Why we're all doomed. lol.

Please read this because it took me ages.
The biggest and most profound difference between the communist and capitalist ideologies is the monetary system. Money is also the most taken for granted and unquestioned element of our lives with very few realizing that it is, or should be, optional just like everything from our religious or political preferences. But before I talk about this properly- a quick economics lesson, I’m not trying to be patronizing. Please don’t take my word for it and bear with it (it will get more interesting later).

To see at how money is created look at the central bank of America, the Federal Reserve. The American government decides it needs money so it calls up the Federal Reserve and says, “We’ve decided we need 10 billion dollars” the Federal Bank says “Sure, we’ll BUY 10 billion in government bonds from you (also known as treasury bonds)”. I suggest you look up the definition of a bond because that’s important and Wikipedia will be able to define it much better than I could, but essentially it’s a loan. Anyway, The Federal Reserve then put a value of these bonds to the sum of 10 billion dollars and puts them into their bank whilst giving to the government 10 million dollars. The government put the 10 million dollars into a bank to spend, as they will. That’s it. 10 billion dollars of new money is created.


You get how inflation works so keep that in mind- the more dollars there are in the system the more devalued the dollar becomes.

So… for every 10 billion dollars created the government has a 10 billion dollar debt to the bank. The money is created out of debt (big deal). This is a paradox however, because money can’t equal debt simply because debt is the lack of money. Either way, for now, money=debt.

Banks work on a “reserve” system. Explanation: If you put some money into a bank that money goes into their reserve. They are then able to spend a certain amount of your money on investments and what they want thereby earning back more money. They earn enough to pay you back and make a little extra. Law states that a bank must keep 10% of the money you put in in their reserve; the rest can be used as the basis for new loans.

Okay so lets say you put 10 billion dollars in the bank. A new person comes into the same bank and asks for a loan of 9 billion dollars, the loan is accepted, and he walks out 9 billion dollars richer.

Please bear with me.

The new person will most likely take the 9 billion dollars and deposit it into another bank. The process then repeats- another person comes in, takes 90% of the 9 billion dollars and deposits it in his bank account. Of course this is just an example but the same thing happens just on a more minute scale onto infinity.

But remember that every single dollar is essentially equal in terms of debt owed to the banks, or national debt. To put it differently, if every single debt in America were to be paid off there wouldn’t be a single dollar in circulation.

This is where it starts becoming interesting, due to the random circulation of money through commerce- people and their money become detached from the original debt. This creates a sort of disequilibrium where people are forced to compete for labour in order for enough money to be pulled out of the money supply to pay the Federal Reserve, and for the people to avoid a life of poverty. You’re beloved notion of ‘competition’ is born.

Everything before this has ignored the mention of ‘interest’ and that’s where capitalism really comes into its element. When the government borrows money from the Federal Reserve or when a person borrows money from a bank it almost always has to be paid back with a percentage increase than the amount that was given out.

Cool question coming up.

If all the money given to the government that is then given to the banks which is then given to the people has to be paid back with a percentage increase of all the money that exists- where does the money that will cover the amount for the interest come from?

Cool answer: Nowhere. The money owed back to the Federal Reserve will always exceed the amount of money that is available in circulation. Inflation is therefore necessary and constant because new money has to be created to pay off the interest that already exists creating a deadly cycle of money devaluation.

Mathematically this means that failures to be able to pay off loans resulting in bankruptcy are literally built into the system. We’ve talked about this and this is where capitalism’s tendencies to polarize the wealth gap occurs- there will always be poor pockets of society that get the short end of the stick. A fun statistic for you that I got a little wrong earlier today: 1% of the population owns 40 % of the planets wealth, and this is only getting bigger.

Yes capitalism works but it is so ridiculously immoral. Money is created out of debt and what do people do when they are in debt? They submit to employment to pay it off and they work hard due to fear of getting the short end of the stick. The system only benefits those at the very top of the pyramid and it just so happens the people at the very top of the pyramid are those in power. So whom are you essentially working for? The banks. Money is created in the banks and invariably ends up in the banks.


