sequel further down the road.
The Raven (2012)
As with his debut film, V for Vendetta (2006), director James McTeigue seems attracted to projects which offer highly stylized and factually loose interpretations of noted historical figures, situated amongst settings which exude postmodern pastiche. In The Raven (2012), John Cusack plays the legendary American author and poet Edgar Allen Poe who discovers that a serial killer is loose in Baltimore, and who is using excerpts from his body of work as the muse to a series of grisly killings. Although the film is set in 18th Century America, one feels as though the entire narrative exists within a purely imaginary space as much rooted in the generic literary iconography of Gothic America as in any actual historical research on the time and place. Is historical fidelity the main goal of the film? Should it be? No, and no. But, on a visceral level, such creative superficiality speaks to a larger shallow incoherence which mars the film. The Raven seems to be using a hodgepodge of classic Poe references—sure to go over the heads of the other 90% of non-Literature majors in the audience—as a means to lend a certain aura of prestige to an otherwise lifeless genre tale.
The Raven ambitiously seeks to fill that unexplored niche of the “torture porn” market which caters to the literary crowd, though one is doubtful that those die-hard academics scattered in English departments across the country will find much of value in the film either. The film is ultimately as condescending and it is celebratory in its treatment of Poe’s final days. On the plus side, Luke Evans’ performance as the inspector who (predictably) at first suspects Poe’s involvement in the crimes only to eventually side with him continues to suggest a career on the way up. However, his character’s function in the end seems to serve little purpose beyond the closure offered in a tacked-on ending. Cusack’s performance, meanwhile, is rather uneven; he starts out with a good faith effort to channel the voice and mannerisms we might attribute to Poe, but halfway through the movie seems to abandon the effort, descending into bouts of general yelling not unlike the second half of the much sharper Room 1408 (2007).
Is The Raven a terrible film? No, especially when placed within the larger context of a B-movie cinematic legacy filled with other cheesy Poe “adaptations”—dating back to the days of Roger Corman—with little interest in the figure’s actual biography or body of work. Again, it’s not fair to judge the film against such criteria; yet, the fascinating challenge for future filmmakers would be precisely to tell an engaging story within the confines of such facts without resorting to obvious genre clichés, or hiding behind historical indifference in the name of creative liberty. The latter actually makes one’s job more, not less, challenging. By reducing Poe’s (fictionalized) final days to the backdrop of a generic serial killer story, the filmmakers certainly give themselves more narrative leeway, but the end result must be judged against that wider range of creative possibility—where it does not fare too well.
The Raven ambitiously seeks to fill that unexplored niche of the “torture porn” market which caters to the literary crowd, though one is doubtful that those die-hard academics scattered in English departments across the country will find much of value in the film either. The film is ultimately as condescending and it is celebratory in its treatment of Poe’s final days. On the plus side, Luke Evans’ performance as the inspector who (predictably) at first suspects Poe’s involvement in the crimes only to eventually side with him continues to suggest a career on the way up. However, his character’s function in the end seems to serve little purpose beyond the closure offered in a tacked-on ending. Cusack’s performance, meanwhile, is rather uneven; he starts out with a good faith effort to channel the voice and mannerisms we might attribute to Poe, but halfway through the movie seems to abandon the effort, descending into bouts of general yelling not unlike the second half of the much sharper Room 1408 (2007).
Is The Raven a terrible film? No, especially when placed within the larger context of a B-movie cinematic legacy filled with other cheesy Poe “adaptations”—dating back to the days of Roger Corman—with little interest in the figure’s actual biography or body of work. Again, it’s not fair to judge the film against such criteria; yet, the fascinating challenge for future filmmakers would be precisely to tell an engaging story within the confines of such facts without resorting to obvious genre clichés, or hiding behind historical indifference in the name of creative liberty. The latter actually makes one’s job more, not less, challenging. By reducing Poe’s (fictionalized) final days to the backdrop of a generic serial killer story, the filmmakers certainly give themselves more narrative leeway, but the end result must be judged against that wider range of creative possibility—where it does not fare too well.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
coming into focus . . . .
In some ways, I'm not looking forward to May at all, but in other ways I am. Namely, I get to finish revisions on the forthcoming Paul Thomas Anderson manuscript and doing final proofreading and indexing for Disney's Most Notorious Film. The proofs came in today:
Labels:
Disney's Most Notorious Film
Friday, March 23, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
“Yet, as film disappears into an aesthetic universe constructed from digital intermediates and images combining computer synthesis and capture, and while I continue to feel engaged by many contemporary movies, I still have a deep sense, which is very hard to describe or qualify, of time lost.”
