Merry Christmas!
Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. But it's also a day of love, giving, and spending time with loved ones. I hope everyone has a joyous one :)
✘ Brian
Happy Thanksgiving!
12:32 PM
•
Disneyland,
Flickr,
Friends,
Love,
Photography,
Thanksgiving,
Violence
•
0
finders
✘ Brian
Censorship In Movies: Sex vs Violence
1:28 PM
•
Art,
Censorship,
FIlm,
MPAA,
Nudity,
Sex,
Video,
Violence,
YouTube
•
0
finders
Originally written 8/25/08.
Film has become a main staple of entertainment throughout the world, and as a result, it is one of the most popular forms of art out there today. However, due to its mainstream appeal to millions of people all over the world of all different ages, it has also become one of the most censored forms of art out there. In the United States, the majority of films are given a rating by the Motion Picture Association of America. It’s these ratings that inform audiences, especially if they have children, what kind of content they expect to see in each movie. But ever since the existence of these ratings, there have been some concerns over the association’s decisions on rating films with sexual content and nudity more harshly than films with violence. Because of this, many films featuring sexual content based around intimacy and love often get slapped with a higher rating and thus limiting their audience for something the association perceives as more taboo than violence. Is it fair? Should films with sexual content be censored more harshly than films with violence? I don’t think it’s fair at all. Sex is a natural behavior among humans while violence associates itself with evil that should be farther away from mainstream, children especially, as much as possible. Yet, much of our American society seems to have grown up with the very opposite view.
The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA for short as it’s normally called, was founded in 1922 as an organization to bring regulations to films as to what kind of material films could present to what they considered appropriate for mainstream audiences. In 1968, they implemented the following rating system: Rated G, Rated M, Rated R, and Rated X. In 1970, Rated M got replaced with Rated GP, replacing the “mature audiences” with a more appropriate “parental guidance suggested” and then again in 1972 with the now PG rating. Soon, movies were having disputes whether or not they should accept a PG rating or an R rating for having material that wasn’t quite R but a bit much for PG. It wasn’t until disturbing material in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that the PG-13 rating was born to fill in the gap between PG and R. But there was also an issue of the X rating. Many people associated the Rated X to pornography, and thus, films that obtained this rating were losing an audience. So in 1990, the NC-17 rating was introduced, hoping to further distance these “explicit” films from straight-out pornography in the audience’s mind. Still, a curse has grown with the NC-17 label. Many major studios won’t release films with a NC-17 rating, nor will many major movie theatre chains showcase them, nor can they be advertised on television, nor will many retail outlets sell them (Walmart and Blockbuster come to mind). Not to mention that they are not very marketable and have a very limited audience range. And that all grows worse if a film choses not get a rating at all. They’re not big money makers and the NC-17 rating or Unrated makes it appear a bit to “risque” for mainstream audiences. But are they?
There have been many debates of films who have received the NC-17 who do not feel justified to deserve such a harsh rating. Many of these films have one thing in common: “explicit” sex scenes. Rarely does a film get an NC-17 rating for violence. As the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated finds out, “nearly four times as many films received an NC-17 for sex as opposed to violence.” The problem lies in that many of these violent films where people get shot, blown up, killed, raped, etc. almost all end up getting a PG-13 or R rating while even the slightest depiction of realistic sex can earn a film the NC-17 rating. In fact, some films, such as But I’m a Cheerleader, received the NC-17 rating even though there was absolutely no nudity involved whatsoever. It has been often speculated that the homosexual content of the film is what sparked the decision. In fact, it has been speculated that many films have received the NC-17 rating because of acts of homosexuality, even if they engage in the same acts as straight people do; add in a pair of the same sex and it ends up scaring the MPAA rating board. Discrimination? Possibly.
The issues that get many of these films their NC-17 ratings, or even any rating higher than what they should deserve, are often sexual acts of human nature. Sex is part of any human being; it’s a natural act that the majority of us will experience in our lifetimes in order to continue to procreate. To see an act of sex, based on intimacy and love, on screen is nothing to be ashamed of. Sure, it might not be something we should show kids until they rightfully understand the whole concept of it, but it’s not something they should censor from many of us who actually do understand it. The NC-17 rating does that. It prevents many films from being marketed and shown to a greater audience. It loses an audience and makes it harder for anyone to find. It also gives the audience the whole notion that it’s worse than an R-rated film. Many of the R-rated films out there are filled with terrifying and horrific violent images, even sex-related violence, and many other crude material that many would see as worse than what is often presented in an NC-17 movie. The first NC-17 I've ever seen, an excellent one at that, was The Dreamers. If you ignore all the nudity and sexual content, you have a film that the MPAA would probably give a PG-13 rating to; there’s a bit of violence in terms of protesting and a bit of language, but the fact that these young adults are sitting around naked and having sex because they love each other, it gets the NC-17 rating. It should be rated R. Compare that to many R and PG-13 rated films out there that depict people killing others and promoting hatred and even films that have sexual content, but in the forms of violence (rape) or even the degradation of women and men as treating them as sex objects that are often seen in teen comedies. These are the films that mainstream America gets to see and are influenced on and yet intimate love, that most of us will or have experienced, has to have greater censorship? Why is that?
I’ve developed some theories on my own. Violence, at least in its extreme form, is something most of us Americans will not experience in our lifetimes. Much of us will never experience the tragedy of a war, or kill a human being (or a hundred), or decapitate a zombie with a chainsaw. It’s something very much out of our reach and not personal with us. It’s almost like watching a fantasy; most of us know it won’t ever happen, or at least, don’t want it to ever happen. Sex, on the other-hand, is an experience most of will, have, or want to go through in our lifetime. It’s more private with most of us. It’s a close intimate bond that we personally share with a significant other. It happens in solitude and much of us don’t share that experience with others. It’s almost unnerving for many to watch a sex scene, especially one that is so strong in it’s depiction that we can relate to it and picture ourselves in the scene itself, in a public place. Add to the fact that sex in general has always been given a more taboo appearance in American culture. It doesn’t help that for some reason, the rating board of the MPAA seems to be the pinnacle of the “many” that have these generalizations. And when the powers at be keeps supporting these generalizations, the nation will continue to follow and become greatly influenced that if the ratings are of any indication, that it’s less prohibited to kill people than to have sex. It could change how we behave as a nation. But as the saying goes, “make love not war.”
Even with its problems, I’m still glad that the rating system was invented. I definitely want to know what kind of material is going to be presented in a film, especially if I were a parent. But he MPAA is too light with violence and far to heavy with sex and nudity, to the point where films with strong sexuality will get the dreaded NC-17 rating which gives them so much in terms of obstacles of reaching a wider audience when other films depicting violence are easily gaining their audience. It’s a not a fair game, but I guess it’s all about personal taste and a matter of each and everyone’s views of the world as well. What the MPAA deems not appropriate may be appropriate for many, and vice versa. The best thing a consumer can do when going out to watch a movie, don’t go solely based on the rating letter alone. Read why it was given the rating it was given. There are useful sites out there such as Kids-In-Mind and Screen It! that give detailed depictions of why most films were given the rating it was given. Don’t be scared of the NC-17 rating because it’s NC-17. Read why, and if you’re okay with it the content, and it sounds like a well-made film, go out and watch it.
Go watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's a really great documentary that explores much of what was written here.
The Motion Picture Association of America, or MPAA for short as it’s normally called, was founded in 1922 as an organization to bring regulations to films as to what kind of material films could present to what they considered appropriate for mainstream audiences. In 1968, they implemented the following rating system: Rated G, Rated M, Rated R, and Rated X. In 1970, Rated M got replaced with Rated GP, replacing the “mature audiences” with a more appropriate “parental guidance suggested” and then again in 1972 with the now PG rating. Soon, movies were having disputes whether or not they should accept a PG rating or an R rating for having material that wasn’t quite R but a bit much for PG. It wasn’t until disturbing material in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom that the PG-13 rating was born to fill in the gap between PG and R. But there was also an issue of the X rating. Many people associated the Rated X to pornography, and thus, films that obtained this rating were losing an audience. So in 1990, the NC-17 rating was introduced, hoping to further distance these “explicit” films from straight-out pornography in the audience’s mind. Still, a curse has grown with the NC-17 label. Many major studios won’t release films with a NC-17 rating, nor will many major movie theatre chains showcase them, nor can they be advertised on television, nor will many retail outlets sell them (Walmart and Blockbuster come to mind). Not to mention that they are not very marketable and have a very limited audience range. And that all grows worse if a film choses not get a rating at all. They’re not big money makers and the NC-17 rating or Unrated makes it appear a bit to “risque” for mainstream audiences. But are they?