“Greed and Competition are not the result of immutable human temperament… greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being created and amplified… the direct consequences [of our capitalist system] is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive” A quote by someone famous.

That’s the theory behind the capitalist system but you only need to look at recent news to see the consequences of it. Britain’s total deficit is increasing £163 billion per year with a total deficit of over £900 billion, America is in very much the same situation with over 500 billion dollar increase each year and a total debt of 14 trillion dollar total. As we have already established it is an impossibility that this debt could ever be paid off because there flat out isn’t enough money in the world.

Before looking at America and Britain though look at Greece as an example of a weaker and smaller economy. Greece is essentially a microcosm of what will happen to us. In order to pay off their already huge amount of debt they needed to borrow more; increasing the amount of original debt, resulting in drastic spending cuts and taxation, ultimately leading to bankruptcy. People rioted constantly and Greece is now in an economic fallout.

Another recent news event was the downgrade of America’s credit rating to AA+ or something like that. This is significant because this credit rating is the only thing keeping America from falling apart like Greece did. What the credit rating means is an independent non-government agency decides whether debt is likely to be repaid. Their ratings define the price in which America can get debt. It’s very similar to the credit rating an average everyday person has when getting out loans or a credit card. If you’re a teenager that always forgets to pay his bills your credit rating isn’t going to be particularly good. The worse your credit rating the higher the interest that needs to be paid on said loan.

America is a rich country and so its credit rating is incredibly good, it can buy money inexpensively with extremely low or even negative interest rates. In the volatile economic situation that we’re in America’s government backed bonds are extremely appealing in their stability and consistency. The principle is that when the economy is going to shit people buy gold because even if the stock market crashes they know that gold will never lose its value. In a global scale people send their money to America because historically they are very likely to be paid back. This is why negative interest rates can happen, people want their money somewhere secure.

Anyway, this puts America in a weird situation because it can borrow money for free or sometimes even less than free. As long as this is the case it doesn’t matter whether the rating agencies think America will be able to pay off its debt or not because the entire world economy is functioning on the fact that America’s debt is the best place to put your money. However, what this change in the credit rating marks is the shift in opinion that America’s dollar is no longer the default currency of the world, and so interest rates for the amount of debt America has will increase. Debt will no longer be free and the 10% of America’s budget that will go into paying interest on debt will slowly turn into 20% to 30% to 40% and so on.

This is exactly what happened to Greece, when debt becomes more expensive the country that is in debt needs to borrow more in order to pay off the increase in debt, a vicious circle that can bring a country to its knees in a year. Now, this hasn’t ever happened to a superpower and it will be terrifying when it does; not only because it leads to the destruction of America as a country but the enormous impact on the rest of the world economy.

So my previous post on communism was wishy-washy to say the least but I just want to point out that this isn’t a philosophical discussion but a discussion that tackles a very real problem. I swear to god we are marching straight towards apocalypse and we don’t even realize it. Capitalism is not sustainable. My next post instead of a criticism of capitalism will be one on the benefits of communism. Pfff.

Marvel and why they're going to make history

Marvel has always pushed the envelope with their comics establishing such, now standard, comic conventions as the “normal person” who goes through a “transformation” to become a “superhero”. This was a contrast from the first superheroes such as Superman who was an alien that crashed into earth, Sandman who was a figure taken from mythology and Batman who isn’t really a superhero at all. With more plausible characters appearing more sci-fi than fantasy allowed Marvel to take the next step.

Marvel was the first publisher to set their comics in the real world. Previously, because of the fantastical nature of the characters, made up cities were created such as Metropolis for Superman and Gotham City for Batman. The Fantastic 4 were the first comic book characters who lived in the real world, New York. This was a huge step as Marvel as they then had to acknowledge certain rules and the choice had huge influences on the nature of superheroes as a genre.