–D.N. Rodowick, The Virtual Life of Film
–D.N. Rodowick, The Virtual Life of Film
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
(Earlier) Thoughts on The Master
The news broke today that Paul Thomas Anderson's next film, The Master (2012), will be released in October (it will almost certainly sneak at a festival somewhere before then). Although I resist the title of a "fan," I am genuinely curious and interested in seeing Anderson's next film. This is tempered only by the fact that it will make the book already out-of-date by the time it debuts in 2013. Its also means that some of the material I wrote on the forthcoming film in the initial draft of the conclusion will be scraped entirely. In fact, I think the entire conclusion will probably be scrapped (I figure one of two things will happen in revision, regarding The Master: either I mention its appearance in passing in new--unwritten--introduction, or I talk myself and UT into putting off the final manuscript to write a new chapter on it). Anyway, here's the old stuff, which is generally timely now but won't be in another year or so (keep in mind this was written originally in February 2011 and then revised in late summer):
I'm sure I'll blog a lot more about it as the premiere date--whenever that is--approaches. Between The Master and the new Bond film, this fall will be a good time for me as blogger, I think.
"One such proposed project is The Master, a film rumored in 2009 and into early 2010 to be close to production, only to fall apart initially when Anderson was unhappy with rehearsals. The project since went into production around early summer 2011. The film deals with a World War II veteran who becomes a Scientology-like cult leader, using the medium of radio to reach and persuade a wider audience of followers in 1950s California. The preacher is played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, while the part of his young protégée went to Joaquin Phoenix (who replaced up-and-comer, Jeremy Renner, fresh off Kathyrn Bigelow’s Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker). With the prominent exception of Hoffman, The Master continues There Will Be Blood’s (and Punch-Drunk Love’s) trend of working with a largely new ensemble.
On the surface, the premise of The Master sounds like the perfect continuation of Anderson’s work in his last film—another California historical period piece, another surrogate father-son relationship, another meditation on the connection between religion and money, and another story about the personally and socially destructive potential of mass media—in particular, a medium besides film (this time, radio, whose cultural role was hinted at by Eli in the previous film’s finale).
Moreover, the topic—like There Will Be Blood’s timely indictment of religion and oil—was certainly controversial enough. In addition to Anderson’s one-time friendship with prominent member and supporter Tom Cruise, part of his interest in the topic may have also sprung from the incident, in 2007, when Punch-Drunk Love collaborator Jeremy Blake and his girlfriend, Theresa Hines, both committed suicide a week apart. One of the rumored reasons suggested what was thought to be months, if not years, of harassment by Scientology-related individuals for their outspoken criticism of the group.
Yet Anderson was still able to get the film made (though people surrounding the film increasingly avoided acknowledging any direct connection between The Master and Scientology). Fresh off having produced David Fincher’s well-received The Social Network (2010),Anderson's old New Line benefactor Mike DeLuca speculated in a more recent interview that money wasn’t the problem for Anderson on The Master. He instead thought that Anderson had “the financing. He [was] just going through his own creative process, asking himself, ‘Is this what I want to make,’ and is it ready to be made? That’s just what he does.”
This would be consistent with the extended pre-production that he went through on Punch-Drunk Love and, especially, There Will Be Blood. It would also suggest that—in the end—while Anderson’s films do not make enough money for the Hollywood heavyweights, there nevertheless remains a proven if modest market for his end results. If anything, Anderson may have had second thoughts initially on The Master because it sounded too much like There Will Be Blood—especially for a filmmaker who, after Boogie Nights and Magnolia, became determined not to repeat himself. In any event, The Master finally found its ways before the cameras, and soon enough Anderson’s sixth feature-length film will unfold for an anxious fanbase, an intrigued but apprehensive Hollywood industry, and an attentive culture of critics and scholars."
I'm sure I'll blog a lot more about it as the premiere date--whenever that is--approaches. Between The Master and the new Bond film, this fall will be a good time for me as blogger, I think.
Labels:
anderson (paul thomas),
The Master
Monday, March 5, 2012
Cinephilia Vol. 2 update
The final, final edits went to Wallflower last weekend. The book is on pace for a May 2012 debut. Please, be sure to like us on Facebook (yes, I just wrote that) and generally help spread the word.
js
The Table of Contents:
Introduction:
Remapping Cinephilia
Scott Balcerzak and Jason Sperb
Histories of Cinephilia
1. After the Revolution: On the Fate of Cinephilia
James Morrison
2. The Virtual Spaces of Civil Rights
Steve Spence
3. Stag Films, Vintage Porn, and the Marketing of Cinenecrophilia
David Church
4. Be Kind Rewind / or, the A-Zs of Off-Modern American Cinephilia
Jason Sperb
International Cinephilias
5. In the Mood for Cinema: Wong Kar-wai and the Diasporic Phantasmagoria
Catherine Russell
6. A Home for Cinephilia in Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Dreamers (2003)
Kristi McKim
7. A little Infidelity: La femme infidèle becomes Unfaithful (2002)
Susan Fellemen
Critical Cinephilias
8. Revisioning Critical Space in the Digital Age: Cinephilia, Blogging, and Criticism
Ted Pigeon
9. Academic Blogging and Disciplinary Practice: Implications for Film and Media Studies
Chris Cagle
10. The Kitsch Affect; or, Simulation, Nostalgia and the Authenticity of the Contemporary CGI Film
Greg Singh
11. Turn the Page: From Mise en scène to Dispositif
Adrian Martin
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Haunted Nerves / Time, Affect, Digital Cinema
“Film” remains a powerful aesthetic and cultural force in the 21st Century, even while the term has become anachronistic. The physical medium of film has given way to digital media in every aspect of shooting, post-production, distribution, and exhibition. The latest 4K digital cameras (such as the Arri Alexa) possess the uncanny ability to emulate the look of 35mm film. Meanwhile, a majority of multiplexes have quietly shifted to digital projection. Audiences often see a movie that never once touches celluloid. Film has become an archival medium, its materiality proven more dependable in the long term. We have instead “digital cinema”—a term denoting a system of production and distribution modeled on the industrial and aesthetic histories of the older medium.