There have been many debates of films who have received the NC-17 who do not feel justified to deserve such a harsh rating. Many of these films have one thing in common: “explicit” sex scenes. Rarely does a film get an NC-17 rating for violence. As the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated finds out, “nearly four times as many films received an NC-17 for sex as opposed to violence.” The problem lies in that many of these violent films where people get shot, blown up, killed, raped, etc. almost all end up getting a PG-13 or R rating while even the slightest depiction of realistic sex can earn a film the NC-17 rating. In fact, some films, such as But I’m a Cheerleader, received the NC-17 rating even though there was absolutely no nudity involved whatsoever. It has been often speculated that the homosexual content of the film is what sparked the decision. In fact, it has been speculated that many films have received the NC-17 rating because of acts of homosexuality, even if they engage in the same acts as straight people do; add in a pair of the same sex and it ends up scaring the MPAA rating board. Discrimination? Possibly.
The issues that get many of these films their NC-17 ratings, or even any rating higher than what they should deserve, are often sexual acts of human nature. Sex is part of any human being; it’s a natural act that the majority of us will experience in our lifetimes in order to continue to procreate. To see an act of sex, based on intimacy and love, on screen is nothing to be ashamed of. Sure, it might not be something we should show kids until they rightfully understand the whole concept of it, but it’s not something they should censor from many of us who actually do understand it. The NC-17 rating does that. It prevents many films from being marketed and shown to a greater audience. It loses an audience and makes it harder for anyone to find. It also gives the audience the whole notion that it’s worse than an R-rated film. Many of the R-rated films out there are filled with terrifying and horrific violent images, even sex-related violence, and many other crude material that many would see as worse than what is often presented in an NC-17 movie. The first NC-17 I've ever seen, an excellent one at that, was The Dreamers. If you ignore all the nudity and sexual content, you have a film that the MPAA would probably give a PG-13 rating to; there’s a bit of violence in terms of protesting and a bit of language, but the fact that these young adults are sitting around naked and having sex because they love each other, it gets the NC-17 rating. It should be rated R. Compare that to many R and PG-13 rated films out there that depict people killing others and promoting hatred and even films that have sexual content, but in the forms of violence (rape) or even the degradation of women and men as treating them as sex objects that are often seen in teen comedies. These are the films that mainstream America gets to see and are influenced on and yet intimate love, that most of us will or have experienced, has to have greater censorship? Why is that?
I’ve developed some theories on my own. Violence, at least in its extreme form, is something most of us Americans will not experience in our lifetimes. Much of us will never experience the tragedy of a war, or kill a human being (or a hundred), or decapitate a zombie with a chainsaw. It’s something very much out of our reach and not personal with us. It’s almost like watching a fantasy; most of us know it won’t ever happen, or at least, don’t want it to ever happen. Sex, on the other-hand, is an experience most of will, have, or want to go through in our lifetime. It’s more private with most of us. It’s a close intimate bond that we personally share with a significant other. It happens in solitude and much of us don’t share that experience with others. It’s almost unnerving for many to watch a sex scene, especially one that is so strong in it’s depiction that we can relate to it and picture ourselves in the scene itself, in a public place. Add to the fact that sex in general has always been given a more taboo appearance in American culture. It doesn’t help that for some reason, the rating board of the MPAA seems to be the pinnacle of the “many” that have these generalizations. And when the powers at be keeps supporting these generalizations, the nation will continue to follow and become greatly influenced that if the ratings are of any indication, that it’s less prohibited to kill people than to have sex. It could change how we behave as a nation. But as the saying goes, “make love not war.”
Even with its problems, I’m still glad that the rating system was invented. I definitely want to know what kind of material is going to be presented in a film, especially if I were a parent. But he MPAA is too light with violence and far to heavy with sex and nudity, to the point where films with strong sexuality will get the dreaded NC-17 rating which gives them so much in terms of obstacles of reaching a wider audience when other films depicting violence are easily gaining their audience. It’s a not a fair game, but I guess it’s all about personal taste and a matter of each and everyone’s views of the world as well. What the MPAA deems not appropriate may be appropriate for many, and vice versa. The best thing a consumer can do when going out to watch a movie, don’t go solely based on the rating letter alone. Read why it was given the rating it was given. There are useful sites out there such as Kids-In-Mind and Screen It! that give detailed depictions of why most films were given the rating it was given. Don’t be scared of the NC-17 rating because it’s NC-17. Read why, and if you’re okay with it the content, and it sounds like a well-made film, go out and watch it.
Go watch This Film Is Not Yet Rated. It's a really great documentary that explores much of what was written here.
✘ Brian
Originally written 8/6/08.
Throughout history, Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simon’s most famous piece of artwork, David, has been the talk of controversy in the art world, particularly due to the depiction of the male nude. Ever since its creation, there has been public outcry about its exposure of the male genitalia. So much, that it has been covered numerous times throughout its life and thus, a defacement of the work of art of its original intent. Was the decision justified? Part of the reasoning is that it was unveiled around a time where the view of the nude in religious works and public display were grown with concern, especially with the start of the Counter-Reformation. It wasn’t just David that started to see this kind of view towards nudity in art. Many other pieces, including a few from Michelangelo, also faced the board of censorship. Is it right to censor art? I think not. It ruins the artist’s original vision by adding additional elements to it (or even removing) and becoming a whole different work of art. David has been the most famous of these censored works of art, almost to the point that the covered version has been as iconic as the original; iconic in the realm of a symbol towards society’s artistic censorship towards nudity.
Michelangelo started David in 1501 as commissioned by the city of Florence. He chose to go with a nude male to represent the heroic nude; a symbol of strength at the time. However, there were a quite a few people uncomfortable with this decision, particularly the city officials and citizens of Florence. They just didn’t get why David had to exposure his genitalia for all to see; they didn’t get the whole aspect of the heroic nude that Michelangelo was going for. Even Michelangelo’s great admirer Leonardo da Vinci was against the decision of having David being exposed. However, he understood what Michelangelo was going for, but he knew the public wouldn’t have the same response. Michelangelo knew something needed to be changed.
There have been stories that a city official by the name of Piero Soderino thought that the nose of the sculpture was far too large and ordered Michelangelo to chip it down in size. However, being the clever one he is and seeing his art for what he wanted it to be, he only simulated the act by faking the chiseling and pouring dust from his hand. Once done, with no change at all, Soderino saw it as perfect. Many theories go against this story to say it was the genitalia in question of being too large or that the nose was meant to be large as a euphemism of it. Even if these theories were just merely “myths” so to speak, there was no doubt about it that during its unveiling there were some concerns about the public display of the penis. In order to satisfy the masses, during its unveiling, three years later in 1504, twenty-eight copper leaves were installed around the waist area to hide any of the offending regions. This was a decision that wasn’t the most controversial as it was under Michelangelo’s say, but to change a work of art because one is afraid it won’t be accepted and will offend your audience? Highly ridiculous morality wise, but completely understandable given the situation. It was going to be a public statue. By having so much controversy, it would only generate problems for the city. That wasn’t the purpose for David.
However, with the new covering, it changed the whole meaning of the figure. David was meant to be the heroic nude. It was the nude aspect that gave the city of Florence, who adopted the figure as their symbol, a symbol of strength. By hiding a portion of the body, it gave the impression that David was ashamed; that he was hiding something; lack of confidence; and thus, lack of strength. It gave a whole different meaning to the city of Florence, one that they should be embarrassed to have. But then again, it was under Michelangelo’s say, and at least he was changing his own work of art with his own touch. Luckily, by the year 1550, the leaves were removed and the original intent of the statue was brought back to life. David was now fully nude and strong.
Why was there such a strong opposition to the nudity in the first place? Writer Margaret Walters explains it well when stating, “The nude was appreciated only by a small elite, a self-consciously classicizing avant-garde whose ideas filtered down slowly and against some opposition. Public feelings about the nude-- and indeed, about the whole cult of the antique-- remained conservative, and ranged from incomprehension to outright hostility.” The average citizen didn’t see the nude male as the symbol of their city the same way Michelangelo did. A nude figure representing the government in the public wasn’t widely accepted my the masses at the time any longer. It was beginning to become more of an art form exclusive to a select amount of people who appreciated it in their private lives.
It also didn’t help that the Counter-Reformation was in the midst of action, removing all forms of genitalia from works of art representing the Catholic Church. However, David wasn’t in direct attack of this movement as it wasn’t closely related to the church but more so to the government. But go back to when the statue was nearing completion and two locations were being considered; the Piazza della Signoria and Florence Cathedral. The Palazzo Vecchio, the town hall of Florence, which is situated on Piazza della Signoria, won the location deal and gave the statue its political association and avoided being associated with the church, but that didn’t mean David wasn’t completely safe from another attack of censorship. However, two of Michelangelo’s other pieces of art associated with the Catholic Church, Cristo della Minerva and Madonna of Bruges, both had the male genitalia censored from the public eye for many years. Even his Last Judgement fresco on the Sistine Chapel was called to be removed by the cardinal because of its depiction of male genitals, but the Pope backed Michelangelo by saying no. However, after his death, the fresco was eventually censored by adding cloths on the nude males and has stayed that way ever since. It never made much sense why the Catholic Church saw nudity as an evil in the world. Michelangelo made all his figures nude the same way God made all humans. He wanted to show the purity that was in these figures. Not in one of these censored works of art was it ever for the lust of human flesh; probably what the Catholic Church was afraid of. He told these stories like they were and brought out the beauty in them. The human body is a beautiful creation from God and Michelangelo brought that out in his works of art.