The first most obvious question was because the comics were not set in isolated environments, the Fantastic 4 lived in New York and Spiderman lived in New York, why can’t they meet up? Thus the cross over was born, hugely popular and always hugely fun. Cross-sequeling has been part of Marvel since its inception. Of course Marvel never stopped making characters and so an alternate reality was born where superheroes are a common phenomenon and are quite numerous. Superheroes teams were created a la ‘The Avengers’ and superheroes had conflicts between themselves a la the ‘Civil War’ comics.

I’ve always loved this in comics. Terry Pratchett’s Discworld is a notable example elsewhere. For those of you that don’t know all of Terry Pratchett’s novels are set within the Discworld and the more you read of his books the more you become familiar with the world, it has it’s creation story, a very substantial history and it’s apocalypse. Sometimes you can read one book and stumble upon events that happen within another book from another perspective. What’s so great about sequels and spin-offs are that they build on already established set of rules and the more sequels you get the stronger the mythology becomes. Marvel comics have always had an incredibly complex and interesting mythology behind them. Nerd culture dictates one must know everything to become a true nerd and its always fun to see arguments over Marvel stories, you can tell they really got it right.

There have been so many attempts to bring comics into film but what I’m particularly excited about is that only now have Marvel taken the brave step of translating this feature into their films. For those who don’t know the reason there have been so many Superhero films recently is that Marvel are making all of the origin stories and soon ‘The Avengers’ is going to come out with the combination of them all. A few years ago Marvel made a Hulk origin story and it was crap, about a year and a bit later they made another one and it was also crap but with the introduction of this new philosophy of a consistent reality they cannot afford to do that any longer.

So, after this decision the quality of their films have increased enormously. Serious consideration has to be put into the new films as any mistake made will make its mark and stay there. Its hugely encouraging Marvel are able to learn from whats going on around them. Thor is by far the hardest of the superhero franchises to revamp simply because its outdated. Thor is one of the only Marvel heroes that doesn’t conform to the ‘ordinary person’ convention and his whole character is a bit silly really. Not one person looked at the initial trailers and didn’t think it looked terrible. However, Marvel picked a very serious director Kenneth Branagh from all his Shakespeare glory in a response of Nolan to Batman. Branagh was a stunning choice because, as with his Shakespeare films, he has to appeal to the even more vicious nerd purists. He managed to maintain a tone that wasn’t annoyingly self-referential but humorous and genuine when it had to be.

Origin stories have always been really popular with film/comic translation and there’s no doubt why. X-Men did their origins and then 2 and 3 got progressively worse. So they decided to make another Wolverine origin and now X-Men First Class which is the origin story for the first generation of X-Men. Even the Iron Man franchise which everyone thought was infallible made a sequel that was quite frankly a bit shit. This is because origin stories are the only isolated narratives within the comics. To make a financially safe film to make sequels have to be stand alone in some way or another which leads to somewhat shoddy formulaic stories that are just a bit crap.

Taking the Lord of the Rings trilogy as an example. The reasons those books work so fucking well is that you really get the impression that Middle-earth is a real place. Tolkien was so fucking into this place that he wrote history books and folklore for Middle-earth in the form of ‘The Silmarillion’ and ‘The Children of Hurin’. The benefits to having a consistent reality, or disadvantages for a fantasy author, is that you have to conform to a standardized logic. Tolkien wrote ‘The Hobbit’ and there was one point where he used a little narrative cheat available only to fantasy authors. Bilbo manages to escape a really shitty situation with the expense of a ‘get out of jail free card’ in the form of a magical ring. Tolkien felt so bad for this unexplained way out that he dedicated an entire epic trilogy to an insignificant ring. Just happens to have been the greatest fucking trilogy ever created and notice how very little magic happens during the course of it.

Now that Marvel have a similar sort of consistent reality to Middle-earth, with an incredibly rich history, everything is going to be a building process. Nothing will be a sequel but at the same time everything will be a sequel in a Discworld-esque sort of way. Its always the best part in any of their new films when they make cross references to the other films a la ‘Is that one of Stark’s’ ‘Tony never tells me anything’. They have definitely taken the steps to doing so, signing multiple-year contracts with A-list actors including Robbert Downey Jr. and Natalie Portman and establishing a strong foundation with what I hope to be 3 very solid origin stories and plenty of introductory cameo appearances, what I assume to be Jeremy Renner playing Hawkeye. I really hope they don’t fuck it up and director’s massive egos get in the way. Nerd-out.