My current project, Haunted Nerves / Time, Affect, Digital Cinema, situates debates about digital cinema within a history of postmodern culture that’s emerged in the US in the transition from manufacturing to information-based economies. Drawing on the work of Fredric Jameson, I expand the “postmodern” beyond a series of stylistic conventions, such as the waning of affect, to include a loss of historical consciousness, of relationships between capital and labor, in an era where “nostalgia” replaces “history.” Digital cinema is a continuation of this postmodern logic in the era of post-industrial capitalism. Questions about the digital image’s “referent,” as opposed to analog, echo older debates about the simulacrum, while the malleability of digital media re-evokes discussions of pastiche—the mimicking of older styles for its own sake.
More broadly, the perpetual presence of digital media—or its inability to capture “duration” in the traditional cinematic sense—evokes questions about a further weakening of historical consciousness. This goes hand in hand with a decreasing dependence on physical labor in a digitized post-industrial economy. The utopic rhetoric of digital cinema echoes older modernist ideas of progress and innovation; yet this conceals how information-based technologies have increasingly marginalized the need for material labor. In many ways, digital cinema celebrates labor and historical consciousness in the process of its erasure. Thus, my project looks at the current phenomenon of digital cinema as a key site for historical erasure—yet I don’t wish to argue that we have lost history per se. Rather, history is embedded within the affect of the (digital) image.
Generally, my scholarship often focuses on postmodern US media culture, with particular attention to the role that nostalgia and affect play in shaping historical consciousness. For example, my forthcoming book on the reception history of Disney’s Song of the South documented how race and nostalgia offer a more ambivalent and complicated history of “convergence culture” than suggested. Media convergence privileges the relationship between media producers and audiences in the contemporary moment of platform shifts and vertical integration. In Disney’s Most Notorious Film, I focused on how industry remediation strategies and forms of participatory culture affected socially-constructed notions of whiteness and nostalgia as mediated through representations of African-Americans in classical Hollywood. The reception histories of Song of the South speak to a loss of racial and historical consciousness in postmodern culture.
The first phase of Haunted Nerves was an essay tentatively titled, “I’ll (Always) Be Back: Virtual Performance and Post-Human Labor in the Age of Digital Cinema,” which I’ve included as a writing sample. This explores recent trends towards “virtual performances” in films and commercials, using computer-generated imagery, motion-capture performance and various pro-filmic elements to create a digital character, such as a virtual Arnold Schwarzenegger as the iconic “Terminator,” in Terminator: Salvation (2009). Such novelty seems little more than a passing attraction at present, a way for the latest Hollywood blockbuster to distinguish itself in a crowded marketplace. Yet, it serves as an opening into the impact of technological innovations on labor practices in a post-Fordist globalized economy, as well as shifts in the relationship to media history and stardom in the age of digital cinema.
As a historical referent, the essay ends with an extensive examination of Looker (1981), a dystopic sci-fi satire about post-human labor in the age of late capitalism. The film narrativizes a corporation’s desire to convert beautiful glamour models into computer programs, thereby providing an endless supply of free and infinitely malleable performances in the service of postmodern advertising culture. What seemed impossibly futuristic in 1981 acquires increasing viability three decades later.
There are two specific areas I'm currently working on, in addition to refining the larger theoretical framework outlined above. The first involves the history of digital films in the last decade. While shooting entirely on DV is nothing new, today’s digital movies (Social Network, Gamer) demonstrate an uncanny mimicry of traditional 35mm films. Yet a decade ago, “first-generation” 2K movies, such as 28 Days Later or the remarkable single-take achievement, Russian Ark (both 2002), today look clearly like digital films. The idea is not that these films look “worse” than others. Rather, they possess a distinctive temporal affect which marks them as unique products of digital cinema’s early history. In other words, the digital (already) has a past—not a sense of duration, but the ability to generate a temporal affect within the perpetual present of digital images.