But there was another person who didn’t see beauty in David’s genitalia that would forever change how the world saw the iconic statue; Queen Victoria. A cast of David was presented to the Queen in 1857 who was shocked by the nudity upon initial viewing. She demanded that a fig leaf be made to cover the obscene area whenever she and other royals were present around David. Since then, it has become an icon in its right and a symbol of censored art, although they have now finally removed the fig leaf.
Michelangelo was once called the "inventor of obscenities", or as one author put it, the “inventor of pork things.” Sure he might depict male genitalia in many of his works, but it was never anything obscene, and certainly nothing that warranted any kind of censorship. No work of art should be censored, especially that of Michelangelo. It defaces the work of art and brings a whole different meaning to what it once stood for. All his works portrayed the nude human body as a beautiful creation of God. There was nothing wrong with that. It’s just sad that much of society throughout the past hundred years has become more and more shameful of the human body and considers it offending, evil, and that we should shield our eyes from any signs of “forbidden” flesh. If there’s anything we should censor, it’s the cruelty we bring upon the world, not the beauty that makes us human.
✘ Brian
Lettuce Bone
A collection of art from a group of friends. There's some pretty great stuff on there. Two of the contributors on the site are friends of mine, Andrew and Clover.
Andrew goes to Brooks Institute of Photography with me and does film and photography. Lately I've been working on many film projects with him, particularly doing camera work and assisting with editing. He's been pretty good lately. Although he doesn't have any of his "primary" film work online (besides Love Shaft), you can view some of his photography and other miscellaneous pieces here.
Then there's Andrew's girlfriend Clover who is majoring in art at USC. She certainly is an artist. She does sculpture, graphic design, rotoscoping, paper construction, photography, ceramics, painting, drawing, video art (freakin' amazing, especially for someone who has never done any video work prior... I wish I could show you all), and so much more. You can view some of her work here. It's all pretty amazing stuff.
Definitely check out the rest of the artists on there as well. It's all good.
✘ Brian
Originally written 10/16/08.
Throughout history, Iran has been known as a country of conflict and political unrest. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 is one of the highest accounts of such unrest. It is here that is the setting of a particular girl’s journey of self-discovery of growing up in a tattered society. Through the experiences of her own life, the use of illustrations, and smartly written dialogue, author Marjane Satrapi captures her own unique perspective on what it’s like to grow up in such a time. We come along with her as she learns about the events taking place around her; a major part in shaping her life. The audience, especially for Western cultures, gains a better understanding through the virgin eyes of a growing girl of the Iranian culture. Marjane Satrapi takes us with her through her coming-of-age journey to gain a better understanding of what it truly is to be Iranian. This is Persepolis.
Iran has often had a bad reputation in the eyes of Western culture. As Marjane states in her introduction, “this old and great civilization has been discussed mostly in connection with fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism.” It’s not surprising, Iran is rarely visited by Westerners. All that we often know about it is what we hear from the news, which isn’t always very good. With much conflict in the Middle East, Iran is right in the middle of it. Government corruptions, civil unrest, terrorism, religious prosecution, and oil are mainly what we ever hear about the nation, and because of that, it’s all that we ever think about when we think about Iran. This view has become a huge generalization in Western society. We never get a chance of understanding the culture beyond this image. “It’s far from the truth” as Marjane writes. Persepolis helps give a truthful look into Iranian culture as she grows up and learns everything from the ground up, away from the generalized image that we often see today. Although this image may be true to an extent in reality, she can reflect beyond the conflict and see the deeper picture of what it is to be Iranian. This is what she hopes the audience takes away from the story.
She starts the novel with a veil, one of the first results of the Islamic Revolution. All girls are now required to wear the veil in Iran, a major event concerning women’s rights. Marjane is only a child when the event occurs, and thus, she finds the new rule to be quite different than what its perceived to be. She finds it silly and makes jokes about wearing it as many kids would at the time. Later in the novel, because of a better understanding through age, she takes the veil more seriously. It’s this progression of understanding the Iranian culture that allows Westernized cultures to do the same as Marjane does through her life. Kids, as in Marjane’s childhood, saw the generalized image of what was happening in Iran and never fully understood the whole extent of the situation. The novel starts off this way, at probably the same point of where many Westernized individuals have a basic generalized knowledge of the culture, and as Marjane grows up and learns a deeper meaning in everything around her, so does the audience.
In 2007, an animated feature was released based on all four original books, co-directed and co-written by Marjane Satrapi with comic artist Vincent Paronnaud. Produced in France, the film has been released worldwide gaining a total theatrical box office of over $22 million for the $8 million film. Like the book, the film has won numerous awards, including the Jury Prize at the 2007 Cannes International Film Festival and a nomination for Best Animated Film at the 2008 Academy Award. With the growing popularity and acclaim of the books and feature film, Persepolis is reaching a large audience worldwide. And with that large audience, her views and a better understanding of Iranian culture is now being embraced by millions worldwide. She is inviting everyone to enter her life and experience what is really is to be a true Iranian.
However, not everyone is happy with the open invitation. The film was initially banned in the country that is portrayed in the film, Iran, as well as Lebanon, claiming that the film was “anti-revolutionary." However, in an effort to help stop false delusions about the film once the ban was acknowledged by citizens, two screenings were set up in Tehran, Iran. Later, the ban was lifted in Lebanon in response to a public outcry of assertions that the ban was solely in place to please Iran. With these bans lifted, it finally gave the Iranians (and Lebanese) themselves an opportunity to relive the Islamic Revolution through Marjane’s eyes of a child growing up.
Iran has often had a bad reputation in the eyes of Western culture. As Marjane states in her introduction, “this old and great civilization has been discussed mostly in connection with fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism.” It’s not surprising, Iran is rarely visited by Westerners. All that we often know about it is what we hear from the news, which isn’t always very good. With much conflict in the Middle East, Iran is right in the middle of it. Government corruptions, civil unrest, terrorism, religious prosecution, and oil are mainly what we ever hear about the nation, and because of that, it’s all that we ever think about when we think about Iran. This view has become a huge generalization in Western society. We never get a chance of understanding the culture beyond this image. “It’s far from the truth” as Marjane writes. Persepolis helps give a truthful look into Iranian culture as she grows up and learns everything from the ground up, away from the generalized image that we often see today. Although this image may be true to an extent in reality, she can reflect beyond the conflict and see the deeper picture of what it is to be Iranian. This is what she hopes the audience takes away from the story.
She starts the novel with a veil, one of the first results of the Islamic Revolution. All girls are now required to wear the veil in Iran, a major event concerning women’s rights. Marjane is only a child when the event occurs, and thus, she finds the new rule to be quite different than what its perceived to be. She finds it silly and makes jokes about wearing it as many kids would at the time. Later in the novel, because of a better understanding through age, she takes the veil more seriously. It’s this progression of understanding the Iranian culture that allows Westernized cultures to do the same as Marjane does through her life. Kids, as in Marjane’s childhood, saw the generalized image of what was happening in Iran and never fully understood the whole extent of the situation. The novel starts off this way, at probably the same point of where many Westernized individuals have a basic generalized knowledge of the culture, and as Marjane grows up and learns a deeper meaning in everything around her, so does the audience.
After her childhood in Iran, teenage years in Vienna, and early adulthood back in Iran, she moves to Paris where she meets up with a team of artists who introduce her to the world of comics. With her love of drawing and writing, she combines the two to produce a graphic novel re-accounting her adolescent years. Originally written in 2000, Persepolis 1 became an enormous success with its initial French audience. It has also spawned three additional books, Persepolis 2-4, selling over 400,000 copies within seven years. With the introduction of the books in new markets, especially the United States, where the four books have been combined into two (later to be just one, The Complete Persepolis), Persepolis has gained over a million readers. Translated in twenty languages, in use in hundreds of high schools, and appealing to comic book readers, graphic artists, and almost anyone interested in politics, culture, art, and reading in general, Persepolis has garnished a wide audience in its universal appeal. The book has won countless awards, including three at the Angoulême International Comics Festival.
In 2007, an animated feature was released based on all four original books, co-directed and co-written by Marjane Satrapi with comic artist Vincent Paronnaud. Produced in France, the film has been released worldwide gaining a total theatrical box office of over $22 million for the $8 million film. Like the book, the film has won numerous awards, including the Jury Prize at the 2007 Cannes International Film Festival and a nomination for Best Animated Film at the 2008 Academy Award. With the growing popularity and acclaim of the books and feature film, Persepolis is reaching a large audience worldwide. And with that large audience, her views and a better understanding of Iranian culture is now being embraced by millions worldwide. She is inviting everyone to enter her life and experience what is really is to be a true Iranian.