Portal 2 Review

Okay so I’ve decided to do a review of Portal 2 just to demonstrate my continued undying love of videogames despite my focus on films. Plus it should be quick and easy simply because ultimately it can be boiled down to one word, awesome

My initial fears were that Valve were going to take their premise established in Portal 1, the portal gun, and simply do what most sequels do- apply the philosophy of “bigger, badder, better”. With the additions of: lasers, laser cubes, light walls, 3 different gels, water, beam rays and for coop another 2 portals to play around with, the worry was that the puzzles were going to become painfully complex rendering what no puzzle game should become- frustrating.

I don’t know how they did it but each puzzle is very, very simple and when you see the solution it clicks and you simply awe in how clever it is. What normally I found was my biggest hurdle was that I always thought the solution was more complicated than it was, there is no convolution in any of the puzzles- everyone is stripped down to it’s essence. Proof of it’s success is that the real achievement of a well-made puzzle game is that it makes you feel like a genius capable of anything- absolute divine, immense satisfaction at completing a chamber. Portal manages this more than anything else. On a tangent, what games tend to do in trying to achieve that sense of satisfaction is just making their game stupidly difficult a la, Super Meat Boy, N+ and Ninja Gaiden and whilst there are benefits to doing so- its always amazing to be incredible at a game- its something very impressive when you can get that same boost from a game that’s relatively easy.

An aspect of this, especially in coop, is that the Valve were too fearful in making the puzzles hard AT ALL. I would have loved to see at least a few where all of the elements were combined in one chamber but I understand the restraint. I’m not sure whether this is a criticism or not but in coop the main challenge was a problem of communication and relation to your partner. You never feel so clearly a sense of teamwork when you’re in a tractor beam heading for some spikes waiting for your teammate to press the button that will reverse the flow. You’re powerless and your life is in their hands.

Despite it being cooperative there is a fierce unspoken competition and the fully concentrated power of two people both trying to solve the puzzle first makes the chambers that much easier to solve. When you fuck up there is a deep seated sense of humiliation that you refuse to let happen again- the worst words to hear are “do you mind if I have a go at your job”?

Portal is absolutely stunningly scripted with a collection of hysterical characters, awesome set pieces (the ending blew my puny mortal mind) and brilliantly, brutally crafted one-liners. Valve has really got a distinct, unique brand of humour that, I’m not sure I’m right in saying this, is targeted at nerds (in the positive sense). All of it seems to be specifically designed to invade the nerd hive mind, sub-culture a la “the cake is a lie”. A side note, by the way, I quote Benji in saying ‘If they mention cake once in Portal 2, it will be ruined’ and thank the Gods (i.e. the people from Valve) they did not.

But enough good stuff right? It’s boring to read. Valve are NOT gods; just extremely clever mortals. Portal is so well scripted because of the fact that it’s a very clever narrative trick. GLaDOS delivers a line, you do a test chamber, GLaDOS delivers another line- rinse and repeat. Portal is about as linear a narrative as you can get an is therefore not particularly ambitious. Yes, the lines and characters are amazing but when you take the leap of faith like Shadow of the Colossus and deliver a narrative with no lines whatsoever but still create a narrative masterpiece; then I will call you gods. I think the distinction can be made with the distinction between a comedy and a (drama, adventure, action) narrative; one you laugh at, one you cry with. In this was SotC takes advantage of games as an INTERACTIVE experience rather than a passive one that washes over you. For how restrictive it was I think it could have done with more of that incredible voice acting, and repeated lines disappointed me fairly early on.