I’m also interested in looking at the role nostalgia plays in digital franchises. In “I’ll (Always) Be Back,” I briefly mention the importance of recycling old texts (Transformers, Star Trek, GI Joe) as a central component to the construction of major summer blockbusters. Sean Cubitt argued that “undying love” was the backbone of these digital event films. Yet one could argue that today nostalgia plays just as crucial a role. How else to understand the strange pastiche of “history” and cinephilia in Hugo (2011), or a text such as Tron: Legacy (2010), which doesn’t make any narrative or technological sense outside the context of nostalgia? I will explore how emotional investments, and the generational duration of franchises, underline industrial practices regarding the branding and recirculation of “new” transmedia properties.
Excerpts:
Thoughts on Michael Crichton's Looker
Digital Cinema and Postmodernism
Essay on Ghost World in QRFV
Essay on American Splendor in Biography
My current project, Haunted Nerves / Time, Affect, Digital Cinema, situates debates about digital cinema within a history of postmodern culture that’s emerged in the US in the transition from manufacturing to information-based economies. Drawing on the work of Fredric Jameson, I expand the “postmodern” beyond a series of stylistic conventions, such as the waning of affect, to include a loss of historical consciousness, of relationships between capital and labor, in an era where “nostalgia” replaces “history.” Digital cinema is a continuation of this postmodern logic in the era of post-industrial capitalism. Questions about the digital image’s “referent,” as opposed to analog, echo older debates about the simulacrum, while the malleability of digital media re-evokes discussions of pastiche—the mimicking of older styles for its own sake.
More broadly, the perpetual presence of digital media—or its inability to capture “duration” in the traditional cinematic sense—evokes questions about a further weakening of historical consciousness. This goes hand in hand with a decreasing dependence on physical labor in a digitized post-industrial economy. The utopic rhetoric of digital cinema echoes older modernist ideas of progress and innovation; yet this conceals how information-based technologies have increasingly marginalized the need for material labor. In many ways, digital cinema celebrates labor and historical consciousness in the process of its erasure. Thus, my project looks at the current phenomenon of digital cinema as a key site for historical erasure—yet I don’t wish to argue that we have lost history per se. Rather, history is embedded within the affect of the (digital) image.
Generally, my scholarship often focuses on postmodern US media culture, with particular attention to the role that nostalgia and affect play in shaping historical consciousness. For example, my forthcoming book on the reception history of Disney’s Song of the South documented how race and nostalgia offer a more ambivalent and complicated history of “convergence culture” than suggested. Media convergence privileges the relationship between media producers and audiences in the contemporary moment of platform shifts and vertical integration. In Disney’s Most Notorious Film, I focused on how industry remediation strategies and forms of participatory culture affected socially-constructed notions of whiteness and nostalgia as mediated through representations of African-Americans in classical Hollywood. The reception histories of Song of the South speak to a loss of racial and historical consciousness in postmodern culture.
The first phase of Haunted Nerves was an essay tentatively titled, “I’ll (Always) Be Back: Virtual Performance and Post-Human Labor in the Age of Digital Cinema,” which I’ve included as a writing sample. This explores recent trends towards “virtual performances” in films and commercials, using computer-generated imagery, motion-capture performance and various pro-filmic elements to create a digital character, such as a virtual Arnold Schwarzenegger as the iconic “Terminator,” in Terminator: Salvation (2009). Such novelty seems little more than a passing attraction at present, a way for the latest Hollywood blockbuster to distinguish itself in a crowded marketplace. Yet, it serves as an opening into the impact of technological innovations on labor practices in a post-Fordist globalized economy, as well as shifts in the relationship to media history and stardom in the age of digital cinema.
As a historical referent, the essay ends with an extensive examination of Looker (1981), a dystopic sci-fi satire about post-human labor in the age of late capitalism. The film narrativizes a corporation’s desire to convert beautiful glamour models into computer programs, thereby providing an endless supply of free and infinitely malleable performances in the service of postmodern advertising culture. What seemed impossibly futuristic in 1981 acquires increasing viability three decades later.
There are two specific areas I'm currently working on, in addition to refining the larger theoretical framework outlined above. The first involves the history of digital films in the last decade. While shooting entirely on DV is nothing new, today’s digital movies (Social Network, Gamer) demonstrate an uncanny mimicry of traditional 35mm films. Yet a decade ago, “first-generation” 2K movies, such as 28 Days Later or the remarkable single-take achievement, Russian Ark (both 2002), today look clearly like digital films. The idea is not that these films look “worse” than others. Rather, they possess a distinctive temporal affect which marks them as unique products of digital cinema’s early history. In other words, the digital (already) has a past—not a sense of duration, but the ability to generate a temporal affect within the perpetual present of digital images.
I’m also interested in looking at the role nostalgia plays in digital franchises. In “I’ll (Always) Be Back,” I briefly mention the importance of recycling old texts (Transformers, Star Trek, GI Joe) as a central component to the construction of major summer blockbusters. Sean Cubitt argued that “undying love” was the backbone of these digital event films. Yet one could argue that today nostalgia plays just as crucial a role. How else to understand the strange pastiche of “history” and cinephilia in Hugo (2011), or a text such as Tron: Legacy (2010), which doesn’t make any narrative or technological sense outside the context of nostalgia? I will explore how emotional investments, and the generational duration of franchises, underline industrial practices regarding the branding and recirculation of “new” transmedia properties.