However, not everyone is happy with the open invitation. The film was initially banned in the country that is portrayed in the film, Iran, as well as Lebanon, claiming that the film was “anti-revolutionary." However, in an effort to help stop false delusions about the film once the ban was acknowledged by citizens, two screenings were set up in Tehran, Iran. Later, the ban was lifted in Lebanon in response to a public outcry of assertions that the ban was solely in place to please Iran. With these bans lifted, it finally gave the Iranians (and Lebanese) themselves an opportunity to relive the Islamic Revolution through Marjane’s eyes of a child growing up.
With a vast audience under her belt and growing, Marjane Satrapi has given the world a better understanding of her life and culture through an entertainingly written and illustrated work of art and literature. It’s one step closer in trying to rid Westerners of an image of Iran as a nation of camel-riding terrorists. She certainly makes it evident in giving her audience a better perspective on the Iranian culture through the writings of this novel. She is who she is, and a girl who has been greatly influenced by Western society her whole life, she can’t hide her tattered-viewed culture away from the Western society that she tries to assimilate into, as evidently failed in the story. She has to embrace her culture, and she does, and she even shares it with the world. As Marjane states, “I am Iranian and proud of it!”
✘ Brian
Originally written 8/30/07.
The old Hampshire Building on 14th and Hevenstern is where our scene takes place. At the very top ledge stands Jim, awaiting to take the plummet of death (or a big ouch) thirty-four stories down. Sixteen onlookers, including a pigeon from across the street, watch in horror awaiting his every move. Two police cops, thinking in their minds that the real reason they're here is to be the hero of the day, enter the rooftop hoping to take some kind of action to get Jim out of this predicament. Below, a seventeenth onlooker joins the crowd only in the attempt to justify what everyone else is looking at. A few moments later, some unknown guy, pretty big around the waist in one of those “Hi, I’m a PC” kind of outfits, comes along and tries to talk him out of it. A huge chatterbox it seems. Jim thinks to himself “If he doesn’t shut up, I’ll jump anyways just to get away from him. And he smells too.”
Jim stands here because he hates eggs. Well, I guess it’s more than just eggs. Let me put it this way; every morning, his wife cooks him eggs for breakfast. They’re pretty good eggs, but morning after morning after morning of eating the same darn eggs for twenty-three years, seven months, and eighteen days, one just can’t help but hate those darn eggs. “Why can’t she cook anything different?” he thinks to himself every morning. But why only think it? Why doesn’t he ever tell her? Well, see, Jim is not the assertive type. He’s the last guy you’d ever think to be assertive. He just goes along with life, hoping for the best. But that best has yet to ever come, and now he doubts it ever will. And, well, his wife only knows how to make eggs, that’s pretty much it. And Jim loves his wife, at least he think he does. Or for anyone that knew him, they would say he does. But does he for real; deep down in his heart and soul, in all true honesty? Nope, not really. In fact, he’s probably more in love with that smelly fat guy next to him that somehow started talking about macaroni and God. At least he somewhat seemed to care for him (And who was this guy anyways?). Jim started tuning him out fourteen minutes and eighteen-seconds ago.
But that got him thinking. For one thing, it reminded him how hungry he was and what he would do for some macaroni and cheese right now. It’s been months since he had divulged in such a delectable delight. But what does food matter when you’re about to kill yourself, besides adding some yellow to the pavement? The other thing was God. He never really thought about it, but what would happen to him if he were to jump off that building? Where would his soul go? Is there a heaven; maybe one that serves macaroni and cheese? Or would he end up in hell, one that only serves eggs, and where the devil is his wife. “Well, then I guess it would be as bad as it is now. I’d take my chances in a possibility of a macaroni and cheese heaven,” he thought to himself. But what if there is no heaven or hell? What if the only thing he’ll end up being is a splat on the street? That wouldn’t be fun. Cars would be running over his remains every day. And you know how well those street cleaners do their jobs; he’ll be there for years! But to go back to his normal way of life instead?
It’s those darn eggs that got him up here in the first place. Would he be able to ask his wife to make him something (and learn) other than eggs? If he could, why didn’t he before; before he missed worked (on the day they served macaroni cheese in the cafeteria too!) and made a detour to the old Hampshire Building to stand on the very ledge that he’s standing? Then you could say, “Then why did you marry your wife? You never really loved her and she never really loved you. You knew she only wanted you for the money. You should have asked Zoey Holonberg on that date when you had a chance. Now look, she’s president of the Holonberg Macaroni and Cheese Company! You loser!”
He started tuning in the fat smelly guy after much minutes of random thoughts racing through his head. He was in the middle of a story of how he just bought a car he didn’t like. Jim wasn’t sure how the guy started talking about some banged-up car, but then it came to him; Jim has a daughter. He always knew he had a daughter, I mean, how could anyone forget they have a daughter? But with all the bad thoughts of how he was just hating his life came to his head, he started tuning out the good things in his life. When the guy started talking about his car, it triggered a whole bunch of memories within Jim’s head about his lovely daughter, who had just recently begun to drive a few weeks ago (And she’s a pretty good driver too). Although he wasn’t happy with his wife and her darn eggs, he loved his daughter with all his heart. That’s what made him happy in life. That’s what made him go through life everyday, and made eating those eggs worth it. And maybe that’s what his purpose in life was, to live for his daughter. She was the spark in his life and he never realized how valuable she was to his life until now.
But what to do with all those eggs? Flashing back sixteen minutes within his mind, he tried to dig up another thought that got hidden within his unconscious while he was pretty much thinking to himself and tuning him out. Sixteen minutes ago, the fat smelly guy, now sweating pretty heavily, had talked about his lonely life with hopes of one day gaining a partner to live it with. Apparently, he was so lonely that he himself almost committed suicide, but then he found the light in his life, a meaning to his life, to help other victims deal with their meaningless in life, and hopefully save lives, just like Jim's.
Flashback twelve minutes and twenty-two seconds ago, again hidden with the unconscious mind of Jim, he now remembers that the guy started talking about how he burnt his eggs this morning and was so mad. He could never properly make eggs, a favorite of his, and it’s very rare that he will, because his tends to suck. “If only I had someone that could make my eggs every morning, that would make my life complete!” said the big sweaty smelly guy.
“What does that have anything to do with any of my problems?!?!” thought Jim talking to his mind on why it started remembering such pointless stuff. “Wait, hold on, I know what to do!”
Jim finally got off that ledge. He went up to the guy and gave him the phone number of his wife’s cellphone. “You may want to speak to this lady in a few days” he said. The guy responded in a confused thanks. As he was about to leave the rooftop, the police men came up to him and asked if he was going to be alright. He replied, “Everything is going to be wonderful.”
He quickly left the building. It was almost 3 o’clock in the afternoon. He was an hour away from home and he needed to be there by four to say hello to a very special person in his life.
That night, he and his daughter went out to together to eat some macaroni and cheese.
Jim stands here because he hates eggs. Well, I guess it’s more than just eggs. Let me put it this way; every morning, his wife cooks him eggs for breakfast. They’re pretty good eggs, but morning after morning after morning of eating the same darn eggs for twenty-three years, seven months, and eighteen days, one just can’t help but hate those darn eggs. “Why can’t she cook anything different?” he thinks to himself every morning. But why only think it? Why doesn’t he ever tell her? Well, see, Jim is not the assertive type. He’s the last guy you’d ever think to be assertive. He just goes along with life, hoping for the best. But that best has yet to ever come, and now he doubts it ever will. And, well, his wife only knows how to make eggs, that’s pretty much it. And Jim loves his wife, at least he think he does. Or for anyone that knew him, they would say he does. But does he for real; deep down in his heart and soul, in all true honesty? Nope, not really. In fact, he’s probably more in love with that smelly fat guy next to him that somehow started talking about macaroni and God. At least he somewhat seemed to care for him (And who was this guy anyways?). Jim started tuning him out fourteen minutes and eighteen-seconds ago.
But that got him thinking. For one thing, it reminded him how hungry he was and what he would do for some macaroni and cheese right now. It’s been months since he had divulged in such a delectable delight. But what does food matter when you’re about to kill yourself, besides adding some yellow to the pavement? The other thing was God. He never really thought about it, but what would happen to him if he were to jump off that building? Where would his soul go? Is there a heaven; maybe one that serves macaroni and cheese? Or would he end up in hell, one that only serves eggs, and where the devil is his wife. “Well, then I guess it would be as bad as it is now. I’d take my chances in a possibility of a macaroni and cheese heaven,” he thought to himself. But what if there is no heaven or hell? What if the only thing he’ll end up being is a splat on the street? That wouldn’t be fun. Cars would be running over his remains every day. And you know how well those street cleaners do their jobs; he’ll be there for years! But to go back to his normal way of life instead?
It’s those darn eggs that got him up here in the first place. Would he be able to ask his wife to make him something (and learn) other than eggs? If he could, why didn’t he before; before he missed worked (on the day they served macaroni cheese in the cafeteria too!) and made a detour to the old Hampshire Building to stand on the very ledge that he’s standing? Then you could say, “Then why did you marry your wife? You never really loved her and she never really loved you. You knew she only wanted you for the money. You should have asked Zoey Holonberg on that date when you had a chance. Now look, she’s president of the Holonberg Macaroni and Cheese Company! You loser!”