But enough philosophy about the nature of games as a medium. Portal has some issues in terms of having a lot of parts that weren’t puzzles at all especially in the parts that aren’t Aperture Science approved test chambers. I found myself walking, admiring the scenery and then coming to a stand still with no way forward. The solution was always just to look around for ages till you found a spot where you could portal and then move on. In fact, that’s another criticism the Portal test chambers were needlessly massive. Some of the best puzzles were in the smallest rooms where you can see everything all at once and it wasn’t about looking so much as thinking. I think the prime example would be the room with two lasers, one laser box and 3 laser receivers (I think my favourite puzzle).

Talking about just looking- this is another idea from Benji. Portal was sometimes just about observation. Portal 1 gave you a square room and the power of physics to come up with your own solutions (I know this isn’t wholly true but at least that was the illusion). Portal 2 showed you a platform, a button, a box and some propulsion gel. It was obvious immediately that the box goes on the button and the propulsion gel goes on the floor so you can get to the platform. They even throw chequered panels to show you specifically where stuff is meant to go and that ruins part of the magic. Dare I say it- did Valve succumb to a bit of ‘casual gamers make loads of money’ mentality?

I’m being a little cynical and I ‘no’ would be the answer. Portal is a fucking masterpiece that took considerable effort to shit upon. It has revolutionized the way we move around in our levels, and the way we look at levels at all in any game. It took the physics engine from Half-Life that had us gawping at how see-saws work and provided a sandbox experience that didn’t just let you pick the clothing for your shitty avatar but bend the laws of physics to your will.

And fuck this shit, I'm not going to apologise for my grammar any more.

I'm Really Confused

Dan asked me a while back what my views were religious, political or otherwise and it was only recently that I came to the conclusion that I don’t really know. So I hope to start this blog clueless and finish being more organized in my own opinion. If I were to, off the top of my head, label myself it would be; politically a Negative-Libertarian Communist, and religiously a Mahayana Buddhist and I think it’s appropriate that already I start with a contradiction. I would only call myself those things because of a self-confessed ignorance. I can’t say I know everything about either and am wholly ready to change my mind if prompted to do so. I cannot say that they are untainted either; often they are opinions from half-remembered books and fragments pieced together to what I consider my opinion.

Pretentious is a word used a lot around me and I understand. But can I just get out of the way I’m not saying these things because I think they’re “cool” and if you think that about me I would say you didn’t know me very well. Neither am I the socialist who says, “I believe it can work in theory but not in reality” because that makes you a dick. What is the point of having a political theory if your not willing to put it into practice- that would simply be philosophy. Look at Footnote. I am fully prepared to argue the advantages of communism with facts and details and if you do want to discuss it come fully prepared to argue seriously and not do a ‘Ben’ when you realize there is evidence supporting the cause and descend into nonsensical crap.

I don’t want this to be a history lesson but I think the first thing people tend to do is say “look how the USSR turned out”. I want to say very roughly that the Russian revolution started with a divide between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks- the Mensheviks were the Marxist party that didn’t want to force the revolution but wanted a mass uprising, the Bolsheviks in very simplistic terms were the dickheads. The reign of the USSR was not strictly Marxist communist but did lay out some ground rules that proved communism could practically work- i.e. collectivization, an extremely communist ideology, that helped boost Russia from a country practically wallowing in the dark ages (Nicholas II and serfdom) to a country not only competing with America and England but making them shit bricks in an absurdly short period of time. If you’re going to use real world examples I would also like to point you to Castro in Cuba and Tito in Yugoslavia, both hugely popular reigns and hugely successful ones (I would drop some statistics but I can’t be bothered to find them so you’ll have to take my word for it).

The other most common argument is “hey, we are inherently greedy shit heads” and if that is your belief well then YOU must be a shit head and shame on you because I believe myself that I don’t have to be. You are the mass, if you think you have the ability to not be greedy then everyone else has. I’ll be the first to admit that I am an idealist and shoot me for saying, I believe humanity has the capacity for goodness and I don’t know why its so popular to think otherwise. John Lennon can put this in far better words than I can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg “Some may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope one day you will join us and then the world will live as one”. The point is if nobody takes the leap of faith then it could never happen.