Excerpts:
Thoughts on Michael Crichton's Looker
Digital Cinema and Postmodernism
Essay on Ghost World in QRFV
Essay on American Splendor in Biography
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Art House Adam Sandler Movie

Here are the prepared remarks I delivered before last night's screening of Punch Drunk Love at the Doc Film Series at the University of Chicago. Its a collage of material taken mostly from the PDL chapter intro, some other parts of the chapter, and some last minute stuff thrown in. Not as in-depth as I would have liked, but its impossible to get very detailed in a 12-15 minute speech. js
"The Art-House Adam Sandler Movie"
I’d like to begin by thanking Scott Dunham and the Doc Film Series at the University of Chicago for inviting me to speak a little with you this evening. This opportunity is something of a dream come true. I have said in the past, with only slight exaggeration, that I wrote a whole book on Paul Thomas Anderson’s films just so I could write one chapter on Punch-Drunk Love. Punch Drunk Love is today the “forgotten” Anderson film (not counting his modest first effort, Hard Eight)—the one that slipped in the cracks between Boogie Nights and Magnolia in the 1990s and then the sustained critical success of There Will Be Blood a decade later.
When Anderson first told a group of reporters at Cannes in 2000 that he wanted to make his next film with Sandler, he was reportedly laughed at. No serious director would make a formulaic movie with a Hollywood star whose fortune was made playing the King of juvenile humor. Meanwhile, when Punch-Drunk Love finally debuted in late 2002, both Anderson’s cinephile devotees and Sandler’s legion of fans alike were often completely bewildered by a movie that was utterly unlike either Boogie Nights or Magnolia, not to mention—on the other extreme—such bona fide box-office hits as Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison or The Wedding Singer.
I’ve called my talk “The Adam Sandler Art House Movie,” because it nicely encapsulates the contradictions and difficulties in approaching this movie. Punch Drunk Love responds to, and even builds directly off of, the stereotypical roles that Sandler usually inhabits. But, at the same time, it is all presented within an off-beat, challenging, visual and aural style that comes right out of an aesthetic stretching back to the days of the New Wave.
Its also what Anderson himself called PDL in interviews. Critics often read this as implying that the star had been molded into an art house formula, but really Punch-Drunk Love is an exercise in Anderson’s own reinvention of the pre-existing genre conventions in which Sandler thrived.
The film was explicitly written as a vehicle for the star. After Magnolia bombed, Anderson had a falling out with New Line, who had produced both that film and Boogie Nights while giving him unprecedented freedom. Anderson was able to do PDL because Sandler had a lucrative production deal with Revolution Studios—who let Anderson do what he wanted as long as Sandler was in it. In a way, he was a kind of “hired” hand with the movie—literally brought in by Revolution to shepherd an “Adam Sandler film.” Its the closest that Anderson came to being an old-fashioned Hollywood studio auteur—the kind of filmmaker who works within the pre-existing genre confines and expectations of something like Sandler’s frat-boy mode of comedy.
By that same measure, the notion of Punch-Drunk Love as simply a variation on the “typical” Adam Sandler film also misses so much more—namely, it was also the one most clearly Anderson’s film in its stark cinematic originality. It is here—while ironically working in dialogue with Sandler’s persona—that I would argue Anderson began to fulfill his often premature industrial and cultural claim to auteur status.
Although Punch-Drunk Love references many other styles, films and directors throughout, it is not beholden to any of them. Instead of latching onto the genre of neo-noir, or emulating the look of Scorsese or the scope of Altman, Anderson created something alarmingly original—something that felt unlike anything that either he or anyone else had made before. The initial reaction for some was to hold this against him, as though he was just goofing around with his SNL pals, and thus wasn’t trying hard to do something “profound” or “important,” as he had with Boogie Nights or Magnolia. In retrospect, the film’s unexpectedness is one of Punch-Drunk Love’s finest qualities. As Anderson told The London Times in 2003, this film “came from my stomach. It’s referenceless. When you start out, you latch onto other styles, to help you get across what you’re trying to say. But this one is mine somehow—and I’m proud of that.”
There were many accidental moments in the writing and making of Punch-Drunk Love. At one point early in the film, Egan mumbles that “business is very food,” rather than “good,” when asked by his brother-in-law (Robert Smigel) how things are going with his novelty toilet plunger business. The line was originally a typo when writing the script, but the filmmaker left it in—seeming to intuit that such misspeaking fit the socially-awkward, ill-spoken character perfectly. Later in the film, as a steadicam tracks Barry around his apartment, the frame briefly shakes as the camera bumps the coffee table, after moving in too closely on its subject. The effect was originally accidental—a gaffe that occurred during a test-run of the scene, but Anderson was pleasantly surprised by the jolting effect it created, and thus too left in the mistake on subsequent takes. These unplanned moments in Punch-Drunk Love are not only individually effective, but they also speak to a larger ephemeral aspect of Anderson’s film—a certain sense of unexpectedness. Fittingly, the film’s opening prologue ends on Barry’s pitch-perfect declaration, “I do not know”—an appropriate contrast to the omniscient voice-over in Magnolia’s opening.