He started tuning in the fat smelly guy after much minutes of random thoughts racing through his head. He was in the middle of a story of how he just bought a car he didn’t like. Jim wasn’t sure how the guy started talking about some banged-up car, but then it came to him; Jim has a daughter. He always knew he had a daughter, I mean, how could anyone forget they have a daughter? But with all the bad thoughts of how he was just hating his life came to his head, he started tuning out the good things in his life. When the guy started talking about his car, it triggered a whole bunch of memories within Jim’s head about his lovely daughter, who had just recently begun to drive a few weeks ago (And she’s a pretty good driver too). Although he wasn’t happy with his wife and her darn eggs, he loved his daughter with all his heart. That’s what made him happy in life. That’s what made him go through life everyday, and made eating those eggs worth it. And maybe that’s what his purpose in life was, to live for his daughter. She was the spark in his life and he never realized how valuable she was to his life until now.
But what to do with all those eggs? Flashing back sixteen minutes within his mind, he tried to dig up another thought that got hidden within his unconscious while he was pretty much thinking to himself and tuning him out. Sixteen minutes ago, the fat smelly guy, now sweating pretty heavily, had talked about his lonely life with hopes of one day gaining a partner to live it with. Apparently, he was so lonely that he himself almost committed suicide, but then he found the light in his life, a meaning to his life, to help other victims deal with their meaningless in life, and hopefully save lives, just like Jim's.
Flashback twelve minutes and twenty-two seconds ago, again hidden with the unconscious mind of Jim, he now remembers that the guy started talking about how he burnt his eggs this morning and was so mad. He could never properly make eggs, a favorite of his, and it’s very rare that he will, because his tends to suck. “If only I had someone that could make my eggs every morning, that would make my life complete!” said the big sweaty smelly guy.
“What does that have anything to do with any of my problems?!?!” thought Jim talking to his mind on why it started remembering such pointless stuff. “Wait, hold on, I know what to do!”
Suddenly, Jim moved. For the past hour and forty-six minutes, he was standing perfectly still on that ledge. The onlookers, on the edge of their seats, perfectly still as well, gasped at the sudden movement and were in shock, thinking he was about to fall. Onlooker Nine, a tall girl with a white jacket on, suddenly dropped her afternoon sandwich on the floor as a result of it. A few seconds later, the pigeon from across the street was gone. It finally got what it was eying all along; a dropped sandwich.
Jim finally got off that ledge. He went up to the guy and gave him the phone number of his wife’s cellphone. “You may want to speak to this lady in a few days” he said. The guy responded in a confused thanks. As he was about to leave the rooftop, the police men came up to him and asked if he was going to be alright. He replied, “Everything is going to be wonderful.”
He quickly left the building. It was almost 3 o’clock in the afternoon. He was an hour away from home and he needed to be there by four to say hello to a very special person in his life.
That night, he and his daughter went out to together to eat some macaroni and cheese.
It was good.
✗ Brian
Proxart 11.15.08
1:03 AM
•
Art,
Community,
Drinks,
Event,
Food,
Friends,
Proxart,
Santa Clarita
•
0
finders
For those of you in and around the Santa Clarita area, or any of you willing to come on by, Proxart is back and having an event at Bella Via Cafe on Saturday, November 11th from 7 to 11 pm.
What is Proxart? A gathering of artists and those who love art to talk and showcase their art while engaging in community, food, and drinks.
Be there.
Note to Nate (If you even read this): I hope you don't mind me "borrowing" your poster to advertise your event. And I won't be able to make it because of a massive film shoot I'm heading this weekend (24 hours straight). Sorry, but I hope it's another wonderful event!
✗ Brian
Originally written 8/30/07.
Why are we here? I guess that’s one the biggest questions of the mystery of life and the basis of existentialism. Everyone has their own beliefs, but no one really knows for sure. Some believe that there is/are (a) God(s) that created life and gave us all meaning, depending on who you talk to. There are those that don’t believe in God(s). Then there are the other others that have other beliefs or even a mixture of both, but the whole God(s) versus no God(s) is definitely the most common argument to the question of our existence.
There are many people out there who are baffled by our existence. Some people see meaningless in life which can have huge affects on how we live. For some, if they can’t find any meaning, then why live? What’s the purpose of life? Why not just die now (Even though some do)? Or just do whatever you want and ignore the rules of society? The big question has always been why. It’s a good question. I can't answer that and I’m sure no one can, but I really believe that we all must have some kind of meaning to life, whether for ourselves, for others (the ones we love), or for something even greater than ourselves. If not, I’m not sure how anyone could sustain a healthy life, and there are many people that don’t.
There are primary two kinds of existentialists, according to French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre; atheists and theists. Theists believe in a God, or Gods, depending on the religion. Atheists, on the other-hand, don’t. I'm a theist. Although I'm not too religious like many out there, I’ve been Catholic all my life (Or rather, a Christian--You believe in Christ or you don't, that's the only two groups to Christianity that I see) and I personally believe in God. It definitely gives much meaning to my life, as it surely does for anyone else who believes the same. Theists believe that essence precedes existence, meaning that God (or Gods) created the world and humans to live life for a purpose. That purpose varies from religion to religion. For many, this purpose is what keeps them alive and living life to what they believe is right based on their beliefs. Is it right? Who knows? Even though I believe in God, I’m not even sure if it’s factual; it’s just my belief. No one knows for sure.
Atheists don’t think that's right; the other side of the God versus no God battle; and that’s fine. Does that mean they have no purpose to life? Maybe some don't, but for the most part, most of them do. The key idea to an atheist is that existence precedes essence, meaning that they existed on this planet before they could come up with their own purpose to life (unlike a theist who already has one). It may not be a God, but it’s still a purpose. For many, it’s for themselves to just live a good life and be happy. Some just want to live life for the ones they love. Ohers might want to just benefit a community or even for the world as a whole; to make it a better place for all and to make them feel good about themselves. I think as long as it has good intentions, it’s a great purpose to live by.
Then there are those people who may somewhat believe in a God and somewhat don’t. Sometimes throughout my life, especially through hard times where I sometimes question my faith, I can see myself in this category. There are probably many others that are in this group as well. Many out there probably grew up believing in some God, but as time grew, they stepped away and continued their life away from that and gave some other meaning to life, like a family or helping others. Their belief in God is still in their mind, but more in the unconscious and probably only brought out in hard times when they can’t seek anything else. Then there are others who are just not sure if a God exists or not. They don’t go out there refusing a God, they just don’t know, and are probably very open to anything, but even those people probably have something else that gives to meaning to their life.
Lately, atheism has been on the rise, particularly in Western society. One might have to blame the religious freedoms that much of the world has been given as now everyone seems to have all kinds of beliefs, whether are not they are derived from a form of God. Many of those are just beliefs on how to better the human life; no God(s) have to be the basis of a purpose in life. To many today, it’s more about living a good life for oneself and for others, and that’s a good thing, whether you're an atheist or a theist (who says you can't live life for yourself, for others, and God?). Even as a believer of God, I don’t think everyone has to believe in Him. You either believe in Him or you don't. It may be right for me, as it’s what I believe in. Is it right? Who knows. I for one hope so, but if others believe in something that gives them a purpose, something that’s good, then that’s fine with me. Anyone could be right or we could all be dead wrong. No one knows. It’s the mystery we call life.
Why are we here? I guess that’s one the biggest questions of the mystery of life and the basis of existentialism. Everyone has their own beliefs, but no one really knows for sure. Some believe that there is/are (a) God(s) that created life and gave us all meaning, depending on who you talk to. There are those that don’t believe in God(s). Then there are the other others that have other beliefs or even a mixture of both, but the whole God(s) versus no God(s) is definitely the most common argument to the question of our existence.
There are many people out there who are baffled by our existence. Some people see meaningless in life which can have huge affects on how we live. For some, if they can’t find any meaning, then why live? What’s the purpose of life? Why not just die now (Even though some do)? Or just do whatever you want and ignore the rules of society? The big question has always been why. It’s a good question. I can't answer that and I’m sure no one can, but I really believe that we all must have some kind of meaning to life, whether for ourselves, for others (the ones we love), or for something even greater than ourselves. If not, I’m not sure how anyone could sustain a healthy life, and there are many people that don’t.
There are primary two kinds of existentialists, according to French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre; atheists and theists. Theists believe in a God, or Gods, depending on the religion. Atheists, on the other-hand, don’t. I'm a theist. Although I'm not too religious like many out there, I’ve been Catholic all my life (Or rather, a Christian--You believe in Christ or you don't, that's the only two groups to Christianity that I see) and I personally believe in God. It definitely gives much meaning to my life, as it surely does for anyone else who believes the same. Theists believe that essence precedes existence, meaning that God (or Gods) created the world and humans to live life for a purpose. That purpose varies from religion to religion. For many, this purpose is what keeps them alive and living life to what they believe is right based on their beliefs. Is it right? Who knows? Even though I believe in God, I’m not even sure if it’s factual; it’s just my belief. No one knows for sure.