The negative-libertarian part comes in on one of the many compromises that must be made to live in a communist society. There are two types of ideal liberties, one is a society where a man can go out and do anything he wishes to. He can put some underwear on his head and sing the Swedish national anthem, positive liberty. Negative liberty is where everyone must live in a restrained society but a society that provides liberty in terms of what the people want to do productively. It is a society that is able to fulfil a person’s maximum potential. I didn’t explain this very well but hey, I’m not a teacher. Google it.

The other compromise is also in ‘Imagine’. No religion, no heaven or hell and quite frankly the song is laden with images of ‘oneness’ and ultimately a loss of identity. A society without hatred, racism or religious wars sounds great but at a huge cost to our cultural being. Now, Japan is a society I love but one that promotes conformity and an animosity to those that speak out. This creates some weird effects like a fucking creepy underground mentality, otaku and hikikomori. It’s all a bit whack.

But anyway, moving swiftly on to Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana basically means they don’t worship Buddha as a divine being but just a mortal who has managed to achieve Nirvana. Hinduism and Buddhism are twin religions but the key distinction is that Hinduism is escapist and Buddhism is… a bit of a bitch. Hindus teach people the ways of their religion so that one-day they will go to Nirvana and chill. Nirvana is essentially a state of utter neutrality; it isn’t really a paradise more than an escape from the eternal loop we are stuck in. However, when Buddha went to Nirvana he returned and said “this is not the meaning of life we should be teaching simply ‘goodness.’”

But once again I shouldn’t be explaining because it is not my place to explain. I’m not sure I believe in Buddhism but the philosophy is very interesting and very logical. Buddha spoke in truths and lists and is often very bleak but believable in his teachings. Perhaps the most important of his lessons is that suffering is everywhere, felt by everyone and pretty much inescapable. There is a note of optimism however as cynicism I feel is not the way to go.

My problem is that why if everyone feels the same suffering do we never communicate it? I look at someone across the room and think are we really going through the same thing and if so why are we so different? Do I really feel the same suffering of that of a poor starving African child? Sometimes I feel self-pitying and I do think so, sometimes I am happy and I don’t. My fluctuating emotions can be the same as his. The child has so little that even a tiny gift can lift him to the highest spirits but I must have so much to change my mood at all and therefore I am unhappy.

I say I am grateful for all my woes because it has made me into the person I am, I feel enlightened. Hypothetically speaking I am secretly happy that I have a shit life because I see things differently and I have become more thoughtful. But if everyone has the same sight that I have bought with my sufferings, what is the point?

I think its funny Buddha and Nietzsche came to the same conclusion. Buddha went to Nirvana and back and realized there is no inherent purpose to life but a quest for goodness. Nietzsche conveys this through the metaphor of building a cathedral on water. Humanities greatest gift is its ability to look within itself for beauty and so an inherent meaning is not needed. ‘Tis all about self-improvement, man.

Sorry if I said anything wrong- feel free to expose me.

Footnote! I wouldn’t know how to accurately define ‘philosophy’ but essentially I reckon it means ‘thinking’. Thinking about things uncertain. I’ve been asked why I don’t study it considering it’s the exact thing I would love: the pretentious and waffly (In which my response would be fuck you). To be taught how to think just seems absurd to me however. What you really learn is how to categorize and label. Famous philosophers never got taught how to philosophize it was merely within their natures. In fact, take philosophers across the ages such as Plato (used miniature plays to convey ideas) and Nietzsche (the use of poetic and aphoristic language + a classical art scholar). Art is essentially the common denominator. It is art that facilitates true thought. Knowledge isn’t concrete and shouldn’t be treated as such. It is abstract and evolves just like art. Using 2001 as an example (the extreme end of the spectrum) Kubrick uses every trick possible to communicate his philosophy. Abstract symbolism such as the monolith panders to your subconscious as well as Strauss’ Zarathustra going all up in your face and ears.