On a first look, Punch-Drunk Love does not give its audience as much on the surface—simply the story of an emotionally unstable toilet plunger salesman (Barry) whose verbal abuse from his seven sisters, and a regrettable encounter with a corrupt phone sex line, complicates his newfound romantic relationship with a mysterious woman named Lena (Emily Watson). The first half of the plot largely revolves around Barry’s elaborate plan to expose a flaw in a Healthy Choice food products’ promotional giveaway, in order to acquire free frequent flyer mileage—a plan that works, but not in the timely fashion Barry would have liked. Meanwhile, the second half of the film focuses more on a Utah-based phone sex line that blackmails, and later physically threatens, Barry after he uses the service late one night.
Much is inspired by true stories. A few years earlier, an engineer from the University of California, discovered a loop hole in a Healthy Choice promotion, exploiting a discontinuing line of pudding cups for the individual barcodes. The result was that purchasing $3,000 dollars’ worth of pudding eventually netted him one million frequent flyer miles. Other aspects of the film spoke back to Anderson’s own experiences, which suggest that Punch-Drunk Love is every bit as autobiographical at its core as Magnolia. Perhaps unsurprising, given the unabashed childhood obsession with porn that paid off with The Dirk Diggler Story and then Boogie Nights, Anderson also frequently used phone sex services. Sandler later joked that, for the role, “Paul did all the research for me [. . .] Every time I tried to call him, he’d tell me he was on the other line and asked me to wait for two minutes.”
Like Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love’s plotline highlights the emptiness of the commodified sexual experience, and subsequent guilt involved, while contrasting the “strange and distant” feeling of his passive phone sex activities with the movement towards a more genuine connection with Lena later on. Equally autobiographical is Barry’s large family, dominated by sisters. In real life, Anderson grew up the youngest to three older sisters, though the director has resisted the implication that they’re anything like the verbally and emotionally abusive siblings in the film. Anderson has also conceded that he did, like Barry, struggle with anger issues. The film conveys the futility of such anger, while also resisting easy moments of resolution to Barry’s expressions of violence, which are at times quite shocking. At one point, Barry completely destroys a restaurant bathroom in a scene that took four takes—enough for Sandler’s own hands to start bleeding from the performance.
The intensity of Barry’s violence is one of many ways in which Punch-Drunk Love works beyond its quirky little storyline and operates through a more complicated set of affective registers. At the film’s center, Barry is a likeable, but distant, character, whose anger and social awkwardness keeps audiences at arm’s length, and who inhabits a depressingly barren, colorless urban landscape. The plot goes in seemingly random directions, culminating in an awkward love affair involving a man with serious anger problems and a woman who may well be a stalker, and whose courtship largely involves busted up restrooms, moments of miscommunication, doses of self-loathing, and pillow talk that centers on affectionate descriptions of human mutilation.
Then, as soon as it’s begun, Punch-Drunk Love ends at a very brisk 95 minutes (literally half the length of its predecessor). The audience is left with a touching moment of romantic reconnection that is undermined somewhat by its fleeting nature, the slightly off-kilter emotional states of its two partners, and the larger sense that—in this film—our most intense feelings of affection are as often savage (physically, verbally) as they are reassuring. So, what to make of this “romantic comedy” in the end? Its sincere displays of affection are marred just beneath its surface by a cold, unresolved, vision of a lonely life within an alienating consumer world, and of people’s emotional imbalances, while its considerable humor seems often to instead reflect and reinforce profound feelings of sadness. And, throughout all this, at no point does Anderson cheat narratively or thematically by telling us what to think or feel. There is no “but it did happen;” there are no grand speeches about regret, or not wanting to die.
At the same time, Punch-Drunk Love does share many similarities with Anderson’s earlier films. He returns to a smaller story, focused essentially around one clear protagonist (like Sydney in Hard Eight), while also presenting us with a salesman who seems to be struggling with a sense of his own identity after years of trying to please others, just like Donnie Smith in Magnolia or Buck Swope in Boogie Nights. Centered on a small business owner who’s deeply unsatisfied emotionally by the modest financial success he’s achieved, Punch-Drunk Love is another Anderson movie about isolation and loneliness, about finding a possibly loving environment, amidst the alienatingly bland, materialistic consumer culture of Southern California.