Atheists don’t think that's right; the other side of the God versus no God battle; and that’s fine. Does that mean they have no purpose to life? Maybe some don't, but for the most part, most of them do. The key idea to an atheist is that existence precedes essence, meaning that they existed on this planet before they could come up with their own purpose to life (unlike a theist who already has one). It may not be a God, but it’s still a purpose. For many, it’s for themselves to just live a good life and be happy. Some just want to live life for the ones they love. Ohers might want to just benefit a community or even for the world as a whole; to make it a better place for all and to make them feel good about themselves. I think as long as it has good intentions, it’s a great purpose to live by.
Then there are those people who may somewhat believe in a God and somewhat don’t. Sometimes throughout my life, especially through hard times where I sometimes question my faith, I can see myself in this category. There are probably many others that are in this group as well. Many out there probably grew up believing in some God, but as time grew, they stepped away and continued their life away from that and gave some other meaning to life, like a family or helping others. Their belief in God is still in their mind, but more in the unconscious and probably only brought out in hard times when they can’t seek anything else. Then there are others who are just not sure if a God exists or not. They don’t go out there refusing a God, they just don’t know, and are probably very open to anything, but even those people probably have something else that gives to meaning to their life.
Lately, atheism has been on the rise, particularly in Western society. One might have to blame the religious freedoms that much of the world has been given as now everyone seems to have all kinds of beliefs, whether are not they are derived from a form of God. Many of those are just beliefs on how to better the human life; no God(s) have to be the basis of a purpose in life. To many today, it’s more about living a good life for oneself and for others, and that’s a good thing, whether you're an atheist or a theist (who says you can't live life for yourself, for others, and God?). Even as a believer of God, I don’t think everyone has to believe in Him. You either believe in Him or you don't. It may be right for me, as it’s what I believe in. Is it right? Who knows. I for one hope so, but if others believe in something that gives them a purpose, something that’s good, then that’s fine with me. Anyone could be right or we could all be dead wrong. No one knows. It’s the mystery we call life.
✗ Brian
Shoot for the Moon
2:04 AM
•
BBC,
DailyMotion,
Disney,
Disneyland Paris,
Documentary,
Space Mountain,
Video
•
0
finders
Here for your enjoyment, one of the best making of Disney documentaries ever made; Shoot for the Moon, a BBC documentary on the making of Space Mountain: From the Earth to the Moon at Disneyland Paris.
Enjoy :)
✗ Brian
Born Into Brothels
5:02 PM
•
Asia,
Born Into Brothels,
Documentary,
FIlm,
India,
Kids,
Movie Review,
Sex
•
0
finders
Originally written 4/30/07.
The film was written and directed by Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman. Zana also starred in the film as the woman who helps these kids and gets them into photography. This film is the only movie these two have ever worked on, besides making guest appearances on other films and television shows. However, Ross Kauffman is currently in production as cinematographer and producer for his second film, Project Kashmir.
The premise of this emotional journey of a documentary is about Zana Briski’s time in Calcutta’s red light district. It's a dark poor area of India that is very well known for its prostitution. She originally came to the area to document the lives of the women there that are all often forced into prostitution since the age of around twelve years old. However, as she stays there, she starts to get to know the kids of the prostitutes, offers to give them all a camera and teaches them photography. The documentary follows these kids taking photographs and seeing what they capture with their cameras. She gives photography lessons to the kids. She even sets up art exhibits for the kids' works in New York and at a local book store in the area. These exhibits get these kids' photographs known out in the public, make the public aware of these kids, and help raised money to help get these kids out of the red light district.
Along with teaching them the art form of photography, Zana helps these kids by trying to provide them with a better life. She wants to get these kids out of the area and into a boarding school where they can get a proper education. It’s not a good place for them to grow up. All the girls, for sure, will grow up to be prostitutes. However, there are many struggles she must face. Often, the parents want the kids to stay with them in the brothels. They need them to help support the family. Finding a school that will accept these kids is a big challenge in itself. No schools want to accept them because of where these kids have grown up and the fact that they come from families of criminals (prostitution). However, once they do find a place for these kids that will accept them, they need all these documents and medical tests before they can be accepted.
One of the kids gets his photographs accepted at an art exhibition in Amsterdam where he is invited to attend. Zana goes through the struggle to get the kid over there, which includes getting him a passport. To do so, she has to deal with getting countless amounts of paperwork done that is a major hassle for her to do because of the complicated system they have in India. But in the end, she does, and he gets to go to the show. However, when coming back, his mother commits suicide. He then starts developing this attitude of not caring much about his photography. Zana is disappointed.
In the end, many of these kids are sent to a boarding school and pursue their new interest of photography. However, after spending some time at the school, many of these kids are taken out by their families and are brought back into the red light district. Apparently, many of their families needed and wanted these kids back, especially to help support their families. However, some of the kids do end up staying at the boarding schools, getting a proper eduction, having fun with photography, all away from the red light district, and will hopefully be on their way to a better life.
The filmmakers took the approach of this film in a very vérité style. They just documented what they experienced with theses kids. There are a few informal interviews here and there, but they feel part of the vérité style, like they stopped the kids for a moment in their lives in their environments to get these interviews. It all feels like we are there for the ride and are very well connected with the kids, mainly because the filmmakers have this big part in their lives and in the film, teaching them photography and helping these kids find a better life. It’s all told through from the perspective of the kids and Zana in a very mini-DV looking way while capturing the culture of India through the visuals and music presented in the film.
There is one sequence in the film where the kids get their photographs showcased in an art gallery in the area. The kids are very excited and proud of their work. Many of them are also really nervous. People get to see their work, get to know the kids, and know their stories from them and from their art. This event raises awareness and gets these kids noticed; kids that have gone through life thinking they are not worth much in the world. The event is also a way to get awareness of their issues and money to help the kids find a better life. It’s a fun event for the kids and a nice way to get some publicity and money to help them out.
Personally, I loved the film. I was totally hooked in the whole time and found it very sad what these kids have to go through. Having personally gone to many of these countries with kids that have to live like this, it always makes me sad and makes me feel lucky for how much I have. The film reminded me of those times that I have seen these kinds of conditions first hand. It was a truly wonderful act that Zana did for these kids. It makes me wish I could do something similar one day. It was very well put together, had a great story to share, and was very entertaining. However, it did have some slow spots, but other than that, it was great. I definitely recommend this film for others to see and I’m glad I purchase it.
Born Into Brothels: Calcutta's Red Light Kids is a documentary that takes a look into the children that live in the brothels of Calcutta, India. It was released in the United States on December 2004, although it did premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2004 (Where it won the Audience Award and was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize). The film won twelve other awards and was nominated for three more. Its most notable win was winner for Best Documentary at the 77th Annual Academy Awards (2005). It was all shot on mini-DV with a total runtime of 85 minutes and is rated R in the United States for sequences of strong language.
The film was written and directed by Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman. Zana also starred in the film as the woman who helps these kids and gets them into photography. This film is the only movie these two have ever worked on, besides making guest appearances on other films and television shows. However, Ross Kauffman is currently in production as cinematographer and producer for his second film, Project Kashmir.
The premise of this emotional journey of a documentary is about Zana Briski’s time in Calcutta’s red light district. It's a dark poor area of India that is very well known for its prostitution. She originally came to the area to document the lives of the women there that are all often forced into prostitution since the age of around twelve years old. However, as she stays there, she starts to get to know the kids of the prostitutes, offers to give them all a camera and teaches them photography. The documentary follows these kids taking photographs and seeing what they capture with their cameras. She gives photography lessons to the kids. She even sets up art exhibits for the kids' works in New York and at a local book store in the area. These exhibits get these kids' photographs known out in the public, make the public aware of these kids, and help raised money to help get these kids out of the red light district.
Along with teaching them the art form of photography, Zana helps these kids by trying to provide them with a better life. She wants to get these kids out of the area and into a boarding school where they can get a proper education. It’s not a good place for them to grow up. All the girls, for sure, will grow up to be prostitutes. However, there are many struggles she must face. Often, the parents want the kids to stay with them in the brothels. They need them to help support the family. Finding a school that will accept these kids is a big challenge in itself. No schools want to accept them because of where these kids have grown up and the fact that they come from families of criminals (prostitution). However, once they do find a place for these kids that will accept them, they need all these documents and medical tests before they can be accepted.
One of the kids gets his photographs accepted at an art exhibition in Amsterdam where he is invited to attend. Zana goes through the struggle to get the kid over there, which includes getting him a passport. To do so, she has to deal with getting countless amounts of paperwork done that is a major hassle for her to do because of the complicated system they have in India. But in the end, she does, and he gets to go to the show. However, when coming back, his mother commits suicide. He then starts developing this attitude of not caring much about his photography. Zana is disappointed.