It is a self-confessed fact that philosophy’s greatest gifts are the power of analogy and image due to the much-repeated mantra of ‘the inefficiencies of out language’. Once again art is a much more suitable tool. Using The Wizard of Oz as an example- Dorothy goes on a journey to find a wizard (God) who claims he can grant wishes (Freudian wish fulfilment anyone?). She arrives at his palace and discovers that it is simply smoke and mirrors- with a man behind them. This realization allows her to move ‘beyond good and evil’ and grant her own wishes. The logic is that a child is meant to watch the film and process the subtexts subconsciously. The moral is obvious even to a child but when it is labelled as ‘Nietzsche’s will-to-power to reveal ubermench’- not so much.

Because I watch too many Films...

Forgive my rambliness today. Quoting somebody famous ‘blogs are an awesome way to organize your thoughts’ so I’m hoping that some sort of structure will appear out of nowhere; but y’know.

Chronologically I guess. Mystic River. You know when you have a witty retort to those frequently asked questions like: ‘Have you dyed your hair- it looks darker’ in which my response would be ‘If I were to dye my hair I would like to think I wouldn’t just dye it a slightly darker shade than what it already was’. But anyway when people ask me what films I like I say ‘good films’.

Now, Mystic River is considered a ‘good’ film. But I hated it. It’s not a BAD film it’s just so deeply unoriginal and has so little to say. My logic is that you couldn’t find anybody in the world whose favourite film EVER was Mystic River because it’s nothing more than the sum of its parts. I’m not saying a film necessarily HAS to say something. Films like Waynes World (my second film of the day) are just completely idiotic but manage to relate to an audience on a personal, intimate level.

The only definition for the audience for Mystic River would be the Oscar academy guys. Its for sure isn’t for the poor people in Massachusetts who are actually affected by crime. If it were it wouldn’t be filled with overly sculpted and conceited speeches, plot twists and the like. Can I also just point out dear Mr. Eastwood a dramatic revelation works a lot better if you go through it WITH the characters otherwise the audience starts feeling like the characters are just stupid.

I’m not condemning clever speeches and filmmaking conventions but when you tie that up with something that is so sure of itself as realistic you get a contradiction. Film, and art in general, is by its very nature a lie. Darjeeling Limited (third film) is utterly absurd but still manages to convey the friendship of these three brothers painfully realistically. Wes Anderson does this not by creating realism in something that can only create the illusion of realism but by embracing the farce. The fact that there is a garish yellow (his favourite colour) in every shot in this film demonstrates Wes Anderson doesn’t want to remain hidden.

The emotional baggage of their father’s death is metaphorically represented, albeit somewhat clumsily, in the literal baggage their father gave to them when he died. If you think about it metaphors are highly unrealistic too. Take something without any correlation, I know this doesn’t work in this case, and impose meaning onto it. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense- a jellybean and the corruption of innocence, a mouldy chicken mcnugget and the impending doom of an immoral society. It’s a nonsensical convention but is used because its channels information quickly and efficiently. It allows the filmmaker to not have spell everything out for the audience- leave them with the satisfaction of ‘figuring it out themselves’. Visual information is just that much more effective than dialogue with a motive. That’s why Wes Andersons’ dialogue doesn’t make sense.

Genre Theory- w00t!

So I think in justification of my utterly shite 'Highgate Film Society' talk (put in quotation marks to lend it some sort of legitimacy) I'm going to try post it here- just better.

I started with putting a formula of 80% of all Rom-Coms on the board and the question was; why the hell do you like watching the same film over and over again? People have written tomes, volumes and dissertations on the topic under the umbrella of 'Genre Theory'. I'm going to undermine the passion and work of others by putting it in a roughly written bullet-point format- because I'm lazy.

1. In this day and age capitalism rules all [foot note] especially in relation to the arts. Now, I don't mean this sincerely but for sake of argument- the majority of the population is stupid or ignorant of film as an art form. The 'majority' also presents the faceless corporation with the majority of money and therefore they become the chosen demographic. Stupid people don't want to think and you REALLY don't have to for the countless clone rom-coms out there.