Meanwhile, the film’s playful intensification of Sandler’s persona builds on a similar meta-commentary offered by the performance of Tom Cruise as the hyper-masculine misogynist in Magnolia. The meditation on the nature of a star’s persona, along with the narrative emphasis on a single, violent salesman, will also anticipate Anderson’s next film, the more celebrated There Will Be Blood (2007). Thematically, meanwhile, Punch-Drunk Love continues Anderson’s obsession with guilt, often of a sexual kind, and with characters being forced to pay for mistakes they’ve made in the past. The line uttered to Barry late in the film by his tormenter, Dean Trumbell—“Do you think you can be a pervert and not pay for it?”—could fit just as easily within Anderson’s other films. And, ultimately, Punch-Drunk Love ends on a hopeful note that, as with earlier films, seems complicated by the sense it is fleeting at best. Believing that Barry and Lena will simply live “happily ever after” is a superficial reading that ignores unresolved problems which both of them raised throughout the film.
In closing, the beauty and difficulty of Punch-Drunk Love is that it never really resolved the contradictions of its critical, aesthetic and commercial status as an “art-house Adam Sandler movie”—a perfect description, but one that suggests there was ultimately no easily built-in audience for the film. Instead, the film reveals itself slowly—through layers of irreducible tensions between beauty and violence; bodies in motion and still-framed landscapes; love and anger; harmonious music and unsettling sounds; Jeremy Blake’s stunning artwork and Barry’s barren world; richly intoxicating soundscapes and long moments of awkward silence; and periods of remarkable old Hollywood grandeur disrupted by discordant instances of experimental disruption. Punch-Drunk Love avoids the alternately amusing and horrifying shock value of Boogie Nights, as well as the grand, sweeping emotions of Magnolia. But what it does provide lasts longer, I think—all the more so because this richness is irreducible to such simplistic thematic observations as the historical rise of video, the ephemera of celebrity, being haunted by one’s past, or the serendipity of everyday life.
Monday, February 20, 2012

"First, there is no present which is not haunted by a past and a future, by a past which is not reducible to a former present, by a future which does not consist of a present to come. Simple succession affects the presents which pass, but each present coexists with a past and a future without which it would not itself pass on. It is characteristic of cinema to seize this past and this future that coexist with the present image. To film what is before and what is after. . ."
-Deleuze, The Time-Image
Being "haunted" by the future: I think Haunted Nerves is coming into focus . . . .
Labels:
digital cinema,
Haunted Nerves
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Blossoms & Blood

I am pleased to announce that my project on the films of Paul Thomas Anderson has been approved by the University of Texas Press. The book, tentatively titled, Blossoms & Blood / The Films of Paul Thomas Anderson, promises to contribute to scholarship on contemporary authorship, quasi-independent cinema, postmodern media culture and Anderson's five (soon six) films for years to come.
I will spend the next few months on revisions, with particular attention to a redesigned introduction. I plan to have the complete, final manuscript to UT by July. The hope will be for a spring/fall 2013 debut in print. I really wanted it done in time for the debut of The Master later this year, but academic publishing being what it is . . .
On that note, I am thrilled again to be working with UT. My experience with them on Disney's Most Notorious Film over the last 20 months has been nothing but positive. And, especially these days, I really appreciate the folks who believe in me.
Labels:
anderson (paul thomas),
blossoms and blood
Friday, January 27, 2012
On The Descendants; or Postmodern Colonial Culture

Rare free time this morning, so I thought I would jot down a few thoughts on the new film, The Descendants. This is a movie I’d been looking forward to for a long time for two reasons: the presence of my favorite contemporary writer/director, Alexander Payne, and for its setting, the islands of Hawai’i. Although I have no desire to write anything on him (the Anderson book—stay tuned later today—will be my last auteur study for the foreseeable future), Payne has always had a special place in my heart for reasons I’ll touch on below.
One thing I will be writing a book on in the near future, however, are US media images of Hawai’i—in particular, film and television, but also books, records, and so forth. The Hawai’i project has been postponed a year or so because of the digital cinema project, which has taken precedence only because I’ve spent so much time teaching it in the last ten months or so. Once the Anderson book is completely finished--as in, off to the printer--I imagine the Hawai’i project will slide back in to its slot—probably summer of 2013. Ironically the Hawai’i project doesn’t cover contemporary media—it’s intended to span roughly the 1930s to 1970s, as I will focus on a particular wartime generation (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) of US audiences in relation to those images of the islands. But I’m still very interested in how recent stuff, such as The Descendants, “represent” Hawai’i.
As an auteur vehicle, I was quite disappointed in The Descendants, but as a story of contemporary Hawai’i, its probably one of the better texts I’ve seen in awhile. I think part of why I’ve always loved Payne’s films is two-fold—its keen sense of middle-class, middle-America, and the way they manage to present completely self-delusional characters as nonetheless endearing and even deeply moving. I guess because we are both from the mid-sized towns of the Midwest, I’ve always felt his take on the area and its personalities genuine, even sympathetic.