In the end, many of these kids are sent to a boarding school and pursue their new interest of photography. However, after spending some time at the school, many of these kids are taken out by their families and are brought back into the red light district. Apparently, many of their families needed and wanted these kids back, especially to help support their families. However, some of the kids do end up staying at the boarding schools, getting a proper eduction, having fun with photography, all away from the red light district, and will hopefully be on their way to a better life.
The filmmakers took the approach of this film in a very vérité style. They just documented what they experienced with theses kids. There are a few informal interviews here and there, but they feel part of the vérité style, like they stopped the kids for a moment in their lives in their environments to get these interviews. It all feels like we are there for the ride and are very well connected with the kids, mainly because the filmmakers have this big part in their lives and in the film, teaching them photography and helping these kids find a better life. It’s all told through from the perspective of the kids and Zana in a very mini-DV looking way while capturing the culture of India through the visuals and music presented in the film.
There is one sequence in the film where the kids get their photographs showcased in an art gallery in the area. The kids are very excited and proud of their work. Many of them are also really nervous. People get to see their work, get to know the kids, and know their stories from them and from their art. This event raises awareness and gets these kids noticed; kids that have gone through life thinking they are not worth much in the world. The event is also a way to get awareness of their issues and money to help the kids find a better life. It’s a fun event for the kids and a nice way to get some publicity and money to help them out.
Personally, I loved the film. I was totally hooked in the whole time and found it very sad what these kids have to go through. Having personally gone to many of these countries with kids that have to live like this, it always makes me sad and makes me feel lucky for how much I have. The film reminded me of those times that I have seen these kinds of conditions first hand. It was a truly wonderful act that Zana did for these kids. It makes me wish I could do something similar one day. It was very well put together, had a great story to share, and was very entertaining. However, it did have some slow spots, but other than that, it was great. I definitely recommend this film for others to see and I’m glad I purchase it.
✗ Brian
Stop Global Warming
10:40 PM
•
Environment,
FIlm,
Friends,
Global Warming,
Save the World,
Video,
YouTube
•
0
finders
Criss Angel Doesn’t Believe
1:05 PM
•
Cirque du Soleil,
Criss Angel BeLIEve,
Flickr,
Las Vegas,
Trip Report,
Video,
YouTube
•
0
finders
Originally written 9/30/08.
The theatre itself had a rather normal layout; one level that slopes up and split into two terraces. Every seat seemed to have a rather good view of the show. We were seated about 3/4 the way up and almost dead center middle width wise. The stage itself had a classic red curtain, but sort of tattered with. Around the curtains was a metal gold frame with lots of detail of bunnies and other magician related imagery carved into it, and at the top, a clock that would chime every few minutes during the preshow. The preshow consisted of these character “ushers” showing guests to their seats while doing some rather odd acts. When the clock would chime, they would stop whatever they were doing, quickly run to the stage, and introduce a bunny that would appear and would quickly have to catch before it escaped. They do this a few times as the audience makes their way to their seats, but with the final introduction, instead of the bunny, Criss Angel appears and the show starts off in a completely different direction.
It’s a very odd premise all around. The magic is also confusing in a sense because the audience has a hard time distinguishing the line between magic (no wires and trap doors) and Cirque du Soleil theatre (which is full of wires and trapped doors). And it’s all dancing too; almost no acrobatics (Shock! I mean, it’s Cirque do Soleil!). Then there was the chaos of retrieving our electronic goods from the tables set up in the exit hall. A huge mess of the standing crowd colliding with the exit crowd in a narrow hall. The good side about the show is that the costumes, sets, and music are absolutely amazing, but that doesn’t make up for Criss Angel, the lack of acrobatics, and a very weird show in general (not even the good kind of weird). However, the show was in test and adjust mode, so hopefully it will improve before the Halloween opening. I may give it another try sometime in the future.
On Saturday, September 27, 2008, my family and I had tickets to one of the first soft opening performances of the newest Cirque du Soleil show in Las Vegas: Criss Angel BeLIEve at the Luxor. It was the second public performance ever, having the first the night before, so we were advised in advance that it wouldn’t be 100% perfect. In the end, they were right. It was more like 25% perfect. There was a lot that needed to worked on, but ultimately, I think their biggest problem is in the name itself; Criss Angel.
We arrived at the lobby at around 6:00 pm. Unlike other Cirque du Soleil lobbies, this one was modern and simplistic. The walls were all painted either red or grey. Mirrors were also scattered around. Many of these were two-way mirrors, so when they were lit from behind, you could see through it. They would use this to have bunnies appear and disappear every so often. Past the ticket scanners, there’s a long dark hall lined with paintings of demented scenes, some of them holographic. Because of the previews, this is where we had to check in any cameras or cell phones. There were absolutely no exceptions to this rule as we had to go through metal detectors and security wands. After security are the concession stands selling over priced food and drinks. Craving thirst, we bought some bottles of water for $4 a pop, and these were the mini kind! Ridiculous. From here there were the entrances that took everyone to their desired section of the theatre.
The theatre itself had a rather normal layout; one level that slopes up and split into two terraces. Every seat seemed to have a rather good view of the show. We were seated about 3/4 the way up and almost dead center middle width wise. The stage itself had a classic red curtain, but sort of tattered with. Around the curtains was a metal gold frame with lots of detail of bunnies and other magician related imagery carved into it, and at the top, a clock that would chime every few minutes during the preshow. The preshow consisted of these character “ushers” showing guests to their seats while doing some rather odd acts. When the clock would chime, they would stop whatever they were doing, quickly run to the stage, and introduce a bunny that would appear and would quickly have to catch before it escaped. They do this a few times as the audience makes their way to their seats, but with the final introduction, instead of the bunny, Criss Angel appears and the show starts off in a completely different direction.
Gone is Cirque du Soleil and in is an MTV-style Mindfreak rock concert magic show. It’s very loud and in your face; very un-Cirque du Soleil. He interacts with his “fans” (possible cast?) in the audience, shows some clips from his Mindfreak show, and attempts a failed trick that almost got him killed on his TV show. He fails and dies. The show stops, the stage goes dark, the house lights come on, emergency personal come on stage, and it’s dead silence. They proclaim his death and carry him out. The stage goes dark and the original red curtains are back. The audience is confused. A puppet bunny comes out stating that the show must go on, states all the rules and regulations, and a random house light drops from the ceiling and crushes it to death. Soon, demented bunnies put on a dancing act around Criss Angel’s dead body, they attack him and rip all his limbs apart and scatter them all over the stage. The rest of the show follows in the same confusing fashion, but with Criss Angel being brought back to life, hanging out with the ushers, falling in love, dancing with dolls, doing some unimpressive illusions, and finally, gets married.
A clip of the "Homage to the Rabbits" dance routine on Fox's So You Think You Can Dance.
It’s a very odd premise all around. The magic is also confusing in a sense because the audience has a hard time distinguishing the line between magic (no wires and trap doors) and Cirque du Soleil theatre (which is full of wires and trapped doors). And it’s all dancing too; almost no acrobatics (Shock! I mean, it’s Cirque do Soleil!). Then there was the chaos of retrieving our electronic goods from the tables set up in the exit hall. A huge mess of the standing crowd colliding with the exit crowd in a narrow hall. The good side about the show is that the costumes, sets, and music are absolutely amazing, but that doesn’t make up for Criss Angel, the lack of acrobatics, and a very weird show in general (not even the good kind of weird). However, the show was in test and adjust mode, so hopefully it will improve before the Halloween opening. I may give it another try sometime in the future.
✗ Brian
No Art; No Letters; No Society
12:10 PM
•
BCAM,
Damien Hirst,
LACMA,
Los Angeles,
Medication,
Museum,
Trip Report
•
0
finders
Originally written 9/8/08.
Along with my visit to LACMA, I got to experience the wonderful new experience that is the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, or as it’s often called, the BCAM. As a lover of contemporary art, I was very much excited to step inside and see all the wonderful works of art. And boy were there many! But me also being a huge fan of architecture and cool looking structures, I loved the building. Although simple, it works very well in style. However, I couldn’t help but think that the building was a combination of IKEA and Target, but that’s not a bad thing at all. It fits very well. At the center of the building inside was this elevator that I fell in love with. It was huge and acted more as a moving room than an enclosed space that moves between floors. I love elevators like that, such as the ones at the Getty, but this was on a much bigger scale. And as for the art, it was all great. I love art that tries to be different than what’s out there because it’s new and refreshing and this museum contained nothing but contemporary art.
One piece of artwork that stood out was No Art; No Letters; No Society (Click to view art) by Damien Hirst. It’s basically three large “medicine cabinets” of sorts hanging on the wall with glass windows that contained a ton of medicine from prescriptions to things what looked like bandages and all sorts of related medical things. Mixed in there were a few skulls with ears, mouths, or eyes taped out. The doors were shut, but at the handles of each one, a rosemary hangs.