2. Moving on to a slightly less cynical point. To adopt a genre is to acknowledge everything that has come before you. This results in lots of possibilities for the director and immediately strikes a relationship between the audience and the film-maker. 'In-jokes' can be made and in-jokes are a sign of intimacy. The narrower the genre the more specific the joke e.g. The James Bond film: In the most recent Casino Royale when Bond gets asked whether or not he wants his Martini shaken or stirred he says 'do I look like a man who cares' or something along those lines. To see what happens when you completely forsake the genre just look at modern art (I'm a huge advocate of modern art but for arguments sake...) it loses its context- thus is structure. And as so many Dada artists have done- a huge "fuck you" to the art world.

3. Films are short. Now not all directors have the same task in mind in making films; for some its an exploration of character, others narrative, mise en scene, or pure mindless style. Depending what it is you want to do setting up characters or backstory is a waste of time and genre provides a solution. I think I mentioned this before in my 'Se7en' thing but picking the 'buddy-cop' story is as easy as two juxtaposed shots of a clean room and a dirty one- already you have two pre-built, not wholly original but functioning characters.

4. Genre, conventions and formulas, are sweet because when you break them it causes particular impact. As a viewer when something doesn't turn out as it should not only are you upset for the characters but you feel personally betrayed- undermining the audience is one of the key tricks to creating drama. Using a point from Mr. Bovey when a genre doesn't use a certain aspect of a formula, through its absence it still addresses the issue. A Bond film not having and M character or any gadgets immediately makes the point that this is going to be a darker more serious Bond films by merely NOT showing something.

[Foot Note] My foot note is going to be about a way you can tell who has the power in society. Its who controls the artist. For ages it was the monarchy or ruling party who commission paintings to glorify them, tapestries to honour them, giving patronage etc. Then it was the church prancing about with their churches and their stained glass. NOW its the corporation who through advertising and publicity dominate the artist. A particular example of how this is beneficial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W1RLELfHBs Don't hate on my grammar. That is all.

Black Swan

First things first this is a really good film. Its also very typically Aronofsky. In Pi my main complaint was his rather self-indulgent 'going crazy' scenes. Since Black Swan wholly consists of someone 'going crazy' its a good sign that I was still gripped. It did become rather tedious however that EVERYTHING was a hallucination or dream. He pulls the- 'it didn't actually happen trick' far too many times to the point that the last, and what should have been the most important, hallucination became obvious. 80% of the film didn't happen.

Aronofsky's most frequent criticism is that its simply exploiting the emotions of the audience. Images such as pulling skin from a finger is a clever one because its not overly grotesque (Requiem for a Dream) and everyone can relate and feel the pain. The question is whether or not if the image was isolated would it cause the same reaction? Or is it meticulous cinematic build up that makes it so disturbing?

Aronofsky's dark and dirty scenery is changed for the hyper polished and clean ballet studios and this is a breath of fresh air. Ballet studios are magnificently SHOWN in dark and dirty ways instead rather than the other way round. Just as he showed the sensitive side of a wrestler he shows the inner demon of a ballet dancer. Its good but not perfect.

Catfish

Documentaires are difficult to review because in terms of story there is not way to review it, and in terms of editing the footage acquired could have been limited. However, Catfish incredibly manages to stumble upon an incredibly poignant commentary of our time. Contrary to its falsely advertised 'Blair Witch-esque' horror documentary I felt nothing but admiration for the protagonist and sympathy for the supposed antagonist.

Stylistically the theme of virtual reality vs. actual reality is implemented perfectly. The exploded pixels at the start are such a nice touch reminding us of the fact EVERYTHING in the virtual reality we have created for ourselves IS fake; a collection of intangible, floating data that is easily manipulated. There is also a very nice contrast between the beauty but also sterility and superficiality of the virtual world of Facebook and the gritty, grimy shitness of the world we live in.

The film is documented using pointers such as google maps/sat-nav/iPhone maps/Facebook and it all goes to show to what extent virtual reality has integrated itself into our lives. It documents itself with the very thing its criticising (or however you want to interpret it) and that is a beautiful contradiction.