Some people find his movies condescending, but to me Payne, and his collaborator Jim Taylor, always seemed to understand the complex contradictions of identity, belief, and motivation, which underlined the characters' behavior—and thus I never found them one-dimensional stereotypes. To give one example, they are one of the few in recent years to really get the use of voice-over narration right—using what is a very clichéd, and potentially lazy, device, to really create layers of conflicts in their characters. In its own gentle way, the Payne/Taylor-produced Cedar Rapids (2011) was much closer in spirit to their earlier work than The Descendants. It didn’t have the same satirical bite or sense of melancholia to it as an Election or About Schmidt, but it was dealing with the same kind of people.
As a narrative experience, I found The Descendants one-dimensional, and filled with less interesting characters. I think Clooney gives a good performance, but I feel like he had less to work with than Paul Giamatti, Matthew Broderick or Jack Nicholson. The film establishes itself as a tearjerker in the opening minutes and honestly I was surprised at how it never really evolved beyond that. The whole movie feels like the same scene over and over again—different people finding out that the same person is going to die. There is other plot line (namely, an extramarital affair investigated), but nothing really comes of it, and in the end it feels like a way to just prevent the whole movie from taking place in a hospital room.
Maybe, I’m being too harsh, but I was really shocked at how unrelentingly sincere the film ultimately is—I don’t object to tearjerkers in and of themselves, but if there are no personal contradictions, no narrative inconsistencies, to work through, the movie becomes quickly repetitive. Just a lot of under-developed characters standing around, crying.
****
Anyway, that aside, I found the representation of Hawai’i fascinating—far savvier than Saving Sarah Marshall, the new Hawaii Five-O, episodes of Modern Family and Cougar Town, or even my beloved Punch-Drunk Love. All of those recent texts, and others, perpetuate the same idea—Hawai’i as an ahistorical utopia, a hub of leisure culture connected to, but also firmly uprooted from, the Mainland.
But The Descendants articulates something very different--retaining, but also deconstructing a distinctly white lens on the Islands. To a degree, this latest film certainly depends upon some of the same standard, ancient iconography (i.e., every other beach in Hawai’i apparently has Diamond Head in the background, etc.), but pulls back the curtain slightly on some of the more troubling historical and economic contexts underlining the usual utopic depictions of the islands as pure leisure paradise.
Another subplot in the film is the impending sale of a hugely lucrative piece of beach property in Hawai’i that is owned by the ironically titled "King" family (led by Clooney). The film implies, but never directly states, what is obviously the case—that his descendants stole the land from the Hawaiians, and thus really have no right to profit by selling it. The passage of centuries has allowed generations of the family to plead ignorance on the subject now--even to be ignorant about being ignorant.
Of course, its possible to argue that The Descendants itself may be oblivious to the true, ugly extent of this history as well—since its presentation of “history” is passive at best. But, early in the movie, King narrates a montage of the poverty which exists throughout the islands today, and thus playing up the grotesque income disparity there—particularly, between the haoles and native Hawaiians. This suggests the movie is keenly aware of issues of class, though I suppose its also possible to argue that the moment of “poverty in paradise” is little more than another Payne irony.
The Descendants speaks to the notion of a postmodern colonial culture—I use “postmodern” in two senses of the word. For one, there is the lack of historical consciousness. Most (predominately white) people who view Hawai’i as an escape from their lives are oblivious to the ugly history of direct and indirect forms of colonialism that underline the islands’ contemporary culture of tourism. For another, I mean “postmodern” in that more rigorous Jamesonian sense—the lack of class consciousness (strictly speaking, of course, historical consciousness in the Marxist sense is defined through the aware of class dialectics).
The Descendants shrewdly plays up in a couple of scenes—first in a board room, later at a barbeque—how fat, lazy white guys in floral shirts and khaki shorts are the postmodern iteration of plantation owners, literally descended from the coffee land barons who conspired to overthrow the sovereign Hawaiian monarchy in 1893—unconsciously seeking to exert the same level of control and power today, but hiding behind the cultural logic of late capitalism.
Labels:
Hawaii,
postmodernity,
The Descendants
Saturday, January 21, 2012
I wanted to pass along the great news that my Cinema Journal article, "Reassuring Convergence / Online Fandom, Race and Disney's Notorious Song of the South," received Honorable Mention for the SCMS Kovacs Essay Award this year. This is a really prestigious award that goes to the top article in the field of film and media studies for its respective academic year. There are a lot of well-known folks who have won this award (and received honorable mention), so I'm in good company. I'm honored to have snagged a close second, and will be recognized at this year's awards ceremony in Boston.
Ironically, I have gotten down on this piece for awhile. For one, it didn't really help me on the job market (though I suppose it did help me get a contract for the book). Then there was this, which really hurt. For awhile, though I always had faith in its argument, the article's reception came to symbolize more of my failed goals--getting published in the field's top journal and yet doesn't receive any (positive) attention.
With the book coming on this summer, I think the window for the article by itself will have closed, and its nice to end that period on what is, in many ways, a very bittersweet achievement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