To me, the whole piece speaks of death. For some reason, I’ve never been comfortable with the whole idea of taking medication every time some little thing hurts or I get a little sick. I think it’s all part of human nature to get a little sick every now and then and taking medicine to stop little thing is not good for the human body in the long run. Well, for one, I hate the taste of most medicines and I have a fear of swallowing pills. But the biggest reason is that well, I just don’t get sick that often. I believe that if I keep taking medicine to cure every little cold or fever that I have, or even a headache or any kind of slight pain, that my body just gets used to it and I get sicker more easily in the future, and when I really need the medicine one day, it won’t act as strong as it should. When I do get sick, it often lasts very short compared to what I see in others; I’ve once had the flu for only a few hours and it went away naturally. I know people who take Tylenol like crazy every day and it just sickens me to take that medication that often for just a headache. I’ve never been a big user of medication in my life. I just feel like I should only take it when it’s absolutely necessary, and thus, it would work on my body much stronger since the viruses in my body have never tackled such medication before, if at all. The way much of society is today, there’s a pill for treating almost everything. It’s too much and it just messes with one’s body. That’s what I see Damien Hirst presenting here; how we use so much medication in our lives (stored in large medicine cabinets help present that idea). The whole whiteness of everything gives it a very sterile hospital feel which gives a whole trying to clean up your life kind of feel, but the other little colors of everything scattered around kind of ruins that a bit since it’s not completely white, kind of how medicine never really completely cures. Of course, there’s a lot of medication scattered around which shows that we use a ton of medicine in our lives. And the rosemary hanging on the handle, I think it shows how we think medicine will save us, much how like Jesus will save all humanity. No doubt about it, medicine has helped society a great deal in serious health issues, but lately, it has been abused in many circumstances that could probably mess up humanity's immune systems in the future.
Along with my visit to LACMA, I got to experience the wonderful new experience that is the Broad Contemporary Art Museum, or as it’s often called, the BCAM. As a lover of contemporary art, I was very much excited to step inside and see all the wonderful works of art. And boy were there many! But me also being a huge fan of architecture and cool looking structures, I loved the building. Although simple, it works very well in style. However, I couldn’t help but think that the building was a combination of IKEA and Target, but that’s not a bad thing at all. It fits very well. At the center of the building inside was this elevator that I fell in love with. It was huge and acted more as a moving room than an enclosed space that moves between floors. I love elevators like that, such as the ones at the Getty, but this was on a much bigger scale. And as for the art, it was all great. I love art that tries to be different than what’s out there because it’s new and refreshing and this museum contained nothing but contemporary art.
One piece of artwork that stood out was No Art; No Letters; No Society (Click to view art) by Damien Hirst. It’s basically three large “medicine cabinets” of sorts hanging on the wall with glass windows that contained a ton of medicine from prescriptions to things what looked like bandages and all sorts of related medical things. Mixed in there were a few skulls with ears, mouths, or eyes taped out. The doors were shut, but at the handles of each one, a rosemary hangs.
To me, the whole piece speaks of death. For some reason, I’ve never been comfortable with the whole idea of taking medication every time some little thing hurts or I get a little sick. I think it’s all part of human nature to get a little sick every now and then and taking medicine to stop little thing is not good for the human body in the long run. Well, for one, I hate the taste of most medicines and I have a fear of swallowing pills. But the biggest reason is that well, I just don’t get sick that often. I believe that if I keep taking medicine to cure every little cold or fever that I have, or even a headache or any kind of slight pain, that my body just gets used to it and I get sicker more easily in the future, and when I really need the medicine one day, it won’t act as strong as it should. When I do get sick, it often lasts very short compared to what I see in others; I’ve once had the flu for only a few hours and it went away naturally. I know people who take Tylenol like crazy every day and it just sickens me to take that medication that often for just a headache. I’ve never been a big user of medication in my life. I just feel like I should only take it when it’s absolutely necessary, and thus, it would work on my body much stronger since the viruses in my body have never tackled such medication before, if at all. The way much of society is today, there’s a pill for treating almost everything. It’s too much and it just messes with one’s body. That’s what I see Damien Hirst presenting here; how we use so much medication in our lives (stored in large medicine cabinets help present that idea). The whole whiteness of everything gives it a very sterile hospital feel which gives a whole trying to clean up your life kind of feel, but the other little colors of everything scattered around kind of ruins that a bit since it’s not completely white, kind of how medicine never really completely cures. Of course, there’s a lot of medication scattered around which shows that we use a ton of medicine in our lives. And the rosemary hanging on the handle, I think it shows how we think medicine will save us, much how like Jesus will save all humanity. No doubt about it, medicine has helped society a great deal in serious health issues, but lately, it has been abused in many circumstances that could probably mess up humanity's immune systems in the future.
✗ Brian
Phantom Sightings
11:42 AM
•
Art,
Chicano,
Flickr,
LACMA,
Los Angeles,
Museum,
Photography,
Trip Report
•
0
finders
Originally written 9/8/08.
On Tuesday, August 12, 2008, I spent much of the day at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, or better known as LACMA, enjoying pretty much everything the museum had to offer on their Free Admission Day. Living in Los Angeles my whole life, I’ve frequented the museum many times and have seen much of the art there before, so it was no surprise that a rotating exhibit with new pieces I have never seen before and much different than what was already offered sparked my interest; that exhibit being the Phantom Sightings: Art After The Chicano Movement which has been running since April 6th until September 1st. Unlike much of LAMCA, all the art here was very much urban and contemporary; two art styles which I absolutely love. Although some of it was weird (the rather oddly edited video in a tiny room in the middle of the gallery comes to mind), much of it, although much of it simple in design, was very creative, amazing, and unique. Here are two pieces that I took photos of with my iPhone; the first being this large thing “growing” on the walls and the second one being a Volkswagen Beetle made of recycled border patrol uniforms.
The piece is very much balanced, all presented with different shaped rectangular signs to form one big rectangular shape. Most of the shapes are around the same size and same brown cardboard color, but there are also two big white rectangular pieces with large text on either side and two smaller colorful pieces between those and right below and above the photograph in addition to a smaller white piece on the far right. It just all feels perfectly balanced in every way, yet somewhat random of placement within the rectangular form. It’s all pretty much ink on cardboard. Although I don’t recall a date on the piece, given the exhibit it’s featured in and the references in the sayings, it’s fairly recent; definitely within the last twenty years, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it was as late as just a few months ago.
But the one piece that drew my attention the most was Dichos (Sayings) by Alexandro Diaz. It’s a very simplistic display of old cut pieces of cardboard signs with witty sayings in ink all grouped together, except for one photo in the center of the display of what I assume is the artist holding one of the signs on the streets. I have a love for typography, being a partial graphic designer that I am. I also have this thing with taking photos of signs; I just love signs for some reason. Add to the fact that I actually love a lot of these sayings, a lot of them are pretty clever and funny, it makes sense that I’d like this piece so much. It’s also a piece that almost forces the viewer to stop and look at it for much longer than what most people would glance at another piece of art and embrace it all since the viewer is so compelled (or at least I was) to read (and think about) every single saying.
The piece is very much balanced, all presented with different shaped rectangular signs to form one big rectangular shape. Most of the shapes are around the same size and same brown cardboard color, but there are also two big white rectangular pieces with large text on either side and two smaller colorful pieces between those and right below and above the photograph in addition to a smaller white piece on the far right. It just all feels perfectly balanced in every way, yet somewhat random of placement within the rectangular form. It’s all pretty much ink on cardboard. Although I don’t recall a date on the piece, given the exhibit it’s featured in and the references in the sayings, it’s fairly recent; definitely within the last twenty years, although I wouldn’t be surprised if it was as late as just a few months ago.
As for the sayings themselves, they all seem to hit upon social issues using spins on popular phrases (“In the future everyone will be famous for $15.00”) and typical signs (“May contain peanuts”), Hispanic culture (“Make Tacos Not War), stereotypes (“Mexican Wallpaper”), and the degrading of human society (“Please don’t feed the supermodels”). Much of them seem to have a sense of humor to negativity or telling people to take action of some issue, even if it’s not completely direct. They’re all pretty witty and humorous, which makes all these issues of the world seem not too serious but still in a serious way. The artist is just trying to get his message across to people by, well, displaying his message, but in a more “fun” way to get people’s attention and thinking about it so they can remember it more and maybe take action one day on whatever the message is. I think he gets his ideas across pretty well.
More photos from the exhibit:
✗ Brian
Hey All!
Welcome to my third blog. Yes, third. My first one sort of became a pain to post since it was on my .Mac service, so I opted for a traditional Blogspot or Wordpress blog. For some reason I chose Blogspot for my second, I think primarily for its Google integration (AdSense!) and blog by email feature. It's still online, sort of, but it started going askew from what I wanted it to be and I chose to remain anonymous, which was a huge blow in many ways to the writing process, so I kind of lost interest in writing it. For this blog, especially since I've gotten accustomed to Twitter, hopefully I'll be able to post more comprehensive blogs here rather than random short thoughts and pure linkage; I'll leave that to Twitter. So, once again, welcome, and... yeah.
✗ Brian
