Archive
July, 2011 Monthly archive

Above: the “Ideological Warfare” segment of Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino’s Hour of the Furnaces (1968)

TL;DR Version:
In this revolutionary Argentinean documentary, filmmakers Fernando Solanas and Octavio Getino demonstrate the indoctrinating functions of imported American and European mass culture. Below is an excerpt of an essay on revolutionary cinema, which outlines how this sequence works to break down the indoctrination of its audience.

Excerpt of “The Dialectic Cannot Break Bricks”:
by Michael Toledano

. . . The film’s first section serves the function of teaching critical media reception—it adopts the strategy of détournement as developed by the French revolutionary collective, The Situationist International. The strategy entails transforming or displacing cultural artifacts to denounce and attack the capitalist culture from which they emerged.  As Guy Debord and Gil Wolman wrote, in A User’s Guide to Détournement, “clashing head-on with all social and legal conventions, it cannot fail to be a powerful cultural weapon in the service of a real class struggle.” The recognizability of the distorted materials is crucial to the success of a détournement—the theorists maintain that “the main impact of a détournement is directly related to the conscious or semiconscious recollection of the original contexts of the elements.”

The film’s note on “ideological warfare” marks a particularly successful détournement of mainstream (and colonized) Argentinean culture­—images and sounds from popular and “high” culture are appropriated and arranged to deliver their own condemnation.

Click to Keep Reading . . .

Above: The trailer for Neil Burger’s Limitless (2011).

TL;DR Version:
The only thing truly limitless in this film is the main character’s bank account.

Limitless and the Pill-Laden Path to Victory
by Michael Toledano

Limitless (2011) follows Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) on his drug-propelled rise to capitalistic glory.

As a struggling science fiction writer and self-described “utopian,” Eddie Morra is the ideal candidate for a Hollywood American Dream makeover. As with any rags-to-riches tale, we are introduced our hero at rock-bottom: He’s pale, disheveled, and penniless. Living in a pig-sty and unable to make rent, Eddie finds himself economically emasculated by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) in the film’s opening minutes: She dumps him, pays for his meal, and announces that she just got a job as a magazine editor, complete with a personal assistant.

But, after acquiring an intelligence-enhancing drug called NZT-48 from his sleazy ex-brother-in-law Vernon, Eddie is catapulted toward universal success.

Click to Keep Reading . . .

Ted Nugent brandishes a bow and arrowAbove: Ted Nugent aims to slay millennial apathy.

TL;DR Version:
The Tea Party has the right anger in the wrong place.  Ted Nugent writes an op-ed.  Millennials say “TL;DR”

Getting stoned on the American Dream
by Sarah Friend

Apparently, some guy named Ted Nugent has written an op-ed condemning the political apathy of “millennials”.  Since these kinds of age-based generalizations have always seemed like a load of pseudoscientific hoopla to me (rankable one step above astrology) I had to look it up: Millennials, I’m told, were born between 1976 and 2000.  Other sources say 1982 and 2000.  See what I mean about hoopla?

But, as I’m a millennial by either count and a person concerned about political apathy, I thought I’d better read the article.  Nugent writes that he remembers the ‘60’s, (whatever that means) but at the time he was politically disengaged himself, either “squirrel hunting or putting a sharp edge on [his] sonic guitar-slaying skills.”  He then uses the phrase “purple haze of dope” and eventually gets to his point:

“While I personally condemn violence of any kind, I am stunned that [the millennials] are not participating more in the Tea Party, even rioting in the streets, clashing with the cops, conducting sit-ins at their colleges, interrupting political events and so on. Instead, the young people of this generation appear to be sound asleep, lethargic and seemingly unaware of how badly their generation is being royally abused by the deep-seated corruption and abuse of power in the government. They appear to be terminally stoned on apathy.”

Click to Keep Reading . . .

No Strings Attached movie poster 2011Above: Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher are friends who have sex.

TL;DR Version:
The poster for No Strings Attached forgets to indicate any semblance of plot or genre, including comedy, drama, or suspense. I mean, look at it: there’s just nothing there.

Tits Over Wits
by Michael Fraiman

I first saw the poster for No Strings Attached sometime last December while passing by a fairly large SilverCity theatre in Toronto. Though it was seven months ago, I distinctly recall standing there, looking at this poster, and trying to figure out what the movie was about. Are these characters cheating on someone? Are they comically insecure? Are they in danger? Does one of them kill the other? Do they simply fall in love after having sex? If the latter is true—and plot synopses confirm that it is—then why doesn’t the poster just say that, or at least indicate some kind of tension or conflict?

More importantly: Who thought this poster was a good idea?

Click to Keep Reading . . .

Above: George explains how his involvement in the 7-day Peopleforgood challenge has made the world a better place and left him feeling “enlightened”.

On some abstract level, the good people of Peopleforgood.ca are correct; this self-defined “social movement” has identified the problem of ‘too much bad’ in the world and sought to rectify the situation by adding more ‘good’. Calling out to the masses through a massive bi-lingual publicity campaign (including newspaper, public transit, and google ads; billboards; TV and radio spots; and a smart phone app), People for Good aims to mobilize all benevolent Canadians behind the vague moral imperative of ‘good’. Their irrefutable agenda for social progress, delivered from a position of absolute moral authority (‘We are the good’) is outlined on the ‘Manifesto’ page of their website: “We’re People for Good. And our goal is to make the world a better place, one good deed at a time.”

Potential do-gooders are directed to PFG’s user-submitted list of ‘Good Ideas’ while the movement’s most ambitious (and photogenic) moral utopians are invited to participate in the seven-day ‘Good Experiment’ challenge: perform one good deed each day for a week and create a video diary about the experience.

But you won’t find many good ideas in People for Good’s list of ‘Good Ideas’.

Click to Keep Reading . . .

Gunther Anders accepts the Adorno prize via TV-linkAbove: Gunther Anders accepts the Adorno prize via TV-link (image from Harold Marcuse’s website)

TL;DR Version:
In 1956, having observed television’s initial popularity explosion, Gunther Anders wrote about the massive social and perceptual transformation wrought by this new form of mass media in an essay with the most ridiculous title imaginable.

THE WORLD AS PHANTOM AND AS MATRIX
by Gunther Anders

I

Modern mass consumption is a sum of solo performances; each consumer, an unpaid homeworker employed in the production of the mass man.

In the days before the cultural faucets of radio and television had become standard equipment in each home, the Smiths and Millers used to throng the motion picture theaters where they collectively consumed the stereotyped mass products manufactured for them. One might be tempted to regard it as peculiarly appropriate that the mass product should be thus consumed by a compact mass. Such a view, however, would be mistaken. Nothing contradicts the essential purpose of mass production more completely than a situation in which a single specimen of a commodity is simultaneously enjoyed by several, let alone by numerous, consumers. Whether this consumption is a “genuine communal experience or merely the sum of many individual experiences, is a matter of indifference to the mass producer. What he needs is not the compact mass as such, but a mass broken up or atomized into the largest possible number of customers; he does not want all of his customers to consume one and the same product, he wants all of his customers to buy identical products on the basis of an identical demand which has also to be produced.

Click to Keep Reading . . .